Manitoba Hansard — 2 December 1997 (Sitting 4, 36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature · of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVIII No. 4 - 1:30 p.m., Thesday, December 2, 1997 ISSN 0542-5492

Member ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FAURSCHOU, David FILM ON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George IENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank, Hon. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Interlake Brandon East Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River Charleswood Political AtTiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C.

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

91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, December 2, 1997 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Maple Leaf Foods Pork Processing Plant-Brandon Hon. Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I have a statement for the House. Madam Speaker, it is with pride I rise today to bring some tremendous news to the House and to the people of Manitoba. This morning, my Premier (Mr. Filmon), the honourable Minister oflndustry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) and officials of Maple Leaf Foods announced a major economic development project for Brandon and all of Manitoba.

Maple Leaf has committed to building a state-of-the art pork processing plant in Brandon, which will put Brandon and Manitoba in the forefront of the pork industry in Canada, and around the world it will make Manitoba the centre of pork production in Canada. Maple Leaf has announced the new plant will be of world-class standing and provide competition for processors all over the world. This project will provide thousands of jobs. The plant alone will employ over a thousand people in its initial phase.

Construction jobs, jobs in the production of hogs and spin-off service and related agri-food industry jobs will all come as a result of this announcement. Brandon was the successful community after an exhaustive search by Maple Leaf which included 42 communities in both Canada and the United States. Madam Speaker, on behalf of my government and the people of Manitoba, I offer my congratulations to Mayor Reg Atkinson and the people of Brandon for their diligent work in making this dream become a reality. Brandon, and all of western Manitoba, can look forward to expansion and growth as a result of this initiative.

To quote from this morning's announcement, this is probably the most significant event in the hog industry in Canada and will make Maple Leaf the single largest employer in western Manitoba. This is truly great news for Manitoba, and it is a major illustration of what can be accomplished when we all work together. My ministry and my government set an ambitious goal not so very long ago, a goal to take something Manitoba did well and expand on it to become the best in the field. That is exactly what has happened here.

By providing the investment climate, the marketing options and working in partnership with producers and processors, my government has set the stage for a promising future. This announcement would not have occurred without introducing marketing options for Manitoba hog producers. Let me say that again, Madam Speaker. The decision we made to introduce flexible marketing to the Manitoba pork industry played a key role in the decision to locate this plant in Manitoba. * (1335 ) Madam Speaker, I want to pay a special tribute to Mr. Gerry Moore, Professor Clay Gilson and Dr.

Dave Donaghy who studied the issue and reported Manitoba could turn expansion of the industry into a major expansion of our economy. They showed how Manitoba could take advantage of the elimination of the Crow rate and turn it into an opportunity as part of an overall strategy for the success of the agricultural industry in this province. As a result of that change, Manitoba offers the lowest cost of livestock production, and therefore it is extremely attractive for investments of the sort we are speaking today.

I also want to say this announcement is not just good news for those involved in the agricultural industry in Manitoba. It is good news for all the citizens because of the jobs it creates and because of the increase in our tax base which will support my government's efforts to provide the very best health, education and social services possible for Manitoba.

92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 1997 Maple Leafs proposal to pay U.S. equivalency for hogs in Manitoba will significantly increase the return producers receive on their investment. A major part of this announcement means over one million hogs, which have been shipped to the United States for finishing and processing, will now be processed in Manitoba. We have participated in trade missions around the world where it seems everyone is eager to learn more about the Manitoba Pork Advantage.

At a recent trade show in the Netherla nds, our Manitoba booth was the busiest as investors looked at what we had to offer. Manitoba pork is sought after in markets in Asia and throughout North America. This industry works well with our strengths and other initiatives underway in Manitoba such as Winnport and the mid-continent trade corridor. Not only do we have a world-class product, but we have ways of getting it to the world. Madam Speaker, I have always known that my farmers produced world-class products. Today's announcement is a recognition of the fact that we can all take pride in that.

It is also a testimonial to all Manitobans who helped create a world-class province where companies such as Maple Leaf feel comfortable investing, knowing their investment is a good one. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) for this very important announcement and would take this opportunity to congratulate the company and everyone concerned in helping to make this project become a reality and indeed welcome Maple Leaf Foods to Brandon. Mr.

Michael McCain, the president and CEO, did fax me a letter this morning about the decision and outlined the extent of the investment, and I thank Mr. McCain for this courtesy. I have replied to him, congratulating him, not only as the MLA in which the plant will be located but also- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East was responding to a ministerial statement. Mr. Leonard Evans: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I might add, located in an industrial park area that was made possible by the expansion of Brandon city boundaries back in 1971 under the Schreyer government. Madam Speaker, it truly is good news for Manitoba and indeed the whole province. The jobs are badly needed in the area, and certainly this plant will provide a major boost to the local economy, to the Manitoba economy. The city and the province, I know, had been working on this development for some time. They have been working very hard .

Indeed, I have had an opportunity to learn the challenges involved leading up to the decision in discussions with many people. I am pleased that, although the company is presently involved in major labour disputes elsewhere, it has acknowledged that the UFCW has successor barg aining rights dating back to 1989 when the Burns plant closed in the city of Bra ndon. Burns company, of course, was obtained by Maple Leaf Foods. The fact that the company has voluntarily and officially recognized UFCW as the bargaining agency will allow for early good rela tions between the company and the union.

Indeed, I do believe, Madam Speaker, that this has paved the way for an earl y and satisfactory collective agreement that can be reached between the company and the UFCW before the plant goes into operation in 12 to 18 months from now. Indeed, Manitoba has enjoyed some good labour relations for many years . *

(1340) As has been observed by the minister, the plant will have many important economic and social impacts in the province and the Westman area, including indeed a major stimulus to agriculture and to hog production in particular, certainly an increase in the availability of manufacturing jobs which tend to have higher wages than some of the service sector jobs, and certainly it will provide many spin-off benefits to our economy in serv icing the plant and its workers. As economists, we call this the multiplier effect.

Indeed, there is a very impor tant multiplier effect that will occur that will have-in fact, it is very difficult to estimate the extent to which it will have a positive impact on the economy. So that certainly will be at work. Of course, last but not least, it will give a major boost to the economic

December 2, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 93 development of the city of Brandon, Manitoba's second largest city. So, in conclusion, Madam Speaker, let me say that I look forward to the development of the project in the next year or two. In fact, I can tell members of the House that I will be able to observe the plant going up out of my living room window, which faces east about half a mile from the proposed facility.

So, on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the official opposition, let me extend our sincere congratula tions to the minister, the government and indeed best wishes to the company and its workers for successful development and operation in the years ahead. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Twenty-Sixth Annual Report of the Law Reform Commission, April 1996 to June 1997.

In addition, I am pleased to table, pursuant to The Regulati ons Act, a copy of each regulation registered with the Registrar of Regulations since the regulati ons were tabled in this House in March of 1997. Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Rapids Town Properties Limited for the year ended March 31, 1997, as well as the Annual Report of the Conservation Districts of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: I am pleased to table the following annual reports this afternoon: the Annual Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on The Election Finances Act for the year ended December 31, 1996, and the individual reports of members' expenses for the year ended March 31, 1997. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon ten Grade 11 English as Second Language history students from Gordon Bell High under the direction of Mrs. Beth McFee.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). Also, fourteen Grades 8, 9, 10 and 11 students from Niji Mahkwa School, the Songide' Ewin Program under the direction of Ms. Rhoda McKinney. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. Training): I am pleased to table the report for 1996-97 * (1345) of the Manitoba Education Research and Learning Infor mation Networks, MERLIN. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Hon.

Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I would like to table reports that have been previously distribut ed. They are annual reports for 1996-97 for the Department of Labour; the Manitoba Labour Board; the Labour Management Review Committee; Fire Commissioner; the Civil Service Commission; the Organization and Staff Development; and the Auditor's Report and Financial Statements for the Public Service Group Insurance Fund. Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling three reports that have previously been distribu ted, that is, the financial statements for Leaf Child Poverty Rate Increase Mr. Gary Doer (Leader ofthe Opposition): Madam Speaker, last year we quoted from the United Way report that talked about the unfortunate situation where children at six and seven years old were losing hope and were living in despair. We have had other reports that we have quoted in this Chamber.

Just this last week, the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg talked about 63,000 children living in poverty here in the province of Manitoba, an increase over the last number of years since this government has been in office. They talk about one in four children

94 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 1997 been in office. They talk about one in four children living in poverty in the city of Winnipeg. In fact, the rate goes up to close to 35 percent for aboriginal children in Winnipeg, and I am sure that number is very, very high in some of our remote and northern communities in the province of Manitoba. I would like to ask this minister: why has the rate of child poverty risen under the Conservatives and under this minister's administration? Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. It does provide me with the opportunity again to indicate to all Manitobans that no level of child poverty is acceptable. We need to work very dilig ently to try to eradicate child poverty. That is exactly the reason that we have focused all of our initiatives on getting people into the workforce, because we recognize and rea lize that the best form of social security is a job and that we do not want individuals committed to a life of poverty on welfare.

All of the initiatives like the national child benefit that has just been announced-and I might say that the national child benefit is an initiative that has been endorsed by the federal government and endorsed by provinces of all political stripes right across the country because they believe it will in fact reduce the depth of child poverty. I have many, many more initiatives that are underway that I will be prepared to answer with subsequent questions. Minimum Wage Increase Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, in the Social Planning Council Report, they talk about not only the necessity of a job, which we obviously all agree with, but also the necessity to have jobs in the province that have a living wage, and they recommend to this government or they identify the tremendous pressure on people dealing with the wages in the province of Manitoba. They recommend to this government that they in fact raise the minimum wage in the prov ince of Manitoba.

I would like to ask this minister: in light of the fact that the last increase in the minimum wage was two years ago on January 1 of '96, has the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) recommended to her government, a government that is committed to a low wage strategy, that they abandon the low-wage strategy that they followed and raise the minimum wage to get more families out of poverty here in Manitoba? Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, this issue was brought to us yesterday by the Manitoba Federation of Labour in a meeting we had with them on a wide range of issues.

We have indicated as recently as yesterday-a very productive meeting with the Manitoba Federation of Labour, and I have indicated that we will be looking at that issue. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I am glad the minister is looking at the issue. My question was: are you rec ommending an increase in the minimum wage? The Social Planning Council has recommended and articula ted the fact that Manitoba now has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada. We have one of the highest child poverty rates in Canada They are saying that there is a connection between the two.

They are recommending to us, the people who are stewards of policy, that we raise the minimum wage. I would like a yes or no answer from the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson). Are you reco mmending to your colleagues that the minimum wage be increased in Manitoba and be increased immediately to deal with families living in poverty? Mr. Gillesbammer: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition does not know that we have a process in place where a minimum wage board will take advice from all Manitobans on that issue, and that process will be followed. *

(1350) Child Poverty Rate Reduction Strategy Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, Winnipeg Harvest has put out a very disturbing 1 0-year snapshot on poverty, and they point out that 10 years ago 3,600 people a month needed food assistance,

whereas today 34,000 people a month need food

December 2, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 95 assistance, that 10 years ago a single parent with one child employed in minimum wage needed to work 41 hours a week to bring the family to the poverty line,

whereas today they would need to work 75 hours a week. Ten years ago there were 25,000 people unemployed, today 34,000 people unemployed. Ten years ago there were no rural food banks in Manitoba; today there are 43. I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services: what is her government going to do in a proactive way to address this problem, particularly for the 23 percent of chil dren in Manitoba who are living in poverty?

Instead of cutting welfare rates, instead of reducing the welfare rate for children on city assistance, what are you going to do in a positive way to have a positive impact on these terrible, negative statistics? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question. Again, it does provide me with the opportunity to talk about some of the things that our government has done, contrary to some of the things that governments of New Democratic Party persuasion across the country have done.

For instance, our rates for children are among the highest in the country. When I look at the rates for children in Manitoba on welfare, they are considerably higher than those of the province of British Columbia where in the city of Vancouver they pay a rate of $103 per child. Our rates for children are $116 to $189 per month per child, significantly higher than a province that boasts a socialist government that has reduced rates for children . We have not reduced those rate s.

Madam Speaker, I want to indicate that, regardl ess of the difference�, there are many, many things that will be taking place in Manitoba as a result of the national child benefit. There certainly will be more money in the hands of working people on low incomes than there ever has been before. I think that is a significant message to all of the children and families that need support. Mr.

Martindale: I would like to ask the minister, who was quoted in the Free Press saying that the province's major goal is to get those on social assistance into the workforce, why it is that a single parent has gone into the workforce at $6 an hour and is making less money working full time than on social assistance, a difference of$235 less? Why is this government promoting low wage jobs which pay less than social assistance? Mrs. Mitchelson: That is an issue that is being dealt with right acro ss the country with the national child benefit.

The principles of the national child benefit are to, No. 1, reduce the depth of child poverty; No. 2, to ensure that people who are working are better off than people on welfare; and to reduce the overlap in duplication between two levels of government so more money can go into the hands of families that need our support. Those are the objectives, Madam Speaker, and that is what is going to happen when the national child benefit kicks in as of July of next year.

Madam Speaker, all of our efforts and our energies on reinvestment through the national child benefit will be to ensure that we can find attachment to the workforce for people who are presently on welfare and that those people will be better off working than on welfare . *

(1355) Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister what she and her government are going to do, other than the hollow promises of a throne speech, to address the shocking levels of child poverty in Manitoba and amongst aboriginal people in particular. I quote the report card again which says that 4 7 percent of all aboriginal households with children in Manitoba lived in poverty and 80 percent of all aboriginal single-parent households were poor. What is this minister going to do to address the level of aboriginal poverty, particularly amongst children, in a positive, proactive way?

What plans do you have to address this problem? Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, I thank my honourable friend for that question because it does not matter what children are living in families that are living below the poverty line, Madam Speaker, we need to have initiatives to try to address issues right across the board. We all rea lize and recognize the statistics that my honourable friend has pointed out are statistics that need to be addr essed. The initiatives that we will be

96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 1997 announcing through redirection of funds from the national child benefit will address those issues. I want to indicate that some of the emplo yment programs that have been taking place through Taking Charge!, through the Department of Education and through the private sector are single-parent welfare case loads at the low est levels that they have been since 1990. We have 1,700 less single parents and general assistance people on our welfare caseloads as a result of the Employment First initiatives that we have put into place.

We also know that there are 900 more single parents that are declaring some income and only having to have that income topped up by welfare than there were in the past. So indications are that we are moving in the right direction, and we will continue to place a focus on moving people off welfare and into the workforce. Gurprem Dhaliwal Sentence Appeal Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): My questions are for the Minister of Justice.

He probably has had an opportunity by now to review the court decision of yesterday in Thompson where a man was sentenced to just six years for the murder of an aboriginal woman by the name of Carol Marlene Hastings from Oxford House. In regard to the charge of murder, why would the minister's department accept a statement that he should only receive the le sser charge because he did not have any prior convictions?

I would like to ask the minister: what kind of message are we-and particularl y this government-giving to the public when an aboriginal woman can be murdered, dumped in a ditch, and the minister's department strikes a deal allowing the killer to be released in less than the six years that he was given yesterday? My question is: will the minister appeal this decision? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I have been briefed in respect of that particular case, and I am advised that, on the basis of the evidence, that was the appropriate disposition of this case.

That is the best legal advice that my department received and provided, and they proceeded on the basis. Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, last night I had the opportunity of talking with the parents of the late Miss Hastings, the mother, Ethel Okimow, and the father, Thomas Okimow, who were no doubt very upset about the decision that was made in the courtroom yesterday in Thompson and also the lack of remorse shown on the part of this killer. I would like to ask the minister: why did his department make a deal to accept a charge of manslaughter instead of proceeding with a more serious charge? [interjection] Mr.

Toews: Madam Speaker, whenever an unlawful death occurs in our province, we are concerned, and unlike the comments made by the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), who continues to make inappropriate statements based on race, I do not-[interjection] Well, now the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett )- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, to comple te his response. *

(1400) Mr. Toews: I find the kinds of comments coming from members opposite based on the race of a victim to be total ly despicable, and it is a slur on the Crown attorneys who I believe are doing an excellent job in this province. They made a determination on the basis of evidence and proceeded on that basis. I find it very strange that when the Crown attorneys make decisions one way or another, whether it is a release of an accused or a conviction of the accused, there is always somebody there criticizing the Crown attorneys without knowing anything about the facts. Mr.

Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Okimow family and other aboriginal people that have been failed by the white justice system. I would like to ask the minister how he is going to explain this to the daughters of the late Ms. Hastings, who are eight, seven, five and three years of age and also to the widower of Ms. Hastings, Mr. Hank Hastings. I would

December 2, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 97 like to ask the minister why the family was not consulted prior to last Friday before this deal and this conviction made yesterday. Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the facts that the member puts forward are incorrect. The family in this particular case lives in Oxford House, and the RCMP kept in regular contact with them. They came to Thompson specifically to meet with the Crown attorney who met with the family for over three hours. A translator was also present. They were comfortable with the mansla ughter plan and the sentence range.

The Crown felt their comments on the sentence should be put before the court, and he arran ged for them to meet with a victim serv ices worker on both Saturday and Sunday. A report was prepared and sent to the Crown who presented it to the court. The comments of Sara Okimow, Ethel Okimow, Thomas Okimow, Jr. and Hank Hastings were then read to the court at the sentencing, and the plea, again, as I indicated, was the appropriate one given the difficulty in proving this particular case.

So I resent very much the impl ications that the Crown attorneys in this case did anything but their duty, and the comments reg arding the rac ism from the other side are despicable. Gurprem Dhaliwal Sentence Appeal Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): It was during the last election campaign when this government promised to make the needs and the rights of victims the top priority in the judicial system. I think those were the words used.

Yet, Madam Speaker, it is under this government that the public of Manitoba has come to realize and that we are committed to and that is rebuild the justice system around the needs of victims. Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. In view of the needs and rights of victims and in this case the survivors of the victim, is it not true that the Crown cannot appeal this because the Crown was a party to the plea of manslaughter and to the sentence? Is it not true. that in fact the Crown, the minister' s department has bargained away the facts in this case, as in Bauder? Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, these are the slimy kinds of tactics that the member for St. Johns uses- Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would caution the honourable Minister of Justice to pick and .choose his words care fully so as not to provoke a disruption. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask that the minister be required to withdraw those comments. The member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) has talked to the family. This is of some concern. I know my own community of Thompson-we are asking questions.

I think it is only appropriate the minister not resort to the kind of language he has just used in this House, show some respect, if not for this House, for his office as Attorney General and answer some very serious questions that are being asked by people who are concerned about the way in which this case was dealt with. We are asking serious questions; we expect the same kinds of serious and direct answers. Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, on the same point of order. Mr.

Toews: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, day in, day out the opposition brings to this House facts that are not correct and then expects the public of Manitoba to accept their word as being accurate. I have indicated what the true facts here are, that this is both an issue involving the police, the Crown attorneys who analyze the evidence in respect of the law, and after consultation with the family, that this decision was made.

These are not decisions that are made lightly, and to make disparaging comments about the quality of the service provided by our Crown attorneys is simply unacceptable, and it is for that reason I use that kind of word. Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, just prior to recognizing the honourable member for the point of order, I had indeed admonished the Minister of Justice and asked him to pick and choose his words carefully.

98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 1997 I have checked all of the unparl iamentary lists in Beauchesne. That word has not been listed, but it is not a very polite word. It is the kind of word that does indeed, as I indicated earlier, cause a disruption with the proceedings, and I think at this instance I would ask that the honourable minister withdraw the words. Mr. Toews: I think, Madam Speaker, that is a good idea. I withdraw the word "slimy." Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Justice. *** Mr. Mackintosh: I thank the minister.

But the minister who knows of course that we on this side have high respect for the Crown attorneys-it is the government policy that we are criticizing in this province and in that regard I ask the minister: was it not the case and it is not the policy of this government that the survivors of the victim in this case had no knowledge whatsoever of the plea bargain, had no input whatsoever into the plea bargain of manslaughter nor the sentence? Would he simply answer that question? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, as indicated, that is not the case.

The family specifically met with the Crown attorney for a period of three hours. A translator was present, and the issue of the mansla ughter plan and the sentence range was put before the family. Indeed, the Crown felt that their comments in respect of this were essential to the administration of justice, and therefore they were in fact put in touch with a victim services worker on both Saturday and Sunday, and a report was prepared and sent to the Crown, who did in fact present it to the court. So the comments of the member for St. Johns are completely err oneous. Mr.

Mackintosh: The minister did not hear my question, Madam Speaker. I was not talking about what happened on Friday. I am asking the minister: will he not confirm that the family had no knowledge before the bargain was entered into and no input into the barg ain? That is the question. He is leaving the victims out and the survivors, the most affected. Mr. Toews: I know that the member for St. Johns would love to see nothing better than a political minister being involved in the prosecution of a case. That would be totally inappropriate.

What I have indicated to this House is that in fact the family were not only in touch with the Crown's office but in fact with the RCMP where they live in Oxford House. If the member has any information that is contrary to that, he can bring it to this House specifically or he can rai se it with me otherwise, but I do not think it does the administra tion of justice in this province any good to simply make bald accusations without any facts and then expect me to agree with that. * (141 0) Break and Enter Reduction Strategy Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice. I had an opportunity to meet an elderly lady that lived in Portage Ia Prairie when we were out knocking on doors, and this particular individual was sleeping during the daytime. The reason why she was sleeping during the daytime was because one of the nights earlier her house was broken into in which she was roughed up, and she was literally scared to sleep at night. In Winnipeg al one, 5,841 homes were broken into in 1995.

My question to the minister is: does he believe that because of the number of break-ins that we have marginalized the seriousness of this very serious crime? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, without eliciting an opinion from me, which I do not think is appropriate, I can say that both my department and the courts view housebreaking as a particularly serious crime. Indeed, recent sentences given out by the courts in respect of what is commonly referred to as home invasions have been quite substantial and have been imposed at the urg ing of the Crown attorney's office.

We are continuing to ensure that that kind of proactive prosecution takes place.

December 2, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 99 The other half of the equation, of course, is the issue of community policing where we need to have our police officers working closely with the community to prevent these types of break-ins, whether they are home invasions or the more common invasions, and I use that term in an advised manner. To me, whether they involve violence or not, they are serious invasions of personal property and personal security. Sentence Length Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the minister will acknowledge that when he says a home invasion is very serious, every resi dential break-in has the potential to be a home invasion and can be very serious, and the aggregate total, if you like, of time served is less than nine months for someone that is actual ly prosecuted with this. Does the minister believe that not only should he be getting more strict with respect to home invasions but also with home brea k-ins? Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I certainly agree that the Crown attorney's office needs to be vigilant in ensuring that all relevant facts are brought to the attention of the courts in making the disposition. Clearly, wherever there is a threat of personal violence or the invasion of someone's personal home, that is an extremely serious matter, whether violenc e occurred, whether actual personal contact ever occurr ed. I agree with that.

I know that the Crowns on a regular basis seek substantial jail sentences and prison sentences, and I would encourage them to continue that policy. I believe that it is absolutely essential to making our communities safe. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am not convinced that that is in fact the poli cy. I would ask the Minister of Justice: can he then provide for this House an average, if you like, a means average of actual time served for those individuals that are caught in break and-enter situations? Can he do that and bring it back to the House sometime over the next week? Mr. Toews: .

Madam Speaker, I will look to see whether that type of information is available, both in the sense of home invasions and brea k-ins into residential homes where there is no personal contact with the occupant and indeed other types of break -ins which may involve businesses or unoccupied buildings. I will see if those types of statistics are available and bring them forward for the member's consideration. Urban Affairs Committee Meeting Attendance-The Speaker Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Urban Affairs.

Has the Speaker attended a meeting of the Urban Affairs committee of this government? Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): I do not know whether she means recently or this year or at any time. I am not too sure what the question is implying, Madam Spe·aker. Maybe she could rephrase the question. Ms. Barrett: Did the Speaker of this House attend a meeting of the Urban Affairs committee of this government on November 3, 19977 Mr. Reimer: I will have to take that as notice and check the minutes. I do not have those types of facilities in front of me.

The members must recognize that the Urban Affairs committee of cabinet is open to all members of Urban Affairs. I would have to check that specific date to see who was attending. Ms. Barrett: Has the Speaker of the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba ever attended a meeting of the Urban Affairs committee of this government while she has been Speaker of the House? Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I would have to check the records because I do not have those figures in front of me. Whether I can get back to the member on that- An Honourable Member: Were you there? Mr.

Reimer: I was there, but if the member is asking me for specific times, I cannot remember. Students' Association Meeting Attendance Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, on September 8 ofthis year, the Minister of Education met

100 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 1997 formally with repr esentatives of the student societies of Brandon University and the University of Winnipeg to discuss government policy and post-secondary education. Would the minister tell us who, apart from students, attended that meeting? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): I meet frequently with students. The September 8 meeting-! normally will have officials from the department with me; I can check to see who was at that meeting.

Normally, when I meet with students from the universities, which I do frequently, I will have either the deputy or someone of that stature, at that level of the government. I can check for her to find out who was at the meeting and let her know. Meeting Attendance-The Speaker Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, would the minister tell us whether or not the Speaker of the Legisla ture attended that meeting with the students? Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): The Speaker does not normally attend meetings with students, although from time to time students will ask to meet with members of the Legisla tive Assembly, and I will extend invitations to those members. Again-I believe the member said September, some time in September-and I will check to see. There was a meeting that I had with students that I invited all members to attend if they wished, but I do not know who was there . I will check and see.

She might like to check with students as well because they know who they asked to meet with, and they know who they asked to have in attendance at those meetings. Meeting Attendance Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Northern Affairs. Could the Minister of Northern Affairs tell us whether he was at that meeting to discuss government policy with student representatives from the Univer sity ofWinnipeg and the university of Brandon, and could he tell us which of his colleagues accompanied him? Hon.

David Newman (Minister of Northern Affairs): Madam Speaker, I was at a meeting involving some representa tives of the student leadership community and certai nly the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) was there . I would have to check my notes. I believe the Speaker was present at that meeting. *

(1420) Urban Affairs Committee Meeting Attendance-The Speaker Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we seem to have collective amnesia on the other side of the House. In view of the fact that Beauchesne in every principle of parliam entary law and every principle of democracy requires that the Speaker remain absolutely impartial and not involve him or herself in any partisan activities, I want to ask the Minister ofUrban Affairs if maybe he would perhaps care to think back a little bit.

Will he confirm now that the Speaker was part of the meetings with the Urban Affairs of cabinet, something that is absolutely unacceptable, which is absolute ly partial and partisan behaviour on behalf of the Speaker of this House? Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, in the previous question that was asked to me by the member for Well ington (Ms. Barrett), I had indicated at that time I would check to see who was in attendance at the meetings. I can honestly say I do not remember or cannot remember under specifics what meetings the member is referring to who was there.

At times there are people who come and go. There are members who come and go. I cannot specifically say that she was there or not there . Mr. Ashton: Flashbacks to Watergate, Madam Speaker. I want to ask the minister and perhaps the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh), who seem to have selective amnesia in this case-it is a very simple question. The Speaker, was she in attendance? Perhaps if the minister cannot remember that, will he outline who is eligible to be part of these meetings? Is it by any chance members

December 2, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 101 of the Conservative caucus which the Speaker has functionally been ever since she has been in the Chair since 1995? Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a number of times ear lier today questions have arisen and been the subject of reminders from yourself that we ought not to be provocative, those of us on this side ofthe House. I wonder if the honourable member for Thompson would care to rev iew his question and ask himself if honestly he feels there is no provocation intended in his questions.

That aside, the honourable Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs has already responded that he will indeed look into this matter, but the presiding officer of the House, I suggest to you, is in no different position than other members of this Legisla ture when it comes to repre senting certain matters related to their constituencies. A very strong ar gument ought to be made that no matter what position one holds in this Chamber, one has a duty-and not only a right and a privile ge and an opportunity but a duty-to represent constituents.

So if Your Honour had been present at this meeting or that meeting in furtherance of your responsibilities, that would, I am sure, be the appropriate response to this particular matter being raised by the honourable members today. But I do suggest that they preach a lot about some of our answers; they might do well to read Hansard once in a while and look at the provocative nature of some of their questions. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Just for clarification, the government House leader: in all honesty, how can he say that attendance at a cabinet committee or attendance at a meeting sponsored by a minister of the government does not viola te every principle of Beauchesne 168(2), that in order to ensure comple te impartiality, the Speaker has relinquished all affiliation with any parliamen tary party and any outside political activity? When are we going to have an unbiased Speaker in this House, Madam Speaker? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, my col league and friend and the honourable member for Thompson can bang away at Beauchesne all he likes, but the fact is members around here have a responsibil ity. He need look only two seats to his left to see an honourable member who is brought into the councils of government decision making from time to time when that is appropriate, and earl ier today the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) announced a history-making development and the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) was part of those meetings.

If something like that was going to happen in your constituency, Madam Speaker, would you not want to be present and take

part in some of the discussions? I suggest there is nothing wrong with that. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask: was the honourable government House Mr. Ashton: On a new question. leader on a point of order? Mr. McCrae: I was answering the question. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader responded to the question. I thank the honourable government House leader for clarifica tion. Mr. Ashton: On a final supplementary, since the government House leader is now answering for the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.

Reimer ), I want to ask Madam Speaker: On a new question. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the member for Brandon East is not the Speaker. He would make a very good Speaker actual ly, but he is not the Speaker. I want to ask the government House leader if it is the policy of this government to treat the current occupier of the Speaker' s chair as being part of the Conservative caucus? We see pictures issued under the Conservative caucus with the Speaker as part of that. We see the Speaker at meetings with the Minister of Education (Mrs.

102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 1997 Mcintosh) in the Urban Affairs committee of cabinet. Is it the policy of the government to have the Speaker as part and parcel of this government and is that why you refuse to bring in an elected Speaker, an impartial Speaker that we all need in this House? Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, if I were a New Democrat, I suppose I would be rising in my place on a question of privilege and complaining that by the questions being asked today the constituents of Seine River are being denied appropriate representation on issues of importance to them.

The honourable member for Thompson said that the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) is a member of the Legislature and not the Speaker, and that is true, but if the honourable member for Brandon East were the presiding officer of this House, you can be damned assured that honourable member would want to be heard on matters of importance to his constituency and you, I suggest, with respect, Madam Speaker, ought to be accorded that same right. *

(1430) Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, as a supplementary, I want to ask: what is the policy of this government? The Urban Affairs committee of cabinet, who is that committee open to? It is apparent, it is obvious that it is open to Conservative MLAs of which the Speaker is being an active Conservative MLA. I want to ask perhaps the government House leader if he can maybe indicate whether there was a House strategy committee of cabinet last year. Maybe the Speaker was part of that last year when we saw you ram through the sale of MTS, again breaking hundreds of years of parl iamentary tra dition. Mr.

McCrae: I think most times the honourable member for Thompson agrees with me that being an elected representative is a noble calling, and I think we try to carry out our duties as if that were the case, Madam Speaker. I implore the honourable member for Thompson and his colleagues to forget about their narrow political interests and put the interests of the people of Manitoba ahead of their own political Brownie-point interests. The honourable members cannot seem to get on. They cannot seem to get over it.

They cannot seem to get on with the business of doing the work of the people of this province, and I think that explains their questions and their behaviour again in the House today. I wish they would search their souls, look in the mirror and ask how best can we serve our constituents. Madam Speaker, I suggest to you that honourable members are deflecting-and not doing a very good job of it-away from the very miserable record that they have been putting before the people of this province for the last number of years . Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Speaker's Ruling Madam Speaker: I have two rulings for the House. I took under advisement on November 25, 1996, a matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) about my rul ing of November 21, 1996, respecting the timing ofvotes on Bill67. There are three conditions to be met in order for a Speaker to find that there is a prima facie evidence of a matter of privilege. First, was the matter raised by the honourable member for St. Johns at the earl iest opportunity?

I believe that November 25 was indeed his first opportunity, because after I had delivered the ruling on November 21, the House considered a matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and then adjourned. The House then did not meet until November 25. The second condition for a matter to proceed is that the member raising a matter of privilege must provide the House with a repara tion or remedy. The honourable member did propose a motion that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privi leges and Elections, so the second condition has been complied with.

December 2, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 103 The third condition to be met is that sufficient evidence must be presented to suggest that a breach of the privileges of the House has occurred. I must find that the third condition has not been met. My ruling of November 21 was challenged but sustained by the House on a recorded vote. Immediately thereafter the honourable member for Thompson rose on a matter of privilege that was a nonconfidence motion in the presiding officer, and that matter arose directly from my November 21 ruling, and that nonconfidence motion was defeated on a recorded vote that day.

The November 20 rul ing has already been challenged and sustained twice. In rea ding the comments of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) when he raised this matter of privilege on November 25, I can locate no substantially different perspectives in his arguments than those which had been put forward by the official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Ashton) on November 21 when he raised a matter of privilege.

Citation 558 in Beauchesne, which is based on a statement by the parliam entary authority Sir John Bourinot, states '"That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House.' Unless such a ru le were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of a motion of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arri ved at in the course of the same session." The decision of Speaker Graham of April 15, 1981, in a similar matter is also I believe a relevant Manitoba precedent.

Because no new evidence was presented to the House between November 21 and 25, I must rule that the motion of the honourable member for St. Johns does not meet the requirements of a matter of privilege and must be ruled out of order. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, this rul ing was based on a matter of privilege that was rai sed November 25, 1996, and therefore I would like, on behalf of our caucus, to challenge this incompetent ruling. Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Voice Vote Madam Speaker: All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Formal Vote Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: A reco rded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

Division A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas Cummings, Derkach, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Faurschou, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Kowalski, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, Mcintosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliff e, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed Nays Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Jennissen, Lath/in, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGiff ord, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 28, Nays 20.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accord ingly sustained. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would stand on a matter of privilege ifl may.

104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 1997 This is one of those rare occasions-in fact I cannot necessarily recall the last time I had abstained from voting in my previous nine and a half years inside the Chamber. I guess in most

part I felt that it would not be appropriate for me to vote for a couple of reasons, one of those reasons being that I did not necessarily hear the articulation as to why or why not from either side of the Chamber. I also feel that this is an issue which has come up on numerous occasions in the past. As I sat through a good portion of lis tening to the bells, I was not too sure in terms of if in fact Manitobans were being served in the best way they can because of the issues that have been surroun ding something that has happened, and it happened quite a while ago, Madam Speaker.

I think that there would have been more fruit, if you like, if in fact there was more debate on the throne speech, because there is a limited amount of time. In all likel ihood, for example, not every member inside this Chamber will be provided that opportunity to speak because of that limi ted amount of time. I was thinking in terms of how it is I would respond. I had one member of the media ask in terms of what are my thoughts and my position on what has happened and I did not know what to say to the member of the media.

In fact it indicated that I wanted to spend some time just to think about it prior to giving an opinion. As I was thinking about it, more and more I felt that in fact I should be standing up today and addr essing the Chamber in the form of a matter of privilege. What I want to be able to do is to point out the MTS affair, if you like, and compare it to something else that occurred back in 1989.

The reason why I am doing this is that today there might have been some merit in terms of some of the questions that were being posed from the opposition with respect to events that you would have attended or might have attended, Madam Speaker. There might have been some merit to that. But what I really want to focus my attention on is why it is that we are constantly challenging the Speaker to the extent of ringing the bells, it seems more often than not. Have in fact you been provided an opportunity to be a Speaker inside this Chamber from the official opposition?

Well, in my nine and a half years there have actually been two really significant incidences that have occurred. A number of member s would not be aware of the first one because they were not here, and that was in the minority days when in fact I sat inside a committee room inside the Legislature . The Minister of Finance then, Mr. Manness, was talking about Repap and the sale of Repap. The Liberals were the official opposition, and how I long for those days, but we were the official opposition at the time.

What happened was we were getting into the debate, Madam Speaker, when all of a sudden the Minister of Finance felt that it was no lon ger important for him to be there, and he just walked out of the committee room. The current Minister of Culture and Heritage is very familiar with this, because he was in fact the Chair of that particular committee and I am sure can relate to what it is that I am talking about. *

(1520) An Honourable Member: The Speaker supported you. Mr. Lamoureux: We took exception to-and I am going to get to that-we took great exception to the way in which this occurr ed. Imagine, if you will, a duly called meeting. A majority of the committee members wanted to continue on in the committee; yet, the Chair and the ministry decided to leave the committee room, thereby calling it to an end. We searched everywhere, and at that time we had fairly good research capabil ities because of the resour ces.

We did a thorough research in terms of where something of this nature might of even happened, anywhere in the parliamentary Commonwealth. Well, Madam Speaker, we found absolutely nothing that gave any sort of justification to what took place-and as the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) points out, he is dead right. Shame. It was a shameful day for the Manitoba Legisla ture, and I really and truly believe that.

Madam Speaker, when I compare that incident to the incident of the MTS, both of those things, both of those incidents, were not in our glory days as Manitoba legislators, but when I try to draw the comparison, the only real thing that stands out-other than the obvious, as opposed to a chairperson it was the Speaker, which is a fairly significant difference in itself-is that we have to remember that we were operating under provisional rules back during the MTS affair.

December 2, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 105 Madam Speaker, there were a lot of things that occurred from both sides, and at one time we were in full support of what was happening. At other times, we accused the government of hiding behind the Speaker and so forth. Now what I find more often than not whenever I am approached by members of the media is to try to have this balancing effect. You know, I do not want to come across as browning up to the Speaker or taking the sides with the government.

I do not want to come across as being unfair, for I have been treated relatively fairly as a minority party inside this Chamber. So there have been areas in which for me it has been a fine line in wanting to do the right thing. Well, Madam Speaker, I do believe very firmly that the previous incident, the walkout of the committee was never resolved. Privileges and Elections did in fact meet. It was supposed to discuss it; it never ever happened.

I would suggest to you because there was no provisional rules, because there was no other agreement in place and so forth, that that is a fairly significant flaw in our trad ition from within this Chamber. I do not support it now, but I have got over it in the sense that I no longer raise the issue. It is in my mind, I am not going to forget about it, and I am pleased to be able to share if with other members because it was wrong then and hopefully it will never ever happen again. But I do not see the benefit of constantly bringing up the issue inside the Manitoba Legislature .

I think what is important is that the record will clearly show what I have said is in fact quite accurate. You could read the pages and pages of Hansard, whether it was from Reg Alcock or from John Angus and I am sure even Sharon Carstairs, possibly even Jay Cowan, would have spoken on it. So it is there for us to be able to reflect on when things in the future-and hopefully it does not occur but if, in fact, it does. Madam Speaker, I think the same needs to apply with respect to what happened with MTS. Like the New Democrats, I agree that the government should not have sold MTS.

I think that was a mistake and, given the opportunity, that is what I would arti culate in the next provincial elec tion. I look at how it actually tr anspired, and I disagree in many parts in different ways with what occurred last November. I do believe it was a good learning experience not only for me but for all members of this Chamber. I think that as a result of what has occurred that we will grow from that. I believe that to be the case because equally there were members that were not here during the committee affair.

In future years, there will be MLAs that were not around for the MTS affair and that issue will be brought up. It is not going to be something that is going to be forgotten, but one has to start questioning why it is that it is in fact constantly being brought up in a format that takes away from other debates within the Chamber, given the lim itations of debate that we have inside the Chamber.

I think by doing that, we are not able to address the many different issues, allowing other members to be able to stand up, whether it is the throne or by chance the throne did come to an end prematurely in terms of debate because of a lack of interest to speak, well, there would be more things that would be brought onto the table for debate. Strat egically and from a tactical point of view, at times there is a need to allow for bells to ring. I do not necessarily see the one that is there today.

I want to be able, as I indicated at the beginning, to respect the fact that the New Democrats brought up some valid points in Question Period. Madam Speaker, I think that there is some merit to it, but what I would suggest that we really need to do is to start talking about exactly what role the Speaker has to play. We are talking about electing a Speaker, and I think that is a positive thing. I hope that in fact we will have an elected Speaker at some point in time, the sooner the better as far as I am concerned, but the role of the Speaker needs to be talked about.

From what I understand, for example, the Speaker in Saskatchewan attends caucus meetings intersessionally. That is from what I understand. I had asked our rese arch to look into what happens in B. C., what happens when a Speaker needs to confer or to consult with the minister, and fortunately, even with our limitations, I was able to get somewhat of a response on that. Andy from our research indicates that in B.C. the Speaker will not venture into the space used by members of Executive Council.

When constituency issues or the need arises for discussion with ministers, the government ministers head to the Speaker's office.

106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 1997 The Speaker in B.C. is also provided with his own dining room. Meetings with government ministers take place there or in committee rooms. Private meetings are not uncommon. No one in the B.C. Speaker's office knows when this rule was started, but it has been accepted practice fo r some time. *

(1530) Well, Madam Speaker, the reason why I bring that up is because I do not think Beauchesne's is as clear as it could be on this particular issue. In fa ct, what I would suggest to you is that we need to look not only at having an elected Speaker, but we also need to know what sort of rules need to be taken into consideration in terms of the actions that a Speaker may or may not take without putting at risk, compromising the Chair.

When I talk about compromising the Chair, Madam Speaker, that is ultimately the reason why I fe lt that it was important that I stand up today, because I have in the past shown considerable support fo r the Chair. To date I am still prepared to give that support to the Chair, and I say that to my friends in the New Democratic Party. I do not say that because I am hoping to be able to achieve more through the Speaker's Chair. I can tell them I had to fight fo r what I have and I am still trying to fight.

I still believe that it is three independents because as a caucus you can determine who can stand up when fo r members' statements, fo r Question Period, that we do have very strong limitations. I still argue today with you, as you know, in terms of that we need to have more rights inside this Chamber, because, again, I believe that we do need to have more rights, that at times you have to acknowledge the need to change that status quo.

So in summation, I guess what I would say, Madam Speaker, is that there is the need fo r us to look at what role the Speaker should be playing in the future in the Province of Manitoba which includes having the elected role and which also includes what limitations that that Speaker should have in place.

I would also appeal to all members, in particular members of the New Democratic Party, that we have learned, I believe, from what occurred in the past, but maybe it is time that we move ahead, Madam Speaker, in trying to deal with what is obviously important and in order to allow fo r more time on debate of many other issues. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair In the responses that we give to the throne speech, we can talk about the problems as we saw them that occurred last November. We can continue to bring up MTS all we want, but surely to goodness there is a better way. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I do have a motion that I want to be able to move because, always wanting to be constructive, I would like to be able to see meetings occur. The last time I had a meeting with the Speaker's office was with my two other colleagues, and we talked about our rights going into the session. [interjection] At what point in time? I say this with all honesty. She was def ending the New Democrats' rights, saying, well, they should anticipate some sort of changes in Question Period, that I should not be taking it fo r granted.

We had taken the line that, look, no, Madam Speaker, you should not be taking away rights from us. We will c.c. it and let us see if the government House leader or the opposition House leader respond negatively; and, if they respond negatively, then I will take it up with whomever it is that has responded negatively. So, again, I have to worry about rights being taken away fr om us on occasion but not to fe ar in the sense that I, along with the member fo r St. Bonif ace (Mr. Gaudry) and the member fo r The Maples (Mr.

Kowalski), will continue to articulate as to what is important in terms of rights of individuals who are in our current situation, because that is very, very important to us. What I hope is that in fa ct the opposition House leader and the government House leader (Mr. McCrae }-I understand that they do not meet very often with the Speaker; I am not too sure when the last time is that they actually met-but we need to see, we are not prepared-[interjection] Well, again, I was sympathetic to your questions today, but you also have to take into consideration that there is that need to look at the rules.

Like Glenn Hagel, whom I have a deep amount of respect fo r, the Speaker out in Saskatchewan, fr om what I understand meets in caucus intersession with the New Democrats. You know, this is in fa ct what I am told. I trust that will be confirmed one way or another. We do need to look at it, and you raise a very good

December 2, 1997 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 107 point. [interjection] But, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party says, I am starting to be somewhat repetitive, so I will leave it at that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would move, seconded by the member fo r The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that the Speaker convene a meeting of the House leaders and a representative of the independent member caucus intersessionally to resolve the issues fac ing the Speaker's Chair. Motion presented. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I may be in some diffi culty with my Leader because I know we talked at our convention about hugging Liberals, but I would suggest to the member fo r Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that, if he wants to start some consensus, he might want to start with his own caucus. Indeed, this is the same caucus that on MTS voted on a key matter that was before this House in which one voted fo r and one voted against and one abstained. I think we have seen some of the explanation of that logic today. I have seen very important matters trivialized in this House bef ore, but fo r the member fo r Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux) I think to suggest that someone call a meeting and that is going to solve the problem I think is trivializing the root cause of the problem, and that is that we have no confidence in the Speaker. We have had no confidence in the Speaker since 1996. We will never have confidence in this Speaker. I appreciated the member fo r Inkster's rather twisting and turning version of lif e as he sees it, but I still do not see any indication yet of the fa ct that we in this House do not have confidence in this Speaker. I would appreciate I think fr om the member if he would recognize why that has occurred.

We saw one of the biggest bills in Manitoba history pass through this Legislature when every single rule in the book was broken by the Speaker. We have clear evidence. We are going to be checking further evidence despite the rather fo ggy memory of the Minister of Urban Aff airs (Mr. Reimer) as seen earlier in Question Period. We have clear evidence that the Speaker sees no problem in attending government-sponsored meetings, policy meetings, whether it be on education or committees of cabinet. It is just unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. *

(1540) Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members that want to carry on their conversations to do so in the loge. I am having great dif ficulty, and I am trying to get some evidence on whether I should deal with this now or take it under advisement. So the honourable member fo r Thompson, to continue. Mr. Ashton: I find it unfortunate that we are in a position having to deal with a motion that is bef ore this House that fa ils to recognize the root cause of the problem.

We have not had Speakers in the parliamentary system that have been spokespeople fo r the government and previously the Crown since the Plantagenet and Tudor times. That was the last time in history. We are talking now about 500 years ago. At that time, the Speaker was seen as the mouthpiece of the Crown, and anybody who is aware of parliamentary history will remember the courageous act of the Speaker of the day that ref used to dismiss Parliament when requested by the king of the day, refused -the beginning of the impartiality of the Speaker's of fice. It amazes me.

I had the opportunity this summer to actually go to Runnymede, which is where the Magna Carta was signed, which was the beginning of the parliamentary system. I think after seeing what has happened today, and particularly the comments by the member fo r Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that what we need is to educate members of this House, particularly on the Conservative benches, and I would not suggest necessarily all the Liberals, because I still have some hope on the Liberal side of what the basis of parliamentary democracy is.

It is separation first and fo remost between the Crown and Parliament, and that can only be achieved when Parliament has rights and when those rights are enf orced through the respect and enf orcement of our rules by an impartial and objective Speaker. If anybody doubts what can happen when that is taken away fr om a Parliament, just look at what has happened in this House since 1996. I find it absolutely amazing that today, in December of 1997, earlier today

108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 1997 we dealt with a matter of privilege that was raised in this House November 23, 1996. It is interesting, because we are not only in the next session, we are in the next, next session. I do not know why the Speaker of the House did not come up with a ruling in the previous session. I mean, how long did it take to research a one-and-a-half-page ruling? We did not sit between June and just a few days ago.

I know we have a hard-working Clerk's office, an office of the Legislative Assembly, but surely this could have been researched and brought back to the House, I would have suggested, probably immediately after the ruling was made. It was a matter of privilege. I find it amazing that when we rise on a matter of privilege in this House, we have to establish that it is raised at the first opportunity. Then we have to establish a prima facie case. Does nobody on the Conservative benches understand that there is something bizarre when we get rulings that are made a year and some days later? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, some of those members have sat in opposition, and if they keep up with this arrogant and smug attitude will sit again in opposition very soon. I could imagine the howl and I look to some members. Well, I will not mention them by name. I will not, but they know of what I speak because there are members on the other side who have been in government and in opposition. They have been around. They will probably be around full circle again because they know they are survivors, and I think they have survived because they understand Parliament. At least in their heart of hearts they do.

Does somebody not see why we are so frustrated? It is not just a question of partiality anymore; it is a question of competence. To the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), what are we going to do as House leaders-and this is a new, I am not sure how to describe the three members who were elected as Liberals. I, by the way, have always respected that while they may not be a recognized party, that they are Liberals. I am not sure what the Hansard states today because one of them was a Liberal, two of them were listed as independent Liberals.

Now I think it is two Liberals and one independent Liberal, and the member for Inkster talked about the caucus of independents. I do not know what they do in terms of meetings anymore, but I respect them as members of the House, but how do they expect us to sit down with the Speaker? How many times have we had to bring matters of no confidence in the Speaker? What are we supposed to do, sit down and eat cookies and drink tea and then discuss the House as if nothing happened? What planet are we living on here? We have no confidence in the Speaker.

I can tell you I have not had any meeting with the Speaker now for more than a year. I would suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that knowing the feeling in our caucus and of many Manitobans about what happened in 1996, that should come as no surprise. I cannot think of anything more bizarre than having a motion of the House now that suggests we call a meeting. If there is a meeting called by the Speaker we will not attend, because we do not have any confidence left in the Speaker. How many times do we have to say that? Now, I say to the member for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux) again, I thought there were some encouraging signs in his statements, and, by the way, I do want to credit at least one member of this House I think who showed some real honesty earlier, and courage, and that is the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman). I mean, he was asked a straight question and he gave a straightforward answer. I respect that. The Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.

Reimer), I have to be careful because I do not want to transpose my remarks to leave any unparliamentary impression, but I can tell you, if he does not remember who shows up at his meetings of the Urban Affairs committee of cabinet, boy, he has more problems than we thought he had. And the twisted logic of the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mclntosh}-they do not get it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Speaker's office is not an additional cabinet member. I mean, how many times do we have to read from Beauchesne, from Erskine May? It is fundamental. It is absolutely fundamental to the parliamentary system.

The chief characteristics attached to the office of the Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. That is from Beauchesne. Erskine May, which references the route British parliamentary tradition: The chief characteristics attached to the office of the Speaker in

December 2, 1997 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 109 the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. The impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition to the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also to ensure that his, and I might add her, impartiality is generally recognized. It is not just that the Speaker does not speak in this House. That is a given. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Speaker does not vote in this House. It extends to cabinet committees.

I say to government members opposite, rhetorically through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have they been in of fice so long that they do not see the root problem with having the Speaker of the House sit in cabinet committees? What I ref erenced earlier, just think of the logic here. I mean by their definition, and we suspect this may have actually even happened, there would be no problem with the Speaker sitting in on a cabinet committee on House strategy, particularly if they were dealing with MTS. Think about it. Why not have the Speaker attend cabinet meetings?

It might make communication a lot easier the next time the Premier tells the Speaker of the House what to do. Think about it fo r a moment. There are some members opposite-oh, I know in your heart of hearts-they know that this is the most flagrant abuse that we have seen of any Speaker. I was concerned when I saw the Speaker's picture as part of the Conservative caucus that went out on a Conservative Party ad, but, okay, you know, it was a picture and perhaps the Speaker socializes with members of the Conservative caucus, you know, social events. That is not a problem. I am sure the Speaker may do that as well.

Think about it fo r a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what do we have left of a parliamentary democracy in this Legislature if we have the Speaker of the House seen as nothing more than another member of the Conservative caucus? I noticed with interest-! thought the Minister of Urban Af f airs (Mr. Reimer) nearly gave it away. He said that the committee was open to all con members of Urban Af f airs. I was thinking "con." Con what? Would this be cons? Conservatives? Cons? Well, I guess, in Saskatchewan, cons and conservative do mean the same thing, but it may be unparliamentary to suggest that here.

I wonder if the minister opposite actually watched all those Watergate hearings, because about the only thing he did not do was say "let me make this perf ectly clear." Because you know in that fo g, I think we know the answer. We know that the Speaker attended the Urban Af f airs Committee of Cabinet. The Speaker attended the Urban Af f airs Committee of Cabinet. *

(1550) I ask members opposite to put themselves in the shoes of being members of the opposition-and I say to the Minister of Urban Af f airs, you know, you may get this chance bef ore you realize and I want to see what your reaction would be, because I heard members saying, oh, an MLA cannot deal with that. You know, Speakers have always dealt with items related to constituents, always. In fa ct, in 1986, it was recognized that Speakers do have a role as members of the Legislature when an assistant was provided to the Speaker, something that continues to this day, so that they can deal with constituency concerns.

That does not mean that they then go and sit on cabinet committees. No, the leaps of logic on the other side are unbelievable. Same with the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh), does she not get it? Well, she probably does not actually, but does she not see that when she is sitting there with students? What is she discussing, the weather? She is discussing government policy. You know why we were aware of this? Because some of the students who attended that meeting understood something the government did not.

I do not know if they were political studies students or just that many of the students are very aware of what is happening in politics and the political system. But you know the university students who were there understood something that the Minister of Education did not. I think if we have compulsory testing in this province, it might be with the Minister of Education rather than with students. But think about it fo r a moment, and I say this to the member fo r Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), you know, when do we draw the line? When do we draw the line between the Speaker and partiality?

I say that line has been long crossed. Now I want to indicate, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will be reviewing the transcripts from today, the Hansards. I want to determine exactly

110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 1997 what was said earlier in Question Period, because I fe el there may be a far more important matter to deal with in the matter that the member fo r Inkster brings fo rward. But I would suggest to you in conclusion that the member fo r Inkster does not have a matter of privilege. I would suggest the only matter of privilege that would have been appropriate coming from the Liberals would have been a matter similar to matters we have raised time and time again in this House pointing out that we have no confidence in the Speaker.

I do not know what it is going to take bef ore the member fo r Inkster [interjection] I do not speak for the other Liberal members and I know the member fo r The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) who has been critical of some of our views understood our concern today. But I do not know how many more times we have to go through this. This is not about something that is fr ivolous. This is root. This goes to the root of our ability in this House to represent our constituents. I represent 58 percent of the people in the province who did not vote Conservative in the last election.

You know, this is not a Legislature that is an extension of the Conservative caucus. We will never allow it to become an extension of this Conservative caucus, and the way we are going to do that is by continuing to push fo r a Speaker in this House. I look at you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I note, having seen you function in this House, that-and I want this on the record, too, because this is not partisan-as we did bef ore with the previous Speaker, having an initial affiliation with a political party does not prevent someone such as yourself from doing a commendable job, fo r being very impartial.

I want to put that on the record because it is not about any fr ustration we have with Conservative Speakers. There are Conservative Speakers who have been, and Deputy Speakers, who continue to be impartial. All we ask is the ability to have a Speaker who is impartial. Thank you. Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak in support of the motion brought by the member fo r Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would just like to advise the minister that I am just taking advice at this time.

You are not speaking to the motion. You are giving me advice on whether I should bring this to debate. Mr. Toews: Thank you very much fo r that direction. I certainly would like to advise that we should be supporting this particular motion brought by the member fo r Inkster. I think in this particular situation, the member fo r Inkster in fa ct has shown that he is a consensus builder. I note with some regret the comments of the member fo r Thompson (Mr.

Ashton), the way in which he expressed his comments, his emphatic statement that he and his caucus would not attend any type of a meeting that would be brought fo rward by all the House leaders as well as a representative of the independent members' caucus. I think that is quite unfortuna te. I think that the conduct in this House over the las! number of days has demonstrated that we in fa ct do require some type of fo rum. We know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that past Speakers appointed by NDP governments have attended government caucuses and in fa ct cabinet meetings.

We know that the present practice in such provinces as Saskatchewan, where there is an NDP government, the Speaker regularly attends caucus and cabinet meetings. So I think this is an issue among others that need to be discussed, and if in fa ct there is some dispute over whether or not the Speaker from Saskatchewan attends both caucus and cabinet meetings, that is an appropriate issue to discuss at the type of fo rum recommended by the member fo r Inkster.

This is an issue that does need to be discussed, and I think it clearly shows the leadership of the member fo r Inkster in attempting to have the House resolve an outstanding problem. So I certainly support the motion and the sentiments brought to this House in the fo rm of the motion by the member fo r Inkster. Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in response to the motion brought by the honourable member fo r Inkster, I think it would be saf e to say that honourable members on this side of the House would be prepared to waive the kinds of requirements that I have no doubt you were about to talk about with respect to a question of privilege. I

December 2, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 111 think that strictly applied rules in this case might cause a valuable motion like this one to fai l, and I do not want that to happen. So I would say that we on this side of the House are quite willing to waive any rules that require certain tests-[interjection] Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

McCrae: Something that happens on a daily basis in this House in order to help with the business of the House is that members on all sides of the House fr om time to time waive various rules and requirements in order to get the business done, and honourable members in the New Democratic Party tend to want to disrupt again my opportunity to have a word on a topic of very great importance to honourable members in the New Democratic Party if you believe what they tell you. So I would appreciate it if they would let me finish my comments. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what I am suggesting in the spirit put fo rward by the honourable member fo r Inkster to get serious and to get some resolution to some of the things that are bothering members around here is that, in order fo r us to do what is suggested in the motion, we would need to waive the requirement of the kind of urgency that is called fo r under a question of privilege that would be required, and so we would waive that. *

(1600) The honourable member fo r Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in his motion suggests that there be a meeting of House leaders and a representative of the independent members of this House in order to discuss and, hopef ully, resolve issues. I understand from the comments of the honourable member fo r Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that he does not want to resolve the issues. He does not want to have such a meeting. He and his colleagues want to carry on a personal vendetta that gets in the way of doing the business of the people of this province, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Rather than putting fo rward any fo rward thinking or coming up with any constructive suggestions fo r the business of the people of this province, members of the New Democratic Party choose instead to engage in personal attacks on people. That is what is going on around here. There is a total dearth of any constructive suggestion. They obviously want to talk about their vendetta every day rather than talk about what is contained in the throne speech.

They have done this before, by the way, when we have had-they have absolutely no policy, no alternative policy to of fe r to the people of Manitoba, so daily they take their place in this Chamber and kick up as much fu ss as they can. It is convenient to go after the Speaker of the Legislature. It is an easy thing fo r them to do. I know, I heard someone say a little while ago that members of this side, some of us, have had the opportunity to sit in the opposition, and it is a fa ct. I remember very well 1986 coming here as a new member and learning very quickly- An Honourable Member: You even got kicked out. Mr.

McCrae: I even got kicked out as the member fo r Thompson (Mr. Ashton) points out. I do not hold that against the presiding officer of the day, but I had certain impressions of that particular presiding of ficer, one Myrna Phillips. Honourable members know what those impressions were, and they know very well why, and they sit in their places today mostly from their seats, but one or two of them on the floor of this House, making suggestions about the present occupant of the Chair of this House. The more things do not change, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it seems the more things do not change.

But I do believe the honourable member fo r Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is on to something here. [interjection] That is right. Well, I have got another one fo r you if you did not like that one. I will share it with you privately. It says something like things are more like they are today than they have ever been bef ore in history, and I think there is some truth in that. I invite honourable members to contemplate that.

Quite seriously, the honourable member fo r Inkster I believe is trying to create an atmosphere or rebuild an atmosphere in this House where we can get some orderly work done, and he suggests that we get together with the Speaker and iron out some of our diff erences. What a great idea- An Honourable Member: Oh, let us have cookies and cake, and let us fo rget anything ever happened.

112 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 1997 Mr. McCrae: Well, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is in a very awkward position, because it is an entirely reasonable proposition and because such a meeting might tend to put the New Democrats on the spot and make them have to search in their souls and come up with the right kinds of answers so that we can go forward and do the real work of the people. They do not want that to happen; then they would not have a vendetta they could carry on anymore.

That is why they are going to oppose what the honourable member for Inkster is talking about, while I and my colleagues would support the approach suggested by the honourable member for Inkster. That is why I thought it was necessary for me to say I think we need to waive the rules in order to do what this motion suggests under a question of privilege. If this should fail for whatever reason and if the honourable member wants to put a notice on the Order Paper for such a meeting to happen, I and my colleagues would be only too happy to entertain it and indeed to agree with it. Why will the NDP not?

Why do they not want to sit down like normal, reasonable people and discuss our differences? Let them answer that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the meantime, I am with the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and so are my colleagues. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Normally I would have already said I have enough information. I am going to hear from one more member here. Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will just be very short in my comments. I was just reading a book here, and it refers to a quote by Sir Robert Borden. I do not know what his- members here may know his party affiliation.

Well, regardless of it, his words belong to no party. In the highest ideal party government, two parties unite in generous rivalry for the service of the state, and a rivalry should be generous, but at all times the ultimate purpose should be service to the province of Manitoba. Now, I am on leave from the police force. I may return for the police force but, in the time that I am in this Chamber, I would like to debate important issues, I would like to contribute what I can, and I would like to move on.

I feel that my privileges as a member to do that are being hampered by keeping bringing forward this subject-[interjection] No, the motion was a way of finally resolving this. The official opposition, from the time the Speaker was appointed, made comments about how they were disappointed that Speaker Rocan did not continue. So right from the outset they had a bias against the present Speaker, and then they use that bias now, and that is fine, people can have biases, but now it is interfering with my privileges.

I was looking so forward, this is the session of the Legislature that I was looking forward to more than any other, because I was going to listen more carefully than I ever have to the Throne Speech Debate. I wanted to hear the opposition members. I wanted to hear what they had to say about the throne speech to help me decide how to vote. I wanted to hear very carefully, but what are we doing? On and on and on about the Speaker, holding us back from doing the business of government, and I am tired of it. We should be moving on and dealing with the business.

So I support the motion brought forward, and I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my advice to you is that we should proceed with it so this issue could be resolved. If people can get together-they make fun and said, do you want to get together for milk and cookies in the Speaker's office? Well, do you know what? Generous rivalry in a statesmanly way would be a way to deal with this. They want to form government next time.

Well, let us show them, do it in a way that they could get together with people to resolve situations, instead of continually this partisan way with their vendetta against the Speaker, interfering with our doing the business of government. Mr. Deputy Speaker: A matter of privilege is a very serious matter, and I do not take them lightly, and I know that honourable members do not. I would pref er to take it under advisement, but I am willing to see if there is a will of the House to debate it at this time. Is it the will of the House to debate this at this time? Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I know the government House leader indicated on the record he has no problem with waiving the rules. We in the

December 2, 1997 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 3 opposition are quite aware of that, but I do not believe this is a legitimate matter of privilege. I would like to hear your ruling on that. [interjection] It is not a matter of shame, I think if the government House leader would care to listen on that. But the matter made reference to this House calling for a meeting, which is not a matter of privilege, first of all, and second of all is avoiding the reality of the fact that we have stated very clearly on the record that we do not have any more confidence in this Speaker.

It is not a question of personalities; it is based on her actions in this House. I would appreciate your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this matter, and until that time I would suggest you either make the ruling or take it under advisement. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Thompson for that. At this time, I am not prepared to make a ruling, so I will be taking it under advisement and reporting back to the House. Members' Statements Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will now move on to Members' Statements. Manitoba Winter Games Mr.

Edward He1wer (Gimli): From March 4 to March 8, 19 98, Gimli will host the MTS Manitoba Games. As the MLA for the Gimli constituency, it is a real pleasure to see the tremendous progress that the organizers have made in preparation of these games. Amateur sport makes a significant contribution to the economic, social and physical well-being of our province, and these games will have an important impact on the Interlake. * (1610 ) Gimli will be the host community and the focal point for the games, but other Interlake communities will also be actively involved.

Some hockey and ringette events will be held at Winnipeg Beach. The five-pin bowling competition will be held in Selkirk, and the alpine skiing will be held at Stony Mountain. By working together and using facilities in surrounding communities, organizers will be able to stage events that will be enjoyed by many more people, and this will benefit the whole Interlake area. Approximately 1 ,600 athletes, coaches and volunteers will make their way to Gimli and the area to participate in the Manitoba Winter Games, and the games will represent the largest continuing multisport competition ever held in Manitoba.

I am sure that all the visitors and all the athletes will be overwhelmed by the hospitality and generosity that they will experience in the Gimli and in the Interlake area. So I would like to congratulate all the games organizers for their hard work in bringing the games to Gimli, and I want to wish them success in their future games. Thank you. Child Poverty Rate Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask permission to make a member's statement. An Honourable Member: You do not have to. Ms. McGiff ord: I do not need permission. Well, that is good. One never knows for sure. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, last Thursday, November 27, the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg held a public meeting and issued its child poverty in Winnipeg 1997 report card. There was an interesting juxtaposition of events this day, for this very same day the Lieutenant Governor read the Speech from the Throne. The Social Planning Council told us that Manitoba had the third highest child poverty rate in Canada. We lag behind only Newfoundland and New Brunswick.

Later that same day, this government assured us through the throne speech that, and here I quote: "Manitoba is recognized across the continent and abroad as one of the top provinces in Canada for new investment opportunities and sustained growth." Yet despite this reputation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Manitoba has the third highest rate of child poverty in Canada, and, furthermore, in Winnipeg 35 percent of aboriginal households with children live in poverty. How to explain this anomaly-booming economic

11 4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 19 97 prosperity and the shame of a province where 23 percent or one in four children live in poverty. Well, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) took a stab at it. She said, and this was reported in the Free Press on Friday, November 29, that her government did not believe in handouts, and consequently they would not resort to the rainy day fund to assist families on welfare. They believe in jobs and would find jobs for parents.

The question she evaded and the information which she chose to ignore was that huge numbers of Manitoba's poor children live in families where both parents are working. They are just not making a decent income. I note here that we have the third lowest minimum wage in Canada. The logical conclusion is clear. [interjection] May I finish my sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I can conclude? I want to thank the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg for their report. We urge this government to adopt their recommendations, to put children first.

Remember children are our greatest resource, our hope for the future and our best teachers. Maple Leaf Foods Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is truly a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to add a note to indeed a tremendous achievement for the province of Manitoba. Earlier today, as members know, it was announced that Maple LeafFoods will be investing $1 12 million in Manitoba's economy in the construction of a state-of-the-art, world class hog processing facility in the city of Brandon. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was pleased to hear that the member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans) indicated his support for Maple Leaf meats, as well as acknowledgement of the efforts and all of the departments of this government to bring this project to Manitoba. For the 2,200 people who will find employment eventually in this plant, the announcement of Maple Leaf meats is another indicator that Manitoba is experiencing a strong sustainable economic growth. The announcement today is a result of a government that has worked hard to nurture an industry as part of an overall plan to diversify our economic base.

It is a result of a government that has worked hard with all stakeholders to promote an industry while putting in place the environmental parameters needed to ensure its sustainability. Madam Speaker in the Chair Madam Speaker, the pork that is processed in the Brandon facility will find its way into markets around the world. It will assist in distributing the finest pork in the world, and it will help distinguish our province as truly a global competitor and will undoubtedly pave the way for an even brighter future and further investment in our province.

Today, it is a day that all residents of Manitoba should stand proud. It is another day that Manitoba has shown that it is growing even stronger. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Commendation of Brian O'Leary Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I just rise to make a few comments about an incident that happened in The Maples in front of the Maples Collegiate yesterday, and I will not speak about the incident because it will be before the courts.

My daughter attends Maples Collegiate, and myself and many other parents in the community were very concerned, but I want to commend the principal of the school, Brian O'Leary. [interjection] Right, and apparently he is a constituent. I believe he might even be a member of the opposition party. I do not know, but that is not why I am rising. What he did yesterday, he made an announcement over the public address system at the high school after the incident, cooling the situation, commending the students for their behaviour afterwards not to get overexcited and take any retaliation in any way, shape or form.

He assembled a group of counsellors that dealt with the students, and his quick reaction, I think, lessened the seriousness of what could have happened after this incident, which could have transpired into further incidents. So I commend the principal of Maples Collegiate, Brian O'Leary, for his quick action yesterday. Thank you. Philippine President Fidel Ramos Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I would like to just say a few words. I know the member for Broadway

December 2, 19 97 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 115 (Mr. Santos) had the opportunity yesterday actually to comment on the visit of President Ramos from the Philippines. I, too, wanted to echo many of the comments that the member for Broadway had put forward. I was really thrilled with the response in Winnipeg in particular to the president's visit.

I know that there were literally hundreds of members from the Filipino community, a number of them very good, personal, close friends of mine, who had the opportunity to be able to meet with the president and to extend my hearty congratulations to all those that were involved in getting the president of the Philippines to come to visit, from Dr. Rey Pagtakhan to the Premier and whomever else was involved in having, inviting if you like, the president of the Philippines to come here, because it did give a very big boost to a lot of people who reside here.

He was warmly welcomed and hopefully we will see, if not him, his replacement sometime in the not too distant future. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (Third Day of Debate) Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) an amendment thereto, standing in the name of the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) who has 25 minutes remaining. *( 16 20) Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

As I ended off yesterday indicating the trauma that many of the people that experienced the flood of the century was like sailing into the North Atlantic Ocean on a small ship and experiencing one of the North Atlantic storms. The unknown that happened during this flood was very similar, and the many people that came to the rescue when the ship was about to sink will never be forgotten by those who experienced the kind of trauma that one can only experience when one has an ocean of water start slowly creeping up around your house. It gives one that sinking feeling.

So many people are very, very happy today that the province saw fit to enhance the diking program that was initially announced by the federal and provincial governments, a $24-million program, and that our Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura) and our Minister ofNatural Resources (Mr. Cummings) jointly announced would be increased. We had asked on a number of occasions the federal government to increase the floodproofing program. They have not yet decided to do that.

However our ministers and our government indicated clearly that we must set at ease the people in the Red River Valley and allow them to continue to protect their homes and their properties. So we increased that portion of floodproofing by $34 million. Madam Speaker, that and the other announcement, the other changes that were made whereby we set aside the deductibles and the depreciation on essential items of homeowners has allayed most of the fear that I heard expressed during and after the flood. Most people, after the waters were gone, started putting their lives back together.

Many people in the Red River Valley are agricultural people, farmers, and they started putting their crop in as they normally had. However, back in July, roughly about July 20, they experienced something that they had not seen again in a while and that was a rainstorm that went through and dumped between six and eight inches of rain into the valley, drowning many of the crops.

But one of the key things that attributed to much of the flooding the second time in a year was the closed-in and silted ditches that most farmers in the Red River Valley depend on to take away the waters during the summer months when we have heavy rains. So those are some of the things that farmers experienced. I guess, through all this disaster that the communities in the valley experienced, none is more important than the recognition of communities actually putting their lives back together and getting on with doing the ordinary business of the day.

So our government has clearly indicated our support for the agricultural industry through many programs that have been initiated and encouraged the diversification of agriculture in our province. And

11 6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 19 97 diversify, it really has done. The announcement today of a new hog-processing plant in Brandon, Manitoba, the expansion of hog processing in this city is clearly something that farmers, a secondary industry, have been looking forward to for quite some time. It is a clear indication of the confidence that has been demonstrated by the initiation of our government over the last 10 years to get our economic house in order. It is an indication that industries from outside of this province want to move here and make their homes here.

It is an indication that unemployment has dropped and will drop further to the lowest level of virtually any province within Canada, and I think that is a compliment to the people of this province for putting together their minds as well as their resources and building this economy and that can only happen if government supports those initiatives. Under the new Manitoba Pork Advantage, a hog production and marketing program sponsored by the government and industry has taken place, and Manitoba Agriculture has been promoting the potential of the province's pork industry.

It is a tribute to our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enos) for recognizing that through adversity can come prosperity. Many people were seeing as an adverse move the federal government's doing away with the Crow benefit, taking out of the hands of agricultural people throughout western Canada income of $750 million annually. There is no other industry in this country that has ever experienced that kind of reduction in government support in any given year. They did it in one year, like that.

It is about time that we recognize that the agricultural community and the industries supporting it turned around and said: Let us take advantage of a disadvantage. And that is where Manitobans shine; that is where Manitoba producers shine. They were not afraid to invest in an area of the agricultural community that gave them the competitive advantage.

We now know that because we are going to have the highest freight costs on grain, on raw products, grain being moved out of this province, that at the same time designates it as the cheapest feed supplement in this country, and therefore processing of many of the other commodities, I believe, will have a real advantage in Manitoba. We can build on those advantages and the pork industry is doing that. I think the 2,000 to 3,000 jobs that will be created by the announcement that the minister made today is a very significant factor. There will be a tremendous advantage for the city of Brandon.

It will be a clear indication to people in western Manitoba that they are in an advantageous position to take advantage of that industry, and it will also be an advantage to all Manitoba producers. But there are other aspects of the industry that it will have a great impact on, I believe, and that is our secondary manufacturing sector. Much of the equipment that will be needed in the production of the hog industry will be manufactured by local manufacturers, by small manufacturing plants all across this province and in the city of Winnipeg.

I believe that the initiatives that the Department of Agriculture put in place through the Farm Credit Corporation implementing the new credit corporation Diversification Loan Guarantee Program is a very significant program that will encourage further production and further expansion of other industries. We know that producers in the province have no hesitation at all to invest, but they want an assurance that the province, the government of the day, will not deviate too dramatically in their policies and their taxation initiatives.

I had the pleasure, Madam Speaker, of chairing the value-added task force a year and a half ago, and I was very proud to be associated with Merv Tweed, the member for Turtle Mountain, and Frank Pitura, the Minister of Government Services, when we toured the province. We heard people from all across this province tell us constantly, you as a government have a responsibility, a responsibility to search out the markets.

I have heard snide remarks from time to time from opposition members when our ministers have travelled abroad on trade missions and those kinds of things, and clearly people in Manitoba indicated during our task force hearing that that is one of the key things that was missing in their ability. So people said continue this, expand this. Bring us back the information. Tell us where the markets are. This is what they were asking for. They needed somebody to go out and search out the markets for them. They are quite willing to make the investments, to do the

December 2, 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 7 processing, to add the value, but they told us that they did not have the marketing expertise that was required nor did they have the resources required to go out on trade missions by themselves continually. So our government is doing exactly that. Our government has initiated a significant number of the recommendations made in the task force report.

We believe that while government can continue to play the catalyst to change the success and efforts to expand the value-added activity in rural Manitoba, and indeed all of Manitoba, it hinges in large part nn the willingness of Manitobans to form a partnership and play the role, the key role of investment broker in the expansion of our industries. We think it needs an attitude, a positive attitude. We believe that it is government that can nurture this positive attitude.

We believe that there needs to be an adequate vision, that government must have a broad enough vision to put forward a long-term plan and indicate that we are not about to waver from that plan every time there is a ripple or an effect such as the flood of the century to make us change course. People expect us to remain on course with our policies. * (1 630) There is one thing that I think we need to talk about and discuss, and that is the environmental effect of much of the development that will take place, and most farmers know the value of the by-products of the agricultural expansion in the livestock sector.

One of the key elements of the by-products is the fertilizer, the fertilizer that we can utilize which is one of the most natural products for the enhancement of crop production that we can find anywhere in the world. I have always been concerned that manufactured products for fertilizer and other kinds of things, there should be some caution used. However, the livestock by-products give us back the opportunity to put fertilizers on our land from the most natural source anywhere in the world.

I think we need to practise care and caution when we store those by-products to allow farmers to utilize them when the crops need them most, and that is for application in the spring or the fall of the year, to utilize them in such a way that they will not deter the longevity of the industry and our ability for our children to be able to take on the production of agricultural goods in the future.

That means simply that we must maintain vigilance about the quality of our water and our land over the long term, that we must take care not to pollute as some have raised some severe concerns, and they should be concerned. We should all be concerned.

But it is our government's intention, and has been continually, to review constantly the processes and procedures of production, as we should, and encourage that the environmentally safe conduct of the operations in all parts of the province be maintained at such a level that we do not destroy the basic elements of agricultural food production, and that is our land and our water. We believe that there are a significant number of things that can happen in the province and should happen, but recognizing again full well that there are some very primary elements that need some support, some broader-based support.

One of them is our transportation system. We have allowed the railways basically free access now to do away with branch lines through the deregulation process in our transportation system. During the debate of the Crow during the past decade or so it was clearly indicated the impact to the municipal and provincial road structure would be immense, and we now see that happening. Many of our secondary roads are really suffering the consequences of a much, much greater degree of truck traffic, and we knew this would happen.

I think this will be expanded greatly, and therefore we are becoming more dependent on increased revenue into our road construction system both through the municipal sector and the provincial sector. We believe and I believe that it is imperative that the federal government take part, at least part of the Crow benefit that they pocketed, part of the $750 million, and I would say even give us back 50 percent of that.

Give the provinces back 50 percent of that and that would mean to the province of Manitoba that we would receive better than $15 0 million annually from provincial revenues, and they would still save $350 million that they could put in their bank account. I also believe that it is imperative that the federal government should relegate some of the monies that they raise through fuel taxes back to the provinces for the construction of roads. There does not need to be any further increase in taxation as some of the federal mini sters have indicated they might do. There is no

11 8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 2, 19 97 need fo r that. All they need to do is transf er some of the monies that they are already raising back to the provinces. We could see a dramatic increase in road construction on a long-term basis in the province of Manitoba, as we should, and we are going to have to. If we do not, Manitoba taxpayers are going to bear the brunt of the decision on the Crow benefit as they are now, and I do not believe that that is fai r. Nor is it right.

I am extremely fo rtunate in my constituency, extremely fo rtunate, to be a member that represents an area of the province that has seen the greatest growth rate in all of Canada over the last eight to 10 years. It makes me extremely proud to be a member of those communities. But it takes a tremendous amount of ef f ort. It takes a fo rtitude that can only be expressed with confidence, and it takes a confidence in an economy and in a country. I believe that the people in southern Manitoba and the southeast part of Manitoba have that confidence in their country.

They are true Canadians, but they also have expectations. But because they are confident in the economy of this province they have invested very substantially, and we have seen very signifi cant growth in those areas. Some of the community loans programs that we have put fo rward have been taken up by communities and community organizations such as the Montcalm Community Development Corporation, and I was quite proud to be involved in putting in place a program that will now see $75,000 be loaned to small industries and small businesses in the Montcalm area. I congratulate our Minister of Rural Development (Mr.

Derkach) for having put that program in place because it truly supports the economic base of our province, and that is the small business community because they are, after all, the people who initiate most of the job creation in this province. The Grow Bonds Program is another program that I think has done a tremendous amount and can do a tremendous amount more if it is directed in the right way to see growth expanded in communities.

I believe that the $21 -million water project that was initiated by the Pembina Valley Development Corporation and the Pembina Valley Water Co operative two years ago is a step in the right direction. It will provide a security of water supply to virtually all of the communities south of Winnipeg in the Red River Valley, and that is, of course, what they need to expand and create growth. So we see that virtually all of the communities will see part of that growth. I am extremely proud to see that Friesens Corporation in Altona is again expanding.

This is the third expansion in the last decade that they are into, and this is a company that has demonstrated to all Canadians, indeed all North Americans, that you do not have to be located in a major city in order to be a leader in the industry. Friesen Printers-David Friesen is now at the head of the corporation-i s clearly a very aggressive company, an aggressive organization, recognizing what it means to utilize the resources in your own community and cause growth by those kinds of initiatives, and the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf 4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	82693e3b00ffaa7c610dc1aada09861417882b84

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