Manitoba Hansard — 27 June 2000 (Sitting 52, 37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-52

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session -Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. L No. 52- I :30 p.m., Tuesday, June 27, 2000

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARRETf, Becky, lion. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CIIOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Bon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAlJRSCIIOU, David FILMON, Gary FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESIIAMMER, Harold IIELWER, Edward IIICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATIILIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, lion.

MIIIYCliUK, MaryAnn, lion. MITCHELSON, Bonnie NEVAKSIIONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, lion. SANTOS, Conrad SCIIELLENBERG, !larry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, lion. SMITH, Joy SMITII , Scott STEFANSON, Eric STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCIHJK, Rosann, llon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

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

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. I'.C. PC . P.C. I'.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.I'. I'.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. I'.C. N.D.P. I'.C. N.D.I'. I'.C. N.D.P. I'.C. N.D.P.

3247 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, June 27, 2000 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Conrad Santos (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker. the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that the report ofthe Committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Mr.

Speaker: I am pleased to table in the House the reports of members' expenses for the year ended March 3 I. 2000, in compliance with Sec tion 38( 1) of the Indemnities, Allowances and Retirement Benefits Regulations. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the gallery where we have with us today the Hadhirgaan Traditional Music Group from Orkney, Scotland. This group is under the direction of Mr. Douglas Montgomery. On be half of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Freedom of Information Act Breach Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First Minister. Yesterday, after the First Minister, I assume, had the opportunity to read the Ombudsman's report, which it did not appear he had done during Question Period, he indicated to the media, in fact he admitted, that his office had, in fact, broken the freedom of information laws. He indicated as well that he would be making reforms to ensure that there would be no interference in the future.

Could the First Minister today inform the House what these reforms are that he will be taking to ensure that his staff no longer break the law? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I believe the requests were two or three days over the period of time allowed. All the information was provided as requested. In fact, as I understand it, all the information that we have been requested to provide has been provided, albeit in this case a couple of days over the limit. We accept responsibility for the fact that they were late, and I accept responsibility for that myself.

Unlike situations in the past where applications had to be made in the courts like the members opposite in government, we have acted to release the information. Consistent with the spirit of the Act, the information must be provided. Mr.

Praznik: I would like to ask the First Minister why he persists in trying to leave the irr,pression that they were only two or three days being late, when the Ombudsman has indicated clearly that the 30-day extension that his staff requested was illegal, and that some of the information was available within a week of being requested, when it took his government over 60 days to provide it. Why does he persist in not coming clean with the people of Manitoba? Mr. Doer: As the Member opposite may know, Mr. Speaker, it allows for a head of a public body to extend the time for an additional 30 days, wherein

section 11 would interfere unreasonably with the operations of the public body.

3248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 Mr. Speaker, we were a new government. Some of the records had not even been submitted. Some of the expense accounts had not even been submitted. We did not have the tour co-ordinators and other staff in place that would be necessary to implement this properly. We accept responsi-bility for being over the 60 days, unlike situa-tions opposite, where members opposite with-held information about the fact that the VL T information was available in every machine in Manitoba, and we had to go to the courts. We released it without going to the courts. * (13 :35) Mr.

Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I ask the First Minister why he insists on trying to say something which the Ombudsman has clearly indicated he is wrong, that the information, I ask him, will he not confirm, will he not appreciate that the Ombudsman has ruled the reason for the 30-day extension was illegal, it did not meet the purposes of the Act, was illegal and that his government did not meet the conditions of The Freedom of Information Act because it extended it for a political reason and not to ascertain whether or not the information should have been released or not, which was the only reason?

Can he confirm that the Ombudsman has in fact chastised his government for being inap propriate in its withholding of that information? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, an example of withholding information for political reasons is to say that the inf ormation by VL Ts, by com munity is not available before the election and only going to court after the election did we find that it is not only available but it is available every hour on the hour at every hotel all across Manitoba, something the members opposite know. That is a political withholding of information. Mr.

Speaker, we were late and we have acknowledged that, and certainly the records should be made available. They were made available and members opposite did not have to go to court to get those records. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, on a question. Mr. Praznik: On a new question, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the Premier, an example of political interference is the one that the Ombudsman has said in his judgment on the actions of the Premier's Office, that the information could have been made available, was not made available because his government was not going to put out the expenses of its ministers until they had a chance to go back and dig back into past years, because they wanted to put it in a context that was illegal. I ask the First Minister again: Will he not acknowledge that his staff and his office acted illegally?

And I ask him again: Will he tell us what reforms he is putting in place to ensure that this will not happen again? Mr. Doer: Under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act-an d we are still awaiting some decisions I suspect on the rights of patients for records with chiropractors, mem bers opposite might want to recall some 12 months later, under that act, Mr. Speaker, the first course of action is to request the informa tion properly from the Government. The Govern ment then must deal with it. The Ombudsman can deal with it thereafter. The next step after that is the courts. Mr.

Speaker, we did release the information. We have released the information. We have acknowledged that it was two or three days after the second extension date, and in the future we think now that the transition has taken place in government that condition will easily be met. as indicated by the report. Breach-Staff Discipline Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, given that the First Minister yesterday promised the media reforms and today has backed away from them, it sounds like this First Minister is not really in charge of his government. Mr.

Speaker, my supplementary question to the First Minister: Will the First Minister tell us what steps he has taken to discipline his staff who have said that it is okay to break the law because we do not like the law?

June 27, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3249 Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have said before in the House that we accept responsibility for the implementation of this law. What steps we have taken-like members opposite, the transition has taken place. Where there were credit cards in place before to keep accurate records, rather than require manual filling out of expense accounts that were not always completed in the first 60 days of office, we have done that. We feel we can. obviously, meet the time limits of the Act as it is designed. * (13:40) Mr. Praznik: Mr.

Speaker. the Premier has not answered the simple question. I ask him again: What steps has he taken to discipline the staff under his charge who have come up with this new Doer defence that "I can break the law if I do not like the law."? What steps has he undertaken to discipline his own press secretary and his Clerk of the Executive Council who have publicly flaunted the law and said they do not have to obey it if they do not like it? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a lot better than the style of the members opposite who said they did not know the law was being broken.

They did not know the vote rigging was going on. They did not know things were going on in the Interlake. Hear no evil, see no evil. accept no evil. We accept our responsibilities, and that is the difference between members opposite and this side of the House. Minister Responsible for The Gaming Control Act Conflict of Interest Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange how we hear the Premier being so sanctimonious about knowing about breaking the law when now we have a minister responsible for ga mbling here in Manitoba who says that- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

I made a ruling yesterday that all members would be addressed by their constituencies and all ministers by their titles. The Honourable Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lemieux) will be addressed as the Honourable Minister for Con sumer and Corporate Affairs or the Honourable Minister of Gaming or the Honourable Minister responsible for The Gaming Act. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please. The Honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order. Point of Order Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The other day you ruled that we could not call the Minister for gambling or the Minister for gaming. The Member clearly stated "the Minister responsible for gambling," and that is clearly within the rules of this House to refer to anyone on that side responsible for an area within their department. This minister is respon sible for gambling. He is also responsible for gaming. He is also responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs. So he is responsible for gambling, and this member has the right to say so. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): On the same point of order. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader is reflecting on you, your role and your ruling. Your ruling made it very clear that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has other certain titles. They are set out in an Order in-Council. If the Opposition House Leader is challenging your ruling, he has a way to do that within the confines of the rules of this House. I ask that he show respect for the rules. Mr.

Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Honourable Official Opposition House Leader, yesterday I made a ruling and I will stick by that ruling. I will ask the co-operation of all honourable members, and if honourable mem-

3250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 bers do not agree with my ruling, there is an avenue. Members can choose that avenue if they wish. But I made a ruling and I have to stay by my ruling. I have no choice, because I am not going to be flip-flopping back and forth on rulings that I make. I am sorry, but that is my ruling, and I will stand by that ruling. Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, with all humble respects, I challenge your ruling. Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of supporting the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed. please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. * (13:45) Formal Vote Mr. Laurendeau: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Yeas and Nays have been called for. Call in the members. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained. Division A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas Aglugub, Allan, Ashton, Asper, Barrett, Caldwell, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Korzeniowski, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGif.ford, Nevakshonoff.

Reid, Robinson, Rondeau, Sale, Santos, Schellenberg, Selinger, Smith (Brandon West), Struthers, Wowchuk. Nays Cummings. Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Faurschou, Gerrard, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Loewen, Maguire, Mitchelson, Penner (Emerson). Penner (Steinbach), Pitura. Praznik, Reimer, Schuler, Smith (Fort Garry), Stefanson, Tweed. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 27, Nays 21. Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained. * * * Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, just a little while ago. the First Minister (Mr.

Doer) was up and he was talking about the perception and the indication of the law of the land in the sense of the com pliance of it. In yesterday's Estimates. we were talking to the Minister of Consumer and Cor porate Affairs (Mr. Lemieux) about the perceived perception of a conflict of interest in his handling and his wife's handling of the First Nations up in Thompson for the establishment of the casino.

At that time, we asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he will ask for a legal opinion as to whether there is a conflict of interest in regard to his dealings with the First Nations casino proposals. Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Well, No. 1. a perceived perception is not against the law, Mr. Speaker. But. secondly. with regard to any kind of conflict or perceived conflict let me unequivocally state that there is no conflict of interest in this matter. Mr. Martin Freedman and Mr.

Nadeau, with regard to recommendations to the Government on the casino proposals, were an independent selection committee which all Manitobans agree that to depoliticize the process was the way to go, instead of treating casinos like beads and blankets and handing them out, base it on a sound business plan, on business principles, which Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freedman have done,

June 27. 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 325 1 and this I think all Manitobans would agree is the way to go. Certainly I just want to say that members opposite are raising questions about perceptions and so on, and I know the perceptions that many Manitobans have of the way they handled gaming in Manitoba and it was not good. Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to be clouding the question. The question is very, very simple. Is there a perception of conflict of interest in regard to his wife working for one of the proponents in Thompson, Manitoba?

Will he seek a legal opinion to see whether there is, in the performance of his responsibilities as minister. a conflict of interest? The guidelines for a minister are very, very specific. Just get the opinion. Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Speaker. I thank the Member for Southdale for the question. My wife, as a lawyer in Manitoba, certainly has an excellent reputation, as her law firm does, and neither my wife nor her law firm had anything to do with any First Nation, in particular the Nelson House proposal with regard to casinos.

Once again I want to state that unequivocally there is no conflict or perceived conflict in this matter. Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that his wife is incompetent or anything. What we are saying is the Minister is placed in the position- Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Govern ment House Leader, on a point of order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if you could direct the Member's attention to Beauchesne's Citations 409 and 410 . He is well aware, I am sure, that supplementary questions require no

preamble. Would you ask the Honourable Member if he came here with a question formulated? Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, the Honourable Government House Leader does have a point of order. Beauchesne's Citation 409(2) advises that a supplementary question should not require a

preamble. *** Mr. Speaker: I would ask the Honourable Member for Southdale to please put your question. Mr. Reimer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question then to the Minister responsible for Gaming: Will the Minister advise Manitobans why he did not avoid the potential conflict of interest entirely by seeking an outside legal opinion? Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble following the logic with regard to conflict. There is no conflict, period, Mr. Speaker, at all. * (1 4:40) Minister Responsible for The Gaming Control Act Conflict of Interest Mr.

Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): I would like to table now-s ince members opposite appear not to ever want to consult it-a copy of The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act. I would like the First Minister to look at

section 8 and I would like him to look at

section 3.1. It is very, very clear that the Act presumes a conflict of interest where the Minister or his/her dependant, a spouse, is employed by someone who has a direct pecuniary interest. Nelson House First Nation is negotiating with that minister for a casino licence. His spouse is employed by that band as a lawyer, albeit in another capacity. All we are asking is if the First Minister will commit today to have this matter referred to the outside lawyer that the Government provides to ascertain whether there is a conflict of interest. It is a very simple caution.

Will he commit to have that forwarded for an opinion today? It would clear up the matter totally. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): After the questions yesterday and the impressions that were left, I went back and inquired and not only is the Minister's spouse not the lawyer for the casino

3252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 proposal, the firm is not representing the band for the casino proposal. I think the Minister has shown proper judgment in disclosing properly under the Act following the conflict of interest guidelines and act. I mentioned yesterday and I will mention again that when a matter, in a general way, was dealing with hydro-electric policy, there was disclosure and withdrawal from Cabinet before this issue was raised by members opposite. We believe the selections by Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freedman were independent of the Minister. Mr.

Praznik: We know that the Doer defence is: We do not like the law so we ignore it. I ask the First Minister if he would just look at the tabled copy of the Act that I provided- Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just like to remind all honourable members I made a ruling earlier that all members would be addressed by their titles or their constituency. So I would ask the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet to please rephrase his question. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, on your point of or der, I was not addressing the member by his name. Mr. Speaker: Doer? Mr.

Praznik: I was referring to a new defence in law called the Doer defence. I was not addressing that to the First Minister. I have always addressed him in this House as the First Minister or the Premier. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): On the point of order, we are seeing an unfortunate pattern in the House today . You have provided a ruling. It is the second ruling today. This is a long-standing series of rulings from the Speakers of this province. The Member opposite referred to the Premier by his surname, which is not in accor dance with the rules of this House.

You made a ruling, and the Opposition member-and I guess I hesitate to raise this, he will call for my resignation, I am sure. But he knows that if he is to reflect on you, that is a contempt of this House, and he has ways under the rules to deal with the ruling that you made. It was a clear ruling. I ask that you remind the Member of the proprieties of the House, and we on this side support your ruling. We respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Of ficial Oppo sition House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order.

If you peruse Hansard, you will find clearly that the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet was using the word "Doer" as an adjective, not a noun. And if you peruse Hansard a little further into the past five or six years, you will find that members on that side ofthe House, on a lot more than one occasion. used "the Filmon govern ment." "the Filmon policies" and "the Filmon issues." That was ruled many times in order.

So. if the members on that side of the House have a problem with using the word "Doer" as an adjective instead of a noun. we will leave it up to you to rule. but I do believe you should take it under advisement. Mr. Speaker: Order.

On the point of order raised, I would like to let the Member know that "Doer defeilce" is, in my opinion. totally "defence" and "Howard Pawley government," or "Doer government" or "Gary Filmon govern ment," where you need to identify which era the Government was in. and I would ask the Honourable Member to rephrase his question and please leave out "the Doer defence." I would ask the Honourable Member to please rephrase his question. * * * Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the First Minister if, in reading

section 3.1 of The Conflict of Interest Act that clearly states that there does not have to be an involvement in this file, that the spouse just has to be employed by the proponent of the project. will he not just be an honourable person and look at the Act and have it referred to the legal counsel to clear the matter, or will he let this continue to drag his own minister down? Will he not just take that

June 27, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3253 advice and refer it to the lawyer that his gov ernment makes available? Mr. Doer: We need no lectures from members opposite, in all the scandals they have been involved in, about being honourable. We con duct our democracy and elections, and we follo w the rules and traditions of democracy. We need no lecture from the Member opposite. Mr. Praznik: I would remind that Premier that today he admitted his own government broke the law, that his office broke the law, that he broke the law, and I would ask this First Min ister to refer this matter- Mr.

Speaker: Order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): The phrase "over the top" comes to mind once again. 1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that you refer the Honourable Member to Beauchesne's Citations 409 and 410 : Supplementary questions require no

preamble. The Member knows that full welL and I ask that you call him to order and ask him to put his question, a simple question. It is a supplementary. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Govern ment House Leader refers to "over the top." He should be referring to honourable members as honourable members. If the Premier had not already admitted to breaking the law, we would not have to continue in this line of questioning. Mr. Speaker: Order.

On the point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader, he does have a point of order. Beauchesne's Citation 409(2) advises that a supplementary question should not require a

preamble. * * * Mr. Speaker: I ask the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet to please put his question. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I ask the First Minis ter, who admitted today his own depart ment broke The Freedom of Information Act, how does he expect any Manitoban to believe that there is no conflict here when he is afraid to put it to his own government lawyers resp onsible for this? How does he belie ve Manitobans will have respect for this process if he is hiding behind some sort of defence when he will not put it to his own lawyer? Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, members that go over the top should recall that, in 1994, members opposite failed to follo w the law in providing a report by March 31, 1994, under The Freedom of Information Act. We then called on the members to remedy that. We did not go over the top day after day with absolute hyperbo le. We accept the fact the time lines were broken by members opposite in the past. We have accepted by three days that we failed to deal properly in a timely basis, but we have also committed ourselves to dealing and improving the situation in the future with the procedures we are taking. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, if the Mem ber opposite feels that

section 20 is in order, I challenge him to use it. * (1 4:50) Crop Insurance Wheat Coverage Levels Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, because of the many areas that have experienced extremely heavy rains over the last couple of weeks, as we all know up to 13 inches in some areas, and because of the severe damage that has been caused in many of the areas, some munici palities having declared themselves disaster areas, the only recourse that farmers have is crop insurance because this government has clearly stated that they will not be involved in any kind of disaster assistance.

Will the Min ister of Agriculture explain why the coverage levels for wheat are almost a third less in Manitoba than they are in Ontario and our

3254 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 premium rates are higher by about 25 percent than Ontario? Why is that? Can she explain that? Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agricul ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, the Member raises an issue that we had a discussion on in Estimates, where the coverage in Ontario is much better than in Manitoba. In fact, I wonder why the Member did not ask this question of his government when they were in power. Nothing has changed.

This is the same level of coverage that we had under the previous government, that we have now, and the Member knows that these are negotiations that take place between the federal and provincial governments. I have to tell the Member that that is one of the reasons that we were very concerned with the negotiations that we had on safety nets, because the formula we have now will result in other provinces, which are wealthier, being able to even provide better crop insurance than we have here in Manitoba. Mr. Jack Penner: Mr.

Spea ker, why is it then that this minister has promised farmers in this province better safety nets under her government than we had previously? She said she would go to Ottawa during the election campaign, and after the election campaign she said she would go to Ottawa and she would see to it that there would be better saf ety nets for this province. Why has this minister then signed an agreement that indicates we will receive 25 percent less in funding under safety nets than Ontario will? Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): On a point of order.

You would think the rule book had never been distributed in this House today. I ask, Mr. Spea ker, that you draw the Member's attention to Beauchesne's. He clearly knows that supplementary questions require no

preamble. He is going on and on and on and asking I think a mouthful of questions. Mr. Speaker: The Member for Emerson, on the same point of order? Mr. Jack Penner: On the same point of order. If the Honourable Government House Leader would peruse the records tomorrow, he will find that I asked a question right up front. Mr. Speaker: I would just like to take this opportunity to remind all members that Beauchesne's 409 advises that a supplementary question should not require a

preamble. I heard the Member ask his question, so I would like to remind all members about the

preamble for supplementary questions. * * * Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker. we were in Agriculture Estimates for over 50 hours. It is unfortunate that the Member still does not understand the fact that we have a framework agreement that has been signed, and in fact we do not have less money. We are going to be maintained at the same level of funding. Other provinces are going to have more money in safety net programs. Mr. Speaker, the Member also knows that this is a follo w-up of many of the things that his government did. particularly in the negotiations of the Crow and in all of those issues.

They should have been negotiating a much better deal for Manitobans, and we would not be caught in the situation that we are right now. Mr. Jack Penner: I wonder if the Minister could explain why she keeps blaming the previous administration for the lack of ability that she has demonstrated in negotiations.

She and her government have clearly indicated-but I want to ask you why it is that this government has not been able to offer assistance to people who suffered during the 1999 flood. and why she is not today going to offer assistance to those municipalities that are suffering disasters today under all the heavy rains that we have had. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Highways and Government Services): I believe the Member is now moving into questions in regard to the state of emergency. I can assure the Member opposite that we do take the emergency situation very seriously.

I know Manitoba Emergency Measures has been involved in the R.M. of Ste. Anne where a local state of emergency was declared. In fact, EMO staff have been working very closely with the affected municipalities. We

June 27, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3255 take it very seriously and certainly would appreciate perhaps if the Member would raise the concerns that are in that area rather than trying to take leaps into the political unknown, as we have seen in this case. because we take it very seriously, and EMO has been there right from the start of the emergency. Health Care System Physiotherapy Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker. my question is for the Minis ter of Health.

One of the goals of Manitoba's health care system surely must be that provincial coverage is provided in a rational and fair man ner ra ther than on an ad hoc basis. Two weeks ago I wrote to the Minis ter about Stephanie Shuper. who is here today, and she is still awaiting the Minis ter's response. Under Mr. Chomiak's watch, prov incial medical coverage is provided for physiotherapy under the watch- Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Govern ment House Leader. on a point of order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, one would think your microphone was not on, but we heard you loud and clear. You clearly admonished the House and gave dir ection that members in this House are to be called by their constituencies and mini sters are to be referred to by their titles. Mr. Speaker. would you please draw the Member's attention to that ruling of today. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for River Heights, on the same point of order. Mr. Gerrard: I will withdraw that comment. Mr. Speaker: I thank the Honourable Member. * * * Mr. Speaker: Would you please conclude your question. Mr.

Gerrard: Under the Minis ter of Health, someone with lymphedema of the arm due to breast cancer is covered for physio therapy treat ment but somebody with lymphedema of the leg, such as Mrs. Shuper, is not covered, in spite of the fact that the physi otherapy has been demonstrated to be effective. My question is: Will the Minis ter change the pro vincial coverage to make it more fair and equitable so that Mrs. Shuper can get the treatment that she so badly needs? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, as is the case in all situations of this kind, I will certainly look into it and provide a response to the Member on this. Mr. Gerrard: Ma question supplementaire au minis tre: Parce que Ia condition medicale de Madame Shuper est progressive sans therapie, a quelle date le minis tre prendra-t- il une decision d'inclure le traitement de physi otherapie pour Madame Shuper dans le programme medical de notre province? [Translation] My supplementary question to the Min ister: Because Mrs.

Shuper's medical condition is progr essive without therapy, at what date will the Min ister make a decision to include physio therapy treatment for Mrs. Shuper within the medical program of our province? Mr. Chomiak: Je voudrais dir e, tout de suite. [Translation] I mean, right away. * (15 :00) Mr.

Gerrard: My second supplementary to the Minis ter of Health: Why does the Mini ster have a more expensive medi care system in Manitoba than is necessary, being ready to pay for the expensive hospital treatment that will result when you are not providing the cost-effective preventive support for the physi otherapy that would prevent Mrs. Shuper having to end up in hospital? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, there are a variety of services that are provided both within

3256 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 institutions and outside of instituti ons. We have made no secret of the fact, but the way the medica re system has grown up over the past decade is problematic. For example, we pay for drugs in the hospital, but in the community we do not. We are taking a look at that. There are some forms of physio therapy that are provided to institutions and some forms that are not. We are taking a look at that. There are a variety of services, a variety of issues, that have to be dealt with across the entire system. We are geared towards a more community-based program.

We have already announced the PACT program. We have already announced the comprehensive cardiac program for this province which is rehabil itativ<!, which is preventative. There are a number of in itiatives that we will be announcing. We will take that issue and we will address that issue. Health Care System Cardiac Care Program Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): My question is for the Minis ter of Health. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and disabil ity in adults and is respon sible for more hospital days and costs than any other health problem.

Could the Minis ter of Health inform members of the House what impact the reorgan ization of the cardio vascular care program in Winnip eg will have on patient care in Manitoba? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House are happy to hear today that we were able to make an announcement to finally put a comprehensive cardiac program in place for all Manitobans.

This $20-million announcement today will see primarily -we were able to accomplish two things in the first year, and that is, we have to stabil ize the loss in the number of specialis ts, cardiologis ts, heart special ists and others in this provin ce-and this starts the process-and, secondly, the woeful state of much of the equip ment and much of the capital equipm ent in the province can be started to be dealt with this year.

It is a comprehensive program that not only provides for cardiac surgery but for cardiac rehab, for a cardiac program, for congestive heart fai lure, something that is offered in other provinces that we are going to be able to offer comprehe nsively. It is the first time the province has an overall approach to cardiac surgery, one program, two sites. I was happy to say I was at the table today with the President of the Health Sciences Centre, the President of the St. Bonif ace Hospital and the President of WRHA to make this announcement. CancerCare Manitoba Staffing Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): After only six months on the job, the senior dir ector of radiation therapy at CancerCare Manitoba has resigned her job. As a woman who has per sonally had a breast cancer scare, this is of par ticular concern to me. I wonder what the Minis ter of Health is going to do to ensure that more senior CancerCare officials do not leave given that doctors at CancerCare Manitoba have warned that patient care is being compromised. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to deal with personal issues in this Chamber.

I can assure the Member that we are aware of this situation over at CancerCare Manitoba. I might say that Cancer Care Manitoba has the same board members that were in existence when the Member opposit e was government. the same management team that was in place when the members opposite were government and the same basic policies and procedures when the members opposite were in government. We are concerned and we will be taking action. Mrs. Driedger: Again, this minis ter did not answer my question. I am wondering what is his plan to ensure that we do not lose more officials fr om CancerCare Manitoba?

What is he planning to do? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, one of our first initia tives when we came into office was to deal with the serious state of waiting lists wit h respect to cancer care, something that members opposite ref used to do. We took action to deal with that treatment and to deal with the progra ms. With respect to reorgan ization, with respect to organ i zational admini strative matters, I can advise the Member that we are reviewing this situation.

June 27, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3257 Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minis ter of Health how he is planning to make CancerCare Manitoba competitive and fill the 1 0 rad iation therapi sts and 10 physicist positions that are empty. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the Member opposite that since they left office, we have hir ed 10 additional radio therapi sts at CancerCare Manitoba. I am also happy to report that the waiting lists are half of what they were when the Member left office.

Having said that, there are difficulties and problems that we are going to address, but we are not going to put our heads into the sand as members opposite did and ignore them. We will take action as we have demonstrated, and we will continue to take action. First Nations Casinos Community Support Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): This government has tried to avoid the issue of community support regard ing the placement of five addi tional casinos. The Premier has stated in this House that his government would not proceed in communities opposed to having a casino in their jurisdic tion.

However, like most things, he has fai led to explain what constitutes community support. Mr. Speaker, can the Minis ter res ponsible for gaming tell this House what his government means when it talks about ensuring local support exists in communities such as Br andon and Headingley? Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Certainly, as we have poi nted out on numerous occasions, this government will not force any community in Manitoba to have a casino if they do not want one. Mr.

Dyck: I am not sure about that answer, but anyway, can the Minis ter resp onsible for gaming, given that he has stated that the final decision will be made by Cabinet, indica te who will be taking the lead on determining community support- the implementation com mittee, the Government or the Min ister himself? Mr. Lemieux: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the people in Manitoba will have a say. I just want to state that this process that we talk about is certainly a lengthy one. The impl ementation team has to go out and meet with Fir st Nations communities.

They have to look at the different issues, which are, in some cases, going to be a real hurdle for many Fi rst Nations communities to be able to clear, but the impl ementation team will certai nly be dealing with the Fir st Nations communities on those issues. We wish the Fi rst Nations communities a lot of luck in this and wish them well because they certainly have a challenge ahead of them to meet those issues and those conditions for success.

Having said that, I know that we are wanting to look at all the benefits with regard to Fir st Nations casinos, whether they be employment or all kinds of opport unities which they may pass on to Fir st Nations communities as a whole. So, members on this si de- Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Dyck: There is not really an answer in that one. How will this mini ster ensure that a con si stent measurement of community support occurs for all proposals so that one community does not hold a ref er endum while another simply has a vote by council? Mr. Lemieux: Mr.

Speaker, I wi ll thank the Member for the question, first of all. I am not going to go down the path in talking about McPhillips and Regent. Certainly I think Manitobans have heard enough of that. An Honourable Member: But you could. Mr. Lemieux: I could, but I am not going to go that route. I am just going to say that we have duly elected governments, munici pal governments, that can determine from their constituents what they feel is the community input into the process.

Some communities have looked at a plebisc ite; other communities would look at petitions; other communities would look at having town hall meetings. There are numerous ways. I, as the Mini ster, and I am sure our government, do not want to dictate to a municipality how they will receive input from their community. They are

3258 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 duly elected and have the responsibility of a government to do that. * (15:1 0) First Nations Casinos Economic Impact Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, on many occasions we on this side of the House have asked the Minister responsible for Lotteries and the Minister respon sible for Finance (Mr. Selinger) what the loss of government revenue will be as a result of the massive expansion of gambling that they have undertaken. Both ministers have admitted that there will be some loss, but they have not admitted the amount.

My question to the Minister responsible for Lotteries: Will she be able to advise Manitobans how much Crown gambling revenue is expected to decline as a result of this massive expansion of gambling in Manitoba? Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): This question is an old question. It has been asked several times, and it has been answered several times. So let me, first of all, say we do not see it as a loss, we see it as a sharing with Aboriginal people in this province.

As I was saying, we do not see the possible aboriginal casinos as a financial drain, we see it as a way of sharing with Aboriginal people in the province, which I have already said. Secondly, let me say that it is very difficult for Lotteries to come to terms with any changes in revenues, because we simply do not know how many aboriginal casinos will be created. This is a process. As the Minister for Gaming has said time after time after time, the selection process is step one in a lengthy process. You know, Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot predict the future. Mr. Loewen: This has obviously not been well thought out.

We have a minister who tells us she is willing to share revenue, has no idea where it is coming from. So I am going to ask the Minister of Finance. Maybe he has the answer. Will this minister confir m that his department is expecting that the loss in gambling revenue to the Crown is going to be in the neighbourhood of $30 mil lion as a result of the expansion of gambling in Manitoba? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The Minister of Lotteries has just explained that we are in the middle of a proces s. The final number of casinos to be established has not been finalized yet.

But I can tell the Member opposite that the greatest financial pressure we are experiencing in the Lotteries area right now is the huge overexpenditure and the fact that the borrowing for that was done off the books and was not planned for. We have to bring that under control in order to control the revenues of Lotteries. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Pembina Valley Park Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): One of Manitoba's greatest assets is its beautiful parklands.

Each one of our provincial parks is home to numerous species of plants and animals and host to breathtaking natural scenery. Every year thousands of Manitobans flock to these pre served areas to enjoy outdoors and celebrate nature. The Pembina region will soon be the sight of a new provincial park. Manitoba Conservation and the Nature Conservancy of Canada are working together to establish a park in the Pembina Valley. The 410-acre park will preserve areas that are representative of the Pembina Hills portion of the Pembina Tiger Hills natural region and accommodate nature-oriented recreational activities.

Parts of the glacial spillway and the river valley ecosystem including deciduous forest and river habitats will be protected in the new park .

June 27, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3259 An open house was held on June 22 at the Conservation district office in Manitou to discuss the proposed park. It was well attended and a lot of great ideas came out of the dis cussions. Thank you to everyone who attended. It was a wonderful time. We had an opportunity to meet with many people. I urge all members to offer their support to the Pembina Valley provincial park initiative. I hope we will all be able to enjoy a new park in the very near future. Jarino Timmerman Mr. Jim Rondeau (Assiniboia): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to bring the entire House's attention to a remark able man. His name is Jarino Ti mmerman of 3200 Portage A venue. This man was born in 1909 in Rotterdam, and right now he swims for Assiniboia and trains at the Centennial Pool in sunny St. James. He moved to Assiniboia in 1992 and took up competitive national swim ming at 78, about 20 years ago. He has represented Manitoba and Canada at the senior swim competitions since. He holds 12 national records. In 1989 he started with the World's Masters and won the 400 gold and the 100- and 200- metre freestyle and came second in those.

In 1990, he won gold in the 50, 200 and 400. In 199 1, he won in the 50, 100, 200 and all those in the freestyle. In 1993, he went to the U.S. Nationals and came first in the 800 metres, first in the 200 metres. second in the 150 metres. I will now skip to the present and he has a Jot of other records. In 1998, he went to the Nationals in Quebec where he won the 100, 200 and 400 gold medals in the fre estyle. This year he will travel to Munich to represent Manitoba and Canada in the World's, and at 91, he figures that he has the best chances for a world championship.

I wish him and all the people in the competition well, and I wish him a great trip and much success. Thank you. Fort Whyte Centre Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, in April of 1999, the Fort Whyte Centre announced their Reaching New Hor izons pro- ject, a project focussed on obtaining and pre serving natural land from commercial and industrial activiti es. Over the past year, the Fort Whyte Centre has undergone many changes. Staff and volunteers at the centre have been busy building watering holes, fencing, building an observation mound, a family tree house and seven new kilometres of walking trails.

The centre also recently opened their new visitor reception and satellite interpretative facilities. Another new addition to the Fort Whyte Centre was the creation of a 70-acre bison prairie which boasts the largest urban-based herd of bison in North America all right there in Fort Whyte. The 35 bison that were released to roam the bison prairie this past weekend are the first on this stretch of land in over 125 years . I would like to commend the staff and the volunteers of the Fort Whyte Centre.

Their continued hard work and dedication is quite evident as their facility continues to grow and lead our community in terms of conservation, education and ecotourism. Victims' Rights Ms. Nancy Allan (St Vital): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a governm ent that has been making legislative strides on all fronts, and particularly in the area of justice. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) and his staff for introducing the innovative and much-needed victims' bill of rights.

When passed into legislation, the Bill will make us the first province ever in Canada to have a comprehensive and enforceable victims' rights law. It will be a historic moment in the Canadian justice system. For too long, the rights of victims have been passed over, even while the rights of of fenders have been entrenched by Canada's Charter of Rights. Our bill will rebalance the justice system by requiring justice officials to inform and consult victims as their cases proceed through the system. Families of homicide victims will be entitled to free counselling services.

It is not just a matter of restoring faith in the justice system but investing in the health of families, as well. It

3260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 has been most heartwarm ing to see the favourable responses to the proposed bill from victims and their families. * (15:20) The victims' bill of rights follows on the heels of the Child Victim Support Initia tive introduced by the Minis ter of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) in April, which restructures the justice system to meet the needs of children. This initiative, too, is a fir st for Manitoba, one that puts us at the forefront in Canada in terms of measures for dealing respectfully and effectively with child victims. Natural Resources Officers Mr.

Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind all members of this House that we recently saw the Manitoba Natural Resources officers come to the Legislature to indica te that they would like some attention given to their demands and their salary concerns. I want to put on the record that indeed these resource officers have proven themselves to be some of the most loyal and dedicated employees of government, that they have in fact deported themselves very well on occasions when they were called upon to provide service above and beyond the requir ements of normal duty.

I only need to point to the flood of 1997 when the Natural Resource officers behind the scenes probably carried the major portion of the workload in fighting that flood and dir ecting the efforts that were put forward on behalf of Manitobans. Their dedication in the areas of resource management, enforc ement, fire control, flood response has led them to a high level of credibili ty in the public, and yet, because they work with resources, because they often work by themselves in rural settings, very often we do not appreciate the efforts and the personal sacrifice that they and their families often make.

So I would encourage all members of this House to think car efully about the issues that they raise and respond accord ingly. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call the second readings of Bi lls 4, 17 and 30. SECOND READINGS Bill 4-The Elections Finances Amendment Act Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I move, seconded by the Honourable Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 4, The Elections Fin ances Amendment Act (Loi modifia nt Ia

Loi sur le financement des campagnes electorales), be now read a second time and be ref erred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, members of the Chamber, this election, along with Bill 17 , is a step towards, we believe, strengthening democ racy in the electoral process in Manitoba. It proposes to amend The Elections Fi nances Act in a number of ways which were promised during the election campaign and are now being introduced to this Chamber as consistent with the election promises.

The Bill proposes a number of changes that would limit the source and the amount of contribution to political parti es. It would rectify the problem of union and corporate donations by prohibiting corpora tions and unions and other organiz ations. including federal politic al parties, from making political contri butions, and it will limit the contributions from individu als. This bill proposes a level playing field so that all political par ties will be more dependent on individuals, and to ensure democracy, only residents of Manitoba will be able to contribute.

In order to ensure individuals do not have an undue influence on the political process, a $3,000 limit has been placed on indiv idual donations. As in the current act, a source of contributions must be disclosed and transpare nt. Donations directly must be contributed, not through, and I must repeat, not through intermediaries. The reaffirmation of this process and provi sion will help prevent attempts to ci rcumvent the individ ual restri ctions.

The Bill makes a number of changes to the limits of contributions and requires that full disclosure of names and records be maintained and filed with the Chief Electoral Officer. There are a number

June 27, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 326 1 of other technical changes dealing with references to organizati ons and trust funds. The Bill also proposes election advertising limi ts and non-election period adver tising li mits as recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer a couple of years ago. There are limi ts on elections adverti sing for both the parti es and the candidates. In the 1983 Elections Act in Manitoba, we were the first province to employ election advertising limits.

Those lim its were repealed. not with the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer in 1998, and we are reinsta ting those principles in the law. That means of course that there will be a balance between media advertising and the old-fashioned political campaigning that we feel is impor tant to have as part of the fundamental elements of an election campaign. We are proposing the same CPI adjustment as in the Act of 1998, and it has been reins tated from the 1983 pro visions. We are proposing an annual limit of $50.000 in adverti sing for each political party .

So agai n it is consi stent with the principle of political fund limita tions, reasonable limits in a democratic soci ety that this measure is in place. We would note that Saskatchewan has an adverti sing limit and so does New Brunswick. We will adjust that also, accord ingly. Our proposal is to adjust that also by an annual CPl. The Chief Electoral Officer has recom mended that we deal with reasonable limi ts for third-pa rty spending of orga niz ations. This bill deals with third- party adverti sing, both in terms of the direct parti san adverti sing and the non partisan advertising which is allowed.

The prov isions allow for the registrat ion of third par ties, the maintenance of rules to make sure there are no "front groups" for organiza tions and politi cal par ties. This act, of course, to ensure there is a little teeth in the Act, will increase the fines for offences under this act, and we will ensure the polling and related costs will now be considered an election expense and not outside of The Elections Act. Mr.

Speaker, we believe that in this act are steps in the traditions of Manitoba, where people, ideas, policies and the exercise of those ideas and people are the fundamental tenets of democracy, and I would recommend that all members of this Chamber take the historic step forward and help us ban union-c orporate donations here in Manitoba as this step. Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gill eshammer), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 17-The Elections Amendment Act Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, move, seconded by the Honourable Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 17, The Elections Amendment Act; Loi modifia nt Ia Loi electorale, be now read a second time and ref erred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Doer: Again, members of the Chamber, this act is consistent and works as a companion piece to Bi ll 4 and, we believe, steps in a positive direction for the people of this province.

The first imp ortant change to this act is fulfilling a long-term recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer to take the Cabinet out of appointing returning officers and to delegate that function from this Legislature and from Cabinet to the Chief Electoral Officer. I think that this is a clause that is long overdue. We are delegating our legislative authority and properly placing it with the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Speaker. This is a long-standing recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer.

This bill also provides that, in the case of a tie, this bill will remove parti sanship from the role of the returning officers so that, in the case of a tie, a by-election will be called so the tie will be broken by the people and not by a person appointed by Cabinet, again, a very positive change. * (1 5:30) Mr. Speaker, we are shortening the election period by a modest amount. We looked at the idea of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskat chewan, Ontario, and a number of other

3262 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 provinces that are now at 28 days. We thought the idea that most people have the weekends off, most people, not all people, of course, that we could have five weekends in an election campaign with still having the vote on a Tuesday. I would exclude farmers from that, of course, who work seven days a week, 24 hours a day. So this act will still maintain Manitoba as one of the longest election periods for a provincial election, but we think it is a good measure, a positive measure forward .

For most people, it will mean you have a couple of days to get a campaign headquarters and you can rent it for 30 days instead of for 60 days because of the 35-day pro vision. So it mi ght take away some of the high expense. I know members opposite are not concerned about that, but for those of us of modest means, this is not a bad measure forward, in keeping with democracy. The re vision will be changed accordingly, the advanced polls changed accordingly.

But because of that, there will be the abil ity to have separate registration desks at the polling station to ensure that Manitoba's unique qualities of allowing democracy at the polling station will not unduly congest and restrict the right of people to vote with long lineups. We are also propo sing some leave provi sions simi lar to jury duty. The rights of citiz ens, subject to opera tional consi derations of a company, to par tic ipate (

a) as candidates once nomi nated; (

b) to par tici pate as staff or officials of Elections Manitoba; and (

c) a limited number of people to par ticipa te in each constituency and with each registered political party as unpaid volunteers in a campaign every four years. We feel that, subject to opera tional require ments, this is a positive step forward in civic oppor tunities. It is consistent with the view that jury duty is an im portant respo nsibil ity in a democr acy and so are elections. These pro visions provide for that kind of duty, subject to a number of rules and regulations and subject to an independent process that would evaluate these leave pro visions.

In other words, we have to have a situation where there is somebody that could adjudica te any dispute between an em ployer and an employee on leave. I think that this, over time, will be perceived as a very positive step forward and very much in keeping with the kind of unpaid leaves that we have in United Way campaigns and other cam paigns, jury duties and other things. For people that so choose, Mr. Speaker, this is a voluntary arran gement for unpaid leave in a campaign.

We are clarif ying the rights to campaign and canvass during a campaign of multiple resi dences and ensuring the rights of those hospitals and personal care homes are protected in terms of reasonable access. We are also allowing for the abil ity to disp lay signs in multiple-dwelling residences. That is agai n part of democracy. There has been a lot of confusion on behalf of tenants and landlords.

I am sure members opposite would lik e to clarif y the ambiguity of that situation and make it clear that residents and the landlords of a building have equal rights to disp lay their politic al choices in this campaign, Mr. Speaker, a novel idea, I am sure, for the members opposite, but I do believe it is a non

part isan idea and will be generally supported by members opposite. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that this bi ll proposes to have the abil ity to have the rules simi lar to jury duty for elections and to have the Chief Electoral Offi cer hire the returning officers rather than a partisan Cabinet is worthy of support from all members of this Chamber Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): I move. seconded by the Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings), that debate be adjo urned. Motion agreed to. Bill 30-The Social Services Administration Amendment Act Hon.

Tim Sale (Minister of Family Services and Housing): I move, seconded by the Minis ter of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 30, The Social Services Adminis tration Amendment Act; Loi modifia nt Ia

Loi sur les services sociaux, now be read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented.

June 27, 2000 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3263 Mr. Sale: Bill 30 is

an act that primarily intends to strengthen provincial licensing provisions for residential care facilities. It also contains a number of minor wording amendments to bring the underlying act up to date in regard to issues like gender neutrality and so forth. Under The Social Services Administration Act. the Department of Family Services and Housing is responsible for licensing several hundred residential facilities that provide care to adults with a mental disability, a mental disorder. or an infirmity of aging. There are two classes of licensing, one for residents with four or more adult residents.

They are issued licences. Smaller facilities, including foster care arrangements, are issued letters of approval. The intent of the Act is to ensure a safe residential environment for adults who reside in these facilities and the Act and its accompanying regulations are quite old now. They were introduced in the early 1980s and have not been amended or updated. So this is also an appropriate time to take a look at the Act from the point of a view of its current relevance and to bring it up to date.

In the past 20 years, as members know, there has been a huge expansion of community-based care for vulnerable adults. In fact there are over 3400 adults with mental retardation living in our communities across Manitoba today, and this act, in an important way, safeguards the quality of their lives and gives them protections. The Act will provide a more effective framework for ensuring that quality care is being provided throughout the province.

I should add that, once the Bill is passed, extensive consultations will be undertaken with service providers, facility residents and their families about the revisions to licensing regulations. We did consult with the care providing community prior to completing the amendments as well, Mr. Speaker. The major amendments under this bill relate to appeal provisions and procedures, the appointment and powers of inspectors, the right to issue com pl iance orders, the appointment in rare circum stances of provisional administrators, and of course, the establishment of regulations.

I want to just deal briefly with each of these headings. Under The Social Services Adminis tration Act, a person can appeal a decision by a licensing authority to refuse to issue a licence or to suspend or to cancel a licence, and appeals are heard by the Social Services Advisory Com mittee. Currently, decisions made by that com mittee can be appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench, in which case all evidence presented to the Committee is disregarded and a new appeal, a hearing de novo, takes place.

Bill 30 would amend the Act to change the appeal process to become the Court of Appeal and the grounds for appeal would be limited to questions of law or jurisdiction, which reinforce the role of the Social Services Advisory Com mittee as the primary appeal body for licensing decisions. These changes are also being made to make the appeal process consistent with other pieces of legislation such as The Employ ment and Income Assi stance Act, The Child and Family Services Act and the Employment Standards Code.

In addition, the time allowed for an appeal to be launched is being lengthened to give more fairness to residential care providers. The current appeal time in the Act is 10 days; it is being lengthened to 30 days. The appointment and power of inspectors is also changed under this set of amendments. The current regulations provide the Minis ter with the power to appoint inspectors, and the powers of the inspectors in carrying out their duties are listed in both the Act and the regulations. The proposed amendments will bring both the authority to appoint inspectors and the powers into the Act.

In other words, they will remove the discretionary capacity of regulations so that the process of regulating appointment and duties of inspectors is in the legislation itself, and the powers have been updated to include the inspection of information kept in electronic format. * (15 :40) On the matter of compliance orders, there are no provisions in the current act or regulations to issue written compliance orders. So, when an inspector finds a facility is in non-compliance, he or she is required to give 60 days' notice from that point forward, before notice of suspension or cancellation.

3264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA June 27, 2000 Further to this, the licensing authority must give a reasonable time period to rectify the situation. Now, I am sure, as members can appreciate, when you have vul nerable adults living in a residential care facility, you do not want substantial non-compliance to continue for two or three months while an order is complied with, an order of safety for exa mple or a staff order, an order in regard to the handling of drugs or medication.

So the proposed amendments will provide inspectors with the authority to issue written compliance orders that set reasonable periods for compliance at the point of the inspection. These changes will provide the inspectors and service providers with more flexibil ity in directly addressing licensing deficiencies or problems. On the matter of the appointment of a provisional administrator, there are currently no provisions in the Act that provide for the appointment of a pr ovisional administrator.

Other pieces of legisla tion that have similar function covering services to vulnerable people, for example, contain such provisions. Provisions can be found in The Child and Family Services Act, The Community Child Day Care Standards Act and The Regional Health Authorities Act which is applicable to personal care homes. As with these other pieces of legisla tion, the appointment of a provisional administrator is clearly a last-resort measure where the residents of a care facil ity have their safety or well- being threatened, and cannot be accommodated quickly or adequately in an alternative facility.

The proposed amendments provide that a provisional administrator can be appointed by written order of the Minis ter of Family Services and Housing, and appointments can only be made for a licensed facility, that is, for the larger facilities, four beds or more. The provisional administrator would have the same rights and powers as the licensee in order to maintain operation of the facility until alternative arrangements can be made for the residents. So there is a time limitation on the appointment, the administrative appointment for a provisional administrator.

The proposed amendments limit the duration that the facil ity can be operated by such an administrator. If the licensee's appeal is upheld by the Social Services Advisory Committee, the operation is immediately returned to the licensee. If the licensee is not successful in the appeal or does not appeal, the provisional administrator only maintains operation of the facility until alternative arrangements for the residents are made. Finally, there are powers in regard to making of regulations.

The regulatory-making powers pertaining to residential care licensing are being repealed and replaced with more extensive regulatory-making powers under the Act. These changes will ensure that adequate authority for developing and implementing licensing standards exists. So once this bill is passed, we will then consult extensively with the stakeholders before we actually amend the regulations so that there is lots of time for them to understand the new act and to take whatever actions they need to take to be in compl iance.

We are not going to move and put people in a situation where they are at risk by virtue of implementation that is overly hasty. We believe these amendments will modernize and strengthen licensing provisions for residential care facilities, and more impor tantly, for those who live in them. More effective licensing will help to ensure safe, quality care is being provided. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): I move, seconded by the Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gille shammer), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minis ter of Finance (Mr. Selin ger), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Motion agreed to. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS * (1 5: 50) Mr. Chairperson (Har ry Schellenberg): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this

section

June 27, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3265 of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. When the Committee last sat, there had been agreement to have a global discussion on the entire department. Is that still the will of the Committee? [Agreed} We are on line 1. Administration and Finance (

b) Executive Support

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $323,700 . Shall the item pass·� Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): know yesterday we were just into a few other dis cussions and comments both by the questions that were asked and also the Minister, the question was asked. I do not know whether the Minis ter was wanting to finish the answer that he was just getting into when the bell rang-! guess it was six o'clock when the bell rang--or new questions can be posed, or whether he still had to finish his answer. Hon.

Ron Lemieux (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I just want to conclude my answer from last night by stating that there is no conflict there is no perceived conflict. Certainly, as I mentioned, I noted the recommen dation from the members from the Opposition with regard to their suggestions. I certainly have not ruled anything out but I certainly appreciate their input.

I know that we have discussed this issue quite a bit with regard to conflict and with regard to direct conflict, and I certainly want to state that I believe that the taxpayers of Manitoba want us to go through the Estimates and want us to proceed and take a look at Consumer and Corporate Affairs and take a look at the Department and look at what the Department has with regard to its goals, its objectives and how the money is spent on behalf of the taxpayers in Manitoba. So I would just state, in conclusion, that I belie ve that they have raised their points.

Granted, I disagree with them totally, and we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Reimer: I guess the reason for the persistence in the line of questioning in regard to the perceived conflict of interest is because of the fact that the set of rules, in a sense, that ministers, Cabinet ministers, have to comply by in regard to the optics of where they are presented and where they are positioned in their relationships with dealings with the Government or in dealings with duties of their departments.

As has been pointed out, one of the things that is always the perception is that there may be a conflict of interest and the fact that the avenues that are available to the Minis ter and to MLAs in regard to getting a legal opinion as to the perception that there may be something of speculation in regard to what the public talks. As one of the members said, there is the possibility of speculation, and those are some of the things, and rumours, that we feel should be put to rest because there is the knowledge there that the Minister's wife does work for a firm. In no way are we trying to imply wrongdoing by her.

It is the fact that the firm itself will be of direct benefit by any type of arrangement that could come about because of the impact of a casino by the Nelson First Nation proposed casino in Thompson. The fact that there is a possibility that the public out there, whether it is in the general public or the proponents that were involved with the casino or the casino people that were not selected, they may look at it in a diff erent perspective.

The fact that the ability to have an opinion put forth, which is available to the Minister, it is available to all MLAs so that we as ele cted officials do not have the appearance of a conflict. I guess the reason for the persistence on this is there is an avenue available, and the avenue available can be availed upon and the matter, in a sense, can be resolved. If the ruling or the condition comes down that the Minis ter indeed has no conflict of interest in regard to this, that is fine. It is not as if we are saying that the situation cannot be resolved.

There is an avenue, and we are asking that minister to take that respon sibility. So I guess what I am trying to ask the Min ister is: Has he had any types of discussions ! know that he has said there is a possib ility that he may avail himself of the opportunity to talk to

3266 LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 the legal counsel. I was wondering whether that matter has been further pursued for resolution. * (16:00) Mr. Lemieux: As I mentioned, there is no conflict-no conflict, no perceived conflict, no direct conflict, no conflict with the law firm, no conflict with my wife. There is no conflict, and I guess I can only state it so many times. I just want to state, Mr. Chair, with regard to this issue, I understand that the members op posite raised the question and they certainly have the right to raise questions.

Al so, I mentioned that certainly my point of view is that because there is no conflict, I have just felt that we should certainly move on to more important issues with regard to Consumer and Corporate Affairs, not that this is an issue of not being important nor am I trying to trivialize the issue that they brought forward. But I am just saying that members opposite have brought their points forward. They have made their points, some very articulate. I certainly disagree with their points, and certainly I have tried to be articulate as well, but after a while, you start to wonder.

It gets past the point of just raising a question, and people in my community have said, you know, Mr. Lemi eux, is this just a smoke screen to cover up what is going on in the Interlake, and I said, well, I hope it is not. I mentioned it in committee that- Mr. Chairperson: Order please. I am having great difficulty hearing the speaker. Could I ask all honourable members wishing to carry on a private conversation to do so away from the Committee table? Thank you. Mr. Lemieux: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that I have certainly tried to defend-! know they do not need me to defend them, but I tried to state to members of my constituency that, no, I do not believe that they would raise this just to create a smoke screen to divert away from the scandal in the Interlake. I said: No, I do not believe they are doing that; I think they are sincere about it. But I disagree with them. I totally disagree. There is no conflict. There is no conflict what soever, and I think the members would be well advised to move on with regard to the other Estimates within Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

We have not really touched on any issues with regard to Consumer and Corporate Affairs within the Department, and, at this moment, I would just state and thank members for their question and I thank them for their advice. I would just suggest that we move on and start going line by line within the Department. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): I will just ask a little question here that results from my receiving documents from the Angl ican Church of Canada on gaming and the United Church of Canada on gaming.

It is in consideration of statements like this: In Canada, they have argued that a decision to open gambling in the U.S. rested on the argu ment of the state safety net and that poor com munities, especially Aboriginal communities, would benefit. Similar arguments have been made in Canada, especially for ruraL low income and Aboriginal communities. Although some communities have benefited through jo bs. many individuals have paid an extremely high price. Studies done in Al berta document that Aboriginal communities have been espec ially hard hit.

It says that the prevalence of a problem in compulsive gambling among Natives may be twice that of the general population. and that is documented by a book that is listed on the bottom here. A similar study by Native Americans in North Dakota-[interjection} It is not really funny. A similar study by Native Americans in North Dakota found there were four times as many people suffering from problem and com pulsive gambling as there were in the general population. The Alberta study also compared the amounts of money that Aboriginal gamblers lost against the losses of non-Aboriginal gamblers.

So, with the pursuit of Aboriginal casinos, the Honourable Minister and I have agreed that we want the best for the people in our province, for all the people in our province. [interjection]

June 27. 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 3267 Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Pl ease do not interrupt the speaker when the person has the floor. It is difficult to hear the speaker speak. Thank you. Mr. Jim Penner: So I would like to ask the Honourable Minister along that line, how they are going to handle some of these concerns, how to establish the long-term balance of costs and benefits of a project for the total economy of the area. including non-gambling business, tra ditional gambling business, labour force and chanties.

How are we going to balance the costs and balance the outcome between long-term effects of the casinos on non-gambling business and traditional business? Mr. Lemieux: Certainly I have mentioned many. many times and numerous times within the Legisla ture that gaming in many ways is a real dilemma I belie ve for governments in Canada, and I think we certainly on our side of the House agree that there are some concerns related to gaming. All of us would readily admit that certainly there are people who have prob lems with gambling and gambling addictions and so on. It is something that, Mr.

Chairperson, all members of the House are certainly concerned about and I am sure members opposite were certainly concerned with this when they were the government. I know that the Manitoba Gaming Control Commission through other sources are certainly, as well, concerned about it, but I know that the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba currently is very, very involved and certainly- Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I have dif fi culty hearing the speaker. Pl ease keep the conversation down so we can hear the speaker. Mr. Lemieux: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the Member also for the question.

I believe it comes with sincerity, and I take it as that. One of the first questions that I raised within my own department when I received this portfolio, I asked of people in the Gaming Commission with regard to statistics: do we have any kind of stats that show what kind of concerns there are with regard to gaming, and, you know, if there are any at all with regard to problem gaming, and so on? I know the number of clients, both problem gamblers and affected others such as family members using the AFM's problem gambling services, has remained steady.

It certainly is not increasing by any significant amount over the past several years. I know members opposite probably have those statistics. They were the government, but I know that the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba, their problem gambli ng initiatives provide a comprehensive approach that includes education, prevention programs in addition to treatment and rehabilitation services that reach problem gamblers, certainly, as well as affected individuals, family members, and so on. So I firmly believe that all Manitobans have a real concern with regard to problem gaming.

They have a concern that they understand the genie is out of the bottle, that gaming has been brought into Manitoba, not only the Crystal Casino when it was around but also McPhilli ps and Regent. Also you take a look at the VL Ts that have been put throughout the province of Manitoba in a lot of hotels and so on. Hoteliers are certainly good business people. They have taken advantage of it. I realize hoteliers who have VL Ts, certainly many of them, if they did not have the VL Ts, their hotels may be on the verge of closing.

So it creates a real concern for rural Manitoba. * (16:10 ) But, as I pointed out earlier, with regard to problem gamblin g, or problem gaming, we certainly on our side of the House and I believe all members agree that it is something that has to be monitored. We certainly have to look at the province of Manitoba as a whole and take a look at how it is affecting our family members, not only those individuals who have a problem with gaming.

I believe the position of the AFM or the Manitoba Gaming Control Commission or the Lotteries Corporation is that a lot of the processes and the programs that are in place have been viewed as an effective way of approaching issues related to problem gambling in Manitoba. Now, there are no easy answers, and I have talked to many, many people throughout Canada

3268 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 with regard to this issue. It does not matter whether you are in Nova Scotia or whether you are in British Columbia, it is a concern for all governments. It is a concern because, on the one hand, you have the moral issue of potential problems with regard to gaming. Then you have the financial dilemma, which large amounts of money come into the province to assist in health care and education and family services and other programs, sport and things like that. So it truly is a moral and a financial dilemma for all gov ernments.

I think that what we are going to have to do is take a close look at problem gaming. I know there are numerous conferences throughout Canada that deal with this issue specifically. There are some very legitimate conferences in Las Vegas and throughout Canada. The con ferences are very, very worthwhile attending. Having said that, I understand that sometimes there are people who go down to these conferences who might spend a little bit too much money, and they do not go down there to attend what the intention was.

That should not take away from the important programs that take place in communities and cities like Las Vegas that deal with problem gaming. I just want to say that as well as the education, prevention and treatment services offered by the AFM, problem gaming services, the data and the information obtained through consistent research and program evaluation is instrumental in program planning and develop ment.

Because once you have some types of statistics that you are able to go by, not only reasonable but accurate statistics, I think that is really what I have found as a new minister coming into the portfolio is trying to get your hand on research and statistics that are accurate. I think that is one area that I am not sure how we necessarily improve that, but I do believe that all governments across Canada are going to have to address this, because gambling is not going to go away. We know that and all governments recognize that.

Certainly any concerns related to problem ga mbling and gaming, we are going to have to address and we are going to have to hit that head-on. As I mentioned before, the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Jim Penner) certainly raised this question about problem gaming and its effects. We do know that, but I just mention that the statistics shown over the last three years certainly have not increased. They have stayed primarily the same and they have not increased with regard to, let us say, the number of people coming into the AFM and so on as clients for treatment. They remained fairly steady.

I know that I would certainly welcome any suggestions, if the members of the Opposition and members opposite have any suggestions with regard to a way to obtain more accurate statistics, if there is a way that they feel that as a government something that could be very proactive and not being negative, that it could be proactive how to address a concern I think that all people have, I would be certainly more than interested in hearing from members on how to address problem gaming. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): I want to return to I think what has become an issue when perhaps none had to arise.

That is this interest of whether or not the Minister is in violation of The Legis lative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act. You know. it is an interesting way this has been unfolding. We raised concerns; they were raised publicly by the media.

We raised them in the House, that given the wording of that act where it requires Cabinet ministers. where either they or their spouses have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest, where it defines an indirect pecuniary interest as one where that spouse is in the employ of someone who does, which clearly the Minister has admitted is the case. that the Minis ter should excuse himself.

Now, the Minister may not think he tits within the wording of the Act, he may have some defence to it, et cetera. but the Minis ter at least has to admit that it is worthy of a check. it is worthy to ensure that in fact he is in compliance. If I were in his shoes as minister, I simply, when it was brought to my attention because remember, no one has accused the Min ister or his spouse of doing anything untoward in influencing this. All anyone has said from our side of the House is that given the wording of this act the Min ister may not be in

June 27, 2•:_00 _:_:0 � ____ L_ E_G_IS_L_A_T_I V_E_A_SS_E_M_B_L_Y_O_F_MA_N_I_T_O_B_A _______ 3_26_9 compliance. We believe he is not, but he may not be in compliance. Having said that, if I were in his shoes I would have said, okay, we know we have a lawyer, that the Government retains an outside counsel that is available to all of us as MLAs and Cabinet ministers. Let us refer to that lawyer, seek his opmton. He will give us an

interpretation of the Act. You know what? I will table that and that will just end the matter. If he says that I may be in conflict, there is some doubt. well. then I will just say to the Premier (Mr. Doer) : Mr. Premier, the Act requires that another minister head up this file. You know, we have not even asked for his resignation as a minister. We have not done anything that is going to destroy his career. We have just asked him to check that he is in compliance. And you know what? If I had been this minister I would have said, it is worth a check.

We would have done the check and if it came back that I was clear, that is the end of it. If there was an issue then I would have taken the appropriate action. and you know, that is all we have asked this minister to do. And what is even more troubling, and we saw it today in the House, was that we asked the Premier, who is the chief minister who is responsible for the Government, who sets the tone of a government-we asked that First Minister if he would commit to have this check done with the outside counsel that the Government has retained for years now to do this.

It is not as if there is not a process in place to do it. It is not as if there is not a precedent. We put in place years ago. and I do not remember if it was done under a Conservative or a New Democratic administration, because it has just been there so long, we put in a place where the Government has an outside lawyer on retainer that is available on a confidential basis to any MLA and Cabinet minister at any time to go and call them. All you have to do is call Shirley Strutt. We all know Shirley Strutt. You call Shirley Strutt, and she gives you the lawyer's name and telephone number.

You call up the lawyer, you say: Hey, my spouse is working for Nelson House. She is a lawyer. She is in their employ. She is doing legal work. It is not related to casinos. They have now been recommended by Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freed man. I am the Minis ter in charge of negotiating these contracts. Here are the facts. Give me an opinion whether or not I am in violation of the Act. You know, the lawyer would look at it. He would look at the Act. He would look at the sections. He might have a few more questions. He would give an opinion. You know what? The issue would be re solved. There would be no issue.

There would be no headl ines. There would be no questions. There would be no public rebuke. But what we now have is a government-this issue has gone beyond a conflict. This issue has come down to what this government is made of. It has come down to whether or not this govern ment believes it can never be in error. You know something? This is the most disturbing thing for Manitobans. We saw it on The Freedom of lnfor mation Act.

We saw where the First Minis ter's political staff directed the-I do not know if he directed or the Premier directed, but we had the Clerk of the Executive Council and the Premier's principal media person both saying they broke the law but it did not matter because the problem was not that they broke the law but that the law was wrong. So now we have this new def ence in Manitoba law. I can break the law because I do not like the law.

At the same time we have an issue, at least on a prima facie case, that the Min ister in charge of negotiating and putting into place five additional casinos in this province may be in violation of the Act. Do you think that the Premier would set the right tone and say, oh, wait a minute, I do not want my government or my ministers, there to be any suspicion about conflict of interest? We will go and call up the lawyer that we have available with the process that has been in place; we will get an opinion; we will put it on the table. If there is a conflict, I will put another minister in charge of this.

I am sure this minister would accommodate that, or there is no problem.

3270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 You know what their response is? Their response as the Premier of this province, who is to set an example and a tone, he sits there on his high haunches in the House and says I do not have to check the law. I am Gary Doer, Premier of Manitoba. You challenge it, voter. You challenge it, citizen of Manitoba, because I am above the law. I am above the law. I, as Premier, as the chief minister of this province, do not have to check anything out. I do not have to get a legal opinion.

All I have to do is say we are not in conflict, and it is the case. [interjection] * (1 6:20) The Member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) is there perpetuating the same arrogance of a new government. We do not; you go and check. Well, you know something? The Premier of this province knows there is a process in place. Does every citizen of Manitoba now have to be on the vanguard of checking out the honesty of this administration because it will not do it themselves? [interjection] Mr. Chairpersoa: Order, please. Could we just allow the speaker to speak? Order, please.

If you want to discuss something, please move off to the side of the chairs. Do not interrupt the speaker, so I can hear him. Thank you. The Member for Lac du Bonnet. Mr. Praznik: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The com ments by the Member for Dauph in are just indicative of an attitude. We saw it on The Freedom of Information, where the Premier out in the hall, when the cameras were in front of him and he is in the media and he has to come up with a quick explanation. Well, I admit there was a mistake. I will put reforms in place. But the next day in the House: Mr. Premier, can you tell us what those reforms are?

I do not have to tell you anything. I have no reforms. Why, we were just busy. There were no reforms. It was contempt of the media and ultimately contempt of the people of this province. We are seeing it again here on this question. If we were coming here saying we know absolutely there is a conflict here, and it is terrible, the Minis ter is corrupt, yes, the Min ister would have a right to be defensive. Yes, the Premier would have a right to defend his Minis ter. Yes, members of his caucus could defend them, but that is not what anyone said.

No one has accused the Minis ter or his spouse of going out there and deli berately trying to influence this casino selection. But that is not what the issue is about. The issue is about

an act of this Legisla ture that says very clearly that, if the spouse of a Cabinet minister is in the employ of someone who that minister is dealing with. the Minis ter must remove himself. You know why it is there? It is there to deal with perception. It is there to deal with any perception that that proponent might, through that employment relationship, say, if we do not get what we want, we are not hiring you as our lawyer anymore, that if we do not get what we want, we are not going to pay you, and your tamily will not have that income. That is the potential problem here.

So we as legisla tors in past legisla tures decided that we would not allow ministers to act in situations where their spouse was in the employ of a principal that they were dealing with. It makes sense. This is exactly what we have on the facts. Has the government come back and offered a defence? Have they said it does not fit within the statute? No, they have not. Have they even said we have got a legal opinion to the contrary and they provided it? No. They have done none of that. All they say is we are the Doer government. We can do what we want, and the people of Manitoba be dammed.

An Honourable Membe r: Nonsense. Mr. Praznik: The Member says nonsense. Then why will they not simply take the advice that is being offered and let the Min ister refer this to the legal counsel that is available to all of us in just such circumstances? The Min ister of Finance nods no; everyone nods no. You know why I think it is? I think it is because this group of people-not all. I think there are members on the other side who recognize what is happening here. I think these people, including the Premier, regrettably, have lost perspective. I think they have lost it early in their mandate.

They have lost the perspective of what is right and wrong, and they are struggling so hard to look perfect that they forget that they are just mere human beings who sometimes may be in error.

June 27, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3271 Belie ve me, I know I made mistakes when I was in government, and I know that we are not always perfect. I can remember times when our member was accused of an issue or a conflict, and we all said, oh, it is just the opposition. You look into it and say, oh, boy, there might be something here. Maybe we should get the legal opinion, and let us take the corrective measure. You know what? What are the corrective measures here? What are we really talking about? We are talking about this min ister who actually we like-he is a nice guy-who is new in his career.

What is the reper cussion? Are we asking him to give up Cabinet office? No. Are we asking him to go to jail? No. Are we asking him to pay a fine? No. All we are asking him is, if he is in vio lation of this act, that he simply give up this file and the Premier assign it to another min ister. Is that such a huge penalty that this government would lose its credibility on? Is this an issue over which the Premier of Manitoba would demonstrate that he has lost his per spective of right and wrong? I tell you that this is beyond just the politics of this House.

This is where this admini stration and this premier demonstrates what he is made of. It demonstrates whether he has a sense of right and wrong. It demonstrates whether he is prepared to ensure that his government complies with the law, that it wants to act in a fair and mannered way and appear to be. It is really what this issue is about. Mr. Chair, we on this side are going to give this House-l just want to come back to what the Member for Dauphin said. You should go and challenge the Act. You know why he is saying that?

He is saying that because this premier will not do what any other rea sonable premier would do and simply have the matter ref erred to the lawyer that is avai lable and get an opinion. * (1 6:30) Well, the procedure is there. Any minister who is accused of or suspects he may be in conflict has the choice of going to an outside counsel that the Government has available to make a determinati on. This government is choosing not to even do that. That is what this issue has now become. It is their credibility, about how they will handle these issues in the future.

I tell them now that this will come back to haunt them each and every day and month and year. Today they are sowing the seeds of their own demise as a government because this attitude is what makes arrogant governments. This attitude is what will tell the people of Manitoba that they cannot trust this premier to ever do the right thing, that they always have to be suspicious that he is spinning them a line or he really believes in what he is saying. This issue is now about Gary Doer and his credibility. We are going to give you one more chance to do the right thing. Therefore, Mr.

Chair, I would move, seconded by the Member for Southdale (Mr. Reimer), that

WHEREAS The Legis lative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act states in

section 8: "Where, during the exercise of any official power or the perf ormance of any official duty or function by a min ister, there ari ses (

a) a matter in which the min ister or any of his dependants has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest . . . the minis ter shall (

c) delegate the power, duty, or function to the Executive Council or a committee thereof; (

d) refrain at all times from attempting to influence the matter "; and

WHEREAS

section 3(1) of the same statutes defines an indirect pecuniary interest as "for purposes of this Act, but subject to this section, a person shall be presumed to have an indirect pecuniar y interest in a matter where . . . (

b) the person is (

i) a partner of or employed by . . . a person, corpora tion, partner ship, or organizati on who or which . . . has a direct pecuniary interest in the matter"; and

WHEREAS the Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is currently responsible for the negotiation of agreements with First Nations proponents for five casino pro jects in our province which his own selection committee described in their report as a unique and valuable privilege; and

WHEREAS the Minis ter's spouse and the law firm of which she is a partner is currently in the employ of one of the First Nations with respect to their dealings with Manitoba Hydro; and

3272 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000

WHEREAS the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has admitted that he has not sought any legal advice nor has he availed himself of the outside legal counsel which is available to all ministers and MLAs to determine if he is in compliance or will be in compliance with The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act; and

WHEREAS it is in the public interest and the interests of all First Nations casino proponents that the Minister ensures that he is in full compliance with the law. IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED by this committee that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Aff airs be immediately required to refer this matter to the outside legal counsel provided to all MLAs and ministers for this purpose and that this legal opinion be provided to this committee as soon as it is completed. A simple request, Mr. Chair, it gives the Government one last chance to set the tone of how they intend to govern Manitobans. Motion presented. Mr.

Pranik: Mr. Chair, if I might make one more comment on this motion. Mr. Chairperson: I would like to inform the Member for Lac du Bonnet we have to rule on this first. The motion is in order, and the debate may proceed. Mr. Lemieux: I would like to speak to this. May I ask a question, first of all, of how long do I have? Mr. Chairperson: The Member has 30 minutes. Mr. Lemieux: First of all, let us look through the evidence. The Member from Lac du Bonnet (Mr.

Praznik) mentioned that certainly there are no accusations of anything untoward, that my wife's law firm has done nothing wrong, that my spouse has done nothing wrong or illegal of any kind. What I am starting to feel is that this has nothing to do with Ron Lemieux, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but this has a lot to do with the Premier (Mr. Doer) of the province. This attack and using this way to attack the Premier and somehow to besmirch his reputation, because somehow he is arrogant and so on, I believe, is totally wrong, and I think it is misplaced.

Our attitude all along has always been to do the right thing, and when I have had the occasion in Cabinet where I felt that there was a conflict, I would excuse myself. I have made that known, and I have done the right thing. Certainly, as a Cabinet minister, I continue to want to act in such a fashion, and I will continue to do so. This comes directly from our premier, and our premier will ensure that the public of Manitoba knows that he has all of his Cabinet ministers acting appropriately. Certainly he is the person of the best example that we could use as a role model with this regard.

The Premier of Manitoba has always made sure that we are not only aware of the conflict-of-interest guidelines, but that we are more than just aware of the importance of abiding by such. The more I look at this issue. I really am beginning to think it is a red herring. At one time I thought this might have been a red herring to kind of deflect away from the Interlake and be a kind of smoke screen, but now I am really starting to get the feeling that this an attack on the Premier of Manitoba. We are not trying to be arrogant by saying there is no need for a legal opinion. I have not ruled that out.

I am just saying thank you very much for your advice and your suggestions, but I really believe and I am starting to feel that this is an attack on the Premier somehow. I really do take exception to that, because he is one that has been very, very forthright towards his ministers on certainly wanting them to be not only law abiding, but to make sure that they are conducting themselves in the appropriate manner. As I mentioned before, I have certainly taken into consideration that I am not ruling out the fact about legal opinion, but I noted that. I have asked that members opposite move on.

Let us look at Consumer and Corporate Affairs and certainly look at the issues with regard to my department and the good things that we are doing. If they have suggestions on some things

June 27, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3273 that we may be doing different to improve Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I accept that, but to start taking a look and using this argument somehow to go after the Premier of Manitoba, that I truly take exception with. I certainly am not going to be bullied into getting some kind of a legal opinion because somehow it is going to look bad or use this to look bad on the Premier of Manitoba. I am certainly not going to be forced down that path.

I said, I accept, thank you very much for your suggestions, thank you, I have noted that. *( 1 6:40) But now I am beginning to feel that this more than just taking a look at whether or not there is a potential conflict or perceived or indirect or direct. I really think that this is going down the path of looking at the Premier of Manitoba on how the Premier of Manitoba acts. The Premier of Manitoba has always acted in good faith with regard to all issues and certainly has not been arrogant in any way, shape or form.

Obviously, I have a biased opinion on this, but my constituents and members of the public have certainly looked upon him in high regard with regard to all kinds of issues. I do take exception with regard to pointing the finger at the Premier of Manitoba somehow not acting properly, or he is being arrogant, which he is absolutely not. By saying take a look at

section 20, if you think that there is a conflict of interest there, go ahead and use it, you have that at your disposal. That is not being arrogant. That is being confident that nothing has been done wrong. Members opposite continually have said, oh, your wife has done nothing wrong. You have done nothing wrong. The law firm has done nothing wrong. Well, what is it then? If no one has done anything wrong, let us drop it, let us move on with other lines within the Department. You know, the Premier (Mr. Doer) of Manitoba in the House has certainly been-and I certainly appreciate his support.

He has been very supportive of all his ministers. I know that members opposite have certainly raised some questions with regard to gaming and not only is it their legal right, but I believe it is their duty. As opposition members, the public would expect them to do so. That is fair ball. Ask me anything you wish on gaming, and I will certainly attempt to answer it. If I do not have the answer, I will find it out and try to give you that answer.

But to use a conflict of interest where no conflict of interest is apparent in any way, shape or form, it is non-existent-there is no conflict whatsoever, and I repeat that over and over, no conflict, no conflict, no conflict, and I am very confident in that, absolutely confident. There is no conflict. Now to be dragging this on-and I know members opposite have not taken shots at me personally and had made comments, you know, the Minister seems to be a nice enough person and so on. I did not fall off the cabbage truck yesterday. I understand.

I take that, and I take those comments sincerely when they make those comments and say, you know, the Minister is new and he is attempting to do his job and so on. I am not going to be derogatory about those comments because I take them sincerely. But, after a while, I do not like to be used as a pawn either, and I really feel that this whole issue with regard to conflict, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and responsible for Gaming, is being used as a pawn somehow to get at the Premier. Because there is not a conflict whatsoever, I am asking why drag this on.

Why are people continually bringing this up and bringing the Premier's name into this? The Premier is just saying: Look, we stand on solid ground on this. There is no conflict whatsoever, and even members opposite have agreed there is nothing illegal or untoward. The Minister has done nothing illegal. The Minister's spouse has done nothing illegal. The law firm has done nothing illegal. Nelson House has done nothing illegal. Well, if there is nothing illegal and there is no conflict, let us move on.

It certainly does beg the question after a while, you know, what is the goal of pursuing something like this when it is quite evident and obvious that there is no conflict? I speak to my constituents, and they are the ones that raise questions like, Ron, could you explain to me, did you select the casino sites? No, I did not. Are you going to make any money from the casino sites? No. What is this conflict about? You have nothing to gain from. this in any way, shape, or

3274 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 form. Why are people pursuing this? Why was the

article in the paper? Why are people using this? I am trying to say with a straight face to my constituents that members opposite are raising this because they feel there is something legitimate with this. I am stating today that there is nothing legitimate at all. I believe that it has reached the point where now it is time to move on because there is no conflict whatsoever.

We have tried to show that and explain it and state it over and over, and I really believe it is time to move on to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, or if members opposite wish to continue to ask questions with regard to gaming, that is fair enough. The Member for Steinbach (Mr. Jim Penner) asked a sincere question with regard to gaming and with regard to First Nations people and the problems that it could create. Now that, to me, is a question that-it is a difficult question. It is. It is a difficult question because once you start to go down a path with regard to gaming, it is not just easy.

It is like a 747 or the Queen Mary. It is not easy to turn around, and it is not easy to change. So when questions are like that, I appreciate them very much because you are dealing with a substantive issue. You are dealing with a concern there that I believe is heartfelt from the Member for Steinbach, and I certainly attempted to answer it in my own way. I am not sure if I did answer it totally, but again, it is a difficult question to answer with regard to gaming problems and concerns.

No one wants to be responsible for the turmoil that this creates within a family, and I have known people-not my relatives-but people I know very close to my family that have had problems that have had a spouse or family member that has been involved in gaming and has become addicted and so on. So I do take those questions absolutely seriously, and I do appreciate the question because what it does is it gives a person an opportunity to think now what are you going to do about it. You are now the Government, what are you going to do to try to address this?

It gets to the point where one cannot continually point the finger at the Opposition and say like what did you do during your term. It is now we are the Government, and we have to address this. You know, it is a problem, and being a schoolteacher, I have looked at this issue, and I think of young people. You have young people who are in high school that are going out and playing VL Ts or 18 years of age and go to a local bar and play VL Ts, and those concerns related to addictions and so on are very serious questions. Those are questions that we are going to have to deal with.

As a new minister, people ask, well, as a new minister, Ron, you are going into Estimates for your first time, what is it like? What is the experience like? Well, I mean, what can I answer? What can I say-that there are really good questions coming up, good questions on your department, good questions that challenge you, good questions that the taxpayers of Manitoba want to hear. No, but what do I hear is a conflict of interest, and I say where. Well, your wife is not really in conflict. You are not really in conflict. Nelson House is not in conflict. There is no conflict.

Yesterday, I thought we thoroughly hashed this out. I thought we hashed this item out, and we dealt with it thoroughly. You know the recommendations were absolutely legitimate. People recommended to go and do something about it. I said, fine, I will note that, and I will certainly consider it. I am not ruling it out. But, when the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) today, on at least three occasions that I counted, and then I stopped counting, started bringing up the Premier's (Mr. Doer) name in connection with this, then I started to get the real feeling that what this is all about is not conflict.

This is somehow besmirching his reputation, his good reputation, and one he has worked awfully hard at for close to 30 years of public life. You know, to say that he is arrogant, and so on; he is not. When you take a look-I do not want to use the analogy of people in sport-they look at people like Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, all those hockey players, they say, well, it is not an arrogance, it is a confidence that they have, and a confidence of which they speak, and with which they play. So when the Premier says: Go use

section 20 if you want; go ahead. You do not have a leg to stand on. You have nothing. There

June 27, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3275 is no conflict whatsoever. It is not being arro gant. It is stating a fact. * (1 6: 50) Well, I am extremely proud of the work that the independent selection committee has done. I really feel that when issues like this are brought forward, it really is somehow attacking the whole process. Now, if you do not like First Nations casinos, say it. If you do not like First Nations people, say it. But do not say Mr. Nadeau and Mr.

Freedman, somehow, this selection committee, you know, they could have done better, or what were they doing when they recommended these casinos, and so on. I think the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) mentioned to the Member for Lac du Bonnet, come on out from behind the bush and let us see your-you know. Well, anyway, 1 have to certainly check myself, because I am going in a direction I do not want to go in. I know members opposite are truly respected in their communities and I want to show that respect for them now. I really do.

I do not want to go down that path and I do not want to be finger-pointing at all, because I do take the recommendations you made to me with regard to legal advice. I have not ruled that out, and I certainly noted that. But it is the red herrings, when people are starting to use this issue. As I said, if people are truly respectful of me, and they have said that on numerous occasions, they would, I would hope, think Minister Lemieux would excuse himself or know to excuse himself. I have done so in Cabinet already on a few occasions where I felt that there was a potential conflict or that there was a conflict.

So I have to ask myself: Why am I being used as a pawn? If there is no issue, what is this all about? This is about slamming the Premier (Mr. Doer), and I do not appreciate it one bit. I do not believe the people of Manitoba appreciate spending time on an issue where there is none to try to get at a premier that has a very good reputation, not arrogant, confident, and has a very good reputation. I, for one, have supported him when he ran for the leadership of my particular party, many, many years ago, and I continue to support him today.

He is not arrogant; he is confident, and it is a confidence that I believe a lot of our members certainly exhibit and exude. There is nothing wrong with that. There are members opposite, as well, have that. I do not believe it is an arrogance; I believe they feel quite sure of what they speak and how they say it. So, just to conclude, Mr. Chair, I just want to state there is no conflict. I thank the people for the suggestions and the recommendations, I do, and I am sincere about that. There is no direct or indirect conflict.

My spouse has done nothing illegally or untoward, as was mentioned by the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). The Member for Lac du Bonnet said I have done nothing wrong, as the Minister, I am speaking. The law firm has done nothing wrong. Nelson House has done nothing wrong. So what I am asking members of the opposition to do is to state that they Wlderstand this, and certainly that there is no conflict. I would ask that we move on. Maybe there are other speakers who wish to speak to this, but I would state that the taxpayers of Manitoba wish us to move on.

If members opposite do not want to, I am sure the public of Manitoba will certainly look upon that and say, well, is this the way to spend tax dollars? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The Clerk has advised, following consultation with other pro cedural authorities, the motion before the Committee is out of order. A committee can recommend but cannot order a minister to do something. Therefore, I must rule the motion out of order on the above grounds. Mr. Praznik: With all due respect, we will challenge the ruling of the Chair. Mr.

Chair, before I do that, is there a willingness on the Government side that would allow an amendment of that motion to change the word to "recommend" to bring it in order? If there is a willingness to do that, we will do that now, and then we can move on with the vote.

3276 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 2000 Mr. Chairperson: Is there a will to amend the resolution? Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): The nonnal procedure would be just to withdraw the motion and re-move it with that section, but to save time I think we could probably do that. Mr. Praznik: If there is a willingness of the Committee, I would so amend that resolution to make the recommendation of this committee--or the motion to "recommend" the Minister do this, as opposed to require him to do it, to so bring the motion into order. I

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-52
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf 52.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8532a97e06cbfb289d78a2ce9b57e9275c70727a

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