Manitoba Hansard — 18 May 2005 (Sitting 49, 38th Legislature, 3rd Session)

38-3-49

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LVI No. 49 - 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 18, 2005

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

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

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

Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

2781 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, May 18, 2005 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Pembina Trails School Division–New High School Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Overcrowded schools throughout Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods, Linden Ridge and Richmond West subdivisions are forcing Pembina Trails School Division to bus students outside of these areas to attend classes in the public school system.

Elementary schools in Pembina Trails School Division have run out of space to accommodate the growing population of students in the afore- mentioned areas. Five-year projections for enrolment in the elementary schools in these areas indicate significant continued growth. Existing high schools that receive students from Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods and Linden Ridge are at capacity and cannot accommodate the growing number of students that will continue to branch out of these subdivisions.

Bussing to outlying areas is not a viable long- term solution to meeting the student population growth in the southwest portion of Winnipeg. The development of Waverley West will increase the need for a hi gh school in the southwest sector of Winnipeg. The government is demonstrating a lack of respect for the students and families in Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods, Linden Ridge and Richmond West by refusing to provide adequate access to education within the community. The Fort Whyte constituency is the only constituency in the province that does not have a public high school.

NDP constituencies in Winnipeg continue to receive capital funding for various school projects while critical overcrowding exists in schools in Lindenwoods, Whyte Ridge and Richmond West. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to recognize the need for a public high school in the southwest region of Winnipeg. To request the provincial government, in conjunction with the Public Schools Finance Board, to consider adequate funding to establish a high school in the southwest sector of Winnipeg.

Signed by Alexis Grolle, Kristi Thorlakson, Shaunna Hallsson and many, many others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: Manitoba's provincial auditor has stated that Manitoba's 2003-2004 budget deficit was the second highest on record at $604 million.

The provincial government is misleading the public by saying they had a surplus of $13 million in the 2003-2004 budget. The provincial auditor has indicated that the $13-million surplus the government says it had cannot be justified.

2782 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 The provincial auditor has also indicated that the Province is using its own made up accounting rules in order to show a surplus instead of using generally accepted accounting principles. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider adopting generally accepted accounting principles in reporting Manitoba's budgetary numbers. Signed by Ernando Rescendes, Rosina Lapatha and Noel Lapatha. * (13:35) Ambulance Service Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr.

Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: In May 2004, 46-year-old Peter Krahn suffered a heart attack while exercising in East St. Paul and was pronounced dead just under an hour later after being transported to the Concordia Hospital in Winnipeg. Reports show that it took nearly 18 minutes for an ambulance to arrive for Mr. Krahn. The Interlake Regional Health Authority claims that 21 minutes is an acceptable emergency response time,

whereas the City of Winnipeg uses a benchmark of 4 minutes. Ambulance coverage for East St. Paul is provided from Selkirk, which is almost 25 kilometres away. The municipalities of East St. Paul and West St. Paul combined have over 12 000 residents. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider providing East St. Paul with local ambulance service which would service both East and West St. Paul.

To request the provincial government to consider improving the way that ambulance service is supplied to all Manitobans by utilizing tech- nologies such as GPS in conjunction with a Medical Transportation Co-ordination Centre (MTCC) which will ensure that patients receive the nearest ambulance in the least amount of time. To request the provincial government to consider ensuring that appropriate funding is provided to maintain superior response times and sustainable services. Signed by Tyler Jones, Kim Jones, Ken Jones and many, many others.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 204–The Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists Act Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member from Minnedosa, that Bill 204, The Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists Act,

Loi sur les audiologistes et les orthophonistes, be now read a first time. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire), seconded by the honourable Member for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat), that Bill 204, The Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists Act, be now read a first time. Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, this bill replaces The Manitoba Speech and Hearing Association Act, and provides for the regulation of the professions of audiologists and speech language pathologists.

The Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists Act includes provisions for continuing the Manitoba Speech and Hearing Association under the title of the College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists of Manitoba as the profession's governing body. It includes provisions establishing a governing board with public representatives that includes provisions requiring the registration of audiologists and speech language pathologists and creating a process for handling complaints and discipline. I look forward to the passage of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2783 Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today the 2005 summer tour guides who are Patricia Doyle, Vanessa Gregg, Leo Samoiloff, Lisa-Marie Tessier and the tour guide supervisor, Colette Delaurier. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

I would also like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today Grade 4 and 5 students from Oak River School of Oak River, Manitoba. These students are under the direction of their teacher Mrs. Pam Lewandosk i and are the guests of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. * (13:40) ORAL QUESTIONS Post-Secondary Education Funding Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, under this Premier we have seen implementation of backdoor taxes and levies at almost every turn.

Now we have backdoor tuition increases. We have that problem because this government has not properly funded basic operating costs for universities. We now have a self-created crisis that is known in some circles as Mr. Doer's dilemma. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I just want to remind all honourable members when addressing one another, it is ministers by their portfolio they hold and other members by their constituency. I ask the co- operation of all honourable members, please. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely apologize if you felt I was mistakenly referring to the Premier.

I was referring to the crisis that has been created by this Premier. I would like to know what actions he will take to deal with this self-created crisis. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, there is some $200 million in capital investment at the University of Manitoba. There is some $18 million in capital investment at the University of Winnipeg. There is 4 or $5 million at Brandon University. The Collège de Saint-Boniface has expenditures in capital. Red River College has a $32-million expenditure. The University College of the North will have 19 separate facilities providing courses and training for people.

When we look at the support to universities, post-secondary education, we know the challenge we have is a massive increase in enrollment. We had decreased enrolment in the nineties. We have increasing enrolment in this decade, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Cummings: So has every other jurisdiction in Canada, Mr. Premier. Universities are implementing large fee increases. The mi nister of post-secondary education implies on the public airwaves that this is a way around tuition increase, freezes in tuition causing backdoor tuition increases.

Will this Premier now provide some leadership and lay out a plan as to how he intends to deal with this issue? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, just so members opposite and the public know the exact increase in revenue for the university from the Province of Manitoba, it is a 2.3% increase–[interjection] Let me, if I could finish, please. A 2.3% increase in the operating grant to the university, millions of dollars in a capital grant and a 1.2% increase in revenue with a decrease in taxes. So that represents a 3.5% increase to the University of Manitoba. The inflation rate in Manitoba is running at 2.5 percent.

Members opposite in their alternative budget had their universities getting 1 percent, ours are getting over 3.5 percent. The revenues are there, Mr. Speaker, we believe to support investments in students. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, this from the Premier who could not find the billion dollars when he came to government. He found it and he spent it and now we are struggling to keep up to Saskatchewan where

2784 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 they gave their universities a 6.8% increase, I believe. Students are being left without options, Mr. Premier. There was no option to increase costs and as a result of this Premier's inaction we will see students who are about to graduate this summer deciding whether or not they will be able to afford to continue with post-secondary education. Will he take action on behalf of students and provide some direction and some leadership so they can make decisions? Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, I am surprised that a so- called Conservative government would be supporting a view that the university revenue should grow by 7 percent a year. I am absolutely shocked. That is a situation– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fact that inflation is running at around 2.5 percent and revenue increases that are above that are not sufficient to deal with the operating costs of university is a concern and that is why COPSE has written to all the universities to raise all the legitimate follow-up questions.

That is on top of the capital grants that have been made to universities at an unprecedented level. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, we are not perfect. The 3.5% increase to universities is not perfect. It is above inflation, and it is three times greater than the alternative budget of the Conservatives. * (13:45) Post-Secondary Education Funding Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): This Premier's broken promise is going to cost the students 10 percent of their summer income. I hope he can live with that. Mr.

Speaker, this Premier has made a promise to not increase a dollar students pay for education within this province. Last night the U of M announced a fee increase equal to a 14.5% increase in tuition fees. This minister has repeatedly said she is looking at options. Students in universities need to know what those options are. When will this minister be prepared to share those options with this House, with those students, with the universities and the public in general? Hon.

Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): I do take the opportunity today to reiterate something the Premier said and that is members opposite in the 2003 election said they would increase post-secondary education by 1 percent. So, you know, Mr. Speaker, I am really shocked that they have the temerity to bring up this line of questioning today. This side of the House believes in accessible, affordable, quality post-s econdary education. We believe that post-secondary education is an invest- ment in the economy. It is an investment in communities. It is an investment in personal lives.

We all know that post-secondary education is the best guarantee of a good income. It is the best indicator of good health and communal well-being. That is why we are supporting post-secondary education. Mrs. Rowat: I was not quite sure, but I thought I heard the minister say this government supports excessive user fees. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the universities are taking a page out of this NDP government's book. Over the past several years, this government has increased what Manitobans pay for public services through countless backdoor increases and service fees.

Pharmacare deductib les increased by 20 percent, vehicle PST refund by 100 percent, PST assessment on professional services up $24 million. Is this service fee increase the NDP government's approach to funding post-secondary education in this province? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The members opposite seem to forget that there has been $149 million of tax relief in this budget, that the minimum wage in Manitoba has gone up by over 20 percent during our term in office. We have increased the minimum wage every year. When members opposite were in government, what did they do to young people?

They would increase

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2785 the minimum wage once before every election if the students were lucky. They cut all the bursary programs. We have restored bursary programs, we have kept tuition fees affordable, we have increased the minimum wage and we have provided an abundance of jobs for young people in this province, all of which the members opposite did not do. Post-Secondary Education Funding Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, last week Statistics Canada reported that Manitoba family incomes were well below the national average.

Today Statistics Canada reports that Manitoba's post-secondary graduates earn lower incomes, an average of $3 ,900 less annually than the national average. Statistics Canada states that these lower incomes are a reflection of Manitoba's labour market. This reflects directly on the NDP government and its economic policies. Why will the Minister of Finance not take action now to make Manitoba more competitive to ensure that we at least keep up with the national average? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, I am glad the member raises that issue because during their term in office personal disposable income was declining. Last year our take home pay and wages increased by 4 percent. We have shown above-average increases during our term in office. There is more personal disposable income in the pockets of all Manitobans in part because wages have improved, in part because there is a minimum wage policy, in part because our economy is growing. We have a high rate of employment and a low rate of unemployment. Our participation in the labour force is among the highest in the country.

Members opposite should look at our record and ask why they did not do it when they were in office. Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Finance Minister to look at the records of Stats Canada. Stats Canada indicates that Manitoba lost more students and graduates than it ga ined because they were attracted to educational institutions or labour markets outside the province. Manitoba's universities are not competitive due to the lack of funding support from this NDP government.

Manitoba's economy is not competitive due to the economic policies of the NDP government and its failure to keep up with the rest of Canada. Why will this government not take action now to ensure that our post-secondary institutions and our province is competitive? * (13:50) Mr. Selinger: The member should put on the record what period he is referring to in his statistics. I have a feeling he is referring to the period that reflected their time in governing this province because I can tell you that, during our time in governing this province, personal disposable income has gone up.

There is a 30% reduction on the number of people that are receiving social assistance in this province. There are less people receiving social assistance in this province than at any period in our recent history going back 30 years. There is no National Child Benefit clawback going to families now. There is more help and more opportunities to go to community colleges. There are more bursaries for post-secondary education and Manitobans are doing better. Mr. Hawranik: I told the Minister of Finance he is wrong and he should do his research.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, our Chambers of Commerce and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, all of them believe that the single most important issue for Manitoba is competitive, Mr. Speaker. Statistics Canada co nfirmed that not only are Manitoba's post-secondary institutions not competitive due to the lack of funding from the NDP government, but Manitoba's graduates are earning less, far less, because Manitoba's economy is not competitive. I ask the Minister of Finance at a time when he has record high revenues available to him why has he not properly funded our post-secondary institutions.

Why has he not made our economy competitive with the rest of Canada? Mr. Selinger: Now I know why the member did not want to put the year that he was referring to on the record, because it was the year 2000 which reflected their period in office. Unbelievable– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, are you up on a point of order?

2786 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 Mr. Hawranik: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I ask the minister once again that he ought to do his research and do it co rrectly and not put facts forward in this House that are blatantly incorrect. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance, on the same point of order. Mr. Selinger: I challenge the member to put the year on the record. He has not done it. He is ignoring the facts; 1700 more people, young people, have come to the province in the last four years than have left. He should tell the truth. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr.

Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. * * * Mr. Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity for the honourable Minister of Finance who made a reference of "he should tell the truth," all members in this House are honourable members and all the facts that are brought to the Speaker, I take as facts. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment. Mr. Selinger: Yes, I withdraw that comment, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance still has the floor. Mr.

Selinger: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now what we have here for the facts, if the members are interested in the facts whic h I think they are, for the year ending June 30, 2004, a total of 1122 more persons aged 15 to 24 came to Manitoba than left. We have had a net influx of young people in the last four years compared to the exodus when the members opposite were in power. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognize the honourable Member for Emerson who has the floor. Red River Floodway Expansion Labour Agreement Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Manitoba floodway labour management agreement states that non-unionized construction firms shall pay an equal amount as required by unionized contractors to the pension trust fund, to the health and welfare trust fund and to the trade improvements trust fund. The average amount in the agreement with all the unions that are named under the agreement requires that $6.63 an hour would be required to be paid by the contractors through to the union and into these trust funds, $7.36 an hour to the union of operating engineers would be required.

Can the minister tell us today how much that will cost the taxpayers of this province? Can he tell us how those non-unionized employees will be able to access those funds or those through the trust funds and whether they will be able to access the services provided by those trust funds if there is such a thing? Can the minister tell us whether the non- unionized contractors will be required to match those funds paid to their employees through the contractors? * (13:55) Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr.

Speaker, let us be very clear that the member opposite right from day one has opposed the project management agreement. With the announcement of the Wally Fox-Decent report the members opposite opposed the Wally Fox-Decent report. Upon the release of the project management agreement, and indeed there were many provisions in that agreement that dealt with pensions and benefits, the members opposite opposed those pensions and benefits. Mr.

Speaker, it is very clear that they do not understand that in 2005 Manitoba workers expect pensions, benefits and decent workers, and indeed the provisions of the agreement will ensure that unionized and non-unionized workers will have those kinds of benefits. This is the year 2005 and Manitobans expect that for a major project. Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the non-unionized contractors have similar kinds of arrangements for their employees that they pay now.

What this contract requires, this agreement requires an additional amount paid through the contract to the three trust funds that have been established. That would be an additional cost.

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2787 Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is confusing himself here. He was at the briefing that was held with the industry and he knows that indeed the Floodway Authority has been working not just through the negotiation process, but has been working constantly to work with the industry. In fact , there was a recent set of consultations that deal with that. The member, I think, should put on the record what his position is. Do the Conservatives support pension and benefits, and, if so, why?

When we announced the project management agreement, did they immediately dismiss pensions and benefits for workers? The bottom line is in the year 2005, Manitoba workers deserve pensions and benefits. Crocus Fund Government-Appointed Director Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, of the 13 directors that have been named in these allegations through the Manitoba Securities Commission for alleging to improperly value the Crocus Investment Fund unit all but one have either left the board or resigned. The only director left is the government-appointed director, Mr. Ron Waugh.

It does not matter if they have only been there since July. They were there when they were told there were valuation problems. When will this government do the right thing and reappoint a new director who has venture capital investment experience, who can stand up and properly represent the unit holders? When will you do that Mr. Minister? The question for government is why is he there? This is an individual that is facing serious allegations. He has no experience in venture fund management per se.

He is distracted by these allegations and obviously he has not been there to stand up for the rights of the unit holders. He was there on September 23 when the board was told that there were serious valuation problems. The question for the government was why is he still there. What useful purpose can he serve for the unit holders? When will he be replaced? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member asked the question about a board member appointed by government that is there with a fiduciary responsibility to represent shareholders.

He was very new to the fund when these matters came into focus this fall. He continues to serve as a representati ve there with his back- ground in the banking profession. This member, if the new board member feels they need another skill set, they can request government to provide them with an additional, another person to replace him, but at the moment the new board is orienting itself to its responsibilities. Mr. Waugh is there to serve on that board until they identify what other skills they might require.

The members of the board that have currently agreed to serve on the board, if they feel they need additional skills they can identify that and the government will try to support that, but I can say that this continuing attack on this individual is unwarranted in view of the fact that he was put there on the request of government to try and serve the shareholders' interests. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, this minister should be ashamed at how this process has been manipulated to avoid any representation, any fair representation for the unit holders to stand up for their rights on this board.

The new members themselves, while an improvement, do not carry any specific venture capital investment experience within their portfolio. Two of them happen to be individuals who the NDP government has appointed to the Municipal Board, the lottery commission board. So what this board is really lacking are individuals who can stand up for the unit holders who do not face allegations of wrongdoing, who do not face allegations of issuing improper prospectus, who do not face the fact that they may be fined or sued as a result of their actions. * (14:00) Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, the member seems to suggest that if there is an allegation against somebody that they should be removed by the board. An allegation is that, it is not a proven fact. This member serves on the boar d. He is a professional with a wide experience in the banking profession. Unlike members opposite, he was not a political appointment. He was an appointment put on the board because he had an expertise that was thought to be of value to the fund and to the shareholders. Provincial Park Campgrounds Reservation System Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, as the long weekend fast approaches and

2788 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 many Manitobans are looking forward to heading to our pristine parks across our province, many Manitobans are disappointed because this govern- ment was responsible for a significant error in our parks reservation system. The system opened on-line 37 hours ahead of when it was advertised to open, so many Manitobans were denied access to our parks across the province.

I want to ask the minister, in light of this error which he recognizes did take place, is ReserveAmerica based out of New York still our service provider even though they caused this chaos in start-up on the parks reservation. Hon. Stan Struthers (Min ister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, we have made significant improve- ments to the way in which we offer accessibility to our parks in the five and a half years that we have been on this side of the House. We have documented a very good improvement in the accessibility for Manitobans. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, this government does not want to put up with the kind of mistakes that have occurred. We will be reviewing the contract that we have with ReserveAmerica in the not too distant future. Mr. Faurschou: Well, Mr. Speaker, if improve- ments to the parks reservation system includes laying off Manitobans so Americans down in New York can be hired to make the service available then I do not agree with this government's improvements.

Currently, Manitobans have to make reservations through call centres based in Orlando, Florida, or Madison, Wisconsin, or Mississauga, Ontario, where this was previously done here in Manitoba. But because they have to cal l ahead to far-flung places, Manitobans are turned away at our park gates. I want to ask this minister why he does not trust our parks personnel to let Manitoba families into our parks. Mr. Struthers: I think it is absolutely incredible, Mr.

Speaker, that a member of that opposition would stand and criticize this government in terms of call centres given the track reco rd that they had when they were in power as opposed to what we have done over the last five and a half years. I made it very clear to the member from Portage that our goal was to increase the accessibility of Manitoba families to our beautiful parks in this province and we are going to continue to do that.

We will be reviewing the arrangement we have with ReserveAmerica, and we will be making some very strong steps to make sure that we increase the accessibility of our parks for Manitoba families. Mr. Faurschou: Mr. Speaker, this side of the House made certain that those call centres that were employed by hard-earned taxpayers' monies employed Manitobans. This government seems to say or believe that employing persons south of the 49th is important.

I am asking this government why Manitoba families that are at our park gates cannot drive into our parks and occupy a vacant park spot because the parks personnel are not trusted by this government to take the money from Manitobans. Mr. Struthers: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear that the accessibility rate in the last five years has increased as a result of the changes that we made, the improvements that we made to the parks reservation system that was present in 1999. That accessibility rate has increased every year that we have offered up our parks to Manitobans, and we will continue to do that.

The member from Portage is absolutely incorrect. Services for the Disabled For-Profit Providers Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Just ice (Mr. Mackintosh) for his assurance yesterday that the investigation of wrongdoing at Hydra House will be carried out without political interference.

This is important given the letter which I now table which shows that the Minister of Justice has been a supporter of Hydra House and has extolled the virtues of the provision of care by for-profit corpor ations like Hydra House which provide community-based programs and residential services for people living with a disability. Specifically, the Minister of Justice says in this letter that it is our experience that sometimes a private agency can offer a service which complements the range of supports required to meet the needs of participants.

My question to the Minister of Justice is will the Minister of Justice please tell this Legislature what

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2789 services for people with disabilities he believes can best be provided by private for-profit corporations. Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with the vulnerable people of Manitoba, we look at what the individuals need on an individual basis. Hydra House, which is no longer functioning because of the withdrawal of funding by this government, was a for-profit. On April 21, I did transfer the care of individuals to St. Amant Centre, Mr. Speaker, which is a not-for- profit.

Again, that decision was made on their ability to deliver the care needed on an individual basis to each and every resident of Hydra House. That is our criteria. The criteria is care, and I will continue to look at the care of each of these people as our top priority. Hydra House Investigation Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Many would say that there are concerns about care provided by some of the for-profit providers in terms of disabilities, but my supplementary now is to the Minister of Family Services who replied.

On April 11, the Minister of Family Services brushed off concerns raised with her department in early 2000 as being just a small matter around a respite program. From the material that I tabled yesterday, it is now clear that the issues raised in the spring of 2000 concerne d exactly the same kind of unethical, and almost certainly illegal, money grabbing by Hydra House which the Auditor General's report dealt with when he investigated Hydra House. I ask the Minister of Family Services why she indicated on April 11 of this year that this was a small matter.

Did her department staff not fully brief her on the range of financial irregularities that were raised with her department in early 2000? Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House I did not brush off the concerns raised. In fact, what we did was look into what the allegations were. I came back and informed the House that there had been a newly implemented respite program. There were problems with the policies that had to be taken care of by the department. The department took care of those policies. Mr.

Speaker, I take any concerns raised by members in this House very seriously, and if the member opposite has any concerns about a profit or a not-for-profit agency I in vite him and any other member of this House to come to me. My door is always open, and I will take very seriously their concerns. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I have raised very serious concerns. I tabled material yesterday showing that there were very serious financial irregularities raised with this government in early 2000 regarding Hydra House, huge excess profit taking, almost certainly illegal, certainly very unethical.

The problem I would ask and the question I would ask to the Minister of Family Services is why was this material not provided to the Auditor General when he was doing his investigation. Why was a comprehensive audit not done in 2000 as part of the investigation at that time? Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor was provided any information that he needed during the time of his investigation. There was an office set up in the Department of Family Services and Housing.

The Auditor is very well aware that any information that may be required in these concerns or any other concerns will be made readily available to him. This is not a new arrangement. This is a legislated arrangement that the department fully complies with in an open manner. Mr. Speaker, again, if the member has any concerns– An Honourable Member: You withheld information. Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, again I repeat, if the member or any other member of this House has any concerns, my door is open and concerns will be taken very seriously. * (14:10) Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr.

Speaker, the issues surrounding teen pregnancy are many and varied. Can the Minister of Healthy Living inform

2790 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 the House what steps her department is taking to address this subject? Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister responsible for Healthy Living): It is my pleasure to talk about pregnancy prevention. Healthy Child Manitoba, its Healthy Adolescent Development program has an intersectoral approach. Recently, the Elmwood Teen Clinic was able to announce some very remarkable and noteworthy achievements. The Elmwood Teen Clinic is an after-hours, school-based, primary health care facility just for teens which opened in September of 2002.

Indeed, we have been able to see in the surrounding area a decrease of teen pregnancy of 24 percent compared to Winnipeg which had a decrease of 8 percent. Now while Healthy Child Manitoba is not going to suggest that there is a direct relationship, no other interventions in the community were in place at that time. It has been terrifically successful. We hope to expand this program for teens in other communities in Winnipeg. Thank you. BSE Round Table Discussion Manitoba Representation Mr.

Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): We are on our second anniversary of the border closure to our beef and not one single processing plant has been built in Manitoba. It has become apparent that the NDP government's only long-term BSE strategy is reopening the border. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, has announced a high profile public forum shall take place on June 9 to discuss the case for reopening the American border to beef cattle. The forum will take place just down the road in St. Paul, Minnesota. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Agriculture will she or her NDP government be making presentations to this important meeting on June 9. Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of slaughter capacity in this province is a major issue and one that we have worked very diligently on. We will continue to work with the processors and producers. With regard to the forum that the Secretary of Agriculture is going to be hosting, if we are invited to his forum we will certainly be making a presentation. Mr. Eichler: Obviously, Mr.

Speaker, the minister is out of the loop once again. It is an open forum, anybody can go. Pick up the phone. It is not a tough deal. I will make the call for the minister. Unlike other provinces around us there have been no processing plants built in Manitoba for our producers for two years. The NDP government is absolutely relying on the border reopening to serve their BSE long-term solution. This upcoming meeting will have a profile representative in attendance and it is imperative that they have representation at the table. Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture assure Manitoba producers that communities affected by BSE will have representation at the conference? Ms. Wowchuk: I can assure the member opposite that this government has represented the Manitoba producers in many forums with regard to BSE, Mr. Speaker, and with other agriculture issues. Our Premier (Mr. Doer), has raised this issue with the Secretary of Agriculture. We have made representation in Washington. We have attended meetings in various forums in the United States to address the BSE issue. You know, Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the member opposite is going.

On one hand he says our only agenda is to open the border, and then he is critical of us that we have not increased slaughter capacity. We are interested in both and we are working on both, as well as working to develop new markets. Slaughter capacity is important, new markets are important, opening the border is important. We will continue to work on those issues. Mr. Eichler: Obviously, the minister does not know about the meeting. I would like to table the invitation so that she will be able to have it, Mr. Speaker. [interjection] We will send you another e-mail. Mr. Speaker, I will table this please.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to assure the member that he does not have to provide us a copy of the news release about the meeting. I indicated to him that we have represented many Manitoba producers in many forums, and this is a forum that we have been made aware of. I could tell you that the issue was raised at the Western

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2791 Premiers' Conference. It was raised at meetings the Premier has attended. The Premier has raised this issue with the governors of various states. He is the one Premier who has been able to get a meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture to discuss this issue. I can assure the members opposite this govern- ment is well aware and has been speaking on this issue and will continue to work to ensure that the issues important to Manitoba producers are raised in those forums, Mr. Speaker. Spruce Woods Provincial Park Campground Opening Mr.

Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Earlier this spring one of Manitoba's favourite camping spots, Spruce Woods Provincial Park, was flooded. Approximately two-thirds of the campground was flooded. The campground office, the swimming area and other facilities were seriously damaged. Despite this government's site-reservation fiasco, this spring the campground is almost entirely booked for the upcoming season beginning in May. This government's Web site today indicates this area will remain closed not only this long weekend but into July. Mr.

Speaker, why has this minister not moved to clean up this park for all Manitobans? Hon. Stan Struthers (Min ister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, the Saturday morning following the very successful Ru ral Forum, I was at this park to check it out. I can report to the member for that area that there was extensive damage done to the lower part of the park. A thick layer of topsoil and slime covers most of the park and the beach. There are problems with the lift station and there are problems with the wells and the water. This was a very major event in this park.

Luckily, bays 8, 9 and 10, which are on the upper regions, the high ground of the park, were not affected and those will be open and available to Manitobans this weekend. We are moving as quickly as we can to make sure we clean up the rest of the park and have it accessible to Manitobans very soon. Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we recognize this was a major flood. I am asking the minister why he would not allocate more resources to that particular facility to get it up and running earlier. We know this impacts the economy in that area. Why will the minister not expedite the cleanup of this area? Mr.

Struthers: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Turtle Mountain has to get up a little bit earlier in the morning to get ahead of these issues. We are providing funds to expedite this matter. It is a matter of physically cleaning up this park which is occurring as quickly as is humanly possible. I think, Mr. Speaker, this might be a good opportunity to inform members of some of the other improvements we have been making to our park system right across Manitoba. We are electrifying and opening more sites in places like Watchorn, Tulabi Falls, Nutimik, Stephenfield.

We are making very good improvements to our park system so that more and more Manitoba families can actually gain access to our very beautiful parks and our very beautiful campgrounds in this province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Emergency Medical Services Week Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): M r . S p e a k e r , i t i s a pleasure to rise today to recognize Manitoba's hardworking and dedicated emergency medical service providers during this the Emergency Medical Service Awareness Week.

The demonstration held at the Legislature today by the Paramedic Association of Manitoba is telling of the high level of profes sionalism and caring that each and every one of these valued individuals has for the health and welfare of Manitobans. The display of their latest medical equipment and techniques is a testament to the preparedness and high-quality abilities that EMS providers have when called to an emergency on a moment's notice. * (14:20) The theme for Manitoba's emergency medical services this year is Ready, Responsive and Reliable.

There is no doubt in my mind that they are most deserving of this reputation. In times of dire need, Manitobans have come to rely upon the services and high-quality capabilities of our emergency medical services professionals. The vital role that

2792 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 paramedicine plays in our health care system cannot be overemphasized. However, the reality is that the nature of their work means that the important role that they play in helping Manitobans oftentimes goes unnoticed. It is thanks to the tremendous efforts of our emergency medical service providers that the lives of countless Manitobans have been saved.

I would, therefore, ask all honourable members to join with me today in thanking the Manitoba Paramedics Association and all of our province's emergency medical service providers for the crucial role that they play in our health care system, and for helping and saving the lives of countless Manitobans. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Canadians Helping Kids in Vietnam Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, on May 7 I had the pleasure of attending Canadians Helping Kids in Vietnam's 10th annual fundraising dinner at Miles Macdonell Collegiate.

The member from Burrows and the city councillor, Lillian Thomas, also participated in this well- attended fundraising event. Along with contributing to a good cause, those who attended the dinner saw a lovely children's fashion show and were treated to authentic Vietnamese cuisine as well as entertainment provided by Vietnamese folk dancers and singers. Money raised at the dinner will be used by the Canadians Helping Kids in Vietnam to continue their humanitarian work overseas.

Canadians Helping Kids in Vietnam is a non-profit organization which is dedicated to providing education and support to families in the poorest region of Vietnam. In addition to providing aid for individual families, money raised by Canadians Helping Kids in Vietnam has been used to renovate a high school and build four schools in the Quang Ngai area. It is my understanding that plans are currently underway for the construction of a fifth school. Throughout her lifetime, Mrs. Kent has displayed virtues of hard work and commitment as she has managed a farm operation and was a local nurse for over 29 years.

Whether it has been through nursing, teaching, fundraising or volunteering her music talents to church activities, Mrs. Kent has clearly shown her devotion to Kenton and area residents. Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are selfless and caring people. Our province continues to have one of the highest rates of charitable work and volunteerism in Canada. Canadians Helping Kids in Vietnam is a perfect example of the enormous contribution Manitoba's volunteers make not only to our province but to the world.

On behalf of our government I would like to thank the volunteers and sponsors who have donated generous amounts of time and money to help make this organization a success over the last 10 years. Also, I would like to commend Chau Moon, Darlene Lindsay, Tam Nguyen for their efforts in establishing this organization. I must point out that Darlene Lindsay, a long- time former teacher at Miles Macdonell Collegiate, has been the driving force behind the success of this organization. Her energy and dedication have provided strong leadership and vision to Canadians Helping Kids in Vietnam's many volunteers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Eileen Kent Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate Mrs. Eileen Kent who has recently been awarded the Love of Caring Award presented by the Fred Douglas Society. These humanitarian awards pay tribute to individuals for their outstanding service, dedication and achievements by improving the lives of the elderly in the province. Mrs. Kent received her nomination from the Woodworth Senior Services in the community of Kenton. Eileen Kent is a true role model for others.

She has been an active volunteer with seniors in the community, promoting a healthy lifestyle, assisting them with day-to-day activities and organizing entertainment. Also, earlier this spring, Mrs. Kent was honoured as the recipient of the Women of Distinction award in Westman at the dinner held in Brandon, further valued recognition of her efforts. Once again I congratulate Mrs. Kent on this prestigious and well-deserved award. I wish her all

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2793 the best as she continues to provide such valuable services in her community. Collège Jeanne-Sauvé Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister responsible for Healthy Living): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate the students and staff of Collège Jeanne-Sauvé for being one of only four schools in Manitoba to receive an official designation from the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization as a UNESCO- associated school. This follows three years of dedication by students and staff in the Associated Schools Project Network.

I stand in the House today to commend these students, their teachers, their parents and all those involved for trying to make a difference in the Seine River constituency, the province of Manitoba and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, in the world. Thank you very much. The Network promotes peace through local, national and international partnerships in the areas of human rights, democracy and tolerance, intercultural learning and environmental issues. Collège Jeanne- Sauvé students have been involved in a two-year pilot project focussing on UNESCO themes within the curriculum and extracurricular clubs.

Le Collège Jeanne-Sauvé a mis sur pied un groupe Élèves sans frontières et a commencé en 2004 à développer leur projet Afrique 2007, dont le but est d'apprendre davantage sur la situation africaine et d'organiser un voyage en Afrique au cours de leur dernière année à l'école. Ce projet a d'importants objectifs internationaux et humanitaires; les élèves, leurs parents et le personnel de l'école appuient le lien établi entre les communautés africaine et canadienne, en encourageant un échange durable d'idées et de ressources à long terme.

Les élèves impliqués font preuve de compassion et de compréhension en mettant à exécution leurs plans, conçus dans le but d'améliorer notre monde. Translation Collège Jeanne-Sauvé organized a Students without Borders group and in 2004 began to plan their Africa 2007 project, the objective of which is to learn more about the situation in Africa and to organize a visit to Africa in their graduation year.

This project has a significant international and humanitarian focus with students, parents and staff supporting the bridging of the Canadian and African communities by facilitating a long-term sustainable exchange of ideas and resources. The students involved are putting into action their plans to make the world a better place with caring and understanding. English Hydra House Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, new facts relative to Hydra House have been emerging rapidly.

As a result of material made public during this session, we now know that the NDP government was made aware of very serious financial irregularities at Hydra House as early as late March of 2000. A second major complaint of financial irregularities was then raised with this government in November 2000. Both the concerns in the spring of 2000 and the fall of 2000 were related to unethical, highly irregular and probably illegal financial activity. When the first concerns were raised in the spring of 2000, the government treated them as a minor problem around respite care.

The NDP government failed to do an audit of Hydra House in spite of concerns of the financial irregularities. When the second set of concerns was raised in the fall of 2000, the government conducted a cursory financial review. For the NDP government to have failed to do a proper audit and investigation as a result of the complaints raised in the spring of 2000 shows very poor judgment. For the NDP government to have failed to do a thorough financial investigation as a result of the second major complaint in the fall of 2000 shows an appalling lack of judgment. For the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Mackintosh) to have written in strong support of Hydra House in April 2003, three years after the first complaints were received, is hard to comprehend. Clearly this government has been dismal in ensuring accountability of services, for those who are disabled, provided through Hydra House. * (14:30) GRIEVANCES Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Carman, on a grievance?

2794 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): On a grievance. Mr. Speaker: On a grievance. Mr. Rocan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to plead for justice in what has been called a ghastly story. It is a story that shames all Manitobans and cries out for redress. It is a story of the denial of due process and of natural justice leading to the confiscation of private property through abuse of the property tax assessment and appeal process. It is a story that in its fundamental injustice has been compared to the wrongful conviction of Thomas Sophonow.

It is a story that has been characterized as a tragedy of errors. It is a story of the power of the state being marshalled against citizens, rather than being harnessed to protect them. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable Member for Southdale (Mr. Reimer), the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik), Seech Gajadharsingh, the former member of the Municipal Board and, indeed, John Perrin, a member of the family that I am about to speak of, for it was these individuals who helped me gather most of this information.

This is a story about a property owner in Winnipeg whose journey through the tax assessment and appeal system was in

part like Alice in Wonderland, part Franz Kafka. The owner was a family-owned Manitoba corporation called Harvard Investments Ltd. named after Harvard Avenue in Crescentwood. The family has deep roots in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, and, indeed, in Winnipeg. The property in question was none other than that grand lady, the Fort Garry Hotel. To put this story in its proper context, Mr. Speaker, since Magna Carta , it has been a fundamental principle in our civilization that no one can be dispossessed of his property without due process of law.

Due process has been defined as that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just. In this respect, due process embodies moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Mr. Speaker, in the case of property tax assessment appeals in the province of Manitoba, due process involves three basic components. The first is an initial hearing before the taxpayer's local Board of Revision.

The second: If the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the outcome of the initial appeal, there is a further appeal to the Municipal Board of Manitoba. The Municipal Board's decision is final except in certain conditions. So the third component is that if the board's decision involves an incorrect application or

interpretation of the law, an appeal lies to the courts on the point of law. In this way, the board is overseen by the judiciary to ensure that its decisions are lawful. This kind of process is common in the operation of quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals every- where. It is well known and well understood. It honours the principles of due process and of natural justice. It contributes to justice being done and being seen to be done. It helps prevent the administration of the law from being held in disrepute. It helps to ensure that decisions are fair and right and just.

Let us now compare th ese universal and noble concepts with what actually transpired right here in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, this is a tale that has its foundations in the deliberate and concerted actions of the City of Winnipeg and in the unintended consequences of acts and omissions of this very House. It is a truly shocking story of the abuse of taxpayers by their governments. It is a story of the very protections that should be afforded every citizen being deliberately ignored and even subverted. First of all, Harvard Investments Limited purchased the Fort Garry Hotel in November 1979.

In January of 1987, the hotel was seized from Harvard by the City of Winnipeg pursuant to a tax sale proceeding based upon a grossly excessive assessment by the City of Winnipeg assessor. Second, Harvard first filed an assessment appeal in 1981 based on a legal opinion that the assessment was in order of seven to eight times too high. Coincidentally, that was the year the City of Winnipeg took the position that Bill 100, passed by this Legislature in 1980, had frozen all assessments shutting down the Board of Revision.

The business community back then challenged this action, but the Manitoba courts ruled that assessments were frozen. These erroneous decisions were later reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada but not until late 1983. The result was that the Fort Garry Hotel was subject

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2795 to a tax sale on the basis of a grossly excessive assessment prior to any assessment appeal hearing. Harvard also lost their property south and west of the hotel building in a mortgage foreclosure triggered by the tax sale. Third, finally in 1984, the Manitoba Municipal Board heard Harvard's appeal of the 1981, '82 and '83 assessments. In the hearing, the City of Winnipeg took the position that th e assessor was correct and that market value was not relevant to assessments.

In its decision, the board held that valuation based on market is not relevant to assessments in the city of Winnipeg. Fourth, Harvard sought leave to appeal in the Manitoba Court of Appeal on the point of law that market value was not relevant. In the leave application hearing, the City of Winnipeg took the position that there was no right to appeal a decision of the Municipal Board. The court held that The City of Winnipeg Act made no provision for an appeal even on a point of law. Harvard's leave application was denied.

Fifth, the Legislature subsequently amended The City of Winnipeg Act to include a provision providing for appeals on a point of law, but this amendment was not retroactive and, therefore, did not apply to Harvard's appeal. Sixth, following the tax seizure in 1987, Harvard was advised there was no legal remedy available to recover losses arising from the assessment and seizure.

The company and its shareholders then embarked on a lengthy and ultimately unsuccessful effort to mitigate their damages on the basis of other causes of action. * (14:40) Seven, later in 1987, in another case the Court of Appeal held that market value is the test of equity in assessments. Eight, in 1991, four years after the seizure, the Municipal Board heard Harvard's appeal of the 1984, '85, '86 and '87 assessments. The City again argued that the assessor had been correct.

On this occasion, however, the board foun d that the original assessment on the land and building was grossly excessive exceeding its proper level by 7.8 times, which is 780 percent. The assessment on the hotel building was found to be 97.3 times, which is 9,700 percent higher than it should have been. Ironically, this decision was upheld on the City's appeal to the Court of Appeal, the very appeal Harvard had been denied six years earlier. In 1992, Mr. Speaker, the situation at that time was outlined in a presentation to a committee of the Legislative Assembly.

In 2000, Harvard brought these matters to the attention of the Manitoba Ombudsman's office. The investigator commented that there was no doubt the company and its shareholders had been aggrieved. However, the Ombudsman was unable to assist due to statutory limitations on his authority. In 2001, Harvard was advised that all available legal remedies had been exhausted. Since then the shareholders have attempted to seek redress from the Government of Manitoba. It is clear that what transpired was not in accord with due process in which three fundamental principles are commonly recognized.

First, partici- pants have a right to timely decisions and a process that is neither cumbersome nor unduly costly. Second, the proce ss must respect natural justice. Third, the process must produce accurate decisions that refl ect correct findings of fact and accurate application of the law. Each of these principles was flagrantly violated in this case, and each of these violations was founded in relevant provincial legislation governing each aspect of the assessment and assessment appeal system applicable in the city of Winnipeg. The role of the Province in all of this can be summarized in three steps.

First, beginning in 1981, the actions of the City of Winnipeg in wrongfully interpreting Bill 100 resulted in taxpayers in the city having no access to an appeal process for over three years. This House must accept a substantial measure of responsibility for the confusion over the

interpretation of this act and the resulting unconscionable delays in process. This delay produced the obvious injustice of the tax sale and mortgage foreclosure of this property, burdened as it was by a grossly excessive tax bill prior to the owner's appeal ever having been heard. Second, Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Board of Manitoba in 1984 made a serious error in law in adopting the argument of the City of Winnipeg and the city assessor. It held that market value was not relevant to assessments in the city of Winnipeg.

2796 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Board's error was compounded fatally by what happened next. The property owners naturally believed they would have access to the courts to resolve the legal question of whether or not market value was relevant. They had, of course, been advised that this was established practice and so applied for leave to appeal the board's decision on the point of law in the Court of Appeal as provided in The Municipal Act. They expected due process. They thought they had a right to a hearing.

They thought they could expect protection from the deliberate actions of the City of Winnipeg and the errors of the Municipal Board. What happened next was profoundly shocking to them, Mr. Speaker. The Ci ty of Winnipeg took the position that there was no right to appeal even on a point of law. Even more shocking was the fact that The City of Winnipeg Act contained no provision for an appeal from an erroneous decision of the Municipal Board. Such a provision was contained in The Municipal Act but not in The City of Winnipeg Act. Now, just to be clear, Mr.

Speaker, the act did not contain a so-called privative clause intended to prohibit an appeal. Yet, sadly, the Court of Appeal, adopting the City of Winnipeg's argument, held that there was no right of an appeal even on a point of law. The leave application was denied. So much for the judicial oversight. So much for due process. So much for the right to be he ard. So much for natural justice. To compound what was already a manifest injustice, Mr. Speaker, this House later enacted to remedy the omission in The City of Winnipeg Act to provide for an appeal on a point of law.

But this amendment was not retroactive and did not apply to the case at hand. To further confirm the extent of the injustice, Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Court of Appeal held in a subsequent case that market value is the test for equity in assessment in the city of Winnipeg. Ironically, this decision came just months after the Fort Garry Hotel had been seized by the City. Now, Mr. Speaker, the City of Winnipeg is not an independent principality. It is not some sort of city-like state like Monaco or the Holy See. The people who live in Winnipeg are also citizens of Manitoba.

They should be able to rest assured that their most basic rights will be protected by the Province, notwithstanding the irresponsible actions of their municipal government, but this was not the case and this House must accept responsibility for the failure of the legislation to protect the rights of these Manitobans in the city of Winnipeg. In fact it is a failure to protect those basic rights that is so surprising, unbelievable, really. That these citizens could be persecuted by their municipal governments and not protected by the laws of Manitoba is really unbelievable to most people.

The difficulty in bringing this to the attention of the government is no doubt due to that very aspect. No one can quite believe that there can be such a violation of fundamental rights here in Manitoba but, Mr. Speaker, to our shame all this actually did happen. The wanton actions of the City of Winnipeg in arguing: first, that there was no right to appeal assessments; second, that market value was not a relevant consideration; and, finally, that there was no right of appeal on a point of law were spectacularly successful. Mr.

Speaker, in so doing they saddled the hotel with a grossly excessive tax bill which effectively bankrupted the company. The City then seized the property and brought a bankruptcy petition, no doubt with the intention of taking control of the company's affairs, thus eliminating any possibility of a claim for redress. So, Mr. Speaker, it is clear. The citizens of Manitoba have not been afforded the protection of the state but have been victimized by a marshalling of the power of the state against them.

In fact provincial laws, rather than affording protection, aided and abetted the truly offensive, odious even, acts of the City of Winnipeg. Without us and our errors and omissions, Mr. Speaker, they could never have gotten away with it. This is truly a ghastly story. The Manitoba government and Legislative Assembly surely have a moral obligation to provide redress under the circumstances. Mr. Speaker, how ironic it is that all this could happen in a province and its capital city that will soon lay claim to being a showcase for human rights in our nation and around the world.

Who in this House would accept what happened here as it

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2797 happened to them? These citizens lost their entire investment, their property and business, their jobs and livelihoods, their careers and reputations. How would members of this House react if they lost all of this under similar circumstances? How long would it take them, Mr. Speaker, to correct that wrong? It has now been 25 years since these Manitobans first appealed their tax assessment and over 18 years since their property was seized. Mr.

Speaker, it is all too easy to look the other way, and it is all too easy to ignore a fundamental injustice, but this House and this government must no longer shy away from doing what is fair and right and just. This is a wrong that must be righted. I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all members for providing me a few moments of extra time to put this on the record. Thank you very much. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call bills in the following order: 22, 25, 33, 30, 29, 8, 2, 5, 9? * (14:50) Mr.

Speaker: To resume debate on report stage amendments, Bill 22, The Water Protection Act. There are four amendments brought forward by the honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard). Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would mind repeating all of the bills, the order in which we are going to take them this afternoon, before we start with 22, please. Mr. Speaker: Okay. The bills I will be calling are 22, 25, 33, 30, 29, 8, 2, 5 and 9, in that order. An Honourable Member: Bingo. Mr. Speaker: We have a Bingo.

DEBATE ON REPORT STAGE AMENDMENTS Bill 22–The Water Protection Act Mr. Speaker: We will now resume debate on report stage amendments to Bill 22, The Water Protection Act. We have four amendments that were moved by the honourable Member for River Heights. The first amendment is to clause 2(2), standing in the name in the honourable Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings). What is the will of the House? For it to remain standing? [Agreed] * * * Mr. Speaker: Okay, next we will move to subamendment to clause 21(1), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). What is the will of the House?

Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? Agreed? An Honourable Member: No. Hang on a minute. Mr. Speaker: Okay, we will give a second here. Subamendment to clause 21(l). The subamend- ment is standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina. We have to deal with the subamendment before we can deal with the amendment. An Honourable Member: Okay, I see what you are saying. Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House for the subamendment to clause 21(1), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina, to stand?

Okay, I will repeat that, subamendment to clause 21(1) standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina. Is it the will of the House for the subamendment to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: Okay. It has been denied. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting process we find ourselves in with regard to Bill 22 as we try to go through this process and get an understanding of exactly what it is we are supposed to be debating. I believe it is the subamendment. I believe I have not spoken to this

2798 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 one. Members will have to excuse me if I am not 100 percent sure because I think we are at somewhere around 38 or 39 amendments, or subamendments, to this particular bill. I am sure members would be understanding as to why we are not exactly sure what is actually being debated because of the way in which this bill is being managed through the Chamber in third reading or the report stage.

That is the reason why I wanted to stand up and put some comments on the record again, as I have done in the past, to appeal to the Minister responsible for Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton). If he could make a list of the different amendments and then provide it to either myself or the Leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party as to what the government's position is on all of the amendments that are being proposed, I think it would go a long way in facilitating ultimately the passage of Bill 22. We need to know, prior to actually voting, ideally, where it is the government stands on each of the amendments.

In particular, obviously we are concerned with the government amendments that it has proposed. We know they obviously support those ones, but the amendments that are being proposed by the Leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party would go a long way in terms of helping us out. Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak long on this. I just wanted to be able to emphasize this on the record to the minister in hope that sometime in the next day or two we will actually get that list. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to. * * * Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to the third amendment, and that is to clause 31.1, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou). What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for it to remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No? It has been denied. Any speakers? No. Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment to clause 31.1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: No.

Some Honourable Members: Yes. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: No. Okay, all those in favour of the amendment, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated. * * * Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to the fourth amendment, to clause 24, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. What is the will of the House? Stand? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied. Any speakers? An Honourable Member: Yes. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Speaker, we just had a vote on a clause a moment ago. Unfortunately, it was not supported by the government. We are again approaching another clause in which by appearance it looks like it is going to come to yet another vote. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether or not the minister has actually addressed these clauses that we are voting on. I would like to get clarification from the minister as to if he has not spoken on these amendments, that he address the amendments prior

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2799 to an actual vote occurring so that we can get a sense of what the minister truly feels. The Leader of the Liberal Party has put in a great deal of thought, energy and resources in coming up with these amendments, and I do not think it would be appropriate to see amendments discarded because the government is not prepared to add comment. Obviously, they are there fo r a reason. We expect to see a response, other than just a quick voice vote rejecting it.

If the government is not going to respond, then I am going to take my time in going through each of the amendments, and I will exercise the 15 minutes-plus in order to be able to comment on them. We have four amendments that are being proposed by the Leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party. I look to the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton), and he has indicated that he is prepared, I believe, to support some of those amend- ments. We are very much interested in knowing which amendments. We now have two that are still there. One has been voted down. We have another one that I am debating right now.

I suspect once I sit down, if the minister has spoken on it, that is fine. We will be able to find out what he has said in order to gauge what he really feels about this particular amendment. If he has not spoken to it, we ask him to speak to it, and while he is speaking to it, if he could give an indication before we start passing or voting down amendments. Obviously, we take it quite seriously and would like to have a response. * (15:00) Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr.

Speaker, clearly the amendment had the right intent as far as paying compensation to farmers and/or anybody else for that matter that was located in an area that could be designated as a no-go zone and/or could be designated for whatever reasons the minister wanted to designate as an area that could be deemed environmentally unsound and therefore needed to be cleared of any developmental kind of activities in that area and know without any mention of any proper compensatory action being taken by this government and/or by the minister or directed by the minister.

This clause and this amendment speak to some compensatory method being established. However, and here is the reason I find this clause somewhat difficult, and that is in (a.1), by adding the following after clause (4)(a): (a.1) compensation paid under clause (3)(

d) but not exceeding the amount contained in the fund . . . Nobody knows under the prescription of the fund in the act what that fund will actually be because it is all dependent on the regulations being drafted after to designate a fund to allocate monies to the fund, or allow the allocation of money through private direction and/or otherwise to develop this fund. So far, Mr.

Speaker, all I have seen of the fund is an airy-fairy attempt to try to convince the public that there will be a process developed where large amounts of money might be contributed to the fund through donations and/or otherwise, but not by government. To do what? We are not quite sure yet. This clause said to use the fund but within the terms of the fund. And I say that might not be nearly adequate.

When you take, for instance, in a case such as the Red River Valley, it is a flood zone, and the flood zone is clearly identified under the bill as an area that might be somewhat questionable as to whether we might want to, at some point in time say–and I heard all this discussion during 1997–but sometimes say that maybe we should not allow any further development in the whole Red River Valley.

Maybe we should clear the whole Red River Valley and put it back to buffalo grass, and maybe just designate it as a wildlife zone to ensure, when flooding occurs, that no further damage can occur except the grass being under water and the grass growing up after the flood is over and the buffalo roam and play cheerfully and the deer are following the buffalo and maybe a few wolves and maybe even the odd mountain lion would come through to eat on the buffalo. Mr.

Speaker, there is no word of compensation to the people and the development that is heard in this valley that has been the mainstay of the economy of this province in a major way. And here we are going to rely on a fund being established by private entrepreneurs, or whatever, by private enterprise, to develop a process of compensation to this fund,

2800 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 through this fund, to whoever would be affected by the clearance of a given area. Maybe it is somewhat of an exaggeration to identify the whole Red River Valley, but I will never forget when the colonel fr om Edmonton flew into Manitoba and suggested that maybe this would be an appropriate time to designate an area development free in the Red River Valley because they had very serious concerns with the costs and all those kinds of things and the dangers that the floods presented.

I say to this Chamber we should very seriously consider that the government must be directed to pay compensation wherever development has taken place that the government must be directed to pay compensation wherever development has taken place. The government would decide this is from now on a no-go zone, we will clear that area, that proper compensation be paid to those people that have opened the land, not only land but maybe even built a town or a village, and that proper compen- sation be denied. I believe these funds that are identified under this amendment simply are not adequate. Mr.

Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is amendment to Clause 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated. * * * Mr.

Speaker: Okay, we will move on to eight amendments moved by the honourable Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou). The first one is to clause 4(2), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for it to remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied. Any speakers? Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment to clause 4(2). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: No.

Some Honourable Members: Yes. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated. * * * Mr. Speaker: Now we will move to the second amendment to clause 7(1) and (4), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell.

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2801 What is the will of the House? Stand? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied. Any speakers? Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment to clause 7(1) and (4). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Yes. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr.

Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated. * * * Mr. Speaker: The third amendment to clause 7(5)(b), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner). What is the will of the House? Stand? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: It has been denied. Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is amendment to clause 7(5)(b). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Yes. Voice Vote Mr.

Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated. * * * Mr. Speaker: The fourth amendment to clause 7(6), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). What is the will of the House? Stand? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: It has been denied. Any speakers? Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question is the amendment to clause 7(6).

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Yes. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea.

2802 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated. * * * Mr. Speaker: The fifth amendment to clause 23, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner). What is the will of the House? Stand? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Emerson, to speak. Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, if you give me just a bit of time, I will look at that amendment. I think we all remember this one.

This clause I think the minister should give very serious consideration to. I know the minister has developed, within the confines of the bill, the ability to put in place a water council. The water council, in my view, according to what I have read in the bill, would be somewhat similar to what we call some- times a super board. That council, in my view, would have the right and the authority to do some extraordinary things. * (15:10) One of the main responsibilities of the council would be to make recommendations to the minister for action. When I look at

section 23 of the bill, I look at the bill in its entirety and I look at the lack of direction and clarification in the bill and then almost every other clause talks about an ability to put in place regulations. Mr. Harry Schellenberg, Acting Speaker, in the Chair We really honestly do not know and have been given no clear indication by the minister or this government to tell us explicitly what the intent is of this bill. I can make all kinds of nice noises, and I can use all kinds of nice words and say that we are going to protect the water in our province. I say to you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that there would not be a person in this province, given the opportunity in public, would not say exactly the same thing. We want to protect our water. Yet, when I look at the draft of the bill, I look at the

preamble and it is very directed at one area. It speaks about the nitrogen level; it speaks about phosphate levels; it speaks about the environment; it is paramount to the environment, paramount to the economic and social well-being of Manitoba. What nice words, the

preamble. Then it goes on to say that sufficient, safe, accept able and affordable water for personal and domestic uses is internationally recognized as a fundamental right of citizens. Well, nobody would argue that. Nobody could argue that. It is well defined, accepted all over the world. That is a right of human beings. That is the right of the animals that live on this globe. That is the right of every living being that depends on land and water for survival. Nobody can argue that.

Then it goes on to that say the government of Manitoba recognized the importance of the United States Boundary Waters Treaty agreement, and I think here is where we get to where the minister really wants to point the finger again at somebody outside of his jurisdiction, and blame. Then he goes on to say other interjurisdictional agreements protecting water and the shared right and respon- sibility of all jurisdictions in the Hudson Bay drainage basin to protect water resources within the basin.

Again, there is not any international person around, there is not a Manitoban around or a Canadian around that would say that is not the right of all individuals. However, I suspect the mention of the Canada-United States Boundary Waters Treaty might have something to do with the fight the Premier (Mr. Doer) is into with the governor of North Dakota on Devils Lake. An Honourable Member: You think so? Mr. Penner: I think that. I am not sure of that because it does not define it in this act, but it sure points the finger because this is the only international jurisdiction that we deal with in Manitoba.

It is the only jurisdiction on the globe that touches Manitoba internationally. So what am I to assume? I assumed it.

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2803 Now, then it goes on to say that to most effectively ensure drinking water is kept clean, safe and reliable, it is necessary to complement the provision of The Drinking Water Safety Act with additional measures to protect drinking water sources. We all agree with that. I believe our forefathers, quite frankly, did an exceptional job of protecting our water. I think virtually everybody in this province is a protector of our drinking water. I think they are very concerned about the drinking water. Mr. Speaker in the Chair This implies that we are not.

I think that really speaks very poorly of how much faith and confidence we have in the population in Manitoba. So I say to you that I believe, in part, this is an attempt to cast blame on somebody else in a foreign country. Then it goes on to say

whereas the Government of Manitoba is committed to watershed planning as an effective means to address risks to water resources and aquatic ecosystems and believes the residents of watersheds should be consulted when watershed plans are developed. Well, we sure would not argue with that. We can support that. We believe those that are affected must be consulted. There is no question. The minister will know that, when I was given the opportunity to be the Minister of Natural Resources, I embarked immediately on the land and water strategy. That was my first priority. What did I do? What did my government do?

What did the Filmon administration do? They went out on a consultation process the likes of which this province had not seen before. We consulted. We had 1200 people make presentations and give us direction and advice, 1200 people. I think it was unprecedented. Then we drafted a policy position on water, on land, on the resources, the mining industry, forestry industry. We drafted a position paper. We developed policy. The previous Pawley administration had not even thought of this.

The previous Schreyer administration had given no thought to this, but the Conservatives of the '88 to 1999 administration gave a tremendous amount of thought to this. What did we do? We implemented the Sustainable Development Initiative. We imple- mented watershed planning areas, and now the minister wants to reinvent. I think it is a clear indication as to how narrowly this minister has looked at doing legislation that will protect and ensure clean, clear drinking water. Maybe we should look at this bottle, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Penner: I will say to the Speaker that– Mr. Speaker: Order.

Exhibits are not allowed in this Chamber. [interjection] The member just held it up as an exhibit. I ask the honourable member to please put it down off his desk. Off the desk, please. Mr. Penner: This is drinking water. Mr. Speaker: Well, you held it up as an exhibit. It was held up as an exhibit. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member held it up as an exhibit when he held it up in his hand making a point. I ask the honourable member to please remove it from his desk and put it on the floor. Thank you very much. That should take care of the matter. Mr. Penner: Now, Mr.

Speaker, I stand here, and I lift this glass of water because I need a drink. If this glass of water contained the same water that the bottle did that I held up before, if it would contain the same water, then I would suggest we had a real problem. But this glass of water is fairly clear. The bottle of water that I had standing on my desk until a minute ago was taken out of the taps in this building two days ago. It was water I drew out of the taps in Room 113. [interjection] Pardon? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Emerson has the floor. Mr. Penner: I know, Mr.

Speaker, that this causes the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) a bit of a dilemma. I think it causes some other members in this Chamber a bit of a dilemma. When I came to this building in 1988, I could go to any tap in this building and draw water that was as clean and as clear as this glass of water is. I suspect this glass of water might have come out of that–

2804 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 * (15:20) Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not the principle if the water is drinkable or not; it is using an object as an exhibit that is prohibited in this House. Any object could be legal to bring in the House, but if it is used as an exhibit, that is not allowed in this Chamber. So I kindly ask the honourable Member for Emerson to please continue on with your debate. Mr. Penner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I respect you and your direction and advice.

However, what I want to point out is you can put whatever you like on paper and you can make nice news releases to try and convince the people of Manitoba that this Chamber and the government that rules here is, in fact, doing something that is meaningful to protect the water. The bottle of water that I showed you is a demonstration of the confusion that exists in and amongst the government ministers because they have led people of Manitoba to believe that they are, in fact, doing something when nothing is being done.

For the first time since I have come to this building as a member of the Legislature, I opened a tap in room 113 and nothing but brown soup came out of the tap. That is two days ago right after Question Period. I walked to that Room 113 and I opened the tap and it was as brown as this desk, the water was.

I want to say to the minister, when you draft legislation, use some othe r words than just saying this Government of Manitoba is committed to watershed planning as an effective means to address risk for water resource and aquatic ecosystems, I believe that residents and watersheds should be consulted when watershed plans are developed. I want to see action. This bill only prescribes a way to allow regulations to be drafted. It is a prescription. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have drafted and put forward so many of the amendments.

That is why we suggested that the minister, in fact, look at clause 23 and look at the amendment that Mr. Faurschou put forward and say where it must refer to water council– Mr. Speaker: Order. I kindly ask honourable members when making reference to other members to please do it ministers by portfolios and other members by their constituency. Mr. Penner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that the Member for Portage la Prairie brought forward an amendment that says, "must refer to the water council the responsibility to monitor the development and implementation– Mr. Speaker: Order.

The honourable member's time has expired. Any other speakers? Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is clause 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favours of the amendment, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated. * * * Mr.

Speaker: Now I will call the next amendment to clause 24(4)(b), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner). What is the will of the House? It is the will of the House to stand? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No. The honourable Member for Emerson, to speak.

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2805 Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, this clause I want to talk about basically deals with the same matter and refers to the fund that we were talking about just a few minutes ago.

I would suggest that, if you look at 24(4), and you look at the permissive way the bill is drafted, I think we must all recognize that just to put a piece of legislation in place in this province, to allow for regulations to be put in place that would be governed, would be the governing body of what needs to be done, in other words, the prescriptive body that needs to be done, I think it is somewhat presumptuous of the minister and therefore, in the long term, does not serve democracy well. Mr.

Speaker, you and I could very easily sit down and draft a whole piece of paper that would give us the authority to later on draft regulations without that piece of paper saying anything about what was intended by the regulations. It would not have to be very definitive. In many areas, that is what this bill is. In this section, clause 24(4)(b), it talks about the cost of marketing and promoting the fund. In other words, this minister wants to ensure that he has a fund that he can advertise all over the province and the cost be borne by the contributors to the fund. Think about that.

We have heard so much about funds in the last while, establishing funds to do what? To add costs to the taxpayers of this province. I refer to the floodway labour management agreement. I have never seen so many trust funds established under one bill or under one piece of agreement as are contained in the labour manage- ment agreement. I honestly could not believe when I read–the minister challenged me to read the bill, or to read the agreement, and I did. To his misfortune, I did. That agreement adds huge costs to constructing the Winnipeg floodway. It adds huge costs.

It adds an average for every hour of work–[interjection] I know there are people here that like to hassle the speaker or– Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Emerson has the floor. Mr. Penner: And he is a good friend of mine. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I think you know that he and I travelled to Washington together and we travelled to Kansas together. We met with numerous legislators over there, and it was amazing how quiet this man could be. He sat quietly by and listened so intently to most everything that was said.

He added very little to the conversation that was held with the legislators and/or senators that we met with in either Washington and/or Kansas, sat quietly and listened. I know the minister loves to get into the fray as well, and I respect the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton). I really do. I think he is a good, seasoned politician.

I just wish he and I could agree philosophically on more things than we can from a political standpoint, but it has become a bit difficult. * (15:30) Getting back to the bill and the amendment in the bill, I would suggest that here is another attempt by government to take money that is in good faith contributed to a fund, and then government uses it as another slush fund to do a whole bunch of publicity in their favour.

I think it is disgraceful when it is written into a bill that gives the right of that kind of abuse of a fund that in large part should be established to support the ecosystem, to support clean water and clean water development. Yet this government wants to spend money to do an advertising campaign. Look at what they could use this for during an election campaign. It would be fabulous. Given the broad parameters of the allowances within this clause, you could, a month before the campaign, a month after the campaign, during the campaign, do huge ads on clean water. I can see the intent here. So, Mr.

Speaker, that is why we are suggesting that this clause should be eliminated from legislation like this. Quite frankly, no other government that comes after this NDP govern ment, and there will be another party that comes after this NDP government, no other party, I think, would even have thought of implementing or including this kind of a clause in a bill allowing them to spend on advertising the kind of money that might be available to them without limitations. So we strongly would suggest that this House consider the removal of using the fund as an advertising slush fund. Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers?

Is the House ready for the question?

2806 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is clause 24(4)(b). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated. * * * Mr.

Speaker: Amendment to clause 32, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Emerson. What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for it to remain standing? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No? It has been denied? Okay. Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is clause 32. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr.

Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated. * * * Mr. Speaker: We will move to the next amendment to clause 33(3), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). What is the will of the House, that it remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No? It has been denied. Any speakers? Okay. Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr.

Speaker: The question before the House is clause 33(3). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favour, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay.

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2807 Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated. * * * Mr. Speaker: Next, we will move on to 12 amendments moved by the honourable Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton). The first amendment moved to clause 1(1), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House to remain standing? Stand? An Honourable Member: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Okay. It will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell. * * * Mr. Speaker: We will move on to the next amendment, to clause 2(

d) and (e), standing in name of the honourable Member for Russell. What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for it to remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No? Is it to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No? Okay, the honourable Member for Emerson, to speak. Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, this was clause 2(d)– Mr. Speaker: Clause 2(

d) and (e). Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, when one looks at 2(d), and 2(b), or 2(

c) of this bill, one really has to look at the whole area of what is intended here. When you look at the proposals that are put forward under 2, the purpose of this act is to provide for the protection and stewardship of Manitoba's water resources and aquatic ecosystems, recognizing that under (

a) Manitoba's social and economic well-being is dependent upon the su stainable existence of a sufficient supply of high-quality water, and (

b) is the importance of comprehensive planning for water- sheds, with respect to water, land and ecosystems, on a basis that acknowledges and considers their interdependence, and (

c) that water resources and aquatic ecosystems require protection to ensure the high quality of drinking water sources. Then it goes on in (

d) to say the importance of applying scientific information in decision-making processes about water, including the establishment of standards, objectives and guidelines, and "(

e) the need to protect riparian areas" and here this bill amends it, "the need to protect riparian areas and wetlands." I think in the initial bill there was clearly an area where the minister had not either given proper consideration to or it was simply an oversight. I wanted to put a few comments on the record on the importance of wetlands.

When one looks at other areas, the other areas of the world, and when one looks at the Euphrates River Valley in history and one recognizes when too many attempts are made in an area of the world where everything is done to remove water from the land, especially in areas that are very often considered swamplands or recharge areas for aquifers, we must ensure, Mr. Speaker, that what happened in the Euphrates Valley does not occur in Manitoba.

I think when you look now at what is happening in that same area of the gl obe and that country, there is now being restoration undertaken by foreign governments to help that poor country rebuild its wetlands and replenish the swamplands that used to be there, and you look at what is the regeneration of the ecosystem there, it is almost unbelievable what can happen when human beings take remedial measures to rebuild something that was destroyed by human hands.

That is why we put some of the amendments forward in this bill, and our caucus and our party strongly believe there must be a balance maintained in the ecosystem that ensures that what the good Lord intended when this globe was made is in fact respected and kept. Water and land, if you have not got a proper balance of the two, you are capable–or it is probable that destruction can take place. So one

2808 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 must very delicately assess and make sure that we do not overdo it from one area to another. * (15:40) We have flat prairie lands that need from time to time water taken off, and we know that. We have the Red River Valley. We know how that valley is pro- ductive as long as proper care is taken that the soil is, in fact, maintained, and the areas of wetlands that have been traditionally kept. I refer to southeast Manitoba. We have many swamplands in southeast Manitoba east of the Red River.

Those are the recharge areas for the aquifers, many scientists will tell you. They house a very specific ecosystem, and they support an ecosystem that I believe all of us respect and want to protect. So this area of wetlands not being identified previously when the initial draft of the bill was put forward and introduced in this House was, I believe, quite frankly, an oversight that the minister did not really want. Therefore, I respect that he brought forward this amendment to this bill. I think this adds significantly to the acceptance of this bill to the general public and indeed to our party.

We support this amendment. We think this strengthens this bill immensely. It does not only focus on nitrates and phosphates. It actually identifies how a wetland area can actually enhance the well-being of a water supply that we are all dependent on, and recognizing how remedial action nature can take by growing all kinds of material or letting all kinds of growth happen in a wetland, such as cattails and many other areas that I understand are real filters and cause a lot of clean water to happen and that take a tremendous amount of nutrients out of the water supply.

I was somewhat astounded this spring when the migration of the geese and the ducks and the swans took place. We had, as many of you know, large areas of unharvested crops in the Red River Valley, first time in my farming career that I ever saw that amount of crops left out in the field and destroyed. Virtually every acre of corn that was grown in this province for grain was left out in the field and either harrowed down or left there. What did that attract this spring? Huge, huge flocks of geese. Just a mile west of our place, I drove to town one morning and there must have been a million geese on that

section of land. It was white virtually from one end to the other. When I drove down the road, believe it or not it was a dirt road, no gravel on it. When I drove down that road, and I want to say this to the minister, I had never experienced this. All of a sudden the road turns swiftly, and it was covered with white material. I think the geese found a warm, black spot. The road turned warm overnight and stayed warm overnight, and the geese went out and sat on the road. But what they dropped there was something that was not very pleasant. The tires of the car did not hold very distinctly to the road.

The reason I am saying this, Mr. Speaker, is that those geese, if there were a million of them, and I would not be surprised if there were a million of them, had landed in Lake Winnipeg and sat there for a day or three or a week and a half, as they did here, look at the amount of material that they would have dropped in that lake. Material that we have paid some attention to, or the minister has, in trying to assess what caused the pollution in Lake Winnipeg.

I think the scientists have identified that it was probably in large part the waterfowl that dwell on Lake Winnipeg, or use Lake Winnipeg as a watering hole in its migration and/or otherwise. I respect that. The other thing I find interesting when I read some of the articles, be they scientific or otherwise, it states that fish species are very often dependent on those goose droppings and duck droppings for a feed supply. Fish feed on them. Nature has an interesting way of protecting and providing for its own creation, and I think that was clearly demonstrated again this spring.

When farmers leave crops out in the field, nature has a way of utilizing those crops in the spring for its own existence. That is one reason why, Mr. Speaker, I want to support this amendment to this bill.

It goes on and says, "The benefits of providing financial incentives for activities that protect or enhance water, aquatic ecosystems or drinking water sources." I think therein, in the initial draft of the legislation, the minister had simply overlooked the need from time to time to provide financial incentives to encourage th e application of processes that could be utilized to make our drinking water supplies better than what they had been in the past. The wetlands and the development of wetlands, or restoration of wetlands, sometimes need some extra

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2809 enhancement and protection. Governments from time to time need to provide financial incentives to protect or enhance water and aquatic systems. I would certainly support the inclusion of this amendment and the minister's own amendment to his own bill in this matter. I think this is a clear indi- cation that he really wants to make this bill better. I think we want to make this bill better. That is why we proposed the many amendments to this bill that we did put forward.

I hope the minister will look favourably on some of the amendments we have put forward to be inclusive, because we think that, too, will enhance the adoption and acceptance of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. David Faurschou (P ortage la Prairie): I rise to address the amendment as proposed by the honourable minister as it pertains to the purpose of the act by amending (

e) and adding clause (

f) to

section 2. I will say I do support the amendment as presented to the Assembly. I do so without any reser- vation, even though I should hold some malice towards the minister for voting down the last eight amendments that I proposed to assist in making this bill a better one. The minister is quite correct that one was passed.

The ninth amendment I proposed was passed by the minister, which I do appreciate, and perhaps that is pretty good for an opposition to get at least one amendment to a government bill passed. * (15:50) I do want to speak specifically to the proposed amendment that speaks of providing financial incentives to protect and enhance water aquatic ecosystems and drinking water sources.

I do want to draw the minister's attention to the very well- thought-out proposal that has been developed and promoted by the Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba being piloted in, I believe, four other locations within the nation that provides for financial remuneration to landowners for setting aside areas next to waterways and allowing the owner of the land to not totally lose all opportunity for financial remuneration for the properties, in that way too, recognizing that preserving our water quality is of benefit to all persons, not just the landowner who owns the property adjacent to waterways.

So this particular amendment does speak to that. I do believe the honourable minister has in mind that this amendment will be able to support the alternative land use strategy that the Keystone Agricultural Producers have proposed. I know the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Rural Initiatives (Ms. Wowchuk) has seen the alternative land use strategy as proposed by the Keystone Agricultural Producers. I hope that she has shared this information with the Water Stewardship Minister (Mr. Ashton) b ecause I do wholeheartedly support the strategy that has been developed by the Keystone Agricultural Producers.

This particular amendment will allow that strategy to be adopted and provide for landowners' ability to participate in enhancing the quality of water by leaving undisturbed riparian areas, yet not bearing the full burden upon their shoulders by themselves, and all Manitobans will be able to benefit and ultimately support the initiative. So, with those few word s, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this amendment moved and brought into force when this bill is given Royal Assent. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief in support of this amendment.

I want to zero in on the clause that reads, "the benefits providing financial incentives for activities that protect or enhance water aquatic ecosystems or drinking water sources." I will be echoing the comments from my colleagues about the fact that something I have noticed over the years, th at sometimes some of the most ardent environmental protection enthusiasts are anxious to do the right thing.

For that they should not be criticized, but they tend to forget that sometimes when they are doing that, th ey are pointing out there to the other guy's property, in many cases what would be a rural setting where by virtue of the fact that an agricultural community makes its living through the use of the land. They have the primary responsibility, but they also have the primary expense to carry.

There are a number of times, in my experience, where an agricultural community knows what needs to be done, but is unwilling or unable to afford to take certain measures that would be appropriate for better management of water protection, of water quality, providing the riparian areas that are needed. This is a bit of a weak sister in terms of an

2810 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2005 amendment for what some people would be looking for, but it is very clear that it is a start. We need to seriously consider moving in this direction as a society if we intend to actually begin to make the influence on water quality that this bill, on the surface at least, seems to be intended for. Lest the minister responsible for water becomes too comfortable with my commentary, I cannot sit down without adding the fact that I think this bill was structured in a way that allows for too much to be left to regulation and future development.

It could be more proscriptive, but I have been told by my colleague that he has come around and seen the wisdom of some of the amendments that have been put forward. He has proposed some of his own, and I can only assume that we now jointly, on both sides of this House, can move forward to actually do something beneficial on behalf of water quality. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Yes. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment to clause 2(

d) and (e). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? [Agreed] * * * Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to amendment to clause 2.1, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). What is the will of House? Stand? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied. Are there any speakers? An Honourable Member: What number is that? Mr. Speaker: Clause 2.1. Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, this amendment speaks to the establishment of a directorate of water protection.

I guess, again, under the initial drafting of this bill, either by oversight or maybe deliberately, I am not sure, but there was simply no mention made of a directorate. I know that we had also in our assessment of the bill made note of that. We had, in fact, drafted an amendment to ensure there would be a mention made of the director in our initial drafting of amendments to this bill.

I think it is important to recognize that if you are going to implement a bill that could have the effect that a properly drafted water protection act should be, there must be an authoritative process put in place that has the ability to direct matters as prescribed by legislation, first of all, and a proper regulatory process put in place that the function of the department can, in fact, take place in a reason- able manner.

But, without a proper seniority kind of structure put in place, it would have simply meant, without adding the word "director," I think, it would have simply meant that the super board the minister has designated under this bill or prescribed in this bill would have been the directorate as well. I think that would simply be, in my view, unacceptable unless maybe the minister is secretly telling us something here that we have so far missed.

It just came to me that maybe it was his intent to divest himself initially, divest himself entirely from responsibility, and really it would be a very simplistic way of doing away with criticism in the minister's office. We know there are from time to time complaints that come in, and they are directed at the minister's office.

If y ou, first of all, designate an unelected and appointed body to be a board, which I call under this act the super board, which is given the responsibility for water, without a delegated responsible civil service to attend to the matters that might be recommended by the super board, this might have been, in fact, a very unwieldy kind of process that might have been established here.

I commend the minister for probably taking a look at some of the draft amendments that we had done and recognizing that he, in fact, did make a mistake by not putting in place a provision for a directorate of water protection under this act. * (16:00) I want to say to the House that we support the establishment of a proper directorate within the Department of Water Stewardship to ensure that there will be a process put in place to allow the civil service that will eventually be, I would suspect,

May 18, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2811 established under this process to allow for the proper administration of the act, as well as ensuring that there will be proper actions taken under the regulatory process of a bill that is rather vague in many, many areas. I would suspect that the minister is attempting to ensure that there will be an administrative body put in place to serve that need. We would support the establishment of a Director of

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-3-49
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 3rd hansardpdf 49.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	964061bfdee7433633fb40a19c8e5f144be0fb1a

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