Manitoba Hansard — 5 May 2005 (Sitting 42B, 38th Legislature, 3rd Session)

38-3-42b

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. 42B - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, May 5, 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.

2415 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, May 5, 2005 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Ambulance Service Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): 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 bench- mark 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 Steve Grisim, Susie Grisim, Amanda Grisim, Sean Berndsen 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. Minimum Sitting Days for Manitoba Legislature Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: The Manitoba Legislature sat for only 35 days in 2003. In 2004, there were 55 sitting days. The number of sitting days has a direct impact on the issue of public accountability.

The Legislative Assembly provides the best forum for all MLAs to debate and ask questions of the government, and it is critical that all MLAs be provided the time needed in order for them to cover constituent and party duties. Establishing a minimum number of sitting days could prevent the government of the day from limiting the rights of opposition members from being able to ask questions. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider recognizing the need to sit for a minimum of 80 days in any given calendar year.

Signed by Brij Bhutani, Kunti Bhutani and Ravi Bhutani.

2416 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 * (13:35) Provincial Road 355 Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: The unsafe conditions of PR No. 355 from the western edge of Minto municipality to PR No. 270 (including the hill out of the Minnedosa valley), poses an undue risk to Manitobans who must travel on this roadway.

The steady stream of traffic on this stretch of PR No. 355, which includes automobiles such as "B" train semi-trailer tractors, mail delivery vehicles and school buses, make the roadway in its current state dangerously impassable. Continued expansion of the regional economy in livestock development, grain storage and trans- portation and the proposed Mohawk Plant, puts additional strain on PR No. 355 and creates further safety concerns for motorists. PR No. 355 experiences an increased risk in traffic flow during the spring season when there are weight restrictions on surrounding provincial trunk highways.

For several years, representatives of six municipal corporations, as well as an ad hoc citizens' group have been actively lobbying the provincial government to upgrade and reconstruct the stretch of PR No. 355 at issue. Manitobans and visitors to the province deserve a better rural highway infrastructure. We petition the Manitoba Legislative Assembly as follows: To request the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux) to consider upgrading PR No. 355 from the western edge of the R.M. of Minto to PR No. 270 (including the hill out of the Minnedosa valley).

To request the Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Doer) to consider supporting the said initiative to ensure the safety of our Manitobans and all Canadians who travel along Manitoba highways. Signed by Michael Davis, Ron Kingdon, Brian Hudon and others. Coverage of Insulin Pumps Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Insulin pumps cost over $6,500. The cost of diabetes to the Manitoba government in 2005 will be approximately $214.4 million.

Every day 16 Manitobans are diagnosed with the disease compared to the national average of 11 new cases daily. Good blood sugar control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by 50 percent, blindness by 76 percent, nerve damage by 60 percent, cardiac disease by 35 percent and even amputations Diabetes is an epidemic in our province and will become an unprecedented drain on our struggling health care system if we do not take action now.

The benefit of having an insulin pump is it allows the person living with this life-altering disease to obtain good blood sugar control and become a much healthier, complication-free individual. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier (Mr. Doer) of Manitoba to consider covering the cost of insulin pumps that are prescribed by an endocrinologist or medical doctor under the Manitoba Health Insurance Plan. Signed by Helen Berg, Ray Friesen, Elma Brandt and many, many others. TABLING OF REPORTS Mr.

Speaker: I am pleased to table in the House the Report to the Legislativ e Assembly by Dr. Jerry Gray, Interim Commissioner for MLA Pay, dated May 5, 2005.

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2417 Hon. Stan Struthers (Min ister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report for 2003-2004 of the Clean Environment Commission. * (13:40) MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Holocaust Memorial Day Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement for the House. On May 1, 2000, Manitoba's Legislative Assembly voted unanimously to pass Bill 19,

an act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day or Yom HaShoah in Manitoba. The date was established according to the Hebrew calendar on the 27th of Nissan. On this day we join with communities around the world in remembrance of the 6 million Jewish men, women and children who perished under the deliberate and planned state-sponsored persecution and murder by the Nazi regime and their colla- borators. We also remember the millions of others who were also victims because of their physical or mental disabilities, race, religion or sexual orientation.

The horror, the pain and suffering experienced by those who perished in the concentration camps, those who survived and those who lost family and friends must never be forgotten. Sadly, 60 years later, the world has not yet learned the lesson of the Holocaust. Systematic violence, genocide, persecution, racism and hatred continue to occur throug hout the world. Tomorrow, as Minister responsible for Multiculturalism, I will be attending the annual memorial service at the Holocaust Monument on the Legislature grounds and joining in the reading of the names of men, women and children who perished.

At the Holocaust Aware- ness Program, "unto every person there is a name." Today let us rededicate ourselves as legislators to lead by example through education and legislation to protect Manitobans from violence, racism and hatred and to stopping those who foster or commit crimes of violence, racism and hatred. Together let us reflect on the enduring lessons of the Holocaust and reaffirm our commitment to uphold human rights, to value the diversity and multiculturalism of Manitoba society. Together let us say, never again. Mr.

Speaker, following the com- ments of my colleagues, I would ask that all members observe a moment of silence. Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to put a few remarks on the record in regard to the unanimously passed Bill 19,

an act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day or Yom HaShoah. We must join with communities across our province, across our country and across the world to ensure that we remember the 6 million Jewish men and women who perished under state-sponsored persecution and murder by the Nazi regime and their collaborators. We must remember the victims of this terrible incident, and we certainly must denounce perse- cution for physical or mental disabilities, race, culture or heritage.

We know that many things have been done to people in many cultures that have been a horrible atrocity and we certainly do not want those things to be happening anymore. I, too, will be at the memorial service tomorrow and I know there will be a number of members that will be reading names of the program that will be held tomorrow. I do also want to say that it is wonderful that we will hopefully be getting the Holocaust museum here in Winnipeg as a tribute to the many men and women who have been persecuted or lost their lives in all cultures. We know that Manitoba is a very multicultural society.

We cherish that, and we must always remember that. Certainly, we do want to join with the member opposite in saying that this should never happen again. Thank you very much. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to speak to the minister's statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? [Agreed] Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in the Legislature and members of other parties in remembering the Holocaust and in paying tribute to the fact that we have a Holocaust Memorial Day and ceremonies.

2418 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 As will other members of the Legislature, I, too, will be participating in these ceremonies as a mark of the importance of this event and of the importance that I and I think all of us attribute to the fact that we need to remember the Holocaust, what happened and make sure that nothing like it ever happens again.

It is excellent news that the Canadian Museum of Human Rights is proceeding and that it will provide a tribute and remembrance not only to the Holocaust, but to a whole variety of other human rights abuses that have occurred so that people from Manitoba, from elsewhere in Canada and indeed from around the world can come and learn about what has happened in the past and dedicate themselves to making sure that such abuses never happen again. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Would members rise for a moment of silence? A moment of silence was observed. * (13:45) Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today Dr. Shmuel Lahis of Jerusalem, Israel. Dr. Lahis is the guest of the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Murray). Also in the public gallery we have from École Robert H. Smith School 17 Grades 5 and 6 students under the direction of Mr. Marcel Lacroix. This school is located in th e constituen cy of the honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Mr.

Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker: On a matter of privilege. Mr. Derkach: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with some sadness today because of what I am compelled to do as not only the House Leader but also in reflection of circumstances that occurred in this House yesterday. I know a matter of privilege must satisfy two conditions: One, that it is raised at the earliest possible time, and No. 2, that it establishes the prima facie case for the matter of privilege. Mr.

Speaker, I could have risen at the beginning of the opening of the session, but unfortunately, I did not have a copy of Hansard until the House resumed. I needed to examine the ex act words of the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson), in this case, before I rose on this matter of privilege. So, in that context, I am rising at the first possible opportunity. The second condition that must be met is that a prima facie case can be established, Mr. Speaker, and that is what I intend to do in my comments.

On Wednesday, during Question Period, the Minister of Education committed what I consider to be one of the most serious transgressions in this House. As elected members, we are all expected to be forthright and truthful in comments that we make in this House. It is one of those very fundamental principles of democracy. In his comments, the Minister of Education said and I quote. This, Mr. Speaker, before I quote was said in regard to a question that I posed to the minister. The minister said and I quote, "Mr.

Speaker, on Monday I was asked a very specific question about whether I knew about the develop- ment of Swinford Park. Fact. I answered the question honestly and I have never been made aware that Seven Oaks School Division was acting as a developer. Fact. Mr. Speaker, the allegations were brought to my attention and I forwarded those allegations to the Public Schools Finance Board. Fact. Members opposite once against have brought forward unfounded allegations." Mr. Speaker, this is a clear falsehood since the matter was known by the minister as long as March 2 of 2004.

I want to re-table the documents for the House, documents that are, in fact, signed by the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, the prima facie case here is that the minister has clearly committed a falsehood in this Chamber. The evidence is cl ear that he knew he was deceiving the House and did not, in any way, attempt to correct the wilful and misleading comments.

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2419 Mr. Speaker, I am not touching on the subject matter of the issue. I am only and strictly referring to the minister's knowing and wilful misleading and deceit of this House. I further say that our credibility as members of this Legislature lies in our integrity and the words we put on the record. It is this that we take with us from this House. It is this that is recorded in the journals and in Hansard of this Chamber. * (13:50) This is a very serious transgression. I want my comments to be restricted, Mr.

Speaker, specifically, to refer to the matter I find so offensive, and that is there was a wilful deceit an d a wilful misleading of Manitobans and of this Chamber. So, Mr. Speaker, with t hose few words, I want to make this as brief as possible. I move, seconded by the Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger) THAT this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration of disciplinary action respecting the Minister of Education, the member from Gimli. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, we do not take issue with the first criteria, which is timeliness.

The second criteria as to whether there is a prima facie case, I refer to Beauchesne 24, "The privileges of Parliament are rights which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers'." Then, of course, Beauchesne goes on in 27 to say, "rarely to come up in Parliament," that is a matter of privilege, "It should be dealt with by a motion.

A genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and should be taken seriously by the House." Then, of course, Beauchesne goes on to say in 31, "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." Mr. Speaker, the issue of allegations of whether statements are deliberately misleading have been dealt with perhaps too numerously in this House. Recently you ruled on this matter just earlier this year and there you c ite Joseph Maingot in his tome on parliamentary privilege.

He says to allege that a member has misled the House is a matter of order rather than privilege. He then goes on to say, Maingot also advises on page 227 of the same volume, "That an admission that a member has intentionally misled the House would be required in order to establish a prima facie case of privilege." So I think that is most notable.

The Speaker then goes on to say, "This concept is supported by Manitoba precedence by a ruling from Speaker Walding in '85, Phillips in '87, seven rulings from Speaker Rocan in the period 1988 to 1995, nine rulings from Speaker Dacq uay from the period 1995 to 1999 and by four rulings from the current Speaker from the period 1999 to the present." In a ruling delivered on April 20, 1999, the Speaker Dacquay ruled that, "Short of a member acknowledging to the House that he or she deliberately, and with intent, set out to mislead, it is virtually impossible to prove that a member deliberately misled the House." So, Mr.

Speaker, that is the parliamentary passages on the topic. But the quotations used by the member opposite, I think, should dispel any alle- gations that he deliberately misled. In any event, because he clearly stated yesterday in the House at page 2307 that allegations were brought to his attention, they were forwarded to the appropriate authority, the Public Schools Finance Board. Having allegations raised with the minister is one thing. They were referred and that was appropriate, and therefore that should dispose of the matter.

I think it is unfortunate that this would be raised as a matter of privilege, not only in light of the parliamentary law on the subject but in light of the facts of this particular matter. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), I am sure it was done by an innocent error, we no longer have a Committee on Privileges and Elections. We had changed that to Legislative Affairs. So does the honourable member wish that change to be made to his motion? Mr. Derkach: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was using Beauchesne and, therefore, that was why I used that committee.

If indeed we have changed our committees, then I would submit we should change that as well. Mr. Speaker: So the motion will read that instead of Committee on Privileges and Elections, it will read Legislative Affairs.

2420 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 Before I recognize the honourable Member for River Heights to speak, contributions at this time by honourable members are to be limited to strictly relevant comments as to whether the alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest oppor- tunity and whether a pr ima facie case has been established. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I think we are in agreement that this was raised at the earliest opportunity, and there is not an argument over that part.

The part where there is some discus- sion has to do with whether this is a prima facie case of privilege. I think if you will review Hansard, the first time this issue came up, the minister had indicated that he was not aware of this before, when clearly he had been aware of this, and in fact, had provided a response to an inquiry which related directly to this matter of the school board being involved with the land speculation and residential housing develop- ment which is the primary issue. I would also ask the Speaker that when he reviews this he look at the second day this came up.

On the second day this came up, the Member for Gimli, the Minister of Education, went back and said after this had been revealed and it had been pointed out, he had correspondence. The Minister of Education said on the record that this was the first time he became aware of this.

Clearly, when the Minister of Education talks about this being the first time that he knew of this, after his memory had been refreshed with regard to this material, it is no longer something accidental forgetting that, you know, one must conclude is very close to, if not deliberately trying to provide an impression which is that he was not aware of this, when in fact clearly his memory had been jogged the day before.

He continued to insist that this was the first time it had been brought up. * (13:55) So I would suggest that it is important for the Speaker to look at this matt er very carefully and to assure himself whether or not this will meet this important test, and which matters brought before this Legislature on a matter of privilege must meet, because I think this will come very close and it would be smart for the Legislative Affairs Committee to have a look at this. Mr. Speaker: A matter of privilege is a serious concern.

I am going to take this matter under advisement to consult with the authorities, and I will return to the House with a ruling. We will move on to Oral Questions. ORAL QUESTIONS Seven Oaks School Division Land Acquisition and Development Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, a citizen came forward a year ago with allegations that the Seven Oaks School Division was developing residential properties with taxpayers' money. He had felt that it was inappropriate and brought his concerns forward. His concerns were not investigated at that time.

Then, in the late fall, the Public Schools Finance Board decided that some- thing indeed was wrong and at that time they sought a legal opinion. I would like to ask the Minister of Education what in the fall actually triggered the Public Schools Finance Board to seek a legal opinion, feeling that indeed something was wrong, when, in fact, months earlier nobody felt anything was wrong. What triggered the change in the fall? Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Well, Mr. Speaker, we seek your guidance then.

The opposition has made a tactical decision to raise a matter of privilege which raises the subject matter that is the purview of the question that has just been raised. So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, it is our under- standing that in this House when the matter is under advisement by the Speaker, it is a matter of privilege, and that then pre-empts debate questioning in the House on that matter. I would be pleased if you would provide the House with your guidance on that. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr.

Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Well, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2421 order. I thought the House Leader of the government would have listened carefully to comments which I made. Specifically I indicated in my matter of privilege that I was not touching on the subject matter of this situation, rather I was referring to the comments that were put on the record by the Minister of Education. Those comments were wilfully dishonest, they were untruthful and the evidence presented to the House shows that very clearly. Now if the minister wants to stand up in his place and apologize for those comments that is one thing, but, Mr.

Speaker, we are not talking about the subject matter. We are talking about the comments that were made by the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Inkster, on the same point of order. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the Government House Leader is having a wishful thought.

I do not know how the Government House Leader feels this particular matter that has been raised, a legitimate matter, in any way should prevent the opposition from being able to address a very important issue to all Manitobans given that the matter of privilege is talking about the question of telling and being straightforward, transparen t and honest inside the Chamber. That was my understanding of the motion being brought forward. It had very little to do with what the Government House Leader is trying to prevent us from being able to question the government on. Mr.

Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, I have read the motion very carefully, and I listened very carefully to all speakers. My

interpretation as the Speaker is that the matter of privilege was raised pertaining to whether the minister knew on Monday or if the minister knew prior to. That is what I will be bringing my ruling on. Other matters pertaining to that subject, I will entertain those questions, but I will not entertain questions pertaining to whether the minister knew on a Monday or if the minister knew prior to. Anything to do with the issue not raised in the matter of privilege, I have no choice but to entertain those questions. Order.

So I am ruling that the question is in order and the honourable Government House Leader does not have a point of order. * * * Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, we do have a 30-day review process we are undertaking to get to the bottom of this issue. We will be dealing with the facts of this situation once we have undertaken that 30-day review. Land Management Review Report Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, the question had been what triggered the Public Schools Finance Board to decide to seek a legal ruling last fall.

The minister did not answer the question. Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday in Estimates that not only did the Public Schools Finance Board become concerned enough to seek a legal opinion, which this minister refuses to provide us, they also ordered a land management review to do a forensic analysis of the financial situation. Will the Minister of Education table today a copy of the land management review so that taxpayers can see how their money was spent in this land development scheme instead of on children's education? Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Once again, Mr.

Speaker, part of that 30-day review process will answer all these questions. I would also like to remind the member opposite that, in Estimates yesterday, we talked about both the legal opinion and the land management review request that had been under- taken as part of the Public Schools Finance Board's due diligence in addressing this issue. Both of those documents were requested by the Public Schools Finance Board. Both those documents are part of a process they have engaged in, and those documents will be brought forward to the Public Schools Finance Board for their review. Mrs.

Driedger: We learned yesterday in Estimates that the Public Schools Finance Board had both the legal document and the land management report, and

2422 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 they had them in February for two to three months. The legal ruling itself said what Seven Oaks School Division was doing was illegal. They knew that in February. They had the legal report in February and they had the land management report in February. However, I have to ask this minister, considering what he has said since, did the NDP-appointed Public Schools Finance Board knowingly withhold information about illegal activities and financial discretions for the past two to three months.

Having not provided it to the minister, he had not heard about it from them, have they knowingly sat on this information knowing there is illegal activity going on? Have they knowingly withheld that information for two to three months, considering that it continues to happen today? Did they sit on that information? Mr. Bjornson: Again, this issue was raised in Estimates, and as part of the discussion around the issue in Estimates, it was identified with the reports submitted to the Public Schools Finance Board.

These issues generated questions from the Public Schools Finance Board which were then referred back to the appropriate parties. Correspondence took place between the different parties involved. The arms-length operation of the Public Schools Finance Board, Mr. Speaker, an independent board of government and the elected officials of the Seven Oaks School Division were all engaged in this process. The information was being exchanged. My understanding was both documents were going to be submitted together and dealt with at the table of the Public Schools Finance Board before being brought to my attention.

Seven Oaks School Division Land Acquisition and Development Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier (Mr. Doer) stated that he recognizes that school divisions do not have authority to develop land. The Minister of Education said yesterday that he agrees school divisions should not be developers. However, as we speak, the Seven Oaks School Division is continuing to break the law by developing the land. I ask the Minister of Education why he is continuing to ignore the fact that Seven Oaks School Division is continuing to develop the land.

Why is he not doing something? * (14:00) Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): We are doing something. As I have mentioned, I immediately requested my deputy to explore the events that transpired in this case, Mr. Speaker. We have asked for the co- operation of the Public Schools Finance Board, an arm's-length organization. We have asked for the co- operation of the Seven Oaks School Division. We are getting that co-operation.

We do have a couple of documents that have been generated in this process as a result of due diligence on behalf of the Public Schools Finance Board when this issue was raised to their attention. We have undertaken a 30-day review and the facts have come out. Mr. Hawranik: The Minister of Education is well aware a legal opinion was provided to the Public Schools Finance Board which stated that the Seven Oaks School Division is breaking the law by developing land. The school division continues to break the law, today, tomorrow and for the next 30 days while the minister is waiting for his ridiculous report.

I ask the Minister of Education what he will do about it. Will he just ignore the fact that the school division is breaking the law today, tomorrow and for the next 30 days? Mr. Bjornson: The member opposite is suggesting the process is ridiculous. I disagree. I feel that we are engaged in the process that will address this issue. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I have initiated this process. My deputy has assembled a team that will be looking into what happened in this particular occurrence, and we will get to the bottom of this. I agree that school divisions should not be developing property.

I have said that, and I am very concerned about that. We are going to address it. We will go through this process to address this issue. Mr. Hawranik: The process that the minister has developed is almost as ridiculous as the minister himself. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. All members know that all members in this Chamber are honourable members. I

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2423 ask the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet to withdraw that word. Mr. Hawranik: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I unconditionally withdraw the word "ridiculous." The Minister of Education constantly stands up in this House, throws up his hands and says I know nothing. Well, the minister knows that school divisions who develop property are breaking the law. The minister knows that Seven Oaks School Division is continuing to break the law by continuing to develop the land. Does this minister not have regard for the law?

Why is he allowing the school division to continue to break the laws as we speak? Mr. Bjornson: Once again, I am very concerned about this issue. School divisions should not be in the business of development. What we have done immediately, of course, was to send letters to all– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bjornson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have sent letters to all school divisions advising them of the appropriate disposition practices and will continue to look into what transpired and how this process has failed us. We will fix this.

Seven Oaks School Division 2003-2004 PSFB Annual Report Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): In The Public Schools Finance Board Act it states, "the board shall annually, within six months after the end of the fiscal year, make a report to the minister. Also, the minister shall lay a copy of the re port from the board before the Legislative Assembly forthwith." This minister has not yet tabled a copy of the 2003-2004 Public Schools Finance Board annual report with the Legislature, which is in clear contravention of the act.

Is there something within this report the minister is attempting to hide from Manitobans, even if it means breaking the law to do so? Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing being hidden in the report, unfounded allegations once again. We explained in Estimates yesterday why there was a delay in the report being submitted and he– [interjection] Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not going to resort to name-calling in this Chamber. I heard it very clear.

It was very fortunate that I cannot identify where it came from because I was looking at the Minister of Education. I will caution all honourable members to be very, very careful. Every member in this Chamber is an honourable member and they will be addressed as such. The honourable Minister of Education has the floor. Mr. Bjornson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, indeed, the question was raised in Estimates. It was addressed in Estimates yesterday. Mr.

Schuler: Once again this minister is willing to break the law either because he is hiding something or out of sheer incompetence. Will he now table the 2003-2004 Public Schools Finance Board annual report as is required by his own legislation? Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, once again, the member, I believe, was at the Estimates table when this question was raised. It was identified in Estimates that the report was delayed. There are reasons for that and that was addressed in Estimates yesterday. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order. Mr.

Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, when questions are brought forward in this Chamber, they are brought forward for a reason. It is the responsibility of the minister to either answer the question forthright and truthfully, or if he does not have the answer at his disposal then to take it as notice. Those are options which are provided and the practices of this House have always been that. To simply indicate that I have addressed this matter at some other forum is not appropriate, otherwise what is the point of Question Period.

2424 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 Mr. Speaker, we have asked a serious question. We expect an answer. If the minister does not have that answer then let him take it as notice instead of stalling and telling us untruths, if you like, in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, there was unparliamentary language, I believe, in the statement by the Opposition House Leader.

Again, the matter is under advisement by yourself, but, second of all, a question was asked of the minister and the minister replied that the matter had been dealt with fully in Estimates, which is an important process of this Chamber as well. So it raises questions as to why the opposition would want to ask questions they already know the answers for. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Oppo sition House Leader, he does have a point of order because committees are made up of certain members and the members do have a right to raise questions in the House.

The ministers do have the obligation to deal with those questions in committee. That is a different function of the House. This is Question Period and members can raise any question they wish and the ministers are obligated to deal with the questions that are raised. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Then would it be appropriate to give the minister some latitude to answer the previous question, which he did not? Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education wishes to answer the question. * (14:10) Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in Estimates the report is currently in the Department of Finance, and there are some reporting issues that are going to be sorted out before it is available. Also in Estimates, I assured the member from Charleswood who had asked the question at the time that it has nothing to do with the current situation in Seven Oaks with respect to the disposition of property, Mr. Speaker. The report will be coming forward. Mr.

Schuler: This minister swore an oath to duly, faithfully and to the best of his knowledge and ability perform and fulfil the duties and requirements of the office. As a result, Manitobans have placed their trust and confidence in his loyalty, integrity and ability. This minister has not fulfilled his duties as minister. He has not shown integrity and he is not deserving of the people's confidence nor their trust. Will he now live up to the law he swore to uphold and do the right thing and table the 2003-2004– Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Well, Mr. Speaker, all members of this House are honourable members. The member is just alleging that the minister is not fulfilling his oath of office which is a very serious allegation. I ask that you have him withdraw this. This is a ridiculous allegation and surely he understands that all members are honourable in this House. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, I do not think there is any reflection on the minister in terms of his honourable character. The question has to do with the minister doing the honourable thing and ensuring that in fact the oath he took is fulfilled like it should be in this province. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, I just earlier reminded all honourable members that every member in this Chamber is an honourable member and all members should be treated as such. I would ask the honourable member to rephrase his question. * * *

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2425 Mr. Schuler: Will he now live up to the law he swore to uphold and do the right thing and table the 2003-2004 annual report of the Public Schools Finance Board? Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, when I am in receipt of the report, I will certainly table the report. Point of Order Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I hate to rise again, but this is on a point of order. Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it on a point of order? Mr. Derkach: Yes, it is. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order. Mr. Derkach: Mr.

Speaker, I rise on a point of order because as I was listening to the question that was being posed by the member from Springfield, the member from Interlake, ag ainst your caution, was shouting names at the member from Springfield. Mr. Speaker, I heard this clearly– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. An Honourable Member: Shame. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I heard this clearly from where I was sitting. This is a continuous action that keeps coming from that corner, and it should be called to order. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): The pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Speaker. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition, it does not help decorum in the House. From where I sit– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

From where I am sitting, I clearly never heard the comments, but I would like to take this opportunity to–we are early in Question Period yet–remind all honourable members that each and every member in the Chamber, you are all honourable. We are all honourable members, and I hope each and every member will treat each other as such. Okay. So I hope that will take care of the point of order. Seven Oaks School Division Land Management Review Report Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, the land management report that was ordered by the Public Schools Finance Board in November is a forensic financial analysis of illegal land development by the Seven Oaks School Division. The minister said yesterday that it was done in February. I think it is very important to see how taxpayers' money, money they pay towards children's education, is being spent on land develop- ment that is even illegal land development. I would like to ask the minister again and give him a second chance today. Will he table it today in this House? Hon.

Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Once again, this document was requested by the Public Schools Finance Board. It is a document that is part of a process the Public Schools Finance Board has undertaken as part of their review. They are still dealing with the issues raised by that document. There are still some questions that might need to be asked as a result of that document.

I said yesterday in Estimates that, that document, as well as the legal opinion, will be dealt with together at the Public Schools Finance Board table as part of the due process that they have been engaged in trying to get to the heart of this issue. What we will do is we will continue to work under the parameters of the 30-day review that we committed to do once this issue came to light. We will have all the facts on the table on or before June 2. I have said that in the House, I have said it in the hallway during the scrum and I have said it in Estimates. This issue will be addressed, Mr. Speaker. Mrs.

Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the minister's handling of this situation is absolutely sloppy. Yesterday in

2426 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 Estimates he told us his officials have a copy of that report. He told us that in Estimates. It is no longer with the Public Schools Finance Board. He told us that his officials have it. I would like to ask the minister today then why does he not have it. Why has he not looked at it? Will he table it today? Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very complicated issue which has many– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable minister. Mr. Bjornson: Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is a very complicated issue.

There are many questions that are going to be asked in the process of getting to the root of this issue. Part of that process includes, as I said, this document which has been submitted as part of the review we have undertaken. As I said, the document will raise a number of questions. We would like to have an opportunity to analyze the document and ask some more questions.

We will be engaged in this review process and have all the answers on or before June 2. * (14:20) I have told members opposite in the House yesterday, I have told members opposite during Estimates, I have told the media in the scrum, and I will tell them again today, a 30-day process, all the answers on or before June 2. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, breaking the law is always complicated. This minister keeps changing the feet in his mouth, going from one foot to the other. Mr. Speaker, those two reports are terribly important to Manitoba taxpayers.

They are talking about an illegal activity that is happening right now where taxpayers' money through a financial trans- gression is taking place. Taxpayers' money is going towards land development that is illegal by a school division. Instead, the mill rates in the last few years have been going up for the people of the Seven Oaks School Division. The children are not getting adequate funding in that school division. They are getting almost the lowest funding in Manitoba. Yet, somehow, this school division has money to spend on illegal land development. Will the minister table those reports today? Mr.

Bjornson: Once again, the report is part of the process. We will get the bottom of this issue, Mr. Speaker. We will address this issue.

With respect to the Seven Oaks School Division and mill rates, it is rather interesting to hear members talk about mill rates because with the measures that we have taken to reduce taxes in the last five years, pardon me, six years now, reducing the ESL, increasing the property tax credit, tax relief for farmers, providing an equalization formula for school divisions such as Seven Oaks where they do not have the same industrial tax base and commercial tax base, we are providing $130 million more into the base, when members opposite put 15.2 million in five years.

I do not need lessons from members opposite when it comes to how we fund the school system. As far as the $2 million in question, it was raised in the Estimates and I assured the member then it would not be. Seven Oaks School Division 2003-2004 PSFB Annual Report Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious this minister needs lots of lessons on how to run his department. The Public Schools Finance Act is very clear.

It states that the board will submit within six months of the end of its fiscal year which was June 30, meaning by December 31, it is to file an audited report with the government, with the minister. Yet the minister tells us he cannot table it as he is required to do with this session because it remains in the Department of Finance. So I would ask the Finance Minister can he explain if he has the audited report, did he receive it before December 31, and if he does, why has he not turned it over to the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) to table in this House. Hon.

Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The Auditor required us to make some auditing changes in how we account for financing public schools construction and reconstruction, and that is the reason the report is taking a bit longer to be prepared. Once those changes have been made, as recom- mended by the Auditor, it will be forwarded to the

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2427 Minister of Education and forthwith tabled in the Legislature. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, once again this minister refuses to answer a question. He could just stand up. Do you have the audited report? If you have the audited report, sir, it is your obligation to table it with the House. You have no authority to doctor the report, to change the report. Even if you want to adjust it, you have a responsibility to table it with the House.

Is the minister saying that he did not get the audited report from the Public Schools Finance Board by its deadline of December 31, 2004? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, I carefully explained the answer in the last question. Perhaps the member did not hear it. The Auditor General changed the way we do the accounting for public schools financing recon- struction and construction. Those recommended changes have to be incorporated in the way we report on public schools finance activities.

Once that accounting treatment has been improved and changed, as recommended by the Auditor General, this report will be forwarded to the Legislature through the Minister of Education forthwith. The media did cover the changes in the accounting issues with resp ect to public schools. Once that treatment has been encapsulated in the report, it will be forwarded forthwith to the Legislature. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, once again, it is not an acceptable answer. The issue is the act calls for the Public Schools Finance Board to submit an audited report.

If the minister is saying he does not have the audited report, he should stand up and say that. It does not give the authority for the minister or for his department to take a period of time to review the report and adjust it to their needs. He should immediately table this report whether he likes it or not. Whether it needs work within the consolidation of the government's statements or not, he should table, and he is obliged to table it in the House. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to stand up and give the people of Manitoba a simple answer.

Is it because he does not have the audited report, or is it simply because he is arguing about how it should look before he submits it to the Minister of Education for tabling? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, when the Auditor General recommends accounting treatment changes with respect to any entity in the government, the comptroller in the Department of Finance acts as an adviser to make sure those accounting changes are properly done and provides advice to the department on how those items should be properly treated and handled with respect to their annual report.

When that task is completed, the report will be forwarded to the Legislature forthwith through the Minister of Education. Waverley West Subdivision Provincial Land Ownership Mrs. Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): This NDP government has abused its authority and made a mockery of the whole City of Winnipeg planning process in the handling of the Waverley West sub- division. Will the Province now commit to sell the land it owns to remove itself from the conflict of being landowner, developer and regulator? Hon. Scott Smith (Minist er of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr.

Speaker, this is a process that is followed, as all processes are followed, certainly when– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Smith: –which were followed by this side of the House, as the legislation dictates. Had the City of Winnipeg reviewed a proposal for development and then determined that an amendment is needed to Plan Winnipeg, it is referred to my office. We work with the information that is supplied by the City of Winnipeg, and I trust thoroughly the information I receive from the City of Winnipeg.

It is a level of government that has professionals in that area and certainly professionals in the area of planning. If the member from River East has a problem with the personnel in the City of Winnipeg, I wish she would just stand up in her place and say that. Cost Benefit Analysis Mrs. Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): Mr. Speaker, the only processes we have difficulty with

2428 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 are the processes this government puts in place where a minister can stand in the House and say, "I am going to take 30 days to investigate myself." Is that not wonderful? If that is the kind of process that this government follows throughout, it is a sad state of affairs for the Province of Manitoba. There is a significant discrepancy between the City of Winnipeg's cost-benefit analysis of $74 million versus the Province's $228-million cost- benefit analysis of Waverley West.

Will the govern- ment now commit to full disclosure of all the financial aspects of this deal, including the release of all the pro formas? Manitoba taxpayers are asking for the truth. They would like this government to stand up and release that financial information. Hon. Scott Smith (Minist er of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Speaker, this, as in many of the Plan Winnipeg developments, had followed the process by the City of Winnipeg. It had been something that had been forwarded to my office.

Again I will mention to the member opposite, the proposal for development certainly has determined that an amendment was needed, and it was warranted by the City of Winnipeg. I would like to mention to the member, as she should know, certainly housing has confirmed the cost-benefit analysis. It is public. If she would like to use my computer, I can tell her, I can give her the address. It is on the Web. It is something that is out there. If they would do their diligence and look up the information themselves, they would have that information right now. City of Winnipeg Planning Process Mrs.

Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if his computer is the same one that the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) uses in order to get the answers that he provides. Mr. Speaker, the minister and his NDP government have corrupted the planning process for Waverley West. Citizens in Manitoba, especially in the city of Winnipeg, have no faith, and they cannot trust this government to be unbiased when it comes to planning.

What guarantee can this government give the City of Winnipeg and the citizens of Winnipeg that any future planning process like Plan Winnipeg will not be corrupted like Waverley West was? * (14:30) Hon. Scott Smith (Minist er of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Speaker, my computer, like the Minister of Education's computer, is hooked up t o M T S . Q u i t e f r a n k l y , c e r t a i n l y a s w e l o o k a t t h e cost we are paying for our computers now, they certainly are a much higher cost. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Smith: Mr.

Speaker, the costs are considerably higher now with MTS as for all people in Manitoba, and it is terribly unfortunate. The members opposite, when they want to talk about things and mention words like corruption, we all recall MTS many years ago. Mr. Speaker, this side of the House follows policy and procedure. This has been done in this case with Waverley West. We are proud of that fact. The information was forwarded by the City of Winnipeg. I do trust the City of Winnipeg with their analysis, with the information they forwarded to us.

Why does the Member from River East not get up and question the information that was supplied by the City of Winnipeg, which she seems to be saying is inaccurate. Seven Oaks School Division Independent Review Request Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to the Seven Oaks School Division and the debacle that is happening over there. An in-house review is not good enough. I have absolutely no confidence in this government con- ducting an in-house review that will be meaningful to any degree whatsoever. There are those of us who will remember the unethical conduct of Mr.

O'Leary in the late nineties in his approach to provincial exams, and I would table an interesting article, Mr. Speaker, which headlines, "The whistle blower loses his job. Math teacher scapegoat over exams, says colleagues." This is all to do with Mr. O'Leary. I ask the Minister of Education whether he will table today the investigation, the in-house investi- gation that was done back then in regard to Mr. O'Leary and his actions.

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2429 Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Well, Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable the member would be sinking so low indeed to talk about our educational leaders. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the work that our educational leaders do in this province, and we work collaborativel y with those educational leaders. Whether it is superintendents, school board chairs, principals, teachers, administrators, we are all working together for the betterment of the system.

It is regrettable that the member would stoop to such a level in the House and besmirch the reputation of an educational leader. He is well respected in his community for the work that he does on behalf of the children in that community. Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Education to rethink in terms of what it is that he is saying. Mr. Speaker, if we go back to the incident at hand that I refer to, the

article talks about, let me quote what one reporter had indicated as quoted from Hansard, "NDP leader Gary Doer made a last-minute change to his party's code of ethics." Mr. Speaker: Order. When honourable members are addressing other members in the House, please do it by constituencies or ministers by their titles. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I am making reference to the Prem ier (Mr.

Doer), but that was actually quoting what the reporter would have said, "Made a last-minute change to his party's code of ethics last week when he let his campaign manager, Brian O'Leary, off the hook for breaching standards, exams security." Mr. Speaker, this government has bent over backwards for Mr. O'Leary in the past. I think it begs the question as to what degree can this government really and truly have an independent review, not in- house. We do not need an in-house review. We had one in the past. Will the minister table that in-house review?

If he is not prepared to ta ble it and acknowledge there is a need to have an independent review in this situation, Mr. Speaker, what we are going to witness is yet another cover-up of Mr. O'Leary having his hand in the cookie jar. Mr. Bjornson: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I have absolute faith in the process that we have engaged in to address this issue. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bjornson: We will engage in this 30-day process. It will be a very thorough process, parti- cularly given the time lines that we have to work with.

I know the staff that will be assigned to this process will be working very hard on answering all the questions that are raised as a result of this situation. We will have the answers on or before June 2. We also mentioned in Estimates that there would be third-party participation on an as-needed basis, Mr. Speaker, if we did not have the expertise to address specific issues that were raised as a result of this inquiry. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Education acknowledge that he does not have the ability to table an investigation, an in-house investi- gation on Mr.

O'Leary that happened just a few years back? Then why should we be content with yet another in-house investigation? You have to look at the reality of what has taken place. Back then, a teacher lost his job because he did what was right. He followed the law. Mr. O'Leary escaped, got nothing. From the best that we can tell, he received nothing. He is the one that led the situation. Mr. Speaker, I think what Manitobans want is the truth. The only way they are going to get the truth on this issue is if there is an independent review.

This government and the NDP have clearly shown that they cannot be trusted when it comes to dealing with Mr. O'Leary. An independent review is what is necessary. I am challenging this government to do what is right and call for an independent review of this situation. Mr. Bjornson: As I said, in 30 days all facets of the situation would be reviewed. We will have those answers on or before June 2. It will include all the due process that has been engaged in by the Public Schools Finance Board, which has involved the land management, which has involved a legal opinion. All these issues will be dealt with.

All the information pertinent to the review will be dealt with, Mr. Speaker. We will have the answers the members opposite require.

2430 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 Upgrade to Water Treatment Plan Steinbach Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, given this government's commitment to water protec- tion and co-operation with all levels of government, could the Minister of Water Stewardship inform the House of the important project started in Steinbach? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Steward- ship): On Monday, Mr. Speaker, it was definitely worth the trip to go to the wonderful city of Steinbach and announce a $2.3-million upgrade to the water treatment plant.

I have had the opportunity to visit communities like Lac du Bonnet for similar announcements and Portage. I want it put on the record, Mr. Speaker, that this is very much a part of this government's commitment to all parts of the province. I do want to acknowl- edge, we had a unique sighting recently and it was not, by the way, the Sasquatch, where there were three Tory MLAs in northern Manitoba. There are still more sightings of the Sasquatch in northern Manitoba than we have sightings of Tory MLAs. Mental Health Programs Early Psychosis Intervention Mr.

Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Yesterday, members of this House wore red flags to remind Manitobans that the earlier psychosis is identified and treated, the better the outcome. Mr. Speaker, in March of 2002, the former Minister of Health stated that if your child is not getting care for a psychosis episode that is a crisis. Further, in July 2002, the former Minister of Health promised, "We want a first episode psychotic program. We want a seamless program. We want a province-wide program." Today, nearly three years later, we still do not have a province-wide program in Manitoba.

I would ask the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) why he has not followed through on his government's promise to provide early psychosis intervention to all Manitobans. Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister responsible for Healthy Living): I appreciate the member opposite's question, as I have appreciated his interest in mental health issues, particularly concerning our youth. Certainly, since this government came into power, since 1999, funding for acute mental health services has increased by 38 percent, Mr. Speaker, an increase of close to $20 million.

One of the most important things we can do for our young people is to ensure that we are promoting mental wellness in our young people. * (14:40) That is why, with our Healthy Schools Initiative, Mr. Speaker, the theme this year is mental health. We have had tremendous uptake across the province on this issue, helping young people deal with issues of coping, self-esteem, of all issues concerning mental health. We are going to commit to do more. Mr.

Cullen: I would like to point out for the minister's information that the Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre is the only centre for early psychosis prevention intervention in the province. Between October 13, 2004, and March 31 of this year, Early Psychosis Prev ention and Intervention service had to close its doors to new patients. Obviously this is a service that is in desperate need of expansion. Will the minister commit today to expanding this valued program to communities throughout Manitoba? Ms. Oswald: Mr.

Speaker, as I said previously, we certainly have since 1999 shown a sincere commit- ment to increasing mental health services with increased funding by 38 percent or over $20 million. Since 2003, Mr. Speaker, we have funded the RHAs an additional $400,000 to add staff to assist people in communities where, all best practices show, is the best possible care we can give to people with mental health issues but support people in facilities in the province. We are going to continue to support young people and all of those that suffer with debilitating mental health issues. Mr.

Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS YMCA-YWCA Women of Distinction Awards Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending, along with several of

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2431 my colleagues from the Manitoba Legislature, the 29th annual YMCA-YWCA Women of Distinction Awards held last night at the Winnipeg Convention Centre. This event honours women who have made a difference in the life of their communities. While many of these women come from diverse back- grounds, cultures and experi ences, they all have one thing in common. That is their commitment to making Manitoba a better place to live. Last night's event honoured 44 Manitoba women who have made a difference in their schools, com- munities and workplaces.

Award categories included community volunteerism, arts, culture and heritage, health and wellness, education, training and develop- ment, recreation, sport an d active living, the Young Women of Distinction Award, the Gerrie Hammond Memorial Award of Promise and others. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all award winners and nominees honoured last night at the YMCA-YWCA Women of Distinction Awards. I especially want to congratulate Ms. Buchi Nnadi, a second year University of Winnipeg student who won the Young Woman of Distinction and Recreation Award.

I also want to thank Marilyn Kapitany, Doris Mae Oulton, all members of the board of directors and steering committee, event sponsors and guests for making last night's event such a successful occasion. It is an honour to see the dedication of Manitoba women to their community recognized. These women are an inspiration to all of us. Mr. Speaker, the YMCA-YWCA Women of Distinction Awards has been celebrated in Manitoba since 1977. Since then the event has grown to include 23 YWCA and YMCA-YWCA associations throughout Canada honouring local women through awards celebrations.

Last night was a true cele- bration of the dedication and spirit of Manitoba women. We thank them for their commitment. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am absolutely surprised that the Minister for the Status of Women (Ms. Allan) did not rise today, again, as she did not last year to do a ministerial statement on such an important subject.

If this Minister for the Status of Women was really appreciative of women's efforts in this province and wanted to properly acknowledge them, she should have at least had the decency today to stand and do a ministerial statement on the topic. That is absolutely shameful. Last night, along with many of my colleagues, we had the opportunity to attend the YM-YWCA Women of Distinction Awards, and it was a wonderful time to celebrate the accomplishments, contributions and achievements that Manitoba women have made.

We would also like to thank Doris Mae Oulton, the chair of the event, as well as the board, staff and volunteers who put in countless hours to ensure that last night's banquet was a tremendous success. I would also like to thank the Y, which has hosted and co-ordinated the Women of Distinction Awards annually for the past 29 years. They do exceptional work. All of the nominees had stellar qualifications, Mr. Speaker, making it very difficult for the selection committee to decide on just one woman of distinction in each category.

I would like to extend heartfelt congratulations to each of the 44 women who were nominated and at this time acknowledge those women who were selected for awards. The Young Woman of Distinction Award went to Buchi Nnadi. Lee Newton received the Community Volunteerism Award. In the category of Arts, Culture and Heritage, Cherry Karpyshin was awarded. Leigh Murphy received the Research, Science and Technology and the Environmental Award. In the category of Media and Public Relations, the award went to Lindor Reynolds. The Education, Training and Development Award was given to Pauline Clarke.

Coleen Dufresne's contribution to women's sports, both as an Olympic athlete and coach at the U of M, won her the Sport and Recreation Award. The Health and Wellness Award recipient was Barbara Shumeley who was acknowledged for her tireless and passionate work on women's health. Betty Black received the Business, Trades and Professions Award and Navdeep Bhullar was awarded the Gerrie Hammond Memorial Award of Promise. Mr. Speaker, we would just like to congratulate all of these women who all, really, are distinct in their categories. Thank you very much.

2432 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 Victoria General Hospital Guild Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending this year's Victoria General Hospital Guild Bridge Luncheon which was held on Tuesday, May 3, at the Waverley Heights Community Club. Mr. Speaker, the guild's annual Bridge Luncheon has been hosted by Victoria Hospital Guild volunteers for the past 20 years. Participants this year enjoyed a delicious lunch and a friendly afternoon of bridge playing. The luncheon this year had approxi- mately 200 people participating at this fun event.

I am proud to say that most of the food and prizes for the luncheon were donated by the guild volunteers. I also want to thank the staff of Canada Safeway, located at 2155 Pembina Highway, for donating the buns and fresh strawberries for the luncheon. Safeway staff has also chosen Victoria General Hospital Guild to be their charity of chose for 2005. Mr. Speaker, the guild volunteers improve the quality of life for patients and for hospital staff.

Volunteers help greet visitors at the hospital front doors, help staff in feeding patients, volunteer in the guild-operated hospital gift shop and undertake many other responsibilities. The Bridge Luncheon is one of the many fundraising initiatives organized by the guild. Proceeds for this year's Bridge Luncheon will go towards Victoria hospital's new oncology wing. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the guild's volunteers for organizing this year's Bridge Luncheon. I want to thank Marilyn Nash, president of the guild, and approximately 350 guild volunteers for their commitment.

Finally I want to thank the staff of Canada Safeway at 1255 Pembina Highway for their community support. The next guild event will be a giant garage sale held on May 14 and 15 at the Safeway parking lot. I encourage all my fellow members to attend and support this great community group. Thank you. Steinbach Music Fest Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr.

Speaker, on Tuesday of this week I had the opportunity, together with my wife Kim, to attend the 7th Annual Music Fest in Steinbach, hosted by the Steinbach 55 Plus Seniors Club, another tremendous evening of choirs from around the province and around our region made up of seniors coming together to display their talents, to display their wonderful, wonderful spirit for our communities and for our province. Included in the performances that evening were The Keenagers, who were directed by J. Stoesz; Partage de Bonheur, directed by M.

Pierre Cuillerier; the Steinbach 55 Plus Choir, directed by Evangeline Rempel; the Winkler & District Seniors Choir, directed by Wes Hamm and the Eastman Male Chorus, directed by John Enns. The evening was emceed by Peter Dick from Steinbach and it was hosted by the Steinbach 55 Plus Centre and its president, Pat Porter. We appreciate all the work that our seniors do. Mrs. Porter at the seniors' centre in Steinbach has done a wonderful job in their new facility.

We appreciate the contributions they make to our communities throughout their entire lives and they continue to make a vital contribution to the commu- nities within our region, around our province. We are just blessed to have the tremendous seniors in our communities showing an example for all of those of us who continue to live there, Mr. Speaker, and we thank them from the bottom of our hearts for their contributions in the past and for their contributions still today. Thank you very much. * (15:00) Marsville Program Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Mr.

Speaker, I rise to congratulate the students from École Leila North Community School and teacher Mlle. Kerri Debiuk for participating in this year's 13th annual Canadian National Marsville Program. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Marsville Program simulates the development of the first colony on Mars through the use of the Internet and other communication technologies. This year the program had 200 Grade 6 students from Winnipeg partici- pating in it. Fourteen of those students were from École Leila North. Mr. Speaker, École Leila North students have been researching the planet Mars in the classroom

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2433 since January. With the help of other Winnipeg schools, Mlle. Debiuk's class was tasked with researching the types of transportation, food produc- tion and health and recreati on issues associated with living on Mars. The students also developed their own astronaut fitness and tracked their fitness progress. The students also constructed a

section of the Mars habitat which was made out of plastic and duct tape. This required students to communicate with other Winnipeg schools through e-mail, fax and telephone to ensure each

section of the habitat would fit together. Mr. Speaker, on April 22, the students from École Leila North and other Winnipeg schools gathered at Maples Collegiate to assemble their Mars habitat and to present their findings. A video link allowed other Canadian students undertaking similar Mars settlements to see the work completed in Winnipeg. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Jeff Cieszecki, Marsville's Manitoba regional co-ordinator, Mlle. Carrie Debiuk and all École Leila North students that participated in Marsville 2005. I also congratulate all other Winnipeg teachers and students who participated. Thank you.

ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): First, Mr. Speaker, would you canvass the House to see if there is ag reement, in 255, to first complete Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade prior to commencing Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, and also see if there is leave to move the Estimates for Conservation from the Chamber to 255 to follow Aboriginal and Northern? Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for Room 255 to first complete the Estimates for Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade prior to commencing the Estimates for Aboriginal and Northe rn Affairs?

Is there agreement? [Agreed] Okay. Also, is there leave to move the Estimates for the Department of Conservation from the Chamber into Room 255 to follow the Estimates for Aboriginal and Northern Affairs? Is there agree- ment? [Agreed] Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, the House has agreed. Would you please call debate on report stage amendments, Bill 22, The Water Protection Act, and would you please call Supply? Mr. Speaker: In the Chamber, we will be resuming debate on report stage amendment, and in the committee rooms we will be dealing with Estimates.

Will the committee chairs please go to their respective rooms, please. DEBATE ON REPORT STAGE AMENDMENTS Bill 22–The Water Protection Act Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Steward- ship): Mr. Speaker, I would like to, following discussions with the opposition critic, ask if there be leave to consider three subamendments, the first to clause 1(1) of the bill, amendment to clause 1(1). Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. Mr. Ashton: I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines (Mr. Rondeau)– Mr.

Speaker: Order. The request was for leave. Leave was granted. Now we have to distribute the amendments, and then we will deal with them. Order. The subamendments have been distributed, and in order for the honourable minister to move a subamendment, you would have to wait until we get to the amendment dealing with it, or you can do it if by leave, by unanimous consent of the House to do them without waiting until we hit that amendment. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, then perhaps to simplify this, I would ask for leave to have this amendment dealt with. There are two other subamendments I will

2434 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 be asking for the same leave to deal with prior to calling the specific amendments. Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister has asked for leave to move his first subamendment. Is there leave? [Agreed] Mr. Ashton: I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson), THAT the amendment to Clause 1(1) of the Bill be amended by striking out the definition "commercial operation". Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Water Stewardship is moving a subamendment to his initial amendment. Okay? An Honourable Member: Right. Mr. Speaker: As long as we understand.

An Honourable Member: By leave. Mr. Speaker: By leave. It has been done by leave. It has been moved by the Minister of Water Stewardship, seconded by the Minister of Education, THAT the amendment to Clause 1(1) of the Bill be amended by striking out the definition "commercial operation". Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I want to first indicate that I had the opportunity to discuss with the previous critic and the current critic. I know the official opposition critic for Water Stewardship has indicated that certainly it was his intent to bring in a similar subamendment.

By way of explanation, this was raised by KAP following the committee hearings in September when we dealt with Bill 22.

Certainly, the legal advice that I had received at the time of drafting the bill was that the use of this definition was applicable only to this bill, but the concern that KAP expressed that has been expressed, I know, by the former opposition critic and the current opposition critic is that there might be some implied extension of the inclusion of agriculture as a commercial operation to other areas. * (15:10) I think it is a point well taken in the sense that, notwithstanding the legal advice that was received, clearly agriculture has been treated quite separately and should be treated quite separately from commercial operations in everything ranging from assessment through to taxation and other very important policies.

So what the subamendment does is make it very clear that there is no implied definition here that could be used in other areas, and I know the opposition critic has particularly raised concern in terms of the assessment side. So I do want to indicate, Mr.

Speaker, that this amendment is certainly based on feedback that has been received from both Keystone Agricultural Producers and from the opposition and, notwith- standing any of the original legal opinions I received, better I think in this particular case to err on the side of caution, and that is why I appreciate the leave of members in bringing this subamendment in. I do want to indicate, I do believe the opposition critic has a very similar amendment, so this is not strictly a government initiative.

The opposition critic has, very rightly, identified this area, and we are persuaded it does require a subamendment. Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I want to thank the minister for concurring with what the farm organization has said to both of us from time to time. I think their concern, as well as many concerns that I heard expressed about the amendment from other people and even, Mr.

Speaker, a few members of the government staff were telling me that, once the inclusion of agriculture as a commercial operation was drafted into any government bill, it would force them, from time to time, to look at that prescription of an industry. We all know that the agricultural industry as a whole, and I call them primary agricultural producers, in large part we know that many of them have had to change their ways dramatically over the last while.

When people look at those operations today from the outside, they say that they do not resemble the old farms that we knew under much of the agricultural legislation and/or regulations and even some of the programming was drafted for and under. So, Mr. Speaker, I was very concerned when I saw the descriptive line that was being put in here designating agriculture, without exception, as a commercial operation. I truly want to voice my

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2435 appreciation to the minister for having recognized that this might, in fact, over the long term get other organizations and/or other government departments to look at this

interpretation under this bill, and then try and apply it in other areas. Should it have been that this would have become law, then I suspect that those that were doing the assessments of farm properties in this province would have been forced to look at the commercialization of agricultural aspect and say that would force us to at least take a hard look at whether agriculture should now be deemed as an agricultural operation under the assessment act, or whether they need to amend the assessment act conforming to The Water Protection Act. That was my main concern.

Having been the minister dealing with the assessment act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs at that time, I know how these things are done, and I know how these issues are brought to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, which is now Intergovernmental Affairs, from time to time. The department then recognized the need for the change to conform was, of course, a big concern.

That, I believe, was in large part the agricultural community's main concern, because not only might it have forced the change in the assessment and the portioning under the assessment act–we all know that agriculture today is apportioned at 26 percent and, where commercial, is apportioned at 60 percent of the assessed value of a given property. That would have meant a vast amount of additional tax revenue possibly having been generated from that agricultural community.

There might even be some in the province saying, "Well, that is the way it should be." The argument I make for that is that ag riculture and farmers have always been price takers. They have no ability at all as individuals to pass on the additional cost such as a commercial operation does have some leeway in passing on additional costs.

If their taxes increase, for instance, in the business I used to be in, the automobile business, in our garage, in our workshop, we would just add a bit to the work bill, and as long as we were competitive with the other competitive forces in our community, we were able to do that, pass on that additional cost to the consumer and the customer. We did that, quite frankly. But on the farm you simply have not got that opportunity because ther e are virtually no compe- titive forces other than the odd company bidding for specialized crops.

For instance, in the area of wheat production, you are forced to take what the Wheat Board sets out in the initial price; then, if there is a final payment to be made, everybody gets the same. There is no additional ability to pass on those additional cost increases. Similarly, when prices rise in input costs, such as chemicals, fertilizers and those kinds of things, again, these additional costs cannot be passed on by the producer.

I know that on our farm, when my boys came to the point where they did their final budgeting for this year, for what that was worth for this year, the budgeting they did showed them there was abso- lutely no way except for those farmers that might have contracted sunflowers and a few of the specialty crops at a set price for this coming year, could they pencil out any kind of profits for their agricultural operation, through no fault of their own, through absolutely no fault of their own.

There was no way these additional costs could have been passed on by those producers to the consumer in any way that would have compensated them for the increased cost. That was the main reason the minister and I had a significant discussion on this matter. That is why the farm organizations came to see me and the minister and lobbied hard that we recognize the difficult situation they might be in if they would be forced to accept that.

The other important issue to recognize is that, without even making the assess- ment changes or The Municipal Act changes or the assessment act changes, those kinds of things this might have triggered, there might have been an element of this that might have been applied without us even having recognized or given much thought to, which was brought to my attention. * (15:20) If all your buildings were now designated under a provincial act as commercial buildings, that would have brought a whole new regimen into being that we as agriculture producers were not normally subjected to.

That is engineering plans, architectural plans, and the submission of those through The Planning Act and all those kinds of things. Until now, farmers, except in those cases where large livestock operations and seed plants and those kinds are built, those are subject to the same commercial kind of taxation in most cases, unless they are very small operations, that they are basically deemed just

2436 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 for their own home use. The same architectural design, the planning, the engineering, all that already kicks into place, but most smaller farmers were afraid that if this was applied in this act they could very well be, by municipal planners, by municipal organizations, by councils, and even by by-law, then required to conform to The Water Rights Act, and the application of commercialization in that Water Rights Act. Therein lay, I think, the biggest fear. It was not so much the Big Brother aspect of government that the organizations were facing.

They thought they would, little by little, in one form or another, be required to be subjected to the commercialization aspect of agriculture via this bill. So I commend the minister for having recognized that and having seen fit to remove that from his bill. I believe that that in large part, will serve to demonstrate that this minister is really serious about applying principles in this act that will best serve the needs to ensure a small aspect of dealing with clean water in this province of Manitoba. The bill itself, in large part, deals largely with rural matters, as the minister well knows.

The bill deals with drainage of structures. When I say drainage structure, I mean watershed areas, fairly large watershed areas, and the planning of those watershed areas. I think the bill speaks rather well to that, or at least allows for regulations to be drafted to ensure that some of this could happen. I have said this before, that this is enabling legislation. Let us not forget this. There is very little descriptive langu- age in this bill, very little. We know it talks about the need to deal with watershed areas.

We know it talks about dealing with nutrient levels and dealing with regulating, probably, farms and farmers, in the application of nutrients. I mean, the minister has made no secret of that. That is his intent. And then, it also deals with a matter that is unknown. There is a fairly large

section in this bill that is very, very vague. I really thought hard about attempting to put some meaningful amendments into that aspect of this bill. I thought the amendment that I made to the

preamble of this bill would deal in a much broader basis with this. Then, if it really is enabling legislation, the

preamble will now say that the urban side of effluent generation must be, without question, a major e ffort by government to deal meaningfully with the discharges and the effluent treatment and the neutralization of water. I want to see the day, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Minister, when this government will come forward with a plan to actually deal with the treatment of waste water to the point where those of us sitting in the Legislature can raise a glass of regenerated water in this House and drink it.

If we are going to keep on dumping human effluent and dumping lagoons out of small communities and large communities of waste water into our rive rs and our streams, then I want to be assured the fish that drink that water on a daily basis are able to do so with clear conscience, and without those fish having fear of them generating some kind of disease they might pick up out of that water. The issue that concerns me most is all the biological kind of materials that we drop in water in one form or another, whether it passes through our bodies in forms of pills or medicines that we take.

All those kinds of things pass through our body, but much of the content of that medication does not dissolve or the body does not pick up, and then it is passed through the body into where? Our waste water. I want to see in this province, and I believe there is some room now with the

preamble being written the way it is. There is some room now, Mr. Speaker, for that part of water to be dealt with meaningfully; treat it and extract those materials from that water before we put it back in the lake. I do not care whether it is ejected into the Red River and then passed on to Lake Winnipeg, and then passed on through the northern rivers into the Hudson Bay– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise today in debate regarding the subamendment as proposed by the minister.

I do want to say I appreciate his remarks when he introduced the subamendment because indeed, I was very concerned when the definition as introduced to this bill involved the terminology "commercial operation," because, even though the current state of affairs as to the responsibilities acquired by each ministry, times do change. I will give the example of what transpired in my own personal business. As a pedigreed seed grower, we produce pedigreed seed; then we take the seed and process it through cleaning machines that extract any wheat

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2437 seeds, and to essentially si ze the seed so there is a uniform seed available for producers here in the province of Manitoba, and indeed, elsewhere. We shipped our seed not only within Canada but internationally as well. Our business was governed by Agriculture and Ag-Food Canada, and it was our responsibility to provide documentation, report our activities in the seed processing and to s ubstantiate all activities through the record-keeping that was required by law. I will say, though, Mr.

Speaker, the responsibilities for this record-keeping and making certain that the statutes federally imposed upon the industry in which I am engaged created another agency. It was called, and is currently called, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Now, within this new agency that was created, the responsibilities for monitoring the activity of seed cleaning came to be that agency's responsibility. This Canadian Food In spection Agency also acquired the responsibility of monitoring the cleaning of grains to export standards by terminal operations, whether at port site or inland.

Those particular operations of the cleaning of grains for export are considered co mmercial operations. When those operations were merged into one agency, which included not only the export terminal operations, cleaning of grains, but now it includes pedigreed seed-cleaning operations which essentially were, for the most part, located on farms and operated by those engaged in farming. * (15:30) So, Mr.

Speaker, now that both these seed- cleaning operations were now under one agency, that agency did not make a distinction between a commercial cleaning operation where we are all familiar with the large grain terminals inland and on our coasts, were now monitored by the same people that were responsible for coming in and inspecting our small grain cleaners located throughout the prairies and all across Canada on farmsteads. So these inspectors came to my own premise and tried to impose the same level of restriction that comes with a large commercial operation.

Perhaps, the word "restriction" is not appropriate, but it caused us considerable concern that the large commercial operations have to have training programs, and, because of their volume and their number of employees, they are able to have employees that are very designated, for instance at a specific task, and trained only in one particular operation, where, on our own personal operation, one must be schooled from the very menial tasks of custodial work and sweeping the floors to, essentially, maintenance work of changing the light bulbs that light our facilities, to repairing the grain cleaners, and then monitoring as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, one has to be very, very schooled in the multiple tasks because the operations just could not sustain, because of our lower volumes, specialized staffing. Because the same legislation now was being imposed by one agency, there was no differential made, or differentiation made, between a large-scale commercial operation and a small-scale farm operation.

We in the industry, it was almost impossible for us, and I will use the example of the forklift operator that took the bags from our seed-cleaning operations and placed them on the floor of the warehouse because we now were required to effectively have a licensed forklift operator who could appropriately demonstrate that they had been schooled in the operation of a forklift and could demonstrate that by providing a document that attests to it. Well, obviously, Mr.

Speaker, for us to send someone away to be schooled in the necessary skills of operating a forklift and to make arrangements for this schooling would take significant time. Our operation had no latitude and had to be shut down until we had a licensed forklift operator.

So I come to the point of why I am so concerned about the commercial designation because, currently, this terminology, this definition, may be in the Bill 22 act, under the responsibility of Water Steward- ship, but who goes to say in a decade from now or even in a shorter period of time that responsibilities for enforcement of the Bill 22 does not then fall to the minister of the environment or the minister of natural resources or whatever other ministry that could potentially come to be responsible for clean water in the province of Manitoba.

There could, then, be other legislation already in existence in that department where there are inspectors responsible for en forcing legislation that would not make a differentiation between an agricultural operation and a bona fide commercial operation, as took place at the federal level when the

2438 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 Canadian Food Inspection Agency was created and merged with some of the former responsibilities of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Department of the federal government. Mr. Speaker, I have another example of how one department can take precedence over another department. It happened only two short years ago, and I want to thank the former Minister of Natural Resources, the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr.

Penner), who, through his ministerial under- standing of the legislation, was able to assist getting over a misunderstanding that was created in Portage la Prairie when the constr uction of potato storage facilities was taking place on the new property owned and operated by Simplot Canada. The land within this particular situation was the reason that the farming component that was putting up the agricultural storage of potatoes was deemed to have to come in compliance with commercial storage facilities.

As you are we ll aware, when one is engaged in commercial storage, one has to acknowledge that, because of the sheer volume that goes in and out of commercial storage, some commercial storage facilities change the inventory upwards to 20, 50, and I know some, that over 100 times throughout the year, so these commercial facilities have to withstand significant volume and traffic. It is acknowledged that special concrete, high- tensile steel and high-density concrete is required in a commercial operation.

We have to make certain that all of the electrical wiring is protected by solid conduit because there is always that chance of contact when you are going in and out. As you will appreciate, the risk of contact is substantially increased when you are doing something for a hundred times versus doing it one time a year. That is the case, that these agricultural storage facilities that were being constructed were for one filling per year.

Common sense would dictate why would we want to impose on a facility that is only going to be filled once a year, the same building requirements that a facility that would see 100 fillings and emptying in the year. So, Mr.

Speaker, I try to explain why commercial definition within this legislation alarms me because I have two very, very specific examples, and the rationale for imposing this commercial designation on these agricultural buildings was because the agricultural storage of potatoes was taking place on land that happened to be owned by the Simplot Canada Limited and they had been designated as a commercial operation under proces- sing legislation, and just by that association, the land and subsequently the agricultural potato storage facility had to be– Mr. Speaker: Order. Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr.

Speaker, in the

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 considering the Estimates of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade– * (15:40) Mr. Speaker: Order. We have to resolve into Committee of Supply first before you can address– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Is there agreement in the House for the House to set aside the business in the Chamber and resolve into committee? Is there agreement? [Agreed] There is agreement. Okay. So the House will now resolve into Committee of Supply. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY Mr. Chairperson (Conrad Santos): Committee of Supply, please come to order. Report Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (Chairperson of the

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255): Mr. Chairperson, in the

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 considering the Estimates of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade, the honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen) moved to reduce the Minister's Salary to 50 cents. The motion reads as follows: Moved by Mr. Loewen THAT the salary of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs be reduced to 50 cents, which would have been the cost of the postage rescinding the letter he sent to the City of Winnipeg giving his approval for the Waverley West develop- ment to proceed.

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2439 Mr. Chairperson, this motion was defeated on a voice vote, and subsequently two members requested that a formal vote on this matter be taken. * * * Mr. Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members. All sections in Chamber for formal vote. * (15:50) Mr. Chairperson: Committee, please come to order. In the

section of th e Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 considering the Estimates of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade, the honourable Memb er for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen) moved a motion to reduce the Minister's Salary to 50 cents. The motion reads as follows: THAT the salary of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs be reduced to 50 cents, which would have been the cost of postage for sending the letter he sent to the City of Winnipeg giving his approval for the Waverley West develop- ment to proceed.

This motion was defeated in a voice vote and subsequently two members requested that a formal vote on the matter be taken. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 21, Nays 30. Mr. Chairperson : The motion is accordingly defeated. The Chamber will now revert back to the House in session, and the sections of Committee of Supply will resume in Rooms 255 and 254. IN SESSION DEBATE ON REPORT STAGE AMENDMENTS (Continued) Bill 22–The Water Protection Act (Continued) Mr. Speaker: Order. We will resume debate on the subamendment moved by the honourable Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr.

Ashton) and the honourable Member for Portage la Prai rie (Mr. Faurschou) has the floor and he has just a little over two minutes remaining. Mr.

David Faurschou (P ortage la Prairie): I will conclude my remarks because I believe I have provided adequate information to the minister within this debate that made this subamendment so necessary because, as I said previously, perhaps he may not have this responsibility in the future and when departments merge and responsibilities change, perhaps the new minister that has this responsibility might not be so understanding of the initial intent of the minister that proposed this.

I do want to conclude my remarks by stating that the former Minister of Natural Resources and for Rural Development had a big part to play with getting over the hurdle that was placed before us in the construction mode of the potato storage facilities located next to the Simplot Canada processing facility. I want to thank him on behalf of the producers involved, that his involvement was greatly appreciated and saw this project into completion so that the potato harvest could be placed in storage without delay, so I thank the former minister for that. Thank you very much. Mr.

Peter Dyck (Pembina): I, too, want to put a few comments on record regarding the amendment we have regarding taking the commercial operation out as the definition in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I also represent an area that is highly diversified that, in the agriculture areas, is dealing with special crop s. Just to give you examples, I have a lot of potato producers in our area and following that as well are the onion producers. These are the special-crops people. It does not stop there. On our own farm this, of course, would impact us as well.

If we would have changed this to commercial operations, it would make dramatic differences and changes for us and, of course, the area I represent. I want to speak in favour of this amendment and for the change that is taking place here. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, these commercial operations spend huge dollars–rather, these potato operations spend huge dollars in construction of potato storages. If the definition would have stayed as was, it would have made a big

2440 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 impact on their operations. As I have indicated, the area I represent has many potatoes grown there and onions as well, beans. These would all be impacted and it does not matter, a farm is a farm. I am pleased the minister has indicated this change will take place. I want to indicate there were many discussions that took place. The honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) drew this to our attention, and drew to our attention the impact this would have on any farming operation. I applaud him in his efforts for what he has done in explaining it to all of us.

I think those of us who are involved in agriculture understand the implication of this. However, if you are not in agriculture, I can also appreciate the fact that you do not foresee, or you do not see, the dramatic impact it would have upon the producers and the farming operations within the province of Manitoba. I am speaking on behalf of the constituents I represent, but this includes all of Manitoba. I know there are members opposite that are being impacted by it within their own constituencies, especially those who represent the rural part of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, I just want to again indicate the impact it makes upon us in the farming operation is huge if it would have remained as the definition was originally. But, further to that, I just wanted to put a few more comments on the record regarding Bill 22. I still am of the opinion that, with all the amend- ments we have added to this bill, it now dramatically changes the intent of this bill, and I would really like to have seen this bill go back to the public for their scrutinizing and allow them to put information back on the record.

I am not talking about this now in the realm of politics but as it impacts the producers of Manitoba, the farmers of Manitoba, and, yes, we as a caucus have looked at it. I know the MLA for Emerson, the critic for this area, drew this to our attention. There were a lot of flaws, and I want to respect the fact that we have amendments here which are going to try in some way to correct these.

However, I also maintain that when you get the general public involved in this and those who really are dramatically impacted by it, when we get their input, there is something they would have seen that possibly we have not seen, and we would have been able to take that information and possibly make this bill even better. Mr. Speaker, with those few words, I certainly am pleased that we have made a change here.

However, I still feel we could have gone another step, involved more people, and, hopefully, been able to add more things to this bill from the comments that would have been given to us by the general public. Thank you very much. * (16:00) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to put a few words on the record in regard to this bill. In fact, just prior to the vote that we had in committee, I had the opportunity to talk with my leader in regard to it. The first question he had asked is which amendment was this and I was not really too sure.

I know it is one of many amendments that the government has brought forward in regard to this bill. Between the two of us, we had a discussion in terms of what is right and what is not in terms of just how many amendments can the government bring forward. I believe this is an amendment, because I understand we did it through leave that was brought in. That is over and above the amendments the government minister has introduced already. When you start talking in terms of numbers, we are talking about from the minister himself, 12-plus amendments at this stage.

When we were having that discussion, we thought, indeed, it would be most appropriate for the minister to re-evaluate, as I indicated yesterday, in terms of what it is that he is actually doing in regard to this bill. I think it is worthy of noting, Mr. Speaker, it was back on March 8 of 2004, that is over a year ago when this bill was actually brought to this Legislature. That has got to be a first in itself, where the government thought it was an important enough bill that they would carry it over through the session, and ultimately, the bill was spoken on back in June of last year.

I myself, I believe, spoke on June 1, and then we passed it into committee back on June 2, I believe it was, of 2004. Then it goes to the committee stage on September 13, 2004, where the public had their first opportunity to really provide input. After committee, it just kind of sat until the Legislature reconvened, and then it was reintroduced back in November. Now we have the bill before us in the report stage, and we look on the Order Paper and we have a litany of amendments that are being proposed. Mr. Speaker, one could ultimately argue–well, opposition, are you going to propose amendments,

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2441 and there could be all sorts of amendments. The government should not n ecessarily be held to account for the number of amendments that an opposition party might bring forward. But what we are talking about is government amendments being brought forward and the fashion in which they are brought forward. This particular amendment was brought forward by the minister through leav e today, and then we are expected to be able to comment on the bill or on the amendment, and take a position. This one is fairly straightforward. It is ve ry much farmer-friendly.

There is a mindset out there, in terms of we do not look at our farming community as commercial, in terms of terminology. To delete the commercial operation is something that would appease our farmers and justifiably so; but, having said that, if an MLA were to walk in and see this amendment, this would be the first opportunity they have had to actually see the amendment, and we are expected to be able pass it. I think we should start looking at the amendments collectively, the number of amendments that are being brought forward by the government.

I would highly recommend to the government that there has to be some sort of a point or a number of amendments the government should be allowed to introduce until we say, no, there is no more. It is now time to bring it back into committee. We have gone past that point in regard to Bill 22. There is getting to be far too many amendments being brought forward by the government. I think it is irresponsible of the government to be bringing the number of amendments that it has.

Obviously, they have not done their homework; that has become very apparent when you introduce a bill back in March of last year, March of 2004, and we are still receiving amendments today. We have a problem with that, and we feel the government should do the right thing and stop the debate, bring it back to committee and allow for a better process of accountability. What it really speaks of is management of business, of House business, inside this Chamber, Mr. Speaker.

The government has once again dropped the ball in terms of managing the important business of governing, and as a result, now they expect the opposition parties to jump on and to bail them out, as one member points out, and speak to their amendments and just allow them to pass. Well, Mr.

Speaker, you know, if we were talking about two or three amendments from the government and the government provided us the opportunity to get a good understanding of them in advance and they are not ones that are in essence going to change the substance of the bill, well, I would be a whole lot more receptive and open to the government doing that. But I have not had the chance because of the sheer number of amendments that have been brought forward to go through, each and every amendment that the Minister responsib le for Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) has brought in. Mr.

Speaker, there are other items that are before us. It is not just Bill 22. There are other pieces of legislation that do merit and deserve to be debated and to hear comments from as many members as possible prior to passage into committee stage. For a minister to bring in a bill with this number of amendments, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if he is really doing us a service in terms of Manitobans as a whole. That is the reason why I feel that we have gone past a certain point of acceptability, that the government needs to, at the very least, stop debate here.

Let us bring it back into committee, and the minister can bring forwar d these amendments in committee where he can be questioned on each of the amendments and get a better understanding as to why it is that he feels it is important that the bill be amended in the fashion. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, there is a very good chance that if the government minister did do that, he would be far more successful at getting all these amendments passed in a more timely fashion and also, by doing it that way, we would be debating all of the other pieces of legislation that are there. Mr.

Speaker, there are a number of bills, and if you start looking at just the thickness of some of these bills and the impact that some of these bills are going to be having, one has got to question in terms of why it is that we are not having the debate on those bills, especially given this natural habit the government has in terms of not wanting to sit. We need to get better indication in terms of what the government's intentions are, and I would suggest to them that, if they really want this bill passed quickly, what they might want to do is they might

2442 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2005 want to have this bill go back to committee where it belongs at this point, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, then, by bringing it to committee, we will be able to put it through the process quicker, and in debates inside the Legislature, we could be debating other legislation as opposed to a bungled attempt by the government to bring forward amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment and so on; 12-plus, as they say, and those are just the government ones. Mr.

Speaker, at least he is recognizing the faults that are in the bill, as the opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party have recognized faults by bringing forward amendments, too. I was just referring to the government amendments. So, having said those few words, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to leave it at that and see what happens. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the subamendment moved by the honourable Minister of Water Stewardship.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment? [Agreed] * * * Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Steward- ship): Mr. Speaker, I– Mr. Speaker: You need leave. * (16:10) Mr. Ashton: I would like to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move a subamendment to clause 33(1). Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to move a subamendment to his amendment? [Agreed] The honourable Minister of Water Stewardship, once it is distributed, we will move your sub- amendment. Mr. Ashton: I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy, THAT the amendment that adds

section 33.1 to the Bill be amended in subsection 33.1(1) (

a) in the

section heading by striking out "commercial" and substituting "existing"; and (

b) in the part before clause 33.1(1)(a), by adding "or agricultural" after "commercial". Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Water Stewardship, seconded by the honourable Minister of Energy, Science and Technology (Mr. Chomiak), THAT the amendment that adds

section 33.1 to the Bill be amended in subsection 33.1(1) (

a) in the

section heading by striking out "commercial" and substituting "existing"– An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense. Mr. Ashton: This subamendment does the same thing that the previous subamendment did, and the same background applies. This is something that was raised by KAP, raised by the previous critic for the opposition, raised by the current critic.

Notwith- standing the legal advice with the bill was that the definition that was in place would not have consequences outside of the bill itself, given the representations brought forward, we felt it appro- priate in this case to move the subamendment and look forward to support from members on all sides of the House for what is, I think, a well-intentioned subamendment based on feedback from both the opposition and also from Cabinet. Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): When I look at this

section of the bill, it is really dealing with regulations. It appears to me that what the minister is attempting to do here is, in the

section in the amendment that he proposed to as 33.1(1), it reads, then, "A regulation made under

Part 2 other than

section 7, or under any of clauses 33(1)(

a) to (d), may provide that an owner or operator of a commercial operation affected by the regulation may apply to the director for an order (

a) specifying a transitional plan by which the applicant may, over a specified period, come into compliance with the regulation; and

May 5, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2443 (

b) exempting the applicant from the application of all or part of the regulation for that period or any part of it." Now, if you add "agriculture", if you take away "commercial" and add "existing" and add "agri- culture" to that, it would read, "may provide that an owner or operator" for an existing operation–an existing and agricultural operation–"affected by the regulation may apply to the director for an order (

a) specifying a transitional plan which the applicant may, over a specified period, come into compliance with the regulation; and (

b) exempting the applicant from the application of all or part of the regulation for that period or any part of it." That is the way it would read, then. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? That is correct.

Then I would propose, and this leaves some question in my mind what the addition of this regulation, this first amendment, was about in the first place, and I would suspect that if I read this correctly, then from the start it would say, "Regu- lations, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may make regulation designating as an invasive species any non-indigenous organisms that place or may place an aquatic ecosystem at risk of harm if it is introduced into or otherwise enters that ecosystem." That is really what you are dealing with, Mr. Minister.

That part of the act, right, that talks about introduction of invasive species, 33(1) and then you are adding 31(1) to that. That, of course, in (

a) designating an invasive species indigenous organism that places any of the aquatic eco- system at risk of harm if it is introduced into otherwise ecosystem; (

b) governing, regulations or prohibiting the discharge of other release of water pollutants into water; (

c) respecting the siting, construction or operation of onsite waste water management systems; while * (16:20) (

d) governing, regulations or prohibiting the access of livestock to water bodies or areas adjacent to water bodies; (

e) respecting and providing of notice of an approval of, or amendment to, a watershed management plan under

section 16; (

f) respecting the review of an approved watershed management plan under

section 17; (

g) specifying advisory boards and other enti

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-3-42b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 3rd hansardpdf 42b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9a04b6dab2014f9468b3e3ea35f7084788e547a3

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