Manitoba Hansard — 5 May 2004 (Sitting 33, 38th Legislature, 2nd Session)

38-2-33

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second 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. LV No. 33 - 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 5, 2004

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. 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. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon. Minto N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa 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. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

1605 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, May 5, 2004 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Minimum Sitting Days for Legislative Assembly Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legis- lative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: The Manitoba Legislature sat for only 37 days in 2003. Manitobans expect their Government to be accountable, and the number of sitting days has a direct impact on the issue of public accountability.

Manitobans expect their elected officials to be provided the opportunity to be able to hold the Gov- ernment accountable. The Legislative Assembly provides the best for- um 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 limit- ing the rights of opposition members from being able to ask questions.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Mani- toba as follows: To request the Legislative Assembly of Mani- toba to consider recognizing the need to sit for a minimum of 80 days in any given calendar year. Signed by Dale Harasymiw, Ian Harasymiw and Orest Hnatyshyn. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Highway 227 Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for this petition: It is unacceptable for the residents of Manitoba to travel the unsafe gravel roads of Highway 227 in the constituencies of Lakeside and Portage la Prairie. Inclement weather can make Highway 227 treacherous to all drivers. Allowing better access to Highway 227 would ease the flow of traffic on the Trans-Canada High- way. Residences along Highway 227 are not as accessible to emergency services due to the nature of the current condition of the roadway. The condition of these gravel roads can cause serious damage to all vehicles, which is unaccept- able.

Residents of Manitoba deserve a better rural highway infrastructure. We petition the Manitoba Legislative Assembly as follows: To request that the Minister of Transportation and Government Services to consider having High- way 227 paved from the junction of highways 248 and 227 all the way to Highway 16, the Yellowhead route. To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider supporting said initiatives to ensure the safety of all Manitobans and all Canadians who travel along Manitoba highways. Submitted on behalf of Jane Field, Bryan Tully and Irene Tully and others. Mr.

Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House.

1606 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 Alzheimer's Disease Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Alzheimer's is a debilitating disease. Cholinesterase inhibitors are known to slow or even prevent the progression of Alzheimer's. The provincial government asked for the devel- opment of an Alzheimer's strategy in 2000 and was presented with nine recommendations in 2002, none of which has yet been implemented.

In the absence of a provincial Alzheimer's strategy, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority put in place a policy in November 2003 whereby Alzheimer's patients entering personal care homes are being weaned from certain Alzheimer medi- cations in a move that the WRHA's vice-president of long-term care has refe rred to as a financial necessity. The administrative costs of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority have more than tripled since 1999, to a total of more than $16 million a year.

In a move that amounts to two-tier medicine, the families of Alzheimer's sufferers in personal care homes may request that the drugs continue to be delivered at the family's expense. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Mani- toba as follows: To request the Minister of Health (Mr.

Chomiak) to ensure that his attempts to balance his depart- ment's finances are not at the expense of the health and well-being of seniors and other vulnerable Mani- tobans suffering from this debilitating disease. * (13:35) To urge the Minister of Health to consider reversing his decision to deny Alzheimer's patients in personal care homes access to certain medications. To request the Minister of Health to consider implementing a provincial Alzheimer's strategy. Submitted by Donna Palson, Jan Brown, Dale Nesbitt and others. Mr.

Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. Proposed PLA–Floodway Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legis- lative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA).

The proposed PLA would force all employees on e project to belong to a union. th Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized. The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Win- nipeg Construction Association, the Construction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association and some federal members of Parliament have publicly opposed the Premier's lan to p Manitobans deserve an open and fair competi- tion that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice.

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1607 Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway expansion project. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Mani- toba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed by Vern Falk, Mark Woznesensky, Murray Hiebert, and many others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table the Manitoba Water Stewardship Supplementary Infor- mation for Legislative Review, 2004-2005 Depart- mental Expenditure Estimates. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): I am pleased to table the following report: Manitoba Justice Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, 2004-2005 Departmental Expenditure Estimates. Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minis ter of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 2004-2005 Supplementary Estimates Infor- mation for the Department of Northern Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs. Hon.

Stan Struthers (Min ister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the years 2004-05 for the Department of Con- servation. 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 from Crystal Spring School 14 Grades 4 to 7 students under the direction of Mr. Victor Kleinsasser and Mr. Ian Kleinsasser. This school is located in the constitu- ency of the honourable Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu).

Also in the public gallery we have with us today from Devils Lake High School, Devils Lake, North Dakota, 25 Grade 11 and 12 students under the direction of Mr. Al Henry. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. And also in the loge to my left we have Mr. Brian Pallister, who is a former member of Portage la Prairie. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. * (13:40) ORAL QUESTIONS Education System Financing Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr.

Speaker, I think it is pretty evident that funding services and managing finances is about making choices when one is entrusted with government. From 1999 till now, this Government has received and spent $1.5 billion in new revenue and still has not committed itself to education funding reform. [interjection] Yes, well, the Premier likes to chat about he could not find the billion. "I cannot find the billion yet." He found it. He spent it and then some. When is he going to provide some meaningful education funding reform? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): It is all about choices, Mr.

Speaker, and the choices we have made have resulted in two improvements in the credit rating in Manitoba in 2003 versus 2004. Mr. Speaker, it is also about choices. I was reviewing the costs of the 68% increase in education taxes that members opposite made between 1990 and 1999. You know, it is the equivalent of $131 million that was downloaded on education property tax in Manitoba. That is the equivalent of 1 percent of sales tax. You had a choice. You raised the taxes. We

1608 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 flattened it out in education with the $92 million that we have been supported in education taxes. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the only thing flat around here is the Premier's answer. Funding education is a constitutional respon- sibility of the Province.

This Government has had enormous increase in revenues, and to look at the reaction of the public while they have been managing the affairs of this province, I have a quote here that says, "The bottom line that governments can, even if they are taxing every which way to Sunday, they canno t make ends meet because they are lousy money managers." That is from the Brandon Chamber of Commerce. Therefore, I ask this Premier: When will he stop fiddling around with a little tax here, a little tax there? When will he provide some meaningful education funding reform? Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to quote the Moody's rating agency that talked about the prudent fiscal policies of this Government, and why they gave us an upgrade, two upgrades. The upgrade today is better than when the member opposite was sitting in Cabinet making decisions. It is all about choices. You made some of the wrong choices. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, in the Beautiful Plains School Division, which is in the Neepawa community, taxes went up 86.1 percent between 1990 and 1999. Between 1999 and 2003, the taxes went down 9.8 percent. Your choices were bad. Ours are in the right direction. Mr.

Cummings: I guess that was right after I quit being a trustee or I retired. Mr. Speaker, we have some serious doubts whether or not this Premier is committed to mean- ingful education funding reform. I think it is very easy to say that changes that were hoped for in the nineties could not be funded because of the state of the economy. But, given $1.5 billion worth of growth in his revenue in four years, this Premier, even given his previous Education Minister's comment, leaves us to doubt if he has any commitment to making meaningful change.

He said that the Province is going to be hard pressed to provide 80 percent of whatever school boards– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that the member opposite would be criticizing the school trustees that replaced him in the Neepawa, Beautiful Plains School Division. * (13:45) I would point out when the members opposite did minus 2, minus 2, zero and plus 2 in an election cycle, minus 2, minus 2, zero, plus 2 in another election cycle, they downloaded $131 million on to the education property taxpayers of Manitoba, a 68% increase. They downloaded the equivalent of a 1% sales tax.

We put $92 million into tax relief in the education sector of Manitoba. It has resulted in flattening out the taxes. I would acknowledge that the school trustees have raised taxes by a comparable amount, but we do not have a situation where taxes go up 68 percent as they do under members opposite. They also raised the portioning on farmland when they were in Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, this minis- ter has lowered the portioni ng for farmland. They should be ashamed of themselves in terms of the questions they are raising in this House. Education Financing Report Minister's Awareness Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr.

Speaker, the Premier, who moved his family into the River East School Division because of the quality of education there, should also recognize that in that particular school division taxes are going up 7 percent because of his move on amalgamation. Mr.

Speaker, yesterday in this House, after being questioned by the Education critic about the report, the minister stood up for one brief response and said, and I quote, "I have not yet received the report." Later, the Premier said in a response that not only did he receive the report, but I quote, "Some of the drafts are going to trustees, mayors, municipalities and the City of Winnipeg." Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Education: Was he misleading this House, or is he so incompetent that he is not even on the mailing list of his Premier? Hon.

Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Speaker, there was a process in place. I honoured that process.

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1609 Mr. Speaker, the process that was agreed to with the ministerial working group was they would present that report to me after a meeting in May. I was scheduled to receive the report with a meeting with the working group in June. We had agreed to that process. I honoured that process yesterday when I stood in the House and said that I had not received the report. At that point, I had not received the report. The first view I had of the draft report was after members opposite tabled the draft. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

Minister of Education Replacement Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, not only is this incredible, it is absurd because here we have a Premier who is sending out the draft report to trustees, mayors, municipalities, the City of Win- nipeg. These are his comments, and yet the Minister of Education says, "I have not received the report." Mr. Speaker, will the Premier please take some responsibility and at least appoint a competent minister who is not going to mislead this House? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): We have a competent minister who is reducing the ESL, something this minister never did.

This Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) raised the property tax credit which cost people in River East $75 per householder in the 1990s. Two weeks ago, I believe– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the member from Emerson is talking about firing somebody. He is the only one in the House who wants to raise sales tax by 1 percent to get to 80% funding. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago it was public information, I believe, in one of the newspapers if not both, from the head of the school trustees. Carolyn Duhamel said, "We have a draft copy and we are circulating it around." Mr.

Speaker, we obviously were waiting for the so-called final report. You will even notice today that people like Stuart Briese, who is a stakeholder, is part of this group, is disagreeing with some of the recommendations. We will wa it for the final report, but the member opposite knows that this is a group of people who are mostly in the education and municipal sector and they are reporting. I would encourage them to look at both the costs and the expenses of running the education system. Education Financing Report Minister's Awareness Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr.

Speaker, I am going to try to get the Minister of Education on his feet again. Maybe he can clear something up here. It is unfortunate that the Premier of this province continues to hearken back to days of old, yet he is the Premier, Mr. Speaker, who is supposed to take responsibility, and that is what we are asking. I want to ask the Minister of Education why it is that he made a statement in the House here yesterday that said he has not yet received the report when, in fact, his Premier admitted that he has been sending the report out to municipalities, to mayors and to the City of Winnipeg.

That is a quote by the Premier. * (13:50) Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Speaker, the reason I rose in the House and said I had not yet received the report was because I had not yet received the report. There is a process in place, Mr. Speaker. I honour that process. This has been a very long consultation with the stakeholders. With the process in place, I respect that process. They were going to have another meeting of stakeholders in May, as I said, and then the report would be submitted to me in its final draft at a meeting with myself in June. That is the process.

I honour that process, I respect that process, and at that point, we will see the report. Red River Floodway Expansion Master Labour Agreement Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to an education and financing report that was tabled in this House, the Premier (Mr. Doer) dismissed the recommendation as another option before the Minister of Education, according to him, had not even seen the report. The Premier has now set a direction for the Government that certain

1610 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 recommendations can be labelled as "not an option" before reviews even begin. Will the Minister of Water Stewardship now follow his Premier's lead and tell Manitobans that forced unionization and forced union dues will not be an option when it comes to the floodway mediation report? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, Wally Fox-Decent is engaged in a process right now that we certainly respect. I would hope the member opposite would respect this as well, and we are anticipating a report very shortly from Wally Fo x-Decent.

I am going to let Wally Fox-Decent do th e job that he is well respected in Manitoba for, and I wish members opposite would also respect Wally Fox-Decent and his capabilities. Mr. Goertzen: We see the two sides of the Government. Some reports they respect and some reports they do not respect. Manitobans are concerned that forced unionization or forced union dues will drive up the cost of the floodway expansion by millions of dollars. It is as much a tax on Manitobans as increasing the PST.

Neither should be an option, so why will this Minister of Water Stewardship not just say today that forced union- ization and forced union dues are not an option and avoid the confusion that was caused by his Premier (Mr. Doer) and his Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) yesterday? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday they asked about a draft report. There is no report from Wally Fox-Decent. He is still in volved in meetings with stakeholders and I do not quite understand, quite frankly, what the member opposite does not under- tand about that. I await the report from Wally Fox- Decent.

I respect Wally Fox-Decent, and I wish the member opposite would, too. Mr. Goertzen: The Premier ruled out as an option something on a report that had not even been put forward until yesterday. The Minister of Water Stewardship is pretty good at contradicting his Premier. It has almost become an art for him, and I guess the Premier probably wishes that he would confer with him more often and get on the same page. Well, today he has the chance.

He can actually follow his own Premier's lead, so why does he not just stand up and say he is going to advise the mediator that forced unionization and forced union dues will not be an option, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I am pleased that the members opposite now ar e supporting Wally Fox- Decent. I was a little flattered but a little bit surprised when their 110 petitions that they read in the House asked us to interfere in the process. I am glad the member opposite has done a U-turn on his position and is allowing an expert like Wally Fox-Decent deal with the issue, Mr. Speaker.

Legal Aid Review Report Tabling Request Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, the Justice Minist er ordered a review of legal aid last fall and according to the Winnipeg Free Press

article on April 7, the Justice Minister was given that report on March 15. Mr. Speaker, will the Justice Minister table the legal aid report today or will he do as his Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) did yesterday, deny the report because it is damaging to the NDP? Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the member should know that on the Order Paper, Bill 47 is scheduled for first reading in this House in the next several days.

That legislation will deal with legal aid and at that time the report will be made public so that we can have input from the public and indeed other stakeholders. Mr. Hawranik: I table for the House a letter dated March 31 from Manitoba Justice. Mr. Speaker, on March 1, I requested unde r Freedom of Information legislation a copy of the Legal Aid review report from the Department of Justice. * (13:55) I was advised by the department that the request would be met by April 30. This is now May 5, Mr. Speaker, and I have not received a copy of that report. What exactly is the minister hiding?

Will the Justice Minister table the Legal Aid review report today? Mr. Mackintosh: Indeed we have received that report. It is a very good and comprehensive analysis

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1611 of Legal Aid plans, Mr. Speaker, and provides a path for Manitoba to consider. We look forward to tabling that in the next several days and making that available to the public as well, along with legislation which will enable Legal Aid to be stronger in servicing Manitobans in a cost-effective way. Mr. Hawranik: Over the last week the minister has provided notice to this House that he intends to introduce Bill 47, which is an amendment to the Legal Aid legislation. I expect that Bill 47 will deal with changes to legal ai d as recommended by the review report.

Why is the minister hiding that Legal Aid review report, Mr. Speaker? Is it because he is not following the recommendations of that report? Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, it is just a hypothetical question, of course. The Legal Aid report will be made public in the next several days as well as the legislation, and it will be done when the legislation is good and ready. The final draft, I understand, is being prepared now and we will do it when we are ready to do it, as I say, within the next several days. Internet Luring Charges Mr.

Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): The issue of Internet luring of children is a very serious issue for all Manitobans. Families, parents and young people want to know that there are real teeth and not just paper news releases in the provincial justice system. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice's prosecutors dropped charges under the new federal Internet luring act against a 24-year-old who was found guilty of having sexual relations with a 13-year-old child after contacting the victim on the Internet. Mr. Speaker, why did the minister's department drop these charges? Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I think I heard from the member opposite the allegation that the minister had dropped charges. Again, this reflects back to statements made by the critic on the Driskell matter. Mr. Speaker, the elected members of this Government do not conduct prosecutions. Maybe in some Soviet or banana republic that might happen, but not in Manitoba. If members think so, if they wish so, that is not a province I would want to live in. Mr. Goertzen: Mr.

Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Justice that these are his employees and he is responsible for the department. Not only did the minister's staff drop the charge against the Internet luring act, but the Crown's recommendation on the reduced charge was a conditional sentence, and that is house arrest. The Minister of Justice has knocked down forests putting out news releases about this Government's concerns about conditional sentencing alternatives, but when it comes to a charge of sexual relations with a child, the minister seems to think that it is okay.

Can he explain to Manitobans why he is saying one thing but doing another? Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, if the member is concerned about press releases put out urging the federal government to bring in an Internet luring law, we stand by that kind of announcement and pressure because it was successful. If he is concerned about releases or announcements asking for a strong, robust, national sex-offender registry, we have no apologies. If it is announcements or releases calling on the federal government for child pornography laws that are, indeed, strong and robust, we do not apologize for that.

I will say in answer to the question, specifically, that the Prosecutions branch of Manitoba is strongly supported by this Government to make decisions based on the law and the available evidence. We increased their budget 67 percent. It is unfortunate they voted against that budget. Mr. Goertzen: My opposition is that this Minister of Justice says on one day that he is opposed to conditional sentencing and the next day they are recommending it. Outraged City of Winnipeg police officers were quoted today as saying that it is really nice to have new legislation but it has to be used; this was a clear opportunity.

Actions speak louder than this Minister of Justice's news releases. The police are doing the best they can with the resources they have, but the Minister of Justice has failed them, and he has failed families when it comes to protecting children.

1612 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 * (14:00) Mr. Speaker, is there anybody on the gov- ernment side of the House, whether it is the Premier (Mr. Doer), whether it is the Minister of Family Services (Ms. Melnick) or whether it is the Minister of Justice, who is going to stand up for children and have the guts to do the right thing? Mr. Mackintosh: The phrase "over the top" comes to mind, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that the member be cautious in conducting newsstand research.

When I came in this morning, I had asked the department to provide a full report on the background, the circumstances and the transcript of this particular case. Prosecutions branch acts on the basis of law and the evidence, and not political interference. It is unfort unate members opposite do not appreciate that value in a democratic society. Let their member be reminded that this Government is providing leadership in this country and putting forth new ways to protect the children of Manitoba. We are going to continue that.

If there are any shortcomings in policies or other approaches, we will certainly attend to them and continue that leadership. Mr. Speaker: Order. Before recognizing the honourable Member for Southdale, I would just like to remind all honourable members that computers or any electronic device, that includes telephones, BlackBerries, whatever you have, are not to be turned on during Question Period. I would just let all honourable members know that. That is our rule in this Chamber. Pharmacare Deductible Increases Mr.

Jack Reimer (Southdale): Since we launched our toll-free number, 1-877-NDP CUTS line, for Manitobans to share their concerns about the Doer government's hikes to Pharmacare deductibles, we have received over 200 phone calls. Seniors, disabled and Manitobans from all walks of life called to share their concern with this Government's concern. In fact, the Premier (Mr. Doe

r) has acknowledged that his hikes will, and I quote, "be tough on lower- income people and middle-income people." Mr. Speaker, how can this Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Rondeau) defend this hike to the disabled woman who advised her deductible has gone up $282 and now has to use her Visa card to simply buy her needed medication? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we indicated that it was a very difficult decision with respect to the Budget, but our goal was to preserve Pharmacare into the future. It was rising at 15 percent and 20 percent per year.

I notice that the minister of health of Alberta has recently specu- lated, yesterday, that they may eliminate their pharmacare program in Alberta as a result of rising costs. Nova Scotia has increased premiums by 16 percent. We looked at every province. We wanted to maintain a universal program where you get 100% coverage after you achieve your deductible. We looked at places where they only covered seniors. We looked at places where you had to pay a premium like some Conservative provinces. We looked at all the options.

While it was difficult, we thought this was the fairest way to preserve the program and provide universality to all Manitobans now and into the future. Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, again, this Government's inability to manage the province's finances is directly impacting the health of all Manitobans. We heard from a woman suffering from MS. She and her husband have two young children. Their deducti- bility will rise almost $1,700, and she must now cut down on child care. Why must this family, already suffering from a family member having a debilitating disease, have to make these choices now? Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, 85 percent of Manitobans, of the 85 000 Manitoba families who receive Pharmacare, will see an increase in their deductible of $1 to $9 per month. I must tell you that we cover the MS drugs, all three MS drugs, which cost in excess of $20,000 a year per patient. They are covered in this jurisdiction. They are not covered in all jurisdictions. Yes, the member says it should be, and I am glad that we did it. That is why we do it, and we want to continue to do it in the future. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Reimer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I am pointing out to the members and to the Government

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1613 is the fact that there are costs that are increasing to seniors, the people on disability, people on fixed incomes. These are actual happenings here in Manitoba. We also got a phone call from a lady who lives in the Elmwood riding. These are seniors living in a home. They are still in their home. Their deductible is going to go up $102. It may sound like a small amount but it is a big amount to seniors living on a fixed income. They are living day to day, they said. They now have to make choices because of $102. I pointed out $1,700. I pointed $282.

These are all increases that people on fixed incomes or people with disabilities or people with a debilitating disease now have to carry. It is not fair. I ask this minister, the Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Rondeau), the Minister of Health or the Minister responsible for Persons with Disabilities (Ms. Melnick): How can they download this on to these people here in Manitoba? Mr. Chomiak: I am glad the member asked that question because we did not want to just restrict our programs to seniors or specific diseases as is done in other jurisdictions.

We wanted a universal program that covers the cost of drugs for every Manitoban. The vast majority of Manitobans will receive their drugs, in fact they all will receive their drugs, 100% coverage once they achieve their deductible. Mr. Speaker, 85 percent of people who receive Pharma- care benefits have seen an increase into the future. While that is difficult, the budget for Pharmacare has grown at 15 percent and 20 percent per year, which is a bit greater than the 1% budget promise members opposite made when they talked about health care. They said 1 percent should go to the Budget.

We are putting in an increase to Pharmacare this year, and we want to maintain it into the future. Dauphin Lake Management Plan Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Today I table a memorandum of understanding that was signed by the present government with great fanfare in December of 2000. This memorandum of under- standing was to develop a plan for the Dauphin Lake fishery to improve the management of Dauphin Lake. Three and a half years later the plan still has not been publicly released . It seems to be another example of inadequate attention to lakes.

I ask the Minister of Water Stewardship today whether he can finally table his plan for Dauphin Lake, or is he still just developing the plan. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member opposite was not asking about the new initiatives we announced this morning which are going to provide a million dollars in terms of additional initiatives that will impact, yes, for Lake Winnipeg, a prime focus, but for many lakes throughout the province.

I would like to point out to the member opposite that we have done a significant amount of work the last number of years in dealing with bringing together various stakeholders, dealing in terms of co- management, in particular, with Lake Dauphin and Lake of the Prairies. We are bringing in tougher legislation this session that is going to target illegal fishing. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we have made significant progress. Particularly, I want to acknowl- edge the work that has been done by the West Region Tribal Council and by the many stakeholders, sports fishers and local municipalities.

We have made significant progress and we will continue to do so. Mr. Gerrard: I was pleased to see that the minister had cobbled together a few initiatives to announce today after my pressing him repeatedly, and he at least recognized that what was in the Budget was not good enough. What I would ask the minister is why it has taken three and a half years after signing an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, to develop a plan. Why has it taken three and a half years, and we still do not have a plan? Is the minister not really con- cerned about Dauphin Lake? Is he not really moving this plan forward?

Does he not have the resources even to produce a plan? Where is the minister's plan? * (14:10) Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, only the Member for River Heights would describe a million dollars in initiatives that are going to focus in on Lake

1614 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 Winnipeg and lake and river health throughout the province as a cobbled-together announcement. I am very disappointed in particular that the member did not actually ask a question about one of the areas that we did respond. The only area that he has raised that is the result of that is in terms of disclosure, because he asked the question about two weeks ago in terms of the R.M. of Gimli. He did not, by the way, put on the record that that has now been dealt with in terms of the operation of the plant. We said, Mr. Speaker, the public has the right to know.

We are going to make sure those kinds of incidences that impact on Lake Winnipeg and other lakes and rivers in the future will not just go in terms of notification of officials, but will be the result of public notification. That is the kind of progress we are making as a government in terms of water issues in this province. Pelican Lake Management Plan Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Today, Mr. Speaker, we learn it is th ree and a half years from a memorandum and there is still no plan.

Last week, we learned that it takes more than three months to set up a meeting with the minister to talk about a crisis in Killarney Lake. The minister then implied that he could not get to Killarney because I could not get to Thompson. What a feeble excuse and, besides, I was in Thompson three times in the last year. In southwestern Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, people are concerned not only about Killarney Lake, but about other lakes like Pelican Lake where there are reports of considerable die-off of fish this spring. I ask the minister: When will the minister table his plans for Pelican Lake and for Killarney Lake?

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): It kind of shows you where we are at in this Legislature when members opposite have to get up and proudly proclaim they have actually visited Thompson, Manitoba, the third largest city in the province. What he did not mention is those visits were not during the election. In fact, the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray), could not find Thompson or the entire North when it came to the last election. I need no lectures from that member about anything to do with this province.

I represent the entire province and he is welcome any time in Thompson, Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. Maybe he will show up during the next election. Nursing Profession Government Initiatives Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry): In March 2000, this Government announced a five-point plan to address nursing issues. Will the Minister of Health please indicate if progress has been made on this plan? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): In 2003, there were 879 more active practising nurses in Manitoba than in 1999. Enrolment in nursing pro- grams has more than doubled since 1999.

Since 2001, nursing vacancies have dropped by 25 percent. Nursing graduates have tripled since 1999. The num- ber of graduates who report full-time employment has doubled since 1999. Since 1999, six hundred nurses have been recruited to Manitoba from other provinces and the United States. Mr. Speaker, $3 million has been provided through RHAs to improve access to continuing edu- cation, 700 nurses have received relocation assist- ance, 411 nurses have accessed funding to complete nursing refresher programs, specialty training courses in emergency.

I could go on the balance of the afternoon talking about the changes in nursing in Manitoba since 1999. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members. We need to be able to hear the questions and the answers and if the honourable Minister of Health and th e honourable Member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) wish to have a conver- sation, we have loges or they can have it in the hallway or in their offices, but we need to be able to hear the questions and the answers. Driver Licensing Impact on Autopac Rates Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr.

Speaker, only this Government would brag when they still have not solved hallway medicine, as they like to describe it. My question is to the Minister responsible for MPI (Mr. Mackintosh). Has this minister put in place

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1615 a working agreement which will transfer the responsibilities for DDVL an d how much will that cause an increase on insurance rates? Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I had mentioned to the member opposite prior that there is an Estimates process happening and a lot of the details will be coming out through the Estimates process. We will have an opportunity to discuss that, but I have to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the benefits, there is going to be improved customer service, operational savings, cost avoidance, better safety co-ordination. I know this Government is very proud of our record with regard to safety overall with regard to the driving public. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, we have seen hidden agendas on the part of this Government many times. This is an embarrassing answer from a government that is potentially unloading $10 million worth of additional expense into MPI. We want a straight answer. What effect will this have on cost to insur- ance in this province? Mr.

Lemieux: I have to tell you there are many loyal and dedicated employees in DDVL, so it is with regret in many ways. Those people are dedicated employees and work very hard for the Province of Manitoba but we know they will do an equally strong job for MPI. I have to tell you, though, what a hypo- critical comment. They had– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I just want to caution all honourable members.

I have cautioned members last week and the week before about the words, "hypo- critical," "hypocrite." So me Speakers have ruled them parliamentary and other Speakers have ruled them unparliamentary. I personally, as a Speaker, do not think it is the place in this Chamber for that. I think it would disrupt the House and cause some decorum to fall by the wayside, so I would encourage all honourable members to stay away from using those kinds of words. It is just a caution to all honourable members. The honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services, to conclude his answer. Mr. Lemieux: Mr.

Speaker, I apologize if anyone took offence. I respect your rulings and I apologize for the comment. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that when that member was on the government benches, they had a report commissioned in 1993 by Deloitte & Touche that told them to do exactly the same thing. What do they do? They sit on it for 11 years, do nothing when there are all kinds of benefits for the taxpaying public of Manitoba. They sit on it. Again, in 1997 there was an internal report. What do they do? Nothing. They sit on it. The mothball party that did absolutely nothing in Manitoba for 11 years.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. * (14:20) Mr. Cummings: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member can call me anything he wants, but when he does not know the answers, calling names and getting personal is not going to save the insurance rates of this province. This Government, of all parties, should understand that messing with public insurance in a way that is unpredictable, and they are refusing to answer the questions once again. Very clearly, we know that this Government tried to spend $10 million of MPI revenue before fixing a computer program.

Now they know that they can move it into Autopac, but they know that there is a cost. What is that cost? Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, we have always been concerned with regard to the taxpaying public of Manitoba and wanted to make sure that there are a lot of benefits with regard to any moves that are made. I know we will have an opportunity to speak to it during the Estimates process, but there are many cost avoidances that are into this move from DDVL to MPI, and those will come out within the Estimates process. I am sure members will have a number of questions with regard to that.

As a government, we have continually looked after the well-being of the taxpaying public of Manitoba, whether it be in education, health or other areas. I have to tell you in this particular area, once again I mention about improved customer service and many other benefits that are going to come forward as a result of this. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

1616 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Dennis Zboril Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today in the House to share a story of an individual's will and a community's pride. Dennis Zboril returned home to Minnedosa late last night with a gold medal. Our hockey hero earned the award when Team Canada won top place in the final game of the World Amputee Hockey Championships in Prague last Friday morning. Team Canada beat Team U.S.A. in the final game with a 7-1 win and Dennis scored one goal in that final game.

Team Canada won their first game on April 24, beating the Czech Republic. In day two, they beat Finland and Zboril's team took on Russia to win 13-0 in their game, and then the finals, which they won. Mr. Speaker, Dennis' father, Jeff, accompanied his son on the trip and was there to cheer his son on during the game. Dennis' mother, Bev, indicated to the Minnedosa Tribune that her son had also been named best defenceman on the team and was selec- ted as one of the players fo r the tournament all-star team.

Minnedosa's World Gold Medal Champion will be honoured at a special recognition evening being planned by the local Kinsmen Club on June 6. School Science Symposium Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): On April 25, the Manitoba Schools Science Symposium was held in Winnipeg at the University of Winnipeg's Duck- worth Centre. This year there were 501 projects by 900 students from across Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give honourable mention to the best in the Science Symposium. First, Zexi Wang and Alyson Huang, from Fort Richmond Collegiate, who won best Overall Senior Group Project.

There was also Akeshia Subedar, from Acadia Junior High, who won best Physical Junior Individual Project and Canada Wide Science Fair. For best Overall Intermediate Individual Project, Katherine West from Ryerson School won. From Acadia Junior High, Nishant Balakrishnan won best Overall Junior Individual Project. M r . S p e a k e r , w e m u s t also not forget Erin Sawatzky for winning the best Individual Health Intermediate Award. Then there was Lisa Craigen from Acadia Junior High who won best in Individual Energy Junior Category.

For best Individual Earth Science Junior Award, Starry Peng from Acadia Junior High won. Dane Pischke, also from Acadia, won for best Individual Engineering Junior. Michelle Leung won in the best Individual Environment Junior Category. Jinglu Liu from Fort Richmond Collegiate was the winner in the best Senior in the Individual Plant. I would also like to make a particular mention of those students winning in other categories from my area. From La Barriere Crossings School, Sawyer Marshall, Kristen Small, Adam Holik, Neahmiah Kleinsasser, Steven Learning and Robert Dumaresq. From St.

Avila School , Alanna Johnson, also Kyle Vouriot and Branden Kunst from St. Norbert Immersion School, and Tasnia Tarannum and Ingrid Hougen from Dalhousie School. There were many other students who won medals, and I would like to congratulate them all for their accomplishments as they have all studied hard and formulated incredibly innovative ideas for this symposium. In particular, I would like to thank the schools, the teachers and the parents for their support and instruction of such bright students. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member, could I ask honourable members that are having conversations to please do it in the loge or in the hallway because it is ve ry, very hard to hear the person that has the floor. Churchill Bulldogs Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, on April 22, I had the very great pleasure of attending the second annual Churchill Bulldogs Hall of Fame dinner to celebrate the pride and tradition of the Churchill Bulldogs football team. This dinner was attended by over 150 former alumni coaches and present students and participants in the Churchill High football program.

This pro- gram was entitled "Pride and Tradition," and it was a celebration of the many great accomplishments of the football program that has arisen from this small school over the years.

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1617 Mr. Speaker, I would like, in particular, to congratulate the inductees, former coach Mr. Paul Normandeau, seventies' players running back Jim "Bullet" Morgan, Mr. Bart Evans who was an offensive linesman in the seventies and went on to a career with the Hamilton Tiger Cats and other CFL teams. In addition, Mr. Bob Sokalski, Mr. Tony Paukovic and Mr. Alex Parasidis were inducted into the Churchill Bulldogs Hall of Fame.

It was a particularly enjoyable evening for those of us attending, particularly those of us who were alumni of the program because, in September of 2003, the current Bulldog team was able to defeat Oak Park 27 to 7 in the first game of the high school football season. Oak Park was attempting to break Churchill's record that goes back to 1970. The '67, '68, '69 and '70 teams went 32 consecutive games without a loss. The Bulldogs team of 2003 was able to stop Oak Park's winning streak at 31 games, and they were given a great deal of congratulations. Congratulations to all who were inducted that evening.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fred Douglas Society Humanitarian Award Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House today to con- gratulate a recipient of the Fred Douglas Society Humanitarian Award, Karen Schoenrath. The purpose of the Fred Douglas Humanitarian Award is to honour individuals who have enriched our communities through their outstanding service towards the elderly in the province of Manitoba. Karen received this award because of her considerable contributions to improving the lives of seniors in her community of Swan River.

As a volunteer, Karen has worked closely with the Swan River and District Community Resource Council which offers support services to seniors and people with disabilities. She is currently the co-president of the board, and in 1997-98 she was the board president. She worked in th e preparation of the first proposal for a grant from Manitoba Health to fund a Services to Seniors Resource Co-ordinator. Mr. Speaker, she fundraised to purchase office furniture and equipment. She also volunteered her time assisting the new resource co-ordinator and recruiting board members and volunteer service providers.

Her qualifications as a nurse have also contributed greatly to the health and well-being of seniors in her area, as she has volunteered at a monthly blood pressure clinic and has recruited many much needed volunteer nurses as well. Karen is a nurse at the Swan River Hospital, Mr. Speaker, where she works casual shifts. She has belonged to and volunteered for the Royal Purple Lodge for 40 years. All her volunteer work and consistent devotion to the lives of seniors is an inspiration to each of us.

Her humanitarian service and pioneering spirit are a voluntary contribution toward the betterment of seniors in her community. I would like to commend her for all her hard work. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Education Finance Report Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, Manitobans realize that there is a critical need to reform education funding in Manitoba. Under the Tories the proportion of provincial funding fell from 72 percent to 62 percent. Under the NDP, the pro- portion of provincial funding has fallen from 62 percent down to 57 percent and looks like it will go lower this year.

Education property taxes are clearly too high. Manitobans realize that th ere is a need for change. The Government has set up a working group. The working group spent a lot of time developing ideas to change the education funding approach in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, we see today on the front of the Free Press that the Premier (Mr. Doer) can do no better than heap scorn on the plans developed by the working group.

There is something fundamentally wrong when people have worked so hard trying to develop a better way of funding education in Mani- toba, and the only response from the Premier is to heap scorn on their efforts. * (14:30) Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Liberals agree with the concept put forward by the working group of having 80% provincial funding. We believe this is very important, to increase the level of provincial funding to 80 percent, to give much better equity in terms of funding all over Manitoba. We also see that it is very

1618 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 important that there be a proportion of local school board financing and local school board control to make sure that there is local input and local attention to quality of education as it is delivered in the schools. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Liberals see that this can be accomplished in a fiscally responsible way using a multi-year time frame, which is exactly what we proposed in the last electi on about a year ago. There is no need to increase the provincial sales tax from 7 percent to 8 percent. We presented this notion a year ago.

We still believe that this change must come, that the change can be done in a fiscally responsible way without raising the sales tax, as the NDP seem to want to do. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please canvass the House to see if there is unanimous consent to have a

section of Committee of Supply sit in Room 254 concurrently with the House this afternoon and for the

section to consider the Estimates for the Depart- ment of Finance? Further, Mr. Speaker, would you determine if there is unanimous consent that no votes be called in the

section of Supply meeting this afternoon and that there be no quorum requirement in Supply, today only? * (14:30) Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have the

section of Committee of Supply sit in Room 254 concurrently with the House this afternoon and for the

section to consider the Estimates for the Depart- ment of Finance? Further, determine if there is unanimous consent that no votes be called in the

section of Supply meeting this afternoon and that there be no quorum count requirement in Supply. Is there agreement? [Agreed] Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, I will just set out the Orders of the Day, and then we will have to call Supply. Would you please call in the House second readings in the order they appear, second the motion on page 7, and then adjourned debates on the bills in the following order: 11, 16, 41, 15? Mr. Speaker: In the Chamber, we are going to be doing government bills, and in Room 254 we will deal with Supply.

So, in accordance with Rule 233, Room 254 will deal with the Supply and that will be the Department of Finance, and now in the Chamber here, we will deal with government bills. We will start off with second readings. SECOND READINGS Bill 19–The Public Schools Amendment Act Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Ms. Melnick) that Bill 19, The Public Schools Amend- ment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les écoles publiques, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Ser- vices and Housing, that Bill 19, The Public Schools Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Mr. Bjornson: Through Bill 19's amendments, we will enhance Manitoba's excellent public school sys- tem by strengthening legislation to address concerns raised by education stakeholders.

The amendments recognize in the legislation the Frontier Collegiate Institute advisory committee. The amendments state that the minister may, by regulation, establish a reserve as the separate ward of a school division and outlines the factors the minister is to consider before making such a regulation. In terms of changes supported by trustees, we have amended changes to the timing of the election of chair and vice-chair. As well, Bill 19's amend- ments propose a trustee is di squalified for four years from holding office if he or she violates the PSA; "is convicted of (

i) an offence punishable by imprison- ment for five years or more , or (ii) an offence under

section 122 (breach of trust by public officer), 124 (selling or purchasing office) or 125 (influencing of

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1619 negotiating appointments or dealings in office) of the Criminal Code. . . ." Mr. Speaker, the bill clarifies that a person cannot be nominated for election as trustee and from being elected or remaining as a trustee if elected or appointed MLA, MP or municipal councillor. The effective date for this provision is November 1, 2006.

A welcome change for divisions with wide geographic areas is the amendment that allows boards to hold a board meeting by electronic means without declaring a trustee absent, although a trustee must be present at least once every three months. Further amendments to allow boards to "meet in camera for the purpose of hearing representations about and determining whether to expel a pupil." As well, provisions in the bill address the need for employee leave of absence for individuals intending to run for trustee. Mr.

Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair It says that a DSFM employee, if elected as trustee, must take a leave of absence, and that if an employee of any other school board is elected as a trustee for that school board, they must take a leave of absence. Mr. Deputy Speaker, further amendments will allow the minister to make regulations around the prescribed usage of teacher contracts. The act currently allows the minister to make regulations around the form of contract, and this change allows the minister to establish parameters around how limited-term contracts are to be established.

In terms of expropriation and disposition of school board property, the bill proposes that an expropriation by-law must be approved by the PSFB and allows for regulations which will define the guidelines for disposition of school property. These amendments will address long-standing concerns of teachers and sc hool administrators, and we are pleased to address them through these pro- posed changes. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to. Bill 25–The Amusements Amendment Act Hon.

Eric Robinson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 25, The Amusements Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism, seconded by the honourable Minister of Healthy Living, that Bill 25, The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur les divertissements, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. * (14:40) Mr. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be introducing The Amuse- ments Amendment Act for second reading. I look forward to the committee hearings during which we will consider the bill in detail on a clause-by-clause basis. Trends in the video game market are potentially placing children at risk and putting pressure on provincial and territorial governments to minimize this risk.

Violent and sexually explicit video games represent a growing segment of the video game market, and improvements in graphics technology mean that video game images are becoming increasingly realistic. Unfortunately, children have been targeted by the video game industry in the sale and marketing of graphic and violent video games. Parents and citizens in Manitoba have expressed concern about the violent and sexually explicit content of a number of video games on the market today. Through our Healthy Child initiative, this Government is committed to protecting children from harmful material. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, this bill redefines the term "film" in The Amusements Act to clearly include video games. This change also allows video games to be regulated. The legislation will require that video games be classified, but it will not require the Province's Film Classification Board to carry out the classification. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the legislation will enable the Province to adopt classifications of

1620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 another body and will empower the Province to establish prohibitions for the sale or rental of violent and sexually explicit video games to children. The Government also recognizes that visual media is constantly taking on new forms, and these amendments enable the Government to consider the regulation of the new technologies as they develop.

I have had the opportunity to have discussions with representatives from the Violence Is Not Child's Play Coalition and the Retail Council of Canada, and both these organizations share our Government's concerns with the ability of young children to pur- chase or rent violent and sexually explicit video games. Both these organizations are to be applauded for their concern for the sa fety of our children, our future, indeed. I would like to commend the Retail Council of Canada's work with video game retailers in British Columbia on their commitment to "Commitment to Parents" initiative.

Under this initiative, video game retailers may choose to voluntarily enforce an industry-based classificati on system and refuse to sell or rent violent or sexually explicit video games to children. I support those responsible retailers who have chosen to participate in this initiative. I would encourage members on both sides of the House to show their commitment to our parents and our commitment to our young people and support this bill. Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to.

Bill 34–The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak), that Bill 34, The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Advanced Education and Training, seconded by the honourable Minister of Health, that Bill 34, The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'Université de Winnipeg, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Ms. McGifford: This amendment to The University of Winnipeg Act reflects better the processes used by the university regarding the way in which students are treated by the two governing bodies, the Board of Governors and the Senate. The proposed amendment would split disci- plinary powers over students so that the Senate would have internal disciplinary jurisdiction over students in academic matters and the Board of Regents have internal disciplinary jurisdiction over students in non-academi c matters.

This measure ensures that the governing body of the university specializing in academic matters addresses concerns regarding the academic behaviour of students. The Board of Regents retains the authority to address the non-academic discipline of students. This amendment requested by the University of Winnipeg will help to strengthen the academic integrity of the university while, at the same time, ensuring that student disciplinary matters of an academic nature will be addressed by the body best suited to resolve this matter. Mr.

Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to. Bill 43–The Personal Health Information Amendment Act (Spiritual Health) Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 43, The Personal Health Infor- mation Amendment Act (Spiritual Health); Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les renseignements médicaux personnels (santé spirituelle), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the definition of health included in this bill refers to the condition of being sound in mind, body and spirit. Already two existing Manitoba statutes, The Workplace Safety and Health Act and The Sustainable Development

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1621 Act, include this definition for that purpose. To clarify and reinforce the belief that is already present in the administration of many facilities, that is, the belief that spiritual care is central to the overall health and well-being of the individual and that spiritual care is an integral part of the delivery of the health care system, we propose this amendment. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to. Bill 44–The Colleges Amendment Act Hon.

Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak), that Bill 44, The Colleges Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Advanced Education, seconded by the Minister of Health, that Bill 44, The Colleges Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les collèges, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Ms. McGifford: This amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was requested by Red River College, will provide all colleges with similar powers. The amendment mirrors a change made to The University of Winnipeg Act in the late 1990s and will allow colleges to develop by-laws that regulate parking. This change is consistent with other post- secondary institutions in the province, which have the authority to make by-laws respecting parking on property owned or managed by the institutions.

The change is also consistent with the authority provided to board-governed organizations. This legislation will not impact the delivery of community college programming, nor will it change the relationship between the colleges and government. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to. Bill 45–The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act Hon. Nancy Allan (Min ister of Labour and Immigration): I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr.

Chomiak), that Bill 45, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com- mittee of this House. * (14:50) Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Labour and Immigration, seconded by the Minister of Health, that Bill 45, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amend- ment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ingénieurs et les géoscientifiques, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Ms. Allan: It is an honour at this time to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 45. Last year the Associ- ation of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the province of Manitoba approached the Govern- ment and requested amendments to their professional act that would ensure that the association had the necessary legislative author ity to provide charitable donations, gifts or grants for causes important to the association.

There was also some question as to whether the association had sufficient legislative authority under the act to provide for bursaries, awards and other educational incentives or to engage in promotional activities in advancing the purposes of the association. Legal counsel for the association advised that the Government be requested to amend the act to ensure that there was such legislative authority. The association did so last fall. Following a careful revi ew of the association's request by our Legislative Counsel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government agr eed to proceed with the requested changes.

Amendments in three areas of the act would appear necessary to provide the legislative authority required to satisfy the association's request. Their first change would involve expanding on the purposes of the association. More specifically, the purposes of the association would be expanded on to include advancing the education and pro- ficiency of its members and promoting the continu- ing development of the engineering and geoscientific professions.

1622 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 Second, Mr. Deputy Speak er, the powers of the association would be expanded to permit it to dis- pose of property or money by donation, gift or otherwise towards furthering its purposes. Third, to complement the enhancement of the association's purposes and powers it is necessary to extend the association's by-law-making authority. For example, the amendments authorize the association to make by-laws respecting bursaries, awards and other educati onal incentives and the provision of financial or other assistance.

As well, the association will be able to make by-laws relating to meeting the means of promoting the engineering and geoscientific professions. These powers will enable the association to establish rules and parameters relating to its additional purposes and powers. The engineering and the geoscientific pro- fessions have always been very important to the development and expansion of Manitoba's social and economic well-being. These amendments, we firmly believe, deserve the support of every member of this Legislature.

They will have a positive impact on the development of the engineering and geoscientific professions and on the social and economic well- being of the people of Manitoba. I therefore commend this bill for approval of the Assembly. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Southdale (Mr. Reimer), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to. Bill 46–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr.

Rondeau), that Bill 46, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants, now be read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of the bill, and I table the message. Motion presented. Mr. Bjornson: Bill 46 contains amendments that will address seven key recommendations of The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act. Proposed amendments will enable teachers in the future to make pension contributions while on adoption leave and allow current and former teachers to purchase past maternity leave.

As well, teachers on long-term disability or LTD will be paid be out of the pension fund rather than from LTD funds maintained by the Manitoba Teachers' Society. Further, teachers receiving LTD will not be required to make contributions during a period of disability if they are receiving disability income under a group insurance plan and not under sections 19 and 20 of the act. Teachers will receive pension credit on short- term leaves of absence with full or partial pay and will receive pension credit for the period of leave.

The amendments will also remove the requirement to appoint two members to the Teachers' Retirement Allowance Fund board or TRAF from names submitted by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to. Bill 48–The Human Tissue Amendment Act Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 48, The Human Tissue Amend- ment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les tissus humains, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Chomiak: Amendments to the act are meant to increase Manitoba's organ donation rate by stream- lining the donation process. Organ donation rates nationwide are low. Manitoba's amendments to this legislation will help improve those rates to save lives and make the quality of life better for Manitobans. In addition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the name of the act has been changed to The Human Tissue Gift Act, to better reflect the spirit of donors and their relatives when many cases are grieving their personal loss while unselfishly making this contribution to others

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1623 whose lives will be saved or improved. The amendments were developed in consultation with representatives of the WRHA organ donation pro- gram, the Tissue Bank program and the Lions' Eye Bank program.

Amendments include changes that will require that the organ tissue and/or eye bank agencies be notified of a death or an impending death, so trained staff can assess organ tissue or eyesight ability and attempt to obtain informed consent for donation; enable the disclosure of personal health information of potential donors to the organ tissue and eye bank agencies for quick suitability assessment; and allow for the recovery of expenses of earning the assess- ment retrieval processing preservation storage and other activities required in the donation process, as well as payment to the professionals involved in such activities.

A new organ and tissue donor card is being sent to all new Manitoba Health card registrants, 18- year-olds deleted from their parents' health card and those requiring a placement health card. Penalties for the sale of an organ or tissue have been increased from a maximum fine of $5,000 or up to six-month imprisonment or both, to a maximum fine of $10,000 or up to one year imprisonment or both. We look forward to discussion with respect to this very significant changes to update the act, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and to provide for timely notifi- cation in the hopes and desires of improving the gifting of organs in the province of Manitoba. Thank you. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to. * * * Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr.

Rondeau), that in accord ance with subsections 11.1(5) and (6) of The Provincial Court Act, the Report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs respecting the Judicial Compensation received on April 14, 2004, be concurred in. Motion presented. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] * (15:00) DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 11–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Protection of Crown Assets) Mr. Deputy Speaker: Resume debate on second reading, Bill 11, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr.

Mackintosh), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik). Is there leave that it remains standing in the name of the Member for Lac du Bonnet? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. It seems to me that we have a very political bill that the current gov- ernment has brought into this Chamber, one that could be viewed as rather than having a positive action but to have a negative action, where instead of acting to do something, it acts to prevent something.

From that perspective, I would like to express my frustration with the Government for introducing this type of legislation. The basic principle of being elected to government is that those who are success- ful at the polls are entrusted with the responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the public. I know this is a topic that is near and dear to your heart and one that I suspect every member of this Chamber should hold equally near and dear to their own heart, but what we see here is something that deviates from what would be normal practice in that respect.

We have a government introducing a bill that would prohibit action or will allow action only under certain conditions that would normally be considered something that government could make a free choice or make a decision on behalf of those who elected them to manage on their behalf. No one of this side is saying that Manitoba Public Insurance is subject to being sold. But what this bill does is it overlooks the fact that there are lots

1624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 of things around the management of Manitoba Public Insurance that should never be held above scrutiny, or beneath scrutiny, if you will, depending on how you view the thing and how you view that aspect of governance. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Manitoba Public Insurance is an independent corporation, or as independent as any Crown corporation can be made, with a minister in Cabinet responsible to report on the activities of that corporation. It is governed, obviously, for rate structure by The Public Utilities Board.

It seems like a pretty reasonable, arm's-length situation. But there is a little history to this corporation that perhaps some of us have overlooked. At one time, Manitoba Public Insurance was also selling general insurance, fire insurance and liability. In 1989 that arm of the corporation was sold and the losses and the bleeding that was associated with that responsibility within the corporation stopped. Now, if there had been a bill of this nature in place at that time, I suppose that it would have been very difficult for the government of the day to deal with that issue, and yet it was clearly bleeding.

In my modest opinion, it also was something that was on the fringes of the mandate that Manitoba Public Insur- ance should have, because most people, when they think of what used to be MPIC, think of auto insurance. That is indeed where the monopoly man- date is for Manitoba Public Insurance. It is a mandated monopoly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, to that end, the Government is saying, well, that must continue as it is in perpetuity. But I would submit that none of us are wise enough to be able to predict what will happen down the road in the area of some of these responsibilities.

Because someone feels that they are so wise that they can tie the hands of future elected officials, then I suggest that they are perhaps introducing, as I said, a political agenda, one which they want to score points on with the public, yet they are not necessarily, in my view, providing a fair representation on behalf of the public in looking clearly at what the implications are from introducing a bill such as this. It does speak to a required referendum in terms of a future divestiture of the corporation. Who could be opposed to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Who could be opposed?

Well, there are people out there who have always been opposed to a monopoly in this area, but let us just examine that one question. Why would anybody be opposed? It is not that in today's world we see a cheaper and competent way of providing insurance to the general driving public in this province. Who would have predicted 10-15 years ago that we are at th is time seeing government debt being pushed into Manitoba Public Insurance? The moving of the DDVL into Manitoba Public Insurance was not the mandate that this corporation was given to begin with, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not necessarily disconnected.

It is very connected. MPI currently runs the computer system for a lot of the work that is done under DDVL, not it all, though. Frankly, the exchange of information between those two entities within government has to be as efficient and as clear as possible. But it was only two, three, perhaps four years ago–time flies when you are having fun–this Government was going to take about $30 million from the coffers of MPI; 20 million was for education, again, a laudable objective, but the wrong source. The other $10 million was going to go to provide computer upgrades.

So I get a little offended today when I hear the current minister of transport talking about there have been previous reports to recommend what they are doing. He should also look at what the implications are of what he is doing and whether or not it fits in the mandate of the corporation and whether or not it is fair to add to your insurance costs and registration costs and a little extra for the Government, which appears to be what the current policy of this Gov- ernment is. You mix all this together. It is sort of like one of those balls full of crystals with a picture of a pastoral scene, maybe some houses.

You shake it up and the snowflakes fall down through your crystal ball. That is what the Government is seemingly attempting to do as it moves forward with its plan for this corpo- ration. This bill is part of that master plan. Shake up the ball, have the snow falling, you cannot predict where it is going to fall, but it looks pretty. Sure, nobody will really care. What is the hidden agenda and what is the responsibility according to the base mandate of this corporation, Mr. Deputy Speaker? This is the only complete monopoly that has no-fault capability in North America.

There are portions of no-fault insur- ance in other jurisdictions in this continent, Canada, United States, where we very often drive in each

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1625 other's jurisdictions. It is also the only one that has full monopoly, and that is what makes it unique. * (15:10) In Québec there is no-fault. Manitoba's system is copied after Québec, but the tin and the glass is repaired by someone else. There is an example of where the exact mandate of the corporation needs to be examined from time to time. What are the implications in that as reflected in this bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

The fact is this Government has a certain philosophical view on its ability to dictate the mandate of this corporation without necessarily having full public input. Through the actions that it is taking in this bill, it is, as I said, sprinkling a little bit of light, fluffy snow across the horizon. The public will not notice that there has been much of a change, but there will be a change, and there will be implications that are going to come from other actions that they are taking.

At the same time they are saying, but nobody in the future should have the right to examine if there are portions of the service provided by MPI that could be provided differently. Howard Pawley will tell you he had one heck of a time coming to peace with the insurance agents. His vision, as I recall, was not to have MPI insurance delivered by private- sector public insurance agents. Turns out that was a compromise that everybody was willing to settle for, and it happened. But what was the reason that they were gathering on the steps of the legislature, Mr. Deputy Speaker? How many of them were out there?

Per- haps you were there or remember that event. It seems to me there were a thousand people out there, worried about where the Government was going with a mandate for compulsory insurance through mon- opoly in this province. That was before we were even talking about no-fault. So what is it that drives this Government to introduce this kind of legislation? They introduced the same kind of legislation around Hydro. Made great waves during the election saying, our promise is that we will not sell Hydro. We can make the argument very clearly that there are portions of Hydro they intend to give away, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. There will be those who will say that is an overstatement. But the fact is that in negotiations on responsibilities for aspects of flooding and being on traditional lands of some of the northern communities that are impacted by potential Hydro development, and being offered an opportunity to be co-investors in Hydro and to reap some of the profits as it evolves. That is a double standard, and that is why I worry about what is the Government's intent when it has this bill before the Legislature.

I listened with some interest to some of the government members speaking in glowing terms about Manitoba Public Insurance. But did Manitoba Public Insurance have a mandate to have driver education, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Does it have a ma ndate to provide additi- onal resources for police in this city? Does it have the mandate to do advertising at a Blue Bomber game? These are all things that are somewhat flexible, not necessarily contemplated when MPI became an entity, or when the mandate was decided by the government of the day as what that should be. That leads me to view this bill with some scepticism.

It leads us to wonder what it is that the Government's hidden agenda is when it introduces this type of legislation. I prefer to take the simple view, which is that Government wants to replay that old card: We promised not to sell Hydro. We now promise not to sell MPI. You have got to watch those nasty Con- servatives because you never know what they are going to do. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the fact is that no government is so wise and so all-seeing that they can predict what would be the best for this society 10 years from now.

There are th ings that we should never close the door on: options for good ideas; options to take advantage of different ways of pro- viding service; options as to where competitiveness can be introduced. One could say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by looking at the Québec model, that there are options for how the claims are settled, that there are more options for private-sector involvement there. Does it have to always be delivered by Crown employees? That is an

1626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 option that nobody is contemplating today, but I say to you, and I say to the Government, do you consider that a privatization, do you consider that an option that should be never looked at, at any time in the future? I am not recommending it, but frankly, neither should anyone say we will never, ever look at that, because I point to the orig inal concept of MPI where it was insuring, and what people said was an area where no one would buy insurance or could get insurance.

Frankly, after the initial shock of MPI being general insurance arm, being put into the private-sector, the company shed itself of some considerable losses, and at the same time, it appears that service has now evolved. So, as we look at this bill in its entirety, it is really not much there. It is just offensive. The government of the day will use its majority to pass a bill that does nothing more than make a political statement. That in some extent is abuse of this Chamber. It is fair for us all to–we are politicians– make statements, indicate directions that we will go.

But there are times, I think, when, and I have been here about as long as you have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and over the years I do not think we have seen any legislation of this type until we saw the Hydro and the MPI legislation, particularly this bill that we are dealing with today. We have seen very little of that type of legislation, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker. There is a good reason for that. It just simply does not play a major role, we could say, in the responsibilities that this Chamber would normally undertake.

So it is negative in its approach, it tends to make people look at us and say, "So you are so smart that forever and a day, without a referendum, you are not going to allow certain changes to occur at the corporation." One of the problems with Crown corporations, in the long run, is that they have to make change to stay current, to provide service that is desperately needed, in some cases, or good service that people expect. That requires changes that we have no way of anticipating today.

I would suggest that no way can we or should we tie the hands of future leaders in this province in a way that strikes me as being a little bit offensive, because it is being introduced for political purposes. Having said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that the people within the corporation can be quite comfortable that MPI will continue in much the form that it is today for the foreseeable future.

I make the simple point that none of us are wise enough to be able to predict precisely what could or should happen in the future, and whether or not there will be changing circumstances that require actions that are unanticipated today. So, if this Chamber is prepared to consider this legitimate legislation and that it should be passed, certainly I for one, as a former minister responsible for this corporation, I am not going to be painted into a corner that says, oh well, I want the freedom to sell the corporation." That is not what the issue is.

The issue is that this Government believes they are all- seeing, all-powerful, omnipotent and can predict what would be the best format down the road. There may be things that they have not thought of, or would not contemplate, or perhaps things that they believe, philosophically, should never happen that will now be made more difficult via this bill.

In that respect the bill really does not warrant the amount of time that it is probably going to be given here and in committee but I would propose that, given the lightness of this bill and the intent behind this bill, that it is a little bit of an unreasonable position by government to bring this legislation forward, and that they have closed some doors or are closing some doors that would be better dealt with in a way that says, "How can we improve service? What is it precisely that the mandate of the corpora- tion is and how can we make it better for the driving public in this province?" * (15:20) Mr.

Jack Penner (Emerson): Just to put a few comments on the record in regard to the matter of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amend- ment Act (Protection of Crown Assets), I think in that context we should consider this bill. This bill, as my colleague from Ste. Rose has just indicated, is nothing more, in our view, than a blatant attempt to politicize the process under the guise of protection- ism that this Government is so noted for in the general public.

The general public is becoming very sceptical of the way this Government has, over the last five years, portrayed itself, and how they have demon- strated to the people of Manitoba that what they see is not really what they get. I think this bill clearly demonstrates that.

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1627 I want to put a few questions on the record in regard to this bill. I want to ask the Assembly here what their views are in regard to what can or might happen under the guise of securing, by legislation, the corporation, virtually in perpetuity, without any retroaction, unless a government has the will to change the legislation back. That, of course, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could happen overnight.

Any government, even th is Government, could choose the day after tomorrow, the day after this is passed, saying, "Oh, we made a mistake," and bring a new bill forward causing dissolution of this bill. That is how frivolous this bill really is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this clearly wants to leave the impression that politically we are protecting a corporation from sale by a government, yet reality says that the Government could change that bill virtually within a day or two if they chose to do it within a majority government.

But I believe the true reason why this Government wants to put this legislation forward is to, No. 1, clearly indicate to the general public it is their intention to keep this corporation at whatever the cost may be. Secondly, I think we have seen a demonstration in this Legislature just over the last couple of days as to how they might in fact move costlier portions of a given department under the realm of the corporation, under the guise of public insurance, when in fact the DDVL, the department has nothing to do with insurance. There is no insurance.

It is a licensing agency, and I believe here is a demonstration of what government intends to do. Number one, they want to secure the corporation from sale. The government of the day, the NDP government then want to use it as a cash cow. The reason I say they want to use it to draw cash out of, I think they have demonstrated under Hydro.

They passed a bill first, not allowing a political party or a government, whether it be NDP or other, to sell the corporation and then caused the corporation to pay huge dividends to the Government: $80 million in additional water use fees that this NDP government has foisted upon Manitoba Hydro; $200 million in dividend payments that they demanded from the corporation.

The corporation has no way of saying, "Well, we have no way of raising this money except to go back to the people and borrow the money to pay it to the Government and raise Hydro rates," as they have said they must, to meet the demands of this Government. Yet there is no ability of the corporation being dissolved and/or sold.

Ev en if the corporation becomes worth absolutely zero, Manitoba Hydro could very well–look at the huge debt they have on their books now, huge debt, and it need not take too long if this Government keeps on its trail of destruction and spending that they might in fact drive the Hydro corporation into bankruptcy. It could well happen that banks will say, "No longer will we loan this corporation any money." What happens then, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It is bankrupt. It cannot be sold, and if bankrupt, how do you terminate operations on Manitoba Hydro under a bankrupt situation? Who then owns it?

Is somebody given the total Hydro corporation to manage and run? Because that would appear to be the only option. Secondly, I want to say this to you. When this Government was first elected, the first year it was elected, it came to the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and said, "We need $20 million from your coffers, from MPIC, pu blic insurance corp, to fund the universities, $20 million." Well, the people of Manitoba were disturbed.

They voiced their opposition to this and the Government backed down, but had this piece of legislation been in place, that would secure this Government under the guise of the Government's control. I see this as a much more significant piece of legislation than my colleague who has just said that he views this as a frivolous attempt to provide some political demonstration of security of the corporation. I believe this Government is intent on making absolutely sure that nobody can dissolve this organi- zation no matter what they try, and then force increased rates. You just watch.

Within a year or two you are going to see major rates of insurance on your car, your motorcycles and your trucks in the province of Manitoba. Secondly, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker, I believe then the corporation will be used as a funding agency to provide money to government for other matters, such as providing vehicle licensing to the people of Manitoba. At whose cost? At whose cost? Because government has not got any more money that it can provide those services, now we transfer those

1628 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 services to the corporation. Secondly, by raising the rates, the Government can demand a dividend. How large will the dividend be? We do not know. We know how large the increase in spending has been every year by this Government, and if revenues keep going down as they are today, this Government, by next year, will be in serious, serious difficulty. They projected a significant increase in revenues and yet the exact opposite has happened so far. So where are we going?

Now we are going to secure this corporation, secure it by legislation that will not allow anybody to dispose of it and then the NDP government, the Doer administration, can, in fact, say to the people of Manitoba now you pay, we will use this as a collection agency for money to drive the NDP agenda. To do what? To keep on spending. Because in all reality, people really love to see projects go up. They like to see bricks and mortar go up. And if government has no money, where do they go? They will go to Hydro. That is one cash cow. They will go to the public insurance corpo- ration. That is another one.

Which one will be next? Which one will we secure permanently as a govern- ment agency that will be nothing more than a collection agency for the spending habits of Premier Doer and his NDP administration in this province? So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, does this bill, in your view, accomplish that? I think so. * (15:30) Now, what kind of projects could we expect the corporation then to fund more significantly than we have? Well, let us just say the Minister of Water (Mr. Ashton) is going to expand beaches and cottages, and those kind of things.

Yet they need infrastructure money to build the highways and the roads and the sewage disposal systems, that sort of stuff, on the new cottage-lot industry that they are going to establish. They might go to the corporation and say now, we want you to invest. Because now they have total control. We want you, as a corporation, to invest in the sewage disposal system. We want you to put the infrastructure in for the cottage industry. Do they need to make a profit? No, they do not. All they need to do is raise the insurance rates on your cars, your vehicles, and whatever. The honourable Member for Selkirk (Mr.

Dewar) has just said, "But you could raise the sales tax." Well, we saw a proposal brought before this House by the Leader of the Opposition, the Honour- able Stuart Murray. We allowed that to be brought to this Legislative Assembly that demonstrated clearly a document that the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) has hidden in his department and now does not even admit that it exists. Yet the Premier (Mr. Doer) of this province, the NDP Premier, has openly stated that he has already distributed it to his friends, and the Minister of Education knows nothing about it.

This Member for Selkirk is now sitting there saying that they will increase and expand the sales tax in this province even more than the 1 percent that was being proposed by the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson). What a web we weave. Does this fit in well to the plans of using the insurance corporation as a funding agency to support the spending habits of this Government? Yes, it does, Mr. Deputy Speaker; yes, it does. It fits in perfectly as one of the collection agency blocs that this Gov- ernment must have to secure the huge additional cash flow they will need to support their addicting habits of spending.

Now, talking about addiction, we have just seen a major move to increase the gambling habits of the people of this province. Now, what are they going to gamble on? Wow, we are going to spend $100 million of the good taxpayers' money to buy Cadillac VLT machines. Then we are going to force the Public Insurance corporation to do a major adver- tising campaign because we would not want to accuse the Government of do ing the advertising. So now we force the corporation to do the advertising campaign. Are they going to have the money?

Of course they will, if they increase your insurance rates, and that is a sure thing that that will happen. I say to you this all ties together in a very devious plan to ensure that the money will be there so this Government can continue to spend $100 million on new VLTs. A piece of legislation that guarantees the existence under security of government ownership, as a cash cow, as an advertising agency and, clearly, a demonstration that this Government does not intend to stop spending. I know the honourable Member for Flin Flon (Mr.

Jennissen) is sitting in the Chamber and saying, "Oh, but what a cash cow." He said, "What a cash cow." He said that it even might have BSE.

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1629 An Honourable Member: The member from the Pas. Mr. Penner: Oh, maybe it was the Member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin). I am sorry about that because– [interjection]. Then I apologize for that. I should know that because the honourable Member for The Pas and I signed an agreement many years ago, which I appreciated a great deal, when I was the Minister of Conservation, that provided a very significant conservation initiative in The Pas area.

I believe that that project over there has served well, and I commend the honourable member who is now the member of the Legislature for that area and, indeed, the minister, for the initiative that he took as the chief of the reservation over there to drive that initiative, because it took a significant amount of effort. I congratulate him fo r taking that initiative and I think that project has served well. But I say to you this, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that if this Government continues its wily ways of decep- tive processes, such as trying to leave the impression that this legislation will stop any government from privatizing this public insurance corporation, do not believe it. Do not believe it because it will not happen. It only takes a very simple bill like this to dissolve the security that is there.

Once the Gov- ernment has utilized to the fullest the rate increases that I see coming, and that this Government wants to implement under the guise of securing the corpora- tion for the people of Manitoba without allowing them to sell it, I think, is, clearly, a deceptive move that should be looked at very suspiciously. So, with those words, I say to you this: I have served as a board member at the public insurance corporation for better than four years. It was a great experience.

It took good, sound board-management principles to manage the corporation in such a way that rates did not increase over that period of time to any great extent. The corporation had a larger reserve when I left that office wh en our party was defeated, but I was very proud of those board members that sat and served with me. I was very proud of the execu- tive committee that managed the corporation and how they managed it and how they invested wisely the monies that were collected by the corporation. There were large amounts of money in various accounts at the corporatio n when this Government came to power.

What truly disappointed me, and I say this in all sincerity, what truly disappointed me, that one of the first moves this Government made was to try and draw on those accounts and leave the impression to the insured public of this province that they were going to help educate. At the expense of who? At the expense of every Manitoban that owned a vehicle, and that is virtually every adult of adult age in this province of Manitoba, and some of them own more than one, and the large trucking companies own many of them. So who would have paid? The general public would have paid.

The general public felt deceived at that being one of the first actions of this Govern- ment. They rallied, and this Government backed down. I commend the Government for backing off that, because they had no business of going to that corporation to try and tap that large amount of money that was there.

I, however, note that the rates are going to go up because the corporation has been forced to spend most of the money to maintain the rates where they were over the last number of years, and they should have gone up slightly every year, at least at the rate of inflation, but the current government did not allow that. So where are we now? We are going to have to pay not only the interest rates that are there on money that the corporation might have borrowed, but we are going to have to pay the fees that are going to be required to keep insurance running as it is.

We are going to have to pay the fees that I believe this Government wants to draw out of that corporation as dividend. This legislation only demonstrates the sin- cerity of this Government ensuring that it will remain a cash cow for the Government of Manitoba. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me a few minutes to address this bill. * (15:40) Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and participate in the debate regarding Bill 11, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act.

Today I will not enter into the debate as to the pros and cons of privatized auto insurance versus a monopoly position of a Crown-owned corporation, but I do want to discuss the concerns that I have in regard to this legislation.

1630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 This legislation is a mirror image to the legislation passed earlier in this Chamber regarding Manitoba Hydro, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now, as legislation pertains to Manitoba Hydro, it was not specific enough in regard to the actual situation to which we find ourselves with Manitoba Hydro. We passed legislation stating that a referendum had to take place before the sale of Manitoba Hydro as a Crown-owned corporation.

But it did not go far enough insofar as this curre nt administration has in fact eroded the equity position that we as Manitobans have in that Crown corporation to which we are all very proud the accomplishments and success and cost effectiveness that it affords all Manitobans. Manitoba Hydro today is owned more by the financial institutions than it is by we as Manitobans and that alarms me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would assume that it would alarm you as well that, today, we own less of Manitoba Hydro than we did four years ago.

In regard to Hydro, this should be alarming to everyone in the province and especially so to the Government, the NDP government, because they are effectively calling the shots. Yes, we have legislation and we will not sell it. But the actual practise of this current government is that they are indeed selling it because we have a lesser equity in it today than we did. As well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has not prevented the Government from taking significant dividends, as was termed earlier, in an earlier discus- sion, from a Crown-owned corporation such as Manitoba Hydro.

Now I recognize that there are differences between Mani toba Public Insurance corporation and Manitoba Hydro, insofar as Mani- toba Hydro has a greater investment in fixed assets than does Manitoba Public Insurance corporation in percentage to dollars of business done each and every year. So I do not suspect we will be getting a large dividend in payments from Manitoba Public Insurance corporation.

But I want to caution all honourable members that taking a dividend payment from a Crown-owned corporation, as was tried earlier, I might add, from th e reserves that Manitoba Public Insurance had amassed, which were rightfully due to the ratepayers and the premiums that those ratepayers, effectively, had provided to the corpo- ration. I am glad that the public outcry was such that the Government realized that they were making a grave error and recanted upon their proposal. I see now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that the minister of the time, who had made the announcement and decision originally, decided not to run for office. It was a significant error in judgement, I believe, and just over the top. I hope that was not the final straw that made for the decision for her not to run again. But it was a significant error on behalf of the New Democratic Party governance. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in regard to the bill as we see it here today amending the Manitoba Public Corporation Act, I am dismay ed to see that there are not further amendments affo rded us in regard to a recommendation that came from a former New Democratic Party Cabinet minister, Mr. Sam Uskiw, who provided 54 recommendations to improve the performance and cost-effectiveness of insurance afforded all Manitobans by MPIC. That is specifically in regard to the operation of the Fair Practices Office.

I am pleased to see that this Government did follow through with the opening of the Fair Practices Office, which I wholeheartedly supported. However, there is a difference as to how this Government implemented the operation of the Fair Practices Office as wa s proposed by Mr. Uskiw. Mr. Uskiw said that it is vital for elected repre- sentatives to have direct input, a direct linkage, to the operations and policy determinants of the MPIC.

He saw that, through the Fair Practices Office, which would be an office to which any individuals that are having problems with their claims with Manitoba Public Insurance could come and ask for, theoret- ically, an unbiased review of their claim. Now, if there was a problem with the policy that was not satisfying the legitimate concerns that were coming from claimants, then the Fa ir Practices Office would report directly to a minister of the government. Then the minister of the government would, as being elected by Manitobans, have the opportunity to direct changes to policy.

What we see at the present time and the way the Government has decided to go about this, is that the Fair Practices Office does not report to the minister; it reports to the president, the president of the corporation. Not to reflect on the president in any fashion whatsoever, but what it does do, it allows for the potential of cover-up. Because what the Fair Practices Office may be uncovering as an unfair practice in policy perhaps, it never sees the light of day because it is all internal. The reporting goes to

May 5, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1631 the president and the presid ent and vice-president or officers of the MPIC, then effectively are given the opportunity to cover something up if it is not right. I believe that we have to be transparent if we have a Crown corporation, and transparency comes with accountability and accountability must be provided through the Manitoba Legislative Assembly to which we all are responsible to Manitobans through the electoral process. The officials of Mani- toba Public Insurance corporation are not elected; they are appointed.

I believe that there has been an error in this area and that this act as an amendment to the MPIC Act is that we should be having discussion in that regard as well. I also believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that without accountability and direct linkage to this Legislative Chamber, we are perhaps missing out on some of the cost-effective decisions that would take place if we were really, truly having this corporation be account- able to the Legislative Assembly. Not to say that there are not benefits to a number of Manitobans from a monopoly for the insurance in the province of Manitoba.

But I do believe that unless we look very closely at how the corporation determines the premi- ums to respective individuals, here, in the province of Manitoba, I believe that perhaps there can be improvements. * (15:50) What I am saying is that right now the corporation determines the skews of premium assess- ment to basically make, model, year and number of accidents of that particular make and model. Essen- tially the premium is determined at that. A lot of the individual age consideration and how we conduct ourselves during different periods in time within our lifetime, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, should be considered. I do not believe that they are being considered to the right degree. I give a very specific example of personally investigating in other jurisdictions where private insurance is available, that the particular vehicle which I operate and comparing my driving record, I would be paying less than one half the premium for exactly the same coverage to which Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation afford s me here in Manitoba. One half. Now I believe that the monopoly is saddled with responsibilities to making certain that it is the fairest to the majority of the people.

The persons in my age group from 35 to 55 operating on a relatively good driving record, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe should be afforded a greater break within the current premi- um and for auto insurance here in the province of Manitoba. So I leave that with you in this regard. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to see this bill go before the committee and have public input. So at this time I would recommend that we move this bill forward to committee. Thank you. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): It is with great pleasure to actually be able to speak to Bill 11, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I thought it was of most interest reading the explanatory notes. It talks about the referendum for MPIC. Like all Manitobans, I have a view on MPI. There are area s, no doubt, in which it can be improved. There are other areas which are managed and done quite well. Personally I am a big fan of MPI. I think I have seen, I have lived in jurisdictions where there was not public insurance. I am very much aware of the costs of insurance in the private-sector versus public-insured bodies, whether it is MPI, Saskatchewan SGI, Saskatchewan Govern- ment Insurance. I think that the public insurance is the way to go.

What I thought was interesting is that the government of the day has seen the merit in terms of bringing forward legislation that would require the government of the day to have a referendum if there was an attempt to privatize. You know something, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I think that is a good thing to do. There is nothing wrong with that. I can even be somewhat sympathetic as to why it is the Govern- ment has chosen to bring in this, because I was here when MTS was privatized.

Having said that, the government of the day is saying, "Well, look, what we want to do is we want to bring in legislation that is going to ensure that future privatizations of issues, whether it is Manitoba Hydro, whether it is MPI, are in fact dealt through referendum." Having said that, this Government has gone out of its way to manipulate the balanced budget legislation in order to avoid a referendum. So one has always got to be cautious. When government talks about referendum, you have got to be very– [interjection] Conform to the law.

I will have to digest that thought for a while to get a really good understanding of what it is the member from Interlake, I believe it is, has just said.

1632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 5, 2004 What we have done is we have seen a government of the day talk wonders of referendum and the need to have referendum on important issues. We agree with that, but at the same time that the Government is introducing Bill 11, we have been raising the issue of the need for a referendum on the increases in taxes. When you look at this Budget, there is a little bit of irony when part of registering your vehicle now, you are going to be paying that much more, I believe it is $23 more a year.

When we take a look at the PST, that is really the issue that should have caused a referendum in Manitoba. If we look at the Government in terms of actions and words, actions quite often speak louder than words. I think that the Government has gone out of its way to try to manipulate its books in order to be able to avoid a referendum. So, from my perspective, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, even though it is nice to see a piece of legislation of this nature, I have got to question whether or not the Government even has the credibility or the integrity as a governing party to be even talking about refer- endums, because, quite frankly, the numbers are even within its own budgetary documents that clearly show that either the Government is in violation of the referendum legislation regarding balanced budget or the tax increase or it should be, at the very least, providing independent accounting that can clearly show that a referendum is indeed not necessary.

The other day when I raised it in Question Period I challenged the Minister of Finance. I even indicated to the Minister of Finance, if I am wrong I will apologize to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But, you know, if the Government is wrong, as we believe it is, because we have actually asked for numbers and the Government does not even provide those numbers, if the Government is wrong, they are breaking the law.

Yet we see another piece of legislation here which is talking about the importance of referendum when it would appear they do not even support the legislation on the balanced budget, because if they supported that legislation, as they claim to support, why are they not coming forward and saying to the members of the Opposition, here is where we got our numbers from. Here is how we justify our numbers. They have not done that. Instead what they have done is, "Trust us, believe us that a referendum is not necessary." We checked with the Law Society, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, to get a sense in terms of how much money they are going to be able to generate. It was, I believe, somewhere between $17 million to $20 million in one year from the Law Society. This Budget is saying $17 million. When you talk about, well, maybe it has to be a brand-new form of a sales tax or an actual increase, in other words from a 7 percent to an 8 percent, let me go and ask a lawyer, go ask an accountant, an engineer, people using security systems. That is a zero percent increase to 7 percent. So the Government has really lost out on this issue. It is being less

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-2-33
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 2nd hansardpdf 33.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9c7783fb97e3f8e2b9e33dce25ec1f603ccf2942

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