Manitoba Hansard — 26 June 2000 (Sitting 51, 37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-51

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session- Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. L No. 51 - 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 26, 2000

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARREIT, Becky, Hon. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FILMON, Gary FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LA THLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott STEFANSON, Eric STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosano, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

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

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

313 7 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, June26,2000 The House met at 1: 30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Conrad Santos (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honoura ble Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that the report of the Committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Indus try, Trade and Mines): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to table the 19 99-2000 annual report for the Manitoba Horse Racing Commission. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bi1141-The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), that leave be given to introduce Bill 41, The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifant Ia

Loi sur l'equil ibre budgetaire, le rem boursement de Ia dette et Ia protection des con tribuables et modifications corre latives, and that the same now be received and read a first time. His Honour the Administrator, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. Lastly, I would like to table the Administrator's message. Motion presented. Mr. Selinger: This bill makes the following changes, Mr. Speaker. It broadens the scope of debt repayment to include government pension liabilities.

It ensures the proceeds from the sale of a Crown corporation are not used in determining whether there is a positive or a negative balance for a fiscal year. It ensures the transfers from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund and the Debt Retirement Fund are not recorded as expenditure or revenue but as transfers, and lastly, it ensures that all of the financial statements of the Government will be finalized and made public within the six months after the end of the fiscal year. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the gallery where we have with us today 18 students from Machray School under the supervision of Miss Rose Falgui. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). Also in the public gallery we have with us, from the Applied Linguistics Centre, 12 English as a Second Language students under the direction of Ms. Greta Gibson. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines (Ms. Mihychuk).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

31 38 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Freedom of Information Act Breach Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First Minister (Mr. Doer). On May 9 of this year, in this House, the Premier indicated, when he had his first report from the Ombudsman, that his office had breached The Freedom of Information Act. He indicated to the House at that time that he took it very seriously, that he accepted respon sibility for his office breaching The Freedom of Information Act of this province.

We learned this weekend, and I would like to table this letter for the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Ombudsman has again found that the Premier's Office, that the Premier's staff have breached The Freedom of In formation Act of this province and have done so for political reasons. I want to ask the Premier if he is again prepared to accept responsibility for this. What action has he taken with his staff to ensure that this does not happen again? Bon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I find it passing strange that a member who lost the privacy of every driver's licence in Manitoba was going around asking everybody and their dog to resign this weekend. I lost track of how many people the Member opposite wanted to resign. A person in charge of frozen food, he has got such a double standard in terms of the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the information was released, and I think all requests from the Conservative caucus have been released on time. I believe that we do have a challenge.

When we were first elected, by reducing the number of departments, with the number of requests that flowed from the new Freedom of Information Act, requests that were not factored into a new implementation strategy to deal with the difference between advice and information that should naturally flow to the public-that is why we have announced a review, because at the end of the day, we do not want a culture in the public service that was like the former secretary to the Treasury Board where all files were kept in his briefcase. Mr. Praznik: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier is demonstrating he does not know what is going on in his own office.

I would ask the Premier: Given that the Ombudsman's report is not about any requests from the Conservative Party but about other parties who request information, and given that the Ombudsman's report clearly says that the Premier's staff were in breach of the Act and that the information could have been provided within a few days, in fact was provided by some departments in a few days, could he please tell this House if he is accepting responsibility for the wrongdoing of his own staff, and what steps he is taking to ensure that The Freedom of Information Act and the law is respected by his staff, Mr.

Speaker? * (13: 35) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, with the number of requests we had in our first few months in office, the priority of negotiating and trying to negotiate support for agriculture, our work on water projects in the United States, trying to prepare a budget with the information we received from the Del oitte and Touche report, trying to prepare a budget with the same people that were responsible for preparing the budget in some of our dep artments as preparing these bits of information, the requests were all granted, the information was all granted.

There were some that were a couple of days late, and we will improve. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is again proving he does not even know what is going on in his own office. I ask the Premier: Given that the Ombuds man's report says very clearly "that the format for disclosure was initially provided within one week of receipt of this request," the information could have been provided. Given that the Ombudsman has said that it was deliberately held up by his staff, what steps is he going to take to correct-

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 313 9 Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I heard a number of

preambles beginning with the word "given." In supplementary questions, Beauchesne's Citation 410 says that "supple mentary questions require no

preambles." I believe the Member has just put his question. In the future, Mr. Speaker, could you please direct that the Member simply put a question, when it is a supplementary, without

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

preamble. *** Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member, please put your question. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my question. Can the Premier explain to this House how he can use the excuse of the information not being ready when the Ombudsman's report clearly said the information could have been provided, in most cases, within one week of the application? Why 60 days, Mr. Premier? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we have added resources to the Ombudsman's office, three extra staff, and in fact at the same time we were doing that we reduced the number of people working for the Executive Council.

We have reduced the number of departments. The day before we got this request we got requests for the briefing books and transition documents from all govern ment departments. Those documents were not prepared consistent for the new government with the new laws, so there is an implementation challenge for us with the new laws to ensure that the public can be properly informed on a timely basis. Mr. Spea ker, we are disappointed that the Ombudsman has not yet reported on patients' records with the chiropractors in the Springfield constituency. Mr.

Speaker: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, with a new question? Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Spea ker. The Ombuds man of this province, who the Premier says has been given more resources, has investigated this matter and demonstrated that the Premier's staff deliberately went to every department, had the information coll ected, brought it to the Premier's Office, without right, delayed it an additional 30 days in contradiction of the Act, and then gave out the information only reluctantly. I am only paraphrasing the Ombudsman's report.

I am saying to the Premier, given that the Omb udsman of this province has clearly identified his office as being in breach of the law, what steps will this First Minister do to accept responsibili ty under a parliamentary system? He is responsible. What steps to accept respon sibili ty and to correct this action? *( 13: 40) Mr. Doer: I have already said that we plan on improving the situation with access to information. Part of what we have to do, Mr.

Speaker, is dealing with the whole issue of advice to government, which is outside of the requests for freedom of information but was bundled inside of all the briefing books, all the transition documents and all the books that are available to ministers for Question Period. That is something we must do because, quite frankly, there was no implementation strategy when we came into office. So, yes, we have to improve the situation, and we will. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, the request was not about briefing notes; it was about ministerial expenses.

I want to ask the First Minister if he stands by the public statements of his press secretary, I believe it is a Mr. Donne Flanagan, that the problem is not with his breaking the law, the problem is with the law. Is the Premier going to take action against this individual who clearly

3140 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 has no respect for The Freedom of Information Act and the law of this province? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of Cabinet has been dealing with a number of requests. The Clerk of Cabinet has worked in this province for over 30 years under a number of different administrations. I have a great deal of respect for the decision making of that individual. Mr. Speaker, we have readily admitted that, with all the requests we had in our first few months in office, there was no implementation strategy.

We are readily admitting that we are going to improve that situation, and we are going to improve it in such a way that respects the parliamentary traditions of advice of civil servants being given to Cabinet ministers in an unfettered way, in a non-American way, if you will, and also allows us to release information to the public on a timely basis, which are, of course, the principles of this party. Mr. Praznik: Mr.

Speaker, I want to ask the First Minister why he is blaming the public servant when that information was available within one week of the request, and his own pres! secretary, a political appointment, has admitted in the paper that he does not respect the law and that he gave the instructions to do it. The problem is with the law, he is above the law, he does not have to obey it. Is the Premier going to take action against his press secretary? Mr. Doer: All the requests made by the Conser vative Party under FOI have been followed cons istent with the law. Mr.

Speaker, the number of other requests that we received, we were not able to deal with in the proper timely basis. Although all that information was released to the public, with all the other priorities we had when we first came into office, it was not our first priority to deal with, but we will improve, as we should. Minister Responsible for Gaming Control Act Conflict of Interest Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, this Premier, in this House and on other occasions, has spoken about the need to restore trust in government, to remove any perception of conflict of interest that may exist.

To the Minister of gaming: Does the Minister of gaming not recognize that perception in the eyes of Manitobans is reasonable grounds for him to request the Premier to amend his Cabinet respons ibili ties? Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister cha rged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Mr. Speaker, let me say and equivocally state that there is no conflict of interest, perceived or otherwise, and I just want to state that Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freedman were an independent selection committee. Certainly they have stated. on numerous occasions, that Mr. Nadeau and Mr.

Freedman are well respected in the legal community, and they gave independent recommendations to this government with regard to the proposals. Certainly they reviewed those proposals very closely, and those are the recom mendations that they made. Mr. Derkach: Does the Premier not recognize that in light of

section 8 of the conflict-of interest guidelines and act which says that per formance of respons ibilities by ministers during the exercise of any official power or the per formance of any official duty or function by a minister there arises a matter in which the Minister or any of his dependants has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest or a matter involving the direct or indirect pecuniary interest of a person or corporation to whom or which the Minister or any of his dependants has a direct or indirect pecuniary liability, the Minister shall del egate the power of duty or function to Executive Counc il, refrain at all times from attempting to influence the matter and withdraw from meeting without any perception or dis cussion-Mr.

Speaker, does the Premier not recognize that this is a breach of the law? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Procedures under the conflict-of-interest law have always been foll owed by our ministers. Mr. Derkach : This is quite incredible. I want to ask the Premier, given his previous comments and given the fact that we have a decl aration here where it shows very clearly that Valerie Matthews is a partner who is involved as a counsel for one of the proponents for the aboriginal casino project-she is a counsel to one of the bands-will the Premier, given his previous

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3141 of the bands-will the Premier, given his previous comments, not recognize and not allow the citizens of Manitoba to in fact be given the comfort that this minister and this Premier will indeed act within the law? Mr. Doer: If we were not, you would be filing under

section 20. * (13: 45) Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Russell, with a new question. Mr. Derkach: On a new question, Mr. Speaker. In committee last week, this minister clearly indicated to members of the committee that ;':1�eed he led the negotiations with regard to the casinos, that indeed he was involved in the decisions with regard to the casino allo cations because he took those matters, those recommen dations to Cabinet. That means that he was directly involved.

The conflict of interest very clearly states that if in fact he is involved in that matter and if he ha<; an indirect pecuniary interest, then he must withdraw from those dis cussions. I am asking the Premier to now change the respons ibili ties of this minister who is in conflict with the conflict-of-interest guidelines. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we and members opposite-and I am sure the new leader of the Conservative Party (Mrs. Mitchelson)-should be very, very aware of the Act and the relationships with spouses and the financial interest that people hold.

I trust that the new leader has approved this kind of attack on the Member opposite. It is very important, as the members opposite have identified, that people in Cabinet properly follow the Act, and if they do not, of course members opposite have the remedy under

section 20 of the Act. Having said that, the site location recommendations were made by an independent body. We said we would accept the recommen dations, and we did. The recommendations were made by Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freedman, and if members opposite are saying that the Minister influenced their recommendations, I would be quite shocked. Mr. Derkach : Mr. Speaker, the Premier need not put words into the mouths of the Opposition, because indeed we did not say that. I am asking the Premier to live up to his word.

I am asking him to live up to his word when he said in this House about the need to restore trust in government and to remove any perception of conflict of interest that may exist. There is a perception of conflict of interest, which is clear in the minds of many Manitobans. Will the Premier remove this minister from his respons ibilities with regard to gaming? Mr. Doer: No. Health Care System Cardiac Care Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, doctors, nurses and other health care professionals have first-hand knowledge of what works and what does not work in patient care delivery.

They are the ones that determined that consolid ation at one site for heart surgery was the best choice for Manitoba Can the Minister of Health justify why he is interfering in their decision, which was made in the interests of making our health care system more cost-effective and co-ordinated? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Member is aware of actually what she is talking about, frankly, in this regard. I would like to indicate, in this Legislature, the cardiac program in Manitoba has been in some disa rray for almost a decade.

We are facing equipment difficulties and equipment shortages, and we need to attract cardiologists and have cardiologists retained in Manitoba. I think all Manitobans will be very pleased with the announcement that we intend to make tomorrow. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I do find his accusation of not knowing what I am speaking about a bit offensive. It is right here in this book what I am speaking about. Can this minister explain why he has put Dr. Brian Post! in such an awful position? On the one hand, the NDP expect him to make sound

3142 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 and accountable policy recommendations and on the other hand they want him to make politically motivated recommendations of their choosing. Doctors, nurses and other professio nals are the ones that determine the sites. * (13:50 ) Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Govern ment House Leader, on a point of order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): On a point of order, simi lar to the one raised earlier in Question Period. Beauchesne's Citation 410 says supplementary questions require no

preamble. Of course, there is no mi damble or postambles either, and the Member is definit ely ambling. Mr. Speaker, would you please dir ect her in the future not to add to her question, which should be dir ect and simple, any

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

preamble. * * * Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member, please put your question. Mrs. Driedger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Min ister explain why he has put Dr. Brian Post! in such an awful position? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I always find it regrettable when members opposit e choose-1 mean, you can attack our policies and our government, but I prefer that you stay away from civil servants and public servants, who in fact were hired by the former government. If the Member is referring to a newspaper story this morning that was talking about a proposed-[interjecti on] The Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr.

Praznik), I would like to see him stand up on this question because I have a few comments for him. I just want to remind the Member for Charleswood that the former government, which she represented, did a study that cost close to a million dollars that recommended a particular course of action, that is to have a cardiac program-one program, two sites, St. Bonif ace and Health Sciences Centre, and it cost close to a million dollars, that was paid for by the people of this province to make that recommenda tion. It is called Wade-Bell. If she wants, I will provide her with a copy of that particular report. Mrs.

Driedger: Can the Min ister, the one who said we must show more respect for those in our health care professions, explain how politically interf ering with their recommendations achieves that? Mr. Chomiak: The decision that was made last September by the people of Manitoba was to imp rove our health care system, to put in place programs and activities. The cardiac program in this province has been listing for almost a decade, and we intend to make announcements to have a positive program and developments tomorrow that I think will please most Mani tobans.

I think if there has been any politicking, it is the Member for Lac du Bonnet who asked for more resignations this weekend than the whole time when I was a member of the Opposition for eig ht years, and I think if you want to talk about politics, that talks about politics. Health Care Sysie-R1 Heart Transplant Program Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): My question also is for the Minis ter of Health. I would like to ask about his decision to establish a heart transplant program here in the province of Manitoba.

Can the Minis ter of Health tell us how many Manitobans per year require heart transplants and are referred to London, Ontario, for those procedures? * (13:55) Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): I urge the Member to wait until our announcement

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3143 tomorrow, at which time we will make announcements with respect to this. I also urge the Member to take the Wade-Bell report that was commissioned by a government of which she was a member of the Cabinet and, in fact, made recommendations to do heart transplant programs in Winni peg to go in conjunction with lung transplant programs. Mrs. Mitchelson: I wait wit h some anticipati on, I suppose, for that announcement, except I think there are some questions that Manitobans would want some answers to.

Along with that announcement or maybe today the Min ister of Health could indi cate in this House to us whether there have been any studies that have been done that indi cate that a heart transplant program would be a safe program for those that receive that kind of surgery here in our province, given that we do not have a significa nt number of individu als right here in Manitoba that seek heart transplantation on a yearly basis.

We would really like to know whether there have been any studies done that would ind icate that we could run that kind of a program here in a safe and efficient manner to ensure that patients might survive those kinds of procedures here. Mr. Chomiak: One of the things we want to make sure that we do as government, that every thing that we do is safe and in the best interests of patients, and that has been our guiding principle and will continue to be our guiding principle within the health care field. The Member seems to be quite interested in heart transplant programs.

I think we can have a discussion in Estimates, which we will be going to shortly. I can ind icate that there are heart transplant programs in Vancouver, Edmonton, London, Toronto, Hamilton, and most major centres in the country. Mrs.

Mitchelson: Given that we have not received Judge Murray Si nclair's report on the baby deaths at the Child ren's Hospital and there seems to be some indica tion that we were not doing enough of those kinds of procedures here in Manitoba to ensure the safety of individ uals receiving that treatment, is it not a little premature to be embarking upon another trans- plant program until we have the results of Judge Murray Sinc lair's assessment of the situation and those recommendations on the table to look at? Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, again the Leader of the Opposition is confused with respect to the number of programs. Judge Si nclair is looking at the pedia tric inf ant program and the deficiencies in regard to that. We are anxiously awai ting the recommendations of Judge Murray Si nclair in that regard. As the Government is responsible for health, we are supposed to do what we can and move as quickly as we can to improve the health situation in the province of Manitoba. We intend to do that. We intend to do what is best for the patients of Manitoba across the field. That is what we did when we were elected.

That is what we will continue to do. Health Care System Pediatric Cardiac Care Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): In cancer care, the Min ister of Health is pursuing a rather extraordinary out-of-province strategy. However, when it comes to cardiac care, the Minis ter of Health in fact appears to be bringing forth some measures which I would judge represent a positive step forward-he is to be complimented-ensuring better utilization, for example, of existing facilities at St. Boniface Hospital. I have a question about the cardiac services.

I will ask the Min ister for some clarification on his view of the status of pedia tric heart surgery in terms of this overall cardiac or heart program. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I apprecia te the comments and the fact that the Member said the "extraordina ry." The cancer situation was in fact, in my view, a health view, a crisis that required extraordina ry circums tances to deal with. When we saw the number and the waiting lis ts for parti cular pati ents, we felt we had no choice but to adopt that course of action. [interjection] Well, in fact, that is taking place.

With respect to the pedia tric for children, I thank the Member for raising that, because there

3144 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 is a distinction that I think members ought to recognize. We are in the process of working with the other western provinces. We will have an announcement with respect to the western pedia tric issue very shortly. Mr.

Gerrard: Ma question supplementai re: Est ce que le minis tre de Ia Sante est certain qu'il y a assez d'anesthesistes au Manitoba pour faire toute Ia chirurgie cardiaque qu'il veut? [Translation] My supplementary questi on: Is the Min ister of Health certain that there are enough anesthe tists in Manitoba to do all the cardiac surgery that he wants? * (14:00) Mr.

Chomiak: Je pense que nous sommes en train de dis cuter cette chose avec tous les gens dans le champ, et en meme temps je pense qu'on va planifier le systeme pour determiner, pour assurer que nous aurons tous Ies gens dont on a besoin pour faire �a [Translation} I think that we are in the process of discuss ing this with all the people in the field. At the same time I think we are going to plan the system so as to determine, to ensure that we will have all the people we need in order to do that. Heart Transplant Program Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): My second supplementary to the Min ister of Health: Can he please provide us more details of his view of the proposed relati onship between the new proposed heart transplant program and the cardiovascular science research ins titute at St. Bonif ace Hospital? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, there was a newspaper report with regard to this. We are going to be making an announcement tomorrow, at which time we will outline all of the details of the announcement and the relati onships and the various factors.

Perhaps tomorrow we wiii be in a better position to outline the specifics of that particular matter. Minister Responsible for Gaming Control Act Conflict of Interest Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): My question is for the First Min ister. I want to ask the Fir st Min ister if he has read

section 8 of The Conflict of Interest Act that states very clearly that a min ister cannot act in matters in which their dependants have an ind irect pecunia ry relati onship. As well, has he read

section 3. I that defines that as having any employment relati onship? Given that his mini ster's spouse is employed as a lawyer, her firm is em ployed by a band who is now negotiating with that min ister for a contract for a casino licence which his own commission has said is a privilege, I want to ask the Premier if eit her he or his mi nister has availed hi mself of the service that is available to have an independent lawyer look at this matter and provide an opinion? Was that done by him or his min ister? Hon.

Gary Doer (Premier): We believe in full dis closure, which has taken place, and the members opposite have referenced that. We believe that in decisions a government may or may not make,

section 8 must be followed, and we are following it, Mr. Speaker. Thirdly, we know that the recommendations made by Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freedman were not made by the Minis ter to Cabinet. Mr. Praznik: I want to ask the Premier if he knows what is going on in his own government. I want to know if the Premier knows that last Thursday his minis ter admitted that he is in charge of the negotiations, that the negotiator reports to him as minis ter and that he would be taking the recommendations for the contracts to Cabinet with a recommenda tion?

Does the Premier know that his own minis ter has admitted that he will have that responsibility in these negotiations, which puts him in the perceived conflict-of-interest situation? Mr. Doer: The word "perceived" is not a vio lation of the Act. In fact, the Member opposite uses that term in quite lib eral ways, which is regrettable. We believe that the Minis ter did not influence. The Member opposite knows that the full dis closure was made (a), and (b), the

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3145 recommendations made by Mr. Nadeau and Freedman were made not influenced by the Min ister. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, does the Premier of this province know what his own government is doing? Does he not know that his own government now is negotiating with the Nelson House First Nation who employs his min ister's wif e and that his min ister is the person who is in charge of those negotiati ons? And that is not a conflict of interest the Premier says. I ask the Premier: Does he know what a conflict of interest is? Mr.

Doer: The Member opposite can yell all he wants in this House, and he can ask for every body's resignation over the weekend, but the law has been followed. The Minis ter's spouse is involved in relationships with Nelson House and, as the Member opposite knows when he was in government as a Cabinet minis ter respon sible, was involved in negotiations generally and specifically on hydro development. The Min ister has always disclosed that and withdr awn from any discussions that would be dir ectly related. Minister Responsible for Gaming Control Act Conflict of Interest Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr.

Speaker, what a tangled web we weave. The Fir st Min ister just said in response to a question from the Member for Lac du Bonnet that a perceived conflict of interest is not a conflict of interest, yet I want to quote what he said in this House. He said in this House, the Premier has spoken in this House about the need to restore trust in government and to remove any perception, any perception of conflict of interest that may exist.

It appears now that there is more than a perception in terms of conflict of interest because indeed the Minis ter's wif e is in fact counsel to one of the Fi rst Nations that has applied and has been successful in receiving a casino. I ask the Fir st Minister: Will he do the honourable thing and reassign the duties of this minis ter who is responsible for gaming in the province of Manitoba? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): The people of this province restored integrity to this province and to government when they changed the Govern ment on September 21. Freedom of Information Act Breach Mr.

Peter Dyck (Pembina): Manitoba's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ensures the public has the right to access government inf ormation. We know that more than 3000 elected officials, senior admini s trators and staff participated in FIPPA-awareness workshops to make sure that they are prepared to deal with FIPPA legislation. However, it seems some members of the Premier's political staff do not think the legal obligations under FIPPA apply to them.

Will the Min ister of Culture explain to the House what measures will immed iately be taken to ensure that the members of their government's politic al staff can no longer in terfere in the release of public inf ormation requested through FIPPA? Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): I thank the Member for his question. If the Member understands FIPPA, then he would know that FIPPA is housed in the Department of Culture, Heritage and Tourism and that the duty of my department is to provide education.

The Member has certainly shown how well my department has done in providing education to people around the province. That is the work of Culture, Heritage and Tourism. Further to that, I would like to tell the Member that we recently did announce a review. The review will most likely get started some time in the fall.

The purpose of the review, of course, is to provide Manitobans with an opportunity they did not have when the previous government brought in FIPPA in 1997 and that is to provide all Manitobans with the opportunity to tell government of the effect and impa ct that FIPPA has had on their lives and what they would like to see in this legislation. As I point out agai n, it was not an opportunity afforded Manitobans in- Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Dyck: Will the Min ister of Culture explain to the House why the province's civil servants

314 6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 have been put in a compromising position by being told by their political masters not to release inf ormation? Can the Minis ter tell the House, please? * (14 :10 ) Ms. McGifford: As I was telling the Member opposite, what this government intends to do is to provide all Manitobans with the opportunit y to address the issues of FIPPA, to address the shortcomings of FIPPA, and consequently we are going to review this act. We are aware that certain groups have expressed concerns with FIPPA. I personally have expressed concerns with FIPPA.

Here is an opposition that seems to be concerned about FIPPA and its implemen tation. This is an opposition who. when in governmen t, brought in a clause restricting government records to 30 years, protection for 30 years, which is the longest of any government in Canada. So I do not think I need to take lectures from members opposite in how we should behave when in government. Mr. Dyck: I would ask the Minis ter agai n: Did you instru ct the members of the bureaucracy not to give forth inf ormation to the public? Is this a part of your dir ective that you have been working with? Ms.

McGifford: The answer to that question is really very simple, Mr. Speaker: No. I did not. Freedom of Information Act Accessibility Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, when the now government was in opposition, they complained loudly, arguing that the public's ability to access inf ormation was restricted. Today we see that they themselves have been actively restricting access to inf ormation. I wonder if the Minister of Culture would conf irm that it is her view of the access to inf ormation act that it should be opened up further. Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): Mr.

Speaker, I had some dif ficulty hearing the question between catcalls from members opposite, but I think the Member asked if I believed The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act should be opened up for review. I have already assured the House that I think the Act should be opened up for review and that is the intention of this government, to conduct a review. We are now in the preparatory stages. If members opposit e want to be advised of our progress towards that review, and of course they are always free to make presentation to the review when it begins, then I welcome their in put. Mr.

Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Rulings Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. On June 5, 2000, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the Honourable Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Ashton) concerning the use of the word "misled" by the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). The Deputy Government House Leader asserted that as the word in question appeared on the list of unparliamen tary words contained in Beauchesne's Cit ati on 489, that the use of the word was out of order. The Honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Mr.

Laurendeau) also spoke to the point of order and suggested that the word was not out of order because it appeared on the list of parli amentary words contained in Beauchesne's Ci tation 490 and because the Member for Lac du Bonnet had not used the term "deli berately" in conjunction with the word "misled." I took the matter under advisement in order to peruse Hansard. I thank both House leaders for their contributions to the point of order.

As I ruled in the House on June 8 and agai n on June 12, 2000, a word is not in or out of order simply because of the appearance of the word on a list of parlia mentary or unparlia mentary terms. Much depends on the tone used, the context of the situation, and the amount of diso rder generated. The guiding principle for Manitoba Speakers to primarily follow is Manitoba

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 31 47 precedents in conjunction with the context of the usage of the word. Past Manitoba practice has been that if a member uses the phrase "deliberately mis leading," the words are ruled out of order. This is reinforced by rulings from Mr. Speaker Rocan on July 12, 1991, and Madam Speaker Dacquay on March 20, 1997, on April 9, 1997, and June I 0, 1997. However, the word in question used by the Member for Lac du Bonnet was "misled" which had no qualifier or connotation of deliberately misleading.

As was ruled in the House by Madam Speaker Dacquay on October 17, 1995, the word "misleading" is not con sidered to be unpa rliamentary unless it is claimed that the misleading is deliberate. I therefore find that there is no point of order and that the word "misled" was not used in an unparliamentary context. *** I have one more ruling. Order, please. I would ask the co-operation of all members that when the Speaker is giving a ruling that the Speaker should be heard in silence. On June 7, 2000, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the Honourable Govern ment House Leader (Mr.

Mackintosh) con cerning the use of the words "Minister of gambling" by the Honourable Member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) in addressing a question to the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Cor porate Aff airs (Mr. Lemieux). The Honourable Government House Leader indicated that there was no such minister. The Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Laurendeau) also spoke to the point of order and indicated that it was immaterial whether a minister was referred to as the Minister responsible for a particular area. The Honourable First Minister (Mr. Doer) also spoke to the point of order.

I took the matter under advisement in order to peruse Hansard. I thank all members for their contributions to the point of order. On the matter of the proper reference to ministers in Question Period, Beauchesne's Citation 484( 1) advises that it is custom in the House that a minister is normally designated by the portf olio held, such as the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Marleau and Montpetit, on pages 521 and 522 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, state that during debate members do not refer to one another by their names, but rather by title, position or constituency name in order to guard against all tendency to personalize debate. A minister is ref erred to by the portfolio that he or she holds. Upon checking the title of the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on the Order-in-Council appointing the Minister to Cabinet, he is listed as being the Minister responsible for The Gaming Control Act.

I would therefore respectfully request that honourable members refer to the Minister by his correct title, which is the Honourable Minister responsible for Gaming or The Gaming Control Act. *(14:20) MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Kathleen Kozak Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Kathleen Kozak, who lives in the Windsor Park area of Radisson and is training for her first marathon. She hopes to run this marathon in Ireland, all expenses paid. Her job, other than training, is to raise $4,500 for the Arthritis Society.

This is a unique fundraising campaign by the Arthritis Society, where runners raise money and can run in marathons in places like Hawaii, Ireland and others. What has motivated this 22-year-old network and systems administrator for Inland Audio Visual to set this goal for herself is a very touching story. Kathleen's great-aunt Gerry Nichols, 59 years old, passed away recently after a long, painful illness of arthritis. Kathleen said her great-aunt was like her grandmother, whose death left her feeling helpless, until she heard about the Arthritis Society's event.

She said it was one of those things, when you hear it, it just feels right. She has now begun training for a year in order to raise funds for the Arthritis

31 48 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 Society in her great-aunt's name and to complete her first marathon. I would hope all members of the House will join me in wishing her well with her training and her fundraising activities, including a social as well as sponsorships, and with the help of her trainer, Chris Glowach of the Running Room, that she will successfully complete her marathon in Ireland. Thank you. United Nation's International Day in Support of Victims of Torture Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to the fact that today is the United Nation's International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. Throughout the world today, events will be held in over 75 countries in recognition of the need to break the silence about torture. to strengthen support for torture victims and to increase efforts to eradicate torture worldwide. The United Nations General Assembly officially proclaimed the 26th of June as UN International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. The UN Convention Against Torture first came into force on June 26, 1987.

It is hard for Canadians to believe and accept that nearly half of the world lives under governments who still imple ment forms of torture and ill treatment of their citizens. It is up to each of us not to sit by and watch lives being destroyed through barbaric govern ment and terrorist practices. Suff ering torture and ill treatment is a traumatic experience which leaves serious physical and psychological scars. The experience affects victims for the rest of their lives. It is very important to raise awareness of the rehabilitation needs of torture victims and to break the silence surrounding torture.

We need to join Canadians already working to raise awareness within Canada about these atrocities. I hope that we, as elected representatives, and all Canadians encourage awareness of the UN International Day in Support of Torture Victims. South Indian Lake Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): I rise today to acknowledge Manitoba's largest Northern Affairs community, South Indian Lake. The community was recently profiled on CBC radio as a model for northern economic self sufficiency. Since 1974, The Northern Affairs Act has provided for incorporations of northern communities.

Last April, South Indian Lake became the first Northern Aff airs community to take steps towards incorporation. I was proud to attend that celebration in my constituency last year. South Indian Lake, like so many other northern communities, faced some enormous challenges in the 1970s with the Churchill diversion and hydro development. Housing and sewage concerns became a reality of lif e as the people's traditional livelihood based on fishing, hunting and trapping was severely disrupted- h the past decade, the area's jobless rate hovered around 70 percent to 80 percent.

One year after its incorporation, the community has already assumed greater contro l, independence and authority over its own affairs. Economic control has translated into jobs for South Indian Lake. This year alone, nearly 40 employment opportunities were created through the addition of constables, nursing station guards and a local housing initiative. Economic success has also enabled the community to establish a new day care and encourage the growth of small businesses like laundromats.

A five-year strategic plan drafted by South Indian Lake Mayor Joan Soulier and the local counc il will help ensure future success in this community. South Indian Lake now serves as a model for other northern communities. I should add that our government recently expanded the Self-Reliance Initiative to help an additional 12 northern communities develop local government services. Investment in the North will improve conditions today and provide hope for tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Trans Canada Trail Relay 2000 Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr.

Speaker, between June 20 and June 22, the Trans Canada Trail Relay passed through a number of com munities in the constituency of Russell. I was very pleased to attend some of the events held at the communities of Inglis, Russell, Angusville,

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 314 9 Silverton, Waywayseecappo, Rossbum, Vista, Oakbum, Elphinstone, Sandy Lake and Erickson, who celebrated the relay. These communities displayed a great deal of excite ment and support for the Trans Canada Trail while the relay was passing through these areas of Manitoba. The hikers, the runners, cyclists, inline skaters, wheelchair athletes and horseback riders who were taking

part in the Trans Canada Relay are carrying two small containers of water collected from the Arctic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. These flasks of water will be passed hand to hand by relay participants making its way to the Trans Canada Trail fountain in Hull, Quebec, where the water will be mixed with water from the Atlantic Ocean. It was extremely fitting that the relay arrived at Waywayseecappo First Nations as the community was celebrating Solidarity Day. An elder blessed the water, the community held a drum ceremony, and there were performances by native dancers. My congratulations go to all the relay parti cipants for taking

part in a truly historic event. 1 would also like to commend the communities in my riding for showing a tremendous amount of support, their diversity of culture and excellent hosting of cuisine in an exceptional event that occurred between June 20 and June 22 in the constituency of Russell. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Icelandic National Day Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 17, Icelandic National Day celebrations were held here at the Legislature. A wreath-laying ceremony took place at the Jon Sigurdson statue followed by a reception inside the Legislative Building.

It is an exciting year for Manitoba's Icelandic community. This year marks 125 years since the arrival of the first Icelanders on the shores of Lake Winnipeg. The year 2000 also commemorates 1000 years since explorer Lei fur Ericsson first set foot on North American soil. On June 17, an authentic replica of the Viking ship, the Icelander, set sail from Reykjavik to Newfoundland. The ship will follow the course of the first Icelandic explorers. A number of celebrations have been planned throughout the year by the Millennium 125 Commission headed by Arborg area farmer David Gislason.

In early August, Gimli will host the 2000 Icelandic Festival with a visit by Icelandic President 6lafur Ragnar Grimson. One of Iceland's prominent boys choirs and folk dance groups will perform in Riverton, Gimli and Winnipeg in August. Arborg will host a visit of the Bishop of Iceland in September. Manitoba has an active Icelandic community with over 25 000 people of Icelandic origin. Today, the province continues to maintain close trade and cultural ties to Iceland. I wish both the Millennium 125 Commission and host com munities continued success in their many cele brations this year. Thank you.

ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act (Mr. Lemieux), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Motion agreed to. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS Mr. Chairperson (Harry Schellenberg): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. When the Committee last sat, there had been agreement to have a global discussion on the entire department. Is that still the will of the Committee? [Agreed]

315 0 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 We are on line 5.1. Administration and Finance (

b) Executive Support

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $32 3,700. Shall the item pass? Mr. Da rren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Chair, my colleagues Mr. Penner from Steinbach and Mr. Derkach from Russell, we would like to continue a series of questions today in the gaming area, so the Minister, if, in fact, he wants to have staff here, we would accommodate that. Mr. Chair, my first question, I want to come back to this issue of a conflict of interest.

I want to start off by saying to the Minister that I appreciate very fully that he is a new minister and that many things come onto his plate in his early days, and I say this because I genuinely believe that this minister wants to do the right thing. I want to say that. My party in no way is saying that this is some devious minister whom the public should be wary of. I believe that this minister would like to do the right thing. Our concern is that within his own government, the operations of doing the right thing, quite frankly, are not working well.

We are seeing this on a number of occasions when the government's sense of what is right and wrong is highly questionable. The questions we put today and the answers we got on The Freedom of Information Act are just one good example where it is okay to breach the law. The Premier (Mr. Doer) obviously was not briefed on that matter, because he was all over the place.

He did not appear to know what was going on in this particular area, and instead of just admitting that and dealing with the issue, he went on the attack, and on this particular issue of a conflict of interest, we saw the same thing, the solid positions, when, in fact, I do not think people have really firmly studied the issue. I want to also say to the Minister that, first of all, we recognize fully on our side of the House that his wife has a right to her life and she has a right to earn a living and she has a right to work for clients. We are in no way attacking her on this.

She has a right to do that, and we fully respect it. In fact, from the comments I saw in the media, and I predicted to my colleagues-and I know her. I know her very well. She is one of the best land negotiation lawyers in the province of Manitoba, if not the country. When this was first brought to our attention, it was my view that she would probably do the right thing from her perspective, and in recognizing that there was a conflict here, that she within her firm would refrain from dealing on the casino file.

So I think she has done the right thing, and at this stage of the game, the Minister-and the Premier (Mr. Doer) reinforced it today-has not been making a decision. All he has done to date is receive the report of the commissioners and appointed the implementation team. But this is the time when this conflict now arises. It arises, we believe-and I think the law will prove us right and the facts will prove us right-because the Minister, as he said on Thursday in this committee, is the Minister responsible for the file. He is the Minister to whom Mr. Luke reports.

He is the Minister who will have to give instructions to Mr. Luke on behalf of the Government. In fact, when we in the Chamber asked the Premier who is speaking for the Government, who is in charge of these negotiations for the Government, the Premier remained in his seat and allowed this minister to answer with the clear implication that this minister is responsible for this file, and he ac knowledged that in this committee on Thursday.

He also acknowledged that when the negotiations are finished under his direction, that he will be the Minister who takes this matter to Cabinet, and with all Cabinet matters he will be the Minister who makes a recommendation to Cabinet. So it is very clear that this Minister is past the stage of just being the recipient of a report from an independent body. He has now reached the stage where he is directly involved in the negotiations for casino licences which Mr. Freedman and Mr. Nadeau said was a privilege being granted by the Government to these five applicants.

Now, I would like for the benefit of the Minister, if we could just provide him a copy, so he can reference where we are corning from, of the conflict-of-interest legislation-Perhaps we could just provide it to the Minister.

Section 8 is the operative provision here. It clearly says, and I quote: "Where, during the exercise of any official power or the performance of any official

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3151 duty or function by a minister"--clearly, Mr. Chair, the Minister has acknowledged that he is the Minister responsible for the negotiations, that Mr. Luke answers to him and that he will take this matter to Cabinet So it is a matter that he is dealing with. It is part of his function, in this particular case, as assigned by the Premier. So where the Minister has that respon sibility, and I carry on: "(

a) a matter in which the minister or any of his dependants has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest." Well, what happens in that case because that is what we are suggesting: "The minister shall (

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

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

e) at any subsequent meeting of the Executive Council or committee thereof which considers the matter, disclose the general nature of the direct or indirect pecuniary interest or liability and withdraw from the meeting with out voting or participating in the discussion." * (14:50) So. at this point in time, this act is very clear. He should not be dealing with this matter. Now, let us make the case, and I want the Minister to follow this through so he understands where he is coming from. If a dependant has an indirect or direct pecuniary interest, we are arguing that his wife has an indirect pecuniary interest.

His wife is a dependant If the Minister looks at the definition section, it indicates very clearly that a "dependant" means "the spouse of a member or minister." So, unless he is prepared to tell us that he is not living with his wife now, or they are separated or divorced, there is no relationship, it is very clear that she is a dependant. Now, is there an indirect pecuniary interest here? That is the question. I would refer the Minister to

section 3(1 ), which defines an indirect pecuniary interest. I quote: "For the pur poses of this Act, but subject to the section, a person shall be presumed to have an indirect pecuniary interest in a matter where"-and we refer to the (

b) section-" the person is (

i) a partner of or employed by"-"employed by" are the operative words-"a person, corporation, partnership or organization who or which, or (in the case of a corporation) a subsidiary of which has a direct pecuniary interest in the matter." I think the Minister could acknowledge that the Nelson House First Nation has a direct pecuniary interest in the casino licence. It is absolutely clear they do.

He has already acknow ledged that his wife and her law firm, of which she is a partner-and I refer him to the application or the conflict-of-interest information that he filled out that clearly acknowledges that Valerie Matthews Lemieux, his spouse, is not an employee of but a partner in Myers Weinberg Kussin Weinstein Pollack, which is employed by the Nelson House First Nation. So, it is very clear here that his wife is employed by Nelson House First Nation, and that, under this section, implies an indirect pecuniary interest in the matter in which he is dealing.

She does not have to be negotiating on their behalf. She does not have to be handling the file on their behalf. She does not have to even talk about it on their behalf. She does not even have to know about it, but she and her fmn of which she is a partner, not an employee, are employed by Nelson House First Nation. They have been so for many years, and they are now. So this act clearly says that there is an indirect pecuniary relationship, and

section 8 clearly says that if there is an indirect pecuniary interest on the part of a dependant of the Minister, he must refrain from dealing with this matter. There is the case we make, and we have the Premier (Mr. Doer) telling us there is no case. We have the Minister saying there is no conflict We have never said that the Minister has unduly influenced any decisions to date.

In fact, I would be so bold to say knowing this minister and knowing his spouse, whom I have a great deal of respect for, in fact, for both of them, I do not think in any way she would attempt to influence this matter, but that is not the issue. The issue is the law, and the law says very clearly that this minister must refrain from acting in this matter. Because we think this minister is a new minister and we want to give him the benefit of the doubt, we have not asked for his

315 2 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 resignation from Cabinet. We have not said that this minister is so blatantly in disregard of conflict of interest that he should tender his resignation, and, believe me, we could have asked for that. In many provinces and many circumstances, ministers have resigned for this, but we have not.

We have given this minister, I think, because he is new and because he has always been a gentleman, an opportunity to recognize now that he in fact is in violation of the conflict of-interest law, particularly when he has acknowledged that he has now appointed an implementation committee who reports to him, and their work will be coming to him and that he will be taking it to Cabinet. We are asking him to acknowledge that he is now in violation of the statute. All we are suggesting, all we are asking, is that he remove himself from this file.

If he served a premier who was more than someone who is prepared to just stand up and bluster, the Premier today would have read the statute and probably announced to the House that on second thought they were removing the Minister from this file, no shame in that. In fact, we are not here to shame the Minister into it. We believe that it was probably an oversight. We believe he probably discussed this with his wife. His wife withdrew at that law firm, and she did the right thing from her end, but now he must do the right thing from his. He really only has two choices.

He can excuse himself from this file, which is what we are asking for. We are not asking for his resignation from Cabinet. We think he has a con tribution to make. Or his spouse can withdraw from that law firm and no longer be employed in any capacity by Nelson House, and I think that would be very unfair to her in her career. But it is a choice that the Lemieux household now has to make, and if they do not make it now, they rise totally against the law. I will tell the Minister this-it is a lesson I learned from the Member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton}-it is always better to admit when you have made a mistake or potentially made one, backtrack a little, check it out and emerge for another day than it is to dig oneself in until there is no turning back. I can tell the Minister this, from the facts that are known today: Unless he is prepared to tell us that his wife no longer has any employment relationship, she is no longer retained by or in the employ of, or her firm is no longer in the employ of the Nelson House First Nation, unless he is prepared to tell us that-you know from the Premier's (Mr.

Doer) answers today he undermines this minister because he basically said this minister has no discretion, decision making or involved in any way, he is just a courier who is going to take the paper from one guy and deliver it to the next. So, unless the Minister is going to tell us some new information, the prima facie case here in reading the Act is that he is in conflict. Now, we are prepared today, if the Minister is committed, to have this matter go to a lawyer.

There is a lawyer retained by the Province for just such a situation-many of us have used that lawyer as MLAs in the past-who provides an independent review of the law and advice. If the Minister wants to take a day or two to reconsider his position, we would allow him that. But if the Minister wants to insist that he has done nothing wrong, and we are not saying that he has done anything wrong. We are not saying that there was some untoward act here. We are not saying that he and his wife have been in cahoots to make sure Nelson House has a casino. No one has accused them of that.

What we are saying now is on a reading of The Conflict of Interest Act on those sections and his wife's employment, her firm being employed by the Nelson House First Nation, that it now has put the Minister into a conflict under the Act and he should do the honourable thing and excuse himself from the file and do exactly what the Act says. He should turn the matter over to another member of the Executive Council or to the Ex ecutive Council. And his premier, who jumped to the gun without really thinking or reading anything today, did not sound well briefed.

I guess his staff were quite busy trying to cover their own butts for breaking The Freedom of Information Act instead of doing their job. If the First Minister has to get up in the House and acknowledge that maybe he was wrong, so be it. First ministers have to do that; I know it is hard to do. But my fear today, because I know this minister and I know that he has not

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 315 3 done anything untoward here, he has moved into a conflict position. You know, this is a very generous offer from an opposition because it would be a really great thing for us to go after him and try to say that there was something untoward. We are not doing that. I think this matter would end quite quietly and nicely if the Minister would acknowledge that there is a conflict and do what the Act requires to tum this file over to the Executive Council, another minister to handle it, and that would be the end of the matter.

In fact, I would applaud a new minister for doing the right thing. But if he insists on pursuing this, we will have no choice but to use

section 20 as the Premier blatantly challenged us to do today. We will apply before court for a ruling, and we will go forward and the ministers under

section 20-and we will proceed this, and you know what? We are going to win this unless there is some fact the Minister wants to bring to our attention, and when that happens then the Minister is going to have to resign because then he will have been warned and flagrantly disobeyed the law. So, if he wants to take some time to say he needs to get some more counsel on that, we would allow it. I must excuse myself for a few minutes. want to ask the Minister if he has read these sections.

We want to ask the Minister if he has actually sought a legal opinion from the lawyer who is available, if he will table that opinion so it can be reviewed, and my colleague the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) will be pur suing this and others. I do apologize. I have to slip away for a few brief moments on a family matter, but I will be back. * (15: 00) Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Chair, just with regard to the questions, there were quite a few questions from the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik).

I will certainly attempt to answer some of them, but, as I mentioned in the House, I felt there was no conflict, perceived or otherwise. Certainly my wife has a career as a lawyer for a reputable law firm, as was stated. She has been working for diff erent First Nations communities for many years. I just mentioned also last week with regard to the implementation committee and some of their tasks that they have. Also I mentioned about the selection committee itself, about Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freedman.

I certainly spoke about the task that they had and all the different people that they called upon to address the concerns and the proposals that were given to them and how it was an independent, de politicized process, which I am sure members opposite as well as the general public would appreciate. I am sure this is something, because the issue itself is a difficult issue, I believe, for all party members, whether they be on the Government side or the Opposition side. Having said that, I think all of us want it to be a success.

Sometimes I have questioned that from members opposite, whether or not they sin cerely were in support of First Nations casinos or not, because some of the things they were raising appeared to be slighting the proposals a bit, bringing in the problems in Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, the minister there responsible for gaming and liquor certainly stated that they are certainly very supportive of the First Nations casinos in Saskatchewan. Yes, the SIGA, Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Association, has some difficulty at present with a CEO having overspent his limit, I understand.

But that has nothing to do with the First Nations casinos themselves and how successful they are in providing over a thousand jobs and most of them to Aboriginal people. Having said that, it shows that First Nations casinos can be very successful. We certainly on the Government side want also First Nations people to be included in this process and to be involved with First Nations casinos and to have their own casinos be a success. I mentioned that the duties of the implemen tation team are certainly numerous. I also men tioned last week with regard to the word "negotiate," the word is actually loosely used.

To some degree I would agree with the Member for Lac du Bonnet, who said in the press release it used the word "negotiate." Well, there are many conditions that are laid out that are black and white. There is no room essentially for negotiating.

315 4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 The duties of Mr. Luke and the implemen tation team are numerous, as I mentioned. They have a large task ahead of them, meeting with First Nations communities, addressing the different concerns that they have with regard to the conditions for success and having to work through that and having those First Nations communities attempt to address the conditions for success that are laid before them.

As was mentioned on numerous occasions by the Member for Lac du Bonnet, saying that certainly he has no ill will towards me personally, I would certainly believe that and take him for his word. I do not believe that he has to say that. There is nothing to be gained by saying it publiciy. As well, his caucus, I believe, members opposite may be very sincere in what they are saying with regard to conflict, perceived or otherwise. I do appreciate some of the comments they did make with regard to my wife having the ability to practise or to be involved in a pro fession.

Even for members opposite, the days of being pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen as the only role of women in our society, I believe that members opposite would agree that if a person decides to take on that role, that is certainly their choice, and that is a choice that is well respected, if that is what they decide to do.

In my particular case, my spouse decided to enter the practice of law and has done an excellent job of doing just that and is recognized for that also from the Member for Lac du Bonnet. * (15:10 ) I just want to say that at this time, I had wanted to go through a couple of points with regard to what Mr. Luke and the implementation team, the actual team that is going to be implementing the recommended sites, what their job is and some of the things they are going to have to be doing with First Nations people, or the recommended proponents. If you will bear with me, Mr.

Chair, I just want to look at a couple of my notes, if you will give me a second to find my notes. Thank you for your indulgence and thank you for allowing me the time to look through my material. I just want to say, in preface to my remarks with regard to the implementation team, that with regard to Cabinet's role in all of this, the decision to proceed with First Nations casinos rests with the provincial Cabinet. The initiative will proceed only when all the regula tory and all the legislative requirements are met.

All proponents in keeping with the Bostrom selection committee reports must meet the criteria required by the Manitoba Gaming Control Commission before they are allowed to proceed. Now, I just want to put this on the record. We are talking about an implementation team that was struck approximately a week ago. This team has been put in place with Mr. Luke. The members on that committee had been put in place about a week ago.

Now, a week ago, to the best of my knowledge, they certainly have not even had the opportunity to meet as a committee and to go over a number of the conditions and the requirements that these particular proposals or recommended proponents have to be dealing with. Now. it is very nice to say that they have been recommended. Yes. they have, but this particular implementation committee have to meet, they have to be able to have the oppor tunity to talk about the number of the different conditions for success that have to be met, when are they going to meet the First Nations communities, and so on.

I mean, they have a large task ahead of them. The reporting structure that is put in place is intended to underscore the province's ultimate authority with respect that the gaming regulations in Manitoba, the Criminal Code and The Manitoba Lotteries Cor poration Act and The MGCC Act as well as accompanying regulations are inviolate. Now, there are a number of things that this implementation team has to do. They have to look at mandatory requirements that are going to be looked at. Having said that, they are going to have to call upon a number of different advisors.

They are going to have to assist them in trying to address the concern the concerns or conditions for success that are going to have to be met by the First Nations community. A number of people that already have been used by Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Freedman in recommending the proponents are certainly going to be called upon

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 315 5 again to be of assistance to Mr. Luke and the implementation team or committee that is in place. Now, there are a number of things with regard to, as I mentioned, what this imple mentation team is going to have to do. They are going to have to look at the mandatory requirements. Of course, that deals a lot with certainly what will guide this implementation team. The team is going to be guided by mandatory requirements such as the RFP, including regulatory management imperatives required by federal and provincial legislation and regulations.

We have said all along that the province has the ultimate authority over gaming, including accountability for casino development and operations, which will be the key to ensuring mandatory requirements are met and adhered to. Also, you talk about the Criminal Code, Lotteries Act, Gaming Control Act. We talked about this in the Legislature and how important those are in that certainly we as a government are going to ensure that all of those acts are certainly adhered to and certainly dealt with. I know we often talk about the request for proposals. It is important.

I know members opposite pointed out on numerous occasions, the Member for Southdale (Mr. Reimer) I believe it was, about the request for proposals. Now, in

part 3 of the RFP on page 19, it stated three mandatory requirements. This is something that, as I mentioned previously, will guide Mr. Luke and his implementation committee. They are, No. 1, it talks about the proponent must be one or more Manitoba First Nations governments. I think everyone would recognize that all the proponents, recommended ones, are. We are ensuring if there are new partners that come on board and so on, they have to be a Manitoba First Nation government. Number two, the casino facilities must be located on reserve land before they will be authorized to operate.

We also talked about TLE land. We have talked about lands that First Nations people have that they may wish to convert to reserve and so on. That has been brought up in the Legislature. Number three, the proponent and partici pants must comply with regulatory framework and meet the eligibility requirements set out in

part I of the request for proposal.

Part I of the RFP details the purpose of the RFP and the project's objectives. It identifies matters related to the competition and project sites, sets out the scope of the casino proposals, establish, manage and conduct requirements stipulated by the Criminal Code of Canada, and outlines regula tory framework and discusses operational and revenue sharing matters. Now, these three particular requirements are mandatory. That is something that Mr. Luke and his implementation team will be using certainly to guide them through the mandatory requirements.

There are mandatory implications for comprehensive and operating agreements. Certainly First Nations communities and government, there will be comprehensive and operating agreements. I think it is very, very important to note that both of these agreements will be based on mandatory requirements. These agreements will be legally binding documents between each signatory, First Nation, and certainly under the direction of Cabinet on behalf of the Province. I talked a little bit about a comprehensive agreement and certainly looking at an operating agreement.

Just to mention, under the compre hensive agreement, something that is really important certainly to note, the accountability and obligations that are there are certainly important to touch on a little bit. Under the direction of the Government, Mr. Luke will be responsible for establishing com prehensive agreements, as was mentioned. It certainly was recommended by the selection committee as well within the recommendations.

With each of the recommended proponents and the Province or the Government of Manitoba, within each document the ma jority will spell out the requirements to proceed with casino development. There is little room, if not any, for negotiation given that these agreements are

315 6 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 based on the province's authority with regard to gaming in the province, adheres to all gaming laws and regulations, is inviolate. *( 1 5: 20) I just want to comment, under accountability and obligations, consequences of non compliance with these agreements will be in cluded in the agreements themselves. Depending on the nature of non-compliance, consequences may include revocation of employee or supplier registration, suspension of gaming activities, fines, or other penalties. The question of con sequences is a complex matter.

It is quite complex actually when you start to go through it. The implementation commit tee has been directed to research matters related to non compliance and consequences and to provide information and advice with regard to this matter for consideration of further direction. Now, these comprehensive agreements. as I mentioned, certainly it is imperative to note, and we talked about this in the Legislature, about audits and having audits done with regard to First Nations communities and their operations. A complete audit program will be included as part of the comprehensive agreement and operating agreements.

The audit requirements will be set up by the Provincial Auditor in keeping with the standard provincial practices and certainly using generally accepted accounting principles. There have been comments made by the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) with regard to value-for-money audit. The intent of this initiative is to ensure that revenue generated by the casinos is directed to benefit all First Nations people in the province and certainly with regard to the proponent themselves.

I certainly have directed the implementation com mit tee to develop an audit mechanism within the comprehensive agreement certainly as part of a trust fund and to ensure that a fair and equitable revenue sharing formula is implemented and maintained for the benefit of all First Nations people. I think that, No. 1, Manitobans, knowing that First Nations are going to be given the privilege of having casinos, people certainly want them to be successful. They are up and running and they meet certain criteria, are law abiding and are certainly within compliance.

I think Manitobans also want some account ability, some transparency and some auditability with regard to these casinos. Certainly, all along I believed, not only myself but the Leader, the Premier of the Province has mentioned that this is an important factor, that audits are important and that Manitobans would expect that they want to know how is the money being spent with regard to the casino operations and so on.

Certainly at this point I do not think I want to get too much in depth, but I just want to run through quickly some of the other things that the implementation team is going to have to be responsible for. I know members opposite want to certainly have the opportunity to ask some questions. so I will certainly try to be brief with regard to this. As I mentioned, there are certainly different agreements that have to be brought into play. There is a comprehensive agreement. There is an operating agreement.

I want to deal just specifically with not necessarily the operating agreement but with indivi dual proposals themselves. Now, it is important to note, and I will try to be brief about this, but we talk about conditions for success. Some people use the word "caveats." I have used the terminology. I think members opposite use caveats, but I use the term "c onditions for success." The team will be really responsible for identifying the conditions necessary for success for each of the proposed developments.

The selection commit tee ad dressed and outlined these matters generally in its report; however, each proposal is unique and thus requires individual attention to ensure the conditions necessary for successful imple mentation are met. Now, perhaps one of the most significant aspects in this regard is compliance with The Municipal Act, negotiations of the municipal development services agreement with munici palities proposed for land conversion. A time frame will have to be put in place or certainly looked at to guide these municipal negotiation processes.

This will be done in consultation with the team support advisors and certainly members

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 315 7 that they may want to call upon from government to assist them in looking at this, I think it is probably one of the most important areas, and taking a look at land and the land for those First Nations people that are recommended proponents who are currently not located on the reserve. I know other individual proposal matters will relate to financing capabil ities, arranging financing based on cash on hand, institutional financing, MLC capital purchase financing.

So there are a lot of different areas, whether it is the investigations and approvals by the Manitoba Gaming Control Commission, com pliance with comprehensive agreement require ments that I stated before about some of the requirements that are going to be necessary to be met, and environmental requirements and so on. There certainly are a number of different individual proposals. They are all unique in many ways. Many things are certainly quite firm with regard to compliance and so on that are going to have to be met. There is revenue distribution we talked about.

We talked about a potential time line that is going to have to be put in place. There are a number of things that Mr. Luke and his implementation team are certainly going to have to keep up with. They have their work cut out for them. As I mentioned, this commit tee was struck about a week ago. I believe, at least I have been advised, that they have not even had an opportunity to even meet yet. So they are certainly going to try to meet, I am sure, as soon as possible.

But not only that, we have mentioned all along that these First Nations casinos, depending on their conditions, are going to take a great deal of time to get off the ground and running. I think most people realize that and some people initially thought that just the moment Nadeau and Freedman made the recommendations to government that there would be a shovel in the ground the following week. I think most Manitobans would realize that is not the case, but there were some people who felt when would they be up and running, and how soon would the machines be in place and so on. This is a long process.

For some people, from putting in a proposal to having it recom- mended to ha ving the impleme ntation team conducting discussions with them and to going through the conditions that have to be met, the process is long and arduous. That is essentially the kind of the process that the implementation team will be involved in. There were other questions raised from the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) with regard to conflict. I just want to comment certainly that neither my wife nor her firm are lawyers for the band in connection with the casino proposal. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest.

They are not involved whatsoever with that. My wife, who is a lawyer, was involved with this particula r First Nation community, has been involved with a number of them with regard to-I believe it was when I was up North a number of years ago when Mr. Newman was the Minister, I believe, for Northern Affairs.

He was there signing an agreement on behalf of the Province and the First Nation community. * (15 :30) The Member for Lac du Bonnet certainly knows my wife as a lawyer, because she practised and represented Nelson House with regard to the NF A, the Northern Flood Agreement, and certainly met the Member for Lac du Bonnet in his previous capacity as Minister of, I believe, Northern Affairs at the time. So I am appreciative that members from the Opposition and members opposite certainly stated the fact that they understood there was no skulduggery.

There was no effort in any way for my wife to try to, I think the term was used "cahoots," in cahoots. It might be a term that is only recognized in Russell and Dauphin, but it is a term that certainly mem bers opposite stated that they were I 00 percent sure, and they can rest assured that my wife absolutely, or anyone in her law firm, has absolutely nothing to do with the band in connection with the casino proposal whatsoever, and therefore there is no conflict of interest. Mr.

Chair, we have gone through a number of, not the criteria but certainly areas that the implementation team are going to have to look at. As I mentioned, they have their work cut out for them. They are going to have to meet the

315 8 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 First Nations communities. They are going to have to discuss the conditions for success with them, and they are going to have to begin this long, long process of trying to reach a successful conclusion with regard to the casinos. I believe all First Nations communities understand that it is a long process. I do not believe that anyone in the First Nations com munities feel that these casinos are going to be up and running in the near future. They know it is a long process.

Again, they are all unique situations, and they are going to have to address their concerns and their conditions with Mr. Luke and work through his committee, the implementation commit tee, and see if they can address these concerns. I guess it would be in their best interest to address them as quickly as possible, whatever the conditions may be. know that initially was really disappointed that the Member was asking for resignations on the weekend with regard to this issue and somehow inferring that there was some kind of a conflict. Well, there is not.

Certainly, as I mentioned, it is really disappointing because really what you are doing is you are not only tarnishing the reputation of the independent selection committee somehow and the First Nations people and proponents-and yet, I belie ve, most of the members opposite would like to see First Nations communities have an opportunity to be successful, create jobs, and so on. I mentioned making reference to Saskat chewan and the CEO of Saskatchewan or the SIGA, the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Association.

Yes, this person certainly was doing a number of things that were wrong and incorrect, at least it has been pointed out, but the casinos themselves have provided jobs, provided economic development. The community of Yorkton, I understand, is certainly a booming community, and in part, has to do with this. It has become a viable community. It is not the be all, end all. We all know that. Casinos are not the be all, end all, and First Nations people know that they are not. They realize that this is just an opportunity, a beginning, to employ their young people and people from their community and surrounding areas.

They know that this is something that is just a beginning, but they are certainly wanting to work in partnership with the province. They are really looking forward to that opportunity. So I just want to say that I know the Member for Russell and members opposite may have questions with regard to not only the casino process, but they may be wanting to ask questions with regard to conflict and so on. At this particular point, I mentioned there is no conflict perceived or otherwise. As has been pointed out by Chief Jerry Primrose, Indian people are not stupid. They are not out to screw themselves.

He has indicated that she has provided Nelson House advice for nine years and I quoted the Chief with regard to his comments I believe in the paper-and that with regard to that particular issue I believe that there is none, there is no conflict perceived or otherwise. Thank you. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Chair. I certainly will have more questions with regard to the mandate that has been given to the implementation committee, issues of compliance and so forth. But I think we need to focus our attention on the matter that was raised by the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr.

Praznik), and that is that the issue of conflict is a very serious one. I feel the same as the Member for Lac du Bonnet. I have no ill will towards the Minister personally because-and I know that this does not have to be said-but I think it needs to be said because there is no personal grudge here. This is an issue which I think the Minister has found himself in and one which he really needs to think about. He is a new minister and one who I think can contribute fairly signifi cantly to his caucus and to his Cabinet.

But if in fact he digs himself in on this issue, it is one that we are not going to let go very easily because indeed it is one that we think that has to be resolved. There is a process in which it can be resolved, and we will follow that process if in fact the Minister does dig himself in to a position where he is reluctant to move from. Now the Minister continues to say that there is no conflict perceived or otherwise, and he makes that a pretty definitive statement, Mr. Chair. Yet, when I read the Act-and I am not a

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 315 9 lawyer-and when I have the implications of the Act explained to me, and I put myself in a position where I as a member of the Legislative Assembly who has responsibilities would find himself in that kind of a situation, it is clear that the advice I get is that you would be in a conflict of interest, if in fact you found yourself in that position.

Therefore, for the benefit of the Minister, I would think that he would have to seek legal advice fairly quickly on this issue, not just because his leader, his premier, says there is no conflict of interest, but indeed, if you like, for his own integrity and long-tenn longevity as a member of this government. Mr. Chair, I cannot believe when I look at the issues here that, in fact. an individual would allow himself to be exposed in that way. Today, in Question Period, I asked the Premier (Mr.

Doer) not for the ulti mate resignation of this minister from his portfolio, but indeed for this minister to step aside or have this particular file moved to another minister so that indeed there can be some integrity in this whole issue. We have had nothing but issues arise out of the way that this whole issue has been addressed with regard to casinos right from the very first day. I do not fault the Minister for this personally, but this is a mi shandling of an issue by the Government.

The First Minister clearly gave us the impression today that this minister had very lit tle to say about what goes on with regard to casinos, and we were left with the impression that it is really the Premier who makes the decisions and the Minister is there just as a figurehead. Well, when the Minister has been assigned the responsibility for casinos by his premier, I think that assignment in itself carries significant responsibilities for the stewardship of that particular issue. Together, with his department, I think he would be obliged to carry out the duties as a minister should.

The Minister talks about the fact that Mr. Luke and the implementation committee also report to him, which means that he does have a direct influence with regard to the mandate that is given to the implementation committee, with regard to how that mandate is carried out, and, indeed, in representing the outcomes of that implementation committee to his Cabinet for final decisions, because he has said on several occasions this afternoon that the Government and the Cabinet are the final authority with regard to the impleme ntation of casinos.

If that is the case, then he is the Minister who has to carry the message, who has to carry the recommen dations from that implementation comm ittee, from Mr. Luke and the implem entation com mittee, to Cabinet. In that way he places himself in a conflict of interest because his wife is, indeed, counsel to Nelson House First Nations or I do not have their official name in front of me, but nevertheless to that band. An Honourable Member: Nisichawayasihk. * (15: 40) Mr. Derkach : Excuse me for not being able to pronounce that right offband. But, Mr.

Chair, I am going to ask the Minister what advice he has had from outside legal authorities or from the government legal people with regard to this issue, because that certainly is important for us to know, and whether he is prepared to table that advice that he has received from legal counsel with regard to there not being a conflict of interest. I think it is important not only to this committ ee, but it is important to the people of Manitoba to see whether or not the legal advice that he has received is such that says that there is absolutely no conflict in this matter.

Ifthat is the case, then somehow we have misinterpreted the intent of the conflict-of-interest guidelines. When the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) went through The Conflict of Interest Act and the articles that pertained to this particular issue, I think it was very cl ear what the Minister has to do in the case where there is a conflict of interest. It does not say that the Minister has to resign. It simply says the Minister has to remove himself from that position, has to remove himself from dealing with that issue.

He withdraws from the meeting; he does not vote on a discussion; and he allows for Executive Council or another minister to undertake the responsibili ty for this issue. I think that, if the Minister finds himself in that position, he should almost voluntarily, in good conscience, do that, so that he would protect himself and his integrity as a minister of Executive Council in this entire issue. I do not

31 60 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 see any big win for the Minister in holding on to this issue, if, in fact, he can delegate this to another member of Executive Council or to Executive Council in general for that matter. Yet today the Prem ier of the province almost gave us the indication that this minister really has no authority in all of this casino issue. That left us somewhat perplexed after Question Period because this is the Minister who is responsible for the casino issue and for the gaming issues in the province of Manitoba.

In his remarks, the Minister has indicated that, although he said that the Committee has not met, Mr. Luke and the implementation commit tee have not met, they somehow have been given the authority or the mandate to do certain things. I do not know how they received this mandate, but this mandate has to come from someone. It cannot be the Premier, and it is not, certainly, Cabinet, in general. It has to come from the Minister. I think the Minister, in his comments today, acknowledged that he is giving the mandate to the implementation commit tee.

I want to know whether the Minister has met with the implementation commit tee to make them aware of what their responsibil ity and their job descriptions are. They can draw some of their job description from the casino proposal, but indeed the specific job direction has to come from his department or from him as a Minister in some way, shape or form. So he is the person who is responsible for that mandate.

If he is responsible for giving the mandate to the implementation commit tee, then he accepts the responsibili ty for giving direction and for passing the information that he gathers from the implementation committee on to his Cabinet, and then he is responsible for advising Cabinet. As I understand the Cabinet process, he will be bringing in a paper into Cabinet which suggests direction that should be taken after the implementation commit tee has come to him. He said very clearly that it is the Government and the Cabinet that has ultimate authority for these matters.

So, if that is the case, he as Minister is going to be the one who takes the paper to Cabinet and the recommendations to Cabinet. Clearly, very clearly, if you look at

section 8 of The Conflict of Interest Act, it spells out very clearly what the Minister must do if he finds himself in that position. I think it spells out very clearly what the Minister must do if he finds himself in that position. I think it spells out very clearly that the Minister must, No. 1, either remove himself from any discussion or any voting on that matter. Secondly, he must also step aside if in fact he finds himself in a conflict with the Act.

I think some of the ba sic require ments are spelled out, and I would just like to read this one: when a conflict of interest arises, an individual, a minister or a member, must disclose your conflict of interest, withdraw from any meeting without voicing or participating in the matter and refrain from influencing the matter. When I was in Cabinet, Mr. Chair, I have to tell you that from time to time matters arose where individuals around the Cabinet table found themselves in a position where they felt there might be a perceived conflict of interest.

At that point in time, the Minister would indicate there could be a perceived conflict of interest or there is a conflict of interest, I am withdrawing from the discussion at this point, and removes himself from the room and from the discussion of any matter relating to that issue. At that point in time, the Clerk of the Executive Council would note that in the minutes, and that person then would have clearly absolved themselves of any conflict or any perceived conflict. In this case, we seem to have the Premier (Mr.

Doer) of our province digging his heels in on the issue that there is no conflict or no perceived conflict, and the Minister is saying the same thing. He says there is no conflict and no perceived conflict. It is no crime on anybody's part to say, well, we had better take another look at this act. We had better examine it more carefully, and, if there is a perceived conflict, then perhaps we should err on the side of caution. I think that is what the Premier said in the House when he was Opposition Leader.

He said it is important to restore the integrity of govern ment, and, when there is a perceived conflict, we must remove ourselves from that perceived conflict. I think that is what we are dealing with here. I think we are dealing with this in a very serious way. I think there is a window of

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 31 61 opportunity here. I know, when I was on the other side of the bench and the opposition was sitting where we are today, they called for our heads on any matter of that nature. They wanted us out of Cabinet right now. Well, we are not calling for that, Mr. Chair.

We are asking this Minister, if he finds himself in that position, to simply declare it and step aside and allow somebody else to handle the file so that, in fact, neither he nor his wif e, nor his wife's firm, whom she is a partner with, put themselves in an awkward and in a position where it becomes a media issue and becomes a public issue in the minds of many Manitobans. So we are giving the Minister that kind of flexibility, that kind of opportunity and, I think, a time frame to do that in.

But I have to say to the Minister, in all sincerity, that that is not going to be a position that we are going to maintain forever because, if the Minister continues to dig his heels in and if this premier continues to dig his heels in, then we are going to take the next step.

There are steps that can be taken under the Act, and we will certainly pursue those, but, at this point in time, we are simply asking for the honourable thing to be done, the right thing to be done for the benefit of Manitoba so that this initiative is not further marred than what it has been to this point in time because there are issues and concerns about how this has proceeded to this point in time. * (15: 50) Mr. Chair, I represent five First Nations communities in my constituency. All of them have views on how this process has gone.

I would have to say they are not positive views from their perception either and from my discussions that I have had with them. Of course, they do not know all the details, so they are only speaking from where they are at in terms of reading what is in the media. I have to say I have not spoken to the chiefs of any of these First Nations communities in my constituency because I do not want to be giving them any kind of perception from my point of view. Rather, I want them to be able to be participants in an opportunity here in Manitoba that could benefit them.

It is the Government that has made the decision that we are going to go into First Nations casino. They have a right to do that as a government. I acknowledge that. It does not mean that I support it; it does not mean that I endorse it, but indeed it means I will be watching very carefully the process that is embarked on to allow for casino expansion in our province. So this is a pretty heavy obligation on behalf of this Minister.

I do not envy the Minister for having this initiative as part of his responsibility, because I do not see a great, big win-win in this situation for any minister who has this responsibil ity, but, nevertheless, because I think this minister is honourable and he is somebody who is trying to do the right thing, I think we have decided as an opposition that we have to give him the latitude and the opportunity to be able to address this in that we have raised the issue.

I want to ask the Minister, because I do not want to preoccupy the rest of my time simply going on and on, a specific question or a few specific questions with regard to this issue. One of them is with regard to his meeting on this issue and receiving advice from a legal person, a lawyer, with regard to whether there is a conflict or not. Can he table that opinion? Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Chair, I thank the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) for his questions. I just want to say at this time I certainly do not have anything to table at this point. I will just leave it at that for now. Mr. Praznik: Mr.

Chair, the Member for Russell is just going to allow me two brief questions.

I want to ask the Minister: Was he made aware by the Premier or the Premier's staff when he became a Cabinet minister that when ever he felt that there could be a conflict of interest, and obviously in this case, from the news reports, he and his wife were aware of the potential conflict because she took the appro priate steps within her firm on this matte r, was the Minister made aware by the Premier or any of his staff that within government there is an independent lawyer available who any time any MLA or minister wants to check out whether or not they are in conflict of this act or any other that they can contact that particular lawyer who works for a firm in Winnipeg outside of government-it is not a government lawyer-can

316 2 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 contact that finn and that lawyer in confidence, lay out the issue, and that lawyer will provide on a timely basis a legal opinion as to whether or not there is a conflict, and if there is, the appropriate steps to take? Now, I am asking the Minister if the Premier or any of his staff made the Minister aware of this service which is available to him and all MLAs? Because we have all used it, many of us over the years, and it is there. Has the Minister been made aware of that by the Premier or any of the Premier's staff? Mr. Lemieux: Mr.

Chair, just on a point of clarification, a couple of things, one is that the Member for Lac du Bonnet stated that somehow my wife's law finn or she took the appropriate action of some kind. My wife's Jaw finn or my wife as a lawyer has nothing to do with the casino proposals whatsoever, nothing. Yes, I have been made aware of the conflict-of-interest guidelines and certainly the option for anyone who feels that they are in a conflict. In Cabinet, as was mentioned from the Member for Russell, you can exclude yourself from the discussions. Thank you.. Mr. Praznik: Mr.

Chair, in the reports of Saturday it indicated that the clie nt of your wife, the Nelson House First Nation, who is one of the applicants for a casino that the Minister will be considering, indicated that they were aware of the relationship between her and the Minister and, as a consequence, she was not. whether she would have ever been anyway, but it was clear that the band and the Jaw finn ensured that Valerie Matthews Lemieux would not be working on the file. In fact Chief Primrose even made the comment that they wanted to make sure that they were not putting this in jeopardy with a conflict.

So my comment as an observer is that unless Ms. Valerie Matthews Lemieux wants to withdraw from her Jaw finn and all dealings of employment with the Nelson House First Nation, which I am not suggesting she would have to do, then it does put the onus back on the Minister that the band and the Jaw finn and his wife have ensured that she would not be in any way involved in her work for Nelson House as one of their solicitors with the casino issue. No one has accused his wife of doing anything wrong. She has a right to a life. She has a right to be a solicitor. She has a right to be a partner in a law finn.

She has a right to earn a living. She has a right to contribute to the Lemieux family household income, which that does. The question is, how does the Minister handle it? The onus is on the Minister and the Act puts the onus on the Minister, and the Act raises, on the surface of it, very clearly it states in

section 3(1) that it presumes that there is an indirect pecuniary relationship when a spouse or dependant of a minister is employed by someone who has a direct relationship, which Nelson House does. I would remind him that his wife is not an employee of the Jaw finn; she is a partner. Her income is derived from the partnership, which includes income received from Nelson House. I assume she shares household expenses with the Minister, so he has an indirect relationship. Maybe I am wrong, but the fact is the Act presumes it. The Minister does not have to be in a conflict.

He has not had to do anything wrong; the Act presumes it. Right? So, having said that, surely to goodness, when the Minister realized-and we are not saying the Minister in putting out the applications-when the Nelson House proposal came in I guess the Minister then, out of abundance of caution, should have probably checked, but he did not. I would assume because he has not told us he has.

But when the independent committee came back with five recommendations, including Nelson House who employs his wife and her finn of which she is a partner, it should have flagged with anyone, any reasonable person, that there was at least an issue that had to be explored legally. Now the Minister is telling us that the Premier (Mr. Doer) has been sloppy, that he has not told his Cabinet ministers that any time they have a potential issue here, out of an abundance of caution they should go to Shirley Strutt who will pass on the name of the lawyer who is available on a confidential basis, and they can check it out.

So the Minister is telling us he has nothing to table, so obviously he does not have a legal opinion. I just want him to confinn again or answer today, did he seek a legal opinion as to

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 316 3 whether or not he would be in conflict once he was aware that Nelson House was one of the proponents who had been recommended by Mr. Nadeau? It is a very simple question. Did he take the normal cautions that any reasonable minister of the Crown would take when it became aware to him or when he became aware that there was a potential conflict? We would like to know, did he do anything to seek a legal opinion about this situation?

If he did, could he table that legal opinion here today because if he did and the legal opinion says he is not in conflict, there is absolutely no doubt about it, well, I think that might end the issue. But if he has a legal opinion that says, well, it might be iffy, it is not cle ar, that raises doubts about the Minister's judgment. * (1 6:00) If he took no action at all, it raises some doubts about his judgment, which perhaps we could forgive him being a new minister, but it certainly raises the issue about the way the Premier (Mr.

Doer) operates the Government in that he is not taking the time and the energy to ensure that his Cabinet ministers, his new ministers who have not been exposed to this problem, are able to make the right decisions and assessments and seek the right advice. So I ask him again: Did he seek a legal opinion when he was aware that Nelson House First Nation was one of the successful recom mendations out of the Nadeau-Freedman report? Mr. Lemieux: Just a couple of comments.

I know the statement from the Member for Lac du Bonnet has been made a couple of times with regard to my wife's law firm, but my wife's Jaw firm has not worked on the Nelson House casino proposal. My wife has not worked on the Nelson House casino proposal at all, knows nothing about it, and she has worked for Nelson House over the last nine years. One thing I want to comment on is also with regard to the Premier. The Premier of this province has taken this initiative with regard to First Nations casinos. The Premier views this as being a very important initiative.

The Govern ment of Manitoba views this as giving First Nations people an opportunity to create jobs and have economic development. It is not the be-all, end-all, as I have stated on numerous occasions. We know that. We feel that the previous government should have been-and I have tried to give them credit as well because they had not only the Desjardins report but also the Bostrom report, which dealt specifically with First Nations casinos, and the Government, to their credit, recognized that First Nations people should be brought into this process.

The Member for Russell stated that he is not necessarily-"condoning" is not the correct word, but not necessarily stating that he personally is very supportive of this initiative, but his government as well previously looked at First Nations casinos and looked at bringing in First Nations people into the gaming industry, and they recognized it because of the Bostrom report. They recognized it as an important initiative that should be entered into and looked at. We decided to have an independent selection commit tee decide it. We had two people. It would be depoliticized, no politics involved.

Let the proposals come in and let an independent body take a look at it and view the economic benefits and to ensure that those casinos, if recommended, would be viable, or they would have an opportunity to be viable. No one wants them starting up and then falling down and not being viable at all. I want to state that, once again, the law firm has not worked on Nelson House First Nations casino proposal at all. My wife certainly had no involvement whatsoever with Nelson House or Nisichawayasihk First Nations casino proposal at all.

They were made, they were recommended by an independent body that recommended them to government. Now the challenges lie ahead for all these First Nations communities. They are going to have to address the conditions for success and try to meet them. The challe nge is there for them. No one anticipates these casinos to be up and running in the very near future, as I mentioned. I am not sure how many times I have to reiterate that her law firm has not worked on it at all-has nothing to do with Nelson House First Nations casino proposal whatsoever. Thank you. Mr. Derkach: Mr.

Chairman, there is no question of whether or not there is blame on the

3 1 64 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 26, 2000 part of the law firm or the Minister's wife. Indeed, he has acknowledged that she is working for the band on a specific project under the NF A, the Northern Flood Agreement. However, she is working for the band, and I want to ask this minister one more time -nothing to do with his wife, nothing to do with her law firm, but has he sought legal advice in House or outside with regard to his position and with regard to the conflict-of-interest guidelines that are in place in the province of Manitoba since this issue has emerged?

Has he sought legal advice? * ( 1 6: 10 ) Mr. Lemieux: With regard to the issue of conflict, I have never felt that there was an issue with regard to conflict. Certainly, in my own mind, there is no conflict. One may look at a legal opinion with regard to conflict if one thinks that there is one. I have never felt that there has been a conflict. As I have mentioned previously, and members opposite agreed to that, that in the matter, she has nothing to do with the casino project and that being the matter, she has had nothing to do with it and neither has her law firm.

So one would say, well, a person should get a legal opinion, but in my mind, there was no conflict. And so I just have to reiterate and state, Mr. Chair, having looked at the facts, that I felt previously, and I feel now. that there is no conflict. I know members opposite are asking about a legal opinion, and so on, and I can say that no, I have not. So, certainly, there is nothing to table and there is no legal opinion to table, because I felt there was no conflict and in my mind there was no need to proceed with regard to a legal opinion and to look at that avenue.

One thing I want to reiterate certainly, and I think I have said it on numerous occasions. is that certainly, and members opposite I believe agree and have acknowledged that my wife has nothing to do with it, with the casino proposal, nor has their law firm with Nelson House's proposal whatsoever. I will just leave my re marks at that for the moment, Mr. Chair. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chair, the Member says that he has not sought legal advice because he feels that there is no need to seek legal advice. I want to ask the Minister whether in fact he has read

section 8 of The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act. In addition to that, has he read

section 8 and

section 3, specifically 3, subsection (l )(b), I think it is? Mr. Lemieux: I thank the Member for the question. I was looking at, I think it is 3(b), yes,

section 3(1 )(

b) where it says a person, corporation, partnership, organization who or which or in the case of a corporation a subsidiary of which has a direct pecuniary interest in the matter-in the matter. In the matter. The law firm nor my wife has any interest, pecuniary interest in the matter, the matter being a Nelson House casino project, being the matter. As I mentioned, and I have read it, I mean, the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) is saying: Hey, have you read the section? I did and I am trying to give as honest and forthright an answer as I can.

I am saying in my own mind I have looked at it and I have read it and I have certainly-and I should reiterate or certainly mention that, no, I am not a lawyer. As the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) also stated, we are not lawyers. I am certainly not a lawyer. But certainly when I look at it, I mean, when I take a look at this, my

interpretation when I look this, I feel that there is no conflict of interest here. Certainly members opposite are, you know, willing to and certainly able to make the argument for this particular fact, but I would disagree with them. Certainly at the moment I would disagree with them. When I take a look at that and I read it I just do not feel that there is a conflict of interest, perceived or otherwise.

I know some members opposite on both sides of the House were starting to get into what I will call borderline discussions with regard to articles in the paper and things happening in the Interlake and all those kinds of things. The members opposite sitting around here know that, well, I hope they do know. If they do not know it they are not going to hear it from me, because I belie ve the discussion we are having now is a very important one, as members stated. I certainly am not going to try to digress in any way. That is another issue. Other people

June 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 316 5 will take care of that particular issue. I know people have made mention that this was a diversionary tactic. I will give members opposite full credit that they are sincere with regard to this matter of conflict and that it was not used as a diversionary tactic because of the negative press that had come out with regard to the Interlake. Having said that, I just want to state that I have read the sections. I am not a lawyer. Obviously I am not a lawyer. In my interpre tation as a layperson I do not, you know, I just do not see, there is no conflict.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Derkach: I think it is sufficient for the Minister to know that we have raised this issue as one where we strongly believe that there is a conflict. Now, the Minister says that he has looked at those two sections and he believes, from his

interpretation, that there is no conflic

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-51
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf 51.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a0b70edf85c115f76799d07f513f0fe99ee54d3e

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