Manitoba Hansard — 1 June 2006 (Sitting 81B, 38th Legislature, 4th Session)

38-4-81b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LVII No. 81B - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, June 1, 2006

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

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

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

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

2869 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, June 1, 2006 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Civil Service Employees–Neepawa Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Eleven immediate positions of the Manitoba Conservation Lands Branch, as of April 1, 2006, Crown Lands and Property Special Operating Agency, are being moved out of Neepawa. Removal of these positions will severely impact the local economy with potentially 33 adults and children leaving the community.

Removal of these positions will be detrimental to revitalizing the rural and surrounding communities of Neepawa. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing current technology, i.e., Land Management Services existing satellite sub-office in Dauphin, in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. Submitted on behalf of Valerie Grant, Amanda Gale, Amanda Cathcart and many, many others, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Eleven immediate positions with Manitoba Conservation Lands Branch, as of April 1, 2006, Crown Lands and Property Special Operating Agency, are being moved out of Neepawa. Removal of these positions will severely impact the local economy with potentially 33 adults and children leaving the community.

Removal of these positions will be detrimental to revitalizing the rural and surrounding communities of Neepawa. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing current technology such as the Land Management Services existing satellite sub-office in Dauphin, Manitoba, in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. This petition is signed by Dorothy Tegg, James W. Tegg, Bob Benson and many, many others.

Removal of Agriculture Positions from Minnedosa Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition: Nine positions with the Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives Crown Lands Branch are being moved out of Minnedosa. Removal of these positions will severely impact the local economy. Removal of these positions will be detrimental to revitalizing this rural agriculture community.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing cur- rent technology in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. This petition signed by Barb Ebner, Heather Martin, Jennifer Sherb and many, many others.

2870 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 OlyWest Hog Processing Plant Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background for this petition is as follows: The Manitoba government, along with the OlyWest consortium, promoted the development of a mega hog factory within the city of Winnipeg without proper consideration of rural alternatives for the site.

Concerns arising from the hog factory include noxious odours, traffic and road impact, water supply, waste water treatment, decline in property values, cost to taxpayers and proximity to the city's clean drinking water aqueduct. Many Manitobans believe this decision represents poor judgment on behalf of the provincial government. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to immediately cancel its plans to support the construction of the OlyWest hog plant and rendering factory near any urban residential area.

Signed by Caitlin Mayo, Scott Mayo, Colin Finney and many others. * (13:35) Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Mr. Hank Marin from The Pas, Manitoba. Also in the Speaker's Gallery we have Liberato Ibadlit who is a former vice-governor of Aklan province in the Philippines, Rolando Ibadlit from Toronto and Ding Raquin from Winnipeg, who are the guests of the honourable Member for The Maples (Mr. Aglugub). In the public gallery we have with us Jake Martens from Grunthal.

We also have Anne and Peter Wiens, who are the parents of the honourable Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. Also in the public gallery we have veterans from the Women's Royal Canadian Service who are the guests of the honourable Member for Fort Garry (Ms. Irvin-Ross). Also we have from Swan Valley Regional Secondary School 9 Grades 9 to 12 students under the direction of Mrs. Lillian De-La-Fuente. This school is located in th e constituen cy of the honourable Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives (Ms. Wowchuk).

Also in the public gallery we have Mae Blanchard, Anne Russell, Carol Jones and Anita Chapman. These are the gu ests of the honourable Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTIONS Red River Floodway Flood Protection Levels Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we know from the scientific studies and estimates that there is a 39 percent chance the city will be flooded in the next 50 years with the current floodway design.

We share the belief of the government that 1-in-700-year pro- tection for Winnipeggers and Manitobans is needed. The Premier (Mr. Doer) has committed to this House and elsewhere that this project will provide 1-in-700-year protection to Manitobans. The minister yesterday said, we will be at 1-in-700-year protection. Now we know that works within the city to bring protection to a 1-in-700-year level have been dropped from the floodway plans.

The City of Winnipeg made a presentation, made by one of the City's top engineers, which says that without permanent raises in primary dikes, there is less than 1-in-700-year flood protection, and that the cost of doing these works in the city is estimated at $256 million. It is not included in the current project, which means that the 1-in-700 protection level is nonexistent within the current plans and the current budget. Will the minister indicate what commitments have been made by the Province to the City to bring protection up to the 1-in-700-year level? Hon.

Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the Leader of the Opposition is raising a

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2871 question that certainly goes back to one of his previous careers, and there have certainly been many in the last number of years over at City Hall. I think it is important to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, that this issue di d come up at the CEC and, certainly, there were a number of options identified to deal with this.

This is an issue once you hit the 1-in-700-year protection, I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition finally acknowledging what we have been stating clearly that it is this NDP government that is going to protect Manitobans from 1-in-700-year flooding in the city of Winnipeg. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to put on the record that the $665-million budget deals with other matters– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the City is setting aside roughly $4.5 million a year to build up toward the appropriate level. It is not even close to being enough.

This is a provincial initiative to protect Manitobans. According to City estimates, using City funds to build up the permanent dikes at the current rates of spending will take 48 years to reach 1-in-700 year flood protection. Why is the minister saying this project is on time and on budget when current estimates say that with current project parameters and current spending it will take 48 years to reach 1-in-700-year levels? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite clearly does not know the facts when it comes to the floodway expansion, and it has been very obvious over the last week.

I note it is interesting that he has not risen today in his place and acknowledged that he was wrong yesterday. In fact, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, has made it very clear, including yesterday, about the federal government's commitment to fund the floodway expansion. I think it will be very important for the Leader of the Opposition to put that on the record because he was clearly wrong yesterday. He is also wrong today, Mr.

Speaker, because if he had attended any of the public meetings on the floodway, he would have seen that plans are in place, indeed, for the 1-in-700-year protection, and that the Floodway Authority has been working with the City of Winnipeg. There were options of $7 million– Mr. Speaker: Order. * (13:40) Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated yesterday his concern, a concern shared by us, that $135 million in overruns eight months after the announcement was made, $135 million in overruns are a concern to the federal government, a federal gove rnment that was elected to clean up the kind of lack of accountability and mismanagement of public funds that are occurring under the watch of this government. He is concerned about it as we are, as taxpayers are.

That was what the Prime Minister said yesterday, that notwith- standing the bungling and the mismanagement of this NDP government they are committed to protecting Manitobans, and we stand with them on that commitment. Mr. Speaker, now that we know that there is nothing in the current plans that is going to get Winnipeg to 1-in-700-year protection, will the minister admit, just like their promise to end hallway medicine in six months, just like their promise to exceed Kyoto targets, th at the 1-in-700-year, on time, on budget commitment by this government is just another NDP sham? Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Speaker, the Prime Minister is clearly dealing with a number of projects across the country where there are additional cost pressures. In fact, I think Minister Emerson, a former Liberal minister, now a Conservative, who is in charge of the Vancouver Olympics is looking at 23 percent cost increases on that project. If the member opposite would care to talk to anybody, perhaps some of his former colleagues at City Hall, he will find out. I think the City of Winnipeg is looking at a 30 percent increase. In our case, Mr.

Speaker, phase 1 is on budget, and we have done the prudent thing and looked at what is happening out there in terms of the marketplace. But, I want to make it clear that the Leader of the Opposition is dead wrong again. We are going to get built a 1-in-700-year flood protection and, indeed, these issues have been raised with the City and will be. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question. Red River Floodway Cost Overruns Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): No amount of bluster from the minister

2872 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 is going to hide the fact that the current project is not going to provide Winnipeggers with 1-in-700 year protection. Today, Mr. Speaker, in the media, we see comments made by the Premier (Mr. Doer) last week that he has instructed the Floodway Authority to go back and cut corners in order to keep the project on budget. Has the minister told the authority that the first corner they should cut is a sweetheart deal that they made with friends of the NDP? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr.

Speaker, I think, a few days ago, I did point out that when the Leader of the Opposition was the architect of policy for the Filmon government, they did not have any major projects. I want to apologize, Mr. Speaker. There was one; it was called the casinos and they built two of them. They then had the casino expansion, and it took the Auditor General to find that they were $105 million over budget. So they have no credibility when it comes to that.

I also want to point out that since members opposite have no experience in the last 36 years with major projects, I do not think Manitobans would disagree that where you have upward cost pressures of saying to the people who designed the project, 1-in-700-year flood protection, yes. But, if you can find efficiencies, do it. By the way, the project management agreement was in place for phase 1, and that is on budget. The project management agree- ment is not the source of any cost overruns. Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the minister has made it clear that they are not prepared to override the sweetheart deal they have made with friends of their party. So, if he is not prepared to override the sweetheart deal they made with friends of the NDP, if he is not prepared to cu t corners on the deal they made with friends of his party, how many lives, how much property is this government prepared to put at risk in order to honour their deal with their political friends? Mr. Ashton: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition should have a bit of a reality check.

If he looks at, for example, what has happened in The Construction Industry Wages Act, which was agreed to by our minister of the labour consensus, the current Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan), I think he would see that the project management reflects what has been happening in the labour market out there and reflects the fact that we have a hot construction sector. They maybe did not experience this when they were in government, Mr. Speaker. We have had a 20 percent increase in construction in Winnipeg in just the last year alone. Mr.

Speaker, we will protect Manitobans, and the Conservatives better get ready for one thing. We are bringing the word "megaproject" back into the dictionary in the province of Manitoba. * (13:45) Mr. McFadyen: It is members of the heavy construction industry who are saying that they are not bidding on floodway projects because of the rules put in place by this government. They are not putting bids in because of the chilling– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. McFadyen: Because they are not bidding, costs are going up. That is what is driving it.

Some people say $60 million, others say $65 million. Whatever it is, Mr. Speaker, it is completely unacceptable, waste and abuse of taxpayer funds. Mr. Speaker, given that the only signature the Premier (Mr. Doer), the master negotiator– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. We remind members we have guests in the gallery, we have the viewing public, and I need to be able to hear the questions and the answers in case there is a breach of a rule or a departure from our practice. I am asking the co- operation of all honourable members. Mr. McFadyen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to ask the minister: Given that the only signature the Premier, the master negotiator, has been able to get with the federal government was the autograph on the Falcons' jersey that he presented to the Prime Minister yesterday, and given the lack of progress with the federal government, given the scandal of cost overruns, what steps will the minister be taking immediately to prevent this important project for Manitobans from spiralling into even more of a debacle than it already is? Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr.

Speaker, if Manitobans have any doubt that this Conservative Party, if they were ever to get back to power, would want to go back to the 1990s, back to the way they have been the last 20 or 30 years, it is, I think, the sham of the last number of days. This Leader of the Opposition stated

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2873 yesterday in a press release that essentially we should not have proceeded with the floodway even though we had phase 1 commitment in terms of funding. The member questioned that. We already have increased flood protection at 1-in-140 years because of the fact that we are building that project. We have other Conservatives like Brian Pallister who has said, we should shut it down. Does that sound familiar? History will show, Mr.

Speaker, whether it be in terms of hydro development or any of the major projects of the last 30 years, NDPers build it; Conservatives shut it down. Red River Floodway Flood Protection Commitment Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): The City of Winnipeg told the Clean Environment Commission last year it requires an increase to the height of its dikes and upgrades to its infrastructure to protect the city. This is a significant and costly component that is required in order to protect the city from a 1-in- 700 year flood. I am going to give the minister an opportunity to clarify his position, Mr. Speaker.

Would he please outline what portion of that $665 million was earmarked for flood protection within the city of Winnipeg? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): You know, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the cr itic are again, I think, misleading Manitobans when it comes to the– [interjection] The Leader of the Opposition suggested earlier that we–[interjection] Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, 48 years for the 1-in-700 year protection.

If the member opposite would care to look at the CEC hearings, he would see that the City of Winnipeg itself identified a $7-million option on an annual basis in any of the situations that were in place. He will know that all the public meetings, it was clearly identified the major works that will be put in place to get to the 1-in-700 year flood protection, are the main component of the floodway expansion and what the City of Winnipeg has been talking about. The Floodway Authority is indeed very much under consideration.

The members opposite should understand that we are going to build a 1-in-700-year protection and, indeed, we have been working, co-operating with the City to make sure all of those elements are– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the reference to the $7-million project did not give the city of Winnipeg permanent protection from the flood. Clearly, there cannot be a 1-in-700-year flood protection without significant upgrades to the City's infrastructure. The City indicates it will cost $256 million to make the upgrades within the city itself. Mr.

Speaker, does this government intend to financially support the infrastructure upgrades required within the city, or will the city be abandoned to tread water? * (13:50) Mr. Ashton: We are building the floodway expansion with no help from members opposite, Mr. Speaker, and that is indeed the major element of the 1-in-700-year flood protection. What has happened is the City has identified a number of projects they would like to see done, including replacing the Redwood Bridge. I know the Leader of the Opposition would know this.

He would also know and members opposite should know that it is irresponsible to leave on the public record any suggestion that it would take 48 years to get to that point because the member knows that any of the issues, whether they were in the scope of the original floodway expansion or not, or the Clean Environ- ment Commission hearings or not, those issues have been identified. The Floodway Authority is working with the City on that and we will get 1-in-700-year protection by working with the City and working with the federal government. That is how you get things done in this province. Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the City is making commendable efforts towards flood protection to the tune of almost $5 million per year, but at a cost of $256 million even the City's own records indicate it is going to take 48 years to make the upgrades. We ask the minister: Is he content to wait to the year 2054 before he can ac tually guarantee a 1-in- 700-year flood protection for the city of Winnipeg? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, we are not looking at a 48-year time frame. We are not looking at it on the floodway expansion. We are looking at it in terms of waste water.

You know, the City of Winnipeg, when the Tories were in power and the waste water treatment issue, had a 50-year plan to deal with it.

2874 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 We have a plan of 1-in-700-year flooding protection. This spring we are at 1-in-140 years. Next year, 1-in-300 years. We will be at 1-in-700 years. It will not take 48 years. The members opposite know that. They should not be trying to scare Manitobans. They should work co-operatively like we are with the federal government and the City of Winnipeg to get the flood protection that Manitobans deserve. Bill 34 Civil Servant Protection Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance regarding his bill zero, the NDP gag law, otherwise known by this NDP as Bill 34. Pat Jacobsen complained to the Minister of Labour. Mr. Speaker, she complained to the Minister of Labour about conduct of WCB and the conduct of Wally Fox-Decent, the ch air of WCB. Given the provisions of this NDP gag law, will the Minister of Finance admit that Bill 34 would not protect Pat Jacobsen's job, that she would have been fired by the minister and she would have had no protection? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member is just completely wrong.

Any head of an organization like the Workers Compensation Board, under the provisions of this bill, would have direct access to the Ombudsman. If, after they made their complaint to the Ombudsman about any form of misconduct, they believe that they were the victim of any kind of reprisal, they would have direct access to the Labour Board, a quasi- judicial tribunal. This bill squarely would protect somebody in the position of being the head of the Workers Compensation Board for any honest, good faith allegations they made about misconduct. The bill is very clear in that regard.

All the member has to do is read it. Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, Pat Jacobsen complained to the minister. Under the NDP gag law, protection is only given to those who complain to the supervisor, to a designated officer or the Ombudsman. Since Pat Jacobsen complained to the Minister of Labour, I ask the Minister of Finance: Why would he not protect the job of his employees who complained to the ministers? What is he trying to hide? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, in a case of a concern about gross misconduct by any member of the broader public service in Manitoba, they will have direct access.

They do not have to go to their supervisor. They do not have to go to the chairman of their board. They can go directly to the Ombudsman, who is an impartial officer of the Legislature, who operates w ithout fear or favour in the public interest and reports to the Legislature if they believe anything has gone awry with their investigation. In the event that after they make their complaint to the Ombudsman they are not happy, they feel that somehow they have been a victim of a reprisal by anybody within the organization they work, including the minister, they can go directly to the Labour Board.

That is how it should be done; that is how it will be done. * (13:55) Private Sector Protection Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, the minister does not get the point. Pat Jacobsen went to the minister. She did not go to the Ombudsman. This NDP government legislation is disguised as whistle-blower protection legislation. It will not protect civil servants who complain to any government ministers or, in fact, any MLA. Those who complain to the minister or an MLA could be fired without recourse.

So I ask the Minister of Finance: Will he protect whistle-blowers who come forward to MLAs about information about Crocus? Will he protect Crocus whistle-blowers? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I take it we have thoroughly dealt with the case of the Workers Compensation Board as the member has moved his question to another organization. Whistle-blower legislation will be available to all the members in the broader public service. Now the member raises the issue about the Crocus Investment Fund.

If he would have just simply read the bill, there are whistle-blower provisions required under the new labour-sponsored venture capital legislation which we have brought forward in this Legislature. I remind the member it was on April 8, 2004, that he promised– [interjection] That was '04, two years ago and a month, he promised to bring forward his own bill. We are still awaiting it. If he thinks he

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2875 can do better, bring forward your bill like you promised. Do your homework, be accountable for what you said you are going to do. Health Care System Pain Clinic Expansion Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, in 2002, the Minister of Health announced a $2.5 million expansion of the pain clinic at the Health Sciences Centre so that more patients with chronic pain could be treated.

It did not happen in 2002, it did not happen in 2003, it did not happen in 2004 and it was re-announced in 2005 that the expansion would go ahead of the pain clinic at the Health Sciences Centre. I would like to ask the Minister of Health if, in 2005, the pain clinic expansion that was promised in 2002 actually went ahead. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, under the wait-list commitments that we made in November, we announced a substantial expansion and support for pain clinics. I was delighted to be at the Pan Am Clinic with the staff there and with Dr.

Intrater and the work that had been done to plan for and make available the expansion at Pan Am Clinic. I am delighted that expansion has taken place, that we added to our wait-list commitments in Manitoba four Manitoba priorities, including pain and three others. So, yes, there is expanded capacity in the pain clinic area. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health indicated that they announced an increase of finances to the Pan Am Clinic. They made that announcement in January, saying that satellite clinic would be opened in February.

We phoned over there today, and we were told by the Pan Am Clinic that the satellite pain clinic is not open yet. Call back in a month. In 2004, there were 1,200 patients on the waiting list for the pain clinic. In January of this year that number increased to 1,400. I would like to ask the Minister of Health how in his propaganda piece he can say that they are actually shortening waiting lists for the pain clinic when, in fact, over the last couple of years that number has gone up. Mr. Sale: Mr.

Speaker, I was very pleased to report to Manitobans the progress that has been made in a number of areas, whether it is pediatric dental surgery or a thousand more hips and knees that we did this year as compared to last year. I am proud we are meeting the benchmarks nationally in cancer access to radiation therapy and in cardiac care. We make no bones about the fact that there is more work to be done in a number of areas. We had the courage as a government to add four additional areas to the national five priorities which were announced. The pain clinic commitment was made.

The doctor who is in charge of the Pan Am Clinic has been very, very actively recruiting the appropriate physicians. This is not an area in which there is a surplus in Canada, for some of the reasons we have talked about before, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, this minister makes all kinds of announcements over the years, does not follow through, then has the gall to put in his quarter- million-dollar propaganda piece that things are getting better and that he is decreasing the waits in the pain clinic when, in fact, that is not happening. I would like to table some documents for the minister.

In 2004, people had to wait two years to be treated for chronic pain. In January of this year, that wait has skyrocketed to three years on average. That means there are actually some people waiting six years to get into the pain clinic with chronic pain. I would like to ask the minister how he has the nerve and the gall to put a quarter-million propaganda piece out there that says he is decreasing waiting lists for the pain patients in chronic pain when, in fact, those lists have skyrocketed. * (14:00) Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, we are a government that does not shy away from real problems in the system.

We publish numbers that no other government in Canada publishes in terms of access to our system. We put on the Web site information about waiting lists that is not available in other jurisdictions. I am proud of the fact that we are accountable for our successes and for the areas where we have more work to do. We have more work to do in the pain clinic area. That is why we made the announcement in November that we would expand it. That is why Dr. Hildahl is busy recruiting, Mr. Speaker. It is not an acceptable wait list.

We are accountable for that, that is why we talk about it and that is why we have committed resources to it. We will make progress there just like we made in cardiac, just like we made in cancer, just like we made in pediatric dental, just

2876 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 like we made in hips and knees, just like we made in MRIs. We are a government that fixes up the problem, invests resources and we make progress. Wuskwatim Dam Independent Voting Process Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): In the gallery today we are joined by concerned members of the NCN community. On June 14, NCN members will be asked to vote on the contents of the 1,300-page project development agreement for Wuskwatim. This is a tremendously complicated legal document and it is the size of two telephone books, Mr. Speaker.

The community members are indicating that they simply have not had enough time to review and analyze the PDA. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Hydro. Why are NCN band members being asked to vote on a 1,300-page document when they have not had enough time to review and to analyze the contents? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister charged with the administration of Th e Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, when the Wuskwatim project was first broached in the 1990s, there was a referendum in favour of it by the community. There was another referendum in favour of it by the community in 2002 or 2003.

Since that time, Mr. Speaker, there were 32 hearings of the Clean Environment Commission. NCN, the council and the band, et cetera, put together 20 public meetings with the information, small pamphlets and information to explain the complicated agreement. Ther e is a whole series of meetings and visits with the town. There are some people in the community who are against the project. They will have an opportunity to vote yes or no on June 15. The direction of the people in the community, not in the old days as when the Conservatives built and asked no– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs.

Mitchelson: I would like to ask the minister whether he has had time to read fully the two telephone book documents that he released just some short time ago, whether he has read them and whether he is confident that members of the community have had an opportunity to read and absorb all of this information. Mr. Speaker, those same members of the community are asking for an independent process to be established for the vote. NCN members want to ensure that the needs of all members are being met during the voting process. Why has the minister not appointed an independent body to oversee this very important vote?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, last time members opposite talked about appointing an independent body, it was by one of their own members and it was regarding their own conven tion election for their own leader. Their own Memb er for Springfield (Mr. Schuler) was going to call in the RCMP in an election. I think the member for the constituency of Rossmere should have some faith in the people of their own community who have had an opportunity, and will have an opportunity, to vote under the auspices of the federal act that allows them their own authority to conduct their own elections.

I think they have that opportunity. That is what we do in a democracy. That is what your party did for an election campaign when the members said that the RCMP should be called in. There are different sides to the issue and at least they get a free vote amongst their own residents. They have had– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister responsible for Hydro was extremely supportive of a democratic and fair process in the Ukraine, and I would hope that he would be as supportive of that kind of a process right here in Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, NCN band members have travelled here today– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Mitchelson: These members have travelled here today because the development that is happening in their community will have an everlasting impact on their way of life and they are concerned their voices are not being heard. It is the responsibility of this government to address the concerns of all members of the NCN community. Mr. Speaker, what is the minister prepared to do today to ensure that the needs of these concerned

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2877 NCN members will be addressed and that a fair and impartial process will be established for the vote? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, there was an 11-year process of discussions ongoing. There are people in favour, there are people opposed. In our democratic system, people have the opportunity. There is a public meeting today being held by Wuskwatim, one of the 20 public meetings in the last month, with respect to this vote. There have been two ratification votes. The discussion started under the previous government. In the old days there was no consultation.

Acres were flooded, hydro projects were put up and now we are paying multimillions of dollars in damages. The people have been consulted, the people will vote and what the people of the community say will be considered. With respect to Ukraine, Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty malicious of the member to even compare a prime minister having a journalist executed and having his body hidden, with the people of the North who I think are grown up enough to do their own thing– Mr. Speaker: Order. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Inkster has the floor.

House Procedures Respect for Agreement Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, on June 9, 2005, every MLA inside this Chamber voted in support of an agreement in which this Premier agreed in terms of House procedures. That agreement allowed for proper disposal of the budget votes and legislative agenda which met certain criteria. It was a form of closure which all parties supported. The question I have for the Premier is: Does he feel his agreement that he entered into is worth the paper on which it was written? Does the Premier believe that this Legislature should be respecting that agreement?

Will he keep his word with regard to that agreement and not try to bring in other forms of closure? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I believe it is our agreement, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I think that is one of the best answers the Premie r has given this session. It is our agreement. Our agreement means yours too, Mr. Premier. My question to the Premier is: Given that he has now acknowledged, even though the votes will show that it is our agreement, will he stand by that agreement and not invoke other forms of closure in order to get his legislative agenda across? Will he stand by his agreement? Mr.

Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, one who signs an agreement in 2003, after they spent weeks arguing about where they should sit, and then immediately has a press conference after saying the agreement he signed was not adequate enough to protect the democracy rights in this Chamber, his disappearing ink that he uses for signing his agreements is well known to members on this side. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have the personal integrity to live up to my agreements. If I sign something, I will live up to it. I am living up to this agreement that this Hous e voted on, all members, including this Premier, signed off on.

My question to the Premier was very specific. I live up to my agreements. Will the Premier live up to his agreement, this agreement, and instruct his House Leader not to invoke any other form of closure, as we witnessed yesterday from this majority govern- ment? Will this Premier respect the agreement? Mr. Doer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. * (14:10) University of Manitoba Convocation Ceremony Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear of the exceptional number of high-quality graduates and professors receiving awards and degrees at the University of Manitoba convocation ceremonies.

Would the Minister of Advanced Education and Training please inform the House of the significance of this most recent ceremony? Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): These are indeed red letters for post-secondary education in the province, with more than 3,000 students graduating, a historic record, Mr. Speaker. This year we will have graduated over 200 nurses, over 70 Ph.D.s, hundreds of engineers, hundreds of teachers, hundreds of masters' degrees in every possible subject.

2878 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 Mr. Speaker, we are in deed preparing Manitoba for the economy of the future. As well, I want to add that students graduating from the University of Manitoba are from Mani toba, from across the country and from around the world. The University of Manitoba is putting our province on the world map. Whiteshell Cottage Owners Increased Costs Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): The reason I rise today is that this NDP government and the Minister of Conservation through their mismanagement have broken their obligations to Whiteshell cottage owners in Manitoba.

Whiteshell cottage owners have been left in the dark regarding services and financial issues pertaining to their properties. My question is to the Minister of Conservation: Why has he and the NDP government not fulfilled their obligations to the Whiteshell cottage owners association? Hon. Stan Struthers (Min ister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I have met on numerous occasions with Mr. Ted Ferens, the president of the Whiteshell cottage owners association and their executive. We have had some good meetings.

I have attended, three years running now, the annual general meeting of the Whiteshell Cottagers Association and have very good relations built with those folks. We have put in place a partnership, a team of people who is open to membership of the Whiteshell Cottagers Association, of businesses that are operating in the Whiteshell and in other parks in Manitoba, to establish a fair process for establishing the park district service fee. So we are taking steps that are inclusive. I know that is foreign to the member opposite, but they are included. Mr.

Faurschou: While the minister states that he has had meetings with the Whiteshell cottage owners association, he has not allowed them to participate, as the previous administration allowed for, their participation in discussions regarding services and financial matters pertaining to their own cottage properties. Not for three years has the cottage owners association been consulted, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars of overcharges in park services. I ask the Minister of Conservation: When did he realize that his mismanagement had led to gross overcharging of services to the cottage owners? Mr.

Struthers: I would invite my friend from Portage la Prairie to sit down with Mr. Ted Ferens. I am sure Ted will tell him that when they called the first meeting, Mr. Ferens was at the meeting of the group that was meeting to discuss these fees. Mr. Ted Ferens and the cottage association decided to leave the meeting that we had arranged for them to participate in. I have been very clear with the Whiteshell Cottagers Association at their annual meetings, in meetings with their executives, that they are welcome back.

They can come and sit at the table with all the other cottagers from all parts of this province, from the business owners, from everybody who has been involved in setting these park district service fees and be part of the solution. The Whiteshell Cottagers Association executive deter- mined that they would not do that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Faurschou: I do appreciate the minister recognizing Mr. Ted Ferens, president of the Whiteshell cottage owners association, because it was in consultation with him that these questions were crafted. Mr.

Speaker, mismanagem ent and poor financial practices of this government with respect to the Whiteshell cottage owners has not ended there. The representatives from Manitoba Conservation are on record as saying that they have not even drawn up a budget for the Whiteshell in the last three years. When asked why not, the department blamed its own staff. Do you not think it is time for the Minister of Conservation to own up to his responsibilities of mismanagement within his department? Mr.

Struthers: It would have been nice if the members opposite, when they had their chance to be in government, showed some kind of support to the infrastructure for the Whiteshell Cottagers Association. Mr. Speaker, $6.2 million being spent on water infrastructure alone in the Whiteshell cottages, and I am amazed that members opposite would not stand up and say that it is a good thing. Mr. Speaker, we have yurts in Nutimik Lake, an innovative new way of camping that members opposite did not have the creativity to think of.

It is just the same old, same old for members across; no changes, no betterment, no improvements. We are working on the lagoon at the Falcon Lake area. We are working on the lagoon at the Whiteshell, West Hawk Lake lagoon. We are making substantive improvements to–

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2879 Mr. Speaker: Order. Agriculture Industry Beef Levy Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, this NDP government's plan to collect a $1.2-million levy on Manitoba cattle sales was given a June 1 implementation date. Yesterday in the House this government would not provide an update on its preparation for collection of this tax. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture listen to the 92 percent of producers surveyed who opposed this tax and withdraw this regulation today? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Well, Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased the member is continuing to or has again raised the issue that is very important to producers. I can tell the member that we are proceeding with additional members to the council and we are putting in place the mechanism to collect the levy. I would encourage the member to recognize how important it is that we have the opportunity to increase slaughter capacity in this province, and I would encourage him to support Manitoba industries rather than supporting Alberta industries and continuing to export to Alberta. Mr. Speaker: Order. Time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Statement Mr.

Speaker: I have a statement first and then I have a ruling. First of all, I would like to ask the members for their co-operation. We have two recycling bins on each side and those are for the Hansards that members have, if they do not need them. Some members require extra copies, and we use those bins for recycling Hansards to members. There have been pop cans and paper cups that have been thrown in there, and they are destroying the Hansards that we are trying to recycle. So, on this side for now, pop cans and for now, you will see blue recycling bins.

Those will be there until we get matching bins built for the pop cans and the paper cups. I just ask the co-operation of all honourable members to help us to do the best we can in recycling. * (14:20) Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. Following the prayer on May 5, 2006, the honourable Member for Ri ver Heights (Mr. Gerrard) raised a matter of privilege contending that the office of the Auditor General was being underfunded, which had the effect of delaying reports, which in turn impaired the ability of MLAs to do their jobs effectively.

At the conclusion of his remarks, he moved "THAT this matter of privilege be referred to a standing committee of the legislature." The honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh), the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) and the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) also offered contributions to the Chair. I took the matter under advisement in order to consult the procedural authorities. I thank all members for their advice to the Chair on this matter. There are two conditions that must be satisfied in order for the matter raised to be ruled in order as a prima facie case of privilege.

First, was the issue raised at the earliest oppo rtunity and, second, has sufficient evidence been provided to demonstrate that the privileges of the House had been breached in order to warrant putting the matter to the House. The honourable Memb er for River Heights asserted that he was raising the issue at the earliest opportunity, and I accept the word of the honourable member. Regarding the second issue of whether a prima facie case was demonstrated, it is important to determine whether parliamentary privilege has been breached in the actions complained of.

I would like to note for the House that a virtually identical matter of privilege was raised in the Canadian House of Commons on March 9, 1972, when five motions for priv ilege were brought before Speaker Lucien Lamoureux concerning the failure of the federal Auditor General to table his annual report as required by law.

It was contended in the motions of privilege brought forward that the then- government had failed to properly fund the office of the federal Auditor General which had an impact on staff and resources for that office, and which created delays in submitting reports, and that the delay of the report affected the priv ileges of members by impeding them in the discharge of their duties.

2880 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 Speaker Lamoureux ruled on March 10, 1972, that there was no prima facie case of privilege, as the complaint about the facilities of the Auditor General's office does not relate to privilege but rather to a matter of administration. Speaker Lamoureux stated in ruling "I remind Honourable Members that this is not a decision on the substance of the matter but one only on procedure, which is the limit of the Speaker's responsibility in such matters." He also indicated that the matter could be raised under different circumstances on another occasion.

I would therefore rule with the greatest of respect that the matter raised is not in order as a prima facie case of privilege. This, however, does not prevent the member from raising the issue in other areas, such as questions in the House, or during discussions held by the Public Accounts Committee or other such decision making bodies for the Legislative Assembly. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Canadian Women in World War II Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the great number of exceptional Canadian women who served their country with valour and distinction during the Second World War.

The spirited service of over 40,000 women in Canada's Armed Forces provided an immeasurable contribution to Canada's war effort. The Second World War was unprecedented in world history. The size of its theatres and the enormous number of people mobilized taxed the Canadian forces to the limit. Canadian women did not hesitate and quickly responded to the urgent need. Thousands enlisted in the various branches of the service. The Canadian Women's Army Corps surged with recruits while many others joined the Royal Canadian Air Force Women's Division as well as the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service.

Faced with systemic discrimination and antiquated stereotypes, these women persevered in their work. Filling many important and non- traditional positions, the women supported the home front and war effort in a va riety of ways: as nurses and dispatchers, but also as mechanics, machinists, firefighters and signallers . Their diligence and the quality of their work soon put the prejudice to rest and quickly won them the respect and admiration of their colleagues, the Armed Forces and Canadian society as a whole. Mr.

Speaker, the legacy of Canadian women's service in the Second World War is a rich heritage of patriotism, bravery and determination. I ask that all members join me in recognizing the incredible efforts that the thousands of Canadian women made during the war, the challenges that they overcame and the significance of the contribution they made to the war effort and to our country. These trailblazers paved the way for generations of women to come. Thank you. Springers Gymnastic Club Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Springers Gymnastics for the excellent service that they provide to Charleswood residents as well as residents from many other areas. Springers has been an integral part of the community for many years. I am honoured to have been a part of many of the activities held there over the years. I have been very impressed with the efforts of the staff and volunteers and the professional manner in which the club is run. They provide a valuable service to the community as well as providing jobs to many youth in their programs as coaches.

It is timely that we recognize efforts made by such organizations. They encourage activity for the participants, and the value of this activity in keeping our young people fit is immeasurable. In particular, I would like to recognize the accomplishments of Springers this past year. Springers sent a number of regional stream athletes to the Manitoba Winter Games in Beausejour. Springers athletes were part of the team that took home the gold medal. Springers sent a team of power tumblers to the T and T Western Canada Cup in Airdrie, Alberta, where one of their athletes placed first.

Springers had seven artistic gymnasts compete at the Western Canadian Gymnastics Championships in Saskatoon. They had several athletes make the finals and place in the top 10. Springers sent one athlete, Sarah Flett, to the national Gymnastics Championships in Québec City. Sarah qualified for all-around finals, placing 19th all around and 12th in the floor exercise. Springers Gymnastics adheres to levels of excellence in carrying out their gymnastic activities. The accomplishments that they have attained represent a lot of hard work.

The discipline, motivation and ability to focus will be skills that each gymnast will carry with them for the rest of their lives. Along with a firm belief that you can

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2881 accomplish whatever you set your mind to, they will reach many of their goals. I wish to congratulate all of the athletes and volunteers and wish them good luck in future challenges as gymnasts. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Wellington School 100th Anniversary Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Speaker, Wellington School is celebrating a century of learning during the week of May 29. Students and staff have been preparing for months for this 100th anniversary celebration. On Monday, May 29, the school unveiled the centennial mural at its official opening assembly.

Students, under the direction of art director Rhian Brynjolson, painted several 4 by 4 foot canvases that were assembled to form tw o murals to be displayed on either side of the school. This week, the school opens its doors to the public showing it archives and various multicultural displays. Events this week include a multicultural tea with live entertainment, a lemonade lounge featuring guest readings by students and finally a community barbeque on Friday. Wellington School has a long and impressive history. In 1906, a three-storey, 10-classroom building was built to serve the surrounding area.

In 1972, the old building was demolished in favour of a larger, more modern facility. In the century that Wellington has existed, our city and province have changed greatly. However, the population of Wellington School has remained the same, a diversity of students from different backgrounds and cultural groups. When it first opened its doors, over half its population was of Icelandic descent. Indeed, some of the Olympic champion Winnipeg Falcons attended the school. Today, as then, its student population is comprised of a rich cultural mosaic. Mr.

Speaker, I congratulate Wellington School on a hundred years of excel lence, and I wish all students and staff a memorable celebration of this important milestone. I encourage all members and the public to drop in to Wellington School this week to join my family and I in celebrating the rich history of this wonderful school and the significant role that it has played in Winnipeg's West End. Thank you. * (14:30) Beef Levy Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Today, I rise with reluctance with regard to the $2 checkoff fee that has been proposed by the NDP government and was supposed to be implemented today, June 1.

We have seen one disaster after another from this government, and we know that it has been very clear this has been one of them. Mr. Speaker, $1.2 million is going to be taken out of the hands of the farmers within the province of Manitoba, and this government is saying they are going to use it for increasing slaughter capacity. There have been a number of comments that have been put on the record in regard to the slaughter capacity, and they say it is going to go to Alberta. We had an opportunity, in the province of Manitoba, three years ago to do someth ing. What have we seen from this government?

Nothing but lip service. There is such an issue as Grow Bonds that could have been done. What this NDP government did was cancel that particular program, whereby any member of the community, whether it is a businessperson, whether it is a member of the individual community that believes in a project, they could have moved this forward. What the government did was to delete that program, not listen to the producers. Mr. Speaker, 92 percent of the farmers th at were surveyed were opposed to the $2 levy. What do they do? Refuse to listen.

Also, the government goes on to say that they are all for increasing the slaughter capacity, but yet they will not take the initiative to move forward. The Clean Environment Commission still has not been tabled yet, Mr. Speaker. They just want to go on and say they are going to do something and yet they really do not want to do anything. They are waiting for the border to open and say, well, they did everything they could. I know the Member for Interlake (Mr.

Nevakshonoff) sits at the back bench and chirps that the next Minister of Agriculture is going to be himself, and he is out there proclaiming that this is a great saviour for the cattle producers. He has a number of people in his area that are calling me on a daily basis saying, hey, listen to us, we do not want this $2 checkoff, listen to us, please. What do they do? No, they trudge forward without any concern for the farmers within his own region. So let us make it very clear, Mr. Speaker. If this government was sincere in moving forward with this particular issue, they would have done it before today.

2882 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 School Patrol Awards Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): I was very pleased to attend the School Patrol Awards at the Winnipeg Convention Centre. Over 500 students were on hand for the event, representing each of Winnipeg's school divisions. The Winnipeg police department awarded 10 elementary schools with prizes for being the top patrol teams in their division. Four other trophies were awarded to the top patrol teams overall. Mr. Speaker, the event was special recognition for the over 8,000 Grades 5 and 6 students in 188 schools city-wide that participated in patrols.

As a former patrol myself, I know that rain or shine these students work as a team to look out for the safety of their peers and the community at large. Mr. Speaker, I would especially like to congratulate the patrols at Greenway School in my constituency of Wolseley who received the first- place award for their division. It is especially fitting that Greenway School was awarded the top prize because 70 years ago Greenway teacher Louise Staples launched the first school patrol program in the history of Canada.

Also, at the awards we were very pleased to hear a presentation by a gentleman who in 1936 actually served as a member of the first school patrol team at Greenway, under the direction of Ms. Staples. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate all of Winnipeg school patrols for their effort s to ensure the safety of their fellow citizens. I would like to thank the Winnipeg Police Service in particular for putting on this important event and all of the teachers, administrators, parents and volunteers who work behind the scenes supporting our school patrols. Thank you. GRIEVANCES Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Member for Minnedosa, on a grievance? Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am grieving on a situation that affects very closely the constituents of Minnedosa. I am going to start with a quote, Mr. Speaker: "Farmers are facing a crisis and expect leadership from government. What level of leadership has the minister's office demonstrated today that has in any way solved the crisis our farm families are facing today?" This quote was made by the current Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) on May 26, 1999.

I guess what is most disturbing is how disgraceful and how ineffective this minister has been in her role as the mi nister. Her re cord speaks volumes to her inability to work with the farm community, to negotiate with her Cabinet on behalf of the agriculture community. So I speak today in a grievance, specifically on her inability to understand that the current cattle checkoff program will not address the issues that our farm families are facing. Mr.

Speaker, an unprecedented number of cattle producers in Manitoba remain in opposition to this government's plan to collect $1.2 million from ranchers through an ill-conceived head tax on Manitoba cattle sales. The government has stated repeatedly that it is committed to increasing slaughter capacity in Manitoba, yet for three years it has done nothing to help ranchers. In fact, it has hindered the recovery from the BSE crisis through greater regulation burdens, poorly devised loan programs, and now a tax on cattle sales that will deprive farmers of income. Mr.

Speaker, there recen tly were three Manitoba Cattle Producer-hosted meetings throughout the province, and a survey was presented to the producers that were in attendance. The survey indicated that 92 percent of its members opposed the NDP's plan to impose a non-refundable checkoff on cattle sales. However, the Minister of Agriculture continues to refuse to listen to their position. In fact, Mr. Speaker, at the meeting in Brandon that I attended, the minist er's closing remarks were: Do you not want a slaughter capacity in the province?

It was an offensive comment, or a question made to the group because, obviously, a number of people have put money towards Ranchers Choice and are very committed to slaughter capacity. So, again, the minister just seemed out of touch and just did not get the fact that they were over 1,100 people there wanting to make sure the minister understood the seriousness of her actions. Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine, Pat Davis [phonetic], wrote to me recently. I am going to share with the House her comments. I also have her comments to table if the members opposite wish to receive them.

It is from Pat Davis [phonetic], and she indicates: We, in Manitoba, are being held hostage by the Minister of Agriculture, as seen by the number attending the rally at the Keystone Centre in Brandon. This cattle commission of hers is not a good thing for the province. If Manitoba were

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2883 the best place for slaughterhouses, they would be here already. Producers were given an option to invest or not, and those who choose not are now being forced. For producers living close to the borders of neighbouring provinces, where will they market their cattle? Certainly not in Manitoba, and take off $2 per head for he r birdbrained idea. Does that put slaughterhouses in Manitoba on an even playing field, not to mention our cattle buyers? Do these people on the commission have any experience in the slaughterhouse industry?

I think not, but they will collect their big salaries regardless. This is supposed to be a free country, but this is not freedom of choice. This has to be stopped. We do not raise cattle on our farms, but I cannot help but wonder what will be next on the agenda. The powers granted to this commission are too wide ranging. Please give this matter your utmost attention before our farming community is faced with another disaster. Mr. Speaker, I share in Pat Davis's [phonetic] comments. After three years of inaction, the best that this government has devised is another tax on cattle sales.

This is no solution to the slaughter capacity in Manitoba. Unfortunately, many producers will feel fully justified in selling their cattle in neighbouring provinces where there are no such levies. Despite their name, the New Democratic Party has shown only contempt for Canada's democratic process. They have consistently refused to allow cattle producers to vote on whether the cattle checkoff should be refundable. Our farm families should have the right to receive a refund on their investment should they be dissatisfied with the management of the funds.

This government is afraid to grant them that right because it knows how inept its management abilities truly are. Based on the Crocus Fund fiasco, Mr. Speaker, and that was also mentioned at the farm meeting in Brandon, based on that and the government's inability or non-compliance to an inquiry, it just shows how far this government will go to not do the right thing. This NDP government has failed to lay out its plan for how it will administer the money. It takes from the struggling producers.

The minister's department refuses to indicate what interest rates it will charge to those foolish enough to take money from them. The best we have heard from this government is prime plus a bit, Mr. Speaker. Do they even have a plan for addressing interest rates? Will producers even have an opportunity to buy back the equity in their plant? We need answers from this government and some assurances that there is a concrete plan in place. Mr. Speaker, ramifications on default, equity, the percentages of what will be the breakdown.

These were questions that have been asked of this minister's department, and there seem to be very few answers, or no answers, being shared by this minister. Our families should have a right to receive a refund on their investment should they be dissatisfied with the management and the funds. This government is afraid to grant them that right because it knows that there is an inept ability to manage. * (14:40) I would like to speak a little bit about some of the community leaders who have spoken on behalf of this faulty program, Mr. Speaker.

Many muni- cipalities are objecting to the $2-a-head cattle checkoff levy. The key reason that they object to this is because they do not feel that they have been offered a democratic right in the process. The limited information available regarding the levy confirms it was instated by an Order-in-Council, Mr. Speaker. This process was not allowed to be debated on the floor of the Legislature, and Manitobans' democratic system is based on representation of the people and the debate that explores the effectiveness and overall function of the proposed policy.

Discussion and debate often identifies issues and proposes amendments and creates an opportunity to improve the end result. The Order-in-Council process, the process and voice of the people through elected representation has been bypassed. The questionable process used has producers and other stakeholders in the ag sector believing that the levy itself will negatively impact an already struggling industry, Mr. Sp eaker.

So I encourage the minister to review what she has put forward, to understand that the agriculture sector is in a very bad situation and that the minister understands that the $1.2-million tax grab has forced several producers to take desperate actions. Some are refusing to fill out their census forms this year to deny the federal government access to critical transfer payment issues. So, Mr. Speaker, Manitoba farmers are very accepting individuals and have been accepting of this

2884 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 government's inability to respond to their needs for three years, but that has ended. The arrogance of this NDP government towards rural Manitoba and farmers is particularly appalling, knowing that we have asked over 193 questions about this NDP's plan for the Manitoba beef industry, and in over three years we have received nothing from this government in response to that. Empty promises, zero response and this lack of effort is utterly shameful. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, on a grievance? Mr.

Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Thank you for the opportunity to rise today to, again, speak to the $2-a-head compulsory cattle le vy that this particular NDP government is going to implement, supposed to be implementing tomorrow. It would appear that the government is not in a position to implement the levy, though. Obviously, they have not done their homework. [interjection] As the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler) has pointed out, they cannot even get a bad idea working. All they know is that they have to collect money because they always come up with expenses. Our government of the day is tax and spend.

We know they can spend money, so now they have to find different areas where they can go and actually find money to spend. This is kind of a last-ditch effort to find some more money somewhere to try and bail out some inadequacies that they have had within their own management. Now, Mr. Speaker, what they are doing, actually, is they are pick ing on an industry that is, quite frankly, down and out. This would just actually pass the three-year time period for the BSE crisis. It was just over three years ago that the border was shut down. The U.S. border was shut down to beef trade.

As a result of that closur e on the border, it certainly impacted rural Manitoba. We know, in fact, that that hurt has passed through all of Manitoba's economy. So, quite frankly, we have been in crisis mode in the beef industry here for the last three years. Unfortunately, this particular government has not given any really positive direction in moving forward, and in giving solutions to the agriculture communities out there. Really, Mr. Speaker, it has been a very, very significant rural issue. It has impacted a lot of farmers, a lot of farm families in rural Manitoba.

We have seen a number of auction sales where producers have been forced out of business. The family farm, as we know it, a lot of them are now gone. They have had to sell their inventories. They have been forced to sell their property as well and forced into finding another job. Quite frankly, we see a significant number of Manitobans moving west, moving to Saskatchewan, moving to Alberta to seek employment. Quite frankly, it is a sign of how our economy is here in rural Manitoba.

We think the government of the day has not taken initiatives forward, to come forward with ideas, provide some serious common- sense solutions to some of the real issues we have in Manitoba. Not only, Mr. Speaker, are the, I will call them, senior producers, some of the older producers, my age and older, being forced out of the business, not just the cattle business but the whole agriculture sector has been forced out. We are also finding our youth in rural Manitoba are being forced away from Manitoba because there are no jobs for them here in Manitoba and especially in rural Manitoba.

So we find the whole generation is being forced to Alberta or B.C., Saskatchewan, to find jobs. So it is a real snowball effect. Until the government recognizes the significance of these changes that are going on throughout Manitoba, this exodus will continue. What we need in the rural economy is something that producers and people in the rural economy can say, yes, I can see something positive happening in rural Manitoba. I can see the economy turning around. I can see some areas where I want to invest money to keep the economy going in rural Manitoba.

Quite frankly, we have not had an economic development strategy for rural Manitoba for a number of years. I think it is something that we really do need in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. We know the government can talk about economic develop- ment, and that is, quite frankly, all they have done for the last seven years, is talk about economic development. But nothing has happened. We have seen the cash receipts for the farm economy go down year after year for the last four years.

We know that the farm income situation is as low as it has ever been in the last decade, and, quite frankly, I do not see anything that is going to turn that economy around. We are in a tight economic

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2885 situation with commodity prices being very low. All grain prices are low. Beef prices are still low. We are still under that pressure from the BSE situation. The other side of the coin, which is really impacting our farm producers, is the rising input costs we have. Certainly, the fuel costs, the fertilizer and the chemical bills have been increasing over the last number of years. So it has been a very, very dramatic situation where you have low commodity prices, low incomes and rising expenses, Mr. Speaker.

So, clearly, the rura l economy is in a tight spot when you look at the revenue side of things. Mr. Speaker, nothing has happened here in the last three years in terms of increase in slaughter capacity in Manitoba. There was a bit of a window there when slaughter capacity would have been a very good thing for Manitoba because we did not have the capacity in Canada to slaughter all of the animals. Unfortunately, three years later, we now are into a situation where we actually have excess slaughter capacity. So we have actually more slaughter capacity in Canada than we have cattle to put through the process.

So, quite frankly, when you look at investing money in a slaughter facility now, as farmers are, they are saying maybe now is not the time to be investing in slaughter facilities. Clearly, we would love to have more slaughter capacity in Manitoba, but the unfortunate

part is the economics might not be there at this point in time. * (14:50) The other thing we found is that Canadian companies have actually gone down into the United States now and purchased slaughter capacity and slaughter plants in the United States. So, when that day comes–and we hope that it may come fairly soon–if the border does open to the cattle over 30 months of age, then I think we will see a big migration of cattle down to the United States. We will be left without having any slaughter capacity in Manitoba, again, Mr. Speaker.

It was interesting to see the process that the minister brought forward here when she introduced the $2-a-head compulsory levy. She brought this forward without any consultation. She brought the whole premise of this commission forward without any consultation with producers, and we know historically that is what this government does. They seem to be afraid of the word "consultation." They talk about consultation, but they never really go out and actually consult with people, and I am talking about stakeholders, stakeholders that might be involved in the beef industry for instance.

They should have taken the opportunity to consult with the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. I want to give some accolades to the Manitoba Cattle Producers Associati on. They have really, in my view, held a lot of producers together over the last few years. It has been a very significant impact they have had here with the BSE situation. I want to commend all the work the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association has done trying to keep the whole business on the rails, Mr. Speaker. So I want to commend them for doing that.

But, again, getting back to the consultation, we know this government always has a lack of consultation. So we want to see that brought forward. This time when they brought the regulations forward to producers there was a real upheaval throughout Manitoba. There were three meetings which, I think there were over 2,000 producers attended those meetings. I along with a number of my colleagues attended those meetings, in particular the one in Brandon where we had over 1,100 producers attend.

As a result of those meetings, the Manitoba Cattle Producers and the auction mart people did a survey of cattle producers, and 92 percent of those producers said that they disagreed with the $2 compulsory levy. So we think in a democratic system we should have the opportunity for the government to listen to those people, the 92 percent who voted against this particular levy, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, it is time the government stopped what they are doing in terms of bringing forward these regulations and this commission and this checkoff.

Stop, smell the coffee, let us come up with some real means to produce some economic activity in Manitoba, and let us look at the long-term solution. Let us abandon this $2 levy. Let us move on. Let us get something done in rural Manitoba. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call the following bills: 30, 24, 25, 32, 27, 29, 28 and 38. If there is time after, we will call the more recent second readings that are listed.

2886 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 T h i s i s o n a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t w e w i l l b e i n Supply tomorrow. I believe that should be all we have to do to ensure that. So if you could confirm that. Mr. Speaker: We will deal with bills in this order: 30, 24, 25, 32, 27, 29, 28 and 38. Tomorrow we will be in Supply. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), on a point of order? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

My understanding is that we would actually have to be in Supply in order to continue to be in Supply tomorrow. Would that not be the case? Mr. Speaker: That is not the case. The government can call for Supply. The Government House Leader is in agreement? Right? Yes. As long it is done before adjournment hour, five o'clock, and he has already indicated that Supply will be called for tomorrow. House Business Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Goertzen), on House business? Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with Rule 31(9), I would like to announce that the private member's resolution now be considered next Thursday morning with the resolution on Reverend Harry Lehotsky, sponsored by the honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. McFadyen). Mr. Speaker: The resolution dealing in private members' hour for next Thursday will be the resolution on the Reverend Harry Lehotsky, brought by the honourable Member for Fort Whyte or the Leader of the Official Op position (Mr. McFadyen). That is for dealing with House business. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 30–The Fires Prevention and Emergency Response Act Mr.

Speaker: Bill 30, The Fires Prevention and Emergency Response Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who has four minutes remaining. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I was wanting more so just to conclude, I guess, my remarks. I did have the opportunity yesterday to speak to the bill, even though at the time I was not overly enthusiastic about having to speak to the bill. But I believe that it is important that as a representative you want to be able to address the legislation that is before you.

There has always been a sincere attempt on my part to be able to do that. I do and have seen, in particular, our fire department at work. To be able to cite a couple of examples whether it is for my–annually, I have a Canada Day celebration, have the opportunity to go and meet with our fire department to make sure that they are okay with what it is that we are doing and always willing to receive and respond to feedback that they might provide. Yesterday I made referen ce to the fact that they do a lot more than most people are aware, our fire department.

We all have constituency offices, and in the commercial area they will often go out into those different buildings, some newer, some old dilapidated buildings. It really varies, but you will see that people responsible for fire in the province are in those buildings do ing the checks that are necessary. Both men and women of the force participate in making sure that those buildings are safe. On occasion, I can say that we have had to abide by a couple of the things that they have suggested us to do. In addition to that, Mr.

Speaker, you will see that they do go out into the communities in a very real, tangible way. In some cases it is on a volunteer basis, maybe a meeting at a local school, providing tips as to what residents could be doing to make sure that their house is appropriately protected, to many other things in terms of going to situations where they are providing advice because they are mandated to do that, even in the residential areas where there is potential for fire hazards. Mr. Speaker, any and all of these things always have the potential to become of an urgent nature.

That is why it is that I think that it is important that we support that grass-roots fire person, in doing what it is that we can to ensure that there are proper protocols and so forth that are put into place. That is why The Fires Prevention and Emergency Response Act, I think, deals in part with that. In other part, as I re ferred to yesterday, is the

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2887 whole issue of gross negligence, and why it is that it is so very important that we as legislators be consistent with the message that we are sending out and how certain things ar e not acceptable. Certain behaviours are not acceptable. When we excuse, whether it is a civil servant or a minister from the possibility of being liable, financially liable, we also have to make sure that there are some checks in place. That would includ e, for example, gross negligence and the importance to allow gross negligence to be recognized as not an acceptable behaviour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. * (15:00) Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, a few comments on Bill 30, The Fires Prevention and Emergency Response Act. First of all, I want to start out by saying some words complimenting the Fire Commissioner and the wo rk that the Fire Commissioner has done.

I think that Manitobans need to be thankful that in general we have had pretty good service over the last number of years from the Fire Commissioner and his office and what this bill does is, in a sense, recognize the good work of the Fire Commissioner and clarify the functions of the Fire Commissioner and give the Fire Commissioner a clearer and, in some ways, larger mandate to make sure that emergencies are responded to appropriately. Mr.

Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair I also want to pay some compliments to the many municipalities who have put in place over the last two or three years em ergency response plans. The need for such emerge ncy response plans was made abundantly clear when there was a significant emergency in The Pas. There was a very heavy rain and there were a lot of basements which were flooded, and there was not an emergency response plan in place.

People, first of all, were not sure where to call, and, second of all, the organization of the response to calls was not as clear or as prompt for many people as it could have been, although the people in the town tried to do their best, because there was not an emergency response plan in place. There was a picture–too many in the community that I heard from–of a considerable level of disorganization. The net result is that it pointed out the importance of putting in place clear emergency response plans for all communities, all municipalities in the province of Manitoba.

I want to compliment the councillors, the mayors, the reeves, who have worked hard to make sure that those plans indeed have been put in place in general, and we hope that they will work. Clearly, there is going to be a learning process in some, but we hope that they will work very well whenever there are emergencies. I think the concerns of opposition members like myself at the time of The Pas situation, the fact that I went up there and visited and talked to people, helped to bring some of these issues to the attention.

The fact that I was out at the association of municipalities speaking to all the municipal leaders about the importance of making sure that this was in place because of the experience in The Pas. All these things, together with what others have done, have helped to make sure that we are in a better state of preparedness for emergencies. So, in general, as Liberals, we would support the nature of this bill.

It will do certain things in terms of the Fire Commissioner and the Fire Commissioner's role, but I also want to point out that we have some areas of concern in this bill, some areas where we feel that there need to be amendments made which will help ensure that this bill functions for all Manitobans, that it provides the right kinds of checks and balances that are needed in the case of emergencies and disasters.

The bill itself talks about the requirement for municipalities and local authorities to have local assistance to investigate the cause, origins, circum- stances, of fires within their boundaries and report to the Fire Commissioner. It talks about insurance companies and adjusters being required to make reports about fires to the fire commissioners. It talks about the authorization of the Fire Commissioner to respond to emergencies and disasters and to be there to co-ordinate the respon se.

The Fire Commissioner and local assistants are to conduct fire investigations and fire safety inspections and issue orders requiring preventive or corrective actions to be taken. The Fire Commissioner may hold an inquiry into the cause, origin, and circumstances of fire. The bill adopts the Manitoba Fire Code by regulation, and each local authority is required to enforce the Manitoba Fire Code within its boundaries and establish a regular system of expecting buildings designated by regulation.

There is a special assessment paid by insurers on property in surance which is carried forward, and the money that is received can be used

2888 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 to assist in the funding of the office of the Fire Commissioner. So, in general, we think that it is a good idea to give the Fire Commissioner the powers and responsibilities outlined in this act, and we are supportive of this act, in general. I feel it would be reasonable for it to go forward and to get comment from people, from citizens, at the next step. The issue that we have in relationship to this bill has to do with the nature of the checks and balances it is important to have between the rights of government and the rights of citizens.

I have been talking quite a bit about the rights of citizens recently, and the importance that governments do not trample on the rights of citizens, and that the powers of government are not used unilaterally to put complications and problems into the lives of citizens. The government, of course, has huge amounts of resources at its disposal.

It is very difficult for citizens to take, successfully, governments to court over actions, and, therefore, it becomes particularly important to be able to put in legislation the right sort of checks and balances which will protect the interests of citizens in light of the powers of government. This is the area that I want to speak to and which I think needs some quite particular attention.

Let us, for example, take one of the areas under this bill, the costs of actions of the measures taken by the Fire Commissioner and one presumes, then, people acting under the authority of the Fire Commissioner, too, in the event of emergencies, disasters which are considered to be an amount which is owed to the Fire Commissioner by the person who caused the emergency or disaster.

Now let us look at some examples because, clearly, we have examples of both individuals causing emergencies or disasters or natural events causing emergencies or disasters, or actions, interestingly enough, by corporations or by governments or government bodies which contribute to causing an emergency or disaster. Heavy rain and much more wet weather we would generally consider as a natural disaster, but the actions of individuals or governments in response to that disaster can create costs and problems for other people, can result in costs and problems. * (15:10) Now, let me give you an example.

In the Red River flood of '97, the action was taken, and rightly so, under the circumstances, to protect the City of Winnipeg, to open the floodway, to divert water through the floodway, but it had the unfortunate secondary consequence of causing a disaster to a number of people who live just upstream from the floodway. It raised the level of water and caused what people have referred to as artificial flooding. You, therefore, have government or individuals working on behalf of, or for the government and for the public, who caused a disaster to these individuals.

They protected other individuals from the same disaster, but that is the nature of the decisions that have to be made sometimes. Clearly, when that happens, when you protect some people but cause other people to have much more problems with the disaster than they would have had, then that needs to be taken into cons ideration. There needs to be, and we have talked about it in this Chamber, appropriate measures to compensate those individ- uals or businesses who have suffered consequences of actions taken.

This talks about individuals, but it should be by governments as well in that circumstances in the overall effort to protect the Red River Valley, there were extra costs to the Fire Commissioner, or let us put it this way, in the whole emergency response effort, as a result of people who are upstream getting much more water, higher water, than they had expected. There were emergency evacuations, people moved out, and considerable complications. So here is an example where we need to have the appropriate checks and balances.

We have to admit that under emergency situations there may be times where, in order to help some people in dealing with the emergency, you may cause problems for others. So there are benefits and costs to the actions taken under the direction of the Fire Commissioner, or may be taken under the direction of the Fire Commissioner. The way that we would see it is this, that there need to be some checks and balances in ensuring that those costs are assigned appropriately.

A concern that I would have under this legislation is that there ar e not adequate checks and balances to the power of the Fire Commissioner to assign costs. There is not adequate clarity in terms of knowing fault with problems, emergencies. What is natural? What is man-made? There are a whole series of issues, I suggest, which need to be considered here. So let us look at the possibility of having an amendment here which would provide a check and balance on the power of government to

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2889 make sure that the rights of citizens are adequately and well protected. Let me move on to another example. In this legislation, the legislation deals with sending notices to individuals. Now these are notices which are specific orders or notices coming from the Fire Commissioner. They are orders or notices which can have very, very important information, and the assumption is made in this legislation that once an e-mail is sent, that it is deemed to be received. Mr.

Speaker in the Chair Now, that would be all very well if one knew that everybody put their computer on every day. Sure, there are a lot of people who put their computers on every day, but there are a lot of people who do not, not because they are bad or delinquent or trying to cause problems , who do not necessarily put their computer on every day. Well, there is a little bit of protection, as it were, for people who might not put their computer on over the weekend, but there is not, I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, adequate recognition, and I have talked to a number of people who have computers and who have e-mails but who do not use them all that regularly. They would have been deemed to have received a message, and they would have never seen the message because they did not have their computer on for several days. I think that this is an area which needs to be looked at. I recognize that this whole area of e-mail and e-mail notices is an area which we will be getting more and more into in a variety of circumstances, and we need to have an appropriate way of dealing with this because most of the time it works.

But I want to give you a couple of other examples. What is happening at the moment is that individuals who have e-mail and use their e-mail are more and more getting loaded with junk, not only junk e-mail but all sorts of e-mail. So the problem here is that some people now are getting hundreds of e-mails every day. Well, you know, are you going to deem that a message has been received when it is one out of several hundred e-mails? Even the best of people going through several hundred e-mails cannot always determine which ones are the critical ones that they need to look at. Mr.

Speaker, one of the issues here is this, that some people, in response to this, now use software which one might call sort of screening software, which would eliminate the spam e-mails or the e-mails that you do not want from getting through. This software can work in various ways in protecting people from unwanted e-mails, but it sometimes has the disadvantage of also filtering out e-mails which you really want to come through and which might have been deemed to have come through.

Some of this screening, in fact, requires that you put down who you actually want to receive e-mail from, and the people who you do not may end up either not getting through or it may end up in your junk e-mail box. I have had occasions when e-mails that I wanted to receive had ended up being classed as junk and put in the junk e-mail box. So this is a problem if you deemed to have received an e-mail, and you do not want to have to look through all the junk e-mail to find the e-mail from the Fire Commissioner.

You do not want to have to have a beautiful filtering system which prevents unwanted e-mails getting through, but unbeknownst to you, without this intention at all, it prevents the e-mail from the Fire Commissioner from getting through, but you are still deemed to have received that, to have got it, to have paid attention to it. I would suggest to you there needs to be a little bit in the way here of checks and balances, that there needs to be some assurance that the individual has indeed received the e-mail. There may be some ways of doing this.

Some messages now can require a reply or some evidence that it has been looked at to go back to the sender. That is certainly an option that could be put in here. Where that reply is received, it can be deemed to have been received by the person, and where that reply has not been received, then the government is going to have to find some other way of making sure that the message actually gets to the individual, would be a good way.

I suggest that the message would get to individuals through e-mail probably 98 percent of the time, but the government would have the onus two percent of the time of making that extra effort to make sure that people actually got the e-mail and not making the assumption that the e-mail has got through. This is perhaps a minor point, but it could be a very significant point for some people.

I think that as we move more and more in terms of looking at how we operate in the electronic age, we need to be cognizant of how the system works and how people actually get and receive e-mail and what can be done to make sure that the system works and works well.

2890 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 The other area where I think that there needs to be some significant improvement in the nature of the checks and balances is, in fact, in the areas of this bill which are put in place to provide immunity or protection from liability to the Fire Commissioner or a designate of the Fire Commissioner or a person acting under the authority of the act. Now, that could apply to the minister. It could apply to a wide variety of people.

I mean, the claim to be acting under the authority of the act could be made by many, many people. * (15:20) To start with, maybe it would have been smart to have at least some sort of a definition to know how broad or how narrow this is going to be constituted. We are dealing with emergencies. Anybody responding to an emergency could say, well, I was acting under the authority of this act. I was responding to an emergency. So, therefore, I am immune from being sued. Let us use some common sense here in how we address this.

The second thing is that the immunity is provided to the Fire Commissioner, the designate, anybody who is acting under the authority of the act, and we still do not know how broad that is. But the immunity is provided for anything done or not done or any neglect. It is a very, very broad provision.

It is interesting that the only exception to this is if a person was acting in bad faith, and the concern here is–although "bad faith" is a term which is used in the legal framework, because we are dealing with a bill which may give this power to so many people, it would have been quite helpful to have a definition in the act of bad faith. Where does it apply, you know? Let me give you an example why this is an issue.

Under Bill 34, which is the whistle-blower legislation, there is the ability for a whistle-blower or somebody who sees something wrong being done to come forward and report, with protection, where they report somebody who is knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing who is a public servant or within the public service or related to the public service. So the issue here is that, if somebody is counselling somebody else or directing them to do a wrongdoing, one would presume that that person would be doing that in bad faith, right?

They would be doing this inappropri- ately, obviously inappropriately, but we need clarity here because if you have got protection under the whistle-blower act for somebody to bring these issues forward, but you then have under this act immunity for everybody who might be affected, it creates a–somebody is going to say, why should I bring this forward? All these people are not going to. Say, like the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) is doing these terrible things but he is all immune. So, you know, I mean, I can bring it forward but nothing would happen. So, there is a problem here.

An Honourable Member: Not that I would. Mr. Gerrard: The Minister of Conservation says he would never do something like that, but the thing is that the role of properly designed legislation is so that the Minister of Conservation or people in the public service know that there are checks to their powers, that the Minister of Conservation should know that, if he does something which is grossly wrong, he can be held to account. One hopes that he never would, you know. If the Member for Selkirk (Mr.

Dewar) did, but we hope and we would expect that there would never be any problems, but the fact is there needs to be some mechanism so that people know that if push comes to shove, and they do something which is just grossly wrong, and they know it is grossly wrong, that they can be held to account. Sometimes just having that there is all you need so that people will not get the idea that they can do anything with immunity, without liability. I have talked here about the issue and the need for a better definition of bad faith, but there are issues around gross incompetence.

People should not be protected from liability for doing things which are grossly incompetent and which cause problems. We have here, in this very act, a clause which says that somebody who does something grossly incompetent and causes an emergency, can be held liable and ascribed costs by the Fire Commissioner, right? But the same act, if this was somebody who was within the government and saying they are acting to respond to an emergency, they are actually given immunity from the same liability. We need some clarification because the act itself seems to say different things.

There is a need to make sure that somebody who is grossly negligent–we are not talking about somebody who has good intentions and has a lapse of memory or something like that–but somebody

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2891 who is grossly negligent where it is very clear that the inappropriate action was not taken when it could have been taken. I would give you an example. I was up in Red Deer Lake earlier this y ear. This was a community, which, when I was there, people were working very hard to put sandbags up. But it was quite clear from talking with a number of people there that the only way you were likely going to be able to protect that community was to put a dike around the whole community.

There were people with experience in that community, in Barrows, who said: Well, look, we can do this. We could put a dike around the whole community. We have got to act really fast. We have got to have good direction. The emergency response people decided, no, we will just provide some more sandbags and personnel. We will not put the dike around the whole community. In this instance, it may be that you can say it was negligent not to do that, but I would say that their intentions were, hopefully, that the flood was not going to get worse. They were not grossly negligent.

They just did not do what might have been optimal. But if they were grossly negligent, then there needs to be some mechanism to hold people to account. We are not interested in going after people who have good intentions and just make a little slip-up. What we are interested in doing is sending a message that if you are grossly negligent. Gross incompetence or gross mismanagement, under Bill 34, whistle- blowers are protected if they bring forward instances of gross mismanagement including of public funds or public assets. An Honourable Member: It is encouraging. Mr. Gerrard: Yes.

So the problem here is that all of a sudden you are giving immunity from liability for the people who were affected or who might have been doing the gross mismanagement. So the whistle-blower is going to say: Well, why should I bring it forward because there is nothing that is going to happen, because we can show that they grossly mismanaged public funds, that they are going to be immune, because that is the nature of how this bill is working?

I predict that there are going to be instances under some of these bills where this exact thing will happen, that people will be grossly negligent, and we will find that they are protected and that we will have to go back and revise all these statutes and put in clauses like the gross negligence, gross incompetence. So that, you know, the lack of attention to detail by this government–it is interesting that the Conservatives have not spoken out of their concern of this clause.

Ma ybe they are not speaking out because they feel that they might be in government, a mistaken assumption, but they feel that they might be in government and they might want this protection. They do not want to be liable if they make big mistakes. But I would challenge the Conservatives to speak on these terms– An Honourable Member: Put it on the blog. Mr. Gerrard: Well, I will give the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) and the other Conservatives a little bit of time before I put it on my blog, just to give them more chance– * (15:30) Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time has expired.

Any other speakers? Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 30, The Fires Prevention and Emergency Response Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 24–The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Government Cheque Cashing Fees) Mr. Speaker: Bill 24, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Government Cheque Cashing Fees), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Inkster? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied. The honourable Member for Inkster, to speak? Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for River Heights, on a point of order? Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I r i s e o n a point of order. First of all, let us talk about this circumstance. There has been the ability for a long

2892 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 time in this Chamber for members of the opposition parties to be able to stand debates or stand bills, to have them stand adjourned. We have an agreement that the government would not bring in closure under this, under other forms, and that was in the agreement of I think it was June 9, 2005. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised, the Speaker has no authority over negotiations of the members. All I can do is call the bills and the procedure according to our rules.

Our rules are that, when a bill is called, the member's name it is standing in, either they have the opportunity to speak or if they do not take that opportunity, they lose their right to speak. That is the only authority I have as the Speaker. Other business of the House is usually negotiated amongst the House leaders, and I am not a party to that. My job is to enforce the rules of the House. What agreements you guys have agreed to, that is entirely your business, but my job here as the Speaker is to run the Chamber according to our rules.

Agreements are struck by House leaders, and what they agree to, that is their business, but my job can only be the functioning of the House according to our rules. So the honourable member , there is no point of order. This is government business, and I am instructed by the government to call the bills in the order, and that is what I am doing. So the honourable member is rising to speak to the bill? Mr. Gerrard: I am rising on another point of order. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: Okay, the honourable Member for River Heights, on a new point of order. Mr.

Gerrard: It is in practice, the Conservatives have stood bills for many years. We have stood bills for many years. Our intent was– Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just dealt with that issue. I can only give you the parameters that I can function in as a Speaker. If you want to negotiate House business, please do it with the House leaders, but I have no authority over negotiations of the House. I can only follow what the House instructs me to do. I have already dealt with that issue. Point of Order Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, on another point of order. Mr. Speaker: On a new point of order. Mr.

Gerrard: I w a n t t o m a k e i t v e r y c l e a r t o t h e Government House Leader– Mr. Speaker: Order. When rising on a point of order, it is to do with the rules of the House or the practices of the House and not to–hopefully, not to negotiate with the House leader. The first statement I heard was: I want to make it very clear to the House leader. I hope you are rising on a point of order to point out to me a breach of a rule of our Chamber. Mr.

Gerrard: It is a breach of a practice in this Chamber, and the rule, which is the rule which was agreed to, the resolution which was agreed to jointly, which we are prepared to keep, and we heard that the Premier (Mr. Doer) was prep ared to keep when he answered in Question Period. Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying to fulfil my role as the Speaker. What has been negotiated amongst the House leaders, that is your business, but my job here in the House is to ensure that we follow our rules. Our rules state that it is government business, they call the bills.

My job as the Speaker is to call the bill and to follow the process. The process is in our rules, when I call a bill, if it is standing in the name of any honourable member, then that honourable member should rise to speak. If the honourable member or the House agrees to leave it standing, that is the decision of the House that is instructing me to leave it standing in the name of that honourable member. If there is a no, then that member has the opportunity to speak now or forfeit their opportunity. I can only follow the rules.

If you have a complaint or disagreements with whatever has been negotiated, please deal with the House leaders. That is where it belongs. So I am calling Bill 24, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Government Cheque Cashing Fees), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Inkster, on a point of order.

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2893 Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, Mr. Speaker, our rules clearly indicate that all members of this Chamber are honourable members. I think that, with respect to what took place in Question Period today, when the Pr emier (Mr. Doer) gave very clear indication that he endorses this agreement– Mr. Speaker: Order. I just explained I have made a ruling because I have no authority over what the House leaders agree to. I can only fulfil what the rules tell me I can do. What you are asking me to decide on is something that I have absolutely no authority over.

It is the House leaders that have to negotiate and come up with whatever agreement that you guys want to have. But that is absolutely not for me to decide for you, because my job is to enforce the rules as they are, according to our guides. If you have a complaint with a House leader or if you disagree with what you have negotiated, deal with the House leaders. I cannot deal with those complaints. That is not in my authority. That is all I am trying to tell you. Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, then just to seek clarification on either th at point of order, or if I have to stand on a new point of order.

But my understanding was, and please do correct me if I am wrong, that if the Premier indicates that he does not support closure, is there any responsibility on your part, by forcing–is there any latitude whatsoever on the Speaker's Chair to protect the integrity of the word of the Premier? Mr. Speaker: There are two things. First of all, you are asking me a hypothetical question and you are asking me my opinion. I cannot have an opinion on that because what someone tells you what happens, that is up to the two parties. It is not up to me. Mr. Lamoureux: Well, then I will speak to Bill 24– Mr. Speaker: Order.

Let us be careful with our language. I know we might have disagreements once in a while in the House, but we are still in the Manitoba Legislative Chamber and the dignity of the Chamber should be maintained at all times. I think we should pick our words carefully and have a debate that is appropriate to make sure we preserve the dignity of this Chamber. * * * Mr. Speaker: I am going to call second reading on Bill 24, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Government Cheque Cashing Fees), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Inkster. * (15:40) Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I am very much disappointed in this government and its bullying attitude. I do believe that the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) has demonstrated very clearly that he has absolutely no respect for agreements, that the government is fully aware that what it is doing is forcing me to speak on this bill. I have no choice but to speak on this bill at this time, and let me tell you something. Bill 24 was first introduced to this Chamber on May 24. Then on May 29 another member spoke to this, and the Government House Leader laughs.

He makes a mockery of the democratic process by his behaviour inside this Chamber, and that is the reality of it. You know something, because you happen to have a larger number than what we might have within this entity, the Liberal Party entity inside this Chamber, does not necessa rily make you right. A minority of one can, in fact, be correct, and I would suggest that some issues are important enough that you should put your party second. This is a very important bill. It affects many Manitobans, and those Manitobans have the right to hear their repre- sentatives speak to the legislation. The Premier (Mr.

Doer) today, in his place, when I asked the question about allowing for this agreement to prevail, said yes. I will pull the Hansard and find out exactly what it is that he has said and then share it with this Chamber and other people as to exactly what the Premier said. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very important bill that all Manitobans should have, if not have, a concern about, with the exception of this government in their attitude to shove it down the throats of all Manitobans whether it is good or bad.

We need to recognize that it was only May 24 when this bill was introduced for second readi ng, and then they expect that this bill will, in fact, pass second reading and then go to committee and then pass and then become law. That is outside of an agreement that was signed and passed by each and every one of us. That agreement very clearly in dicated the process in which bills should be passed including, in essence, putting it in the form of a closure. Including this bill, this bill was a part of it. All the legislation that we are debating today, that we have been debating over

2894 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 1, 2006 the last little while, is obligated to the degree in which it is a part of that agreement. My constituents and the constituents of Manitoba deserve better, when you deal with a bill such as Bill 24 which deals with a critical issue of cheque-cashing fees, if you take a look at the agencies throughout the province, it is not just one little sector, Mr. Speaker. These cheque-clearing agencies are throughout the province. There is a responsibility for us to make sure that there is due process and diligence.

When I was first elected in 1988, I can recall Jay Cowan, whom I had a tremendous amount of respect for. Jay Cowan, I do not know if he sat here or maybe he sat in your chair over here, Mr. Speaker, he would actually stand and speak on final offer selection, and he spoke, I do not know, what is it, eight to 12 hours because he felt so passionately about that legislation, very passionately about the legislation. He talked about the process, the process which the government was going through in order to achieve the passage of that bill. I want to talk about that process.

I want to do what Jay Cowan did, and I want to talk about the process that this government is using, which is abusive of members' rights inside of this Chamber. The member from Brandon, whom I have– [interjection] Well, I am told that I am supposed to respect all. So I will respect all. But I would suggest to the member from Brandon, Mr. Speaker, that he pay very special attention because there might be a day in which he might have to rely on the rules to protect his rights.

If this is an example of how you protect minority rights, I think it is disgraceful. [interjection] We know that you know that what it is that I think, and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I will stand up for minority rights, and you will not stand up for minority rights, and that is the difference. Whether it is the rights inside this Chamber on legislation, on Bill 24, or the rights that go beyond this Chamber and deal with– Mr. Speaker: O r d e r . I j u s t w a n t t o c o r r e c t something here.

Unless my hearing was bad, but I thought I heard the honourable member say, if this is how you protect minorities' rights, we have a real problem. If you are reflecting on me as the Speaker, I would be very, very careful. Mr. Lamoureux: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no problem in terms of being very careful with that. It is absolutely no reflection whatsoever on you. I think, in essence, what has happened is that dealing with Bill 24 and other bills, the government is hiding behind your Chair. They are relying on you to do the dirty work and you are doing what it is that you are supposed to do.

You are protecting the minority rights inside this Chamber, because the government refuses to– Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not, as long as I am in this Chair–I want to make it very clear to all the member–as long as I am in this Chair, I will not be doing any kind of work for the opposition or for the government. I will enforce the rules as they are written, and I will apply them the same to either side. So I am not doing any kind of work for anyone, whether it is clean or dirty work. I am not doing any favours for anyone. I never have and I never will. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Speaker, I acknowledge that, and I agree with what it is that you are saying. I do not question that at all. I believe, and I have had the opportunity to be present when there were other Speakers. In no way, whatsoever, is it a reflection on you or your Chair. What I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is manipulating your–by you having to fulfil your responsibilities as the Speaker of this House, the government knows full well that all it has to do is say no and not allow me to speak on Bill 24. That is all it has to do.

You, as the Speaker, as you have correctly done, you have said now that I have to speak on this bill. I do not have any choice, not because of you, Mr. Speaker, but because the government chose to deny me the opportunity to be able to stand on the bill. So that is why I say that what the government is doing is that it is using your practical and accurate rulings in order to achieve what it is that it wants to achieve. Mr. Speaker, that is the issue. I remember when the NDP were in opposition, they made accusations of the government using and manipulating the Chair.

I was there when the opposition made those accusations. Quite frankly, I could not, and nor would I, make any sort of accusations of that nature of you. I want to be very clear on that issue because I do believe that you have been fair and responsible in your dealings in regard to these issues.

June 1, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2895 But, Mr. Speaker, I do want to take exception to this government. After all, as I say, it was just a couple of hours ago inside this very Chamber I was concerned enough about being forced to speak on bills like Bill 24 prematurely that I raised the issue with the Premier (Mr. Doe r), and the Premier said, yes, he would abide by the agreement. That agreement does not allow for closure on bills that they did not meet the requirement on. Because of their sloppy attitude in dealing with the legislative business of Manitobans, this bill does not deal with it.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, now they are trying to invoke, and it is closure. When you force someone to speak, you are forcing closure. You know, that is the ultimate. Members across the way laugh, but I can tell you they should read Hansard when they were in opposition, and you will find some of the same very comments being made by New Democrats. I will suggest to you if you went and you talked to democrati

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-4-81b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 4th hansardpdf 81b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ae13c86584cd37768988456a25a3e3219a38795c

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