Manitoba Hansard — 10 May 2005 (Sitting 44, 38th Legislature, 3rd Session)

38-3-44

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LVI No. 44 - 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 10, 2005

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

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

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

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

2547 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, May 10, 2005 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Riverdale Health Centre Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for the petition: The Riverdale Health Centre services a population of approximately 2000, including the Town of Rivers and the R.M. of Daly, as well as the Sioux Valley First Nation and local Hutterite colonies.

The need for renovation or repair of the Riverdale Health Centre was identified in 1999 by the Marquette Regional Health Authority (RHA) and was the No. 1 priority listed in the RHA's 2002-2003 Operational Plan. To date, the community has raised over $460,000 towards the renovation or repair of the health centre. On June 1, 2003, the Premier (Mr. Doer) made a commitment to the community of Rivers that he would not close or downgrade the services available at Riverdale Health Centre.

Due to physician shortages, the Riverdale Health Centre has been closed to acute care and emergency services for long periods since December 2003, forcing community members to travel to Brandon or elsewhere for health care services. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Premier to consider ensuring that acute care and emergency services are available to the residents of Rivers and surrounding areas in their local hospital and to live up to his promise to not close the Rivers Hospital. To request that the Minister of Health (Mr.

Sale) consider developing a long-term solution to the chronic shortages of front line health care profes- sionals in rural Manitoba. This petition has been signed by Brian R. English, Derwyn Hammond, Mona Hammond and many, many others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. * (13:35) Pembina Trails School Division–New High School Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for this petition: Overcrowded schools throughout Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods, Linden Ridge and Richmond West subdivisions are forcing Pembina Trails School Division to bus students outside of these areas to attend classes in the public school system. Elementary schools in Pembina Trails School Division have run out of space to accommodate the growing population of students in the afore- mentioned areas. Five-year projections for enrolment in the elementary schools in these areas indicate significant continued growth.

Existing high schools that receive students from Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods and Linden Ridge are at capacity and cannot accommodate the growing number of students that will continue to branch out of these subdivisions. Bussing to outlying areas is not a viable long- term solution to meeting the student population growth in the southwest portion of Winnipeg.

2548 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 The development of Waverley West will increase the need for a hi gh school in the southwest sector of Winnipeg. The government is demonstrating a lack of respect for the students and families of Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods, Linden Ridge and Richmond West by refusing to provide adequate access to education within the community. The Fort Whyte constituency is the only constituency in the province that does not have a public high school.

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

Signed by Paul Lougheed, Bonnie Rosenfeld, Greg Braun and many others. Ambulance Service Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: In May 2004, 46-year-old Peter Krahn suffered a heart attack while exercising in East St. Paul and was pronounced dead just under an hour later after being transported to the Concordia Hospital in Winnipeg. Reports show that it took nearly 18 minutes for an ambulance to arrive for Mr. Krahn.

The Interlake Regional Health Authority claims that 21 minutes is an acceptable emergency response time,

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

To request the provincial government to consider improving the way that ambulance service is supplied to all Manitobans by utilizing techno- logies such as GPS in conjunction with a Medical Transportation Co-ordination Centre (MTCC) which will ensure that patients receive the nearest ambulance in the least amount of time. To request the provincial government to consider ensuring that appropriate funding is provided to maintain superior response times and sustainable services. Signed by Ray Glowacki, Nathan Gerbrandt, J. Rempel, S. Washnuk and many, many others. Minimum Sitting Days for Manitoba Legislature Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: The Manitoba Legislature sat for only 35 days in 2003. In 2004, there were 55 sitting days. The number of sitting days has a direct impact on the issue of public accountability. The Legislative Assembly provides the best forum for all MLAs to debate and ask questions of the government, and it is critical that all MLAs be provided the time needed in order for them to cover constituent and party duties.

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2549 Establishing a minimum number of sitting days could prevent the government of the day from limiting the rights of opposition members from being able to ask questions. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider recognizing the need to sit for a minimum of 80 days in any given calendar year. Signed by Gwen Menta, N. Badiani and S. Shah. Coverage of Insulin Pumps Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for this petition: Insulin pumps cost over $6,500. The cost of diabetes to the Manitoba government in 2005 will be approximately $214.4 million. Every day 16 Manitobans are diagnosed with the disease compared to the national average of 11 new cases daily. Good blood sugar control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by 50 percent, blindness by 76 percent, nerve damage by 60 percent, cardiac disease by 35 percent and even amputations. Diabetes is an epidemic in our province and will become an unprecedented drain on our struggling health care system if we do not take action now.

The benefit of having an insulin pump is it allows the person living with this life-altering disease to obtain good sugar control and become a much healthier, complication-free individual. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier (Mr. Doer) of Manitoba to consider covering the cost of insulin pumps that are prescribed by an endocrinologist or medical doctor under the Manitoba Health Insurance Plan. Signed by Bertha Penner, Berry Bigg, Lorie Plett and many, many others. * (13:40) ORAL QUESTIONS Red River Floodway Expansion Labour Agreement Mr.

Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): According to the Premier's floodway expansion agreement, shop stewards and represen- tatives from the Manitoba building trades union are required to be on non-unionized work sites, and grants them the right to conduct union business. This Premier's union boss friend, Mr. Eugene Kostyra, who was secretly appointed the chair of the Floodway Authority by this Premier and his Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kostyra has stated very publicly that the role of shop stewards is to organize unions.

It is not acceptable for this government to force non-unionized workers to pay union dues, to force employers of non-unionized companies to hand over their names and addresses of their employees to this Premier's hand-picked union boss organizer, Mr. Speaker. It is not, should not be for the shop stewards to give them the ability to be on non- unionized work forces, unionized work sites to drive their union-organizing agenda. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier ensure that these very anti-democratic mech anisms are taken out of the floodway agreement? Hon.

Gary Doer (Premier): I believe the Rand Formula was implemented in the Government of Manitoba in 1968 or '67 by former Premier Roblin in the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I was at a breakfast meeting this morning. A lot of people from the construction industry, owners of companies, were there. They are quite excited about the floodway expansion business. They are quite enthusiastic about the new downtown Hydro building. They are quite optimistic that a government has replaced a mothball government of the past with a government of the future in terms of hydro-electric development.

The skies are sunny in terms of the construction industry in Manitoba, maybe not outside of this building right now, and it is very, very positive for the people of Manitoba. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, this Premier's floodway expansion agreement requires non-unionized employers to contribute to pension and health benefit funds, and this is on top of the contributions that the

2550 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 employers already make. In other words, this Premier is going to force them to pay twice. The construction industry estimates that this forced requirement, combined with the forced union dues, will total between $30 million and $60 million. Concerns have been expressed that the only way non-unionized workers will benefit from this fund that their employers are forced to pay into is if, in fact, they join a union. Mr.

Speaker, will this Premier guarantee today that any contribution that an employer makes, is forced to pay into the floodway's pension and health funds, that that will go to the employee whether he is a member of a union or not. Will he guarantee that today? Mr. Doer: I think it was 1968 or '67 when all civil servants were required to pay into a pension fund and a benefit fund. Oh, what a horrible idea, Mr. Speaker, pensions and benefits, sick leave and pensions. That is why the members opposite are part of the Flat Earth Society. * (13:45) Mr. Murray: Mr.

Speaker, forcing non-unionized workers to pay union dues will result in untold millions of dollars flowing into union coffers that will have no benefit to taxpayers of Manitoba. In addition, this NDP Premier is going to force non- unionized employers to contribute to pension and health benefit funds on top of the pension and health benefit funds that they already pay. So this Premier is forcing the employers to pay twice. He should give his guarantee today that tens of millions of dollars from his forced requiremen t scheme will go to the employees, whether they are members of a union or not.

Will he guarantee that today? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, let me just explain the advantages to the people of Manitoba, the public of Manitoba. Part of what was agreed to, not a novel idea by the way, the Simplot plant, the Tolko plant in the private sector, Hydro dams in Manitoba, the Confederation Bridge under former Prime Minister Mulroney when the member opposite was working for him. The agreement deals with no strike or lockout. That is the advantage in the public interest. That is why we support it. Red River Floodway Expansion Labour Agreement Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr.

Speaker, under the terms of the floodway expansion labour management agreement, non-unionized workers will be forced to contribute to three mandated trust funds. Could the Minister of Water Stewardship tell us today who will manage these funds? Hon.

Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Steward- ship): I find it interesting that members opposite who, right from day one with the project manage- ment agreement, were opposed to any kind of agreement, any kind of agreement that would ensure no lockout, no strike provision, when the Wally Fox- Decent report came in, I think in the Manitoba spirit, provided a framework that was a compromise. Again, they opposed that. When the agreement came out, Mr. Speaker, they got up, they opposed everything in it. They opposed pensions, they opposed benefits, they opposed the employment equity provisions.

I would suggest that the members opposite get with it. This is the year 2005. It is not 1895. Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of workers in the Manitoba heavy construction industry have chosen to work in non-union shops. So it is very likely that the majority of floodway expansion workers will be non-unionized workers. Contractors will be required to pay $2.91 per hour into these trust funds. Many of these workers currently have employee benefits arrangements through their various employees.

Can the minister explain how these non-unionized workers can access those trust funds to which the workers will be forced to pay contributions? Mr. Ashton: Let us be very clear. The members opposite disagree with the project management agreement, Mr. Speaker, and they are on record as disagreeing with pensions and benefits for floodway workers. I have got news for members opposite. We are going to have to have decent wages and decent benefits in order to build the floodway expansion. That will happen.

We will have opportunities for all workers in this province, unionized and non- unionized, a heck of a lot more opportunities than we would probably see if they were in government. We never hear them talk about the expansion itself. Mr. Speaker, it is going to protect Manitobans. There are 450 000 Manitobans protected through a 700-year flood. That is what the floodway expansion is all about. Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, we do not know how or who these funds will be managed by. We do not

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2551 know how workers will receive any benefits from these funds unless they join a union. This means there could be tens of millions of dollars left in these funds once the project is complete. Will the minister admit that this labour agreement is simply about directing funds from Manitoba taxpayers to Manitoba union bosses? Mr. Ashton: This agreement is about building the floodway expansion that is going to benefit 450 000 Manitobans, Mr. Speaker.

This agreement ensures that, subject to the environmental licensing, we will be under construction as of this year and we will have it completed in 2009. Maybe the members opposite should see what has been happening the last period of time because while they have been throwing out that outdated rhetoric we are moving ahead with the environmental licensing. We are moving ahead in terms of contract opportunities– * (13:50) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order. Mr.

Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, I know we are off to a bumpy start here. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could at least reference the pension fund that is going to be established and who it is going to be managed by that the member has asked for on three separate occasions. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I think the points that are being addressed by the minister are actually the main points that have to be recognized.

The members opposite do not support this project, and they are going after one issue and another that misses the point. Mr. Speaker, it was a mere interruption. There was no point of order in our view. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, when questions are raised ministers are to address the question. If the question is on the topic, the minister can address that topic. A member may ask a question, but a member cannot insist upon an answer to that question. * * * Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, we are moving ahead.

In fact, we announced only last week $27 million in engineering contracts, world-class engineering going to world-class engineers in Manitoba. Soon we are going to be seeing contract opportunities on the construction side. Let me put on the record again that members opposite may be opposed to the pensions and benefits and employment equity provisions in the agreement, but this is the year 2005, and we will have opportunities for Manitoba workers and Manitoba companies. Seven Oaks School Division Land Acquisition and Development Review Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the Premier's Education Minister released the terms of reference for the departmental review of the illegal land development scheme in the Seven Oaks School Division. Noticeably absent from the terms of reference was any mention of the Education Minister or his department. I would like to ask the Premier if he finds it acceptable that the review into the Seven Oaks land deal is not going to be looking into the role of the minister and the Department of Education. Does the Premier find that acceptable? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Well, Mr.

Speaker, yesterday I was a bit shocked to hear the comments by members opposite. Doctor Farthing is an individual with a lot of integrity. He has worked for both administrations. He will be conducting the factual checks that are very important. We think that those are very important for the public, and we will await his report which should be ready shortly. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, the Premier's Education Minister was made aware of the allegations of this

2552 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 illegal land development scheme in the Seven Oaks School Division a year ago. The minister and his department played a role in this scandal and allowed it to go along for as long as they have. It is unbelievable that the Premier of Manitoba, who has described himself as the NDP government's and his NDP party's ethics commissioner, is not concerned that his Education Minister is exonerating himself from any investigation. The terms of reference issued by this government are weak and inadequate.

Will the Premier ensure that a complete, objective review is done by asking the Auditor General to conduct it? Mr. Doer: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has the authority to investigate any matter he or she chooses to examine under the law. Secondly, I would point out, I have just received a letter from the Seven Oaks School Division that says, "The concerns raised by the Conservative Party about the surplus are not supported by fact." Let us get the facts from Doctor Farthing. I think it is very, very important. There is no question that the letter raises concerns, I think, for all of us.

Let us start from the facts. * (13:55) Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Auditor General is quite busy investigating this government. He probably deserves a bit more staff in this situation. The Premier's Education was made aware of these allegations over a year ago. Parents and children of the Seven Oaks School Division and all Manitoba taxpayers deserve the truth about what happened and why that it was allowed to go on for as long as it did. If this Premier is not going to order an independent thorough review, Mr.

Speaker, will this self-described ethics commissioner then explain why he is allowing his Minister of Education to cover up this scandal? Mr. Doer: First of all, Mr. Speaker, there is an Ethics Commissioner in the Legislature. It was a law that was passed by this side of the House. I think the Ethics Commissioner is Mr. Bill Norrie. I think the member opposite should straighten out his facts. He just rambles on and on. Secondly, there are concer ns raised by the Seven Oaks School Division in terms of this process. It does raise issues of facts with members opposite.

I know it is not important to them, but facts are important to us. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, independent investigations by the Auditor General can be initiated at any time. Yesterday, the minister said that the letter had gone out to the elected school division. I think that is appropriate. He also said he would deal with this in a manner that is consistent with being sensitive to the ratepayers of the Seven Oaks School Division. I think that is also sensible. Mr.

Speaker, in this letter that they allege that the surplus will be some $700,000, I said last week I dealt with the legality issue last Wednesday, so let us deal with the facts. Seven Oaks School Division Land Acquisition and Development Review Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference that were presented by the Minister of Educat ion yesterday were crafted to protect the Minister of Education, and they are not designed to get to the bottom of this illegal land development scheme in the Seven Oaks School Division.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education why he is aiding and abetting in this cover-up in terms of the illegal land development scheme in the Seven Oaks School Division and why he is not prepared to get to the bottom of this whole issue. Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Speaker, we are indeed prepared to get to the bottom of this issue, and it is important that we have all the information before we make any decisions on this issue. It is also very important that the school division complies with the law in a way that will not adversely affect the ratepayers, Mr.

Speaker, and that is why we committed to this 30-day review. The First Minister (Mr. Doer) has also referenced the credentials of the deputy minister who has been asked to initiate this process. I have absolute confidence in the deputy minister and his staff and the team that has been assembled to address this issue. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that $2 million of taxpayers' money has

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2553 already been spent in the land development scheme in the Seven Oaks School Division. In reviewing the minister's terms of reference, he has basically exonerated himself of any involvement in this illegal land development scheme by the Seven Oaks School Division. Yet a letter was sent of allegations to this minister a year ago, and he said nothing at the time. He did nothing at the time. He sent it on to the Public Schools Finance Board and basically washed his hands of the issue.

How can he exclude himself from the investigation when he has been the weakest link in this whole issue right from the beginning? Why is he not agreeing to have himself and his department investigated? * (14:00) Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, if the process failed, we will find out how it failed. We will have all the information in front of us before we make any decisions. It is a 30-day review. I have said it time and again. Perhaps members have not heard but we will have that information on or before June 2, and I have faith in the process that has been established to explore this.

The independent organization that is the Public Schools Finance Board, the duly elected trustees that are the Seven Oaks School Division, are going to be providing us with all the information and co-operation we need to get to the bottom of this issue. Mrs. Driedger: Well, Mr. Speaker, unless we do have the Auditor come in we are not going to get to the bottom of this.

The minister is not willing to investigate his role or his department's role and, yet, even the letter sent today by the Seven Oaks School Division said, "We sought and received permission from the Province every step of the way." As this is illegal, it begs an awful lot of questions, and I would ask the minister today if he will commit to bringing in the Auditor General to review this. Mr. Bjornson: Once again, Mr.

Speaker, the independent board that is the Public Schools Finance Board, the duly elected officials of the Seven Oaks School Division, these are the two organizations that we are dealing with, with regard to the disposition of the property. As the Auditor is free to do what he wishes in this case, that is the fact, and I have absolute confidence in the process that has been engaged in. I have confidence in the terms of reference that we have established to address this issue. We will make the appropriate decisions at the time that the report is brought forward, on or before June 2.

Crocus Fund Board Resignations Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, five months almost to the day after the Crocus Fund publicly announced the valuation crisis, the control- ling board members from the Manitoba Federation of Labour have announced that they will be resigning from the board, far too late for the investors and the taxpayers who have been fleeced of over $60 million in this debacle. The question is why now. Why, three days after the government got the report from the Auditor General, did they choose to resign? The directors from the Manitoba Federation of Labour have resigned.

I would like to ask the Minister of Industry (Mr. Rondeau) if he will now give assurance to taxpayers and unit holders that the director he appoints, Mr. Ron Waugh, who has the cloud of the investigation and serious allegations from the Securities Commission hanging over his head, if the minister will replace Mr. Waugh with a knowledgeable, experienced and unconflicted board member. Will he do that now? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Waugh, who was appointed to the board of the Crocus Fund, was appointed to act in a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.

The sponsor has been requested to replace the existing board members under their control. Mr. Waugh is serving at the pleasure of the government. The government will decide, in the future, what is the best way that the shareholders can be protected through the appointment they make. That will be considered as they go forward. As the MFL replaces the existing board members, we will contribute a member who can make a positive contribution. I should add Mr. Waugh has many years of experience in the banking sector.

He has many years of experience in the banki ng sector, if the members are listening to me, and he brings a good deal of expertise to the board. I have every confidence he has acted professionally.

2554 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Waugh has this cloud over his head, and the minister should understand he spent most of his career in the human resources department of the bank, not in venture capital. Charlie Curtis, who is another board member standing for the unit holders, still today on the Web site of Crocus, he is listed as a financial adviser to the Province of Manitoba's Minister of Finance. If Mr. Curtis was to resign, it would automatically trigger the right for the unit holders to elect two directors to stand for them on the board. If Mr.

Curtis resigns, the unit holders automatically get the right to elect directors. I would ask the Minister of Finance, as he refuses to do anything about the government- appointed board member, will he do something about his individual putting himself out as a financial adviser. Will he convince him to resign so that unit holders can go forward an d elect two directors to stand up for their interests, and will he do it today? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, I clarified in Estimates that Mr.

Curtis, who is a retired deputy minister in the Department of Finance, is no longer an adviser to the Minister of Finance since March 31, 2004. I put that on the public record. The member opposite knows that. He is very awar e of that because I made that clear to him in the question he asked me. Mr. Curtis is not an appointee of the government. Mr. Curtis cannot be removed by the government. For me to in terfere on whether he continues to serve on the board would be gross interference in the operation of the fund. When the members opposite set up the fund they did not want government interference in it.

They are now asking me to interfere in something that they wanted to operate at arm's length from government. Public Inquiry Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): What we are asking this minister to do is stand up for taxpayers, stand up for unit holders, put some unconflicted board members there who can look out for taxpayers' and unit holders' interests. It is pure and simple, yet they refuse. We have seen $60 million fleeced from Manitoba taxpayers' and unit holders' pockets. We finally see the board members from the Manitoba Federation of Labour do the right thing. The question remains for this government.

Is what is happening now being done to restore public confidence in the fund or is this simply a means of this government to remove everybody from the board who can stand up and honestly answer questi ons and just sweep this under the carpet and keep all the information quiet? Will the minister do the right thing today and call for a public inquiry so unit holders can find out what happened to their money? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, when we updated The Auditor General's Act for the first time in over 20 years, we gave exceptional powers to the Auditor to investigate tax dollars wherever they went in the province. We gave specific powers to the Auditor General to investigate labour-sponsored venture capital funds if they were the recipient of tax credits. These powers never existed in the province before. In addition to those legislative powers that we provided under the new act, I provided a letter requesting the Auditor General to do whatever he felt was necessary to investigate the Crocus Fund.

That was an additional measure I took at the request of the Auditor. There is no encumbrance. There is no fettering of the Auditor's wo rk. He can go as far and as deep as he wants and investigate anything he wishes to investigate. Post-Secondary Education Ancillary Fees Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has ignored a $412 ancillary fee increase facing full-time students at Brandon University, indicating she does not interfere with budgetary deliberation.

Today the University of Manitoba is looking at a similar fee increase, and, again, this minister will not comment because she considers it a hypothetical action. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. If the NDP government cannot give the University of Manitoba the support it needs in a year of unprecedented revenues, what should they expect when revenues are lower? Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): I am very pleased to answer a question on post-secondary education. I appreciate the interest of the member opposite. I

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2555 think what I would like to make clear is this government's dedication to students has been unprecedented in the history of this province. Our pledge, Mr. Speaker, has been to accessible, affordable, quality education. We have created an environment that encourages and respects students. Our practices are everywhere clear. We have had a 33% increase in students in universities. We have had a tuition freeze over six budgets. In the spring of 2000, we started the Manitoba government bursary. It is now about $7 million. We have introduced a post-graduate scholarship.

We have promoted access programs. Mrs. Rowat: This morning at the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce breakfast, there was a question asked of the minister regarding the decline of quality of education and the concern that the business community has with that potential occurring. The minister could not respond in an adequate manner. In a recent University of Manitoba's Bulletin article, President Szathmáry said, "When the quality of education provided and the associated academic, administrative and support services are inadequate, students do not obtain the education they deserve." Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Advanced Education is not taking this issue seriously. This is not a hypothetical situation. It is reality in that our students in our institutions continue to face this. When will this minister address this issue? * (14:10) Ms. McGifford: Well, Mr. Speaker, we address this issue every day, and we have addressed it in every budget. I had not even finished my list of our accomplishments with students. I was just talking about our access program. I did not mention the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger) instituted a 12-month interest-free period for stud ents once they graduate when it comes to their student loans. I did not mention the Manitoba Student Aid Act which will make it necessary for a future government to come to the Legislature if they want to cancel the Manitoba government bursary as this government did in 1992- 93 in the middle of July when nobody would do it. Now they will have to come to the Legislature to do any such thing. I have not mentioned $100 million in capital. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba is a great place to study, to learn and to stay. Mrs. Rowat: Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately the minister is forgetting to mention about the backdoor fees, and unfortunately the minister is forgetting to indicate that the 10% rebate that this government is throwing out to the students is actually being a clawback because 12.5 percen t of the ancillary fees are going to be taken away from the students. So really what is this minister spewing? As she has seen in recent weeks and again today, university students are faced with an unexpected and a dramatic increase in fees, a clawback. By ignoring this issue, the NDP government has failed our students and our insti- tutions.

Why is the Minister of Education short-changing our students by not providing the funding required to keep our universities and colleges competitive with others in the country? Ms. McGifford: These are very interesting comments from a drive-by student activist under whose government fees doubled, programs were decimated at the university. There was no roof on the engineering building, Mr . Speaker. Half of the government bursary– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

I just want to let everyone know that every member in this House is an honourable member, and they should be addressed by their constituencies or ministers by their port- folios. I ask the honourable Minister of Advanced Education to withdraw that comment about "drive-by activist." I do not think it is warranted in this Chamber. Before we move on, I want to advise all honourable members when the Speaker is standing all members should be seated and the Speaker should be heard in silence.

If we are dealing with points of order or privileges those are very, very serious matters, and we need to be able to hear every word that is spoken.

2556 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 Ms. McGifford: Yes, I withdraw the comment of referring to the member from Minnedosa as the "drive-by student activist." May I continue with my remarks? Mr. Speaker: In one minute. In one minute. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member did withdraw the statement, and I accept the withdrawal. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, on a point of order. Mr.

Speaker, withdrawing a statement from the record is one thing, but the body language and the attitude of the minister–[interjection] Mr. Speaker, I think my point is being made. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I just reminded all honourable members how serious a point of order and a matter of privilege are. I, at the end, have to make a ruling, and I need to hear every word that is spoken. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please. The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order. Mr.

Derkach: To continue the point of order, I think the minister has just made my point for me in her gestures. Mr. Speaker, I am offended and I am sure that all members in this House are offended not only by the language but by the intuitions that she has put on the record by her voice and her gestures. I would ask, to try to maintain some decorum in this Assembly, that this minister not only withdraw her comments but apologize to the member from Souris for those derogatory comments which, I am sure if were made to any member on that side of the House, they would be over the benches on. Mr. Speaker: Order.

The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I am surprised at the outcome but, Mr. Speaker, we will respect your ruling in that regard. Having said that, I think the matter has been completely dealt with. In fact, just last week or in the last number of days, we had that issue raised about withdrawing an apology and you ruled on that, that a withdrawal concludes a matter. I think the complaint about how the member on this side looks should not be the subject of a point of order. The matter has been fully dealt with. She withdrew, Mr.

Speaker, out of respect for your office. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Official Opposition House Leader, the ruling of the Chair is to assess to the satisfaction of the Speaker. The Speaker asked for a withdrawal. I am satisfied that the honourable member made the withdrawal and that should end the matter. * * * Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Advanced Education– An Honourable Member: Apologize. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect and with the kind of insult this is to members in this House, I have to challenge your ruling on this matter. Mr.

Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in support of sustaining the ruling, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to sustaining the ruling of the Chair, say nay. An Honourable Member: Nay.

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2557 Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. * * * Ms. McGifford: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just finish up. In reference to the accusations that the member opposite was making, I do want to point out that, whilst we have been successful in increasing the population in our university and college programs, during the previous government, Mr. Speaker, what happened was declines in participation in post- secondary education, regretfully, and many students leaving the province. We are changing that. It is a good place to be educated, stay and live.

Hydra House RCMP Investigation Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the goings on at Hydra House never fails to surprise. I table today additional evidence of very serious financial irregularities from the early 1990s. The evidence shows that the owners of Hydra House were involved in a scam which funnelled public money to the owners. Two of the owners personally purchased at least two houses and then sold them at grossly inflated prices to the Hydra House corpo- ration.

Since the Hydra House corporation was operating exclusively on public monies, the net effect was to put more than $140,000 of public money directly into the pockets of two of the owners of Hydra House. I ask the Premier to commit today to ensure a thorough RCMP investigation of these matters. * (14:20) Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, if there are any issues of criminal wrongdoing, they will be immediately referred to th e RCMP. If there are any other matters that have not been brought to the Auditor's attention, we will do so. Mr.

Gerrard: The evidence presented goes considerably beyond what was provided by the Auditor General. It provides significant evidence that money was used in a way th at funnelled dollars from the public purse into the hands of two of the owners of Hydra House. Mr. Premier, I am convinced that there were not adequate public checks on the operation of Hydra House as well. I would ask the Premier to consider a public inquiry so that we can finally get to the bottom of the Hydra House mess and ensure that individuals are not further fleecing Manitoba tax- payers at the expense of people with disabilities. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite asked that this matter be referred to the RCMP. I have said that if this is information that was not available we will provide it to the RCMP. I guarantee that I will provide these allegations to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) who deals with these matters independent, obviously, of the politicians but with the Justice Department. Government Accountability Report Tabling Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, this session has clearly demonstrated just how incom- petent this government really and truly is.

Now what we see is the manipulation of time in order to avoid accountability. In the month of June we sit for six days, yet there are two outstanding reports. The provincial auditor's report, we are waiting for the government to give the okay to send it back to the provincial auditor. The provincial auditor then has to print the report. We will be lucky, unless this government acts today on submitting it to the provincial auditor, to see that report before the end of this session.

Then we have the so-called review by the Department of Education which is going to be held off until June 2, which means less than six days of accountability once again. This is a government that is scared of being held accountable. The question that I have for this government is will the Premier of this province assure this House today that both of those reports will, in fact, be tabled before the end of this month. If you have nothing to be fearful of, if you are not scared of public accountability, will you at least give us that guarantee? Hon.

Gary Doer (Premier): I can guarantee that the law will be followed and accountability will be maintained, Mr. Speaker. I still remember the member opposite signing a letter because they did not want to sit in the summer of 2003. Then it was in disappearing ink in terms of his own integrity because what he signed he did not live up to.

2558 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 Manitoba Schools UNESCO Designation Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, with the importance of broadening our youth's perspective on world events and their role in citizen- ship, can the Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth inform the House of the important steps taken today to recognize the e fforts of schools with UNESCO? Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr.

Speaker, Manitoba, once again, has demonstrated its leadership since we became the first jurisdiction in Canada to have five schools recognized under the UNESCO school program, and that through the leadership of the member from Brandon East who initiated this process in 2002. The program is the Associated Schools Project Network. We have the announcement today, which included the schools of Brock-Corydon, Collège Jeanne-Sauvé, John Pritchard and Vincent Massey Collegiate. River East Collegiate is also recognized as an ASPNet school, Mr. Speaker.

Many people's lives have been very positively impacted by this program, not only here in Manitoba, but throughout the world. This is a commitment to peace, education and a first in North America, a first here in Canada, as we join 7000 schools worldwide committed to this very worthwhile cause. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Prix Tourisme Manitoba 2004 Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Monsieur le Président, il me fait plaisir de mettre quelques mots pour Hansard au sujet des Prix Tourisme Manitoba 2004.

C'était mon plaisir d'assister au repas gala au Forum rural le 29 avril où ces prix ont été remis. C'était une occasion merveilleuse pour célébrer les succès du secteur du tourisme avec des responsables de l'industrie et des affaires et d'autres collègues. Félicitations à tous les candidats et à tous les récipiendaires des Prix Tourisme Manitoba 2004. Tous les individus qui travaillent dans le secteur du tourisme méritent notre reconnaissance et nos remerciements pour leur service à la clientèle exceptionnel en vue d'attirer des touristes du monde entier au Manitoba.

Je suis particulièrement fière de féliciter Pat Pidalski e t l a M a i s o n - C h a p e l l e , L i P c h i P o s t e et le café Crow Wing d'avoir été proposés pour le Prix d'innovation. Ces prix sont décernés à une personne et à une entreprise ou un organisme qui ont conçu un nouveau produit touristique ou mis en oeuvre une idée innovatrice ayant contribué au succès écono- mique et touristique d'une région du Manitoba. Le 24 septembre 2004, les résidents de Saint- Malo ont célébré l'ouverture officielle de la Maison- Chapelle et deux de ses locataires.

Ce projet de mobilisation communautaire et développement éco- nomique a été conçu pour promouvoir les cultures des Métis et des Autochtones au Manitoba. J'étais fière d'assister aux cérémonies officielles en septembre et d'être témoin à la fierté communautaire autour de l'ouverture de la Maison-Chapelle. Depuis longtemps, le parc Saint-Malo est une destination touristique populaire, et la Maison-Chapelle ajoute à ses attractions. En conclusion, je voudrais féliciter encore les candidats et les récipiendaires des Prix Tourisme Manitoba 2004, particulièrement la Maison-Chapelle à Saint-Malo.

J'encourage fortement tous mes collègues et les Manitobains d'aller visiter le café Crow Wing pour goûter son pain tout frais et Li Pchi Poste pour l'artisanat autochtone et métis, et pour prendre avantage de l'hospitalité de la destination touristique de Saint-Malo. Merci. Translation Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a few words on the record about the 2004 Manitoba Tourism Awards. It was my pleasure to attend the Rural Forum Gala Dinner on April 29 where these awards were presented.

It was a wonderful time to celebrate the successes of the tourism industry with industry and business leaders and other colleagues. Congratulations to all nominees and to the winners of the 2004 Manitoba Tourism Awards. All people

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2559 working within the tourism industry deserve our recognition and thanks for the outstanding client service that helps promote Manitoba as a world- class destination. I am particularly proud to congratulate Pat Pidlaski and la Maison-Chapelle, Li Pchi Poste and the Crow Wing Café for the nomination for the Tourism Innovation Award. This award is given to an individual and to a business or organization for a new tourism product and/or idea that increases economic impact and tourism activity to an area of Manitoba. On September 24, 2004, the residents of St.

Malo celebrated the official opening of la Maison- Chapelle and two of its tenants. This community mobilization and economic development project was undertaken for the purpose of promoting the province's Métis and Aboriginal cultures. I was proud to take

part in the official ceremonies in September and to witness the pride of the community on the opening of la Maison-Chapelle. St. Malo Park has been a tourist destination for many years and la Maison-Chapelle adds to the attraction. In closing, once again I would like to congratulate the nominees and recipients of this year's Tourism Awards, particularly la Maison-Chapelle in St. Malo.

I strongly encourage all my colleagues and the people of Manitoba to visit the Crow Wing Café for its freshly baked bread and Li Pchi Poste for its Métis and Aboriginal arts and crafts and to take advantage of the tourist destination of St. Malo. Thank you. Saul Cherniack Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a great Manitoban, Canadian democratic socialist and human being, Mr. Saul Cherniack. Born January 10, 1917, Saul had an activist upbringing. His parents, who emigrated from Russia, instilled in young Saul a powerful social conscience.

After receiving his law degree from the University of Manitoba in 1939, Saul spent the early years of his adulthood practising law with his father. His beloved wife Sybil was the office manager. In 1950 Saul shifted focus to public service. He became a school trustee and later a city alderman and Metro councillor before moving into provincial politics for almost 20 years. * (14:30) Saul was first elected to the Legislature in 1962 and was part of the Schreyer victory in 1969. Saul served two terms as Minister of Finance.

As the first Minister of Urban Affairs, he was the architect most responsible for incorporating Greater Winnipeg into a single city. Saul is a brilliant man whose success in politics is a testament to his courage, vision and ability to communicate ideas to people. Saul has always put principle ahead of popularity and political expedience. Yet he has always been popular because people know he is a man of absolute integrity. When Saul retired from politics in 1981 he became chairman of Manitoba Hydro. From 1984 until 1992 he served on the Security Intelligence Review Committee which oversees CSIS.

Also, he served on the Manitoba Hydro Board with dis- tinction. Saul speaks many languages, including Japanese and Yiddish. He has received the Order of the Buffalo and the Order of Canada, yet Saul remains a very modest man. He still volunteers three times a week to teach English as a second language to adults. He would blush at this public recognition; however, I feel compelled to honour this great man while he is still among us. On behalf of all Manitobans, thank you, Saul. Manitoba Agriculture Hall of Fame Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Manitoba was founded on hardworking farmers.

To this day the constituency of Lakeside maintains strong ties with our heritage, and I am proud of the many producers in my community. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the outstanding individuals that will soon be inducted into the Manitoba Agricultural Hall of Fame. I want to congratulate Gwen Parker, Ted Poyser and honour the memories of the late Eric Trotter and Heinrich Holtmann. I would like to pay special tribute to Heinrich Holtmann of Rosser for a life well lived and considerable contributions to his community. He is deeply missed by his family, friends and all who knew him. Mr.

Holtmann was also known for his business, Rosser Holsteins. His champion Holstein cattle took many ribbons at the numerous provincial

2560 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 shows, and his dedication to the breed has ensured quality stock for future generations. Mr. Holtmann contributed his time and knowledge to many groups that included his local school board, 4-H club, Rosser Community Club, Winnipeg District Milk Producers Co-op, Manitoba Farm Bureau and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. His legacy reaches beyond Rosser, when in 1969 he volunteered to serve with the Canadian Executive Service Overseas, spending time in Iran and India where he supervised and studied dairy operations. Mr.

Speaker, Heinrich Holtmann loved and was proud to be a dairy producer. It is fitting that we recognize many profession al and personal achieve- ments by inducting him to the Manitoba Agricultural Hall of Fame. Once again, I offer my sincere condolences to the Holtmann family for their loss. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Teenage Jekyll and Hyde Theatrical Production Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry): I want to inform the House about an excellent school musical I will be attending this week at Arthur A. Leach school, a middle school in my constituency of Fort Garry. Mr.

Speaker, starting Wednesday evening, approximately 70 Arthur A. Leach students will be performing a play called Teenage Jekyll and Hyde. Students have been busy practising for the play, often dedicating their evenings and weekends to make the play a success. The play has been adapted from its original format by Janet Pelletier, making its public debut on Wednesday, May 11. The musical will run until Friday, May 13, with all shows happening at the school. Teenage Jekyll and Hyde promises to be a very interesting musical.

It is a comedy that portrays a science teacher who has developed a special formula that makes people smarter and more attractive. Sylvester Jekyll, an unpopular student, accidentally drinks the potion which makes him into a popular student now called Damian Hyde. Caught between his new persona and his real identity, Sylvester must decide who he really wants to be. The musical Teenage Jekyll and Hyde is only one example of the school's commitment to sup- porting music and arts education. The school boasts a concert band and choir for its students.

The school also offers a jazz band and jazz choir for interested students. I want to thank Principal Lisa Boles, and the staff and students at Arthur A. Leach for putting together this musical. I especially want to thank directors Tracey Matthews, Kimberly Truscott and assistant Kristin Myers for their hard work. Lastly, I wish all students involved with Arthur A. Leach's production, Teenage Jekyll and Hyde, good luck. You will make us all very proud. Thank you. Government Accountability Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, during Question Period I thought I was being rather kind in terms of what I was saying about the incompetence of this government. I only focussed my attention on two issues, two reports. I could very easily have expanded in terms of crime or justice or the lack thereof coming from this government. I could have talked about the incompetence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) and used the example of Victoria Hospital and how they are taking obstetrics out of a community hospital.

There are many different ways in which one could point in terms of just how clearly incompetent this government is at managing public affairs, but what I chose to do is to emphasise two issues, those two issues being the Provincial Auditor's report on the Crocus Fund, which has an impact on 33 000 plus shareholders and every Manitoba taxpayer. Here is a very important report, and I believe the govern- ment is going to sit on it as long as possible in order to avoid any sort of accountability from this Chamber, and I say shame on the government for that.

In addition, the Manitoba Liberal Party called for an independent review of what was happening in the Department of Education related to Seven Oaks and the land scam. We stand by today in the sense that there is a need, a very high need to have a truly independent investigation done. If it is not going to be an independent investigation, I will suggest to you that the paper it is going to be written on, the one that is being currently done, the value of that investigation will be hardly worth the paper on which it has been written.

It needs to be independent and having said that, again, we have the government saying, well, we are

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2561 talking June 2 before they table that particular report. Mr. Speaker, we only sit six days in the month of June. Again, what we have is a government that manipulates the time, the agenda of this Chamber in terms of managing it so that we can minimize the amount of public accountability, and I say– Mr. Speaker: Order. MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Member for River Heights (Mr.

Gerrard), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the need to debate the government's handling of the Crocus Fund and the impact it has had on the 33 000-plus shareholders and the Manitoba taxpayer. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

Before recognizing the honourable Member for Inkster, I believe I should remind all members that under Rule 36(2) the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other parties in the House are allowed not more than five minutes to explain their urgency of debating the matter immediately. As stated in Beauchesne 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not the subject matter of the motion.

In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matte r early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I believe the urgency can be very easily conveyed in the sense that we have done the budget debate, we have done the Throne Speech debate. We have got an hour left in terms of Estimates.

We are dealing with education and other issues in which you could not give any sort of justification in terms of legitimate debate inside this Chamber. I have used my grievance already, and I truly believe the 33 000-plus shareholders in the Crocus Fund need to hear what the government has to say in a very real and tangible way through a debate inside this Chamber. What we have seen is the trading was suspended back on December 10, the red flag was going up, and the government is trying to back away in terms of its responsibilities.

We believe that the government is ultimately responsible and has really dropped the ball on this, and that we owe it to the taxpayers and the shareholders of this province to ensure the debate moves forward. The government used tax dollars, for example, to support companies that were also financed by the Crocus Fund. We have seen numerous resignations from the board.

We have seen staff leave the Crocus office in the last couple of months, questions in terms of the Crocus Fund potentially shutting down to the costs of the adminis- tration to the types of severance pays that have been offered. * (14:40) There is a great deal of uncertainty. I believe it is a very urgent matter. There are very few oppor- tunities, if any at all, in which we can have the type of debate that we need in order to get on the record in a fair fashion for all sides to be able to convey their concerns unless we hear this debate today. I would draw a comparison in terms of the BSE issue.

No one would question the impact that had on the economy and hundreds if not thousands of Manitobans, Mr. Speaker. I would argue that the impact we are having on the Crocus Fund and the investments many seniors across our province have vested in the Crocus Fund, are seeing their funds virtually evaporate in midair. We owe it to them and others to ensure that this Legislature recognizes the importance of what is happening and allow this emergency debate to occur. With those few words, I would ask that we allow this debate to happen today. Thank you. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, of course there are two issues that have to be considered as to whether there is a matter of urgent public importance for debate to be proceeded with. The first is whether the subject matter is so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought out early enough. Second, has it been shown that the public interest will suffer if this matter is not given immediate attention? Mr. Speaker, the member is right that we have been going through the Estimates process, and I

2562 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 know this was an issue that was raised during ministerial Estimates. As well, we are now pro- ceeding into the time dur ing the session when concurrence is called, and I know that concurrence will be something that will be called in the next few days. In terms of opportunities, there appear to be ample opportunities. In terms of the public interest, it is my understanding that a report is forthcoming from the Auditor General, and I think, in the coming days, there will be perhaps more appropriate issues and questions that can be raised.

I wonder about the member yesterday when he had an opportunity to raise that matter in Question Period. He did not even ask the question on the issue that he says is of such importance today. I would conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that this does not appear to be a matter that would qualify as a matter of urgent public impor- tance and certainly not one that we would support at this time. Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable members for their advice to the Chair on whether the motion proposed by the honourable Member for Inkster should be debated today. The notice required by Rule 36(1) was provided.

Under our rules and practices, the subject requiring urgent consideration must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention. There must also be no other reasonable opportunities to raise the matter. I do not doubt that this matter is one that is of serious concern to a number of members in the House. I have listened very carefully to the argu- ments put forward. However, I was not persuaded that the ordinary business of the House should be set aside to deal with this issue today.

Although members believe this issue to be a serious one, I do not believe the public interest will be harmed if the business of the House is not set aside to debate the motion today. Additionally, I would like to note that there are other avenues for members to raise this issue including questions in Question Period and raising the item during either Estimates debate or consideration of the concurrence motion in Supply.

Therefore, with the greatest of respect, I must rule that this matter does not meet the criteria set by our rules and precedents, and I rule the motion out of order as a matter of urgent public importance. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, would you please canvass the House to see if there is le ave to change the sequence of Estimates so that in Room 255 the following Estimates will be considered: Capital Investment, Civil Service Commission, Legislative Assembly, Employee Pensions and Other Costs, Enabling and Other Appropriations and Sport, while in Room 254, consideration of Education, Citizenship and Youth will be continued? Mr.

Speaker: Is there leave to ch ange the Estimates sequence so that in Room 255 the following Estimates will be considered: Capital Investment, Civil Service Commission, Legislative Assembly, Employee Pensions and other costs, Enabling and other Appropriations, and Sport, while in Room 254, consideration of Education, Citizenship and Youth will be continued? Is there leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. An Honourable Member: No. The first part? Mr. Speaker: Okay, I will reread it again.

Is there leave to change the Estimates sequence so that in Room 255, the following Estimates will be considered: Capital Investment, Civil Service Commission, Legislative Assembly, Employee Pensions and other costs, Enabling and other Appropriations, and Sport, while in Room 254, consideration of Education, Citizenship and Youth will be continued? Is there agreement? An Honourable Member: Well, I guess. Mr. Speaker: Okay, there is agreement. Mr.

Mackintosh: As agreed earlier , if you would call Supply, and then in the House would you please call second readings in the order they appear in the Order Paper, with the exception of the bill standing in the name of the honourable Finance Minister, which should go to the bottom of the list? Mr. Speaker: Would the Chairs of Committees of Supply please go to the respective rooms for

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2563 continuation of the Estimates please? In the House, we will deal with second readings. SECOND READINGS Bill 27–The Horse Racing Commission Amendment and Horse Racing Regulation Repeal Act Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Lathlin), that Bill 27, The Horse Racing Commission Amendment and Horse Racing Regu- lation Repeal Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Ms.

Wowchuk: The horse racing industry is an important industry in this province, and one that has been the subject of a lot of discussion. That industry is regulated under The Horse Racing Commission Act which originally was enacted in 1965. With the exception of just one amendment in 1975, this act has continued as originally enacted.

In 1975, amend- ments provided that the Manitoba Horse Racing Commission would have the authority to make regulations representing the number of days of the year in which thoroughbred and standard horse racing could be held and a fixed number of meets that could be held in an area of the province. A similar regulation making amendments is being brought forward at this time. Currently, the commission must supervise all types of horse racing throughout the province. We all know there are varying types of horse racing that take place at many of the summer events that happen in our rural communities.

Historically, the commission has limited its supervision to only horse racing tracks offering pari-mutuel wagering. * (14:50) However, as I have said, there are a great number of horse races that take place in the province being held at events sponsored by ag societies where pari-mutuel wagering does not take place. We have many examples of those. We could have the chuckwagon races, which are very popular in my part of the province, chariot racing, and non-betting flat races. They may vary, but they are very important. They are not covered by pari-mutuel wagering.

The amendment to this bill will require the commission to supervise only those types of horse racing specified in the regulations. Mr. Speaker, the bill will also repeal the existing Horse Racing Regulation Act, which was first enacted in 1925. Its authority to regulate horse racing will be addressed under The Horse Racing Com- mission Act. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a small change that we are making, but it is at the request of the commission that this change be made. We would like to see it move forward. I look forward to the comments from other members of the House on this particular bill.

I look forward to having it moved to committee so that it can address the issues that have been raised by the Horse Racing Commission with regard to some of the races that are held in this province but are not covered by the commission. With those two comments, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Okay, we will move on to Bill 32, the Rural Municipality–[interjection] Okay, yes. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I want to put a few words on the record on this particular bill. I do not necessarily agree with the minister when she says that it is a relatively minor bill.

It does have a fairly significant impact. It is just a question in terms of what is going to be happening with regulations. I do not know off-hand in terms of what regulations the government is intending on bringing in that would qualify the comments that she has put on the record. But I do understand that it is the Horse Racing Commission that is wanting to see this happen. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we do not have a problem in terms of it going to the committee stage.

We just recognize th e value of bo th for-profit and non-profit groups that conduct horse racing types of events throughout our province, which really adds to our communities in a very real and tangible way. For the respect of those groups, the fact that this is something which the commission, from what we understand, is wanting to see happening, and

2564 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 listening to the minister, we are prepared to see it go to the committee stage. But, as I say, we do have a cautionary note in terms of the regulation and an interest in terms of what it is the minister is going to be doing in regard to the regulations. With those few words, Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to see it go to committee. Thank you. Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

Bill 32–The Rural Municipality of Kelsey By-law No. 5/02 Validation Act Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minis ter of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives (Ms. Wowchuk), that Bill 32, The Rural Municipality of Kelsey By-law No. 5/02 Validation Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Lathlin: I am pleased to rise on the second reading of Bill 32,

an act to validate by-law No. 5/02 of the Rural Municipality of Kelsey. This act supports a July 30, 2002, settlement agreement with The Pas Farmers' Association, the R.M. of Kelsey and Manitoba Hydro. The settlement agreement finally resolves all outstanding issues and grievances that the R.M. of Kelsey and the Farmers' Association had in relation to the adverse impacts on a water regime in the rural municipality caused by Hydro's construction and operation of the Grand Rapids generating station.

The settlement agreement provides for the issuance and delivery of a Manitoba Hydro bond amounting to $3.6 million to the R.M. of Kelsey. The bond will be held by Manitoba Hydro with annual interest payments being made to the rural munici- pality and deposited into a reserve fund established under The Municipal Act to be called the Mitigation Reserve Fund. The R.M. has enacted by-law No. 502 as set out in a

schedule to Bill 32 to establish the fund and set the terms of the use of the fund as the parties had agreed. The agreement says that the Mitigation Reserve Fund is to be used only for purposes of ongoing operation, maintenance, enhancement and upgrading of the Pasquia Project or for other works for mitigation of adverse effects of the Grand Rapids project. This agreement also provides that a miti- gation reserve committee will administer the fund. When the settlement agreement was being negotiated, all parties wanted to ensure that the fund would be established as a fund of the municipality.

They also wanted the fund used in a way described in the agreement. However, normally funds esta- blished by a municipal by-law can be changed by amendment of the by-law. In order to protect the funds from change, all three parties agreed in a settlement agreement to ask the Government of Manitoba to enact this bill, thus protecting these funds so that they can be used for the purposes the parties agreed to.

I am pleased to recommend that Bill 32 be approved by this Assembly to assist the R.M. of Kelsey, The Pas Farmers' Association and Manitoba Hydro to ensure that the mitigation reserve fund will continue to be used for mitigation of effects of the Grand Rapids project as those parties have all agreed to. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, again we just want to add a few words on the record before this bill passes ultimately to committee.

We recognize the value of the agreement in the sense that this is something that was done as third party being brought forward to the government between Manitoba Hydro, The Pas Farmers' Association and the Rural Municipality of Kelsey. We are very sensitive to the settlement and acknowledge that in the best interests of all, this piece of legislation be brought forward in order to protect the long-term interest of the fund. Even though there are many concerns we have in regard to Hydro on other issues of compensation and so forth, we see this one, generally speaking, as a positive step forward.

With that we would have no objection to its going to committee at this point. Thank you. Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2565 Bill 33–The Planning Act Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to Bill 33, The Planning Act. Hon. Scott Smith (Minist er of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), that Bill 33, The Planning Act, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of this bill and that I table the message. Motion presented. Mr. Speaker: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of this bill and this message has been tabled. Mr.

Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the second reading of Bill 33, the new Planning Act. This new act will replace The Planning Act that was introduced in 1975, some 30 years ago. A lot of work has gone into rewriting this act to make it clearer and easier to read. We have undertaken extensive consultations with the public, local govern- ment, and stakeholder groups, and it is my view that this new piece of legislation will go a long way to improving the planning systems in Manitoba. The new act incorporates numerous changes, many of which were requested by municipalities and the public.

I would like to touch briefly on a few of the important changes in this planning act. * (15:00) The act introduces new planning tools, including (

a) enabling municipal councils to lessen their workload by appointing a planning commission to hear local planning matters; (

b) enabling the development of strategies to address regional issues such as transportation, water protection or infrastructure within the provincial planning framework, and Winnipeg will be able to participate in regional strategies; enabling municipalities to adopt secondary plan by-laws to guide local development. A required public hearing will ensure residents are part of the process.

(2) We have maintained the right of municipalities to decide whether to approve livestock operations with no appeal but clarify the provincial responsibility for protecting the environment. We have maintained the conditional use process for livestock operations but lowered the threshold for mandatory hearings and technical review from 400 to 300 animal units.

By introducing mandatory plan- ning and livestock operations policies, we have ensured that all citizens of the municipality have the opportunity to discuss how livestock operations will fit into their long-term plan development goals during the consultations and public hearings for development plans. Of course, the public will continue to also have the opportunity to be heard at public hearings on individual livestock operations and applications.

(3) This act sets out clear links to water protection. Municipal development plans will have to consider any regulation such as the water-quality- management zones or any watershed management plan approved under The Water Protection Act.

(4) The act allows for the streamlined approval processes. For example, municipalities will be able to combine public notice and hearings for a single development. Mandatory planning will result in better up-front planning an d a more predictable land use planning framework right across Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, of the 198 municipalities in Manitoba outside of Winnipeg, 155 or 78 percent have development plans in place already, and 29 or 15 percent are in the process of adopting development plans. This means that 184 municipalities already have plans in place or are in the process of adopting them.

Only 14 or 7 percent are not involved in planning at this time. Just to conclude, I believe this bill represents a significant step forward in modernizing the planning system in Manitoba. It will streamline approval systems while enhancing public participation, provide better tools to municipalities in the province to assist in promoting sustainable development, enhancing and protecting the environment and protecting our water in the province. Thank you for those brief comments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Portage (Mr.

Faurschou), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to.

2566 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 Bill 34–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to Bill 34, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux), that Bill 34, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Mr.

Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Attorney General, seconded by the honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Serv- ices, that Bill 34, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to committee of this House. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity. I know that we will have, of course, time to discuss the bill in detail in committee, but there are some important points I would like to put on the record and bring to the attention of the House. First, Mr.

Speaker, with regard to enhanced consequences for Highway Traffic Act offences resulting in death, I think it is important to note that in some cases where a person is struck and killed by a vehicle, the evidence may not be sufficient to support criminal charges against the driver but charges under The Highway Traffic Act may still be appropriate. However, the maximum sentence for most Highway Traffic Act offences is a $2,000 fine and possibly a driver's licence suspension of up to one year. Now, Mr.

Speaker, concerns have been raised by the public and, indeed, by the police that the existing sanctions are often not an adequate consequence for a Highway Traffic Act offence that results in the tragedy of death. The amendments would allow a judge to impose a jail sentence of up to two years and would remove the limit on the amount of fine the court can impose on any person convicted of a Highway Traffic Act offence where death resulted from that offence. In those cases, the judge would also be able to suspend the driver's licence for up to five years. Mr.

Speaker, the bill also extends the limitation period for commencing a prosecution under The Highway Traffic Act from six months to two years if the offence results in death or a life-threatening injury. I now want to deal with the issue that is very important to us, Mr. Speaker, and that is the concern about impaired driving and child endangerment. Impaired driving is an inherently dangerous activity that too frequently results in the injury or death of drivers and passengers.

Children are especially at risk from being exposed to that harm because they are not usually in a position to resist being required to ride with an impaired driver. However, persons who are convicted of driving impaired with a child passenger in their vehicle do not currently receive a higher level of suspension than impaired drivers who do not have child passengers. The amendments would create a new category of driver's licence suspension for persons who are convicted of driving impaired with a child passenger under the age of 16.

Those offenders would be subject to the highest range of suspensions available under The Highway Traffic Act. Mr. Speaker, that is five years for a first offenc e, ten years for a second conviction, or life for a third or more convictions within ten years. Mr. Speaker, I know that those are serious consequences indeed, but, in our view, I think that, as MADD has said, every child deserves a desig- nated driver. Mr. Speaker, while this initiative which accompanies other changes in protocol and policies is unique in Canada, it is not unique in North America.

It is our unders tanding that in approxi- mately 35 U.S. jurisdictions there are different combinations of sanctions that are directed to the challenge, the safety concerns of child endangerment at the hands of impaired drivers. Mr. Speaker, in our view, this is an important area of law reform when it comes to impaired driving. As you may be aware, Manitoba has been recognized by MADD Cana da for its efforts to counter impaired driving, and those efforts cannot ever be taken for granted.

We have to remain vigilant, and we have to continue to look for ways to enhance, not just the laws but I think the education that comes from enhancements to the law. We have to ensure that societal attitudes change, and the law has an important role to play in making that change.

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2567 Mr. Speaker, there also has to be greater accountability and clear messages from the justice system that, at least in the area of provincial jurisdiction, which is, of course, limited and cannot be with regard to the exercise of criminal law, but we are doing what we can and we are looking for ways to provide leadership and ensure that we have a legal system in place under The Highway Traffic Act and with regard to other protocol that send a strong message. Mr.

Speaker, the bill also includes provisions to create a driver's licence suspension for persons convicted of certain prostitution-related offences where a vehicle is used in the commission of the offence. Driver's licence suspension would be one year for a first convic tion or two years for a subsequent conviction within ten years. This amend- ment will supplement existing provisions of The Highway Traffic Act that permit the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles that are used in the commission of a prostitution-related offence.

Amendments are also needed, in our view, to The Highway Traffic Act's vehicle forfeiture pro- gram for serious driving offences and serious repeat offenders in order to resolve procedural problems that can arise if an innocent vehicle owner mistakenly fails to apply to have the vehicle released from forfeiture before it is forfeited. The amend- ments permit forfeiture to be set aside if vehicle owners can prove that they were not the driver who committed the offence that led to forfeiture, had no way of knowing that the vehicle would be used to commit an offence and, Mr.

Speaker, neglected to apply earlier to have the vehicle released from forfeiture due to an honest mistake or, because, through no fault of their own, they did not receive a notice of liability to forfeiture. * (15:10) Owners who do not make an application to set aside forfeiture before the Government of Manitoba incurs expenses to seize the vehicle are also required to prove that, through no fault of their own, they did not receive notice to turn in the vehicle for forfeiture. They must also pay the co st of seizure before the vehicle will be released from forfeiture. Mr.

Speaker, as I have indicated, we will be able to discuss this in more detail in committee so I will conclude my remarks at this time. I look forward to the support of members on this bill. Thank you. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I always find it of interest when the Minister of Justice brings forward legislation. It is almost like a challenge to the opposition, "You know, I am so tough on crime that let's see you not support this piece of this legislation." We hear time and time again just how tough this government is on crime. The reality is, Mr.

Speaker, very, very far from what the Govern- ment House Leader or the Minister of Justice actually preaches from his seat. Evidence is in the pudding, and the pudding just sure does not taste very good in terms of crime and justice in our province. Earlier, I made reference in terms of ways in which this government has really proven itself to be incompetent. In the whole realm of justice, this is one of those areas. I say that because I truly do believe there is a great deal of room for improve- ment, that it is time the Minister of Justice actually started taking action as opposed to talking.

There are a few things that really offend me in regard to this particular bill, Mr. Speaker. When I first heard this, I believe it was on RCR, CJOB , Richard Cloutier, where he is commenting about, well, there are children no w that are going to be better protected because the government has now taken the position that the moment someone has been caught drinking and driving, comes forward and has been caught and there is a child, that drinking-and- driving driver is going to suffer the consequence of this minister, of this administration. Well, Mr.

Speaker, you know, I, for one, have always thought that drinking and driving in the province of Manitoba is wrong and that, as legislators, we need to do what we can to ensure that we have laws that are tough, that are significant, that are going to provide and discourage drinking and driving. What we have here is a Minister of Justice who is now going to be saying, "Look we have two types of drinking and driving drivers. We have those that drive with kids.

We have those that do not drive with kids." I have a difficult time with that in the sense that I always believed that if you were drinking and driving, that is what is wrong, whether you have kids in the vehicle or you have no kids in the vehicle. It is

2568 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 sad that some individuals that would drink and drive would actually have kids in the car. I, for one, cannot understand how that can happen, but I do know that, unfortunately, it does happen. Having said that, I also know there are drunks behind the wheels that get into vehicle accidents, and the cars they just hit have kids in them. How does this legislation then apply for those individual drunk drivers, Mr. Speaker? You know something?

What this minister wants is to try to get the Riva spin of, "Well, we are getting tough on drinking and driving and those that abuse our children in society by having them into it." Mr. Speaker, who would oppose having a child or who would support, I should say, having a child in a vehicle while at the same time you have a drunk driver? No one is going to support that. One has got to give their head a shake. No one is going to support that, but if you do not want to support that, get tough on drinking and driving.

I could ultimately argue why does this legislation not cover those kids that are in vehicles that are hit by drunk drivers. Where is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) on that issue? Why is he not protecting those children? Why does he have the double standard? Should they not also be taken into consideration, those innocent children? I support those innocent children. Equally, I support the children that, unfortunate ly, are in the cars of someone that is stupid enough to think they can drive while they are drunk, Mr. Speaker.

I do not support that drunk driver, and I think that is the message we should be getting across in this Manitoba Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that this Legislature should be lining up saying that we do not support drinking and driving, period. If you are driving and you are drunk behind the wheel, the heavy arm of the law is going to fall on you, not the propaganda we hear from this minister. I have seen too much of it.

In part of this legislation, he talks about, well, now we are going to also, in getting tough on this, we are going to also be tough on those johns that use prostitutes in the sense that we are going to look at toughening up licensing problems for them, that they are not going to be able to renew their licence. Well, again, proof is in the pudding. How many vehicles have been confiscated by this government or by the courts as a result of legislation we have already passed? The answer is that you will not need more than two hands to give a count.

Why does the government not start acting and supporting our police officers in a way in which we are going to be able to utilize the laws that are currently there? Why are we not supporting our Crowns to ensure there is a stronger realization as to the consequence of the actions, of the violations that are there today? You know, Mr. Speaker, I have been handed headlines in regard to fatal crash on vehicles that are being stolen, three die in head-on collision.

I tell you there is no shortage of headlines, of issues in which this government has been clearly, clearly negligent in providing adequate resources that would have seen fewer sad stories in our province. When it talks about the issue of justice, the other day I had waved during Question Period a number of press releases that the government, the Minister of Justice has released. There are plenty of them. When I look at the amount of press releases and the types of press releases that the government is issuing, one would think the crime rate in the province of Manitoba would be going down significantly.

We have got press releases regarding auto thefts. What is happening with auto thefts, Mr. Speaker? [interjection] No, they have not gone down. You see, members of the caucus need to get out of talking to the ministers and start talking to their constituents, start reading some of the reports. Vehicle thefts have not gone. Last year, we had over 13 000 vehicles being stolen in our province, over 13 000. What does the Minister of Justice say? The Minister of Justice says, "Blame Ottawa. It is the immobilizers.

Tell Ottawa to put immobilizers in all the vehicles, and then the vehicles will not be stolen." That is what the Minister of Justice preaches. What about this Minister of Justice? What are other provinces doing throughout Canada? Our province does not even come close to the number of per capita vehicles being stolen in any other province. We are way out. We lead the pack by a country mile plus. This government has absolutely, totally, failed, yet members of their own caucus do not even realize the numbers have actually gone up.

What we suggest to this Minister of Justice is that he better have a reality check and start realizing that he has a responsibility to cut the number of vehicles being

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2569 stolen in the province of Manitoba. He sits back and does absolutely nothing, but pump out press releases. * (15:20) There are things this Minister of Justice could be doing, Mr. Speaker. I am getting tired of the fluff legislation which the minister tries to challenge us to vote against. He makes it very difficult. You know, we are going to have to look at this legislation. You make it very difficult to say no because we know how this minister operates on propaganda. An Honourable Member: The system works. Mr.

Lamoureux: But the reality is, no, the system does not work, as the vehicle thefts have shown. If the minister really wanted to deal with the issue, as opposed to sending out propaganda of being tough, why does it not provide more bait cars in Winnipeg? Why does it not ensure that curfews are being administered? Instead, he will say, "Well, you know what? We brought in 20 new police officers." We do not need the 20 new police officers in the city of Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker. What we need is more supports for our police officers. Get them out of the courtrooms. Get them on the street. Get them doing less paperwork.

Get them out on the streets. What about supporting our probation services? What about providing support for our courts? Mr. Speaker, time and time again, this government has failed, this Minister of Justice has failed Manitobans. I am amazed he is still the Minister of Justice, really and truly. Of all the Cabinet shuffles I have seen, if there is one in which I would have made a change years back, it would have been with the Minister of Justice. How much time do you provide a minister before you finally realize that things are not getting better? You know, we just had another body, Mr.

Speaker, found in a dumpster in the North End. I drive down Salter virtually every other day. Things are not improving. The grow ops, that is a question I asked the minister. We have an industry in Manitoba that is growing and it is our grow ops. What is the government doing to deal with that issue? I suggested to the Minister of Justice why not establish a fund to support individuals reporting in. The Minister of Justice, "Well, you know, there is Crime Stoppers." Maybe the Minister of Justice will tell me how many individuals have received money through Crime Stoppers in regard to grow ops.

How quick he is to jump to his feet to dismiss ideas from opposition members, Mr. Speaker. I have heard the member from Steinbach talk about a number of issues. After hearing from the member from Steinbach, the minister will at times take some action. We do differ, Mr. Speaker. The Conservatives and the NDP want more police. I will acknowledge that. To a certain degree, I must say, it is an admis- sion of failure.

If you are not able to adequately support our current police complements that are there and support our courts, and the crime continues to grow, one has to question in terms of, well, yes, saying you will hire more police officers will get you the headlines that you want. But, in reality, as has been clearly demonstrated by this government over the last five years, crime is not necessarily going to be going down. This government has clearly demon- strated that. I digress to a certain degree because this particular bill deals with drinking and driving.

The propaganda spin this government wants, this minister wants to get out is that he cares for the children in the back seat of a car wher e there is a drunk driver, Mr. Speaker. You know, I care for those children too, but I want to go furthe r than that. I want to go further than that because, unlike the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), I also care for those kids that are maimed and killed in vehicle accidents which a drunk driver has caused. I care for those children too. Why does this minister not care about those children?

Are we going to see an amendment to this legislation that is going to take that into consid- eration, Mr. Speaker? Does the minister have any intention of bringing in that sort of legislation, or does he believe that a judge will take that into consideration, in part, when they come up with their disposition? Is that what the minister believes? If he believes that, then I would ask would that same principle not apply for the children that are in the back seat of a car in which the drunk driver is driving? Well, Mr. Speaker, I woul d suggest to you that this Minister of Justice (Mr.

Mackintosh) really needs to evaluate what it is that he is bringing

2570 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 forward. I would suggest that maybe what he has done is he has had an idea and, you know, you cannot blame the Minister of Justice for having ideas, but when he does not think them through and brings them into the Legislature, well then I would suggest to you that when we go into the committee stage the minister better be open to changing and making some changes. You remember the notoriety act that the minister brought in with all the fanfare, and I do not know how many press releases the Minister of Justice had to have, but, you know what?

He got his positive stories, Mr. Speaker. We do not like the Clifford Olsons. We do not like these criminal elements that are going to try to get money out of us. I remember asking the Minister of Justice in committee, "If this legislation could have been made retroactive to go back over the years since Manitoba has been a province, how many cases would you have been able to apply this legislation to?" The Minister of Justice, to his credit, came back and said, "Well, none that I can think of." Well, Mr. Speaker, I applaud the minister in terms of being honest in committee, but you know what?

Why would we not, as opposition members, support that sort of legislation? Again, it is a good idea, it is a tough one. So here the minister has an idea, brings it in, gets it through second reading, then it goes to committee, then from committee third reading and it passes and now it is the law of the land. Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker? I had an interesting contact with an individual that was concerned because they we re involved with the Louis Riel, and we all know Louis Riel.

The question that he had posed to me was, because of the legislation that we passed, could they be held to account for any monies that are raised, either for profit or non-profit related to Louis Riel. I referred the individual to make contact with the Department of Justice to find out. There was a question mark, and maybe the Minister of Justice will comment on that particular example, Mr. Speaker. As I say, there is that legislation. We had other legislation that the govern- ment has brought forward. Remember the criminal forfeiture act?

Again, here is a minister, he got the headlines, he achieved what the real purpose was and that was the propaganda message of how this government is tough on crime, but, again, I will tell you the proof is in the pudding and we will wait and we will see how much money is actually achieved and how often that particular tool does get used and if, in fact, it gets challenged in the courts.

The Minister of Justice, because of comments that I will say on the record today and in the past, and I know he has already done this in part, will take my comments and distort them to the degree in which he tries to give the impression that maybe I am not as tough as the New Democrats when it comes to dealing with crime, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to you that if it becomes an issue of getting tough on crime, I would suggest to you that this minister is not tough on crime. I really and truly do not believe that the Minister of Justice has been effective in dealing with crime in our province. Mr.

Speaker, the bottom line, that is what the stats clearly demonstrate, is that his government has not been effective in dealing with crime. * (15:30) An Honourable Member: Talk about the gangs. Mr. Lamoureux: The Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) talks about gangs. What are we at? Somewhere around 3000-plus active/inactive gang members? I am still waiting. I would like to get a definition of the inactive. Is inactive, in part, because they are being incarcerated currently? I would like to get a better definition. What I do know is that is a record number of gang members. I made reference to grow ops.

We have crack houses. The government will say, "Well, you know what? We have closed down X number of these homes and these crack homes." How many have opened up? What is the bottom line? I will bet you we have more crack houses today than we have ever had, based on other patterns of this government. If it is any example in terms of the car thefts, it would even be scary because again in that car theft area we lead the pack across this nation. [interjection] Well, make reference to the grow ops. As I indicated, I was somewhat taken off track in regard to the grow ops. We all have ideas.

When the minister thinks from his seat, well, you know, it is easy to criticize, it is easy to be in opposition. You know, Mr. Speaker, when one comes up with ideas,

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2571 and the government kind of tosses them aside and gives them no merit, I would suggest to you that the government is doing a disservice to this Chamber. There are ideas that are out there, and they might not necessarily be government -sponsored ideas. They might not even be ideas from this particular Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh). It does not necessarily mean they are not good ideas. In fact, at times I have even seen the government, more so because it had to, I would suggest to you, adopt a couple of those ideas. But you know something?

When someone brings forward an idea, I would be more interested in hearing the Minister of Justice tell me why it is that some of these ideas are not worthy of proceeding with. There are a couple of them that come to mind for me personally that th e Manitoba Liberal Party has talked about. I have talked to this minister and questioned him about ankle bracelets in the past. I believe the government is wrong in not moving forward on ankle bracelets. I do not understand, for the life of me, why this Minister of Justice does not want to deal with the issue of ankle bracelets.

I should not say does not want to deal with it. I guess he has dealt with it by saying he does not want to see them in the province. [interjection] Yes, there are two different types of ankle bracelets. There are the fashionable ones, and there are the ones that are not as fashionable, but they could play a valuable role here in the province.

Could you imagine if you put an ankle bracelet, for example, on a car thief who is out on curfew, and you tied that ankle bracelet to a fixed location so that, in fact, that individual would have to be at home during that prime-time car theft times, or obligating that individual to be there, that you had a bracelet attached to the individual? What about high-risk predators? I would like to suggest to you that I would be wrong to say it is actually my idea because, really and truly, it is not my idea. These are ideas that are being used in other jurisdictions.

Other jurisdictions have seen the value of them in the States and Canada and have incorporated them into government policy to try to make a difference, a real tangible difference. That is where this government, I think, has a problem in terms of really understanding because what this minister sees is, well, we were not the first to talk about it; it was not my idea so I am going to shy away from it and I am going to talk about this. I remember a couple of weeks ago the Conservatives had a five-point plan, and some of those points I was even talking about, Mr. Speaker.

The only one that does not acknowledge talking about those plans–and the mi nister has incorporated some of those points, right? I do not want to say they were my ideas. I do not want to say that they are the member from Steinbach's ideas. Did I say that already? Let me say, let us share ideas. Let us share good ideas. No one owns a good idea. It is for the public good, right? All we ask is that the Minister of Justice– An Honourable Member: Hug a Liberal. Mr. Lamoureux: Actually, go further than wanting to hug a Liberal, actually provide– An Honourable Member: Mug a Liberal. Mr.

Lamoureux: Well, stay out of our pockets, no. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the Minister of Justice should start looking at the ideas that are out there that are going to make the real difference, and start properly and adequately supporting and providing the resources necessary in the areas that are going to make the difference. That is really what we are asking the Minister of Justice to do. If he recognizes the va lue of ankle bracelets, well, provide the funds necessary, Mr. Speaker, to incorporate ankle bracelets into the province.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, I believe that it will make a positive difference. The minister has now acknowledged the importance of probation officers, I believe. I think he is putting together, I think it is a 14-member special group of people to look at this high number of car thefts, Mr. Speaker, 14 me mbers. Well, you know, I give him credit. He heard of the idea, now he has jumped all over it, and he is going to act on it, apparently. An Honourable Member: May. Mr. Lamoureux: May. We have seen the press release. Again, proof is in the pudding. But, if he does act on this one, Mr.

Speaker, I will suggest to you that it will have an impact, that we will see fewer cars stolen in 2005 than we did in 2004 because we are starting to recognize that probation

2572 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 and curfews have a significant impact on the number of vehicles that are being stolen. You know, I have to relay a story. I had someone a few weeks ago that came to my office and had indicated to me that they have to be around town for the next little while. I asked why, and he indicated, well, a bit of a problem with the law. This individual or a relative of this individual now is under curfew. I said, "Oh, what is he under curfew for?" He said, "Well he got caught stealing his 28th vehicle." The individual, best I could tell, has not spent any time in jail.

Now, I could be wrong on that quite possibly. But the point is that he is under curfew. There are many individuals that are out there that are, in fact, on curfew. That is why, all kidding aside, and at times maybe I razz a little bit too much, but, you know what, having said that, I really do believe that if, in fact, we provide the resour ces where they are most needed, we can have an impact. If, in fact, we see the government providing these resources, and we see follow-through, what we will ultimately see is a drop in the number of vehicles being stolen.

If that all does happen, I will give the government credit for that. I would say that is a positive thing. I look at this particular legislation that we are debating, and I would indicate to the minister, because we are going to committee, you know, I am not going to say whether or not I support this bill or do not support this bill at this point in time. I will wait until we get to committee. I want to hear what the Minister of Justice has to say about, for example, the children in the vehicles, in other vehicles in which a drunk driver is invol ved, or is the cause of an accident.

How are those being taken into consideration? * (15:40) I would like to hear from the government, from the minister. First and foremost, does he believe that we are sending a mixed message about drinking and driving? I think that is a really important one. That is the biggest hurdle that I really have to get over first and foremost, Mr. Speaker, because I have always believed that drinking and driving is wrong. You talk about children. What about our parents? What about our war vets? There are all sorts of individuals that we care deeply and passionately about. We should care about all people.

Maybe, if a driver is drunk, and he has anyone in the vehicle, why just limit it to children? Establish why it is that you are doing what it is that you are proposing for us to pass– Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that debate now be adjourned. Motion agreed to. * * * Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr. Chairperson, in the

section of Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 considering the Estimates of the Department of Education, Citizenship and Youth, the honourable Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger) moved the following motion: I move to condemn the Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth (Mr. Bjornson) for his refusal to get to the bottom of the legal– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. As the Speaker, I cannot deal with that. We would have to resolve into Committee of Supply for the committee to deal with the matter.

Is it the will of the House to set aside House business and resolve into Committee of Supply to deal with the issue? [Agreed] We will now resolve into Committee of Supply. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY Mr. Chairperson (Conrad Santos): Committee of Supply, please come to order. Report Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Chairperson of the

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254): Mr. Chairperson, in the

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 considering the Estimates of the Department of Education, Citizenship and Youth, the honourable Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger) moved the following motion:

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2573 I move to condemn the Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth (Mr. Bjornson) for his refusal to get to the bottom of the illegal land development scheme in the Seven Oaks School Division. Mr. Chairperson, this motion was defeated on a voice vote. Subsequently, two members requested that a formal vote on this matter be taken. Formal Vote Mr. Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members. All sections in Chamber for formal vote. In the

section of th e Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254, considering the Estimates of the Department of Education, Citizenship and Youth, the honourable Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger) moved the following motion: I move to condemn the Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth (Mr. Bjornson) for his refusal to get to the bottom of the illegal land development scheme in the Seven Oaks School Division. This motion was defeated on a voice vote. Subsequently, two members requested that a formal vote on the matter be taken. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 21, Nays 32. Mr.

Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated. * * * Mr. Chairperson: The two sections of the Committee of Supply will now resume their proceedings in rooms 255 and 254, and the House will resume the session. Mr. Speaker, please take the chair. * (16:00) IN SESSION Mr. Speaker: We will resume second reading of bills. SECOND READINGS (Continued) Bill 35–The Capital Region Partnership Act Mr. Speaker: We will move on to Bill 35, The Capital Region Partnership Act. Hon. Scott Smith (Minist er of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux), that Bill 35, The Capital Region Partnership Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second reading Bill 35, The Capital Region Partnership Act. The Regional Planning Advisory Committee recommended the Province adopt legislation to form the partnership of Capital Region municipalities.

The mayors and reeves of the Capital Region unanimously passed a resolution requesting the Province to adopt legislation after consultation with the leadership with the Capital Region munici- palities. The proposed bill responds to the RPAC recommendations and the mayors and reeves' request without being top down. It enables the establishment of a partnership that gives the municipalities in the Capital Region the opportunity to shape that partnership.

The legislation facilitates the creation of the Capital Region partnership with the mandate to foster positive regionalism, mutual understanding and co-operation and promote regional thinking and collaboration by (

a) sh aring information, (

b) discussing issues of mutual concern, (

c) developing ideas for regional action, (

d) conducting research and analysis and (

e) agreeing upon common approaches to shared problems. Mr. Speaker, the mayo rs and reeves of the municipalities of the Capital Region are tasked with developing an organizational and government struc- ture for partnership that meets certain criteria set out in the legislation.

As well, before recommending to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that the partner- ship be established, I will have to be satisfied that the organization and structure the government has proposed by the partnership represents the entire region, recognize the city of Winnipeg's size and importance in the Capital Region, and facilitate the development of regional solutions to issues. Mr. Speaker, we believe that the Capital Region partnership must be built on consensus of mutual trust among the mayors and reeves of the

2574 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 10, 2005 municipalities in the Capital Region. This legislation allows that to happen. We have set out the principles under which the partnership will be created and are confident that the municipal leadership can shape an organization that will lead to a stronger and more prosperous future for all members. Mr. Speaker, with those few words, thank you very much. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to. Bill 36–The Courts Administration Improvement Act Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux), that Bill 36, The Courts Adminis- tration Improvement Act; Loi visant à améliorer l'administration des tribunaux, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of the bill and I table the message. Mr.

Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Attorney General, seconded by the honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Serv- ices, that Bill 36, The Courts Administration Improvement Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of this bill and the message has been tabled. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, the bill contains amendments to a variety of provisions of three different acts, all related to the improvement of the operation of the courts. The first part, Mr. Sp eaker, is under The Provincial Court Act.

It contains amendments to address two different types of situations dealing with the status of judges. The fi rst provisions clarify what is to happen to cases when a judge dies or retires, is removed, is suspended or unable to complete a case. There are provisions in the Criminal Code that address this type of situation for Criminal Code matters, but those provisions do not affect the situation for other types of matters.

These provisions give the Chief Judge the authority to proactively ensure that a case will continue to move at an appropriate pace through the court in the event that a case cannot be completed by the judge who started it. The second set of amendments creates the office of temporary judge. There are sometimes situations where a judge of the Provincial Court may be perceived to be in a conflict of interest that cannot be resolved by having another judge preside over the matter, that is, a judge from the same court.

This might include situations where an immediate family member of a judge is being tried, or perhaps where a judge is a witness. Fortunately, these are rare occurrences. These provisions allow for the Chief Judge to ask a Chief Judge from another province to designate a judge to come to Manitoba to hear certain cases or a particular case. A temporary judge will have all the powers and duties of a provincial court judge in Manitoba. A complaint mechanism that takes into account the public interest of Manitobans and fairness to the temporary judge has also been included. The second

part is with regard to The Court of Queen's Bench Act.

Part 2 contains amendments to The Court of Queen's Bench Act to address four distinct areas: the number of judges, the nomination committee and process for the appointment of masters, the clarification of two provisions regarding complaints about masters which are technical amendments, and the establishment of a date of conversion for judgments.

With regard to the number of judges, at the request of the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, the overall number of judges will not change, but the number of judges in the Family Division is increased by two, and that increase is then offset by a decrease in the number of general division judges by two. It is proposed that the nominating committee for masters be chaired by the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and that the senior master will be on that committee. This reflects the general super- visory role of both the Ch ief Justice and the senior master.

The nominating committee will be required to provide a list of three to six qualified candidates to the minister. In addition, there are two technical

May 10, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2575 amendments clarifying the complaint process for masters. The final proposed amendments to The Court of Queen's Bench Act is somewhat technical in nature but very important for those involved in civil litigation and creates certainty where the law has been uncertain. Basically, the Court of Queen's Bench must make an order in Canadian dollars, but a claim may be made in a foreign currency, so an American company, for example, can sue a Manitoba supplier for $10,000 in U.S. dollars, but the order made by the court must be the amount of Canadian dollars necessary to equal $10,000 U.S. When it comes to enforc ing the order, however, there is no

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-3-44
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 3rd hansardpdf 44.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b93cdbea3613feae1dc2bd54bab3317885e15215

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