Manitoba Hansard — 5 December 2006 (Sitting 14B, 38th Legislature, 5th Session)

38-5-14b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth 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. LVIII No. 14B – 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 5, 2006

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

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

McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. 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 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. VACANT Kirkf ield Park

505 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, December 5, 2006 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 207–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), that B ill 207, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants, be now read a first time. Motion presented. Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, this bill essentially came about as a result of numerous rallies on the grounds of the Legislature that the Retired Teachers Association of Manitoba, many of the retired teachers of whom are here today and I welcome them to the gallery, with respect to the fairness and the issue of COLA.

Unfortunately, we're not allowed to introduce bills in this Legislature with respect to money bills, and this is something that we feel is necessary in order to move forward on the issue of the TRAF board to ensure that we increase the number of board members to nine, requiring at least one member to have investment management experience and requiring one member to be a retired teacher nominated by the Retired Teachers Association of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 210–The Personal Health Information Amendment Act Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the MLA for Inkster, that Bill 210, The Personal Health Information Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les renseignements médicaux personnels, be now read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable patients in hospitals and personal care homes to access information about their own health within 24 hours if it's readily available. It would reduce the time now, which is 30 days down to 24 hours, so that patients and those who are health care providers can share information much more easily and move toward a more collaborative environment where patients and providers work together in the best interests of the patients' health. Mr.

Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 13–The Securities Amendment Act Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 13, The Securities Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les valeurs mobilières, be now read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends our legislation to make it consistent with similar initiatives in other jurisdictions among the provinces, as well as to enhance investor protection. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] PETITIONS Fixed Price for Milk Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for the petition: The price of milk varies significantly throughout the province while the price of beer is set by the Province of Manitoba. The negative impact of not having a set price on milk is having a negative impact on the health and well-being of our children, especially in northern Manitoba. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Doer), and all Manitoba MLAs to consider supporting the need to establish a fixed price for milk in the province of Manitoba.

506 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 Mr. Speaker, this is signed by Diane Poulin, Julie Hayward, Heidi Magnuson-Ford, and many, many other fine Manitobans. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Removal of Agriculture Positions from Minnedosa Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition: Nine positions with the Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives Crown Lands Branch are being moved out of Minnedosa.

Removal of these positions will severely impact the local economy. Removal of these positions will be detrimental to revitalizing this rural agriculture community. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing current technology in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. This petition signed by Duane LaCoste, Rose Laming and Bev Popien. Headingley Foods Mrs.

Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: The owners of Headingley Foods, a small business based in Headingley, would like to sell alcohol at their store. The distance from their location to the nearest Li quor Mart, via the Trans- Canada Highway, is 9.3 kilometres. The distance to the same Liquor Mart via Roblin Boulevard is 10.8 kilometres. Their application has been rejected because their store needs to be 10 kilometres away from the Liquor Mart.

It is 700 metres short of this requirement using one route but 10.8 kilometres using the other. The majority of Headingley's population lives off Roblin Boulevard and uses Roblin Boulevard to get to and from Winnipeg rather than the Trans- Canada Highway. Additionally, the highway route is often closed or too dangerous to travel in severe weather conditions. The ma jority of Headingley residents therefore travel to the Liquor Mart via Roblin Boulevard, a distance of 10.8 kilometres. Small businesses outside Winnipeg's perimeter are vital to the prosperity of Manitoba communities and should be supported.

It is difficult for small businesses like Headingley Foods to compete with larger stores in Winnipeg, and they require added services to remain viable. Residents should be able to purchase alcohol locally rather than have to drive to the next municipality. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act (Mr. Smith), to consider allowing the owners of Headingley Foods to sell alcohol at their store, thereby supporting small business and the prosperity of rural communities in Manitoba.

This is signed by Shane Craig, Patsy Fossay, Grant Fossay and many others, Mr. Speaker. * (13:40) MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 2008 Canadian Country Music Association Awards Hon. Eric Robinson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the House about the announcement made today by the Canadian Country Music Association that Winnipeg will be the host city for the 2008 Canadian Country Music Awards. This will be the third time Winnipeg will play host to Canada's largest music event.

Music plays a major role in the fabric of Winnipeg and Manitoba, and shapes the heartland of Canada's musical tradition. Artists such as Neil Young, Doc Walker, The Guess Who and countless others have launched their careers here. Manitoba has always been a great place for music and artists. Last year, we hosted the Juno Awards and, just recently, we played host for the Western Canadian Music Awards and the Aboriginal Peoples Choice Music Awards. With this

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 507 announcement, we will show the country, yet again, that Winnipeg is a music town.

Destination Winnipeg put a successful bid together for the 2008 Canadian Country Music Awards in partnership with a bid committee whose members included: co-chair Kevin Walters from Manitoba Film and Sound; co-chair Ray Martin, Manitoba Country Music Association; Ginette Lavack from Destination Winnipeg; Kevin Donnelly from True North Sports & Entertainment Ltd., the MTS Centre; Sam Baardman from MARIA; Sarah Stasiuk from the Manitoba Audio Recording Industry Association; Gilles Paquin from Paquin Entertainment.

The MTS Centre will, once again, play a major role in showcasing the best in Canadian country music, and will give Manitobans the chance to be a part of this fantastic event. In addition to the MTS Centre, several venues in the Winnipeg area will host special entertainment events that accompany the annual Canadian Country Music Week. Canadian Country Music Week in Winnipeg 2008 will showcase excellence in Canadian music and provide significant economic benefits and national exposure for Manitoba. This event will be held September 5 to 8, 2008. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Mr.

Speaker, I rise in response to the statement in the House made by the minister. I, too, would like to congratulate the planning organization in receiving recognition and being able to host the Canadian Music Association Awards in Winnipeg on September 5 through 8. It's a wonderful recogn ition for our province and the volunteers within our province in being able to offer, not only these types of events, but most recently, the Aboriginal Music Awards and the Grey Cup. It just goes to show that through great volunteerism, great facilities, we are able to provide nationally recognized events such as this.

I also would like to pay tribute to the bid committee. Being on a bid committee is more than just receiving accolades. It's their vision and their appreciation and hard work in trying to get an event even to be recognized. So I want to also congratulate Kevin Walters, Ray Martin, Ginette Lavack, Kevin Donnelly, Sam Baardman, Sarah Stasiuk, Gilles Paquin and many others who are a part of this committee. I look forward to participating in the celebrations and enjoying some great music. It's great for the province.

It is actually an excellent opportunity for many of our young people who are involved in the industry to meet their idols and people they look up to. So I want to congratulate the committee and we look forward to the music. As the minister said, it is a major component of the fabric of our community and our province. So congratulations to all players. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to speak to the minister's statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? [Agreed] Mr. Gerrard: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to join other members of the Legislature in congratulating those who were involved in putting forward the successful bid so that Manitoba will be hosting the 2008 Canadian Country Music Awards. This is a solid step forward for Winnipeg and for Manitoba. Congratulations to those involved from Destination Winnipeg, True North, MARIA and others. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Mrs. Diane Mozol. Mrs. Mozol is the mother of our Hansard recorder, Danny Mozol.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon. I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today members of the Retired Teachers Association of Manitoba. These visitors are the guest of the honourable Member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson). Also in the public gallery we have grade 9 students and staff from Arthur A. Leach School. This school is the guest of the honourable Minister for Healthy Living (Ms. Irvin-Ross).

Also in the public gallery we have from the Applied Linguistics Centre 19 adult English as an Additional Language students under the direction of Ms. Jennifer Loewen. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Minto (Mr. Swan). Also in the public gallery we have with us from Neepawa Area Collegiate 26 grade 11 students under the direction of Mrs. Michelle Young. This school is

508 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today. ORAL QUESTIONS Hog Processing Plant Premier's Position Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Just over a year ago, the Premier was at the front of the parade when OlyWest was announcing, Olymel was announcing a major $200- million investment in Manitoba which was going to bring 1,100 jobs here to Manitoba, Mr. Speaker.

He was even prepared, as an indication of his commitment, to build a hog slaughtering facility in St. Boniface, to put $27.5 million in provincial incentives in place to ensure that this development moved ahead. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we saw two of the partners in that project indicating that they no longer view Manitoba as a good place to invest and create jobs as a result of his government's policies. As a result of his government's decision to flip-flop four weeks ago on the issue of the hog industry, can the Premier provide the House with a straight answer today?

He was for it a year ago; he appears to be against it now. Where does the Premier stand on this investment in St. Boniface? Is he for expansion of the industry or is he against it? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): For the industry, Mr. Speaker. Mr. McFadyen: The Premier has indicated that he is in favour of the industry. Since Hytek is indicating today that they are hopeful that they can proceed with the investment, can the Premier indicate: Is the Province's $27.5-million incentive package still on the table? Mr.

Doer: The member might know that in September, Olymel in Québec announced that they had lost $150 million over three years, Mr. Speaker. They announced that on September 27. They announced at that time they would be reducing the number of employees in Québec; they would be reducing the numbers of plants in Québec; they would be reviewing the whole situation of their profitability. Obviously, Olymel was one of the partners in the proposed OlyWest plant.

They closed two plants down in Québec last evening, and obviously when there are three partners funding a proposal and two of them withdraw, the due diligence changes and the due diligence requires us to look at and review completely the $20-million loan. The $20-million part of the package dealt with the MIOP loan which was at Crown rate plus 1 percent. I know members opposite are making a lot of noise. They lost $40 million in MIOP loans. Since we have been in office we've made money on MIOP loans. That's the difference, Mr. Speaker. * (13:50) Investment in Manitoba Recent Cancellation Mr.

Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): The Premier is talking about making money and losses. I wonder if he wants to take credit for the $100 million in losses suffered by Crocus unitholders under this government. So that we have all th e facts on the record with respect to Olymel, Olymel is going through restructuring in Québec as a result of that province's moratorium and the issues that it created for that industry, but we also know that Olymel is expanding its operations in Red Deer, Alberta. Mr. Speaker, I want to put my question to the Premier.

Will he take personal responsibilty for the fact that he has created significant anxiety among residents in east Winnipeg? He is now creating uncertainty among investors who want to look at creating jobs here in Manitoba for young people, driving jobs and investment to the west, even as the water flows to the east in Manitoba. So there's no environmental benefit to what he's doing. Will the Premier apologize for the anxiety he's creating for residents in east Winnipeg with all the uncertainty?

Will he apologize to young Manitobans for the fact that his government, because of its anti- business policies, has driven JRI to invest in Yorkton, rather than Manitoba, with Canola crushing? Now, he's driving another industry out of the province of Manitoba. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, because one of the losses that I cited for MIOP was Isobord that also lost $7 million in Crocus and $15 million in a MIOP loan. When I say that the members opposite lost $40 million in office, that is well documented.

The loans we made, and they've been criticized, to Motor Coach and Flyer Industries and other

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 509 operations, have resulted in a net profit and more jobs here in Manitoba. So we need no lectures from members opposite who lost a co-investment of seven in Crocus and fifteen. In fact , they said in their press conference, and it was probably written by the member opposite, that they were going to turn straw into gold. Well, they sure did. They left a $15- million loss. The plant in Saskatchewan, the Mitchell plant with a $60-million grant from the Province of Saskatchewan has been cancelled. Many other expansions have been cancelled.

Plants are being closed all across Canada. I'm very confident, at the end of the day, that the processing jobs will continue to grow in Manitoba as they have in many other industries, but I'm also–[interjection] Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: I'm also confident, Mr. Speaker, that some of the comments made when Maple Leaf announced the cancellation of their investment decisions in Saskatchewan dealing with the Mitchell plant, that the analysis made publicly by the CEO are correct and will remain correct in the market as we go forward. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.

Hog Processing Plant Premier's Position Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier is obsessed with things that happened in the 1990s. He wants to go back and talk about things that happened in the 1990s. But, if we want to be accurate, let's talk about the 1999 election campaign where we have the spectacle of the Leader of the NDP running around Manitoba saying: We're going to keep everything the Filmon Tories got right. We're going to balance the budget; we're going to manage the economy well. They did a lot of things right. We're going to keep all those–oh, wait a minute.

Sorry, there's one thing we're going to do differently, we're going to end hallway medicine in six months. That was his campaign in 1999. So he's got to get out of the 1990s. Let's bring it forward to 2006. What's happening under his government's watch: $100 million in losses by Crocus shareholders; the loss of the JRI Canola crushing plant to Yorkton; expansions in Red Deer, Alberta, by people involved in the pork industry.

Will the Premier indicate the time lines for the environmental review that his government is undertaking, with respect to the pork industry, expected time lines with resp ect to the review of the high-tech proposal? Will he provide certainty as to how long the moratorium is going to remain in place so that investors who are thinking about where they're going to invest, where they're going to create jobs, which province they view as being friendly to business and opportunity, which they don't?

Give them some certainty so they can do some planning, so that investors, resi dents of east Winnipeg, Manitobans from the north, south, east and west can have some certainty and some knowledge this government has a plan. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it's starting to look like they don't have a plan. Can he assure us they've got a plan, and, if so, what is it? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I remember the day after the member opposite put his foot in his mouth about the Ontario Hydro sale reference. He stood up in this House; in fact, he had both feet in his mouth, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think he's ever pulled them out, either, after that statement about the Ontario document. Mr. Speaker, going back to the 1990s, the Isobord decision, the co-investment was made in the 1990s. He can check the record; it was either 1996 or 1997. That is factually true. I know he can't handle the truth, but that's the truth. I have the press release and I'll send it to the member opposite. Dealing with the issues of certainty, I would point out, on November 17 I believe the date was, he said: I support the idea of referring the issue of the hog industry to the Clean Environment Commission. I support that.

Now, the Member for La keside (Mr. Eichler) doesn't support it, the Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) doesn't support it, Mr. Speaker. But the Member for Emerson has at least been consistent, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who is all over the map. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of guests here today, and they came all the way down to hear the questions and the answers. I am asking the co- operation of all honourable members.

510 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 Hog Barns Moratorium Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we do support the environmental review, and we have been consistent on that point. But the environmental review is separate from the issue of the moratorium, and the Premier knows that they are separate issues.

So why won't the Premier, instead of playing games and playing politics, instead of trying to look for diversions by talking about non-existent issues and obsessing over things that did or didn't happen in the 1990s, why won't the Premier simply indicate how long is the moratorium going to stay in place so that we can bring some certainty, and so that we can send a message to the outside world, to those people who want to create 1,100 jobs in Manitoba?

To those people who are looking at major investment decisions, can the Premier provide some certainty, or is he going to continue to play politics with this important issue? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I am glad the member has reiterated his position on the referral to the Clean Environment Commission. I hope the member opposite is tabling all the actuarial reports warning the government about teachers' pension plans and the actuarial unsoundness of what was going on in the 1990s. I hope she's telling them the truth, Mr. Speaker. Having said that, Mr. Speaker– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

The honourable First Minister has the floor. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Clean Environment Commission is a quasi-judicial body. I was asked the question at the AMM convention. I believe I said I expect it will be within a year. That is what I said publicly to 800 delegates. The member opposite had a bunch of researchers there taking down notes. I expect he knows the answer to the question. Investment in Manitoba Recent Cancellations Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): The government's confused and inconsistent approach on this issue is driving jobs and investment out of Manitoba. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it is a serious issue, and if he wants to talk about things that happened in the 1990s, that's fine. If he wants to engage in academic debates about things that did or did not happen in the 1990s, that's fine. We're prepared to do that. But let's talk about 2006 and 2007 and beyond and where his government is going with respect to policies that impact on investment. Now what he's in effect doing is driving investment in the pork industry to the west. We now have companies looking at expanding their operations in Saskatchewan and Alberta in the pork industry. We know that Manitoba's in the same watershed.

So the water and the pollution runs downhill into Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, and it comes up from the south. He hasn't taken any action to deal with pollution that's originating south of the border. He's taken no action to deal with pollution that's originating to the west as these investments take place. It drives jobs out of Manitoba. He's driving the jobs and the money west, while the water flows east with all the pollution. Will he apologize to young people in Manitoba for driving jobs out of Manitoba?

Will he apologize to the people in east Winnipeg for the confusion and anxiety that his government's inconsistent policies are creating, and will he admit that he's got it wrong? Will he apologize, and will he indicate how he's going to fix this mess, Mr. Speaker? * (14:00) Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I think the Manitoba Pork Council, who doesn't agree with our position, would find it quite amazing to find the inconsistency of the member opposite's comments when he is talking about pollution of the pork industry west of us. Mr. Speaker, Hytek still intends on proceeding. That's what they said to day.

Secondly, the CEO of Maple Leaf, at a meeting in Brandon in September, made a speech about pro ceeding with the second shift, proposing an idea on the second shift in the western part of the province. He also cancelled the operation in the Mitchell plant in Saskatoon in Saskatchewan, west of Manitoba. There are two plants that closed down yesterday in Québec. There is a marketplace. The people that are investing their own money make decisions on the basis of the market. There are at least 25 articles dealing with the changing situation in the pork processing industry.

Part of it is the issue of feed and the thankfully higher prices for grain. Part of it is the increase in the dollar's value. Part of it is the

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 511 continued subsidies of the U.S. farm bill and the advantage that that has that, obviously, we want to deal with. Part of it is in increased labour costs across western Canada with the increased economic development. Those are all well known in the economy. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, we've competed with other provinces. The Simplot potato plant that is located in Portage la Prairie is the largest potato processing plant anywhere in the world. Members opposite in their doom-and-gloom comments said that that plant would never be built in Manitoba.

We competed against Idaho, North Dakota, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and we won. Hog Processing Plant Partner Investment Withdrawal Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, we have a First Minister who blames everybody in taking responsibility for himself. It is time he owned up to it. Mr. Speaker, my question is with respect to the OlyWest investment. This morning, Florian Possberg, CEO of Big Sky Farms, said, and I quote: We are very disappointed with the recent actions of the Manitoba government and decided to refocus our priorities in Saskatchewan.

Can the Minister of Co mpetitiveness share with this House how this NDP government plans to keep Manitoba open for business, despite the claims this province is unfriendly to investment? Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): The members opposite don't like to use comparables and especially don't like to use comparables in the '90s. Mr. Speaker, there is good reason for that. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal management on this side of the House has attracted business more than ever before in Manitoba's history.

When we came into office, the small business tax was sitting at 8 percent, the second-highest in Canada. Now, after seven years, we are going to be 3 percent, which will be the second-lowest in Canada. The members opposite talk about corporate taxation. They did nothing with corporate taxation throughout the entire '90s. We have reduced corporate taxation by 25 percent since coming to office, Mr. Speaker. We're reducing the debt, we are bringing up the revenues, and Manitobans and business know it's a good place to be. Mr. Eichler: Mr.

Speaker, Réjean Nadeau, president and CEO of Olymel, has made it very clear Manitoba is not friendly to investment. He said, and I quote: We fear that Manitoba's recent pause in hog production will mirror the other moratorium that was imposed in Québec. The moratorium in Québec was one of the factors that triggered a severe rationalization of the entire hog industry. Mr.

Speaker, again, I ask the Member for Brandon West, the Minister of Competitiveness, will this NDP government take down its province's sign: We are closed for business, and start making Manitoba a place where businesses want to invest and make it a have province, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it's nice to correct the member opposite and put factual information on the record. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba's economy continues to grow year after year af ter year. All the member opposite has to do is listen to the Auditor General.

Manitoba's net debt, a measure the Auditor General says matters, went down $151 million year over year from last year. If he doesn't want to listen to us, he should listen, certainly, to the credit rating agencies that are out there. Moody's Investor Services, Dominion Bond Rating and Standard and Poor's have all upgraded our records, something they didn't do through the '90s. Mr. Speaker, this is a positive place for business. We've reduced positive taxation measures. We've reduced debt. We've brought the GDP from 31 percent under members opposite now to 24 percent on cost.

Year after year, Manitobans are noticing the difference. Province of Manitoba Economic Growth Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, the minister should read the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce's report. There's only 7 percent of the businesses that agree with this minister. We have lost two major players in the hog industry as a direct result of this government's complete mismanagement of the OlyWest project. Shame on them. Not only will the people from Manitoba suffer this loss, our children are bound to face the future economic hardships as well. Business in Canada believes Manitoba is closed for business.

This Minister of Competitiveness has failed to attract new business to Manitoba.

512 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Competitive- ness assure this House that Manitobans will be seeing new growth and investment at home and will not follow the other provinces that are open for business? Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): Again, Mr. Speaker, I can by putting factual information on to the record. Since 2000, Manitoba's total capital investment is estimated to have grown by 44.6 percent. That far exceeds the national average, in fact, puts us in third place in Canada.

Manitoba's economic growth is the best in six years. Overall growth and investment will rise by 8.6 percent in 2006, a stellar record. Mr. Speaker, as well, when members opposite were losing jobs to other provinces, we've gained 5,180 jobs per year. In youth from 15 to 24 alone we've gained in the last se ven years a better average than they have. In fact, we've gained enough youth to make up the city of Portage la Prairie. Hog Processing Plant Environmental Review Time Lines Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr.

Speaker, the NDP government clearly continues to drive business out of Manitoba and bungle the confidence of investment in this province. With an industry investor which is, and I quote, fully committed to fulfil the environmental due diligence process, will the Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade, the Member for Brandon West, at the very least, advocate for clarity and certainty with his Premier (Mr. Doer) for either a time frame to his government's moratorium or a commitment to the resources required to do the environmental analysis that all parties and players agree are necessary? Hon.

Scott Smith (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm to the member opposite is that debt in this province is going down. The GDP ratio in this province when we came into office in 1999 was sitting at 31.4 percent. It's now down to 24.1 percent. Mr. Speaker, in terms of spending, and they may not want to listen to us, but our friends, the Fraser Institute says that Manitoba now has the second- lowest per capita spending of any province in Canada.

They continue to say that taking a balanced approach and being consistent; the Auditor General says being consistent to the GAAP regulations, net debt went down in 2006 over '05 by 1.4 percent. Mr. Maguire: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's very clear to see that the minister can't answer the direct questions that are being put to him. By singling out one sector of one industry, this NDP government continues to kill growth in Manitoba by forcing investments to other provinces. Recently, it was Canola processing.

Now both Olymel from Québec and Big Sky Farms of Saskatchewan are backing out of investment in Manitoba because of NDP decision bungling. The minister of competition knows that his government's mishandling of this important agriculture sector created uncertainty and is driving investment out. Why is he not seeing a clear time line or the resources needed to encourage environmental sustainability so Manitobans and others wanting to invest in Manitoba know the rules, Mr. Speaker? * (14:10) Mr. Smith: As the members opposite put incorrect facts on the record, Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to put on correct facts.

Manitoba's labour force has grown by an average annual rate of 5,810 per year. This, compared to 1990-times, is three times as good as the average the members opposite had all through the '90s. Manitoba's total employment has grown by an annual average of 6,670 over the last 6.7 years; 2.3 times the increase, on average, throughout the '90s. Mr. Speaker, we have tripled the amount of youth between the ages of 15 and 24 staying in Manitoba. Yet, members opposite continue to say we're losing youth. We're gaining for the first time in 30 years in Manitoba. Hog Barns Moratorium Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr.

Speaker, on November 7, this government brought in a moratorium. This morn ing the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers), the Member for Dauphin, told industry members at the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce breakfast, and I quote: We don't want to just show up tonight and declare what you have to do tomorrow, which is exactly what they did on November 7. Many jobs and much investment in the Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade's own home town and the Westman region depends on hog processing.

What is this minister doing to ensure that his NDP government's moratorium won't drive Maple Leaf processing from Manitoba as well?

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 513 Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): There's no energy on the other side. They want to use comparables, but they actually don’t want to deal with facts. Mr. Speaker, in the private sector since 1999, Manitoba's private sector employment– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I need to be able to hear the questions and the answers, please. The honourable minister has the floor. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When they don't get the answers they want, they try to shout you down. I believe the Premier (Mr.

Doer) used the best analogy that I've ever heard: When they've got a bad song on, just by turning up the radio it doesn't make it better. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector has increased their employment by 35 percent, double the average of what the members had opposite. They're incorrect; Manitoba's growing. Manitoba's taxation is performing better and more people are coming to Manitoba, including business. Hog Processing Plant Clean Environment Commission Review Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr.

Speaker, on the one hand, this government says they're in favour of the industry, but, on the other hand, they impose a moratorium to essentially kill it. On the one hand, they say they're in favour of an environmental review, and on the other hand, they stall it. My question for the Minister of Conservation: If he's so in favour of an environmental review then why doesn't he call for it? Hon. Stan Struthers (Min ister of Conservation): That backwards party acro ss the way, with their backwards leader, calling on us to further– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

All members in this Chamber are honourable members. When addressing other members, it's by their portfolio they hold or titles or other members by their constituency. That last comment, I ask the honourable member to withdraw that last comment. Mr. Struthers: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that comment. Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for that. The honourable Minister of Conservation, to continue. Mr. Struthers: Let me rather refer to the backwards approach from the party across the way. Mr. Speaker, we've been absolutely crystal clear and consistent.

We've said from the day one: No. 1, the environment comes first; No. 2, everything that we move forward on is subject to an environmental licence which, I'll take our record any day in protecting Manitoba's water as opposed to the lacklustre performance of members across whom, I may add, it's interesting to note that they do now today have a Winnipeg position on protecting water and a rural position. Shame on you. Mrs. Stefanson: Well, shame on you for not moving this forward and for stalli ng a review by the Clean Environment Commission. Mr.

Speaker, this NDP government has so badly mismanaged this issue it's pathetic. Not only have they successfully created un certainty in the industry, thereby driving businesses out of the province, they have created uncertainty in communities in east Winnipeg as to where the government really stands on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I call on this government not to wait until after the next election to call on the CEC to move this environmental review forward quickly. I ask the Minister of Conservation to do his job.

Call the CEC to move this issue forward to bring certainty to the issue to those in east Winnipeg and to industries of Manitoba. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may not know this, but the timing of a Clean Environment Commission review of a proposal starts with the proponent. The proponent announced a year ago, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, their intent to proceed and then filed their environmental application, I believe, in late August or early September. The majority of the months were under their watch and now, of course, it's proceeding to the environmental process.

Secondly, location is determined by the investor. The investor decides the location, Mr. Speaker, so I just want to clarify the record for the member opposite. Of course, we won't interfere with this quasi-judicial body. Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, if they filed in September then why is this government stalling?

514 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 Mr. Speaker, they're quick to act in postponing the Securities Commission review of Crocus. They're quick to act on things with the floodway. They're quick to act on things in other areas with respect to the Clean Environment Commission, but they're not quick to act on this leaving uncertainty in both the industry and to people in east Winnipeg. Why are they stalling on this? Is it because they want to wait until after the election because they're afraid of dealing with this issue? Mr.

Struthers: I wish our friends across the way would do a little bit of homework. We waited patiently to get the environment proposal to us. It came at the end of August, August 29. In that amount of time the Clean Environment Commission was asked to do their job, which they are doing diligently. They've called together a panel to decide on participant assistance. That decision has been taken and things are moving as they're supposed to. It's covered by The Environment Act. I wish the folks across the way would do some homework once in a while. Investment In Manitoba Recent Cancellations Mr.

Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of ministers and the Premier when they talk about the independence of the Clean Environment Commission process in this situation is completely inconsistent with the way they've conducted themselves in the past. We remember the Premie r when he was talking about the floodway expansion saying: Get the environmental review out of the way. Keep the feds out of it because we're going to have minnows swimming in our basements if we don't have them swimming in the channels goi ng around the city of Winnipeg. So let's rush that one through.

They weren't concerne d about the independence of their Municipal Board when it came to Waverley West. They weren't concerned about the independence of the Securities Commission. It's all about politics. Today the politics are saying delay. The Member for Tuxedo has asked the minister why he won't proceed ex peditiously with this environmental review so that we know the decisions are based on science and not politics, Mr. Speaker. It's the politics of panic in terms of their dealings with this issue. Now, we've had members opposite respond to questions using a couple of their classic deflection techniques.

One is they talk about the 1990s. They don't like what happened in the 1990s. The taxes were too high while the government was cleaning up the NDP mess, and they disliked it so much. How did they vote on the 1999 budget? An Honourable Member: In favour. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. McFadyen: They voted in favour of the 1999 budget. Things were so bad in 1999 that they voted for the budget, Mr. Speaker, and they campaigned around the province about how they're going to keep everything that the Tories had done. This is just absolutely pathetic. So let's move to the issue at hand. They talk about the 1990s.

They want to blame everybody else. They want to blame external factors when we have players who are prepared to invest $200 million in Manitoba today laying the blame at the foot of this NDP government and its incompetence, its bungling and its inconsistencies from one day to the next. So, will the Premier today apologize for playing politics with $200 million in investment and 1,100 jobs, and will he provide certainty to Manitobans so that we know that this government has got a plan, Mr. Speaker? * (14:20) Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I'm glad the member opposite remembers us voting for the budget in 1999.

There was one budget we could vote for. I would point out that many others, when they fired nurses, fired doctors, took away money from teachers, didn't put a cent into the teachers' pension fund for 10 years. Yes, we voted against those budgets, and we're proud we did, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I'm happy to note today that, yes, we have a lot of work to do with teachers and teachers' pension plan. But we're the first government in a number of years, in fact, 40 years; we've put more investment into teachers' pension fund. It's not enough and there's more work to do, and we're going to continue to do that.

I just want to thank our retired teachers who are here in the gallery for all their contributions to our kids, to our quality of education and to the people of Manitoba.

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 515 Mr. Speaker, the issue of environmental reviews. As the member pointed out, the Member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson) had one position on the environmental review. She said, get involved, break the law. The question she was asking was: What was the Clean Environment Commission doing? Well, first of all, it gets the application. It's a major application. It reviews it with its own experts, and then it gets an application from individuals that they have to adjudicate on intervener funding.

Now I know the issue of public intervener funding is not something members opposite support, but we actually support intervener funding. Even though we support the idea of building the Wuskwatim dam, we have the highest amount of intervener funding in the history of Manitoba. Even though we support the idea of the floodway, there was intervener funding. I know members opposite don't believe that's a step in the process because they never did it. Mr. McFadyen: Mr.

Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Premier now suddenly showing, demonstrating, concern for retired teachers in Manitoba when for years they've refused to meet and refused to listen to their concerns. It's our party that's been listening; it's been our party that's been moving it along. It's our party that said that retired teachers should have a seat on the TRAF board, even though they were against it. So to hear the Premier on this issue is nothing short of remarkable. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition has the floor. Mr. McFadyen: Mr.

Speaker, will the Premier, when he talks about issues related to investment in Manitoba and environmental impacts of those investments especially as it pertains to the hog industry, will he explain why it is that he's shutting the industry down in Manitoba while he doesn't have an agreement with the United States or with Saskatchewan or other places that are contributing to the nutrients flowing into our waterways? Why is he taking the burden of this on Manitoba producers? He's asking Manitoba producers to bear the brunt of it, but he isn't doing anything externally to deal with the root source of the problem.

He is driving jobs out of Manitoba while the nutrients continue to flow through the province. Will the Premier indicate and will he apologize today for weeks ago being in favour of expansion of the pork industry and now he's against it? Which side is he on? Is he in favour of investment? Does he want environmental considerations based on science, or is he going to continue to play politics with this important industry? Mr. Doer: I'm glad the member in his

preamble mentioned teachers' pension plans because it gives me an opportunity to deal with the question that they wouldn't ask today, Mr. Speaker, in 1993, 1994, 1995 the actuary for the teachers' pension plan made the same comment. The member opposite was working for the Minister of Education in those dark days, and the actuarial report said: Each decision to grant full increases uses amounts that may be needed in the future. As a result, the amounts available to finance future pension adjustments may not be sufficient to permit this objective to be realized in the future. They had warnings.

Dare I say, red flags went up over and over and over again. Now, we haven't corrected fully the neglect of the past, and, Mr. Speaker, it goes back even further than that. So, in all fairness to the teachers, it goes back even further than that. However, we ar e the first government to take the unfunded liability and start paying it down and putting it aside for the teachers' pension plan, about $250 million in the superannuation and teachers' pension plan. We have increased the government's contributions by 1.1 percent. There was not one cent percentage increase in the 11 years they were in office.

We have more work to do. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) will be meeting with teachers. We're not perfect, but at least we started putting money back into that fund. Health Care System Access to Personal Health Information Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, in our health care system, patients in hospitals or in personal care homes should have quick access to their own health information. But the fact is I hear all too often from Manitobans about the difficulties they have in gaining quick access to personal health information.

Indeed, in the gallery here today is Mimi Rhelan and her family who have experienced major problems in helping to care for family members because they weren't allowed quick and timely access to medical records. Present legislation says access only needs to be provided in 30 days. It is far too long.

516 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 Will the Minister of Heal th support our proposal to ensure hospital patients or their legal guardians have access to a patient's recent health information within 24 hours? Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I thank the member opposite for the question.

As the member knows, as members in the gallery would know and members of Manitoba know, The Personal Health Information Act was created and designed to not only deal specifically with privacy issues which, of course, are paramount to individuals in dealing with their very personal and intimate health records, but it is also about access. That act came into play in 1997 and part of the act was a requirement of a review process. That review process has taken place. It's been extensive. We are looking very closely at those recommendations, Mr.

Speaker, and we have an intent to bring forward legislation in the upcoming session. I would also add, Mr. Speaker, that what the act also states very clearly is that access to information can– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the government has had seven years to address this issue and they have not. Clearly, somebody who is in hospital or in a personal care home needs quick access to their health information so they can be full participants in their own care and improve the quality and the type of care that they're receiving.

Indeed, I understand that the Patient Safety Advisory Council of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority has also recently decided to support the principle of hospital patients gaining access to their own medical records within 24 hours. Again, I ask the minister on this specific issue: Will the minister support our call to ensure that patients in hospital or their legal guardians have quick access within 24 hours to their health information, to their medical charts? Ms. Oswald: Carrying on, Mr.

Speaker, from where I left off, I would first take the opportunity to correct the member opposite when he suggests that nothing has been done. The review has been done, and the work that Manitobans and health professionals have done to adapt and modernize the act has been extensive. I really regret that the member opposite would suggest otherwise. But let me draw attention to a very important point, Mr. Speaker, and that is the act, as it is written, really does allow access to information as soon as possible and that it must be within 30 days.

In fact, many patients who request this information already get that information within 24 hours. Not all, we're working on that, but the act, as it is written now, says as soon as possible, and many people are getting their information within 24 hours. I think the member opposite is misleading the public somewhat. NDP Nomination (The Maples) Premier's Actions Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Doer) is not being very courageous inside this Chamber.

In fact, we have put forward question after question, and they're fairly simple questions, asking for the Premier to come forward and admit that he read a letter which we know he has actually read. Yesterday, I asked the Premier a very simple question: Did you provide a copy of the letter or show it to anyone else other than Elections Manitoba? A very simple question. I ask the Premier again and will he tell this Chamber: Did he provide a copy of that letter or share that letter with anyone else other than Elections Manitoba? Mr. Speaker, that is a very simple question.

Can we get an answer, a direct answer, from this Premier? * (14:30) Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I think this is the fourth or fifth question the member's asked on this issue. It started out: Maybe there is, perhaps I've seen the letter. Then there was: I've sat on a letter now since September. Then the question was: Have you done anything about the letter that I've sat on since September? Now it's today: Have you passed on this letter that I sat on since September that I haven't seen to anybody else? Mr.

Speaker, the Premier very clearly indicated that when letters come from outside sources he immediately transmits them to the responsible authority to deal with. The member opposite has said in this House that he understands Elections Manitoba is looking at this. If Elections Manitoba is looking at this, I ask the member opposite: Has he provided information to Elections Manitoba that he has stated in this House he's had since September? I ask the member: Will he

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 517 co-operate if he has any information that he's had since September? Mr. Speaker: Order. The time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. Following the Prayer on November 24, 2006, the honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), rose on an alleged matter of privilege regarding the cancellation of a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee.

At the conclusion of his remarks, the honourable Member for River Heights moved "THAT this matter of privilege be referred to a committee of this Legislature." The honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Goertzen), the honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Chomiak) and the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) also offered contributions to the Chair. I took the matter under advisement in order to consult the procedural authorities. I thank all honourable members for their advice to the Chair.

There are two conditions that must be satisfied in order for the matter raised to be ruled in order as a prima facie case of privilege. First, was the issue raised at the earliest oppo rtunity and, second, has sufficient evidence been provided to demonstrate that the privileges of the House have been breached in order to warrant putting the matter to the House. The honourable Member for River Heights asserted that he was raising the issue at the earliest opportunity, and I accept the word of the honourable member.

Regarding the second issue of whether a prima facie case of privilege has been established, it has been ruled on numerous times in this House that the opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about matters arising in committee, and that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over committees. Speaker Rocan made such a ruling in 1989, in 1993 and in 1994. As Speaker, I have made similar rulings, twice in 2004, once in 2005 and once in 2006.

Also, Marleau and Montpetit state on page 128 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice that Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings on presentation of a report from a committee which deals directly with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual member. Similarly, Speaker Rocan ruled on March 12, 1993, that a matter concerning the methods by which the House proceeds in the conduct of business is a matter of order and not privilege.

This finding is supported by Joseph Maingot in the second edition of Parliamentary Privileges in Canada , who states on page 14 that allegations of breaches of privileges by a member in the House of Commons that amount to complaints about procedures and practices in the House are by their very nature matters of order. Maingot also states on page 223 of the same edition, "A breach of the Standing Orders or failure to follow an established practice would invoke a point of order rather than a question of privilege." Therefore, the matter is not in order as a prima facie case of privilege and is out of order.

I would also note for the House that when I ruled on a point of order on April 25 of this year, regarding complaints about the calling of committee meetings, I advised the House that there was no point of order, and what had been raised was an issue of negotiation and scheduling, which should not be raised as a point of order and should not be discussed or negotiated on the floor of the Chamber. I would also encourage members to exercise caution in the raising of matters of privilege.

While I would never deny a member the right to raise privilege in the House, I fear that we are beginning to see the trivialization and devaluation of what parliamentary privilege is claimed to be. As stated on page 220 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , in the Canadian House of Commons, "questions of privilege are frequently raised but few are found to be prima facie cases.

Members have a tendency to use the rubric of privilege to raise what is really a matter of order, or in the words of the Speaker of the House of Commons, a grievance against the government." Parliamentary privilege is a constitutional right that has been passed on to the Parliament of Canada and to the provincial legislatures from the United Kingdom's 1689 Bill of Rights and was incorporated into the Canadian experience to provide protection for members to exercise their parliamentary duties free from interference. I would also remind members that the individual protections for members under

518 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 parliamentary privilege ar e the freedom of speech; the freedom from arrest in civil actions; exemptions from jury duty; freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation; and the exemption from attendance as a witness.

The rights and powers of the House as a collective are categorized as: the power to discipline persons guilty of breaches of privileges or contempt and the power to expel members guilty of disgraceful conduct; the regulation of its own internal affairs; the authority to maintain the attendance and service of its members; the right to institute inquiries and call witnesses and to demand papers; the right to administer oaths to witn esses; and the right to publish papers containing defamatory material. I would ask members to reflect on this. That's my ruling. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Ian Wishart Mr.

David Faurschou (P ortage la Prairie): It is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to rise today in recognition of a resident of Portage la Prairie, Mr. Ian Wishart, vice-president of the Keystone Agricultural Producers. Mr. Wishart was recently awarded the natio nal Award of Excellence for Environmental Stewardship. It has been recognized that Mr. Wishar t's innovative efforts in promoting farm practices that preserve and protect wetlands, ecologically-sensitive areas, and natural areas of farmland through a program called Alternative Land Use Services. Mr.

Wishart started this program in the late 1990s as a way to reach the environmental goals by compensating farmers for conservation practices on their property. For instance, if a farmer did not seed a certain

section of land, a low-lying area for instance, then this would be dedicated to a small habitat for birds. But the farmer would be then compensated for the number of acres preserved and the type of land taken out of production. * (14:40) Mr. Wishart has invest ed an extraordinary amount of time and effort to make this program as well known as it is today. Mr. Wishart actively lobbied government, farmers and agricultural organizations to bring attention to this innovative program.

Today the program enjoys a long list of supporters, including the Keystone Agricultural Producers association, Agriculture Producers Association of Saskatchewan and the Delta Waterfowl Foundation. This support translated into a launch of a three- year pilot project here in Manitoba in the R.M. of Blanshard near Oak River in November of 2005. The program has been very well received and has shown a great deal of promise. On behalf of all honourable members of the Legislative Assembly, we offer congratulations to Mr.

Ian Wishart on his Award of Excellence for innovational approach to environmental stewardship and above all for his continued support and dedication to the betterment of agriculture and to the family farm which he currently operates in the constituency of Portage la Prairie. Winakwa Community Centre Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with all legislators of this Chamber that on November 26, I was pleased to attend lunch with Santa at Winakwa Community Centre in Windsor Park. Mr. Speaker, this centre plays an important role in the community of Windsor Park.

It's in my opinion one of the best community centres in Winnipeg. It was ranked as one of the top 10 community centres in the Community Review Task Force. The centre offers a stay-and-play program for families and preschool children three days a week. Parents and grandparents br ing their children to the centre for games and after-school activities. The community really enjoys th ese events, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, it's important that families can access programs and activities that the whole family enjoy together. One of the annual even ts Winakwa Community Centre puts on is a lunch with Santa.

This successful event gives the children of the community an opportunity to meet Santa and have fun, such as face painting and goody bags, with family and friends. There are ample hot dogs and beverages for all to enjoy. One of the great virtues of the holiday season is that it brings communities, families and individuals together to share in this festive spirit. I would like to thank everyone who was involved in the event, especially Pat Krueger, president of Winakwa Community Centre, Sandi Desharnais, and many other volunteers who co- ordinated with Santa and Alexander the clown who provided the entertainment.

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 519 I would also like to thank all those who attended the lunch at Winakwa Centre and the community workers throughout Windsor Park. Without their hard work and commitment, lunch with Santa would not be possible. Today is International Volunteer Day, and I am proud to say that my constituency is full of volunteers who make Radisson a community of truly spirited, energetic people. Windsor Park is a model community of good neighbours and great people. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Jon Montgomery Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in the House today to acknowledge an elite athlete from my constituency, Mr. Jon Montgomery, son of Eldon and Joan Montgomery of Russell, who participated in the first World Cup skeleton race of the season in Calgary, Alberta, last weekend. Jon began his competition in the skeleton racing in 2003, and in this short time has excelled to one of the top skeleton racers in our country, Mr. Speaker. Throughout his life, Jon has been an active participant in a number of sports, always excelling in whatever sport he was involved in.

Jon placed third in the first run of the skeleton race in Calgary on the weekend and then went on to secure the bronze medal in his second run, taking the podium with another Canadian who shared the first spot and a Russian who took the silver medal. Mr. Speaker, Jon will be competing throughout the course of the winter at various American and European World Cup races in the bid to secure a position on the Olympic team for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Therefore, on behalf of my constituents and members of this House as well, I would take the privilege of congratulating Jon Montgomery on representing not only our province but indeed our country on the podium in the World Cup race last weekend. Thank you. Hyperion Press Limited Hon. Christine Melnic k (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak about Hyperion Press Limited, a book publisher located in the constituency of Riel which I am privileged to represent. The company was incorporated in 1979, and has been providing quality books every since.

Hyperion Press publishes under two different names: Hyperion and Tamos. Under Hyperion, they specialize in the publicati on of children's picture books, local histories and art books. They have published books on Churchill and the polar bears, as well as one on our Legislative Building. They also publish children's books based on legends and folk tales for Disney Corporation in New York, and how- to manuals and books on crafts and Canadian history. Under the name Tamos, they publish craft and how- to books.

They are affiliated with Sterling Publishing Company in New York, which distributes their books on an international level. Recently, Hyperion's achieved great success with their children's book, Masks, which appeared on the bestseller list. The story was written by Andrea Tyler and illustrated by Stefan Czernecki, both Manitobans. It is based on the masks we wear every day when interacting with others. Two families from different cultures meet each other. One family's house burns down, and they are left destitute.

They come upon another house whose family doesn't speak the same language, but takes them in regardless. The message in this book is that we are more alike than we are different. Masks is currently in the permanent exhibit in the International Library of Children's Literature in Tokyo, and in touring Japan, Stefan Czernecki went to many schools and talked to many children both about Canada and this book. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Andrea Tyler and Stefan Czernecki on their success. It is truly an accomplishment for their book to be recognized internationally.

I would also like to congratulate Hyperion Press, especially Marvis Tutiah, who has dedicated her life to the creation of quality Manitoban literature. Thanks to our publishers, Canadians have access to an extraordinary range of regional, national and international works. Mahatma Gandhi Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to give tribute to a world icon figure, Mahatma Gandhi. It was the Hindu seniors society, early in October, that had sent me an invitation to participate in a celebration of his birth anniversary, and I thoroughly enjoyed the event.

As an individual, Mahatma Gandhi, I think, has been inspirational to people around the world over the years. I wanted to take this opportunity to bring it

520 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 up for the simple reason that, the other day, I was over at The Forks, and I had seen the statue of Mahatma Gandhi. For those that are not aware, this statue was actually donated through India for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. It's over at The Forks. Then I look at the Hindu seniors and the wonderful celebration they have for Mahatma Gandhi, and what came across my mind is how wonderful it would be to be able to have and host, whether it's in the Pool of the Black Star or someplace within our building, Mr.

Speaker, an opportunity to have that statue brought to the Manitoba Legislature, and even look and entertain the possibility of having one of those celebrations sponsored by the Hindu seniors society here at the Manitoba Legislature. Mahatma Gandhi was, as I indicated, a world figure, an icon, and, ultimately, I respect his principles of truth, non-violence, simplicity, faith, the idea of non-co-operation. I think, today, in the modern world we could gain a lot by looking at all the positive attributes of this wonderful individual.

I hope and trust, maybe over the next number of months, to try to work with members of the government and the Conservative Party to see if, in fact, we can do something in regard to my comments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Regarding government business, I'll announce the bills, at this point, that we'd like to call. There may be need for an update later and also some other events. So we'd like to call Bills 39, 28, 12, 11 and 5. If there's additional time, Mr.

Speaker, at this point, I think we'll then revert to debate on second reading. * (14:50) Mr. Speaker, I've just been corrected that the fifth bill I'd like to call is Bill 8, as opposed to Bill 5, which actually was the number of the order of the bills as opposed to the number of the bill. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we'd like to deal with, just to Bills 39, 28, 12, 11 and 8, and then we'll return to debates on second reading if we have additional time.

I'd also like to announce the Committee on Legislative Affairs for 6 o'clock tonight to deal with Bill 214 and any other bills that may occur today that can be directed towards that committee. I'll have further announcements later in the day. Mr. Speaker: It's been announced that for tonight, at 6 p.m., Legislative Affairs, the Committee on Legislative Affairs has been called to deal with Bill 214. SECOND READINGS Bill 39–The Court of Queen's Bench Small Claims Practices Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: We will start off with second reading of Bill 39, The Court of Queen's Bench Small Claims Practices Amendment Act.

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Lathlin), that Bill 39, The Court of Queen's Bench Small Claims Practices Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le recouvrement des petites créances à la Cour du Banc de la Reine, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Chomiak: Very briefly, this bill will enhance the opportunities to access small claims courts to individuals in general, thereby speeding up procedures for individuals, as well as decreasing their costs.

I don't know, but I believe that this is one of those bills in the House that we have a fairly good consensus amongst all members to deal with expeditiously, and I now turn with rapt attention to the comments of the members of House concerning this matter. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to finally speak on this bill. I had the impression already that the government was stalling its own legislation, you know.

We tried to get this bill through last session, and there didn't seem to be a strong will on behalf of the government to move the legislation. [interjection] Well, if the Member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer) has any comments that he wants to put on the record, he can stand up and do that. I rarely hear him speak publicly in the House. I certainly have said in the past that we think this is important legislation to come forward. We know

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 521 that there are problems within the context of our small claims courts in the ability or the amount of money that can be sought at that particular venue. We know also that the small claims court, not just in Manitoba, but certainly across Canada, is an important part of the judicial system allowing individuals to access justice in a way that is, I would say, relatively uncomplicated. I know that there are, from time to time, complaints about the cumbersome nature of the judicial system, but, in fact, I think small claims court is probably the exception to that.

It allows people to come there without representation. They can bring representation, certainly if they wish, but they needn't, and it's allowed for in a time when we see, and I know that the Supreme Court Chief Justice of Canada, Ms. McLachlin, commented on this fact, that there were more litigants who were se lf-representing in Canada today than ever before.

That certainly is a concern, I think, to those who work in the judicial system, because it takes an additional skill and time for judges to work with those individuals who are self- representing to ensure that they understand their rights and that they are exercising them in an appropriate way. In a time when we have a court system that is backed up and backlogged, that is a concern to have a lot of individuals who are self- representing within court. There is, I think, an old adage that says that a person who represents himself in court has a fool for a lawyer. But I would say, Mr.

Speaker, that there is some concern around that b ecause we do know that the legal system is complex. It's difficult for people to access past precedents and the other sorts of forms and orders that they need to operate properly within the court system. So allowing that the increase of the limit on the small claims court is important because it may, in fact, take some of the individuals who might otherwise find themselves at a different level of court, self-representing, to go into the small claims court system, this is a small step going from, I believe, $7,500 limit to $10,000 limit.

There was some discussion that the limit could have been higher. I know other jurisdictions have limits as high as $25,000 for their small claims court. So I think that this might be just one time when we make the amendment or make the change to legislation, but there might be other times when the limit goes up, as well, in the future. But I do know that those discussions, and there is some debate and dispute within the Bar Association and others about what the appropriate limit would be. I know that it's not a fixed number that everybody can come to a consensus on.

There are differences of opinions, and so you try to find a number. In that regard, I th ink it is a positive first step. We can see how it operates and whether or not there should be review and further discussions about a different limit in the future. I would, however, while I have the opportunity in the House, Mr. Speaker, to–while the government is talking in this legislation about changing the operation of the court system–encourage the new Minister of Justice now to do something that his former Minister of Justice, his colleague from St. Johns, didn't take the opportunity to do.

That is to ensure that the court system, overall, is operating in an appropriate fashion. We know that there is tremendous, tremendous backlog within the court system in Manitoba today. It's difficult to get the exact numbers in terms of what the backlog is, because the government simply won't release that information. I have had the opportunity to ask for the degree of backlog within the court system, in particul ar to criminal cases, and the response that I received from the Department of Justice were that those statistics were not available.

I think most Manitobans would be shocked to learn that the Department of Justice does not even know the extent of the problem in terms of how backlogged their court system is. Recently, I heard just this past weekend, Mr. Speaker, the concerns from the prosecutors here in Manitoba about their high workload and the difficult time that they have. In fact, they went so far as to file a grievance over the high wo rkload that they have and saying that they were concerned that justice might not be done.

I know some members make light of this on the other side of the House, but we know that prosecutors are the gatekeepers to the judicial system here in Manitoba. If they're not able to do their work properly, then it has an impact and a ripple effect, perhaps more than a ripple effect throughout the entire judicial system. So, when prosecutors co me forward in a very public way, which is an unusual event, I would say, Mr.

Speaker, when prosecutors come forward and admonish the government for not ensuring that there is a proper structure and perhaps resources in place so that they can do their job properly, that is a fundamental concern when it comes to the judicial system.

522 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 * (15:00) I also know, Mr. Speaker, in talking to members who are involved in pros ecutions, that there are concerns regarding morale in the department. I've had discussions with the Minister of Justice on this issue in the past, and he has sort of dismissed that, to say that, well, he's listed off what he believes to be an impressive array of things that they've done within the Prosecutions branch. But clearly they're not working, Mr. Speaker.

When prosecutors come forward in such a public way and say that the justice for victims and for families is in jeopardy, there is a need for real action on behalf of the government. It's not all about money. I know sometimes the debate that happens in this forum, in this Chamber often devolves to the lowest common denominator, which is often about money. But, in fact, when you talk to prosecutors on a one-on-one basis, on a personal basis, you'll find often that it's more than that.

They want to be respected in their work, they want to have a structure within their division that reflects that they're professionals and they're doing a professional job. In fact, I would say to members opposite and to all members of this Chamber, that most individuals who work in prosecutions, whether it's in Manitoba or in other jurisdictions, have already made a decision to forgo a certain level of financial remuneration.

In fact, most prosecutors at some point have made a decision between working in the private bar or going into prosecutions, and the private bar, for the vast majority, would have been more lucrative. So they have in fact already said: We're not going to just simply make a decision based on money or based on finances; we want to be on the side of the law that does the prosecutions that tries to make a difference in getting crim inals off the street.

So, when the Minister of Justice tries to make the argument that this is simply about money, not only I think is he insulting members of this Legislature in terms of what we know to be the truth, but I think he's also insulting those prosecutors who are trying in their best way to do an effort and to do a job, and they're not simply doing it based on the fact of financial resources. In fact, when we have this backlog within the court system, Mr. Speaker, it reflects and it impacts on all the systems of justice. We saw a Statistics Canada report that came out, I believe it was about a month and a half ago.

I don't have it in front of me here; I could get it for members if they wish. The report came out about a month and a half ago that stated, and this was shocking even to me, and I've learned to almost become numb to some of the statistics that I get out of the Department of Justice and how abhorrent they are. But the Statistics Canada report said that fully 60 percent of individuals who are incarcerated in Manitoba, 60 percent of individuals who are in jail, whether in Remand or in Headingley, ar e awaiting trial. They haven't even been sentenced.

So only 40 percent of the individuals who are in incarceration in Manitoba today have in fact been sentenced and the others are simply waiting to get to trial. That is not how the justice system has been set up to operate. So, in fact, what you have is many people who are at Headingley who are essentially waiting to come to trial. They're essentially serving remand time and there's no room for them in the Remand Centre because of the way the Department of Justice is operating here in Manitoba today.

It's interconnected between the workload that prosecutors have and the inability to clear cases through the court system. It then backs up onto the incarceration and to our prison system as well. So, while this bill deals with the lowest court in terms of issues that are dealt with, in terms of small claims court, we know that there are many other grander and larger issues that need to be dealt with in the justice system here in Manitoba. Yet the government chooses not to bring in legislation to deal with those issues.

I wonder if the government wouldn't in fact want to bring in some sort of standards within the department for prosecutions in particular. It needn't necessarily be in the way of legislation that comes before this House. But they might want to have a set standard in terms of how many cases each individual prosecutor has to deal with. I understand and I recognize that the Prosecutions branch breaks down their prosecutors in different levels regarding seniority. When I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Chomiak) regarding this average number of caseloads the prosecutors deal with, he told me, well, it's not so bad because there are actually only 155 cases per prosecutor. Well, that in and of itself is a very, very high number to know that a prosecutor is dealing with 155 active and open cases at any given time. But, on further research, what you find is that's 155 cases for the most senior prosecutor, which means those are the most complex cases. When you deal with junior prosecutors within the department, those who've worked in the department for less than five years, the average goes

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 523 up to 300 cases that they are dealing with, and those are less complex cases. But even, Mr. Speaker, in the least complex scenario, I can hardly imagine an individual dealing with 300 open and active cases, and trying to do justice properly. With those statistics, you start to understand why there's frustration, why we've lost senior prosecutors in Manitoba, why we've lost 14 prosecutors in 18 months, while senior prosecutors like Bob Morrison have left this province to go to do work in other places.

We know why the Department of Justice and Prosecutions, in particular, is suffering. In fact, I talked to a lawyer in western Manitoba who does work in a relatively small community in Manitoba. He said, you know, it's actually quite unfair because I as a defence lawyer–this is the individual talking to me–he said, I, as a defence lawyer go into court, and I've got one file. I have the file of my client in front of me. Yet the prosecutor comes in and he's got 60 files, and he says, I can tell it's clear that he hasn't even had the chance to read the file of the individual that I'm defending in court.

What an inequality, what an inability to do one's job properly, when you're given 60 files that you need to clear through the docket on a particular day and the defence lawyer is dealing with that one file and can pay attention, in particular. There is no doubt that individuals are frustrated in Manitoba with the justice system.

While I appreciate the fact that this legislation will do something positive, I would say to the minister that he's caught a very, very small fish in this sea, and that he needs to go after the larger problems that are in the ju stice and the court system, if he truly wants to say that they've done something to improve justice in Manitoba. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I do want to put a few words on the record in regard to Bill 39.

I think it's worth noting that Bill 39 was brought in, I guess it would have been in mid-May of this year, and then the first chance that we had to hear from the minister, in terms of some background to the bill, was just a few minutes ago, or 20 or so minutes ago where he'd introduced it for second reading, stood up, and made very brief comment on it, and then sat down. Mr. Speaker, it is a fairly significant bill in the sense that by increasing the maximum from $7,500 to $10,000, as an example, it will have an impact.

To what degree the impact will be realized, it's hard to tell because the minister responsible did not necessarily provide an y of the background information. So, for example, let's say there are somewhere between 5,000 to 6,000 people that use small claims court. What is the average settlement? If the average settlement is somewhere around $2,500 or $3,000, then one could ultimately question in terms of why, then, you would bring it up to 10.

Were we, in fact, seeing settlements that were in that $7,500 range and, if so, how many were we actually seeing where more money could have been awarded had the legislation allowed for more money? I think those are very important questions that do need to be answered when you bring in legislation like this. The reason being is that you have to take into consideration, for many people the first thing that comes across their mind when it comes to trying to recover their money through the courts is, should I or should I not get a lawyer?

The more money that's involved, the more pressure there is for an individual to acquire a lawyer in order to represent them because, now, if you're talking about $10,000, that's a great deal of money.

I suspect the more you increase the potential from small claims court the more you're going to get lawyers involved in the process. * (15:10) I was always of the understanding that what we're trying to do is to provide through small claims an affordable way in which citizens of this province are able to resolve issues that have proven to be problematic dealing with litigation, and ultimately they shouldn't feel that th ey have to have a lawyer. The higher the monetary value, I would suggest to you, the more the individual is going to call into question whether or not they're going to require a lawyer.

Whether, Mr. Speaker, you're the one that's doing the suing, or you're the one that's being sued, there's going to be more concern because of the dollar value or the maximum limit. So I don't know if, for example, 10 percent of the current people in small claims that use small claims–is it 10 percent that use that maximum of $7,500? Is it 5 percent; is it 15 percent, 20 percent? Why did the minister feel that it was necessary to increase it from $7,500 to $10,000? Mr. Speaker, I look to the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Chomiak) in hopes that he will provide that response, if not at committee, then in third reading, because I think it's very important information that

524 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 would bring a lot of value to the debate of this particular bill. We would like to think that the legislation is being brought forward based on the need, and that that need has, in fact, been justified. One would have to, in this situation, assume that the government has done its work and has been able to justify the need for this legislation. So, for that reason, we're not in a position in which we could, that we would actually oppose it. We'll allow it to go to committee. But, having said that, Mr.

Speaker, I am concerned that what the minister might be doing if he hasn't been able to justify that need is we might, at the end of the day, see more consumers using lawyers when, in fact, the increase was not even necessary. Because, when the minister made his comments on the introduction of Bill 2 for second reading, there was no explanation of that very important point. So, with those few words, I'm going to end by posing a specific question to the minister in hopes that the minister will provide an answer between now and third reading, or, if not, at least stand up in third reading.

The specific question is what percentage of cases that go through small clai ms receive awards of $7,000 or more or higher. What percentage? I believe we get somewhere between 5,000 to 6,000 people using the small claims court. What percentage of those actually is awarded over $7,000? I would very much appreciate that response from the minister. With those few word s, Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to see it go to committee. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr.

Speaker: The question before the House is the second reading of Bill 39, The Court of Queen's Bench Small Claims Practices Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 28–The Manitoba Museum Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: We'll resume debate on second reading of Bill 28, The Manitoba Museum Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Inkster. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, at this point, we're prepared to see Bill 28 go to committee.

We appreciate the fact that this is in order to accommodate, possibly a little bit more efficiently, by reducing the size of the board at the Manitoba Museum. We have realized the many benefits that the museum has to offer and, at times, especially in a changing environment, in particular with volunteers and so forth, there seems to be more of a push where it is possible to reduce the size of boards. I have not, over the last number of months, heard any feedback in regard to Bill 28. One or two people that I have had the opportunity to mention the bill to have not indicated any sort of opposition to the bill.

I think that, if this is one of the ways in which we're going to make the board that much more effective and, possibly, efficient and be able to accommodate them so that they're also going to be able to have a little bit more authority in making some of the by- laws, in general, it's a positive bill. So we don't have any problem in seeing it go to committee at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. The honourable Member for Minnedosa, to speak to the bill? Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Yes, briefly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to put a few comments on record re garding Bill 28. As the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) had indicated, there has been very little comment in concern towards this bill. In the consultations I have had, stakeholders have indicated they have little concern with the housekeeping requirements of this bill so, as the critic for Culture, Heritage and Tourism, I support moving this bill to committee. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 28, The Manitoba Museum Amendment Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] SECOND READINGS Bill 12–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Regional Vocational Schools)

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 525 Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade (Mr. Smith), that Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Regional Vocational Schools); Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les écoles publiques (écoles professionnelles régionales), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, this bill is being introduced to address the issue of the Winnipeg Technical College which was established under The Public Schools Act as an agreement originally between two or more school boards for the operation of a regional vocational school and for the establishment of a governing board to administer it. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair Since it was established in 1983 the agreement was between St.

Vital, Assiniboine South and Fort Garry school divisions, and of course, as members are very well aware, these divisions were changed somewhat during the amalgamations of 2002, and a subsequent agreement was made through partnership with the Louis Riel and Pembina Trails school divisions. Since that time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Louis Riel School Division has indicated its desire to exit the agreement with Pembina Trails and as such the participation pending enactment of the legislation would be between the Province of Manitoba and Pembina Trails.

The amendments that are raised in this bill will enable the province to enter into an agreement with Pembina Tr ails and continue the operation of the Winnipeg Technical College. The governing board, the operation governance with college, division statement, et cetera, would be a part of this legislation. I am very pleased that we have moved this to second reading stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am very pleased that we will be moving this to committee very soon. Thank you. * (15:20) Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr.

Penner), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to. Bill 11–The Insurance Amendment Act Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade (Mr. Smith), that Bill 11, The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les assurances, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Selinger: I am pleased to speak about Bill 11, The Insurance Amendment Act. The amendments proposed in this bill are the first steps to modernizing the act, and will bring the legislation closer to other jurisdictions across Canada. The superintendent of insurance and his staff have been in consultation with representatives of the insurance industry for a number of years to recommend changes to this outdated legislation.

While there has been agreement on a number of recommendations, there are still issues being studied, pending resolution by similar reviews in other jurisdictions. Harmonization of insurance laws across jurisdictions is important to provide consistency to policyholders and relieve the burden of offering different requirements to the insurance industry. The amendments in this bill protect consumers, provide access to products that are evolving in the marketplace and should be welcomed by stakeholders.

Currently, the legislation does not provide clear authority to stop an unlicensed person from acting as an insurance agent or adjuster. This bill will provide the superintendent of insurance and the insurance councils with the power to seek an injunction to prevent activity which is contrary to the act. The offence provisions are outdated, and penalties are not at a sufficient level to act as a deterrent for a breach to the act. This bill will strengthen the offence prov isions and increase fines to a level consistent with similar financial services legislation. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the definition of "beneficiary" limits insurance monies under an accident and sickness contr act to accidental death benefits. With the emergence of a variety of new accident and sickness products, a change to the definition of "beneficiary" will allow an insurer to name a beneficiary for all benefits payable under an accident and sickness product, and not just insurance proceeds payable in the event of an insured's death by accident.

526 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 With the authorization of the insurer, a general insurance agent can now adjust a first-party claim up to $2,500 on a policy sold by the agent. This bill will increase this amount to an amount prescribed in regulation. The prescribed amount is expected to increase to $5,000. This will speed up the settlement of minor insurance claims without significant risk to policyholders. Special brokers are authorized to sell insurance not readily available from insurers licensed in Manitoba.

This bill will increase the personal liability for special brokers when dealing with unlicensed insurance premiums and improve the policy of older disclosure to identify the risk of unlicensed insurance. There is agreement nationally to reduce the number and redefine insurance classes from 30 to 16. This bill will start that process to make our legislation consistent with other jurisdictions. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, this bill will codify governance standards for Ma nitoba insurers related to a minimum number in composition of directors, required committees of the board such as audit and conduct review committees and the requirement for an actuary. The minimum reserve in guarantee fund calculation for insurance reciprocals are outdated and inconsistent with other jurisdictions. These amend- ments will allow an updating of the minimum requirements for reciprocals operating in Manitoba to be prescribed by regulation. The current legislatio n requires an insurance council to consist of six members.

The proposed amendments will eliminate the specified number of council members in order to provide for greater flexibility in the future. The business of insurance is essential to protect Manitobans and provides an important element to our economy. Over the next few years, we will continue to discuss further amendments with stakeholders, watch changing laws in other jurisdictions and be involved in national initiatives so that The Insurance Act could be updated and consistent with established standards. Mr. Deputy Speaker, with these comments, I am pleased to recommend this bill for consideration. Thank you. Mr.

Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 8–The Public Accounts Committee Meeting Dates Act (Legislative Assembly Act Amended) Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are now moving to Bill 8, The Public Accounts Committee Meeting Dates Act (Legislative Assembly Act Amended);

Loi sur les dates de réunion du Comité des comptes publics (modification de la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative). Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): This is the one about the six-pack, right? Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill is a major step forward in Public Accounts. With the full support of the opposition, I'm sure we can pass this expeditiously and then have six meetings on prescribed dates where we all get together in a spirit of harmony to examine the Auditor General's reports and to improve public accounting practices, acco untability and outcome- based approaches for the use of public money in Manitoba. Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker: A little bit of correction here.

The bill will stay standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pemb ina (Mr. Dyck). Is that agreed? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Somebody has to speak. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm going to take this opportunity to maybe express a lot of frustration. I am advised by my doctor that stress is not a healthy thing. So one of the nice things about sitting inside the Legislature is I get the opportunity to express myself and share some of the frustrations, and you know, by sharing frustrations, that's good for your stress level.

So I want to feel, I know I'm going to feel a little bit better after I'm able to sh are some of the thoughts I have about this particular bill. * (15:30) It is a very ironic bill. Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if somehow this bill was to actually pass. I'm not convinced that it should pass. You know, you've got to imagine a government for seven years, and what happens? Se ven years, they come up with the idea, we're going to have mandated legally, you know, legislation that's going to force Public Accounts to meet six times a year. It took them seven years to come up with that thought.

Well, I don't think it took them that long.

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 527 You know what I believe happened, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that Mia Rabson from the Winnipeg Free Press wrote a story and the Premier was embarrassed by that story. A question, well– [interjection] Someone says "wrong" on the government benches, the Member for Riel (Ms. Melnick). I believe I am ri ght. In fact, the question that is posed to the Premier, and then the Premier stands in his place and says, well, we're going to mandate it through Legislative Counsel. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr.

Deputy Speaker: A point of order is being raised. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's just government business. I wonder if I could just, I hate to interrupt the member in full flight, but he did refer to stress, and I wonder if I might just deal with government business to expedite matters for tonight. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? [Agreed] Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to indicate that Bills 39 and 28 are going to be moved on to the standing committee for this evening at 6 o'clock. Mr.

Deputy Speaker: Bills 39 and 28 will be in committee meeting tonight, along with Bill 214. * * * Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think I was just getting started, so I'll push my start button. But anyway, what I was saying is that the Premier, in a response in Question Period, says that we have legislation. Well, that's the first time we've heard anything of the legislation. I believe that the Premier was embarrassed through a Free Press

article and then decided in his own wisdom that, I'm going to reform Public Accounts Committee. He comes up with this gesture of saying we're going to meet six times a year. So, if this bill works to pass, remember, there's an agreement that we're already supposed to be meeting six times this year. How many times have we actually met so far this year? Twice. So, if we pass this legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, then there's only one more meeting required before the end of the year. As opposed to four more meetings, which opposition is entitled to, or in which Manitobans are entitled to see.

Four more meetings between now and the end of December is what's supposed to be happening with the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you look at our Public Accounts Committee, we're really unique across Canada. We have the worst. There is no Public Accounts Committee in Canada that is worse than the Public Accounts Committee in the province of Manitoba. For years, this Premier has done nothing in terms of reforming the Public Accounts Committee.

Instead of reacting to a Free Press article, what would have been the most appropriate thing would have been that the Premier should have entered into some dialogue with members of the opposition, and we could have shared with the Premier and his House Lead er and those that are actually interested in legitimately form of Public Accounts and we could have actually done something about it. I've got bad news for this government, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Even if we pass this legislation, we're still going to have the worst Public Accounts Committee in Canada.

So we're starting off at number 10, and with this legislation passing we're still going to be number 10. If the government wanted to pass something that mandated numbers of days, guaranteeing days, what they should have done is they should have passed legislation which would have guaranteed that the Legislature would have sat more days. If they really wanted to do something of value, if they want to say we have to sit the X number of days, but this government, more than any other government that I'm aware of–you know I have been around in opposition for a while, I must say.

I had an involuntary sabbatical for a period of time there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I respect that and I was able to recharge my batteries, I must say. I know you share in what it is th at I talked about, as the Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg) does too. What I have seen is I have seen the government avoid accountability in every instance. Let me comment on a few of those things. You know, back in the '90s, we used to have Estimates where there were 240 hours of questions and answers, followed by an unlimited amount of concurrence.

Somehow, this government, and I applaud the Government House Leader, somehow the government side prevailed and they shut it down from 240 to 100 hours. Not only did they reduce the hours, and I'm amazed on how you got that agreement, I must say, but from 240 hours they reduced it down to 100 hours. Not only that–[interjection]

528 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 Well, you had limited concurrence before. One member says, well, we gave you unlimited concurrence. You had 240 hours, plus unlimited concurrence back in the '90s. They got rid of 240, reduced it down to 100, and we had two committees meeting at one time. They increased it to three committees, so you could even burn off more time even that much quicker, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is just a government that just doesn't like the Legislature. They don't like to be held accountable. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what, in essence, did that change do?

Well, what it did is–it's the Estimates that allows MLAs, in particular, critics, to have line-by- line questions and answers of the government. Every expenditure. What we saw was a huge reduction, and as a result there are far fewer questions being posed to the government and its departments. Now, when we go into the Estimates, it's hurry up and rush, rush, rush. We only have 100 hours. And every department, you ask every critic and they all want hours. How do you try to pass the Department of Health in 10 hours when you spend three billion dollars? That's not responsible.

You have to have appropriate time and concurrence. Well, you save concurrence and you use unlimited concurrence. They didn't change that rule, but with the rule they brought in was a fixed exit date. So they know, come mid-June, they get their summer holidays. So that means, if you bring in concurrence on June 1, you might only get a few hours of concurrence. So you've actually put a cap on concurrence. I never agreed to it. I never would have agreed to something of that nature.

The government would never, ever have convinced me to sign an agreement of that nature, because that is into the detriment of public accountability, and I put public accountability much higher than I do party policy. I would never have supported that sort of a change. It's worked to the detriment of public accountability. Then you take a look at the Public Accounts Committee, and I wish I had the

article in front of me. I wasn't anticipating I would be speaking today, so that means I don't have any notes whatsoever. If someone does have it, I'd be more than happy to– what I'm interested in is, you'll see the number of times that the Public Accounts Committee has actually met. Believe me, I had indicated, in a three- year stretch, it met twice. [interjection] No, I believe it was 2000 to 2003. It met four times? It met four times, okay. So it met four times in that three-year stretch, according to the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau). So I'll use the number. * (15:40) Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I sat inside Public Accounts Committee, and I was one of those individuals who felt exceptionally frustrated because of the limitations that we have in Public Accounts. So you sit in committee for an hour and fifty minutes, because you're only going to allow it to sit for two hours, and then, as there's five minutes to go, you're finally provided the opportunity to ask questions. Well, whoopee, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That's not true accountability.

You set two hours, you have a couple meetings, there are a few meetings in years, and then you allow for a member of an opposition, whether independent or part of a political party, two or three minutes to be able to ask a question or two, and you call that Public Accounts Committee. Is there any wonder why we have the worst in Canada? I've been quoted as saying that it is an absolute farce. It is, and then we have a Premier who likes to think that he's doing something for the province by bringing in legislation of this nature. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this legislation is a joke. There's no strength.

This is a political statement from the NDP, in particular, from the Premier of the province trying to look as if he's genuine on reform. There's no reform in this legislation. It's a facade. It's there to try to give the impression that they're actually doing something good when they're actually not doing anything. They're not doing anything to give more teeth to the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Speaker in the Chair I would welcome the opportunity to debate the issue of the value of Public Accounts Committee with any member of government, in particular, the Premier of this province or the Minister of Finance.

I'd love to debate this issue. We could even go into their respective constituencies, open it up to the public and let's see maybe if we can get some people in attendance. Well, you know, I do believe that if the Premier did agree to having a public debate on the future of Public Accounts in the province, unlike what members are saying that we'd only get a few people, I would suggest to you that we would get hundreds of Manitobans who would show up. What I would love the opportunity to do, Mr.

Speaker, is to demonstrate what a Public Accounts Committee could be doing and then allow the Premier to present his package of reform, you know, the mandated six days in any given year. It's quite the

December 5, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 529 bundle of reform. If the Prem ier was in opposition, I wonder if this is the type of legislation that he would be advocating in terms of reforming Public Accounts– An Honourable Member: You never know. Mr. Lamoureux: Oh, yes, to the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Smith). I do know. I do know it because I sat for years when your leader was the Leader of the Opposition and he would never have accepted this type of legislation and called it reforming of Public Accounts Committee. That I know, Mr. Speaker.

You know, in opposition, there was some hope back when he was Leader of the Opposition that there would be genuine reform, but we haven't seen that. That's unfortunate because when he was in a position to stand in his place and demand for changes, he had no problem doing that, no problem whatsoever. When he was Leader of the Official Opposition, he had no problem talking about reforming institutions. In fa ct, Mr.

Speaker, I would argue that if anyone from the media would have asked our current Premier, prior to 1999, whether or not he believed in fixed election dates, if I was a betting man, I would tell you that the Premier would have said that he supports fixed election dates. The problem is that I don't think there's any record of him actually making that statement that he supports fixed election dates. It's unfortunate because had someone posed the question when he was the Leader of the Official Opposition, someone would have asked that.

Could you imagine if someone would have asked the Premier, prior to 1999, what do you think of our Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Leader of the Official Opposition? Back in 1999, the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) would have rattled on and on about how we need to give some teeth to the Public Accounts Committee–[interjection] You know what, the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) is right, like I am doing now. I believe the Premier would be saying a lot of the things that I am saying now.

Let me tell you what I believe the Premier would be saying because I would think we would probably be thinking alike if, in fact, he was still Leader of the Official Opposition. He would be saying that we want teeth to the Public Accounts Committee. We want to be able to call people before that Public Accounts Committee.

If there is a public dollar that is being spent, we want to be able to hold people, whether it's a non-profit group, whether it's a Crown corporation, whether it's a department, a special agency, you name it, if there's a public dollar that's being spent, there is a vested interest in the Public Accounts Committee to ensure that we have the ability to bring forward witnesses, if they have anything to do with the expenditure of that money, that we would have the opportunity to be able to call them before a Public Accounts Committee.

This way, we can ensure that the taxpayers' dollars are being appropriately spent, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Premier (Mr. Doer) would have been arguing for things of that nature if he was still leader of the opposition. Well, I am going to be consistent, and I am going to continue to argue that that is the type of reform that we need to see inside the Legislature.

I would suggest to you that, if we saw that type of reform, we would actually be able to see a Public Accounts Committee come from No. 10 to at least the top three in Canada, not like the "reform" that the Premier's been motivated to give because of a Free Press

article that is going to do absolutely nothing in terms of genuine reform of the committee. Nothing at all. It just says that we're going to meet six times a year; doesn't say that there's going to be, you know, when you sit, it's going to be at 10 o'clock in the morning and you sit all day, or there is nothing in there in terms of who it is that we could call before the committee. It does nothing to give additional authority to the chair of the committee. I think that that is something that should be happening.

The chair of Public Accounts, traditionally, whether it's here in the province or it's been outside of the province, has been a member of an opposition party. It does nothing in terms of enhancing that particular position. There are so many lost opportunities of genuine reform. The best that I could figure is that, you know, I often hear from members. These members will always go somewhat unnamed, I must say, Mr. Speaker. I always hear from members that, you know, you never know after an election whether you're going to be in government or you are going to be in opposition. It's only a question of time.

It's only a question of time before you will be in opposition. This government will be in opposition. The NDP will not be in power forever, I am sorry to tell you that. It's not going to happen. It could be a whole lot sooner than you think. You could be in opposition; you could be third party; things happen very quickly.

530 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA D ecember 5, 2006 There are ample examples of that across this nation where governments have been literally wiped out and believed that they were going to be there. Equally, when you are in opposition, there is no guarantee that you are going to be in government someday if you are the official opposition, or if you are a third- party situation. There is no guarantee. You know, some would say that we don't, we couldn't, that we're not going to form government. Well, let me suggest to you that no one predicted that Sharon Carstairs was going to go from one to 20. It happens.

I can remember the former Member for Portage la Prairie, Ed Connery, when he gave a speech, and he indicated that, had the election back in 1988 been one week later, it would have been a provincial Liberal government here in the province of Manitoba. So it would have gone from one to government, Mr. Speaker. [interjection] * (15:50) Well, the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) says it's also fiction. We ll, Mr. Speaker, there was even some thought that you might even see the NDP wanting to see the Liberals form, in hopes that the Liberals would fall quicker, and then the NDP would come back that much quicker.

Anything is possible. Canadians have proven that. From coast to coast, governments have been upset, parties from nowhere. Who would have guessed that the Leader of the Green Party would have come in second place in the recent by-election in Ottawa? Where did the NDP place? Fourth? [interjection] Well, Mr. Speaker, you never know. That's why, when you look at reforming and changing our institutions or you're changing the way in which this Chamber operates or its committees, it's standing committees, you need to see beyond the next election, beyond your term in government.

Like, don't believe that, you know, you don't change the rules to accommodate you because you happen to be the party in government, and that's what I have seen happen. When I look at the changes that this government has made, whether it's the way which this Chamber operates, wh ether its election reform through The Elections Finances Act, whether it's through the Public Accounts committee, it's all been regressive, all of it. [interjection] Well, regressive. I' m referring to the New Democrats, you know. Mr.

Speaker, they have been moving backward, and I can't help to think what individuals like Ed Schreyer would have to say about some of the things that they have done, some of the individuals. It's with great pleasure that I tell this Chamber that I have more and more members in the New Democratic Party or former members of the New Democratic Party that are now supporting me and the Liberal Party. They're supporting us because they feel that today's ND P are not NDP. They really believe today's NDP are not NDP.

I think, as a result, you're starting to lose some of that support, and I'm more than happy to be able to advocate for many of the issues that the NDP have given up on, and some of those issues have–[interjection] Where am I, in The Pas? On the hogs? Mr. Speaker, you know, my concern is that I'm going to run out of time. Can I have leave? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Lamoureux: No. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have leave. They're giving me leave so I can continue on. Okay? Leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they're just giving me leave, so I can continue on. Mr.

Speaker: The honourable member still has six minutes remaining in his time. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the hogs. I really, really do. Having said that, let me just–[interjection] Well, out of respect for the Member for Riel (Ms. Melnick), allow me the opportunity to tell her and the government, the government that has really blown this one, Mr. Speaker, I tell you, you want to talk about a mess; they're killing the hog industry. So let me tell you what happens. Okay. Now, let's be patient. Let's listen to the whole story. Mr.

Speaker, I sure hope, because I'm going to tell them the whole story on this that I might need some extra time, so I'm going to hope that they're going to allow me to tell them the whole story. The Premier (Mr. Doer) of the province is in front of the parade, as was stated earlier, saying that, we're bringing OlyWest and the pig slaughterhouse in St. Boniface, Mr. Speaker. [interjection] Well, out of respect for the Member for Riel, I was commenting on it. Now, the Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) says: Don't tell it; don't tell us; we don't want to know the truth. The truth hurts. I know. I know. Mr.

Speaker, the bottom line is that

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-5-14b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 5th hansardpdf 14b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cc25d283248c2ca1078050ecd108cacc60fc394c

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