Manitoba Hansard — 25 May 2006 (Sitting 76B, 38th Legislature, 4th Session)

38-4-76b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LVII No. 76B - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, May 25, 2006

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

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

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

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

2571 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, May 25, 2006 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDING INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 214–The Environment Amendment Act (Methamphetamine) Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I move, seconded by the MLA for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that Bill 214, The Environment Amendment Act (Methamphetamine); Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'environnement (méthamphétamine), be now read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, The Environment Amendment Act (Methamphetamine) amends the province's Environment Act such that anyone found to have released substances in the environment in the course of making meth is deemed to have caused an offence and is liable for financial penalty. The penalties are a fine of up to $50,000 for a first offence and a fine of up to $100,000 for a subsequent offence. Right now meth makers hurt us twice, once by making the drugs available and then a second time leaving toxic waste to be cleaned up.

On average, for every kilogram of meth there is a huge amount of hazardous material, and there have been instances where cleanup costs have reached $150,000. W h a t w e n e e d i s t h i s b i l l t o m a k e s u r e w e c a n look at the environmental after-effects of meth and have an additional tool to make sure that we decrease the production of meth in this province. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] PETITIONS Civil Service Employees–Neepawa Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr.

Speaker, a petition to the Legislature for the following reasons: Eleven immediate positions with Manitoba Conservation Lands Branch, as of April 1, 2006, Crown Lands and Property Special Operating Agency, are being moved out of Neepawa. Removal of these positions will severely impact the local economy with potentially 33 adults and children leaving the community. Removal of these positions will be detrimental to revitalizing the rural and surrounding communities of Neepawa.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing current technology, as an example, Land Management Services existing satellite sub-office in Dauphin, in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. Signed by Rick Grant, Eleanor Scott, Garnold Scott and many, many others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with the 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 Nancy J. Smith, Daniel Onyshko, Beth Bruce and many, many others.

2572 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): 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 is submitted by Gil Lahaie, Nancy MacKay, Linda Masters and many, many others. * (13:35) OlyWest Hog Processing Plant Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

The background for this petition is as follows: The Manitoba government, along with the OlyWest consortium, promoted the development of a mega hog factory within the city of Winnipeg without proper consideration of rural alternatives for the site. Concerns arising from the hog factory include noxious odours, traffic and road impact, water supply, waste water treatment, decline in property values, cost to taxpayers and proximity to the city's clean drinking water aqueduct. Many Manitobans believe this decision represents poor judgment on behalf of the provincial government.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to immediately cancel its plans to support the construction of the OlyWest hog plant and rendering factory near any urban residential area. Signed by Nolan Klassen, Celine Downs, Charlotte Burch and many, many others. Crocus Investment Fund Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: The Manitoba government was made aware of serious problems involving the Crocus Fund back in 2001.

Manitoba's provincial auditor stated "We believe the department was aware of red flags at Crocus and failed to follow up on those in a timely way." As a direct result of the government not acting on what it knew, over 33,000 Crocus investors have lost tens of millions of dollars. The relationship between some union leaders, the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the NDP seems to be the primary reason as for why the government ignored the red flags.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider the need to seek clarification on why the government did not act on fixing the Crocus Fund back in 2001. To urge the Premier and his government to co- operate in making public what really happened. Signed by R. Lecomte, G. Lecomte, G. Lecomte and many, many other fine Manitobans. COMMITTEE REPORTS Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Second Report Mr. Daryl Reid (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs.

Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Second Report. An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its second report.

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2573 Meetings: Your committee met on Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 6 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building. Matters under Consideration: Bill 15 – The Emergency Measures Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les mesures d’urgence Bill 17 – The Securities Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les valeurs mobilières Bill 23 – The Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi visant à accroître la sécurité des collectivités et des quartiers Committee Membership: Mr. Dewar Mr. Faurschou Mr. Goertzen Hon. Mr. Mackintosh Mr. Reid (Chairperson) Mr. Rocan Mrs. Rowat Mr. Santos Mr. Schellenberg Hon. Mr. Selinger Hon. Mr. Smith Your committee elected Mr. Schellenberg as the Vice-Chairperson. Public Presentations: Your committee heard two presentations on Bill 15 – The Emergency Measures Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les mesures d’urgence, from the following individual and organization: Ron Bell, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Paul Clifton, Private Citizen Written Submissions: Your committee received one written submission on Bill 15 – The Emergency Measures Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les mesures d’urgence, from the following individual: Jim Stinson, Private Citizen Bills Considered and Reported: Bill 15 – The Emergency Measures Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les mesures d’urgence Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Bill 17 – The Securities Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les valeurs mobilières Your committee agreed to report this bill, with the following amendments: THAT the proposed subsection 163(1), as set out in Clause 33 of the Bill, be amended (

a) by replacing the definition "extra-provincial securities com- mission" with the following: "extra-provincial securities com- mission" means a body empowered by the laws of another province or territory of Canada to regulate trading in securities, or to admin- ister or enforce laws respecting trading in securities; («autre com- mission canadienne») (

b) by striking out the definition "foreign securities laws"; and (

c) in the definition "Manitoba securities laws", by adding "by reference" after "incorporated". THAT the proposed clause 163(2)(b), as set out in Clause 33 of the Bill, be replaced with the following: (

b) any person or company who, in respect of that extra-provincial securities commission, exercises a power or performs a duty or function that is substantially similar to one exercised or performed by the director under this Act. THAT the proposed subsection 164(1), as set out in Clause 33 of the Bill, be amended (

a) by replacing the part before clause (

a) with "Subject to subsection (2) and the regulations, the commission may"; and (

b) in clause (b), by adding "or other transfer" after "delegation". THAT the proposed subsection 166(1), as set out in Clause 33 of the Bill, be amended (

a) in the part before clause (a), by striking out "may adopt or incorporate"

2574 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 and substituting "may by order adopt or incorporate by reference"; (

b) in clause (a), by adding ", or a class of persons or companies," after "persons or companies"; and (

c) by replacing clause (

b) with the following: (

b) trades or other activities involving a person or company, or a class of persons or companies, referred to in clause (a). THAT Clause 33 of the Bill be amended (

a) in the proposed

section 167, (

i) by replacing the

section heading with "Exemption orders", and (ii) in the part after clause (b), by striking out everything after "or trades" and substituting "satisfies the conditions set out in the order."; and (

b) by striking out the proposed

section 168. THAT the proposed

section 169, as set out in Clause 33 of the Bill, be replaced with the following: Exercise of discretion, interprovincial reliance 169(1) Subject to the regulations, if the commission or the director is empowered to make a decision regarding a person, company, trade or se curity, the commission or the director may make a decision on the basis that the commission or the director considers that an extra-provincial securities commission has made a substantially similar decision regarding the person, company, trade or security.

Hearing not required 169(2) Despite any other provision of this Act, but subject to the regulations, the commission or director may make a decision referred to in subsection (1) without giving a person affected by the decision an opportunity to be heard. THAT the proposed

section 170, as set out in Clause 33 of the Bill, be amended (a)in clause (b), by adding "or other transfer" after "delegation"; (b)in clause (d), by adding "by reference" after "incorporation"; (c)in clause (e), by striking out "sections 167 and 168" and substituting "section 167"; and (d)by striking out clause (f). Bill 23 – The Safer Communities and Neigh- bourhoods Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi visant à accroître la sécurité des collectivités et des quartiers Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the honourable Member for Rossmere (Mr.

Schellenberg), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): I am tabling the Seizure and Impoundment Registry reports '04 to '06, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): I am pleased to table the Annual Report for 2005 for the Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund. * (13:40) MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Provincial Mining Week Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased to proclaim May 21 to 27 as Provincial Mining Week. The proclamation provided to each member formally recognizes the Province's commitment to the mining industry and the essential contributions this industry makes to our economy and the people of Manitoba. Every day Manitobans benefit from the minerals and metals that contribute to our high standard of living. You have before you a perfect example of a mineral that is used in many ways to enrich our lives. Nickel, in stainless steel and as an alloy makes

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2575 possible space trans portation, wireless communications and does duty as your kitchen sink. The nickel ore sample from the Thompson Nickel Belt and the refined nickel round were provided courtesy of Inco Ltd. I would like to congratulate Inco and the city of Thompson on the 50th anniversary of the historic Thompson discovery this year. Since March 1961, Inco's Thompson operation has produced more than 4 billion pounds of pure electrolytic nickel, and continues to produce more than 100 million pounds annually.

Mining continues to be Manitoba's second- largest primary resource industry and contributes over $1 billion annually to Manitoba's economy. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Manitoba's mining communities and the skilled and dedicated workers who help keep Manitoba's mining industry strong. To sustain mining in our province, we need exploration to discover new deposits. We support exploration through incentiv es like the recently renewed Mineral Exploration Tax Credit and the Mineral Exploration Assistance Program. We also provide high-quality, geoscientific data in an effective regulatory framework.

These supports are balanced with environmental stewardship and the needs of our communities. According to the 2006 Fraser Institute Survey, exploration of mining companies have rated Manitoba third worldwide for our mineral policies and geological data base. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I invite all members and their families to celebrate Manitoba's mining industry this weekend at The Forks. There are lots of free activities and fun for everyone. Thank you. Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): I thank the minister for his statement. I also thank Inco for the attractive paperweights this year.

It is important to recognize the mining industry. The mining industry in Manitoba is extremely important to our provincial economy in terms of direct capital investment in this province and the direct and indirect jobs in our communities. It is the second-largest primary resource industry in Manitoba. I am very fortunate to be able to respond on behalf of our PC caucus to this ministerial statement because I, in fact, have two mines within my constituency, the first being Tantalum Mining Corporation.

It is located north of Lac du Bonnet, and it is an important producer of tantalum and produces much of the world's supply of tantalum, which is used in electronics. It also has three-quarters of the world's reserves of caesium. My compliments to Bill Ferguson, the general manager of the mine and all the employees there who have made it such a success. In fact, on February 14 of this year, my spouse, Pamela, and myself had a tour of the mine.

It is not the most romantic thing I have ever done on Valentine's Day, but I can tell you it surely generated a great deal of conversation in our household as a result of that. It is an important employer for our area. It is a charitable corporation for our communities and provides a lot of funding for non-profits within the constituency. San Gold Resources is another mine within our constituency. It is a gold mine in Bissett. It has local ownership with Hugh Wynne and his family, who have taken over that mine. They are long-time residents of Bissett, an important employer for our area.

An important employer in the sense that they train local people to work within that mine and create those local jobs. There have been many challenges in the mining industry over the years, Mr. Speaker, but not the least of which is in trying to attract mining engineers to Manitoba. We do not produce enough mining engineers. One of the problems we have in Manitoba, of course, is that we are not tax competitive in this country. We are not tax competitive with any other province and, as a result of that, we have a great deal of difficulty attracting engineers to this province and within this industry.

I think that in itself is holding back the mining industry. Thank you. * (13:45) Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to speak to the minister's statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. No, leave has been denied. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us 13 students from Heartland International English School under

2576 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 the direction of their teachers, Carol Hutchison and Gwen Braun. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). Also in the public gallery we have from Souris School 37 Grade 5 students under the direction of Mr. Glen Wallmann. Also included in the group is Mackenzie Rowat who is the daughter of the honourable Member for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

Also from the Manitoba Association of Schooling at Home we have 35 Grades 1 to 12 students under the direction of Mrs. Michelle Chartier. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Southdale (Mr. Reimer). Also on behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. I would also like to draw the attention of members to the public gallery where we have with us today Mr. Dan McSweeney of Inco Ltd. of Thompson, Manitoba. This visitor is the guest of the honourable Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines (Mr. Rondeau).

Also on behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTIONS Crocus Investment Fund Class-Action Lawsuit Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, 17 days ago a lawsuit was filed, on behalf of some 33,000 Manitobans, making serious allegations about the conduct of this government. Among those allegations were allegations of abuse of public office to prevent, block or shield Crocus from adequate investigations. It claims $200 million from Manitoba taxpayers and it claims serious misconduct which occurred under this Premier's watch. That lawsuit was filed 17 days ago.

Under the rules, the government has 20 days to file its defence which would be this Monday. Given the Premier's confidence in the government's defence, can he tell us whether his government will file its defence within the 20-day limit or will it be asking for an extension? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the member opposite reads a lawsuit that goes back to 1992 and says it is only exclusively under our watch. Why is he not telling the people the truth? When he starts telling the people the truth, we will be prepared to answer the question. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr.

Speaker: Order. All information brought to the House is taken as factual by the House. I ask the honourable First Minister to withdraw that comment. Mr. Doer: Yes, I withdraw it. Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, anybody who reads the statement of claim will know that the serious allegations regarding abuse of public office relate to events which occurred under this Premier's watch.

So, given the serious allegations made 17 days ago, and that the Premier does not want to answer the question about whether they planned to file the statement of defence within the 20-day limit, but given the problems outlined by the Auditor more than a year ago and given the serious allegations made 17 days ago, what has the Premier done to hold people to account for the terrible losses suffered by Manitobans under his watch? * (13:50) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would point out again to the member opposite that the lawsuit starts in 1992.

It follows a period of time that had eight years of Conservative rule and four years of our responsibility. I have taken responsibility for the e-mail that the Auditor General talked about in terms of being red flags. The Auditor General has pointed out to the public and it is in Hansard that the e-mail went between officials. Having said that, the day the Auditor General's report came out, I took full responsibility for the e-mails in government, those e- mails that later were confirmed to be not going to any Cabinet minister whatsoever.

We are also dealing with a co-investment that we have made in Crocus, the Maple Leaf Distillers. We are working as hard as we can. We believe the investments we made relative to Isobord, Winnport and Westsun will end up being quite favourable in terms of public accountability. We will be accountable for the co-investments the Province made, and members opposite someday might be accountable for the co-investments they made. Mr. Speaker, $40 million in losses, they have that

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2577 responsibility. It is well documented and well alleged in the material allegations contain within the lawsuit. I would also point out in the statement of claim, because there is no accreditation yet of that statement of claim, even friends like Wellington West have been sued since last June, and have not answered to that statement of claim, Mr. Speaker. Mr. McFadyen: Well, the Premier is very good at trying to spread blame and refusing to accept responsibility and accountability for this massive financial scandal, Mr. Speaker.

I want to remind him that in June 1998, eight short years ago, allegations were made about the conduct of staff in the previous government. Now, eight years later, there are serious allegations regarding officials in this Premier's government. The current allegations relate to losses of millions of dollars by Manitobans, many of whom will suffer in retirement because of the Crocus scandal, not to mention the damage to our province's economy and our reputation for capital markets.

In 1998, the then-Leader of the Opposition, the current Premier, said in this House, in his question to then-Premier Filmon: If the Premier had nothing to hide, if members opposite have nothing to hide, why will they not just have a judicial inquiry and clear the air. What are they afraid of in terms of this process? Given where we are today, that was the then- Premier's quote. Given where we are today, given the huge losses, given the serious allegations regarding misconduct under his government, why not have a judicial inquiry? Why not clear the air? What is he afraid of in terms of this process? Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, the allegations in the late nineties were centered around the breach of election laws and the ripping up of cheques for people that the member opposite worked with in the Premier's Office. We already had an Auditor General's report, an Auditor General that could follow the money on the issues of law and the law was established. I would point out the Hansard from Clayton Manness said, this labour-sponsored fund is not set up for the government to make decisions on where investments will be made. We want the public representatives to make those decisions, not the civil servants and not the govern ment.

If we had breached the prospectus, which says the government does not stand by any individual investment, if we had broken the prospectus, we would be before the Securities Commission, and, therefore, the question the member opposite raises would be legitimate. But, Mr. Speaker, there is not breach of the law by the government. There is no breach of the prospectus. I would point out the prospectus was signed and underwritten by Wellington West who has not yet filed a defence claim because after a year they still have not been named by an appropriate court. It was only something filed in the courts. Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question. Floodway Expansion Cost Overrun Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): On a new question, I would remind the Premier that the serious findings he refers to with respect to cheques came out because of the inquiry. Everything that was at the stage of allegations at the time he was calling for an inquiry the last time around, we have serious allegations this time. They need to be investigated. The question of why the Premier– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. McFadyen: Mr.

Speaker, he was calling for an inquiry on the basis of allegations that took place. Things came out in the course of that inquiry which underscores the need for an inquiry in this case. But, on to a new question, Mr. Speaker, related to another example of financial mismanagement under the current government. In September of 2005, the Premier announced that the floodway expansion would take place on a budget of $665 million for 1- in-700-year flood protection for the people of Winnipeg.

We are now hearing reports that cost overruns in the range of $140 million may be added to the cost to the taxpayers of Canada and Manitoba to get to that same level of flood protection. Can the Premier confirm that the project announced in September 2005 is now going to be roughly $140 million over budget? * (13:55) Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I can confirm that the– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

2578 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just dealing with the

preamble from the member opposite, the fundamental difference is that the former Elections Manitoba could not follow the money. We amended that law. Actually, both parties post-Monin amended that law. Long before the Crocus Fund, this Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) pa ssed a law to allow the Auditor General to follow the money into private companies. We actually did so because we were worried about some of the MIOP situations in terms of accountability for the public dollars expended.

That is what we did and that allows the Auditor General to go into companies, not just into the government departments, into government files, into government minutes. It allowed them to go into the books of Crocus and allowed them to go into the companies that Crocus was investing in. It allowed them to follow the money, and that is a fundamental difference. I am pleased that Ottawa is changing that. Mr. Speaker, we do have only the authority so far to proceed with the $240-million investment. The $665-million confirmation that was given by the former government has not yet been confirmed by the new government.

There are issues of con- tingencies dealing with potential higher costs, with environmental licensing, as I pointed out yesterday, some potential higher costs of labour and fuel costs. But our ask to the federal government and our request to our own Floodway Authority, instructions to our own Floodway Authority is: proceed on $240 million, keep the options open on $665 million. We are trying to get $665 million confirmed by the new government. We have not got it confirmed yet. Some of these issues of contingencies I raised with the Prime Minister, and Mr. Cannon and Mr.

Ashton have talked about it subsequent to that. Mr. McFadyen: I appreciate the Premier confirming that the government is keeping their options open with respect to the budget on the floodway. Our information is that they are $140 million over budget given the $665 million that was originally announced in September of 2005.

So my question to the Premier is: In light of the cost overruns now occurring because of their poor planning, will it be the government's plan to run over budget and have taxpayers pay more than what they were expecting to have to pay for this project, or is he going to cut back on protection for the people of Winnipeg? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the final agreement has not been reached with the new government to deal with the former government's commitment.

There are issues of increased cost that have been estimated, but we have not, at my level to the Prime Minister, nor at the level of the minister to the federal minister of infrastructure, asked for anything more for the taxpayers than the $665 million. We believe some of the items that have been identified by the Floodway Authority as contingencies, such as environmental contingencies, we do not know whether we will require those after the Clean Environment Commission. Their work requests to deal with the aquifer; the aquifer right back to the original floodway in the sixties.

There is a contingency fund that the Floodway Authority has requested for that. We do not know whether it will be required until some of the engineering and excavation work is conducted. There obviously is going to be higher insurance costs if we have $665 million over the other issue. Fuel costs obviously have gone up significantly, both on this project and other projects, but we have asked the Floodway Authority to work within the $240 million. I would point out to Manitobans that the big issue right now is we have not got confirmation for $665 million. We do not have confirmation for $665 million.

The new government is asking for other issues to be dealt with in the Floodway Authority. We do not know what the costs of those will be. For example, there are the issues of Ritchot that have been raised with us and so our engineers are working on that. I mentioned the aquifer in northeast Winnipeg. We have said to the Floodway Authority that the $665 million was the commitment made by the former government. It is the only commitment we are asking for the Prime Mi nister to acknowledge. We have only the authority of $240 million right now.

We believe by spring of 2007, we will be up to 1,826 flood coverage levels which is the highest flood of the history of Manitoba. So far, we are up to 1-in-140-years coverage. The member opposite will see the bridge elevations east of Winnipeg, heading towards Trans-Canada Highway No. 1. So our request to the federal government is $665 million. There will be some changes required if that money is approved, but we may have other changes required from the new government's requests to us dealing with places like Ritchot. I

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2579 cannot give the member oppos ite the specific answer on that. * (14:00) Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has said on the record a number of times that this floodway project would be on time and on budget, just like he said in the 1999 election that he would end hallway medicine in six months. Is this just another case of the Premier making silly promises that he has no intention of keeping? Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, the $240-million approval from the federal government will be on time and will be on budget.

The question is we do not have approval for the second stage. I would point out that the longer we have to wait for the authority for the second stage, some of the costs will go up. Because, as we pointed out to the national government, some of the tenders, the earlier we can have those go out, the more effective and cost- effective they will be. We have only the authority for $240 million. There are members of Parliament now in the existing caucus of the new party that campaigned against the floodway. We had a good meeting with the Prime Minister. We had a good tour with the Prime Minister.

I said to him that the Floodway Authority was coming forward with higher cost estimates on the environment and fuel costs but that we were not changing the ask from the Province from $665 million. We asked the Floodway Authority to work within the $665 million. We do not think it is fair for one government to commit to $665 million and ask for something more from the new government. So, at my level to the Prime Minister, the answer to your question dealing with the ask for taxpayers is $665 million. Floodway Expansion Cost Overrun Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr.

Speaker, the floodway expansion project clearly relies on public funding. Now the budget was $665 million. Manitoba taxpayers are making a significant contribution to this project and they deserve to hear straight answers about where their money is being spent. The Premier has been very vague, and vague on the cost overruns. So will the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) indicate whether this project will be completed on budget or is he also keeping his options open? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, will the member opposite and the caucus opposite support $665 million?

Some members opposite, the Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu), ha s taken a contrary view on the floodway. I would point out that there are members of Parliament now who took a contrary view on the floodway. The only authority we have now, the only spending authority we have now in place is $240 million. We will be on time and on budget with the $240 million. The bottom line is, and I have mentioned fuel costs, I mentioned contin gency costs, insurance costs, I mentioned the environmental contingency costs, but our ask to th e federal government is $665 million. Mr. Cullen: Mr.

Speaker, taxpayers are committed to funding this project to the tune of $665 million, or at least, that is what they thought. Now the Premier has alluded to changes in the project and increased costs. Will he be prepared to provide some of the details on these cost overrides? Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I talked about fuel prices. I talked about the insurance issues. I talked about the members opposite that had followed the issue of the aquifer northeast of Winnipeg. There were additional costs.

I just want to make it clear, the only authority we have now, the only authority in place today for spending money with the national government is $240 million. Last May and June, the former ADM in the federal government said we should proceed on the basis of planning, on the basis of $665 million, but that has not been reconfirmed by the new government. I respect that; it is a new government. They have raised new issues with us in their discussions, and I believe that the ask to the former government and the commitment from the former government should be the same with this govern- ment.

If something is added like we showed that will obviously change the numbers. Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr. Speaker, Manitobans would think this government would look after their investments. We have not even completed Phase 1 of the project and we are already hearing about cost overruns. Clearly this government is blaming everybody else in sight. Why did they not look at some of these issues beforehand and deal with them? Is this simply

2580 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 another example of mismanagement by this NDP government? Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that we only have authority for $240 million. That will come in on time and on budget. We believe by the spring of 2007, we will be at the 1,826 flood protection levels. This spring we were at 140-year flood protection levels. We did not need it thankfully, but we also invested a considerable amount of money south of the floodway, over $140 million. It protected a lot of communities and saved us a lot of money.

The original prediction for the floodway, by the way, by KPMG, was $778 million. The original IJC projection was $800 million. Our engineers thought we could come in and projected that we would come in at a lower number, but we have not changed our ask to the Prime Minister nor have we changed our request to Minister Cannon, and that is an important part of this. But I would also point out to the public that we do not have the authority to go to $665 million. Health Care System Bureaucracy Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, when health care was regionalized in Manitoba the intent was to decrease the size of Manitoba Health, the bureaucracy there, because the regional health authorities were going to be taking over more of those responsibilities. I would like to ask the Minister of Health to tell us why there are still over 1,000 bureaucrats in Manitoba Health. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): I would like to tell the member that, as she was yesterday in regard to specialists, she is wrong again today.

The number that she quotes includes all of the nursing staff and the staff who look after people at Selkirk Mental Health Centre, front-line staff caring for mentally ill, seriously mentally ill people. They are not bureau- crats; they are nurses, th ey are doctors, they are front-line care staff. Get your numbers right. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the Minister of Health that the information we had yesterday came from Freedom of Information documents from the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. So he should get his information right. Mr.

Speaker, there are now two levels of bureaucracy and administration in health care. There are 1,100 bureaucrats in Manitoba Health and likely the same number in the regional health authority. I would like to ask the Minister of Health: Does he not think that this money would be better spent on front-line health care? Mr. Sale: You know, Mr. Speaker, as a former nurse, the honourable member ought to not be slagging nurses at Selkirk Mental Health Centre.

She ought not to be calling down on nurses who are our public health staff, 130 staff in the public health department protecting Manitobans from public health issues. In her first question sh e said that there were 1,000, now there are 1,100. In fact, over 400 of those are working at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre, Mr. Speaker, 100-and-some are public health officials working at the level of the people of Manitoba. Let her stop insulting nurses and doctors who work for the health of Manitobans every day. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the information comes from the minister's own Estimates books.

I would like to ask the minister: The top two bureaucrats in Manitoba Health are seconded from the WRHA, the Deputy Minister of Health and the chief financial officer. This is raising a lot of eyebrows right now amongst front-line health care workers. I would like to ask the Minister of Health: Does he not feel that he has put these two people in a conflict of interest, or is this a case of the tail wagging the dog because the WRHA is in control of health care in Manitoba and not Manitoba Health? * (14:10) Mr. Sale: Mr.

Speaker, my deputy minister is one of the finest civil servants I have ever met and she was hired when regionalization was started by the government opposite to head up the southeastern region, down south of Winnipeg. She was the CEO of that region when they set up regional health authorities. We have confidence in our senior staff. They are the finest staff that I have ever worked with. I do not think she should be suggesting otherwise. Mr. Speaker, yesterday she said there were fewer specialists, more vacancies. There are 150 more specialists in Manitoba today than there were when we formed government, 150.

Let her get her facts right for a change instead of calling down on Manitoba civil servants and health care providers.

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2581 Child and Family Services Agencies Review Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Sadly, the Minister of Health wants to ignore the need that is out there and only talk about history. My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member. Mr. Cummings: My question is to the Minister of Family Services. On this side of the House we have been very frustrated by the lack of forthcoming answers and accountability on the part of this minister.

The number of deaths that we have had of children in care, and it is well known that there has been a review done internally. In her initial response to that review, the minister said the problems that were found were dealt with immediately. My question today is very simple. She has never shared with us what the nature of those problems may have been, and I give her an opportunity to clear the air. Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Well, Mr. Speaker, I will table the letter that was received on the 9th of May from Elsie Flette, who is the CEO of the Southern Authority, to Mr. J.

Rodg ers, the acting executive director from the Child Protection Branch. It says: Please be advised that all our respective agencies have completed their review of current cases. This included all open cases and cases which had closed within the last 30 days. Agencies were instructed to immediately attend to any concerns about a case arriving from the review and they have assured us that they are following up on any concerns identified. My comments, Mr. Speaker, were about the continual attempts to undermine the child welfare system in Manitoba by members opposite and the Liberals.

I am glad the member asked this question so I can table this document in the House. Mr. Cummings: The child welfare system and the workers within that system have the greatest respect from all of us in this Chamber. The problem is that when we ask for accountability from the senior member in this governme nt responsible for that service, we get nothing but dodging the question, no clear answers and no acco untability on our behalf. She is responsible to the public on this issue. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask, and we saw a question asked yesterday that she did not want to answer but I will ask her a question about the answers on the internal re view. She has tabled this letter, but that still does not indicate whether or not there were any serious problems that were dealt with. Is she aware of any serious problems and how were they dealt with? Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, I have not been made aware of any serious problems. I think the serious problem here is that members opposite do not understand the reviews.

Wh at we are talking about was the face-to-face meetings by the authorities and the agencies. This is what this document is referring to. What the member, I think, might be asking about is the

section 4 review which is underway right now. We also know that underway is the external review. The interim report for that is due on the 30th of June. The final report is due on September 30. I think if the member is going to ask accusatory questions against the front-line workers of this province, he should at least get his facts straight. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, all that the public and people who work in the system are most concerned about is the safety and the well-being of the children.

But, when we ask questions in this House, too often, coming from that side and particularly from this minister, we get a very thin skin and nothing but an attack because she does not like being asked questions. Mr. Speaker, the responsib ility of the opposition is to ask questions on behalf of the children in care in this province about whether or not they are getting the care that they deserve. Will this minister answer the question about the nature of any of the issues that were raised and how were they dealt with? Ms. Melnick: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I will try again.

I will read further from the letter from Elsie Flette: We would like to assure you that any concerns that are identified about any particular case are being followed up on by the authorities. We will not be waiting for the final report to address such concerns. These are the people working on the front lines. These are the people wo rking with vulnerable children and vulnerable families. These are the people who this government is supporting in the very difficult tasks that they have. I think it is time for members opposite to start to show the same respect.

2582 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 Prostitution Vehicle Seizures Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, today in the Legislature, the Minister of Justice tabled the Annual Report 2004-2005 for the Seizure and Impoundment Registry. I note in the report that, in relation to prostitution-related seizures of vehicles, the number has dropped of vehicles seized related to prostitution issues in 1999-2000, from 86 vehicles, to the year reporting in this report to 22 vehicles, more than a 300 percent decrease in vehicles seized in relation to prostitution activities.

Can the Minister of Justice explain why there has been such a dramatic decrease? Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): One would think that after the last couple of weeks, the member would be careful with his review of the facts, Mr. Speaker. In the Legislature today was tabled the Seizure and Impoundment Registry which showed that last year the number of seizures more than doubled over the year that the member just referenced. Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the fact that 22 vehicles were impounded during the reporting year as compared to 1999-2000.

I just want to ask the Minister of Justice why th ere was such a significant decrease in the number of seized vehicles. Mr. Mackintosh: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member would want to look at the years '05-06, where the number of vehicles more than doubled that were seized by the police. Of course, the number of seizures does depend on police deployment strategies. I am very pleased, and I am disappointed the member opposite again would misrepresent work by the Winnipeg Police Service.

Operation Clean Sweep is, I believe, one of the factors that accounts for more than doubling of the number of seizures related to prostitution when it comes to vehicles that are used by the johns to disrupt our neighbourhoods. I might add that the issue of forfeiture is one issue that is in our arsenal, but today we added licence suspension for johns as well. Mr. Goertzen: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we recognize that adding new legislation at times can be beneficial, but if it does not actually result in any sort of effect it does not really mean anything to those who are trying to deal with the difficult issue of prostitution. Again, in 1999-2000, there were 86 vehicles that were seized and we have seen a significant decrease. I just want the Minister of Justice, a straightforward question, just to answer why there has been such a significant decrease? Mr.

Mackintosh: What I find odd is the member never got up and asked why did the number of seizures more than double last year over the year before, Mr. Speaker. Why does he not look at the figures in front of him? But, Mr. Speaker, the number of seizures, the number of arrests of johns depends on police deployment strategies. We are pleased to be working with Winnipeg Police Service. Operation Clean Sweep has, as one of its pr iorities, the sweeps to deal with the challenge of street prostitution.

I just want to announ ce for members of the House today that in addition to the seizures and the impoundment registry work that is being done on street prostitution, we not only announced licence suspension for johns today who are convicted, but Manitoba's community prosecutor will now be dealing with those cases in the downtown and West End. We are strengthening our prosecution policy. The Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act was strengthened in committee last night. Hopefully, it will pass in this House.

I am pleased to conclude by reporting to this House that under the safer communities act 56 prostitution houses have been shut down in this province. Crocus Investment Fund Public Inquiry Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, as we all know, over 33,000 Crocus investors have lost tens of millions of dollars, and they have to start feeling stonewalled by this government and this government's refusal to uncover what actually had taken place. The Manitoba Securities Commission will not report until after the next provincial election.

The RCMP investigation has been going on for a year and a half, and we have not heard anything at all from the RCMP investigation, Mr. Speaker. The courts are dealing with the issue, and that will be years before we finally se e any information coming from that. Even the provincial auditor has indicated that his scope was not wide enough in being able to address all the problems with the Crocus fiasco.

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2583 My question is to the Premier. Why is he denying the Crocus shareholders information that they have a right to know, Mr. Speaker? Why did the government neglect its responsibilities? * (14:20) Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): We have established, long before this issue, a class-action lawsuit provision that is probably one of the widest in the country. The member opposite talks about a year- and-a-half police investigation. His numbers are wrong again.

Secondly, I would point out his question in the Order Paper talks about was there any awareness of financial difficulties in Crocus prior to December of '04. Well, Crocus put out a press release in September of '04. He may not have read it, dealing with the devaluation of the shares. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to know the next election date. I guess he thinks he is going to call the election. Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Speaker, the provincial auditor states, and I quot e right from the report: Given the complexities in the breadth of the CIF operations, not all areas were, in fact, reviewed.

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the provincial auditor's office, whether it is the RCMP, whether it is the Manitoba Securities Commission, whether it is the courts, there are num erous questions that go unanswered because of this government's irresponsive behaviour in not wanting to let the Crocus shareholders, indeed all Manitobans know what went wrong. The reason for that is because this government and this Premier were negligent. My question to the Premier is: How does he justify to the 33,000-plus Crocus shareholders the fact that he is hiding the truth related to the Crocus fiasco, Mr. Speaker?

How does he justify that to the Crocus shareholders? Surely some of those shareholders are even members of his own caucus, let alone other Manitobans. Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member again flails away on it.

I would point out that when the Crocus entity itself was balking and refusing to allow the Auditor General to go in and read the files, read the minutes and follow the investments into the companies, it was this Minister of Finance's intervention and threatening to backup the Auditor General in court that allowed for the full disclosure to take place, not only with the Crocus entity, including minutes and letters and minutes of meetings, and also the individual investments made with the co-investments including, probably Isobord.

The federal Liberals put $12 million into that so we had nothing to hide and that is why we backed up the Auditor General. We have nothing to hide because we have always been concerned about taxpayers' money, and that is why we allowed and provided the authority for the Auditor General in 2001 to go into any private company that receives public money. There are people who are concerned about the follow-up of public money into private companies. We said we would reduce the losses of MIOP loans.

We actually said we would reduce the losses in MIOP loans, and we would take that money and reduce the small business tax in Manitoba. So far we have been able to make money in MIOP loans, sometimes been characterized as corporate welfare but, so far, Motor Coach, Flyer, all the other companies, we have made money on. It remains to be seen on the Maple Leaf Distillers, but we will be accountable for that decision. But, certainly, we gave the authority to the Auditor General to follow the money. I am glad in Ottawa they are having the authority of the new Auditor General to follow the money with legislation.

They are bringing it under the Accountability Act. I think that is a good precedent. I am glad we started it. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Premier needs to recognize that he is hiding. The bottom line is that there are Crocus shareh olders and, indeed, Manitobans who deserve to know what took place, how this government was negligent. As a direct result of that negligence, in excess of $60 million was lost. They need to know why those were special relationships between this Premier and some of his union friends, some of his political donors, some of his campaign organizers. They are all involved.

Manitobans have a right to know and the only way they are going to know, Mr. Speaker, is if there is a public inquiry. Unfortunately, he is the only one that has the authority to call the public inquiry. Will he do the right thing and call the public inquiry? Treat Manitobans the way they should be treated. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I remember when Premier Filmon brought the legislation in. He actually chastised the NDP for never bringing in legislation to

2584 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 allow labour to have a labour-sponsored fund. Now I want to point out to people that not all "labour people" feel it is a benefit to the labour movement or labour leaders want to have venture capital invested in labour-sponsored funds. The advantage of a labour-sponsored fund was for the companies that received venture capital. That is the major benefactor and hopefully, if companies do well, that will help the economy in Manitoba. So, Mr. Speaker, we got criticized for not bringing it in. No NDP government has ever brought in a venture labour-sponsored fund.

So the member opposite starts again from a false premise. Why do people want venture capitals? To help start up businesses across Canada. Why do the federal Liberals give tax credits to it, as the former Conservatives? It is to get more capital in the economy. Who are the benefactors of that? It is not labour leaders who are starting these companies. It is entrepreneurs. Who got some of the biggest investments? It is Wellington West, for example, and the largest of political donations was made from Crocus to the federal Liberal Party. You do not have to have an inquiry to note that.

Physician Resources Recruitment Strategy Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on this issue many times because it did affect me personally, when in the 1990s, that side when they were in the government started firing nurses and reducing seats in the colleges. One of that reasons was that my own daughter, who is an associate professor in radiology, is in Washington, D.C., not in Winnipeg.

So my question to the Minister of Health is: I understand, with the questions asked yesterday and their ideologies in trying to reduce and bring Americanization of medicine here, I would like to ask the Minister of Health wh at is he doing to recruit specialists in the province of Manitoba? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba the Web site report from 1999 and from 2006. The difference is: 1,402 specialists registered in Manitoba in 2006; licensed '99, 1,252; 150 more specialists now. Mr.

Speaker, this includes 27 more internal medicine, eight more neurology, 14 more cardiology, 14 more nephrology, 16 more psychiatry, eight more emergency medicine, three more community medicine, three more internal medicine, three more oncology; 34 specialities have more in them today than they did in 1999. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the member references information about the number of people in the health system. Let her read pages 95 and 97: 410 people in Selkirk, 87.8 in the Cadham labs. They are not bureaucrats. They are defending Manitoba's health. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Missing Children's Day Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Speaker, today is Missing Children's Day. This is an important day to raise awareness about missing children's issues and the important work that is being done by organizations like Child Find Manitoba to protect children in our province. Today members of this Legislature and the public wear the Green Ribbon of Hope to show their support for missing children and their families. In Canada each year, there are over 62,000 reported cases of missing children; 2, 700 of these cases are in Manitoba.

While many of these cas es are resolved with children and families safely reunited, others remain unsolved. Children are the most valuable and vulnerable members of our society. The loss of a child is felt deeply by family, friends and the community at large. Missing Children's Da y is an occasion to recognize the important work that is being done by organizations like Child Find Manitoba to protect our children and young people.

For over 20 years, Child Find Manitoba has worked in partnership with the Manitoba government, the federal government, law enforcement and other non-profit organizations to assist in the location of missing children, prevent sexual exploitation of children and promote child personal safety programs Mr. Speaker, with the expansion of Internet technologies, children are now exposed to predators through the Internet. In response to this problem, our government spearheaded the Children Online Protection Committee.

Out of that program, we worked with Child Find Manitoba to establish Cybertip.ca, an Internet-based tip line designed to

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2585 clamp down on child exploitation on the Internet. Cybertip.ca has been extremely successful and is the official national tip line for all of Canada. Missing children may also be sexually exploited. Today I was proud to join the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) and the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Ms. Melnick) in announcing a new two-part strategy to target those who prey on sexually exploited women, children and men and to provide more support for neighbourhoods and victims of sexual exploitation. Mr.

Speaker, I thank and commend all of the volunteers and community organizations, including Child Find Manitoba, for their ongoing work in protecting our children. Thank you. * (14:30) Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I rise today to recognize Missing Children's Day in Canada and acknowledge the great work of Child Find Manitoba in this province and around the world. A missing child is every parent's worst nightmare. Most parents would like to believe that such an occurrence could never happen to them. Sadly, these things do happen.

Today our thoughts and prayers are with all families whose child is missing and particularly with the family of three-year -old Reachelle Smith of Minot, North Dakota, who has been missing since May 16. In 1986, the Solicitor-General of Canada declared May 25 to be Missing Children's Day in Canada. It is a special day, a day of renewed hope and a day to remember. Each May, Child Find, an organization I was privileged to have been involved with for a number of year s, hosts its annual Green Ribbon of Hope Month to ask Canadians to wear the green ribbon as a symbol of hope for the safe return of missing children.

The green ribbon was created after the abduction and subsequent murder of 15-year-old Kristen French on April 16, 1992. It shocked the community of St. Catharines as well as the rest of Canada. Kristen's fellow students and the faculty of Holy Cross Secondary School in St. Catharines developed the concept of the Green Ribbon of Hope. Green is regarded as the colour of hope and epitomizes the quest for the safe return of all missing children. The Green Ribbon of Hope campaign is designed to draw public awareness to the issue of missing children in Canada and to the issues around child personal safety.

By wearing green ribbons, we are showing our support and concern for missing children. Some things are irreplaceable, Mr. Speaker. Thousands of children go missing in Manitoba every year. Our hearts go out to all of those parents who await the day they will be reunited with their children and our thoughts and prayers are with them all today. Thank you. Free the Children Dinner Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, recently I was pleased to attend the Free the Children fundraising dinner hosted by the students and staff of River East Collegiate.

This event was a fundraiser for the construction of a new school in Sierra Leone, Africa. Also in attendance at this event were the Premier (Mr. Doer) and Dr. Lloyd Axworthy, both of whom addressed parents and students at the dinner. Mr. Speaker, Sierra Leone is a country that is still suffering the effects of an 11-year civil war that displaced hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed much of the country's infrastructure.

River East Collegiate is working in partnership with Free the Children, an organization founded in 1995 by Craig Kielburger, to promote the rights of children and to protect them from all forms of exploitation and abuse. Sin ce its inception, Free the Children has built over 400 schools in 35 different countries and has provided an education to 35,000 children who might otherwise have been employed as child labourers. All of the funds raised at this event will go towards the construction of a new school, school supplies and a teacher's salary in Sierra Leone.

The students and staff of River East Collegiate also hope to raise awareness of poverty and the right of all children to an education. I congratulate the students and staff of River East Collegiate on a successful fundraiser. Also, Mr. Speaker, River East Collegiate is a candidate school for UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network, a network of 5,000 schools in 150 countries studying human rights, democracy, environmental and intercultural learning.

Thanks to the hard work of former staff member Gareth Neufeld and many others, the school is promoting a global outlook among students in learning about diverse communities and

2586 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 backgrounds. A special thanks to staff member Ms. Charlene Powell for her work in co-ordinating this event and the UNESCO program. I encourage all members and the public to make a donation to the River East Collegiate Free the Children fund. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Gateway Resources Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Tonight I will be speaking at the Gateway Resources annual general meeting. This important organization assures that persons living with intellectual disabilities in the Winkler and Morden area receive the best possible services and supports.

I have personally worked with the CEO Wayne Benedet, President Ken Wiebe, board of directors and staff at Gateway and can attest to their dedication and professionalism. Dr. C. W. Wiebe, founder of the Gateway, was instrumental in establishing and building the services that exist today. On behalf of all of the people, Dr. Wiebe, past and current staff and volunteers at Gateway have helped, I would like to thank them. Gateway has grown and flourished with the support of the local business community and mutu- ally beneficial partnerships have been established.

Programs have been set up for individuals using Gateway services that empower them, build their self-esteem and provide valuable work experience. For instance, with the recy cling program they know they are helping to save our environment and keep their community clean. Mr. Speaker, the caring and dedicated staff team at Gateway Resources is making a difference in touching lives in a special way. Gateway has been and will continue to be a leader in providing these significant services to our community.

In fact, they are so well respected for what they do that families have moved to the constituency of Pembina to access the services and facilities for their children or other family members. I look forward to seeing Gateway grow and expand its services. Thank you. 17 Wing Military Support Squadron Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Air Force 17 Wing for training and deploying the first Military Support Squadron (MSS) in Canada.

The MSS is the first of six units that would be formed at bases across the country as part of the Air Force's new focus on readiness to deploy anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. Instead of selecting Canadian Forces personnel from various bases across this country to be put together in theatre, the new Military Support Squadron units train together and deploy together. The 17 Wing was selected to produce the first trained Military Support Squadron and has created from scratch a training plan incorporating all requirements as specified by the MSS commander.

Wing Readiness Training Flight (RTF) has been responsible for providing training for the unit and co- ordinating details such as transportation, food and water needs and medical supplies. The advice and lessons learned at 17 Wing will be valuable to other wings as they prepare to train upcoming squadrons. Exercise Maple Flag, which occurs this month at Cold Lake, will be the MSS's opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities as a unit before they deploy to Camp Mirage on June 16. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, my colleague, the Member for Assiniboia (Mr.

Rondeau), and I attended a parade hosted by the 17 Wing as a farewell to the MSS personnel who will deploy overseas for six months after they return from Exercise Maple Flag. It was a great pleasure to see the 17 Wing rally around the unit. Witnessing the precision and cohesiveness of the group, I felt secure in knowing that these fine men and women will be an exceptional support service for the Air Force's operations. I am extremely proud that the 17 Wing was chosen to train the first MSS in Canada. I know they will do an exceptional job. Thank you. Mr.

Speaker: Continue Orders of the Day– [interjection] Oh, Grievances. Right, we have to do Grievances first. No Grievance? Okay, continue Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please canvass the House to see if there is agreement to change Estimates in 254 so that Industry, Economic Development and Mines is moved ahead of Aboriginal and Northern, and Aboriginal and Northern will go to the bottom of the list for 254. That is permanent.

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2587 * (14:40) Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement to change the Estimates sequence in Room 254 so that the Estimates for Industry, Economic Development and Mines are moved ahead of the Estimates for Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, and for the Estimates for Aboriginal an d Northern Affairs to go to the bottom of the list in Room 254, with the change to apply permanen tly? Is there agreement? [Agreed] Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bills 14 and 37, to be followed by Supply. Mr.

Speaker: Okay, we will deal first with Bill 14, then Bill 37, and then we will go to Supply. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 14–The Water Rights Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: Bill 14, The Water Rights Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? [Agreed] Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill 14.

A careful look at this bill which deals with amendments to The Water Rights Act suggests to me that the government has failed miserably to do their job properly. This bill really should be pulled by the government, and they should go back and try again. The reality is that the minister should be ashamed of himself to present a bill like this which has been so poorly thought out and which has been, after so much time, presented to us but without clearly adequate thought, adequate consideration and adequate care in terms of the amendments which should be made.

This bill, first of all, in dealing with The Water Rights Amendment Act, The Water Rights Act, this is

an act which is clearly a matter of, let us say, heated discussion in many parts of Manitoba. It is a matter of heated discussion, I would suggest to you, because the existing act has some significant problems with it, and we would have expected the amendments to deal with some of the huge problems in the current act. When you have

an act, and the Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger) knows this full well in terms of health care, it is important to set out the principles on which you base your legislation. So, in the water rights, what should be there is some fundamental principles for managing water in this province. They are not there. We are really working with a water rights act and now a series of amendments to that act with a black hole in terms of what are the fundamental principles on which water management should be based.

It does not say anywhere here that water rights should be based, for example, on ensuring that the quality of the water in our lakes and streams and what other water bodies may be artificially created is one of the principles that should be taken into account when we deal with water rights. Why is it not here? Maybe this government does not believe in quality of water. Maybe this government does not believe in principles. Maybe this government does not have any principles. Certainly, they do not have any principles in this act.

A second principle that you would expect to be there would be something to the extent of conservation of water. A general principle in terms of water rights is that water should be used wisely. There is no such principle here. We do not know what their goals are, what their principles are in terms of what their intent is in how you manage water rights. Certainly, from the point of view of licensing water rights, of deliberating on water rights, discussing water rights, of making judgments–you have people going onto farmers' lands and making judgments–what principles are those judgments being based on?

If you do not have any principles on which you have people acting and making decisions, you have a problem. This act as it is put together should have been done properly in terms of the amendments, instead of doing a shoddy job which does not adequately address what people in Manitoba, particularly rural Manitoba, need. There should be, I suggest to you, a principle which deals with the fundamental purposes for managing water. Is this to maintain natural streams and lakes? Is this for irrigation? Is this for dr ainage? Is this for flood control, for wildlife habitat, for hydro dams?

I mean, one presumes that all of those are components of what should be water rights, but there should be some overarching principle here, in terms of what are the purposes and what are the reasonable justifications for trying to alter the natural course, or the natural flow of water. So the principle here is, presumably, we do not know, because there are not

2588 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 any that you would maintain natural waterways, except that there may be some purposes for which you would make changes and allow changes. We know that, in fact, the government, several years ago, brought in a bill which dealt with trans–I think moving water from one watershed to another and prohibiting that. But the problem is that when you do bits and pieces, that you do not have a coherent piece of legislation here. That is why this is really problematic.

There should be an overarching principle, I suggest–and we have discussed this in relationship to the water quality act–with regard to whether or not we should have an overall gain or loss of wetlands. We all know that wetlands perform many important functions in terms of flood control, in terms of quality of water and a variety of other things. This act, I suggest, should have at least put in a principle in terms of what should be the approach with regard to the overall more or fewer wetlands, what should be the guiding principle in terms of wetlands, so that we have at least

an act which is based on some coherent approach: a series of principles which are laid down; on which people are making judgments; people are making enforcement; people are entering into the lands, the properties of farmers and others and maybe making changes to that property, could be causing damage to that property, could be doing all sorts of things. But, at least at the very start, there should be some principles on the basis of what the goal is of principles of water rights in this province. I would suggest that one of the principles is that there should be some rights for landowners and farmers.

This is, I suggest to you, in terms of people who depend on agriculture and other businesses in this province, this is an important consideration. Even, I think, the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) would agree that it is right and proper to give some rights to farmers. This would have been an appropriate place to say there is a principle, that there should be some rights to farmers and landowners, and that this is more than just a bit of paper with a licence and a few words on it: there are some fundamental rights that farmers and landowners have got.

So the first part here is that we would have expected some amendments to this act, which would have laid out some fundamental principles in terms of the provincial approach to water management. * (14:50) The next part or piece that I would like to discuss, or component of this legislation, is the aspect of enforcement. Now there are a number of aspects here. The ability to have enforcement powers, there are enfor cement powers now, but if one goes just not far north of where the Member for Steinbach (Mr.

Goertzen) has his constituency, into the Seine River, I was out a couple of weeks ago, visiting with some farmers along the Seine River. They were complaining to me, complaining loudly that this government was totally incompetent when it came to enforcement of water rights, that people were doing things which were causing damage to others in terms of draining marshes, in terms of how they approach the water management on one person's land, how it affected somebody else, how people were sneaking in on Sundays and various other times when there were not people around to enforce and making changes.

The government really was insensitive, was not knowledgeable about what was going on, was not enforcing the problems. The net result was that people were having problems with their farmland being flooded. People were having problems with water management issues. Lake Riviera is a lake north of Steinbach and east of Ste. Anne, and into this lake the water flows, and outflows had been a significant issue.

There were, I think, five culverts providing exit from this lake, but because of the continuing, poorly managed drainage, what has happened is that the water levels were rising, the water wa s going over the road because of all the water flowing down into Lake Riviera. The problem here is that they had to put in several more culverts and now, with more culverts, what is happening is that the people downstream are getting flooded because the drainage is pouring more water in, the more culverts and more water going downstream and more people downstream having problems with flooding and water damage.

It does not solve the primary issue that a whole lot of marshes and other areas were being drained and a lot more water was coming into Lake Riviera. The net result was a lot of extra water problems that there had not been before. Well, the basic problem here is that these issues, as the Member for La Verendrye (Mr. Lemieux) knows all too well–I understand that he told some people that the whole situation along the Seine River was a mess.

Well, describing the actions of his own government, I guess that tells it all when the Member for La Verendrye says that the situation on a river–I think most of it is probably in his constituency–is in a

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2589 mess, he is not looking after it, and things are not being enforced. There are, in fact, some water licences with terms which I was shown which are not being followed. Well, why not? Where is this minister? What the problem here is, in a sense, that we can have amendments to The Water Rights Act, but if we have ministers who do not pay any attention, who do not do any enforcement–because, I do not know, maybe they do not believe in their own act. Maybe they believe there are problems.

Maybe, you know, they have some conflicting interests and do not want to get involved. I do not know what the answer is, but the fact of the matter is that we have a lot of things which are not being enforced properly. We have

an act which was brought in, in haste, even though the minister had lots and lots of time and, as a result of it being brought in, in haste, there are a lot of problems. The farmers need some rights under this legislation. Under the authority, all the rights basically are derived for the government, and certainly, people who are fa rmers, who are trying to raise some crops and make a livelihood, they should have some clear principles and rights and so on as well.

The issue here is that, if you are going to give a lot of power to the government and the people who work for the government, then you need to make sure that there is an appropriate amount of consideration of checks and balances here so that the powers are balanced, and you actually have some rights and appropriate situations for people who are farmers, people who are getting flooded because the MLA for La Verendrye is just not paying attention to their needs. I was told by one of the people there that they tried to meet with him for a long time and have been unable to get a meeting.

When you have a government which does not enforce things, the problems build up, which even the MLA for the area calls a mess. It is a real problem, and this legislation is not going to deal with this situation. Let us add onto this. I have been talking about having the appropriate checks and balances in this legislation. Well, let us look and let us talk about one of the general aspects of this legislation which deals with the protection of the minister and people who act under this act from liability. People are protected from liability so long as they are not acting in bad faith.

Well, there is a number of problems with this. Number one is that bad faith is a pretty hard thing to prove, and so it is not very clear when this would go to court to prove somebody has had bad faith in making a decision. But there are clearly some areas where people need to be held responsible and accountable. Clearly, what needs to be added in terms of accountability is that the minister should be held accountable if he is grossly incompetent or she is grossly incompetent. This act should not provide protection from liability for a minister who is grossly incompetent.

So clearly this is an area of this act which needs to be changed. There are some areas of this act as well which are similar in providing protection from liability for not only ministers but others who are grossly negligent. Well, that is just not right. Honest farmers are trying to do a hard day's work and trying to grow crops, trying to make a living. One of the farmers I talked to had some specialized onions in an area along the Seine River, and he had never been flooded in something like 36 years.

Well, after this, and I should say, after the Tory government and the NDP government had been there for the last 15 years, the cumulative changes, the things that had not been adequately enforced, looked after properly, resulted in his fields being flooded. Now it is happening virtually on an annual basis with terrific crop losses because the water rights are not being looked after properly. Clearly, this act has got some major, major issues. Mr.

Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair When we are dealing with water rights, we need to be dealing not just with bad faith, not just with gross incompetence as I have already mentioned, not just with gross negligence as I have mentioned, but we need to deal with interests of individuals, conflict of interest, and how you deal with these to make sure that the minister because of his privileged position, or somebody else on acting under the act who may want to protect his land but not worry about flooding somebody else's, do

an act under this act which would protect his friends and cause problems for somebody who is not his friend. That is just wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the fact is that this act needs to be changed so that this sort of problem would not arise. Right now, this act as it was amended by the current minister clearly has some major holes and some major problems which need to be addressed. * (15:00) This act, as I have outlined, has a major problem in terms of not even having fundamental principles

2590 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 which would guide judgments and decisions. It has a major problem with the approach by this government to enforcement. They have not had the resources, the skilled people, the will. We do not know exactly what actually enforced the act as it exists, and we are adding more clauses and powers, et cetera, wherein what is going to be the result here if you do not have reasonable principles on which the act is based and you do not have a reasonable approach in terms of when you go in and you are going to make a decision in terms of judgments.

Now one of the big problems in terms of water rights is the rights of people upstream versus the rights of people downstream. Do the people upstream have a right to drain and flood people downstream? Do the people upstream have a right to hold back water so that it is not available for somebody downstream or maybe it will protect people downstream. Certainly, there needs to be a process here which will provide some arbitration between people who have different perspectives upstream and downstream on the same watershed. As the Member for Carman (Mr.

Rocan) knows full well, this is quite an important issue in parts of his constituency, and indeed there have been some not bad things done near Miami, in south Tobacco Creek, in terms of holding back water. But the point here is that because there are no principles in the act, because there is no way to arbitrate between people upstream and downstream, this is a set-up for continuing problems. There should be, I suggest to you, rights of people upstream and downstream. There should be rights of farmers generally to be able to drain agricultural land and make su re that they can grow a crop.

We should make sure that when people are interested in putting in tile drainage, they should have the ability to put in tile drainage and look after their land. The problem here is that in this Water Rights Act there has been so much that has not been paid adequate attention to that, as I have already suggested, this minister should withdraw this act and bring it back after he has done some more work and put it in proper shape. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is primarily what I wanted to put on the record, to say that we think this act has major defects.

We think that the minister made a major mistake in bringing forward this act at this particular juncture so poorly thought out. He is, in essence, wasting people's time debating legislation which was so poorly prepared. We know full well, those of us who were here not all that long ago when the same minister brought in the water quality act, there were a huge number of amendments that were needed because that bill had been so poorly thought out and so poorly designed.

Now we have another bill which is as poorly designed as that one, and I will bet it is going to have lots and lots of amendments just if it goes through to committee meeting and then to third reading and report stage, that this is a bill which has huge problems which needs major changes. The minister should just withdraw it and bring it back next year when he has done the work properly. This an important piece of legislation for people in Manitoba. It is particularly important for people in rural Manitoba. It should have been done properly, instead of done in a mess. As the Member for La Verendrye (Mr.

Lemieux) has said, he has got a mess in Seine River. This will not sort it out for him. He should have looked after it properly. The fact is that this legislation is not good enough. The minister should take it back until it is done properly. That is what I wanted to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. House Business Mr. Deputy Speaker: On House business, the honourable Opposition House Leader. Mr.

Kelvin Goertzen (Official Opposition House Leader): In accordance with Rule 31(9), I would like to announce that the pr ivate member's resolution be considered next Thursday morning is the resolution on Sustainable Development for Rural Manitoba sponsored by the honourable Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings). Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair thanks the honourable Opposition House Leader. * * * Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other speakers on Bill 14? If there is no other speaker, the bill stands in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr.

Dyck). [Agreed] Bill 37–The Labour-Sponsored Investment Funds Act, 2006 (Various Acts Amended) Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will now proceed to Bill 37, The Labour-Sponsored Investment Funds Act, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines (Mr.

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2591 Rondeau), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). Is that agreed that it remain standing in the honourable Member for Pembina? [Agreed] Are there any other speakers? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker in the Chair Mr. Speaker: We will now move into Committee of Supply. Would the appropriate Chairs please go to Chamber, Executive Council; Room 254, Industry, Economic Development and Mines; Room 255, Labour and Immigration. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) INDUSTRY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND MINES * (15:10) Mr. Chairperson (H arry Schellenberg): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Industry, Economic Development and Mines. As had been previously agreed, questioning for this department will proceed in a global manner. The floor is now open for questions. An Honourable Member: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chairperson: Honourable Minister. Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Mr. Chair, in order to demonstrate our quick response to the member opposite, I thought I would provide some information on the record that was asked for yesterday in Estimates.

The first one was the honourable member wanted to know the appointment of Eugene Kostyra to the position of Secretary of the Community and Economic Development Committee of Cabinet. That was done on March 11, 2000. The other questions that he had on information was a budget versus expenditures on salaries in thousands of dollars for 2004-2005 in the Department of Industry, Economic Development and Mines. Going through the whole department, and you do not want it item by item, basically, there was a budget of $12,523,100. We spent $12,375,000. So there was a lapse of $148,100, which is 1.2 percent.

So that is basically vacancies over time. Other information that the member requested was the breakdown of Small Business Development, Committee of Supply, in thousands for the 2006- 2007, and I will go through it. That was the Small Business, Other Expenditures, contracted services and stuff. [interjection] Yes, $392,800.

Basically, the Business Library Services was $36,800; the Business Services Counselling was $29,200; the Business Development Entrepreneurship Training was $19,500; Business Information Publications was $38,000; Business Start Program was $22,000; Office Operations was $140,900; Aboriginal Business Development was $16,500; Film Loan Guarantee was $10,500; Brandon Operations was $42,300; and the Canada-Manitoba Regional Office Operations were $37,100, for a total of $392,800.

For the information of all members, this operation is shared with the federal government on a 70 percent for the federal government 30 percent provincial government basis, which is a good deal because we get good bang for our bucks. So that is that money broken down.

The last information that we promised to provide the member by tomorrow, but I have it early if that is all right, was the composition of the CEDC Cabinet members, as approved in Cabinet: the Honourable Rosann Wowchuk, the Honourable Eric Robinson, the Honourable Scott Smith, the Honourable Diane McGifford, the Honourable Ron Lemieux, the Honourable Dave Chomiak, the Honourable Jim Rondeau, the Honourable Theresa Oswald, and that was in an OIC. So, as per your questions yesterday, I think I have responded to most of them. The only other one that might be outstanding is the MIOPs. The interesting

part is we have a Freedom of Information from Ms. Brenda Wilkes, from Room 113-450 Broadway, that the member opposite might be aware of. It was a Freedom of Information that was provided on December 12, 2005. [interjection] I know, that is right outside your office door. It was provided and, to that, we have a list that was provided to the members on December 12, 2005, of the MIOP loans. Now, if you need another copy, if you cannot get it from the staff member outside your door, let me know. We will send you a copy of it.

2592 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Well, I want to thank the minister. He has not yet quite answered the questions I am about to ask him, but I am impressed, and thank you. But, on the subject of the Community and Economic Development Committee Secretariat and the 13 staff lodged there, would I have any difficulty acquiring the list of staff that work in that section? Mr. Rondeau: All right, I will go through the staff, person by person: P. McMiller, E. Kostyra, C. Burgess, D. Ceicko, A. Rothney, K. McCallum, C. Davies, S. Budnik Pilon, C.

Shattuck, P. Pierlot, D. Flanagan, J. Lodon, and that is it. It should be 13. Mr. Cummings: Thank you, I appreciate that. Obviously, I will peruse Hansard too–I cannot write as fast as the minister can talk, and that is quite all right. The second part of that is, can he indicate if there are any contract employees in that list, excluding Mr. Kostyra, of course? Mr. Rondeau: There are no contracts outstanding. * (15:20) Mr. Cummings: No contracts outstanding. I interpret that to mean there are no contract employees in there. Is Mr. Kostyra on a contract or a staff position? Mr.

Rondeau: Following a long-standing practice, people who are in staff years, and he is in a staff year through an Order-in-Council, have a choice between doing an employment contract or becoming part of the Civil Service Superannuation Board. He has chosen to have an employment contract. Mr. Cummings: I may have heard wrong, but did I hear–was that a D. Flanagan employed in one of the 13 that was listed? Mr. Rondeau: Yes, it is. Mr. Cummings: That is not a contract position? I just ask the minister to reconfirm. Mr. Rondeau: We will make absolutely sure what it is, and we will get back to you shortly.

By that, I mean, as in the past, where I just provided you a lot of the information, we will get back to you in due course. Mr. Cummings: That is acceptable. In the structure of this group, and absolutely as the minister indicated yesterday, governments will very often seek out the type of particular expertise to get action precipitated within the province. So I am going to go back to my favourite example again, and that is the example of the lack of slaughter capacity in this province, one of my frustrations that I expressed a number of times to the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk).

But, because this expertise is sitting here, I do not understand why it would not have been possible for the secretariat through the senior personnel, actually, Mr. Kostyra, why it would not have been likely that this

section would have sought out qualified investment opportunity to expand the slaughter opportunity in this province, qualified in the sense that there are a number of large entities out there, some of which have expanded. We have seen Natural Valley expand in Saskatchewan but not here, although the opportunity probably was available here if we had been somewhat in advance pushing the issue. I ask whether or not, to the minister's knowledge, or I believe certainly the knowledge is here at the table, whether or not that sort of SWAT team approach was used to try to track the slaughter capacity to the province. Mr.

Rondeau: Generally, what happens is the departments have the people who have the expertise. So you would talk about agricultural issue or agriculture and food issue, and that is the department that would be the lead department. Again, they would have the expertise as far as agriculture and food production. That is the department that would be the lead department. Now, if there was a proposal or if there was an initiative, that is when the secretariat would take action. It is not a secretariat that does proactive marketing of the province.

The marketing of the province, the promotions, the quick response would be out of the department, which would be Manitoba Agriculture and Rural Initiatives. When Simplot came through, they would come through. They would talk to Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, and the CEDC, their role would be to co-ordinate water, the different intergovernmental affairs, industry, environment, put them all together to make sure the package comes together. It is not the job of 13 people to market the entire province and go chasing down every potential

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2593 opportunity. In the case of most industries, it is a small business. You would not have somebody who wants to do a film walk up to the CEDC and say, hey, I want to do a film. You would not have someone who was a small business owner walk into the CEDC. It is meant to co-ordinate the different departments in government on major initiatives and give policy advice. Mr.

Cummings: Obviously, the minister and I differ on what could be the usefulness of this type of a collection of expertise, and I maybe wrongly assumed that one of the roles here could be the actual promotion that the minister said was not necessarily their job to act in terms of promotion. For example, when potato processing was expanded in this province, when pork processing was expanded, there were known interests out there, but it was a mutual seeking out of opportunity and government initiative that brought the two together, as I recall.

It was not a case of full-grown projects landing on the minister's table and then seeking out the support that would be necessary. There were, in fact, opportunities for the government, either through the ministers or through people who had knowledge, to go out and find companies that were interested in expansion and persuade them that Manitoba was the place in which to expand. That really says about as well as I can why we have such a high level of frustration about the lack of kill capacity in Manitoba. We have the only growing cow herd in North America.

Manitoba's cow herd is growing faster and continues to grow in the face of reduced cow herds in North America and particularly south of the line. That was the case for the last number of years if I understand the information correctly. So it was an opportunity that has gone wanting, but nevertheless I am surprised that that type of initiative was not held at least in part by this secretariat in terms of dealing with what I thought would have been a high priority within government.

If it was lodged solely within Agriculture, I fail to see how that would have been the main lead or the only lead in seeking out that type of industry even though Agriculture is part of the Cabinet committee that this secretariat works with. But I thought the secretariat might well have been taking some direction from that committee. Let me ask another question about the function and the role of the leadership in this

section of the department. Given the way we see the display in the Estimates book, would it be a correct assumption that the personnel in this department report to Mr. Kostyra? Mr. Rondeau: Two things, Mr. Chair. The first, I think it is important to note that Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives was active to try to find and expand th e slaughter capacity. They had people both within and outside the province; so they had people working on that file.

The whole co- ordination of the Community and Economic Development Committee Secretariat would have been doing things like working with Ranchers Choice in co-ordinating the infrastructure, in discussing the environment and water issues, in discussing the finance issues through Industry, et cetera. * (15:30) So Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives would lead up the initiative, and the department would provide co-ordination and policy advice. That is the first one. Then in the second one it is quite easy. Yes, the managerial position in the department is Mr. Eugene Kostyra. Mr.

Cummings: Well, it is interesting, and perhaps the minister has indicated that he has an ongoing communication in this area, but, when push comes to shove, this area, all of a sudden, is not as directly involved as I might have assumed. The Department of Agriculture certainly has the technical information, but, in terms of business development, would it be true to assume that this secretariat would have significant business development expertise, the financial and technical support that companies might be interested in seeking information from? Mr. Rondeau: Mr.

Chairperson, Manitoba Agriculture and Rural Initiatives has significant expertise in technical and financial expertise, but part of the role of the Community and Economic Development Committee Secretariat is to provide co- ordination. So, if they felt that the program needed other departments or other department expertise, that is where it would be derived from. So, if they were talking about a trade policy, they may talk to Mr. Alan Barber in Industry about trade, if that was part of the project.

The job of the CEDC is to co-ordinate and work with departments to get information–the expertise is in the departments, generally–to co-ordinate the information. There are 13 people present in this department. You would not want them to market,

2594 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 figure out all the financing, figure out all the business plans and work with every business that is expanding in Manitoba. They could not possibly do that with 13 people. Hence, they work in the departments. The departments do the work. The departments are the ones who have the expertise and this is a co-ordinating and policy secretariat. Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): I have a question for the minister.

Having not had the benefit of being here yesterday in terms of the Estimates, I would like to ask the minister whether or not Eugene Kostyra, if he could confirm that Eugene Kostyra is the Community and Economic Development Committee Secretariat manager. Would that be correct to say? Mr. Rondeau: Yes. Mr. Hawranik: In his capacity as manager of the Community and Economic Development Committee Secretariat, does Eugene Kostyra report directly to the minister? Mr. Rondeau: Yes. Mr.

Hawranik: In his capacity as manager, I understand from my colleague, could the minister confirm that Eugene Kostyra has been the manager since March, 2000? Mr. Rondeau: He was appointed March 11, 2000. Mr. Hawranik: Is there an existing employment contract, a written employment contract with Eugene Kostyra? Mr. Rondeau: He has an OIC, an Order-in-Council, and he has an employment contract. Mr. Hawranik: Would the Minister of Industry undertake to provide a copy of that contract to us? It is public information: he is paid by public funds.

I expect that employment cont ract certainly would be available to members of the public and to us in our capacity as MLAs and critics. Would he undertake to provide us with a copy of that employment contract? Mr. Rondeau: I would believe that that would be personal information. You have the amount of money that he is paid. Under page 49 of the public information documents, we disclose financial remuneration as per legisl ation. It is a standard contract. I would feel that it would be inappropriate to provide that information to the member. Mr.

Hawranik: Since it is a standard contract, obviously, it has standard terms in every employment contract. Would he provide me with a copy of an employment contract in standard terms without Mr. Eugene Kostyra's name on it? Mr. Rondeau: As a lawyer, I assume that you understand that most contracts contain pay, benefits, holidays, and I would suggest that if you wish to have a Freedom of Information you can request that, because it is a contract between the government and a member.

I would suggest that would be inappropriate for that, but if you wish to put a Freedom of Information under it I would be happy, because then the due process can take place. Mr. Hawranik: As a lawyer, I appreciate that the contract may, in fact, disclose his pay and his benefits, and that is not what I am concerned about. His pay and his benefits are, in fact, in the Estimates books, and we have seen what that is. My concern is: What are his duties and responsibilities? What is he expected to do for the money that he makes?

Clearly, if there is a contract out there, and if he is willing to, I see nothing wrong, there is nothing legally stopping him from, in fact, giving us his contract and blacking out the pay and benefits, if that is his concern. Will the minister provide us with a copy of that contract? Mr. Rondeau: I refer the member to page 48: "The CEDC Secretariat provides co-ordination, community and economic development expertise and analytical support to Cabinet, the Committee, Departments and other Boards and Agencies.

"The Secretariat works in close co-operation with Treasury Board Secretariat, Departments and Crown Agencies, to provide assistance with respect to community and economic development projects and policies.

"Activities of the Secretariat encompass a broad range of policy areas, including rural and agricultural issues, northern development, urban revitalization, environmental and natural resource issues, public infrastructure projects, investment and industry attraction and expansion, aboriginal and ethno- cultural issues, energy development, cultural policy, research and innovation, education and training, and poverty and social justice issues." This is where the policy goes in: "Secretariat staff assist departments in policy development, and facilitate co-ordination and integration of policy across government.

Staff prepare analyses of departmental submissions to the Committee and also

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2595 develop proposals for Committee review, lead specific project teams as required, and participate in a variety of other project teams, task forces and working groups. "The Secretariat works in close co-operation with business, community, aboriginal, labour and social organizations on policy development within the Premier's Economic Advisory Council." They basically work to develop policy and co- ordinate between departments. So the role of Mr.

Eugene Kostyra is to manage that Secretariat, which would mean he would co-ordinate the staff, and he would ensure the appropriate flow of information. Mr. Hawranik: I a m h a p p y t o n o t e t h a t w h a t t h e objectives are of the CEDC, but I could have simply turned to that page and read it for myself. That is not my question. My question is not what the role of the CEDC is and what the objectives are of the CEDC. My question is: What is Mr. Kostyra's job? What is the scope of his employment? He is paid by the public. What is he paid for?

The only way we are going to find that out is to get a copy of his employment contract, and I am not concerned about what he gets paid, as I mentioned before. I am concerned about what his duties are under that employment contract, and I believe I have a right to it, and the public had paid for it and we want to know whether we are getting value for our money. I ask the minister again: I would like to have a copy of the employment contract; would he provide it to us? * (15:40) Mr. Rondeau: The role of Mr.

Eugene Kostyra is to manage the Secretariat and provide the appropriate flow of information and data and policies, as far as policy advice to the Secretariat. When we have meetings, the departments provide a base of information. The Secretariat then gives policy advice, and what the Secretariat also does is it provides co-ordination on a project. So, as an example, if we are talking about Ranchers Choice, what it would do is it would work with Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. It would work with their staff, work with Water, work with Conservation, work with Intergovernmental Affairs.

Now the job of Eugene Kostyra and the staff of CEDC is to co-ordinate, work with the different departments to make sure everyone is on the same page, make sure the proponent gets the information to the right departments, because what you do not want to do is go through five different hoops. So the CEDC co-ordinates so that the project moves forward smoothly. Now the job of Mr. Eugene Kostyra is to manage this Secretariat so that it runs efficiently. If you look on page 48, I invite the member to read it, if you read page 48 you see the job in Secretariat.

A manager in the Secretariat is responsible for the staff and also for achieving the objectives. If you read the objectives and you read what the Secretariat does, then you should understand what his role is within government. Mr. Hawranik: I take it from the minister's comments he has just refused to provide a copy of an employment contract with Eugene Kostyra in spite of the fact that the public pays for his salary in the department. They pay, but they really have no say in terms of what his duties are. Clearly, those objectives in the CEDC are very general in nature and are very all-encompassing.

My concern is what is Eugene Kostyra paid for specifically. I am not sure what the minister has got to hide, but obviously he must have something to hide. The request that I made is clearly within the department's ability to hand it over. If I ask for anyone else other than Eugene Kostyra, his employment contract, I am sure I would be reading it right now. Clearly, that is public information. I would like to know what he gets paid for.

We can talk about general duties and responsi bilities of CEDC all you want, but it is a very general description of what the committee does, and specifi cally I want to know what he was hired to do. Certainly, he was hired to manage the CEDC, but there may be other information within that employment contract that I think the public has a right to know. Is the minister refusing to give me a copy of that employment contract? Mr.

Rondeau: I will check whether it is appropriate through Freedom of Information to provide individual employment cont racts and whether it was standard practice under the former government to provide this information to the public on individual contracts from an Order-in-Council. I will endeavour to check on that and I will get back to the member. However, this is quite simple, and I hope the member understands. I know it is simple, I think it is simple: The Secretariat does co-ordination. It works with proponents. It develops policy based on

2596 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2006 proposals from the departments. What happens is, in the case of Ranchers Choice, Ranchers Choice has a proponent. Agriculture, Rural Initiatives will get the information. The proponent works with Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, they will take that proposal in. Now, that proposal, Ranchers Choice cannot go forward unless it has an appropriate water and sewer. That would be through Intergovernmental Affairs, which would work with the community to develop appropriate water and sewer. That could be through Conservation, does the clean environmental hearings.

Industry would provide maybe some financial advice. There might be three or four departments with specific expertise. Now, rather than have the proponent go to each department by themselves, which would be time- consuming and frustrating, what happens is there is the initial Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives that gets a proponent and then the CEDC, through Eugene and his staff, co-ordinate all departments to work on a SWAT team, to use the Member for Ste. Rose's (Mr. Cummings) words, to develop a SWAT team to address their initiatives and move the project forward. That is what Mr. Kostyra does.

That is what his sta ff does. They also provide policy advice to the CEDC committee. As far as a manager is concerned, generally, what a manager does is ensures that the staff is working on the projects, makes sure there is no difficulty with the projects, makes sure if there are any issues that come up that they are addressed. Ms. Marilyn Brick, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair So, when you are dealing with it, you look at the mandate, you look at the job that the person has been given, and a manager in a

section would address any issues as far as the depart ment. It would provide the paperwork, it would provide some hiring advice and, of course, the co-ordination through the government. That makes sense. If you look on page 48, if you look at the objectives of the CEDC, if you look at how it works, as I explained to you, then you will also see on page 49 you have all the different salaries. It is all there in black and white as far as what the proposal is, wh at they do and what the CEDC does. Mr. Hawranik: To use the minister's own words, it is simple. I hope the minister understands.

The objectives of the department, which he just quoted, and the responsibilities under the employment contract with Eugene Kostyra may not be congruent. They may be at odds, and I have some concerns as to whether or not Eugene Kostyra, whether he is doing the public's work or whether he is doing political work. It is a simple matter of the minister providing me with a copy of that, he says, standard employment contract. I am not interested in his salary. I am not interested in his benefits. I am interested, though, in terms of what he is getting paid to do and the public is paying for it.

Can I have the minister's assurance then? He did say in the answer to the previous question that he would be prepared to look at it to see whether or not he could give me a copy of that contract or not, and at least provide me with reasons if he is not able to. An Honourable Member: Or is it non-standard? Mr. Hawranik: Or is it a non-standard contract? Mr. Rondeau: I am prepared to look at what was the practice in the previous government and our government as to the provisions of similar contracts. Mr. Hawranik: Is there a time line within which the minister will be able to give me that information? Mr.

Rondeau: In due course. Mr. Hawranik: "In due course," meaning within the next five years, or within the next five months, or within the next five days? Mr. Rondeau: I am not aware, as I did yesterday–I know the member was–I am not allowed to say if you are here or not, but, yesterday, when the Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) asked for information, I endeavoured to get it today and in due course. Not only did I provide the stuff that I said I would get today, I provided, I think, four or five pieces of information early at the beginning of this session.

What I did was I provided all the information fully and early. So I tell the member that I will get it in due course and provide the information, if possible, in due course. Mr. Hawranik: Will he commit to giving it prior to us rising on June 13? Mr. Rondeau: I do not know how long it will take me to find out whether it has been standard practice, but I will endeavour to do what I may in order to get it to you in an appropriate time. Mr. Hawranik: Can the minister define "appropriate"? Mr. Rondeau: No. Mr. Hawranik: I will accept whatever undertaking the minister gave me for whatever it is worth. It

May 25, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2597 could be five years, it could be 50 years from now. In any event, I will take him at his word, and I will be asking him again at some point in time if I do not get it within a reasonable period of time. Can the minister also provide me with a copy of Mr. Kostyra's job description? * (15:50) Mr. Rondeau: I do not believe he has a standard job description, other than the fact that he is a manager of the CEDC, and he is given the goals and objectives of the CEDC. I do not know whether he has a standard job description, or if there is a job description as such.

I believe that a senior manager–I know that when I was in education, and I go back to my previous job–as a lawyer, I do not believe you had a job description. I do not know whether you have a job description as a lawyer. In the case of me as an education person, my job was to deliver adult education programs in the Frontier School Division. My job was to work in partnership with other communities to develop programs that were appropriate and do school-to-work transition. I did not have a job description for many years, but I was very, very capable of setting up award-winning programs that met those criteria.

I believe that, if you hire a senior manager, you give them goals and objectives; you give them a parameter to work with; you give them a co- ordinating function. That is usually quite adequate for job descriptions. It is like if you gave a job description for yourself. Do you have a job description as an MLA? It is interesting, because in many cases, when you are talking about senior management positions, you do not have specific categories or classifications. You give people goals and objectives, and you have faith that they meet them.

Now, when you look at our economic performance, and I want to just go through the economic performances in some of the projects that have gone through. If you look at Motor Coach Industries, this is an industry that was having major problems in the nineties. In 1999 we had September 11. We had an issue, and so there was a big problem. Now, after a MIOP loan, after some issues, we have had a whole bunch of new hires, 130 new hires at the Winnipeg plant. We have had a huge ramp-up of production to meet the demand, and all of MCI is located in Winnipeg. So we have a location. We have some new technology.

We have centralized functions. We have new coaches being developed, and new hires. Another example, you have H&H Trailer that is coming to Portage la Prairie, and it is the first Canadian manufacturing plant with plans for a major distribution centre to come in MacGregor. This is a new initiative. If you look at others. We have a number of companies like New Flyer that has had a number of cases where New Flyer was in troubles under many years. It is now producing lots of buses, has lots of contracts, and these are the types of employment and economic things that are happening in our province.

If you look at life sciences, we have 4 percent of the population, 10 percent of the life sciences companies. This is high end, high money, high value added, that is the type of thing we want to do. Film industry. In 1999, we had about $10-million worth of film production in Manitoba. Last year, it was over $100 million. So what you want to do is, when you are talking about economic development and the member wants to say whether Eugene Kostyra or this government is growing the pot, the pot has grown between $12 billion and $14 billion, that is billion, since 1999.

It is because we work with drivers of the economy. We work with business, we work with labour, we work with education, and we grow all those things. Now, if you look at the objectives of the CEDC department, you notice that it is talking about working with business, labour, education, differ

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-4-76b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 4th hansardpdf 76b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d7d136caee149cc32c1b34d9ace27fe32c0cde7c

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