Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 50 (38th Legislature, 2nd Session)

38-2-50

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second 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. LV No. 50 - 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 7, 2004

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. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

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

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon Riel N.D.P. VACANT Minto MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa 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. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. VACANT Turtle Mountain WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

2971 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, June 7, 2004 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker: The honourable member, on a matter of privilege. Mr. Gerrard: Today, Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper we have a motion proposed which I submit is essentially a very draconian imposition of closure for this Legislature, not only on the sessions this year but on next year.

The motion proposes a form of closure to occur on the present session and, as I said, on the sessions to be held next year. When the rules were changed about a year and a half ago, Mr. Speaker, it was presented by the government as a mechanism by which we would move to a time of lesser focus on Estimates to a series of new rules that would provide for more careful, in-depth and orderly evaluation of bills which could proceed in a careful fashion and using plenty of time for consideration of bills. The government last year restricted the Legislature to meeting on 37 days.

Though we have met for more days this year, we are still far lower than the normal number of days sitting based on a historic perspective. We on this side of the Legislature are working hard to give our best effort in discussing and debating the merits or lack of merit of bills put before this House. It is important that the Legislature have adequate time to consider bills and other matters and that there be plenty of time for debate, rather than the rushed situation that we are being presented with. Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the member from Inkster, that this se rious matter now be referred to the Committee on Legislative Affairs and then be reported to the House. Mr. Speaker: Before recognizing any other members to speak, I would remind the House that contributions at this time by honourable members are to be limited strictly to relevant comments as to whether the alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest opportunity, whether a prima facie case has been established. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, I certainly submit that this is in no way a prima facie matter of privilege and, by the way, it has been characterized as some form of closure. I wish the member would read the motion, and he would discover that in that motion what is accommodated is up to 45 more hours for debate. The motion says more debate, not less debate. I think I hear a member opposite talking from his seat. I think what we have to do in this House, like we do near the end of every legislative session, is look to co-operate to move the public's agenda along.

Now we were doing that with the co-operation of the two independent members until last Wednesday when they came back and said, Mr. Speaker, that they were not interested any longer in consenting to additional hours, a little bit of overtime in this House, as we have been doing over the last several days. In fact it is well-known that as the sessions wind down, the members consent to a little overtime to get the public's agenda moved along. Instead, they came and they said that they wanted to see amendments to The Legislative Assembly Act to recognize the independent members as an officially recognized party.

In my view, and I told this to the Member for Inkster, that it was unethical to hijack the public's business by demands for more perks because that kind of status means higher pay for their leader. It means, I understand, a car. It means more support, and I understand the Member for Inkster said, "Well, we did not want that right away. We could wait for the finances, after recognition, until after the next election." * (13:35)

2972 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 It is the same issue. To tie that in with the public's agenda, I think, is unethical. It is certainly unacceptable to all the stakeholders that have an interest in the public bills that are on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, by any tying up of the legislative agenda, we will certainly be advising those stakeholders that they can call the Liberal members and ask why their bills are not being dealt with.

What we have here is a member that just got up and said, "How come we have this motion?" I would say to the member opposite, "Why have he and his colleague from Inkster re peatedly got up since Wednesday and turned down not only sitting in concurrence on Thursday afternoon and I think on Wednesday afternoon, but they actually turned down an offer that was initially requested by the Member for Inkster that they be able to question ministers in concurrence aside and apart from the Official Opposition?" In other words, a protected time to ask those questions.

That was offered to them on Thursday night and on Friday, unprecedented in this House, and they said no. They do not want to work. They actually do not have the questions, I guess, by that. So, imagine them getting up today and saying, "Oh, this motion restricts debate." We have done nothing in this House, Mr. Speaker, but try and enlarge the time available, particularly for the members opposite in the independent seats to ask more questions, and make sure there was full debate, but the members do not want to co-operate as they were earlier. There were two demands that were made on Tuesday night.

That was that the Liberals have time to speak on every bill. I said, "That is good." They said, "We want time for concurrence, protected from the Official Opposition." As a result of discussions with the Official Opposition, that was agreed to. So, on Wednesday morning, it is a new game. Now it is about Official Opposition status and pay, salaries, cars and things like that. That is not acceptable to the public, I submit. Mr. Speaker, I think what members in this House should do is recognize that we have work to do.

When all parties agreed to the June 10 rising of the spring session, it was, of course, contemplated that the budget will pass by then. I suggest that the independent members rethink their current position, their little negotiating ploy, and what we do is get down to the public business recognizing that this motion on the Order Paper does not close down debate on bills. Not only does it provide up to 44 additional hours of debate time on concurrence, budget and public bills, but it says that public bills not given Royal Assent or agreed to by June 10 go over to the fall.

It continues debate on the public bills that are not passed. I say, though, on behalf of the public, on behalf of the stakeholders, please pass those bills. Get down to work, roll up your sleeves. A little overtime is not going to kill you. Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I probably heard sufficient argument. If the honourable member is rising because he feels that there is some point that has not been touched upon, I will hear the honourable member. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is imperative that before this goes to any committee, that Manitobans have a right to know a few facts.

The Government House Leader has attempted to mislead and ultimately– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order. Mr. Mackintosh: Yes, Mr. Speaker, clearly the words by the member are unparliamentary. Honourable members do not attempt to "mislead." You cannot do both, and I certainly stand by my word in terms of negotiations. By the way, if the member is talking about misleading, I will say that talking about sitting days is wholly misleading as to the work of this Legislature.

If we are here until June 10, we have calculated we will actually have 102 sittings of the House and committees. That is a better measure of work than his irrelevant number. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, "mislead" has been ruled parliamentary by some speakers, unparliamentary by other speakers, but I know for sure that "deliberately mislead" or

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2973 "misleading" has always been ruled unparliamentary. I would caution the honourable member and ask him to pick his words very carefully. * * * * (13:40) Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, let me stick within the facts. The fact is that in 2003 the Manitoba Legislature sat for 37 days. The fact is this government has sat for less than 40 days– Mr. Speaker: Order.

Before we get too far into this, what we are raising right now is to try and draw to the attention of the Speaker that it is the first opportunity and if it is a prima facie case, but I have not moved it for debate so we are not in that debate stage yet. It is just to try and convince the Speaker that it is a prima facie case. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, that is what I am indeed trying to indicate. The fact remains that the Government House Leader has put information related to this privilege that I think needs to be addressed.

The government's position is in the name of efficiency we can have a multitude of committees meet, we can sit these types of hours in order to expedite its business. The framework of the changes to the rules from last year, everything the government wants to be able to accomplish can be done under that framework. There is no need for the motion that has been brought forward or introduced for reading tomorrow which is going to severely limit the rights of individuals within this Chamber.

Ultimately the government could say we will sit 20 days next year and we will have four committees going on and we can sit until midnight. You know what, the government could in fact then get away with sitting for 20 days, if that is what they chose to do. Then if opposition, whether it is me or other members of the opposition were to stand up, we would then be accused of saying, "You do not want to work hard. You do not want to work late." We sat this. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is there are rules that need to be respected, and the motion the member from River Heights has put forward I truly believe needs to be addressed. Some of the rhetoric when the Government House Leader said this is about a new car or other issues related to Bill 210, the government members should be made aware that it was that Government House Leader that brought up the issue of sympathy on private members' bills and the discussions we had afterwards. The Government House Leader knows that.

It was not until the following day, and even when I met with the government representative at that time I clearly indicated it would have absolutely nothing to do with additional resources or privileges within this Chamber. Those are the facts. Truth be known, Mr. Speaker, the agenda of the government is to try to minimize the number of sitting days for this Legislature. They are the ones that do not want to be held accountable inside this Chamber. Every day I rise, as I will today, on petitions from Manitobans who are calling and embarrassed about this government's poor perform- ance inside this Legislature.

I think it is shameful and disgusting that a government does not recognize its obligations to this Chamber, and when it tries to override the rights of the minorities it is disgraceful and this government needs to re-evaluate. To try to imply motives on other members inside this Chamber as to why we are doing it is unacceptable, and this member, the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) and others better start apologizing if they believe that they can sell it to Manitobans because I will take it to a higher court. I will challenge the Minister of Government Services (Mr.

Lemieux) or the Government House Leader. He can pick the school. We will notify the residents and have them come out to his school and see what his own constituents have to say about the poor attitude of democracy in this province. I would welcome such an articulation and debate from the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker. But you know what, the Government House Leader would not have the guts to call my bluff on it because he knows the government is wrong. It is indefensible. For that reason we brought it today– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

I have ruled in the past using the term "have the guts" out of order, myself. I would ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment and to be relevant to the prima facie issue of this privilege. * (13:45) Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the remark of "guts."

2974 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for hat. t Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, we read the Order Paper today. This was the first indication that I and the member from River Heig hts had in regard to what the government's intentions are. We all have a copy of it, obviously. If you read this, I would like some sort of an explanation how government members do not believe this is a form of closure because it is. This is proposing that we go way outside the rules of this Chamber.

When you put it in the context of that agreement from last year where we had 240 hours of Estimates and it has been reduced down to 100 hours, more and more individuals rely on the importance of concurrence, and we feel very little support coming from this government to be held accountable on the whole issue of concurrence. Mr. Speaker, we have bills that have just been introduced by this government and they expect to see them passed without legitimate debate.

They will define legitimate debate by saying, "we are prepared to sit into the wee hours," or "we are prepared to sit additional days in committees," and so forth. I did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I will go back to the days in which this government was in opposition. It would never, ever have tolerated any sort of action of this nature from the Conservative government. I can remember the Government House Leader running across the Chamber, throwing his fists in the air on the whole MTS and how the government of the day felt they were trying to limit debate. Mr.

Speaker, this same Government House Leader, who trampled across the floor and waved his fist, is now doing the same thing. He is doing the same thing on not only one piece of legislation but on a multitude of pieces of legislation so that is why we bring it forward as a matter of privilege. We do believe it appeared on the Order Paper today, so it is the first opportunity, and we believe that it is important enough that it should be on the agenda of the committee. Mr. John Loewen (Deputy Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief with regard to the matter of privilege before the House.

I do not believe that there has been a prima facie case made for the matter of privilege. The Official Opposition takes a position that the government has filed a motion as is identified on the Order Paper. It appears to be in order. As opposition, we look forward to a quick debate on this motion and that is when we will take our opportunity to speak to this motion.

If it be at night or at times other than usual in order that we move the business of the public ahead and the business of this Legislature ahead, members of the Official Opposition will be more than pleased to be here and speak our minds freely and openly in terms of any motion or any legislation before this House. With regard to the grandstanding of the member from Inkster and his leader, I would just say that if the issue, and I will take the Government House Leader at his word, if it is a matter of having their party recognized, there are two by-elections at the end of the month.

All they have to do is win them. They will have their four seats and the matter is solved. Mr. Speaker: Order. A matter of privilege is a serious concern, so I am going to take this matter under advisement to consult the authorities, and I will return to the House with a ruling. * (13:50) PETITIONS Highway 227 Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition. It is unacceptable for the residents of Manitoba to travel the unsafe gravel roads of Highway 227 in the constituencies of Lakeside and Portage la Prairie.

Inclement weather can make Highway 227 treacherous to all drivers. Allowing better access to Highway 227 would ease the flow of traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway. Residences along Highway 227 are not as accessible to emergency services due to the nature of he current condition of the roadway. t The condition of these gravel roads can cause serious damage to all vehicles, which is unacceptable. Residents of Manitoba deserve a better rural highway infrastructure.

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2975 We petition the Manitoba Legislative Assembly as follows: To request that the Minister of Transportation and Government Services consider having Highway 227 paved from the junction of highways 248 and 227 all the way to Highway 16, the Yellowhead route. To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider supporting said initiatives to ensure the safety of all Manitobans and all Canadians who travel along Manitoba highways. Submitted on behalf of Richard Upgang, Melissa Delbridge, Joanne MacMillan and others. Mr.

Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Alzheimer's Disease Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I wish to present the following petition. These are the reasons for this petition. Alzheimer's is a debilitating disease. Cholinesterase inhibitors are known to slow or even prevent the progression of Alzheimer's. The provincial government asked for the development of an Alzheimer's strategy in 2000 and was presented with nine recommendations in 2002, none of which has yet been implemented.

In the absence of a provincial Alzheimer's strategy, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority put in place a policy in November 2003 whereby Alzheimer's patients entering personal care homes are being weaned from certain Alzheimer medications in a move that the WRHA's vice- president of long-term care has referred to as a financial necessity. The administrative costs of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority have more than tripled since 1999, to a total of more than $16 million a year.

In a move that amounts to two-tier medicine, the families of Alzheimer's sufferers in personal care homes may request that the drugs continue to be delivered at the family's expense. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) to ensure that his attempts to balance his department's finances are not at the expense of the health and well-being of seniors and other vulnerable Manitobans suffering from this debilitating disease.

To urge the Minister of Health to consider reversing his decision to deny Alzheimer's patients in personal care homes access to certain medications. To request the Minister of Health to consider implementing a provincial Alzheimer's strategy. Signed by Don Rogan, Shirley Kantyluk, R. Smalby and others. Minimum Sitting Days for Legislative Assembly 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 Legislature sat for only 37 days in 2003.

Manitobans expect their government to be accountable, and the number of sitting days has a direct impact on the issue of public accountability. Manitobans expect their elected officials to be provided the opportunity to be able to hold the government accountable. The Legislative Assembly provides the best forum for all MLAs to debate and ask questions of the government, and it is critical that all MLAs be provided the time needed in order for them to cover constituent and party duties.

Establishing a minimum number of sitting days could prevent the government of the day from limiting the rights of opposition members from being able to ask questions. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

2976 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider recognizing the need to sit for a minimum of 80 days in any given calendar year. Signed by Don Liebrecht, Christy Liebrecht and Efren Saria and others. * (13:55) Proposed PLA–Floodway Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for this petition: The Province of Manitoba has tabled legislation in the Legislature that may result in the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway by the summer of 2005. The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA). The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union. Approximately 95 percent of heavy construction companies in Manitoba are currently non-unionized.

The Manitoba Heavy Co nstruction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

The chair of B.C.'s 2010 Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in Alberta to o ff-shore development on the East Coast have repeatedly incurred cost overruns, labour disruptions and delays." Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Con- struction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

Manitobans deserve an open and fair competition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice. Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed Clayton Manness, Linda West, Ron Hesford and others. Pharmacare Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for the petition.

Pharmacare is a drug benefit program for any Manitoban, regardless of age, whose income is seriously affected by high prescription drug costs. Under the Doer government, Pharmacare deductibles have been in creased by 5 percent each year for the past three year s. As a result of the 15% hike in Pharmacare deductibles, individuals are facing increased costs ranging from $36 to $660 a year. Seniors, fixed- and low-income-earning Manitobans are the most negatively impacted by these increases.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Premier of Manitoba to consider reversing his decision to increase Pharmacare deductibles by 5 percent in Budget 2004,

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2977 To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider reducing health care bureaucracy, as previously promised, and direct those savings into sustaining Pharmacare. To urge the Premier of Manitoba to consider re- evaluating his government's priorities and to consider suspending his governmen t's plans to spend $100 million on new VLTs at a time when seniors and fixed-income Manitobans cannot afford medication. Signed by Edith Rempel, A. Kepty, H. Jorgensen and others. Proposed PLA–Floodway Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr.

Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Under the $660-million expansion of the Red River Floodway, the Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA) which will require all floodway workers to pay union dues and which may require all non-unionized companies and workers to join a union. This Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr.

Ashton) has publicly stated a project labour agreement would automatica lly require all floodway workers to pay union dues, even if they are not part of a union. Forcing all floodway workers to pay union dues may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.

Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Construction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his government's plan to force all workers involved in the floodway expansion to pay union dues even if they are not part of a union. To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ensuring any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project. Signed by Warren Ogren, Bill Brown, Carol Loader and others. * (14:00) TABLING OF REPORTS Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): I am pleased to table The Discriminatory Business Practices Act Annual Report, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Min ister responsible for Cooperative Development): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report for the Municipal Board for 2003. Hon. Eric Robinson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the 2003 Annual Report on The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Introduction Of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Judy, Leon and Jenna Bertrand, Casey Gobeil, Pany Houngmany, Rick Vieweg, Kyle Caligiuri and Brian Healey. These visitors are the family and friends of the legislative page Valene Bertrand. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. Also in the public gallery we have from Cecil Rhodes School 45 Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Tony Vieira and Mr. Werner Burokas.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Wellington (Mr. Santos). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Carman, on a point of order.

2978 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to ask leave of the House, picking up on the comments from the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), where he wants to work more hours on behalf of the people of the province of Manitoba. I am asking you, Sir, if you would canvass the House to see if ther e would be leave to sit tomorrow, June 8, from 1:30 to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to sit tomorrow from 1:30 till 10 p.m.? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Inkster, on a point of order. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, as the member from Carman has requested, I wonder if you could ask the House if there would be leave to at least sit 70 days this year inside this session. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe leave is required for that. My understanding is that effectively we have sat 102 days in the House or committee.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind all honourable members what points of order are. Points of order are to point out to the Speaker a breach of a rule or departure from normal practice of the House and should not be used for debate. Also I believe that scheduling of the House and House business should not be debated on the floor. It should be done by the House leaders themselves. So I would just raise that with all honourable members. So there is no point of order on the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Inkster. * * * Mr.

Speaker: Now we will move on to Question eriod. P ORAL QUESTIONS Red River Floodway Expansion Master Labour Agreement Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier has had Wally Fox-Decent's report for two weeks and even though the minister promised to make the government's response to the report public last week their silence continues. We support Mr. Fox-Decent's recommendation to have a no strike, no lockout clause and we support his recommendation of no forced unionization.

However, we do not support his recommendation to force non-unionized workers to pay union dues and we do not support his recommendation that excludes employers from the negotiating table. The Doer government has had this response, Mr. Speaker. We are waiting for a response from this government. Will the Doer government finally tell Manitobans if they ar e going to accept these recommendations? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr.

Speaker, unlike the members opposite who made up their minds on the Wally Fox- Decent report within two h ours of its release, where they immediately rejected key sections of that report, we have given it the due consideration it deserves. Indeed, I know the Premier, if he was able to today, would reiterate that we are going to make the decision within a matter of days and report it back to Manitobans. I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that

whereas members opposite closed their minds in terms of this issue, very early on there have been many Manitobans who have written to us and offered their views in terms of the Wally Fox-Decent report, which has certainly been a very constructive part of the process. I think again we are seeing that the real approach of members opposite is one of confrontation. We are trying to reach consensus, trying to get the kind of compromise we need on this kind of area. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Water Stewardship said that we made up our minds on this

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2979 Fox-Decent report in two hours. He is wrong. Anybody that tries to convince this side of the House that forcing non-unionized workers to pay union dues, I will make up my mind in two minutes; that is wrong. Mr. Speaker, the minister might be trying to avoid the question and trying to delay this perhaps until after the session is over on Thursday but he owes it to the workers, he owes it to the employers and he owes it to Manitobans to tell them where he stands.

He should come clean with them and tell them that his government will force non-unionized workers to pay union dues and he should indicate if Manitoba's heavy construction employers will have a seat at the table. Will he come clean with Manitobans and take a stand? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, we know the position of members opposite, for example, on the Rand Formula, the critic on the fl oodway is on record as supporting the Rand Formula.

I would like to point out in the last election members opposite were in the extreme position of taking the position of eliminating the Rand Formula, something that has been part of labour relations since the 1940s. Once again an extreme confrontational approach in terms of these kinds of issues. We put Wally Fox-Decent in because we are trying to work towards a compromise, towards a consensus. I will compare their approach with our approach any day and we will take the time, unlike the members opposite who rejected the report out of hand within a couple of hours. That is the extreme way, ours is the Manitoba way.

Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, we currently have a federal Liberal government that saw more than $100 million of taxpayers' money flow to their friends. We now have an NDP provincial government that is attempting to flow millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to their friends by forcing non-unionized workers to pay union dues. Mr. Speaker, we have the Premier's Floodway Authority head, Mr. Ernie Gilroy, stating that he recognizes that the employers should be at the table. We have a Premier who refuses to accept this fact.

Will the Premier or the Minister of Water Stewardship do the right thing and agree to have Manitoba's heavy construction employer group at the negotiating table? Will he ensure that no non- unionized workers will be forced to pay union dues? * (14:10) Mr. Ashton: Again, Mr. Speaker, we put in place a very respected Manitoban, Wally Fox-Decent. He met with the stakeholders. He submitted a report. It covers a number of issues, but the members opposite within two hours rejected th at report out of hand.

I want to stress again that we are taking the Manitoba way, which is an attempt to work in this case through Wally Fox-Decent for consensus, for compromise in terms of this kind of issue. I note, Mr. Speaker, that in this session of the Legislature, this seems to be the only issue members have opposite. They have asked more questions on this than on the BSE crisis, more questions than on many other critical issues for Manitobans. I suspect it is because their extreme agenda is not just about Wally Fox-Decent's report and the last election, they oppose the Rand Formula, period.

They want to roll back the clock to pre-1940's labour legislation in this province. We want to stick to the Manitoba way. The Wally Fox-Decent report reflects that. We will make a decision very shortly on that, but we will not listen to the extremist views of members opposite when we do that. Flooding

(1997) Compensation Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Water Stewardship claims his Red River Floodway legislation will ensure full compensation for people between Ste. Agathe and the floodway gates when they are artificially flooded, and they know that they will be if there is a flood event of '97 or greater. How can the mini ster stand in this House and say this when compensation claims from 1997 have not yet been settled, seven years later? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope the member would document, because the member has done this before.

There indeed is, I believe, one matter still in terms of an appeal that is before it. There may be members of the public who have felt that they did not receive the compensation they would have liked to have received, but I want to stress that what we are doing through the floodway compensation legislation is establishing under legislation from here on in, the day that that bill is passed, there will be statutorily-guaranteed compen- sation for those impacted by flooding above natural

2980 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 levels. So I bring in something that has not existed before and I hope the member opposite will support that. Mrs. Taillieu: The one case involves 19 in a group action. Mr. Speaker, the minister says, "trust me" and we say, "not a chance." A group action claim which this government said they would settle has not been settled. They did not negotiate in good faith.

The outstanding claimants were herded into a room, made an unreasonable offer of mostly zero percent of their claim, were bullied into accepting the offer with threats of government legal fees and then had a gag order placed on them. With this kind of treatment, how could anybody believe that this government will fairly compensate future flooding victims? How can the minister make those statements? Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Speaker, how can that member make statements about matters in this particular case which have been before the courts, which date back to 1997 when the previous government was in power, when we have attempted to work through a mediation process? She might want to take some time to acquaint herself with some of the background of that before she comes and makes statements like that. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard as a government to settle those cases. There is one outstanding case before appeal.

What she is referring to is a group of Manitobans that felt in this case that they did not agree with the settlements that were offered. Certainly that is their right, to not agree with the process. That is their right. I am surprised that a member of the Legislature would jump in in an issue like this without knowing the background, which is quite complex and something we have worked hard since we came in in 1999 to deal with because it was an issue that dates back to 1997. Who was in government then? Mrs. Taillieu: Mr.

Speaker, since 1999, these people have been fighting for compensation through the courts because this Doer government, since 1999, has refused them compensation. They had the right to sue, but this Big Brother government now says that they will remove this right, that we can trust them fully to compensate so it will not be necessary. They have bullied people into accepting less than fair settlements. The total claim of this group was $5 million and only $300,000 has been paid out. They have threatened people. They have placed them under a gag order.

Is this how this government plans to administer flood compensation claims, a take it or leave it, take it now and we will not bill you any costs and do not ever talk about it again? Is this how this government deals with future flood victims? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that a member of the Legislature would make comments like that, a phrase such as " bullying," et cetera, when we indeed put in place a mediation effort that was agreed to by claimants as well.

People were part of that lawsuit which dates back to 1997, and concerns have been expressed about the mediation process and I, as minister, have undertaken to review that process as well. By the way, I would like to point out to the member opposite that many members of the public were affected by this, Mr. Speaker. A number of them have reached settlements. I would like to know where she stands. Is she publicly lobbying in this House that we should accept the $5-million claim that was before the courts? If that is the case, that is her right as an MLA but that would be irresponsible.

We have taken the appropriate course of action. We have brought in mediation. We have been dealing fairly with those claimants, something that was not the case before 1999. Health Inspection Services Suburban Winnipeg Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, last month we raised questions about the lack of health inspections in suburban areas of Winnipeg where the provincial health inspectors have responsibility.

The minister's only response to this very important issue was to blame the previous government and insist that his government was committed to working with other levels of government. The minister's response was so inadequate that it prompted a letter from Acting Mayor Jae Eadie on June 1 who said, and I quote, "the problem of lack of health inspections did not occur in the 1990s. The problems began in 2003 and they continue to this day." Can somebody on the Doer government side tell us when their government will implement an action plan to address this persistent public health issue? Hon.

Stan Struthers (Min ister of Conservation): I just want to correct some of the information that the

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2981 Leader of the Opposition put on the record. First of all, I believe if the Leader of the Opposition would look at Hansard carefully he would see that I was talking about co-operating with the City of Winnipeg, unlike what happened in the 1990s when some co-operation would have gone a long way to help this issue. That is the commitment that this government is making. If the Leader of the Op position would really like to know the facts, in 1990 there were 12 people in place to do this job.

In the early 1990s that was reduced to 11 and then later on in the 1990s, in 1997, it was reduced to 10, so let not the Leader of the Opposition try to stand and feign support for the City of Winnipeg in this matter when his government itself was responsible for reducing those positions and the people available to do that work. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, once again from the Doer government we get another rearview action plan.

The acting mayor, Jae Eadie, wrote to the Doer government last July to alert them of this problem and to find out what solution the provincial government was bringing about to eliminate the lack of service to Winnipeggers. As his letter stated, and I quote in the letter to the minister, "to date there has been no clear answer to the question and the problem persists in our suburban areas." While the Premier (Mr. Doer) has said in this House that there have been some preliminary discussions with the City, the acting mayor, Mr.

Eadie, pointed out in his letter that it was only partially correct stating, and I quote from his letter, "some long-time-ago City staff provided some information to a provincial committee looking at the issue. However, the participation has not gone beyond the information-sharing level." It has been almost a year, Mr. Speaker, since the City raised the matter with the Doer government. It is a serious public health issue, yet nothing has been done. When will this minister improve health inspections in the suburban areas of Winnipeg? Mr. Struthers: Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and inform the Leader of the Opposition that we have been working to make sure there are more people available to do the public health inspection role that the Province is here to do. Mr. Speaker, I want to also say that there have been discussions taking place, as our Premier correctly has pointed out to the members across the way, and that our commitment has been to work co- operatively with the City of Winnipeg to make sure that the job is done on the provincial health side that the Province is to do. Mr. Speaker, that has been our commitment.

We remain committed to that and will remain to having a much more co-operative, productive approach than was available to the City of Winnipeg in the 1990s. That is our commitment. * (14:20) Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, the acting mayor, Mr. Jae Eadie, said in his letter to the minister, and I quote, "the lack of health inspection services in our suburban areas is a serious problem and only you and your officials can resolve it." Mr. Speaker, as the acting mayor of Winnipeg, Mr.

Jae Eadie and I ask this minister and the Doer government, what plans are being made by the provincial government to improve upon the health inspection services in the suburban areas of Winnipeg. When do you plan to make these improvements come into effect? They want action, not talk. Mr. Struthers: I was very pleased to receive that letter from Councillor Eadie. It shows that both us and the City of Winnipeg take this issue seriously and we are working on it. I want to remind the member across the way that in our Health budget, an increase of over 5 percent put towards Health in this province. I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder– An Honourable Member: You are wondering. What is he wondering? Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Struthers: I wonder and I think people in the City of Winnipeg are w ondering where they would have stacked up with the 1% increase that the member opposite proposed in the last election. Vulnerable Persons Wards of the Public Trustee Mr. Gerald Hawran ik (Lac du Bonnet): On May 31, I asked the Justice Minister questions about the

2982 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 woman who was attempting to challenge the Public Trustee to regain control over her incompetent sister's affairs. I asked the minister to look into this matter. At that time his response was she did speak to him but she did not mention anything about the Public Trustee. Mr. Speaker, I table a letter written by this woman to the minister on July 24, 2003. In this letter she states, "I had shared you my concerns with regards to the Office of the Public Trustee.

During this conversation, you said to me you will help us as soon as you win." I ask the Minister of Justice: Did he receive this letter and does the minister now recall hearing the sister's concerns about the Public Trustee? Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I raised this issue and sent communications to the member. I think the member clearly is here ad vocating for an individual who has a restraining order against her.

Information I think that should be known is that the person in need of protection was flown to Toronto so that she could be near her immediate family, her daughter, in particular. In terms of corresponden ce, I am glad to get a copy of this because during the last election campaign, this woman raised an issue with me about her exclusion from a criminal trial. The answer was provided to her through her MLA, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House, that as a result of a search at both my community office, the minister's office and the deputy's office, no correspondence has been identified. Mr.

Hawranik: Last week at committee the Justice Minister denied receiving letters from this woman about her issues with the Office of the Public Trustee. Mr. Speaker, I table another letter. I table a copy of a second letter written by the same sister, dated August 28, 2003, and addressed to this minister. I ask this minister: Did he receive this letter and will he now look into this matter on her behalf? Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the correspondence had been received, I can tell the honourable member that I would have provided the same advice then as I do now.

This matter is before the courts of Manitoba. In fact, I believe it is three or even four judges, justices of the Court of Queen's Bench, that have had supervision over this file. Not only is the Public Trustee accountable to the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba, but is supervised according to The Ombudsman Act. I am pleased to confirm with the House that the Public Trustee has sent this matter to the Ombudsman out of a concern that the information provided through the media outlet was not full and complete whatsoever, and that is with a view to ensuring public confidence in the Office of the Public Trustee.

Mr. Hawranik: The Justice Minister denied speaking to the sister in 2003 about the Public Trustee. He denies receiving letters from her about this concern, yet I have tabled two letters from her addressed to him which indicate otherwise. In the August 28 letter she states, "I am more than willing and happy to meet with you at your convenience." To date the minister has not contacted her. Why has this minister not met with her to resolve this matter and will he now look into this matter on her behalf? [interjection] Mr. Speaker: Order.

The honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet is trying to raise a question, and if he expects an answer, the minister will have to hear the question. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please. Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, my question is with respect to the same matter. In the August 28 letter she stated, "I am more than willing and happy to meet with you at your convenience." To date the minister has not contacted her. Why has this minister not met with her to resolve this matter, and will he now look into this matter on her behalf? Mr. Mackintosh: Well again, Mr.

Speaker, I find it regrettable that the member opposite would be advocating for someone who has a restraining order against her so she does not "molest," I understand the wording is, the person in need of protection. I wish they would look at the issues here that are all under the supervision of the Court of Queen's Bench.

As I said, there is a search that has been ongoing in three offices to determine if this correspondence came in, indeed under different spellings, but I can assure the member opposite that if the matter that was personally brought to my attention about this woman being excluded from a criminal trial was dealt with, it was responded to. If

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2983 these other matters had been brought to my attention they likewise would have been responded to. Adolescent Parents Supports and Services Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): The brutalization of a 16-month-old baby who was slain last weekend has outraged Manitobans and they want answers. The decision was made to give authority over the baby to the mother. Manitobans want to know how much follow-up was done to support the young mother and her child. Can this Minister of Family Services outline what steps she has taken since this tragedy?

What action has she taken to ensure that resources are in place so no other child experiences or falls through the cracks in this kind of tragedy? Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): I cannot speak to the specifics of this case. I can assure the House that the perinatal service unit, which was established in late 1999, offers services under the legislation of the Province of Manitoba. Under The Child and Family Services Act, counselling is offered to young parents, both in the state of pregnancy and in the state of parenthood. Counselling continues.

There is counselling on financial issues, on environmental issues, on issues dealing with family. Family is brought in to work on these issues, as well, and I think we can all recognize there are services that are available to each and every teen mother in our province. Mrs. Rowat: The resources are there, yes, but what happened to this baby? The provincial Chief Medical Examiner has indicated it will likely be months before he will decide whether or not to call an inquest into this child's death. Obviously, the system has failed this child.

What review has this Minister of Family Services done to ensure the checks and balances are in place? A simple question: What steps has she taken to ensure that this system does not fail another child? Ms. Melnick: The Chief Medical Examiner is conducting a review to determine whether or not an inquest will be called. There are two investigations currently underway, one with the Winnipeg Police Service and one with Winnipeg Child and Family Services. I can assure the House that this government will respect the processes. I am watching very closely.

We are looking to see the results of those investigations and we are looking to see the results of the Chief Medical Examiner's review. Baby's Death Request for Public Inquiry Mrs. Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): I am not confident about her assurances. This child was failed and there may be others out there who need attention now. Mr. Speaker, Manitobans must know what action this minister is taking to ensure that she is protecting society's most vulnerable children. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Family Services today call for a public inquiry so no other child is failed by this system? Hon.

Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I can commit that we will follow the process as it should be which is respecting the investigations of the Winnipeg Police Service, the Winnipeg Child and Family Services investigation, allowing them to do thorough investigations as they need to. We will also respect the process followed by the Chief Medical Examiner and he will determine if an inquest will be called. * (14:30) Child and Family Services Accommodations–Hotels Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, a 16-month-old baby was brutally and savagely beaten to death.

This minister refuses to answer questions in this House about anything related to that situation at all. She refuses to answer questions in Estimates that have been put forward to her. She is hiding behind this shield while other children are at risk. This minister has a responsibility to this House and to Manitobans to inform them of the state of disarray in her department. She will not even answer the simplest of questions. Today I would ask her if she would stand in this House and tell us how many children were housed in hotels on Friday, May 21 and Saturday, May 22; on Friday May 28 and Saturday, May 29.

It is a straightforward question. What is the answer? Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): The straightforward answer,

2984 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 Mr. Speaker, is that far fewer children are being placed in hotels than when members opposite were in government. Baby's Death Request for Public Inquiry Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, this is the type of non-answers that this minister uses to evade the situation. Her department is in a shambles. Her staff morale is at historic lows where people are feeling pressured. She has put gag orders on her staff. They are not to deal with the opposition. They are not to deal with anyone in public.

The only person, apparently, who is allowed to talk is the minister and she refuses. Mr. Speaker, I would ask this minister to start doing the right thing, to start answering the questions in this House and to start answering the questions that she is committed to answering that came out of Estimates, which she has refused to do. I would ask her to lift the gag order, to call today for a public inquiry so that her staff can come forward with the freedom of knowing that they can speak their minds, that they can help to resolve the situation without fear of this minister. Hon.

Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I will assure the House that we, in fact, will do the right thing. We will respect the two investigations currently underway by Winnipeg Police Service and the Winnipeg Child and Family Services, and we will also respect the Chief Medical Examiner's process in the review through which he will determine if an inquest will be called. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, we cannot wait. The people of Manitoba, the children of Manitoba, the infants at risk in Manitoba cannot wait for these studies to come forth.

This minister needs to take responsibility for her department. She needs to act now. Her staff who are under gag orders, they have been told by this minister that they cannot talk. The minister refuses to answer questions and so how can the public be assured, how can we have any assurance that there are not more children at risk? She has refused time and time again to tell us what steps she has taken since the death of this 16-month- old child. I would simply ask the minister to do the right thing today. Call for a public inquiry. If nothing else, lift the gag order that you have placed on your staff.

Allow them to speak their minds freely so they can explain the situation, so they can explain the problems, so that we can get to the bottom of this and make sure there are no other infants at risk in the province of Manitoba. Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, we have confidence that the two investigations underway with the Winnipeg Police Service and Winnipeg Child and Family Services will be conducted in a way that will bring out the facts as they need to be brought out.

We also trust that the Chief Medical Examiner will conduct his review in a way that will determine if an inquest will be called and we will respect that. We will respect the process, we are watching carefully and we are awaiting the results of those three activities. Antidepressant Medications Impact on Suicide Rate Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): The number of suicides in Manitoba has increased significantly from about 50 per year in the 1950s up to threefold this number in recent years, for example, 151 in the year 2002.

Among the concerns that have been raised with respect to this increase is the government's vigorous promotion of gambling and the finding that suicidal activity may occur as a side effect of the use of certain antidepressant medications. Can the government give us a statement as to its position with respect to the use of antidepressant medications and the potential side effect of an increase in the number of suicides? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Yes, Mr.

Speaker, there is a fair amount of literature with respect to some antidepressants and some connection with respect to suicidal thoughts, most specifically those relating to providing antidepressants to youth, of which there is a significant amount of depression and some prescribing of antidepressants to youth in that regard. We take direction from the federal authorities with respect to that. One thing I am very proud of in Manitoba is that we have now launched a co- occurring process in place between mental health and between addictions, because addictions and mental health are often two sides of the same coin.

We have

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2985 launched a very aggressive effort where we have melded the services of Addictions and tried to put together Addictions and Mental Health, which has never before been done in Manitoba. Mr. Gerrard: The same government, which I would argue has not done enough to prevent individual suicides, is now attempting to strangle the present Legislature by introducing closure. The Premier (Mr. Doer) and his government are trying to end the life of a legislative session by force.

It is the overall unedifying approach to leadership by the pres ent government which is setting a poor example. I ask the Premier why he did not show better planning in starting the Legislature earlier this year and is now using force to bring the present Legislative Assembly to a close. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Is this a supplementary question or just a matter of order, Mr. Speaker? This does not seem to be a supplementary question to the first question asked. Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Member for River Heights, on the same point of order. Mr. Gerrard: I just want to bring the member's attention to the fact that in the life of our province– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Gerrard: Sometimes it would appear in the life of the province that threats to life and threats to democracy seem to travel together. And so I put these, as this is a supplementary, to ask the government if it will, in fact, account for its extraordinary measures that it looks like it is trying to impose on this Legislature. Mr. Speaker: Order.

On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, I was just about to rise on my own before he did. But, first of all, a supplementary question should seek further information on the answer that you receive of the initial question. Also for the information of all honourable members, when you are raising what you described as your supplementary question, you were dealing with a matter that I had already taken under advisement. So if I have taken it under advisement, that matter should not be raised until I come back with a ruling.

On the supplementary question, I have to rule that is not a supplementary question, because it is not seeking information from your initial question to the honourable Minister of Health. What I will do is I will allow you to reword your supplementary question. * * * Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Health what he is doing to attempt to reduce the number of suicides, which may result from the prescription of antidepressant medications and what he is doing, not only in a proactive way but to monitor this, so that we will know whether his actions are having any effect. Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, several points I would like to address to the Member for River Heights. First off, the approval of those drugs and the monitoring of those effects are done by federal agencies. Information flows back and forth between provincial and federal agencies. It is a medical decision. It is a very difficult medical decision with respect to a medical practitioner prescribing a particular medication, given the particular side effects as related in some literature, vis-à-vis the particular symptoms that are demonstrated by the individual in question.

The literature and the medical practitioners use that as a guide in terms of the determination. With respect to the issue of suicide in general, I want to indicate that there have been very proactive measures. The idea of co-mental health, co- addictions has been very significant. Among First Nations it is the area of significant, significant problems. * (14:40) U-Haul Vehicles Registration Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Manitoba Public Insurance.

2986 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 Mr. Speaker, you drive around to the different U-Haul lots, you will see that there is registration of vehicles there using Arizona plates. I understand that is in fact the case throughout the city of Winnipeg. The government is very familiar with registration. They have taxed it a few times in recent budgets.

My question is put straightforward to the government: What is the circumstance that would allow U-Haul vehicles to be able to have Arizona plates while they are driv ing around in the province, given the very nature of U-Haul being used primarily right here in the province as opposed to going interprovincial? There is no doubt a great deal of it is done within the province of Manitoba alone. Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): My understanding is that this practice is common in the rental vehicle business as well as the trucking business, but I will endeavour to obtain answers to the member's questions in fuller detail. Composite Technology Businesses Government Initiatives Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, innovation and knowledge-based economy is futuristic and very beneficial to this society.

Can the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology please tell this House what initiatives his department has taken to attract new, cutting-edge, composite technological business opportunities to this province? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Mr. Speaker, members, I think, would be very interested to know that Manitoba and Winnipeg specifically are the largest composite agglomeration of companies in Canada. It is another place in which we lead the country, not only as the producer of the 36 or so percent of the urban transit fleet in North America.

In terms of the insurance industry, in terms of the investment industry, mutual funds, Winnipeg and Manitoba are leading the country.

We were very pleased to partner with the federal government to each contribute a million dollars recently to the Manitoba Composites Innovation Centre, working with Boeing on the Dreamliner, working with Dow in terms of the fibreboard plant in Elie and a number of other companies such as Faroex to establish a very, very significant composite centre of excellence that will attract industry, attract investment, train skilled labour and put Winnipeg even more on the map as the centre of composite technology in North America. Ambulance Service Response Times (East St. Paul) Mr.

Ron Schuler (Springfield): Last week, 46- year-old Peter Krahn had a heart attack while exercising. It took 18 minutes for an ambulance to respond from Selkirk to East St. Paul. The Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service uses a benchmark of four minutes. Regrettably, Peter Krahn did not make it. He died. Kevin O'Donovan, a spokesman for the health authority, confirmed that an ambulance stationed in East St. Paul region was proposed in last year's budget but not approved by the province. Will the minister now ensure that the ambulance planned for East and West St. Paul will be provided to prevent another such tragedy?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, from the facts that I have read about in the papers, it is a very unfortunate instance for a young man to die of a heart attack. From the facts that I understand in the paper, defibrillation was started within five minutes because a first responder unit had arrived, which is a practice used in many locations. Unfortunately, it took, as I understand it, 18 minutes, 1 minute for the call and then 18 minutes for an ambulance to arrive.

Unfortunately the individual did not make it, despite the fact that CPR was performed and despite the fact that defibrillation was started. Mr. Speaker, the reques t by East St. Paul and West St. Paul with respect to an ambulance was one of 34 requests that they made with respect to their operating plan. There are requests that are considered all around the province with respect to priorities, but I want to assure the member that we set up a steering committee with respect to the provision of emergency services to deal with issues like this. Highway 227 Paving Mr.

Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): This past winter, the Trans-Canada Highway was closed a number of times and the alternate route, Highway 227, was put

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2987 to use once again. Can the Minister of Transportation and Government Services commit today to the people of Manitoba to paving Highway 227 to the Yellowhead? Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): This government has put an additional $10 million into transportation this year and an additional $10 million next year, Mr. Speaker. There is approximately a billion dollars worth of requests every year with regard to transportation infrastructure issues.

Here we have the northeast perimeter, a $65-million project taking place on the east side of Winnipeg, Highway 59 south, the twinning of No. 1 Highway to the Saskatchewan border. This government has done way more than that previous government ever did in 11 years in Manitoba. CAIS Program Qualifying Producers Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): The Minister of Water, just a few minutes ago, indicated that we were not asking questions on BSE. We would ask a lot more questions if we would receive some answers.

Can the Minister of Agriculture tell this House today as to how many cattle producers will actually qualify for the CAIS programs in light of the fact that the inventories have increased dramatically in this province and that the valuation of the inventories under the CAIS program will be done at the beginning of the year or at the end of the fiscal year in December based on those prices? Those prices had risen fairly significantly. Can the minister tell this House how many cattle producers will actually benefit or receive any money from the CAIS program? Hon.

Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that Manitoba producers are making their application for the CAIS program. In fact, more Manitobans have applied for the program than have producers in other programs and each individual application will be based on the information that they provide. The member talks about the inventory. That is an issue that we have raised with the federal government and we will continue to work on it. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Dauphin Regional Comprehensive Secondary School Hon.

Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): It is with a great deal of pride that I rise in the House today to point out the creativity, the talent and the commitment of several of my constituents, in particular students at the Dauphin Regional Comprehensive Secondary School, who members of both Team I and Team II in that school participated in the province-wide SAFE Manitoba Poster Competition. I am very proud to say that these young people did such a fine job that each team from Dauphin won in a province-wide competition.

I want to, first of all, start by reading into the record the names of the students on Team I: Patrick Carbury, Kristin Hlady, Trevor Tomlinson. Team II: Chaley Voth, Amanda Bouchard, Amanda Epp and Jacqueline Bage. Each of these teams represented our school and our community, our part of the province, with a great deal of merit and did us all proud. I want to specifically thank Mr. Doug Miller. He was the advertising and arts teacher who worked with these teams, worked with these students.

I want to underscore the importance of the teaching staff in the Dauphin Regional Comprehensive Secondary School who, along with so many other teachers in our province, do such a fine job working with our students. I want to recognize the contribution of the parents of these students who supported the students throughout the competition and throughout their time in school. I want to also congratulate the Mountain View School Division for providing the facilities and the leadership that oversaw the students that took part.

I want everyone in the building when they are driving around the streets of Winnipeg to notice the billboards when they come out. The artwork of both teams will be displayed throughout Winnipeg and across the province. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. * (14:50) Susan Schmidt Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Susan Schmidt

2988 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 on being nominated for a Woman of the Century Award, sponsored by the YWCA. Mrs. Schmidt is principal of Westgrove elementary school in Charleswood and two years ago launched their Healthful Happenings program. In the fall of 2001, two students conducted a survey which showed that 60 percent of the students at their school were not consuming enough milk. Many of the staff members also saw students who were coming to school hungry. Susan started work on instituting a universal snack program at Westgrove School to meet the nutritional needs of the children.

After getting the snack program underway, Susan lobbied successfully to be considered as one of two sites across Canada in the pilot program for implementing the Together We Light the Way program. This worldwide program, affiliated with Justice Canada, addresses bullying and school climate issues. She continues to be the guiding force behind this program which involves students, staff, families, community partners and businesses. Throughout Susan's career as a teacher and administrator, she has had many unique and outstanding achievements.

She has promoted and advocated for literacy and was nominated for the 2000 Canada Post Literacy Award in July 2000. She has advocated for the full-day, every-day kindergarten to address the high number of at-risk students in the community and received a two-year grant for this program. She has worked tirelessly at developing a positive connection with area partners, and she has been an enthusiastic participant in the Childhood Community Leaders Networking Luncheons that I sponsor. Susan Schmidt's staff describe her as a servant leader, which epitomizes her leadership style.

She empowers everyone who walks through the door of the school by acknowledging their presence and making them feel valued. Susan is a gifted educator and leader who masterfully encourages each staff member and student to strive towards his or her own individual pursuit of excellence. She is indeed worthy of this honour for her persistence and energy dedicated to improving the lives of her students an d her community.

She has gained the respect of students, staff, parents and the whole community by her dedication, enthusiasm and caring manner, and certainly we would like to recognize her honour as being nominated as a woman of distinction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Philippine Heritage Week Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, the Filipino-Canadian community in Winnipeg will be celebrating Philippine Heritage Week from June 8 to June 16. This is a very special week for the Filipino community because it includes June 12, which commemorates Independence Day and the emergence of the Philippines as a sovereign nation.

On June 6, I was pleased to attend an opening celebration at Daniel McIntyre School. I brought greetings on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the Government of Manitoba. I will also be attending an Independence Ball organized by the Filipino Council. Philippine Heritage Week is a time of celebration for one of the many new generations of Canadians that are choosing to make Manitoba their home and who are keen on helping build our future. This week is also a time for Filipinos to remember the liberation of their native country after the Japanese occupation in World War II.

Today, I am pleased to ask all honourable members to join with me in recognizing the many Filipino people who have given their lives to maintain peace, freedom and democracy in the Philippines. In Manitoba, there will be many festive and cultural activities planned to highlight Philippine Heritage Week. The celebration of our cultural heritage continues to be a significant positive factor in the enrichment of the quality of life we all enjoy in Manitoba. We must also honour the volunteers who have helped out immensely by organizing the numerous events of this week.

They have provided such vital energy and commitment into making Philippine Heritage Week such an on going success. They have also contributed to making our province such a tremendously diverse and culturally rich province. I want to thank the Philippine Heritage Week Council Committee and Perla Javate, who currently chairs this committee, for organizing and planning

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2989 these events during Philippine Heritage Week. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Teulon Hunter Memorial Hospital Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the centennial celebration of the Teulon Hunter Memorial Hospital which has been serving the community's health needs for over 100 years. On May 15, a banquet and ball attended by the current and former staff was held at the Teulon Rockwood Centennial Centre to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the health care facility. Mr.

Speaker, the hospital has a long tradition of support to and from the people of Teulon. Both play great roles to ensure the hospital has remained responsive to their needs. The facility's first 100 years of history is certainly a testament to this. First constructed in the fall of 1903, Hunter Hospital was named after Dr. Alexander Jardine Hunter who founded the hospital and was one of the first of its staff. A reverend and a medical doctor, Hunter raised funds which were matched by the Presbyterian church, to open the facility with a staff of four for a grand total of $2,800. Mr.

Speaker, the community of Teulon deserves such credit for the hospi tal's longevity, as their generosity over the years has helped the hospital acquire new equipment and expand to what it has become today. A new era emerged in 1973 when plans were made to build an entirely new hospital on the same grounds as Doctor Hunter's original building. In December of 1977, the Hunter Memorial Hospital and Goodwin Lodge Personal Care Home officially opened.

In a time when rural hospitals are being closed by the present government, the Teulon hospital serves as a symbolic reflection of the quality of life within the community. The centennial celebrations are a time to honour those who have worked so tirelessly in the past and look forward to what lies ahead. I would like to take this opportunity to commend all who have worked and volunteered at the hospital throughout the last 100 years and wish the hospital itself a happy birthday. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Humane Society Human Heroes Award Ms.

Theresa Oswald (Seine River): Some students in the constituency of Seine River were recently honoured at the Manitoba Children's Museum with the 2004 Human Heroes Award by the Winnipeg Humane Society. The Winnipeg Humane Society has been bestowing this award to teachers, individuals and groups since the mid-1990s. These environmental and socially conscientious students attend H.S. Paul School in south St. Vital. The group of 25 Grades 4 to 6 students call themselves the Eco-kids. The program itself has been in existence for 11 years.

Over the past three years they have been supporting the Humane Society with their hard work and dedication. They held bake sales, penny collections, used book sales and other fundraising events in support of the Humane Society. They have had collection drives for old pet toys and towels for the animals. All these are of great use to animal shelters. They have also raised money for other good causes such as the World Wildlife Fund and the Fort Whyte Centre. They are also involved in numerous other projects in the community, like environmental projects and playground cleanups. Mr.

Speaker, it is one thing for Manitobans, young and old, to say that they care deeply for the preservation of our envir onment or the well-being of animals, but it is truly another to take action. This action taken by the Eco-Kids of H.S. Paul School is indeed one of commitment and leadership. I would like to congratulate and thank these students for making such a valuable contribution to our community. In particular, I would like to thank teacher-adviser Ms. Barb Shawcross, the entire Grades 4, 5 and 6 group of Eco-Kids and Grade 8 helper Erica Entz who has been an Eco-Kid since Grade 4.

Their support of the Humane Society has been instrumental in the promotion of the welfare of animals and for the environment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to ask whether there would be consent of the House to sit this afternoon doing bills in the House and concurrence

2990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 in the standing committee room with no vote or quorum in the committee room. Mr. Speaker: Is there the will of the House for bills to be in the House, and for concurrence to take place in one of the committee rooms without quorum count or votes taking place in the committee room? Is there agreement? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. There is no agreement. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, this might be a long shot, but I am wondering if there is leave of the House to sit tomorrow morning as an extension of today's sitting, as we would do on the Fridays. Mr.

Speaker: Is there agreement for the House to sit tomorrow morning as an extension of today's sitting? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. There is no agreement. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, would there be leave to deal with the resolution that is on the Notice Paper, on page 6 of the Order Paper, now? Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement to deal with the notice that is on page 6 on the Notice Paper? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. There is no agreement. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr.

Speaker, would you please call debate on second readings in the order they appear, to be followed by concurrence, if there is time. * (15:00) DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 35–The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: We will resume debate on second readings, Bill 35, The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who has 22 minutes remaining. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I do want to be able to continue talking on this bill. I had the opportunity to start my comments the other day on it.

The nice thing about having a bit of a break, I was able to actually pull a little bit of correspondence in regard to the credit unions. Last Thursday I was talking about the importance of our credit unions, that they have played. I just wanted to reiterate a couple of those points. In Manitoba, as in other jurisdictions, what we have seen is a significant downsizing, if you like, of our banks. Canada has, is it five or six chartered, major banks? Over the last number of years, what we have seen is the number of branches actually dwindling.

The unfortunate reality of that is at the end of the day, the consumer has really been denied that one-on-one, personal access to have that live body by walking to the neighbourhood bank. I bring that up because I really truly do believe that has been a major shortcoming. As a result, what we have seen, I believe, is significant growth within our credit unions. This particular bill will assist the credit unions in continuing to grow in our province in terms of their popularity. That is why earlier this morning I was reading through some correspondence I wanted to cite.

This one, for example, came from the Credit Union Central of Manitoba, which is an umbrella group of our credit unions. I think it makes four good, straight, solid points. I trust I am not the only member that would have received this letter, but if members are interested, I would be more than happy to provide them a copy. I think it makes a great number of valid points in which I truly do believe that is worthy of some sort of discussion. The letter goes, and I am going to quote specifically right from the letter that was addressed to me.

I would like to draw your attention to a few items that underscore the commitment of credit unions to Manitoba and how that commitment is translated into growth throughout our system. That states the obvious. The growth of our credit unions has consistently been there, most importantly, at a time in which we saw bank branches being closed. And then it lists off the points. "Did you know, for example," it states, "in 62 Manitoba communities a credit union is the only financial institution available to consumer and businesses?" We talk about the importance to rural Manitoba.

Just the other day we were talking about how

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2991 important it was to try to get young people into and want to stay in rural Manitoba. What we have seen is the credit unions' approach in rural Manitoba has really allowed for more employment, direct employment. If I just stick strictly with the direct employment, through walking up to or through using a credit union in rural Manitoba, you will find there are a number of young people that are the tellers, the loan officers, and so forth. These are really critical, valuable jobs that are being created in communities in rural Manitoba.

I truly believe that is a very healthy thing and was so glad we have the credit unions to fill that gap. I made reference to bank branches being closed in the city of Winnipeg. We know bank branches have been closing in rural Manitoba. While we have those branches closing, we see in this particular bulletin that in 62 Manitoba communities a credit union is the only financial institution. Mr. Speaker, that speaks, in my opinion, volumes about the value and the sense of commitment that our credit unions have to rural Manitoba. That is ju st when I was referring to the direct jobs.

If you think in terms of the indirect jobs that are generated. I am going to go through some numbers on those loans if time does permit. There are ample loans that are given out. These rural credit unions, generally speaking, are giving out loans in rural Manitoba, which again adds to the life, adds to the opportunities for people in rural Manitoba. I am thinking of those small businesses and medium-sized businesses that are out th ere that have wonderful opportunity well into the future.

At least through the credit unions what we have seen is the opportunity to be able to do some of their local financing of whatever their financial needs might be. I truly think that that is something, again, that is so valuable, because not only does it provide that local availability of services, those businesses, whether they be small or medium-sized businesses in rural Manitoba, all employ people.

So, when we talk about resolutions, as we passed a resolution just last week where it was talking about young people and retaining those young people, these credit unions are s upplying the loans that are quite often necessary in order to sustain businesses, farms and others in those communities. Those businesses create other forms of employment opportunities. In fact, one could argue that, if we did not have the credit unions servicing rural Manitoba, the whole rural depopulation would have been so much higher in terms of percentages.

I think that there is an underlying theme of the important role that the credit unions have played to ensuring that rural Manitoba is as strong and is as viable as it is today. So, when we look at Bill 35 and the amendments that are being proposed, we have to be very sensitive of the fact of how we might be able to best facilitate continual growth in our credit unions. The next point talks about assets and deposits of credit unions increased by 11 percent over 2002, while lending increased approximately 10 percent.

Again, I guess that particular statement really reinforces the important role that the credit union is playing, not only in rural Manitoba, but throughout the province in ensuring that the different businesses, individuals, whether it is for the car loans or business loans throughout the province, they are ensuring that there is money in the hands of people. I did get opportunity to study economics. This activity of providing loan services adds tremendous value to consumer items that ultimately, I would suggest to you, add to the overall provincial GDP.

We know that the economy has done relatively well in a number of different areas. In good part the economy is able to do well because the citizens of the province are able to access the capital dollars that are necessary or they are able to access the individual loans that are necessary, so that they can acquire capital machinery to be able to build the factory, as an example, or they are able to acquire the loan to purchase a car. So, when we see the type of increase since 2002 of some 10 percent, that is a significant amount of additional money that is going into the economy.

I think that all in all we should be very appreciative of the fact, again, another highlight of what our credit unions are doing. * (15:10) A third bullet they point out is that as they grow, referring obviously to credit unions, credit unions are employing more Manitobans partly through a combination of filling 161 new, full-time positions with new hires, and moving part-time employees into full-time positions. Credit unions created the equivalent of 86 full-time jobs in 2003. Again, I

2992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 talked about the direct employment and here it very clearly shows you to what degree that direct employment has been. I have had an opportunity to go to a credit union just down the street. There is a sense at that credit union that there is a good future, that it is in fact growing. There are renovations occurring. What I am anticipating is that feeling of growth that is within the credit union industry is in fact very, very real when you see the number of jobs that have been created just in 2003 alone. Mr.

Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair These are decent jobs within the money market workforce many Manitobans would welcome, whether they are the first-tim e jobs or they are being upgraded from part-time to full-time. Those are the types of jobs, in a very real sense, that are in fact being created through our credit unions. Again, that is just a positive thing and one more reason why it is we need to appreciate the va lue of our credit unions. This is the theme I would raise time and time again is appreciation of credit unions.

The last point is that credit unions opened 20 000 new memberships last year, bringing the total to 492 000. They say numbers tell a lot and that is a very encouraging sign. Credit unions can only grow if, in fact, they are able to attract more Manitobans. When I heard of the number of 20 000 new memberships just in one year, that tells me you have a lot of Manitobans that are recognizing there is a solid future by investing with our credit unions, and they are showing it by becoming members, 492 000 members in total.

When you take a look at the province's population of just over 1.1 million people, it is an impressive number. It is a very impressive number. I would hazard a guess that Manitoba, if it is not the highest, is probably very close to the highest per capita in terms of membership amongst credit unions. I think that number is very reflective of that. I think, all in all, we should in fact recognize that Manitobans have seen, in a very real way, the benefits of our credit unions. There was a brochure that went out and it talked about our credit unions. It provided a list.

The other day when I was asked to list off some credit unions, it is a very impressive list, I must say. It was pointed out that Manitoba is served in over 100 communities throughout the province in total, and as I indicated, in 62 of those 100 communities, they are the only financial institution. But they are served by more than 100 communities. I do not want to read them all, but just to give you a sense.

You can talk in terms of Altona, Arborg, Beausejour, Birtle, Carman, Cypress, Dauphin, Dominion City, Emerson, Flin Flon, Fisher Branch, Gilbert Plains, Grunthal, Hartney, Headingley, Landmark, MacGregor, Minnedosa, Morden, Neepawa, Oakbank, Oak Lake, Oakburn, Pine River, Portage la Prairie, Rivers, Rossburn, Selkirk, Sandy Lake, Souris, Starbuck, Steinbach. The member from Steinbach takes a great deal of pride in his community, as he demonstrated one night on CJOB. In fact, there is a Steinbach Credit Union that is opening up now in south Winnipeg.

You know, The Pas, Thompson, Virden, Whitemouth, Winkler, Winnipegosis, and, of course, Winnipeg itself. That gives you a bit of a sense of how far- reaching our credit unions really are. I say that because, you know, the other day when I was provided the first opportunity to speak on this bill, someone had indicated in terms of where they are. It is a good sense of exactly where they are. You can actually poll more information, as most companies and interest groups and associations have Web sites nowadays. Members can find out.

I would encourage people to become better acquainted, and more aware of where our credit unions are, and the vital role that they are actually playing. When you look strictly at the numbers, the numbers are very much telling. When we look at memberships, I had indicated to you that in 2003 there were 492 000 members. Well, in 1993 there were 341 000 members. In that 10 years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has grown by well over 100 000 members. You know, it has been a steady growth. Every year the numbers at our credit unions and the systems have continued to grow.

When you look at the loans, if you want to get a sense of where, how much money the credit unions put into the economy through loans, it is again very impressive, very impressive numbers. In 2002 it was $6.07 billion; in 2003 it is $6.71 billion in loans. There you see in one year hundreds of millions of dollars more that has been issued out in the form of loans. Every loan that goes out there is helping, as I indicated, either indirectly or directly in the creation of additional wealth for our province. * (15:20)

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2993 If it is for a business, it is creating jobs. If it is for a purchase, it is still creating jobs. So the numbers are there. They ar e very, very positive. If you look at the direction, the credit unions continue to give out more and more loans. I know at times I have met with consumers that have talked about the benefits of credit unions over banks, where individuals have attempted to secure money from a bank and have attempted quite in a very sincere fashion only to be rejected for whatever number of different reasons.

Yet they were able to follow through with a credit union and they were able to secure the financing for that loan. So that is another vital role that they do play, because, unfortunately, at times, many times it is indeed quite easily justified, but at times banks do turn you down. It can get awfully frustrating. Yet the credit unions have really come to the rescue of many a consumer and businessperson. It is shown in terms of just the amount of loans and loan dollars that are being issued. I know in terms of deposits, to give you a sense, in 2002 there was 6.87 billion.

I guess that would be the figure that we are reading off. And that would be in 2002. In 2003, that is 7.68 billion. And again, what we are seeing? I see that my time has run out. But the last point is just to emphasize that Manitobans exercise by what they do, and not only are they joining credit unions by huge numbers, they are also putting in a great deal of dollars. It is just a win-win-win for everyone, so it is with pleasure that we ultimately would see this bill go to committee. Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I would just like to make a few comments with respect to Bill 35, The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act. As my colleague, the member from Inkster, has stated, we feel that credit unions and caisses populaires have made a major contribution to the life and the work of Manitoba. I think that the act that we are looking at provides for some modernization of the operations of credit unions and caisses populaires, and in that context is to be welcomed. We look forward to discussion and contributions at the committee stage.

I think that as credit unions and caisses populaires get into more areas, it is clearly appropriate that they are prohibited from engaging in the practice of tied selling, so we would certainly support that. This is a normal process of the way that credit unions and banks should be operating. I think that the one area where I would like to ensure that there is quite careful consideration at the committee stage has to do with the process for amalgamations. As I would see it, the process changes are reasonable.

But I do know that there are concerns in areas of rural Manitoba about amalgamations, and we certainly saw in western Manitoba not all that long ago some fairly vigorous opposition to the amalgamation of credit unions. In discussion with a number of people in this area of western Manitoba, it was quite clear to me that the government's policy of forcing amalga- mations of school divisions–the recognition that the result of forced amalgamations of school divisions ended up with higher cost s and not lower costs and more problems instead of fewer problems.

Certainly, people in western Manitoba felt that there should be no rush to amalgamate credit unions, because there might be the same things happening in terms of higher costs and more problems, instead of lower costs and fewer problems as the government had tried to indicate, certainly with respect to school divisions. I think the people in rural Manitoba are going to have quite a careful look at the issue of amalgamations.

I think it is quite important that, when we are discussing this matter at the committee stage and the third reading, we look carefully at the provisions as they relate to amalgamations, because amalgamations may work well in certain circum- stances. Clearly, there was, as a result of the proposals in western Manitoba, some concern that these might not always be as beneficial as people had initially expected. So, with those few comments on this legislation, I am going to sit down, but I just felt that I should at least make a few comments. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is the second reading of Bill 35, The Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act; Loi

2994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 modifiant la

Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion? [Agreed] Bill 37–The Labour Relations Amendment Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on the second reading of the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour and Immigration (Ms. Allan), Bill 37, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler). Is there unanimous consent that the bill remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Springfield? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Leave denied. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I do want to put a few comments on the record in regard to this legislation. We have, over the past couple of weeks, had the opportunity to get feedback on this bill and, as is every occasion when this particular government does legislation, it always seems to divide rather than bring people together.

That is definitely the case with this bill. Bill 37, as one individual explained to me, is where the government attempts to fix the rust on the Titanic after it sank. It is unfortunate that we are back at this again. I am sure the House can remember those dark, dark Doer government days when Bill 44 was introduced, where the divisions and the ugliness of bad legislation came to the forefront and we sat many a dark day and dark evening dealing with this legislation.

Basically, what the proposed legislation does, Bill 37, is no different than the individuals who wear those coveralls and run behind the parade with their little broom and shovel and clean up what is left after the parade has gone by. That is what this bill is attempting to do. It is trying to clean up the mess of Bill 44. We warned government. We warned the minister, at that time it was Becky Barrett who is no longer a member of this Chamber, that not just was this bill bad in its intent and what it was trying to do, but, even more to the point, it was poorly written.

I do not want to get too off on this point, but I can remember after the legislation was passed the minister was confronted with her own legislation and the media asked her: "So, Minister, in other words, one side of the dispute can ask for arbitration?" The minister said, and I quote, "That would not be fair." The media again approached her and said, "However, that is the way your bill lays it out." The minister said, "No, no, that is not the way it is. In order to go to binding arbitration both sides would have to agree to it." That is what the minister said to the reporter.

It did not ta ke long for staff of the minister to realize how p oorly the minister even knew her own legislation. It just continues down the line of what we have seen with Bill 44 and the legislation. * (15:30) We know that this is clearly a union-owned, a union-driven government, and Bill 37 now is trying to go back and fix the glaring, glaring difficulties of Bill 44. Well, from this side of the House, we no more wished to support Bill 44 than we will this amendment. We believe the legislation should have been brought forward.

Number 1, the motion that stripped workers of the right to a free and democratic secret ballot vote must be reinstituted. Number 2, we felt that workers who were protected before with picket-line violence, which was removed by a government that clearly condones picket-line violence, that protection should be put back in for the 99 percent of the workers who do, on occasion, go out and picket and do exercise their right, and should have the right to do that without having violence breaking out.

Frankly, it is a few individuals that do this kind of thing and make the whole union look bad, because, by and large, 99 percent of the membership do not wish to see that kind of activity. We know, full fact, that this was an anti-business bill. Anything that affects Bill 44, anything that deals with Bill 44 we cannot support. What we would, however, like to see is that this bill be given the opportunity to get to committee. Let us move on and hear what Manitobans have to say and move on with the process. I am going to close my comments with an incredible letter that was tabled, unprecedented letter

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2995 that was tabled back at that time. It was the letter that was written by Art DeFehr from Palliser Furniture. I quote from the headline that says: "DeFehr warns NDP: Labour bill would make Palliser invest elsewhere." Palliser will not operate in a union environment. If we believe the union, certification was the result of external pressure or unfair labour legislation. That was in a letter to the Premier of Manitoba.

If Bill 44 passes, it will be one more reason to continue to invest outside the province, including locations such as Mexico, and he goes on to list other areas. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the warning was there by some of our biggest employers, by our entrepreneurs who have a vested interest, who have a stake in Manitoba. They warned this government that it was bad legislation, it was bad for business, it was bad for the workers, it was ba d for our economy, and here we are, back again with Bill 37, amending bad legislation. I will go back to my initial quote.

As one individual said, this is no different than attempting to fix the rust on the Titanic after it sank. We, certainly, will not be supporting this legislation. We do, however, wish for it to go on to committee, and hear what Manitobans have to say. Thank you very much. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, too, wanted to put a number of words on the record on this particular bill, Bill 37. This is a bill in which I was somewhat anxious to put a few words on the record for the simple reason that it is labour legislation.

What I have seen, both present and past, of this government has been that they really do not understand the concept of labour relations. They understand what it is that they have to do within the union movement. I would suggest to you it is only the union movement elite that cater, at least in some part, to them, that they really feel that they have this obligation to do things. I say that because I have had opportunity to meet with many, many union members. I can tell you that there is a general sense of dissatisfaction. What I would like to be able to do is to talk about some of that dissatisfaction.

The first opportunity that I actually had to really first-hand experience that dissatisfaction was shortly after getting elected. There was, over the summer of 2003, a factory that had shut down, Dominion Tanners. Some might recall Dominion Tanners. What we found was that the government completely ignored any sort of responsibility it had to the workers, and they were unionized workers. We provided the government ample opportunity to be able to come to bat for these unionized workers. They chose, and we will be very clear on this, the government chose not to get involved.

I can recall having meetings inside my constituency office of 40 unionized workers talking about how terrible the New Democrats are for their lack of action or sympathy and even just wanting to see anything come from the government. You know there were a number of questions that came against it. Questions like, and I had posed, well, what sort of questions would you like to see asked or answered? What kind of answers would you like to see? The questions were many. Is the minister aware of the grievances of Dominion Tanners or workers who were displaced? If so, when did the minister find out?

What did the minister do to alleviate the situation? If the minister did not know about it, why not? Why did the union not inform DT workers, Dominion Tanners, that is, when the workers are duly paid union dues to represent their interest? Why were they not told? Why did the government intervene in some areas, and they cited Motor Coach, but did not in the case of Dominion Tanners? What is the government going to do to address the grievances of the aggrieved workers who felt abandoned by the government, left on their own resources, holding an empty bag?

What redress of grievances could the workers resort to when their union had failed to carry out their mandate when the workers are dutifully paying their membership dues? Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am going to emphasize, these are words, the essence of words, that were coming from union workers that showed up and told that they no longer have a job. This is after the provincial election when they showed up. So this is what sort of things they were saying. Is there a government program in place to assist the displaced workers to recover their lo sses or help minimize the impact of their economic dislocation?

Well, you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we looked to the government, a government that one would

2996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 have thought would have been sympathetic and want to take some sort of action. What we saw there was the absolute opposite. It was government inaction. You had the livelihoods and families of dozens of Winnipeggers that were just kind of tossed to the side as the government wanted to enjoy its summer. Well, I think that the Dominion Tanners workers deserved more. They deserved better treatment from this government, who claim to want to represent union members in our province. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we can go to that extreme.

As I say, I have had a number of meetings, the most recent would probably have been a couple of months back, in the constituency office with a number of them being the same people that were there months prior. There still is a very high sense of frustration and disappointment in this government's inability to come to the table to genuinely help them. I will give the assurance now because the Minister of Labour (Ms.

Allan) is here, is that if she at any point in time can co me up with the answers to some of the questions that I have just levelled or wants to genuinely meet with these people so that they can express their frustration directly to the minister, I would be more than happy to arrange it.

I would be more than happy, if the minister provides me the answers, to provide her with all of the names and addresses so that she can contact them if she wants to take me out of the loop. * (15:40) I am bringing it up because when we talk about The Labour Relations Act the minister responsible has a responsibility to ensure labour harmony in our province and that has not been the case. Shortly after being first re-elected back in June of last year this is what happened. Well, one year later, almost one year later, what are we seeing now in terms of labour relations from this government?

Well, it was a happy day when it was determined that Manitoba is going to get the floodway. Every member of this Chamber, I believe, supports the expansion of the Red River Floodway. I had opportunity to be able to address some of the specifics and some of the benefits of the floodway earlier. I will reserve those comments again for maybe another opportunity. But, having said that, I want to pick up on one area of the floodway.

Day after day we get petitions that come before this Chamber, and those petitions, and I applaud the Conservatives on hammering this issue, that they recognize what the government fails to recognize and that is the importance of labour being treated fairly and equally, whether you happen to be in a union or not. It is interesting, when they first had the agreement come out, the Pr emier (Mr. Doer) was all happy and the government was just kind of applauding, saying, "Look at this; we got this wonderful deal." Well, that wonderful deal, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, as you know, made it mandatory for all workers to be a union member in order to work on the project. That was the origin. That is what this government really and truly wanted to see happen. Let there be absolutely no doubt that that was in fact the case. That is why they received the opposition that they did. I have talked to, again, not only non-union members but union members also.

I can tell you, whether it was a union member or a non-union member, people just thought this government was being absolutely bizarre, that the government was so out of tune, it was hard to imagine who it is that they were listening to. You could not sell what they were trying to sell to Manitobans originally, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the reason why I believe the government ultimately went to Mr. Fox-Decent. Point of Order Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Point of order being raised. Hon.

Nancy Allan (Min ister of Labour and Immigration): I would just like to remind the member opposite that we are debating bills in the House this afternoon, and we are debating Bill 37, which is sections 87.1, 87.3 of The Labour Relations Act. The MLA for Inkster has been going on for quite some time now. He has been discussing the floodway. He has been discussing Dominion Tanners, but he has not been discussing or dialoguing about Bill 37. This is shameful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the same point of order, the honourable Member for Inkster. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if there is anything shameful it is the lack of understanding

June 7, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2997 from the Minister of Labour as to what the rules are in this Chamber. On this particular bill, we are talking about labour relations. My entire discussion is about labour relations inside this province and the abysmal attempt by this minister to try to say that they are appealing to labour. In particular, this minister, in terms of harmony, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I realize she is loaded with experience.

But I can tell you her point of order, I believe, is so off-base that she better re-read what it is that has been stated because it is definitely relevant to this bill. If it is felt that it is not relevant, I would suggest that we look at other pieces of legislation, in particular, final offer sele ction. When I do get onto final offer selection, I would suggest that we look at someone like Jay Cowan, who talked about relevancy especially in dealing with labour legislation. So I can appreciate why it is the Minister of Labour would be so sensitive to this particular issue, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, but to stand up while I am in the midst of delivering my comments to say that I am not being relevant, I believe, is wrong. I would suggest to you, as she heckles from her seat about arrogance, that she is the one that has the experience; she should have known that I was indeed being relevant to it. I would ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that any time that would have been used in addressing this particular point of order be ensured that it not be included in my speaking on the bill itself. Mr.

Deputy Speaker: Difference of opinion as to what is relevant or what is not is not a matter of a point of order. The honourable minister, with due respect, had no point of order. * * * Mr. Lamoureux: The Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan) will have ample opportunity after I sit down, if no other members want to be able to speak to this bill, where she can stand up and ultimately close debate on this bill, which would ultimately see it go to committee.

Having said that, I talked about the union workers of Dominion Tanners, and now I am changing over to the non-union workers and the union workers and how they have been treated heavy-handedly by this government. You will see, within The Labour Relations Act, it is all about labour relations, even if you read some of this very bill that you have tabled in this Chamber. I want to focus that when this government brought in the floodway agreement, what it was saying in regard to labour relations was that, if you are not a union member, you have absolutely no role to play in the expansion of the floodway.

I can recall asking the Minister of Labour at the time. I posed the question in terms of, well, how do you justify being a Minister of Labour if you have a government that is saying on one of the largest projects that Manitoba is entering into, which is so close to the city of Winnipeg–it goes partially around the city of Winnipeg–that non-union members do not have a role.

We know full well that when the flood of the century was here before us, the government of the day, thank goodness, did not go and say, "Well, look, if you are not a member of the union, you cannot participate in helping save the city of Winnipeg." I do not remember hearing statements of the then- opposition members saying, "We only insist that you have to be a union member in order to save the city of Winnipeg." Yet, when it comes to labour relations of being in government, what does the government do? It says that you have to be a union member.

Well, as a number of the Cabinet ministers no doubt were happy with that particular announcement, they realized, as I did, mind you, the difference is that I and others had realized, upon hearing it, that it was not fair. You did not have to be a Liberal or a Conservative to recognize that it was not fair to non- union members and to union members, too, I would argue. All you had to do was just talk to Manitobans. If you talked to Manitobans, again, whether they were as a member of the union or a non-union member, they would have found out very clearly that their policy was going in the wrong direction.

Ultimately, that is the reason why I believe the government went to Mr. Wally Fox-Decent. Because they had backed themselves into a corner, they went to Mr. Fox-Decent in hope s to try to improve the

2998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2004 labour relations climate in our province because they had messed up. I hope that I am not in contradiction of anything if I say to you that my comment was that, after hearing that Mr. Fox-Decent was appointed, I felt absolutely 100 percent confident that that particular clause, saying you had to be a union member, was gone. I was already going around indicating that. * (15:50) The reason why I felt comfortable in knowing that is because I believed that Mr.

Fox-Decent is no different than most Manitobans and would recognize the natural unfairness of a policy directive from this Premier (Mr. Doer) in regard to that particular issue. So I was not surprised when we saw Mr. Fox- Decent's report. We are still waiting for an actual response from this government. What is interesting is that they are quite prepared to almost say, "Well, it was not us that was taking the step forcing people to become members of the union," that they are trying to put distance on that particular issue. But you are not going to fool Manitobans.

They recognize that this was, in fact, a government initiative. The two examples of Dominion Tanners and the floodway clearly demonstrate that whether it was shortly after being re-elected in June of last year to today that this government has, in a very awkward fashion, made a mess of labour relations in our province. They cannot claim to represent union members any more than they can claim to represent the non- union member. What we ask of the government is that there is an obligation, in particular from the Minister of Labour (Ms.

Allan), to ensure that there is as much as possible good, positive labour relations. There should be harmony. The government should be promoting harmony within the labour force. I think that what they need to do is they have to revisit the past year and re-evaluate, as the member from Springfield ha d made reference to in his speech. You can go back to the Becky Barrett days. One could talk about the legislation that Becky Barrett brought in. That is the reason why we have this bill before us right now. Ultimately, it is because of the legislation that Becky Barrett brought in.

They have consistently tried to cater, not necessarily to what is in the best interests of the union worker or the non- union worker, but possibly to a few people, a few people that maybe carry a lot of clout within their caucus. I would not even say caucus. I would suggest to you that it is with selected individuals within their Cabinet, because I know that there are a number of New Democratic MLAs that felt very uncomfortable with some of the things that were coming down in regard to the floodway issue and a sense of disappointment.

It was back in 1988 when I was actually first elected there were commitments from the then- Conservatives that were in opposition that, if they were elected, what they were going to do was they were going to get rid of final offer selection. I think I might have spoken on fi nal offer selection a few times, whenever I get the opportun

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-2-50
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 2nd hansardpdf 50.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e9d2c41246eb45ce8f0c85846d01336a8a23878e

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