Manitoba Hansard — 7 June 2005 (Sitting 59B, 38th Legislature, 3rd Session)

38-3-59b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LVI No. 59B - 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 7, 2005

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

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

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

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

3347 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, June 7, 2005 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Supported Living Program Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government's Supported Living Program provides a range of supports to assist adults with a mental disability to live in the community in their residential option of choice, including a family home.

There is a lack of group homes available and this means special needs dependants must remain in the family home. The provincial government's Community Living Division helps support adults living with a mental disability to live safely in the community in the residential setting of their choice. Families with special needs dependants make lifelong commitments to their care and well-being, and many families choose to care for these indi- viduals in their homes as long as circumstances allow.

The cost to support families who care for their special needs dependants at home is far less than the cost of alternate care arrangements such as insti- tutions or group and foster home situations. The value of the quality of life experienced by special needs dependants raised at home in a loving family environment is immeasurable. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Ms.

Melnick) consider changes to the departmental policy that pays family members a reduced amount of money for room and board when they care for their special needs dependants at home versus the amount paid to a non-parental care provider outside the family home. To request that the Minister of Family Services and Housing consider examining on a case-by-case basis the merits of paying family members to care for special needs dependants at home versus paying to institutionalize them. This is signed by Margaret Froese, Elaine Froese, Angeline Schellenberg and many, many others. Mr.

Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Teachers' Pension Plan Pension Adjustment Account Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I wish to present the following petition. The background to this petition is as follows: After contributing to the Teachers' Pension Plan Adjustment Account (PAA) which funds the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) since 1977 until the year of our retirement from the profession of teaching, we find ourselves facing the future with little hope of a meaningful COLA, and with the resulting severe loss of purchasing power.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider funding the PAA to ensure that we receive a reasonable COLA, and that any loss of purchasing power we will face will be minor. Submitted on behalf of Ray Harkness, Tony Baliant, Ralph Trombo, Ellis Woods and many, many others. * (13:35) Ambulance Service Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition:

3348 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 In May 2004, 46-year-old Peter Krahn suffered a heart attack while exercising in East St. Paul and was pronounced dead just under an hour later after being transported to the Concordia Hospital in Winnipeg. Reports show that it took nearly 18 minutes for an ambulance to arrive for Mr. Krahn. The Interlake Regional Health Authority claims that 21 minutes is an acceptable emergency response time,

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

To request the provincial government to consider improving the way that ambulance service is supplied to all Manitobans by utilizing tech- nologies such as GPS in conjunction with a Medical Transportation Co-ordination Centre (MTCC) which will ensure that patients receive the nearest ambulance in the least amount of time. To request the provincial government to consider ensuring that appropriate funding is provided to maintain superior response times and sustainable services. Signed by Janice Saurette, Ray Saurette, Derek Saurette and many, many others. Teachers' Pension Plan Pension Adjustment Account Mr.

Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba: The background to this petition is as follows: After contributing to the Teachers' Pension Plan Pension Adjustment Account (PAA) which funds the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) since 1977 until the year of our retirement from the profession of teaching, we find ourselves facing the future with little hope of a meaningful Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), and with the resulting severe loss of purchasing power.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider funding the PAA to ensure that we receive a reasonable COLA and that any loss of purchasing power we will face will be minor. Signed by Agnes Smith, Carole Kotylak, Dorothy Thomson, Joseph Cop, Jane Hunter, Jennetta Curtis, David Braddell– Mr. Speaker: Order. It is only a requirement that we read the first three names on the petition. Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if there is leave th at I present on behalf of the Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan). Mr.

Speaker: Is there leave for the honourable member to present on behalf of the honourable Member for Carman? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. Fort Garry Hotel Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background of the petition is as follows: In 1987 the City of Winnipeg seized the Fort Garry Hotel from its owner, Harvard Investments Limited. This was a family-owned Manitoba corporation, in what has been characterized as a miscarriage of justice.

Due to deliberate actions of the City of Winnipeg, errors by the Municipal Board of

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3349 Manitoba and the lack of clarity in provincial legislation, Harvard was denied the due process and natural justice that are fundamental to the property tax assessment and appeal process in Manitoba. As a result, the company was unfairly burdened with a grossly excessive assessment and tax bill that in turn precipitated a tax sale and mortgage foreclosure, effectively bankrupted the company and caused Harvard's shareholders to be dispossessed of their business and property.

The background to this petition was outlined more fully in a grievance presented to this Assembly by the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) on May 18, 2005. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade (Mr. Smith) to consider con- ducting a review of the circumstances outlined and to consider making a recommendation for redress to the Government of Manitoba. Signed by Gerard Bzdel, Brenda Van Raes, Josephine Chudzik and others. * (13:40) Education Support Levy and Special Levy 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: All Manitobans are concerned about providing a high quality of education to students. The current model of funding education through property taxes no longer works. Education is a provincial responsibility and provincial funding of the operation of Manitoba's public schools has fallen every year under the current Doer administration to the most current level of 56 percent.

Residential property tax bills continue to rise as local school divisions are forced to turn to property owners to offset decreasing provincial government funding. The Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) has shown little action in finding a long-term solution to providing school divisions with predictable, stable and appropriate funding for public education. Manitobans pay among the highest property taxes in all of Canada.

The elimination of the Education Support Levy and Special Levy on residential property and farmland would reduce property tax bills by approxi- mately one-half and enhance transparency and accountability in the funding of public education. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Doer) to consider accepting that the funding and delivery of public education is exclusively a provincial responsibility.

To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider eliminating the Education Support Levy and Special Levy from all residential property and farmland in Manitoba. Signed by Ken Mason, Charlotte Middleton, Carol Loader and many, many others. Wuskwatim Project Development Agreement Mrs. Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

The background of this petition is as follows: The Government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro have stated publicly that a referendum vote including all NCN band members will be held as part of the approval process for the Wuskwatim Hydro Project. The Government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro have stated that the Wuskwatim Hydro Project and associated hydro transmission lines will not proceed without the support of the majority of NCN band members through the Wuskwatim Project Development Agreement Referendum.

3350 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 NCN band members were not properly informed and consulted concerning the terms and implication of the Wuskwatim Agreement in Principle. The partnership agreement to be approved by the Wuskwatim PDA Referendum will largely determine the economic future of NCN First Nations. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro (Mr.

Chomiak) and the Government of Manitoba consider ensuring an informed, appro- priate and fair Wuskwatim Project Development Agreement Referendum vote, and a vote overseen by an independent qualified third party such as Elections Manitoba. Signed by Jarvis Spence, Kelvin Spence, Diane McDonald and many others. * (13:45) Crocus Investment Fund Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): To the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: The Manitoba Government was made aware of serious problems involving the Crocus Fund back in 2001.

As a direct result of the government ignoring the red flags back in 2001, over 33 000 Crocus investors lost over $60 million. Manitoba's provincial auditor stated "We believe the department was aware of the red flags at Crocus and failed to follow up on those in a timely fashion." The relationship between some union leaders, the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the NDP seems to be the primary reason as for why the government ignored the red flags.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manit oba as follows: To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider the need to seek clarification on why the government did not act on fixing the Crocus back in 2001. Signed by Charanjiwan Bains, S. Matharoo and Nirmal Brar. COMMITTEE REPORTS Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs Second Report Ms. Marilyn Brick (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs.

Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs presents the following as its Second Report. Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Read it? Your Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs presents the following as its Second Report. Meetings: Your committee met on Monday, June 6, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Building.

Matters under Consideration: Bill 29–The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act/Loi sur les élections municipales et scolaires Bill 35–The Capital Region Partnership Act/Loi sur le Partenariat de la région de la capitale Committee Membership: Substitutions received pr ior to commencement of meeting: Mr. Maguire for Mrs. Driedger Mr. Cummings for Mr. Reimer Mr. Dyck for Mr. Schuler Mr. Cullen for Mrs. Stefanson Mr. Dewar for Mr. Swan Mr. Jennissen for Mr. Aglugub Substitutions made, by leave, during committee proceedings: Mr. Martindale for Ms.

Korzeniowski Public Presentations: Your committee heard 3 presentations on Bill 29 – The Municipal Councils and School Boards

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3351 Elections Act/Loi sur les élections municipales et scolaires, from the following organizations: Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Val Turner, Manitoba Municipal Administrators Association Mel Graham, Inter-Organizational Access Committee Your committee heard 3 presentations on Bill 35 – The Capital Region Partnership Act/Loi sur le Partenariat de la région de la capitale, from the following organizations: Don Forfar, Chairperson, Mayors & Reeves of the Capital Region Bob Stefaniuk, Reeve, R.M. of Richot Wilf Taillieu, Reeve, R.M. of Headingley Written Submissions: Your committee received 1 written submission on Bill 29 – The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act/Loi sur les élections municipales et scolaires, from the following organization: Councillor Jae Eadie, City of Winnipeg B ills Considered and Reported: Bill 29–The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act/Loi sur les élections municipales et scolaires Your committee agreed to report this bill, with the following amendment: THAT Clause 26(

a) of the Bill be amended by striking out "

section 29" and substituting "

section 27". Bill 35–The Capital Region Partnership Act/Loi sur le Partenariat de la région de la capitale Your committee agreed to report this bill, with the following amendment: THAT Clause 4(1)(

b) of the Bill be amended by striking out "unique and". Ms. Brick: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. * (13:50) Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Seventh Report Mr. Daryl Reid (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Seventh Report. Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Seventh Report. Meetings: Your committee met on Monday, June 6, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building. Matters under Consideration: Bill 5–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Injury Compensation Appeal Commission)/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Société d'assurance publique du Manitoba (Commission d'appel des accidents de la route) Bill 8–The Manitoba Council on Aging Act/Loi sur le Conseil manitobain du vieillissement Bill 16–The Wildlife Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la conservation de la faune Bill 30–The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation Act/Loi sur la Société des services agricoles du Manitoba Bill 31–The Condominium Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les condominiums Bill 34–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act/Loi modifiant le Code de la route Bill 39–The Investment Trust Unitholders' Protection Act/Loi sur l'immunité des détenteurs d'unités de sociétés de placement

3352 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 Bill 41–The Drivers and Vehicles Act and The Highway Traffic Amendment Act/Loi sur les conducteurs et les véhicules et Loi modifiant le Code de la route Bill 50–The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2005/Loi corrective de 2005 Committee Membership: Substitutions received prior to commencement of meeting: Hon. Mr. Lemieux for Mr. Dewar Hon. Ms. Wowchuk for Hon. Mr. Mackintosh Hon. Ms. Oswald for Hon. Mr. Robinson Hon. Mr. Struthers for Hon. Mr. Smith Mr. Eichler for Mr. Dyck Substitutions made, by leave, during committee proceedings: Hon. Mr.

Mackintosh for Hon. Mr. Struthers Public Presentations: Your committee heard 2 presentations on Bill 8 – The Manitoba Council on Aging Act/Loi sur le Conseil manitobain du vieillissement, from the following organizations: Gerry Kaplin, Manitoba Committee of Seniors Norma Drosdowech, Manitoba Council on Aging Your committee heard 1 presentation on Bill 16 – The Wildlife Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la conservation de la faune, from the following organization: Wyman Sangster, Manitoba Lodgers and Outfitters Association Your committee heard 1 presentation on Bill 30 – The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation Act/Loi sur la Société de s services agricoles du Manitoba, from the following organization: Ian Wishart, Keystone Agricultural Producers Your committee heard 1 presentation on Bill 31 – The Condominium Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les condominiums, from the following individual: George Mulder, Private Citizen Your committee heard 1 presentation on Bill 34 – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act/Loi modifiant le Code de la route, from the following individual: Diane Rybak, Private Citizen Bills Considered and Reported: Bill 5–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Injury Compensation Appeal Commission)/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Société d'assurance publique du Manitoba (Commission d'appel des accidents de la route) Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Bill 8–The Manitoba Council on Aging Act/Loi sur le Conseil manitobain du vieillissement Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Bill 16–The Wildlife Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la conservation de la faune Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Bill 30–The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation Act/Loi sur la Société des services agricoles du Manitoba Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Bill 31–The Condominium Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les condominiums Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Bill 34–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act/Loi modifiant le Code de la route Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Bill 39–The Investment Trust Unitholders' Protection Act/Loi sur l'immunité des détenteurs d'unités de sociétés de placement

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3353 Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Bill 41–The Drivers and Vehicles Act and The Highway Traffic Amendment Act/Loi sur les conducteurs et les véhicules et Loi modifiant le Code de la route Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Bill 50–The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2005/Loi corrective de 2005 Your committee agreed to report this bill, without amendment. Mr. Reid: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Fort Garry (M s. Irvin-Ross), that the report of the committee be received. Mr.

Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Standing Committee on Human Resources Second Report Ms. Marilyn Brick (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Human Resources presents the following as its Second Report. Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Human Resources presents the following as its Second Report. Meetings: Your committee met on the following occasions: Thursday, June 2, 2005, at 6:30 p.m.

Monday, June 6, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. All meetings were held in Room 254 of the Legislative Building. Matters under Consideration: Bill 25–The Workers Compensation Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail Committee Membership: At the Thursday, June 2, 2005, meeting your committee elected Mr. Schellenberg as the Vice- Chair. At the Monday, June 6, 2005, meeting your committee elected Mr. Jha as the Vice-Chair. Substitutions received prior to commencement of the Thursday, June 2, 2005, meeting: Mr. Cullen for Mr. Faurschou Mr. Loewen for Mr. Murray Mr. Rocan for Mr. Schuler Mr. Aglugub for Mr. Dewar Mr. Schellenberg for Mr. Reid Substitutions received prior to commencement of the Monday, June 6, 2005, meeting: Ms. Korzeniowski for Mr. Aglugub Mr. Jha for Mr. Altemeyer Mr.

Maloway for Hon. Ms. Oswald Mr. Martindale for Mr. Santos Mr. Caldwell for Mr. Schellenberg Hon. Ms. McGifford for Mr. Caldwell Mr. Schuler for Mrs. Driedger Mr. Penner for Mr. Loewen Mrs. Rowat for Mrs. Mitchelson Public Presentations: Your committee heard 49 presentations on Bill 25 – The Workers Compensation Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail, from the following individuals and/or organizations: David Sinclair, Private Citizen Graham Starmer, Manitoba Chamber of Commerce Darlene Dziewit, President, Manitoba Federation of Labour Ted Hudson, Private Citizen Gerry Schedler, Private Citizen Craig Schedler, Private Citizen Liz Elliott, Private Citizen Gerald Allen, Private Citizen Doug Dobrowski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Bruce Hacault, Private Citizen Lois Wales, Manitoba Government Employees Union Robin Reed, President, Frontier Teachers Association Peter Wohlgemut, Borderland Teachers Association

3354 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 Ray Perreault, Private Citizen Ron Perreault, Private Citizen Les Lilley, Private Citizen Harvey Levin, Private Citizen Karen Mozden, Private Citizen Alex Forrest, United Firefighters of Winnipeg Debbie Woodman, Private Citizen Brenda McAdam, Private Citizen Anne Savignac, Private Citizen Robert Smith, Private Citizen Shannon Martin, Canadian Federation of Independent Business Brian Ardern, President, Manitoba Teachers Society Diane Zuk, President, Pembina Trails Teachers Association Kathy Coulombe, Private Citizen Heidi Eigenkind, Private Citizen Darlene Kernot, Private Citizen Dorothy Wigmore, Private Citizen Ron Nash, Private Citizen Ruth-Ann Furgala, Manitoba Association of School Trustees Dave Sauer, Private Citizen Bob Dolyniuk, Manitoba Trucking Association David Markham , Mining Association of Manitoba Patrick Campbell, Private Citizen Bill Gardner & Stephen Copen, Manitoba Employers Council & Employers Task Force Kevin Connolly, Private Citizen Don Penney, CN Railway Patrick Riley, Canadian Pacific Railway Chris Christensen, South Eastern Manitoba Labour Council Dave Gledhill, Private Citizen Dave Angus, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce Terrence Turner, Private Citizen Neil Curry, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters John Jacobs, Private Citizen Alan Payne, Private Citizen Rory Roman, Private Citizen Gloriafer Shand, Private Citizen Written Submissions: Your committee received 14 written submissions on Bill 25 – The Workers Compensation Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail, from the following individuals and/or organizations: Donna McDonald, Manitoba Nurses’ Union Hilda Froese, Garden Valley School Division Lisa Steffler, Private Citizen John Steffler, Private Citizen Carol Harvey, St. James-Assiniboia School Division Charlene Bergen, Private Citizen Stephen Hunt, United Steelworkers Linda Davies, Private Citizen Jim Baker, Manitoba Hotel Association Bruce Campbell, Public Service Alliance of Canada Donna Fedorkiw, Private Citizen Kim Knox-Powers, Private Citizen Stan Letwyn, Private Citizen Cliff Anderson, Private Citizen Bills Considered and Reported: Bill 25–The Workers Compensation Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail Your committee agreed to report this bill, with the following amendment: THAT the proposed

section 2.1, as set out in Clause 4 of the Bill, be amended by renumbering it as subsection 2.1(1) and adding the following as subsection 2.1(2): Board to consult industries, employers and workers 2.1(2) Before a regulation is made under subsection (1), the board must provide an opportunity for consultation with affected industries, employers and workers, and report the results of the consultation to the minister. Ms. Brick: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg), that the report of the committee be received. Mr.

Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am just wondering whether maybe we can revert back to Ministerial Statements because I would invite the minister to perhaps give us an update on the flooding and the current situation as it exists in the province with, once again, excessive rainfall coming in the southwest side of the province. Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order?

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3355 Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Well, on the same point, Mr. Speaker. Members opposite, I know, are waiting for their leader, and if it makes things easier, if they want to recess until he arrives, we are prepared to accommodate that just to be realistic about the situation. I noticed that the minister has arrived so I presume that the Opposition Leader is on his way. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Oppo sition House Leader, he does not have a point of order.

It is a dispute over the facts because it is up to the government to decide whether they make a statement or not. It is entirely at the discretion of the government. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Mr. Joe Slomiany. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today, sir. Also in the public gallery we have from Smith- Jackson School 15 Grade 4 students under the direction of Ms. Maria Moseychuk.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers). Also in the public gallery we have from Neepawa Area Collegiate 31 Grade 11 students under the direction of Mrs. Michelle Young. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings). Mr. Hawranik: Mr.

Speaker, at the November 19, 2002, meeting between the Premier and the Crocus CEO, the presentation to the Premier suggested that it would be more effective to create a larger pool of funds within Crocus using pension funds from Crown corporations, civic employee pension plan funds, civil service employee pension funds and even the Teachers' Retirement Al lowance Fund. Less than two years before that meeting, in January '01, a senior account manager with the Department of Industry warned of cash problems within Crocus. Crocus did not have enough money.

Also I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today fourth-year nursing students from the University of Manitoba under the direction of Linda West. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today. * (13:55) ORAL QUESTIONS Crocus Investment Fund Public Pension Funds Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, in January 2000 this NDP government requested Crocus to examine a capital retention strategy for public pension funds and Crown corporations. Over the next two years, the Crocus CEO studied the super fund concept for the NDP.

The strategy was to add more money to Crocus from other public pension funds in Manitoba, and on November 19, 2002, a meeting was held between the Premier and the Crocus CEO to discuss the super fund concept. I ask the Minister of Finance why would this NDP government meet with their union friends to sink more money into Crocus when just 10 months earlier the Finance Minister received advice from his own department official recommending an inde- pendent review of Crocus. Why would he do this? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member will note that we never did proceed with it.

This was a proposal that was around since 1994. It was interesting last evening I was at a meeting of Richardson capital corporation where individual pension fund investments were made. I think the superannuation fund made an investment in that account. MPI made an investment, no, I am sorry, Workers Compensation, the Teachers Fund, and also the City of Winnipeg and the City of Winnipeg Police, so the bottom line is we did not proceed.

I ask the Minister of Finance why meet with your union friends to inject more money into Crocus when you were warned by your own Finance Department officials that Crocus had serious problems. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister, as the Auditor General's report notes, did not proceed. This proposal has been around since 1994. It was presented to former Premier Filmon in a similar way. It was

3356 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 presented again to us. It was part of the retention strategy of the former government where it identified in its, and I am just trying to remember the name of the author, Ms. Raskin, I believe, wrote a report that indicated that there was $1 billion in savings and $12 billion in pension. So this is not new news. The meeting is in the report, the action.

It is interesting because I think there are a couple of funds that were established, one in 1999 by Merv Tweed, where the government made an announce- ment that one James Umlah would be the CEO of the scientific fund, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, this NDP government was poised in late 2002 to sink more public pension funds into Crocus on the advice of its union friends. The Auditor General states in his report very clearly, "There were sufficient red fl ags to justify a detailed review of Crocus in the latter part of 2002." Mr. Speaker, Crocus was not complying with its own legislation.

Government officials from both the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry issued warnings. All the red flags were there, but this Finance Minister and this Premier ignored them. I ask the Minister of Finance why did he do nothing for the more than 33 000 Crocus unitholders. Why did he ignore all those red flags? * (14:00) Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the point of the question is the member is asking us why we did not give Crocus what they wanted. Why did we not give them access to pension funds? Because we were not comfortable and ready to do that.

Why did we not give them access to removing– Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can understand why the minister did nothing in the Crocus fiasco. He cannot even remember the question that has been asked of him. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the member be allowed to restate his question since the minister was trying to paraphrase it and was messing it up. Mr. Speaker: Order.

On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition, he does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. * * * Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance, to continue with the answer. Mr. Selinger: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that clarification on the point of order. Clearly there was no proceeding with the setting up of a super fund, a recommendation that had been made in 1994 to the then-Filmon government. It was not proceeded with, it is clearly stated so in the report.

Additional demands made by the Crocus Fund on page 145 to eliminate the cap were not proceeded with. I note that many, many times under the former government the cap was lifted. It was not lifted under us. All of the requests that they ask here were not proceeded with. I do not know what the member's problems were. We acted with prudence and diligence. Crocus Investment Fund Public Pension Funds Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure this minister that we have lots of problems with the way he acted and did not, and chose not to, act with regard to the Crocus Fund.

He is going to have to answer to those one of these days. The issue is not so much the super fund.

It is that there is no stronger evidence of collusion between the highest levels of this government, the labour movement in Manitoba and the Crocus Fund than the Auditor General's report which indicates clearly that meetings were taking place behind the scenes to discuss how the government could persuade funds with public dollars, civil servants' pension funds, the TRAF, the funds that were there for the benefit of injured workers, the WCB, how this government along with Crocus was trying to influence these funds to make questionable investments.

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3357 This fund became a tool of government economic policy. All the while this minister had red flags raised to him that the fund needed to be investigated, yet he sat quietly by. I would ask him to explain today why he sat quietly by while the– Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The member seems to be trying to have it both ways. He is suggesting that we did not act and then when we did not act, he is saying why did you not act. Mr. Speaker, proposals always come to government.

They started in 1994 under the former government under a venture capital review that was undertaken by them. They asked for this venture capital review. They got a recommendation to look at a super fund. That super fund proposal identified in 1994 was presented to the government. The government did not proceed on it. The government did not proceed on many other requests that were made. In contrast, members opposite continually lifted the cap. Members opposite made exemptions on what kinds of companies could be invested in.

We have to ask ourselves if there is real collusion here, why will the member opposite not make available to the Legislature the secret agreement he signed. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, I would direct the minister to the Auditor's report which clearly states that 36 percent of Crocus's portfolio was committed to investments that also contained public funds. Public funds were sourced from Workers Comp, from TRAF and from the Province of Manitoba. All the while that red flags were being raised with this minister about problems at Crocus, his government and the Premier (Mr.

Doer) of this province were working together with Crocus as a tool of their economic policy to have more co-investments with Crocus. As a matter of fact, as the Auditor points out, they invested in a company that allowed Crocus to invest in a company that was a real estate venture, and as the Auditor General said it was not allowed under the Crocus Fund act. This investment had the same consultant for Workers Comp money as it had for Crocus Fund.

Given that all the red flags were raised, how can this minister explain sitting quietly by while teachers' retiremen t funds were put at risk and while funds from Workers Compensation Board were put at risk in a real estate venture that was not even allowed under the Crocus Fund act? How can he justify that? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the most active period of co-investments between government and the Crocus Fund was the period when the members opposite were in office, and the co-investments which showed the greatest losses also occurred when the members opposite were in government.

It was very clear that they were using the fund to promote economic development within the project, and projects like Isobord wound up failing. Projects like Westsun wound up failing. Their projects lost a total of $55 million during the period of time they were in government. I can say to you the co-investment strategy that was initiated by members opposite and actively pursued by members opposite was only considered with caution and prudence under our government. Mr. Loewen: If the minister had proceeded with any prudence at all, maybe 34 000 investors in Manitoba would not have been fleeced of $60 million.

He should do more, he should worry more about doing his job than what happened in the nineties. Mr. Speaker, as the Auditor General pointed out, there was an investment made, a co-investment between Workers Comp, TRAF and Crocus Fund in a real estate venture that is not allowed under the Crocus Fund act. The same consultant was used for Workers Comp as was used for the investment by the Crocus Fund. The then-president of the TRAF had to write a letter to the Minister of Education (Mr.

Bjornson) indicating that the chief investment officer from Workers Compensation forced, against his better judgment, TRAF to make an investment in this venture that was not even allowed under the act. Yet this minister, despite having red flags raised as early as 2001 and 2002, sat by quietly and said nothing while teachers' pension funds were put at risk and workers' funds were put at risk. I would ask the minister to explain his inaction to the people of Manitoba. Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor's report is very clear on these matters.

We did not proceed with the super fund concept developed under the former

3358 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 government, promoted by them and presented to us. In terms of co-investments, the co-investments made under the previous government with Crocus such as Westsun lost $21 million between 1995 and 2002. The provincial government lost $3.5 million on that. Winnport Logistics, Crocus lost $6.7 million, the Province lost $5.6 million in 1998. The Prairie Production Centre, Crocus invested $26 million and the Province lost $1.3 million. All of these co- investments which lost money were their projects.

Will they take responsibility for the bad investments which they initiated with the Crocus Fund? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Speaker: Order. I would like to remind all honourable members that the clock is ticking, for one thing, and we are trying to get as many questions and answers in as we can. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition has the floor. Flooding Disaster Areas Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to thank the Premier and the Minister of Transportation for allowing me to view the disaster zone that is in around the R.M. of Strathclair, Rivers and other areas. While we were there, of course, we saw the devastation up close, River city, all of these communities, Oak River. I would just ask the Premier, who was out there, by the way, I know on Friday, if he would listen to the R.M.s, the municipalities, the mayors and the reeves, who have themselv es declared, rightly so, this a disaster area.

I would ask the Premier if today he would stand in his place, knowing that their government has forecast more rain for that area, Mr. Speaker, if he would agree to support the municipalities, the reeves and mayors, and, in fact, declare this a disaster zone. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, first of all, disaster assistance funds and treatment will be granted. I announced that on Friday. We already had a cheque on Thursday for those communities, many of the same communities. Secondly, municipalities have declared local emergency provisions in their region.

That is appropriate for them to commandeer decisions in their municipalities and make decisions in their municipality. Mr. Speaker, we have not gone to the next power, which is a state of emergency in the province, which would allow us to order evacuations, to order a considerable amount of action in the part of an emergency. The last time that happened was, well, it was certainly in 1997. I was involved with the former Premier then when there was a situation in Rosenort where people would not leave and they were at risk. We both travelled to that area togeth er after the authority was granted.

It was not granted in its initial stages, Mr. Speaker. It is a very major power. We are monitoring the situation, but I want to point out the difference between disaster assistance, local emergency, which, of course, is taking place and a province-wide emergency which allows the Province to override almost every provision for purposes of this emergency. We feel we are monitoring the situation daily. It is not a local emergency in many of the muni- cipalities cited by the member opposite. I want to pledge to him that we are absolutely committed to disaster assistance as well. * (14:10) Mr. Murray: Mr.

Speaker, I think it is very clear that the Premier does not confuse the disaster assistance that was for the previous flooding versus what is happening currently today and getting worse. That is the issue and when municipal leaders, mayors, reeves and frankly the citizens of that com- munity, we are seeing basements being flooded, we are seeing roads that are havi ng to be cut in half. So there are real issues that are happening in this community.

I think the most important thing is that, when the leadership of those communities are declaring their area as a disaster zone, they are reaching out to this Premier to do the right thing. I ask him today knowing again that we see situations developing in southeast Manitoba where we have got crops that have been put in place. We see rain in that area as well. There are some serious issues here, but I would ask the Premier to focus on southwest Manitoba where they have declared a disaster zone, Mr. Speaker. Those people deserve the

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3359 support of this Premier, not from the previous, we understand that, but currently, what is happening today. Will he stand with the people in southwest Manitoba and declare that a disaster zone? Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that many municipalities have declared local emergency provisions not– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I can only entertain one question and one answer at a time. I ask the co- operation of all honourable members here. The honourable First Minister has the floor. Mr. Doer: Yes, thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. The member opposite should know that in 1997, in the Red River Valley, it was only at the later stages when we had to evacuate and overrule the local emergency provisions. The first stage you want to have a local emergency declared which has been conducted. We feel that, and we are monitoring it on a daily basis, if we need to evacuate citizens or if there are powers the local municipalities cannot invoke, and many powers th ey can invoke in their own jurisdiction, we will bring that emergency power to the Province.

That is an elevation of the emergency condition from the local municipality who are making decisions with local emergency provisions on the hour, every hour as they should. Many people in municipalities, I talked to people in the '97 flood and they did not want the Province right away to call a state of emergency and override the local municipal leaders. The member opposite– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, there are people who want to make these decisions. They do not want to have the Province invoke evacua tions where they are not necessary.

There are many conditions under the emergency powers that we will continue to have in residue if we need it. Members opposite are talking about Disaster Assistance. I can assure members that the threshold for Disaster Assistance is $5 million in damages. Mr. Speaker, we were over that last Friday because we were $3.4 million on Thursday and we know that we are well over that now. That is why we talked to the federal minister on Friday. That is why we had federal Emergency Measures people out with our people, and Disaster Assistance money will flow to those municipalities. Mr. Murray: Mr.

Speaker, I note going back to June 8, 1999, the then-Leader of the Official Opposition stated, "Madam Speaker, a meeting was held with producers and municipal officials yesterday in southern Manitoba. Business producers want the provincial government to declare a disaster area." Mr. Speaker, he agreed with municipal leaders then. I do not understand why he refuses to do it today. The Premier is twisting, unfortunately, with people's lives and emotions. Nobody is asking for emergency services. That is not the question.

We are simply saying that the people in that area, the municipal leaders, the reeves and the mayors in that area have declared their areas a disaster area. In order to understand that their Province is standing behind them, as they should , as this Premier went on record of June 8, 1999, I am asking him simply today will he do what he agreed when he was in opposition and will he side with the municipal leaders and declare that area a disaster zone. Mr. Doer: Let me try to explain this to the member opposite. There is– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr.

Doer: There are two stages to a natural disaster. Whether it is a forest fire or– [interjection] You know, this is a fairly serious issue. You should not heckle, Mr. Speaker, in this House. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are two stages to a natural disaster.

One is the whole issue of property and persons who are at risk and could be severely at risk that require, on the one hand, local emergency measures to be introduced, and, on the other hand, where severe circumstances are dictated, a province-wide emergency declaration is made so that evacuations and other measures that are extreme to save life and limb are invoked by the Province of Manitoba.

3360 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 There is a second issue dealing with natural disasters and that is the treatment under the Disaster Assistance program for individuals, communities and other infrastructure to get funding to deal with the losses that are invoked by the natural disaster. We have already committed funding under all the Disaster Assistance pr ograms in Manitoba for the municipalities, for the individuals and for the communities. The issue of June 8, 1999, Mr. Speaker, Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr.

Doer: The issue in 1999 was aided and abetted by the fact– Mr. Speaker: Order. Seven Oaks School Division Auditor General Review Request Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, despite the insistence by the Minister of Education, the Seven Oaks School Division Superintendent Brian O'Leary, the disgraced cam- paign manager for the NDP, despite their insistences that the illegal land development by the Seven Oaks School Division made money, it appears that the report put out by the Minister of Education shows otherwise.

The division's own June 4 documents suggested that they overestimated their revenue by nearly $1 million and that their losses could actually exceed $200,000. Mr. Speaker, prior to the completion of the 30- day whitewash report, the minister indicated that the department had a legal opinion about whether this was illegal or legal, and they also had a financial review done of Swinford Park. He assured us that those documents would be part of this review and they are not part of the review.

They are not attached to the review and, in fact , when we requested them by freedom of information the minister's office refused to give us those documents so that we certainly do not have a full picture of what should be part of that review. Now the Minister of Education wants the school division to audit themselves. Well, it is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. I would like to ask the Minister of Education today will he call in the Auditor General to do a proper, full, complete, unbiased review. Hon.

Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): The recommendations that came forward as a result of this review were that the Seven Oaks School Division was to extricate itself from the development process once it had met the requirements under the legal agreements that they had entered into. The second recommendation was that an external audit of the financial situation around this development issue be addressed. We are expecting compliance. We have asked that they engage in this process.

As I said to the member during the Estimates process, the review was going to be done within 30 days and the missing answers to the questions about this review were that there were some outstanding issues with respect to accounts receivable and accounts payable. That is why we have asked for an external review. * (14:20) Swinford Park Documents Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, there are no assurances from hearing the minister answer that because he is the one that has been out there touting that they made money on the deal. In fact, his own report is now saying that that is highly unlikely.

I would like to know if the minister would agree today to table those two very important documents. Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Speaker, during this discussion around this issue, yes, there were documents that had been prepared, third-party documents. Were they part of the review? Yes, it was relevant information that was part of the review. As per the FIPPA request, the member was provided with rationale as to why those documents were not provided. Auditor General Review Request Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, this is looking more and more like a cover- up. That review is nothing more than a whitewash to protect this government and all their NDP friends.

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3361 Mr. Speaker, this report does parallel Crocus in an alarming way. A runaway administration, unlawful activities, a total failure of oversight, inflated valuations and a whistle blower dismissed by a Cabinet minister, this report confirms that taxpayers' money was indeed put at risk. These same people who put it at risk are now asked to audit themselves. Mr. Speaker, I find that totally absurd and ask today if the Minister of Education would ensure that this big mess, this file, is turned over to the Auditor General for an unbiased review. Hon.

Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Speaker, the member perhaps did not hear my response where I said that we have asked for an external audit of all financial matters relating to this issue. Also, the individual th at was responsible for overseeing the review has impeccable credentials. He has worked in the Department of Education long prior to our term in office. I have absolute faith in the process that was engaged in to deliver this review, Mr. Speaker. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bjornson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also had support from the Department of Finance where needed, where the expertise exceeded the abilities of the individuals in the Department of Education. There were a lot of people who worked very hard on this report, and we have requested an external audit of the financial issues around the Swinford Park Development. Children in Care Protection Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, sadly, a 17-year-old boy died on the street yesterday and his family believes it was because he did not get the support he needed while in care under the watch of this government and this Minister of Family Services.

The boy's mother said her adopted son, who suffered from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, needed 24-hour supervision, but instead was left to fend for himself at night. My question to the minister is why did she fail to provide the 24-hour supervision which would have seen this boy alive today. Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, certainly our condolences go to the family. It is really a tragedy when a person of this age would lose their life in a tragic way. The department is very concerned as well.

When an incident of this nature occurs, there are several investigations that begin, certainly the agency, the authority, the Winnipeg Police Service and the CME. I think it is very important that we take the time to allow these organizations to do this thorough review as they need to do to find out what we can learn to perhaps in the future ensure that anything like this does not happen again. Mrs. Taillieu: Mr. Speaker, the family of this child said they entrusted their son to Child and Family Services to get the help they needed for him, but now they have lost him forever.

Just four months ago, another child died violently while in care when he was shot when another child in care was allowed to have a gun. These children were not adequately supervised. I would ask the minister what action she took between that tragedy four months ago and the death of another child yesterday to protect children in care. Ms. Melnick: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was indeed another tragic incident that happened.

The depart- ment immediately issued a directive to all agencies, to all organizations, to ensure that, when a child is out of the care of the ag ency, they are made very aware of what is and is not appropriate to bring back in. It is, again, a sad situation, Mr. Speaker. We have learned around the issuing of the directive to make sure that we continue to communicate with all organizations again in an attempt to make sure that an incident such as that does not happen again. Mrs. Taillieu: Well, Mr. Speaker, it did just happen again.

Now this minister has failed to provide the supports for kids in care and has failed to provide direction to her department. Each time a death occurs under this minister's watch, and there have been several, there is an internal investigation, there is a police investigation, and often the Medical Examiner does a review and provides recommendations. With

3362 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 all this information she still has not taken corrective action, and still another child has died just yesterday. What is she waiting for? Will this minister take action today before any more deaths occur? Ms. Melnick: Again, Mr. Speaker, we have received recommendations at various times. We have acted on those recommendations. The CME operates independently and will do a thorough review, as I am sure he will. The Winnipeg Police Service also acts independently and will bring forward recommenda- tions as they see fit.

Certainly the department continues to work with all the caretakers, with professionals with many years of experience on an individual basis with each individual child. Again, it is extremely tragic when a situation like this occurs, but we are all working around what we believe will be the best care for children. Physician Resources Recruitment/Retention Strategy Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, Manitoba is suffering from critical shortages of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals.

Regional health authorities are trying to recruit foreign-trained doctors to fill the vacancies, yet this Minister of Health and his NDP government have failed to retain a qualified foreign-trained doctor who wants to stay and practise in Manitoba, forcing her to leave her family to accept a residency position in another province. I would like to ask the Minister of Health why he is forcing another doctor whose husband is here with us in the gallery today to leave Manitoba and her family in order to be trained outside of her home province, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, it is never easy when people with skills are unable to use those skills in any jurisdiction, whether it is this province or any other, and that is certainly not anything that we take any pleasure in. There are numbers of Manitobans who are international medical graduates whom we have worked very hard to provide programs for. But the decisions about who gets into those programs are not political decisions, and they are not made in the minister's office nor does the minister's office attempt to influence those decisions.

The Canadian process for residency matching programs, CaRMS, is a non-partisan inter and national body which works nationally with residency vacancies across this country to make the best decisions within the priorities of the national and provincial systems. We do not try to influence that process. Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is indicative of the fact that this minister is unable to manage our health care system and recruit and retain doctors to work here in Manitoba.

Emergency rooms and other services have been shut down because they do not have the staff necessary to treat patients, and Manitobans are being forced to travel highways to access health care in our province. * (14:30) Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, this doctor has been accepted in another province, and she will be moving as a result of this government's inability to recruit and retain doctor s in this province. The announcements of doctors leaving the province seem to be occurring on almost a daily basis.

As of February 2005, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority had seven psychiatrist vacancies, yet, this Minister of Health is allowing a foreign-trained, extremely qualified psychiatrist to slip through his fingers and leave for a residency position in another province. This minister includes foreign-trained doctors as part of his recruitment strategy, so why is he forcing this doctor to leave her family and leave Manitoba. Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we do not relish the situation where any IMG is unable to use her or his skills in service of Canadians.

That is why we have put 10, the international medical graduates' one-year program at the University of Manitoba, and recently expanded that with our announcement last week to 15. That is why we worked hard with the College of Physicians and Surgeons to get as many IMGs through the CAPE process so they can serve Manitobans as quickly as possible, but we do not, from the minister's office or to my knowledge does any minister in Canada, interfere in the CaRMS process.

I regret the fact that this person has not been able to find a position through that national process in Manitoba, but I do not believe it is in the interests of Manitobans for the minister to directly involve herself or himself in the choice of what residency positions go to what doctors. At a time when we are facing a staffing crisis in all areas of health care will this minister agree to

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3363 meet with Bill Graham, who is here today, whose wife is a qualified foreign-trained psychiatrist, to prevent yet another doctor from leaving our province? Mr. Sale: What I am unwilling to do is politicize the process of medical training in this province, Mr. Speaker. We have 28 psychiatrists in one or other level of the five-year residency programs in this province that we are currently supporting through our residency programs. We have 156 trained psychiatrists currently serving Manitobans.

That process has recruited and currently is recruiting sufficient supply for our needs. We have significant pressures in a number of areas which have been present and continue to be present, and we prioritiz e those areas through the college, through the School of Medicine and through the national CaRMS residency matching process. I believe that process, while sometimes people feel on an individual basis does not meet their needs, is a fair process. It is a non-political process, and it should stay that way. Hydra House Mismanagement Concerns Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, on April 11 of this year, we learned that concerns about Hydra House had been raised with the government as early as the spring of 2000. The Minister of Family Services said in this Legislature on April 11 that these were concerns of what had happened during the administration of the previous government. Why did the minister say this occurred under the previous government when the document which I table now says very clearly that these specific problems occurred between October 1999 and February 2000 under her government's watch?

The minister made very serious accusations with respect to the previous government which we now know to be clearly erroneous. Why did the minister mislead the Legislature on April 11? Ms. Melnick: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I will refer the member from River He ights to the Auditor General's report where he talks about concerns previous to September-November 1999. After September-November 1999, we acknowledged, I accepted, the report in its en tirety. The main concern was a lack of service purchase agreements, the cutting of the monitoring capacity in '93-94. We have dealt with that.

We are no longer funding Hydra House. Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I think if the member from River Heights took the time to read the report that was released on July 6, 2004, by the Attorney General, he clearly outlines that there were several concerns around the spending of public funding during the time of the previous administration. That is clearly lined out in the report. This is not news that the member brings to the floor. We have dealt with the situation with Hydra House. Over a month ago, I finalized the cutting of ties with Hydra House. St.

Amant Centre has taken over the care. St. Amant Centre is an institution of high repute and I look forward to working with them in the care of these very vulnerable people. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the minister says she did not mislead the House, and yet I have tabled clear and unmistakable evidence that she did, that this activity occurred between October 1999 to February 2000. Either the minister is not very smart and did not do her homework, or the minister is indeed very smart and she deliberately acted to cover up the inaction of her government.

This information had been reported earlier in the day in the Free Press. The minister had plenty of time to prepare a response to the question she could know was coming, and she responded twice in the same way to questions, so we know it was not a simple mistake. The letter also, of course, implies that the financial concerns were irregularities and not as serious as we now know. Why did the minister try to cover up her own government's inaction just as her government is trying to cover up the government's inaction on Crocus in 2001?

Again, the member from River Heights does not bring new information to the floor. I do not know if he is current in knowing th at. I will just repeat, we have cut ties and we are working with St. Amant Centre around the care of these very vulnerable people. Crocus Investment Fund Compensation to Investors Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Premie r (Mr. Doer), but I will settle for the Minister of Finance, I guess.

3364 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 Over 33 000 Manitobans, as we all know, plus, lost in excess of $60 million. There are two very important facts, and this is why I wanted to ask the Premier this question, but I will settle for the Minister of Finance because of the optics of the Chamber. First of all, the government was aware of the problem that Crocus was facing back in 2001. That is a fact. The second fact that I would like to emphasize is that the government chose to do nothing.

My question to the Minister of Finance, because the Premier is not in a position to answer this question, is can the Minister of Finance clearly indicate to this House what sort of compensation, if any form of compensation, is going to be offered by this government for those that have lost money because of government neglect. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, on the prospectus that Crocus publishes, there is a statement that is put there very clearly and it reads as follows: "None of the securities administrators or any other department or agency of the government has assessed the merits of investment in the fund. The securitie s administrators and the government make no recommendation concerning such an investment and assume no liability or obligation to any investor of the fund." Every prospectus that every shareholder buys has that statement in it. As this Chamber knows, Mr.

Speaker, this government brought in class-action legislation which was proclaimed early in 2003 as a vehicle of consumer protection. Members of the public who are shareholders of Crocus may, and are suggesting in public that they will, avail themselves of that legislation and they will decide who to sue based on these warnings. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. * (14:40) MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for River Heights, on a matter of privilege? Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.– Mr. Speaker: On a matter of privilege? Mr. Gerrard: Yes. An Honourable Member: Yes. Mr.

Speaker: I need it on record. The honourable Member for River Heights, on a matter of privilege? Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for River Heights, on a matter of privilege. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. As the Speaker well knows, on a matter of privilege it is important to establish, first of all, that this was raised at the first possible opportunity, and, second, that there is a prima facie case of privilege. I rise on a matter which I had raised in Question Period about the Minister of Family Services (Ms.

Melnick) misleading this House. This is the first time that this could have been raised, and as Beauchesne says on 114, for questions of privilege arising during Question Period it is customary to raise those at the conclusion of Question Period, and this I am doing. The second point, Mr. Speaker, is that it is important to establish a prima facie case of privilege, that as the Speaker has poin ted out it is necessary to meet a very high test.

That high test is that the minister has deliberately misled, as the words that have been used, the House, and I am going to take the Speaker and the House through this issue carefully. The issue began on April 11 and dealt with circumstances around the government having knowledge of financial and other problems at Hydra House as early as the spring of 2000. Now this matter was first brought to public attention by an

article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on Monday, April 11. This

article was the lead

article in the City & District

section of the Free Press. The

article must have been brought to the minister's attention on the morning of April 11 because it dealt with her department. It was very prominently featured, and the minister and her staff had ample opportunity to review the facts of what had been brought to the minister in the spring of 2000 and to be able to prepare an answer based on her thorough

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3365 review of the facts. We are not dealing with a question which came out of thin air. We are dealing with a question which was clearly one of the major subjects in the news that day. Now, to add to this, the details that were provided in the Winnipeg Free Press on April 11 were extremely serious because they suggested that much of what had been said by the previous Minister of Family Services was wrong when he had indicated that the first he knew of financial problems of Hydra House was in November of 2000.

Clearly, the evidence that was presented in the Free Press and has subsequently come to light in more detail showed that the information provided by the former Minister of Family Services was not correct, and, indeed, there had been evidence of financial problems brought to the minister of financial services and his department in the spring of 2000. This was reviewed quite thoroughly and indeed was the subject of a letter which was part of the outcome of that review, which I tabled earlier and which dates to August of that year. Indeed, the letter that I tabled dates from August 14 of 2000.

Okay, now we come to the statement of the minister. The minister said on April 11, in response to a question from the MLA from Morris and I will quote. We have confirmed this was the MLA from Morris, that the former Ministry of Family Services knew about the problems at Hydra House as early as May 3, 2000. The former minister who is now the Minister of Health is on record indicating that allegations were brought to his attention in November of 2000, but there is a six-month credi- bility gap here. He knew a full six-months prior.

Now, in her response to the question for the MLA from Morris, the Honourable Christine Melnick– Now the question here is did the minister mislead. I have already tabled it. I tabled it earlier, yes. The question here is whether the minister has deliberately misled the House. I mean this is a very important question because, you know, if the minister did then it would be a breach of privilege and a matter of privilege which is what I am, in fact, bringing up.

Now what we now know in this letter of August 14, 2000, was that the result of the investigation which was done, which resulted from the material presented to the former Minister of Family Services in the spring of 2000, that this led to the investigation which then led to this letter. This letter was addressed to Ms. Diane Lau, executive director of Hydra House Limited, 434 Archibald Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2J OX4.

The results of the investigation, and I quote, "concluded that during the period October 1999 to February 2000 the alternative services program was experiencing administrative and operation problems due to instability in key administrative and opera- tional positions." The conclusion of the report is that the problems occurred in the period October 1999 to February 2000. Now the present government, as we all know, was elected in September of 2000, and the Cabinet was put in place on October 5. So this was a period during which was covered by this present government.

Clearly, we have established when the period was that these matters concerned. All right, they happened between October 1999 and February of 2000. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Gerrard: –sorry, the honourable Minister of Family Services, my apologies. The honourable Minister of Family Services and Housing said, and I quote, "Mr. Speaker, I am glad to receive the question from the member opposite. It gives me the opportunity to clarify for the House what exactly it is we are discussing here.

The complaints that the member is referring to were not in the nature of those that were received in November of 2000, which resulted in the Auditor General's review. These complaints we are dealing with process from a newly implemented respite program. The concerns actually came previous to this government coming to power, so they were again concerns that were raised previous to September of 1999." Well, Mr. Speaker, I have established very clearly that these were concerns of matters which occurred between October of 1999 and February of 2000.

They did not occur previous to this government occurring to power as the minister alleged as the minister indicated to members in this Legislature. Now one could say, well, you know this was a mistake, but there was a second question and on response to the second question from the MLA for Morris, the MLA for Morris asked, "When did the former minister become aware of the misspending at Hydra House? Was it May or November, as he stated in the record?" [interjection] Is the Member for Carman listening?

3366 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 * (14:50) Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of privilege. The Minister of Family Services and Housing (Ms. Melnick) said in response to the question from the MLA for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu), and I quote, "Again, in dealing with the nature of the complaints that were raised in May 2000 around the newly implemented respite program, Mr.

Speaker, the department received their complaints." And she goes on, there was a procedure followed, and da, da, da, and the minister says, "I would point out that the commonality here is that these were concerns of what had happened during the administration of the previous government." Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is that these problems were during the present government which was first elected in 1999. So the issue here now is not whether the minister misled the House. Clearly, the minister had misled the House, and the question is whether this was deliberately misleading or just misleading.

That is, as the Speaker knows, a very, very difficult task. But that is the critical issue here. I would suggest that, and this is why I have gone into detail, this was a very prominent

article raised in the newspaper. This was a matter, which the minister, I am sure, was very thoroughly briefed and prepared because she knew a question was coming. It is not a matter of a mistake because we have already shown that the minister made this point twice, not once. So this issue of this being a mistake can be disregarded. So the question now is why did the minister say this.

We may not be able to get inside the minister's head, as it were, but, certainly, let us look at the possibility that the minister, for some reason, did not know what she was talking about or was not properly made aware of the issues and that this was not a deliberate mistake. Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister is a very bright and very highly intelligent person. She was promoted to Cabinet and to become a minister because she was seen by the Premier (Mr. Do er) as being very bright and very talented. It is highly unlikely that the minister did not know what she was talking about.

I would estimate that the chan ces that the minister did not know what she was talking about were probably about one in a million. She had surely been very carefully briefed. As I have said, this was not a situation where there was a mistake because we heard it twice. So, in this circumstance, we are left with the conclusion, or with a very high likelihood, that the minister deliberately misled the House. Clearly, the minister knew the facts of the case. She was well briefed. The minister had various choices.

All the evidence of this case suggests that the minister deliberately chose to mislead the Legislature into believing that the problems occurred under the previous government. Mr. Speaker, the minister's actions can clearly be understood in the context of the ministers and the Premier who had very frequently tried to blame others for their own inaction. So this is a bit of a pattern. The problem here is that not only did she try to blame others, but, in fact, she deliberately misled this House twice on critical facts, and that is the heart of my case here.

I would suggest to you that this is a circumstance where you must look very carefully at all of the facts, that this was raised, first of all, at the earliest possible opportunity; that this matter, clearly we have evidence provided today that this matter occurred between October 1999 and February 2000; and we have evidence that the minister said that it occurred earlier when it did not. She misled the House. The question on which you must decide, Mr. Speaker, is the question of deliberately misleading.

I would suggest when you look at the facts carefully that this was not a mistake, that this was not knowing the situation. One can only come to a conclusion that this was almost certainly deliberately misleading this House. Mr. Speaker: Order. An Honourable Member: I move, seconded by the MLA– Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to recognize you so it is recorded through Hansard. That is why I kindly ask all honourable members, wh en they are dealing with the matter, wait until I recognize the member. It is for the identification of the Hansard. The honourable Member for River Heights. Mr.

Gerrard: I move, seconded by the MLA for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that this matter be referred to the Committee on Legislative Affairs for consider- ation of disciplinary actions respecting the Minister

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3367 of child and Family Services, the member from Riel (Ms. Melnick). Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, of course, Beauchesne says that "The distinctive mark of privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of parliament are rights which are absolutely necessa ry for the due execution of its powers." It goes on to say that it ought rarely to come up. In Beauchesne 31(1), it says, "A dispute arising between two members as to allegations of facts does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." Mr.

Speaker, in our view, that is what this is. It is simply a dispute. Mr. Speaker, of course, you have ruled this winter, based on the authorities, that Maingot has stated that "An admission that a member had intentionally misled the House would be required in order to establish a prima facie case of privilege." You went on to say, Mr.

Speaker, "This concept is supported by Manitoba precedents by a ruling from Speaker Walding in 1985, a ruling from Speaker Phillips in 1987, by seven rulings from Speaker Rocan from the period 1988 to 1995, nine rulings from Speaker Dacquay from the period 1995 to 1999 and by four rulings from the current speaker from the period 1999 to the present." In a ruling delivered, you said, "On April 20, 1999, Speaker Dacquay ruled that, short of a member acknowledging to the House that he or she deliberately and with intent set out to mislead, it is virtually impossible to prove that a member deliberately misled the House." You went on to say, "Citation 31 sub-3 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne states that statements made outside the House by a member may not be used as a basis for privilege." Mr.

Speaker, you will have to consider the factual basis as to where the statements were also made. Mr. Speaker, it is our conclusion and our submission that this is just another dispute on the facts. Thank you. * (15:00) Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect to the House Leader, the member from River Heights did present factual evidence today and he tabled that evidence in the House that showed very clearly that, in fact, the minister's comments over the course of the past number of weeks in this House have, indeed, been misleading. Mr.

Speaker, this is a matter that the minister knew and had access to that information. She had possession of that information, yet she continued to give the impression that, indeed, she had no knowledge, or her impressions about the incidents were different. Mr. Speaker, this is a clear indication of deliberately misleading members of this Legislature, and I certainly do support the matter of privilege that the member from River Heights raises this afternoon. I think it has to be taken very seriously because a matter of privilege is a serious matter.

We have not had that many matters of privilege raised in this Chamber over the course of this session. I think it shows that we are careful in terms of which issues we choose and how the issues are chosen to bring forward as matters of privilege. In this case, Mr.

Speaker, this affects the most vulnerable people of our province, people who cannot stand up for themselves and speak for themselves, and, yet, because of this minister's manipulation and because of her lack of care and attention to that area of her portfolio, we have found that money has gone missing, money has been misappropriated, money has been abused in terms of the intention that it was meant for. If I were the minister, I would probably want to leave the Chamber now, too.

But I have to say that it is this minister's deliberate misleading and deliberate attempt to try to avert the attention from her and to put that blame onto somebody else that has caused this matter to be raised as a matter of privilege. So, Mr. Speaker, I think the member from River Heights brings a very worthy issue forward. He asked this question very cl early in the House today.

He asked the minister, he gave the minister the opportunity to retract and to reconsider her com- ments and her actions of the past number of months, and the minister chose, as she has in the past, to stall and to dig in her heels and not to acknowledge that, in fact, she was in fact making an error. So the member from River Heights did give her every opportunity to do that.

3368 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 In his defence, Mr. Speaker, I think he has raised this matter at the earliest possible opportunity. It is a prima facie case in my view. The member from River Heights has every reason to raise this as a matter of privilege and, indeed, I support him for doing that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: A matter of privilege is a serious concern. I am going to take this matter under advise- ment to consult the authorities, and I will return to the House with a ruling. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Emerson, on a point of order? Mr.

Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I rise also on a matter of privilege today. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Emerson, on a matter of privilege. Mr. Penner: The reason I rise on a matter of privilege today is that we have had, over the last two weeks in various areas of the province, an abnormal amount of rainfall that is only second to, I believe, a disaster similar to what we have seen at other times in this province, and one of them was in 1997 when we had huge amounts of moisture from spring on and rain on top of that which caused flooding in 1997.

We had, a year ago, large areas with large amounts of rain in this province that constituted assistance from the Province of Manitoba and also from the federal government. There were a number of agencies that kicked in in that disaster. One of them was crop insurance, the other one was Disaster Assistance. I think what we have seen over the last couple of days out in the western part of the province, and I know our Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray) was there today, as well as our Member for Carman (Mr.

Rocan), who is the critic for Disaster Assistance was out touring the western part of the province today and taking a look at how serious the damages were, constituted by the rains that were anywhere between four and eleven inches depending on which part of western Manitoba you were in. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair I believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that our Premier (Mr. Doer) today led the House to believe that there were certain things that kicked in to an announcement of a Disaster Assistance program when offered when those things, in fact, only kick in when a state of the emergency is declared.

I think the Premier, when he rises on these matters, needs to ensure that he has proper briefing and a proper knowledge of the process as how it is established. Many of the municipalities of western Manitoba have declared a state of em ergency or a disaster area in, not a state of emergency, but a disaster in their municipalities. We respect that, and I think the Province of Manitoba should respect that. What is required then in order for federal funds to kick in at certain levels of that disaster and on a province-wide basis is the province must also declare a disaster.

That is what we were asking for in Question Period today. However, the Premier made it sound as if we were declaring a state of emergency, and that is not what we were asking for. Very clearly, in a state of emergency, there would have been evacuation orders that would have been put in place. Emergency Measures would have moved in and taken certain action from a provincial standpoint. There might have been federal assistance through armed forces being brought in and all those kinds of things.

That is what happens in a state of emergency, and I think the Premier had it all wrong when he tried to answer the question. I also want to indicate to this House that not only is the disaster that we are experiencing in this province today just on the western side of the province. I was just talking to people in the R.M. of Piney, the R.M. of Stuartburn, the R.M. of Franklin and the R.M. of La Broquerie this morning, and it appears that in the R.M. of Piney, they had six and a half inches of rain. The roads are being washed out as we speak.

Even part of the hard surface road in Piney is being washed away and will have to be resurfaced. That is how serious it is. Mr. Speaker in the Chair There are pastures where cattle are grazing. I was told this morning that cattle are up to their stomachs in water. I think this is clearly an indication that when you have six to six and a half or seven inches of rain in a given area of the province that is as flat as the R.M. of Stuartburn, the R.M. of Franklin, the R.M. of Piney are, major assistance is

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3369 required to get these people through this when they have to move cattle, when they have to rebuild roads, when municipalities have to reinstall culverts, or regravel roads. All those kinds of things add costs to their operation that simply are not normal, and therefore the province should declare a disaster in this province to assist those municipalities and those individuals that are going to have abnormal costs added because of the heavy rains that we have seen over the last number of days.

One only has to experience once in a lifetime a situation where one is virtually not allowed on their land to seed their crops, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the whole area east of the Red River, right to the Ontario border and then north up to La Broquerie, and maybe even farther north than that, will probably not seed a major portion of their land this year.

This is the second time that that area has seen a disaster such as this, and I believe it is imperative that the Provin ce steps in and provides them with the kind of assistance that is needed, not declare a state of emergency as the Premier was referring to but, indeed, a disaster area.

When one recognizes, and I have some sympathy for these people when on our own farm last fall because of the huge amounts of moisture that we got last fall we simply could not harvest almost 3000 acres on our farm, and there are many people east of the river that were in a similar matter, and they actually put their comb ines in the field and tore up their fields and those tracks were full of water– Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order? Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, I think I had heard the mem- ber say that he was rising on a matter of privilege. I have not heard anything about the exercise of powers of parliament or anything remotely resembling a matter of privilege. I am wondering did I mishear the matter. Is this a grievance that the member is up on, or is this a debate because I did not call debate yet? * (15:10) Mr. Speaker: On the same point of order? The honourable Member for Emerson, on the same point of order. Mr.

Penner: On the same point of order, I think one has to make the prima facie case before and I think the honourable Government House Leader knows that. I was making the prima facie case for the point I am going to raise with the minister and with the government. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order, when up on a matter of privilege, it is to convince the Speaker that it is to deal with a prime facie case and it is not the time for debate yet unless– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

If I do end up ruling it in order then that would be the time for debate, but right now it is to convince the Speaker that this is a prima facie case. * * * Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply at the earliest opportunity becaus e the Premier (Mr. Doer) stood today in this House and told this House, gave this House certain information that simply was not factual under a disaster situation. He tried to portray this as a state of emergency which it is simply not. It is a disaster as normally declared under a disaster kind of a situation.

What we have asked for simply is to recognize the fact that some municipalities in this province have declared a disaster in their area. The next step that has to occur, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier must also then declare a state of disaster in that area in order for the programs to kick in and be made available to the municipalities and the people of that area. So, I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that what this House heard today was simply not factual information. The Premier (Mr.

Doer), and I will not use the word "deliberate," but the Premier misled this House today in clearly putting– [interjection] Well, we will read. The Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) says, "you are wrong." Let us read Hansard and see what kind of information he put on the record and then we will know. So I would like to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the honourable Member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Murray), that the Legislative Assembly ask the Premier to clarify his statements to the Legislature

3370 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 dealing with the matter of declaring a disaster area versus a state of emergency and which declaration constitute evacuation and which declaration would require the Province and the federal government to assist in paying for and through Disaster Assistance. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same privilege. Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was just a presentation that had nothing to do with privilege, in our view, absolutely nothing to do with privilege. He did not in any way cite any rule, any precedent.

He did not even make an allegation of deliberately misleading the House. This is simply a dispute on the facts and nothing more. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same privilege? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, on the matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not have the motion in front of me at this moment, but this is a fairly serious matter as well. Mr. Speaker, in the questi ons that the Leader of the Opposition was posing today, he was asking the Premier (Mr. Doer) to declare a

section of our province as a disaster area, and it is not. We are not going to get into the issue of whether the Premier has done his job or not in decl aring that area as an area of disaster. The issue here is that the Premier was twisting the question that was asked, and he was misleading us in indicating that in order for us to be able to call this a disaster area, that we would have to bring in a state of emergency where people at the local level no longer had authority. Mr.

Speaker, this is a clear misleading of Manitobans and this House because when you ask for a state of emergency that is a completely different matter. What we were asking, what the Leader of the Opposition was asking for today was that this area be declared an area of disaster. It means that

an act of nature occurred in an area of a disastrous nature. It does not mean that we will impose emergency measures on that area. That is the last thing that we would be asking for. In the Premier's response he was misleading this House in that he was indicating that the Leader of the Opposition was asking for a state of emergency, which was not the case. Now, Mr. Speaker, we could say that that is a dispute over the facts, but this is too serious a matter for that.

This was a clear indication of where the Premier was deliberately misleading the members of this House that the Leader of the Opposition was asking for a state of emergency, which was not nearly near what the Lead er of the Opposition was asking for. He was asking that this area be declared an area of disaster. If you look at the area and look at the circumstances, this indeed, even the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), if she is really alert to what is happening out there, who is the Deputy Premier as well, would be encouraging her Premier to declare this area an area of disaster.

I am going to point at her as the MLA for Swan River, who accompanied me when her area was under severe flood because of excessive rainfall and in that time, we declared her area as a disaster area. Why did we do it? Because then it allowed that area to be able to be able to access all of those supports that are needed when an area is declared a disaster area.

Now, my area today, the area that I represent, the area that the member from Minnedosa represents, the area that the member from Arthur-Virden represents, are all encompassed in a situation that is absolutely no different than what she experienced back, I think it was, in 19–what was it '89? An Honourable Member: '88. Mr. Derkach: Eighty-nine, it was 1989, Mr. Speaker, and I remember that very vividly. The member who was then the MLA accompanied us. We did go into the area.

We landed the helicopter in areas where there was clear devastation, and it was the Premier, who was then the Honourable Gary Filmon, did pronounce that area as an area that was a disaster zone. Now, when we did that, we did that so that that area would have the comfort, where people were already under extreme stress were able to access all of those suppor ts, provincial, federal supports, that are designed for areas that are declared disaster areas. Now here we have, Mr.

Speaker, a situation where the Premier now is trying to twist these things and say, "Well, I am not going to declare it a disaster area because then we have to announce a state of emergency." Well, that is foolish. What is even more foolish is the First Minister would put this kind of thing on the record and deliberately, I say deliberately, mislead Manitobans into believing that

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3371 they do not qualify for a disaster area because then we would have to impose all of these emergency type of measures upon them. So, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Emerson (Mr.

Penner) here is very, very accurate in putting forward this matter of privilege because it calls the Premier to attention on an issue that is very, very important, and very, very serious in the western part of this province, and one that the Deputy Premier who is listening to my remarks needs to encourage her Premier to declare this area, as her area was back in 1989, an area of disaster, where we have to address the issues in a very, very careful and a very, very prudent way, and very quickly, as well ,because these people in this area are suffering. So, that is why, Mr.

Speaker, I think that the member from Emerson has a very appropriate case here and a compelling one which I think needs to be considered as a matter of privilege in this matter. * (15:20) Mr. Speaker: A matter of privilege is of serious concern. I am going to take this matter under advisement to consult authorities and will return to the House with a ruling. Now we will move on to Members' Statements. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Weekend Events in the Constituency of Pembina Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak about a number of events that I attended in my constituency of Pembina. On Friday, I attended a noon luncheon at the Boundary Trails Health Centre where the CEO Neil Walker and Linda Buhr were giving an update about the Central Regional Health Authority. It was very disheartening to learn that this health authority has about a $2.5-million deficit due to the fact that it had been underfunded for the last while and they are expecting many more services to take place there.

After this luncheon, I attended the 50th anniversary celebration of the Morden-Pilot Mound 4-H Rally at the Manitou Fair Grounds. The grounds were filled with former and present 4-H members as well as their friends and families. There were historical records in the form of club scrapbooks as well as club uniforms and project books. I must recognize the organizers of this event. Brian Nedohin, Linda Sprung, Linda Fehr and Nicole Shore for the tremendous job that they did. They did an excellent job of organizing this event. Then on Saturday, I had the opportunity to attend the opening of Cardon Motors.

The propri- etors are Don and Karen Friesen and they were celebrating the opening of their new business selling and repairing used cars and trucks. It was a won- derful event and I wish them much success in the future. Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to see the number of people who attended the event and took

part in the festivities. Then on Sunday aftern oon for the Back Forty Folk Festival which took place in the Morden Park, and despite the lack of sunshine, the festival with its three stages of entertainment was very successful. I congratulate the chairperson, Jeannie Nickel, for all her hard work. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Helen Steinkopf Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, before I start my statemen t, I want to thank the House Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Derkach) for facilitating my ability to do this.

Ministers do not usually speak in this time frame and I appreciate his willingness to let me do that. Mr. Speaker, I want to mark the passing of Helen Steinkopf, known to many of us on both sides of the House. We suffered a great loss when the social justice advocate, Helen, passed away at the age of 86 recently. Helen was a selfless and courageous woman who fought to protect the rights of the disabled for over 50 years. After giving birth to a daughter Justine with Down syndrome, Helen defied the usual practice of placing her child in an institution in order to keep her daughter at home.

This single act of courage inspired a lifelong dedication to advocating for people with disabilities. Over several decades, Helen helped to establish and volunteered with several local disability organi- zations including Premier Personnel, one of the first

3372 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 supported employment programs for people with disabilities. In recent years, much of her time and energy went to help create Continuity Care, a non- profit organization designed to help families plan a safer and more se cure future for their disabled relatives once the parents had passed away. Mr. Speaker, Helen was an extraordinary woman. For example, she always welcomed a new challenge. She was camping on Lake Manitoba in the middle of the winter in her seventies learning how to use a quinsy.

She was just an extraordinary human being who always welcomed the future with what- ever it brought with great verve and a great sense of humour. She was regarded highly by all her colleagues, by all of us in the community, all of whom can attest to her dedication to the disabled community. On behalf of our government and, I believe, all members of this House, I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to Helen's six children, as well as the rest of her family and friends who loved her dearly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Brad Bird Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr.

Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Mr. Brad Bird who last month completed his Border- to-Bay walk to raise mone y for the Heart & Stroke Foundation. Mr. Bird resides at Lake Metigoshe where he writes, traps and works seasonally as a senior inter- preter at the Turtle Mountain Provincial Park. Mr. Bird's story of adventure which he wrote and was reported in the May 22 issue of the Winnipeg Free Press indicated that Mr. Bird set out from his home on January 25, 2005, and completed the 1635- kilometre trek to Churchill 90 days later on April 24.

On his journey he faced many challenges including high winds, blinding snow, at least 40 degrees below freezing temperatures and illness which included pneumonia. However, what he will remember the most is the many fond memories of the communities he visited, the beautiful landscape and the warm reception that Manitobans gave him as he persevered. Along the way, Mr. Bird promoted physical activity, healthy habits and nutrition.

True to his rural roots, he said that it was very important to him to encourage people to eat beef as part of a healthy diet and also to support local farmers he knows are struggling from the BSE crisis. This winter trek also may be the longest of its kind in Manitoba's history. Mr. Bird says that it was well worth his effort to raise money for a charity whose research is so im portant. Presently, cardio- vascular disease is the leading cause of death in Canada and the United States. Mr.

Bird had set his sights on raising $50,000 for the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Manitoba, and donations can still be made in honour of Mr. Bird's Border to the Bay Journey by calling 949-2000 here in Winnipeg. I would urge everyone to participate in this worth- while cause. I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Bird many times, but particularly each July at Métis Days. I urge everyone to be there again on July 1, 2 and 3, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. Cornish Library Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that on June 15 the Cornish Library, located in my constituency of Wolseley, will be celebrating 90 years of public service. The Cornish Library was designed by architect S. Frank Peters and built in 1914 by the National Construction Company of Winnipeg with funds provided by the Carnegie Foundation. It was named after Winnipeg's first mayor, Francis Cornish and was built in Armstrong's Point, replacing the original Winnipeg Water Works. The Cornish Library is not only a library but also an important piece of Winnipeg's historical heritage.

Through the years, prominent users of the facility have included instrumental figures such as Ralph Connor, Ann Henry, Dorothy Livesay, as well as Nellie McClung, who conducted lectures in the basement. Mr. Speaker, the value of neighbourhood libraries such as Cornish cannot be overstated. By giving community members of all ages a place where they can go to learn, expand, improve and entertain themselves, they provide an invaluable service. Our government recognizes the important place local libraries hold in their communities. That is why

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3373 last Friday I was very plea sed to present Friends of Cornish with a heritage grant cheque to maintain the Cornish Library. I would like to thank Patricia Thomson, Sandra Thusberg, Ardythe Basham, Linda Sigurdson-Collette and Barbra Tiller for working with me to make this possible. Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage all members of the House and the broader community to attend a series of celebratory events taking place next week at Cornish in recognition of their 90th anniversary.

These events include an open house on June 15 from 1 to 8:30 p.m., a reading by Governor General's Award winner Miriam Toews at 7 p.m. on June 16, and a family fun day from 1 to 4 p.m. on Saturday, June 18. On behalf of our government, I would like to wish everyone at the Cornish Library a happy 90th anniversary. I would like to thank all the staff and volunteers who have worked selflessly over the years to make the Cornish Library a friendly and vibrant part of the Wolseley community. Thank you. Committee Meetings Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, I want to take this opportunity just to comment in terms of how bizarre this government is in terms of being able to organize government business. I sat in committee last night and listened to presenter after presenter. There was a great deal of frustration. People do not understand how a government can be so incompetent in terms of being able to organize a proper public meeting. We had three pieces of legislation: the Crocus, the planning and the teachers' pension all being planned in one committee room, knowing full well, Mr. Speaker, that we had dozens of speakers that wanted to be able to present.

So we had a bizarre situation in which you had people wanting to present on the teachers, and you had people wanting to present, in particular, in regard to the planning. You go through the rural members. You had people that were dropped off. I would suggest that members, and particularly the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) and the Premier (Mr. Doer) of our province, read some of the comments made by the presenters. If you talked to some of them, Mr. Speaker, you will find that there was just absolutely amazement on how it is the government would orchestrate public affairs in that nature.

I was somewhat embarrassed, and I was not the one that organized the meeting, Mr. Speaker. Speaker after speaker quite often made the comment, especially when we started to get into the wee hours, as to why it was that we were doing this in the way in which we were managing it. We sat past midnight, and I understand that there were agreements from the past that said look we want to provide more decorum. Government comes in and, you know, we want to be able to accommo- date individuals who come in from rural Manitoba so we allowed to continue past midnight.

It just confuses me as to why it is the government cannot better operate the functions and roles of managing government business. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. GRIEVANCES Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Charleswood, on a grievance. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to stand and have some time to address some of the outstanding issues of mismanagement by this government. I do not often stand and grieve in terms of what the government is doing, but there are so many things that are happening right now that it certainly begs some comments on the record about this.

There are many areas that the NDP government is demonstrating its inability to manage, and while I will focus largely on education, I do also want to indicate that health care certainly is in crisis, in many instances put in crisis by this government because they refuse to look at some options to deal with the long waiting lists particularly in orthopedics. We certainly see in Agriculture a number of areas of mismanagement by this government, par- ticularly in dealing with the BSE issue.

In Family Services, we see some gross mismanagement, and I would even say negligence on the part of this government in dealing with some incredibly serious issues where red flags have been going up all over the place, and we have got a Minister of Family Services (Ms. Melnick) that basically is disregarding all of them.

3374 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 Certainly, with the whole issue of Crocus, we have heard how 33 000, 34 000 Manitobans are being fleeced by this government and losing tens of millions of dollars because we have a government that did not heed red flags that were waving in front of their faces for a couple of years. With education, we also see red flags in a number of instances actually in education, and retired teaches were even pointing out some more this morning that this government is basically ignoring all of these warning signs that have been coming their way.

We should not be terribly surprised though because this government has been warned in the past about a number of issues, and I can refer to just a couple of those issues that I had warned the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) abou t over the years, and those were the red flags that I waved in front of his face on the ER crisis and on the cardiac surgery crisis. This minister had at least a year's warning on each of those.

He had time to act and do something about it, and instead he chose to ignore those warning flags that were put in front of him at that time in health care, and he only rose to the occasion, and did not even do that particularly well, but rose to the occasion after people started to die, and it is unfortunate, because in cardiac surgery I think it is just gross mismanagement and negligence that 11 people have to die before we have a government that stands up and reacts to anything related to the cardiac surgery crisis.

With the ER crisis, it took people dying in the ERs, and mothers losing their babies, miscarrying in the ERs, before this government took any of this seriously and acted. So there seems to be a trend in this government of mismanagement and a wilful disregard for red flags that are put in front of them and a wilful disregard for people and issues that are brought forward to them that they should be taking or making more time for and paying more attention to. I imagine some of that could be happening right now because the government certainly does seem to be tired.

They are extremely disorganized, and I have to say if it was not for our House leader in the last few weeks, we would find this government in absolute disarray because they are not managing the business of this House. They are not managing what they are supposed to be doing, and it is only by the grace and good will of our H ouse leader that things are moving in this Chamber and in this House. We have got a Premier (Mr. Doer) of this province right now running all over Manitoba, not here as much as he should be, and his caucus is in disarray because he is not paying enough attention. Mr.

Speaker, he probably is distraught about what is happening in the Crocus crisis and he is probably trying to avoid having to face it. So, rather than facing the public here, he is out looking for further opportunities for himself down the road by avoiding the things that he should be dealing with here. I think if he stuck around a little bit more, we might find that this NDP government gets a little more focussed on what they should be doing, instead of dragging their heels. This morning and last evening was a perfect example.

We have just heard a private member's statement from the Liberal member that talked about some of the aggravation that this government caused people last night in committee when we had three major bills before a committee with over 60 presenters, and, somehow, NDP math made them think that, well, maybe, they are going to get through this in a period of about five and a half hours of committee. Why they would even possibly insult people by making them come in and sit there and, in fact, as it was pointed out by retired teachers this morning, half of the room was left standing because there was no room.

There was not enough room for people to sit down. We had a room overflowing with people because this government could not get its act together, was so poorly or ganized, that these people were forced to stay here last night until 1:30 in the morning, and then come back at 9:30 this morning, and then again at 6:30 this evening. It was only by suggestions by this side of the House that there were more people accommodated in trying to give them a better comfort level in terms of presenting. But, Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to grieve the actions of the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson).

Now, as this session draws to a close, I know a lot of Manitobans are going to reflect upon what has been an absolutely disgraceful performance by this minister. This session, we have seen this minister misunderstand his own bullying legislation. This session, we have seen this minister mislead the House regarding the Seven Oaks School Division

June 7, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3375 and the Swinford Park development. We have seen this minister drop the ball on Bill 13, which is supposed to guarantee appropriate and inclusive education for every Manitoba child. We have also seen this minister treat teachers, and especially retired teachers, with contempt and disrespect and a number of retired teachers were quite clear in putting that on the record during committee.

Despite the many pronouncements of the minister regarding the Safe Schools Charter, we found that he knew very little about his own legislation, and this was his own first piece of legislation as the Minister of Education. You would have thought he had a little bit closer ties to it in understanding it, and a commitment to pass it through, but he brought it forward, and then totally forgot about it. To begin with, we learned that the legislation is not even in place, and that we are still waiting, according to the minister, for regulations on certain sections.

Well, even one of his own officials said that regulations are not needed, that that act, once passed, should have been fully implemented. So, when the minister was questioned about how many schools had codes of conduct, the minister did not know. Considering that the legislation said that codes of conduct were to be immediately put into place, this minister did not know when asked about this a year later. For a whole week, every time the minister opened his mouth a different number came out of it. Further, the answer he gave when he was in the House would change when he walked out of the House into a scrum.

This whole affair was a con- fusing and disappointing one. Manitobans deserve better out of their Minister of Education, and this NDP government. Sadly, we were only at the beginning of the minister's misadventures for 2005. Mr. Speaker, on May 2, the official opposition raised some serious questions about the actions of the Seven Oaks School Division. It appeared as if the division was risking taxpayers' dollars to develop a residential community.

At the time, little was known about the issue, except that the division had partnered with the Lombard North Group to develop between 70 and 100 lots, it appeared, and that local taxpayers had been footing the bill of about $2 million. * (15:40) The minister stood in his place in this House and said that he was not even aware of the issue. He said that this was the first he had been made aware of it when asked the question in the House.

That the minister would be unaware of such a scheme seemed fairly unbelievable, but you had to give the minister the benefit of the doubt because it was just a few weeks earlier that this same minister did not know the finer points of his own Safe Schools Charter. However, Mr. Speaker, the next day we learn that the minister was aware of what was going on in the Seven Oaks School Division, that he had known about it for a year and he had learned about it because a citizen sent him an e-mail of concern about the illegal land development that was going on and being conducted by the Seven Oaks School Division.

So what did the minister do? He said he understood his own Public Schools Act. If he understood his own act, he should have known that that was a very serious allegation that came forward, and he should have paid more attention to it. Instead, it was just easier to pass it off to the Public Schools Finance Board to craft a letter for his signature. Mr. Speaker, the Seven Oaks School Division then was spending $2 million of taxpayers' money, and what were they spending it on?

This coming from a school division that has almost the highest education property taxes in Winnipeg and spends the least amount on education per child in Winnipeg. They are taking $2 million of taxpayers' money and they are putting it into illegal land development. They took $2 million to build fences, run electrical wire, put in sewers, pave the streets, dig ditches and even build houses. Eventually, the minister relented and asked his deputy minister to investig ate the issue.

Of course, the investigation was set up in such a way as to protect this government and to protect the minister because it did not go as far as it should to look at the whole mess. The ministers were all in the mess, and nobody should be surprised at the report that came out. It is nothing more than a whitewash that ends up asking more questions than it does provide answers. Of course, it did state that The Public Schools Act had been contravened, but we knew that already. It did not take an Einstein or a brain surgeon to be able to read the legislation and know that that was illegal activity.

When the minister got that e-mail he should have known about it. What we did not know

3376 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 7, 2005 though, and we still do not know, is the role that the minister played in this and whether or not he is responsible in any way for this mess. The minister does not want to get to the bottom of it. He basically passed off all of this on to the Public Schools Finance Board. That in itself begs a lot of questions considering that the report says that standard operating procedure was not followed at any step, none. The entire handling of the matter was, and I quote, "highly unusual." I do give credit to the deputy minister for digging as much as he could in 30 days to put this report together but what this re

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-3-59b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 3rd hansardpdf 59b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f6f2667439022633e045d3f8a3c89c054e57e13f

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