LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Monday,
May 5, 2008
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYER
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Morris, on a matter of privilege.
Mrs. Taillieu: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are two conditions that need to be met to form a prima facie case of a matter of privilege, the first being that the matter must be raised at the first opportunity and, secondly, that my rights as a member of this Legislature have been breached.
Mr. Speaker, my matter of privilege is in response to statements made in this House by the Minister of Labour and Immigration (Ms. Allan), the MLA for St. Vital, in question period last Thursday, and I will conclude with a motion for this House.
On Thursday, May 1, I asked the minister if a directive stating that the government intends to expand WCB coverage to low-risk workplaces was a free and full opportunity for consultation and discussion. The minister replied, and I'm quoting from Hansard: "I'm pleased to have an opportunity to put factual information on the record in regard to the expansion of coverage." We, the WCB, "is consulting for the second time in the last two years in regard to the expansion of coverage. There has been no expansion of coverage for Workers Compensation Board since 1959, Mr. Speaker. The industries that are covered actually remain the same as when the act was adopted in 1917."
Since this occurred in the most recent question period last Thursday, I had the opportunity to review Hansard to confirm the exact words of the Minister of Labour and Immigration, the MLA for St. Vital. As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes very difficult to hear what is said in the Chamber, so it is important to confirm in Hansard which was available Friday afternoon. Therefore, I submit that today being Monday is the first opportunity to raise this matter in the House.
Mr. Speaker, in a news release dated August 10, 2006, the Minister of Labour and Immigration, the MLA for St. Vital, stated: "The province is extending the number of industries covered by Workers Compensation Board (WCB), effective January 1, 2007." I will table those news releases and, to be clear, the point is not regarding the expansion of Workers Compensation Board coverage but the fact that the minister put false information on the record, claiming there had not been any expansion of coverage since 1959.
Mr. Speaker, when a minister brings false or misleading statements to the House, it compromises our ability to perform our duties in this House. As the official opposition critic for Labour and Immigration, it is my duty to demand accountability and transparency from this minister and her department. How can I perform my duties as opposition critic to the best of my ability when the Minister of Labour and Immigration (Ms. Allan), the MLA for St. Vital, gives me answers to questions in this House which are false or misleading?
The minister clearly stated there had been no expansion of coverage of Workers Compensation Board last Thursday, and, yet, while she was the minister, she issued a press release in August of 2006, stating there would be expansion of coverage on January 1 of 2007. That did occur, Mr. Speaker, so, clearly, she has knowingly misled this House.
Mr. Speaker, further, in last Thursday's exchange in question period the minister claimed, we are consulting with employers and labour in regard to how we should proceed following the unanimous recommendations in the report to expand coverage in three to five years. Again, the minister is knowingly misleading the House.
In 2005, the legislative review committee report on Workers Compensation Board contained 100 recommendations, all of which the minister is fully aware of. I've been told by members of that committee that the intent of achieving a unanimous report was that all of the recommendations would be implemented. The minister refers to unanimous recommendation No. 6 when she refers to expansion of coverage, yet she clearly ignores recommendation No. 4 which states that Workplace Safety and Health division should be fully funded through general revenues of the Province. She also ignores recommendation No. 7 which says extension of coverage should only occur once there's been a full and free opportunity for consultation and discussion, and she also ignores recommendation No. 8 which says the Workers Compensation Board should vigorously encourage low-risk workplaces to opt in to Workers Compensation Board coverage.
The Minister of Labour and Immigration (Ms. Allan), the MLA for St. Vital, has twisted the meaning of unanimous in her statements in this House. This is misleading and false. I know the review committee worked very hard to achieve a consensus on the recommendations, and some feel betrayed because the minister has cherry-picked the ones that she wants and has ignored the others. She has made a sham of the whole review, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have brought this matter to the attention of the House at the earliest possible time, and I believe that the minister has knowingly and wilfully brought false information to this House. I believe that this has compromised my ability as a member of this Chamber and as the official opposition critic for Labour and Immigration to effectively perform my duties of holding the minister to accountability and transparency in her department.
Indeed, when false information is brought to this Chamber by a minister of the Crown, it is an infringement on the rights of all of us as members, Mr. Speaker. We deserve to hear the truth in this House.
Therefore, I move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for review. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (13:40)
Mr. Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member or any member to speak, I remind the House that contributions at this time by honourable members are to be limited to strictly relevant comments as to whether the alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest opportunity and whether a prima facie case has been established.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I think this matter can be dealt with relatively quickly.
First off, it's very clear that it's not a matter of privilege. In fact, at best, it's a point of order and a dispute over the facts, which you've ruled on on many occasions.
I've just had a discussion with the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan), but I will be followed in my comments by the Minister of Labour, who wishes to make a statement to the House with respect to this particular matter, which I think insofar as (a) it's not a matter of privilege (b) it can be dealt with in the House, I think will dispose of it.
I could go into a long dissertation as to the reasons why, both technically and in law and under our practices, it is not a privilege, but I think the matter can be disposed of very quickly because the Minister of Labour wishes to make a statement on this matter.
So perhaps with leave of the House the Minister of Labour can speak?
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House?
Some Honourable Members: Leave. [interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order. For information for the House, the alleged matter of privilege is pertaining to the Minister of Labour, so she does have a right to speak to it. So she doesn't need leave.
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank my House leader for his comments that he has made in regard to whether or not this is a matter of privilege or whether or not it is simply a dispute over the facts. I know that you have the expertise in this House to make whatever judgment you will make in regard to those matters because you have the expertise in this area.
I would like to clarify to the MLA for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu) and the critic of Labour and Immigration that when we passed the legislation–it was unanimous legislation in this House–that there had not been a broad review of the expansion of coverage.
We did make a 1 percent expansion of coverage. We said very clearly from the very beginning that we were going to do high-risk workplaces which were the cousins. That's what we did, Mr. Speaker, and we are now consulting again in regard to any expansion of coverage.
The process for that expansion of coverage will be a report from the WCB to me as minister, Mr. Speaker, and then we will determine at that point, once we have that information from the WCB board of directors, that we will make our determination in regard to how to proceed once I have that document in place.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, just to add two points: First of all, to support the concerns that were raised by the MLA for Morris and also to say this, that you can argue with the technical details of the matter, as the NDP have done, or some of the aspects of what was said, but, clearly, when a minister provides information which misleads, surely the minister, at the very least, should apologize for what she's done.
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Official Opposition House Leader): On the same matter of privilege, I take exception to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak), the Government House Leader, with respect to his statement: This cannot be a matter of privilege. It's clear, absolutely clear within the precedents, that, in fact, this type of situation can become a matter of privilege.
Although it has been ruled in the past, of course, Mr. Speaker–now by yourself and others in your Chair in the past have ruled that, in fact, you have to knowingly mislead in order to form a matter of privilege.
So it's not the test of whether or not–you can't just simply dismiss the fact that there are false statements and dismiss it as a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a point to be made and there is a precedent to show that, in fact, if there's a misleading in this House that the minister knew or ought to have known to be false, if she made statements or he made statements to this House that were false, that, in fact, it is a matter of privilege. The ability of members to perform their parliamentary duties is founded on information being brought to this House which is accurate and which we can rely on for debate in this House, not only for debate in this House but also to take out of this House and to our constituents in order to better serve our constituents.
Inaccurate information affects questions in question period. The accuracy of information that we receive here affects debate on bills. It affects questions in committees. It also affects our ability to respond accurately to questions for information from constituents, and it also affects whether we need to ask more questions to serve our constituents well, Mr. Speaker.
Deliberately misleading statements may be treated as a contempt to the House, and therefore it's a matter of privilege. As I indicated before, previous rulings have indicated that, short of admitting intent, it is virtually impossible to prove intent and that's the exact words that were stated in this House by you, Mr. Speaker, and other Speakers in the past, virtually impossible, that doesn't mean it's impossible. There is a possibility of still proving intent without having a minister admit that they wanted to mislead the House.
There is that possibility. It's not impossible. It's almost impossible but not impossible, Mr. Speaker, and certainly when we have the Labour Minister who rose in this House and put information on the record in response to a question by the Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu), and in her response she said she was pleased to put factual information on the record. The fact, as well, that this Minister of Labour is not new to this portfolio; she's been in that portfolio for quite a number of years and she ought to know better. She should know what the facts are and clearly, clearly she should have all the information in front of her.
She misled this House in terms of the information she put on the record. Mr. Speaker, simply the fact that the Labour Minister has been minister for quite some time and ought to have known better and knew the facts; in spite of knowing the facts she indicated otherwise. As a result of that I would support this privilege.
Mr. Speaker: Before moving on, I'd like to ask the honourable Member for Morris, you referenced Standing Committee on Privilege and Elections, that the name of that committee has been changed to Legislative Affairs. Is that okay to make the correction in your motion? Do you agree with that? Is that okay?
Mrs. Taillieu: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Committee on Legislative Affairs.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, that's been agreed to.
A matter of privilege is a serious concern. I'm going to take this matter under advisement to consult the authorities, and I will return to the House with a ruling.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Inkster, on?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): On a matter of privilege also, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: On a matter of privilege. Okay, the honourable Member for Inkster, on a matter of privilege.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I rise today knowing that you're supposed to rise as soon as you can when you feel that a privilege has been taken for granted possibly from the government. In reviewing Hansard, I still wasn't quite as comfortable in terms of presenting the privilege today, but based on the privilege that was just raised I think it behooves me to raise the privilege now.
I had asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) a very simple question back on April 21, Mr. Speaker. The question was, to the minister, whether it's advertising in the form of print, radio, television, what we do know is that government has spent an exceptional amount of money in terms of promoting this particular budget.
Mr. Speaker, I was trying to get to the fact of how much did the government spend. The Minister of Finance clearly indicated, and I quote right from Hansard because the critical thing here is did the Minister of Finance intentionally mislead the House. I believe I can prove that.
Here's what the Minister of Finance stated, and I quote: "Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the Estimates. We can discuss the details, but I can tell the member right now that the amount of money spent this year is 16 percent less than it was in '99-2000."
I took the matter to the Estimates Committee, Mr. Speaker. The minister then tabled a document, and the information that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) had said on April 21 was wrong.
* (13:50)
It shows 1999-00 budget, 2000 budget, that the government of the day spent $173,013 on advertising for that budget, Mr. Speaker. In 2008, this year, it's $196,582. Now that was actually more than what it was in '99-2000.
Here's what I mean in terms of how I believe I can prove that it was intentionally done, because I asked then the Minister of Finance the question about it in a question period last week, and the Minister of Finance then stood in his place, after I showed him that, in fact, he did mislead the House, and I asked him to apologize. He then stood up and he said something to the effect of I'm being selective in terms of a document that he tabled in the Finance Estimates, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am not being selective. I have a copy of it, and what I would like to have is one of the pages provide you the copy of the actual document in question. I am not being selective. The Minister of Finance clearly indicated that there was a decrease, that they spent 16 percent less, and no matter what you look at, total production, even if you shifted over to include the cost of research, in '99, it was $239,000. Well, in 2008, if you factor in the cost of research, it's $236,000. So it would have been a couple thousand less. It definitely isn't 16 percent, but that's if you factor in research.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) knows, Mr. Speaker, my question was specifically on the advertising, so I would ultimately argue that he intentionally misled the House because he continued, a couple of days after the Estimates, to try to give the impression, which is just not true. The government did spend more.
Now, I would argue, Mr. Speaker, the reason why the minister intentionally misled was to try to manipulate members of the media to give them the impression that this government is not doing any more than what previous governments have done in terms of using propaganda to promote their budget, and that's where we have a very serious problem with the Minister of Finance.
This matter could be resolved by the Minister of Finance standing up and apologizing for the information, Mr. Speaker. Otherwise, I would move that this–Therefore, I move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs for review. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Order. When moving a motion, the mover must have a seconder for the motion, and there was not one indicated. Would the member like to indicate a seconder of his motion?
Mr. Lamoureux: The Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: So the seconder will be the Member for River Heights, and before recognizing any other members to speak, I remind the House that contributions at this time by honourable members will be limited to strictly relevant comments as to whether the alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest opportunity and whether a prima facie case has been established.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, again, this issue, I don't even think it's a question of a point of order in terms of being a dispute over the facts.
In point of fact, not only is the timing a little off for the member but, having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me portray the member's case. The member stood up in question period and asked the minister about costs and the minister said, in fact, it was down 16 percent. They then went into Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, which are the line-by-line items, and the Minister of Finance provided the member with an actual copy of the expenditures which showed, in fact, expenses were less than 1999 by $3,000.
Then the member says, well, the minister really knew that I wanted to ask about a specific area, and that's why he's deliberately misleading because I was asking about a specific area. The member asked the question; the minister answered the question and then went into Estimates and gave him the specific answer to the question which he brought forward today, and because he said that he thought he was asking a specific point that the member didn't ask, he has a matter of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest it's very hard to make a case–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Inkster was rising on a point of order, and it's very rare to hear a point of order when there is a matter of privilege on the floor because all members have the opportunity to respond to it. I think it would only be proper to let the minister continue with his response to the matter of privilege.
Mr. Chomiak: And, in fact, if the member's concerned about the chart that the minister provided and it showed $3,000, I'll take that out of my argument.
Let me go back to the argument. The member asks a question–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. A matter of privilege or a point of order is a very serious matter, and I will have to make a decision on what I'm hearing on both sides to make a ruling, so I need to be able to hear every word. Matters of privilege are very serious and should be treated as such.
The honourable Government House Leader.
Mr. Chomiak: The member asked a general question. The minister gave a general response. The member went into Estimates. The minister gave him a specific breakdown, category, year-by-year, going back 10 years providing the information, and now the member stands up and says the minister deliberately, intentionally gave him a wrong answer in question period and then slipped it in in the afternoon and gave him all the information that he could have raised anytime in this House and, in fact, that's a matter of privilege.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the member is playing politics. He's trying to raise the issue–[interjection] Well, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) who likes to make legal points knows things about intention and about knowingly and about the requirement it requires. The member ought to know that.
There is no sense of intention, Mr. Speaker, or requiring. In fact, if one were to relate this matter, actions happen in this Chamber on a regular basis. It would be one thing if the member had stood up; the minister had said something and then gone and given the member something that was then found to be inaccurate. In fact, the minister provided the member with the accurate information, and the member now says: But that's not the information I specifically requested; I wanted specific information on another category, to make his argument. That's, in fact, what the member said in his argument.
I say it's very difficult, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber where matters are a public forum for the member to say, well, he gave me an answer in the morning and then changed his answer in the afternoon based on specific numbers and specific facts that were, in fact, provided for him. It's very hard to find the element of intention or the element that the member wanted to mislead this House.
At best, Mr. Speaker, it's a dispute over the facts based on the member's interpretation of what his question was. At worst, at very worst, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) might have exaggerated a percentage, at worst. Depending on the categories you looked at, under the sum total the numbers provided to the member showed that the costs were, in fact, down. That's what the member asked.
I suggest this is not a matter of privilege. I suggest it's members opposite trying to make mischief in terms of this House. I seem to recall comments by the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) recently in this Chamber that if some particular event didn't happen, he would put his seat on the line. That event did not occur. I'm still waiting for the Member for Inkster to put his seat on the line as a result of a pledge and a promise he made in this Chamber.
* (14:00)
Mr. Speaker, we are not infallible in this place. From time to time, errors go back and forth. I'll admit to 10 a day myself, I guess. You know what, and I'm not afraid to say that because we're all human. In this case, the member provided an answer, he clarified and provided specific information in the afternoon. This is hardly a matter of privilege. It's an attempt by the member opposite to make politics out of an issue. I suggest that the member, I think ought to clarify both what his question is and his specifics are. He had the chance during Estimates. He got the specific information he wanted. Now he's coming back and saying he got inaccurate information. I suggest that strikes me as little bit of politicking. If the member truly wanted to be evasive, he would not have provided the information in the instance to the member on the specifics if he wanted to knowingly do something.
It's just patently obvious that the member is trying to make politics out of it. At the very worst, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) had made an error in his earlier statement, he certainly corrected it in the afternoon by providing specifics to the member. There is not a privilege here. There's not even a point of order. There is pure politics here. This is the second privilege we've seen today. I'm beginning to sense there might be a pattern emerging in this House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this matter of privilege. Of course, there are two issues in the matter of privilege. First of all, the matter has to arise at the earliest possible opportunity, and I take the Member for Inkster's word on that, that, in fact, this is his earliest opportunity, and, second, whether in fact the facts give rise to a breach of the privileges of this House.
Similar to the last matter of privilege, my same comments would apply. There are previous rulings that have indicated that, short of admitting that it's intent, it's virtually impossible to prove intent. But that doesn't mean it's absolutely impossible to prove intent without an admission of guilt. In the right set of facts and circumstances, it's possible to prove intent without the admission of intent, particularly if there's documentary proof.
I point to what happened in question period. The Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), when he asked the question on April 21, 2008, he asked about advertising in terms of promoting this particular budget by the Minister of Finance. The response was very clearly, on page 784 of Hansard, very clearly, "I can tell the member right now that the amount of money spent this year is 16 percent less than it was in 1999-2000."
As I said, I take the Member for Inkster at his word when he says he just found out about the cost of production, media, buy and research for this particular budget, that he just received it following the Estimates last week. When I look at 1999-2000, cost of production, Mr. Speaker, $11,098 in 1999-2000, $28,000 in 2008. Clearly, that's an increase, not a decrease.
Cost of media, 1999-2000, $161,915; 2008, $168,000. Another increase, Mr. Speaker. No decrease at all.
I go throughout all of these categories and, in fact, the total, there is no decrease of expenses. So, obviously, there's a difference in terms of what the Finance Minister gave to the Member for Inkster in question period as opposed to the documentary proof that he received after the Estimates. Quite a difference, the Finance Minister should know better. He should know his numbers. He should know whether or not in fact the cost of advertising was less this year than it was in 1999-2000. He has all that information readily available to him, but to answer in such a flippant manner and just to get out of question period and to try to answer the question by giving him what the Member for Inkster would like to hear is irresponsible.
I note that the Member for Inkster was obviously arguing that the Finance Minister was inaccurate, and here we have the Government House Leader arguing that the Finance Minister's incompetent. So, I'm not sure which one it is, but obviously it's one of those and I support the matter of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: A matter of privilege is a serious concern. I'm going to take this matter under advisement to consult the authorities, and I'll return to the House with a ruling.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Long-Term Care Facility–Morden
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I would like to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background for this petition is as follows:
Tabor Home Incorporated is a time-expired personal care home in Morden with safety, environmental and space deficiencies.
The seniors of Manitoba are valuable members of the community with increasing health-care needs requiring long-term care.
The community of Morden and the surrounding area are experiencing substantial population growth.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) to strongly consider giving priority for funding to develop and staff a new 100-bed long-term care facility so that clients are not exposed to unsafe conditions and so that Boundary Trails Health Centre beds remain available for acute-care patients instead of waiting placement clients.
This is signed by Kim Dyck, Dorothy Derksen, Sheldon Hildebrand, Kelly Ens 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.
Provincial Nominee Program–Applications
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
The background to this petition is as follows:
Immigration is critically important to the future of the province, and the 1998 federal Provincial Nominee Program is the best immigration program that Manitoba has ever had.
Lengthy processing times for PNP applications causes additional stress and anxiety for would-be immigrants and their families here in Manitoba.
The government needs to recognize the unfairness in its current policy on who qualifies to be an applicant.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to consider establishing a 90-day guarantee for processing an application for a minimum of 80 percent of applicants that have family living in Manitoba.
To urge the provincial government to consider removing the use of the restrictive job list when dealing with the family sponsor stream.
This is signed by Lorna Allen, E. Dayris and E. Aviles and many, many other fine Manitobans.
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Fishing is an important industry on Lake Dauphin.
To help ensure the sustainability of the Lake Dauphin fishery, it is essential that spawning fish in the lake and its tributaries are not disturbed during the critical reproductive cycle.
A seasonal moratorium on the harvesting of fish in Lake Dauphin and its tributaries may help create an environment that will produce a natural cycle of fish for Lake Dauphin, therefore ensuring a balanced stock of fish for all groups who harvest fish on the lake.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Minister of Water Stewardship (Ms. Melnick) to consider placing a moratorium on harvesting of any species of fish on Lake Dauphin and its tributaries for the period April 1 to May 15 annually.
To request the Minister of Water Stewardship to consider doing regular studies of fish stocks on Lake Dauphin to help gauge the health of the fishery and to consider determining any steps needed to protect or enhance those stocks.
This petition is signed by Louise Griffins, Debbie Durston, Terri Rampton and many, many others.
Power Line Development
Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Manitoba Hydro has been forced by the NDP government to construct a third high voltage transmission line down the west side of Lake Winnipegosis instead of the east side of Lake Winnipeg, as recommended by Manitoba Hydro.
The line losses created by the NDP detour will result in a lost opportunity to displace dirty coal-generated electricity, which will create added and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to an additional 57,000 vehicles on our roads annually.
The former chair of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee has stated that an east-side bipole and a UNESCO World Heritage Site can co-exist contrary to NDP claims.
The NDP detour will cut through more forest than the eastern route, and will cut through threatened aspen parkland areas, unlike the eastern route.
Former Member of the Legislative Assembly Elijah Harper has stated that the east-side communities are devastated by the government's decision to abandon the east-side route, stating that this decision will resign them to poverty in perpetuity.
The NDP detour will lead to an additional debt of at least $400 million related to the capital cost of line construction alone, to be left to future generations of Manitobans.
The NDP detour will result in increased line losses due to friction leading to lost energy sales of between $250 million and $1 billion over the life of the project.
The added debt and lost sales created by the NDP detour will make every Manitoba family at least $4,000 poorer.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to abandon the NDP detour on the basis that it will result in massive environmental, social and economic damage to Manitoba.
To urge the provincial government to consider proceeding with the route originally recommended by Manitoba Hydro, subject to necessary regulatory approvals.
This petition is signed by Dianne Lambert, Becky Cianflone, Debra Enns, and many, many Manitobans.
* (14:10)
Personal Care Homes–Virden
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Manitoba's provincial government has a responsibility to provide quality long-term care for qualifying Manitobans.
Personal care homes in the town of Virden currently have a significant number of empty beds that cannot be filled because of a critical nursing shortage in these facilities.
In 2006, a municipally formed retention committee was promised that the Virden nursing shortage would be resolved by the fall of 2006.
Virtually all personal care homes in southwestern Manitoba are full, yet as of early October 2007, the nursing shortage in Virden is so severe that more than one-quarter of the beds in the Westman Nursing Home are sitting empty.
Seniors, many of whom are war veterans, are therefore being transported to other communities for care. These communities are often a long distance from Virden and family members are forced to travel for more than two hours round trip to visit their loved ones, creating significant financial and emotional hardship for these families.
Those seniors that have been moved out of Virden have not received assurance that they will be moved back to Virden when those beds become available.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) to consider taking serious action to fill the nursing vacancies at personal care homes in the town of Virden and to consider reopening the beds that have been closed as the result of this nursing shortage.
To urge the Minister of Health to consider prioritizing the needs of those citizens that have been moved out of their community by committing to move those individuals back into Virden as soon as the beds become available.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by S. Bundgaard, Verna Duffield, Maxine Beaford, John Liefso and many, many other Manitobans.
Bill 200, The Waste Reduction and
Prevention Amendment Act
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Plastic bags are harmful to humans, animals and the environment.
Toxins from photodegradation, breakdown of plastic bags, end up in Manitoba's soil, waterways and food supply.
Plastic bags take many years to photodegrade and are a blemish on our roadways, parks, streets, hang from bushes and trees and litter our landfills.
There are many alternatives readily available, ranging from re-usable bags to biodegradable bags to crates and boxes.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly to consider supporting Bill 200, The Waste Reduction and Prevention Amendment Act, presented by the honourable Member for River Heights, which will ban single-use checkout bags in Manitoba.
Signed by Dmytro Kushneryk, Mark Sopuck, Tiago Booth and many others.
Dividing of Trans-Canada Highway
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
The seven-kilometre stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway passing through Headingley is an extremely busy stretch of road, averaging 18,000 vehicles daily.
This section of the Trans-Canada Highway is one of the few remaining stretches of undivided highway in Manitoba, and it has seen more than 100 accidents in the last two years, some of them fatal.
Manitoba's Assistant Deputy Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation told a Winnipeg radio station on October 16, 2007, that when it comes to highways projects the provincial government has a flexible response program, and we have a couple of opportunities to advance these projects in our five-year plan.
In the interests of protecting motorist safety, it is critical that the dividing of the Trans-Canada Highway in Headingley is completed as soon as possible.
We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:
To request the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation (Mr. Lemieux) to consider making the completion of the dividing of the Trans-Canada Highway in Headingley in 2008 an urgent provincial government priority.
To request the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation to consider evaluating whether any other steps can be taken to improve motorist safety while the dividing of the Trans-Canada Highway in Headingley is being completed.
This is signed by Chris Buzunis, Haley Thorne, George Davidson and many others, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I'm pleased to table the 2008-2009 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for the Department of Culture, Heritage, Tourism and Sport.
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'd like to table Supplementary Review information for IGA for Departmental Estimates.
Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs): I'd like to table the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, the 2008-2009 Departmental Expenditure Estimates.
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to table the Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Manitoba Science, Technology, Energy and Mines for 2008-2009.
Hon. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Minister of Healthy Living): I'd like to table the Seniors and Healthy Aging Secretariat Supplementary Information for Legislative Review 2008-2009.
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): I'm pleased to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the 2008-2009 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Manitoba Competitiveness, Training and Trade.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Family Services and Housing): I'd like to table the Family Services and Housing Supplementary Information for Estimates.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw that attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today a group of students from Collège Béliveau under the direction of Jennifer McKinnon and Mike Johnston, who are the guests of the honourable Member for Southdale (Ms. Selby).
Also in the public gallery we have with us today several members of the Warren Community Development Corporation who are the guests of the honourable Member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
Government Intent
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Last year, Manitoba taxpayers contributed $4.2 million to the three major political parties here in Manitoba. The Premier (Mr. Doer) obviously thinks that this isn't enough taxpayer contributions to political parties in our province, so he's introduced Bill 37 to give his party another million dollars between now and the next election year out of the pockets of Manitoba taxpayers, Mr. Speaker. This is at a time when Manitoba seniors are being asked to pay more for their prescription medicine.
My question to the Premier: Why is he taking money out of the pockets of Manitoba seniors and putting it into the pockets of his political party so they can run political propaganda at the expense of Manitoba taxpayers?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the amendments that were tabled last week are the continuing efforts of the government to improve access to democracy, to improve–I remember the cries of the members opposite when we introduced banning corporate and union donations, and that's been followed across the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in our society agrees that the banning of corporate and union donations and making accountability and electoral acts much better provides for a fairer and a more appropriate process to democracy.
We are seeing, Mr. Speaker, what goes on to the south of us where you can't even start a political campaign unless you have a million dollars per day. I think the provisions that are put in similar to Québec, similar to other provinces, similar to the federal government, of which that member is, I suppose, supportive of, enhances democracy in this province.
* (14:20)
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, I know he's using Jean Chrétien's amendments as a justification, and I don't know that it would be advisable for him to continue to trot out that example of what Jean Chrétien did to his party in his dying days in office. In any event, I'm sure members of his caucus may have a slightly different perspective on Mr. Chrétien's legacy, changes, and what they did to that party.
But I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Doer) if he will explain how it is that he feels that he needs to go into the next election campaign using forced donations from Manitoba taxpayers rather than voluntary donations from regular Manitobans. Is their record in government so bad that they need government handouts in order to run their next election campaign?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, when election finance rebates were first introduced in Manitoba in 1983, Gary Filmon and the Conservative Party said–and I quote–about the NDP: They're willing at every turn to rob from the taxpayer for the good of themselves.
That was then followed by 11 years of Gary Filmon and the Conservative government not touching that act and taking that money every single occasion. Then they came out and they opposed our ban on corporate and union donations, Mr. Speaker. I think most Manitobans will suggest that not only is democracy fairer on a level playing field, but it is more open and transparent by virtue of having to report all of those items.
We know what the legacy is of not reporting items, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to finance our political party through the volunteer donations of regular–[inaudible] We're very happy to go to Manitobans and ask them to make that choice, that free choice to decide whether they want to support our party or support another political party. We don't believe Manitobans should be forced to contribute.
I want to ask the Member for Kildonan: Are they so devoid of ideas, are they so uninspiring to their potential donors that their voluntary donations are drying up so they need to come to the taxpayer for handouts to run their campaign, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, when the member rebates all of the money that their party took from the taxpayers, they'll have some credibility behind his comments.
Mr. Speaker, these have been introduced in Liberal provinces, in Conservative provinces and in NDP provinces, and we'll stand behind an act that is public disclosure, allows for voluntary donations, allows for making sure that large corporate interests who used to group together–and I might suggest support particular ideas and ventures–have some controls put on them to make democracy fairer and more equitable across this province.
We ran on that, Mr. Speaker. Members ran on getting rebates from the provincial government from 1983 until 2008. Is the member now changing his position?
Government Intent
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, when a business in Manitoba is looking for more customer support for their enterprise, they work harder to show people why they deserve it. Instead of the NDP government trying to do the same thing when it comes to political donations, instead of going to Manitobans and telling them why they should donate to them based on their ideas, they've decided to do what the NDP usually do. They legislate it.
Can the Minister of Justice tell Manitobans why he's so concerned about the NDP financial well running dry that he's decided to hold up Manitobans for more political money?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the federal system in Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. all have public funding. The federal government's $1.91 per vote, I hope the member considers that if he's considering other options. New Brunswick is $1.76 per vote. Nova Scotia is $1.50 per vote. P.E.I. is no more than $2 per vote. Manitoba is set at a lower level of $1.25 per vote based on percentages.
It's a fair system, Mr. Speaker. We're willing to stand behind it. We were willing to stand behind our changes when we brought them in with respect to corporate and union donations. The members cried then. They said all kinds of things. They cried and said all kinds of things in '83 when public financing came in, but they took every last penny. We think this is fairer to all Manitobans.
Mr. Goertzen: I would like the minister to consider the option of being responsible with taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker. One of the lessons that I was taught as a child was that if you wanted to get something, you had to go out and earn it. But, apparently, the Minister of Justice and the Premier (Mr. Doer) learned a different lesson. If you want to get something, join the NDP and legislate it.
In 2007, Manitobans, through their tax credits and reimbursements, subsidized political parties by $4.2 million, but the NDP government doesn't think that that's enough. Can the Minister of Justice tell Manitobans why the NDP is afraid to earn the money that he thinks they deserve?
Mr. Chomiak: I suppose the provincial Comptroller will be waiting for the rebate cheque from the Member for Steinbach and the members opposite on the amount of money that they received as a result of public election financing. There have been limits put in that have been extended because I think members opposite were complaining about the advertising budget. It has been enhanced and expanded, Mr. Speaker, and all that's been introduced is interim maximum party limits of $250,000 in the interim periods to deal with the more complex and convoluted matters dealing with the election act.
I must say, we are entering a new era where election officials spend a lot more time looking at parties and party financing and related matters, and we all know that auditors, legal costs, et cetera, are not something you can do on a volunteer basis.
Mr. Goertzen: In Manitoba we have a situation now where the NDP government relies on more than a third of its budget from Ottawa handouts. Because of the NDP government, Crown corporations have become little more than surrogates for government policies and directives. Now, because of the NDP government, taxpayers are told to shell out millions more to the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the Minister of Justice because they believe their party needs a handout.
Handouts from Ottawa. Demands made to Crown corporations. Robbing the taxpayers to fund the NDP. Can't this government do anything on their own, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I think if you look at this act, it compares quite favourably to the federal act. I know there's some trouble in Ottawa concerning the application of the federal act.
But in a democracy we all should play by the same rules, Mr. Speaker. Special interests, outside interests have played their part, inappropriately. I think that the system we've evolved to, on recommendations that have been made by the Chief Electoral Officers, is fair. It's an incremental move forward. I think it provides for balance and fairness.
It's applicable to all members opposite. If members feel so strongly about the principle–I know they sold a Crown corporation and balanced the budget–perhaps they should rebate all of the money that they received–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let's have some decorum here. The honourable minister has the floor.
Mr. Chomiak: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I think their cries of complaint would have more credibility if they were to rebate all of the money they received from public financing and demonstrated their virtue in not dealing with that.
Government Intent
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, this government would have more credibility if they started giving taxes back to the people that paid them, back to the taxpayers of Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 37 is an all-out assault on democracy as we know it. Bill 38, the balance-the-budget-once-every-four-years legislation, is an affront to fiscal accountability. This government can't be trusted to spend its own money, let alone use Crown corporations as their personal piggy banks. A summary budget is nothing less than a shell game.
Will the minister come clean and tell all Manitoba taxpayers that this legislation is nothing more than a sham and that the real balanced-budget legislation has been gutted by this minister?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, since 1998, the Auditor General of Manitoba has been calling for reform of the balanced-budget legislation the member would like to return to. The reality is that under the old legislation pension liabilities were left off the books. Crown corporations were left off the books. Crown corporations could be sold and used to balance the budget. Money could go into the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, counted once as revenue, then it could be taken out of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, counted twice as revenue.
All of those things are illegal now. Mr. Speaker. One set of books, one bottom line, one set of rules according to the Auditor General's accounting standards for the country.
* (14:30)
Mr. Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister's trying to snow Manitobans again. He's been waiting for eight years to get rid of balanced-budget legislation. Generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, does not give the Finance Minister the authority to hide the mismanagement of his core operating budget, but the minister is doing just that. He is now taking Manitoba Hydro net earnings to balance his spending appetite.
Manitoba Hydro cannot afford this minister's smoke and mirrors. When will the minister take responsibility for his own mismanagement of this budget?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, we had a meeting in my office this morning where I explained to the member opposite the financial management requirements under the new balanced-budget legislation. They include reporting on what happens with respect to each department and all the revenues we receive for core operations. For the first time ever, that has to be reported on, has to be compared year over year. In addition, we have to report on what's happening in the university sector, the public school sector, the Crown corporation sector, the Workers Compensation Board. This is the widest reporting entity ever in the history of the province.
It follows the recommendations made by successive auditors general. It follows extensive consultations in the community, and it follows up on the recommendations made by our consultants who are experts in accounting methods and took a look at this.
I'm sure it will improve transparency and accountability in this province and not allow the sale of Crown corporations, like the members opposite so frequently did in the past.
Mr. Borotsik: Well, Mr. Speaker, this minister is falling back on his 1999 promises. Let's have a look at them, okay? In 1999, this government, his government, had made some promises to Manitobans. He said he was going to end hallway medicine. Failure, absolute abject failure. He said he was going to renew the hope of young people, but we recognize that that's been an abject failure.
Oh, by the way, his government said they were going to make our communities safer. Well, I can tell you, that one's been an abject failure.
But the last thing they said, Mr. Speaker, is they would keep balanced budget legislation and lower property taxes. They've done nothing. They have not lowered property taxes, and they certainly haven't kept the balanced budget legislation that was put into place in 1999.
He can't hide behind GAAP. He has to make sure that his core operating budget is balanced every year. Unfortunately right now, using Crown corporations, he can hide any which way he wants to. Why can't he do a core operating budget and make sure that's [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Borotsik: –in this House.
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the member has missed the entire point. The member wants to maintain two sets of books. He wants to be able to sell Crown corporations. He wants to be able to dip into the Fiscal Stabilization Fund to balance the budget. All of those procedures are now illegal under this new balanced budget legislation. Extensive consultation was done with the community. Everything will be in the reporting entity. The budget will have to be balanced every year, based on the current budget plus the three-year review of either good performance or bad performance.
There will no longer be the ability to run away from bad performance. He will have to be accounted for on an annual test of balanced budgets. By the way, Mr. Speaker, Manitobans have more people working than ever in the history of the province, less people in the hallways, more people in education, safer communities than they had under '99.
Rebates
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): On April 25, the Premier (Mr. Doer) was in Estimates talking about MPI rebates. He said and I quote: Actually if I had to make a political decision–which he never has–I would prefer not to have it happen any way at anytime. I'd prefer to keep a reserve fund.
Why are you allowing the corporation to overcharge people in the first place? Rather than spend $500,000 mailing out rebate cheques, will the NDP end this charade and simply take the rebate off the cost of next year's premiums?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, every year when MPI goes to the Public Utilities Board, which is an arm's-length body, they make recommendations. The Public Utilities Board sets the rates. The Public Utilities Board for the last few years has set the rates and ordered MPI to make a rebate cheque.
Last year, the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was saying we were politically manipulating it. This year the member is saying we shouldn't be doing it. We're following the procedures that have always been followed. The rates are set by the Public Utilities Board, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Graydon: There's certainly been a lot of manipulation going on. Along with the rebate cheques, Manitoba motorists received a letter from MPI. The letter says: Our success as your automobile insurer makes this rebate possible. What it doesn't say is that MPI and the Premier (Mr. Doer) would actually prefer to keep the money. It also doesn't say that it costs an extra $500,000 in administration fees to mail out these cheques.
Why are the MPI and the NDP government trying to take credit for this rebate when both have admitted that they would rather just keep the money that they've overcharged in the first place?
Mr. Chomiak: As I said, Mr. Speaker, the business case it put forward on rates by MPI to PUB did not envision a rebate cheque. It envisioned a particular rate level and a particular accounting procedure that MPI wanted to follow. The Public Utilities Board ordered MPI to cut and provide rebate cheques to all Manitobans.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the information that goes from MPI to the–I wish members opposite would note that we have the lowest insurance rates in North America. I wish the members opposite would note the fact that we have millions of dollars staying in Manitoba, providing services in Manitoba, providing head office jobs in Manitoba, instead of constantly attacking, when they're in opposition, Crown corporations, and then when they're in government, trying to sell them off.
Mr. Graydon: Mr. Speaker, the whole process is a runaround. The Premier wants to keep the motorists' money. MPI wants to keep the motorists' money. The PUB, thankfully, wants to give it back.
The reason that MPI has this money is because they overcharged us. Bragging about the prowess of the investment committee for the MPI, they should use that same committee for the rest of their government, Mr. Speaker, instead of one-third of the federal budget.
Mr. Speaker, why do they have to dole out a rebate if they hadn't have overcharged us in the first place?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the determination by PUB is based on performance. There are positive returns. There are negative returns. The PUB looks at the analysis. They listen to presentations from the public. Then they make a binding order, a binding order upon the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation to do.
Is the member suggesting that we interfere and go to the Public Utilities Board and tell them what to do, because I've heard members opposite talk for years about the validity and the–[interjection] Mr. Speaker, it's incredible. Money's going back to Manitobans in tax returns. Money's going back to Manitobans from MPI. We have the lowest hydro rates in the country. They want to put hydro rates at market rates. They want it up 40 percent.
Why don't they talk about that fact instead of taking it to the Public Utilities Board? That's where they want to go if they don't sell it.
Nutrient Reduction
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, over the last nine years, we have heard this government make countless promises about its plan to restore the health of Lake Winnipeg, yet we have yet to see anything in the way of real results. Now the government has introduced legislation to extend the livestock moratorium in spite of the fact that the Clean Environment Commission did not recommend this. In fact, the CEC recommended more research in key areas such as nutrient management.
Mr. Speaker, what research has the government done to ensure that this moratorium will result in a meaningful reduction in nutrient levels in Lake Winnipeg?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, clearly Manitobans get this and the opposition in this House don't get it. Manitobans very clearly want us to–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member was allowed to put his question. Let's allow the honourable minister to respond.
Mr. Struthers: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Manitobans get this and the opposition across the way don't seem to understand. Manitobans want us to move forward in a comprehensive way to protect Lake Winnipeg and other lakes and rivers in this province. That is what we're doing.
Sector by sector, case by case, we're putting in place a framework that will limit and reduce the amount of nutrients that go into lakes and rivers. We know, and I think the members opposite know, even with continuing supports to research, we know that keeping nutrients out of Lake Winnipeg is a good thing. We're going to do that. I think they should try to do it too.
* (14:40)
Mrs. Stefanson: I think that the minister is somewhat confused. What Manitobans want is real results when it comes to clean-up of Lake Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker, and yet they have not seen anything to that nature.
Mr. Speaker, the dean of the Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences has examined the Clean Environment Commission's report and has questioned the government's rationale for extending the moratorium. Trevan was quoted in a March 20 newspaper article as saying, and I quote: ". . . if you actually took all of the hog barns out of production, you wouldn't actually make any sensible dent into the amount of phosphorus in Lake Winnipeg."
Mr. Speaker, the CEC has recommended more research in key areas. Why won't the government listen to the CEC and do further studies to see the impacts? Why are they willing to impose a job-killing moratorium with no supporting scientific evidence, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Struthers: Mr. Speaker, the member across the way is absolutely wrong. The Clean Environment Commission did a very good job in speaking with not just the people of Manitoba in public meetings, but they did talk with researchers from the University of Manitoba and elsewhere.
They said to me in that report–which is available to everybody opposite–that there are regional imbalances in this province when it comes to the development of the hog industry and that we as a government could not stick our heads in the sand like members opposite seem to be doing, that we had to deal with this. The Clean Environment Commission report was very clear in that.
Mr. Speaker, we have the courage to move forward in a strong way to protect Manitoba's lakes and to protect Manitoba's water. I wish members opposite would get that strong as well.
Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should get his head out of the sand and actually take the recommendations of the CEC reports.
Mr. Speaker, Manitobans know that we don't need to kill jobs and we don't need to kill business in this province in order to help our environment. We need to provide incentives for business and incentives for individuals to help out in this area. We don't need to shut them down.
Mr. Speaker, after nine years there have been no real results. Clearly this government's plan is not working. Why is the minister refusing to listen to the CEC and other experts? Why does he think we need to kill jobs and kill business in order to help the environment?
Mr. Struthers: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should actually read the report. There are recommendations in the report and in the report it very clearly points to regional imbalances in this province.
I'd also like to suggest, Mr. Speaker–[interjection] It's in the report. You should read it. I also want to say, why is it that the member thinks that there's not research that's continuing? It's ongoing and it's happening all the time.
We're not going to just stick our heads in the sand, wait for her research to come forward and do nothing, Mr. Speaker. We owe it to the people of Manitoba to act strongly and we've done that.
Economic Impact Study
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, it's this minister that should read the report. There's no mention of a moratorium anywhere in that report. So the minister is the one that should be reading it.
Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg once was home to numerous meat-processing plants including Canada Packers, Burns, East West, Swift, Jack Morgan, Schneider's, OK Packers, just to name a few. The packing industry is virtually extinct, thanks to mismanagement of this NDP government.
Now the NDP has introduced Bill 17, which will put a permanent moratorium on hog production. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Conservation tell this House whether this government has done an economic impact study to examine the effects of Bill 17 on the pork industry and the allied stakeholders?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): Well, the Member for Lakeside has to do his homework, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, there was a very strong section in the CEC report dealing with the COOL legislation, the country-of-origin legislation that we're all quite concerned about in this House. In response to that, our government stepped up to the plate in places like Brandon and Neepawa and put some money forward to say you can have a win-win. You can increase the slaughter capacity in this province and you can protect the environment at the same time. What's wrong with that?
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously missed the question.
Mr. Speaker, the Winnipeg Free Press has challenged the government's decision to extend the moratorium. In a March 27 editorial, the newspaper editor stated, and I quote: The Doer government's decision has disabled an industry that is worth $1 billion to the provincial economy and provides direct and indirect jobs for 15,000 Manitobans.
I ask the Minister of Conservation again: Is he satisfied he is making the right decision by enacting a permanent job-killing moratorium? Has he fully considered the economic ramifications of this bill, which is based only on politics and not on good science, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Struthers: I find it amazing, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Lakeside thinks he's the arbiter of what's good science and what's not.
The member opposite ought to look at even his own leader's statements. Even prior to us bringing forward a moratorium, when we announced a pause in November, his leader said, we're not going to do anything in terms of protecting Manitoba water; we reject even those regulations.
Mr. Speaker, that's absolutely irresponsible. We know in this province that we have to deal with water quality. We know for [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Struthers: –reasons, including the economic downside of not making decisions to protect Manitoba's water. Where do you stand on that?
Mr. Eichler: Any science based on a moratorium would be beneficial from this government. They have nothing to go on other than their rhetoric.
The Manitoba Chamber of Commerce has also expressed concerns about the economic impact of this political decision and called for withdrawal of Bill 17.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture: Is she going to sit idly by while her colleague inflicts major economic damage in one of the province's key sectors, or is this minister out of the loop as well?
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): I would ask the member to look at the record and let him look at where we have stood by the industry and, indeed, we have stood by them. We put additional resources and additional funds into the safety net programs for producers. When the pork producers came to us and said they needed to have bridge financing, they asked us for loans, we did that.
The challenges facing the pork industry right now are not the fact that they can't build barns. The issue is pork producers cannot afford to keep the existing barns full. There is high-input cost, Mr. Speaker. We're fighting the country-of-origin labelling. We're fighting the fact that U.S. barns will not take our weanlings. The member opposite should get his head out of the sand and realize that there are very serious issues facing our–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Patient Qualifications
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mrs. Seamen. Mrs. Anna Seamen's son has complicated mental, physical and social issues. If he had just a physical illness, then home care said they would look after things and help. If he were just a social issue, issue, problem, and he had the right IQ to fit the government's criteria, then he would receive social support. But the reality is he's now falling through the cracks, and Mrs. Seamen has been told, well, your son, I'm sorry, is dropping through the cracks; we can't help.
I ask the Premier (Mr. Doer) or Deputy Premier (Ms. Wowchuk) why the government is running an operation which has such big cracks that people like Mrs. Seamen's son just fall through them. Surely he should be considered first and his needs considered first, and the government should get their act together to provide support.
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I thank the member for the question. Certainly, if the member has some specific details about a case of which I may not be aware, I appreciate that. I will take the question and any further information the member has to bring forward so that we can work together to come to some solutions.
* (14:50)
Outside of the specifics of the case, I can say that the Department of Health, the Department of Family Services and Housing work jointly on a number of issues, whether it's concerning persons with disabilities, persons with mental health issues, a combination of all of those things. We know that we need to work together, not only as two departments but across many departments to help address some of the complex needs of Manitoba families, and we're pleased to do that and to continue the work to do that.
Implementation
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the government has been made fully aware of the problems here. The excuses are wearing thin. The back and forth between two government departments is a reminder that, like Jordan's Principle, the patient or the person should be considered first and the problem solved rather than members of two departments fighting over who can get out of the business fastest.
Mrs. Seamen has been told, if your son were to get into trouble with the law, then he would be looked after. But he's a law-abiding person who's had no problems with the law, and he's not being looked after.
I ask the Premier or Deputy Premier, who's responsible for the two departments getting together, surely they would support the application of Jordan's Principle in this case and ensure Mrs. Seamen's son is adequately supported in spite of the fact that he doesn't fit neatly into the programs of one department or another.
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Again, if there are specifics about a case at the moment about which I am not aware, I'm very happy to receive those details.
We know that there are families in Manitoba, a number of families, that have needs that are so complex that we need to ensure that our departments are working together. That's why we have developed programs like PACT that work on mental health issues outside of institutions and in communities. That's why we have the very existence of the Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet, so we can break down the walls between departments, Mr. Speaker, so that we can work in a cross-departmental way.
We know that this particular structure in government has received international attention for its ability to work together. We need to continue to do that work for families such as the one that the member is mentioning and others of which we may not know right now.
Location
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, in talking to members of the public, one of the things that has become very clear is the government has lost its credibility in terms of the decision on the west-side development for the Bipole III.
The concern is how do we ensure that some sort of an independent assessment based on fact is going to be acted on, not one based on the political decision. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. We're talking about the future of our environment and so many other issues.
The question then to the Minister of Finance is: How is he going to tell Manitobans, how is he going to convince Manitobans that any decision on what to do with the bipole, whether it's the west side, east side or under Lake Winnipeg is, in fact, in Manitoba's best interests based on fact, not on what this minister or this Premier (Mr. Doer) feels is in their best political interest, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, the government undertook 82 community consultations on the east side before it decided to take a policy decision on this, and what they decided to do was to balance three big risks that need to be managed in terms of public policy.
The risk of improving reliability: That required a new bipole to be built, something that was known when members opposite were in government but refused to act on it. The second risk they needed to manage was the risk with respect to markets, customers and the reputation of the Crown corporation who provides the product to them. They managed that risk by avoiding a confrontation that could seriously damage our potential to sell up to 40 percent of the energy produced every year. And the third risk they needed to manage was the risk preserving the opportunity for a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
These are all matters of public policy. We stated them for the public and we backed it.
Government Initiatives
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that this is Mental Health Awareness Week. Public awareness of mental illness is important to reduce the stigma sometimes faced by those living with mental health issues and/or addictions.
Would the Minister of Healthy Living please advise the House of some of the initiatives the department is undertaking to address mental health and addictions services in Manitoba?
Hon. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Minister of Healthy Living): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that the theme of Mental Health Week is "Make It Your Business," and that's exactly what the Doer government has been doing since 1999. We've made it our business to ensure that we have mental health and addiction services available to all Manitobans.
Today I had the privilege of being joined by the Member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer) to make an announcement, an announcement that spoke about $2.8 million over the next two years to support mental health and addictions agencies, as well as providing 20 new mental health service providers across the province of Manitoba. These individuals will provide exceptional service on the front lines for in-patient and out-patient services as well. As well, we were able to unveil our five-point plan for the addiction system.
Overdue Stocker Loans
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Mr. Speaker, the MASC Stocker Loans program currently has 355 loans worth $16,596,000. However, 22 percent of these loans are in arrears in the amount of $3,665,000.
My question to the Minister of Agriculture: What efforts are being taken to collect on these loans that are past being overdue and are now in arrears?
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity to discuss this issue in Estimates, but I will say to the member again, when an individual takes out a Stocker Loan, they sign an agreement and they must meet the terms of that agreement when they sell their livestock. If they do not meet the terms of that agreement, steps are taken by the corporation to collect.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there have been some pressures, and there are some of those loans that are in arrears. The staff of MASC will continue to work to recover as much money as we can from that.
Mr. Pedersen: Mr. Speaker, these loans of $3.665 million are in arrears. The security for these loans, being the cattle, are long gone, and MASC is left as an unsecured creditor.
How does the minister intend to collect this money owing, or will MASC be forced to write off over $3.6 million in addition to the $800,000 written off over the past four years?
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, when an individual takes out a Stocker Loan, they are required by the agreement that they have signed that they will pay the loan when they have sold the cattle. If they have not paid off the loan when they pay the cattle, they are in breach of the agreement, and then the corporation will make every effort to collect from them.
The member asks if there will be some write-offs. Yes. Given where the industry is–and I'm quite surprised that the member opposite wouldn't recognize that there are very great challenges in our beef industry right now. These loans worked for some, Mr. Speaker. Yes, there will be some write-offs as there have been in the past.
Renovations Needed
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Manitoba Housing.
Mr. Speaker, the Russell and District Banner County senior citizens home is one that has been in need of repairs for a number of years. The sidewalks leading to this facility are broken and raised in places and because of poor lighting along the sidewalks, many seniors who are trying to make their way into their residences at night trip on these sidewalks and injuries have occurred. Repeated requests to have this corrected have fallen on deaf ears.
Mr. Speaker, additionally, carpeting in the facility has not been replaced for well over 30 years, and citizens again have requested the minister to address this and nothing has happened.
I want to ask the Minister responsible for Housing whether or not he is prepared to answer those questions that keep coming to him and address the issues that are safety issues and also quality-of-life issues.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, the member didn't indicate whether this was a Manitoba Housing complex or whether it was independently operated, but in either event, if the department can assist we're currently making a three-year investment of about $84 million to enhance Manitoba Housing properties.
We can also look to see whether it's scheduled for enhancements because it's important that we respond to local needs in local buildings and more than happy to look into that for the member.
Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.
* (15:00)
Ms. Erin Selby (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to highlight the Béliveau Heroes program at Collège Béliveau. The Béliveau Heroes began with a small group of high school students led by teachers Jennifer McKinnon and Mike Johnston looking to lend a hand and make a difference in their community.
Now in its second year, the group has grown to 60 students who are enthusiastic about getting involved and volunteering their time. The Béliveau Heroes volunteer at least once a month for a variety of causes and organizations. Past projects have seen the students planting trees, spending time with seniors, cleaning up litter and caring for animals. The diverse opportunities available to the students through this program provide them with new experience and life skills as they seek to discover their path in life. It also gives them a wider perspective on the issues affecting their world and allows them to engage in those issues in a very tangible way.
I would like to extend my appreciation and my congratulations to the two founders of Béliveau Heroes, Jennifer McKinnon and Mike Johnston. Mr. Speaker, we entrust our children to the schools not only to receive an education, but to learn life lessons, to develop a sense of citizenship and to grow as individuals. I'm proud of this innovative program taking place at Collège Béliveau which teaches these young people in my constituency to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I also commend the young people involved in the Béliveau Heroes who, despite homework, part-time jobs and other after-school and weekend commitments, have shown incredible dedication to their community. The active role they have chosen to take in effecting positive change in their city has made a tremendous difference in the lives of the people they've served and is an excellent example to us all. Thank you.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, midwives and families around the world are celebrating international midwifery day with the theme of "Healthy Families." I would like to commend all Manitoba midwives for their daily contribution to helping create healthy families by offering women and their partners skilled and supportive care throughout their pregnancy, labour and delivery. Midwives work with women and their families in a personalized way, encouraging informed choices while responding to emotional, social, cultural and physical needs. Midwifery care respects the normal healthy process of a pregnancy and birth and the profound meaning that childbirth has in a woman's life.
Midwifery is recognized as a standard of care by the World Health Organization, but the numbers of practising midwives in Manitoba is still very small, unfortunately. Consider, by comparison, that there are 2,000 midwives serving New Zealand's population of 4 million and there are 35,000 in the United Kingdom. But, unfortunately, in Manitoba, we do not have enough midwives to meet the demand, with less than three dozen practising midwives in the province. The Manitoba Midwifery Action Group suggests that we could, in fact, use 200 given that there's at least 50 percent women who were declined care when they asked for midwifery support. That's not hard to understand when only six in Manitoba's 11 regional health authorities offer midwifery services.
Midwifery has come a long way in Manitoba since the introduction of The Midwifery Act in 1997 that established midwifery as a regulated profession. We have a long way to go. Training more midwives in Manitoba is the best way to increase our supply of midwives, and it's something that our party promised during the last provincial campaign. Indeed, so did members opposite, but Manitobans are still waiting for the details of their training program.
Today, on international midwifery day, we congratulate all Manitoba midwives for their dedication to their practice and to helping create healthy families. We, on this side of the House look forward to hearing more about the government's pending training program so that more women can have the midwifery care that they would like. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Jennifer Howard (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be able to attend the River Osborne Community Centre's annual general meeting on Monday, April 28. River Osborne Community Centre is an important meeting place in my constituency. The programming offered to neighbours of all ages is key to having quality and affordable recreation. On any day of the week, you will find activities going on such as kick-boxing, belly dancing, skating or soccer.
The centre also provides a venue for various educational initiatives and community gatherings. The centre's vitally important to children and young people living in Fort Rouge. Recently, the centre has started offering activities for children at the Mayfair Recreation Centre, located in a neighbourhood that is densely populated with young families. A youth action centre is now operating as well, offering positive programming to teens. These types of initiatives are integral to our goals of providing healthy and safe places for kids to grow up.
I would like to thank all the volunteers of River Osborne Community Centre for their hard work and dedication to keeping the centre running. I would also like to congratulate the board members, Ron Iftody, Sheri Russell, Gregory Chomichuk, Alys-Lynne Furgal, Trevor Russell, Steve West, Shannon Morley, Chris Bloom, Preston McCaffrey and Eden Steele for their leadership.
Mr. Speaker, one of the joys of being an MLA is the opportunity to meet people who are committed to improving their communities by giving of their time and talent.
Last month I was thrilled to attend the City Centre Volunteer Reception for community centre volunteers. A long-time volunteer for River Osborne Community Centre, Graham Davison, was honoured as one of the volunteers of the year. Without the efforts from dedicated volunteers and staff, indispensable neighbourhood resources, like this community centre, would not be possible. We all owe them our gratitude and appreciation. Thank you.
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber we are all aware of the many challenges our farmers in the province can face, from weather issues to trade challenges to high-input costs. However, even during these difficult times, there are many success stories and I am pleased to share one with the House today.
I would like to congratulate Major Jay and Angela Fox who were named the recipients of the 2008 Manitoba Outstanding Young Farmers Award. Jay and Angela were given the award in Portage la Prairie on April 18. They will now go on to proudly represent Manitoba in the National Outstanding Young Farmers' events in Calgary next November.
Both Jay and Angela grew up on farms. It's promising to hear them say they always want to continue in the agricultural tradition. In 2006 they took the hard yet rewarding work of operating Jay's family cattle operation, took over the operation. On their 440-hectare ranch north of Eddystone they run 450 cows. I am sure they are both very busy during the hectic calving season.
The Outstanding Young Farmer Program is open to farmers between the ages of 18 and 39. It highlights the young men and women who are achieving success in providing leadership in the farming industry. Any successful candidate for this award is community-orientated and incorporates innovative practices into their farm operations.
Both Jay and Angela are active in their community. For example, Jay is a director with the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association.
Once again, I would like to congratulate Jay and Angela Fox for receiving the Manitoba Outstanding Young Farmers Award this year. I wish them the best of luck in Calgary at the national event in November. They are certainly positive role models in their community and they exemplify how rewarding our farming profession can be.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, this week, May 4 to 10, is Occupational Safety Week, an annual initiative recognized across Canada in concert with North American partners in Mexico and the United States.
The theme for this year's event is "Safety and Health: A Commitment for Life. Start Today! Live It Every Day!"
In 2002 our government responded to the report of the Workplace Safety and Health Review Committee by calling on Manitobans to join with our provincial government to build a strong workplace, safety and health culture. Since that time, we have developed a solid and modernized legislative framework for the prevention of occupational injuries and illness. Six years ago our government kicked off a significant education and public awareness program under the banner, Safe Manitoba, which I hope all members have seen.
As a part of the many continuing initiatives, Safety and Health curriculum resource materials continue to be promoted and distributed to help prepare our young people for the risks that they face in the workplace every day. Because youth are among the most susceptible to workplace injury and represent the future of Manitoba, they are the key target audience for these prevention messages.
I am very proud to be a part of a government that has made workplace safety and health a priority. Budget 2008 provides for the addition of 10 new Workplace Safety and Health officers this year to strengthen our inspection and enforcement efforts.
Mr. Speaker, just as governments accept their responsibility to lead and support prevention initiatives in Manitoba, we anticipate that employers, workers, educators and prevention organizers will also accept their individual and shared responsibility to improve prevention in the workplace. I call on all honourable members to observe NAOSH Week by making a commitment to strengthen the culture of workplace safety and health in province. Thank you.
* (15:10)
House Business
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to announce that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet on Wednesday, May 7, at 7 p.m., to consider Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2003; Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2004; Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2005; the Auditor General's Report – Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2005, including a Review of School Division Financial Accounting and Reporting.
Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2006; the Auditor General's Report – Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2006; Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2007; the Auditor General's Report – Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2007; the Provincial Auditor's Report – Investigation of an Adult Learning Centre ("The Program") in Morris-Macdonald School Division, No. 19, dated September 2001.
I would also like to announce that the following individuals will be called as witnesses for the May 7 meeting:
On the Public Accounts volumes and the audits of the Public Accounts, the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and Diane Gray, Deputy Minister of Finance.
On the Morris-Macdonald report, the honourable Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth (Mr. Bjornson) and Dr. Gerald Farthing, Deputy Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth.
Mr. Speaker: It's been announced that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet on Wednesday, May 7, at 7 p.m., to consider Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2003; Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2004; Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2005; the Auditor General's Report – Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2005, including a Review of School Division Financial Accounting and Reporting.
Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2006; the Auditor General's Report – Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2006; Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2007; the Auditor General's Report – Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2007; The Provincial Auditor's Report – Investigation of an Adult Learning Centre ("The Program") in Morris-Macdonald School Division, No. 19, dated September 2001.
It's also announced that the following individuals will be called as witnesses for the May 7 meeting:
On the Public Accounts volumes and audits of the Public Accounts, the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and Diane Gray, Deputy Minister of Finance.
On the Morris-Macdonald report, the honourable Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth, and Dr. Gerald Farthing, Deputy Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth.
Mr. Chomiak: Would you please canvass the House to see if there is an agreement for this week on Tuesday and Thursday morning for two sections of Supply to consider concurrently with the House while the House considers private members' business with no recorded votes or quorum calls to be in effect?
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for this week on Tuesday and Thursday morning for the two sections of Supply to sit concurrently with the House while the House considers private members' business with no recorded votes or quorum calls to be in effect? [Agreed]
Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House.
Would you also see if there is agreement for the Estimates of Intergovernmental Affairs to follow the Estimates of Water Stewardship, Finance in Room 255, with the change to apply on a permanent basis?
I'll just repeat this for clarity. Would you see if there is agreement for the Estimates of Intergovernmental Affairs to follow the Estimates of Water Stewardship in Room 255, with the change to apply on a permanent basis?
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for the Estimates of Intergovernmental Affairs to follow the Estimates of Water Stewardship in Room 255, with the change to apply on a permanent basis? [Agreed]
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, could we resolve into Committee of Supply?
Mr. Speaker: The House will now resolve into Committee of Supply. Will the Chairs please go to their respective rooms. In the Chamber will be Labour and Immigration. In Room 255 will be Water Stewardship. In Room 254 will be Health and Healthy Living.
* (15:20)
Madam Chairperson (Marilyn Brick): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Health and Healthy Living. As had been previously agreed, questioning for this department will proceed in a global manner.
The floor is now open for questions.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Just a follow up, Madam Chairperson. The minister had indicated that she'd be able to provide some information on questions we had regarding vacancies at CancerCare. Those questions were posed on Friday. Can she indicate whether or not she has that information?
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I will be able to provide that information for the member in minutes. I have a staff member who is just detained at the moment, but soon.
Mr. Goertzen: That's good. It sounds like it will be up-to-date information then, if it's within minutes.
Can the minister indicate, I just made a statement in the House regarding it being International Midwifery Week, and just some questions related to that. I've had the opportunity to meet with some people involved with midwifery, some who want to be involved, some are doulas and other qualifications.
Does the minister have an indication of what the decline rate is in Manitoba for people who are looking for midwifery service? Obviously, if you're not in one of the RHAs that offers that service, the decline rate would be 100 percent. For the RHAs that do have the service, does she have an indication of what the decline rate is?
Ms. Oswald: Madam Chair, certainly, we do know from our discussions with moms and with families, from our discussions in meeting with the College of Midwives, as the member points out, our discussions with regional health authorities that the requests for the services of midwives exceed our ability to be able to provide midwives. We know for certain that that is true. We also know that we have been working in partnership with the regional health authorities to build our complement of midwife positions in Manitoba. We know that when we started in 1999 there were no funded midwife positions in Manitoba, and, today, we have 34 funded positions. More than half of those, and that's 18, are in rural and northern Manitoba, four in Brandon, four in Central, three in NOR-MAN, three in South Eastman and 16 in Winnipeg. We do have a couple of vacancies, currently, in Winnipeg as well.
So I would have to endeavour to get back to the member concerning any specific wait list, or compiled numbers for people that have asked for services and have been declined, to endeavour to give the member more accurate information. But I can certainly go on the record today saying that the asks for the services of midwives exceed our current ability to deliver them.
Mr. Goertzen: I look forward to getting the response on the decline rate that there is in Manitoba.
Can the minister give us an update on, I know during the campaign, there was a discussion about a training program for midwives. Will we be seeing an announcement shortly on fulfilment of that commitment?
Ms. Oswald: Yes, we did make a commitment during the election to look at our training opportunities for midwives. We know that when we began our journey, we had no midwifery education program in Manitoba, and we worked to establish the first Aboriginal Midwifery Education Program at the University College of the North in September of 2006.
Now, this particular midwifery program, as the member opposite is aware, was the first of its kind, you know, in the world, we believe, and it's been internationally recognized. People from across the globe are looking to Manitoba for the very special cultural elements of this program and, indeed, for the nature of the program broadly.
We know that our greatest need for midwives has been in remote settings, and that's where we wanted to begin the focus of our efforts in education, and we've made very good strides there. But we did commit to expanding midwifery education, and we are working diligently with our partners in Advanced Education on options that will suit potential candidates in souther