LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, June 8, 2005
The House met at
1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Ambulance Service
Mr. Ron Schuler (
These
are the reasons for this petition:
In
May 2004, 46-year-old Peter Krahn suffered a heart attack while exercising in
East St. Paul and was pronounced dead just under an hour later after being
transported to the Concordia Hospital in Winnipeg. Reports show that it took
nearly 18 minutes for an ambulance to arrive for Mr. Krahn.
The
Interlake Regional Health Authority claims that 21 minutes is an acceptable
emergency response time, whereas the City of
Ambulance
coverage for
The
municipalities of East St. Paul and
We
petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To
request the provincial government to consider providing East St. Paul with
local ambulance service which would service both East and
To
request the provincial government to consider improving the way that ambulance
service is supplied to all Manitobans by utilizing technologies such as GPS in
conjunction with a Medical Transportation Co-ordination Centre (MTCC) which
will ensure that patients receive the nearest ambulance in the least amount of
time.
To
request the provincial government to consider ensuring that appropriate funding
is provided to maintain superior response times and sustainable services.
Signed
by John Boorsma, Lynda Boorsma, Denise Boorsma and many, many others.
Fort Garry Hotel
Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of
Manitoba.
The
background of this petition is as follows:
In
1987 the City of
Due
to deliberate actions of the City of
As
a result, the company was unfairly burdened with a grossly excessive assessment
and tax bill that in turn precipitated a tax sale and mortgage foreclosure,
effectively bankrupted the company and caused Harvard's shareholders to be
dispossessed of their business and property.
The
background to this petition was outlined more fully in a grievance presented to
this Assembly by the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) on May 18, 2005.
We
petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To
request the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade (Mr. Smith) to
consider conducting a review of the circumstances outlined and to consider
making a recommendation for redress to the Government of Manitoba.
Signed
Jeff Meszaros, Rodrigo Mundurka and Todd Karalski.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are
deemed to be received by the House.
Teachers' Pension Plan Pension
Adjustment Account
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I wish to present the following petition to
the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
The
background to this petition is as follows:
After
contributing to the Teacher's Pension Plan Pension Adjustment Account (PAA)
which funds the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) since 1977 until the year of
our retirement from the profession of teaching, we find ourselves facing the
future with little hope of a meaningful COLA, and with the resulting severe
loss of purchasing power.
We
petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To
request the Provincial Government to consider funding the PAA account to ensure
that we receive a reasonable COLA and that any loss of purchasing power we will
face will be minor.
Signed
by Fred Cole, Virginia Lyons, Evelyn Mullett and many others.
Wuskwatim Project Development Agreement
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the
following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
The
background of this petition is as follows:
The
Government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro have stated publicly that a
referendum vote including all NCN band members will be held as part of the
approval process for the Wuskwatim Hydro project.
The
Government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro have stated that the Wuskwatim Hydro
project and associated Hydro transmission lines will not proceed without the
support of the majority of NCN band members through the Wuskwatim Project
Development Agreement Referendum.
NCN
band members were not properly informed and consulted concerning the terms and
implication of the Wuskwatim Agreement in Principle.
The
partnership agreement to be approved by the Wuskwatim PDA referendum would largely determine
the economic future of NCN First Nation.
We
petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To
request that the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro and the Government of
Manitoba consider ensuring an informed, appropriate and fair
Wuskwatim Project Development Agreement referendum vote, and the vote overseen
by an Independent Qualified Third Party such as Elections Manitoba.
Signed
by Carol Kobliski, Kevin Bighetty, Arla Linklater and many, many others.
* (13:35)
Teachers' Pension Plan Pension
Adjustment Account
Mr. Ralph Eichler (
The
background to this petition is as follows:
After
contributing to the Teachers' Pension Plan Adjustment Account (PAA) which funds
the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) since 1977 until the year of our
retirement from the profession of teaching, we find ourselves facing the future
with little hope of a meaningful COLA, and with the resulting severe loss of
purchasing power.
We
petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To
request the provincial government to consider funding the PAA to ensure that we
receive a reasonable COLA, and that any loss of purchasing power we will face
will be minor.
Submitted
on behalf of Jean Todd, Catherine Thaxton, Doug Reynolds, Barrie Carman and
many, many others.
Crocus Investment Fund
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The
background to this petition is as follows:
The
Manitoba Government was made aware of serious problems involving the Crocus
Fund back in 2001.
As
a direct result of the government ignoring the red flags back in 2001, over
33 000 Crocus investors lost over $60 million.
The
relationship between some union leaders, the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the NDP
seems to be the primary reason as for why the government ignored the red flags.
We
petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To
request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider the need to seek
clarification on why the government did not act on fixing the Crocus Fund back
in 2001.
Signed
by D. Fauni, Rolando Quinto and Sally Phillips.
Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs
Eighth Report
Mr. Daryl Reid (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Eighth
Report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Legislative
Affairs presents the following as its Eighth Report.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing
Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Eighth Report.
Meetings:
Your committee met
on the following occasions. All meetings were held in Room 255 of the
Monday, June 6,
2005, at 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday, June 7,
2005, at 9:30 a.m.
Tuesday, June 7,
2005, at 6:30 p.m.
Matters under Consideration
Bill 33–The Planning Act/Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire
Bill
48–The Teachers'
Pensions Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des
enseignants
Bill 51–The Labour-Sponsored Investment Funds Act (Various Acts Amended)/Loi sur
les fonds de placement des travailleurs (modification de diverses dispositions
législatives)
Consideration of
Bill 48–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
pension de retraite des enseignants commenced in the Standing Committee on
Legislative Affairs on June 6, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. with presenters being heard
and written submissions being agreed to but was transferred to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources for consideration at meetings to be held on June
7, 2005.
Committee Membership:
At the June 6, 2005,
meeting, your committee elected Mr. Nevakshonoff as the Vice-Chairperson.
Substitutions
received prior to commencement of meeting:
Ms. Irvin-Ross for
Hon. Mr. Lemieux
Hon. Mr. Rondeau for
Hon. Mr. Mackintosh
Mr. Nevakshonoff for
Hon. Ms. Oswald
Hon. Mr. Bjornson
for Mr. Swan
Hon. Mr. Smith for
Hon. Ms. Wowchuk
Mr. Loewen for Mr.
Eichler
Mr. Maguire for Mr.
Faurschou
Mrs. Driedger for
Mr. Goertzen
Mr. Hawranik for Mr.
Reimer
Substitutions made,
by leave, during committee proceedings held on June 6, 2005, at 6:30 p.m.:
Mr. Eichler for Mr.
Loewen
Mr. Martindale for
Hon. Mr. Selinger
Mr. Loewen for Mr.
Eichler
At the June 7, 2005,
9:30 a.m. meeting, your committee elected Ms. Irvin-Ross as the Vice-Chairperson.
Substitutions made,
by leave, during committee proceedings held on June 7, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.:
Mr. Jennissen for
Hon. Mr. Bjornson
Mr. Aglugub for Mr.
Nevakshonoff
Mr. Caldwell for Mr.
Martindale
Mrs. Mitchelson for
Mrs. Driedger
Mr. Eichler for Mr.
Hawranik
At the June 7, 2005,
at 6:30 p.m. meeting, your committee elected Mr. Nevakshonoff as the
Vice-Chairperson.
Substitutions
received prior to commencement of meeting:
Mr. Nevakshonoff for
Ms. Irvin-Ross
Mr. Maloway for Mr.
Aglugub
Hon. Mr. Selinger
for Mr. Caldwell
Substitutions made,
by leave, during committee proceedings held on June 7, 2005, at 6:30 p.m.:
Maguire for Taillieu
Public Presentations:
Your committee heard
18 presentations on Bill 33 – The Planning Act/Loi sur l'aménagement du
territoire, from the following individuals and / or organizations:
David Rolfe, Keystone Agricultural Producers
Larry
Chris Fulsher,
John Bannister, Dairy Farmers of
Garry Wasylowski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities
Cheryl Kennedy Courcelles, Private Citizen
Carol Clegg, Private Citizen
Leon Clegg, Private Citizen
Alan Baron, Private Citizen
Ruth Pryzner, Private Citizen
Fred Tait, Private Citizen
David Sanders, Private Citizen
Glen Koroluk, Private Citizen
Peter
Lindy Clubb, Wolfe Creek
Conservation
Al Rogosin, Private Citizen
Glenda Whiteman, CROW Inc.
(Concerned Residents of Winnipeg Inc.)
Andrew Dickson, Private Citizen
Your committee heard 10 presentations on Bill 48 – The Teachers'
Pensions Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des
enseignants, from the following individuals and / or organizations:
Ray Sitter, Private Citizen
Ray
Pat Bowslaugh, Private Citizen
Gordon Henderson, Private Citizen
James Penner, Private Citizen
Jean Todd, Private Citizen
Laurena Leskiw, Private Citizen
Deanna Dolff, Private Citizen
Doug Kinney, Private Citizen
Shirley Augustine, Private Citizen
Your committee heard 3 presentations on Bill 51 – The Labour-Sponsored
Investment Funds Act (Various Acts Amended)/Loi sur les fonds de placement des
travailleurs (modification de diverses dispositions législatives), from the
following individuals:
Bernie Bellan, Private Citizen
Paul Sveinson, Private Citizen
Chris Christensen, Private Citizen
Written
Submissions:
Your committee received 8 written submissions on Bill 33 – The Planning
Act/Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire, from the following organizations:
Charles Arklie, Private Citizen
Larry Powell, Private Citizen
Ted Ross, Roseisle Creek Watershed Association
Clair English, Private Citizen
Reed Wolfe, Private Citizen
Rodger Mawer, Private Citizen
Joe Dolecki,
Kurt Siemens,
Your committee
received 6 written submissions on Bill 48 – The Teachers' Pensions Amendment
Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants, from the
following individuals and / or organizations:
Barbara Teskey, Private Citizen
Bob Swayze, Private Citizen
Gayle Robertson, Private Citizen
Leota Nelson, Private Citizen
Fred Cole, Private Citizen
Judy Goodman, Private Citizen
Bills Considered and Reported:
Bill 33–The Planning Act/Loi sur l'aménagement du
territoire
Your committee agreed to report this
bill, without amendment.
Bill 51–The Labour-Sponsored Investment Funds Act (Various Acts Amended)/Loi sur les fonds
de placement des travailleurs (modification de diverses dispositions
législatives)
Your committee agreed to report this
bill, with the following amendments:
THAT the proposed clause 11(2)(f) of The Crocus Investment Fund Act,
as set out in Clause 8(2)(c) of the Bill, be amended by striking out "an investment in an entity"
and substituting ", directly or indirectly, an investment in an
entity, other than a wholly‑owned subsidiary of the Fund,".
THAT Clause 17 of the Bill be amended
(a) in the proposed subsection 5.5(3),
by replacing the second sentence with "But the chair of a committee and a majority
of its members must be board members.";
and
(b) in the proposed subsection 5.5(4),
by striking out "and" at the end of clause (a), adding
"and" at the end of
clause (b) and adding the following after clause (b):
(c) a
person cannot be the chair of the board and the chair of the committee at the
same time.
THAT the proposed clause 8(d) of The Labour‑Sponsored
Venture Capital Corporations Act, as set out in Clause 20(b) of the Bill,
be amended by striking out "an investment in an entity" and substituting ",
directly or indirectly, an investment in an entity, other than a wholly‑owned
subsidiary of the corporation,".
THAT the proposed subsection 8(2) of
The Labour-Sponsored Venture
Capital Corporations Act, as set out in Clause 20(c) of the Bill, be
amended by striking out "No person" and
substituting "Subject to the regulations, no person".
THAT Clause 23(1)(b) of the Bill
be amended by adding the following after the proposed clause (o.2):
(o.3) limiting
the application of subsection 8(2);
THAT Clause 24 of the Bill be replaced with
the following:
Coming into force
24(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act
comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.
Coming into force — certain provisions
24(2) The following provisions
come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation:
(a) clause 8(2)(c);
(b) clause 5.5(4)(c) of The Labour‑Sponsored
Venture Capital Corporations Act, as enacted by section 17 of this Act;
(c) clauses
20(b) and (c).
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I
move, seconded by the
honourable Member for Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Standing Committee on Human Resources
Third Report
Ms. Marilyn Brick (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Human Resources
presents the following as its Third Report.
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on Human Resources presents the following as
its Third Report.
Meetings:
Your committee met
on the following occasions:
Tuesday, June 7,
2005, at 9:30 a.m.
Tuesday, June 7,
2005, at 6:30 p.m.
All meetings were
held in room 254 of the
Matters under Consideration:
Bill 48–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment
Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants
This bill was also
considered by the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs at a meeting on
June 6, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in room 255.
Committee
Membership:
Substitutions made,
by leave, during committee proceedings at the Tuesday, June 7, 2005, at 9:30
a.m. meeting:
Mr. Altemeyer for
Hon. Ms. Allan
Mr. Swan for Mr.
Maloway
Mr. Schellenberg for
Hon. Ms. McGifford
Hon. Mr. Bjornson
for Mr. Martindale
Mrs. Stefanson for
Mr. Cullen
Mrs. Driedger for
Mrs. Rowat
Mr. Dyck for Mr.
Schuler
Substitutions
received prior to commencement of the meeting held on Tuesday, June 7, 2005, at
6:30 p.m.:
Hon. Mr. Struthers
for Mr. Altemeyer
Mr. Schuler for Mr.
Dyck
Public
Presentations:
Your committee heard 20 presentations on Bill 48 – The Teachers'
Pensions Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des
enseignants, from the following individuals and/or organizations:
Margaret Warrian, Private Citizen
Terence Clifford, Private Citizen
Anne Monk, Private Citizen
DeeDee Rizzo, Retired Teachers Association of
Brian Ardern, President,
Peggy Prendergast, Private Citizen
Kay Arnot, Private Citizen
Norma Lacroix-Gagné, President,
Chapter of E.M.R. (French Chapter)
Anne Monk for Wayne Hughes,
Private Citizen
David McDowell, Private Citizen
Jake Peters, Private Citizen
Ron Anthony, Private Citizen
Marj Grevstad, Private Citizen
Jean Ogren, Private Citizen
John Carroll, Private Citizen
Karen Boughton, Private Citizen
Ruth Livingston, Private Citizen
JoAnne Irving, Private Citizen
Bills Considered
and Reported:
Bill 48–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment
Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants
Your committee
agreed to report this bill, without amendment.
Ms. Brick: Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Rossmere (Mr.
Schellenberg), that the report of the committee be received.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
* (13:40)
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like
to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where
we have with us today Brent Hunter,
Heather Cummings, Evelyn McConnell, Eleanor Nicholson, Barrie Strohman, Ken
Waddell and Joyce Schrader of the Neepawa Lily Festival. These visitors are the
guests of the honourable
Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux) and also of
the honourable Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings).
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
Also
I would like to draw attention to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us
today Mr. Brian Marshall. This
visitor is the guest of the honourable Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell).
Also
on behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
In
the public gallery we have John Morgan, Carol Morgan, Shawna Morgan, Diane Magill
who are the family of our page, Heather Morgan.
Also seated in the public gallery we have
from Beausejour Early Years School 87 Grade 5 students under the direction of
Ms. Lorraine Kozussek, Mrs. Fran
Goalan and Mrs. Lea-Anne Bangert. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik).
Also
in the public gallery from
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today.
Crocus Investment Fund
Proposed Legislation Amendments
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on Monday this
Premier and his Finance Minister indicated that former NDP Industry Minister MaryAnn Mihychuk was
not being truthful when she admitted publicly that her department was working
on legislation in 2002 and early 2003 to improve accounting and reporting
measures at Crocus.
In
fact, The Winnipeg Sun reported
yesterday that the NDP Member for Brandon West (Mr. Smith) stated emphatically,
and I quote, "There was no legislation I was working on or the department
was working on." The problem with that statement, Mr. Speaker, is it does not tell the
whole story. The reason the member from Brandon West was not working on any
legislation when he replaced Ms. Mihychuk was because a higher authority in his
NDP government told him to squash it, and he stood by silently and watched it
happen.
Ms.
Mihychuk is willing to testify under oath at a public inquiry, and we believe
that officials in the government that had red flags brought forward would also
like to testify under oath and tell the truth to all Manitobans.
They
will testify under oath. Why will the Premier not?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): One would be tempted to talk about testifying under oath in terms of
the Monnin inquiry where there were
three different affidavits from some of the former Premier's senior staff, but
that would not go with the question raised.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have just started Question Period and you can see we have a
lot of guests in the gallery that have come here to hear questions and answers.
Mr. Doer: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General's report is clear. There have been
newspaper reports from the Free Press
and The Sun talking about this issue.
It was reported in one paper one way. I would suggest that members opposite
read the Auditor General's report. The
Auditor General's report is the document we should be discussing. There is lots
of material in there.
I
would suggest instead of having to invent things he read the report and page
145 is very specific on this issue. The legislation that was being contemplated
was, of course, the pacing and liquidity issues. The allegation that, I think,
the terms that are used by the member opposite, some of these emotive terms,
when one looks at the fact that we did not proceed with it, I think our record
is very clear.
* (13:45)
Mr. Murray: Mr.
Speaker, we see from this Premier and his Finance Minister, they say to
reporters that they were not disputing what Ms. Mihychuk had admitted. Then
they refused to admit that they knew departmental officials in both Finance and
Industry were even in discussions about legislation. When they were asked why
they were kept in the dark about these discussions, the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Selinger) says that he was not kept in the dark.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, they cannot have it both ways. While the Premier clearly and
carefully selects the words, then states that neither caucus nor Cabinet were
aware of the legislation, he will not come clean about what individual
ministers knew.
So,
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this Premier very clearly was he or any of his
ministers aware of the legislation that Ms. Mihychuk and her department were
working on in 2002.
Mr. Doer: The
Auditor General's report is accurate.
An Honourable Member: Yes or no.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: The
Auditor General's report is accurate. He documents the matters that were raised
with Cabinet and they are specific to liquidity and pacing.
Yes,
I was aware of that legislation, and, yes, I was aware that we did not proceed.
Request for Public Inquiry
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, again on Monday both
the Premier and his Finance Minister tried to downplay Ms. Mihychuk's
admissions by stating that they were going with what the Auditor said and we
hear it again in this Chamber.
Well,
according to the Auditor, I remind this Premier that Mr. Singleton's office did
not have the ability to interview Ms. Mihychuk. The Auditor had said that it is very clearly
possible that the department was working on legislation that was not covered in
the Auditor's report, Mr. Speaker. As has happened in the past with many
governments, when there are very serious allegations as we see with this Crocus
scandal, an independent public inquiry has been called.
I
would like to remind the Premier that according to The Manitoba Evidence Act,
where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council deems it expedient to cause inquiry to
be made into, and concerning any matter within the jurisdiction of the
Legislature and connected with or affecting the good government of the
province, and the conduct of any part of the public business thereof, the
conduct of any provincial institution or of any institution with the province
receiving provincial aid or any matter which, in his opinion, is of sufficient
public importance to justify an inquiry, he may appoint one or more
commissioners to make that inquiry.
Mr.
Speaker, will the Premier do the right thing today? Will he ensure that all
Manitobans get to the truth of this Crocus scandal and will he stand in his
place and call for an independent public inquiry today?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, some of the issues that have been raised by the former
member at the same time he was accusing the board member from the government of
being a provincial appointee, he also asked six times for an inquiry before he
read the report. He has no credibility on this issue because he calls for an
inquiry before he even reads the report. It is obvious he is now calling for an
inquiry after the report is issued where he still has not read the whole
report.
It
clearly states that the Department of Industry was working on legislation. It
clearly specifies the legislation was dealing with pacing and liquidity. It is
very specific, and I would very much point out to the member opposite that
legislation is drafted in writing or in forms of writing. It would be inside
the Department of Industry. The Auditor General has access and had access to
every file in the Department of Industry. That is what is the practice. That is
why he was able to identify some e-mails. He was able to identify also some
documents dealing with the pacing and liquidity. That was the legislation that
was in the report. That is well documented by an independent officer of this
Legislature.
* (13:50)
Crocus Investment Fund
Responsibility for Legal Fees
Mr. John Loewen (
The
facts are in. The unitholders have been fleeced of $60 million. Management did
not act in a responsible manner, the board did not act in a responsible manner
and the government did not act in a
responsible manner. Unfortunately, the unitholders are left swinging in the
wind, being forced to mount and pay out of their own pockets for their own
defence while all those that offended them are receiving payment from the fund
they invested in. Their money is going to pay the individuals who the Auditor
General clearly indicated wronged them in the first place. How fair is that to
the unitholders and the taxpayers?
I
would ask the Minister of Finance if he could tell us today whether he thinks
it is fair that the unitholders are paying for the defence.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, The Class Proceedings Act that
was brought in by this government and proclaimed in the early part of I believe January of 2003 is
among the strongest legislation in the country to protect consumers. That
legislation was never brought forward during the 11 years when the members
opposite were in government. This legislation has a couple of unique features
in it that are very important for consumer protection.
First
of all, if a class proceeding is registered in the courts all affected
shareholders that have the same grievance are included in the action. They do
not have to opt in. They have the option to opt out, but they are automatically
included in the action.
The
second feature of this legislation which makes it very strong is that court
costs cannot be awarded against a group taking a class action proceeding unless
it is vexatious. Clearly these members, if they get it registered, will have a
case.
Mr. Loewen: Mr.
Speaker, the question was not about the class action suits. The question was
about the fact that the unitholders are paying legal fees for all those who
wronged them, paying out of unitholders' pockets to cover legal fees for people
who have wronged them. The Auditor General very clearly indicated in his report
that, during the course of our review, we noted several problems that should
have alerted the fund's board, as well as government officials responsible for
monitoring the fund and that a deeper
review of the fund's operations was necessary. The minister has turned a blind
eye for three years and now the unitholders are paying again and again and
again.
I
would ask this minister today to stand up and tell the unitholders when is he
going to stop turning a blind eye. When is he going to stand up for them?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, it was about three years ago that the member signed a
secret agreement that forced him to clam up, and then he wishes to cast
aspersions on others. No members of this side of the House agreed and complied
with the shakedown attempt.
Now,
on The Class Proceedings Act, Mr. Speaker, the other third feature that I did
not get a chance to put on the record is The Class Proceedings Act can award
damages. In other words, if the members of a class action suit are found to
have been wronged and mistreated, the court could award damages which will
compensate them for the losses they have incurred. This legislation did not
exist until 2003. The members opposite should be supporting this legislation
because it protects all the consumers in
Request for Public Inquiry
Mr. John Loewen (
This
minister said when he got the report he would take action. He has had it for
four weeks and, yet, he does nothing for the unitholders. The one thing his
government can do today is call a public inquiry, get the truth out in the open
so that the unitholders at least know who to go after and why, and help to
limit the expenses that they have to pay day after day after day.
Will
they do the right thing today and encourage this Premier to call a public
inquiry so that unitholders can finally get off the hook?
* (13:55)
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, a public inquiry can do nothing
but make recommendations. It cannot award damages. The Class Proceedings Act
can award damages. If the members are truly interested in seeing shareholders
compensated for any damages they may have received as a result of what has
happened at the Crocus Fund, The Class Proceedings Act is a very strong piece
of legislation which can award damages.
The
member does not seem to understand that. He wants to pursue an inquiry which
cannot award damages. The legislation we put in place will actually help
shareholders. What the members opposite want to do is they want to fix blame;
we want to fix the problem.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for
Flood Damage
Assistance to Producers
Mr. Ralph Eichler (
Can
the Minister of Agriculture tell this House what her department's proposal is
to deal with the seeded acres now sitting under water?
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Initiatives): Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed a very difficult situation for producers who are
suffering because of the unprecedented amount of rain that we are seeing in
regions of this province. It was this government that put in place excess
moisture insurance so that if producers are not able to seed they are able to
collect $50 an acre, but there are others. As well, if the producers have seeded
already, there is a process. There is insurance for reseeding. It is our hope
that the weather will improve, but if the situation does not improve certainly
crop insurance will be working very closely with the producers.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, last year's crop is still on some of our farmers' fields
and awaiting payments. There is enough hardship in our farming community. Now
farmers are struggling and losing their recently seeded crops due to the
floodwaters.
Can
the minister assure this House that the program will be in place for those
farmers who have been flooded by the most recent rains?
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, crop insurance is a program that is in place and will
continue to be in place to help producers if they are not able to seed or if
they have seeded and will lose their crops. It is a well-recognized program,
one in which we have a majority of producers participating. I can assure the
member that, as soon as there is the ability to get out and start to check
fields, staff from crop insurance will be there working with the producers.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, days are so precious in order to get our crops planted.
Some have and some will not make it for this crop season. Our forecast is not
good and offers no hope for replanting. Many
Mr.
Speaker, can the minister assure this House that their government dollars will
be meaningful to assist those farmers who have been flooding and no hope of
reseeding?
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I can assure this House and Manitobans is that
this government cares about the producers, and it was this government who
recognized that we needed an excess moisture insurance program. That was one of
the first changes we put in place when we became government and we have made
improvements to crop insurance. I want to assure members opposite that, as soon
as we are able to and as soon as there is a need to start doing adjustments on
crops, staff from Manitoba Crop Insurance will be there.
* (14:00)
Safe Schools Forum
Participation
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, a Safe Schools summit is being
held on Monday, something that we have pushed for since a number of bullying
incidents became known in the last recent while. Two days ago my staff phoned
the minister's office to find out if I would be allowed to attend that
conference, at which time the minister's office told me that no, I would not be
able to attend the conference. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray) has been
forbidden to attend the conference and the minister's office said the media are
not going to be allowed to attend the conference.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Education why.
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Speaker, the Safe Schools
forum is an opportunity for a number of different partners in education to
share the best practices that have been successful in the schools. There are a
number of very important partners who will be at the table including the police
liaison, including Child Guidance Clinic,
including Child Find Manitoba.
I
think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a political event. This is
an opportunity to share the best practices and engage in meaningful dialogue
around what has been going on in the schools to ensure the safety of our
children.
Mrs. Driedger: The minister's office told us that I, as the Education critic, could
not go but I was told that the Minister of Education was going to be there. Mr.
Speaker, another person that was told that they would not be allowed to go to
the conference is a parent of a bullied child.
I
would like to ask this minister how he could possibly say no to a parent of a
bullied child who wanted to attend this conference to seek some help and
support, to offer some input, and was told no by the Minister of Education's
office.
Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, the agenda for the day, the forum, is an opportunity to
bring school division teams together and that will be comprised of teachers, students, parents,
superintendents, principals and school trustees to discuss effective practices.
That is the agenda for the day.
The
second part, if the member had listened in the early part of my answer, I did
say that parents are part of the teams that are invited to participate. The
second part of the exercise will have specific schools share their new and
innovative experiences in making their schools safer or dealing with instances
of bullying. This is the opportunity to share best practices, to engage in
dialogue with other jurisdictions around what makes a school a safe environment
and it is an opportunity to reflect on other community partners that have been
engaged in assisting with creating that safe environment, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, it seems that parents of bullied children would have a lot
to offer to that conference and I am surprised the minister is not allowing
them to attend. All of these raise some very serious concerns because of how
badly this minister has mismanaged this bullying issue right from the
beginning, and this summit looks like more of a top-down approach of lectures
and presentations. Bullied children and their parents want a voice. They want
to be part of the solution that is going to be dealt with on Monday.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Education why they are being denied a voice
at this conference.
Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, as I said, parents and students are going to be a part of
this conference. This has been a very serious issue that we have taken very
seriously since we have been in office, the Safe Schools Charter and all the
initiatives that have been brought forward by this government since 2001 by various departments. As I said, it is
not a departmental issue specifically. It is a societal issue, and every single
Cabinet minister, every single MLA on this side of the House has been standing
up for Safe Schools since we have been elected.
Furthermore,
Mr. Speaker, as a teacher, in 1993 I was part of a Manitoba Teachers' Society
lobby that identified this issue. We lobbied the government of the day in 1993.
They did nothing. We have been doing something ever since we have been in office. We will continue to work with our
partners to address this issue. We
are committed to school safety.
Aiyawin Corporation
Operational Review
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Last year, concerns around Aiyawin Housing
Corporation prompted an operational review and a review by the Auditor General.
Following that operational review, Aiyawin was to submit a plan to address the
problems at the organization.
Can
the Minister of Family Services and Housing say if she is satisfied with
Aiyawin's progress, and is she unconditionally funding Aiyawin?
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, serious concerns were
indeed raised. The department did complete their operational review. We did
send a letter of our concerns to Aiyawin. We did receive a plan. We are
monitoring the progress of Aiyawin, but we are concerned with the progress that
is being made. We did not cut funding to Aiyawin at that time because we were
not prepared to put 219 low- income and often senior households out into the
street.
Mrs. Taillieu: Well, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are families in this housing
corporation, and certainly we do not want to see them on the street, but the
minister has a duty here. It was with great reluctance the minister released to
us the plan that Aiyawin had to address concerns. It was no wonder she was reluctant
because most of the issues that were to be dealt with there were going to be
dealt with at an annual general meeting that was to be held on June 15, but we
have learned from people within the Aiyawin Corporation that there was no such
meeting ever scheduled.
I
would ask the minister this: What agreements are in place to assure
accountability for the funding that continues to flow to the corporation?
Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, there was no reluctance to release the plan. I simply made
sure that, under FIPPA, releasing the plan would be respecting the laws of
We
know members opposite have trouble respecting the laws of
We
are monitoring. I am concerned about Aiyawin, but I will not jeopardize the 219
families nor will I work beyond the Urban Native Housing Association in
Mrs. Taillieu: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from people that live in the Aiyawin
Corporation. There are many things going on which have not been addressed, and,
in fact, it is the same business as usual there. The minister does not
recognize what is going on there, and she should go and examine what is going
on there.
The
minister stated on November 28, 2004, "if the agency does not address the
Province's concerns, the funding will cease," and that is a quote. The
minister cannot be comfortable here because, on one hand, she knows that if she
ceases funding she does put people out on the street. We would not want to see
that, but if she continues to unconditionally fund the agency with no
assurances she risks a further misuse of taxpayers' dollars, another Hydra
House scandal brewing.
She
has had six months. When will she act and what is she going to do?
Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, we did appoint a professional property manager to monitor
on a day-to-day basis. Members
opposite should be relieved of their worries of another Hydra House scandal
developing as we have reimplemented the monitoring capacity that they cancelled
in '93-94 that led directly to the Hydra House problems. We will continue to
monitor with Aiyawin, but I want the House to be very clear that I am very
concerned with the lack of progress at
Aiyawin Corporation. However, we will not jeopardize the families, and we will
not work beyond the capacity of the Manitoba Urban Native Housing Association which for the first time received
funding under this government to carry out their work.
* (14:10)
Labour Agreement
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): The Manitoba Floodway Master Labour Agreement
consists of 14 separate union agreements. It is becoming very clear now, Mr.
Speaker, what the additional costs will be of this agreement. Each agreement
outlines exactly how much every employer will be forced to pay into these trust
funds.
I
ask the minister does he feel that it is fair that
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): I thought, Mr. Speaker, given the
excess rainfall that perhaps the member opposite might be asking some questions
about flooding or even asking the question about the degree to which the
floodway expansion is going to protect 450 000 Manitobans against floods
in the future. That is the No. 1 goal of the floodway expansion.
I
realize the member opposite has always opposed the project management
agreement. I realize that when the project management agreement was released
the member opposite opposed payments for pensions and benefits. I remind the
member again that this is the year 2005, and, indeed, there are provisions for
pensions and benefits for both unionized and non-unionized employees and that
is what Manitobans expect.
Mr. Penner: The
14 agreements, Mr. Speaker, clearly indicate that employers will be forced to
contribute up to $7.36 an hour for every hour worked by every employee on that
floodway. That is a huge amount of money.
What
assurances can the Minister of Water Stewardship give the people of
Mr. Ashton: Well,
Mr. Speaker, I can assure Manitobans of one thing that, unlike the members
opposite, we do believe that if you are going to build a floodway you have to
have decent wages, decent working conditions and you do have to have pensions
and benefits. This is the year 2005.
Mr. Penner: Well,
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the minister is trying to hide something
behind because normally the union dues are subtracted from the paycheque of
union employees. It is very clear that this master agreement will be
contributing large amounts of money into a trust fund that is managed by the
unions.
Will
the minister concede that this whole master plan labour agreement is simply a
scheme cooked up by the Premier, his right-hand man,
floodway authority chairman Eugene Kostyra
and
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I always note–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable First Minister has the floor.
Mr. Doer: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite goes on but he does not talk about the
feature that is important in the public interest. This is an agreement to have
no strikes or lockouts for the agreement. I know members opposite–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable First Minister.
Mr. Doer: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. Just like the
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to say for the record that Brian Mulroney was right, and the honourable Member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was right to have no strikes and lockouts. Brian
Mulroney was correct. We agree with him.
Crocus Investment Fund
Election of Board Members
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Critical
decisions on the future of Crocus have got to be made in short order. More than
33 000 Manitobans who invested their hard-earned money in Crocus deserve
to know this government's plan for the fund. Is the NDP going to sit idly by
while the remaining money in Crocus is frittered away by management operations?
Is the NDP going to watch from the sidelines as any remaining funds are eaten
up in legal costs?
If
this fund is to be saved at all action needs to be taken quickly. I ask the
minister when will the four new Crocus board members be elected by the Class A
shareholders.
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and
Mines): I
encourage all members of the government and all members of the opposition to
look at the bill and to pass it because part of our role was to look at the
Auditor General's report and look at the recommendations to government. The
fund is supposed to look at the recommendations to management and the board and
to move further ahead. That is the role of all of us in this Chamber. That is
the role of management, that is the role of everyone.
What
we want to do is to get a good, solid foundation on which venture capital can
move forward. We made improvements in 2001. We will continue to make
improvements, but the decisions of the
fund's management is left in the hands of management. What our role is is to
pass the legislation, to have good, solid legislation, to have good board
representation and move forward to improve the venture capital fund.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, more than 33 000 Manitobans who have invested in Crocus
now face an uncertain future. The NDP failed to ensure with this bill that the
majority of Crocus board members would be elected by the Class A shareholders.
Now we see that the Class A unitholders who have invested more than $177
million of their hard-earned money in the Crocus Fund will get to elect only
four board members, yet, the Manitoba Federation of Labour which contributed a mere $200 to Crocus will appoint half the
board.
Why
does the Manitoba Federation of Labour get so much for so little? Can the
Premier please explain why his government's new Crocus bill puts the majority
of the board members and the control of what happens in the hands of his
friends at the MFL rather than the elected Class A–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Well, the federal legislation, and the member opposite was in
parliament for a period of time, requires that under labour-sponsored funds in
Mr.
Speaker, we do believe that some of the constructive advice about the lack of
shareholder representation should be met in the new legislation, but the
federal requirement on sponsorships, and I think it is under the federal Income
Tax Act, the amendments to get the 15 percent from the federal government have
to have a requirement on the sponsor. That is clearly the legislation, but the
legislation in
Mr. Gerrard: As I said, critical decisions around Crocus have to be made as soon as
possible to salvage things for the Crocus shareholders, yet the new board
members have not been elected. Why, is the question, are the Class A
shareholders who have more than $177 million invested only allowed to elect
four board members while the MFL, a paltry contributor of 200 to the Crocus
Fund and a contributor of untold amounts particularly in the eighties and
nineties to the NDP, get to appoint half the board?
Mr.
Speaker, in ENSIS, the labour sponsor of the fund has provided two board
positions for general representation rather than being appointed by the labour
sponsor directly. I ask the Premier will the government ask the Manitoba
Federation of Labour to allow for two of its board members to be elected by the
Class A shareholders in order to provide for greater democracy in decision
making around Crocus.
* (14:20)
Mr. Doer: Mr.
Speaker, the member opposite might want to look at the fact that our research
indicates that the federal Liberal Party of Canada got the majority of
political donations that were made by Crocus and their individuals. So I think
that the member opposite should not try to be too holier than thou. The member
opposite would also know that he had a co-investment, which he announced along
with the former Premier, where they talked about turning straw into gold with
the Isobord plant. He was at that press conference. I want to–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: I
do want to thank the members of this Chamber–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister.
Mr. Doer: I
do want to thank the members in the Chamber. I think the legislation that we
passed, or proposed last week, it has not been passed, deals with more
representation for shareholders, deals with more definition on return on
investment, deals with the issue of perceived ambiguity of the government board
member. That legislation has passed second reading at committee.
I
want to thank members for that co-operation. Hopefully the bill will be passed
in such a way that the annual meeting
that does take place will be able to
achieve the objective that has been stated in this House by opposition members
and by the government to give greater representation on the board level with
the shareholders having elections for those spots. I appreciate the support we
have had.
Neighbourhoods Alive! Program
Progress Report
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): As the MLA for Wolseley, I consider myself
very, very fortunate to have not
one, but pieces of two designated Neighbourhoods Alive! communities in my
riding. I have reported on several occasions that many of the success stories
have come from our government's collaborative approach to inner city renewal,
an issue which was completely abandoned and betrayed by members opposite for
over a decade.
The
work that we have to do now to rebuild these communities is ongoing, and I am
wondering if the honourable minister might care to share with us news of a very
important announcement that was held on this award-winning program earlier
today.
Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in this House and announce today our fifth anniversary of Neighbourhoods Alive! in
the
Mr.
Speaker, as the member from Wolseley mentions, this program was revitalized by
this government certainly, and was first launched in June of 2000. It was a strategy that
supported and encouraged
community-driven revitalization in neighbourhoods in
Mr.
Speaker, to date we put $26.5 million into this program. We have worked with
many of the neighbourhood local support groups with this program, and you are
seeing a difference in every corner of every neighbourhood in
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate all the neighbourhood folks–
Mr. Speaker: Order. Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery. We have from Nellie McClung Collegiate 15 Grade 11 students under the direction Mr. Grant Caldwell. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
* * *
An Honourable Member: On a question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to take this opportunity because it is very important that we all as members maintain decorum, because I had stated to the House that Oral Questions time had expired. [interjection] Well, I had stated it on–
An Honourable Member: There is so much noise here.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is one of the problems. That is why I am glad to have this opportunity to address it, because it is a good experience. That is why I draw attention to honourable members about the importance of my ability to hear the questions and the answers because if there is a breach of rule, you rightfully expect me to deal with it and make a ruling. That is why it is very important that we maintain decorum in the House so I can hear every question and the answers to those questions.
I saw the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire) had stood up, and I went like this to signal, and I had stated that time for Oral Questions has expired. So it is very important.
Mr. Speaker: Now we are on Members' Statements, and I had recognized the honourable Member for Ste. Rose.
Neepawa Lily Festival
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the enthusiasm of my House Leader. I could have asked a question.
I want to acknowledge the visitors in the Speaker's Gallery today. They represent the Neepawa and area Lily Festival, and I appreciate their attendance here today because they represent the founders of the concept of the Lily Festival. They represent more than 300 volunteers that make the Lily Festival work in our community.
Barrie Strohman, who is with the group today, is a dedicated developer of lily varieties and has a long history in the development of lilies in our area. Eleanor Nicholson and Barrie recognize the unique and important aspect of the fact that we had 1500 varieties, now over 2000 varieties that are grown and named in the area of Neepawa.
The balance of the folks represented here today in the gallery are part of the core of what makes our festival work. They are dedicated volunteers and they do this because they love lilies, they love Neepawa and they love sharing these joys with other people.
Today, along with Evelyn McConnell, Brent Hunter and Chairman Ken Waddell, and with the assistance and the support of the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Lemieux), we planted a lily in the formal gardens at the back of the Legislative grounds, and it is named the Neepawa lily.
An Honourable Member: Is there a Russell lily?
Mr. Cummings: I am asked from beside me, here, if we will soon have a Russell lily and perhaps that could be arranged.
An Honourable Member: What colour would it be?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I recommend to all members of this Chamber that they take the opportunity in July between the 22nd and the 24th to attend the Lily Festival, and for a little warmer-upper go and visit the Neepawa lily at the back of the grounds.
Biodiesel Fuel Industry
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the
attention of the House to
Yesterday, our government announced that Manitoba Hydro will be purchasing biodiesel fuel from Bifrost Bio-Blends of Arborg. Biodiesel is a safe, non-toxic, renewable fuel which is biodegradable in water, produces fewer emissions and has a more pleasant odour than petroleum diesel.
Along with many
environmental benefits, the production of biodiesel has the potential to
give a boost to
Mr. Speaker, given its
positive aspects in terms of lubricity, biodiesel fuel also has the potential
to reduce maintenance costs and down time for
Bifrost Bio-Blends is the
first biodiesel plant in
Biodiesel fuel is a wonderful addition to our province's clean energy plan. I would like to thank our government for continuing its commitment to developing clean and affordable energy sources. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (14:30)
Ambulance Service for East
and
Mr. Ron Schuler (
One example was the case
of Mr. Peter Krahn, a 46-year-old resident of the city of
Mr. Speaker, on May 2,
2005, I asked the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) what plans he had to provide
local ambulance coverage to East and
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table for this House over 175 additional signatures from concerned residents of both East and West St. Paul asking the provincial government and the Minister of Health to consider providing our communities with local ambulance service which would service both East and West St. Paul. To date, I have presented over a thousand signatures to the Legislative Assembly on behalf of those concerned citizens. I look forward to the day when our communities will receive ambulance coverage with acceptable urgent response times.
MAFTI Event
Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a special event that occurred on Tuesday, June 7, 2005. This event was a cultural presentation hosted by the Manitoba Association of Filipino Teachers Incorporated, also known as MAFTI. It was held at the Philippine Canadian Centre of Manitoba as part of the 2005 Philippine Heritage Week celebration. This event showcased and highlighted the good work the Manitoba Association of Filipino Teachers is doing in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, MAFTI is an
important organization in
Mr. Speaker, I thank
Gemma Dalayoan, president of the Manitoba Association of Filipino Teachers
Incorporated, and all the officers and members of MAFTI for hosting this event.
I also thank all the children, parents and participants that attended last
night's event. Lastly, I thank the MLA for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and the MLA
for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) for attending this event. I wish all the members
of
Government Organizational
Issues
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Bills 44, 48, 50 and 51 were not even introduced until well after the April 28 deadline for bills which were expected to be passed by the end of session. You know, we would like to know the government's intentions, and are they serious in wanting this legislation passed before the end of the session or not?
I would like to indicate on our part that, because we know that the government has been kind of disorganized and things have not moved quite as fast as they might have expected, we are prepared in our caucus to not see the clock on Thursday evening if this would allow the government to get some of these critical bills through by the deadline that we have in the agreement of last year, which was, in fact, an NDP and Progressive Conservative party agreement, which we did not agree to, and that that agreement to end the session June 9, which is tomorrow, we are ready to accommodate to make sure that critical things get done for the people of Manitoba.
We realize that it would send a rather strong signal if the NDP or the Conservatives decided to break the resolution of the contract of last year which ended the session on June 9. It was a contract or resolution which we did not agree to at the time, although we did agree to the one which would allow for the two full weeks of June for us to be sitting. But, as I said, we would certainly allow for not seeing the clock on Thursday–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, we will be dealing with bills this afternoon. Would you please call, to begin with, debate on report stage amendments, Bill 22, The Water Protection Act? I wonder if we could deal with that until 3:30, at which time we will call other business.
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House to call report stage, Bill 22, until 3:30 p.m.?
Is there agreement? Then we will look to the Government House Leader for further instructions. It is agreed to? [Agreed]
DEBATE ON REPORT STAGE
AMENDMENTS
Bill
22–The Water Protection Act
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on report stage amendments. There are eight amendments, moved by the honourable Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton). We will deal with the first one, that is to clause 4.2.
The honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), who has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, the one thing, I think, that is becoming very, very evident is that when the Minister of Water Stewardship and the people that he had working with him were drafting this bill, it had become very evident that many people in this province were very concerned at how the bill was drafted and what was missing from this bill.
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy
Speaker, in the Chair
* (14:40)
I want to commend the minister that he has listened to many of those people who have indicated how badly flawed the bill was in its initial state of drafting and has recognized that and has made an attempt to at least fix parts of this bill. We believe strongly that if a lot more attention would have been paid to the clauses that we are amending now and many other areas of the bill that will need significant regulations to be put in place to make this a workable bill–I have said this a number of times before. This bill is, in large part, enabling legislation that is simply drafted in such a way that, should the minister decide to do regulations in regard to Bill 22, he can. We all know that those kinds of regulations are drafted in the secrecy of the Cabinet facility.
It is important to note that, in clause 4.2(1), when he is now saying in his amendment that at least 90 days before a regulation is made under section 4(1) the minister must, in a newspaper in general circulation in the affected area, advertise the fact that a draft of the proposed regulation has been filed in the public registry. To me that is not good enough, and to many Manitobans that is not good enough. I would suggest that the minister should have written into this draft amendment that at least 90 days prior to any regulations being enacted or proposed there must be public consultation on these regulations to ensure that municipalities, individuals, businesses, industries and others would have a clear indication of how they would be governed in the usage of water, and how regulations would be done to ensure that they would at least have some operational understanding of what the regulations would mean and how this legislation would, in fact, affect them.
Then it goes on to say written objections within 60 days after an advertisement is published under subsection (1), subject to subsection (3): any person may refer a written objection to the proposed regulation to a director in a form approved by the minister. Now does that mean that the person who is objecting to the proposed regulation to the director, that that criticism or objection must be approved in a form or manner that the minister has approved of? Well, the reason I ask that question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this, again, seems very authoritative on how this bill has been drafted and how the minister is now proposing to deal with the regulations that indeed will enable this legislation to be used.
The reason I raise this
is because I found it rather interesting that at the Legislators' Forum that
was held here in Winnipeg, which consisted of legislators and senators from
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
There was a stark reality
that set in when we did the
comparison. It was very obvious that
This bill is no different. When you look at this bill and you read at the outset in one of the clauses that the minister will have total authority, the minister may take any action, make any regulation or issue any order that, in his or her opinion, are necessary, that is what clause 7(2) states in this bill. I made a little note to myself when I first read this. This is one of the most authoritative statements I have seen in legislation in a long, long time.
When I read the
The scientific technology and the scientific information that we have been seeking is included in this amendment. I congratulate the minister for recognizing the scientific requirement that we should be seeking when we are dealing with water. We have already heard far too many rumours. We have seen far too much rhetoric and heard far too much rhetoric on matters such as clean water, on matters such as hog operation as we heard here the other day on The Planning Act.
I was actually shocked at
how misinformed some people that made presentations at that committee actually
were. It just totally took me off stride. I had no idea that we had done such a
poor job of educating the people of
This bill and clause 4(2), (3) says an objection under (2) must be based on written scientific or technical information relating to an area proposed to form all or part of the water quality management zone. This information must be provided to the director at time of an objection. Here again, you know, I congratulate the minister for wanting scientific information when people make objections. I think that is necessary. However, nowhere do I see here that the minister must use the same scientific analogy when he or she gives an order.
He does not need the proof, the scientific evidence, and that is what is wrong with this bill. That is what is so interesting about this bill. I hope that we will at one point be dealing with the actual requirement for the minister to also use scientific evidence because only by using scientific evidence will we finally clear the air and cause the debate in public to be done in such a way, to be dealt with in such a way that we will use facts and factual evidence in determining what action should be taken.
* (14:50)
I believe the general
public is looking forward to that. They have heard far too much rhetoric, and
they would be just too pleased to hear that some government was actually going
to use scientific evidence before they portray another body of water as a
sewage lagoon or a sewage dump site. That is, I believe, the terminology that
we have used, or someone, not we have used, but that the minister and his
colleagues have used to describe a water body that is not within our own jurisdiction.
That is unfortunate because it causes deep divisions. It causes deep hurt
feelings. We have no evidence if what the minister was saying when he described
An Honourable Member: It is on a waste water permit.
Mr. Penner: Now the minister says, well, it is done by a waste water permit. That is how they do business, but it has nothing to do with the actual content of the lake. That is unfortunate that this minister does not understand that. He uses the terminology "waste water management technology" or "assessment" to describe what the water quality is actually like. Unfortunate, very unfortunate.
But, I believe, in clause 4.2(6), "Before providing advice under (5), if the director determines that there is an unresolved scientific or technical issue, he or she must obtain expert advice in such a manner as may be set out in the regulation."
Now expert advice, Mr. Speaker, is not scientific advice. It is interesting that this minister is requiring those who object to provide scientific evidence but he and his department in responding need only ask for expert advice. No requirement for scientific analogies, and that is why we are proposing an amendment that will also indicate that the minister must provide scientific evidence of the action that he is taking, that it is actually verified or justified.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the minister take a hard look even at this one and make–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is amendment to Bill 22, clause 4.2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to the next amendment to Bill 22 and that is clause 4.3, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Derkach).
What is the will of the House? Stand?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied.
Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that maybe we should ask the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden to speak ahead of me, and I will speak after him.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden to speak now, and then we will recognize the honourable Member for Emerson? [Agreed]
Mr. Larry Maguire
(Arthur-Virden): Sorry for any confusion there. I
wanted to just have the opportunity to speak to this amendment. We have seen a
number of amendments come before the water bill, and I believe this is the
first time I have had an opportunity to speak to some of the amendments on this
historic bill and an important bill in
Mr. Speaker, the minister has put up a number of amendments to the bill that was some time coming forward. There is no doubt that I want to make sure that it is on the record that, I, on behalf of the people of Arthur-Virden, want to guarantee that we have the cleanest, most pristine water that we can possibly have in Manitoba for the use of not only the citizens that we have today but every future citizen in Manitoba and every guest that we can possibly bring to the province of Manitoba. I think that would go without saying.
I think the concern that
we have, and I just want to speak
for a moment in regard to the situation in Arthur-Virden, is we have many water
courses, as I have stated in this
House before. Southwest Manitoba, if you look at crop insurance maps, is
supposed to be a dry region in the
I want to say how important it is that the water we have in relation to the southwest part in the areas like Metigoshe, some of the other lakes, Lake William, Lake George, Oak Lake, the Souris River, the Assiniboine River, the basins that we have, Mr. Speaker, are those visual appearances of water that are there throughout the region, but we have an extremely valuable resource in the aquifers of water that we have. I think that the reason we really need to be careful about the future of water in our region is so that we not only maintain the water courses that we have but also the aquifers that we have.
So I want to take the opportunity to say that the other area that we have of very much importance, is a lot of the water that comes in from Saskatchewan, from our neighbouring province off the edge of the Moose Mountains through the area of the Antler Creek, the Jackson, the Stony, the Graham and others that come in through the Pipestone, that come in through the western side of the province and eventually end up in the Souris River, ending up in the Assiniboine River.
I think that we have a situation here in an amendment like this where we are looking at reviewing–that under Bill 22 that is amended, the minister has come in by adding the following after clause 4(2), Mr. Speaker, and that is a section that speaks to the review of regulation that the minister no later than five years after the date on which a regulation under section 4 comes into force requires a water council–and I will speak to that in a moment–to review the effectiveness of the regulation and, in the course of that review, consult with any person affected by the regulation that the council considers appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say that this water council could recommend, if it considers it advisable, that the regulation be amended or repealed. The minister again may, in addition, require the council to undertake such a review at any other time. Of course, so, while the review would take place every five years automatically, by the looks of this type of an amendment, and I have no problem with reviewing regulations I guess, I think one of the things that we would probably review, if I was looking at this amendment, would be, in the first place, we would have to make very clear the make-up of the water council, and of course the minister has included that in the bill.
There is a make-up of the water council, and I think there is a lot of importance to be placed on the role and the resources of that council, the resources that are made available to that council. I think the fact that, when the water council is done making some of the regulations that will be put into place under clause 4, for the minister, I want to back up, Mr. Speaker, for the most part, the council is making all of these regulations, and I guess in this case it is saying in not later than five years that review will have to take place.
* (15:00)
Mr. Speaker, I would also recommend that, or I would look at this situation. This amendment allows the water council to make amendments and repeals to this particular act. I guess I need to look at this from the point of view of a government that was bringing bills forward, that had a lot of time to put it together, that had a lot of resources, if you will, to deal with a situation like this, and that perhaps this might have been put together in the original bill. Of course, I am not going to chastise the minister because, I guess, if you are bringing amendments forward, there is an opportunity to improve a bill.
We have seen a lot of
amendments from my colleagues, the member from
So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I would close my comments on this amendment.
Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate clearly that I support what the honourable member has just put on the record. I want to say, again, in this part of the amendments, in section 4.3, that the minister clearly has all the authority under this bill. Even though he is going to appoint a water council, it is clear that, any direction they want to take or any time they want to take any action to do something, they must first consult with the minister.
I guess therein lies a major part of the problem, the authoritative approach being used by this government to deal with a matter that affects every single one of us in this province. I believe we as people should also be allowed some comments and be able to give advice to the minister and/or give him clear direction on matters that are so important, as this water issue is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is amendment to Bill 22, clause 4.3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Agreed? [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move to amendment to Bill 22, clause 8.1, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
What is the will of the House? Stand?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: It has been denied?
An Honourable Member: There is a subamendment.
Mr. Speaker: Oh, sorry about that. There is a subamendment. I did not notice.
I will call subamendment to clause 8.1, Bill 22, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
What is the will of the House? Stand?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied.
Mr. Penner: I am just looking, Mr. Speaker, for a copy of the subamendment. [interjection] Pardon? Hang on a second. No, I have it.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has already spoken to the subamendment.
Mr. Penner: Yes, I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, I believe that I had already made comment on this subamendment.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is subamendment to clause 8.1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No? It has been denied? Okay, it has been denied.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the subamendment, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the subamendment, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: It has been defeated. In my opinion, the Nays have it, so the subamendment has been defeated.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to the amendment to clause 8.1, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
What is the will of the House? Stand?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied.
Mr. Penner: One of the reasons we had proposed a subamendment to this bill was to assure that some of the fears that have been expressed by some people in this province would, in fact, be addressed in this bill. I am a bit disappointed that the minister has chosen not to include the subamendment in this new bill. However, I guess, it is, again, an indication of how authoritative the minister wants to become in the application of this bill.
Clause 8.1(1), there is a real concern here in this clause. It talks about the cancellation or reduction of water to any point or place or person holding a licence under The Water Rights Act. Normally, all of us, regardless of where we are, once we have received a licence to draw water out of an aquifer, to take water out of a river or a stream, or to dig a pond and impound water for use on our own farms or whatever, the impoundment of water in farm dugouts has never required a licence until now. However, this also indicates that, when an allocation is lifted and awarded and water is awarded to somebody else, the compensation will have to be paid by the person that is awarded the water. This causes a real question in many people's minds.
This bill, in my view, in fact for the first time that I know of, will allow for the sale of bulk water, and there is no restriction. There is no restriction in this bill as to what would happen with that water once it is sold. So one could assume, one might assume, that the restrictions that have been there up until now in bulk water sales for export might, in fact, be allowed now, allowable under this bill the way it is drafted. I do not think that is really what the minister was trying to achieve here, but this has been brought to my attention by those who have looked very carefully at this bill. So we do not know what this means in the final analysis.
If we had a bit of time here, I think I might have been able to look at the subamendment that we had put. Maybe I could ask the Clerk's office whether they might have a copy of the subamendment, but, really, what is important to note under this area, the allocation or the increase of the allocation of water at that "point or place to another person who does not hold a licence, or whose licence is, relative to the licence referred to in clause (a), lower in precedence under subsection 8 (precedence of licences) of The Water Rights Act; the person whose allocation is cancelled or reduced is entitled to receive from and shall be paid by the other person compensation for any loss or damage resulting from the cancellation or reduction." That means simply that, not only would that person have to be compensated for the loss of the water, it would actually have to be paid for, any damages resulting from the cancellation or the reduction of the water.
* (15:10)
It would lead me to
believe that, if the minister actually did the cancellation and the diversion
to another person, it might in fact be the
He said, "Well, we are going to reduce. Because we are in such short supply, we are going to reduce the usage amount, be it McCain Foods or any of the other processing plants." He would say then, "Well, we are going to reduce that, but we have another processor downstream who is virtually out of water. We will allocate part of this water to that person downstream."
It would lead me to
believe that, if the original user of the water would then claim damages, those
damages might well have to be incurred by the minister or by the
Of course, as I have said before, it is clear that this government is so enamoured with the power that is given by legislation that I believe it almost looks like a self-fulfilment. That the minister was able to write a bill such as this and give himself the power, without any respect that maybe he will not be the minister very long, maybe it will be somebody else in this power, and maybe they will not have the same wisdom that he has to put the proper applications and regulations in place to make this bill in fact function.
So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, there are some very significant concerns in this bill that need to be amended and changed. We see enough amendments and subamendments in this bill that one would almost suggest that there might have been a complete rewrite done of this bill with greater consultation in the general public and those who are quite aware of what this kind of a bill really means to them.
We know also, however, that, if anybody would stand and vote in the final stages against a bill such as this, they would be deemed voting against clean water. I am not so sure that it is entirely the minister's intent to deal only with clean water in this bill. There seems to be a desire by the minister to wield an authority over industry, over commerce, over production, the primary producers and others, that the minister of this bill will be the final authority. I think that is unfortunate that we have that.
Mr. Speaker, in saying that, I want to conclude remarks by saying we will do a significant review of this bill in our final comments in third reading of this bill.
Mr. Maguire: It just reminded me, while the member from Emerson was speaking to this amendment, that certainly it outlines very clearly why he brought the subamendment forward, clause 8.1 to Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to open my comments by saying that I think it was Mark Twain who said, and I am sure that this will come up by the minister or others before the debate on this bill is over, but I believe Mark Twain at one point said, "Whiskey is for drinkin' and water is for fightin'."
I only speak to this bill because I want to try and eliminate for the minister any opportunity to have a conflict of interest in his department and for him personally if he were to be the minister who actually was in charge of this bill, or any future minister, Mr. Speaker. It could be myself or the member from Emerson in the future, or some other member.
I guess I wanted to say that the member from Emerson only brought the amendment forward to say that he would replace the word "minister" in clause 8.1(2), and replace it with the words "Lieutenant Governor in Council" so that all of the onus was not on the minister to make these decisions in regard to the declaration of a particular decision that could impact the whole industry, never mind the importance of how it would impact one particular individual or one particular enterprise. I think that is clearly why the member brought that forward, I guess, in spite of the fact that the minister wanted to maintain the control by defeating that amendment, speaks a bit highly to his intentions with this bill.
He may respond that he
has to be able to make quick actions at some point. But I know that, in one of
the biggest floods we ever had, in 1997, there was very much a team approach taken to
dealing the issues of water and the
flood around
So I guess we are looking at areas where when these decisions are made, the minister's amendment here very clearly states that there would be no compensation for these circumstances taken by the minister. We all have some circumstances and some concern with those kinds of decisions being made on these types of important bills. With those few comments, I will end my comments on this particular amendment.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to just put a few comments on
record. Regarding this whole area of compensation, where allocation cancelled
or reduced is the amendment. Again, I just want to bring back the area that I
represent. The minister is well aware that Winkler draws about 50 percent of
its water from the Winkler aquifer, as we know it. Morden gets the majority of their water from
On the other hand, though, Mr. Speaker, I just want to also indicate that the livestock industry is a huge industry in our area, as well of course as the potato industry. As the minister may or may not be aware, in fact the companies that are contracting the potatoes in most cases are requiring by now that there be irrigation taking place. Now, it is a little difficult to talk about irrigation today when we see what is happening outside, and of course–
An Honourable Member: It is coming down faster.
Mr. Dyck: That is right, as the Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire) indicates, it is coming down faster than the pivots could ever put out. But I also remember very vividly the years back in the eighties, 1988, for the southern area, '89, were very, very dry days. Our processors are very, very dependent on having a good, steady supply of potatoes and they are going to do their processing. So they need to have assurance that the product is going to be there.
* (15:20)
Now, on the other hand, the way I read the amendment, it would also indicate that the minister, rather than Cabinet, would be able to make that determination as to who would be able to receive water, who would be cut off from the usage of water, and then, consequently, also, when the community or whoever would not be able to have a water supply, would have to pay compensation to the others. So this whole area is of concern to me as I represent an area where we are very much in need of a good, steady, sound supply of water.
So, with those few
comments, I just wanted to add my concern as I represent an area that, again,
is one of the fastest growing areas in the
So, with those few words, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is amendment to Bill 22, clause 8.1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move to amendment to Bill 22, clause 11(1)(b)(iv), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell.
What is the will of the House? Stand?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied.
Mr. Penner: This amendment is very self-explanatory, and I believe that the
amendment is warranted. I think many of the people that have made presentations to the minister and us and
that we have met with over this bill
clearly indicated that there should be
an addition of wetlands and after
riparian areas in this bill recognizing the fact of the importance of the
wetlands in the whole of
The reason I wanted to
make a few comments on this, it was brought to my attention by a scientist the
other day that we have made a big to-do in the whole process of dealing with
zebra mussels, and the province of
Manitoba has been very, very adamant that they did not want any zebra mussels
in the province of Manitoba. However, this scientist pointed out to me that if
it had not been for the zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, the
The scientists tell me
that it is not nature that is averse to the zebra mussel. It is human beings that
are absolutely appalled by the effect of the zebra mussels and how they clog up
sewage systems and those kinds of excrement ejection systems that have been put
into lakes and rivers and streams. I would suspect that if a zebra mussel
inhabitation actually happened on Lake Winnipeg and on
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is amendment to Bill 22, clause 11(1)(b)(iv).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to the next amendment to Bill 22, clause 20(a.1), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
What is the pleasure of the House? Stand?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied.
Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, this is a clause added to the bill which indicates clearly that there will be a review of regulations respecting water quality management zones and provide advice to the minister, and this is in reference to the authority being given to the board of, I believe the minister calls it, the water council. Some of us like to call it the superboard of water. I think the council will have, now, the authority, or will be given the authority, not only to monitor the development and implementation of watershed management plans, but will, in fact, also be designated the authority that will review regulations respecting water quality management zones and then provide advice to the minister. We would hope that the minister will heed their advice and take appropriate action based on the advice that they will extend to the minister.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is amendment to Bill 22, clause 20(a.1).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Agreed? [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to Bill 22, clause 32.1 as amended, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell.
What is the will of the House? Stand?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied.
Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, this one, I think, is fairly relevant. It basically speaks to that the minister must maintain a public registry. That is, when there are complaints and/or proposals or declarations made or regulations made or any orders made under regulations, that there must be a public registry provided, and that, if there is an order respecting a commercial, and I believe the subamendment here was an ag or an agricultural operation, there would be a registry kept of those complaints that were registered against anybody in this province, and there would be, clearly, an indication and a record kept of those kinds of matters.
I would support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is amendment to Bill 22, clause 32.1 as amended.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Agreed? [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Amendment to Bill 22, clause 33(1)(h), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
What is the will of the House? Stand?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No. It has been denied.
* (15:30)
Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I think this is, if I remember correctly, the clause adding "or agriculture" to "commercial" in this amendment, and we support the addition of "agriculture." That is dealing with the amendment that we have just passed, and therefore this amendment is in order to ensure that "agriculture" will also be registered.
Mr. Speaker: Order. As previously agreed, the hour is 3:30.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if there be agreement just to complete this clause then.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to continue on until we pass this clause? Agreement? [Agreed]
Mr. Penner: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, we agree with this amendment, and we would encourage that there would be proper records kept. So we concur with the passage of this amendment.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is clause 33(1)(h) to Bill 22.
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment? [Agreed]
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on House business.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would you please call report stage amendments, followed by second readings, followed by concurrence and third readings in the order they appear?
REPORT STAGE AMENDMENTS
Bill
17–The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Report stage amendments, Bill 17, The Regional Health Authorities
Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act, amendment standing in the name
of the honourable Member for
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
THAT Bill 17 be amended in
Clause 2 by
adding the following after the proposed section 53.4:
Critical incident:
notification by others
53.4.1(1) Any of the following who believes that a critical incident has occurred in respect of health services provided to an individual may notify the regional health authority for the health region in which the incident occurred:
(a) the individual himself or herself;
(b) a relative of the individual;
(c) an individual working at
or for the regional health authority, the health corporation or the prescribed
health care organization, that provided the health services.
Action where notification
received
53.4.1(2) Promptly upon being notified under subsection (1), the regional health authority must
(a) inform the minister that such a notification has been received; and
(b) investigate, in accordance with guidelines established by the minister, whether a critical incident has occurred.
Review committee
provisions apply
53.4.1(3) If the regional health authority determines that a critical incident has occurred, it must ensure that the incident is investigated and reported on, and sections 53.3 and 53.4 apply, with necessary changes.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for
THAT Bill 17 be amended in Clause 2 by adding the following after the proposed section 53–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this amendment is to allow a critical-incident event to be reported through the procedures which have been outlined in the bill to the appropriate Regional Health Authority, and what is critical here is that every once in a while a critical incident may not be reported by the physician, nurse or other health care worker but be brought up by a patient.
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
I would think that it would be very important that the patient or, on the death of the patient, a family member be allowed to bring forward a concern about a critical incident, and that concern would then be evaluated by the regional heath authority, so it would not become a critical incident per se until it has actually been evaluated carefully.
I believe that this is an important amendment based on my experience, and it would provide an important safeguard in that an incident which might be missed by health care workers or not felt to be significant or not reported could be reported directly by the patient or, on the death of a patient, by a family member would be the intent here, Mr. Speaker.
Those are my comments on this report stage amendment, and I hope that the minister would give it due consideration.
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to talk with the member briefly about his amendment, and we think that the intent of his amendment is sound. However, I am advised by Leg Counsel that there are some drafting difficulties. I have asked that Leg Counsel draft an alternative which would meet the intent of the member, but I will just tell the member a couple of reasons why there is a problem with the way this is drafted.
There are two kinds of
health providers in
So I have asked Leg Counsel to draft an amendment which would follow the intent that the member has which I believe is correct. I have spoken to him about this, but unfortunately we are not able to support the amendment as it is currently worded for primarily technical reasons.
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Deputy Speaker, just to put a few words on the record with respect to this amendment introduced by the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) with respect to Bill 17. We do believe and would agree in principle, certainly, that patients themselves should have the opportunity to bring forward critical incident reports as well. It should not just be the health care workers in facilities and so on. We believe it is very important that patients should have the right to bring these incidents forward, and we do believe, as it is written in this amendment, that it clearly does indicate and provide for that.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would say that, certainly in principle, I mean, we would actually support this amendment as it does stand. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the pleasure of the House?
It has been moved by the
honourable Member for
THAT Bill–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Voice Vote
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Okay. All those in favour of the amendment, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those opposed to the amendment, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Nays have it. The amendment is accordingly defeated.
* * *
Mr. Sale: Mr. Deputy Speaker, just to assure the House, if I receive the amendment in time, I will bring it forward. If I do not receive it in time, then we will bring it forward at the next available opportunity.
* (15:40)
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck),
THAT Bill 17 be amended in Clause 2 by adding the following after the proposed section 53.5:
Notice of recommendations
53.5.1(1) If a report provided to the minister upon the completion of the investigation into a critical incident makes recommendations of a general nature that would be relevant to the delivery of health services elsewhere in the province, the minister must give each regional health authority a summary of those recommendations.
No disclosure of personal information
53.5.1(2) When giving a summary of recommendations, the minister must not disclose any personal health information or personal information about a person.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for Tuxedo, seconded by the Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck),
THAT Bill 17 be amended–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Dispense.
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on completion of an investigation into a critical incident where a recommendation is made of a general nature that would be relevant to the delivery of health care services in other regional health authorities, this report would be given to the minister.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
What this amendment essentially does is that it requires the minister to pass that information on to other regional health authorities to, hopefully, prevent similar critical incidents from happening in those regional health authorities. In doing so, we want to make sure that the minister does not disclose any personal health information or personal information about a person, which follows along the intent of the bill as well. I believe this is something that all members of this House would support in strengthening a bill that we believe, and we would like to see pass in this House.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I just rise to speak to the amendment of the MLA for Tuxedo. I think what is clear is that this amendment would make eminent sense that where there is a result of a critical incident, that result, to the extent that this, from a privacy perspective, can be shared with other regional health authorities so that we can in this way build on the expertise that is learned from one critical incident and make sure that mistakes do not happen in other regional health authorities. This clearly is a sensible thing. One would hope that this sort of activity would occur without necessarily having to be written into law, but going that the government may sometimes need some prodding that it would be quite reasonable to put it into law. I think the Member for Tuxedo has made a good contribution. Thank you.
Mr. Sale: I understand the intent of the honourable member's amendment. I
should tell her that although she references
Saskatchewan Health does
not issue alerts on all issues because they felt, and continue to feel, that
such a strategy would result in too many alerts, and if you have too many
alerts you desensitize people to the importance of the really critical ones.
What happens is that they discriminate as when an alert should be issued. In
the past two years they have issued 13, and, as in
So, with respect, I am afraid that we are not able to support this amendment although the intention, I think, of having the whole system learn from incidents that occur in a particular area is sound, and we do do that. We make sure that does happen. I can give the member, for example, when we had some problems with the sterilization of particular equipment in St. Boniface Hospital, we ensured that all holders of that equipment throughout the province were immediately aware of the problem and what protocol to follow to ensure sterilization did occur in an appropriate way.
So, Mr. Speaker, with regret, we will not be able to support this amendment.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment moved by the honourable Member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson) to Bill 17.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
* * *
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, on the discussion on the amendment which I brought forward, we now have a redraft of that amendment. We are waiting for copies of that report stage amendment on Bill 17, which are being made as we speak, to be brought back to the House so that they can be distributed. I would ask for leave that, you know, whether it is now, or we could return to this as soon as those are available, that we would have the opportunity to bring this redrafted amendment to Bill 17 back to the House.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House for the honourable Member for
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Clerk has sent out for copies, and they probably will be available within a minute or two for the House. So we are quite prepared to either wait for that minute or to agree to return to it. But I think we will have it, you know, very shortly, like maybe now.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for the honourable Member for
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement? The honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan), on a point of order? Okay. Is there leave for that? [Agreed]
Okay, there has been leave, so we will recess for a few minutes for the amendment to come into the House.
The House recessed at 3:49
p.m.
________
The House resumed at 3:51 p.m.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale),
THAT Bill 17 be amended in Clause
2 by adding the following after the proposed section 53.4:
Critical incident: notification
by others
53.4.1(1) Any of the following who believes that a critical incident has occurred in respect of health services provided to an individual may notify the health corporation, prescribed health care organization or regional health authority which provided the health services:
(a) the individual himself or herself;
(b) a relative of the individual;
(c) an individual working at or for the regional health authority, the health corporation or the prescribed health care organization.
Action where notification received
53.4.1(2) Promptly upon being notified under subsection (1), the health corporation, prescribed health care organization or regional health authority must determine if a critical incident occurred.
Review committee
provisions apply
53.4.1(3) If the regional health authority determines that a critical incident has occurred, it must ensure that the incident is investigated and reported on, and sections 53.3 and 53.4 apply, with necessary changes.
Retaliation prohibition
applies
53.4.1(4) Section 53.9 applies, with necessary changes, to an individual described in clause (1)(c) who gives a notification under this section.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for
THAT Bill 17–
An Honourable Member: Seconded by the Minister of Health.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, seconded by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Sale),
THAT Bill 17 be amended–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Mr. Sale: Just on a matter of procedure, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask for leave to allow the French translation to be completed and verified at a later time, because there are apparently a couple of French translation issues. I believe that is in order if we put it on the record.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House for the French translation to be completed at a later date? Is there leave? [Agreed]
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Health for moving quickly and making some changes which would improve the amendment which I had originally put forward. I hope that, now with these changes which satisfy the concerns of the Minister of Health, we will get all members of the House to support this. Thank you.
Mrs. Stefanson: I just wanted to say, just to note, that, yes, minor changes have
taken place with respect to this amendment originally brought forward by the
Member for
I think, however, it is
unfortunate that the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) does not see fit, or did not
see fit to support the previous amendment that we had introduced on the basis
of the fact that it is not something that takes place in
Having said that, we certainly do, on this side of the House, support patients' rights and patients' ability to bring forward critical incidents to health care authorities. So, on that basis, Mr. Speaker, we would support the amendment. Again, it is just unfortunate that the Minister of Health and, indeed, many members opposite, ministers opposite, who bring forward bills cannot seem to get it right the first time, but we are happy that there is this process here so that we can strengthen bills.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment moved by the
honourable Member for
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? [Agreed]
Bill
21–The Oil and Gas Amendment and
Oil and Gas Production Tax
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Now I am going to be calling report stage amendments to Bill 21, The
Oil and Gas Amendment and Oil and
Gas Production Tax Amendment Act, as amended, and the two amendments are by
the honourable Member for
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
THAT Bill 21 be amended in the proposed subsection 93(2), as set out in Clause 23, by striking out "environment and to mitigate the" and substituting "environment, including air quality, and to mitigate any".
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for
THAT Bill 21 be amended in the–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this amendment is pretty clear. It is to make sure that air quality is included when one considers the environment, and certainly this would be the normal expectation, but when we were at committee stage, there was clearly some concern that there might at some juncture be interpretation of the word environment which would not necessarily include air quality. I believe that it is worthwhile to make sure that air quality is included, and I would hope that the minister and the Progressive Conservative opposition would support this.
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment of subsection 93(2) is not seen as necessary as The Oil and Gas Act already contains a reference to pollutants that may affect air quality.
In fact, clause 30 of Bill 21 addresses the issue of control of pollutants from wells and batteries. The clauses make reference to pollutants as defined in The Environment Act, and The Environment Act specifies air pollution or air quality, so it is redundant. I say again for the member, it is redundant to continue to say the same thing. So the clause is covered under The Oil and Gas Act, and the definition is used under The Environment Act that is already in the law. It is already covered. So air quality is covered directly in this legislation. Thank you.
* (16:00)
Mr. Larry Maguire
(Arthur-Virden): Well, Mr. Speaker, I, too, would
like to just put a few words on the record in regard to this amendment that the
Member for
It is at report stage. It
is just an opportunity to add some clarity. I know that the member from
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the proposed amendment to Bill 21.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I will now call the second amendment to Bill 21, in the name of the
honourable Member for
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the MLA for
THAT Bill 21 be amended in the proposed subsection 111(5), as set out in Clause 28, by adding ", unless the single well is located within 1.5 kilometres of a dwelling or land used to graze livestock" at the end.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for
THAT Bill 21 be amended–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this amendment is fairly clear. It addresses one of the concerns that was raised at the committee stage. That is that the bill, as it was initially drafted and put forward by the minister, gave a blanket exemption when it came to single wells. Clearly, what we heard at committee stage was that this blanket exemption for single wells was not warranted, but that single wells which were close to a dwelling or close to livestock should, in fact, be given special consideration and make sure that they were not causing problems for the people who were living there or for the livestock.
I believe this is quite a reasonable amendment. I would say that there is an interesting difference, Mr. Speaker, with this amendment and the last one. I think the last amendment, which added the reference to air quality, that what the minister has done by assuring the House that air quality is included is put this on record, so that if there is some judicial ruling in the future the lawyers and judge will be able to come back and record the intent of the minister to consider air quality.
In the case of single wells, it cannot be just an intent. This has to be actually in law, and I would hope that the minister would agree to considering this amendment to ensure that single wells are considered when it comes to assessing their effects on the environment and the health of our citizens.
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a few words on this amendment. The proposed amendment to subsection 111(5) should not be approved as it would require virtually all wells to obtain a battery operating permit.
All wells are initially produced to tanks on the well site prior to being tied in to a battery. The Drilling and Production Regulation provides for the safeguards in the following sections: 85.2, 85.3. In those sections the emissions from wells and tanks on the well site are regulated. These provisions provide a double-level protection. Under 85.2, wells and tanks on a well site must meet air quality standards, and section 85.3 provides an even higher standard related to the protection of odours.
Sections 85.2 and 85.3 outlined below were introduced in 2001 regulatory amendments for batteries. From that time there has been a large concentration of monitoring. There have been huge improvements to the batteries and upgrade of the batteries by the industry. All the batteries have been re-permitted. So during the discussion and during the public hearings we heard lots of stories about what happened prior to 2001. We heard what has happened in the industry. I trust the honourable member can see that there has been huge progress in environmental.
I would like to assure the member opposite that the pollutants as defined in The Environmental Act include omissions such as smoke, gas and odours that may impact their quality. It is not just hazardous chemicals. So it is tied to the definitions in The Environmental Act, and it has improved the situation considerably over time. I think a lot of the provisions in the act will continue to improve the environment. I thank the member for his input at committee and earlier.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Maguire: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on this amendment as well. I believe that it is important that we look at distances in regard to the single wells as well. I just want to put on the record that I believe the distances as amended in this particular circumstance are something that the industry is certainly willing to look at it here as an exemption from the provisions in this section, and the minister has already put that in there. So I believe that the amendment is another one that is certainly something that would enhance the conditions of the persons in those areas and not be onerous on the industry as well.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment moved by the
honourable Member for
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated.
Bill
30–The
Mr. Speaker: I will now call the amendment to Bill 30, The Manitoba Agricultural
Services Corporation Act, brought forward by the honourable Member for
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
THAT Bill 30 be amended by adding the following after
Clause 37:
DIVISION 4
CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION
PROHIBITED
No cross-subsidies between Divisions
37.1 The corporation must not subsidize the administration or operation of a program or service under Division 1, 2 or 3 with money intended for the sole use of, or received or earned by, a program or service under one of the other two Divisions, including, without limitation,
(a) a grant of money appropriated by the Legislature under section 49 for the purpose of a program or service under Division 1, 2 or 3;
(b) money borrowed under section 50 or 63 for the purpose of a program or service under Division 1, 2 or 3;
(c) insurance premiums received under contracts of hail insurance or production insurance; and
(d) income earned on investments by a program or
service under Division 1, 2 or 3.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for
THAT Bill 30 be amended by–dispense?
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this amendment is to ensure that the three activities which would fall under this amalgamated corporation would not be cross-subsidizing one or other in their activities. This would not prevent, for example, the sharing of services, financial services or administrative services, because these could be allocated in proportion to their use by the various divisions.
* (16:10)
What it does prevent is the subsidy of one activity by the money which was destined for another activity in another division. I think that the importance of this is severalfold. One, that now and increasingly, it is important when you are able to audit what is happening, that there is a clear separation of funds and accountability in terms of how they are spent, and, being perhaps even more important in terms of the agricultural industry, if there are trade disputes, it becomes very important that the programs do not have cross-subsidies.
So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite important that we do not have cross-subsidies between divisions, because this could result in circumstances where we might have trade challenges, for example, to the crop insurance program if it was cross-subsidized by another program. So I think it is actually quite important that we include this amendment. It adds an important piece to the legislation which would facilitate the operation and the delivery of services by the three divisions, provide for greater clarity and accountability in the money coming in and where it was being spent and would be fundamentally quite easy, not only to follow and implement, but would be important to be able to do that.
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Chairman, the member has raised a very important issue and one that I talked with staff about, and the drafters, before we brought this legislation forward. I want to assure the member that this issue is covered off so his amendment is unnecessary.
If you look at the legislation, if you look at clause 58, Payments out of Production Insurance Fund, it says only the following are to be paid out of the Production Insurance Fund: "indemnities payable under contracts to production insurance; (b) premiums and other amounts payable for reinsurance under an agreement referred to in clause 28(b) or section 67; and (c) interest on any money borrowed under subsection 50(1) for the purpose of the fund, but not including any interest on advances repaid under subsection 66(5)."
It goes on in 59, as clause 59, Reserve–Production Insurance Fund, and it says, "After making the payments out of the Production Insurance Fund in accordance with section 58, any surplus of money remaining in the fund must be set aside by the corporation as a reserve for further indemnities payable under the contracts of production insurance." I want to indicate as well, Mr. Speaker, that under the Hail Insurance Fund there is a similar clause that says only the following are to be paid for this Hail Insurance Fund, and they are the same.
As I said, this was a very important issue to me when we were drafting the fund. It is a very important issue because there is federal money as well in the crop insurance. We have verified with the federal government and with legal counsel that this is adequate and covers off all of the issues that the member refers to so the amendment that he has suggested is unnecessary, although I welcome his ideas and recognize the concerns that people have with regard to making sure that the money that is there for crop insurance remains for crop insurance. That is adequately addressed within the bill so there is no need to support this amendment. Thank you.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (
The minister brings up some good points in respect to the amendment and I, too, had this very same concern. Actually, I want to support the amendment. If it is unclear for the Liberal Party to understand that the legislation covers off the protection to make sure these funds cannot be used by the government for other intents and purposes, and we do know that this has happened in the past, and I can see the concern that the Liberal Party has.
The current government took some $250 million from Manitoba Hydro and so that probably brought up a red flag for the Liberal Party and they are saying, "Gee, you know we are not too sure that this is real clear." So this amendment is just a bit of a housekeeping thing on their behalf and, who knows, they might form government one day and we can say that, by golly, you will make sure that this money does not get spent in the wrong place. So we know that the intent is honourable and I know that the Leader of the Liberal Party has done his homework in trying to make sure that money does not go astray.
Whether or not the amendment needs to be there, as the minister said, it is covered off within the bill. I see this as nothing but more of a housekeeping issue. It makes the bill a little bit cleaner, and I know that in meeting with the different groups that I have met, with the Keystone producers and the cattle producers and the other sectors that are involved with respect to crop insurance, I know that was one of the things that the number of people that brought up is, do not mess with our money, do not touch our money.
Having said that, I see
no reason for us not to move forward on the amendment as proposed by the Member
for
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment brought forward by
the honourable Member for
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the Nays have it. The amendment has been defeated.
SECOND
Bill 44–The
Budget Implementation and
Tax Statutes Amendment
Act, 2005
Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2005.
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister for Family Services and Housing (Ms. Melnick), that Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2005; Loi d'exécution du budget de 2005 et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of the House, and I thank you for your patience.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of the bill, and I table the message. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services and Housing, that Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of the bill, and his message has been tabled.
* (16:20)
Mr. Selinger: Just very briefly because we have lost a couple of minutes, this bill basically implements all the measures that we have debated and presented to the House in the form of the budget. There are many important measures in there that I know all members of the House would wish to see brought into law so that they can be implemented in our various communities. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
An Honourable Member: Good luck.
Mr. Lamoureux: I will not take it personal for that person who said good luck on that one.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 44 first came in on May 11. The reason I say first came in on May 11, this is a bill that no doubt would have been in the works virtually since the Minister of Finance brought forward the budget back in March. If we reflect, a year ago there was an agreement that was passed in which it stated something to the effect of that all legislation that is going to be passed needs to be introduced, I believe it said, by April 28.
Now, having said that, if one was to take the word from the agreement, they are making reference to all legislation and in fact, you know I might even have it somewhere at my desk. If I can just give a quick second as I scan some of these papers. Mr. Speaker, it is actually right here, and I will quote, "All government bills introduced prior to April 28, 2005 must have all remaining stages, including second reading, committee stage report, stage if applicable, concurrence and third reading and Royal Assent completed by the sitting of June 9, 2005." That means all government bills introduced prior to April 28 of this year. We do not want to go there. All we know is that this government passed this motion saying April 28. Technically, I could say, if I read exactly what I just finished saying, reread, all government bills. This is in fact a government bill. That would mean is that, technically, this is a bill that could be held over.
An Honourable Member: Small document.
Mr. Lamoureux: Small document, I do not know. I do not actually have the bill in front of me but I did get a chance to read through it, Mr. Speaker, or page through it, I should say. One could make the argument that the government is not entitled to having this bill passed by June 9, unless, of course, opposition wants to give a little bit of grace and accommodate the government once again in terms of its inability to bring this legislation in on time.
Mr. Speaker, I guess
maybe it is age. Maybe it is just wanting to give the NDP a break at times.
After all, Jack Layton is being very supportive of my federal cousins in
Even though, having said that, there are some very real concerns that we have in regard to it. One of the biggest ones I had brought up with the Minister of Finance, in fact, I have I have brought up through the media, tried to draw more attention to the whole issue of the deficit situation, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows full well what I am referring to of course, because there is this public perception that the government is doing a relatively good job on balancing the books.
Mr. Speaker, there is perception and there is reality. I think if you want a sense of perception, you talk to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger). If you want a sense of reality, you can talk to either someone like myself, some might say I am a little–[interjection] Okay. For those of you who believe I am a little bit biased, I would suggest that you could talk to the provincial auditor or read the Auditor's report. He is not quite as political as maybe I might be on occasion, Mr. Speaker. What you will see is that the provincial auditor does say that we did have a significant deficit in '03 and '04.
That is one of the reasons why I think that it is important to put some words on the record in regard to it. I am pleased that the government did recognize, has finally recognized, that it does need to change its ways. It does say that we are going to move toward general accounting principles, and I applaud the Minister of Finance on recognizing that.
I am a little disappointed, I must say, in the sense of when he is going to incorporate those words. We are talking a couple of more years, coincidentally, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that principle will apply after the next provincial election. So one could almost say, "Well, better late than never." But having said that, I would have thought that the government would have seen the opportunity of being a little bit more transparent to Manitobans by incorporating that policy that is being suggested by the provincial auditor a whole lot sooner.
After all, it is not like we would be breaking new territory because there are other provinces that do what it is that the provincial auditor is requesting of this government, Mr. Speaker. If we were to look at the government and ask for the government to act on this issue, I think that it would, in fact, be appropriate. In the last little while, I have been introducing petitions in regard to the government going to general accounting principles.
The good news is for the Minister of Finance. I have somewhat changed course a little bit in terms of my petitions. I have decided to stop on those petitions and focus, well, yes, on that issue, focus on what I think is even a bigger issue on my petitions, and that is, of course, the Crocus issue. So I have made this commitment to do what I can to remind the government on a daily basis where once again they have really dropped the ball. I am sure all members will recognize when I say Crocus and dropping the ball is likely the biggest issue that this government is going to have to overcome.
I must say they are doing a relatively decent job so far, but, Mr. Speaker, if in fact they want to show Manitobans that they are prepared to come clean, they are going to have to clearly demonstrate to all Manitobans that they did not ignore the red flags and that they have taken some action. I think the government needs to look at how it has responded to, again the provincial auditor, and what that report has indicated.
* (16:30)
The former minister, MaryAnn Mihychuk, and the provincial auditor are individuals, or one office and one individual, who cannot be accused of being political in terms of being in favour of the government, Mr. Speaker. I believe that their comments, and I take them both at face value whether it is the former NDP minister or the independence of the Auditor's office, that there is government neglect here. The opportunity for the government to have recognized problems with Crocus was back in 2001, and the government has chosen not to recognize those red flags.
As a result of that, we have in excess of over 33 000 Manitobans that have lost in excess of $60 million. I think that is a huge issue. I believe that until this government comes clean on this issue that I am prepared, on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of the Manitoba Liberal Party, to persist on a daily basis every day that this Legislature sits to introduce a petition that emphasizes how this government has really turned its back on the Crocus investors and Manitobans as a whole, Mr. Speaker.
I believe what they have done is that they have taken a labour-friend-first policy over and above the interests of Manitobans. I say that because I believe that there is a very close association between the Leader of the New Democratic Party and individuals within the union movement where there is a huge reliance in terms of the electoral success for the governing party. Because of that reliance, I believe that this government turned its head and looked the other way as the red flags started to pop up. That is why I believe that the government has really dropped the ball on this issue as the government tries to deflect the issue. One cannot blame the government for trying to deflect, but as they have done that, I think that at times maybe we lose a little bit of the focus. That is why, whether it is during Question Period or presentation of petitions, we want to emphasize that we remain focussed on the Crocus issue. So let us focus on Crocus. One could almost make a campaign slogan out of that; Focus on Crocus. The government was negligent and lost over $60 million.
Unlike the Gomery inquiry, there is a direct link right to the Premier. There is a direct link right to the Premier's Office, Mr. Speaker. Some might even be able to present an argument, well, we are talking $60 million here. The Gomery inquiry was $300-and-some million, I believe. On the national perspective to a provincial perspective, which one are we talking about larger amounts of dollars. Anyway, I am going to stay away from that. I will stay away from Gomery.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that this Crocus fiasco is big. The government is not going to get away. It can try to deflect all it wants on the issue because the moment that we start focussing in on the issue that is really there, what we are talking about is the government knew. It knew for years, not weeks, not months. It has known for years that there have been problems with the Crocus Fund and it chose to do nothing.
They wait and they have waited, and now we see a provincial auditor that has come down and it is a fairly condemning report on the government. The government says, well, we are going to have our ministers and some New Democrats meet together and we are going to come out strong and we are going to protect the interests of the taxpayers. We are going to protect the interests of the Crocus investors by taking these actions. They brought in legislation and so forth. Where was this action, where was this concern four years ago? The government had the opportunity, it was in power. It chose to ignore the issue. Focus, Mr. Speaker, the government dropped the ball and now it is trying to pick up the ball in the best way that it can. But what has happened in between?
The question that I have
for the government is why did the government choose not to act when it first
was made aware of it. That is the real issue here. To what degree does the
labour movement in
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the labour movement in the province, and when I say the labour movement I am not talking about the average Joe union member, because I do not believe that the New Democrats even have 50 percent of that type of support. I have phenomenal, just wonderful support from the union membership as a whole, and I value that and I genuinely appreciate that. What we are talking about is the union elite that seems to want to cluster around the New Democratic Party. Those are the ones that we are talking about and the amount of influence that they have over this government. In fact, I would go as far as to say that there are a number of those individuals that have more influence what is happening in the Premier's office than some of the Cabinet ministers, definitely the backbenchers, definitely the backbenchers. I would also suggest to you that some of them even carry more weight with this Premier (Mr. Doer) than many, and if not most, of the Cabinet ministers.
The government will talk, Mr. Speaker, about how it brought in legislation to cut off union and corporate participation in the democratic process. In some ways, yes, it was effective, but this was legislation that was intentionally brought in, in a fashion in which it would be ultimately to the advantage of the New Democratic Party. I would be prepared to sit down with anyone and share with members why it is that I can make a statement like that. I can suggest to you that that was one of the critical reasons why I am back here today was because of that legislation, growing concern. We are concerned about democracy inside this province, and ultimately I am concerned about how this government and its affiliation with the labour elite and the impact it is having on Manitobans.
I will leave the Crocus, but I am going to stick on that particular point. You know it was interesting how on the pension issue, I think, I believe it is Bill 10. Bill 10 was an issue that is very, very serious. It has the potential to be applied to every Manitoban across this province. The worker was very much interested in this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reflected on the final offer selection. When final offer selection was before this House and the whole appeal, the Manitoba Federation of Labour had lines, lines of people. I could not believe the number of people that wanted to be able to present on final offer selection and the battle that was fought. I took it as very serious. In fact, back then we brought in an amendment that would have ultimately saved final offer selection, but it did not necessarily meet what the New Democrat/union elite wanted. What we were proposing was not what the elite wanted.
Silly me, I was suggesting something that would have been in the interest of the union member. Having said that, this issue was heated, a heated debate. I would have expected the same thing on the pension issue on Bill 10. People should read as to what took place on Bill 10, and I wondered why.
* (16:40)
So, I am very much concerned in regard to, as I say, the deficit, the Crocus Fund. The other issue that I have a great deal of concern with is just the amount of money that the government is spending. The government–[interjection] No, I said I was going to stay away from that one.
The amount of money that
this government spends, if we take a look at it, and again, I do not have the
numbers right in front of me, but what we are talking about is in excess of $2
billion more. [interjection] Oh, I do
not need the help. There is plenty that is there, I can tell you. Mr. Speaker,
in excess of $2 billion more this government is spending since it has taken
office. That is a huge, huge amount of money. I do not know if this government
really recognizes the position that it is putting our province in, if in fact
there was a change in government in
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, some say hear, hear. You have got to be careful for what you
wish for, Mr. Speaker. If the
Conservatives were to form government in
An Honourable Member: It is not reality.
Mr. Lamoureux: As some point out, there is perception and then there is reality. You know, I love my province as much as anyone else in this Chamber. I would like to think that you will never have the economy turned down, but basic economics, you do not even have to go to third, fourth year economics. Basic economics will tell you that there is a cycle, and at some point in time the economy will not do as well or perform as well as it might be doing today.
If, in fact, that was to
occur and you were to see any sort of change in policy in
It is not an issue of straight cutbacks. When the economy is doing relatively well, that is when the government has an excellent opportunity to be very prudent on how it is spending its money and where it is spending. Ultimately, what I am suggesting to the government is now is the best time for you to look at how you could be spending smarter. That is what you should be doing as a government today.
What we see is a
government that says, "Well, we have a problem. Just throw money at it,
and by throwing the money at it, the problem will resolve." Mr. Speaker,
that is not case, and allow me to give you a good example of that. We see in
health care where we have seen phenomenal amounts of money being thrown. We now
have seen the obstetrics being closed at the
There is no valid
argument that could be made that would ultimately see the justification of the
closing down of the obstetrics ward at the
You know how much it costs per day to keep someone in an acute health care facility compared to a community hospital? You can use and manipulate the numbers any way you want in order to try to justify an action. Here is a bad example of how the government is really making a bad decision. It is not for the betterment of health care services. [interjection] I am sorry, yes, I may have said that wrong. It is a good example of a government making a bad decision.
There is an opportunity for the government when it has the revenue increases that it has been given to look at alternatives, how it can actually contribute and do some things in such a way that they are improving the quality of service while at the same time maximizing the way in which they are spending the tax dollars.
We had a wonderful opportunity over the last number of years to be able to deal with the property tax issue. Over the years we have seen more and more public education having to be financed through property tax on our school divisions to the point in which, when I was first elected, most of the municipal taxes that were being paid in the constituency that I represent went toward city services. That was the idea behind municipal taxes, city services.
Today most of that property tax is going toward public education. What is the difference between public education and public health care? They are both social services in which we supposedly, as a Chamber, as legislators support and recognize the value for everyone. We do not say you have to finance health care–[interjection] Only two minutes left? Wow, maybe we will get leave, possibly.
Mr. Speaker, the point is that the property tax issue, we have really dropped the ball on addressing properly the financing of education. We need to address that issue. Only the Manitoba Liberal Party and the Leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party have consistently–and you can go back even to former leaders–talked about the importance of dealing with that particular tax. This government had the opportunity and they squandered it away.
* (16:50)
This government has not listened to what Manitobans want. We had a good example of that in the committee process. You know, like last night we had a bill. The Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) brought forward a bill regarding the teachers' pension. It is good that we have the bill, but the government did not go all the way in terms of bringing in legislation that would have dealt with issues like our retired teachers. Instead, we are going to have to rely on the government bringing in something into the future in order to address that issue. Why was that not being addressed now? This is an issue that goes back many, many years. The government has the opportunity and has had the opportunity for the last six years to do something on it. It has chosen not to do so.
We have other areas in which the government is really not acting in the fashion that it should be acting. To me, Mr. Speaker, it is losing all opportunities to make a difference.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen
(Steinbach): Well, I do not think I should be
prejudged by the members opposite. They should listen first to the words that I
have to say. [interjection] And the
Member for
For a Liberal to stand up
and raise the issue of the cost of Gomery, I find, is absolutely shameful when
we see the scandal that is happening in
What we are concerned
about though, Mr. Speaker, is the effect of national unity with the Liberals in
government in
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the member.
Mr. Goertzen: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a rare day that it is so loud in this Chamber that the member from Steinbach is shouted down. I admit that.
But I can see why the members opposite are sensitive about this issue, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) wants to talk about the Bloc Québécois and why it is, I suppose, that he supports that kind of a national agenda, Mr. Speaker.
But, you know, when we
look at the issue of the budget that has come forward here, and one thing I
have to agree with the Member for
But we as Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, do not wear a sandwich board one day and a different hat the next day. We have been here consistently since 1999 saying that this government cannot be allowed to run this annual deficit year after year after year. It is not a sandwich-board issue for us. It is not a media opportunity for us. It is something that we know that Manitobans are concerned about and it is not a photo op and a media issue for us as Conservatives.
We recognize as the government of stewardship in this province, and there is a word I think, Mr. Speaker, that is foreign to many of the members opposite. Good stewardship, whether it is on the farm, whether it is in a business or in fact, whether it is in government, is something that all of us need to ascribe to as legislators in this fine Chamber. Yet, what we find is the $604-million deficit, the highest, I believe, in provincial history, in the history of our province.
You need the context, Mr. Speaker. In times when things were, well, when the economy was doing all right and it was not an emergency to, per se, at one particular time or the other, run a $604-million deficit. I think Manitobans would look at us and say there must be more. It must be better than that.
I feel sorry for the
Auditor General in many ways–[interjection]
Well, and I am glad to see that the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Smith) has
spoken up. I know he has been vacant from his area as the flood has ravaged
that particular part of the province. He has kind of been in his ivory tower, I
guess, and looked out the window to see all that he could survey and say,
"Well, I do not see that much water here on
But when we talk about the Auditor General, and I mention that, I think, that the Auditor General, in fact, that I have some sympathy for the work that he needs to do. I think that under the former administration in the 1990s, the Auditor General was almost like the Maytag repair man. You know, he was waiting for his phone to ring, and it rarely happened because there was not the kind of crises that we had. He was just kind of like the Maytag repair man, the loneliest man in the province, because there was nothing to do.
Now under this government, under the dark days of the Doer government, under those dark days, he is running around, I heard the story of somebody who had phoned the Auditor General and said, "You know, we should look into this particular area of what the government is doing because we think that there is something suspicious there." You know what his response was? I am sure every minister is wondering, "Oh, is it my area? Is it my area?", because they are trying to put their holes in the dikes of a whole bunch of other scandals that they are no doubt trying to hold back. But the response was, "Well, I do not think I could get to it for a few months. I think that your concerns are valid, but I simply do not have the resources because of all the things we are dealing with, Crocus, and WCB, and before that, Hydra House." And the list goes on and on and on.
Now the Minister of Family Services (Ms. Melnick) is engaged in this issue, and she wants to talk about how it is that they missed red flags in Hydra House. I think that that is a good question for the minister to raise. How is it, in fact, that another red flag got waved?
Members of the NDP must drive by and see red flags and think it is a golf course. Oh, there are 18 red flags. What is that? Oh, it is a golf course. Well, just ignore all those red flags. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is much more to being a government than simply turning your head when you see a warning sign. I have a great degree of sympathy for that Auditor General who is reaming through all the different scandals that come because of this government.
And yet, it is not just
the minister I think who have to take some responsibility. I look to members
like the Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg), the Member for Selkirk (Mr.
Dewar), the Member for Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff), and the Member for Minto
(Mr. Swan), all those members who have to be there in their caucus and saying
to their Premier (Mr. Doer), "This is not good enough. This is not
acceptable."–[interjection] The
Member for Minto, I suppose, already cheering like he is in the stands for the Blue Bombers. "Oh, way to go,
But it is incumbent upon all these members of the government, these back-bench members, because they are not just here to stand up and vote and to say "Yea" when their Premier tries to deflect something in Question Period, they, too, have a responsibility to their constituents, and to say, "You know, we are going to ensure that you are going to have good government," I know it is difficult sometimes, politically, to go against your party publicly, but even behind closed doors in the caucus, I would hope that these members are raising those important issues and trying to bring them forward.
* (17:00)
We are talking about the minister's bill, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), and I would implore those members to go their Minister of Finance and say, "Some of the things that are being said regarding Crocus just simply are not acceptable." You know last week I think the Minister of Finance was asked to produce a memo, and he kind of got that, I understand from media, deer-in-the-headlights look, and he did not really know what memo that the media was talking about. He kind of shook his head; the memo did not ring a bell. Then I think a little while later he came back. Oh, it rang a bell. There was actually a memo. So the media asked the logical question, "Well, have you seen that memo, Mr. Minister?" and the response was, "Well, I do not know if I saw it or maybe I saw it. Actually, I do not think I can say if I saw it."
The media kind of pressed on about, "What do you mean you do not know if you can say if you saw the memo? I mean, who else would know?" He said, "Well, I have to talk to some freedom of information advisors to determine whether or not I can say that I saw a memo that I did not even want to admit existed a little while before." That is the kind of deflection–
An Honourable Member: You have to see if you can say that you saw it.
Mr. Goertzen: The Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu), just listening to me, cannot understand everything I am saying because it is very convoluted. You know, it is very convoluted.
I get a flashback of the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) standing in this House and saying, "Well, I never actually heard about it." Then a couple of minutes later he is in the hallway and he says, "Oh, I guess I did hear about it, because I wrote a letter and I signed the letter a while back about the issue of the Seven Oaks School Division."
I think somebody should, you know, we should send somebody into the NDP caucus to do a scan of the environment to see if there is something that is causing this collective amnesia. You know, is there something on the walls or is there something in the water of the NDP caucus that is causing people to suddenly forget everything and forget letters that they have signed and forget memos that they have seen? It must be something, Mr. Speaker, because I simply cannot believe that ministers that have been appointed by the Premier, you know, presumably these are individuals who are competent within their fields, and yet they forget.
They forget this and they forget that, and it is scandal after scandal after scandal. I wonder how it is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), who people expect to be a strong representative of this issue, can forget if he saw a memo–
An Honourable Member: Maybe he did not get the memo.
Mr. Goertzen: –and then does not want to say. Well, apparently there is new information by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Rondeau). You know, here is the Minister of Industry who saw so many flags again that he probably pulled out the golf clubs from his car and: Look at all those flags, it is time to shoot 18 holes, Mr. Speaker.
I know that the Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg) would like me to go off and talk about other issues. I could not see the note that he was handing up, Mr. Speaker. I think he wanted me to talk about the $20-billion debt. I want to assure the Member for Rossmere that, in fact, it will be coming, that I, in fact, will be talking about that $20-billion debt yet. He can wait with anticipation. That part of my speech is forthcoming.
The Minister of Industry is complicit in all of this. He is the minister who has kind of sat back when the former minister was in that government, Ms. Mihychuk, who used to be in this Legislature, who ran for mayor, for the top position in this city, has come forward and said, "We know that there was legislation that was in the works that was being drafted to try to control Crocus more than it is being controlled, and it could have possibly prevented a $50-million or $60-million loss and protected 33 000 shareholders in this province."
That is part of what being a good government is about. It is not reacting. This is what the members do not understand. They are a reactive government. They react to scandal. They react to difficulty. They react to situations after, but they do not act proactively to stop them from happening. That is what Manitobans expect, not just of the ministers of this government but of all members who sit on that side of the House. They expect a government that will proactively stop difficulties from happening.
I ask the government to think about the issue of a public inquiry, and I know that this is an issue that they have tried to deflect and not to speak about–[interjection] Oh, and you know here is the great deflector himself, the Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), the artful dodger, the Member for Selkirk who wants to talk about other inquiries that have been held in the province of Manitoba.
What I would ask him, you
know, I mean he is not bringing new
information to this House, Mr.
Speaker. We all know that there have been public inquires held in the
I
would say, Mr. Speaker, and I would say to those ministers, the Member for
Brandon West (Mr. Smith), the
Minister of Industry (Mr. Rondeau), the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson),
indeed the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Selinger), that a government that has nothing to hide has nothing to fear from
a public inquiry.
An
Honourable Member: You are
right.
Mr.
Goertzen: Well, now I have
agreement from the Minister of Industry, and I am glad that he agrees with that
statement. It says to me that he is moving toward a public inquiry because, in
fact, he has nothing to hide, he has nothing–
An
Honourable Member: We had one.
Mr.
Goertzen: Well, you know, now
I find myself needing to educate the Member for Brandon West and the Minister of
Industry and the Minister of Education. I know I am not referring to the Member
for Brandon West by his ministry position. I should be, but I am just getting
him used to what is coming down the road. It is a bit of a preview about what
is going to happen in the future.
Now,
I have to educate them about the difference between what an Auditor General
does and what an independent public inquiry is. I know that members opposite of
the government are sitting there with The Manitoba Evidence Act in hand. I am sure they all have it
there, and if they could turn with me to section 83 of the act, they would see
the powers of a public inquiry. They are quite different from the powers of the
Auditor General, the powers to appoint a commissioner who can bring people
forward under oath. It is quite different when you have to go before an inquiry
and swear something under oath, and all the threats of perjury and all those
other things that come with an oath testimony, Mr. Speaker. It is quite
different than what the Auditor General does. It is quite, quite different.
I
think that is one of the things that Ms. Mihychuk was looking at when she
raised this issue, and it must hurt the members opposite because that attack is
an attack that came from within. It is an attack that came from one of their
own, one of the former ministers who sat on those benches, but I think it also
adds credibility to her words. I think it adds something that she has come
forward so that people can see that this is not a partisan issue about the New
Democrats or the Conservatives, but this is somebody who now can somewhat rise
above that because she has left that political arena.
That
is why I think that we need to pay particular heed to the words of that former
minister and look toward The Manitoba Evidence Act for that sort of an inquiry.
You know, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), in bills like the one before
us today, has kind of slipped certain tax increases in. Well, now I have got a
befuddled look from the Minister of Finance. He is wondering if I could explain
some of that, and I would be happy to. I would be happy to explain that on
behalf of all members of Manitoba when we talk about the increase of probate
fees that was brought forward by this Minister of Finance–[interjection] Oh, well, you know, he says he put out a press
release, like that is supposed to cleanse it, like it is not supposed to be a
big deal because the fees went up, yes, but I put out a press release.
Mr.
Speaker, perhaps their next plan is to increase sales tax from 7 percent to 8
percent, but that is okay because they will put out a press release. Putting
out a press release is not exactly the way Manitobans expect things to be
governed.
An
Honourable Member: Wrong
party.
Mr.
Goertzen: Well, here again, we
have the members opposite, the Minister of Education and the Minister of
Industry, pointing fingers at everybody else. They want to talk about different
days of how things were done and different things. The Minister of Finance has
all 10 fingers extended now, but I wish he had that kind of control, with his
hands on the levers of the finances of this province.
Mr.
Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
If
he would take those two hands and put them on the rudders, the rudders of our
fine province's finances, and not just simply send out press releases that we
are going to have increases in probate fees, send out press releases that there
are going to be increases to the fees of licences, send out press releases that
we are going to have increases to the fees of propane and people's barbeques.
Sending out a press release does
not absolve the Minister of
Finance from the responsibility that they have increased taxes over and over
and over again. [interjection]
* (17:10)
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I heard the Minister of Education, it is ironic that it comes from him, wanting me to speak about school taxes, you know. I think that he has some nerve being in that seat smugly when there are Manitobans who see their education taxes going up and up and up again every year, every year. [interjection] Well, you know, he wants to talk now about his particular tax dollar. I think he should take an honest look at what is going on in the province, because when seniors come to me and show me their tax bill and say they are paying more than they ever have before, I would look to a member like the Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg) who has a number of seniors in his area.
An Honourable Member: They are happy to vote for me.
Mr. Goertzen: Well, you know, the Member for Rossmere says that they are happy that they vote for him. Well, I think he might not want to take that vote for granted because those are seniors. Those are seniors who are paying more and more every year as a result of school taxes going up. Those seniors are saying, "Well, there must be a better way. There must be a different way for this to happen." They look at other jurisdictions and see it is not done like this in every other jurisdiction.
I wish I could just simply take the Minister of Education's word for this, but this is the same minister who stood in this House and told us one thing about not knowing about a situation, and then a few minutes later he told us another thing by walking out into the hallway and telling the media a completely different story. It was really the good work of our Education critic who was able to expose some of this, to show that the Minister of Education was being somewhat less than liberal with the truth when it comes to members of the–I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to use the term "liberal" and "truth" in the same sentence.
But I think that the
Minister of Education must know that there is a light that is being shone upon
him. The light is upon him because people are wondering if this is how this
minister does business in the province and what else is slipping through the
cracks? What else is being missed in the
We know that they have asked questions about the Minister of Industry (Mr. Rondeau) because he was one of those that ignored all of those red flags. It was not a ski slalom course where all those red flags were out on the course and it was not an 18-hole golf course. Those were red flags that were brought forward. Those red flags were brought forward as something that should have been acted upon.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
The Member for Brandon West (Mr. Smith) is in this as well. This is not even a red flag that he missed. This is the flood, a flood in his own area that was missed. You did not even need to put up a red flag. I am sure that he was getting calls to come out as the Minister responsible for EMO, and yet he did not come out. [interjection]
Oh, and that is right. I
am reminded by the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) that the minister was out
ribbon-cutting. Of course, what would take precedent? What would take precedent
over a flood that was devastating hundreds and hundreds of people? You know I
think we wondered that as a caucus, and Manitobans in western
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Goertzen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is particularly rare that I get shouted down twice in the House in one day. I know it does not happen often, but the Member for Brandon West, I realize, has a sensitivity to this issue because it was written about and it was reported on that he was MIA when this flood was happening. He was an MLA who was MIA, and they were wondering where their representative was at a time when he most should have been there.
Mr. Speaker, I want to, because I know that members opposite–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Goertzen: I would like to direct the Member for Brandon West to direct his attention to where Steinbach is because I certainly know that it is very, very difficult to get members opposite in that area to go anywhere south of La Verendrye. [interjection] Okay, the Minister for Industry (Mr. Rondeau) thinks that driving by in a van and waving to the good people of Steinbach is doing something of a favour, Mr. Speaker. We know that there is more to it, that the people of my constituency who bring many, many thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars to this province do not get the attention that they deserve, whether it is road repair that the minister of highways neglects, or whether it is other issues that are neglected by this particular government. [interjection]
Well, I certainly did not
mean to offend the Minister of Industry. What I was trying to do was enlighten
him, Mr. Speaker, to bring awareness to him, because I think that I would be
doing a duty to him and to all Manitobans by trying to shed light on the fact
that there are many people in southern
And one of those areas of neglect has to do with the $20-billion deficit–debt. The deficit was $604 million. The $20-billion debt that is being arisen in this province, Mr. Speaker. And the constituents of my area, I think, have been clear in saying they do not believe in that escalation of the debt. Now they have not been able to say it at a pre-budget meeting, because in the six years that this government has been in power, there has not been a pre-budget meeting in the constituency of Steinbach.
I would like them to know that Ste. Anne, the lovely community that Ste. Anne is, is not in my constituency, and the lovely community of La Broquerie is not in my constituency. But I would roll out the carpet and welcome the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) next year if he wants to visit Steinbach, if he wants to visit Niverville, if he wants to visit Kleefeld or New Bothwell, if he wants to visit Pansy or Grunthal or Sarto. We would welcome that travelling road show, and I will make sure people from La Broquerie are there too, Mr. Minister, but I will ensure that there is representation from those communities, and I will not speak for the members for Steinbach, the constituents, but I think that they will hear that those individuals are concerned about the escalating debt within our province going to a $20-billion debt. I will not speak for the Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) on this issue, but I suspect that his constituents would stand by as well and say that they are concerned about the mortgage that is being put on the backs of Manitobans in that part of the province, indeed all Manitobans, year after year after year.
But has the Minister of Finance come and listened to them? No. After six years, he has not had a free budget meeting. Well, the minister asks if I have ever been to La Broquerie. Many times, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to go back to La Broquerie many, many more times. But my constituents, I think are deserving. I know not every member over there–I have had these discussions with the Member for St. Norbert (Ms. Brick) who has said publicly on radio that she questioned what contribution the community of Steinbach made to the province, and I know the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) looks concerned and he looks befuddled, and I can get him the transcript of that. I can get him the transcript of that radio interview where that statement came forward asking the question: What contribution does Steinbach make to the province? Well, I suspect maybe that is the attitude of all members opposite, because they do not come, and they do not ask, and they do not listen. It is about listening to those people. It is about giving them the opportunity to participate in this process. Maybe it is because, Mr. Speaker, they do not want to hear the answer.
But I would like to say, and I will take the minister's word for it that he will be there next year, that the answer that they will hear is that an escalating debt is not acceptable, that record levels of deficit are not acceptable, that scandals like Crocus are not acceptable, Mr. Speaker. They would say that they do not want those taxes to increase year over year over year, but they expect a government that will manage the economy properly, that will foster business, that will foster job creation. That is what they expect. And I look forward to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) coming to my community next year to hear that message, Mr. Speaker.
* (17:20)
Mr. Cliff Cullen (
We are probably in one of
the biggest financial fiascos that we have experienced here in
An Honourable Member: Plus.
Mr. Cullen: Plus, plus. It obviously affects 33 600 Manitobans who have lost over $60 million at this point in time.
An Honourable Member: What about the taxpayers?
Mr. Cullen: Of course, all the taxpayers are implicated in this entire affair
too with their involvement in the tax rebate that has been allowed to all the
investors in Crocus. Certainly, there is a lot of tax revenue that has been
given up on behalf of the taxpayers of
So, clearly, we as opposition, and I think we represent all Manitobans, want to get to the bottom of this issue. Clearly, we are not getting any answers from the government of the day in terms of what they knew and their particular involvement in this fiasco. So that is why we on this side of the House are asking for a public inquiry, try to get to the bottom of the answer, and see if we can actually provide some answers to all of Manitobans as to why this government has allowed $60 million to slip away from Manitobans, at least 33 600 of them.
The Crocus fiasco has generated, probably, the most excitement in my community in terms of some of the mail-outs and the information that we have provided to the community. It is probably one of the biggest incidents that has occurred since the BSE outbreak over two years ago.
I think I should just
digress for a minute and talk about the BSE situation. Clearly, this government
has no idea of the significant situation that the BSE crisis has put forward for
Quite clearly, the issue on the table right now is the waste water treatment facilities, and we think the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) should be at the forefront working with those people out there who have money to invest in slaughter capacity in Manitoba and actually trying to address the waste water solution which appears to be holding up these two major infrastructure processes. We think that they should be moving those things forward.
We think this government
should be taking some of the resources
they have and investing that money in rural
What we have found is that the provincial government here has chalked up a debt to the tune of $20 billion and rising. This is unconscionable. The annual debt was over $604 million. The other thing is, the province has an $8-billion budget. The budget is increasing year after year after year. What are we getting for it? We know that over 40 percent of that money goes into health care, and what are we finding? Longer wait lists for health care treatment.
In fact, Mr. Speaker,
some of my constituents are actually going to
Clearly, Manitobans do
not want to see their health facilities closed. We have seen that in
The Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) has put forward the reorganization of the entire department. We agree that there should be some reorganization there. Clearly, the idea of bringing in rural development initiatives as part of agriculture is something that we know that has to be done. The problem is with this particular government, it takes so long for them to get the process completed. We have been going through this process for well over a year. We do not have job descriptions for these positions. We just have a few managers that have been allocated to the various regions.
In fact, I had an
opportunity to meet with one of the assistants in what was formerly the
Agriculture office in Pilot Mound and that particular area is only staffed to 54 percent. So we have
major crises in agriculture out there in rural
We think there are lots
of investments that can be made in rural
Certainly, in the
What the government of the day has done, they have hooked on thinking in terms of their income to the province. We know they are spending more and more every year. Obviously, they have to generate some income from somewhere, and what have we found? The government of the day, they are counting on the federal government to come through with federal money.
An Honourable Member: Big brother.
Mr. Cullen: Exactly. We seem to be in a situation where we are going to be a have-not province forever, and the government of the day does not want to look past that. They want to be a have-not province, rely on the federal funding to come forward. Unless the government has a vision as some kind of an economic strategy for all Manitobans, we are not going to get ahead and we will continue to be a have-not province and rely on federal income.
The other idea the government
is relying on is income from
gambling. We know what kind of a social situation has developed through the
gambling. Clearly, that is part of their economic strategy to increase gaming
throughout the
The other thing is, too, that the government of the day is looking to Crown corporations to fund their operations. Clearly, Manitoba Hydro has been one of their biggest Crown corporations where they have taken hundreds of millions of dollars out of Manitoba Hydro. They have increased water rates, for instance, too, to increase their funding just to cover their spending habit. We realize, Mr. Speaker, that the government of the day certainly has a spending habit.
Mr. Speaker: Order. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have 19 minutes remaining.
The hour being 5:30, this
House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).