LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
November 14, 2005
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth (Mr. Bjornson), that Bill 10, The Convention Centre Corporation Amendment Act, be now read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker,
this bill reduces the number of
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Overcrowded schools throughout Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods, Linden Ridge and Richmond West subdivisions are forcing Pembina Trails School Division to bus students outside of these areas to attend classes in the public school system.
Elementary schools in Pembina Trails School Division have run out of space to accommodate the growing population of students in the aforementioned areas.
Five-year projections for enrolment in the elementary schools in these areas indicate significant continued growth.
Existing high schools that receive students from Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods and Linden Ridge are at capacity and cannot accommodate the growing number of students that will continue to branch out of these subdivisions.
Bussing to outlying areas
is not a viable long-term solution to meeting the student population growth in
the southwest portion of
The development of
Waverley West will increase the need for a high school in the southwest sector
of
The government is demonstrating a lack of respect for the students and families in Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods, Linden Ridge and Richmond West by refusing to provide adequate access to education within the community.
The
NDP constituencies in
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the provincial
government recognize the need for a public high school in the southwest region
of
To request the provincial government, in conjunction with the Public Schools Finance Board, to consider adequate funding to establish a high school in the southwest sector of Winnipeg.
Signed by Connie Taillon, Pam Lea, Fatima Danakas and many others.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I wish to present the following petition.
These are the reasons for the petition:
A severe windstorm swept through the Rural Municipality of Piney on July 31, 2005, causing extensive damage to approximately 60 residential properties of the Sandilands forest.
The R.M. of Piney was forced to declare an immediate state of emergency in response to this storm.
The estimated cost of cleanup is estimated to be between $360,000 and $1 million.
The R.M. of Piney can only afford to allocate $20,000 toward the recovery and cleanup effort.
Individual property owners and residents have been forced to incur significant costs related to the cleanup of their property, which they cannot afford.
The
Provincial road restrictions in this area are limiting the access of vehicles required in the cleanup and recovery effort.
The R.M. of Piney has contacted the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux), the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith) and the Premier (Mr. Doer) to request temporary lifting of the road restrictions and the provision of provincial aid for the cleanup of the area but has received no commitment for assistance.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: Bob Grenier, Gabe Marion and J. Blacquiere, to request the Premier of Manitoba to consider temporarily lifting the road restrictions on roads in the storm-affected area of the R.M. of Piney.
To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider providing aid to the R.M. of Piney and to the individual property owners to assist in the cleanup and the recovery efforts.
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 A. Janier, C. Watson, B. Misener and many, many others.
* (13:40)
Mr.
Ralph Eichler (
These are the reasons for this petition:
Insulin pumps cost over $6,500.
The cost of
diabetes to the
Good blood sugar control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by 50 percent, blindness by 76 percent, nerve damage by 60 percent, cardiac disease by 35 percent and even amputations.
Diabetes is an epidemic in our province and will become an unprecedented drain on our struggling health care system if we do not take action now.
The benefit of having an insulin pump is it allows the person living with this life-altering disease to obtain good sugar control and become a much healthier, complication-free individual.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the
Premier (Mr. Doer) of
Signed by Eric Hibbitt, Ryan Maartense, David Kozyra and many, many others.
Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Quarterly Reports for the Communities Economic Development Fund for the periods ended June 30, '05 and September 30, '05.
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the following report on the Public Service Group Insurance Fund for the year ended April 30, '05, and the Statement on Fidelity Bonds required in accordance with section 20 of The Public Officers Act.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Provincial Court of Manitoba 2nd Annual Report, Civil Legal Services SOA Annual Report, The Public Trustee Annual Report, and under The Regulations Act, a copy of each registered with the Registrar of Regulations after the last registration date of the regulations that were tabled in this House in November 2004 and more than 14 days before the commencement of this session.
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has the opportunity to sign this deal that would benefit all Manitobans. My question to the Premier: Why will he not show some leadership and sign this deal on behalf of Manitobans?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): There is no agreement between all the participants of AMM and the federal government. The member opposite is asking us to impose one on a matter that is not related to finances within our government. It is a federal government announcement. There is no agreement in other provinces, a couple of provinces still, Mr. Speaker.
We are working through a couple of issues
that have been outstanding. One was the issue of the recognition that the City
of
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the
money that we put in our budget in the spring of 2005 did increase transit
grants by some 15 percent in
* (13:45)
Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker,
what we have just heard from this Premier is very clear. While the Premier
fiddles,
It has been almost a year since the
federal government, Mr. Speaker, announced that it would commit $5 billion in
federal gas tax funding to the provinces. Nine months later,
My question to the Premier is what is he waiting for. Why will he not get on and sign this deal for the good of all Manitobans?
Mr. Doer: Let me explain this to the member opposite. The money is in the federal budget. The money that was in the provincial budget for infrastructure, including the 15 percent, we had that flowing within weeks of our budget being introduced and the Estimates being passed. The member opposite is asking the provincial government, that is putting in no money, to impose a settlement on the AMM which is presently trying to deal with its own constituent parts.
Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite would want to have the AMM and all its constituent parts coming to an agreement with the federal government who is putting the money in. We are trying to work with the AMM and the federal government to do that but, as I said, there is no provincial money in this plan and there is a requirement–[interjection] Let me point this out to the yellers opposite. There is a requirement for consultation and agreement from the municipal group in the given province. The AMM does not yet have an agreement (a) with its own constituent parts and, therefore, (b) with the federal government. It is very close, I am optimistic, but until that happens we are not going to act like God and tell the AMM what to do for their constituent parts.
Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, the requirement clearly when this deal is stalled, as it is, is for this Premier to show some leadership and bring them together to get a deal. That is what this Premier should be concentrating on is how does he get people together.
The mayor of
I ask this Premier very simply: Why does
he think it is right for him to be content to sit on his laurels and always have
Mr. Doer: As I said, we
were the first province in
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. The provincial government enhancement of transit grants and street
repair money in our last year's budget was decided by the provincial
government, enhanced by the provincial government and flowed to the municipalities.
The requirement for this money is a requirement by the federal government for
their money to flow to the municipalities and requires an agreement from the
umbrella municipal organization called the AMM in
Minister Godfrey was here last week. We have discussed this with the AMM. We were discussing it all weekend with their representatives. We discussed it. I was on a conference call with Minister Alcock on Saturday morning. I was on conference calls with various mayors. It is very close to an agreement, but I would point out that the money is federal, not provincial, and the agreement is required by AMM. It is not an agreement between the federal government and the provincial government. If there was required just those two conditions we would have had an agreement six months ago.
* (13:50)
Priority of Capital Projects
Mr. Larry
Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about close
calls here. On Saturday, a 31-year-old Rivers resident was killed in a head-on
collision on No. 10 highway just north of
Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): We have commented before on the 2020 vision process that has taken place, the consultation that has taken place with all the stakeholders, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of the suggestions that came forward are that it is something that government should look at, look at projects more than just one year. We are certainly looking at that right now, at a multi-year rolling capital budget, and we continue to pursue that.
Mr. Maguire: Well, Mr. Speaker, it has been three years since this government began discussions on its 2020 vision for Manitoba roads, yet there is no way for Manitobans to know what road construction priorities are for this province. Will the minister be open and show Manitobans any plan that he may have? How many more drivers have to die before this minister will make No. 10 highway a priority?
Mr. Lemieux: The cheap shots coming from opposite will not help prevent accidents on our highways, regrettably, and we are very sorry. It is regrettable that people end up in accidents on our highways, Mr. Speaker, but we all know it is not a result of always highways not being twinned and so on. There are many factors involved in accidents happening, and I certainly take exception to the remarks made by the member opposite somehow that government can be the be-all, cure-all to fatalities and accidents happening on our highways.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, in the same note, that member is having a new highway twinned going right by his backdoor and, yet, he voted against the budget last year that we added $16 million more to the capital budget.
Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, three drivers from Rivers have been involved in head-on collisions on No. 10 highway this year alone. Will the minister tell Manitobans today whether No. 10 highway is even on any list he may have for priorities?
Mr. Lemieux: We are going
through a budgetary process, an Estimates process. We take a look at all the
requests, and I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, every year the Department of
Transportation gets $2 million worth of requests from municipalities and many
other areas of
Social and Economic Impacts
Mr. Ron Schuler (
Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs and Trade): Mr. Speaker, this government in 1999, for the
first time, did develop the strategy for assisting people who do run into
problems with gaming. The member may want to go back in history. The expansion
of gaming in the
Mr. Speaker, there is a strategy to
address responsible gaming for the first time in the
* (13:55)
Mr. Schuler: An absolute
shameful answer from this minister. He wants to give a history lesson. The
highest gambling addiction rate in the country, we have teen gambling rate at
56 percent and the outcome, Mr. Speaker, is bankruptcy, family break-up,
domestic abuse, assault, fraud, theft and even homelessness. This government
has increased VLTs to 5300 when
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, again, the member opposite confuses volume of voice with fact, and I can indicate that in fact in Manitoba we have brought certainly the problem gaming prevalence rate down since we have formed office here in Manitoba.
It is now documented, Mr. Speaker, that
Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, studies show for every suicide, five gamblers with inflicted injuries could end up in hospital. The problem with this Doer government is they will not seek the truth because they cannot handle the truth.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker,
this side of the House has a grasp with professionals of AMM funding needs for
expanding our role on responsible gaming in the province. We will take our
advice from the professionals. We will not take our advice from the members
that cannot even get their own party to agree on a direction that they need to
go on VLTs in the
Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the Conservative Party had said back prior to the previous election one of the issues on the radar screen would be to have upgraded VLTs, certainly we would have no problem supporting that, that is an absolute no-brainer. We would like to do that and we would be happy to do so. The critic speaks a completely different tune. If the two of them would sit down in their caucus and get a direction, maybe this side of the House, we would begin to listen to them.
Private/Public Partnerships
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, I attended a
national convention in
Given the absolutely horrendous wait-list problems facing Manitobans, why did the Minister of Health choose not to attend this convention?
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that The Maples
was well represented in
* (14:00)
Mrs. Stefanson: Get angry, Tim.
Children continue to wait in pain for dental surgery, patients continue to wait almost three years for hip and knee replacement surgery and wait lists for many diagnostic tests continue to rise, yet this government continues to put its ideology ahead of patient care.
If this government truly cared about
providing timely access to services in
Mr. Sale: I think the member opposite should go and just check the current record. We asked Winnipeg Regional Health Authority to do an extra 400 hips and knees last year. They are on track to do 700, Mr. Speaker, 700.
Mr. Speaker, 70 percent
of Manitobans get their hips and knees replaced according to CIHI in under
seven months, 70 percent under seven months. Yes, there are a number of people
who are waiting more than a year. Eighty-six percent of those people are on the
long wait lists of a very few surgeons. Mostly, Mr. Speaker, they have chosen
to stay there, which is their right, but 70 percent of Manitobans get their
hips and knees done in under seven months. That is a pretty good record.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of Health could answer the question for us. How many pediatric dental surgeries has he completed of the ones that he promised to complete? An absolutely dismal record. Manitobans are absolutely fed up with this NDP government's ideological blinders. They want access to health care services that they are currently being denied.
Even the Labour Party in
Mr. Sale: This government has doubled. Doubled, Mr. Speaker, 100 percent increase in the number of pediatric dental surgeries than when we formed government. The previous government did half of what we are doing right now.
Secondly, we are on track
to more than exceed the additional 600 surgeries by the end of the fiscal year.
Stay tuned. We are doing very well in the area of dental surgery. I was very
proud last week to stand beside the CEO of Burntwood Regional Health Authority
who had committed to doing over 440 dental surgeries this year. They did
none in northern
Codes of Conduct
Mrs. Myrna Driedger
(Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, this is Bullying Awareness Week and research shows that one in five children
are bullied regularly at school. I would like to ask the Minister of Education
if he can tell us if all schools in
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship
and Youth): Yes, Mr. Speaker, all schools in
This has been a result of a lot of
consultation which members opposite dismissed. We had the member from
Mrs. Driedger: I hope when the minister indicates that the codes of conduct are in, that all the finalized versions are now in, and not just drafts.
The Minister of Education has refused to provide us with the codes of conduct on three separate occasions, and he has had several months now to analyze those codes of conduct. I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us if there is consistency in all of those codes of conduct regarding expectations and consequences of bullying.
Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, this is a local issue. School divisions–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bjornson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Administrators should have the capacity to act as administrators. Members opposite are looking for some prescriptive omnibus legislation that will deal with everything. We have asked local authorities to develop the codes of conduct because they know what is best for their communities and they are allowed to have the flexibility. They work with parents. They work with teachers. They work with community groups to address this issue. This is not just an education issue. It is an issue that has brought several members to the table, several stakeholders to the table. Just as we consult as a province, the school divisions consult with their stakeholders to decide what is best for their children.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education talks about this as being a local issue. This is his legislation that he put forward, and he has to put forward the leadership to ensure that these codes of conduct are finalized. They are on his desk.
I will repeat the question to him. In September, he said he had not had a chance yet to look at it and analyze the law for consistency. I am asking him now, he has had several months to do this. Has he looked at all of them to ensure that the codes of conduct are consistent in terms of expectations and consequences for bullying? That is his legislation and that is his job. Has he done it?
Mr. Bjornson: Well, Mr. Speaker, our government has been doing the job since we have been in office, unlike members opposite who chose to ignore the issue. We started lobbying as teachers back in 1993 when I was a member of the Evergreen Teachers' Association. We started lobbying the provincial government of the day. They chose to do nothing. We have been very involved in this process, engaging stakeholders at all levels.
The codes of conduct are in place. Codes of conduct are an ongoing process as far as being tailored to address the needs of the different schools, and they are developed through consultation with teachers, with parents and community groups. It is the community that has input on this issue. It is a community issue.
Government Monitoring Process
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, in 2001 the Minister of Industry indicated that it was important that the government monitor the operations of labour-sponsored funds to ensure that they comply with legislation. In 2001, a senior account manager with the Department of Industry indicated that Crocus was indeed not complying with the legislation and the minister did nothing.
Since it was clearly the government's duty to ensure that the law was not broken, why did the Industry Minister not step in on behalf of 33 000 Crocus shareholders and stop Crocus from breaking the laws?
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Mr. Speaker, maybe the member opposite has not been aware of what has happened so far. So far there has been an Auditor's Report and investigation which provided a whole pile of important recommendations that we are taking action on. Also, there is a Manitoba Securities Commission investigation. There is an RCMP investigation to see if there are any criminal wrongdoings. There are a number of court cases that are talking about if there are any civil liabilities. Those things are an ongoing process. Our government trusts the independence and the impartiality of these ongoing experts as they continue their investigation and we will not interfere.
Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, the only investigation that is lacking is an investigation from this minister. Clearly the Minister of Industry indicated that it was the government's duty to monitor Crocus so that Crocus was not breaking the law. The Auditor General stated that this NDP government failed in this duty. Why did he fail to see that Crocus was breaking the law? It was his duty and he failed.
* (14:10)
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer, the member opposite should understand the law. The law is that we should have an independent–the independent Manitoba Securities Commission should conduct an investigation. In the law, an independent RCMP would check and conduct an independent criminal investigation. Canada Customs and Revenue will do an independent investigation and, of course, Manitoba Securities will do the same.
As you understand, you said that we have allowed and made sure that everything is done that needs to be done and I concur. We have made the independent on political organizations conduct an independent process to find out wrongdoings and take action. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General was very clear. This NDP government failed in its duty to ensure that Crocus was not breaking the law. Clearly, this NDP government as early as 2001 knew that Crocus was breaking the law and more than 33 000 shareholders lost more than $60 million.
I ask the Minister of Industry: Why did he fail to do his duty? Why did he so miserably fail the more than 33 000 Crocus shareholders?
Mr. Rondeau: As a lawyer, you should be aware that it is not the NDP government that goes and does the investigation and follows this out. It is the independent offices of the Manitoba Securities Commission, RCMP, et cetera.
The other thing that you should note, Mr. Speaker, is that it is an independent thing and the same people were in charge–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, the same people were in management as members opposite. It was the same system that was employed by Crocus as was established by members opposite, and Mr. Stefanson and the Premier previously had stated over and over again that it was not supposed to be a political process, and we made sure that it was not a political process.
Mental Illness
Service Availability
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Because of poor planning by this Minister of Health, we have a mental health system that is not adequately serving Manitobans, and the result is problems with safety for our citizens. Why was the Minister of Health not even involved in the recent crime reduction announcement at Magnus Eliason Centre? When will this government realize that a safe community strategy without better mental health is no strategy at all?
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, obviously it is not appropriate for me to comment on what is a criminal investigation in regard to a very serious incident. Our government has, in fact, increased funding for community acute mental health services by 38 percent since we formed government, to the alcoholism foundation, Addictions Foundation of Manitoba by 36 percent, an increase of over $3 million.
Last year the AFM was able, with that
money, to provide counselling in 35 more high schools in
Mr. Gerrard: Not lots of money perhaps but poor management and not the kind of outcomes that we need. The minister knows full well that he has let down Manitobans with mental illnesses very badly. The PACT program is not accessible to people because there are insufficient PACT teams. Immediate access to the first episode psychosis program is not possible at the moment because of the minister's poor planning. At many steps along the way, those with mental illnesses are not being well served by this government. Perhaps we need an investigation into this minister's failures.
Why has this minister so badly let down Manitobans that we have an increase in crime because he is not adequately diagnosing and treating people with mental illness?
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is probably aware that many people with mental health concerns present themselves to their family physicians, and we indeed provide a great deal of support to people with mental health issues through our normal acute care and primary care systems.
In terms of the services that we have put
in place, a community psychiatrist on-call system was put in place in 2005 for
Mobile Crisis services, Crisis Stabilization, evening on-call service coverage
for Misericordia Urgent Care and for Concordia, Mr. Speaker. We continue
to make investments and, in fact, if the member remembers, we added mental
health as one of
Public Inquiry
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The provincial auditor has looked into this problem. The inquiry has been made by the Manitoba Securities Commission. The RCMP are conducting an investigation. Canada Revenue is looking into this matter, Mr. Speaker. There is a lawsuit out against the Crocus Fund. It is a heck of a mess that this government has created and what is needed is a public inquiry. That is what is in the public's best interest.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the shafting continues, $5 million of liability in which most of that money is going to go towards the lawyers. The share–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite went through the different levels of investigation to ensure that people get unbiased third parties, professionals get to the bottom of what happened at Crocus. That is the best thing that we can do to allow the shareholders to get back their value.
What we have done is we have acted upon
all the changes of the Auditor General's report on an ongoing basis. What we
have done is we have allowed the third-party experts, the experts on the
criminal or the income tax or the
Prevention/Treatment Strategy
Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I was very proud of our Premier (Mr. Doer) when he took last September the national stage and said we have an epidemic and we need to take action on that epidemic. I was very pleased a week ago to announce a $6-million funding partnership with the federal government to take action in regard to the prevention of Type 2 diabetes in particular, and in particular in the highest risk communities, our northern and rural communities.
We would be glad to challenge the federal
government to come up with the full $8 million that they have been asked to
commit to this program but, in the meantime, we are pleased with the commitment
of $6 million. Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to be the successor to the Minister
of Health who established
Fish Stock Enhancement
Mr. Cliff Cullen (
I would like to ask the Minister of Water Stewardship if he is prepared to commit resources to the redevelopment of this particular lake.
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): I know that this government has been very supportive of local entities when they have come forward looking for ideas in developing tourism and tourism opportunities and we know, those of us who live in rural Manitoba, that having lakes with an abundant number of fish available is good not only for local tourism but for bringing in fisherpeople from around into the area.
I know that the minister has met with the
people that are interested in
* (14:20)
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker,
local citizens realize the value of this resource and
Mr. Struthers: We have
been committed and we have been working with local groups in making these types
of decisions. Part of the decision-making process needs to be a scientific look
at the particular lake in question,
Mr. Cullen: I thank the
minister for his response, but something appears fishy in the Water Stewardship
branch. Officials from the Water Stewardship Department have put forward
proposals for the aeration of the lake. The
Mr. Struthers: As I have
stated already, Mr. Speaker, our government is willing to work with local
groups in order to make the best decisions possible to enhance the tourism
opportunities that we have in our lakes right across rural
Safety
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask a question of the Premier (Mr. Doer) regarding a family that is without a father. I am asking the Premier what plan does he have for addressing the issue on Highway 10. This family and others within the community of Rivers have had enough heartache and pain. I ask the Premier, unfortunately, he has left the House–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have all been here long enough. We know the rules.
The presence and absence of members are not to be raised in the House. We cannot forecast what other business members ever have, so that is why that rule is there. It is out of order to mention the presence or absence of members in this Chamber so I ask the honourable member to withdraw that.
Mrs. Rowat: I withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, the honourable member has withdrawn that.
The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because truly Question Period is 40 minutes long and I do not care what other business the Premier (Mr. Doer) has and neither do Manitobans. We dedicate 40 minutes of this House's time for Question Period. Surely, surely the First Minister could make himself available for that time.
Mr. Speaker: The
honourable Member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The
honourable Member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the sentiment that has just recently been expressed. If they do not recognize the value of having the First Minister present during Question Period, as being something that is important to one of the fundamental principles of the operations of this Chamber, I tend to disagree with the Premier's lack of presence during Question Period.
I do not, for one, believe that that is appropriate, and whether it is the staff of the Premier's Office, they should be making the necessary arrangements to be able to accommodate Question Period. I think that it is a valid request. There are at times individuals that are not present during Question Period and they are not present for no doubt a good reason.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I regret, Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to stand on this point because, quite frankly, I have to call this a cheap shot. Now what is most telling is that the second question that was asked of this side of the House by the Transportation critic went to the minister. It is interesting that the timing of this question came at that particular moment, and I think that is unfortunate.
Mr. Speaker, there is a rule. It is there for good reason.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, he does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mrs. Rowat: Mr. Speaker, I was looking for an answer from this Premier (Mr. Doer) to respond, but I am looking now to the Minister of Government Services to provide some indication that there is a plan in place to address this growing issue of unsafe highways, especially No. 10 highway.
Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister
of Transportation and Government Services): We are currently twinning No. 1 highway to the
Mr. Speaker, they did not–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think it is incumbent upon a minister to address the topic of the question that is asked, especially in a serious matter where a Manitoban has just lost his life, a family has just lost a father.
We are asking this minister to address the issue of Highway No. 10. Now, if he needs a map, we will send him a map. We are not talking about Highway No. 1. We are talking about Highway No. 10. When is he going to address it? That is the question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, the honourable minister has been 13 seconds into his answer so I cannot–[interjection] Order.
Members have 45 seconds to raise a question and preamble and postamble. Ministers have 45 seconds to address the question, preamble, postamble, within that 45 seconds. I am sure the honourable minister was going to direct his answer to that specific question within that 45 seconds.
* * *
Mr. Lemieux: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was and the point I was
trying to make is that there are a lot of highways being twinned in
But the members opposite claim to have such a passion for safety. We are the government that brought in the interlock system. We are the government that brought in the graduated driver's licence system, Mr. Speaker. We are the government that now we see a 50 percent decrease in fatalities between the ages of 15.5 and 18 because of what we did.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 5, I had
the privilege to attend the opening of the
Nearly a century has
passed since three young men from
I was joined by the family of the Victoria Cross recipients, a contingent from the Minto Armoury, representatives from the community who were members of the project working group, the Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski), as well as Councillor Harvey Smith.
This plaza will ensure we
never forget the valour and bravery of thousands of Canadians. Designed by
local landscape architect David Wagner, the
Last Thursday, students
at nearby
The project was undertaken
and funded through the Building Communities initiative, a $14-million capital
infrastructure program funded equally between the
The Building Communities initiative has funded the completion of 56 community infrastructure projects in six neighbourhood areas. A total of 96 community projects will be completed by the end of the program in 2007.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Diabetes Month
Mr. Cliff Cullen (
Diabetes is a disease that currently affects over two million Canadians. The incidences of diabetes in Canadian society, particularly Type 2 diabetes, are dramatically increasing over recent years due to a number of factors including an aging population base, an increase in obesity rates and sedentary lifestyles. Recent research suggests that a child born in 2000 may stand as high as a one-in-three chance of being diagnosed with diabetes in his or her lifetime.
Leading the charge in the fight against diabetes is the Canadian Diabetes Association. The association is a major source for people with and affected by diabetes as well as a major contributor to the fight against diabetes in general. The CDA runs a number of programs focussed on prevention and awareness, and the recognition of National Diabetes Month is just one of the many ways that they work to help stem the tide of what has been a growing problem in recent years.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Canadian Diabetes Association for their tireless work and inform all the members of the Legislative Assembly that November is Canadian Diabetes Month in an effort to promote awareness for a disease that is a part of many lives of Manitobans.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Council on Aging Award
Recipient
Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Dr. Roland Guzman, a recipient of a Manitoba Council on Aging annual recognition award. This award is meant to recognize the exceptional contributions made by individuals or organizations to the betterment of the lives of seniors and of their communities.
The Manitoba Council on
Aging is an advisory body to the Minister responsible for Seniors (Ms. Oswald).
By providing public input on issues relating to seniors, as well as informing
the public about the aging process, it provides an important public service to
both the government of
Dr. Guzman was one of the earliest
Filipino immigrants to
I would like to commend Dr. Guzman for his important work. Also, this award is especially significant as it took place during Seniors' and Elders' Month, a time when we recognize the important contributions made by the seniors to our communities. In that spirit of recognition, I call on all members of the House to congratulate Dr. Guzman and all the other recipients of the award for their good works. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Seven
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and
congratulate the
Employees at the
Lions Manor Residents
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a wonderful group of seniors in my constituency of Wolseley.
On October 12, I had the opportunity to
spend a truly fun, entertaining and instructive afternoon with residents of
Lions Manor. It was an event held to celebrate Seniors' and Elders' Month and
to acknowledge the achievements and contributions of
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the residents of Lions Manor for the many things they have done for this province and for the things they continue to do for their neighbours, their community and each other. I am proud to be part of a government that has taken several important steps to respect and value our seniors and to improve services available to them.
Mr. Chaplin's workshop entitled "The Use of Mime in the Silent Film Era," a hands-on workshop, featured Charlie entertaining the crowd with a clip from his movie days, followed by a live performance. He then went on, ably assisted by the children from Lions Gate Child Day Care, to teach the crowd how to perform mime. It was fascinating to watch as Charlie led one child through a complete costume change to become a miniature Charlie Chaplin. I want to thank Mr. Chaplin and the children for their fine efforts.
I also wish to say a special thank you to
Laura Devlin, director of social care at Lions, and the manor staff for their
initiative and their co-operative attitude in putting together a lovely
afternoon. It was a great privilege to honour the
Mr. Speaker, I conclude today by officially thanking and putting on the record the respect and admiration with which I hold all seniors in Wolseley. Congratulations on their ongoing achievements and contributions. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the member from River Heights, that under Rule 36(1) the regular business of the House be set aside to deal with the matter of urgent public importance, namely, the need to consider the current status of the Crocus Fund and why it is critically important that a public inquiry be called in order to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to uncover the reasons as to why the government chose not to act on problems with the fund dating back to 2001.
* (14:40)
Mr. Speaker: Before
recognizing the honourable Member for
As stated in Beauchesne, Citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not of the subject matter of the motion. In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer.
Mr. Lamoureux: I do believe that this is of urgent importance and in the public's best interest that we allow for debate to occur on this issue. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you will see that agreement of the House in the past has been supported when we have seen that the public interest would be best served. I look to the member from Emerson when he made reference when we talked about the BSE crisis to the 10 500 livestock producers and the impact it was having on those, a huge impact, as he points out.
Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is the impact of 33 000-plus Manitobans that had a direct investment in the Crocus Fund, let alone the investments that all Manitobans had in the Crocus Fund as a direct result of the tax breaks that were being provided. I truly do believe that that is the primary reason why we need to hear from the government as to what is happening on the Crocus file and their position, to be able to elaborate a position, as to why they have not called for a public inquiry.
Earlier today, I made reference to the
amount of concern from other groups, other interested stakeholders out there.
Whether it was the provincial auditor, whether it is the Manitoba Securities
Commission, whether it is an RCMP investigation, whether it is Revenue
None of those investigations, Mr. Speaker, really adequately address two issues that I believe are critically important and need to be debated and therefore define the urgency of us debating that today. The No. 1 is the issue of government neglect. We know that the government neglected the Crocus file, and that is what, in essence, led to this whole fiasco.
Number 2 is the relationship between the Premier (Mr. Doer) and a number of the members of the union movement, Mr. Speaker. We need to get that sort of clarification. Something has happened here, and the people that have been paying the price of government neglect and incompetence are, in fact, our shareholders; they are, in fact, our taxpayers. Those are the individuals who, I believe, need to hear from the government, in particular, from the Premier.
I have used Question Period twice now to try to get the Premier to come clean on the need for a public inquiry, to comment on the need for a public inquiry, Mr. Speaker. He just has not done that. His silence has been deafening. We believe that the Premier, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and this government as a whole need to put on the record very clearly what their position is in regard to the public inquiry.
If they do not believe a public inquiry is necessary, then they should be standing up and defending their argument, Mr. Speaker. What I believe is happening is that they are hoping that this issue will just kind of die and wither away. The fear, of course, is that within days there could be significant amounts of dollars going from an insurance company to lawyers in which the shareholders will lose out.
We can see a potential settlement where this government might be involved. We do not know what this government is up to, Mr. Speaker. That settlement could be used as a way to prevent information from being released to the public. I believe that the merits are there for a public inquiry, and we cannot allow the government of the day to stand by and say nothing and do nothing in hopes that the issue disappears. There is a responsibility of this government to stand up and speak out and say what they believe, to give the rationale as to why there is not the need for a public inquiry.
We believe the argument is there to justify a public inquiry, and there is no excuse that the government has put on the record in any fashion whatsoever that justifies the position or the lack of a position on the public inquiry. If we take a look, Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech debate is over. The Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) might say that I could still use my grievance. Yes, I could use my grievance, but more important than hearing me and my position on this issue or the Liberal Party's position is we need to hear from the government side.
We need to hear from the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the ministers who are responsible for this particular file. They need to get on the record. That can only occur legitimately through a good healthy debate, and what I look for is the government to acknowledge the importance of this issue at the very least, the importance of 33 000-plus, plus our taxpayers, and allow for that debate to occur. We have done that through the BSE when we recognized the impact that that was having. We have done it on other issues, Mr. Speaker, since the last provincial election, have allowed that debate to occur.
If you have nothing to fear, then allow the debate to occur, Mr. Speaker. That is what I am asking from the Government House Leader. If you have nothing to fear on the Crocus file, then why not allow the debate to occur? It is not like if you take a look at the Order Paper that there is a substantial listing of bills which is going to consume the entire afternoon. All we need to do is just look at last Thursday where we had adjourned early. We have the time inside this Legislature to give it debate. [interjection]
Well, the minister says why not shut up and talk about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get the government to talk about it. It is the government that sits on their back-end, on their hands, and chooses to say nothing on this critically important issue to all Manitobans in hopes that the issue is going to disappear. That is irresponsible, and this government needs to stand up and needs to support this matter of urgent public importance. The time will allow for that debate to occur today. The only reason why it will not occur, I believe, is if we have a government that wants first and foremost to protect the interests of its relationship with the union movement, the few within the union, and is not prepared to stand up to the best interests of the Crocus shareholders and the public as a whole in this province.
So my challenge is to the Premier and to the Government House Leader to allow the debate to occur. The time is there for us to do it. The Government House Leader knows full well that the time is there for us to do it. Accept the challenge. Allow the debate to occur and let us start talking about this critically important issue that all Manitobans need to hear more from in regard to the government's side. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe that an issue that is raised as a matter of urgent public importance should be taken seriously by our House because these are issues that are important to Manitobans. In this particular case, this issue is probably of greater significance than many others that have been raised in the past.
This is an issue where Manitobans have lost their hard-earned savings because of government neglect. There is not a better time to debate this issue than today because Manitobans are looking for answers. They cannot seem to get answers from the government when they phone directly. The Minister of Industry (Mr. Rondeau) has proven that he is incapable of answering any questions in the House or on this file.
* (14:50)
This is an issue where the government has crawled into bed with the union leaders and has decided to sweep this thing under the carpet, and that is shameful. This is a matter of urgent public importance. Mr. Speaker, 33 000 Manitobans have lost $60 million. Now, if we do not consider that to be a matter of urgent public importance, what do we consider then to be a matter of urgent public importance?
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be important for us to set aside the business of the day to look at a reasonable and a knowledgeable and an intelligent debate on this issue so that Manitobans who are watching, who are listening, who are wanting information about their hard-earned savings can then hear what the government has to say about this issue because, indeed, it is their obligation to respond to a matter of urgent public importance to defend their position. In our view, it is not defensible.
In our view, Mr. Speaker, they should be
calling a public inquiry. This is
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a big task. If I look at the Order Paper here, the government is out of work. I can justify a matter of urgent public importance debate on the basis that last week we had to adjourn the House early because the government ran out of work. On Wednesday we adjourned the House at 3:20. Why did we adjourn the House at 3:20? Because the government ran out of work.
An Honourable Member: No agenda.
Mr. Derkach: No agenda. So, Mr. Speaker,
on that basis alone I do not think the government will object too strenuously
to us having a debate on this matter, but this is a matter that is fairly
important. I think the member from
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Well, Mr. Speaker, I know the
opposition has been kicking around this matter for a few months. I certainly do
not see any evidence presented by the honourable member from
Mr. Speaker, I note that the Throne Speech has just passed. Members opposite had full opportunity during that wide-ranging debate to raise concerns about this matter. The issue is before independent entities and, just in conclusion, I will just note that in the class action lawsuit that has been launched, the government is not even so much as named as a defendant and that is a lawsuit by the shareholders themselves.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Our rules state that we hear from one member of each party. I have heard from the honourable–
An Honourable Member: We did have more.
Mr. Speaker: I hear from one member of each party to convince me that we need to debate this today. If we were debating it, yes, other members could speak to it, but right now our rules state that it is one member from each recognized party.
I thank the honourable
members for their advice to the Chair on whether the motion proposed by the
honourable Member for
I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward. However, I was not persuaded that the ordinary business of the House should be set aside to deal with this issue today. Although undoubtedly this is a very serious issue that the member has brought forward, I do not believe that the public interest will be harmed if the business of the House is not set aside to debate the motion today.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Additionally, I would like to note that there are other avenues for members to raise this issue, including questions in Question Periods and raising the item under grievances. In addition, members had the opportunity to raise this and many other issues during the recent debate on the address in reply that was concluded last week. Therefore, with the greatest of respect, I must rule that this matter does not meet the criteria set by our rules and precedents, and I rule the motion out of order as a Matter of Urgent Public Importance.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call second readings on Bills 2 and 3 and then debate on second readings in the order they appear?
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology (Mr. Chomiak), that Bill 2, The Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am pleased to introduce these amendments for second reading. Mr. Speaker, The Private Investigators and Security Guards Act is being proposed to be amended to provide for the inclusion of previously exempt security guards for licensing and for training.
In-house security guards are those working exclusively for a single employer who is not in the business of providing security guard services. Previously, The Private Investigators and Security Guards Act did not apply to security guards working in-house or to members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires employed as security guards.
The act would now, if this passes, require that in-house security guards meet licensing requirements set out in the act. The amendment will help to ensure then that all security guards in the province have satisfied the same licensing requirements.
In addition, the act would require all employers of in-house security guards to register with the department. Registered employers would be required to employ licensed security guards to ensure all employers in the security guard industry are held to the same standard.
The act was previously amended to require completion of training prior to application for a security guard licence. Expanding the scope of the act to include previously exempt security guards ensures that all security guards will have satisfied the same licensing requirements. Industry participation has been integral to the development of the made-in-Manitoba 40-hour Security Guard Training Program.
The new training standard is based on the Canadian General Standards Board basic security guard training program, which is a nationally recognized training standard. The training program includes topics such as professionalism, public relations, legal authority, which includes both the laws and the Charter, traffic control, bomb threats, personal safety at work, fire detection and prevention. Also, issues such as note-taking are included. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, would also require companies engaged in the business of providing private investigators and security guards to have liability insurance.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member from Emerson, that debate on this bill be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology (Mr Chomiak), that Bill 3, The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
* (15:00)
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, we live in an
increasingly mobile society, and whether it is for family reasons, employment
or business opportunities, it is not uncommon for people to move from one part
of
Mr. Speaker, we must also break down
barriers in the way of public safety. It is important that our legislation
reflects the reality of a mobile society, so today I am pleased to introduce
The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act, which will allow for the recognition
and enforcement in
Mr. Speaker, this bill will have
particular significance for civil orders of protection and other non-monetary
judgments granted by courts in other provinces or territories by enabling these
orders to be enforced here in
One
of the most important aspects of the bill is its provisions respecting Canadian
civil protection orders. Where a person who has been subjected to domestic
violence or stalking, for example, has obtained a civil protection order from
another province or territory in Canada and then has relocated to Manitoba,
their order will be deemed to be an order of the Manitoba court under this new
legislation. As such, it will be enforceable in
Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for
enforcement of a Canadian civil protection order by
I might add that court rules will have to
be changed, Mr. Speaker, during the proclamation period. I am proud that
The bill specifies time limits for the
registration and enforcement of Canadian monetary judgments. It will allow
parties to apply to the
As the intent of this legislation is to provide recognition to Canadian judgments on a full faith and credit basis, the court's ability to provide direction will not allow Manitoba court to look behind the Canadian judgment. If the parties to the judgment have concerns with the basis of such a judgment, those concerns would have to be raised in the province or territory where the order was granted.
Mr. Speaker, this important new law will
notably improve the process by which civil judgments granted in other Canadian
jurisdictions will be able to be recognized and enforced in this province. This
bill's special provisions respecting the enforcement of Canadian civil
protection orders will continue
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): I move, seconded by the member from Ste. Rose, that debate on this bill be adjourned.
Motion agreed
to.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak–
Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has been adjourned. The member would have to have leave of the House. Is the honourable member asking for leave?
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Does the member have leave?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, it has been denied. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Speaker: We will now resume debate on second readings on Bill 5, The Dental Hygienists Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
What is the will of the House? Leave it standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? [Agreed]
Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put a few words on the record in regard to Bill 5, The Dental Hygienists Act, that was introduced a while ago by the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale).
Mr. Speaker, the bill itself is a bill that has the establishment of the College of Dental Hygienists of Manitoba, is something that is a new direction, a new development by the Health Minister and the government as to how they want to approach the dental hygienists and their contribution. It also establishes a governing council with public representation. I believe the number of members on the council is nine members, and the government would have the ability to appoint three of them. So, in a sense, the council of three would have three members appointed by the Minister of Health as their representatives on there.
It also requires for the registration of
dental hygienists here in
The whole area regarding dental hygiene and the presentation that this government has made is the fact, Mr. Speaker, that what has come to light in the last little while is the tremendous amount of waiting lists and the anxiety and the unfortunate sorrow that a lot of children have to go through to get their teeth fixed. A lot of times it is unknown as to the numbers until you really get into finding out how many children are waiting and what the wait list is involved. I understand the wait list can be up to a year for some children to get teeth fixed or looked after in a proper manner. That has to be terribly, terribly painful for children that are on the list waiting for that.
* (15:10)
The government has made a lot of announcements in regard to the waiting lists and trying to bring the waiting lists down. They talk about bringing in 600 pediatric dental surgeries that were to be completed by 2005, but we know that the waiting list as of July of this year was over 1000 children waiting for pediatric dental surgery. The anxiety and the amount of pain that these children must be going through in regard to trying to get this type of treatment is something, I think, that we would all identify with.
To a large degree, most of us had children or have children, and when they are small like that, any type of pain that they go through, I think, the parents or the guardians can identify very much with, and it has to be very, very anguished for them to watch their children or their child go through that type of suffering, only because, Mr. Speaker, to a degree there is an ideological difference between getting the surgeries done in a timely manner and the ability for the government to always be involved with the process.
I think we are well aware
that some of the programs that are being offered in some of the other areas in
regard to making themselves available to try to bring down the pediatric
surgery time is something that this government should be looking at. They seem
to be revolving around the supposition that they are the ones who should be
doing it all the time and that there is no room for additional surgeries
through some of the other facilities that are available here in
They have announced additional surgeries
in other areas, in Thompson, in the Burntwood area I believe it is, the
Burntwood surgical district, and also in Beausejour, which is to a degree
welcomed, but the list keeps growing. As was pointed out, if it is close to
where the children need the service, that is more commendable. They do not all
have to come into
Mr. Speaker, The Dental Hygienists Act is something that is brought forth in one area. It relates very closely to the hygiene and the dental applications that children are waiting for, so there is a correlation between having good dental hygiene and the ability to have children looked after in their dental surgery. So we look at the bill at the same time as we look at what is best for the children, and we would recommend that the government go along the line of additional surgeries, look at all the strong alternatives that are available in the market and try to keep the children's welfare and the pain away from them as long as possible.
So, with those short words, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks to Bill 5.
Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
This act is going to create greater accountability for Manitobans. The college will allow citizens to come forward and bring concerns and complaints to a responsible body, and this body will have the ability to deal with those complaints. They are also going to be providing information to the Province, to the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale), in the form of an annual report and the information that is going to be provided is going to give us information on the structure of the college, its committees, the details of the number of applicants that have registered, the number of complaints and dispositions, the number of members disciplined and the reason for the discipline and the sanctions imposed.
We have made this commitment in the Speech from the Throne in providing better care for children's dental health, and this is one means by which we are going to be able to do that as they provide that very necessary information to the children and give us information on how we prevent these painful dental problems.
The act responds to a
long-standing request from the hardworking professional to allow them to govern
themselves, and this they are going to do. This legislation will allow them to
join 92 percent of their colleagues across
I think that, in our mind as we think about dental hygienists, we all have memories, some of them good, you know, some of them painful sometimes. Scaling can be difficult, but, as I said before, it is very important that they have a professional body to support themselves and Manitobans. It is going to be in the best interests of us all. Also, what is going to be happening on their council is that there is going to be public representation on their committees, and this is going to help them make linkages into the community, from the profession to the community.
I am very proud to be part of a government that values dental hygienists and the work that they do, and have brought forward this legislation for them.
I think, in my closing, I would just like to say how important it is, dental hygienists in our health care system, and what they do for all of us. I would like to thank the many dental hygienists that have supported myself and my family in the many years that we have been going to see them for prevention and advice. So, again, I just urge the opposition to help us take this legislation forward so we can take it to committee and have it passed so dental hygienists can get the professional body to govern themselves and the respect that they do so deserve in our community. Thank you.
Mr. Ron Schuler (
Mr. Speaker, we know that this bill defines a practice of dental hygiene and, for the first time, provides regulations for that profession, and it has many provisions in it, as we have heard from others, to establish College of Dental Hygienists of Manitoba. It has a governing council with public representatives, the registration of dental hygienists, which is also very important, and a process of handling complaints and discipline.
* (15:20)
We know that in society we certainly do value oral care, probably like never before in the history of civilization. As we go through our schools and we see our children with their shiny, healthy teeth, we think back to those individuals who helped us maintain dental care.
Over the years, we have seen the developing of how to properly brush our teeth. We know it is very important to floss. We know that it is very important to maintain your teeth because, after you lose your baby teeth and you get your adult set, you get one set, that is it. Knowing at home I have three little children who are now getting their second set of teeth, we clearly want them to protect their teeth in such a fashion that they will be with them for the rest of their lives.
That is where we find that the system that is in place, we have got excellent dentists and probably now is not the time to put a little pitch in for my dentist, Dr. Peter Bertram Wilson and his staff, the hygienists in his practice, who do an amazing job. In fact, I have been going to him all my life and the individuals who have worked in his office, and for a while I was living somewhere else and I went to see a dentist and they could not believe the quality of the dental work that I had. They just could not believe the hundred-percent quality of the dental work, and that has a lot to do with the dental profession.
We know that dental hygienists promote oral health through education, assessment and treatment of teeth. For those of us who go on a regular basis, and I assume that is all 57 of us, Mr. Speaker, because we are leaders in our community and we want to lead in all aspects of life, we know that the practice of dental hygiene includes administering oral anaesthetic, applying dental sealants, performing orthodontic and restorative procedures and many, many other things. I see my dental hygienist far more than I see my dentist. He comes in a little bit, asks me how things are going and then seems to leave, whereas it is really the hygienist who has the hands-on work and does just an amazing job.
We also think that it is–[interjection]
My one colleague across the way says, and he comes in and asks you questions, you have that suction in your mouth, and somehow seems to understand this. It is called dental chair language, and even my hygienist, she has this complete conversation. It is interesting how she actually remembers from every six-month visit what we discussed the last time. She understands it all. I think obviously they go to dental-speak-as-a-second-language courses because they really do know how to understand and, of course, do just a great job.
It is also very important that this bill creates a college of dental hygienists and that is important because then if individuals have questions about the profession, if individuals have questions about an individual, they know exactly where to go, Mr. Speaker. It provides a lot of different areas that will make the profession a lot more professional. It gives it its own body and we think that is important.
We, however, would like to take the government to task that, over the years, it has been an area that they have neglected in a serious way and that is with the promises made and promises broken with all the announcements on dental hygiene for children. We know that on December 1, 2004, the Minister of Health issued a press release promising an additional 600 pediatric dental surgeries that would be completed at Misericordia Health Centre by the end of 2005, which was not done.
Nearly one year ago, this Premier (Mr. Doer) and this Minister of Health made a promise to children waiting in pain that an additional 600 pediatric dental surgeries would be completed in the province by the end of this year. Last week, the Minister of Health admitted that those targets may not be met and more than likely will not be met.
The number of children waiting for
pediatric dental surgery in
More than 1000 children continue to wait in pain for dental surgery as a result of this government's inaction, despite announcement after announcement after announcement. Freedom of Information requests received revealed that as of September 30, 2005, Manitoba Health was short of their 600-surgery goal at Misericordia Health Centre by 283 surgeries. Freedom of Information requests also indicated that the number of pediatric dental surgeries performed at Children's Hospital as of September 30, 2005, was far short–475 surgeries–of reaching the total number of surgeries performed at the hospital the year before.
These are very serious issues, and I think, as we go through this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we should be looking at these numbers because, on the one hand, we see very important work going forward, recognizing the work that is done for dental health, and then, on the other hand, we see a government that breaks their promises actually for the service delivery.
We understand also that Maples Surgical
Centre, a private clinic located in
Mr. Speaker, if the
private clinic's proposal had been accepted, the pediatric dental surgery wait
list in
This Premier (Mr. Doer) and this Minister
of Health (Mr. Sale) have failed Manitobans who are waiting in pain. They have
broken their promises made a year ago. Why should Manitobans believe anything they
say right now? Last week the
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
Anyway, I look forward to hearing some more additional comments from the other side of the House. This is important legislation, and we know that members opposite are more than willing now to get up and also debate this legislation and certainly looking forward to hearing them put some comments on the record in regard to this legislation. I thank this House for the opportunity to speak to Bill 5. Thank you.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to put some comments on the record about this excellent piece of
legislation, which will recognize and support the over 500 dental hygienists
who are practising their profession in the
Now, Mr. Speaker, at the present time, the
Manitoba Dental Association has the complete authority to regulate dental hygiene
under The Dental Association Act. But this new piece of legislation will
create, to reflect the maturity of the profession of dental hygiene, a separate
college of dental hygienists of
* (15:30)
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
The act will require that any person who wishes to practise dental hygiene and hold themselves out to the public as a dental hygienist, oral hygienist or registered dental hygienist will have to meet the qualifications set out in the legislation and also the accompanying regulations.
Now this act will also give the college the authority to investigate complaints about the practice of a hygienist. We hope that those will not be very often. I could have made one when they kept sticking banana fluoride treatments in my mouth, but we will not go there. If necessary, of course, they can hold a formal discipline inquiry.
The act, of course, is not created in a
vacuum. It is modelled on the recent Medical Laboratory Technologists Act,
which was a further development to recognize another respected profession here
in the
Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the complaint and discipline processes will be consistent with other recently proclaimed health profession legislation, such as nursing, such as physiotherapy and the soon-to-be-proclaimed medical laboratory technologists legislation. There is a wide range of possible dispositions of a complaint, including informal resolution and mediation, which we certainly appreciate is a much more appropriate way to settle complaints if at all possible.
Now, the possible errors that can be made following the inquiry would allow for remedial action, such as requiring the investigated member to limit his or her practice or to undertake a further course of studies or supervised practical experience. As with any other regulated body of any profession which seeks to have this power, there will be accountability to the government, which we certainly think is appropriate. The college will be required to submit an annual report to the minister that will include information on the structure of the college, its committees, details on the number of applicants for registration, the number of complaints and their disposition, the number of members disciplined and the reasons for the discipline and the sanctions imposed. The act also provides for the establishment of a traditional council to get the new college up and running.
I am quite fortunate to have a dentist who
is a good friend, and he was a very wise man because he married a dental
hygienist. He certainly was ahead of things. My friend Dr. Jeff Hein practises
dentistry in the lovely
Certainly, I have had some discussions with Dr. Hein about this bill, and as well his wife, Mireille, who is a dental hygienist and performs a very important role in his practice, of serving patients in the Ste. Anne and surrounding areas. I understand that people all the way from Steinbach to Giroux, all the way north to Richer, and even north of the Trans-Canada find their way to the Seine River Dental Clinic, to be practised upon by Dr. Hein and Mireille Fiola, who, as I say, is a top-notch dental hygienist.
She and her fellow dental
hygienists have certainly taken great steps over the years to make sure that
dental hygiene is as painless as possible. I agree with my friend the Member
for
So I am very pleased that this government is continuing to modernize the practice of these various professions. Certainly, it is time for the dental hygienists to step forward and be fully recognized as a self-regulating profession with all of the responsibilities yet all of the rights that that entails. So I am pleased that I will be supporting the passage of this bill as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr.
Deputy Speaker: Second reading, Bill 6, The
Dental Association Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association
dentaire, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
Is it the will of the House that this bill remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina?
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 7?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the Member for Ste. Rose speaking on this bill?
An Honourable Member: No, 7.
Mr.
Deputy Speaker: Then we are going to move to No. 7.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On second reading of Bill 7, The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act (Various Acts Amended); Loi sur le règlement des différends portant sur le champ d'exercise des architectes et des ingénieurs (modification de diverses dispositions législatives), standing in the name of the Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Deputy Speaker: Stand. Is it the will of the House
that this bill remain standing in the name of the Member for
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr.
Speaker, on Bill 7, I rise today to speak on this bill knowing that this is a
most troubling circumstance that the people of Manitoba find themselves in
right now, never a happy event when there is a disagreement such as we have
seen between the architects and engineers, both professional groups held in
very high regard.
In
bringing forward this bill, the government knows, at least they ought to know
if they do not, that there are a large number of people and a lot of projects
and a lot of dollars at stake that we do this process properly, because we
probably have already lost some tradespeople out of the province. I think we
have probably seen some skilled workers in this province who have probably lost
wages, and certainly it is not easy to have an opportunity to sit on this side
of the House and have the government talk about how they believe this is a
problem that they inherited from the previous administration.
* (15:40)
This is a problem that has been around for a long time, which was brought to a head recently because of a court ruling, and now we as legislators have an obligation to deal appropriately with it on behalf of our constituents and our constituencies.
Certainly, I received a missile, and I can describe it no other way, from a very frustrated project co-ordinator who happens to be resident in my riding. He wrote a couple of letters to the public media. I am not sure if he was on the electronic media or not, but he certainly felt passionately that this was something that need not have reached this stage, that need not have caused the upset that has indeed occurred.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
Undoubtedly, there is disappointment all the way around that some projects have been slowed down as a result of the situation that we are now faced with. Overall increased project costs could end up being passed on to consumers because as this person who wrote to me indicated, he felt a high level of frustration working for a community project where people were raising funds on a volunteer basis within the community, in many cases long hours of volunteer work, trying to bring together the funds to make a project happen, a project that was going to be weather-sensitive or project costs would go up. That, of course, was his source of frustration, that we as legislators should never have allowed this to deteriorate to the situation that we are now faced with.
Let me say for the record, Mr. Speaker, I believe the government, any government while in office, has the responsibility to deal with known problems. Some of them are problems that come forward during their administration. Some of them are problems, such as this one, that seem to come to maturation, if you will, during the period of a particular administration, and others are ones that may unknowingly come forward and could not have been predicted.
In this case, however, we have to look squarely to the government and ask them how it is that they allowed it to deteriorate to this level, and now as we go forward with the bill, we are now facing a situation where any kind of reticence or any appearance of reticence on the part of this House to deal with the legislation would be interpreted very badly by all of the professionals out there who will be impacted by this legislation, because the frustration level is rising every day.
I think that on this side of the House we are very conscious of the fact that we have a responsibility to do due diligence and make sure that the government has properly considered this legislation, that it has had sufficient input. This is really why I have contextualized my remarks in the manner that I have. We are not sure that the government has, in fact, received all of the input that it should have from the most affected parties that have been disadvantaged, affected, whatever term you want to use, by the situation as it concurrently sits. It is costing people and businesses hundreds, maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that is a direct result of having construction slow down on a number of projects.
Mr. Speaker, grinding
We would like some clarity on that. I think the minister has a responsibility to explain how much consultation she has had, whether or not that consultation was real, whether or not it embraced the wide spectrum of people who will be affected by this and whether or not it is being driven by her desire to do the right thing for the people of this province and for the professionals impacted by this bill or whether it is being driven by a sense of urgency that speaks more to the fact that there is some embarrassment on the part of the government for having let this get to the stage that it is at.
Either way, we know that there are a significant number of people who want to speak out and be heard on this bill at committee, but I want to assure anybody who might read Hansard somewhere down the road–and I often say that those who have time to read Hansard perhaps do not have enough to do–but the truth of the matter is, on issues like this, people will read Hansard. They will want to know whether there is a will in this House to proceed in the best interests of the public, the best interests of people who will be directly affected by this legislation. I think it is very important that we make it clear that that is the goal that we want. As we seek information from the minister about her consultation, about the input that she had in designing this act, and as we get feedback about whether or not the affected parties believe that this bill does a fair and equitable job of solving a dispute that is certainly of long standing, that should not be interpreted as anything more than doing the job that we are responsible for doing in this House, and that is making sure that good legislation is passed on behalf of the people in this province. I think we all share the view that it is very unfortunate that the government did not aggressively deal with this issue a while ago, and we would not yet have had to come to this state of affairs where we are dealing with legislation where people are looking over our shoulder and wondering how quickly we can deal with it because that never leads to good legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put a few words on the record on this Bill 7 as well, The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act, and I think that pretty much, various acts amended, it says, I think that title of the bill pretty much speaks to itself, Mr. Speaker, in that this government has had a reactionary vision of how to deal with business in Manitoba, as they have reacted to other circumstances. There is no vision in this government. That was seen in the Throne Speech, and we continue to debate bills like this where the government could have dealt with the circumstances in this particular case at least a year ago. I think it is a concern of all Manitobans that to bring legislation in to deal with these kinds of circumstances after the fact is a detriment to the future development of this province.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, we know that there was a requirement to try to straighten out the dispute between the architects and the engineers in Manitoba and that the very best that I can say about the way the government has handled this one is, is one word that comes to mind, and that is mismanagement. This government has mismanaged this affair as they have mishandled other areas of concern, and I would just list a few of them, one being the agriculture crisis that we are faced with today, another one being what we raised in Question Period today in infrastructure development and highways and, of course, the prime example is the health system and how they have not utilized the dollars that they have had as a government responsibly in developing the best impact that could be gotten for those dollars for Manitobans. Of course, just handling the debt itself, allowing it to increase, allowing $1.5 million to increase every day in Manitoba, is something that this government does not seem to care about.
* (15:50)
So that is why I say that this particular piece of legislation, Bill 7, that has come forward could have been brought forward, something that could have been brought forward to this matter some year ago at least, and it would have alleviated a lot of the concerns that many Manitobans have had through the circumstances that we have been dealing with.
Mr. Speaker, architects, the numbers being
much smaller than engineers in the province, as you know, are very concerned
about their future, and, of course, the act that the engineers have in
Obviously, it is an embarrassment to the
government to have to bring this forward at this late time. It impacts
companies that are thinking of coming to
Mr. Speaker, I must commend the Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler) on our side of the House for the work that he has done in regard to getting this bill forward as far as it is and listening to both sides, the architects and the engineers in Manitoba, and acknowledge his work that he has done in regard to making sure that these professional organizations know full well that Manitoba should be allowed to move ahead and that he pressed the government to make sure that this kind of bill came forward.
Mr. Speaker, we have asked that they reply
to us as quickly as they can so that this legislation can pass and move
forward, but, you know, at the same time as the government has done that, there
were no spreadsheets available to even deal with this issue. So the government
was ill-prepared again in regard to being able to be straightforward with the
critic for this area in regard to how he has handled this professionally. I
would say that it is a great concern that one of the government's own former
members had to be dealing with this with the engineers in
When you put a construction project on hold, maybe it does not seem like much to this government to put a small project on hold, but when you are dealing with contracts the size of the new Hydro building, with contracts the size of future contracts that will be let on a major project that they feel strongly about, the floodway in Manitoba, these add major costs. Any time you have got a delay in time in these kinds of projects going forward, once they have already been determined that they will move forward, it is a cost. We know that Manitobans are the ones that pay for those increased costs.
So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I would just close by saying that I would urge the government to be more expeditious in dealing with these kinds of issues in the future and not cost Manitobans future tax dollars by adding further delays to the types of implications, I guess, if you will, for want of a better word, on projects that delay the development of Manitoba's future and unload those costs onto Manitobans.
With those few words, I will look forward to hearing from the government if they have anything to say on this as it moves forward, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers? When this matter is again before the House, it
will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate, Bill 8, The Official Time Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire).
What is the will of the House, to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden? Stand? Is there agreement? [Agreed]
Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks
to amend The Official Time Act to extend daylight-saving time in
Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the act
became necessary when the
Mr. Speaker, there is wide support for
harmonizing with the
Bob Dolyniuk, General Manager of the
Manitoba Trucking Association, said it is critical for his industry. There are
as many as 450 for-hire trucking companies based in
The Canadian Bankers Association and the Canadian Capital Markets Association have both expressed support for harmonizing the DST to mitigate the potential impact related to time-sensitive transactions in the financial services sector, that is, banking and capital services.
The move to extend the daylight-saving time was lauded by the Canada Safety Council, a long-time proponent of the change, and I quote, "It's the right thing to do," CSC president Emile Therien said, and I quote again, "We are going to have fewer pedestrian injuries and fatalities." The majority of pedestrian accidents occur after 3 p.m., according to Mr. Therien. He said the additional daylight hours would help drive those numbers down.
* (16:00)
Mr. Speaker, adding daylight to the evening could also improve road safety with more people going home from work in daylight, and it would give kids a chance to do some of their Halloween trick or treating while it is still light outside also improves safety.
Mr. Speaker, with the change in the
official time,
This corridor has a huge economic
significance for
With these comments, Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to support and pass it. We have to continue to move forward with our neighbours to the south to strengthen our collective prosperity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker,
Our Province is an enthusiastic participant and member of the North American Super Corridor Organization. Through this organization we have taken an active part in addressing border relations, sustainable transportation, transportation technology and transportation financing.
In March of 2005, I was provided with the
unique opportunity to travel to
In the last 15 years, we see that export
of Canadian goods to NAFTA countries has more than tripled. In 1990,
On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The act makes changes to the manner in which
daylight-saving time will be implemented. Changes to daylight-saving time,
which will take effect in March 2007, will change daylight-saving time to run
from the second Sunday in March and run it until the first Sunday in November.
This change will extend daylight-saving time by four weeks, three weeks in spring
and one week in fall. With the close connection between
One of the big successes in industry has
been the introduction of just-in-time delivery of parts and goods that are used
in the production of a variety of manufactured products. If our province
operated on a different schedule than the
Other problems we would encounter relate
to trucking schedules, airplane flights and border crossings. There are as many
as 450 for-hire trucking companies based in
In the
Mr. Speaker, in 1989,
18.5 percent of
It is very important to see that this
amendment to daylight-saving time synchronizes our province with the
* (16:10)
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to put
a few comments on the record about the importance of the speedy passage of the
official time act and, really, to speak about the importance of co-ordinating
with other provinces and other states. I think really to understand why it is
necessary to pursue this legislation we need look no further than a place which
does not co-ordinate with the rest of us, and, of course, I am talking about
the
Saskatchewan is also an astute province when it comes to their politics, and, indeed, Saskatchewan is the home of social democracy in Canada, the place where the Regina Manifesto was passed in 1933, and, of course, where the first social democratic government in Canada was elected in 1944, under the leadership of Tommy Douglas, who, we all know, is our greatest Canadian. Of course, the good people of Saskatchewan have had the wisdom to elect to a fourth term an NDP government, and the people of Saskatchewan also had the wisdom to entirely disband the Progressive Conservative party in that province.
So, in many ways, the good people of
Now, I know that I have now awoken some of the opposition members from their slumber. I can tell you that it may be that Saskatchewan's refusal to go in lock-step with the other provinces may be one of the reasons why the Saskatchewan Roughriders probably have the worst record over their history of any team in the Canadian Football League and even yesterday, of course, the Roughriders were bounced in the playoffs, early yet again, and, in fact, the Saskatchewan Roughriders have the longest Grey Cup drought of any team in the Canadian Football League except, of course, for Ottawa, who only recently rejoined. The poor Riders have not won the cup since 1989. They have not even hosted a playoff game since 1988. They have only won the Grey Cup twice in their entire history.
An Honourable Member: Say something nice about them.
Mr. Swan: The Member for
Now, the point of this, Mr. Speaker, the
point is that when every other team in the fall is getting their extra hour of
sleep when they are falling back, the poor Roughriders just have to keep
toiling away on Central Standard Time. So perhaps the bad football that has
been seen in
Certainly, for these reasons which I think I have fully articulated in a way that my members across the hall can understand, I would certainly urge the speedy passage to committee of this bill so that we can go ahead and get the bill passed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers? Okay, when this matter is again before the House, it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire).
* * *
An Honourable Member: Five o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it five o'clock?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on that matter.
I am asking the House: Is it the will of the House to call it five o'clock?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No? There is no agreement.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe I have made my point, and I would be prepared to allow it to be called five o'clock if the government still wants it to be called five o'clock.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, two matters of business. I would like to announce the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations will meet Monday, November 21, at 9 a.m., to consider the annual reports of Manitoba Hydro for the years ended March 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005.
As well, I note the Member for Minto (Mr. Swan) had risen to speak to Bill 3 earlier, and I wonder if there is a will of the House to revert to adjourned debates on second reading of Bill 3.
Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations will meet on Monday, November 21, 2005, at 9 a.m., to consider the annual reports of Manitoba Hydro for the years ended March 31, 2003, March 31, 2004, and March 31, 2005.
Is there agreement to revert to resumed debate on second reading of Bill 3, The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act? Is there agreement?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, there is no agreement.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it five o'clock? [Agreed]
The hour being 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).