LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
December 7,
2005
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYER
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Lathlin), that Bill 20, The Family Farm Practices Protection Amendment and Farm Land Ownership Amendment Act, be now read for a first time.
Motion presented.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends The Family Farm Protection Act by replacing outdated references to administrative staff serving the Manitoba Farm Mediation Board. Also replaced are outdated provisions for confidentiality of information and liability protections for board members and other persons working under the board. The Farm Lands Ownership Act is amended by replacing gender-biased language, outdated reference to administration staff serving on the Farm Land Ownership Board and an outdated liability protection provision.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Agreed]
* (13:35)
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:
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.
Signed by Ken Prociw, Jo Ann Prociw and Joan A. Ford of the Sandilands community.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
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 Norman Bagge, Dreena Duhame, Lorna Pink and many, many others.
These are the reasons for this petition:
A number of head-on collisions, as well as fatal accidents, have occurred on Highway 10.
Manitobans have expressed increasing concern about the safety of Highway 10, particularly near the two schools in Forrest where there are no road crossing safety devices to ensure student safety.
Manitobans have indicated that the deplorable road condition and road width is a factor in driver and vehicle safety.
It is anticipated that there will be an increased flow of traffic on this highway in the future.
We petition the Manitoba Legislative Assembly as follows:
To request the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux) to consider providing sufficient resources to enhance driver and vehicle safety on Highway 10.
To request the Minister of Transportation and Government Services to consider upgrading Highway 10.
This petition is signed by Greg Bradco, Art Dalton, Greg Mackling and many, many others.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from the Aboriginal Literacy Foundation Inc., Aboriginal Community Campus, 7 visitors under the direction of Mrs. Linda Smith, Miss Lisa Lacoste, Miss Candace Neuman and Mrs. Margaret Dankowski. The group is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
Allegations of Mismanagement
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter from the former president and CEO of the WCB to the then-Minister responsible for the WCB regarding Workers Compensation Board issues.
* (13:40)
Mr. Speaker, when a minister of the Crown is sworn in, you take an oath of office that includes a promise to perform and fulfil your duties, quote, "without fear or favour."
For the past week, we have been asking the Minister responsible for WCB to explain why her government did not investigate the very serious allegations that were raised by former WCB president and CEO, Pat Jacobsen, in March of 2001. Specifically, Ms. Jacobsen raised red flags about management interference and corporate governance issues at WCB. Her letter also outlined her concerns about the professional conduct of the chairman at the time, Wally Fox-Decent.
My question is for the Premier. Could he explain to this House why Minister Barrett did not act on this March 27, 2001 letter? Was it out of fear or out of favour?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, some of the allegations in the letter have and are being reviewed by the Auditor General. The matter was referred to the board of directors by the former minister. The matter was referred to the stakeholders, which are made up of business, labour. The stakeholders are the board representatives, and the minister referred the dispute between a chair of the board, who was initially appointed in 1992 by the former government and reappointed by us after being appointed three times by the previous government, and the CEO who was appointed, I believe, prior to our election.
Again, the dispute
between the two was referred to the board of directors, who are the ultimate
stakeholders, because business, of course, pays the rates. I think they are
still the lowest in
Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, Ms. Jacobsen, the woman who raised these serious allegations in March of 2001, was fired three days after she sent her letter to then-Minister Barrett. Yesterday, the Minister responsible for the WCB told the media that Minister Barrett referred Ms. Jacobsen's letter to the WCB board of directors. In other words, a letter that contained accusations about Wally Fox-Decent was sent back to Wally Fox-Decent.
My question is for the Premier, who, ironically, is the former minister responsible for accountability of Crown corporations. Did he or anyone in his office have anything to do with the decision to ignore the letter and these very serious allegations?
Mr. Doer: The letter was referred to the board of directors which is made up of stakeholders from the corporation. The CEO of the corporation, including Mr. Sexsmith, is not hired and fired by the provincial government.
If you note, Mr. Speaker, in terms of Orders-in-Council and the hiring of the last CEO of Workers Compensation, it was a matter that did not go to Cabinet, did not require Cabinet approval and did not require Cabinet approval for an Order-in-Council appointment of the CEO. The reason for that is, under the former act and under the existing amended act which improves accountability for Workers Compensation, the CEO is not hired and fired by the provincial Cabinet minister or the provincial Cabinet. The individual is hired and accountable to the board of directors of Workers Compensation Board. That is clearly under the act and that is clearly reflected in Orders-in-Council in the government.
Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, this letter that I tabled today is very, very troubling. It is troubling because Pat Jacobsen did what she was supposed to do in her role as president and CEO of the Workers Compensation Board. She lived up to her fiduciary responsibility and was fired for doing her job. The Doer government, on the other hand, ignored the red flags raised by Ms. Jacobsen and allowed the problems at the WCB to fester.
* (13:45)
The Doer government ignored its promise to Manitobans, its promise to act without fear or favour. I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, to this Premier: The red flags were there; you knew about them. Why did you ignore them?
Mr. Doer: In terms of
overall performance of Workers Compensation Board, we had, as a government
direction, the overall desire and priority of lowering the number of accidents
in
I think we have reduced the number of
accidents and, therefore, claims in
In terms of macro issues, Mr. Speaker, the board chair is hired by Cabinet. The person selected, I believe Mr. Fox-Decent if I am not mistaken, was appointed in 1992 by former Minister Praznik. I believe he was reappointed by former Minister Gilleshammer, and I believe he was reappointed by Harold Gilleshammer.
When we came into office, we had no reason not to trust Mr. Mauro, who was then head of the Crown Corporations Committee. Mr. Art Mauro we reappointed and Mr. Wally Fox-Decent we reappointed. We did not take every chair in government and change it, Mr. Speaker. CEOs are not hired by the provincial government. I would suggest to you strongly that if you look at–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, the other day members opposite were talking about government control of investments of Workers Compensation in Crocus. I thought it was rather ironic because it was in 1996 and 1998, so if the government did control the investments of Crocus, you perhaps should ask the question in your caucus.
Allegations of Mismanagement
Mr. Cliff Cullen (
Mr. Speaker, just months after this report, Pat Jacobsen was fired by the very person who signed this review, the very person she raised concerns about to Becky Barrett, the very person Minister Barrett turned to to deal with these troubling allegations.
My question to the Minister responsible for Workers Compensation: Why would the government pass these serious allegations back to Wally Fox-Decent, the same person named in these very serious allegations?
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Well, Mr. Speaker, the WCB is an arm's-length agency, and, as the Minister responsible for the WCB, I am the minister responsible for the act.
I said yesterday in the hallway that the concerns that were raised were referred by the previous minister to the entire board of directors, the tripartite board of directors that represents the employers, the employees and the public interest of the WCB. That is the appropriate mechanism for reviewing those particular concerns that were raised in that letter, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General is doing a review, and we look forward to any recommendations that the Auditor may have in regard to human resource issues at the WCB.
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we too are looking forward to the Auditor General's report. Ms. Jacobsen's performance evaluation indicates the board strongly expressed the view that you are the right person for this job. The evaluation goes on to say, "You are also seen as having developed a positive working relationship with the chairperson."
Mr. Speaker, just months after this review, the chair fired Ms. Jacobsen. Why was Ms. Jacobsen fired three days after bringing management and government issues to the attention of the then-Minister of Labour?
* (13:50)
Ms. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I, once again for the member opposite, will explain how these matters work. The concerns that were raised with the former Minister of Labour were referred to the tripartite board of directors of the WCB. They are the stakeholders.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General is doing a review of the human resource issues at the WCB, and we understand that report will be published soon. We look forward to any recommendations in that report in regard to any governance structures that we can put in place. We changed governance structures in Bill 25. There is now more accountability, there is now more transparency and that is what we are interested in.
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we now know that this NDP government received a credible complaint about management interference and corporate governance problems at Workers Compensation back in March of 2001. What did the NDP do? It referred the matter back to Wally Fox-Decent.
To add insult to injury, the NDP then had the audacity to hire Wally Fox-Decent to chair a recent committee that recommended changes to WCB's investment policy and corporate governance. Mr. Speaker, this NDP government knew the fox was in the henhouse. Then the NDP turned around and hired the fox to straighten out the mess in the henhouse.
Mr. Speaker, we ask, in light of these serious allegations, why would this government continue to appoint Mr. Fox-Decent to chair such an important committee.
Ms. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind members opposite–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Allan: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. I just want to remind members opposite that Mr. Wally Fox-Decent was
appointed by the previous government in 1992. I just want to remind that the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray), on the 29th of April 2004, said that Mr.
Wally Fox-Decent, a champion of
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Allan: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. Once again, Mr. Wally Fox-Decent, a champion of
Allegations of Mismanagement
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I table an affidavit sworn by Pat Jacobsen, the former CEO of the Workers Compensation Board. In paragraph 6, Pat Jacobsen swears that she had serious concerns about the Workers Compensation Board and Wally Fox-Decent, and she followed up by arranging a meeting with the Minister of Labour.
An Honourable Member: What happened?
Mr. Hawranik: The Minister of Labour then cancelled the meeting and told the CEO to meet with Wally Fox-Decent, the very person the CEO complained about. I ask the Minister of Labour why is the policy of the Doer government to ignore the pleas of all whistle-blowers and to ignore all of the red flags.
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the WCB is an arm's-length agency, and, as Minister of Labour responsible for the Workers Compensation Board, I am responsible for the administration of the act.
The CEO of the Workers Compensation Board, Mr. Speaker, is hired by a tripartite board of directors. The concerns that were raised were taken by the former Minister of Labour, and they were taken to the tripartite board of directors for their review. The Auditor General–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Allan: This was a human resource matter, Mr. Speaker, and it was reviewed by the board of directors of the WCB.
* (13:55)
Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, they got the complaint in 2001. Why did they not deal with it? In paragraph 5, Pat Jacobsen swears that, in 2001, she was concerned about the use of the Workers Compensation investment fund for government purposes. Wally Fox-Decent controlled where the funds from Crocus were being invested, and he was also controlling where the Workers Compensation funds were invested, and they were often invested in the same places. This NDP government knew this. They sat back and they let it happen.
I ask the Minister of Labour: Why did the Minister of Labour turn a blind eye to the CEO of the Workers Compensation Board? Why did they ignore the red flags?
Ms. Allan: Well, Mr. Speaker, prior to the legislation that we passed in this House in June, Mr. Fox-Decent chaired all of the key board committees, including the investment committee. Under our legislation that we passed, effective January 1, 2006, the investment committee will no longer be a statutory committee. The investment committee will now have transparency and accountability, and that investment committee will report to the board of directors. It is the strongest governance in the province and the strongest governance in the history of this province.
Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, again, I refer to the affidavit. In paragraph 9 of Pat Jacobsen's affidavit, she swears that she believed that, had the NDP government conducted an independent audit of the Workers Compensation Board in 2001 as she requested, both Crocus and the Workers Compensation Board would not have lost millions of dollars. Instead, this government chose to ignore the red flag, and, as a result, 33 000 Crocus shareholders lost more than $60 million.
I ask the Minister of Labour: The former CEO is prepared to swear to testify to the truth. Are the minister and the Premier (Mr. Doer) prepared to do the same?
Ms. Allan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the member opposite is interested in cozy relationships because, first of all, I want to remind the member opposite Crocus was set up by the previous government and the WCB–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Allan: And the investment, Mr. Speaker, in Crocus was in 1996 and 1998, under their watch. What we have done is we have made sure that there is–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Allan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under their watch, the investment committee was a statutory committee that did not report to the board of directors. Under our legislation, the investment committee is a committee that reports to the board of directors and strengthens the transparency and the accountability of the investment committee on behalf of all Manitobans.
Allegations of Mismanagement
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): In the affidavit, Pat Jacobsen swears, and I quote, "I was concerned about the concentration of power between the Crocus and the Workers Compensation Board investment committees, and I was concerned about the lack of fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to get the best returns, particularly in using the Workers Compensation Board funds as government development funds which goes beyond the mandate of the employer-funded Workers Compensation Board."
Mr. Speaker, why were these red flags ignored by the Minister of Labour? Was she directed by a higher authority to turn a blind eye?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but, once again, I would just like to remind members opposite of the legislation and of the investment committee.
* (14:00)
Prior to our legislation that was passed in June, and I thank the members opposite for supporting the legislation, the investment committee was a statutory committee that did not report to the board of directors. It made decisions on its own. Under our legislation there is strengthened governance. That committee now reports to the board of directors.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Allan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because of the legislation that we passed and will be proclaimed on the 1st of January 2006, we have the strongest governance in the country.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Pat Jacobsen, the CEO of the Workers Compensation Board raised red flags with this government about the inappropriate use of Workers Compensation Board funds. In the affidavit, she also swears, and I quote, "I requested of the government that Wally Fox-Decent, the chair of the Workers Compensation Board, and I both step aside so that an independent audit could be done."
My question to the Minister of Labour is why were these serious red flags ignored by the Minister of Labour? Why was an independent audit not ordered in 2001?
Ms. Allan: Well, I just want to remind members opposite once again, when the previous Minister of Labour received a letter with the concerns that were raised she took that letter and she referred that letter to the arm's-length agency, the board of directors, the stakeholders, the tripartite board of directors that is responsible for the WCB. There is, Mr. Speaker, an audit that is being done by the Auditor General, and, if there are recommendations in that audit, we will take those recommendations very seriously.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, these allegations came forward in 2001. This is 2005. The Auditor was not called in by this government. They turned a blind eye. The minister referred it back to the board. Did she ask for a report back from the board? What was that report and what did it say? The buck stops in the minister's office.
Mr. Speaker, red flags were raised with the Minister of Industry (Mr. Rondeau) about questionable Crocus Fund investments. These red flags were ignored. In March of 2001, red flags were raised with the Minister of Labour about concentration of power between the investment committees of Crocus and the Workers Compensation Board. These red flags were also ignored. In January of 2002, red flags were raised with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) about management concerns at the Crocus Fund. These red flags were also ignored.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is three ministers and three different government departments had red flags raised. Why were they ignored?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member opposite should be asking the question in the mirror because the affidavit includes comments about the relationship between Crocus and the Workers Compensation Board.
We, of course, have changed the governance system of the Workers Compensation Board, but I would point out that, in a Free Press article this summer, the former critic stated that the investment appears to be motivated by more of a government desire to promote Crocus and its efforts than by a desire to earn a financial return. Well, when were those investments made? 1996 and 1998. We have changed the procedures, and I am sure the Auditor General will know the dates and the public will know those dates.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Ste. Rose.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Ste. Rose has the floor.
Allegations of Mismanagement
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Premier's hostility could be explained by the fact that he is somehow worried that he is culpable.
They were told in 2001 about the red flags that were raised by Pat Jacobsen. They chose to ignore them. At the very time when Mr. Fox-Decent was the chairman of the investment committee of WCB, the investment committee at Crocus, this government ignored Pat Jacobsen's letter, a very credible source. They continued to ignore the red flags that were raised by her letter. Why did they ignore them? How could they possibly not see the problem coming?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to acknowledge the investments that were made in 1996 and 1998, and I certainly want to acknowledge that the amendments that were made by our minister responsible for Workers Compensation will deal with this issue that is being raised by members opposite. The Auditor General is looking at these issues.
I want to say that, when one looks at the appointment of CEOs for corporations, we have had a couple of examples. I think Ms. McLaren has been appointed by a recommendation from the board of directors that comes to Cabinet, that is approved by Order-in-Council, I believe. In the case of the CEO of MPI, in the case of the Liquor Commission, the recommendation comes from the minister to Cabinet, from the board of directors to Cabinet and is signed by an Order-in-Council. In the case of Workers Compensation Board, you will note that the current CEO, Mr. Sexsmith, did not require an Order-in-Council. Why? Because the individual is hired by the stakeholders which are represented on the board of directors. Those are the legal facts of the matter.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier wants to hide behind a technicality that is his choice.
It is astounding that, when Mr. Fox-Decent was the chair of the investment committee in both organizations, Crocus and WCB, there were things that occurred that were undoubtedly going to cost the investors in WCB, the ratepayers in WCB, a significant amount of money. Mr. Speaker, $10 million that came from The Fond in Québec to Crocus was characterized as an investment when in truth it was a loan, and while that was going on WCB continued to be involved with Crocus. Did this government know what was going on or is anybody in charge over there?
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Well, Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the member opposite mentioned the ratepayers because I want the member opposite to understand that–[interjection]
I would like to spend a moment talking
about the financial health of the WCB. It has the lowest average assessment
rate of any jurisdiction in
I hope members opposite have had a chance to read their news releases yesterday because the WCB put out a news release, and, as of the 1st of January, the average assessment rate will drop to $1.68 per $100.
* (14:10)
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the sad part about this is that we now have both the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the minister floundering on this file because the WCB is the poorest-performing investment portfolio of the WCBs across the country. They are driving looking in the rearview mirror. They are not comparing themselves with what is happening across the country.
Mr. Speaker, Wally Fox-Decent was in a very conflicted position. This government received red flags in '01 indicating that there were problems associated with him being in that position and associated with future investments that were going to be at risk because of the decisions that were being made. If the minister would have seriously taken an interest in that letter, or, unless she was overruled by a higher authority, Mr. Speaker, we need to know. The 33 000 investors in Crocus lost $60 million. How much money was lost in WCB?
Ms. Allan: Well, Mr.
Speaker, I am so pleased that the member opposite talked about how the WCB
investment committee compares to the other jurisdictions in
The WCB's published results for the last two years compare very favourably to the other WCBs. We are one of the top performers in Canada. The WCB of Manitoba performs better than 75 percent of the other WCBs in Canada. Mr. Speaker, those are the facts.
Allegations of Mismanagement
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in Ms. Jacobsen's sworn affidavit, she states and I quote, "I was concerned about the concentration of power between the Crocus and Workers Compensation Board investment committees." She goes on to say in her sworn affidavit, "I was concerned about the lack of fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to get the best returns particularly in using the funds which go beyond the mandate of the employer-funded Workers Compensation Board."
Mr. Speaker, some 33 000 Manitobans lost some $60 million because this Premier ignored red flags. In 2001, he had information. He sat on his hands and did not lift a finger. When they became aware, why did he not do something? What was he thinking?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the board of directors of Workers Compensation and the member opposite have praised the chair of Workers Compensation, the former chair, Wally Fox-Decent, on numbers of occasions. That individual obviously had the confidence of both governments because he was appointed three times by the former government and, obviously, by us.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we do not hire and fire, at Cabinet, the CEO of the Workers Compensation Board. I can demonstrate that clearly because there is a difference between Orders-in-Council between MPI and the Liquor Commission. The people that hire and fire the CEO of the corporation are the stakeholders, business who are paying the fees and labour who are making the claims. It is not the responsibility of the Cabinet to decide who would be the CEO of Workers Compensation. You will not find an Order-in-Council appointing Mr. Sexsmith because it is not within our realm of responsibility because it is the responsibility of the board of directors, as it should be.
Mr. Murray: Well, Mr. Speaker, the president and CEO, the one who understands what is going on in this business, raised a very serious issue with this government in 2001 about the investment of the Workers Compensation Board. When that information became available to the then-Minister, Becky Barrett, Becky Barrett told Ms. Jacobsen that their meeting scheduled for the fall of 2001 was cancelled because the Premier directed it to be cancelled. Clearly, the Premier knew of these allegations, these very serious allegations, and cancelled the meeting.
My question to the Premier: Why did he cancel the meeting?
Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Workers Compensation does deal with the fiduciary responsibilities that the board of directors has to the ratepayers, business and the claimants in labour. That is the fundamental model of Workers Compensation.
There is an issue of a Deputy Minister of Finance, under the previous government and for a period of time under our government, and, most of the time, it was the same Deputy Minister of Finance being on the investment committee of Workers Compensation. There was also an issue of the chair of the board being on all of the committees of Workers Compensation.
I trust that the Auditor General's report will support what the action was. I am not sure whether it will be happening or not. This minister removed the Deputy Minister of Finance from the board of directors, from the investment committee of the Workers Compensation Board, and, Mr. Speaker, also removed the role of the chair from being on all the committees of Workers Compensation, all good recommendations to enforce the principle that it is a board of directors that manages Workers Compensation. It is not managed through political Cabinet ministers in terms of the day-to-day affairs.
Mr. Murray: Well, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what the Premier says the issue about this is that this government was made aware in 2001 about concerns raised by the president and CEO that came to this Premier and he ignored the red flags.
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that Ms. Jacobsen states in her letter that I tabled, and I am going to quote what she said from her letter. She requested the government, "to conduct a truly independent review of these issues interviewing the members of the executive committee, the business agent, president of the union, CUPE local 1063, the external auditor, Don Chatterley of PricewaterhouseCoopers. For my part, I will abide by the results," Ms. Jacobsen said. She further states and writes in her sworn affidavit, quote, "I believe that, had the government conducted an independent audit in 2001 of the Workers Compensation Board, as I requested from the Minister responsible for the WCB in 2001, both Crocus and the WCB would not have lost millions of dollars."
Mr. Speaker, I say through you to this Premier, you, Sir, have a problem. You were given red flags on this issue. You stood by and did nothing and Manitobans lost some $60 million. Why did you do nothing?
Mr. Doer: The members opposite can yell and scream, but there were articles this summer that we would conclude are accurate, Mr. Speaker, and the article stated that the investment in Crocus by Workers Compensation, one investment, I think, if I recall correctly, was $250,000 in 1996. A second investment was made in 1998 of $250,000. If members opposite also want to check the facts, I was not the Premier in those two years and this–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I may have failed to ask the question, as Opposition Leader, to the former Premier, but the government, and there are many Cabinet ministers sitting there that were involved, I assume that they practised the same practice we did, and the stakeholders manage Workers Compensation, not the Cabinet.
* (14:20)
Electronic Monitoring of Offenders
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My question to the Minister of Justice is would the Minister of Justice acknowledge that there is some value in going towards ankle transmitters that would have a positive impact in fighting crime in the province of Manitoba?
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): I am certainly pleased to report on what can
have a positive impact on crime in
First of all, I want to commend all Manitobans who are installing passive immobilizers, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of preventative action that can make all the difference and make sure that vehicles cannot be stolen in the first place.
Second, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the investments of MPI and Manitoba Justice, there has been a focus on making sure that the high-risk auto thieves are being supervised and monitored on an ongoing basis. I am pleased to report to the House that auto theft is down by double digits in this province.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a ruling for the House.
During Oral Questions on November 29, 2005, the honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Derkach) raised a point of order regarding the authenticity of a document tabled by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Sale). I took the matter under advisement.
I am now returning to the House with a ruling on the matter. First, I believe that it is important to remind the House of two important principles that are applied in the House. The first principle is that all members are honourable members and I, as Speaker, accept the word of honourable members. This principle is supported by Beauchesne citation 494 which states that it has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted. The second principle is that it is not up to the Speaker to adjudicate matters of fact.
In a similar case which arose in this Legislature in 1996, when a government minister raised a matter of privilege accusing an opposition member of misleading the House by tabling an alleged false document in the House, Madam Speaker Dacquay ruled against the matter of privilege on the basis that the word of honourable members must be accepted and that statements by members respecting themselves and within their own knowledge must be accepted.
Also, I would like to remind the House that when the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) tabled an audio cassette in the House, I ruled on April 25, 2002, that it was not the function of the Speaker to identify the authenticity of the tape or the information on the tape, as the authentication of material is not the responsibility of the Speaker.
Based on the principles that it is not the role of the Speaker to verify the authenticity of material and that the word of honourable members must be accepted, I would therefore rule that there is no point of order.
I have one more ruling.
During Private Members' Business on Thursday, December 1, 2005, the honourable Member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) rose on a matter of privilege concerning a vote that had just been held regarding the second reading of Bill 200, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act. The honourable member contended that it would have been more appropriate to allow the bill to continue at debate or to let the bill die on the Order Paper rather than having the bill being defeated at second reading. At the conclusion of her remarks, the honourable Member for River East moved that this matter be referred to a committee on Legislative Affairs and report back to this House.
The honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh), the honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), the honourable Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) and the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) also offered contributions to the Chair. I took the matter under advisement in order to consult the procedural authorities. I thank all members for their advice to the Chair on this matter.
There are two conditions that must be
satisfied in order for the matter raised to be ruled in order as a prima facie
case of privilege. First, was the issue raised at the earliest opportunity and,
second, has sufficient evidence been provided to demonstrate that the
privileges of the House have been breached in order to warrant putting the
matter to the House. Regarding the first condition, the honourable Member for
Joseph Maingot, in the Second Edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, states on page 14, "allegations of breach of privilege by a member in the House of Commons that amount to complaints about procedures and practices in the House are by their very nature matters of order." He also states on page 223 of the same edition, "a breach of the Standing Orders or a failure to follow an established practice would invoke a point of order rather than a question of privilege."
In addition, Speaker Rocan ruled on March 12, 1993, that a matter concerning the methods by which the House proceeds in the conduct of business is a matter of order and not privilege. Speaker Dacquay made a similar ruling on April 22, 1999, and as the Speaker, I made a same finding in the House on April 21, 2005.
Therefore, with the greatest of respect, I would rule that the matter raised does not fulfil the criteria for a prima facie case of privilege.
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to congratulate
This year, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to announce that St. John's-Ravenscourt School was awarded six of the sixteen AP National Scholar designations. St. John's-Ravenscourt continues to provide an exceptional educational atmosphere that allows its students to strive for academic excellence.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the members of the Legislative Assembly, I would like to extend my congratulations to St. John's-Ravenscourt National Scholars Lia Cerasani, Jennifer Kovnats, Matthew Literovich, Julian Prokopetz, Jason Rosenberg, Davinder Singh and all other recipients. Thank you.
* (14:30)
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay
tribute to Dr. Krishan Sethi, a family doctor from
Dr. Sethi has been practising medicine in Flin Flon for over 25 years. He works as a family physician out of his private practice. He also works at the hospital as an emergency doctor, an anesthetist, a pediatrician and until recently, as an obstetrician. He is an active member of the community, donating time and energy as an administrator and teacher at the hospital in Flin Flon and has worked for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, the Manitoba Medical Association and the NOR-MAN Regional Health Authority.
Dr. Sethi and his wife, Poomidevi, immigrated to Canada from Scotland in 1980 and immediately located themselves in Flin Flon. Since then, they and their two daughters have been an integral and positive part of the community. Dr. Sethi enjoys the outdoors and hopes that more doctors choose to locate in rural and northern Manitoba.
I congratulate Dr. Sethi on receiving this honour and I commend him for his years of service to the people of Flin Flon and the North. He has truly made a difference in the lives of many northern Manitobans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise in the House today and recognize 53 high school students
from 47 different
Every year the United Way of Winnipeg teams up with Winnipeg high school students who invest their time, energy and talents in their schools and communities. Students become involved in a wide variety of community services including Take Pride, Winnipeg's mentoring program, the Winnipeg Foundation's Youth in Philanthropy program, student council, sports and theatre programs, local churches and hospitals.
It is vital for our youth to give back to their communities. Youth volunteers serve as role models and connect with people to make a difference. They are the leaders in our communities and motivate others to get involved. I, along with the United Way of Winnipeg, am proud to recognize their contributions. The United Way of Winnipeg builds upon the strength of its volunteers and partnering with our youth provides an opportunity to improve not only the lives of the people in their communities, but the lives of the volunteers who gain life-changing skills.
On behalf of all members of the Legislative Assembly, I would like to extend my congratulations to all 53 recipients of the United Way Student Community Service Award. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to tell the Assembly of the very successful 17th annual King Buck Competition, our fall classic, put on by the Poplarfield Development Corporation.
I would like to take this opportunity to put the names and the winning scores of the successful hunters on the record. In the cash competition, the winners were as follows: the heaviest field-dressed buck weighed in at 252 pounds and was taken by Jim Scharf, incidentally, with a muzzleloader; the largest typical whitetail rack scoring 174 inches was taken by Gord Leduchowski and the largest non-typical rack at 181 and 2/8 inches by John Nosal.
In the trophy category, for those that did not enter the cash competition, the winners were: the largest typical whitetail rack was 167 and 5/8 inches by Brad Bjornson and the largest non-typical whitetail at a whopping 204 and 7/8 inches was shot by Rocky Wallach.
The most uniform antlers over 140 was Brad Bjornson again, and under 140 was Roy Sigurdson at 90 inches. The junior winner was Zakeri Parks, with a deer that scored 125 and 5/8 inches. Incidentally, all junior entrants made the record books.
The largest elk at 318 and 5/8 was taken by Lorne Woyshyshyn and the largest moose at 133 inches by Stanley Wallach.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all the successful hunters not only for the trophy animals taken but also for carrying on the hunting tradition of their forefathers. By culling the wild herd, as man has done since time began, hunters do a service to society, and they do a service to themselves as well by keeping fit and providing wholesome, natural food for their families. The survival skills that they develop in the process also cannot be underemphasized.
In closing, Mr. Speaker,
I want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of the organizing committee and
thank on their behalf those who donated prizes towards this worthy event. Keeping the hunting tradition alive is vital
to the good health of rural
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
So this is what the card states, Mr. Speaker. Our judges are not being fair to the victims of crime. Our Premier (Mr. Doer) could be doing more. When a person commits a crime, there needs to be a real consequence. I would like to ask the Premier and all Manitoba's judges how many vehicle thefts and home break-ins does a person have to commit before they would spend more than a year in jail and why are you not standing up for the victims?
Then, Mr. Speaker, as I say, well over 300 people took the time to mail this back to me and part of the commitment I made to them is that I would ensure that the Premier's Office does get a copy of that, and I will later on this afternoon ensure that that does take place.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that there is a genuine lack of confidence in the public in regard to our judicial system. One of the questions that I had asked people was, "Do you feel our judges are doing a good job?" In excess of 90 percent of the people said, "No, they are not."
I think that there is a responsibility of this Chamber to do something in regard to judicial accountability, always wanting to respect judicial independence, Mr. Speaker, but the bottom line is we have to ensure that there is more of a debate on this issue because I believe this is what Manitobans want to see, more accountability.
Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) and his response to my answer in regard to ankle bracelets. It is that closed-mind mentality that causes more harm in our province than anything else, and I appeal to the Minister of Justice to think and reflect on the question and his answer today from Question Period. Thank you.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill 11 and then third readings starting at Bill 5 and then second readings starting at Bill 4.
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading, Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, the bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell.
* (14:40)
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Bill 11 is one of these bills
that should create a lot of interest and especially in rural Manitoba, and I
would also suggest that this will cause a very significant reaction by people
all over this province, including in our large urban centres, because what this
bill really does, Mr. Speaker, it forces one of the cleanest energy
corporations anywhere in the world, Manitoba Hydro, to subsidize fuels that are
going to be used. This government, being a proponent of stemming global
warming, encouraging people not to use fossil fuels, certainly do not
demonstrate with their actions what they have been putting out in word. The
people of
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
I found it rather
interesting that when, in 1989, 1990, the
What I find most interesting is when this same Premier that is now trying to take credit for all the work that has been done during the last decade, decade and a half, he wants to put himself off as being the proponent for environmental protection. That is what he says, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is what his verbiage is. What do we see from him in reality? We see them introducing a bill that will set up a pool of money, and I call this the NDP sustainable squash fund because what they are really doing is setting up a slush fund for themselves to try and bail themselves out of trouble if and when situations like Crocus arise. That is what it is all about.
Then they are suggesting that they are going to use that money, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to subsidize the use and encourage the use of fossil fuels, namely, natural gas. The more you use, the less you pay. So what does that mean? So, if you use Manitoba Hydro, you are going to now pay seven and a half percent more than you did a year ago for the use of hydro, and then you are going to use that seven and a half percent, or part of that seven and a half percent, increase to set up a slush fund.
What are you going to do with the slush
fund, Mr. Deputy Speaker? You are going to pay it to the natural resource
sector, in other words, the fossil fuel developers, the
Now, does it make any sense that this socialist government today is going to penalize the hydro users in this province and support the fossil fuel industry, does that make any sense at all, and then to turn around and close their eyes and say, "Oh, well, we did not really want to do that, but we had to because fossil fuel prices were rising exponentially, and so we have to help those people to use more natural gas than hydro"?
You know the alternative would have been to say, "Well, yes, we can produce far more hydro in this province than we use in this province, so we export the surplus, do we not?" Would it not have been simpler just to say, "Well, we are going to put in place programs to encourage those people who are now on natural gas to convert to hydro"? Would that not have been nice? Number one, cleaner fuel; No. 2, stop the destruction of the ozone layer; No. 3, stop and decrease the effects of global warming.
But that would have been too simple a fix
for this government. They simply do not understand the merits of that, nor do
they understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what the long-term economic benefits would
have been to
But, no, this government has to put a bill before this House, which I, by the way, will not support, put a bill before the House that encourages the furthering of global warming in this province and in this country and in the world. Then we have people that sit in this Legislature on the government side of the House that have been long-term proponents of protecting the environment.
Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask you which is more profound, the establishment of bringing the international sustainable development offices to Manitoba to develop the first round table in the province on sustainable development and the environment in the province of Manitoba, to have the chair of the ministers on environment act out of this province, the Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings), and being recognized internationally as a province that truly understood economic development from a sustainability perspective. That is the history that the Filmon administration left. That is the legacy they left for our children because they set up the model, they set the model of how to decrease the contribution to global warming and how to put in place programs that would actually encouraged the decrease of global warming.
* (14:50)
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, here we have a
bill, Bill 11, and it is called The Winter Heating Cost Control Act, The Winter
Heating Cost Control Act. Would it not have been just a great idea, instead of
introducing this bill, to say that we are going to support the building of new
heating facilities in this province that would no longer be dependent on fossil
fuels and be the contributors to the degradation of the environment and the
ozone layer? I think there needs to be a real thought process put into place.
If you are going to be the proponent of one thing on Sunday, then on Monday you
are going to do the exact opposite by legislation and introduce a bill that
will further degrade the environment in the
I think the other one that is far more dangerous over the long term, and we can see what is happening to the Crocus Fund and through the Crocus Fund when governments get too enamoured with themselves and are not able to care for the fact when the red lights go on and they do not heed the warning, is that when you set up slush funds such as this, these slush funds can very often be used as, again, detrimental vehicles to drive a side of the economy that you are really not very proud of in the end.
I think the establishment of this kind of a fund is dangerous in itself, because it would force one of our Crown corporations to take monies that are generated through the profits of the export of hydro and hydro development, set up separate accounts, and set those accounts aside for questionable methods. You know, some people would say, "Well, this slush fund would be another perfect example of how the NDP government could set up funds that could be used during election events and to help, sort of, get around The Elections Act at times."
I find it very interesting when the government of Manitoba established the laws under which the new Floodway Authority is going to be governed and again an ability for government-friendly organizations like the unions, to set up special funds, little slush funds right through the establishment of the union management agreements: slush funds for health care, slush funds for worker compensation, slush funds for many other things. Nobody knows. There is no mechanism of control under that act, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no mechanism for control, really no responsibility, no accountability of the funds that will be established.
We know now that, during the last election campaign, the NDP collected significant amounts of money from their membership and so-called bundled it, in other words, set up little funds and handed it to the government of the day and said, "Here, go fight your election." They called it bundling. You know what I call it, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I call it bungling, and I know the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Smith) just chirps across the room, and he said, "We call it a good idea." I call it the evasion of The Elections Act at worst, and they had every intent of ensuring that the unions would be able to collect money as other organizations could not. We are not allowed to under the act, but the unions were, and therefore they were able to collect large amounts of money in small little denominations and give it to the NDP party so that they could run their election campaign. The chief election officer, hopefully, will take a look at that, and I believe that there should be a significant investigation on how that was done, who got the money, who collected the money, and who was responsible. The question should even be asked whether there were double tax benefits under that process. I think we should do a significant investigation into that, and I believe it is a similar kind of a situation that arises here.
You know, we looked the other day at Manitoba Hydro's financial situation, and we said to ourselves after having looked at the financial statement, "How come that Manitoba Hydro can increase its debt by $1.8 billion without having anything to show for it? They did not do anything significant. Where did all the money go?" Then today I find out that Manitoba Hydro has been forced to take over the fish hatcheries in this province. Why? Why would the funding of fish hatcheries have to come out of Hydro funds? Why is that?
Is it not somewhat ridiculous that they
think that the people of
I think, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, it is time that the people of
* (15:00)
You know that, Mr. Deputy
Speaker. You have taught those economics. So are you warning your colleagues as
to what is happening to Manitoba Hydro when they do these inordinate kinds of
things without recognition, or do they simply not understand? Do they not
understand what they are doing to the environment when they are subsidizing the
cleanest power, using the monies from the cleanest power generation, energy
generation, anywhere and giving it to the fossil fuel resources in western
There are many, many ways that you could put in place economies of scale that would allow the use of natural gas at a cheaper rate than it is being allowed to be used today. There are ways to encourage the use of cleaner fuels other than natural gas, such as hydro or wind energy or, for that matter, other sources of energy that could be set up and used in this province as well instead of subsidizing natural gas. We believe that, when the Government of Manitoba raided the Crown corporation of Manitoba Hydro of $203 million and Hydro had to borrow this money at a cost of $276 million, hydro rates had to increase by seven and a quarter percent, and we know now that they will have to rise farther to meet the demand of this ever money-hungry NDP government.
So I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we pay a lot of attention, a lot of attention, that the people of Manitoba think very long and very hard about the kind of economics that are being used in this province and the kind of accounting that is being used in this province to demonstrate how lacklustre the economy has become in this province and how unsupportable the huge debt is that this government has incurred over the last six years and foisted upon the people of Manitoba.
You only need to look at the health care
budget. The health care budget has virtually doubled in the last five years.
This Premier (Mr. Doer) of this province promised the people of
Well, ask yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you know the numbers as well as I do, how much has he really spent. See, in 1999, the health care budget was $3.8 billion in this province, $3.8 billion. What is it today? What is the cost today? Eight billion dollars. We are approaching $8 billion, $4 billion more than was spent five years ago, $4 billion, not $15 million, as the Premier promised that they would have to spend. Not in six months, but six years, and what has he fixed? He has fixed absolutely nothing. He has ensured that the waiting list will be longer and the people waiting will be deeper, the lines will be deeper.
What can we, as Manitobans, look forward
to? Well, we know that interest rates are going up. We can ensure, we can be
ensured, we can tell the people of
I think this is a dangerous bill that sets a dangerous precedent, and every person in Manitoba should take a very hard look at what kind of lacklustre performance this government has demonstrated over the last four years, how they have in fact directed their economy, how they have misused the people's money and how much more money they have borrowed to keep this economy going.
Then, once people would really start looking at that and really start seeing, they would suggest to their neighbours, next time you go to the polls, think very long and very hard about the promise, the promise that was made to them that the Premier of this province today would fix the health care system in six months, six months and $15 million. What they have in fact done, Mr. Speaker, is they have spent $4 billion annually, even more money now than they did on health care. The lines are longer and the promises have been broken. The promises have been shattered and the trust in this government has been shattered.
We are concerned that the people of
Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we know that the grass was greener in 1999 than it is today. We know that the economy was in much better shape in '99 than it is today. We know that the health care system was in better shape than it is today. Yet they are spending $4 billion more a year in taxpayers' money.
I would suggest that, when the next election comes around in Manitoba, the people think long and hard as to whom they elect and then they will truly see what kind of economic benefits were given to them and brought to them by the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba, and they will re-elect a Progressive Conservative government in this province and the people will be better off. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any more speakers on Bill 11? If none, it will remain standing, as agreed before, under the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Now we are going to Bill 5, The Dental Hygienists Act; Loi sur les hygiénists dentaires, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson), nine minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is that agreed? [Agreed]
An Honourable Member: Oh, we have a stander.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Oh, there is somebody there.
* (15:10)
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I just wanted to say a few things about this bill; first of all, to congratulate the people who worked with the government on a multidisciplinary committee for many, many years. In fact, I understand that the dental hygienists lobbied the government for about 30 years in order to get their own professional act. So I would like to congratulate them. It is certainly long overdue.
I certainly enjoyed the conversations that
I had with members of this profession. A number of them phoned me. In fact, it
all began with a conversation on a flight from
I had a very small role in it. At the time I was chair of the government caucus, and I told their association that they had the right to come as a delegation to caucus which they did on two occasions.
I remember that one of the ministers of Health said this is a no-brainer, let us just do it, and eventually it got done. It was not supported by the dentists and I guess that was really no surprise, but finally this profession which is–a vast majority of this profession are women, and they are no longer under the direct supervision of dentists, unless they want to continue to practise with dentists and then I suppose they are. But, in terms of having their own college and their own discipline committee and complaints committee and that sort of thing, they are a self-regulating profession now.
With those few remarks, I just want to conclude and say that we congratulate them. We believe this is long overdue. It is a good bill and we look forward to its proclamation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The bill, as agreed upon, will remain standing under the name of the honourable Member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Going now to concurrence and third reading, Bill 6, The Dental Association Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association dentaire.
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): I move, seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith), that Bill 6, The Dental Association Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any speakers on third reading and concurrence?
An Honourable Member: On what? Bill 6?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill
6. If there are none–[interjection]
The honourable Member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
As we know, there were no amendments. It was a fairly straightforward piece of legislation. I had opportunity to comment on it in second reading and just wanted to recognize the valuable contribution of those individuals, and, in particular, even it was encouraging to see so many young people inside the committee room obviously in support of the legislation.
You know, I think the dental industry, if I can use that terminology, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is a very important one for the province. It is good to see that we are bringing forward legislation that helps and provides a little bit more definition and scope to some of those professionals who work in that area because it is an area to which we need to give a little bit more attention in terms of the public interest at a different level, Mr. Speaker, that level being our children. The government needs to be more proactive at dealing with some of the problems that we have with our children and the current state of their teeth.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
What I am thinking of is individual children in particular that, in essence, are losing their teeth because of their diets. I know that I have met with many parents over the years who have expressed a great deal of interest in what it is that the government is doing, or a better phrase, what it is the government is not doing and should be doing to try to deal with this critically important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is nice to see some acknowledgment towards our professionals and what it is that their responsibilities are. But I think that where we have really let them down is what the government's responsibility is in terms of dental care for our children. This is where the government needs to pick up the ball and be a little bit more creative, some might argue a whole lot more creative, but at least do something more in terms of proactive at dealing with that problem.
Mr. Speaker, one could ultimately argue that that problem exists throughout our province, but there are certain spots in the province in which you could see that the problem is significantly larger. I think that there are ideas of pilot projects that could be put into place. You know, there was a time in which I believe there was a more aggressive approach at dealing with children in our schools. One could even extend that in terms of our nursery type of programs, the parent programs that outside organizations have.
The children that concern me the most are probably anywhere from that four-year to seven-year category. Dentists and other professionals will tell you how critically important it is that we start dealing with some of these diseases that are affecting our children and the long-term impact that it is having.
We have individuals who
are flown down from northern
Mr. Speaker, I would like
to think that we need to approach it from a
* (15:20)
I think that we just in passing these two pieces, I understand Bill 5 might not pass today, but if this bill passes today, I did want to put that on the record along, as I say, with just extending my best and congratulations to those who had taken the time to be there for the presentation in committee because it was just encouraging, it is always encouraging when you get a significant number of people. In this particular case, there was a significant number of young people. You could see that these are people who want to be able to continue to contribute in a huge way in terms of just dental care in our province. That is something which we need and support.
There was something that I had raised
during second reading. That, again, and I will restate it in part, Mr. Speaker,
was the issue of certification and accreditation. I know that there are
countries throughout the world in which we do gain the benefits of having a
fairly liberal immigration policy and
Whenever you create associations of whatever form that they might be, there is always a bit of concern from certain sectors of our community in dealing with, well, making sure that there is not going to be barriers put in place that would ultimately make it more difficult for someone to be able to practise what they have trained for from a different country. That is not just dental; you could virtually apply that to many different professions and trades. I just want to make a point of that issue. That is something that we have not forgotten about, we recognize, and I think that the professional associations and organizations need to at least pay that issue some attention.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we do not, at this stage, have any problem with the bill actually being passed. We just extend, as I say, as I have done, our wishes to those within this industry in being able to work out future issues. Working together, I think, is something in which we really have to encourage, whether it is the dental hygienists or the dentists, that these groups, in terms of trying to better define scopes and responsibilities, that as much as possible what we have to do is we have to leave it to those organizations to come up with what is in the public's best interest and, as we have faith in our professionals. This way we can avoid some of the controversy that we would have had, for example, with the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan) on the engineers and architects. It is far better off, when you have those professional organizations working together and are successful at coming up with recommendations as opposed to government having to constantly come down. I did also want to just acknowledge the efforts, I know my leader had expressed interest in both this bill and Bill 5 as two bills that are positive for the industry as a whole.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is the concurrence
and third reading of bill number–[interjection]
You are going to speak to it?
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): I move, seconded by the member from Southdale, that debate on Bill 6 be adjourned.
Motion agreed
to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to
moving on to the next bill, I would like to draw the attention of honourable
members to the public gallery, where we have with us visitors from
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith), that Bill 8, The Official Time Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Justice, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Thank you.
Motion presented.
Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, it seems a bit ironic, standing up here and talking about time.
An Honourable Member: As time goes by.
Mr. Reimer: As time goes–we have time to talk about time. That is one of the things that, as a politician, you have lots of time for is to talk about things that are of significance.
This bill here is an adjustment on
daylight-saving time, and it is ironic that, Mr. Speaker, that we have people
here from our neighbouring
An Honourable Member: We both have an NDP government.
Mr. Reimer: One of my
colleagues said they both have good NDP governments, but I think that that
opens up a whole new different comparison. I think that the visitors from
An Honourable Member: They can take some lessons.
Mr. Reimer: They can take lessons, that is true. They should be talking and they should be going out in the hall, meeting these people from Saskatchewan and talking to them about how much more money they have in their pockets because of their government compared to the government here in Manitoba. That is something that they can learn from but it will take some time. It will take a little time to talk to them and I will grant them the time to do this because we are extending time.
We are going to be extending time here in
The people from
They can see the difference and that is
part of the time that these people will spend in
* (15:30)
I know that we are comparing two similar
governments, but I have to give credit to
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the issue is that Bill 8 will extend the time, starting in 2007–
An Honourable Member: A virtual hand in the pocket.
Mr. Reimer: That is right. I saw that commercial too.
But the daylight-saving time, starting in
2007, will go from 2 a.m. on the second day of Sunday in March until 2 a.m. the
first Sunday in November. That is a lot of time more. That is a long time more,
Mr. Speaker, a lot more time to get these people in the government here in
So, Mr. Speaker, this may seem just like a small, innocuous bill, very minor, very minor bill here that we are looking at. Well, you see? See, this is it. The government, they want to pass this under. They want to sneak it through the night, just sneak this through. There is a lot behind this bill that this government is not telling us. Oh, yes. They are sneaking this bill through. They think they are going to be just like Santa and give some sort of gift to the people. But we know what is happening here. We read into this bill what this government is doing. [interjection] That is right. They want to pull the shades down with the darkness, you see. Then they could skulk around, get some more money. Pull the sun down earlier. That is what they are trying to do.
The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade (Mr. Smith), he thinks this is a good bill.
He talks about all the increased trade and everything. We rely on trade. We
rely on a lot of trade here in
So, Mr. Speaker, they are
trying to harmonize this with their daylight-saving time in the
Mr. Speaker, I know there
are a lot of other members in the House here that were wanting to speak on this
because there are a lot of key messages that they want to get to us. They want
to tell us about a lot of the investments that they have got here in
They invested in a lot of other things. I know that one investment they put $3 million into the Filmon soundstage; $3 million they bought it for. Now, maybe someone says, "Well, that is a bargain." But, it was offered for a dollar, offered for a dollar, a dollar. But, I mean, after hard negotiations, hard negotiations they said, "No, we are going to pay $3 million for it. We are not going to pay a dollar. We are going to pay $3 million." So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to look for a bridge or a used car to sell these guys because I think we can do a pretty good deal here.
But those are some of the
things that, when we talk about the time to spend money, this government knows
how to do it. We know what they do with Hydro. They raided Hydro. It cost
So, Mr. Speaker, I want
to say to the people in
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of other things that we could talk about in regard to the amount of time, but, you know, the time, my gosh, a lot of people say, "Well, maybe it is time for a change. Maybe it is time for a change. We got that time. We got to look at what the government is doing." We saw today how the Workers Compensation Board has been compromised to an extent because of some of the inaction of this government and their ambivalence to the red flags that were brought forward to them, and I guess, you know, it all comes down to the Premier's Office because he has often said that he is the ethics commissioner; the buck stops here. He is involved with all the financial decisions, so we cannot just say that he was not aware of it, that a lot of these things went unnoticed, especially with the Workers Compensation Board, which is involved with Crocus and the unfortunate 60 million, people that have lost some of their money, and everything like that. So these are a lot of the things when we look at some of the time efforts that have got put forward by this government.
But, Mr. Speaker, I really do not know. Like I say, it is a very small bill, a very innocuous bill, maybe one page in the Hansard in regard to its issues, but I think that, you know, we have to be always a little careful when we look at time, because I know in this House here, we can call it five o'clock. We can do that. We can really do that. We can do that because we have the power. We have the power. And now we are going to change time again but not only for a few hours, but we are talking from Sunday in March to Sunday in November. Now, that is a lot of time. I mean, where do we pick that up? Where do we pick up that extra time?
So these are things that I know when the bill goes to committee–
An Honourable Member: It has.
Mr. Reimer: Oh, it has gone to committee, yes. Well, then that is why we are looking at it. Maybe they will bring it back from committee, so we can speak to it again because it has created an awful lot of controversy, a tremendous amount of controversy out there about this daylight-saving time and how the government is trying to manipulate time because any type of manipulation this government has, it has always cost taxpayers money. It has always cost money.
But I know the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade (Mr. Smith) may have some closing remarks and I look forward to his dissertation and his explanation on time.
So, with those short words, Mr. Speaker, I will thank the House for giving me the time to put this on the record.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 8, The Official Time Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade (Mr. Smith), that Bill 10, The Convention Centre Corporation Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Justice, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I am certainly glad I have the opportunity to spend some time today talking about Bill 10, the amendments to the Convention Centre act.
* (15:40)
Mr. Speaker, we have had this bill before us and it has gone to committee. I know that it is one of those bills that we have all taken the time to look at and go through quite thoroughly and I think a bill that all of us can agree to. That does not always happen in this Legislature, but there are many, many pieces of legislation that do pass this House without too much controversy, and this is one of them, although the time bill was something that we all supported. I was interested to hear my colleagues comments on that.
Certainly, we have seen this government take a lot of time introducing legislation that is of a very small housekeeping nature. This is one of those bills, amendments to the Convention Centre act, and it does change the board composition, removing two city councillors from the Convention Centre board and putting two members of the public that would be chosen by the board onto the board. I think that is a positive move. I think the legislation went back to the days when there were 30-some city councillors and, now that the size of city council has been reduced by about half, it was appropriate, I think, for these changes to be made.
But, when you look at the agenda of this government in this fall sitting of this session, there is not very much substantive that has been introduced except some bills that are substantive but very ill-thought-through, one of them, of course, being Bill 11, which we certainly need to have significantly more debate on and more discussion. Members of the general public will need to be consulted and their views will need to be heard because very often we see, as with any piece of legislation brought in by this government, that it is a heavy-handed government that introduces legislation without consulting the public to find out what the public really thinks and what the public would like to see with changes in legislation. We do know that the public was aware of the time bill, and I think the majority of the public agreed it was the right way to go. I do not think the public would have any problem and did not have any problem with Bill 10. The bill that we are discussing right now was very minor, very much a housekeeping bill, but I question in the instance of Bill 11 whom the government consulted with before they introduced that piece of legislation. But we will get to that debate at another time and another date.
Mr. Speaker, before
passing Bill 10 through third reading, I want to indicate very clearly my
support for the good work that the Convention Centre does in the city of
I want to say just in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I want to commend both the board, the former board, and the staff and those that manage the Convention Centre. I want to say to them thank you very much for a job well done. We have much respect for all the good work that they have done, their ability to attract conventions and activities in their facility that are second to none. I know I have had opportunity many times to visit the Convention Centre, whether it be at conventions or whether it be at dinners, and I know that they do a very professional job of ensuring that those that visit our province or those that live in our province are treated with the utmost of respect and to very good service.
So, with those comments, I want to say congratulations to the Convention Centre. Keep up the good work, and I have no doubt that under the new board structure they will continue to thrive and do the kind of job that will make us proud as Winnipeggers and Manitobans. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading, Bill 10, The Convention Centre Corporation Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading, Bill 4, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
Mr. Speaker: Bill 12, The Highways and Transportation Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina. Agreed?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: It will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
Mr. Speaker: Bill 13, The Conservation Districts Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
What is the will of the House? Is it the
will of the House for the bill to remain standing? Agreed?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, the bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
Mr. Speaker: Bill 15, The Emergency Measures Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
What is the will of the House? Is it the
will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable
Member for Pembina?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed. It will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
Mr. Speaker: Bill 16, The
Corporations Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for
Mr. David Faurschou (
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
It is always interesting when you hear the
word "corporation," Mr. Speaker. You know, all of us are kind of
following the whole debate in terms of the federal election and what is
happening. One of the things that I always find of interest is when you hear
some talking about corporate tax breaks. It is interesting, you know, in the
Anyway, I just thought this was kind of like an interesting thing to be looking at, when we see Bill 17 as a bill which is fairly much straightforward. I had opportunity to go through the explanatory notes and the content of the bill, very briefly on the content, but with the exception of the explanatory notes, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the bill is quite okay to have it go to committee as opposed to taking a position on the bill other than just to say we do not have a problem with it going to committee at this stage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers? Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 16, The Corporations Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
* (15:50)
Mr. Speaker: Bill 17, The Securities Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
What is the will of the House?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, the honourable Member for Pembina, do you wish to speak? [interjection] No, okay. It has been denied.
Mr. David Faurschou (
I recognize that, once again, this is an effort to harmonize our jurisdiction with others here in Canada to make certain that persons have been looking towards making investment in corporations that are going public for needed resources in order to have the investment in hand that will provide for economic activity, and to which all of us benefit, regardless of whether the investment is made in the rural of Manitoba or the city of Winnipeg or other cities throughout the province.
I will say that this act does have areas of concern once again. However, it is my belief that these shortcomings can be addressed with, once again, minor amendment as I have mentioned in regard to The Corporations Amendment Act. I believe that there will be positive support from the public, but I do believe that there will be some critiquing of this bill with the hope that the Minister of Finance and minister responsible for consumer and corporate affairs will bring forward those amendments.
Failing that, I will be prepared to bring forward an amendment to make certain that The Securities Amendment Act is one that we all want to see in place for investment here in the province of Manitoba; also to recognize Manitobans that perhaps want to invest elsewhere in the nation so as to have access to that opportunity; also to have legislation that will provide the needed assurances that the corporations to which they are investing in are, in fact, legitimate and that the prospectus that has been provided for review prior to investment is in keeping with accurate figures and conforms to the business activity that the company is engaged in.
I will say, though, that in the overall business
climate here in Manitoba I want to take this opportunity to express to my
colleagues opposite in government that Manitoba is falling behind other
jurisdictions here in Canada. It troubles me greatly that this government has
not recognized the changes that are ongoing in other jurisdictions. I know the
Finance Minister has risen on numerous occasions saying that his government
has, in fact, lowered the corporations' taxation rate and increased the capital
exemptions here in the
I would like to encourage, as in the province of Alberta, that this Finance Minister look at all of the tax burden that our corporations endure here in the province of Manitoba and to seek out tax relief that will give the most benefit toward economic activity here in the province of Manitoba. With greater economic activity, in turn, the Treasury of Manitoba is the beneficiary, as more Manitobans will be engaged in employment and there will be spinoffs from that employment which all our service-sector businesses will enjoy.
I want to also make mention that this is a
documented fact because the
But I do not think that I would be standing and crowing too loudly because when one is comparing the jurisdiction of Saskatchewan to the jurisdiction of Manitoba where neither economy is on fire, in my own assessments, yes, our natural resources sector has been helping out with the price of oil and gas which Saskatchewan benefits from more greatly than Manitoba, but even here in Manitoba we have seen more activity in the southwest corner of our province where the oil drilling has been seeing more activity than it has in decades, Mr. Speaker. We should all be very pleased to see that because that area of the province has had to endure year after year of crop losses due to inclement weather. Now, whether it be drought or in this past year excessive moisture, the farmers in that area have been hard pressed to take in a crop and this year, with the low commodity prices, hit doubly hard from a poor crop and now that crop being worth less than it would have been worth last year.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to impress upon
this government the real, true need to look at all the taxation and all of the
regulation that is being placed upon our businesses here in the
* (16:00)
I will say that, also, Alberta has studied
the level of taxation upon persons and businesses operating within the province
of Alberta, and had they adopted the next ranking, as they are the first
ranking in the nation as far as the least amount of taxation on individuals and
businesses, the next closest jurisdiction with the least amount of taxation
burden is B.C., and if they adopted, that being the Alberta government, the
same taxation regime as B.C. has in place at the present time, Alberta would
have to find a home for more than $8 billion more, $8 billion more,
in taxation revenue. That is how far
An Honourable Member: Wrong.
Mr. Faurschou: Well, I know this government says that that is wrong, but I
encourage members opposite to sit down with the graduating students from the
various educational institutions that we have in the province, whether it be
community college or university, and ask the students, the graduating students,
where they expect to be employed in the next year, two years, five years. I
have. I sat down with 10 graduating nursing students who are taking their
practicum at the
Mr. Speaker, I also was
quite taken with where the students had planned on taking up employs. These
nursing students stated that they were going to areas which they decided upon
based on relationships with family and wants in lifestyle, that perhaps the
climate of
So I want to impress upon this government
that it is vitally important that, if we are going to see business activity and
business establishment and our province prosper, we have to be conscious of
what is happening in other jurisdictions in
Now, you just need to
read in the newspaper and not so long ago we learned, and this is truly
astonishing to me, that jackfish caught in Lake Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker, are
being shipped all the way to China to be filleted because we do not have a
value-added processing for fish here in Manitoba that can accommodate the
jackfish that are being caught in Lake Manitoba, and further astonishing to
read on that these jackfish that are caught in Lake Winnipeg, shipped to
Mr. Speaker, I did have
the opportunity to meet with a number of fishers very recently because
Once again, I want to
look across to members opposite because in the province of Saskatchewan, they
took the same posture that this government, New Democratic government in
Manitoba, is taking today, Saskatchewan took a number of years ago. They
virtually killed their commercial fishing industry. Now, the government of
Mr. Speaker, we have a
viable commercial fishing industry here in
I want also to mention
that, if the members opposite have not been recognizing, the global situation
in the fishing industry is on the wane. The trawlers that are involved in the
ocean-going fishing fleet are now in the area of the
* (16:10)
We have to recognize
that, now, I will say that here in
So, understanding that
fact, then why are we not a greater or more prominent player in the fishing
industry? I know that members opposite believe that perhaps this is a joking
matter, but I believe it is a very serious matter and I think that this
government should recognize that we could, here in Manitoba, be a leader not
only just in Canada, but in the world, in the fishing industry, and everyone, I
am certain, in this Chamber is knowledgeable of the fact that fish products are
very nutritional and more and more people are putting fish into their diet for
that reason–[interjection]
Well, I know that in
So, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments on that note, because I think that there are others that would like to speak and, in closing, I would like to see Bill 17 receive second reading so that it can go on to committee during the intersessional period and the public can have input to provide some modifications through amendment to this bill. Thank you very much.
House Business
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you canvass the House to see if there is agreement for the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House to meet at 4:15 this afternoon, concurrently with the House with no quorum calls or votes to be held while the committee is meeting?
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House to meet at 4:15 p.m., concurrently with the House, with no quorum calls or votes to be held while the committee is meeting? Is there agreement? [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Bill 17, The Securities Amendment Act. [interjection]
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Southdale): Well, then, I am going to defer to the
Member for
Mr. Speaker: Okay, the honourable Member for Southdale has now been recognized
and defers the spot to the honourable Member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: We now call Bill 19, The Agri-Food and Rural Development Council Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr Dyck).
What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: It has been agreed to. The bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
Are there any speakers?
An Honourable Member: Five o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, any speakers on Bill 19, The Agri-Food and Rural–none? Okay, when this matter is again before the House, it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
* * *
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Is it the will of the House to revert to Bill 11, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Is there the will of the House to revert to Bill 11? Is there agreement? [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker: We will resume debate on second reading, Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: It will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, notes on the record with respect to Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act, I would just like to note the debt that Manitoba Hydro had in 1999 was $7.2 billion, and in 2005, it is $9 billion. This is an increased debt of over 25 percent.
An Honourable Member: That is totally wrong.
Mr. Eichler: Well, that is
what it says here. The member from Elmwood said it is wrong, but obviously, the
figures do not lie, and if they are, then he can go and put them on the record
if that is, in fact, not true. The interest on this debt has gone from $411
million in 1999, to $502 million. Despite this, it is a decrease in the
interest rate by 2 percent. The total debt to the Province is now $20.32
billion, and Manitoba Hydro makes up nearly 45 percent of
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is understandable
that the government is not the astute bunch that they make themselves out to be
and they claim to be good fiscal, financial people, but we remember back that
they tried to raid Manitoba Hydro and take some money out of that. They also
tried to raid the MPI, but that backfired on them and now it seems as though they
want to try and piggyback some of the cost that has been borne by the gas
payers of the
Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross, Acting Speaker, in the Chair
We know that, on this
side of the House, it is not of good benefit to the people of all of
When you go and you look
at the rates of Manitoba Hydro, why not if they have been doing a good job
fiscally and responsibly, why punish those hydro rate users only because they
do not have access to natural gas? I know some of the crops in the past number
of years have had to be dried and we know very clearly that that cost is going
to be passed on to them through a rate increase. I know that the government is
anticipating through the PUB, I believe it is a cost of 2.5 percent for the
upcoming increase and another 5 percent later on, which would be a total of
7.25 percent, definitely something that our farmers cannot handle anymore with
the low commodity prices, with the prices of the inputs going higher and higher
each and every day. I know that anything we can do to try and help rural
The rates that Manitoba Hydro have should be set around the Public Utilities Board, not around the Cabinet table. That is what that board is encompassed to do and they need to be focussed on. That is also the same with Centra Gas. Centra Gas rates should be set by the Public Utilities Board, totally separate from Manitoba Hydro, whether they are under one Crown corporation or not. That is the way it was set up. It was set up that way for a reason and, obviously, the government of the time thought that it was–
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Kerri Irvin-Ross): Order. Member for
An Honourable Member: Well, I want to speak again.
* (16:20)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Irvin-Ross): Unfortunately, that is not possible, but once it goes back to committee and comes back, I am sure you can speak again.
An Honourable Member: On a point of order, quorum call, please.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Irvin-Ross): There is no quorum–
An Honourable Member: We cannot have quorum calls, is that right? Because of the–[interjection] Then I take that back.
Point of Order
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Irvin-Ross): The honourable Member for
Mr. Eichler: Yes, for the record, could you tell me when we spoke to this bill?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Irvin-Ross): The records show on November 28 that you spoke to the bill.
* * *
Mr. David Faurschou (
This is a bill that, I believe, is not in keeping with the best interest long-term for Manitobans. I know that it is something that may be viewed on the short term as the right thing to do, where many persons are facing the cold weather with the increase in heating costs and that this bill provides for prohibition, if you will, of increases in natural gas which our consumers from Manitoba Hydro, Assistant Deputy Speaker, that this bill does provide this prohibition perhaps to persons who are looking at this in the short term as being the right thing to do, as I have mentioned.
But I want to look always at the long-term effects of any legislation or regulation or policy that this Chamber is responsible for. In fact, we, as individuals elected to this Assembly, have that responsibility to look to the long-term interests of those who have placed their faith in us through their ballot. These are the changes that we are making or being asked to make through this legislation, which I say that is something that I believe is premature to this juncture.
As to say whether or not it was one that I can support or not support, I will say that I do not believe that many of the articles within this bill are ones that I can support because cross-subsidization between one product and another within any business is penny-wise and pound-poor, if you will.
Ultimately, at the end of the day, every product which a business is responsible for has to pay its own way; otherwise, why would you then be marketing that product? Even though Manitoba Hydro is a Crown-owned entity, it is not an entity to which we here in the Chamber should make through an act of legislation the responsibility of Manitobans to subsidize other Manitobans. If this government is wanting to recognize that the usage of a diminishing natural resource, such that natural gas is, that they want to encourage greater usage or more sustained usage of this natural resource, then perhaps it should be done in a different fashion.
I know I listened with interest to a number of colleagues across the way who hold themselves in a posture as being friends of the environment, which I would like to be in the company of because coming from a farm environment and nurturing what Mother Nature has provided and working in harmony with that is paramount in my mind. This legislation goes contrary to that because to encourage greater use of a non-renewable natural resource in light of lowering and making more costly a renewable resource, in my mind, is very folly. To hear the individuals who pride themselves on being friends of the environment speak positively of this bill really is confusing to myself. Why would one support such legislation?
Ultimately, I understand, though, that in the New Democratic Party, although it says that it is the new New Democratic Party with persons who pride themselves on democratic process and being responsible to those who elect them, the contrary is true in this regard because the individual who stood here and supported Bill 11 I know must be struggling with the fact that he is supporting this bill and putting comment on the record of the Assembly in support of Bill 11 when I know in his own heart it must be very, very difficult to do so. But that is the way of the new New Democratic Party. The whip, obviously, is on because there are many on the New Democratic side of the House who, I am certain, if given the latitude and opportunity to speak what really truly they feel is right, would be speaking against Bill 11 because it does indeed promote a greater utilization of a non-renewable resource in light of making more costly a renewable resource, which is electricity generated from the water courses here in Manitoba that we, fortunately, are very blessed with.
Manitoba Hydro, I am certain also, as a Crown-owned company, if it truly was being operated at arm's length as the minister across the way says is the fact, then I believe that Manitoba Hydro would be looking to the energy sources which they are responsible for marketing and delivering to consumers in Manitoba. They would be charging the price which that commodity, that energy source, would be valued at and not cross-subsidizing in the normal course of their business practices.
* (16:30)
But, Madam Assistant Deputy Speaker, this bill is speaking volumes about this New Democratic Party government that is known for running interference with our Crown-owned corporations, taking those Crown-owned corporations, which are at arm's length and to be operated at arm's length–that was the reason for their existence. But this bill, as I say, runs interference and, in fact, I believe changes the mandate of that arm's-length operation and imposes upon a Crown-owned corporation, which I might say is one that I am extraordinarily proud as a Manitoban to say is a Crown-owned corporation because Manitoba Hydro is an entity that is known across Canada and around the globe as a leader in the production of hydro-electricity and we should all be proud of that fact. But this bill interferes with their operation, their mandate, and we should be gravely, gravely concerned about this bill and its possible passage.
I stand today to encourage members to stand up for what they were elected to do. Look to your constituents, not look to the party Whip as the reason that you are here in the Chamber. You are not. That party Whip is imposing upon you something that you stood during the election period as a reason why you wanted to be elected, and persons supported that position, one that you extolled as being the right position. The public agreed with you, and that is why you secured their support through their ballot. Today you are standing and betraying that trust, betraying the trust that the constituent has placed in you as their member of the Legislative Assembly.
Also, you are betraying yourselves, and in the future you will be regretful of your position on this bill because it is not something that is in keeping with being in harmony with nature and, in fact, promoting the use of a non-renewable natural resource and contributing more to global warming which we all are aware of. I know this government does acknowledge global warming because there is a significant budget, in excess of $1 million, allocated to the study, to the preparation and towards global warming, so that Manitobans are able to adapt and make the conversion that global warming will thrust upon us, so that we will remain a viable place to live and to conduct our business activities.
So it really truly flies in the face of all of that and I am extraordinarily dismayed that persons who pride themselves as elected officials, pride themselves as standing up for the rights of those individuals who supported them, would betray them in that respect.
So let us delve a little bit more into Bill 11. I have been giving a rather global viewpoint of this bill, but I want to say that this government is looking to the cross-subsidization that would not have been even available to the New Democratic Party if it had not been for the Conservative administration in acquiring Centra Gas and merging the operations of Centra Gas with Manitoba Hydro, that if Centra Gas had not been merged with Manitoba Hydro, then this bill would not be available and the contents of the bill asking to cross-subsidize one energy source to another.
But this government never acknowledges that. Was it a good thing or was it a bad thing that Centra Gas was acquired by Manitoba Hydro? All we hear from the New Democratic Party is that the Conservatives did no right. I believe now that they should at least stand in their commentary regarding debate on Bill 11 and recognize the fact that we would not have even this opportunity. We would not even be able to contemplate this legislation in the Chamber unless the Conservative government had acquired, through Manitoba Hydro, the operations of Centra Gas. They all want to say that we, as a Conservative administration, wanted to divest ourselves of Crown-owned corporations and not recognizing that during the decade-long Conservative administration that there was the same number of Crown-owned corporations at the end of that tenure as there were at the beginning. That fact is not ever acknowledged by this New Democratic Party. They all want to concentrate on Manitoba Telecom systems and the divestiture that occurred in 1995.
On that point, I do want to ask the members opposite if they have been able to follow the sister Crown corporation in the telecommunications business, and that being SaskTel, and what has been transpiring to that entity in Saskatchewan because it is the only telecommunications corporation which is publicly owned in all of Canada. It is the last remaining Crown-owned corporation in that business.
Well, obviously, the members opposite
perhaps have not been following what has been happening with SaskTel. But that
corporation is financially troubled. It is challenged to the point of almost
not being able to keep up with the investment needed with the advancement of
technology. Even though base rates are less in some areas than here in
When one looks upon the services that we need as individuals need for communication, that it is a combination of local and long distance communication as well as Internet services and fax, and when one takes that basket of services we, here in Manitoba, should be very, very thankful that the former Conservative administration took that very, very bold step to privatize Manitoba Telecom systems.
I asked earlier, too, as to whether or not the members of the government side of the House, speaking so positively that they wanted to retain Manitoba Telecom system as a Crown-owned corporation, a corporation owned by the people, when asked the question if there was anyone on the New Democratic side of the House, as to whether they invested by purchasing MTS shares when the share offering was made public, did they take their own money that they were so willing to invest public in, whether they took the opportunity to invest their own money? Not one single individual on the government side of the House, member of the New Democratic Party ventured forward and said that they took their own personal money and invested in Manitoba Telecom systems shares.
* (16:40)
Does that speak volumes? Indeed, it does.
Why would they risk public money, hard-earned taxpayers' money, tax money that
is put in trust, why would they take taxpayers' money and invest it in an
entity in which they personally would not invest? That speaks volumes. "Do
as I say, but not as I do," comes forward, and that is something that I
would be personally embarrassed about. I will personally state at this juncture
in time that I would not ever invest hard-earned taxpayers' money in a service
or business that I would not personally invest in. That is something that I
believe is a fundamental plank in the policies of the Conservative Party of
Manitoba. That is why I am a member of the Progressive Conservative Party here
in
Manitoba Hydro, in the election of 1999, when the New Democratic Party were scaring Manitobans that the Conservative Party, now that it sold and privatized Manitoba Telecom system, that Manitoba Hydro would be next on the auction block. Even though there was not even a single word of discussion regarding the sale of Manitoba Hydro, the New Democratic Party went out there and fear-mongered that possibility to Manitobans. And what did this New Democratic Party, when they got into office because they frightened Manitoban voters into the possibility of Manitoba Hydro being sold, being privatized, by the evil-doing Conservative Party, what did the NDP government do? They took Manitoba Hydro to the cleaners. They took more than $208 million out of Manitoba Hydro. In their thirst for more money, they could not resist fleecing a well-run Crown corporation. They said it was a dividend. Well, Mr. Speaker, that dividend ended up costing Manitoba Hydro two, not one but two, downgrades by the bond rating agencies.
This government crows that the
On that point, telling the whole story, when that $208 million was taken from Manitoba Hydro as a dividend by the government of Manitoba, the First Minister of the New Democratic Party stated that this would not result, and I say again, would not result in any, in any, increase in hydro-electrical rates to Manitobans, not one percentage point, not one fraction of one percentage point, would be seen in increase, because at that time, Madam Assistant Deputy Speaker, Manitoba was on a roll. Manitobans were benefiting from, I believe, seven years of a constant Hydro rate being charged. Not one increase in seven years.
But, no, this was only a fleeting promise, as so many of the New Democratic promises are, that within a year, that all changed. Why? It was not because the government took the $200 million-plus from Manitoba Hydro; it was because of the drought experienced here in Manitoba, and that the water levels were diminished to a point where it curtailed the generation of electricity by Manitoba Hydro and, subsequently, Manitoba Hydro was unable to generate as much electricity, which resulted in significant losses to the corporation.
However, had that corporation not had to give up $208 million, if that $208 million was still in the bank account of the Manitoba Hydro, that would have warded off a significant amount of the loss which was over $400 million. But another significant point was with the taking of the $208 million and the two downgrades in bond rating that Manitoba Hydro endured, that their interest rates went significantly higher from outside agencies, that they were forced to apply to the Public Utilities Board for an increase in the rates charged for electricity consumed by Manitobans. But the rest of the story, as they say–
An Honourable Member: As Paul Harvey would say.
Mr. Faurschou: As Paul
Harvey would say, the rest of the story, not only did this government take $208 million
right out of the bank account of Manitoba Hydro, they more than doubled the
water rental rates that, as a natural resource of the province of Manitoba,
which the provincial government has clear jurisdiction over, charged the
Manitoba Hydro more than $100 million in water rental rates. Well, that is up
to over $300 million of the $400 million in loss that Manitoba Hydro
registered, then adding the significant amount of interest rates that Manitoba
Hydro was forced to pay with the bond rating agencies' downgrade, there is one
more blow that this New Democratic government placed upon Hydro. Because the
debt of Manitoba Hydro increased, there was more of a call to secure that debt
because Manitoba Hydro, as a Crown-owned corporation, the government of
So, instead of paying only approximately
$10 million a year for securing the loaned monies of Manitoba Hydro, as
was charged by the previous Tory administration, no. Did it stay at 15? No, it
went higher. Did it stay at 20? No, it went higher. Did it stay at $25 million?
No, it went higher. How high did it go? Over $32 million, just to sign a
cosignature on the debt of Manitoba Hydro. The Finance Minister charged over
$30 million for his signature to cosign for Manitoba Hydro's debt–[interjection]
* (16:50)
Madam Speaker, how much more time do I
have? We want to get to that point because the burr under this honourable
member's saddle, I am telling you, is what they say versus what they do. This
government, when it took office, Manitobans owned over 23 percent, 23 percent,
of Manitoba Hydro. So what did this government do? They decided to take all of
the money that could possibly be taken from Manitoba Hydro. I have added up
pretty close to $400 million here, and that is not a stretch. I believe that,
if they had not managed it as they did, Manitoba Hydro would not have lost any
money, even though the drought took place and reduced the water volumes. Having
said that, this government took office with Manitobans owning more than 23
percent of debt-to-equity ratio. What is it now today? I am asking our
government members. Do they know what percentage of Hydro Manitobans own versus
the
An Honourable Member: Manitobans own it all.
Mr. Faurschou: Manitobans do own by title Manitoba Hydro, but Manitoba Hydro owes over $9 billion up from a little less than $6 billion just six short years ago. What does that mean? It means that right now Manitobans own less than 10 percent–less than 10 percent of Manitoba Hydro. The rest is owned by those holding the notes of Manitoba Hydro's debt.
So, Madam Assistant Deputy Speaker, I know that I have much more to say on this topic of Bill 11 and Manitoba Hydro; however, I am being indicated that my time has expired. But I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in debate regarding Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act, an act that I do not believe that I can support because it goes contrary to what I believe in as an individual conducting oneself in harmony with nature, and I cannot stand and support something that influences Manitobans to consume more of a non-renewable natural resource. Thank you.
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I rise today to speak to Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act. This bill introduced in November was to prohibit any further increases in natural gas prices for customers of Centra Gas during this 2005-06 winter heating season and allows the government to limit price increases, but, Mr. Speaker, Gary Doer and the–[interjection] Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I retract that and say the Premier (Mr. Doer) and this NDP government continue to micromanage Manitoba Hydro and force hydro rate increases. The NDP continue to use Manitoba Hydro to bolster their political fortunes on the backs of the Manitoba Hydro users.
In 2002, the NDP raided Manitoba Hydro for $200 million for their political slush fund and financial government programs, and, as a result, your hydro rates have increased by 7.25 percent. Now they want to extract further revenues from Manitoba Hydro and create a second slush fund for this NDP government's political activities. Any rate increase should be used to pay down the Manitoba Hydro debt that has increased from $7.2 billion to $9 billion under this NDP government.
Madam Acting Deputy
Speaker, we have some issues with cross-subsidization as a tool for rate
stabilization. It is simply poor public policy. Mr. Ed Schreyer has called the
plan perverse and did so in the Winnipeg
Free Press on November 18. He also called it "the most retrograde step
the government could possibly take." He is arguing against the
environmental implications of a non-renewable energy source subsidizing a
renewable one. Now, this does not really make any sense to take a non-renewable
energy source and use it to subsidize for a renewable one. This just flies in
the face of whatever we are trying to do to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions
and to be environmentally friendly in this province. On one hand, we have the
Premier saying that he is taking
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
There are several issues here. This bill encourages, as I said, it encourages the subsidization of Centra Gas with Manitoba Hydro monies. It only serves as a short-term solution, and while prices may remain low in the short term, at the end of the two-year term of the bill, there is no guarantee that prices will not dramatically jump up at that time. It is interesting that this bill has a time frame of two years on it, sort of to go past the point of the next election. Is this to provide a bit of a slush fund to be used at that time, Mr. Speaker? It seems that it could be.
In fact, I think that just on that note,
the
The Hydro debt, of course, is a major issue here. In March of 2005, the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce printed that, according to Bob Brennan, even with the increased precipitation and rate hike, Hydro is still two years behind on their debt reduction targets. How is this going to be addressed? How is this government going to address this issue, Mr. Speaker? In 1999, as I said, the Hydro debt was $7.2 billion, and now, in 2005, it is $9 billion. This is an increase in debt of over 25 percent, a 25 percent increase in debt. Interest on the debt has gone from $411 million in 1999 to $502 million today. The total debt of the province is $20.3 billion. This is a huge debt that we are going to be passing on to our children and their children. This government is doing nothing, doing nothing to address the debt. All they are interested in is creating this new slush fund with the revenues from Manitoba Hydro.
* (17:00)
Of course, the NDP has a history of inappropriate revenue draws from Crown corporations. [interjection] Yes, you do. They raided Manitoba Hydro of $203 million in 2002, and Hydro had to borrow this money at a cost of $276 million, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, if you would recognize that it is five o'clock in terms of government business, but would you ask not to see the clock in order to deal with House business?
Mr. Speaker: Okay. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable Member for Morris will have 22 minutes remaining. Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act, will also remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
Is it the will of the House to not see the clock? [Agreed]
* (17:30)
Mr. Conrad Santos (Vice-Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker: By leave.
Mr. Santos: By leave.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to present the report? [Agreed]
Mr. Santos: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Meetings:
Your Committee met on Tuesday, December 7, 2005 at
4:15 p.m. in room 254 of the
Matters under consideration:
Amendments to the Rules, Orders and Forms of
Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of
Committee Membership:
Ms. Brick
Mr. Derkach
Mr. Dewar
Hon. Mr. Hickes (Chairperson)
Ms. Korzeniowski
Mr. Lamoureux
Hon. Mr. Mackintosh
Mr. Schellenberg
Mr. Rocan
Mr. Reimer
Mr. Santos (Vice-Chairperson)
Agreements:
Your committee agreed:
THAT the Clerk may re-number the Rules, Orders and
Forms of Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly and make other minor
corrections that in no way alter the intended meaning of these Amendments.
THAT the Clerk may prepare revised Rules incorporating
these Amendments.
THAT these Amendments will come into force
immediately.
THAT these Amendments will be permanent changes to the
rules.
THAT the Public Accounts Committee review the rule
changes relating to their procedures by March 31, 2006, and report their
conclusions to the House.
Amendments to Rules Considered and Reported:
Your committee agreed to report the following
amendments to the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the Legislative
Assembly of
THAT the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the
Legislative Assembly of
(a) by replacing Rule 104 with the
following:
104(1) Members on the PAC shall serve for a term
that is equal to the duration of the Legislature.
104(2) Despite Rules 85(2) and 104(1) each caucus may make up
to two membership substitutions per meeting.
(b) by replacing Rule 111 with the
following, effective January 1, 2006:
Meetings and
Hearings
111(1) After consulting with the
PAC Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, the Government House Leader shall call
from six to eight meetings of the PAC per year. To the extent practicable, the
meetings shall be held at regular intervals.
111(2)
The
Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson must set the agenda for a meeting and provide
a copy of the agenda to the Government House Leader before the meeting is
called.
(c) in Rule 114, by adding "and answer questions" after "provide advice and
opinions";
(d) by adding the following after Rule
118:
Minister and
deputy minister may be called as witnesses
118.1(1)
If
an Auditor General's report relates to a government department or agency, the
PAC may call as a witness the minister currently responsible for that
department or agency.
118.1(2) If an Auditor General's report
makes a recommendation relating to a government department, the PAC may call as
an additional witness the current deputy minister for that department, to
appear with the minister. The deputy minister may be questioned on matters
related to the Auditor General's report recommendations and related matters of
administration within the department. Questions of policy must be directed to
the minister.
118.1(3) If an Auditor General's report
makes a recommendation relating to a Crown corporation whose annual report
stands permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations,
the PAC may call as an additional witness the chief executive officer of the
corporation, to appear with the minister responsible for the corporation. The
officer may be questioned on matters related to the Auditor General's report
recommendations and related matters of administration within the corporation.
Questions of policy must be directed to the minister.
118.1(4) Despite subrule (1), if the report makes
recommendations affecting more than one government department or agency, the
chair and vice-chair, on the advice of PAC, may designate the current minister
responsible for any of the affected department or agency as the lead minister.
If there are areas not yet addressed by the lead minister or deputy minister,
the chair and vice-chair, on the advice of PAC, may call as witnesses, to deal
with matters not yet addressed,
(a) the
minister of any other department affected by the recommendations and, under
subrule(2), the deputy minister of that department; or
(b) in
the case of a Crown corporation referred to in subrule (3), the minister
responsible for the corporation and, under that subrule, the chief executive
officer of the corporation.
118.1(5)
The minister and deputy minister may bring to the PAC one or more
members of their staff, selected by the minister or deputy minister, to provide
advice to the minister or deputy minister on questions posed by committee
members.
118.1(6)
The minister responsible for a Crown corporation referred
to in subrule (3) and the chief executive officer of the corporation may bring
to the PAC one or more members of the minister's or corporation's staff,
selected by the minister or the officer, as the case may be, to provide advice
to the minister or the officer on questions posed by committee members.
THAT Rule 23(1) be repealed and replaced with the following:
Daily Routine
23(1) The daily routine of business in the House at 1:30
p.m., and at 10:00 a.m. when it sits on a Friday, is as follows, unless the
House orders otherwise:
Introduction of Bills
Petitions
Committee Reports
Tabling of Reports
Ministerial Statements
Oral Questions
Members' Statements
Grievances
THAT Rule 23(3) be amended by adding the following before the last
sentence:
For the purpose of listing Bills on
the Order Paper during Private Members' Business, Concurrence and Third
THAT Rule 136(2) be
repealed and replaced with the following:
Bill must be distributed before Second
136(2) A bill must be printed and
distributed in the House at least one day before Second
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): By leave, I move, seconded by the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach), that the First Report of the Standing Committee on Rules of the House be concurred in.
Motion presented.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, these rule changes have involved very extensive discussions and negotiations and now lead to an era in Manitoba where the Public Accounts Committee will be empowered to call ministers, deputy ministers and, with respect to the Crowns that go to our standing committees, the CEOs of those Crowns, and with some checks and balances in place, but it certainly is enhancement of accountability in the province of Manitoba, and I thank the honourable members for all their co-operation and the work and for the staff members that have done much of the background work, as well as the Clerk's office. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
House Business
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet on the following occasions: Wednesday, December 7, from 6 p.m. until no later than 9 p.m., to consider the Auditor General's report on the Crocus Fund; by leave, on Thursday, December 8, from 3 p.m. until no later than 6 p.m., to consider the Auditor General's report on the Crocus Fund, with no vote, no quorum in the House; on Friday, December 9, from 9:30 a.m. to no later than twelve noon, to consider the Morris-Macdonald audit; and, next, on Thursday, February 2, 2006, from 7 p.m. until no later than 10 p.m., to consider outstanding Public Accounts volumes. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet on the following occasions: Wednesday, December 7, 2005, from 6 p.m. until no later than 9 p.m., to consider the Auditor General's report on the Crocus Fund; on Thursday, December 8, from 3 p.m. until no later than 6 p.m., to consider the Auditor General's report on the Crocus Fund.
Is there leave to have no recorded votes or quorum calls in the House during the time of the committee meetings? Is there leave? [Agreed]
Also, on Friday, December 9, 2005, from 9:30 a.m. until no later than noon to consider the Morris-Macdonald audit; also, on Thursday, February 2, 2006, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., to consider outstanding Public Accounts volumes.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: So the hour being past 5 p.m., this House will now adjourn and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).