LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Highway 200
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Highway 200 is paved from
School buses, farm equipment, emergency vehicles and local traffic must travel on Highway 200 which is dangerous, if not completely impassable, during wet spring weather and other times of heavy rainfall.
Due to unsafe conditions, many drivers look to alternate routes around this section when possible and time permits. The condition of the gravel road can cause serious damage to all vehicles.
Insufficient traffic counts are not truly reflective of the traffic volumes because users tend to find another route to avoid this section. Traffic counts done after spring seeding, during wet weather or during school recess are not truly indicative of traffic flows.
Maintenance costs for unpaved highways are high and ongoing. It would be cost-effective to pave this section.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux) consider paving Highway 200 between highways 205 and 305 to ensure a smooth, safe and uninterrupted use of Highway 200.
Signed by Julien Lemoine, Ron Edwards, Justin Simundson and others.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Provincial Road 355
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
The unsafe conditions of PR No. 355 from the western edge of Minto municipality to PR No. 270 (including the hill out of the Minnedosa valley), poses an undue risk to Manitobans who must travel on this roadway.
The steady stream of traffic on this stretch of PR No. 355, which includes automobiles such as "B" train semi-trailer tractors, mail delivery vehicles and school buses, makes the roadway in its current state dangerously impassable.
Continued expansion of the regional economy in livestock development, grain storage and transportation and the proposed Mohawk Plant, puts additional strain on PR No. 355 and creates further safety concerns for motorists.
PR No. 355 experiences an increased risk in traffic flow during the spring season when there are weight restrictions on surrounding provincial trunk highways.
For several years, representatives of six municipal corporations, as well as ad hoc citizens' group have been actively lobbying the provincial government to upgrade and reconstruct the stretch of PR No. 355 at issue.
Manitobans and visitors to the province deserve a better rural highway infrastructure.
We petition the Manitoba Legislative Assembly as follows:
To request the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux) to consider upgrading PR No. 355 from the western edge of the R.M. of Minto to PR No. 270 (including the hill out of the Minnedosa valley).
To request the Premier of
Manitoba (Mr. Doer) to consider supporting the said initiative to ensure the
safety of our Manitobans and all Canadians who travel along
This petition signed by Margaret Northam, Donald Northam, J. Raupers and others.
* (13:35)
Ambulance Service
Mr. Ron Schuler (
These are the reasons for this petition:
In May 2004, 46-year-old Peter Krahn suffered a heart attack while exercising in East St. Paul and was pronounced dead just under an hour later after being transported to the Concordia Hospital in Winnipeg. Reports show that it took nearly 18 minutes for an ambulance to arrive for Mr. Krahn.
The Interlake Regional
Health Authority claims that 21
minutes is an acceptable emergency response time, whereas the City of
Ambulance coverage for
The municipalities of
East St. Paul and
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the provincial
government to consider providing East St. Paul with local ambulance service
which would service both East and
To request the provincial government to consider improving the way that ambulance service is supplied to all Manitobans by utilizing technologies such as GPS in conjunction with a Medical Transportation Co-ordination Centre (MTCC) which will ensure that patients receive the nearest ambulance in the least amount of time.
To request the provincial government to consider ensuring that appropriate funding is provided to maintain superior response times and sustainable services.
Signed by Marianne Toews, Chris Toews, Nathan Toews and many others.
Minimum Sitting Days for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The background to this petition is as follows:
The Manitoba Legislature sat for only 35 days in 2003. In 2004, there were 55 sitting days.
The number of sitting days has a direct impact on the issue of public accountability.
The Legislative Assembly provides the best forum for all MLAs to debate and ask questions of the government, and it is critical that all MLAs be provided the time needed in order for them to cover constituent and party duties.
Establishing a minimum number of sitting days could prevent the government of the day from limiting the rights of opposition members from being able to ask questions.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider recognizing the need to sit for a minimum of 80 days in any given calendar year.
Signed by R. Navarete, A.
Gacutan and R. Bantugan.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
The provincial government's Supported Living Program provides a range of supports to assist adults with a mental disability to live in the community in their residential option of choice, including a family home. There is a lack of group homes available and this means special needs dependants must remain in the family home.
The provincial government's Community Living Division helps support adults living with a mental disability to live safely in the community in the residential setting of their choice.
Families with special needs dependants make lifelong commitments to their care and well-being, and many families choose to care for these individuals in their homes as long as circumstances allow.
The cost to support families who care for their special needs dependants at home is far less than the cost of alternate care arrangements such as institutions or group and foster home situations.
The value of the quality of life experienced by special needs dependants raised at home in a loving family environment is immeasurable.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Ms. Melnick) consider changes to the departmental policy that pays family members a reduced amount of money for room and board when they care for their special needs dependents at home, versus an amount paid to a non-parental care provider outside the family home.
To request the Minister of Family Services and Housing to consider examining on a case-by-case basis the merits of paying family members to care for special needs dependents at home versus paying to institutionalize them.
Signed by Dallas Gerbrandt, Margaret Waldner, Tracy Friesen and many others.
* (13:40)
Standing Committee on Legislative
Affairs
Third Report
Mr. Daryl Reid (Chairperson): I ask for leave to present the report of the Legislative Affairs Standing Committee.
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Reid: I wish to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Third Report.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Your
Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Third
Report.
Meetings:
Your
main committee met on the following occasions:
Thursday,
December 2, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 254 of the
Tuesday,
December 21, 2004, at 1 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Tuesday,
March 22, 2005, at 3 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Your
sub-committee met on the following occasions. All meetings took place in Room
1023 – 405 Broadway:
Thursday,
January 6, 2005, at 10 a.m.
Monday,
January 31, 2005, at 1 p.m.
Tuesday, March 1, 2005, at 1 p.m.
Thursday, March 3, 2005, at 9:51 a.m.
Friday, March 4, 2005, at 9 a.m.
Monday, March 7, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.
Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.
Friday, March 11, 2005, at 1:30 p.m.
Matters
Under Consideration:
Recruitment
and Selection of the Children’s Advocate
Motions Adopted and
Reported:
Motion adopted at the
December 21, 2004, meeting (motion was reported in the 2nd Report of
this Standing Committee)
THAT a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on
Legislative Affairs consisting of:
Kerri Irvin-Ross
Greg Dewar
Kevin Lamoureux
Kelvin Goertzen
Daryl Reid, as Chairperson
be struck to establish the selection criteria, the
advertisement, conduct the screening and interviews and provide to this Committee
their recommendation of the appointment of the individuals to fill the
positions of the Ombudsman and of the Children’s Advocate.
Sub-Committee Report
At
the March 22, 2005, meeting, the sub-committee reported that it had met in
camera on Thursday, January 6, 2005, at 10 a.m., Monday, January 31, 2005, at 1
p.m., Tuesday, March 1, 2005, at 1 p.m., Thursday, March 3,
2005, at 9:51 a.m., Friday, March 4, 2005, at 9 a.m., Monday, March 7, 2005, at
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. and Friday, March 11, 2005, at
1:30 p.m.
The sub-committee reported
that thirty-three applications were received for the position of the Children’s
Advocate, and from these applications, interviews were held with seven (7)
candidates. Interviews were held on March 4, 7 and 8. Following from these
interviews, on March 11, the sub-committee agreed to recommend to the Standing
Committee of Legislative Affairs that Billie Schibler be the nominee for the
position of the Children’s Advocate in
Items
agreed to at the March 22, 2005, Meeting
Your
committee has unanimously agreed to make its report to the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the recommendation that Billie Schibler be
appointed as the Children’s Advocate for the
* (13:45)
Mr. Reid: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 24–The Consumer
Protection
Amendment Act (Cost of Credit Disclosure and Miscellaneous Amendments)
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Training (Ms. McGifford), that Bill 24, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Cost of Credit Disclosure and Miscellaneous Amendments); Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection des consommateur (communication du coût du crédit et modifications diverses), be now read a first time.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Advanced Education and Training, that Bill 24, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Cost of Credit Disclosure and Miscellaneous Amendments), be now read a first time.
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow consumers to have a common rate of interest expressed in transactions they engage in, so they can make proper consumer choices about the credit instruments they choose.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today Marion and Jack Kostuik who are the parents of the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat). They live in the constituency of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
Also in the public gallery we have from Valley Gardens Junior High 17 Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Marek Kutka. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable First Minister (Mr. Doer).
Also in the public
gallery we have from Alhijra Islamic School 23 Grade 4 students under the
direction of Ms. Michele Rouleau. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable Minister of Labour and Immigration (Ms. Allan).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
Master Labour Agreement
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): According to the numbers being crunched by the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, based on a conservative estimate that 15 percent of the $660-million expansion project cost is for wages, this NDP government's policy of forcing non-unionized workers to pay union dues will take about a million dollars out of their pockets.
Mr. Speaker, this is a union scam. This is forced payment to the NDP's union bosses. It is fundamentally unfair to hardworking Manitobans who have democratically chosen to not be part of a union.
Mr. Speaker, when will the member from Concordia wake up and realize that he should be the Premier for all Manitobans, not a union boss lackey that simply thinks he can use taxpayers' dollars to support his union boss friends? When will he wake up?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I believe the
Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, memo to the NDP, the floodway is already built. It was a Progressive Conservative government that built the floodway. Memo to the NDP, that Progressive Conservative Premier did not force unionized workers to pay union dues.
Mr. Speaker, the public,
all non-unionized workers throughout
* (13:50)
Mr. Speaker, aside from the million dollars of forced union dues, this NDP government is also going to force each contractor to submit to unions just under $3 per non-unionized worker to a trust fund. The industry calculates that will add an additional 10 to $15 million to the cost. For a worker who works some 3000 hours, that is an additional $9,000. The only way that non-unionized workers can get access to the benefits is if he or she joins the union. This is forced unionization all over again.
Why is this NDP government forcing non-unionized workers to do this? It is NDP forced unionization at its worst. Do the right thing and scrap this agreement.
Mr. Doer: I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Rajotte was at the press conference, an owner of a construction company, along with other individuals. We could have gone to one big management company, one big tender. It was the advice I received from companies to try to take the more difficult, but important route for businesses. I have talked to businesses on either side of this issue and there are differences. Most of them, if not all of them, will be tendering for all the work.
Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, this Premier is trying to pull the wool over Manitobans' eyes, and he is going to fail because what he is saying is this is like the NHL trying to solve their talks with the owners there but the players not at the table.
It is very, very clear that this government is going to force Manitoban non-unionized workers to put a million dollars out of their pockets to add 10 to $15 million into a pension fund which they cannot access unless they become part of that union. While the cost is not yet known, the industry expects millions more will be handed out over special fees, project fees, union initiation fees once that is taken into account.
Mr. Speaker, Bill Fisher who was one of the original floodway
workers and led the drive in co-ordinating the work on the Z-dike said, "Government needs to get
out of the way and let us get on with the job of redigging Duff's Ditch."
Mr. Speaker, we did it before without having forced unionization and we can do it again. We deserve the opportunity. Why will this First Minister, this former union boss, not listen to someone like Bill Fisher? Do the right thing and scrap this arrangement.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite worked for the former Prime
Minister, who put in place a Treasury Board regulation dealing with the
Mr. Speaker, we have a considerable amount of bridge work to do on the floodway project. No strike or no lockout with many of those workers means that there will not be any disruptions to ensure the flood protection is there on time and on budget. The owners of this project are the federal and provincial governments that are funding this project, but if members opposite want to talk about hockey, he was a failure trying to build a new arena. He voted against this arena. We have got it built.
Master Labour Agreement
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson):
Mr. Speaker, the NDP government of
Will the NDP today scrap this forced union agreement?
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that, going back over the last several months, the members opposite were opposed to any kind of agreement. In fact, they have got both feet firmly planted in the 1950s. They oppose employment equity, and they are opposing in this case an agreement that ensures that both unionized and non-unionized companies and workers will have the opportunity to benefit from great economic opportunities. They are even opposed to the provisions that allow for deductions for pensions and benefits. This is not the 1950s. It is the year 2005.
Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Interim Supply questioning, the Minister of Water Stewardship applied again and again, that the Winnipeg Construction Association approved the labour agreement. However, in a letter dated March 16, the Winnipeg Construction Association categorically states, and I quote, "WCA is not a signatory to the final flood labour agreement."
Will the NDP government now scrap this forced unionization agreement?
* (13:55)
Mr. Ashton: You know, once again, Mr. Speaker, and I put on the record, I think
in the last session of the
Legislature, they asked more questions on
this than virtually any other issue. By the way, never a question about
the building of the floodway expansion that is going to protect 450 000
Manitobans against the 1-in-700-year flood. That is what is the most important aspect of
this agreement. This agreement will ensure no strike, no lockout and we, on
this side, are looking into the future, the tremendous economic benefit and the
flood protection for the people of
Master Labour Agreement
Mr. John Loewen (
I would ask the Minister responsible for Hydro if he would today stand up and give his absolute assurance that the NDP government will not force a master labour agreement on those involved in constructing Manitoba Hydro's new office tower.
Hon. Dave Chomiak
(Minister charged with the administration of The
Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, once again the question was very straightforward and one that the minister absolutely refuses to answer. We understand now that the reason why he will not answer is because, indeed, the NDP government intends to force, for the first time in the history of this province, contractors who are involved in building an office tower, to work under a master labour agreement.
I would ask the minister a very simple and very straightforward question. Sir, stand up today, give your assurance to the ratepayers who could be on the hook for another $10 million, give your assurance to the construction industry who is looking at alternatives to investing in Manitoba, give them your assurance, sir, that under your NDP government they will not be forced to construct the new Hydro tower under a master labour agreement. Yes or no, a simple question, a simple answer.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be part of a government that said we
are going to move the
I am very pleased that we
will be building downtown, not yet finished, gone to design, of which tenders
will be let, and which construction will be built of the Hydro signature
building in downtown
Children in Care
Safety Concerns
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we raised the issue of a child that died while in the care of Family Services. Can the Minister of Family Services tell us why she placed another child in this home shortly after one child died under horrific circumstances and while an investigation was ongoing?
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two documents today. The first document I am tabling is Part VI, Confidentiality of The Child and Family Services Act. I draw the House's attention, in particular, to section 76(3), "Records are confidential. Subject to this section, a record made under this Act is confidential and no person shall disclose or communicate information from the record in any form to any other person." There are lists of exceptions.
Mrs. Taillieu: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not asking her to share the specifics of the lawsuit against this NDP government. We are simply asking about another child that was placed in the same environment as another child. There are allegations that this home was not registered and not licensed as a foster home. Why did she place another child at risk?
* (14:00)
Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, the other document that I just tabled is The Fatality Inquiries Act. These are the two acts under which I was speaking to the House yesterday on questions asked. These are the two documents that I will continue to speak under when questions come from across the House on specific cases.
Children in Care
Safety Concerns
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same minister but given the stance that she has just taken, she is telling the people of this province she knows nothing, she will say nothing, she will not share responsibility for what happened to this child and what happened to the other children who were placed in that home.
Just for the record, let me ask this minister this. During an election campaign, a child passed away under horrific circumstances in the home we are referring to that was not divulged immediately that that child was in care. We could easily say there was a cover-up at that time, and it appears there is another cover-up. We ask this minister this: Will she share the recommendations that came from the review of this case?
Hon. Christine Melnick
(Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr.
Speaker, again, I have referred to
the two laws of this province which
protect the confidentiality of circumstances surrounding concerning events. I will
respect those laws. I will respect
the laws of
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, we did not ask the name of the child. We asked was another child placed in this home. Now, will this minister stand up, do her duty and answer the question?
Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, again, I cannot speak to specifics. I can assure the House that when children are placed in homes, foster care support workers from agencies and organizations are put in place. Ongoing involvement from parents can be put in place if requested. Daily involvement and supervision can be put in place. The Foster Family Network works with foster families. The funding was cut in 1993. We brought funding back in 1999, and have since doubled that funding. The branch provides ongoing reviews and training for all individuals who are involved in the care of children in our province.
Safe Schools Legislation
Codes of Conduct
Mrs. Myrna Driedger
(Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, when asked how many
schools had a Safe Schools Charter in place to address the issue of bullying,
the Minister of Education said that 23 out of 24 school divisions have replied
with their codes of conduct. The next day the Premier (Mr. Doer) of the
province said that 24 out of 25 school divisions have so far responded. But,
there are actually 38 school divisions in
I would like to ask the Minister of Education this: Why are all of these school divisions not in compliance with the legislation?
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): The number that have replied, the 23 of 24, were in compliance with the codes of conduct. That was the context in which those comments were made. As the number had been given last week, even while we sat in the House, what I had been advised of the numbers that were in compliance and the number that had replied, the number had grown. More school divisions are submitting the information with respect to the status of the codes of conduct and how close they are to complying. More school divisions are submitting information with respect to how many schools in their division do have codes of conduct. They are doing their job, and we are going to move forward with the safe schools legislation and the charter.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, The Safe Schools Charter does require that individual schools
all have a Safe Schools Charter in place. When asked this the other day, the
minister chose to answer this question by talking about school divisions, when
in fact, his own legislation says that all 698 schools in
I would like to ask the
minister this today: Can he guarantee that his legislation is being followed
and that all 698 schools in
Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, the consultation process we have been engaged in with all the stakeholders, including parents, including teachers, including trustees has been ongoing around this legislation. They agree with the need for a Safe Schools Charter. They agree with the need for codes of conduct. They are all working towards the objectives of the Safe Schools Charter and the codes of conduct are a big part of that equation.
As stakeholders who have been involved in this process, they are going to comply. They are advocates, teachers are advocates, for this legislation. Parents are advocates for this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I know my previous critic was talking about the need to consult and she spoke to the need to consult during the debate on the bill. The member from Charleswood got up and said, "Why are we dumping this on the school divisions?" We are not dumping it on anybody. We are working with our partners.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the condescending and arrogant attitude of this minister is going to do absolutely nothing to protect school children against bullying. The Minister of Education seems to forget why we are asking these questions about bullying. It is such a serious issue. A young boy in this province just committed suicide because of bullying. The minister instead tried to go off on a bunch of rhetoric and rant in this House. It is more important than that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him this again: How many of those 698 schools are in compliance with his own legislation that they should all have a Safe Schools Charter in place to protect children against bullying?
Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, the member makes some allegations about the commitment of this government. Every single person on this side of the House is committed to address this issue, and we have–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bjornson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member from
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bjornson: It is this government that has done more in the past five years to address the issue whether it is has been through the Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet and their initiatives, whether it has been through Justice and the Lighthouses offering alternatives for children, whether it has been through the Department of Education addressing curricular issues which try to educate children on the behaviours and the consequences of those behaviours. Everyone on this side is committed to address this issue.
Orthopedic Surgical
Procedures
Wait List Reduction
Strategy
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
I quote from a letter from a man who says he received this reply from the NDP, "Our government recognizes that wait times for hip and knee surgeries are longer than ideal." My correspondent says, "I take this as code that they are admitting to having screwed up."
Will the Minister of Health admit that his government has made a mess of the situation with knee and hip surgeries and that this mess has given rise to very long waiting times for these procedures?
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, last year and this current,
we will do about 2800 hip and knee
procedures. That is a 20% increase since we formed government. The Canadian
Orthopedic Association said that
* (14:10)
All that said, Mr. Speaker, my letter is correct. It is not acceptable to have the number of people waiting on the list, and that is obviously why we just committed $10 million to put an additional 1000 procedures in place. We will track those procedures month by month. We will do that job.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about numbers and procedures when people are interested in waiting times and getting access to good care quickly.
The CBC quoted a
government figure of 10 months average wait time for knee replacement surgery
in
My question to the Minister of Health is this: Why is he using deceptive propaganda to mislead people who are waiting in pain and discomfort for knee surgeries?
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that the orthopedic surgeons of
Mr. Speaker, these are
the national numbers. We have agreed on
using those numbers, publishing them, putting them out on the Web, which no
government has ever done before. We are accountable. We will be accountable for
1000 additional procedures. We agree we need to do more to bring down that waiting list, and
we are doing it. That is why
Maternity Ward Closure
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
I ask the minister this: What would happen if there were an unexpected infectious problem or a burst water pipe on the maternity ward at Health Sciences Centre or St. Boniface? What will the minister do if for any reason either Health Sciences Centre or St. Boniface maternity ward has to close temporarily? Will the minister tell this Legislature today where he will be sending mothers if there had to be a temporary closure of either St. Boniface or Health Sciences Centre maternity ward?
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not indulge in hypothetical scare stories that any member wants to raise. Our health system is managed by very professional and competent people who plan for emergencies, who have plans in place should unforeseen things happen, but indulging in that kind of scare tactics should not be something that is underdone by any member of this House and especially by a physician.
Seven
Services
Mr. Cris Aglugub (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Minister
of Health. Yesterday I saw a major announcement for the northwest part of
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, Seven Oaks is one of our
finest community hospitals. It sees on average more people in their emergency
department than any other community hospital in
Interprovincial Trade
Barriers
Cattle Industry
Mr. Ralph Eichler
(Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with a beef
producer and business owner of a small slaughter plant who wants to promote a
bull sale in
Interprovincial trade
barriers prevent
Will this NDP government move to remove those trade barriers that prevent the government from moving on with the meat products?
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, I had this discussion with the member opposite before, and he is well aware that this is a federal regulation. It is a federal regulation that sets the standards of how meat can move interprovincially. For meat to move interprovincially it has to come from a federally inspected plant. Those are the rules.
As I have told members opposite, we have talked to people in other provinces and the federal government about how we might be able to get the standards changed in plants so that we could, by adopting a national meat code, move meat interprovincially by bringing a different standard. We have not been able to get that commitment, Mr. Speaker, and under the standards that we have this will not happen.
I have raised the issue. We have to continue to work to increase our slaughter capacity so that we can produce the meat that we need in this province.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, this minister cannot take the leadership role and negotiate that with the other provinces. That is what she should be doing.
With an established
shortage of federally inspected processing facilities in
Mr. Premier (Mr. Doer), tear down that wall.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the standards that we have for plants is a standard
that applies across the country. Across the country you have to have product
coming from a federally inspected plant before it can move out of the province.
I have told members opposite that
since I have become minister, I have asked other ministers and the federal government to co-operate with us to
adopt a national meat code. There is no desire on the part of other provinces or the federal
government to adopt the national meat
code that would allow for meat to move between provinces.
Mr. Speaker, the rules that we have in place right now are that meat has to come from a federally inspected plant before it can work interprovincially. That is why we have federally inspected plants in this province so we can expand the trade for our producers.
Plan
Oak Point Transit
Corridor,
Mr. John Loewen (
The second is the amendment which would allow for the go-forward on Waverley West. I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs if he could tell us how many letters of objection he has received to these two Plan Winnipeg amendments, firstly to the deletion of the Oak Point Transit Corridor and secondly to Waverley West. How many letters of objection have been received?
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Acting Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question on notice for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade.
* (14:20)
Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, the minister's office has been in contact with one of the objectors to the deletion of the Oak Point Transit Corridor. As a matter of fact, this individual is working under contract to the New Democratic caucus and she was called by the minister's office to assure her that the Oak Point Transit Corridor deletion would be referred to the Municipal Board.
I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to please indicate to the House today if he intends to refer both the Oak Point Transit Corridor deletion and the Waverley West Plan Winnipeg amendments to the municipal board.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Children in Care
Safety Concerns
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I quote from the Children's Advocate report that a supervisor once said, "The children do not have rights. They have needs and desires." Obviously a statement that the Children's Advocate was appalled by.
I would like this minister today to stand up and prove that she believes children have rights. Will you stand up on behalf of the children of this province who are in care and assure us the second child that was placed in the home we referenced earlier, that she was in fact satisfied, and that she will share the information that was used to make the decision about the safety of that home? The recommendations she had, will she share them with us?
Hon. Christine Melnick
(Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker,
I sense there are actually two questions. The second question, I will refer
back to the laws of
We have more than doubled the budget of the Children's Advocate since 1999. There have been two, the child welfare initiative, devolving child welfare to the northern, southern First Nations, Métis and the general–
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Russell.
Safe Schools Legislation
Codes of Conduct
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, families on the west side of the province, namely Roblin, Inglis, Russell, have gone through their first phase of mourning, and now there is some anger. There are questions being asked about the leadership of this government and specifically, the Minister of Education, when it comes to bullying in our schools.
Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, legislation in this House was passed. No regulations have yet been written. Today parents are asking how many more of these types of incidents will occur in this province before this minister gets serious about his responsibility in terms of showing leadership with regard to bullying and stopping the bullying that goes on in our school system.
I want to ask this minister this: When will he consider this matter seriously and move ahead in a proactive way?
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): I considered this matter very serious in the 13 years that I was in the classroom. I consider this matter very serious when the Teachers' Society, in 1993, started to lobby the government about some changes around safety in the classroom. I consider this a very serious matter as do all members on this side of the House. That is why we are engaged in a number of initiatives. We are engaged in a number of initiatives with Family Services, with Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, Justice, with Healthy Child. We are all engaged in trying to make our schools a safer place.
I will remind the members opposite that the Teachers' Society and a teacher on the radio today, on CBC radio, also mentioned that more has been done on this issue in the last five years than ever before. I will remind the House–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is before us. The evidence is before this minister. The evidence is clear. Today children are still taking their own lives because of bullying in our schools. That says collectively we have not done our job. We look at the Minister of Education whose responsibility is to take a leadership role in setting the direction and ensuring this problem is curbed once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for those citizens in Roblin, Inglis and Russell who are going through mourning today, will this minister show some proactive leadership and make sure that he calls, as his Premier (Mr. Doer) had committed to yesterday, a collection of people together to deal with this problem, to share their ideas. At least show that much leadership so that people in this province will be able to feel comfortable in sending their children to school without having them being bullied.
Mr. Bjornson: I will let the member from Russell know that when this incident
occurred, I immediately contacted
We were also reminded, Mr. Speaker, of the number of initiatives that have been ongoing in the last three years. Particularly, we have been reminded about the work of Safe Schools, the Healthy Child, Roots of Empathy program, the multi-interjurisdictional team working to prevent sexual exploitation, the buddy support system, the gang awareness curriculum, the initiatives that we are taking in curriculum to talk about positive relationships, the consequences of bullying behaviour, to talk about safe communities.
Yet the members opposite during the debate said that this was a waste of time. Protecting children is not a waste of time for this government. We are all committed to that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.
During Oral Questions on
March 10, 2005, the honourable Member for
The honourable Member for
The honourable Deputy
Government House Leader (Mr. Ashton), the honourable Member for Carman (Mr.
Rocan), the honourable Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), the honourable
Member for
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.
* (14:30)
Regarding the first
condition, the honourable member for
Regarding the second condition, whether there is sufficient evidence that the privileges of the House have been breached, it is important to determine whether parliamentary privilege has been breached in the actions complained of.
Joseph Maingot advises on page 241 of the 2nd Edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada that "to allege that a Member has misled the House is a matter of order rather than privilege." Maingot also advises on page 224 of the same volume that "an admission that a Member had intentionally misled the House would be required in order to establish a prima facie case of privilege."
This concept is supported by Manitoba precedents by a ruling from Speaker Walding in 1985, a ruling from Speaker Phillips in 1987, by seven rulings from Speaker Rocan from the period 1988 to 1995, by nine rulings from Speaker Dacquay from the period 1995 to 1999, and by four rulings from the current Speaker from the period 1999 to the present.
In a ruling delivered on April 20, 1999, Speaker Dacquay ruled that "short of a Member acknowledging to the House that he or she deliberately, and with intent, set out to mislead, it is virtually impossible to prove that a Member deliberately misled the House." I carefully read over the comments of the honourable Minister of Health from March 10, and there was no such admission.
Also, Citation 31(3) of the 6th Edition of Beauchesne states that "Statements made outside by the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for privilege." This is supported by rulings from Speaker Walding in 1983, by two rulings from Speaker Phillips in 1986 and 1987, by six rulings from Speaker Rocan from 1988 to 1995, by a ruling from Speaker Dacquay in 1995, and by a ruling that I had made to the House in 2004.
I would also like to share with the House portions of the 50th Report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs from 2002, which conducted an examination into the issue of allegations that the former Minister of Defence had misled the House. The committee dealt exclusively with the topics of intent to mislead and incorrect statements and had the following to say: "Intent is always a difficult element to establish in the absence of an admission or a confession. It is necessary to carefully review the context surrounding the incident involved and to attempt to draw inferences based on the nature of the circumstances. Any findings must however be grounded in facts and have an evidentiary basis. Parliamentary committees charged with examining questions of privilege must exercise caution and act responsibly in drawing conclusions. They must guard against allowing partisanship to colour their judgment. The power to punish for contempt must not be exercised lightly. Incorrect statements in the House of Commons cannot be condoned. It is essential that members have accurate and timely information and that the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House is ensured. Mistakes are made from time to time, and they must be corrected promptly. It is only a deliberately incorrect statement that comes within the meaning of contempt."
In the words of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, "It must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was made that it was incorrect, and that in making it, the Member intended to mislead the House."
With the greatest of respect, I must rule that the matter is not in order as a prima facie case of privilege.
Royal
Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon
East): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to inform
the House that the Royal Manitoba Winter Fair will take place at the Keystone
Centre in
The Royal Manitoba Winter Fair is a week of continuous excitement. It continues to feature many of its original western traditions which are always major attractions to both urban and rural visitors. The fair also includes over 300 commercial exhibits, world-class equestrian events, children's shows, auctions, hawking demonstrations, fiddlers' contests and, my personal favourite, the calf scramble.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot
stress enough how important the Royal
To conclude, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to thank the staff, board and hundreds of volunteers who will help
make this year's fair a huge success. I would also like to thank the Provincial
Exhibition of Manitoba, a fantastic charitable organization, for sponsoring the
Royal Manitoba Winter Fair. I encourage all members to attend this year's fair
and to enjoy the wonderful atmosphere of my home city,
Mr. Larry Maguire
(Arthur-Virden): Lest we forget. Mr. Speaker, these
are strong words that reverberate on Remembrance Day throughout
The Senior 3 and 4 class was recently awarded a grant for innovation and citizenship education. Crossing generational boundaries, these students will construct a video archive of local Legion history. Their project numbered among the 76 applications submitted and 1 of 10 final grants awarded. Their innovative creation will not only affect their lives but will also reach out to others as it will be played at future Remembrance Day ceremonies.
Mr. Speaker, I would like
to commend the Senior 3 and 4 students from Hartney for their efforts for observing Canadian history and
honouring citizenship. These young adults set forth an example for young students in their
community and throughout
Mr. Speaker, I would like to also praise their teachers, parents and the Horizon School Division for encouraging the quest for knowledge.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Provincial Basketball
Champions
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the players and coaches of the John Taylor Pipers girls' basketball team. This past weekend, the Pipers won the provincial AAAA High School Championship with a hard fought 69 to 64 victory over a very worthy opponent, the Fort Richmond Centurions. This year's championship team has added yet another chapter to John Taylor's already notable history of excellence in team athletics and fair play.
I would like to congratulate the members of the team: Tanysha Robinson, Carly Muth, De Nel Johnson, Sandra Morton, Tremaine Francis, Krystal Hathaway, Chelsea Breland, Hayley Baker, Sara MacDonald, Brenna Philp and Katryna Robinson. I would also like to mention Ashley Morris who scored 33 points and was awarded the MVP for the tournament.
The coaches, Susie Laping and Jana Taylor, showed excellent commitment to the team, and I would like to say that your fans, relatives, friends, school and myself, a former grad from JT, are very proud of you.
Congratulations on a great team and keeping up a great tradition.
* (14:40)
Mr. John Loewen (
Schools from all across
the province had competed for these two championships. The Jeanne Sauvé
Olympiens were able to defeat the Neelin Spartans from
In the boys' section, the
Olympiens were led by twins Dan and
Nick Lothar, both who scored 25 and
21 points respectively for the Olympiens.
In addition, Nick Lothar was named the MVP of the boys' section of the
Also, special mention and
congratulations to the John Taylor Pipers girls who defeated the Fort Richmond Centurions in the girls' section of
this tournament. MVP of the tournament, Ashley Morris, scored 33 points in
leading the John Taylor girls' team to victory over the Fort Richmond
Centurions. It was indeed an exciting game that went back and forth until John
Taylor was finally able to emerge victorious in the last part of the game.
Special congratulations to individuals who performed in a superior fashion throughout the tournament: in the men's sections, in the boys' sections, MVP Nick Lothar, as well as All Stars Cam Hornby from Glenlawn, Oak Park's Dallas Bosko, Mr. Jacobson from Brandon, Byron Cob and Dan Lothar. I would also like to congratulate the girls' All Stars. Thank you.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
In this instance, we know
what the NDP government's plan was. As we have heard clearly stated in this
Chamber, the NDP government's plan was to keep the maternity ward of
The trend for fewer
babies in
What is the result of the failures in NDP planning?
The
The
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Would you please call Interim Supply, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: The House will resolve into Committee of Supply to consider the resolutions respecting the Interim Supply bill.
Interim Supply
* (14:50)
The Acting Chairperson (Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
This afternoon the committee will resume consideration of the two resolutions respecting the Interim Supply bill.
Opening statements were given yesterday, so we shall proceed with questions. Are there any questions?
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac
du Bonnet): I have a question for the Minister of Aboriginal
and Northern Affairs (Mr. Lathlin). Nine hundred people live in
Is the minister pushing ahead with reserve status early because he is being forced by the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the Minister responsible for Hydro to exclude them from the Wuskwatim dam vote?
Hon. Oscar Lathlin
(Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs): I am
happy to answer the question from the member. The situation in
The majority of people living in South Indian are former members of Nisichawayasihk First Nation, formerly known as the Nelson House Indian Band. They have been lobbying the federal government for about seventy years now to get reserve status, for the community to be converted to a reserve by the Minister of Indian Affairs federally. So now it has finally reached that stage where the federal minister has agreed that he will, once certain conditions have been met, in fact, convert South Indian into a reserve.
So I myself applaud the federal minister for taking such action because that is what so many people, the majority of people living in South Indian, have wanted for a long time.
Mr. Hawranik: I ask the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs again. The
people of
I ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs if he would delay band recognition status for at least two more months or until the Manitoba Hydro vote is held for Wuskwatim. Surely a delay of a couple of months is minimal when compared to the decades of time that they have been waiting already, because to force band recognition status on these people, on South Indian Lake now, would disenfranchise 900 people who should have the right to vote with respect to Wuskwatim.
Mr. Lathlin: I do not agree with the member across the way that people are in fact being forced for their community to become a reserve. As I indicated earlier, this situation did not come about yesterday. It has been there for a long time. I said I support the federal minister, I support those people in South Indian who have been lobbying for a long time to be recognized as a First Nation, and finally they are going to get it. Who am I to, all of a sudden, stand in the way of them realizing their, you know, long, long-standing dream?
As I said earlier, most of those residents living in South Indian are former Nelson House Band people, and I will do everything on my part to support them so that they realize their lifelong dream. The member was alluding earlier to the notion that if we agree for them to become a reserve right away, that somehow can be construed to mean that we are forcing them to become a reserve so that they cannot vote on the Nelson House side because of Hydro-related issues. I myself do not see a connection between the two. I just want to make sure that I do everything in my part to help South Indian residents realize their dream, and that is to become a reserve.
* (15:00)
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson
(River East): I think that there are many on
I guess my question for
the Minister of Northern Affairs is there are a considerable number of Métis
and non-Status residents, as well as others at
Mr. Lathlin: I do not see myself as protecting those Métis people who are going to be living in South Indian. Rather, I see, once the community has been designated as a reserve, it will be not unlike any other community. For example, at OCN, we have about 3500 people, I guess, living on the reserve, and I would say a good number of those are, I do not have the exact numbers, but recently I was told we had about 100 people living at OCN who are Métis people. But then again some of them are people who have been reinstated under Bill C-31, federal legislation. Many of these people, for example, living at OCN are Métis people who have been married into the reserve but who maintain their Métis status. There are a lot of family members who live in the community, and so South Indian is not much different from what exists in other reserves.
At
Mrs. Mitchelson: There have been significant issues that have been raised at Nelson House regarding inappropriate activity by the band and the leadership. We do know that one of the council members, I believe, has been charged and is going through some criminal proceedings up in Thompson, as we speak. There are over 800 signatures from NCN, from Nelson House on a petition that has asked the federal government for a forensic audit of the books of Nelson House. I know the minister has received copies of all the correspondence, as we have as members of the opposition, of concerns raised by many members of that community.
I wonder whether the minister could indicate to me, because these are very serious allegations, whether, in fact, he has satisfied himself that there is no inappropriate activity because I do know that there are negotiations ongoing between the government and Manitoba Hydro and NCN. I would hope that any negotiations around funding would certainly want to ensure that serious allegations that 800 members of the community are raising are addressed before negotiations continue or before there is any vote on whether the Wuskwatim agreement should go forward.
I am asking the minister to confirm today that he has looked into these issues, because they are serious, and has assured himself that things are all aboveboard before any final negotiations are done with Nelson House regarding Wuskwatim.
Mr. Lathlin: I guess, first of all, I would like to indicate to the member that, under The Northern Affairs Act, my responsibility is limited to the Métis communities, the Northern Association of Community Councils. I am, under The Northern Affairs Act, responsible for those communities. I do not have any direct responsibility or jurisdiction on the Indian reserves.
I believe, at least in my
view, what goes on at Nelson
House, Nisichawayasihk, is an internal matter. I am satisfied
that the chief and council at Nelson House are, indeed, managing their affairs
appropriately, at least from where I am sitting. I believe the affairs over at
Nelson House are being managed appropriately by their chief and council, but I
do not have any direct jurisdiction over Indian reserves.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I would like to ask a question of
the Minister responsible for Hydro because
I do know that there are ongoing negotiations with NCN, Manitoba Hydro and his
ministry.
These are, indeed, very serious allegations
that 800 individuals have raised, expressing lack of confidence in the ability
of the band and council to manage the financial affairs, and they have asked
for a forensic audit. Given that there are ongoing negotiations and that NCN is
going to be part of any agreement around the building of the Wuskwatim dam, can the minister of Hydro tell us whether he has
taken these allegations seriously? I know that he has been made aware of the
allegations. He has copies of all of the letters that have gone to the federal
government?
Has he assured himself that the financial issues and the expenditure of dollars at Nelson House have all been appropriately handled given that there are ongoing negotiations? There will be a fair amount of both Manitoba Hydro and provincial money going into Wuskwatim and the arrangements that will be made with the band. Is he assured and has he satisfied himself that the finances are aboveboard and sound through these negotiations?
Hon. Dave Chomiak
(Minister charged with the administration of The
* (15:10)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, the reality is, as Wuskwatim is built, Nelson House is going to benefit by 25 percent of the profits of hydro generation, and 800 members of that band are indicating that they do not have any confidence in the leadership of their band in negotiating that agreement. Now those are direct negotiations with the Province and with Manitoba Hydro. So the minister has to stand up, be accountable and ask whether he is satisfied with the financial accountability, or is he signing an agreement blindly with the leadership at Nelson House without assuring himself that there is transparency and financial accountability when many members of the band are asking for a forensic audit because they do not believe there is transparency and accountability?
Can he tell me today, unequivocally, that he knows that things are financially sound and that any agreement that he negotiates with the band is one that can stand the test of transparency and accountability?
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, that community in question will be exercising their democratic right through a referendum with respect to the agreement in question.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The questions that I had are in regard more so, I guess, to process. There seems to be a considerable amount of interest that this particular project in fact be referred to the Municipal Board. I would ask if the acting minister is in a position in which he can indicate whether or not the government is looking at referring it to the Municipal Board.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Acting Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Madam Chairperson, I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith). Once we have finished this process, we will be going to the Estimates process, and I would suggest that the member raise that issue when we get into the Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade section.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Chair, that particular answer could be applied to any question that is put forward during this particular question and answer session. Having said that, I would ask for the Deputy Premier (Ms. Wowchuk) to give indication whether or not a decision has been made, whether it is going to be going to the Municipal Board or not.
Ms. Wowchuk: That question was raised during Question Period today, and I indicated to the House that I would take it as notice for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I say again, I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Mr. Lamoureux: What I will do, Madam Chairperson, is suggest to the deputy minister that we do have a very strong interest in terms of what is happening with this file. I think it is important to note that it was back in March of 2004 when EPC, in essence, recommended it and then ultimately council gave first reading to it.
Public hearings regarding this issue were in January of 2005 and second reading was given to it. At the end of January the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was sent a letter to that effect making reference to representations, both pro and against. I think what is important to note, Madam Chair, is that we did have a Plan Winnipeg approval for 2020 back in December of 2001 in which there was a wide spectrum of support.
The concern is that this government does not make a decision on this file prematurely without allowing us to go into the Estimates or to ensure that the proper feedback or that the government, and in particular this minister, is looking and listening to what people are actually saying on this file. I would be very much interested in the Deputy Premier passing on to her colleague, or expressing to her colleague, our interest in this file and would request that before any decision be made, we be afforded the opportunity to pursue this discussion.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I can assure the member that we would look at this as a very important file, and we are reviewing it very carefully. I will pass these comments on to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, my next few questions are for the Minister of Immigration. I have asked the minister during Question Period in the past in regard to the restricted occupations list and to what degree the government would be prepared to allow family members, in specific what I am referring to are brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, for being able to be exempt from that particular restricted occupation list. I wonder if the minister can indicate what her opinions are on this issue today.
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I would just like to inform the member that unfortunately my answer to the question has not changed since the last time he asked this question.
The Provincial Nominee
Program is an economic program
linked to labour market demand. It is governed by an agreement, a bilateral
agreement, that is signed off on with the federal government. He has to
understand that our responsibility is to work within the parameters in regard
to providing employment for the people that come into
Mr. Lamoureux: Would the minister then indicate to the House that there is no demand for nurses or doctors in our province?
Ms. Allan: The Provincial Nominee Program's primary focus is economic and
labour market driven, once again.
Actually, the restricted list that he is
talking about, we are actually going to be announcing that we are going to
change the restricted list to the occupational requirements list. The
occupational requirements list is developed with extensive consultation with
the Settlement and Labour Market Services Branch, professional regulatory bodies. There are 30 of them that we work with and Manitoba Advanced Education and
Training. It provides the widest range of eligible occupations of any nominee
or skilled worker program in
* (15:20)
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, would the minister indicate whether or not there is a shortage of nurses or doctors in the province?
Ms. Allan: I think it is very important for the member to understand–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Chairperson (Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski): Order.
Ms. Allan: It is very important that both
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, if you are a nurse or a doctor, do not come through the PNP program. That is what the minister is saying, in a nutshell.
Ms. Allan: No, that is not what I am saying. On the occupation requirements list, we
actually work with the licensing bodies. There are licensing requirements. If
an applicant is coming from another country, what we do is we ask the applicant
to get in touch with the licensing body to ensure that that individual who is
applying to come to
The Acting Chairperson
(Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski): Order, please. Has the
Member for
Mr. Lamoureux: I understand that there is a sense that we should continue passing on and go through some other steps, so I am prepared to pass on. But I will give notice that I will continue once we get into second reading.
Madam Chair, having said that, I do have some more questions. I must apologize to the minister. I did not quite hear all of her response to the last question.
The minister has stated, and I am quoting from an article in which the provincial Labour and Immigration Minister said that "the reason doctors and nurses are on the restricted list is because the program is linked to labour market demand," which is fairly consistent with what she is saying currently. She makes reference to another list that is not the restricted list, and I am asking what page that is on in the Manitoba Provincial Nominee skill booklet that she provides.
Ms. Allan: It is unfortunate that the member jumped up from his seat and did not hear what I said. I said that what we are going to be doing is we are going to be giving the restricted list a new name, and the new name is going to be the Occupational Requirements List.
Mr. Lamoureux: Under that new name, I take it, then, you are redesigning the PNP book. When would we anticipate receiving the next edition of that booklet?
Ms. Allan: I do not know, but I can get those details from my department. But the list is not going to change. I want the member to know that. The list is not going to change. It is just the name of the list. We are going to call it the Occupational Requirements List so that it sounds less negative.
Mr. Lamoureux: So, if it is just a name change, the real impact it is going to have in terms of individuals who happen to be a nurse or a doctor or other professions that are on that list, in essence, there is no change in government policy.
Ms. Allan: I think it is important that the member understand that the
occupations on the list are linked
to labour market demand. Both
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, would the minister then concede that it is not within her ability to be able to change occupations that are on that list or not on that list? Does she not . . . that change, to take one off the list or on the list?
Ms. Allan: Once again, the list is determined, the Provincial Nominee Program is an
economic program linked to labour market demand. It is governed by a bilateral
agreement with the federal government. The
Mr. Lamoureux: So, then, the minister does not have the authority to say that we want to drop a particular–I will use the example of dentists. This government does not have the authority to say that we want the dentists off today's restricted occupations list.
Ms. Allan: That is my understanding, that we do not have the legislative authority.
Mr. Lamoureux: Whose responsibility is it to take the initiative if they want to see something dropped?
Ms. Allan: Maybe the MLA for
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, I do talk to my federal counterparts, but I choose to talk to the Minister of Labour and Immigration today, who has a responsibility in this area. I do not, for the life of me, understand why it is she has taken the position that she does not have any influence in what is on that list. I do not think that is accurate.
I believe that the Minister of Labour and Immigration, provincially, does have influence on what is on that list and what is not on that list. We have seen, this is a program that was brought in back in 1998, before her party was even in government here in the province, and there have been many changes to the program. I will suggest to you that some of those changes have happened because this provincial government requested changes. Some of those changes that have happened have happened arbitrarily from this government.
My question to the current minister is this: Would she concur with me that this government, former ministers of this government have made changes to this program, and, in fact, have led on some of those changes?
* (15:30)
Ms. Allan: Well, first of all, there is absolutely no question that the
Provincial Nominee Program in
Manitoba is the best of any jurisdiction in Canada and that we have, without
question, raised the bar in regard to a very flexible program, and we have made
many changes. We have incredible staff in our department. If there is a pilot
project to be launched in
The specific question
that the member continues to ask in regard to the occupational requirements
list, for some reason he does not
seem to understand that it is a labour market program, an economic program
linked to labour market demand. I have explained the criteria that HRDC and the
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, now we are starting to get somewhere. Now we have a minister who says, yes, the Province can take a leadership role and implement changes within the Provincial Nominee Program, and she has actually cited some examples.
So, then, the question becomes why does this minister not see the merit, and there are two issues here. One is the restricted list and making modifications to it. The other issue is exempting family members from being held to the restricted list. Why, then, would the minister not champion one of the two of them? Is it because she does not support that change, so that is the reason why we are not seeing any movement in that area?
Ms. Allan: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the occupations that are on the occupational requirements list are those that are regulated, licensed, high-turnover occupations and entry-level jobs. The regulated, licensed are health professionals and teachers. The high-turnover occupations are sewing machine operators, and the entry-level jobs are labourers and production workers in certain sectors. The list was developed to demonstrate employability and to better serve the applicant with accurate information on labour market preparation and entry.
Now, in regard to the specific case, in regard to doctors and nurses, there are licensing requirements, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we have to work with the licensing bodies to ensure that when applicants come in, that they have met the licensing requirements. That is our public responsibility in regard to our immigration program.
Mr. Lamoureux: Could the minister give some sort of a guesstimate in terms of how many people that would be coming to the province through the PN Program that would be computer, not necessarily consultants, computer data, mainframe type of occupations under the program?
Ms. Allan: I do not have those specifics off the top of my head. No.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, my experience is that there has been a considerable
number. I do not know the numbers, obviously, other than what I receive through
my office and get a bit of a sense of it, but what I have found is that we do
get some health care professionals who are married to those other occupations
that are coming in. It seems to me
that the government is being very selective, and some, including myself, would
argue, discriminatory with the types of jobs that are being put on this list
and preventing someone from being able to come to
A good example of that
would be someone that would be, let us say, from the
Then you have another situation where it is maybe another Manitoban's brother who happens to be a doctor or a nurse. All we can tell them is, no, not through this program because of the occupation they were doing.
It seems to me the most
successful immigrants that we have had to our province have been through
families where we have family members living in the province and immigrants are
coming to
I guess the question that
I have to ask the minister is this: Does she not feel that there are many
occupations, or many people, I should say, that we are turning down that would
in fact make wonderful residents and be able to contribute significantly to our
province if the government were to be a little bit more open-minded on their
restricted occupations list?
Ms. Allan: We do recognize fully how important it is if an immigrant coming to
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, let me give a very specific example and ask the minister what she would recommend to her constituent.
If a constituent
approached her and said, "I have a sister who lives in the
* (15:40)
Ms. Allan: When anyone approaches me in regard
to immigration matters, particularly constituents, what I do, Madam
Deputy Speaker, is I ask them to call
our Immigration Branch and work directly with the Immigration Branch. This is a very important program in
The Acting Chairperson (Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski): Is the committee ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
The Acting Chairperson (Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski): The resolution reads as follows:
RESOLVED that a sum not exceeding $2,747,125,010, being 35 percent
of the total amount to be voted as set forth in Part A (Operating Expenditure)
of the Estimates, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st
day of March, 2006.
Resolution agreed to.
The second resolution respecting Interim Supply reads as follows:
RESOLVED that a sum not exceeding $79,146,515, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set out in Part B (Capital Investment) of the Estimates, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2006.
Resolution agreed to.
That concludes the business currently before us.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (Acting Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered and adopted two resolutions respecting Interim Supply.
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for The Maples (Mr. Aglugub), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience.
I move that Bill 19, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005; Loi de 2005 portant affectation anticipée de crédits, be now read a first time and be ordered for a second reading immediately.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance.
Mr. Selinger: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), that there be granted to Her Majesty on account of Certain Expenditures of the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, out of the Consolidated Fund, the sums of $2,747,125,010, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set out in Part A (Operating Expenditure) and $79,146,515, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set out in Part B (Capital Investment) of the Estimates, laid before the House at the present session of the Legislature.
Motion agreed to.
* (15:50)
Bill 19–The Interim
Appropriation Act, 2005
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that Bill 19, The Interim–
An Honourable Member: Seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh).
Mr. Selinger: Yes, the Minister of Justice. The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005; Loi de 2005 portant affectation anticipée de crédits, be now read a first time and be ordered for second reading immediately.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice, that Bill 19, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005, be now read a first time and be ordered for second reading immediately.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion. Agreed? [Agreed]
Bill 19–The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I move, once again, seconded by the Minister of Justice–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Selinger: Moved by the ever-present Minister of Justice, that Bill 19, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005; Loi de 2005 portant affectation anticipée de crédits, be now read a second time and be referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice, that Bill 19, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005, be now read a second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): I am pleased to put a few words on the record about this bill. I am very pleased to put some comments on the record about the bill because it really is related to the budget that was passed last Thursday and was voted on last Thursday.
I have to start with the comment that, in fact, I have listened to much of the budget debate, and I listened to what the Premier (Mr. Doer) had to say just before my debate last Thursday. I have to say that I was really quite surprised that the Premier rudely interrupted my debate on Thursday when it came time for the budget, especially since he knew well before I stood up, in fact, the Deputy Speaker at the time even before, once I stood up to deliver my debate, the Deputy Speaker in fact prefaced his comments with the fact that I had unlimited time.
I was really quite surprised when the Premier stood up on a point of order, but I was very pleased to see that the Chair, the Speaker, ruled in favour of me in terms of the Premier losing the point of order. The Interim Appropriation Act, as presented by the Finance Minister, authorizes up to 35 percent of the operating expenditures that are budgeted by government and up to 35 percent of capital expenditures that are budgeted that were included within the budget numbers that were presented a couple weeks ago by the Finance Minister.
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski,
Acting Speaker, in the Chair
It is allowing the Finance Minister to spend up to 35 percent of both operating and capital expenditures before June 10. I raised that issue with the Finance Minister in Committee. I raised that issue with him because I am concerned about the fact that we have about 20 percent of time between now, April 1 and June 10, 20 percent of the budget year, and yet he is asking us to approve 35 percent of the expenditures under the budget. The explanation I received from the Minister of Finance was, in my view, less than satisfactory.
Certainly, you should not have to obtain 35 percent of authorized expenditures under the budget in 20 percent of the time, unless of course, perhaps maybe even the budget numbers are fudged, as they were in '03-04. That was my concern. On June 10, we rise and by that time, certainly the Estimates process would be complete. In fact, they will likely be complete about the middle of May. I was not sure about why the government, why the Finance Minister, is in fact asking for 35 percent of expenditures except for the fact that he is so anxious to spend our money that he really needed to overshoot the mark when it comes time for the amount of expenditures that he wanted authorized in his department.
There are two ways to increase taxes by the NDP, and they have shown us both ways over the last number of budgets and over the last number of years. They have shown us two ways they can increase taxes. First of all, they can increase taxes within the budget itself, and they have done that in the past. They have increased the scope and the effect of the provincial sales taxes in the past. They have imposed provincial sales taxes on engineering, architecture, legal fees. They have imposed provincial sales taxes on the labour portion of mechanical and electrical contracts in the past. They have done that, but they have done it in the budget.
This year, in spite of
record high revenues, $525 million of new revenue coming into the province,
flowing into the province, largely as a result of the federal government
increase in transfer payments, having nothing to do with the fact that the NDP
have not grown the economy of the province the way they should have. We have
been lagging behind all of western
The numbers are correct,
in terms of the growth of the GDP in the province since 1999, $10 billion, but
what he really fails to mention, and he is really misleading by omission again,
and the Auditor General has called him on that before. What he fails to mention
is the fact that we are dead last in western
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
So what we have seen is an increase in taxes a couple of ways. As I mentioned, the NDP have either put it in their budget and, in fact, this year in this budget it appears as though, even in spite of historic high revenues, they are increasing taxes in terms of increasing the Pharmacare deductible again, another 5% increase in the deductible and that came through budget approval. We voted against the budget; they voted for increasing Pharmacare deductibles.
* (16:00)
There is another way that they have been introducing taxes in this province, Mr. Speaker, and in my view it is a sneaky way of doing it, but they have done it in the past. They have done it scores of times in the past, sometimes as high as 67% increases in terms of licensing, in terms of fees, in terms of permit fees and so on. They have done it in the past without budget approval, without consultation, without Manitobans having the ability to question them in the budget, without opposition being able to question them in concurrence or in Estimates. That is a concern of mine.
When I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) while in committee, his response to whether or not they will be increasing taxes again through the back door and not through the budget approval, but increasing taxes by increasing licence fees and so on, his response was less than satisfactory. He gave me no assurance that he would not increase taxes by Order-in-Council without debate and without disclosure and without budgetary approval.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record some of the comments made by the Finance Minister in that regard. I asked him point blank: Are there any plans to broaden the effect or the application of any of the taxes within a particular category of revenue that I was speaking of at the time without going budget approval? I asked him that question. His response was that he was not aware of any specific initiatives with regard to taxes on page 5 of the Revenue Estimates.
Then I asked him, Mr. Speaker, whether he can guarantee to Manitobans that the items under Finance that I was speaking of at the time would not be broadened as he did in the past with respect to the provincial sales tax, that they would not be broadened without first going through budget disclosure and without undergoing public scrutiny, and I asked him that for the '05-06 budget year. His response again was less than satisfactory. He said there are no plans that he is aware of to do that. If there is any information that he has not covered today, he says he would be happy to bring it to my attention as soon as he receives it, but he is not aware of any plans. He is not guaranteeing to Manitobans that he will not sneak in taxes through the back door as they have in the past, and this in spite of record high revenues available to the Province, incredibly high revenues, $525 million of new revenues.
We normally receive in
I ask the Minister of Finance to live up to that obligation that he gave to me in committee that he would in fact notify me, give me prior notice before they increased taxes to Manitobans through the back door instead of through the budget process, Mr. Speaker.
I also asked the Minister of Finance a question with respect to any increases in fees. Does he agree that any increases in fees or increases in permits, or the broadening of the application of any tax within the Estimates or the budget papers, anything increasing the application of those fees or licences or taxes, does he agree that they should actually go through a budgetary process and they should undergo public scrutiny through this Legislature, and whether they should withstand the tests of opposition? He agreed with that, that if there are any fee increases proposed by any department, they have to be properly scrutinized for the need and the necessity. But he went on to say, Mr. Speaker, he does not necessarily agree that they all necessarily have to come specifically through the budget process, that they are in-year measures that are both taken to reduce fees and levies and sometimes to increase them.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) that he has had, in the past, scores– 10, 20, 30. In fact, I think there were almost 100 increases in some of the permit fees and application fees and corporation taxes, in terms of incorporating new businesses, in terms of increasing the registration fees at the Winnipeg Land Titles Office, and the taxes that are associated with that, when you register a transfer of land. Some of them were increased last year as high as 67 percent. That is an increase in taxes without going through the budget. There is no comfort. I do not believe that the Finance Minister gave any comfort to any Manitobans when he replied to my questions. It all goes to show you that the NDP philosophy, of course, is to spend, spend, spend because they are addicted to spending.
I have some concerns, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned during the budget debate as well, about whether or not the budget numbers can really be believed. I know this bill, The Interim Appropriation Act, could even be labelled the interim misappropriation act because of that, not The Interim Appropriation but the interim misappropriation act because we cannot believe the budget numbers. We cannot believe them. We have proven that, in fact, the budget numbers likely should not be believed. How can we trust the books? How can we trust the budget, when in 1984, Vic Schroeder, the Finance Minister of the NDP at that time, when he presented a budget in 1984, for the '84 fiscal year, the provincial auditor, Bill Ziprick, stated that the government, and he was talking about the NDP at that point, and his words were, "They cooked the books." Those were his exact words.
They understated the deficit of the '03-04 budget year. They understated the deficit by $263 million. At that time, the deficit was really $428 million which is more than three times what the then- Finance Minister, Vic Schroeder, stated they were. The auditor was so appalled at this that he did not sign off on that budget, would not sign off on those books. It is comforting now to note, Mr. Speaker, that Vic Schroeder is an appointee of this NDP. He is an appointee and he is now the chair of Manitoba Hydro. Manitoba Hydro earns a great deal of money. To put the former Finance Minister, who was accused by no less authority than the Auditor General, accused of cooking the books, is not very comforting to Manitobans. That, of course, is the history of the NDP and their Finance ministers in terms of how they have dealt with the finances of this province.
Now we fast forward, Mr. Speaker, to 2004, when the expenses of the Health Department were understated so that the '04-05 budget balanced. The Minister of Health, in fact, admitted the fact in the newspaper that, in fact, he misstated, he understated the Health Department expenses in the budget. They were worried, obviously, about political fall-out. During the '04-05 budget, you will recall that there was only forecast a $3-million surplus in that budget. Simply put, if the Health Minister had understated the expenses in the budget of the Health Department by just over $3 million, the budget would have revealed a deficit for that year.
Certainly, this NDP would not like to take a hit, in terms of presenting a budget to this House that would not be balanced. Obviously, the only alternative would be to ask ministers to take a look at their departments to determine whether or not their Estimates of Expenditure are accurate. The Health Minister did us all a favour, I think, and revealed the true nature of the budget of '03-04, and stated publicly that, in fact, he understated the expenses of the Health Department. That certainly would have helped the budgetary process for the Finance Minister.
Another concern I have, of course, Mr. Speaker, is the fact the Health Minister does not do this by himself. Certainly, he would have consulted with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger). Certainly, he would have consulted with the Premier (Mr. Doer). Certainly, he would have consulted with all the ministers in this House. He would have consulted with all of them when they are undergoing their budgetary process to determine whether or not they could balance the books of the Province for '04-05. Certainly, if the Health Minister knew that he was understating the expenses, then one would expect that the Premier and the Finance Minister of this province would also have known.
* (16:10)
The other issue, Mr. Speaker, is in the '03-04 audit, with respect to whether we can believe these books. In the '03-04 audit by the Auditor General, the Finance Minister insisted on a $13-million surplus for the '03-04 fiscal year, and the Auditor General insisted there was a $604-million deficit. How can Manitobans believe the numbers in this budget when the Auditor General and the Finance Minister are so far apart? If they were only a million or two apart, that would be understandable. But, when you are over $600 million apart in your numbers, how can we believe what the Finance Minister presents to this House in terms of the budget? We believed them in 2004-05. We believed them then, but now those numbers prove to be inaccurate, and my belief is that they are hiding the real numbers.
The Finance Minister will stand up in this House, and he will crow that, in fact, there was a $13-million surplus in the operating budget, in the operating financial statements, of the Province. Well, it is easy to do that, Mr. Speaker, because you can manipulate those numbers. This government has a history of manipulating numbers and certainly in the '03-04 audit, it proved that. The way they can do it is they are going to be counting income that is not really income. They count income that is, in fact, not really income at all. It is just a shuffling of numbers from one account to another, from the rainy day fund in particular.
Secondly, they do not count expenses that are really expenses. If you counted all the expenses of the Province, Mr. Speaker, you would never come up with a $13-million surplus, and the Finance Minister knows that. He used every loophole that was available. Even if it was not available, he ensured that every excuse in the book was made as to why he did not have to count the expenses related to BSE and expenses related to forest fires in this province. My feeling is that, in fact, BSE and the forest fires would not have counted in the budgetary process, that those expenses should have been included in the Province's finances.
Mr. Speaker, just to give you some of the flavour for what the Auditor said about the Finance Minister, I could give you a couple of things, what the Auditor General said about the Finance Minister and the audit of Public Accounts for '03-04, he stated that, "The Operating Fund financial statement should not be used to assess the government's performance. Unfortunately, the government's communications continue to emphasize the Operating Fund financial statements." That is a pretty direct statement. In spite of that statement, the Finance Minister continues to quote the Operating Fund financial statement because it is to his advantage. That is the only reason.
The Auditor General also
indicated that, "Communicating the Operating Fund financial statements
portrays an incomplete, and misleading by omission," those are not my
words, Mr. Speaker, that is the Auditor General who says, "a misleading by
omission picture of the Province's financial position and operating results to
the citizens of
The Auditor General is not a politician, Mr. Speaker. He is somebody who can be absolutely trusted. He is independent of the Legislature, and that is something that Manitobans should remember when reading some of the material that is produced by the Auditor General.
The Auditor General also indicated that the net debt of the province increased by $1.2 billion in 2003-04. Yet members opposite have the audacity to stand up in this House and tell everyone they paid down the debt, including the Premier (Mr. Doer). Now the Premier even thinks that they paid down the debt.
My concern is that the Finance Minister, the Premier, and members opposite are not being open and honest with Manitobans. They are not being transparent with respect to the finances of this province. They think they paid down the debt. In fact, what they have done is paid money toward the debt. What has been happening is that the debt to the province continues to climb. It continues to escalate in size. The members opposite continue to try to spin that they have paid down the debt. It is certainly not believable. If that is not believable, if they are not being open and honest with Manitobans, why should we believe the numbers in the budget? Why should we give any credence to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) says in this House?
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General also indicated that if Generally Accepted Accounting Principles were used in the '03-04 summary financial statements, the deficit would have increased by $292 million. This would have increased the deficit by $292 million to $896 million, which is the largest deficit since 1988 when those records were kept. That is a concern of ours as well. In fact, the '03-04 financial statements of this Province actually revealed that it is the highest deficit in the history of this province.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General also indicated that shareholders of public companies would not tolerate a company that produced two different sets of audited financial statements each year. I do not think the Auditor General was speaking about necessarily that they produce the two different sets because we all know that the operating fund financial statements are produced by the Province every year to determine whether they comply with the balanced budget legislation. What he was concerned about was not necessarily that they were produced but that the government was focussing its entire public communication, almost its entire public communication of the results of the financial statements of this province on the operating fund and not on the summary financial statements.
The Auditor General also indicated that the quarterly reports of financial information are meaningless for the purpose of assessing the province's financial performance. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister, the Premier (Mr. Doer) continue to spin these quarterly reports as being important. All they do is report on the operating financial statements, which really are misleading by omission according to the Auditor General.
The Auditor General also indicated in his report that the government in its press release has failed to provide key information in the discussion about the '03-04 Public Accounts by omitting any reference to the annual results in the summary financial statements, again making my point that I have been making for the last 15 minutes. He also stated that the government failed in its duty to communicate accurate information to citizens to enable them to make an informed judgment of the province's fiscal performance. Government should focus communication on the summary financial statements. They failed in their duty to give accurate financial information to Manitobans.
What is the budget, Mr. Speaker? It is financial information. We want accurate financial information when we are presented with a budget in this Legislature. They failed to communicate accurate information in the '03-04 budget, so what is to say that they have not fudged the numbers in this budget? They did it in the '03-04 fiscal year. What is to say that the numbers are accurate in the budget?
The Auditor General also went on to say that the operating fund's financial statements are, by their nature, incomplete and often deviate significantly from generally acceptable accounting practices. They are not complete. That is what he said. They are not complete for understanding the government's management of its financial affairs. Yet the Finance Minister continues to emphasize them and mislead Manitobans.
* (16:20)
The Auditor General also indicated that the readers should not use Operating Fund financial statements to understand and assess the government's overall management of public financial affairs and provincial resources.
In spite of all these comments, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the unbiased, non-political comments by the Auditor General, the Finance Minister continues to spin those numbers. We are not denying that those numbers have to be produced for balanced budget legislation. There is no denying it. The fact remains, is that the Finance Minister continues to spin those numbers to the public, and the Auditor General caught him on that and stated that they are misleading by omission, that he is misleading Manitobans on the financial resources and the financial statements of this Province, and he has an obligation to provide real numbers to this Legislature and to this budget.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that he has failed to do that, absolutely failed Manitobans. How can we have a real debate on the budget? How can we have a real debate on the financial statements of this Province when he introduces numbers in this Legislature which are misleading? The Auditor General has stated they have been misleading Manitobans since 1999.
The other comment by the
Auditor General, Mr. Speaker, is that
only the summary financial statement should be used to assess the govern- ment's management of the
With that, Mr. Speaker, I believe my 30 minutes is just about to expire. I can tell you that that is why, and they continue to ask why we did not vote for the budget. Well, that is why. We cannot trust those numbers, and Manitobans should not trust those numbers, either.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to put a few words on the record regarding Interim Supply. It is an honour to follow my colleague the Member for Lac du Bonnet. I always appreciate hearing the comments that he puts on the record. It will be difficult to visualize in Hansard when this is being read at some point in the future, but the Member for Lac du Bonnet has records in front of him and a stack of papers, and he comes forward with a great deal of research–
An Honourable Member: And knowledge.
Mr. Goertzen: And knowledge, as the Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) suggests, and I think it would be appropriate for the members opposite to really look back and reflect on what the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik) has said regarding, not just the budget, of course, but the issue of Interim Supply that we are talking about here today.
I know that members of my caucus, my colleagues throughout the Legislature rely on his advice, rely on the words of wisdom that he puts forward, and it is free advice, really, for the government. It is something that they do not have to pay for. It is not like the spin doctors that they hire within their own departments and within their own areas to try to get a positive spin on something that is not so positive. It is something that the Member for Lac du Bonnet does as a gracious gesture, something he does not just to serve his constituents, which he does very ably, but also something he does for the benefit of the government, as a free piece of advice, and I would certainly ask that the members opposite take the time to consider what has been put forward.
There are a number of things in the budget appropriations and in the Interim Supply that we ask to provide the government that I think need to be brought forward to the attention of Manitobans. To some extent maybe I should be rephrasing that and saying it is maybe more the attention of members opposite that has to be drawn to these issues because Manitobans really are aware.
Manitobans are clearly aware of some of the difficulties that are happening in our province, but the members opposite kind of sit there in some kind of a smoke or a shade, and do not see these issues, or they do not want to hear them so they cover their ears. They do not want to see them so they cover their eyes. They do not want to talk about them so they cover their mouths, Mr. Speaker, but Manitobans are talking about them, and they are listening about them, and they are hearing about the concerns that are out there.
It reminds me of something very recently. I talked about auto theft in the province, and we as a Conservative Party, a Progressive Conservative Party, brought forward a five-point auto theft strategy. [interjection]
I appreciate the comments from the Minister of Finance. I can tell him that it is quite possible to be both conservative and progressive at the same time, Mr. Speaker. We made a demonstrated effort about that last night. We will continue to be both progressive and conservative in bringing forward these ideas that we bring forward.
I would ask that the members opposite who have the word, I believe, I might be mistaken but I believe, the word "democratic" appears somewhere in their acronym. I believe the NDP, I think the "D" stands for democratic, but it does not seem to apply when it comes to labour agreements. It does not seem to apply when you talk about unions. Then we take the "D" out and it just becomes the NP party. I can probably come up with some good suggestions about what the NP stands for, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly does not stand for not practical. It does not stand for anything like that. I think it is extremely unfortunate that the members opposite have taken that kind of approach to governing in the province.
To talk about auto
thefts, Mr. Speaker, we did bring forward, as a party, a five-point plan. You know
it is interesting because just this afternoon I had an e-mail from somebody in
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) yesterday when he was in this House, had not even read the plan. He says, "What about immobilizers?" Well, he did not get to point five where point five talked about immobilizers. I know the Minister of Justice can read. I think the Minister of Justice can read, but I am not sure why he did not take the time to read before he made his comments about it not being involved. [interjection]
And now I hear the Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), who has a lot of nerve talking about justice issues when his highway detachment was closed down. He sits there silently, day after day, and does not represent those constituents who voted for him in Selkirk, those constituents who said, "We put our trust in the member." Then their highway detachment closed down, and what do you hear from the Member for Selkirk? Nothing. Silence.
It reminds me a little
bit about the Member for
The member from Selkirk laughs about this serious issue that has been brought forward in his own constituency, and we hope that people's lives are not put into danger, that there is not kind of an accident that happens on the highway where somebody is not able to get traffic control because the police are not out there.
An Honourable Member: Do not worry.
Mr. Goertzen: The Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) says, "Do not worry." He says, "Do not worry." Well, that is on the record now, Mr. Speaker, and we will see what happens. Certainly, we will hope everyday that nothing happens, but what if it does? Now the Member for Selkirk is committed to saying, "Do not worry about it. No problem." Well, we will find out.
* (16:30)
So I would challenge him to bring forward those real concerns from his own constituents. Clearly, he is not bringing them to his caucus, or he is not doing it in a very convincing way, because it does not seem to have any kind of effect. But, when he says, "You know, this five-point plan that was brought up, it was stolen from us." Well, clearly the Member for Selkirk and other members did not read the plan either. So let us help them out by going through it.
An Honourable Member: E-mail it.
Mr. Goertzen: The Member for Selkirk says that I should e-mail him the plan. I do not know that he would read it, and that is what my concern is. It is hard to trust the Member for Selkirk. When he does not do anything about a highway detachment closing, why do I think he is going to read his e-mails?
The first point of the
plan, Mr. Speaker, is ensuring that we have new probation officers in
It is in a bipartisan
spirit, and the members know that I am very bipartisan when I bring forward
ideas to this House. It is never brought forward in a political way. It is
always done in a way that is best for the province and what would be best to
serve our communities and for the citizens of our great province, so I looked
to the model that they have in
So, when I spoke to officials about this plan, they said, "We don't just go there even once a night. We don't just show up at ten o'clock and see if the offender who is convicted of auto theft is in their home like they are supposed to be. We'll sometimes come back a second time. We'll come back at three in the morning to make sure that they're there."
Now, some of the members opposite, like the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson), might say, "Oh, that seems very harsh. We shouldn't do that sort of thing. We shouldn't have that kind of an approach to anything. Offences shouldn't have those kinds of consequences."
An Honourable Member: He thinks he can read my mind.
Mr. Goertzen: The Minister of Education wants to know if I can read his mind. I can tell him it would be a very boring read. I like to read things that are challenging. I like to read things that have depth and that have a lot of intelligence. I simply do not want to be reading his mind.
The fact is that in
It got really quiet in
the House, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of Justice says kind of,
"Whoops, well, auto theft, oh, yeah, that is right, I put out a news
release a year or two ago about an auto theft task force and I have kind of
forgotten about it since then." The reality is, I think, if he talks to
people who were involved in this organization and others, they will realize
that that plan is not put in place, and that it would take additional resources
to make sure that it is fully put in place. So the Minister of Justice can try
to spin his way out of this, but he is not fooling anybody. How do you even
talk your way out of this one, when you realize that there has been a $33-million reduction of auto
theft in
The other aspect of the
plan that we brought forward, Mr. Speaker, was the issue of bait cars and the
proper use of them. We have looked at other jurisdictions. In
In fact, what they do in
I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) and members opposite do not like that word "deterrence." It kind of sounds legalistic, and it sort of sounds a little harsh. You know, we might offend somebody by talking about deterrence, but justice is about deterrence. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that deterrence is a better option than incarceration. Far better that we deter somebody from committing a crime or going down the path of crime than having to interfere after they have committed that offence and then having to put them through the penal system. So I would say that deterrence is actually a very compassionate, conservative model of justice, and that is the way that we need to be looking forward.
I know it is not the Jack
Layton model of justice. Members opposite just came back from a convention in
Then they probably heard all of the soft-on-crime initiatives of Mr. Layton, clapped their hands and said, "That is the way we want to go." They heard about the taxing and the spending, and they clapped their hands. Then they opened the doors and hoped that nobody else had heard them, hoped that none of the media were there to see what they were really about.
Then they tried to put back on this cloak of being something other than what they are, which are socialists and Jack Layton New Democrats, Mr. Speaker. So they try to come back out of their foxhole now and try to put on a different face. But I would encourage them to look at this plan and to look at the third idea regarding judicial education. We think it is important that when individuals go before a case on auto theft that they have, that all the court has the facts in front of them about the actual cost of auto theft.
I do not think that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) liked this idea because it would be kind of revealing if you had to put that information out there. People could see what it was really costing the Province in terms of auto theft. It would bother them. You know, it would be concerning to have to hear day after day that the government was not being effective. But I would say look at it from a positive point of view, because I try to look at things on the sunny side of life. The glass is always half full when I am speaking, Mr. Speaker. I think they should look at the prospect that maybe if they included it and put in place the auto theft plan that we have put in place, they would reduce auto theft. Then they could claim it as a victory, but they do not.
So the Minister of Justice–and I heard him on the radio yesterday. He was responding to the auto theft plan, and I know he was kind of caught off-guard. I kind of feel sorry for the Minister of Justice in some ways because, after six years of doing nothing, I think he did not really know what to do when he was confronted with a plan. He kind of scrambled to the media, and his response was in terms of what he thought of the auto theft plan that the Tories had put forward. He said, "Well, really the problem with auto theft is that manufacturers keep making cars that can get stolen." So he blamed General Motors and he blamed Ford, and he blamed all the auto manufacturers that they are making cars that can get stolen.
An Honourable Member: Right.
Mr. Goertzen: Now I hear the member from Elmwood say "right." He is onside. The same member who, of course, does not like cottages and does not like seniors to be able to have their retirement funds says "right." Well, maybe the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) wants to go to the Home Builders' Association and say, "You have got to stop making homes that can be broken into. Stop putting windows on homes because people can break into those homes." Certainly, I think that would be the wrong approach, but that is the attitude.
* (16:40)
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Elmwood, on a point of order.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): On a point of order, I would like to remind the member that the car companies could install immobilizers in their cars for a fraction of the price the people have to pay in the aftermarket, so he should be chasing the car companies on this issue.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Steinbach, on the same point of order.
Mr. Goertzen: I know that I have riled the member. I know that he has kind of been outed on his stance, and he realizes the fallacy of his position. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. Even though his position is wrong, I think you need to call him to order on this point, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Elmwood, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Goertzen: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for ruling in my favour on that. I thought that in fact, there was clearly a breach of the rules by the Member for Elmwood to stand on that. I do want to follow up on his point. He talks about that he follows along with the lead of his Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) and blames those who are making the automobiles. They are making vehicles that can be stolen.
Let us go a little bit further. Let us go to the home builders and say, "Stop putting windows on your homes because they can be broken, and people can break into the homes. You should not be building homes that can be broken into." I used to work in the retail industry, and theft was a big problem in the retail industry. People would steal a number of different things, and it was easy to pocket smaller items. The manufacturers of things that are small really are responsible now because they are easy to steal too.
The Member for Elmwood should now write a letter to all the manufacturers of things that come in less than maybe a two-foot by two-foot box and complain to them that they are manufacturing things that are too easy to steal. They are responsible for theft now in the province. That is the logic we get from members opposite. I think the trap that the member from Elmwood has fallen into is he followed the lead from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) who kind of, in a very scrambled way, tried to respond to a well-thought-out plan, and kind of got caught off guard in the hallway. He came up with this kind of crazy notion about blaming everything on those who manufacture the goods, and the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) just figures he is doing his duty by backing up his minister.
An Honourable Member: Say it with a straight face. Come on.
Mr. Goertzen: Now I hear the Minister of Conservation say, "Say it with a straight face." I think it must be difficult for the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers), a relatively new member of Cabinet, to sit with a straight face through Cabinet meetings, as he hears the different things about this budget. I wonder if he sat with a straight face through Cabinet when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) announced not too long ago that he was going to follow through on a Legal Aid report and hire 10 new Legal Aid lawyers. Do you remember that promise? It was in all the papers, as the saying used to go.
It was in all the papers that the Minister of Justice said, "Yeah, we are going to hire 10 new lawyers in the Legal Aid department." It was in response to the pressure at that time that they were getting on the organized crime trials, because alleged gang members involved with the Hells Angels were able to pick whichever lawyer they wanted and have the public pay for it. I actually rose and brought forward the issue, along with the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik), back in the fall of 2003 saying, "There must be a better way to handle this. There is not a constitutional right to have any lawyer that you choose on taxpayers' expense."
Why should an individual be able to choose any lawyer and have the taxpayers pay for it? That is not our constitutionally protected right. Our right is to have legal representation, to have that access to legal representation but not any that we choose. The Minister of Justice, as he always does, shakes it off and says, "Ah, not again, it is a bad suggestion. I do not know where the–clearly, the members have to read the Constitution." On and on he went about it and he walked down the hallway, I think, and kind of went off in his bluster and his steam.
It was not a couple months later when the Court of Appeal in Manitoba said exactly what we were saying, that there is no constitutionally protected right to be able to choose any taxpayer-funded lawyer that you want. You have the right to representation, but not any lawyer you want on taxpayer expense. So then, suddenly, the Minister of Justice did a 180 and reversed his position and started going the other way. Maybe the Minister of Conservation sat through it with a straight face through Cabinet then at that time and figured, "Well, I guess we messed up on that one, but we will just kind of try and let it go."
So the Minister of Justice, in response, decided to have a bit of a committee and to see what they were going to do with legal aid, and the recommendations were that there needed to be more staff lawyers, so that, when these organized cases came forward, if they ever come forward in our province again, there would be those resources in the Legal Aid department to handle these organized criminals. That was a promise that the Minister of Justice made, not just to me as a member of the Legislature, but to all Manitobans. He said, "Yes, we are going to build in that additional staff, and then when we have these trials again, we will have those staff lawyers in place."
Well, was I not
surprised, and other members of
So what is the message? The message must be that he either decided to just simply break his promise, Mr. Speaker, or he has no intention of having any more organized crime trials in the province this year. Maybe that is the true rationale. Maybe he has decided that they are not going to even try to prosecute anymore of the Hells Angels, and now the Banditos, which have been welcomed into the province by the members opposite, welcomed by people like the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson), who sits around that table, welcomed by the Minister of Family Services (Ms. Melnick), who sits around that table. We are not even going to try and prosecute these individuals anymore. We do not have the resources in the department. Then maybe we will not have to endure that embarrassing scene of the Hells Angels getting into the limo across the street in the Law Courts building and waving at the office of the Minister of Justice and toasting him with champagne as they all got into the limousine and drove back away to go ahead and commit whatever other crimes might have eventually come of that.
I guess that was probably
a difficult time for the Minister of Justice to look out his window which faces
the Law Courts building and see the limos being packed up with the Hells Angels
and them all giving him the thumbs up and saying, "Thank you very much,
Mr. Minister, for allowing us to be existing in a province that does not have
real enforcement on organized crime." Members might say, "Well, this
is a political thing; it is just one politician talking about another
politician." That was kind of
unmasked as well when an organized crime expert, Mr. Lavigne, put forward some comments after it was
announced that a new, a second organized gang, had set up under the watch of
the NDP government, the Banditos. He
said, "Well, I am not surprised, because the
Mr. Speaker, you know you
could almost scratch it on the licence plate: "Welcome to
It is a little bit now like scenes from movies where you kind of go through a movie and at the end things are revealed. I think the Minister of Justice is probably near the end of his term as the Minister of Justice. Maybe there will be a time when he will move on to another role, or another responsibility, but, as he nears the end of his time, I think that people are starting to see what has happened in the Department of Justice. You read newspaper reports, even today, that say it is a lot of bluster, it is a lot of bluster what the Minister of Justice does.
I was on a TV show, a popular TV show last night on Global TV, and the host there was making reference to, that it seems to be a lot of bluster, a lot of announcements, but there is not a lot going on.
An Honourable Member: American Idol?
Mr. Goertzen: Well, the Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) wonders if I was on
"American Idol." It was not true. It was "Adler On Line." Maybe it should have been
"American Idol," Mr. Speaker, it would have been just as good a show,
but whether we are singing from the songbook on "American Idol," or
whether we are singing from the songbook on "Adler On Line," I can tell you it was a very clear song
that was sung to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) that it is time he
stops making announcement after announcement and really gets on with the
business of fighting crime. It is not all about prime time for the minister; it
is about fighting crime, and that is the real issue here in
* (16:50)
Mr. Speaker, with those
few comments particularly related to the issue of justice, I have to say that
I am disappointed with how the budget responded to those serious issues within
I would leave with members opposite a challenge to look back on the different comments that we heard here today, and I would ask them to take them seriously. I would ask them to ensure that they read them with the spirit, the bipartisan, non-political, advice-driven spirit in which I gave them.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers?
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
The House will resolve into Committee of the Whole to consider and report on Bill 19, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005, for concurrence and third reading.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Harry Schellenberg): Will the Committee of the Whole please come to order to consider Bill 19, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005.
Bill 19–The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Harry Schellenberg): Does the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) have an opening statement? Thank you.
Does the official opposition Finance critic, the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik), have a statement? Thank you.
We shall now proceed to consider the bill clause by clause. The title and enacting clause are postponed until all other clauses have been considered.
Shall clause 1 pass? Clause 1 is accordingly passed.
Could we have a question here from the member from Russell?
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Deputy Chair, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
One of the problems, I think, is the issues that we sometimes encounter in departmental Estimates is that appropriations that are assigned for specific areas are sometimes not met, and a budget for a particular department may be underspent significantly. When I ask this question, I am specifically referring to the department of highways and transportation and the capital budget that is allocated to the building of highways. We have seen, over the course of the last four or five years, when budgets have been underspent, even though they have been allocated, they have been underspent. Obviously, that money, then, is lapsed and goes back to the Treasury.
I am wondering whether or not the Minister of Finance could tell the House and Manitobans whether this is, in fact, going to be the practice in the coming year, or whether, in fact, budgets for such items as infrastructure and, specifically, highways will, in fact, be spent in accordance to the budget that has been passed.
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The member will know that when it comes to infrastructure projects, there are often timing issues in the expenditure of the money. The money may be fully committed but not fully spent because of weather conditions, timing conditions, when the tenders are let, et cetera, et cetera.
Usually, in the case where a budget is underspent, that actually brings it forward into the next budget if the project was agreed to. They usually set up a budget on what they think they can get done in that specific budget year, but because of issues of weather and accessibility and all the little things that happen when you say, for example, build a road, they can delay the project or, in some cases, move it forward. There are changes in how that flows throughout the year. So there will be differences on actual expenditures versus budget expenditures.
The other thing the member will know is that the Auditor General has required a change in the treatment of infrastructure. For example, when the member was in government, we used to pay in cash for all those roads. It is no longer the case. The Auditor no longer allows for those roads to be paid in cash. They have to be amortized through debt financing over the life of that asset. In the case of a road, I believe it is 20 years. So now you have to put enough money in the budget to pay for the principal and interest with respect to the amortization and flow it that way. There are some serious, significant changes going on. The flexibility within those budgets now that it has been changed from a cash basis to an amortization and principal basis. It has to be stretched out on an accounting basis over the life of the project.
Two things happen. One, you have more debt- by-accounting rules, but you also bring the old assets on to the books at their book value. I think there will be less divergence in the future because it is not real cash spent at that time. It will be an amount that is put on the books on an accounting basis for those assets, for that specific year in question, and then stretched over the years that reflect the useful life of that asset as determined by accounting policies. I think you will see less wiggle there than you have seen in the past.
Mr. Derkach: I thank the minister for that answer. It does clear up a bit of the issue on a go-forward basis, but I still have a bit of a worry, I guess, because sometimes inclement weather or whatever conditions might be, budgets allocated are not spent and then sort of lapse and go back to Treasury.
The minister did explain that monies committed sometimes are put on a go-forward basis into the next fiscal year. Is that the minister's approach to dealing with, perhaps, lapsed budgets now? If, in fact, because of extenuating circumstances a project is not done, then that money will be allocated to another fiscal year to complete that project?
Mr. Selinger: The money will not automatically carry over. It has to be rebudgeted in the next year's appropriation, but the project, if committed to, in most cases, unless there is an exceptional circumstance, is completed, and there is an allocation for that.
The member also will know, though, that in every budget there is a number that is put in for what they call a lapse factor. There is an assumption built into budgets since long before I was here that a certain amount of expenditure will lapse every year because of the way we have structured our appropriations. You do not get much room to move around between appropriations, so some appropriations overexpend, some underexpend, and you cannot switch money between them. You have to show both the overexpenditure and the underexpenditure. There is an assumption that in every budget in a provincial government, there will be a certain amount of resources that lapse every year. It is the absolute lapse, not necessarily the net lapse because there can also be overexpenditure. So you have overexpenditure in one, underexpenditure in another, and that is netted out to a total lapse number of $60 million to $70 million depending on what people think is realistic.
* (17:00)
So the short answer is projects committed to are completed, usually through the existing appropriation lapses, a new appropriation is put aside, which will include the completion of that project, and then there is a global lapsed number within the wider government entity that is assumed will be met every year, and usually is.
Mr. Derkach: I thank the minister for that. Just one final question, if I may. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance this: In this 35% Interim Supply allocation, is there an assumption made here, because we do not have the line-by-line appropriation for the money, that a significant portion of this money will, indeed, be appropriated for infrastructure redevelopment across the province?
Mr. Selinger: There is a budget for infrastructure development. It will follow, for the most part, commitments made in the budget that we have passed already, and that will go forward. As you know, for example, in highways, there is usually a three-year rolling sort of plan for what they want to do, and it will follow that until this year's budget is passed, and which allows for the new initiatives to roll out. Sometimes some of those are done by agreement and slightly in advance, but, yes, there will be an infrastructure allocation in the budget. We have a whole spring roads program we need to roll out, and we have done the tendering even before the budget is finalized, because early tendering allows you to get some better prices on some of these projects and do better planning around them. The industry itself asks for early tendering so that they can commit people and resources to that. So there are a lot of things flowing forward based on a three-year plan. The interim appropriation will follow that and allow that to happen.
Mr. Derkach: From that answer, Mr. Deputy Chair, I would take that there will be no holdup of any projects in the province on the basis that we have not concluded our business of the Legislature for the year?
Mr. Selinger: Well, my understanding of The Interim Appropriation Act, are you saying if we do pass it?
Mr. Derkach: Just to clarify, we are assuming that all of this business of the House will be concluded by June 10, as per agreement in terms of when the Legislature rises. At that time, we are assuming that, you know, all necessary bills will be passed. Passing this Interim Supply bill allows for the government then to proceed with all projects that need to be started between now and June 10. In other words, the reason for holding up projects will not be the fact that the House is still considering the Estimates and the different aspects that have to be considered in the House.
Mr. Selinger: I would stand to be corrected on this, because I do not have officials here to firm it up, but my understanding would be that this Interim Appropriation Act allows all of those things to flow forward which have previously been passed by the Legislature. It may not allow new projects, not previously agreed to by the Legislature, to start immediately. That is my understanding.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Harry Schellenberg): Are there any other questions?
Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clause 4–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.
That concludes the business currently before us.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Acting Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill 19, the Interim Appropriation Act, 2005, and reports the same without amendment.
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff), that the report of the Committee of the Whole be received.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for Rossmere, seconded by the honourable Member for the Interlake, that the report of the committee be received.
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
CONCURRENCE AND THIRD
Bill 19–The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 19, The Interim Appropriation Act, 2005, as reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that arrangements are being made for royal assent, Mr. Speaker.
* (17:10)
Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr. Blake Dunn): His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
His Honour John Harvard, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba, having entered the House and being seated on the Throne, Mr. Speaker addressed His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in the following words:
Mr. Speaker: Your Honour:
The Legislative Assembly of Manitoba asks Your Honour to accept the following bill:
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Bill 19–The
Interim Appropriation Act, 2005; Loi de 2005 portant affectation anticipée de
crédits
In Her Majesty's name, the Lieutenant-Governor thanks the Legislative Assembly and assents to this bill.
His Honour was then pleased to retire.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Please be seated.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, 5:30?
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 5:30 p.m.? Agreed? [Agreed]
The hour being 5:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).