Introduction of Guests

Madam 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 this afternoon twenty-two Grades 7 to 9 students from Riverside School under the direction of Mr. Tom Wiebe. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson).

Also, fifteen Grades 9 to 12 students from Pierre Radisson Collegiate under the direction of Mr. Justin Degagne. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Render).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

* (1410)

Government Commitment

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. On page 16 of the Monnin report, former Justice Monnin states: I have never encountered as many liars in this inquiry in my years on the bench.

In 1995, this Premier promised to build 600 personal care homes, and he promised to build those homes in this fiscal year. I would like to ask the Premier: what has been the impact of this broken promise on the hundreds of Manitobans that regrettably this winter had to spend their time in Manitoba hallways because of the broken word of this Premier?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I presume that the member opposite—I thank him for the question—meant 600 personal care home beds, not 600 personal care homes. If that is indeed what he meant, the commitment that we made in running for re-election was to build those beds over a period of time that we were in office, and we are in office. We are in the process of constructing those beds; they are under construction now. Contracts have been let.

Madam Speaker, the member opposite also knows that we had to deal with the reduction of transfers from Ottawa of an unprecedented nature of some $263 million per year. Now the member opposite may not believe that that is a difficult thing to do, but this government wanted to remain—this government may want to remain within the mandate of a balanced budget. This government wanted to do so without raising taxes, and we were successfully able to do that. This government is also constructing them within this term of office, and they certainly are well underway, as people know. They have seen the sod turnings, they have seen the construction contracts let and they are watching the construction ongoing. Those personal care home beds will indeed help us as a province to meet the needs of our aging population and to ensure that we direct the resources of the province to the health care needs that are there today and in the future.

Mr. Doer: The Premier will know that the federal Liberal budget that cut the $240 million out of Manitoba was introduced in the House of Commons in February 1995. The promise the Premier made was in March of 1995. The Premier said in March of ’95, we will build them within this fiscal year and we will do so in spite of the federal cuts. So he never answered the question about his broken promise to the people of this province.

Madam Speaker, again in 1997 and 1998 the Premier promised that there would be massive improvements based on building of personal care homes by the middle of this year, which is seven weeks away. Now we find Tory—not Tory—public propaganda produced for the best interests of the Tory party that should be paid for by the Tory party, not by the taxpayers, again saying wait for 18 months for the personal care home beds to be made.

Now the Premier just said he would build it within his term, this existing term. Is the Premier saying the next election is 18 months away, which is against the law again, or is he saying he broke his word in ’95, or did he break his word in ’98, or is he breaking his word again in this publicly paid pamphlet that has been put out to the people of Manitoba? When has he been telling the truth, and when is he breaking his word to the people of this province?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): First of all, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is wrong, as is often the case with what he brings to this House. I think it is important that he understands what is happening with personal care home beds in Manitoba. Since 1987-88, there are almost 1,200 new personal care home beds in our province. Granted, at this point in time, 300 of those are interim, and that is why right now the capital program for personal care homes in total in Manitoba is approximately 1,150. Of that there are going to be net new personal care home beds of about 660. The total capital program is $140 million, and that is a significant commitment to providing the personal care home beds that are required here in Manitoba to help relieve some of the pressures that are on our hospitals and our acute care facilities. Those are the facts; those are the commitments. A number of those projects are currently under construction, and a number of those projects are in design and will be in construction very shortly.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Health, who was minister of the Treasury Board who closed 1,400 acute care beds--if he wants to talk about the facts, we would welcome the opportunity. This minister turned the sod in 1994 at the best Betel personal care home. His partner the Premier also announced in the 1995 election campaign that this would be part of the election promises for personal care home beds to be built in this fiscal year in Manitoba. I would like to know the impact of this broken promise on the number of patients that are today in the hallways of Grace Hospital. What has been the impact of your broken promise on the personal care homes beds, the 1,400 closures of acute care beds, on the patients that are today in the hallways in our community hospitals?

Mr. Stefanson: First of all, Madam Speaker, this government, this party agrees that having anybody in the hallway on any bed or stretcher is something that is unacceptable, and that is why we are doing several things that are improving and will eliminate that. One of them is the commitment to over 660 new personal care home beds of which the money has been allocated in budgets. In terms of the specific project that the member for--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members this is not the time for debate. This is question-and-answer period for which we have some specific guidelines.

The honourable Minister of Health, to complete his response.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the particular project that the member for Concordia referred to, the Betel project on Erin Street, is no longer being undertaken by the Betel organization, but there is a facility currently being built on that site, Calvary Place, which is now a hundred-bed personal care home project costing some $11 million. So, again, a facility is being built on that site providing a hundred personal care home beds as part of the total commitment of over 660 new personal care home beds in the province of Manitoba.

Staffing

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question also is to the Minister of Health. Earlier this day, I had occasion to meet and be with an organization that is being set up called Voices. I would like to table for the minister 10 recommendations this organization has made for improvements in care and in staffing levels at personal care homes in the province of Manitoba.

Given that we have had at least four inquests into deaths in personal care homes, given the Holiday Haven scandal, given the government report in 1995 that recommended changes, given the minister’s commitment in ’93 by member McCrae, by member Praznik that changes would take place, I am wondering if the minister will tell me whether the minister agrees with the statement of his own Associate Deputy Minister Sue Hicks that staffing is not a problem in personal care homes and that the government is not going to increase staffing at personal care homes, which is the first recommendation of the group Voices for improvements in personal care homes.

* (1420)

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I think the member for Kildonan is certainly well aware that the issue of standards in our personal care homes is currently being addressed. Those standards will be available shortly. They are going to be discussed with stakeholders in the system. Part of that review will also be the issue of funding for our personal care homes. Right now they are based on 1973 staffing guidelines. Having said that, we have continually increased the funding to personal care homes to meet the needs of the level of care in the personal care homes, but because the funding formula is tied to 1973 staffing guidelines, as part of our review going forward we are prepared to address that whole issue of the staffing guidelines and funding.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister outline for me whether or not this statement is like the same statement made by the former Minister of Health and the former former Minister of Health, who promised that these standards would be put in place more than six years ago, and we are still talking about reviewing these very standards that this minister, now the third one in a row, stands up and says they are going to be reviewed? Is the minister giving a guarantee that these standards and staffing increases will be put in place before the end of this session so that people will be assured that they will have proper care in personal care homes, and we will not have to bring these stories to the Legislature over and over and over again?

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I am giving the member for Kildonan the guarantee that standards will be put in place. They will be available very shortly, and as I have indicated, I think it is incumbent on us, and I would think it would be something that he would support, that they be reviewed with the stakeholders in the system. We will be undertaking that review, and after that we will be implementing and acting on the introduction of standards. They will be tied to the whole issue of the licensing facilities, and obviously there is ultimately a relationship back to the whole issue of funding. So the issues that the member for Kildonan is raising here today are going to be addressed very shortly.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister give a commitment today--albeit the former minister made the same commitment, the former former minister made the same commitment, and the associate deputy minister said there is no need to increase staff levels--to this Legislature, to the people who represent this group who have families in personal care homes, who feel hard done by, by this government, who have been protesting for six years, who have asked for changes, who have waited for changes for six years, that staff levels will increase in personal care homes in Manitoba and they will take place immediately?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, first of all, Madam Speaker, the funding relative to the staff requirements based on the level of care has continually been increased over the last several budgets. Having said that, I have indicated to the member for Kildonan that as part of the review going forward, we are prepared to look at the whole issue of funding and its relationship to the staffing guidelines which were set back in 1973. So, yes, that issue is going to be addressed as part of the package going forward in terms of the introduction of standards and the tying to the licensing, so I do not know what more I can tell him. Yes, the issue that he has raised here today is something that is serious and something that we will be addressing.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, when Judge Monnin referenced, and I quote, to never having encountered as many liars in one proceeding as he did in this inquiry, he was referring to the Filmon team, in an effort between 1995 and the time of the inquiry, to deliberately cover up what the judge also described as a clearly unethical and morally reprehensible scheme to split votes, and particularly he referenced the fact that it involved aboriginal people.

Many Manitobans believe the Premier knew what happened. But we know one thing now, and it is documented in Question Period, that he knew as of June 23 that Taras Sokolyk, his chief of staff and campaign manager, was involved. He asked him to get a lawyer, told him not to come to staff meetings, but continuously in the Legislature in this province he denied that knowledge. I am wondering if the Premier will now admit that he indeed was involved with a cover-up that certainly began on June 23, continued throughout the session, continued on July 23 when a press conference was held in which he said he had not talked to Taras Sokolyk about this since 1995. Will he now admit that he was involved with a cover-up of this issue?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Thompson that he is bordering on being very close to asking questions on two matters that were taken yesterday under advisement by the Speaker related to matters of privilege. Traditionally in this House, questions are not asked on those matters until those matters have been brought back to the Chamber in the form of a ruling. Perhaps the honourable member would wish to rephrase your question very quickly. I would also remind the honourable member that our guidelines are that the individual posing the question has 30 seconds.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, my question—the matter of privilege yesterday dealt with deliberately misleading statements—was in regard to the fact it is clear that the Premier of this province was involved in a cover-up of what happened in 1995, and that cover-up certainly began in this House on June 23 and continued up to and including July 23 at a press conference and where Bonnie Staples-Lyon leaped to the defence of the Premier, a rather bizarre occurrence.

I want to ask the First Minister if he will confirm what the people of Manitoba know, and that is that he, himself, was part of a cover-up of the vote-splitting scheme.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the member for Thompson earlier, in

getting up and speaking about the matter of privilege, talked about integrity in this House, and we see how little that term means to the member for Thompson in the manner which he puts forward.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson, on a point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Premier’s comments are certainly unparliamentary, and I need no lectures from this Premier about integrity.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson did not have a point of order.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, among the requirements of all of us in a democratic process, and particularly in this House, is the acceptance of due process. I would remind the member opposite that the Monnin inquiry was struck with the urging of the members opposite, each and every one of them, with the widest possible terms of reference to get to the bottom of all of the issues. In this regard, I would say that the Monnin inquiry spent thousands of hours in listening to testimony and accepting evidence. I would say that it spent nine months in the deliberations that allowed it to arrive at conclusions, conclusions that the member opposite may not always accept in total. He chooses to selectively read from the Monnin report.

I would remind him of this: 72 people were interviewed by the inquiry, 37 of them appeared to testify under oath, of which I was one, and among the conclusions of Mr. Justice Monnin are, and I quote: Premier Gary Filmon testified that he was not aware of the plot or the cover-up, and I find his evidence to be credible.

That, Madam Speaker, is not just based on my evidence. That is based on interviewing 72 people, 37 of them under oath and none of them suggested otherwise--none of them.

* (1430)

So the member opposite can be whatever he chooses to be in this House, but he is not a person of integrity if he chooses to put forth information here for which he has absolutely no evidence and absolutely no proof. If he had, he could have gone before the inquiry under oath and provided that evidence. But instead of coming here and doing it in that fashion, Madam Speaker, I suggest to you that he demonstrates not only his lack of courage but perhaps his lack of integrity.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am quoting the Premier from the House and from the inquiry. I want to ask the Premier, why, when he was aware on June 23, according to his own testimony at the inquiry, and he suspected Mr. Sokolyk was involved in the vote-rigging scandal, he did not say that to the House on the 23rd, 24th, 25th, throughout that session, why he did not say it on the 23rd of July when Mr. Sokolyk resigned, when he had Bonnie Staples-Lyon speak for him, and why it was not until October 15 when he was interviewed under oath by the investigators for the inquiry that he finally volunteered several months later that in fact he had talked to Mr. Sokolyk about that? Why will he not admit that if he had said the truth from the start it would have saved the province and the inquiry a heck of a lot of money? It would have salvaged what little credibility the First Minister had at that point in time.

Mr. Filmon: This is an issue that was covered extensively by the Monnin inquiry. In fact, the very questions that he is asking were asked by the legal counsel for his party, Mr. Myers, and also by the legal counsel for Darryl Sutherland, Mr. Walsh. As I said at that time under oath, and I talked about the 30-second exchange that I had with my chief of staff, Mr. Sokolyk, his first words were: the allegations are not true. So I did not have any knowledge or any sense or any belief that Mr. Sokolyk was a party to the scheme at that time. In fact even—he ended by saying: they are on to something, which only meant to me that he might have information about somebody else—somebody else. I have gone through this with Mr. Monnin, and I say to you, Madam Speaker, that I have gone through it extensively. I spent six hours in cross-examination going through point by point by point. I said that I never believed until I saw a transcript of Mr. Sokolyk’s submission to the inquiry that he had a personal involvement in the scheme. [interjection] I said get advice. That is what I said to him.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, you know the difficulty with all of this is that members opposite wanted to have the inquiry. The inquiry took place. It spent thousands of hours; it spent nine months; it asked all of the questions that the members opposite wanted. They are not satisfied with the outcome, and so they want to go here and make allegations without substance, without any substance. They want to go over and over and over and make allegations. That is why the people of this province have difficulty with the members opposite. That is why they have difficulty with them is that they are invited--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: I say to him, as I said to the Monnin inquiry--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, to quickly complete his response.

Mr. Filmon: I say to him, as I said to the Monnin inquiry, that I never at any time until I received a copy of his testimony to the inquiry believed that Mr. Sokolyk was part of the scheme.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with his final supplementary.

Mr. Ashton: Final supplementary, Madam Speaker. I am wondering when the Premier will acknowledge that, when Justice Monnin referenced in his report that a considerable amount of time, effort and money was expended by the commission in order to confirm what should have been freely admitted at the outset, one of the reasons this occurred was because the Premier himself, not under oath--it took for him to be under oath to reveal this meeting--in this House, where he was not under oath, will he not admit that he himself created much of this situation by refusing to divulge the fact that he had talked to Mr. Sokolyk about this and indeed had said get a lawyer and do not attend senior staff meetings?

Will the Premier admit that that in itself contributed to a cover-up, and if he had been forthcoming in June it would have saved the commission a lot of time? It would have salvaged what little credibility the Premier has in this province.

Mr. Filmon: One thing is clear, and that is that the only comment that was made in passing in the 30-second exchange was the allegations are not true, Madam Speaker, and that is the evidence that I had to go on. It is absolutely evident today that so much of this was hidden in records that had been removed, that in fact Mr. Monnin himself says that he had to go to the extent of getting a forensic auditor involved in order to get to the bottom of it all.

If he is suggesting that one conversation would have gotten to the bottom of this, he is absolutely wrong. Nothing short of the kind of full inquiry that we underwent would have gotten to the bottom of this because people did not tell the truth when they were asked directly, and so only through this inquiry, only through this complete and full investigation, were we able to get to the bottom of it, and as bad as it is, the fact of the matter is it had to be done that way, and those who have been involved have paid a very heavy price for it, as Mr. Monnin says.

Legislative Building

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, yesterday was indeed a dark day in Manitoba for First Nations people because again they have been made to feel that they are not a part of this province. Those hundreds of First Nations people that were—

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Rupertsland to pose his question, please.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, what I am talking about here is something very serious, something unprecedented in the province of Manitoba. We had a lot of people here who were trying to come and talk to and listen to the government on issues that they feel strongly about: poverty, housing, economic development and Third World conditions that aboriginal people live in in this province. The Winnipeg Police Service was called upon to prevent entry for these people of exercising their right to a peaceful protest. I would like to ask the Premier why the police, the riot police that numbered about 100, as I understand, were called instead of allowing people to come here, which is their right.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as the member may know--and I listened to the chief of police on the radio this morning indicating that they had picked up information to the effect that there was a protest being organized with potentially a thousand or more people at the building on that particular day. In the normal course of their responsibilities to ensure safety and security of the public and of people who use this building, either as guests or as employees, they took certain actions to ensure that people’s safety and security could be assured. I accept that as their response, and I have no reason to question their manner in handling issues of this nature.

* (1440)

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, there are several issues that I do not have the opportunity to raise with the First Minister, but I am quite sure that he is aware of the many issues that aboriginal people have been trying to convey to the Province of Manitoba.

The AMC is meeting in Winnipeg this week, and I would like to ask the First Minister, given the fact that it was him who was invited to meet with the First Nations leaders in this province, if he will avail himself of that opportunity and meet with the chiefs of Manitoba this week in Winnipeg.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the member opposite that when he and some of his colleagues brought 500 or so people from Peguis to the building about two weeks ago not only the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Newman) met with them, but I met with them. At that time, I encouraged Chief Louis Stevenson to—[interjection] I offered, at that time to Chief Louis Stevenson to meet with him and his council to discuss specific proposals, to encourage them to put down ideas that we could implement for economic development. I said that we had some ideas that we would like to discuss. I have not heard back from him, even though the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs was at Peguis last Tuesday or Wednesday for the signing of an agreement on child welfare. He had an opportunity at that time, in fact, to speak with the chief and members of his council, and he took with him some economic development people who are involved in aboriginal economic development for the provincial government.

So we have always put ourselves available to those people, and we have suggested to them a time to meet this week. We have suggested that in order to be productive we need to have an agenda and we need to have an indication of what the topics are that they would like to discuss.

But we are quite prepared, I am quite prepared to meet with representatives and chiefs to ensure that we get down to work on some of these issues, Madam Speaker. It has never been our position that there are not things that could be done with co-operation and with all sides working toward the solutions.

Protest-Independent Public Inquiry

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I would like to assure the Premier that I had nothing to do with those people coming here a couple of weeks ago.

I had a very serious question, Madam Speaker--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Rupertsland, to pose his final supplementary question.

Mr. Robinson: My question will go back to the first one, Madam Speaker. Given the serious allegations of brutality and abuse, pepper spraying, et cetera, yesterday and not allowing people to enter their own building, I would like to ask the Premier—and there were injuries apparently sustained not only by aboriginal people, Indian people, but also building security staff, and that is not right, as well as elderly people who were here to visit and listen to the throne speech.

I would like to ask the Premier if he will instigate a full independent public inquiry to examine what happened here yesterday.

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, the way the matter was conducted yesterday was, I think, of great credit, I would suggest, to the security staff and the police that were concerned. Peace was kept within the building, and the safety of the people who were here as invited guests was secure.

It is noteworthy, I think, that Chief Louis Stevenson led the demonstration two weeks ago, Tuesday, inside the Legislature, led it and instigated the charging of the door on the Legislature yesterday. He was followed by others, but he was the one that directed the invasion of the Legislature on both occasions, and I might say Clif Evans, the honourable member for the Interlake, arranged a meeting in the inside demonstration two weeks ago that led to the great numbers attending into the Legislature. So it is very interesting how one can be used by these organizers of these events that are designed for the purpose of gaining attention and risking public safety. It is most unfortunate that the people were hurt, but the responsibility lies entirely on the shoulders of the organizers of that event.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, the Monnin inquiry—[interjection]

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, thank you. The Monnin inquiry is indeed a very sad story. It is a sad story about the state of democracy in the province of Manitoba. Having said that, out of that story there are a number of recommendations that that report calls on the government to take action on. The government makes reference to it in its throne speech. The question that we have for the government, and particularly the Premier, is: when can we anticipate the government bringing forward that legislation, and is the government committed to passing that legislation prior to the next election?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, yesterday in the throne speech, I believe it was clearly indicated our intention to bring the legislation forward for this session of the Legislature and, again given our rules, members of the media, members of the House are very familiar. We introduce bills, there is lots of opportunity to see their passage either slowed or sped up by really the will of the opposition. We are certainly committed to its passage before a general election and, with co-operation of all members, that can be certainly achieved.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, given that, why will the government not then make a firm commitment and restore some of that faith in democracy in the province of Manitoba and guarantee that they will pass the legislation prior to going into the next election so that Manitobans will in fact have some faith that these recommendations that the Monnin inquiry was all about are in fact going to be delivered to Manitobans?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the member for Inkster, he and I entered this Chamber at the same time after the 1988 election. Governments have the ability to present legislation. It is not governments who guarantee passage; it is this Legislature. We can ensure that all efforts are made to see matters are debated and brought to concluding votes. If we introduce legislation, it is assumed, and always usually the case, that all government members will support it, but the real question is what happens during the course of debate. He and I have been here on many occasions where oppositions have decided that they did not want to see the passage of bills and have taken steps to delay their passage. I cannot prevent that from happening.

I would hope that in the case of both the boundaries legislation and these particular acts that there will be a willingness on the part of all opposition members to ensure that steps are taken to have speedy passage of this legislation, but if any opposition member wishes to choose to delay that passage, there are numerous rules available and tools available to delay passage of any bill, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The time for Oral Questions has expired.