Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, on June 25, 1999, the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs appeared before a group of church volunteers and others at Cross Lake to deal with the issue of the Northern Flood and flooding and the impact on its community. The church group stated that we must not point fingers, but we must narrow the gulf. But they were shocked with the hostility towards them displayed by the government's minister and pointing out the misdeeds of their own churches.

Does the Premier (Mr. Filmon) feel it makes sense to have hostility displayed towards groups that are volunteering to bring us together as a way of dealing with our challenges with First Nations people?

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, there, of course, is a reference to words that were used in the newspaper article that the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) is referring to. One can describe an expression of answers to questions that were raised by the panel or one could describe the presentation made by myself to that panel in whatever way they chose to characterize it. However, the message that I delivered is a message that I felt was very important to deliver on behalf of all of the people of Manitoba, because the unfortunate thing about what is happening in that panel process is that well-meaning people and very respectable people that are sitting there, two from the province and two from outside, as I understand it, who are clergy leaders in some cases, religious leaders, are sitting, and before they had had the chance even to gather together, they described in a preliminary way what their findings were going to be and the process they were going to use.

I will respond later to other questions. My time is up.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, we believe and support the church volunteers, that mutual respect to deal with our differences makes more sense than hostility, hostility displayed towards those volunteers, in their mind, by the minister.

Madam Speaker, I was not surprised but disappointed and shocked that today we found that the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs has stated that politics of the casino debate changed dramatically the decisions the government would make.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): are decisions made on the basis of socioeconomic fairness for First Nations people and all Manitobans, or are they made on the basis of politics, as quoted by the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs?

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, again taking a quotation from a newspaper article which left out a letter from Grand Chief Rod Bushie any reference to it, a letter dated April 8 of 1999, where they rejected the approach which had been discussed about a pilot project relating to casinos and rejected lifting a moratorium on VLTs. In spite of that, the government, which I proudly am part of, opted with a lot of moral conviction and principle to support the lifting of the moratorium on VLTs because that was the equitable thing to do. That was well understood, that this was something the public of Manitoba would take a lot of explaining, a lot of education to understand, because it is not an easy challenge to make, to explain the equities of the situation over a long history.

* (1335)

However, the pilot casino issue is not a principle issue. It is not an issue that is anything other than an issue as to whether or not the public of Manitoba understands and supports for moral reasons, religious reasons, pragmatic reasons, the adding of the number of casinos we have in the province of Manitoba at this time. The onus to educate the public on that is primarily the First Nations people.

Mr. Doer: I notice the public was consulted on the establishment and the expansion of the Regent Avenue casino and McPhillips Avenue casino. The hypocrisy from members opposite is a disgrace, and then to blame a reporter for–well, they think it is funny now, I guess. That is their kind of wedge politics against First Nations people.

Madam Speaker, the report dealing with gaming on October 15, 1997, states, and I quote, that the committee reviewed the morality of using gaming. We believe that good public policy should include a moral perspective. Our position is that First Nations gaming is not immoral. We believe that it will create jobs, deal with disease, deal with poverty in First Nations communities. First Nations gaming can be used as a positive public policy to address the disadvantaged socioeconomic state of First Nations communities, something the government of Saskatchewan is doing for socioeconomic reasons.

I would ask this Premier: why are you doing it for political reasons? Why are you not doing it on the basis of the report that you have received?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, in rejecting the matter that was under discussion between our government and the Assembly of First Nations, which was a pilot project, in rejecting that and suggesting that there ought to be no limitations, no involvement of the government, but just simply a total proliferation of casinos run by the First Nations communities, Grand Chief Bushie wrote to me and said: this is a political decision, he said, and it should not involve any discussion or any involvement of the public. It should be just strictly a political decision made by government.

That was his position. We said, no, it was a public policy issue in which we had to consider the concerns and the viewpoints of all Manitobans. If the position of the member opposite is that there should be unlimited casinos, that they should all be turned over to the First Nations community, that there should be no consideration, no review, that may be his political position, Madam Speaker, but it is not the position that is supported by the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Doer: The Premier still has not addressed–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On a new question?

* (1340)

Mr. Doer: A new question. The gambling revenue under this Premier has gone from $40 million to $240 million and counting. Let there be no wiggle on this issue of gambling expansion. The province of Saskatchewan, the NDP government, has introduced limited casinos with First Nations people in partnership. I believe it is four casinos, Madam Speaker. The report the government received, on page 8, I believe, recommends five casinos, a limited number.

Why is the government not implementing or working on the report they received from their own committee for a limited number of casinos with First Nations people to create jobs and economic opportunity, versus the statement made by the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Newman) after he made his hostile statements that it is based on politics and demonstrations, not on socioeconomic opportunity?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the only people who make their decisions on politics and demonstrations are the members opposite. We know full well, because it was their member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) who booked the room here to create the first demonstration. We know who is behind it. We know who are the ones who do their politics that way.

This government bases its decisions on principle, not like those members opposite.

Mr. Doer: We now see the thin-skinned, arrogant, intolerant, hostile view that extends from the minister to the Premier, Madam Speaker. He is out of gas. He is so thin-skinned, he just keeps pointing fingers instead of solving problems.

Madam Speaker, all governments and all political parties have been subject to demonstrations. All democracies and dictatorships have been subject to demonstrations. It is part of being in government; it is part of the reality of government.

Madam Speaker, there were a few protesters who jostled the federal Minister of Agriculture in Saskatoon. Surely the decisions on the crisis for thousands of people in southeastern and southwestern Manitoba should be based on socioeconomic merit. Should the issue of casinos and the report of the government not be dealt with morality, fairness and socioeconomic opportunity for people who need opportunity, not hostility?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what this government does. When the member opposite talks about solving problems with respect to the aboriginal people of this province, that is exactly what we have been doing for 11 years. When he wants to talk about revenues and sources of revenue to First Nations people, this is the government that turned over the taxation revenues with respect to fuel and with respect to cigarettes, amounting to $12 million a year, direct revenues to the First Nations people of this province. This is a government that turns over gaming revenues to the First Nations people. We have over 35 agreements with First Nations communities, and on VLTs alone, they are getting over $11 million because this government sees that as an issue of fairness, an issue of equity.

This is the government that settled the Northern Flood Agreement. They are the ones who flooded the First Nations community, and we are the ones who gave them the revenues and the settlement, over $230 million, tens of thousands of acres of land, after they flooded their lands. This is a government that solved that problem. This is a government that settled treaty land entitlement after decades of their mistreatment and neglect, over a million acres turned over to First Nations communities because it was the right thing to do. They did not do it; they did not have the courage or the honesty to do it. We did it, Madam Speaker.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1345)

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, this government's strategy to me is very clear. The strategy is very simple, and that is to play up to the racist attitudes of Tory supporters. And once again, just like in the '95 election, aboriginal people have been chosen to be the pawns.

My question is very simple. Why did this government meet with aboriginal leaders for four years and then at the end to only tell them that there will be no casinos on reserves? Why did he not tell the aboriginal leaders four years ago that no positive decision would take place unless it fit into their election plans?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, this government has acted in good faith with the aboriginal people of this province on a whole range of issues. I point out only the first of those issues, being treaty land entitlement, which was an outstanding irritant, an unresolved issue that dated back almost 70 years. Of course, New Democrats were in office for 15 years in the '70s and '80s and gave nothing but hot air towards the settlement of treaty land entitlement. It took this government working in good faith with the aboriginal people to resolve that, to transfer over a million acres of land to the aboriginal people of this province. They were in office for 15 years in the '70s and '80s, flooded the northern lands of the First Nations communities and never were able to even sign, let alone resolve, the issue of Northern Flood Agreement.

This government resolved that issue: $230 million and tens of thousands of acres of land transferred in compensation for the flooding that the New Democrats did in that land. This government resolved it in good faith. This government in good faith turned over taxation revenues that amount to $12 million a year to the First Nations community of this province because it was the right thing to do. This government entered into gaming agreements with 35 First Nations communities, turning over $12 million a year to those communities because we acted in good faith. This government believes in working with the aboriginal people, and this government has demonstrated by the results that we act in good faith when we deal with those people.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for The Pas, with a supplementary question.

* (1350)

Mr. Lathlin: I would like to ask the First Minister why his government rejected his own government's Lottery Review Committee which pointed out very clearly the economic development potential of casinos on First Nations.

Mr. Filmon: The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs rejected it. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs said that they wanted no strings attached, that they wanted unlimited casinos, and they wanted to be the ones to decide where and when and how many. We said that that is unacceptable to the people of this province, and it should be unacceptable to any government. But if that is the position of the New Democrats, then let them stand up and say that. Let them tell us that they wanted unlimited casinos placed anywhere that the First Nations people want them to be placed. If that is the case, let them have the courage of their convictions and stand up instead of sitting in the foxhole like the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I believe the Premier has been quite out of control this Question Period and certainly on this question. Citation 417 of Beauchesne says answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate.

The Premier at least, of the four or five questions that were asked, in this first part of his answer actually started to respond to the member. Then he turned into the Premier we know that attacked and attacked, and that provokes debate. If the Premier wants, he has an opportunity to stand up and debate this issue at some other point, but he should not waste valuable question time attacking members on this side of the House who ask legitimate questions. In fact, he answered the question. He ought to have sat down and not provoked debate. That is what 417 deals with.

Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. Filmon: On the same point of order, I recognize that the member for Kildonan wants to try and cover up for the fact that they have no ideas, that they take no position, and they flip-flop all over the map each and every day they come in here. The people of this province have a right to know where they stand on issues instead of coming here and criticizing, carping, complaining and throwing mud. If they do not have the guts to do that, then they ought to just not show up for Question Period, Madam Speaker.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, we have asked questions in this House on very important issues of public policy, specifically whether this government is victimizing aboriginal people because they do not like certain protests. We asked a very specific question, in this case from the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), about the government's own report.

Madam Speaker, we expect this Premier, instead of getting into a very politically motivated pre-election, campaign-style attempt to victimize more Manitobans, to answer some very serious questions about why this government has a complete inability to work in partnership with aboriginal people.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

* (1355)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, in considering your point of order, I would also ask you to take into consideration the fact that time and time again in this House members opposite have used the points of order to carry on debate, to be able to have other opportunities to pursue and, yes, that does evoke response on this side. I would ask you to call the members opposite to order. If they want to use points of order, let them be legitimate points of order.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I recognize that this is Thursday, but I would like to please ask for the co-operation of all honourable members, firstly, in picking and choosing your words carefully; secondly, in attempting to keep the disruption and noise level of the House in better decorum.

The honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) did not have a point of order.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

Order, please. The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please rise.

* (1400)

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 29, Nays 24.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained.

Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, I have one last question here. That is to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) whether he agrees with his government's own report that says: "Our position is that First Nations gaming is not immoral. To those who might not agree, we point out that hunger is immoral, disease is immoral, poverty is immoral, joblessness is immoral. First Nations gaming can be used as a positive public policy to address the disadvantaged socioeconomic state of First Nations communities."

Does the Premier agree or disagree with that statement?

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): In response to that quotation, I believe from the Bostrom report, the quotation describes what the members of the Bostrom task force, chaired by the director of the Native Affairs Secretariat, evaluated and came to conclusions on. But the very important consideration here is what the First Nations community in this province can do by way of educating the general public on this issue so that the general public can either agree or disagree with that issue, knowing that they have to overcome a real distaste for any additional casinos in this province at this time.

This was well known in the discussions. If the pilots that were discussed were put into place, then that kind of proposition would over time be tested. But to put those kinds of pilots in place requires a whole amount of enormous public good will, because the First Nations communities in this province who have the benefit of gaming agreements get 90 percent of the revenue from them. The rest of the population gets 10 percent of the revenue from gaming. So there is a huge affirmative action in the favour of First Nations people in this province, and the other people in this province are very concerned that going too far will be indecent and wrong.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, you know, aboriginal people in this province have put up with a lot. Aboriginal people were not able to vote provincially until the 1950s, federally until the 1960s, let alone the legacy of residential schools and high unemployment and health care, and the cuts of this government in the Northern Development Agreement, to Access, to New Careers, Youth Corps. They even cut the swim program in northern aboriginal communities. I will not even get into the vote-splitting issue.

I want to ask the minister who is supposedly in charge of Native Affairs how he can, in good conscience, in an interview that is printed on the front page of the Free Press, indicate to the people of Manitoba that one of the reasons that the casino issue was dealt with in the way it was was because of the demonstrations. Why will they not deal fairly with aboriginal people, instead of this politically motivated effort to silence anyone who disagrees with them?

Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, that is a self-serving and inappropriate interpretation of an article written by a reporter who came to me to ask, as the First Nations community people that he had interviewed before, whether or not the rejection was because it was a desire to punish them for civil disobedience. I spent about half an hour with that reporter denying that was the fact and pointed out to him in a letter that was written at that period of time where Grand Chief Bushie–the date was April 8, 1999–rejected the propositions that were discussed.

In spite of that, this government went back, because it was the right thing to do, and indicated that they supported and would be prepared to implement applications to lift the moratorium for First Nations people, knowing full well it required a great explanation to educate the public about why that was morally appropriate.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Premier. I am just wondering if the Premier can explain any sense of morality or fairness on that side when in fact since the report, the 1997 report on gaming, while on the one hand they say that the public needs to be educated in terms of aboriginal gambling, they had no problem going ahead with a $66-million announced expansion to gambling. Why will he not understand the reason he has such distrust from the aboriginal community, because he says one thing for aboriginal people and he does another thing for his own government.

* (1410)

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, I find the question from the member for Thompson–given the public statements made by the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), the critic, I think a year ago when the casino expansion projects were announced, where she is reported in the Free Press to be in support of this as a great tourism initiative and it would expand the hotel industry. I would be delighted to find the quote from the paper and which the Free Press supports, of course. Now we have, and we hear from the seat, the New Democrats support further casino expansion in the province. That is their position here today, that the New Democratic Party supports more casinos in the province of Manitoba and further expansion. That is very clear.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): The Resident and Family Council of Deer Lodge hospital has a constitution, Madam Speaker, and in that constitution it says that decisions will be made by a show of hands, and a majority present will carry the vote and that residents and family members have voting privileges.

I wonder if the Minister of Health could explain to this House why the new president of the Urban Shared Services Corporation, the chair of the board, Mr. Tim Duprey, walked into a meeting of the residents' council last week and announced that he was unilaterally changing the constitution of this group, that there would be no media access to residents or to their family members in the Deer Lodge Centre without his permission. How can he change a constitution of a group unilaterally and deny citizens access, their right of access to media?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): It is difficult to take very much seriously from the member for Crescentwood when it comes to Deer Lodge, based on his past performance when it comes to the accuracy of information that is brought to this House relative to any issues. His own colleagues know when he brought the information on patients he was not even correct 10 percent of the time. That is the kind of pattern; that is the kind of accuracy in terms of the information he brings. Usually it is done on innuendos and hearsay and so on; it is not done on facts. It is not done on research; it is not done on quality information.

So having said all of that about the past performance of the member for Crescentwood, particularly with his bias towards Deer Lodge, with his bias towards the quality of care of Deer Lodge, with his bias towards Urban Shared Services Corporation and so on, Madam Speaker, I am certainly prepared to look further into the matter that he did raise here today, and I will again report back to him.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I will table the constitution so that the Health minister might know what is in it.

Madam Speaker, I want to ask if the minister can possibly defend preventing members of the public, who pay up to $22,000 a year for their rooms, and all pay at least $8,000 or $9,000 for their rooms, from having their right of access to media or to representatives of any organization in their rooms with their family members. What right has he got to dispossess them of a basic human right?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Mr. Stefanson: Again, I am not taking any position on this issue. I am responding to information that the member is bringing here today that again, based on his past practice in this area particularly, as I have said, his strong bias against Deer Lodge hospital facility, against the people managing that facility, his pattern of accuracy being very, very weak in that area, I question again the quality of information and the motive in terms of what is being brought here before us today, and I have made that point now on two occasions. I am certainly prepared to look further into this issue.

Mr. Sale: Will the minister tell Monique Ball, who is a representative on the Resident and Family Council from the families of residents, why it is that they have deprived the residents of their free speech and access to free speech?

Secondly, will he tell them why Princess Anne will be there on July 25 and she will have a special meal cooked for her, and she will have a special meal cooked for the residents? They will not even eat the frozen food. Will he explain that to Monique Ball as well?

Mr. Stefanson: I question the member's comments about anybody trying to restrict free speech and free comments. Again, I have already made my point about the past performance and the strong bias that this member brings towards the management at Deer Lodge facility, towards the whole issue of the Urban Shared Services Corporation even though it is supported by all nine urban hospitals here in the city of Winnipeg. It is administered by the CEOs of those hospitals who have as much of an interest in terms of providing quality, cost-effective, nutritional food to the people who are patients in those health care facilities.

So as I have indicated, I certainly will look into this issue, although I do question the majority if not everything that the member has put on the record here today, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education, and it is in regard to the Seven Oaks report that the minister tabled yesterday. What we know for a fact is that there was indeed a breach of the security process on the standards exams. We know that for a fact. In addition to the report, it states that, allegation No. 4, in January a 40S mathematics examination went missing under the same circumstances as in June 1998. "Blank" received a copy of the examination from "blank." The person indicates that he would even be prepared to attest to this in a court of law.

My question to the Minister of Education: given the conclusion, which states there was not nor is there any evidence to suggest that there was a breach or a violation of provincial examination security either in June of '98–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose his question now.

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Speaker.

–at Maples Collegiate and/or subsequent to June of '98, my question to the Minister of Education is: does the minister, given that conclusion, believe that there is any credibility to this report whatsoever?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the tenacity with which the honourable member for Inkster brings this matter forward. Unlike the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), the honourable member for Inkster understands that there are serious allegations that people's lives and reputations have been hurt by the actions of Mr. Brian O'Leary, the one that, according to today's newspaper, the honourable Leader of the Opposition has let off the hook. You know, that may be, but the people of Manitoba will not let the honourable Leader of the Opposition off the hook for having and maintaining a double standard with respect to these matters.

There are students in the Seven Oaks School Division whose parents need assurances that there is integrity in the standards testing security protocols which were breached by Mr. Brian O'Leary, and it goes way beyond the students of Seven Oaks School Division to all of the students in the province of Manitoba. These are things the Leader of the Opposition chooses to ignore, chooses to trivialize. The people of this province are a lot more important than that to me, and we are reviewing options available to us in the light of a somewhat unsatisfactory report.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I asked for the Minister of Education to comment on the fact that it states, from the author of the report, that there is no evidence to show the test of security was in fact compromised.

My question to the Minister of Education is: what message is that sending then to our educators and supervisors of the standards exams? Does it now mean that it is okay for a principal to open the exams? Is it now okay that we do not have to have any security on the marking of exams when we spend millions of dollars every year to protect the integrity of these standards exams?

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, it sends a totally wrong message to the people of Manitoba, a message supported by the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) but not supported by the overwhelming majority of the people of this province. The people of this province support having standards for their children in our school system. The people of this province support testing against those standards and against that curriculum. The honourable Leader of the Opposition does not; that is his problem. But letting Mr. O'Leary off the hook, a side issue, I admit, but it says a lot more about the Leader of the Opposition than it does even about Mr. O'Leary.

* (1420)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Education is: will the Minister of Education and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province do what is being asked not only by me but also by the Leader of the New Democratic Party and call for an independent investigation? We are more than happy to provide names to the Minister of Education to ensure that the integrity of the standards exams is going to be protected.

Mr. McCrae: I can tell you, Madam Speaker, I take the suggestion of the honourable member for Inkster for an independent examination of this a lot more seriously than I do that of the honourable Leader of the Opposition, who has already made up his mind that this is not an important matter, that Mr. O'Leary has done nothing particularly wrong, and it does not matter anyway because he does not like testing in our school system.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, just in response to some questions taken as notice on my behalf last week, there were some questions relating to a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives having to do with Urban Shared Services Corporation. I think the best way to respond to members opposite is I will provide three copies of a letter sent from Major John A. MacFarlane, the president and CEO of Grace General Hospital. I will just highlight one or two aspects of it.

The major suggests that: "I am disturbed to find that a reputable organization like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives publishes a report that has used such outdated and misleading material." It goes on to say: "Although I have found the number of inaccuracies in this report to be too great to list in entirety, suffice it to say, you are incorrect in your facts as they relate to: the Board membership, interest rates, the numbers you have used to achieve economies of scale, cost to renovate kitchens . . . and the quality of meals." He also refers to the issue of the new quote "provided a competitive rate which is as favourable as that quoted for the government rates during 1997, and not the 10.5 % as you outlined in your report."

Finally, just to paraphrase the final paragraph, and "Further, as an economist with one of our city's universities, I would assume you are interested in actual truths concerning the Urban Shared Services Corporation and that your many errors in this report were accidental and not deliberate in nature."

I will table three copies of that report, Madam Speaker.

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