LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Minimum Sitting Days for
Legislative Assembly
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The background to this petition is as follows:
The Manitoba Legislature sat for only 37 days in 2003.
Manitobans expect their Government to be accountable, and the number of sitting days has a direct impact on the issue of public accountability.
Manitobans expect their elected officials to be provided the opportunity to be able to hold the Government accountable.
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.
It is signed by Jim Budde, Tom Melnyk and Simone Budde.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House.
Proposed PLA–Floodway
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
The
The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA).
The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union.
Approximately 95 percent
of heavy construction companies in
The Manitoba Heavy Construction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.
The chair of B.C.'s 2010
Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects
built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in
Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Construction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.
Manitobans deserve an open and fair competition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice.
Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.
To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project.
This is signed by Donald Neufeld, Dale Hiebert, Edwin Ninaber and others.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House.
* (13:35)
Highway 227
Mr. Ralph Eichler (
These are the reasons for this petition:
It is unacceptable for
the residents of
Inclement weather can make Highway 227 treacherous to all drivers.
Allowing better access to
Highway 227 would ease the flow of traffic on the
Residences along Highway 227 are not as accessible to emergency services due to the nature of the current condition of the roadway.
The condition of these gravel roads can cause serious damage to all vehicles, which is unacceptable.
Residents of
We petition the Manitoba Legislative Assembly as follows:
To request the Minister of Transportation and Government Services to consider having Highway 227 paved from the junction of highways 248 and 227 all the way to Highway 16, the Yellowhead route.
To request the Premier of
Manitoba to consider supporting said initiatives to ensure for the safety of
all Manitobans and all Canadians who travel along
Submitted on behalf of Marilyn
St. Goddard,
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132 (6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House.
Proposed PLA–Floodway
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, to present the following
petition.
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): These are the reasons for this petition:
The
The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA).
The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union.
Approximately 95 percent
of heavy construction companies in
The Manitoba Heavy Construction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.
The chair of B.C.'s 2010
Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects
built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in
Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Construction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.
Manitobans deserve an open and fair competition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice.
Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.
To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project.
Submitted on behalf of Gary Friesen, Peter Funk, Robert Funk and others.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House.
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
The
The Premier of Manitoba plans to subject all work related to the project to a Project Labour Agreement (PLA).
The proposed PLA would force all employees on the project to belong to a union.
Approximately 95 percent
of heavy construction companies in
The Manitoba Heavy Construction Association has indicated that the forced unionization of all employees may increase the costs of the project by $65 million.
The chair of B.C.'s 2010
Construction Leaders Taskforce has stated, "Major industrial projects
built under project labour agreements from the energy sector in
* (13:40)
Organizations including the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Construction Association of Rural Manitoba and the Canadian Construction Association have publicly opposed the Premier's plan to turn the floodway expansion project into a union-only worksite.
Manitobans deserve an open and fair competition that protects taxpayers from unnecessary costs and respects workers' democratic choice.
Manitobans support the right of any company, both union and non-union, to participate in the expansion of the Red River Floodway.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider ending his Government's forced unionization plan of companies involved with the Red River Floodway expansion.
To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider entering into discussions with business, construction and labour groups to ensure any qualified company and worker, regardless of their union status, is afforded the opportunity to bid and work on the floodway expansion project.
Signed Lauren Grey, Laurie Davidson, Denny Grey and others.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House.
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 from Red River College Language Training Centre 15 students under the direction of Ms. Karen Thorlakson. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Energy, Science and Technology (Mr. Sale).
Also in the public
gallery we have visitors from Guyana Teachers' Union, the Bermuda Union of
Teachers, the British Virgin Island Teachers' Union, the Dominica Association
of Teachers and the Anguilla
Teachers'
Also in the loge to my
left we have with us Mr. Harry Enns, who
is the former Member for
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today.
Video Lottery Terminals
New Equipment
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader
of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, seniors
and the sick have had their Pharmacare coverage
slashed by this Premier (Mr. Doer). Rural families are having emergency and
health care services cut. Schools and post-secondary institutions are
underfunded. Cattle producers are being denied a much-needed cash advance, but
the citizens of
Mr. Speaker, how does the Deputy Premier (Ms. Wowchuk) justify spending $100 million on new Cadillac VLTs when her Government is cutting health care services, denying Manitobans the services and programs they truly need? How do they justify that?
Hon. Scott Smith (Minister
charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, the only concern Manitobans had is when the members
opposite had estimated a $50-million expenditure on the biggest expansion of
gaming in the
* (13:45)
Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time somebody on the Doer government's
side woke up and recognized that its new and improved machines that they talk
about are clearly going to only add to the current problem that exists in
Mr. Speaker, it is under this Government, under the Doer government, that they said they were not elected to raise taxes. What did they do in the last Budget? Increase taxes. This minister is quoted as saying that the $100 million on new Cadillac VLTs is something, and this is a quote, "It is something that people find is newer and exciting." Those are the words of the minister. That is why we want to spend $100 million on new Cadillac VLTs. Well, I am not a betting man, but my money is on the fact that Manitobans did not elect the Doer government to raise taxes or spend $100 million on new Cadillac VLTs.
Why does the Doer government not do the right thing and get to work on a long-term economic strategy for Manitobans that makes sense, that creates jobs, rather than spending $100 million on new Cadillac VLTs?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see hypocrisy hit new heights by the members opposite here. The member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, he likes to do quotes, so let us have one.
From the Leader of the Opposition, one of the issues on their radar screen is Assiniboia Downs. Would they like upgraded VLTs? "Certainly we would have no problem supporting that. That is an absolute no-brainer," he said. Mr. Speaker, he said, "We would be happy to do that prior to the election."
Mr. Speaker, when you
look at responsible gaming in the
Mr. Murray: Well, Mr. Speaker–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Murray: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker–
Mr. Speaker: Order. I need to be able to hear the questions and the answers.
Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a little sensitive for members on
the opposite side because what we see is under the Doer government's watch we
have seen the gambling addiction problem in
What have they done about it? They cut the funding to the Addictions Foundation, Mr. Speaker. That is what this Government is capable of doing. They love to talk about quotes. When in opposition, the Premier (Mr. Doer) called VLT revenue the crack cocaine of gambling, but now we know that this Premier has a habit and this Government has a habit of their own. That is a spending habit. So they are desperate to try and find more cash, and what do they do? They spend $100 million on new Cadillac VLTs because that is the only growth strategy that this Government knows anything about. Tax Canadians through the Budget, increase VLT revenues. I say shame on them.
What Manitobans want is a long-term economic strategy that creates growth, that creates hope for Manitobans, not $100 million on new Cadillac VLTs.
Mr. Smith: Again, members opposite confuse volume with fact. I will tell you, Mr.
Speaker, the numbers that he is lobbing around, the $100 million, obviously was
announced today. There was a renewal with VLTs in
* (13:50)
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, when the members opposite had absolutely no policy on
responsible gaming is when we ran into unfettered problems in
Pharmacare
Deductible Increase
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, the Doer government has raised Pharmacare deductibles 15 percent over three years. This amounts to an increase of between $36 and $660 per family depending on their income level.
I would like to ask this Minister of Health: How can he possibly justify his Government spending $100 million on new VLTs? Why is he burdening the most vulnerable with increasing Pharmacare deductibles? Where are his priorities?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): I am glad the member corrected her error from yesterday when she said we were cutting Pharmacare and has realized that in fact we are putting more resources in Pharmacare, that in fact we have added a thousand new drugs to the Pharmacare formulary.
The fact that we have increased by 20 000 families the number of people that receive Pharmacare benefits Mr. Speaker, and the fact that we provide 100% coverage on Pharmacare and the fact that for 85 percent of Manitobans who receive Pharmacare benefits, the increase would be $1 to $9 per month which is a cost that we reluctantly are having to do, but we want to preserve Pharmacare into the future.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Health says his cuts are $1 to $9. Well, that amounts in total over three years from $36 to $660 per family. It is not just $1 to $9. Instead of keeping Pharmacare deductibles low, the Doer government chooses instead to fund VLTs.
This, Mr. Speaker, is an assault on the elderly. I would like to ask this Minister of Health how he can force seniors to choose between milk and medicine while he supports VLTs. Where are his priorities?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, we have expanded coverage under Pharmacare. We have provided drugs to palliative care and we have put in place the measures to have Pharmacare into the future because the growth rate, 15 percent to 20 percent per year, is the single largest growth area of our Budget.
We did not want to do what the Tories did in 1996 when they eliminated two thirds of the people off the Pharmacare roles, 100 percent eliminated. We wanted to bring in some manageable change and, yes, it was reluctant, but part of that, together with our generic purchasing and our generic prices and some of our other controls will see more drugs to more people which is the principle and the goal of Pharmacare, a goal we want to sustain now and into the future.
Mrs. Driedger: The Doer government has decided that spending $100 million on new VLTs is more important than supporting seniors and the working poor, the ones that he is attacking by increasing the deductibles. How in good conscience can this Minister of Health stand with his Government and support this? He is supposed to stand up for patients, for the vulnerable. Where are his priorities?
Mr. Chomiak: When we looked at the range of options available to the Pharmacare
program, we considered what the Tories had done in 1994, '95 and '96, and that
is cut two thirds of the people off. We said, "No, we are not going to do
that." We also said, "Should we cut benefits by $20 million as they
did?" We said, "No, we are not going to do that." Should we do
co-payments like they are doing in other provinces? We said, "No, we are
not going to do that." Should we have a health care premium like they have
in
* (13:55)
Mr. Speaker, we are going to maintain a universal program. We are going to expand coverage. We want a program that gets most drugs to as many people as possible to help them, Mr. Speaker. It is a universal program that provides 100% coverage once you achieve your deductible. We did not want to go the way of doing it the way the Tories did in the nineties when they cut off two thirds of the people from the program.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the honourable Member for Tuxedo appreciated that ovation, but I still need to be able to hear the questions. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.
Vaccination Programs
Funding
Mrs. Heather Stefanson
(Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, the Government seems to have
no problem finding $100 million to spend on brand new VLTs, yet cannot seem to
find $10 million to offer vaccines against meningitis, pneunococcus and chickenpox
for our Manitoba babies. These vaccines are recommended by the Canadian
Pediatric Society and are covered by other provinces. Why has this Government
chosen new VLTs as a priority over the health of
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to correct the record here. The Lotteries Corporation returns to this Government in this Budget $232 million after the costs for interest and amortization on the new VLT machines. Members opposite are actually factually incorrect.
When they were in
government, Mr. Speaker, we had a legal opinion that the Lotteries Corporation
was borrowing money illegally off the books of the
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before recognizing the honourable Member for Tuxedo, I am not seated very far from the honourable Minister of Finance, and when he was trying to give a response, I could hardly hear what he was saying.
We have visitors that have come down here to listen to question-and-answer period. We have the viewing public. I am sure that each and every member would want them to fully appreciate the workings of our Assembly. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members. Decorum is very important in this Chamber. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for
Mr. Mervin Tweed (
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows full well, a member can rise on a point of order in order to request the tabling of a letter. That is not a letter that is being referred to.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order?
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, it was clear that the minister referenced a document. He made an accusation that in fact there were illegal dealings, according to the document. This is like quoting from a document. So it is appropriate for us to ask that that document be tabled.
Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, our Manitoba Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings: "Tabling Letters 39 Where in a debate a Member quotes from a private letter, any other Member may require the Member who quoted from the letter to table the letter from which the Member quoted" a private letter, "but this rule does not alter any rule or practice of the House related to the tabling of documents other than private letters.
Now, must a minister table a document quoted from? We have three recent supply rulings as well as references from Beauchesne and Marleau and Montpetit which support the position that a minister does not have to table briefing notes–Order, please. Listen very carefully–or speaking notes. There is also support for the idea that a document must actually be cited by a member as opposed to merely referring to it.
Now I will ask the honourable Minister of Finance: Were you citing from an actual document?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very serious.
Mr. Selinger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was not citing a specific document, but I understand there is Supreme Court jurisprudence on that. I would be happy to make that available.
Mr. Speaker: I have to deal with one at a time. I will ask the honourable member were you quoting from a specific document, yes or no?
Mr. Selinger: No, I was not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. As all honourable members and as the Speaker, I take the word of honourable members. If he was quoting from an actual document, that document would have had to be tabled, but the member assured me as the Speaker that he was not. I take all honourable members, because you are all honourable members, at your word.
So the honourable Member
for
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a new point of order.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, on a new point of order. It was clear from the minister's response in the House that he was quoting from a document, referencing a document where he said there was illegal activity by the Lotteries Corporation.
That is very specific and
that is a very serious accusation, especially in this House, on the Lotteries
Corporation of
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order.
* (14:00)
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I think we are revisiting the point of order on which you ruled, Mr. Speaker. The rule of the House is that where there is a personal letter that is quoted from, an opposition member can ask for the tabling of that letter. That is not the factual situation here.
There is just no point of order. The ministers of the Government are entitled to refer to briefing notes in the House and the honourable minister has agreed to provide the House with Supreme Court jurisprudence that is relevant to the point that he made.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for
Mr. Tweed: Yes, same point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Finance can stand in this House and slag a Crown corporation of this province and then stand on his feet and deny that he made those accusations, deny that he smeared everybody that works at the Lotteries Corporation today, hides behind jurisprudence when he has a document that he has quoted from and used it today to convince all Manitobans that he is speaking the truth, I ask him to present that document or withdraw his comments.
Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I did ask the honourable member if he was quoting from a document and what he had indicated to me was no.
As the Speaker, each and every
one of you are honourable members and I take your statement as– [interjection]
Order.
–and I take the words of members as facts. If the honourable minister wishes to table the document, he is entitled to, but he is not required to. So it is entirely up to the honourable Minister of Finance.
Order. I have already dealt with his matter on the previous point of order, and there is no other decision I can make. I asked the honourable member and he told me no, he was not quoting from it, and I accept all honourable members' words. So we should really move on to the next.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a new point of order?
Mr. Derkach: No, Mr. Speaker, this is such a serious matter that, with the greatest of respect, I have to challenge your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: The Chair has been challenged.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of sustaining the ruling say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to sustaining the ruling of the Chair say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Derkach: Recorded vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Yeas and Nays requested. Call in the members.
Division
Mr. Speaker: Order. 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.
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allan, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Brick, Caldwell, Chomiak, Dewar, Irvin-Ross, Jennissen, Jha, Korzeniowski, Lathlin, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Melnick, Mihychuk, Oswald, Reid, Robinson, Rondeau, Sale, Santos, Schellenberg, Selinger, Smith, Struthers.
Nays
Cummings, Derkach,
Driedger, Eichler, Faurschou, Gerrard, Goertzen, Hawranik, Lamoureux, Loewen,
Maguire, Mitchelson, Murray, Penner, Reimer, Rocan, Rowat, Schuler, Stefanson,
Taillieu, Tweed.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 30, Nays 21.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
* (14:40)
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I do want to give the minister the opportunity to clear the record and I would offer him the opportunity either to table the document at this time that he was referring to or to perhaps withdraw, if he so chooses.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I recognized the honourable member on a point of order and I have to rule that it is not a point of order. The honourable member's request is entirely up to the member, what he chooses to do. So, on the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach), he does not have a point of order.
The honourable Member for
Mr. Tweed: A matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for
Mr. Mervin Tweed (
According to our rules, two conditions must be met before you can consider a matter of privilege. The first is that the issue be brought to the attention of the House at the first available opportunity. The comments made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) upon which I am basing my matter of privilege were uttered by the minister earlier this afternoon. I have just had the opportunity to review the video recording of today's Question Period. I believe this fulfils the first condition.
The second condition which must be met is whether a prima facie case has been established. I would like to refer to Marleau, who has been referred to as the most respected Clerk in the Commonwealth, where he states, "Any document quoted by a minister in debate or in response to a question during Question Period must be tabled. Indeed, a minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch, an official written message or government affairs or other state paper without being prepared to table it."
Earlier today, under questioning, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) put on the record that he had a legal opinion suggesting that there were illegal activities being undertaken by the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation in regard to financing of certain facilities in regard to Lotteries. Upon question, the minister refused to table the phantom document. He failed to offer supporting evidence, what he was quoting from or what he was stating.
In his comments, Mr. Speaker, this minister, I believe, besmirched all the employees and the management that work at the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. He has cast a pall upon those people, suggesting in this House and in suggesting to all Manitobans that illegal activities took place at the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, you made the
ruling and you made the suggestion that, when we stand in this House and when
we make comment in this House, we are considered all honourable people. Today I
have great difficulty accepting that ruling because of the Minister of
Finance's (Mr. Selinger) comments and then his refusal to offer up to the
people of
It is very difficult for the people of Manitoba and very difficult for members of this Legislature to perform their jobs when ministers of the Crown, ministers of the Government are putting on record referrals to documents, referrals to opinions, referrals to suggestions that illegal activities took place at the Lotteries Commission and is unprepared or unable to document any of the allegation.
We on this side of the
House, Mr. Speaker, have asked this Government continuously over the past to
present documents, to table documents to support their position. We are
suggesting today that the minister has misled the people in the
Therefore, I move, seconded by the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach), that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) did break the privileges of myself by quoting directly from a legal opinion, indicating that illegal activities were occurring at the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation and that this House find the Minister of Finance in contempt of this House for casting aspersions against employees of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation, and further that this minister be directed to withdraw his comments and apologize or provide to this House the legal opinion as referenced by the minister and that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for the committee's consideration. I will table three documents with that, Mr. Speaker.
An Honourable Member: Legislative Affairs.
Mr. Tweed: Legislative Affairs.
Mr. Speaker: Before recognizing any other members, I would just like to remind the House that contributions at this time by honourable members are to be limited to strictly relevant comments as to whether the alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest opportunity, and whether a prima facie case has been established. Any member that is speaking to this, I would just like to give a caution. I just made a ruling from the Chair, and I would ask members to be careful to choose their words. I do not think any member would want to reflect on the ruling of a Chair, so I would just throw that caution out to all members.
The honourable Government House Leader, on the privilege.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Well, Mr. Speaker, it has to be observed that there have been two rulings made by you, and the last one was appealed to the House and it was sustained by the majority of members in the House. It is my suggestion that the matter just raised by the member opposite, the Member for Turtle Mountain, is simply a way to get around that by calling a point of order or matter of privilege now to continue what really should be a matter of discourse in Question Period. So it is our position that there is certainly no point of order and certainly, and in this House, there is no matter of privilege.
The convention is well established in this House, Mr. Speaker, that where a Cabinet minister quotes from a private letter, there is a rule that requires, on the request of the Opposition, that the minister table that letter. That is so that ministers do not get up and start saying that there are private individuals writing congratulatory or denunciating correspondence without providing that for the members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, there is no convention, there is no rule, no point of order or matter of privilege, to my knowledge, that relates to a statement, an assertion, made by a minister of the Crown in Question Period. The minister rose in his place and answered the questions and provided the House with information as to advice that he had. He referred to that advice and he said in this House, and his comments have to be taken at face value, that is the rule of this House, that is the custom. When he said that there was not a direct quote from a document, that matter must be accepted by members and not attacked by way of a matter of privilege then.
Finally, I will just say this: The allegations made by the minister, Mr. Speaker, are not about a particular individual. They are made about a collective government, a former government, and, as well, it is my understanding that the minister has risen in this House and was agreeable to tabling a decision of the courts that was related to the issue of the borrowing powers of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. I fail to see how the member can sustain a matter of privilege, let alone a point of order which you have ruled on twice.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): On the point of order raised by the member–
Mr. Speaker: On the privilege. We are dealing with the privilege. I have already
dealt with the point of order, and now the honourable Member for
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, just to the comments that have been made by the House Leader–
Mr. Speaker: Is the honourable member speaking to the privilege?
Mr. Derkach: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, very good. The honourable Member for Russell, on the privilege.
* (14:50)
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader has just put on record that, in fact, the minister was not pointing to the Lotteries Corporation. Now we have an interpretation that the minister was actually talking about a collective group of ministers. This now casts an aspersion on a Treasury Board of a former administration. Not only does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) cast an aspersion on the Lotteries Corporation, but now we have the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) casting an aspersion on members of Cabinet and Privy Council.
Mr. Speaker, both ministers now are referring to a legal document, a legal opinion that they have received which means they have a legal document in their possession to have that legal opinion. Then they must share that with Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, we are to take members at their word in this House. When a minister of the Crown stands up and says that he has a legal opinion that illegal activities took place, then he has to be prepared to substantiate his claim in this House with a document. Where is that legal opinion that he is quoting from?
Mr. Speaker, this is an awful situation. I have never seen a minister stand up in this House, refer to a document and then renege on tabling that document for Manitobans and for the rest of the legislators in this House.
Mr. Speaker, how can the minister have any integrity on anything he says if, in fact, he can make a statement out of the blue and then expect Manitobans simply to believe him on his word when he cannot substantiate it?
There is no evidence. The minister has not been able to provide any evidence before this House, and he is obliged to do that. If he wants to salvage any integrity, he would do the honourable thing. He has two choices: One is to table the document, and if he cannot table that document, then No. 2, he must apologize to this House and withdraw his statements.
What kind of government do we have in this province when ministers of the Crown can stand up, make all kinds of statements without having any kind of evidence to back those statements up? If the term were allowed in this House we would call it a lie, but it is not allowed. The best we can do is say that the minister is really misleading Manitobans and misleading the general public with the kind of off-coloured statements that he makes in this House, the kind of irresponsible statements he makes in this House that he cannot substantiate.
So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but condemn the actions that this minister has taken in this House today, and I have never seen it in this House in the many years that I have been here as we have seen this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: Before recognizing any other members, I just want to remind all honourable members, that when you are raising a matter of privilege, it should be raised at the earliest opportunity and whether it is a prima facie case you should not be debating the issue. I know there is a fine line there and I will be listening carefully, but, when rising, it is to convince the Speaker that there is a prima facie case to carry it forward. If the Speaker rules it is, then there will be the opportunity to debate, but this is not the time to be debating the issue. It is a fine line and I have let a lot of leeway go at other times, so I will be listening very, very carefully.
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, just regarding this matter of privilege, I would like to just say that the Opposition House Leader (Mr. Derkach) stood up and said, in response to this matter of privilege, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) was simply getting up and answering a question that was asked.
I would like to just remind the House that I was asking a question on vaccinations for babies and this Minister of Finance took into question the integrity of employees at Manitoba Lotteries. That is why this matter of privilege has come about. Clearly, this is a matter of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Ste. Rose. Before I recognize any more, I have heard sufficient argument, but if the honourable member is rising on something new to add, I will recognize the honourable Member for Ste. Rose.
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I do, indeed, rise on a different matter, for having listened to the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) and his comments about the fact that this was intended to reflect on previous governments.
As a member of Treasury Board of that previous government, I believe that he has now reflected on my ability to serve in this Chamber and to represent my constituents. Then, indeed, my privileges as a member are compromised when neither he nor the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), who is a senior member of current government, are willing to back up their statements about whether or not there was illegal activity, and that is his word, not mine. Because he chose those words, as my House leader said. If I had jumped up and categorically said, and if it had been appropriate for me to put on the record, a term that referred to what was in my mind about the truthfulness of what he was saying, and obviously, in our opinion, there was absolutely no truthfulness, I would have been asked to withdraw or leave the Chamber and serve the consequences of not being able to serve in this Chamber. I, unfortunately, have had that experience, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to give up my privileges.
The fact is that we now have two ministers of the Crown who are prepared to stand up and allege illegal activity. If they would have said there were mistakes made, that is something different. They are saying "illegal activity" and they believe they have a document to back it up. Now, if they are unprepared to defend that statement, if they are unprepared to withdraw what I consider unacceptable and allegations that–first of all, the people from the Corporation are unable to defend themselves in this House, but I am.
By going to the extent they are now categorizing that as something that reflects on the previous administration that would be categorized as illegal, I would like their proof or I would like a withdrawal. If that is not going to happen, then it should indeed be, and I would move, seconded by the Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that this be referred to the Committee on Legislative Affairs.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for
Point of Order
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I wondered about your ruling, but I did not say anything at the time. When the member from Ste. Rose got up to speak, he said that this was on a new matter of privilege. He made that known before he was allowed to speak.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, if that is the case, that I did not hear, but just give me a second.
What I had made reference
to, the honourable Member for Ste. Rose, because I had listened to a number of
members, what I had referred to the member is if he was rising on new
information to lead to the prima facie case. But if he is rising on a new
privilege, then that is a whole separate matter. I have to deal with the
privilege that was raised by the honourable Member for
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I hear some derision from across the way, and this is a very serious matter. I apologize for any misunderstanding of communication between yourself and myself. I was indeed rising on a new matter of privilege and accept your ruling.
* (15:00)
Mr. Speaker: Then I will keep that in mind, but I will deal first with the
initial matter of privilege raised by the honourable Member for
Now I look around; there are no other members who wish to make a contribution. A matter of privilege is a very serious concern, so I am going to take this matter under advisement, to consult the authorities, and I will return to the House with a ruling.
Before I conclude, the motion that was raised by the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, in his text that he gave to us, it said in there "refer to the Committee on Privileges and Elections," but it had been tabled verbally, so I am just letting the House know that this matter is to be referred to the Committee on Legislative Affairs, not Privileges and Elections, for the committee's consideration. That is just a correction, okay?
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: Now, the honourable Member for Ste. Rose.
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Thank you, Mr. Speaker–
Mr. Speaker: On a point of order, or what is it?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of privilege that I spoke to earlier–
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Ste. Rose is rising on a matter of privilege.
Mr. Cummings: I am rising, and I have put forward a number of comments a moment ago, and I simply want to briefly emphasize that I was concerned that the Government House Leader has in fact breached my privilege as a member of this Chamber, and that in his exuberance to defend his Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) he repeated and in many ways compounded and extended what was, first of all, a blame against the corporation; now, a blame against members of the previous administration.
My comments regarding the motion of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have met the condition of bringing it to your attention as quickly as we can. The issue revolves around whether or not the Government House Leader's comments breached my privilege as a member of this House, and as a matter of, I think, some importance, there were a number of members of this House, mainly in the Government side of the benches, who were commenting that this was a waste of time. This is one of the basic tenets of the privilege of parliamentary democracy, where we fight with words and we clearly express ourselves with words when we object to where we believe our privilege has been breached.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member from Emerson, that this serious matter now be referred to the Committee on Legislative Affairs and then be reported to the House.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the same points were just made, and perhaps I will just reiterate some of my points again, but there is no requirement, to my knowledge, in this House for a minister to table a document, other than a personal letter which has been quoted from, on the request of an opposition member or another member in the House. The minister also said that he would be prepared to provide a Supreme Court ruling that supported his statement in the House.
How is this a matter of privilege? I fail to understand, because the rulings in this House and in the Commonwealth have laid down that a matter of privilege is to be rarely raised. It is to be a matter that goes to the very ability of members to conduct their duties as members. Question Period is a time when we hear allegations from members opposite or, indeed, members from this side, on a regular basis. That is the subject of political discourse and debate, and that is where it properly should lie.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Derkach), on the privilege?
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter of privilege, because the minister, the Finance Minister of this province, has just made an accusation of criminal activities being conducted by the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation or by previous members of government. That is a very serious allegation. Now, when you make that kind of an allegation, even if it is in this Chamber, one would expect that you should have some evidence to back up your accusation.
I cannot stand in this House and say that the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) has been lying to us over the course of time, because that is not allowed in this House. If I said that he was causing Manitobans to die, I would have to produce some evidence. Although I can produce some of that, I cannot stand in my place here and make that kind of an accusation without the minister standing up in his place and asking me to substantiate my claim. That is what I am doing today.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Health has just become offended, and he should. And he should. If I were making that accusation, he should. But if I were making that accusation, I would have to back it up. That is what we are asking the Minister of Finance to do here today. He has accused people who work in the Lotteries Corporation of conducting criminal activities. He has accused members of Treasury bench of conducting illegal and criminal activities. If he does that, then let him produce the evidence. Let him show what evidence he has in his hands to substantiate his accusations of the Lotteries Corporation conducting criminal activities.
We are now living in the days of the mafia. We are now living in the days of criminal activities being conducted by a Lotteries Corporation that is being run by a Province, regardless of which government is in place. For the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) to stoop to that level is unconscionable. So, therefore, I think this minister and the Government House Leader owe this House either the evidence or a serious apology before we can carry on in this House.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: Order. On a point of order, the honourable Member for Ste. Rose.
Mr. Cummings: Only a matter of a minor point of order, but I am assuming for the record that my comments regarding the matter of privilege, even though they were separated by your issue of whether or not it was a second matter of privilege, be considered as part of your reference and taken as a matter of privilege as they were intended.
Mr. Speaker: Well, it was really not a matter of privilege, but when I do consider, when making rulings all considerations are taken into account and all rules are checked out very, very carefully. No ruling of privilege or a point of order has ever, ever, ever come back to this House without a great deal of investigation, documentation and research. It will not be brought back until all that is covered, and we have excellent people that assist me in doing that. I assure all honourable members before any ruling is brought forward all those stages are covered, and covered very, very thoroughly. [interjection] I did not take it as a reflection.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Carman has new information to add to the privilege? Okay, the honourable Member for Carman.
* (15:10)
Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, I hesitate standing up here this afternoon having to participate in this type of a debate. This is the lowest of the low when we have to participate in a matter of privilege where a particular member's rights of this Chamber have been infringed upon. You have just asked, Sir, if there would be new information to bring forward because this is the information that you, Sir, have to deal with.
The Member for
Mr. Speaker, what I did happen to notice while I was present in this Chamber was that, at that particular moment, the Minister of Finance hesitated to put any documentation on the record. The Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), from her seat, knew that there was a problem. She took from her briefing book, Sir, the document that he was referring to. The minister gave it to the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak), she gave it to the Minister of Health, who reviewed the document, who then passed it on to the Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh), who then had an opportunity to peruse it, gave it to the Minister of Finance, and I believe he was instructed to maybe table the said document, but he decided not to.
Mr. Speaker, I can do the same because I have in my possession a letter, and I can say I have a letter that says this Minister of Finance is participating in illegal activity with the Hells Angels, that he is getting some sort of a kickback. Now we will not know that that is not true, but I can stand here in my place and I can say I have a letter here that says such. I am awful brave if I do not have to table that letter and basically, Sir, that is where we are here today if it were not for the Deputy Premier (Ms. Wowchuk) taking the time to pass that document down the line to say, "This is the information that they are requesting; I believe that you should table it." It is not her grocery list that she was passing down the line. I do not believe that for a minute, but I do believe the information that the Minister of Agriculture did have pertained to this matter of privilege that we are asking you to deal with today.
So, Sir, I would ask you, in your deliberation and in your fact-finding mission, that you would have the authority to ask the Deputy Premier if she indeed did have the documentation that you are requesting that would help you base your ruling on this particular thing. Thank you, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: A matter of privilege is a serious concern, so I am going to take this matter under advisement to consult the authorities, and I will return to the House with a ruling.
ORAL QUESTIONS
(Continued)
Vaccination Programs
Funding
(Continued)
Mr. Speaker: Now we will revert back to Question Period. The honourable minister had concluded his comments, and I had recognized the honourable Member for Tuxedo.
Mrs. Stefanson: I have to say I am absolutely outraged. I stood up here earlier and asked a very serious question of the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) about a very serious issue, vaccinations for our children in our province, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) got up and went off on some tangent questioning the integrity of people in the department of Lotteries.
Well, I have to say that
I again ask a question of the Minister of Health regarding vaccinations: When
will our Province cover the cost of vaccines for all babies in
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister responsible for Healthy Living): I am very pleased that the member opposite has finally asked this very, very important question. In fact, it is the first time that I have had a question from the members across about this important issue. I would like to inform the House that the Minister of Health actually brought this onto the agenda for the federal minister. I actually wrote a letter to Minister Bennett about this important issue, and we have been championing the issue that we need a national vaccine strategy.
I am pleased to announce to the House that the federal government, in response to our initiatives, has put money on the table finally. It is one-time money. It is only one-time money over a three-year period, but they have finally agreed to put some money on the table to develop not only the plan but also the program.
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I asked this question 30 minutes ago. I asked it three months ago. I asked it 15 months ago. When is this Premier (Mr. Doer), when is this Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) going to cover vaccinations for babies in our province?
Mr. Rondeau: I am very pleased that the member opposite has finally asked the question. I am very pleased that we have been–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot hear a thing you are saying. Order. I cannot hear a thing.
Mr. Rondeau: Thank you. As I was mentioning, I am very pleased that we have been working on the program. The member opposite should know that in the last year we have expanded so all at-risk kids are able to get the vaccination program. That is an expansion.
We have been working with the federal government to expand it so that we have a national strategy. I think what we have done is worked with our partners to develop it. I would urge the members opposite to stay tuned because we are acting on this important file and we are moving quickly. I have contacted the federal minister and I think we are making good progress on the file. In 11 years the members opposite did not expand it. We are acting in a time-efficient manner and please stay tuned. I am sure that good things are happening very quickly.
Video Lottery Terminals
New Equipment
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson):
In 2003,
Mr. Speaker, when will this Government recognize the extreme, negative economic impact a 40% reduction in net income will have on the engine that drives much of our province's economy?
Hon. Greg Selinger
(Minister of Finance): In an earlier question, I
explained that the profits we are getting from the Manitoba Lotteries
Corporation this year are estimated at $232 million. That is inclusive of the
capital borrowing program that we provide for through The Loan Act authority.
So the costs of the VLTs will be net of the profits transferred to the
Government which supports all programs including the $50 million we have in the
CAIS program, the Agricultural Income Support program, which is fully funded.
We entered into that program last summer to ensure that there was a safety net
program for agricultural producers in
Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture have not been on speaking terms for a while.
Does the Minister of Finance
recognize the chaos his Government is creating with the wrong-headed priority
of spending $100 million on Cadillac VLTs, instead of directing the funding to
an area that could generate far larger benefits to the
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, the $232 million being transferred to the Government through the Lotteries Corporation will go to address all the priorities we identified in the Budget. One of those priorities was agricultural support programs. We have the full amount of money there. The members opposite know the money we put out and made available to producers during their time of crisis, with the BSE crisis. We have more money in the CAIS program than we had last year by at least $7 million. That priority is being addressed. This Minister of Agriculture is out there working with producers to make sure they have the best support programs they can in partnership with the federal government.
CAIS Program
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this NDP government's priority is gambling. It was very obvious in the previous administration, the Conservative government, their direction in economic activity was fuelling the economic engine. Mr. Speaker, farmers only have until Friday to sign on to the CAIS program. Yet this Province has not yet told producers that they are committed to full participation or have even indicated that they will sign on to this program.
Mr. Speaker, rather than
spending $100 million on Cadillac VLTs, will the Minister of Agriculture (Ms.
Wowchuk) today announce the full 40% funding and commit fully to 40% funding of
this program to
* (15:20)
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Perhaps the member from Emerson did not hear my first couple of answers to his first two questions. The Lotteries Corporation is transferring $232 million as projected in the Budget, net of the cost of financing new VLTs. That money will be available to support all programs, including the CAIS program, a program which is very important to the members of the agricultural community, a program that the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of this Government entered into last August at a time of crisis with cattle producers to ensure those resources were available.
Our Minister of Agriculture made a timely initiative on that on behalf of the CAIS program for producers, and I am sure this Government will continue to make timely interventions to ensure the rural economic development of this province through ethanol, through agriculture and through other forms of diversification.
Marijuana Grow Operations
Police Resources
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac
du Bonnet): This Government is spending $100
million for new Cadillac VLTs. In the meantime, marijuana grow operations are
springing up in every corner of the province and in every residential
neighbourhood of
I ask the Minister of Justice: Why has the minister not convinced the Minister responsible for Lotteries (Mr. Smith) to use the money to hire more officers to shut down these growing drug operations?
Hon. Gord Mackintosh
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well,
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a revelation that the Opposition is calling for the
hiring of 2000 police officers, Mr. Speaker. It certainly does not compare to
anything I have heard from members opposite, but I remind the member opposite
that the business decision by the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation is just that.
They have made a business case for this investment and profits flow to the
public of
Gang Activity
Reduction Strategy
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac
du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, the Hells Angels are the
most notorious criminal organization in the province. They were established in
The $100 million for VLTs could have hired extra police officers, up to 2000 police officers if necessary, to shut down those Hells Angels. Why does this Minister of Justice not ensure that this money is spent to drive the Hells Angels out of this province?
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The member opposite, I hope, will depart from his colleagues when it comes time for the Budget vote in this House, because in this Budget that we have presented to Manitobans there are significant new resources, not only for prosecutions and police which is of interest to the member opposite, but also specifically to support the new joint forces organized crime taskforce, a first in this province.
I ask: Where were members
opposite, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the fall of '97 when the Hells Angels
did come to
High-Risk Offenders
Monitoring System
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): The Justice Minister promised to implement an ankle bracelet or a GPS system to monitor high-risk offenders, Mr. Speaker, and he promised that in 2002. Since that time, four innocent Manitobans were killed by high-risk offenders released on bail. Currently, police are trying to monitor the whereabouts of 20 high-risk offenders, including many high-risk sexual offenders.
To date, Mr. Speaker, the minister has not implemented his plan for a monitoring system even though he promised to do that two years ago. If the money is an issue, why does the minister not simply turn around in his seat and ask the Minister of Lotteries for the money before he spends it on new VLTs?
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The member opposite, I think, fully well knows that the former government made a decision, I believe, over two different ministers not to proceed with that technology, but we have not closed the door to that one. We have made a commitment to thoroughly analyze the usefulness of that one without providing a false sense of security, without actually endangering public safety. That review is underway.
I would urge members opposite to look at the Justice commitments in the Budget. There are significant enhancements, particularly with regard to the protection of child victims. We are going to continue not only to be tough on crime but tough on the causes of crime. Thank you.
Video Lottery Terminals
New Equipment
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, the Government is supposed to look after the most needy of its citizenry, but this Premier (Mr. Doer) has decided that he is going to spend $100 million on the crack cocaine of gambling, VLTs. While people are dying in emergency rooms, while seniors are being denied their medicines, while children are being denied vaccinations, while the farmers' plight goes unanswered, this Premier has decided to spend $100 million on the crack cocaine of gambling, VLTs.
I want to ask the Minister of Health why, as a minister who is responsible for the well-being of Manitobans, he is allowing this kind of criminal activity to go on in his Government.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I think if the member would cast back perhaps less than a year ago when they were campaigning in a provincial campaign, I believe that his leader said their increase to Health in the Budget would be 1 percent, 1% increase in Health. This Budget which they are deriding every single day has a 5.2% increase in Health. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot continue the hypocrisy of one day saying one thing, another day saying another thing. Your own leader said 1 percent, 1 percent, and now–
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to take this opportunity to remind all honourable members, like I did last week, when using the words "hypocrite," "hypocritical," "hypocrisy," I heard the word "you," and I hope that was more in a general term than it was directed at a member because–order.
I cautioned all honourable members last week on that exact same thing. I am reminding all honourable members, pick your words carefully. Also, when referring to questions or answers, all honourable members, please do it through the Chair.
The honourable Minister of Health, you have about eight seconds.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I will take our 5.2% increase versus their 1% increase any time.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, this Government has just stuck Manitobans with a $90-million increase in taxes. This is an increase to the people who are sick, people who are vulnerable, people who are poor. All Manitobans are going to pay the $90 million, but at the same time, this Government chooses to spend $100 million on the crack cocaine of gambling, VLTs.
I want to ask the Minister of Health who is responsible for the well-being of seniors, of children, of people who are in need of health services how he can justify this expenditure, given the needs that we have out there in Manitoba in our health care system.
Hon. Greg Selinger
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member
continues to not hear the answers after he asks the questions. The Lotteries
Corporation will transfer, according to this Budget, $232 million to the
general coffers of this Province. The Lotteries Corporation will make a
transfer of $232 million, as budgeted, net of the costs of the loan they are
receiving for the new VLTs. So the misinformation that the members opposite are
putting on the record consistently, without listening to the answer, really
needs to be put in perspective, that it is $232 million net transfers to the
As to meeting the needs of Manitobans, 5.2 percent versus 1 percent; a Healthy Child Program that did not exist before when members opposite were in government; a 51% increase to day care; more money for public schools; more money for school capital; more money for highways; more money for Manitoba communities.
* (15:30)
Mr. Derkach: It is unfortunate that the Minister of Health could not answer the
question that was posed to him directly because he is the minister who is
responsible for the health and well-being of the
He is allowing his Government to spend $100 million on VLT machines while people are in need, while people are dying in emergency services, while children cannot get vaccinations, while seniors cannot afford medication, and he is allowing his Cabinet to make a decision to spend $100 million on VLTs. Why, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, since we came to office in 1999, there are 879 more
nurses registered in
Provincial Sales Tax
Professional Services
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Our officials do Estimates of Revenue based on the best projections they could get, and let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, it was members opposite, when they ran for government federally, who said that they would eliminate the GST on the same types of services. After they got elected, they perpetuated the GST. They have kept that tax on all the services we are talking about here. The PST extension on these services is one that is projected to generate about $17.2 million of additional revenue this year. This is revenue neutral in light of the reductions that we have made in the personal income tax, the small business tax, the corporate tax, the education support levy, as well as increasing the small business threshold. Overall, we have reduced the rates for all levels of taxation within this province.
Mr. Gerrard: It does not take much to tip it toward increased revenue.
Referendum
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): In conversation with Allan Fineblit of the Law Society and others, it appears very likely that the Finance Minister has substantially underestimated the revenue to be generated by his new retail sales tax increases and that the tax package in the Budget is not revenue neutral but rather will provide an overall increase in revenue.
Is the minister willing to have an independent analysis performed by the provincial auditor to determine whether his Budget is revenue neutral or not? Will the Premier (Mr. Doer) call a referendum if the Budget is found to provide an overall tax increase as we suspect?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, unlike previous governments, we produce a summary budget, and we produce Public Accounts every year which are reviewed and audited by the provincial auditor. That practice will continue.
As to the question about referendums, if any member thinks that the balanced budget legislation is not in any way being complied with they can raise that matter. I can assure you that was tested before we made our decisions. Balanced budget legislation is being complied with, and there is no need for a referendum.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Here is what the actual law states, Mr. Speaker. If you want to avoid, underline the word "avoid," a referendum, it states, "A bill to increase the rate of tax if, in the opinion of the minister, the proposed change is designed to restructure the tax burden, and–" listen closely to this part, Mr. Minister, "–does not result in an increase in revenue."
This is very clear. Will the Government come clean with Manitobans and acknowledge the need for a referendum, or at the very least, do as the Leader of the Liberal Party is saying and allow the provincial auditor to look into the revenue estimates of this Government, which, we believe, are dead wrong?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, whether or not there has been a rate increase, the sales tax rate in this province is 7 percent, the second lowest in the country, the second lowest in the country, sales tax rate in this country. If the member would like to dispute that, he is fully welcome to do that. It is absolutely clear that is the case. Of course, all of our books are available for scrutiny by the provincial auditor. That has been a long-standing practice.
As a matter of fact, it was this Government that updated The Auditor General Act for this province, modernized that legislation which was more than 20 years old, and the Auditor General can pursue any government grants or government dollars he wishes to pursue.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for
We had made an agreement, and it was my fault. I did not look. After No. 7, the agreement among all members was that it would go to a government member.
Turnabout Program
Update
Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, in October 2002 the federal and provincial governments launched Turnabout, a pilot program to provide assistance and consequences for children aged 12 and under who come into contact with the law.
Can the Minister of Justice provide the House and Manitobans an update on this program?
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I thank the member for that question, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to confirm today that Canada's first province-wide initiative to provide help and consequences for youth under age 12 who would otherwise have been charged under the laws of the land is becoming a full-time piece of the Manitoba justice system, following the pilot project over the last 18 months.
Mr. Speaker, that pilot
project actually dealt with 361 children under age 12, connecting them to
existing youth resources. What I am very pleased about is that this program can
be instituted full time now with an investment of $94,000. That is because this
program is the hub in the wheel of many services serving children that already
exist and provide excellent services in
Capital Funding
Mr. Ron Schuler (
The question is: How is it that this Government found $100 million for VLTs but no money for the Premier's constituents? When will he invest in students and not in VLTs?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, once again, the transfer to the Government through the Lotteries Corporation is $232 million, net of the borrowing requirements that they have for replacing the VLTs.
When it comes to school capital, the amount of money that this Government has put into school capital is double the rate of what the members opposite invested throughout the nineties. We have doubled that rate and we have made significant improvements to public schools all across this province.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (
Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share the great work of the community, the volunteers of the R.M. of Woodlands. For the last six years, the West Interlake Trading Company has involved countless volunteers from the area. They have had the opportunity to showcase what the community and the Trading Company have to offer.
* (15:40)
Some of the great features the West Interlake Trading Company has to offer are the free stage, the country market. The market, which is located just 20 minutes north of the city, has everything from fresh baking to T-shirts, soaps and quilts, all made and sold by local members of the community and region.
Every year, Mr. Speaker, the West Interlake Trading Company plays host to over 12 000 visitors from all over North America who want to take in their small-town charm and experience the great hospitality they have to offer. The West Interlake Trading Company will officially open their doors for their sixth year of operation in May of 2004 at the designated site, the Interlake North Tourist Centre, the former elevator site. I encourage all members to take the 20-minute trip out of the city and experience some great small town hospitality. Thank you.
Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): I am very pleased to report on a unique function held at
Cultural diversity is one
of our greatest strengths as a multicultural society. This day reflected the
social values, special values and rich heritage of our province,
Cultural diversity day
gave the students an opportunity to learn more about the contributions that
various communities make to Canadian society and to celebrate our country's
richness and diversity. Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can maintain
their individual identities, can take pride in their ancestry and yet have a
full sense of belonging to this province. Acceptance gives Manitobans a feeling
of security and self-confidence, making them more open to an accepting of
diverse cultures. This concept is a major economic advantage for
I was very pleased to
speak to these Grade 5 students about cultural diversity in our province. We
should be very proud of the enthusiasm and excitement which these young people
displayed during this event. I would like to thank the staff, especially
Principal Shapira, who so diligently organized the activities. I would like to
recognize the students of
Mr. Speaker, this was a great experience. Thank you.
Pipestone Hotel
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I rise today to mark the untimely loss of the Pipestone Hotel which was destroyed by fire on February 4. Just shy of a century old, the Pipestone Hotel has long been a popular stopping place, not only for Pipestone area residents but also for travellers from afar, many of whom used to get off the train and stay in the hotel.
Many locals are taking the loss of the hotel very hard, with one noting, "It was as if a friend died." Others shared tales of visiting the hotel after cattle sales and discussing the state of the farm economy, among other issues of the day. Long-time area resident Ken Campion stated and I quote, "It's been a cornerstone in this town. It's a great loss to the community. It's sure going to be missed."
I would like to take a
moment to thank the fire crews from Pipestone and
I would also like to wish hotel owners Bruce and Helen Notley all the best as they pursue their goal of re-establishing the hotel. I know they are deeply committed to Pipestone as they had been making a number of improvements to the hotel prior to the fire.
Businesses such as the Pipestone Hotel are an integral part of the social and economic fabric of our rural communities. Lasting relationships are cultivated in facilities like the Pipestone Hotel, and I know many others join me in hoping for its speedy reconstruction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MTS Young Humanitarian
Awards
Ms. Theresa Oswald (
I am pleased to announce
that this year, Anika Campeau from
the constituency of
Mr.
Speaker, Anika is a Grade 4 student at L’École Christine-L’Esperance. She has
been raising funds for the Children’s Wish Foundation, an organization which
helps children with life-threatening diseases. She began making and marketing
bracelets called "Bracelets with Heart," which she sold to friends
and family at the St. Norbert Farmers' Market. With the money she raised, she
helped to pay for a trip to
Monsieur le Président j'ai l'honneur de féliciter Anika de ses efforts
émouvants. Elle nous inspire par tout ce qu'elle fait pour alléger la
souffrance des autres enfants de son âge.
Je tiens aussi
à remercier le personnel enseignant de l'École Christine-Lespérance du mentorat
et de l'encouragement qu'il manifeste envers les élèves comme Anika; leur
dévouement aux jeunes de la circonscription de la Rivière-Seine est une contribution
importante à l'avenir et de la communauté et de la province.
Félicitations.
Merci,
monsieur le Président
Translation
Mr. Speaker,
it is my honour to congratulate Anika for her moving efforts. She inspires us
by everything that she is doing to relieve the suffering of other children of
her age.
I would also
like to thank the teaching staff of Christine-Lespérance School for their
mentorship and encouragement shown towards pupils such as Anika; their
dedication to the young people of the Seine River constituency is an important
contribution to the future of the community and of the province.
Congratulations.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Early
Childhood Educators
Mrs. Leanne Rowat
(Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take the opportunity to put on record my remarks about the Week of the
Early Childhood Educator which is
being celebrated throughout the province this week. Early childhood educators
play an important role in the care and education in many children throughout
the province.
Mr.Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to acknowledge the hard work, commitment, patience, endurance and
creativity it takes to be an early childhood educator. The many women and men
who provide these services to families deserve our respect and heartfelt thanks
for their investment of time, energy and love for the children of
Using the services of early childhood
educators is a difficult decision for many families. As a mother of two
children, I can honestly say that parenting can be a challenge, yet I have
found it most rewarding. I have used the services of child care centres which
provide me with the peace of mind knowing my children were cared for with
quality staff in a safe, healthy and educational environment.
Mr. Speaker, the community of Minnedosa is
actively working towards setting up its first day care in partnership with many
local community service clubs such as the Minnedosa Rotary Club. This vision, to
host a quality child care facility in partnership with a senior drop-in
centre, is a success story ready to be realized.
* (15:50)
Mr. Speaker, there are also challenges
faced by the administrators and boards in providing early childhood education.
As a board member for the child care centre, I appreciate the challenges they
face and the operating dollars and staffing issues that they are presently
experiencing.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for
Mr. David
Faurschou (
Mr. Speaker: Order. Just to assist members, when time had expired, I
stood up. What happens is when the Speaker stands, all mikes are turned off.
When the Speaker stands, the mikes are turned off.
Order. But I would have a suggestion. This is only advice. If the honourable member has some words that were excluded, she could, if she wants to, ask leave of the House to include them into the comments. It is entirely up to the honourable Member for Minnedosa if she wants to seek leave.
Mrs. Rowat: I am asking for leave.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to conclude her comments that she was making on her member's statement?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Minnedosa, to conclude.
Mrs. Rowat: Okay, consider them read then. I will submit to Hansard the document.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the honourable member to put them on record, because that is what they had sought leave for, to conclude your member's statement. I would ask the honourable member to put the rest of it on–
Mrs. Rowat: Okay, I am going to start it.
I can appreciate the challenges that centres face in raising operating dollars, infrastructure dollars and to ensure that the centres can continue to provide quality staffing and programs in a safe and enjoyable environment.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I support the efforts of our ECE workers, and I commend their tireless commitment to providing quality child care to our children. Thank you.
MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent public importance, and as such, I would move, seconded by the member from River Heights, that under Rule 36(1) the regular business of the House be set aside to deal with the matter of urgent public importance, being the need to consider new information which suggests that the Budget which provides for an increase in retail sales tax is not revenue neutral and would therefore require that there be a referendum before the vote on the Budget is held.
Mr. Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), I believe I should remind all members that under Rule 36(2) the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other parties in the House are allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately. As stated in Beauchesne's Citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not of the subject matter of the motion. In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer.
Mr. Lamoureux: I could start off by saying, following the advice of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) to bring it forward, indeed we are bringing it forward because of the urgency. This afternoon, my colleague and I presented information which shows that the Government may have seriously underestimated income from the new increases in retail sales tax as it applies to certain legal, accounting, architectural, engineering, security and private investigation services.
On page D1 of the budget
papers, Mr. Speaker, we were provided
with the government estimate for '04-05 of $17.2 million expected to be raised
by the increases in $23.9 million in a full year of '05-06. First I will make
the case that this issue is being raised at the first possible time, in the
sense that yesterday's announcement of the planned $350-million redevelopment
for
Mr. Speaker, I will provide evidence that suggests that the Government has underestimated the amount to be raised by their new taxes and that, when the real amount is included, then the changes made by the Government are not revenue neutral. First, in conversations with the lawyers, including Allan Fineblit, chief executive officer of the Law Society, there is a general sense that the Government has underestimated the amount of taxes to be generated. It is quite possible that the new tax on legal services could, by itself, generate up to $17 million in the '04-05 Budget. When the many millions of tax dollars collected from accountants, engineers, architects, security personnel and private investigators are also included, it becomes clear that the tax may raise as much as double what the Minister of Finance has listed on page D1 at $17 million in 2004-2005, and $23.9 million in a full year.
Interestingly, the Government's own budget documents provide evidence the Government's take from the new sales tax will be much larger than admitted on page D1.
On page B9 of the budget papers, Mr. Speaker, the Government estimates that there will be an increase in revenue from retail sales tax of $92 million in '04-05. If we look at the average increase of the last three years, which is $42 million, this suggests the increased revenue expected from the new increases in sales tax put on by this Government will be about $50 million this year.
I now refer members back to page D2, Mr. Speaker, where it is clear that the Government's estimate of $17 million new revenue, if correct, would only allow for a $4-million margin, Mr. Speaker, before the tax becomes non-revenue neutral. At the point where the tax changes raise more money and are no longer revenue neutral, there must be a referendum. We argue that, with the expectation of the Government in raising $50 million in new revenue from the sales tax increases, then this Budget is no longer revenue neutral, and there must be a referendum before the Budget can, in fact, be approved. This referendum must take place as per section 10 of The Balanced Budget Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Accountability Act.
Mr. Speaker, it is exceptionally time-sensitive because we are debating the Budget and the Budget will come to a vote later this week. Before we vote, there should be a referendum and, failing the referendum, as has been pointed out in Question Period, we need the Auditor to get involved before there is any vote on this Budget. That is why it is very, very clear that the Government has underestimated the revenue. Therefore, no longer is it revenue neutral and Manitobans are entitled to a referendum.
That is why we argue that there needs to be a matter of urgent public importance today and we would ask for your ruling on this issue, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for the time.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I, at first, have to admit that in no way would I have expected a matter of urgent public importance being raised in this House because, during the Budget debate, it has been ruled by Speaker after Speaker after Speaker and accepted that wide-ranging issues, even those arguably outside of the Budget, can be raised during the Budget debate.
* (16:00)
We are in the Budget debate and he raises an issue related to the Budget. It is just amazing that he thinks that somehow he can sustain a matter of urgent public importance. I think the member already made his speech, which makes another point. I believe he was up before the House yesterday on the Budget making a speech, and now he went home or, I guess, on the way home he thought, I missed some points that I could have thought up, and so I have just got to get back into this debate. I will get up on a MUPI; that will be it. When my five minutes is up, because I know it is not a MUPI, then I will start yelling from my seat.
I cannot believe that the member thinks that somehow a matter of urgent public importance could ever be accepted when we are in the Budget debate. Not only that, we are in the Budget debate, which is a free, broad-ranging debate. But then we go into Estimates, and then there is going to be a debate on the Budget implementation legislation, and the member has ample opportunity. I just refer to former Speakers, Mr. Speaker, and going back to March of 1998, I will quote, "Manitoba precedent from past rulings of Speakers shows that the scope of the Budget speech debate, which is underway today"–that was in the quote–"is wide enough to encompass the discussion of most subjects."
Mr. Speaker, under the rules set out in our rule book, Rule 36 and under Beauchesne's 389 and 390, the member just in no way meets any of the tests that are recognized in this House for an emergency debate. If the member has thoughts on the Budget, I expect that he will be raising them as we go through the debates that lie ahead.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, in normal circumstances I could accept the fact that we are in a budget debate and that all of these issues could be brought forward in a budget debate. However, having said that, if you look at what this Government is doing and the deceit that they are foisting on the Province of Manitoba and Manitobans, and when you realize that there are new taxes on such things as legal services and accounting services, there are new taxes on architectural and engineering services, these are taxes that I never had to pay before, so I look at that perhaps as a new tax. When I look at the legislation that we passed, it says that if a government is going to impose new taxes on the province of Manitoba, then we should go to referendum, but also in that same legislation it says that if you cannot run a balanced budget, then the ministers should suffer the consequences by taking a 20% reduction in their salaries.
The Auditor has spoken quite clearly on the fact that this Government has not balanced this Budget in the last three years. [interjection]
Now here is the smart one. Here is the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology (Mr. Sale) saying, "No, no, that is not what he said," but, Mr. Speaker, I am not paraphrasing. I am not misquoting the Auditor, am I? He said that you did not balance your books. [interjection]
Oh, now we are going to qualify it. We are going to balance it our way. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to talk about the credibility of the keno king over there who stands at a pulpit on Sunday and then says it is okay to have kenos in Laundromats. That is the kind of integrity that man has. I do not need it and neither does Manitoba, but this is a matter that has some urgency to it because we should be frank with Manitobans and tell them how this Government is misleading this entire province, how it is boldly ploughing ahead with its agenda.
It is ignoring the law, Mr. Speaker. The law has to apply to everybody else except this Government. It is above the law: Do not tell me about the law; we are above it. That is their attitude. It is an awful attitude. Today we saw it from the Minister of Finance himself, who either misled this House, told an untruth in this House and then accused the Lotteries Corporation of doing something criminal. Can you imagine that coming from the Finance Minister of this House, Finance Minister of this Province?
Mr. Speaker, I have to agree that maybe we should stop the business of this House and have an urgent debate on how this Government is proceeding and how it is ignoring the law and how it is doing things that are going to cost Manitobans enormously without having the approval of Manitobans. It was the Premier (Mr. Doer) of this House who said, "I was not elected to raise taxes," but he turns around and he raises taxes. He is also the same one who said we could fix health care with $15 million in six months. We do not know where his integrity is anymore. He cannot be trusted and neither can his Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) and now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) has joined him as well.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would tend to say that maybe we should stop the business of this House and have a debate on the urgency of why this Government is proceeding with its affairs and how it is mismanaging the affairs of this province.
Mr. Speaker: I thank honourable members for their advice to the Chair on whether
the motion proposed by the honourable Member for
First, is a subject matter so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought out early enough; and second, has it been shown that the public interest will suffer if this matter is not given immediate attention?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Respecting the second test for a matter of urgent public importance to proceed, that is, will the public interest suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention? Although this, undoubtedly, is a serious issue that that member has brought forward, I do not believe the public interest will be harmed if the business of the House is not set aside to debate the motion today. Therefore, I must rule that this matter does not meet the criteria set by our rules and precedents, and I rule the motion out of order as a matter of urgent public importance.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we would challenge the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for
Now we will move on and resume debate on Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
(Seventh Day of Debate)
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Finance (Mr. Selinger) and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the
Official Opposition (Mr. Murray) and the proposed motion of the honourable
Member for
* (16:10)
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be back on track here once again, to deal with the 14 minutes that I have left in the budget allotment. I wanted to first take a look at the Liberal amendment and look at (j), the first one where the Liberal member mentions "failing to set priorities well and to manage fiscal resources well."
I cannot think of a
better example of Liberal vagueness then that, Mr. Speaker, so I spent a couple
of minutes and read over his speech from yesterday. In the beginning of his
speech he talked about the lack of democratic principles and the democratic
deficit. Meanwhile, you have a federal leader, his federal leader is appointing
candidates in B.C. The leader before that, Chrétien, appointed candidates in
Now you have the current
leader, Paul Martin, after making an
issue of the democratic deficit in the Parliament of Canada, turning around and
making these direct appointments. That is beyond the pale. I cannot see why he
would do that but let us deal with the member from
Mr. Speaker, the member was complaining about the number of sitting days. So we call a committee meeting a few months ago, and who does not show up at the committee meeting? I mean if a member cannot get here for the existing 37 days, how does he expect to be here for 80?
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Elmwood, on the same point of order.
Mr. Maloway: I would invite the member from
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Elmwood, to pick up on his debate.
Mr. Maloway: Now, the next issue he dealt with, and you know we are only on the second sentence of his speech yesterday. He wants to bring back company and union contributions, donations. You know that was something that the Premier promised in 1995, and of course we were not elected in 1995, so when we were elected in 1999 he was good to his word and brought in this legislation. It has been in Québec for a number of years. What it simply means is that elected officials have to get here and have to get there by going out knocking on doors and getting $50, $100 donations from people rather than getting them from companies and unions.
I do not know why he would be complaining because he benefits by the new system. I mean, he is here. He is elected and he was successful in getting elected, so clearly he knows how to go out and knock on doors, and get contributions from people. I do not think he would be expecting a lot of union contributions anyway, and the corporate donations they were all going to his competition in his leadership campaigns. I do not know of any companies who were giving money to him. But I know Paul Edwards was certainly in line for a lot of company action. He has done well because he is a company lawyer and he deals with companies.
You know the member really is not well set up for receiving a lot of corporate donations, in my opinion, and certainly not union donations. So why he is wanting to go through the past darkly here and complain about this issue, I mean he is suggesting that somehow that we have hamstrung, that we have hampered the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in trying to come back and win an election. [interjection] No, it is their fault that they have not gone out and raised the money. They just need a leader who can raise money.
They themselves, individually, are not being stopped from putting on social events in their constituencies, which I am sure they are doing. They are not being stopped by going door-to-door raising hundred dollar donations from individuals. It is just they are not doing it. They have a president, a former president now, who could not even get the financial statements filed on time. That is like one job that he has to do in a year and he cannot even get that straightened out. So you know there are other issues there, and, you know, the members know it. I am just dealing with the member's party at the moment, which should be a simpler sort of party to analyze.
Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the Opposition's response to the Budget, and I am then trying to figure out why they are so glum. I mean, it is fairly easy. They really do not have a lot of traction on this issue. They are used to dealing with the old NDP, you know, the old tax-and-spend NDP. They would give them lots to shoot at. An opposition in an environment like that did not have to work very hard at all. Right? The government just gives them targets and they shoot at them.
This is a government that did not give them those automatic targets, Mr. Speaker. It adopted their own balanced budget legislation, which worked reasonably well. Well, how could they criticize that? So they, well, you know, what we did was simply follow their legislation. As a matter of fact, we improved, they know that, their legislation. In fact, we went and recognized the liabilities, the pension liabilities, which they did not do. We were doing things that even they did not do and we knew they would support that.
So they have had a very
rough time finding issues that they can chase around after. I mean, that is
fair ball. We give them the odd opening, I guess, every once in a while. I am
sure they will be looking at ways to take advantage of them. But, in the macro
sense, in the overall sense, this is a budget that any good Liberal or
Conservative government would bring in in other provinces. We are not
Now, the PCs, when they were in power, at least in the last couple of years that we have been in power, we have had two upgrades by the bond raters. That is something that any government that gets a bond rating–I remember back in the seventies when we got a downgrade, well, it was a big issue. Right? We have not had downgrades. We have upgrades. We recognize that deficits and debts are not good and that we, because of higher interest rates, are going to have to reduce services to the public. We recognize all of that.
But the fact of the matter is that there is a demand. There is a demand for services. I also want to point out something else too. When we were in opposition those 11 years, we actually voted for two of their budgets, and we are still here.
You know, I mean, you would think voting for–now, mind you, I have to say that it was probably a bad idea for Sid Spivak back in '73 to vote for the Schreyer budget. That did not help him, I guess, on the eve of the election.
There were circumstances when we thought they were doing a decent job, we voted for their budget. So we were not totally negative about what they, how they conducted their affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see how they can criticize our budgeting when we ran a surplus under their own legislation. We have improved their legislation. We have recognized the pension liabilities. I know we like to attack them about spending before, but, if you take a look back to their final budgets, the last two or three budgets, you find they were no pikers on spending. They certainly spent a fair amount. But the public did not believe. It does not matter how much money they put into health care, the public would not believe it anyway. Right?
* (16:20)
They were making efforts. On that basis we really did not have a problem supporting them at times.
But I can tell you this:
How many members opposite have ever heard of the Manitoba Advantage? How many
members? Does the member from
The fact of the matter is
that the Manitoba Advantage was concocted under the Tories, 1992. They
developed it. The argument was they would bring it before the Legislature at
budget time and they would say that
We know that our hydro
rates are certainly, if not the lowest in
The auto insurance rates
are among the lowest in
They do not factor into
the fact that in the
You listen to them, that is the kind of impression you would get, and certainly that is not the way they should be. They should be giving the Government credit once in awhile, rather than just being totally negative, negative all the time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am
running out of time again, but I do want to talk about the KPMG study. KPMG found that
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time has expired. Order.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today 90 students who are participating in the National Debating Championship, so they will be listening very carefully to pick up pointers. So, honourable members, the pressure is on. On behalf of all honourable members I welcome you here today.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I would like to welcome those that debate on a regular basis to our Chamber today and indicate that sometimes the calibre of debate in this Legislature is not quite the calibre that you would see on an ongoing basis, so forgive us if in fact you do not believe that we meet your standards.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to indicate at the outset that I welcome following the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) in debating the Budget, Budget 2004. You know, I always find the member from Elmwood very entertaining and he certainly, very often, has a very colourful way of expressing himself and we enjoy that kind of debate.
I do want to indicate to him and to all members of this Legislature that I will not be supporting Budget 2004. I have several reasons for that, although, and I did listen intently to the Member for Elmwood when he indicated that, you know, from time to time opposition members should say some good things about what the Budget might include.
I will indicate and I will say to him that I did appreciate the announcement that the eight kilometres or so of the northeast Perimeter Highway that is not twinned will be twinned, albeit, Mr. Speaker, five years later than it should be.
Mr. Deputy Speaker in the
Chair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the
budget document, it indicated that within three years the twinning of the
northeast Perimeter Highway would be completed, but then when the minister of
highways the next day went out and made the announcement, he indicated that it
would be five years before it was completed. So I would rather see the project
completed sooner than later. We have had some very tragic accidents on that
stretch of the
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to indicate that I am somewhat disappointed with the Premier's (Mr. Doer) announcement not long before the Budget was tabled in this House. His announcement that, through the infrastructure agreement with all three levels of government, he was going to put $17 million of hard-earned Manitobans' taxpayer dollars into a rapid transit system. Well, I take a look at that proposal and that agreement, and we look at all three levels of government putting in a total of $51 million to a rapid transit system that has no cost-benefit analysis done or articulated, and I wonder how this Premier could stand up in good conscience and fund $17 million which is only a down payment on the system. The total project will cost $400 million to complete.
I question the Premier's
priority setting when we look at the community in which he lives, the community
which I represent, and I am pleased and proud to represent the Premier of the
province in the Legislature of Manitoba. I know that since he moved into my
community that he understands the infrastructure deficit that exists in
northeast
We have very dangerous
situations on our residential streets because we have the
I know the Member for
Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg) lives in my constituency, too. I would hope that he
has recognized the problems that exist because he lives right next to where the
heavy traffic exists. I would hope that he would talk to his Premier and say,
"$17 million in our community." I am not asking for more money to be
spent. I am asking the Premier, the Member for Rossmere and his colleagues in
government to say, "It is a priority to fix the infrastructure problems
and the infrastructure deficits in northeast
* (16:30)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, there
are several unanswered questions on the rapid transit system and I have written
to the Premier. I have not received a response back yet but I have written to
the Premier and asked some direct and very specific questions. We all know that
there have been major infrastructure initiatives announced and I do support
the Kenaston underpass; it is needed. I do, and have supported, the completion
of the
All of those
infrastructure projects were important and needed to happen, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, but the infrastructure deficit in northeast
The questions that have gone unanswered from this Premier (Mr. Doer) around putting $17 million into a rapid transit system are: What feasibility studies have been conducted in regard to the rapid transit initiative? We have seen nothing announced publicly. What cost-benefit analysis has been done? We have nothing that would justify $400 million in infrastructure investment. Another question is: What is the estimated ridership under the new rapid transit system? Who is the market group being targeted for ridership? What will be the ongoing maintenance and operating costs of a new system? Will there be an increase in provincial subsidization under the new system? Who will purchase the buses? The $400 million does not include one bus to run on the rapid transit system. What is the total cost per bus? Has the Province committed to its full share of the estimated $400 million that this project will take to complete?
One of the biggest questions is will all workers involved in the construction of the new transit system be required to be unionized or to pay union dues.
We know the hidebound ideology of the New Democratic government. We saw the Premier (Mr. Doer), who was a former union boss, put on his Tory blue suit and pretend in 1999 to be a conservative, but we all know that once a union boss, always a union boss.
We know that the likes of Rob Hilliard are sitting behind the Premier's desk, dictating to this Premier and to this Government what direction should be taken. It is payback time to the unions by this Government. This Premier is kowtowing to those union bosses.
I think it is shameful. I think all members on that side of the House should be somewhat upset and should be questioning the direction that they are going.
Well, when you look at the priorities in this Budget, there is an estimation by those in the construction industry that the cost of the floodway will increase by $65 million if workers are forced to unionize and to pay union dues. I question whether that is good use of taxpayers' dollars.
We have had significant questions. We may see a significant flip-flop again from this Government. We have got the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton), who has stood up and said, "All those that work on the floodway will have to pay union dues. It is the law." We have heard the Premier kind of hedge on that and say, "Well, you know, Wally Fox-Decent will mediate or attempt to mediate a solution to all of this." I guess we believe that the Premier is looking for a way out. Maybe he will find one and maybe he will come to his senses and realize that he has got to back down and that he cannot stand beside his Minister of Water Stewardship and support the position that he has taken.
We just may see that,
because of the arguments and the criticism that has been mounted, there is a
flip-flop again by this Government. We may see, because of the pressure that
has been put on by the construction industry and the pressure that has been put
on by opposition parties in this House that the Government will back down.
Quite frankly, we would be extremely happy to see that happen, because it would
be to the benefit of
We all believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the floodway needs to proceed, needs to be completed, and, if we could find a resolution that did not force unionization and did not force union dues, we would think that we had had a positive impact as an opposition on influencing the Government to change its mind, to look at the wrong-headed decision that it had made, and come to its senses and get on with the project of building the floodway to protect the citizens of the city of Winnipeg.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
know that there are many that do want to speak on the Budget. I felt that it
was really important to put my thoughts on the record around northeast
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have already talked about the east-west traffic flow and the danger on our residential streets, and there need to be some immediate solutions. When I look at $400 million going to a rapid transit system with no feasibility studies and no cost benefit analysis, and when I look at the infrastructure deficit in our community, we would not need nearly that amount of money to address the issues in our community over a period of time.
I say to the Premier, "Let us join hands; let us look at our community that we live in." I would hope that he would support the residents that live next door to him and on the next street to him, and put his priority for funding something that is known and needed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wanted to comment on one other thing and I just want to send a message to Government that we will be watching very carefully as they move forward in the amalgamation of Driver and Vehicle Licencing and the Manitoba Public Insurance corporation. I will have much more time to speak on other Crown corporations, such as Hydro, as times goes by. But I do want to indicate that we will be watching very carefully, because we know that this Government tried to raid the Manitoba Public Insurance corporation of $30 million and because of significant public outcry they backed off. They did a flip-flop and we are pleased that they did, that they did back off. But we will be watching carefully to try to make sure that this Government is not trying, through the back door, to use the Manitoba Public Insurance corporation to fund the ongoing operating costs that presently exist within government. And, if in fact, they are trying to roll the licence and driver vehicle function of government into the Manitoba Public Insurance corporation and expect those insurance ratepayers to pick up the cost of government operations, we will be extremely critical.
* (16:40)
So we are supportive of amalgamation if it makes sense to reduce administrative costs and see Manitobans better served through driver licensing and vehicle licensing. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we support that. But we have seen in the past the manipulation of Crown corporations by this Government. We want to ensure that this new initiative is not going to result in ratepayers, through MPI, having to pay higher rates to support ongoing government operation.
I cannot support this Budget. Mr. Deputy Speaker, $90 million more in taxation and user fees is something that Manitobans will not support. The Pharmacare increases for some of the most vulnerable, and those on fixed incomes in our community are not welcome. I am hearing on a daily basis concerns from my constituents and from my seniors.
You know, the member from
Elmwood who just spoke has been around both in opposition and in government. I
daresay he will probably be around for many years for come. He will be around
to experience opposition again at some point in time, because that is what
traditionally happens in
But Manitobans will have
to dig deeper into their pockets to pay the $90 million that this Government
has put forward in this Budget, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are only seeing the
beginning of the downslide of this Government. It is our responsibility as
members of the Opposition to make sure that Manitobans and taxpayers in
So I am hoping that those that are new on the other side, as I have had the opportunity to sit in government and in opposition, will understand exactly what direction they are heading and hopefully they will come to their senses and look to trying to ensure that Manitobans, through their policies, have more money in their pockets, not less. We know that is what we are seeing and we know that that will lead to the defeat of this Government, I would say, in the next provincial election. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): I am very pleased today to rise in the House to support the Budget presented by my colleague the honourable Minister of Finance. This has been the toughest one yet that he has had to bring in, and he has done an admirable job. This comes as no surprise, however, as he has conscientiously met every challenge put before him thus far. I expect nothing less optimistic, after all, from a lad raised in sunny St. James. I applaud him on not only the ingenuity but the tremendous integrity reflected in this budget speech.
Balance is the key in
life, balance among work, family and play and balance in the setting of the
Budget for our Province, our
As the Premier has put it on many occasions, this is a government for all Manitobans. As such, the Budget would have to do and does reflect the balancing of the interests of all of us. It is my privilege to represent in this House the people of St. James. This Budget addresses some of the issues that are important to my constituents.
Firstly, this Budget maintains our commitment to affordability. It sets out a balanced program for tax reduction and fiscal responsibility while at the same time meeting its responsibilities to maintain our investments in education, families and health. This was the message I heard consistently during the last election. The people of St. James are well informed and very clear on the need for this balance in the Budget.
One of the major changes in this Budget is its protection of the Pharmacare program. This is of particular interest to many citizens in St. James; $5.6 million has been added to the budget of Pharmacare. Over the past five years we have doubled, almost tripled, the Pharmacare budget. Almost 1000 new drugs have been added to Pharmacare coverage. As well, we have implemented a palliative care drug program so that patients who choose to spend their last days at home can receive their drugs free. To be comfortable in our own surroundings with family and friends nearby to comfort us in our last days is what everyone should be able to appreciate. Our Government appreciates that need and right.
But as important is a plan that has been developed to protect the sustainability of the program. That is why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are moving on a Pharmacare sustainability strategy through which the use of generic drugs is encouraged and best practices in other provinces are sought out to ensure the most effective, lowest-cost drug used whenever possible.
In seeking to distribute more fairly the cost of Pharmacare we have added two new deductible rates for higher income families. Yet for 85 percent of the families the changes will cost between $1 and $9 a month. Pharmacare will continue to pay 100 percent of the cost once the deductible threshold has been reached. This is a prime example of the balance that is apparent in the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger).
I would also like to note a change made by our Government in the last term to enhance lives of users of Pharmacare. A regulation change now allows Manitobans to travel safely, particularly our snowbirds in winter months. A very punitive and prohibitive policy in place during the previous government's reign put people at risk by not allowing prescriptions to be filled and covered for more than 100 days–usually not long enough for the duration of their absence. Our Government recognized the value of contributing to keeping our citizens safe and well while away and not returning sick and costing our health system more in the end. We more than doubled this time to allow 200 days in enabling those who can to travel south. Psychological well-being is a factor not to be discounted either.
Another point I want to
address which is important to Manitobans across the province, but perhaps
significantly more in St. James, is the provision to exempt the taxation, up to
limits on the employment income of military and police personnel deployed to
high-risk assignments outside Canada.
In St. James, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, we have 17 Wing; many families of military personnel live in this
area. In 1999 it was clear to me while canvassing that most of the families
living in military housing were not interested much in provincial politics.
Their lives are pretty much dictated by the federal government. Yet these are
active members of the community and a tremendous asset to the economy. We
needed to help them feel more a part of this province while here, and
recognized their contributions for them to take more of an interest. This is
why our Government took a look at how we can make an impact on their lives here
in
You should recall the legislation passed last term in regard to preserving driver's licence merits on moves and flexibility on renewal processes while serving abroad. Voting rights were also addressed and changes made to right an injustice while serving abroad and allow them to vote while abroad. It is incredible to think about how unfairly our peacekeepers have been treated while they serve their country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, there
are still areas that are being worked on. This is why I was so pleased to see
them considered once again in this Budget. Our Government recognizes the
dedication and commitment of our military families and police families to
providing peacekeeping and aid wherever they are asked to do so, whether it is
in
* (16:50)
For families as well,
this Budget illustrates our Government's commitment to child day care as part
of an overall strategy to enhance early childhood development. This commitment
is clear in the 51 percent in spending on child care over the past four years.
Spending on child care in
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the
Stevenson-Britannia Adult Literacy Program
at
We also have in this Budget a new children's initiative to improve access to services for speech and language therapy, critical to early childhood development. Resources will be directed towards special needs education, which has increased almost 25 percent since 1999-2000. I see these needs at Strathmillan and Stevenson-Britannia schools and have heard the pleas of parents and teachers for more resources. This was certainly a welcome part of the budget speech.
I would just touch on a
few other areas. This Budget continues to offer affordable, post-secondary
tuition, new or expanded programs and increased education options. One of the
tremendous strides made has been in apprenticeship training, which is up 18
percent. High-tech training in aerospace is evident in St. James. Stevenson
Aviation and Aerospace Training Centre was transferred to the
The full-time programs
are run out of the
Another long-term
challenge is infrastructure. This Budget announces an additional $10 million
for construction this year and an additional $10 million the following year.
This is on top of the five-year $600 million commitment announced three years
ago. This added funding will allow the acceleration of the twinning of the
This will also allow the
Government to get started on the twinning of the
This Budget seeks, and achieves throughout, a balance. It seeks and achieves the sustainability of our social education and health programs. It addresses the issue of fiscal responsibility. It continues to pay down our debt and, for the first time, has not had to draw on the rainy day fund to do so.
I would like to keep it short because, as my honourable colleague mentioned, there are people who still want to speak and some of my colleagues have admirably covered the highlights of this Budget. Given the magnitude of the endeavour to cover all the good work we are doing, I am quite happy to keep this short. I do just want to mention a few notes on health. I would like to share a few experiences reflecting on the good work of changes in health. I think a picture is worth a thousand words and a little feedback, and examples that I have been hearing, about how the changes we have made really are working.
One of the highlights of what we have done is the expansion of the family doctor connection line throughout the province, linking Manitobans to family doctors. We have had a lot of new people, particularly with the military with the constant turnover, and we have a new development. And I cannot tell you how often I have been happy to tell people that are looking for a new doctor about this link.
While speaking of lines and links, I had the opportunity of speaking at a women's institute, rural women celebrating their AGM. After the speech, there were at least a half dozen women who came up and insisted on my taking the message back to our Government of how much they appreciate, how much this stress line has helped, that our members opposite had cut. I could hear the fear in their voices, if they did not let us know how much they appreciate it, that it could happen again. It was very gratifying.
I would also like to mention the support for healthy living. I would like to congratulate and express my appreciation to the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau) for passing the anti-smoking law. On a personal level, my husband, a 30-year smoker, is on one and a half years of quitting. I think those of you who have experienced that can appreciate the pain, the suffering. I can tell you when this bill was brought in it certainly served to reinforce his resolve. He now wears a big grin when he is able to tell people he no longer smokes.
The impact is also evident on the fitness in my constituency. At Deer Lodge Centre, the Minister for Healthy Living and I recently attended the opening of a fitness centre which not only offered the opportunity for staff to become fit, it replaced a smoking room. So it is nice to see that this law has allowed people to, I think, progress much quicker than they would have otherwise.
There are almost 900 more
nurses working in
Most health care has moved closer to home, the CT scans in the rural and northern hospitals like Steinbach, Selkirk and The Pas. Actually one of my neighbours, the wife was bemoaning the fact that her husband was going to have to wait three months and he had already been in incredible pain with his back. He was going to have to wait three months for a CT scan. I suggested to her, "Do you realize there is a CT scan in Selkirk? It had just opened. Talk to your doctor." Within a week he was in and dealing with his problem. Anybody here who might remember, it was in the Free Press, a great big picture of him, so if you want to verify that, that was one of my constituents that benefited from just knowing.
The doctors do not know these things. That is why we have a Web–I should not say do not know. I am sorry. They do not always think that people are willing to travel. Not everybody is able or willing, but if they are there are alternatives, and they need to know that. So they can just go on the Web, find out about it and suggest to their doctor, if they are willing, to get much quicker treatment.
Budget 2004 sticks to the
growth plan that was put in place five years ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It
maintains our affordability advantage by ensuring tax changes are neutral. It
provides key supports for economic growth such as accessible education and
maintains and enhances the economic partnerships for future growth. It is a
budget of balancing the divergent issues, concerns and desires of all
Manitobans and, in the process, meeting the obligations of our Government. It
is a budget that is the touchstone for prosperity in the
* (17:00)
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words with respect to the Budget that was presented by the Finance Minister last week on behalf of all residents of the constituency of Lac du Bonnet. I want to make it very clear from the outset that I will not be supporting this Budget.
I will be voting against the Budget, and I will be voting instead for the motion that was presented last week by our leader, the Opposition Leader. I expect and I hope that the members opposite read that motion, because I think it is very important that they realize what is in there. I think if they realize what is in there, and they read that particular motion by the Opposition Leader that they will probably support our motion instead.
Just to give you some of
the highlights of that motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Budget really fails to
offer any vision or any plan for Manitobans. It also fails to provide a
long-term economic plan. Their economic plan, it seems, is to spend another $100
million on new Cadillac VLTs. That is their economic plan. That is their
economic vision for
It is clear from the
Budget, as well, that there is very little to curb the activities of the Hells
Angels in
I do not know why the minister does not go after the Hells Angels. Could it be because they are his constituents or could it be because that is the only economic driver that this Government has presented over the last number of years? I am not sure what it is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is clearly unacceptable to me and to this side of the House.
The Budget also fails to
provide a long-term tax reduction strategy for Manitobans. I think that it is
important to generate new economic activity for
It fails to provide a sustainable provincial spending plan, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Instead, all it is is tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. That is the mantra of this Government, and it, certainly, does not look at the sustainability of spending in terms of trying to provide programs for Manitobans.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, it also fails to provide funding for public education on a sustainable level. I know the previous Minister of Education stood up in this House about two years ago and told us that the amalgamation of school divisions across the province would save the province $10 million in administration. We have yet to see that. It will not happen.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
We predicted it will not
happen and it will not happen. In fact, in Sunrise School Division what
happened a couple of years ago was the minister amalgamated the Agassiz School
Division with the
In the last two years, the education taxes on our property in the former Agassiz School Division, now Sunrise School Division, have gone up by 17 percent in the last two years, and the school division projects a double-digit tax increase, a double-digit school tax increase for next year. Where are the savings? I submit to you that there were no savings, and there will not be any savings.
Also, the Budget fails to address any challenges that we have in health care, including it does not provide a cardiac care system that meets the needs of Manitobans in a timely fashion. It does not end hallway medicine. In fact, in 1999 the Premier (Mr. Doer) stood up on a soapbox during the election and told Manitobans that he would end hallway medicine for $15 million in six months. Well, it has been five years. He has spent millions upon millions of dollars and the situation is no different, if not worse, than it was in 1999. How can we trust this Premier?
The Budget also does not
reduce the waiting list for diagnostic tests for services which include CT
scans, MRIs and ultrasounds. The Budget fails to address the need to have bold,
innovative and meaningful reform in health care that would reduce waiting lists
and increase the quality of our health care services in
Mr. Speaker, it also
fails to protect
It fails to set priorities well and to manage fiscal resources well. It also fails to reduce ministers' salaries by 20 percent, in recognition of the fact that this Budget actually produces a deficit. This is not a balanced budget. They try to pretend there is a balanced budget, but there is no balanced budget. It, in fact, produces a deficit, and that does not come directly from me; it comes from the Auditor General. The Auditor General has said that for the last three years this Government has, in fact, produced a deficit. While they will never admit to same, it does produce a deficit, and as a result the ministers' salaries ought to be reduced in recognition of that fact.
It also fails to support
improvements in water stewardship. It reduces the budget, in fact, for the new
Ministry of Water. It fails to provide adequate attention to healthy living by
providing adequate attention to sports funding in
There is, in fact, a provincial deficit. Just to give you a comparison, in 1999, the overall provincial debt was $16.866 billion. Now, in 2004 to 2005, it will be $19.296 billion, that is an increase of $800 million over the 1999 benchmark. The Premier knows those figures and the Finance Minister knows those figures, yet they will stand up in this House and say there is no deficit. Our provincial debt has gone up over $800 million over those four years, and they will stand up and say that the Budget is balanced.
Under this Government,
* (17:10)
I find it insulting that the Finance Minister did not consult with the taxpayers and residents of the constituency of Lac du Bonnet when he was asking for public input with respect to the 2004-2005 Budget. The taxpayers and residents of our constituency would have given the minister good advice, and would have told the minister that it is not good economics in trying to balance the Budget on the backs of ratepayers of Manitoba Hydro, that Manitoba Hydro is not the personal slush fund of Premier Doer nor the Finance Minister.
We are the highest-taxed
jurisdiction west of
Another reason why I will
not support the Budget, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it does not really
address the concerns of my constituents. I will give you a few examples. In
Beausejour,
Mr. Speaker, I am advised
that the Province will require the taxpayers of the town of
The Province forced the
amalgamation of the Agassiz School Division with the
Mr. Speaker, this is all
due to the Province's lack of planning and lack of commitment to the property
taxpayers of Beausejour. Now the Province will not pay for the full cost of
reconstruction of
There is a drainage
deficit in the constituency of Lac du Bonnet, Mr. Speaker. There is a drainage
infrastructure deficit, particularly as it affects the rural municipalities of
Broken Head, Lac Du Bonnet and Alexander. Historically, before the construction
of the power generating stations along the
As a result of all these factors, these drains which are a provincial responsibility, are woefully inadequate. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, these drains are a provincial responsibility, and they are in need of maintenance and reconstruction. Farmers in our area are severely affected because of the inadequacy of these drains. Often, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of crop are lost due to the inability of these drains to handle the excess water. Farmers are already reeling from the affects of the BSE crisis and the lack of effective government response to BSE, from low commodity prices and from increased input costs over which they have absolutely no control.
Now, Mr. Speaker, add to this mix a drainage system in our area that is inadequate, and ineffective, and which costs our farmers due to crop losses. It is a provincial responsibility to maintain its drains in the constituency of Lac du Bonnet. This Government is negligent by not properly maintaining its drains. It is the Province's responsibility to ensure that the provincial drains are adequate to protect farmer's crops in our area. The Province has neglected its duty.
This Government should take notice of the problem that our farmers in our municipalities are facing as a result of the inadequate drainage in the constituency of Lac du Bonnet, and should invest the funds that are required to immediately maintain, and where necessary, rebuild the provincial drains within our constituency.
Pinawa is a community in our constituency that really deserves the attention of this Government, particularly in this Budget and in budgets to come. Pinawa is reeling from federal cutbacks by the federal government to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. At the outset, I must commend Mayor Simpson and the councillors of the LGD of Pinawa and the development officers of that communit, for their efforts to bring more jobs and more economic activity to Pinawa. Their efforts are working, Mr. Speaker, to a certain extent, but they need help. They need assistance not only from the federal government, but they also need assistance from this provincial government and particularly the assistance in this Budget and other budgets. I am afraid to say that was not forthcoming, and I was very disappointed in the Budget. That is one of the reasons why I am voting against this Budget as well.
There needs to be a
concerted effort by the
Mr. Speaker, there is a transportation deficit, an infrastructure deficit within the constituency of Lac du Bonnet. I just want to mention a few roads that, in fact, really need the attention of this Government. While I applaud the Government in terms of their putting in money into Highway 59 south and the Perimeter Highway north around Winnipeg, putting more infrastructure in place for safety purposes. I applaud the Government in that respect. I am concerned about the fact that it will take till 2009 until we see that road constructed. I hope that the Government moves more quickly in terms of roads within our constituency because we, too, suffer from an infrastructure deficit, particularly with respect to transportation and roads within our constituency.
* (17:20)
Highway 304, which I have
mentioned many times in this Legislature and to this Transportation Minister
and to others before him, is a very important road that connects
Secondly, there are a number of other roads within our constituency that need attention. Mr. Speaker, No. 44 east of Whitemouth to Rennie needs attention; No. 12 north of 44 and No. 302 south of 44, those are roads that are important roads that connect Beausejour to the other communities within our constituency. They are important for trade. It is important in order to ensure that there is economic activity within Beausejour and industries do locate in Beausejour. We do need that proper infrastructure to guarantee that. Highway 317 is in desperate need of attention.
Provincial Road 520 is a
gravel road that connects Provincial Road 313 to Pinawa and to the
Provincial Trunk Highway
15 east of Vivian to Ste. Rita needs attention.
Provincial Road 304 from Manigotagan to Bissett is a fairly well travelled road. It is a gravel road, and it has many dangerous corners which need to be straightened out. We have an entrepreneur in Bissett who is Hugh Wynne, who owns San Gold Resources, who is going to be purchasing the Bissett mine, in fact, has done so, Mr. Speaker, and will be bringing that mine into full production. I am very proud to say that he is one of my constituents. He will be creating employment for the Bissett area, which is badly needed for that area. I commend him for all the work that he has done, and the commitment that he has made to his community by purchasing that mine and bringing it back into full production, which is really needed in that area.
I received a call, Mr. Speaker, from another constituent who lives in the beaches area. In fact, he was concerned about 59 north; it needs to be twinned as well. So I think it is important that the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Lemieux) takes that into regard when he sets his budget, and he should look at that road as well.
Mr. Speaker, there are many infrastructure deficits that are in the constituency of Lac du Bonnet and those are just a few. Others that are worthy of mention include shoreline protection which is needed along the Winnipeg River from the R.M. of Lac du Bonnet all the way to Lake Winnipeg. I think it is incumbent upon Manitoba Hydro and this Government to ensure that there is shoreline protection for our farmers and our residents along that area. I will continue to bring forward those concerns to this Legislature.
Just in conclusion, I would like to say that, again, I am not going to be supporting this Budget, but I will be supporting the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Murray). Thank you Mr. Speaker.
House Business
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): On House business, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to table the Estimates order as agreed to by the House leaders.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. Sequence of Estimates has been tabled.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth, to resume debate.
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to stand today in the House to put my comments on the record with regard to Budget 2004.
This Budget represents a
first for
Budget 2004, in a very
tough year, has again affirmed our commitments to Manitobans, Mr. Speaker,
where in some jurisdictions when there are tough budget years we see freezes,
in this jurisdiction of
I would first like to comment on comments that were made by members opposite to initiate this debate. First and foremost, we have the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray) saying, "We value the tremendous contribution our teachers make, and we must do more to help them. Our teachers do not fail our children, and we do not want to fail our teachers. We want to support them."
Well, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that three things immediately came to mind after hearing those comments. First of all, as a father of young children the first thing I thought about was a very warm and fuzzy Teletubbies' group-hug image about the relationship that members opposite seem to think they had with teachers during the 1990s. The second thing that came to mind was the actual shock-and-awe campaign that we saw launched against teachers during the 1990s. The third thing, it became very evident to me why members opposite at one time did not want history to be a compulsory subject in school.
I would like to start by
putting a few comments on record with respect to the treatment that I received
as a professional in the
First and foremost, I could use the reference that members opposite have made with respect to taking money out of Manitobans' pockets. Well, Mr. Speaker, I personally was locked out of my school two years in a row for eight days, and for seven days when members opposite passed a legislation that was extremely divisive that set school boards against teachers' associations and allowed the school boards to make those decisions to lock teachers out, deny them the professional development that they needed to upgrade their skills and bring those skills back to the classroom to the benefit of Manitoba students. I personally was locked out for 15 days over the course of two years, as were 108 members of the Evergreen Teachers' Association at the time.
That was just the start of it. Things got decidedly worse as days went on. We also had members opposite looking to evaluate teacher compensation and preparing statements around teacher compensation. They were actually even suggesting that we were supposed to roll back teachers' salaries by as much as one third, that teachers in this province were allegedly overpaid.
Mr. Speaker: Order. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth (Mr. Bjornson) will have 27 minutes remaining.
The hour being 5:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).