LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, June 5, 2008
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYER
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Long-Term Care Facility–Morden
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background for this petition is as follows:
Tabor Home Incorporated is a time-expired personal care home in Morden with safety, environmental and space deficiencies.
The seniors of Manitoba are valuable members of the community with increasing health-care needs requiring long-term care.
The community of Morden and the surrounding area are experiencing substantial population growth.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) to strongly consider giving priority for funding to develop and staff a new 100-bed long-term care facility so that clients are not exposed to unsafe conditions and so that Boundary Trails Health Centre beds remain available for acute-care patients instead of waiting placement clients.
This is signed by Anne Fehr, Anne Hoeppner, Ruth Derksen and many, many others.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Crocus Investment Fund–Public Inquiry
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
The background to the petition is as follows:
The 2007 provincial election did not clear the NDP government of any negligence with regard to the Crocus Fund fiasco.
The government needs to uncover the whole truth as to what ultimately led to over 33,000 Crocus shareholders to lose tens of millions of dollars.
The provincial auditor's report, the Manitoba Securities Commission's investigation, the RCMP investigation, the involvement of revenue Canada and our courts, collectively, will not answer the questions that must be answered in regard to the Crocus Fund fiasco.
Manitobans need to know why the government ignored the many warnings that could have saved the Crocus Investment Fund.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the Premier (Mr. Doer) and his NDP government to co-operate in uncovering the truth in why the government did not act on what it knew and to consider calling a public inquiry on the Crocus Fund fiasco.
Mr. Speaker, this is signed by M. Townsley, R. Townsley, R. Manalac and many, many other fine Manitobans.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Chairperson): I wish to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Justice.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Justice presents the following as its Second Report.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on Justice presents the following as its Second Report.
Meetings
Your committee met on the following occasions in Room 255 of the Legislative Building:
May 26, 2008
May 27, 2008
May 28, 2008
May 29, 2008
June 2, 2008, at 9 a.m.
June 2, 2008, at 8 p.m.
June 3, 2008
June 4, 2008
Matters under Consideration
Bill (No. 14) – The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la confiscation de biens obtenus ou utilisés criminellement
Bill (No. 26) – The Legal Profession Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la profession d'avocat
Bill (No. 35) – The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2008/Loi corrective de 2008
Bill (No. 37) – The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act/Loi sur l'inscription des lobbyistes et modifiant la Loi électorale, la Loi sur le financement des campagnes électorales, la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative et la Loi sur la Commission de régie de l'Assemblée législative
Bill (No. 39) – The Court of Appeal Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour d'appel
Bill (No. 40) – The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les conducteurs et les véhicules, le Code de la route et la Loi sur la Société d'assurance publique du Manitoba
Committee Membership
Committee Membership for the May 26, 2008, meeting:
Mr. Borotsik
Ms. Brick
Hon. Mr. Chomiak
Mr. Goertzen
Mr. Graydon
Ms. Howard
Hon. Ms. Irvin-Ross
Mr. Jennissen
Mr. Martindale
Mr. McFadyen
Mr. Reid (Chairperson)
Your committee elected Ms. Brick as the Vice‑Chairperson at the May 26, 2008, meeting, on a recorded vote of Brick 6, Borotsik 3, Graydon 1.
Committee Membership for the May 27, 2008, meeting:
Mr. Borotsik
Ms. Brick (Vice-Chairperson)
Hon. Mr. Chomiak
Mr. Goertzen
Mr. Graydon
Hon. Ms. Irvin-Ross
Mr. Martindale
Mr. McFadyen
Mr. Reid (Chairperson)
Mr. Saran
Ms. Selby
Substitutions received during committee proceedings at the May 27, 2008, meeting:
Hon. Mr. Bjornson for Hon. Ms. Irvin-Ross
Ms. Korzeniowski for Mr. Martindale
Mrs. Driedger for Mr. Graydon
Mr. Martindale for Ms. Korzeniowski
Committee Membership for the May 28, 2008, meeting:
Hon. Mr. Bjornson
Mr. Borotsik
Ms. Brick (Vice-Chairperson)
Hon. Mr. Chomiak
Mr. Goertzen
Mr. Jennissen
Mr. Jha
Mr. Marcelino
Mr. McFadyen
Mrs. Mitchelson
Mr. Reid (Chairperson)
Committee Membership for the May 29, 2008, meeting:
Mr. Altemeyer
Mr. Briese
Hon. Mr. Chomiak
Mrs. Driedger
Mr. Eichler
Mr. Goertzen
Ms. Howard
Mr. Marcelino
Mr. Reid (Chairperson)
Mr. Saran
Hon. Mr. Swan
Your committee elected Mr. Altemeyer as the Vice‑Chairperson at the May 29, 2008, meeting.
Substitutions received during committee proceedings at the May 29, 2008, meeting:
Hon. Mr. Bjornson for Hon. Mr. Chomiak
Committee Membership for the June 2, 2008, at 9 a.m. meeting:
Mr. Altemeyer (Vice-Chairperson)
Hon. Mr. Chomiak
Mrs. Driedger
Mr. Goertzen
Ms. Howard
Mr. Marcelino
Mrs. Mitchelson
Mr. Reid (Chairperson)
Mr. Saran
Hon. Mr. Swan
Mrs. Taillieu
Committee Membership for the June 2, 2008, at 8 p.m. meeting:
Mr. Altemeyer (Vice-Chairperson)
Hon. Mr. Chomiak
Mrs. Driedger
Mr. Goertzen
Ms. Howard
Mr. Jha
Mr. Marcelino
Mr. Pedersen
Mr. Reid (Chairperson)
Hon. Mr. Swan
Mrs. Taillieu
Committee Membership for the June 3, 2008, meeting:
Hon. Mr. Bjornson
Ms. Brick
Mr. Eichler
Mr. Goertzen
Mr. Graydon
Mr. Jennissen
Mr. Marcelino
Mr. Reid (Chairperson)
Mrs. Stefanson
Hon. Mr. Swan
Hon. Ms. Wowchuk
Your committee elected Ms. Brick as the Vice‑Chairperson at the June 3, 2008, meeting, on a recorded vote of Brick 6, Eichler 4.
Committee Membership for the June 4, 2008, meeting:
Mr. Briese
Mr. Derkach
Mrs. Driedger
Ms. Howard
Mr. Jennissen
Hon. Ms. McGifford
Mr. Reid (Chairperson)
Hon. Mr. Rondeau
Mrs. Rowat
Hon. Mr. Struthers
Hon. Mr. Swan
Your committee elected Ms. Howard as the Vice‑Chairperson at the June 4, 2008, meeting.
Substitutions received during committee proceedings at the June 4, 2008, meeting:
Hawranik for Driedger
Motions
Your committee agreed to the following motion at the May 26, 2008, meeting, on a recorded vote of yeas 6, nays 4:
That presenters 94, 95 & 97 be allowed to submit written briefs on Bill 37 and that these briefs be made part of the official Hansard record of the standing committee on Justice.
Your committee agreed to the following motion at the June 2, 2008, at 8 p.m. meeting:
That this committee sit until 4 a.m.
Bills Considered and Reported
Bill (No. 14) – The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la confiscation de biens obtenus ou utilisés criminellement
Your committee agreed to report this bill, with the following amendments:
THAT the proposed clause 19(4)(d), as set out in Clause 17 of the Bill, be replaced with the following:
d)to promote safer communities through payments, at the direction of the director, to benefit programs or activities designated in the regulations for this purpose.
THAT the proposed clause 24(c.1), as set out in Clause 21(2) of the Bill, be amended by striking out "to which or purposes for which" and substituting "or activities for which".
THAT Clause 23 be amended by adding "or on January 1, 2009, whichever occurs first" at the end.
THAT the motion to amend Clause 23 of the Bill be amended by striking out "September 1, 2008" and substituting "January 1, 2009".
Bills Considered but not Reported
Bill (No. 26) – The Legal Profession Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la profession d'avocat
Bill (No. 35) – The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2008/Loi corrective de 2008
Bill (No. 37) – The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act/Loi sur l'inscription des lobbyistes et modifiant la Loi électorale, la Loi sur le financement des campagnes électorales, la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative et la Loi sur la Commission de régie de l'Assemblée législative
Bill (No. 39) – The Court of Appeal Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour d'appel
Bill (No. 40) – The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les conducteurs et les véhicules, le Code de la route et la Loi sur la Société d'assurance publique du Manitoba
Mr. Reid: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for St. Norbert (Ms. Brick), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Arthur A. Leach School 20 grade 9 students under the direction of Ms. Jody Macyshon. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Healthy Living (Ms. Irvin-Ross).
Also we have in the public gallery from Balmoral Hall School 15 grade 4 students under the direction of Mr. Dave Zimmerman. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer).
Also in the public gallery we have from Greenland School 16 grades 6 and 7 students under the direction of Mr. Barry Dueck. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation (Mr. Lemieux).
Also in the public gallery we have from Westpark School 29 grades 6 and 11 students under the direction of Mr. Ron Schneider and Ms. Merryl Friesen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today.
Review of Department
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): To the Minister of Family Services: It was reported this morning in the Free Press that two more children in the care of Child and Family Services have tragically died, a 16-year-old young man who took his own life and a 5-month-old boy who apparently may have died of neglect, Mr. Speaker. All legislators need to acknowledge, as do all Manitobans, that these deaths are not caused by Child and Family Services, but we certainly have to know that the Child and Family Services system is the last line of defence for the most vulnerable kids in our province, and we need to do what we can to ensure that that system is working in the very most effective way that it can.
I want to ask the Minister of Family Services: In light of the fact that the endless reviews followed by disclosures, followed by expressions of outrage and promises of new eras of accountability are clearly not working, will he take a different approach, agree to a working group involving representatives of all political parties to revisit and re-evaluate the state of devolution, to support and acknowledge those many agencies that are doing extremely well today and ensure that morale in those agencies isn't being impacted by some of the other negative stories, look at those that aren't doing well and enter into a transparent, open, non-partisan process of reviewing what's going on in the system with regular reports to the people of Manitoba and a commitment to getting urgent action taken to resolve some of the problems in the system?
Will he agree to this approach and will he end the process that we are in today of endless disclosures followed by political posturing? We need to get to solutions, Mr. Speaker, and set aside partisan politics.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Family Services and Housing): First of all, I want to acknowledge the profound trauma that a child death causes, in particular to a family and to a community. Indeed, I think–and I said this yesterday–that the death of a child is indeed a horribly despairing incident for civilization itself, Mr. Speaker, and it requires, compels no less than a rigorous and robust review process. In this province we are fortunate to have that, and we are continuing to make improvements to that review process.
I extend condolences to the survivors of these children, one of which, I understand, according to the RCMP and the CME, passed away from illness. The other was suicide.
Mr. McFadyen: I want to thank the minister for that acknowledgement. We do need to start to address the systemic issues that have arisen, and we want to take a different approach from what has been taken to date. We certainly have within our caucus a former Minister of Family Services. We have the Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Briese) who has extensive background as being a very constructive member of a municipal government with experience in governance and a commitment to doing what's best for our province. Within the Liberal caucus we have members who I believe could make a contribution, and if we can take this issue out of the realm of finger-pointing and into a more transparent process, we believe that all Manitobans and particularly those children in the care of Family Services will be better served.
So I want to ask the minister if he'll meet with our critic, the Member for Ste. Rose, who has had additional information brought to his attention which he will share with the minister. Will he meet with him and will they begin a process of examining, on an agency-by-agency basis, those that are not working with urgent attention to those to get them fixed, acknowledgement of those that are working, because we run the risk through this debate of overlooking that and damaging morale within the system.
I want to ask the minister if he will commit to this process. I want to just say, in addition to that, that members of the opposition, similarly, have a responsibility to be constructive and we want to be constructive. We want solutions. This situation was not created by the present Minister of Family Services. We believe he wants to do the right thing.
Will he agree to do the right thing today?
* (13:40)
Mr. Mackintosh: What I do respect actually is the tenor is different than some of the questions earlier over the last couple of years, and I appreciate that. I will say certainly that I will meet with the critic anytime on any issue. He is a man of great character, and I appreciate advice from any members in this Chamber that indeed look to improve systems because I think that's why we put up lawn signs, Mr. Speaker, and we may have different perspectives on how to do it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, first of all, there are two assumptions, though, in the question that I want to just deal with very briefly. The first is that the child welfare system was in some way at fault or there was a non-compliance with standards. That requires–and, in fact, the survivors, the families, the workers in the system deserve no less than a fulsome review, and that is happening without coming to conclusions. Without that review, it would be very premature.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, I think Manitobans are rightfully and justifiably sceptical about the approaches taken to date. We've seen all too often disclosures that come forward in the way of leaks and information coming forward in question period and attempts by the department to manage the control of information.
We are greatly bothered by one of the provisions of Bill 31 which could have the effect of attempting to suppress the release of information regarding Child and Family Services agencies which is one of the reasons why we have problems with that bill, and we think that it's time to acknowledge that what has been happening to date is not working. There's no confidence in the public that the present approach is working.
We want to ask the minister to enter into a new approach that moves us above and beyond partisanship, engage the talents of members of different parties in this House to work toward an open, transparent and constructive review of what has happened in devolution with a view toward finding solutions on an urgent basis.
Will he commit to that today?
Mr. Mackintosh: The member–and he may not have been made aware of this, but indeed as part of the devolution process, a review of the three pieces of child welfare legislation is scheduled to begin, hopefully this fall, and that may provide some context as well.
But, again, there was another assumption I wanted to comment on in the member's questions, and that is that devolution was responsible for shortcomings. First of all, the shortcomings have to be determined by professionals, and indeed in the loss of the infant, there is an outside reviewer currently doing an agency review. The CME will do a further review, has already done an initial review, the RCMP, and, as well, it will go to the Child Inquest Review Committee.
In terms of devolution, Mr. Speaker, the outside reviews, the views of judges and Children's Advocates and Ombudsmen in this province have concluded that devolution holds out hope for the future to strengthen the system, not reduce it.
Wait Times for Results
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Manitoba has the highest breast cancer mortality rate of all Canadian provinces. Now a report was released today saying that Manitoba women are forced to wait longer than most Canadian provinces to find out if they have breast cancer.
I'd like to ask the Minister of Health to explain why it takes so long in Manitoba for women to get their breast screening results and to find out if they actually have breast cancer.
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): What we do know in Manitoba is that last year, in 2006‑2007, 36,000 mammograms were done on women in Manitoba, and approximately 2,000 of those women had an abnormal screen. We know that any woman in Manitoba who receives that initial news about receiving an abnormal screen wants to receive the most timely information and accurate information as possible. We do know that 196 of those women were determined to have cancer in Manitoba.
We know that the median wait time for that was four weeks which is within the seven-week benchmark set nationally. But we know that even one day in that circumstance is too long, and we want to work to bring that time down.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, that's my point exactly. Manitoba is not doing well under this government with these results. Women in Manitoba wait longer for results than women in B.C., Saskatchewan, Québec and in Nova Scotia. Some women here are forced to wait up to two to three months. This is extremely stressful. This is totally unacceptable, and I speak from experience in this situation.
Can the minister tell us if these long waits for diagnosis and treatment are contributing to the higher mortality rate in Manitoba?
Ms. Oswald: I can inform the member that Statistics Canada also released a report yesterday that she neglected to mention, that, in fact, Manitoba has the best cancer survival rate for breast cancer at 88 percent compared to 86 nationally. I think that's a very important point that needs to go on the record.
I can also say to the member, though, that herself as an individual, any of us that have a loved one that faces an abnormal screen, we know that we want to see those tests and those diagnostics happen very quickly. We know that the president of the Canadian Breast Cancer Network reported that different jurisdictions report differently, but what we know to be true is that we need to be continuing to work on that report time. Our wait time right now for radiation therapy for women is well within the national–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, it is good that survival rates have gone up, but the mortality rate is also the worst in the country. Women who are waiting think they are going to die while they are waiting for their results. I know I did. You wait for the results; then you wait for treatment and you know that the longer you wait the cancer can spread.
So I want to ask this Minister of Health and this government, who for nine years have had a chance to do something about this: How could they have let it get so bad? And would the minister, at this time, consider digital mammography as one of the solutions to this problem?
Ms. Oswald: Again I can inform the member opposite that we are working very carefully with CancerCare and with the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority to identify if and where any bottlenecks exist in this diagnostic process, and we want to remove those.
I also want to inform members opposite we do take that cancer treatment very seriously, and diagnostics. We know that we've seen in jurisdictions in Canada, Mr. Speaker, where there have been errors, profound and dramatic errors, made in cancer diagnosis. While we want these tests to come back as quickly as possible, we also need to have a system that is accurate, that is absolutely certain about the diagnosis. We have had praise from people across the country that we are doing this pathology testing correctly.
Shortage of Doctors
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): As the summer season swings into full force, the town of Virden is facing the daunting prospect of losing three of its five doctors. Virden not only serves a large agricultural community and a tourism sector that grows throughout the summer but also Manitoba's heavy oil industry. All of these industries rely on the availability of health care in the event of an emergency.
Firstly, can the Minister of Health assure the residents of Virden and the surrounding area that their emergency room will not close, will stay open?
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I thank the member for the question. We know that there are some very unique challenges that exist in this particular region regarding the–[interjection] regarding, certainly per capita, the largest number of health facilities and a declining population. We also know that we need to be working very aggressively not only with the region to ensure that we're bringing doctors and nurses to the region, but doing all that we can to ensure that this is an attractive place for doctors to work and to stay.
We are working with the region to ensure that we bring a package of health-care investments to the region to endeavour to work on that retention. We know that we've committed to bring more doctors to Manitoba and that's what we're–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, for 20 months I've been asking this minister for nurses in the Westman Nursing Home in Virden and we haven't had any results. In fact, the bed closures have gone from 10 to 15. That's the results we've got from this government so far.
And I also want to say that that town is not a declining population. The population is growing in that community.
Can the Health Minister tell my constituents how she plans to keep the Virden emergency room open when the town is going to be short three of five doctors by the end of the summer?
* (13:50)
Ms. Oswald: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the member opposite, I spoke about population in the region and per capita numbers of health facilities in the region. I can tell the member opposite that since 1999, 24 nurses have relocated to the Assiniboine Regional Health Authority with the assistance of the Nurses Recruitment and Retention Fund. Through the conditional grant program, 21 nursing vacancies have been filled in the ARHA.
There are still more vacancies to fill, Mr. Speaker. That's why a year ago, during the election, we committed to bring 700 more nurses to Manitoba because we know that rural Manitoba, Virden and other areas, need these nurses, and that's why we committed to bring a hundred more doctors.
We're making progress and we need to continue to work at that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Maguire: This minister's health plan has obviously failed just like their '99 promise of fixing health care in Manitoba in six months with $15 million, Mr. Speaker. They have over a hundred nurses shortage in the regional health authority alone.
Will the Health Minister agree to meet with officials from the Town of Virden? Will she meet with the Town of Virden to discuss solutions to their pending doctor shortage, Mr. Speaker, not nurses shortage, doctor shortage.
Ms. Oswald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in a meeting on June 23, as I think the member knows.
Statistics
Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, what we saw today with the minister's response to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions report was a classic case of NDP spin versus the facts. The facts are: Environment Canada reports greenhouse gas emissions are up 157,000 tonnes this past year in Manitoba. The spin from this NDP government, the minister says, I see emissions trending downwards. Is the minister holding the graph upside down?
In addition, we are celebrating World Environment Day today. Why is this minister playing politics with our environment?
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mines): I hope the member realizes that during the 1990s, greenhouse gases went up–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind members that we have a lot of guests in the gallery that came here to hear the questions and the response. Also, the clock is ticking. We're trying to get as many questions in as we can.
Mr. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The report from the federal government said the following, that–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Can I have the co-operation of members, please. We need some decorum in the House here. I'm asking the co-operation from all members.
The honourable minister has the floor.
Mr. Rondeau: The report, which you can read, says 2.6-million-tonne increase from 1990 to 1999. It also shows that there was a decrease of 200,000 tonnes from the year 2000 to 2006.
Mr. Speaker, the math here says 200,000 less is better than a 2.6-megatonne increase under the Tories. We believe it. You've been delaying the greenhouse gas proposal. You've been delaying Bill 15. You have said on that–the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) has denied that greenhouse gases–
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time has expired.
Can I, once again, ask–order. When the Speaker is standing, all members should be seated and the Speaker should be heard in silence.
I'm going to, once again, ask members for their co-operation, please. We have a lot of guests here that come all the way down to hear the questions and the response. I think we owe it to them to be able to hear that. We have lots of time for question period yet. Members that wish to ask a question, ministers that wish to respond will have ample opportunity. So let's have a little bit of co-operation here, please.
Mr. Cullen: It's pretty clear when this government doesn't have an answer to the questions they go back to the 1990s.
This government has introduced Bill 15. It's another case of the NDP government bringing forward legislation to hoodwink Manitobans. Emissions are up, not down. Now, in typical NDP damage control, they reannounced today to plant 5 million more trees over five years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, follow the spin on this one: April 21, minister announces 5 million trees; May 8, another minister, 2.1 million trees; June 5, two ministers announce 5 million trees.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Given the facts, not the spin, how can Manitobans trust this government to deliver on the issue of climate change?
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be in a government that GDP went up over 20 percent. The population according to Census Canada went up 45,000 people and the greenhouse gases went down from the year 2000 to 2006.
If you open the report, it says that Canada went up 29 percent and said that Manitoba went down by 200,000 tonnes. I hope the member takes the time to read the report. I hope you open the book that has our 60 actions on climate change. I know planting trees is one but there are 59 others. Please stay tuned. We believe in taking action and we are taking action.
Mr. Cullen: Well, the minister should be reading the headlines in the papers today: It sounds like a lot of hot air. That's exactly what we're getting from this government.
Mr. Speaker, he talks about Bill 15. Well, we've waited nine years for them to bring forward Bill 15, and, quite frankly, this bill is toothless and very ineffective.
Now, there are no reduction targets before the next election. There are no penalties on government for not reducing emissions and there's nothing to ensure that emission reductions are achieved. I ask the minister: Why does this legislation have no teeth? Is it because the NDP already know that they can't be successful and they won't suffer any consequences?
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of our climate change plan. I'm proud of the actions we've taken. I'm proud of the fact that we went from ninth in energy efficiency to first in energy efficiency. I'm proud that we're leaders in geothermal. I'm proud that we're building the first fleet of hydrogen buses in the world.
I am proud that we've been reaching accolades on planting trees, on taking action, on working with municipalities, and, Mr. Speaker, I look at the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) who said there was no such thing as climate change. We believe that we have to take action to stop pollution. We believe we have to start moving forward on our 60 activities and I'm proud of our plan.
I know that the members opposite are delaying and trying not to do any action on climate change like they did in the 1990s where it went up 2.6 million tonnes.
Statistics
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): The minister responsible for greenhouse gas emissions admitted that he sat on the report which clearly indicates that greenhouse gas emissions are not on the decline, Mr. Speaker, but they're on the rise.
Mr. Speaker, he sat through committee presentations last week on Bill 15 and sat silently, knowing that this trend was going in the wrong direction. How could he honestly sit there and tell Manitobans with a straight face that, and I quote from the article today, I see emissions trending downward now, when he knew, based on this report, that greenhouse gases were on the rise.
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, 200,000 tonnes less is down. The member opposite kept on repeating that our greenhouse gases, according to NR-Can, were going up. This report clearly says from the year 2000 to 2006 it's down 200,000 tonnes, and that's while our GDP has gone up to over 20 percent; our population's gone up 45,000. So our economics are growing and our numbers of greenhouse gases are going down and I'm proud of that.
This hidden report, as the member says, was part of the Canadian Press public release on May 16 at 5:02. It wasn't a hidden report. It was out for the public.
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, the trend is on the rise. From 2005 to 2006 greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 200,000 tonnes. So I'm not sure what the member opposite is referring to. If there is some document out there that says otherwise, then I suggest that he show it to this House today because we do not have that information. Is he sitting on yet another report that we're not aware of?
* (14:00)
According to those new numbers released about greenhouse gas emissions, the NDP actually could raise emissions by some 189,000 tonnes and still meet their so-called carbon-neutral decade. So, in fact, they could actually increase. Their target is to increase greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet their so-called carbon-neutral decade.
I ask the minister: How can he honestly expect Manitobans to believe, given all of this, that he is on track towards meeting his own Kyoto targets?
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer the member to table A-11 on the NRC's document. What it shows is that in 1990, there was 18.8 megatonnes. In the year 2000, it's 21.4 megatonnes. If you also note on the same chart, it notes that in 2006, it's 21.2, 21.4, 21.2; that's down 200,000 tonnes.
And, you notice, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the route on the Tories, the deniers of climate change, the deniers of pollution, it went up 2.6 megatonnes. This is 2.6-million-tonnes increase under the former government. We went down 200,000 tonnes. I'm proud of that record.
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the minister and members opposite that it is, in fact, the year 2008, nine years after they came to power, and these are the results that we have. It's going in the wrong direction.
The minister responsible for greenhouse gas emissions also said that he would like to see an annual provincial reporting system. Really? Really? Well, why, in his own Bill 15, is he requiring the reporting every four years and not even annually? In his own bill, he isn't even asking for that. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but Bill 15 allows the minister to set his own targets. Why wouldn't he allow maybe an independent body to set those targets?
I ask the minister: Is he really serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because we're going in the wrong direction and his Bill 15 will do nothing to alleviate the problem.
Mr. Rondeau: I hope the member opposite actually takes us up on our offer to read the plan and get a briefing on the plan. It has 60 actions. The actions are working. Reductions are going down. As a country, we went up 29.1 percent over that time period. Mr. Speaker, as a province, we went down 200,000 tonnes. I know the member opposite thinks we're going in the wrong direction because we're going down, and under them they would be going up.
We are taking action. We are first in demand side. We're first in installations of geothermal. Under the legislation, we're capturing greenhouse gas emissions from landfills. We have biodiesel buses going in. We're investing in transit. We're investing in a lot of innovation.
I'm proud of our plan, and I hope the member takes me up so they can learn what's all in our plan.
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, wow, that was confusing.
Speaking of confusing, the government's policies on trade and transportation which have been murky to date have become even more shrouded in mystery with recent developments.
The Premier (Mr. Doer) who is currently in Mexico to talk about the inland port which doesn't yet exist, when the lobbying needs to take place in Ottawa, announced in his news release that he was going to be opening the conference with the President of Mexico. Across the wire last night came through the news that the President of Mexico backed out and is not at the conference. Also, on the wire, it indicates there's not a single American governor at the conference, that there are five governors out of the 32 states in Mexico.
I just want to ask the government: If the Premier's not lobbying for an inland port, there's no Mexican president, no American governors and no defence of NAFTA when he had the opportunity to defend it yesterday, unlike Premier Charest, can the minister just indicate what the heck is the Premier doing in Mexico?
Ms. Wowchuk: Despite the fact that the member opposite doesn't think that trade with Mexico is important, despite the fact that the member opposite doesn't think that a north-south trade corridor is important, despite the fact that the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, doesn't realize that we have an inland port here in Winnipeg and our Premier is going there, there are businesses, Mr. Speaker, there are about 400 businesses at this conference that are interested in trade, and our Premier is there promoting our inland port, one that we have and one that is very important to our economy.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite tried to develop an inland port and that was called–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McFadyen: I don't know if the minister read the Free Press this morning. It made reference to the fact that there is the potential for an inland port in Manitoba. Maybe the minister sees an inland port coming at some point in the future, in the same way the minister of the environment sees some future possibility of reductions in greenhouse gases.
But that inland port does not yet exist. There's a fierce lobbying campaign going on today, and I will just say in defence of Premier Charest, he gave a passionate speech yesterday in defence of NAFTA. He highlighted the various threats to NAFTA, including statements made by Democratic candidates, including the nominee, statements made by various American governors. At the end of Premier Charest's speech, the news story reports that Charest was joined at the conference by the Manitoba Premier (Mr. Doer), but the Premier of Manitoba appeared less concerned about NAFTA's future than his Québec counterpart. So the Premier's not even speaking up in favour of NAFTA while he's in Mexico, and he's promoting an inland port that doesn't exist.
I just want to ask the minister again if she could be a little bit more specific. Because one of our greatest exports is pork–I can't imagine he's promoting that product in Mexico–can she just be a little bit more specific about what benefits the people of Manitoba might expect to derive from the–[interjection] Oh, I hear the Attorney General (Mr. Chomiak) making reference to beaches. I appreciate the fact that members opposite corrected me yesterday. I hadn't had time in committee to review travel brochures as the members opposite did.
But, you know, there is some interesting information that we've learned about Guanajuato, that one of the great features of Guanajuato is the Boca del Infierno, a mine shaft that plunges a breathtaking 600 metres into the ground. It says here that it's a lively college town with fine restaurants, accommodations and museums. The historic town and adjacent mines are a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
I ask the minister if she can just indicate, if the Premier's not speaking up for free trade the way Premier Charest is and, in fact, there's nobody there to really meet with, if she can be a little bit more specific about what the benefits of the trip are.
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the member has done his homework and now recognizes that there is no beach here, that this is an inland port terminal.
The member opposite seems to think that there aren't important people at this meeting, but I can tell the member opposite the Premier met today with the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, and there are 400 companies there that are interested in trade.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that trade is important. North American trade is important. Mexican trade is important to us, and our Premier is there working with companies to develop trade, and our Premier is there to further promote our inland port.
The member opposite says that we have no inland port. Mr. Speaker, he should check his facts again. Manitoba does have an inland port here at Winnipeg.
* (14:10)
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, the only substantive point of that answer was the finding that there are 400 businesses interested in trading. I think he could have probably googled Mexico and got that information. I don't know if he needed to actually go to Guanajuato to find that out.
Given the extensive network of underground tunnels in Guanajuato, I wonder if the members opposite can just let us know what are the latest instructions coming from the tunnels in Mexico from our Premier, our Premier who is even more elusive than Osama bin Laden these days, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask whether he's issued any videos from the tunnels of Guanajuato to give them instructions as they wage jihad here in committee, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Wowchuk: Again, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite doesn't value making connections with businesses.
It's funny, when they were in office, Mr. Speaker, they thought it was more important to take businesses to Mexico. We have our Premier travelling with a delegation of prominent business leaders. He's travelling with Charles Loewen, Jim Carr, Art DeFehr, Art Mauro–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I've said order about 20 times already. I think that's getting a little out of hand here. We have guests in the gallery that have come all the way down here to hear the questions and the responses. Let's show some little bit of respect here. Let's have some more order in the House.
The honourable minister has the floor.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your comments because I think we should show respect for these business leaders who have travelled with the Premier to Mexico to promote trade with Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, for the Tories to suggest that we are not working on the inland port–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Government Support
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) and the Minister of Healthy Living have been sitting on a report that had a bicycle helmet use observational study done. I'd like to table that report.
It's very disturbing when we find out that the government has sat on a report that has such a significant impact on children that are wearing bicycle helmets, in particular between the ages of 12 to 15, where less than 20 percent are actually wearing bicycle helmets. What that means is that the government's policy on education is not working. The government's policy is an absolute and total failure.
Will the Minister of Healthy Living, today, acknowledge that there is a need today to bring in mandatory bicycle helmets?
Hon. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Minister of Healthy Living): Our government is committed to injury prevention and injury prevention using bicycle helmets. We have initiated many initiatives. We have handed out 44,000 low-cost bike helmets to Manitobans. In addition, thousands of helmets have been distributed to low-income individuals within the province of Manitoba through KidSport and our partners.
Mr. Speaker, we also have a robust public awareness and education strategy which we have delivered to the community as well as through the school. Thank you.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the minister needs to cut the crap.
If you take a look at it, British Columbia–
Mr. Speaker: Order. Members may wish to change the words all they want, but I heard it very clearly. I want the honourable Member for Inkster to withdraw that word.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for that, and the honourable member has the floor.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, out of frustration we need to recognize that British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Alberta and Ontario have recognized the value of mandatory helmets as protecting the heads of our children. The age group of 12 to 15 is less than 20 percent. The only way we're going to be able to have an impact and save some lives and save the head injuries is if we have a government that's thinking progressively and is prepared to bring in the legislation necessary to protect our children.
When will this minister stop talking and take direct action to protect the heads of our children?
Ms. Irvin-Ross: We have been showing many initiatives, and I started just to list a few of them, where we went with our public awareness campaign which we partner with MPI and CTV, and we're very proud of those campaigns. We've also had third-party endorsements from Bike to the Future, who said that we have a strong compaign and they are seeing results.
You cannot deny the impact of distributing 44,000 low-cost helments across this province and providing the public awareness and education. That is injury prevention. That is being acknowledged throughout the province.
Mr. Lamoureux: This report that was made for the government clearly shows that your programs are not working, Madam Minister. There is a need for change. If I quote Dr. Warda, who is one of the commissioners or assisted in the report: "Experience in other jurisdictions shows that helmet rates rise and bicycle-related head injury hospitalizations fall after legislation is introduced."
Why will this government not recognize the benefits of bringing in legislation? We're talking, in particular, children between the ages of 12 and 15. You have the opportunity to make a difference, Madam Minister. Why do you refuse to do it? The report condemns and shows that your current program just is not working. It's time to make a change.
Ms. Irvin-Ross: I'm not quite sure if the member had a question or not, but I, once again, will put on the record about the quality of programming initiatives that we have done in the province of Manitoba around injury prevention and specifically around cycle injuries.
Mr. Speaker, we believe in a comprehensive strategy, one that includes education, public awareness, working with our partners, not only enforcement. We believe the distribution of the helmets is making a difference, the 44,000 helmets that have been distributed, as well as the campaign Protect Your Noggin and the numerous public awareness campaigns that have been distributed through the schools and through the community.
Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.
North American Aerospace Defence Command Fiftieth Anniversary
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr. Speaker, described as the only agreement of its type in the world, the North American Aerospace Defence Command, or NORAD, celebrated 50 years of protecting the skies over Canada and the United States on Friday, May 30.
I was very pleased to join the Premier (Mr. Doer), the Honourable David Wilkins, the American Ambassador to Canada, Major-General Duval, Lieutenant-General Bouchard, and Member of Parliament James Bezan at a military parade that featured a fly-by of the Canadian Air Force's Snowbirds and two CF-18 Hornets.
Winnipeg is home to NORAD's Canadian headquarters and employs 3,000 people. NORAD is a historic agreement that is known the world over as a success rooted in mutual trust and respect. Formed 50 years ago as a response to the Cold War, the mission of the Canadian NORAD region, CANR, is to provide aerospace surveillance, identification, control and warning for the defence of Canada and North America.
Canadian NORAD region executes a variety of tasks to defend Canadian airspace, including identifying and tracking all aircraft entering Canadian airspace, exercising operational command and control of all air defence forces in CANR and operations supporting other government departments and agencies. Only in this relationship could a Canadian general sit at the head of NORAD command during the events of September 11, 2001. It was a Canadian general who authorized that the skies over North America be closed.
I was thrilled that this special event could be held on the beautiful grounds of the Manitoba Legislature. Our men and women in uniform are an important part of the fabric of Manitoba and play an essential and vital role in NORAD. Mr. Speaker, I want to join Major-General Duval and Lieutenant-General Bouchard in congratulating the troops on parade for an excellent presentation. I look forward to future public parades and opportunities to showcase our fantastic military personnel. Thank you.
* (14:20)
World Environment Day
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the United Nations Annual World Environment Day. The theme for 2008 is "Kick the Habit! Towards a Low Carbon Economy." The United Nations environment program is encouraging everyone, individuals, communities, companies and countries alike to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to address the challenge of climate change.
The United Nations environment program has even developed the World Environment Day Alphabet, which suggests 80 different ways to mark the event and to raise awareness of the environment. Some of the suggested events and activities include adapting a green way of life, making art out of recycled materials, calculating your carbon footprints, debating environmental issues and reducing energy use among others.
The United Nations site also suggests ways to reduce your carbon footprints, such as becoming energy efficient with the products we use in our daily lives, with our vehicles and with our buildings. World Environment Day was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1972. Interest in environmental issues and finding solutions to environmental challenges continues to grow around the world.
As legislators, we have an added responsibility to develop sound environmental policies that will protect our planet and our resources for future generations.
While we may not always agree on the approach being taken, which was clear given in evidence in the debate today, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that all MLAs share a common commitment to improving our environment.
The challenge of World Environment Day, ultimately, is to change the world by changing our own practices first. World Environment Day is a valuable way to raise awareness of the environment and our responsibility to protect it. Thank you.
South Osborne Underpass
Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Literacy): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to bring the attention of the House to the amazing work that has been done on the South Osborne underpass which is the gateway to the South Osborne community.
A number of years ago, local residents, businesses and Councillor Jenny Gerbasi formed a South Osborne Beautification Committee. The committee's goal was to clean up the area, thought an eyesore by people who lived and worked there. The CN, Co-op Gas, my constituency office and residents' associations all co-operated to improve the underpass. Co-op Gas did some major landscaping on their corner, and murals were installed on both sides of the underpass.
Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the folks from IBEX Payroll joined us and started by cleaning up their corner of the underpass. This year, they decided to do it all, literally. IBEX and their leader–known as the head of the herd–Darryl Stewart, renovated all four underpass corners. They have been weeded, excavated and landscaped. IBEX volunteered many days of staff time to the work. In addition, they used their numerous business contacts to solicit donations for the South Osborne project and Habitat for Humanity. To date, they have raised close to $20,000 for Habitat. The value of what they have done for our neighbourhood is immeasurable.
Congratulations to Darryl Stewart, the IBEX staff, South Osborne Beautification Committee members and businesses and volunteers too numerous to list. We appreciate their work and dedication to community.
The Manitoba government supported the project with a Community Places grant, and money has come from businesses and the City of Winnipeg. Mr. Speaker, the accomplishments of IBEX and the committee are a wonderful example of what happens when government, community and businesses work together. Thank you to everyone.
Don Forbes
Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, the most recent annual general meeting of the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce was extra special for Don Forbes. Mr. Forbes was presented with an award for his outstanding service to the Carberry and area Chamber of Commerce and the local community.
Mr. Forbes has been in the financial planning business since 1987 in Carberry, Manitoba. Today, his time is balanced between work and a continuous contribution of energy to many local volunteer organizations that work to improve the community of Carberry and the surrounding area.
As someone who enjoys participating in meetings and working for results, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Forbes has an active role in the local Chamber of Commerce as well as the Development Corporation, the Community Foundation, the Friends of Spruce Woods, the Assiniboine Delta Aquifer Management Advisory Board and the Lions Club, to name just a few. His commitment has proven worthwhile with many of these groups witnessing positive results in their goals that bring advantages to the community and the region.
In addition to Mr. Forbes' involvement with his local chamber, he served on the board of the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce for 14 years, including a year as the chair. While the chairmanship was a volunteer position, Mr. Forbes was extremely dedicated to this role, spending countless hours meeting with chambers across Manitoba and putting over 20,000 kilometres on his car in the process.
Mr. Forbes worked for the provincial chamber, and his volunteer work in the region provides an example for all of us on how to be successful in business, while also reinvesting our time and abilities to improving the world around us.
I'd like to congratulate Mr. Forbes for his recent honour by the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce and wish him all the best in his continued activities.
Commuter Challenge
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): On May 30, I was very pleased to attend the kickoff of the Commuter Challenge with my honourable friend, the Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mines (Mr. Rondeau). Organized by the local non-profit group, Resource Conservation Manitoba, the basic premise of the Commuter Challenge is to encourage healthier, cleaner, commuting practices by reducing the reliance on vehicles for trips to and from the workplace, and to and from school. Last year Winnipeg won the National Commuter Challenge title for its population category, and we're very hopeful that after a very successful kickoff we will be repeat champions this year.
Climate-friendly transportation is of course great for health and fitness, terrific for the environment and it's also kind to your wallet. The Commuter Challenge gets people thinking about their everyday travel choices. Participants in the Commuter Challenge will bus, bike, walk, skate, paddle, car pool and telecommute to work or school from June 1 to June 7 and, as someone who has just officially registered a couple of days ago, I can advise all honourable members that you can still do so by going to the Commuter Challenge Web site and enter your green-friendly kilometres for this week.
This friendly competition is a way of showcasing those commuters who decide to choose sustainable modes of transportation. My preference is, of course, the bicycle and, as a student and staff member at the University of Manitoba, I have travelled to and from work and school for many, many years and I am very pleased that our government has made some very significant investments to help others travel to and from the university and elsewhere in our city and province using green methods. With our increases to Winnipeg's annual transit operating grant by more that 40 percent, the total is now up to $22.9 million per year. Mr. Speaker, $3.7 million has also been invested for trails projects across Manitoba since 1999.
I would really like to thank the excellent staff and volunteers at Resource Conservation Manitoba for raising all of our awareness levels on this very important opportunity to help green the planet. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.
(Continued)
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, can you call concurrence of Committee of Supply?
Mr. Speaker: Okay. Orders of the day. We'll be moving into Committee of Supply.
Madam Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair.
* (14:30)
Madam Chairperson (Bonnie Korzeniowski): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
The committee has before it for consideration the motion concurring in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009.
When this committee rose yesterday, the indication was that the committee wished to have the attendance today of the Minister of Child and Family Services (Mr. Mackintosh) as well as the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) to respond to questions.
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Madam Chairperson, I was wondering if I could have leave of the House to introduce an erratum, a piece of information that I would like to correct for the record.
Madam Chairperson: Is there leave for the minister?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Madam Chairperson: There is leave.
Mr. Selinger: I have been informed that there is a typographical error on page 24 of the Manitoba Summary Financial Statistics from the Manitoba '08 budget and budget papers' book. The value of other taxes was overstated by $100 million, leading to an overstatement of $100 million in the total revenue and summary net revenue presentations for '06-07.
I have reproduced pages 24 and 25 and am tabling them now. These corrected pages present the correct information based on the audit of the public accounts for '06-07. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: The floor is open for questions.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): My question to the Minister of Health, as the minister well knows, I've been quite concerned about wait lists. In the area of bone and joint health, one of the problems is that there is great inequity in Manitoba in terms of the amount of operating room time from one orthopedic surgeon to another.
The result is that surgeons with less operating room time end up, naturally, with longer waiting lists. This inequity not only contributes us to the longer waiting list, but it contributes to a feeling that people are not being treated fairly. That is bad for the whole system.
I would ask the minister what she's going to do about this problem, about inequitable access to operating room times for orthopedic surgeons.
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Madam Chair, I thank the member for picking up on this topic that we left off on yesterday. It helps for a smooth flow of information.
I do want to remind the member, of course, as we were discussing yesterday, about the concerted effort to focus on wait times in both the life-saving realm and in the quality-life realm, that we did address some topics of discussion yesterday, concerning areas that may not have come forth as initial priorities of the First Ministers in the Health Accord.
We do know that, in the areas of hip and knee replacements, we have seen very significant and substantial success. As the member articulates, that, along with making system changes, for example–as I referenced yesterday–the two-operating-room model and the use of clinical assists in surgery at Concordia Hospital, we also are working very diligently to improve the system from a doctor procedural and, for lack of a better word, behavioural perspective, that is, how an individual doctor manages his or her wait list.
We know that regional health authorities are working in a very planful manner with doctors, particularly those who have demonstrated a roll-up-their-sleeves, let's-get-down-to-business-and-really-address-wait-times kind of attitude, an attitude that has concerned the sharing of wait lists, the pooling of resources and the real collaboration and team effort like we have seen at places like Concordia Hospital, where wait times have come down.
Certainly, I will note the member raising concern about a perceived inequity in surgical slate time. I know that regions work very closely with surgeons to work on these kinds of times. I think the member is also aware that, in partnership with the federal government, Manitoba currently has underway a $5.8-million pilot project to work on wait times that will help improve the referral systems between family docs and specialists to reduce the time that patients are waiting to see specialists across the big five according to the FMM Accord, but paying close attention to how the principles that are learned from that project can indeed be applied to some of the issues that the member opposite has raised, whether it's foot or ankle or shoulder.
I know that it's going to require a combined effort and a shared responsibility on ensuring that we not only share that surgical slate time but that we also have individual surgeons that are willing to come forward and be part of that collaborative effort and that team to share their wait list, to help the patients on that list get to the front of that line as quickly as possible.
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Yes, I'd like to ask the Minister of Family Services a question. I'm looking at a situation–[interjection] Yes, we're just going to be dealing with questions to the Minister of Family Services for a while. So the minister would be free to deal with–as long as she comes back, of course. [interjection] Yes, we'll give you a few minutes to deal with that.
But I wanted to ask Child and Family Services: The community of Kenton has a number of opportunities for growth, and the community of Kenton has for some time had lots that had been available or been held by Housing in Manitoba for decades, Madam Chairperson.
My question to the minister would be around the changes that the community has asked for, and I would like to ask the Minister of Housing a couple of things around this issue. One of them would be how frequent it is that perhaps the government would be able to offer some lots that have been in a community, a very small community, but it is growing, Kenton, the community of Kenton. They've asked me to ask the minister–I think they've actually sent letters to the minister as well–to look at–I know they've been in discussion with at least some of his department officials at least–the serious question of whether the minister would consider allowing four lots in the community–I think it's four lots–of Kenton to be sold to a local private enterprise for people that actually want to move into and build new homes in the community of Kenton.
I appreciate the fact that his department has already improved some of the–if you would call them more affordable housing in the community of Kenton last year when they had their centennial celebrations, their 125s. The community very much appreciated the minister, his department, helping to enhance some of the siding on some of the buildings that were there, to spruce things up for their huge homecoming that was very, very successful last summer.
But that has spurred some interest and just to know that the minister may have had a role in that by his previous involvement with their request just to help with the upgrading of some of the facilities that were there. But these empty lots have been there. There's nothing on them. They're bare ground. They've been held by the Housing department for many, many years, and I would just ask the minister if he would consider an offer in regard to freeing those up to a private business. [interjection]
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. It's very hard to hear when you're talking in the back.
Mr. Maguire: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I appreciate that the minister couldn't hear me there. So I'll repeat the question.
The minister, for his information–I won't go through it all again–but the community of Kenton has four lots, I believe it is, that they would like to buy through a private offer from the Housing Department who's held these lots for 40, 50 years.
* (14:40)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. Could we please have conversations taken to the loge. I think you know how our voices carry in here.
Mr. Maguire: So I'll leave it at that. Can he tell me whether his department has ever considered offering four lots that they really haven't done anything with for about 40, 50 years?
I know it was back–I'd been informed at least by local citizens that over the last few decades this request has come back before, but it's been many, many years since it came up, certainly not in this minister's term or the term of this government. I don't think that it's come up that recently. Now there is interest for young families to come into the community, and I wonder if the minister would look at an offer from private citizens or a private group to look at being able to help that community provide some lots so that people could build new homes in their community.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Well, just some questions on this. Would the member tell me, are these lots in the town site itself, and would we be looking at residential housing or would he be talking about commercial development?
Perhaps he could just sort of describe the general location of these and then we can continue this. I may have to get some advice on it, but I'd like to hear about it, and perhaps he can make a case that might help move this along.
Mr. Maguire: Absolutely, I'd be glad to help the minister with that. They are right in the community of Kenton, virtually four lots that have been–they've already staked them out, I think. So that's why they've had interest from people out of province to move in to purchase these already. They are for local housing. They're not for commercial use. It's just that they have some local citizens, I believe, actually, that would purchase the lots just to help the community out.
To show the commitment there, the town and the R.M. of Woodworth have already indicated that they will service the lots, provide some assistance in servicing the lots to make sure that they can entice citizens to come to their small community. It's very much a local initiative by everyone involved in the community.
Mr. Mackintosh: So I take it the member is saying, then, that these four lots are amongst homes there; in other words, that these are empty lots that have been there for a long time, held by the Province, and that he's aware that there would be buyers that would build houses there for residents. Is that a good summary of the member's case?
Mr. Maguire: Yes, that's exactly it, Mr. Minister. They are lots that are all in a row. It's a block of land, as I understand it, that Manitoba Housing has had for a number of decades, so they're not helter-skelter through the town. They are in a row, and they're right in the middle of the community.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just one final question. Has there been any case made by the municipality or by the stakeholders, any interest in developing low-income housing there? In other words, is it foreseeable that there would be a need for some low-income housing development by Manitoba Housing for whatever purposes, you know, seniors or others? I'm just wondering, in other words, if it is being held because there may be some interest pending.
Mr. Maguire: That's not their indication to me, Mr. Minister. There is already low-cost housing in Kenton, and your department, as I said in my earlier comments, did a very good job last year of meeting their demands for improving the siding on some of those facilities and upgrading them for the low-cost housing that's already there, to spruce the town up for their 125 celebrations that occurred last summer. It went over so well that there have been people looking at maybe coming back to retire in that area. There are some young people that have indicated that they would like to build a home there as well, on at least one of these lots.
The community has indicated that they would help service it through the municipal movement, through the R.M. of Woodworth, and Reeve Carter's indicated that to me. I know I have some correspondence to this effect, and I would be glad to make that available to the minister, if they haven't already made it available to him at this point.
Mr. Mackintosh: What I'll undertake, then, is to have this discussion with Manitoba Housing, and I'll present the member's case, and I'll get back to him, perhaps if he can allow a few weeks for a reply on that one. I'll look at the earlier correspondence as well.
I know, generally, the department has been very cautious in letting any lots go. Every once in a while, I get a letter from someone. I think I might have got one from the member, or one or two members opposite with similar questions. I'll be interested in reviewing their policy, their current approach, but, specifically, we'll let the member know what we could do.
Mr. Maguire: Just one final comment to that, I appreciate the minister looking into that. I certainly would appreciate if he could get back to me, and the time frame that he's outlined would be fine.
Just for his awareness as well, of course, there are personal care homes already in Hamiota, Virden and surrounding communities. I think it certainly wouldn't be personal care homes that we would be looking at being built there in the future, and low-cost housing already exists in the community. Because these lots haven't had anything done with them for years and years and years, there is some interest in construction. It's great to see that in some of these small communities.
I was quite excited when they came to me to see if we could do something in regard to trying to enhance the opportunities for growth in their community. So I would very much appreciate his response. Thanks very much.
I hadn't noticed that the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) was here, so I would just like to follow up a comment, obviously, from my questions in question period today. With the minister's indulgence, I did not know she had a meeting on June 23. I very much appreciate the fact that she is meeting with the town of Virden on June 23. If that's the case, I thank her for that. I had only become aware of the third doctor–I was aware of the first and second ones–only became aware of the third one's intention to leave this morning. That's why I was asking the questions.
I just want to know as well how long maybe she's been aware. Maybe she's been aware of it longer than I have. I know it's obviously a concern amongst the RHA. We've met with them, some of us, as MLAs, in that region. We try to meet with them once in a while as well.
I know that shortage of nurses is a concern all over Manitoba, but can she outline to me any of the procedures that she might be able to share with me today as to how she plans on dealing with this, what could end up being a crisis?
Ms. Oswald: I appreciate the member's comments.
Again, I will certainly put on the record that I had assumed by some correspondences I'd received from my staff that, in fact, the member was aware of a meeting that was coming up. If he did not know, I accept that fully. The member is an honourable member.
I can also say to the member, as far as the issue of a potential third doctor, I have not read any correspondence or been briefed on that. Personally, I know I've heard concerns about two doctors, so I would hesitate to comment further on that until I have more information.
I can say to the member that, while we know there have been very positive gains, not only in Manitoba as a whole but in the Assiniboine Regional Health Authority, for nursing, health human resources and doctors, we know that there's also a rather unique situation in that community, or in that regional health authority, I should say, specifically, with the highest number of hospitals and personal care homes per capita, as the member has cited, perhaps not in Virden, but in the region, a declining population.
* (14:50)
We also know that summer months, historically, are always especially challenging. These nurses and doctors work long hours and do very important work, and, as they begin to take their very well deserved vacations, we know that services in the region become even more challenging to continue. As I've said to the member, we have been in discussions with the regional health authority about ensuring that they're organized and planning, to the best of their ability, to be ensuring that environments that see the most people with the most severe health problems do, indeed, get the care that they need. Having said all of this, the challenge continues in recruitment and retention.
Yes, we have 200 more nurses today than we did a year ago, but getting them to all the regions that need them, it is indeed a monumental challenge sometimes. So, conditional grants, the Medical Licensure Program for International Medical Graduates, these things have shown some success, but we need to be continuing to be vigilant because while politically unpopular, certainly suspensions of services have to do with people being safe, and that's a decision that always has to happen before anything else.
So we are going to be working very aggressively with the region. We know the region is planning for all eventualities, and I know that, as is the case anytime, I have the privilege to meet with community leaders and community members who care, of course, very deeply about their individual communities. There's always more to learn and more creativity to bring to the dialogue, and I look forward to that opportunity. I cited June 23. It's what comes to my mind. If it's 21 or 25, I hope the member will forgive me, but I do think it is, in fact, the 23rd of June. It certainly is in June, yes.
Mr. Gerrard: A follow-up to the question that I'd asked: One of the problems, for example, when you compare Manitoba and Alberta, in Alberta with Alberta Bone and Joint Health, they provide a venue, an opportunity for orthopedic surgeons to work together and to provide equity of treatment for orthopedic surgeons, but make sure that there is equity of service provided for people in Alberta around the province.
One of the problems here is that there is no Manitoba bone and joint health or provincial orthopedic network or organization, and the result is that there are considerable inequities in the way that orthopedic surgeons are treated in the extent to which they have operating room time. A comparison was published, I think, in an orthopedic journal between Winnipeg and Calgary showing that there was very considerable equity in terms of operating room time for orthopedic surgeons in Calgary, but very great inequity for operating room time for orthopedic surgeons in Winnipeg.
Clearly, if you're going to have a system which works well, this is one of things that needs to be–you've got a system which works well for patients, it gets people seen quickly, but it also has to work well and fairly for orthopedic surgeons.
So I would ask the minister to look into this and to look into how orthopedics, bone and joint health, is supported provincially so that we can have better provincial co-ordination and better provincial equity for patients and for orthopedic surgeons.
Ms. Oswald: I know the member and I have had discussions on this previous, and I certainly do want to assure the member that I've endeavoured to continue to do some research on the successes and the challenges that exist with the Alberta model. Certainly, whether or not one adopts that exact model or one adopts some core principles from the model, we know that there are lessons to be learned in other jurisdictions, without question. We do know that the institute has been able to flatten, if you will, the kinds of surgical slate times for surgeons that are working on these kinds of operations.
But, core to that, of course, goes back to what I was saying to the member about a camaraderie among surgeons and among people working in the field, a co-operation, a philosophical construct that says, we have to put that patient first and that my worth as a surgeon is not measured by how long my list is but how efficiently I can co-operate and work with other people to bring those wait times down.
They have had some successes; they have had some challenges. Again, I commit to the member that I will continue to pay close attention to whether it's the lessons learned from the orthopedic ideas at the joint institute in Alberta, whether it's looking closely at things like patient navigation and the patient journey, which, if we ever get confused in all of this, we should remember is what it's all about, whether we're talking about someone that needs to have surgery on their ankle or we're discussing a woman that's been diagnosed with breast cancer, the more work that we can be doing as a system to be focussing on what journey that individual person has to take and how quickly they can access information and how smoothly they can function in a co-operative and collaborative environment in which health care is provided. These are noble goals, indeed, to achieve, and it's what is going to make the health-care system in Manitoba better and it's what's going to make life in Manitoba even better.
So, again, I say to the member that I will continue to be a student of lessons to be learned at that institute and at other institutes that are providing excellent care across the nation and across the globe. We'll continue to work to bring down those wait times in Manitoba.
Mr. Gerrard: Just to follow up on one other question that I asked yesterday and that was in terms of the effort to ensure that there's a province-wide approach to renal or kidney disease. Who would be the person who is the responsible person for ensuring that there's a province-wide approach for renal disease and that there are approaches which are consistent and that the services are provided province-wide?
Ms. Oswald: Well, I think in a next question he's going to tell me that it's me. But if we're talking about a systematic kind of approach, of course, from a preventative and on any issues concerning avoiding renal disease in the first place, we have a multipronged approach in terms of healthy living strategies.
The Manitoba Renal Program, of course, is one that drives issues concerning treatment, dialysis, and so forth in Manitoba. Of course, in some of the issues that we were speaking of yesterday, about incidence and prevalence and a disparate number of Aboriginal people who live with renal disease, we know that we have to make sure that the Manitoba Renal Program is working very diligently with our regional health authorities and, indeed, with those in the Aboriginal Health Branch of Manitoba Health. So it's a team approach, certainly.
Ms. Marilyn Brick, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mr. Gerrard: Thank you. They're my questions, and I'll turn it back over to the MLA for River East.
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I have some questions for the Minister of Family Services.
I do know that, during the Estimates process, the minister committed to get a significant amount of information, and I thought I would have it before Estimates finished, but I haven't received information yet. I'm wondering if the minister–and I'm speaking on the child-care side right now. I asked a lot of questions about new spaces, newly funded spaces, newly created spaces. Maybe I'll just start there and see whether the minister–it looks like he may have something in his hand, so maybe he has something he wants to share with me or read into the record.
Mr. Mackintosh: Yes, I have a number of answers now from the department. I'm just going to the area of child care.
How many ECE grads over the last five years entered the child-care system? The department doesn't track how many grads enter the child-care system; however, a good measure would be the number of individuals classified as those people work in the system and a diploma or a degree is required to work at that classification level. So the breakdown is: '02-03, 131 ECE IIs and 47 ECE IIIs; '03-04, 152 ECE IIs, 44 ECE IIIs; '04-05, 151 ECE IIs, 45 ECE IIIs; '05-06, 208 ECE IIs, 58 ECE IIIs; '06-07, 183 ECE IIs, 43 ECE IIIs; and, finally, '07-08, 262 ECE IIs, and 45 ECE IIIs.
* (15:00)
The budget allocation was asked for the 3 percent overall increase for wages, effective July 1, plus low-wage adjustment. So Family Choices expenditures projected for '08-09 include the following: wages and wage adjustment, December 1–or July 1, I hope that's corrected in the record, and December 1, is $3,950,000. Of that, $500,000 is for the low-wage adjustment at December 1.
There were also questions from the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou). I don't know, should I put that on the record? Maybe I can give that to the Member for Portage la Prairie. Just trying to go quickly through this.
There were questions in Housing as well. I have some documents I can share with the member. There were questions about the 500 spaces in '07-08, and River East. The information I have in a note is that, under the act and the regulation 62/86, school programs that may be eligible for exemption, or public or private schools that provide part-day or full-day kindergarten programs, or provide care and supervision to school-aged children outside the hours of regular school operation.
In a letter dated May 16, 2006, to the secretary-treasurer of the River East Transcona School Division, the director of the child-care program clarified that school-age programs which are exempt from licensing requirements are the responsibility then of the school divisions, as the operators. The operators would assume responsibility for all day-to-day operations, including monitoring of the program operation and ensuring staff qualifications. In the case of school-aged children, the school division would be responsible for the care and supervision of children on a before-school, during-lunch and after-school basis and on in-service days and holidays.
After consulting with legal counsel, and this is the point of discussion, the River East Transcona School Division decided not to request an exemption for the school-age programs. The school division advised the 10 centres that it would not assume responsibility for the school-age programs in the '07-08 school year.
In June '06, child-care staff met with representatives from the school division, I'm advised, and the child-care centres and provided information regarding licensing requirements. I'm advised that, with the assistance of the child-care staff, the child-care co-ordinator for River East and the child-care co-ordinator for Transcona, all 10 centres were licensed by September 5, 2007.
The member also asked about the funding of spaces in '07-08. There were an additional 220 spaces previously approved but didn't open 'til '07‑08. So the total number of newly funded spaces for '07-08 was 720.
There 397 spaces in Winnipeg: 52 infant, 162 pre-school, 114 school-age, and 67 nursery school; 323 were outside Winnipeg: 47 infant, 186 pre-school, 56 school-age, and 34 nursery school.
Of the 720 spaces, 63 were in the River East community area. Five of these were school-age spaces. I understand the 10 centres have been operating for many years as license-exempt.
The member had questions on Housing. I don't know if she wants answers now. I certainly would prefer to get those on the record so there doesn't have to be follow-up later on, but I'll leave that with her.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Acting Chair, the answers that were just read in, it's very difficult for me, until I have a chance to review Hansard, to–I mean, I certainly couldn't take notes. I'm wondering if the minister has a hard copy of the information that he could provide to me now so that I might ask some follow-up questions.
I know the information that was put on the record is certainly not the kind of detail that I did ask for through the Estimates process. I asked for location facility-by-facility of newly funded and newly created child-care spaces. I asked for a list of all child-care facilities and the number of spaces they have. I asked for a regional breakdown on home-based child-care facilities. I asked the question: Of the 5,000 child-care spaces in the last five-year plan, how many were newly created and how many were just newly funded? I asked also for a facility-based breakdown of where those 5,000 newly funded or created spaces went, asked where they were from the five-year plan, and of the 500 spaces created in 2007–and I may have just got that answer. This may be the one question that the minister answered. Of the 500 spaces created in 2007-2008, how many were newly created, and how many were just newly funded? Did I get an answer to that?
That might have been one answer that he read into the record, but he certainly didn't read in the answers to all of the outstanding questions that he did commit, and at the time–I can't remember how many weeks ago Estimates were now–the minister, on the first day of Estimates, indicated that he might have the information for the next day. He said it wasn't quite all compiled, that staff were working on it. So I would presume that at this point in time he should have all of that information that I did ask for. I don't know if he wants me to go back one by one to the outstanding issues and maybe either read into the record, or provide me with a hard copy.
My understanding was that he was going to get the information and provide it to me. So I would've expected to receive that information in my office within a few days after the Estimates process.
Mr. Mackintosh: I have further information on the breakdown of the funded spaces approved in '07-08, and I can provide that to the Clerk for distribution. The department advises that the big question there, about the over the last five years, the note that I have, which I got today, I can advise the member, was they are looking into the collection of this information and they have committed to best efforts being made to complete this by September of '08. So, in other words, it looks like it's quite a compilation job in terms of the five-year look back on the number of spaces in terms of breaking down newly created and newly funded centre by centre for region, and looking at home cares as well.
My understanding is that there is some advice that they have to pursue in terms of identifying the home day cares in terms of addresses. I don't know if the member–maybe she can clarify that. Does she actually want addresses or does she want community listings? And there may be some other issues in terms of the collection of this information that perhaps the member and I will have to discern, because from the little note that I have here it appears to be some challenge for the Child Care program to put that information together.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess I question how difficult it should be. I mean, the minister stands up in the House on a year-by-year basis, and he talked about the five-year plan and talks about the 5,000 child-care spaces that were funded.
Certainly in order to be able to compile that information and know that 5,000 spaces were funded, surely information should be available in the department on where those spaces are. I'm not sure how difficult it is and how many months it would take to gather information. I mean, if the minister and his department know the numbers, they should know where those spaces are. I would think it would be a fairly simple request and something that should be able to be provided very easily, unless they're going back and trying to create something that isn't there. How can the minister stand up with any confidence and say that 5,000 spaces have been funded, but I don't know where they are and it's going to take me months to figure that out?
* (15:10)
It makes common sense to me that that should be fairly readily available. It would require a bit of work, but certainly there must be some computer technology in the Child Care office that would give us that information. If there isn't, how have they then calculated and how do they know how many spaces there really are?
I did, on the home-based child-care facilities, and I believe that I indicated clearly through the Estimate process that I wasn't asking for addresses for home-based child care. I asked for a regional breakdown on that specific issue because I think that that is, maybe, a little more complicated and I'm not sure that I want a public list of every place in my hands anyway, of where every home is that looks after young children. Certainly, everyone knows where child-care facilities are.
I'm just looking for the five-year history of how many licensed spaces are in facilities, how many of them are new spaces. Let me take an example, and can I say XYZ child-care facility?
Five years ago, before the five-year plan started, they had how many funded spaces? How many funded spaces do they have today? Have they had an increase in the number of licensed spaces in that facility? That's public information. I know where the child-care facilities are in my constituency. That should be fairly easy information because, if they're licensed, there are licencing requirements; the department has that information. If they're funded, the department knows how many funded spaces are provided for through this department.
It doesn't seem to me that it should be all that complicated to pull that information and give us a history and a breakdown of that information.
So I would ask again for the minister to read into the record the memo that he got from his department that would indicate how complicated it would be and that it might take another three to four months to gather that information.
Mr. Mackintosh: The member won't find any argument from me in terms of–surely, this information is available. This looks like it's a matter of collecting it and, perhaps, it's a matter of prioritizing the work in the division because I know that Family Choices–they are running full-out.
As I say, I just got this note, heading in here, and I'll just take it as face value, but the member won't find any argument. It's an issue that surely there should be a record, and is it a matter of pulling it together? Is it a matter of prioritizing it? I can advise the member that I'll ask that division to prioritize it.
I say so a little reluctantly because I know of the efforts that are underway right now to put the implementation on the ground of Family Choices and a lot of–[interjection]–I know that. I take accountability for that because it's a very ambitious agenda but, in the interests of accountability, I have a duty on this.
I will raise it with the department to determine and ask them to move that up. If we have to bring in someone, perhaps to do it, then we'll do it. We will do what we can to move up that reply.
Mrs. Mitchelson: All right, thanks, Madam Acting Chair. I'll just go through, for the record again, the outstanding issues on the child-care file that I'm looking for information on.
I haven't had a chance to look at the handout that the minister just gave me, but I'll look at this. If there are outstanding questions, I'll get back to him, probably at another date, because it'll take me some time to look through this.
What I had asked for was location, facility by facility, of newly funded and newly created child-care spaces, a list of all child-care facilities and the number of spaces that they have. That would be the number of licensed spaces. I guess I would like the number of licensed spaces and the number of funded spaces. They may be one and the same, but they might be different because there might be some that are still waiting for funding.
Then, on the home-based child-care facilities, it was just a regional breakdown. Then, in the five-year plan, and that ended–maybe the minister could just tell me when the previous five-year plan ended. I know we've just announced a new five-year plan. So when did the five-year plan end? And–well, I'll just ask that question.
Mr. Mackintosh: The plan was announced in '02 and completed in '07.
Mrs. Mitchelson: That was what I thought. So, now, the new plan is going from 2008 to 2013. Would that be correct?
Mr. Mackintosh: Yes, the new plan begins this fiscal year, '08-09, and goes for five years, five fiscal years inclusive.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Then I don't know whether I just put this on the record or not. But of the 5,000 spaces that were created then in the last five-year plan, how many were newly created spaces and how many were just newly funded, but not new actual spaces? I did want a facility-based breakdown of where those 5,000 newly funded spaces were. And I think this was the one. Of the 500 spaces created in 2007-2008 how many were newly created and how many were newly funded? I might just ask, is that what the minister has provided for me in the document he handed out?
Mr. Mackintosh: Yes, the document talks about the total number of spaces funded.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I also asked the question previously of how many spaces or facilities have closed down over the last five years, and then I think the minister answered the question on the ECE grads and a breakdown of the $5-million increase to child care. That information he put on the record just a few minutes ago.
So I'm wondering if I could get an undertaking, then, from the minister, to take Hansard–and I know it won't be printed for a day or two–share it with departmental officials, who I'm sure will read it, and maybe give me an undertaking of just getting back to me with a short note on what in this information is easily or readily available and maybe provide that up front, and then just let me know what is going to take until September. Because I'm sure some of the things could be done more quickly than others. I don't really want to wait till September for things that might be available next week or the week after. So, if he could undertake to do that for me, I would really appreciate it.
* (15:20)
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, the member has a good idea, too. There may be information that can be made available more quickly and if it trickles to her, fine, but, yes, we'll certainly pursue that. She should be entitled to that. Actually, it raises a question as to whether this information should be, on a systematic basis, posted on the Web site as we go forward.
I think, as well, then, that's an accountability measure for Family Choices, so people can see how it's building over time, and then we don't get into questions like this. This is information that surely is in some, if it's not in a computer–I don't know if it is; I can't answer that–but it's surely in files somewhere.
Mrs. Mitchelson: The minister did make a good observation. I mean, when we're talking about transparency and accountability, this kind of information should be posted on a regular basis, and, as we're moving into the beginning of a new five-year plan, I would hope that whatever systems or processes need to be put in place to be able to provide that information would be very helpful.
It's not a good idea to go into a new, five-year plan without any method of collecting data and making that data available for those that might wish to see it. So I'm hopeful, and I share the minister's comments about having a transparent and accountable system in place as we're moving into a new era with some new initiatives.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just to take it to another level then, what I'll also do, though, is just let the member know whether we can conclude some plans to, indeed, have it as part of the Internet information that's available. I think that would be a really good suggestion, and I think that's good for every reason. We'll let the member know of the advice that I have on that.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I'd just like to move over to Housing, and I think the minister said he had some information for me. Maybe he could just let me know what he has before I indicate what might still be outstanding.
Mr. Mackintosh: First, the staffing vacancies, using March 30 for a measure: '07, March 30, Family Services and Housing, 12.21; MHRC, 12.64.
For '08, March 30, Family Services and Housing, 11.72; MHRC 23.74, which I understand now would be quite different.
There was information about advice–
The Acting Chairperson (Ms. Marilyn Brick): Point of order, honourable Member for River East?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I don't know if this is a point of order. Just for clarification, can the minister go back and tell me what information he was providing for me because I didn't hear the beginning of his comments.
Mr. Mackintosh: There was a question about the reconciliation of the number of staffing vacancies in Family Services and Housing, '07 over '08.
The next one was, the member had asked that we look at suggestions regarding bedbug control from a woman, much appreciated. I know that the information was reviewed. A response was provided to the individual, and I think we got into this in some detail. She may not want to go here again, but there is now a comprehensive systemic approach to pest control in MHA.
I'll just go down the list.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Maybe if we could just do these one by one. I want to thank the minister for that. I'm wondering if he could share with me that comprehensive pest control strategy. There must be a document, then, that maybe he could share with me. If we could go one by one, then if there's just anything outstanding on that issue, then we can move on.
Mr. Mackintosh: It was as a result of a new breed, I guess, if you will, of bedbugs worldwide, and I understand as well the lack of availability because of federal health regulations of, I understand, some treatment techniques that historically were available, presumably for good reason, for health reasons, have been discontinued in the Canadian market. Bedbugs have been a very challenging issue in North America. Manitoba Housing, of course, has not been spared any of the challenge, as members will know.
It was decided that there had to be a re-prioritization of pest control for Manitoba Housing. This year there's a budget of $1.2 million, actually, for pest control as a result of this challenge. This is not cheap; it's not easy to deal with. There is now a seven-person control team that was put in place because there had to be an organizational effort that was better planned, co-ordinated and specialized. Their job is to use the most effective systems to eradicate bedbugs and other pests, not just bedbugs, but there could be other pests from time to time.
The department advises now that, as a result of the protocol developed, there is to be a response within 48 hours to reports to MHA of bedbug activity. The treatment is planned on a 30-day cycle. The units with reported activity as well as units around are treated.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Rather than the minister reading the whole thing into the record, there must be a protocol that used that would be public information and provided to any facility that might have bedbugs to residents, and that kind of thing. So maybe he could just table it with the Clerk and I could get a copy of it, because if it's an official protocol it's something that I'm sure is–and if he's reading it into the record it must be public information. Then we wouldn't have to spend the amount of time that we're spending going through it in this detail.
Mr. Mackintosh: I suspect the department has a formal protocol document. What I have here are some e‑mails and just a political note that has other issues on it.
But I can provide that for the member. As well, I know that the department has either concluded or is just about to conclude a tenant information package, which I suspect will be of interest to her as well, because we know we have to better engage tenants in this process. So I can provide that to the member.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I thank the minister for that undertaking.
I had asked during the Estimates process, too, for some information that I had requested under Freedom of Information back in January 29 about a complete list of purchase orders. The minister did commit to looking into it. We've received no response since that January 29 request, and I wonder if the minister has that information that he could table for me today.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I did, before coming in here, anticipating that question, I asked staff–well, actually, I had asked staff earlier of its whereabouts and was advised that it was hugely voluminous, and that was a big part of this. As I recall, I think they said there are hundreds and hundreds of pages here. So I think that's my recollection of the explanation as to some of the challenges there.
My understanding is–I had asked if I could table that in the House, and the advice I had was that, as a FIPPA, it should go in the usual course from the FIPPA co-ordinator. I understand that, as they say, it's in the mail, that it has now been concluded for the member, and she should have it within days.
* (15:30)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much.
There were a couple of other issues that we had talked about, and because I was having difficulty getting my mind around things, I mean, the minister offered his staff to provide briefing to me. What would the process be for me to get–does the minister want me to go through his office to set those briefing meetings up? I'm certainly not looking for them in the next couple of weeks, but anytime into the summer break, if that should happen. Can I have an undertaking from the minister to try to make that happen, if he could just tell me what process he'd like me to follow?
Mr. Mackintosh: I was just going to suggest that, perhaps along with the receipt of that FIPPA reply, she might want to have it on a timely basis following that. Perhaps, the comptroller would be the best person there to do that. I certainly would make myself available.
If she doesn't want to do it when we're here, we could maybe set something up for next week, if the member wishes. If she would like to put it off for a bit, well, fine. Okay, that's fine. I don't know who wants to call whom here, but I'd more than happy to bring it forward for, say, a call to the member in a couple of weeks, if we're not sitting, and we can set that up.
There were some related questions around this. It was to provide the amount of carry-over from last fiscal–maybe I can put that on the record now. As was provided in the Estimates process, the amount of MHRC loan act authority carry-over reflected in the '08-09 estimates was $36 million. It should be noted there is a carry-over each year due to the timing of cash flows. Perhaps the rest then can be dealt with at our meeting.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We'll pursue a meeting; that's all I have for right now. I think there are some questions for the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) for a few moments, and then my colleague will want to ask some questions on Child and Family Services.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Madam Acting Chair, I thank the Minister of Health for making herself available for a few questions regarding health care; specifically, I want to zero in on the Assiniboine Health Care Region.
Although we can ask questions in the House of the minister, I know these are not questions that I would typically ask in question period, but I think they are important to get some clarification as to how the Assiniboine Health Care Region is progressing or not progressing.
I want to zero in on the area of health-care professionals in the region. Presently, we know from the data that has been collected, I think–I'm not sure how closely correlated the data that the health region has collected is to the data that was collected through the unions, I believe, in terms of people intending to retire over the course of the next few years.
It appears from the data that we have that there are about a hundred nurses that are going to be retiring in a short term in that health-care region and, specifically, in the north part of the region.
I was wondering whether or not the minister has any strategy, or has thought of any strategy in how we can perhaps train more nurses in that–north of Highway 16, if you like–area, because that seems to be where there is a significant shortage of human resource.
Now, I know that there are people who would take up that training program, but it seems that there is some unwillingness for the Assiniboine Health Care Region to support a nurses' training program, whether it's R.N. or L.P.N. in the region.
Madam Chairperson in the Chair
Ms. Oswald: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank the member for the question.
Certainly we have across the floor, at one time or another, had numerous conversations about health human resources, doctors or nurses, whether it's training or recruitment. I know that he doesn't want to hear the long spiel one more time, as enthusiastic as I am about giving it, but I can say zeroing on the Assiniboine region–the member knows certainly that the nature of the regional health authority is quite unique in comparison to other regions. When we look at the number of hospitals–in fact, it has the highest number of hospitals and personal care homes per capita compared to any other region, and that presents a challenge that is even greater in Assiniboine than in other regions.
We know that while we have worked with the region to relocate nurses to the Assiniboine region through the Nurses Recruitment and Retention Fund we've had success in bringing 24 to the ARHA. We've been able to fill 21 nursing vacancies through a conditional grant program incenting nurses to be there. We know that we've increased the number of docs by 60 since 1999, a net increase that is.
We know that we also have to continue, as the member says, to work with our partners in the region to be bringing opportunities like, for example, an L.P.N. to R.N. program that we've seen in other regions be very successful, an eight-seat rotating program. We're committed, you know, subject to interest, of course, by nurses, to come forward and offer that program in Assiniboine in addition to offering paramedic training, the first of its kind in Manitoba, the primary care paramedic program. We're interested in bringing that program to Souris specifically.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair, I was listening to a program on Brandon radio where the CEO of the Assiniboine health region was being questioned by callers who were wondering why we weren't moving ahead with the training program in the Assiniboine region, specifically in the north part of the region. There is a presence of a community college specifically in Russell who are prepared to deliver the program, but the comment that was made by the CEO, and I had to listen carefully to it, was that there wasn't any way that the health-care region could guarantee that the 25 students who would be graduating from a nursing program would have employment in the region. Yet there is this shortage, this looming shortage of a hundred health-care nurses in the short future.
I'm wondering, is there anything that the Department of Health can do to encourage communities in the health-care region to act on this before the situation gets into a crisis state where we have to close facilities or parts of facilities because of human resource shortages?
Ms. Oswald: Madam Chair, I didn't have the privilege of hearing that interview, and so I would hesitate to comment on what was said or not said, but broadly, on what the member has said, I can assure him that we're committed to work very closely with the region to look at whatever kinds of training opportunities may exist for nurses and otherwise.
Just as a point of clarification, the member used the word 25. I wanted to be clear with him on what we are endeavouring to propose to the region is an L.P.N. to R.N. program as part of an overarching strategy. That would be the siting of eight seats just as those eight seats exist on a rotating basis in other communities. So there are 24 seats currently in an L.P.N. to R.N. program rotating through different communities and we want to augment that, bring it to 32.
I don't know if we're necessarily talking about apples and apples, but it's not a 25-seat program that would land in one community, say as Russell, as the member has cited. It's a rotating to really draw upon interest and professionals that exist across the region. You know, there may or may not be a density of potential candidates, like 25 people in one community, but being able to rotate them on a broad basis has proven to be very successful.
* (15:40)
On the second part of the point, I can give the member every assurance that nurses that want to work in the Assiniboine Regional Health Authority, the doors are wide open, and we want to employ them. So if the member has a specific case or a concern broadly that there are nurses that want to work that somehow seem unable to be, I can commit to him that we will straighten that out very quickly.
Mr. Derkach: No, Madam Chair, that is not a complaint at all, nor is it a concern. I think any nurse who is willing to work won't have any difficulty in finding employment in that area at all.
The problem is, of course, there's the whole issue of part time, casual and full time. I think that's starting to sort itself out much better now than it was a few years ago, but it's the training, I think, that is so needed in the area. Even back when I was minister, we were still part of the rotating programs that were delivered.
But, I think, with the presence of a community college in a community that has a satellite station, and a community that's prepared to work toward offering an R.N. program on the basis that that program would be there for a number of years–I don't know how many, and that's something that certainly can be worked out, but it's just to give some comfort that, yes, we are prepared to offer training in a specific area. The best location is certainly not something I want to get into, because, basically, I think it can be offered in any one of those communities, but I believe that people are prepared to travel.
From doing our surveys with the community, it seems like the potential, the number of students who are eager to do training in the health field are enough that there won't be a problem in filling a classroom or spaces that are designated for that kind of training.
So, to end this particular issue, I'd certainly like to encourage the minister to do what she can to work with the health-care region and the communities so that the future of the area would be one where there'd be some satisfaction and some comfort that we would have ongoing personnel for the health-care field.
Ms. Oswald: I thank the member for his perspective. He knows his constituents and his community very well. The member knows that we committed to increase training seats, and we have 60 of those left to allot. I can commit to the member to give every due consideration to the information he's providing today. Thank you.
Mr. Derkach: Just one final question I have for the minister, and then I know that my colleague has some questions for the Family Services Minister.
With regard to facilities, one of the issues that we have in my area is the significant shortage of personal care home beds in the Russell area. In 1998, there was, I guess, a plan to move ahead with the construction of a new personal care home attached to the hospital. I think, at that time, it was a 50-bed personal care home. I was just talking to the doctor in the area last week. He told me there are 22 people who are right now awaiting placement in the personal care home and can't be accommodated because of space.
Now I know there's kind of a disproportionate number of facilities in the area because of the population, but the demographics and the geography of the area is such that it's hard to reduce those facilities to compare with other regions. Personal care space is extremely short in the area, and I'm wondering whether or not there has been any movement from her department to replace that aged facility in Russell that is beyond obsolescence, if you like, in many ways, and should have been replaced 10 years ago, but, with the crisis situations in facilities such as Neepawa–I think Russell's was ahead of Neepawa at one time, but, because of the roof situations and that, Neepawa had to move ahead, and that's understandable. I'm wondering whether there's any work being done right now on replacing that personal care home in Russell.
Ms. Oswald: I thank the member for drawing this item, again, to the fore. I know that we've spoken before on the subject of personal care home beds, and, also, working with the region to increase the options that are available to ensure that those seniors that perhaps aren't ready for the acute level of care that they might need in a personal care home might have some options for more supportive housing environments or supports for seniors in group living.
Certainly, as we look at our long-term care strategy across the province, we're taking into account areas where we know that there are pressures for personal care home beds, and I can say quite frankly to the member that the requests for capital construction, whether renovating or rebuilding anew, are numerous. I can't really think of one member of this House that doesn't have one or two projects that they really want to see happening in their region.
I respect what the member is saying about the historical requests for this situation, and I will commit to him to put a fresh set of eyes on the project and also tell him that we do have a number of challenges on the capital budgetary side. We want people in Russell and everywhere in Manitoba to be safe and cared for, and so I will do the best I can to review this situation and the availability of those beds for the member of his community.
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Madam Chair, my thanks to the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald). I won't have any questions for you. I'm going back to the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Mr. Mackintosh).
In question period today, our leader headed in a very specific direction with his questions, and I'm wondering, after some time has passed, what the minister's responses might be to the–basically, an offer to take part in helping to improve the system that's going on and the system in the Child and Family Services agencies.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I certainly welcome any dialogue with the member, and perhaps we could have some of that here, but I guess one of the questions for the member, to begin that, is what is his view on devolution? What is his advice on that at this point, and, for example, with regard to the tragedies that were discussed in the House today, does he see devolution as related to those? I welcome his views on that, and perhaps as well we could have a more extensive discussion, we could plan a meeting over the next few days, and we can have some further dialogue.
* (15:50)
Mr. Briese: Madam Chair, I do see devolution as being part of what's happened. I think it was probably somewhat rushed, not particularly that it was the wrong direction to go. I think it caught a lot of agencies kind of flat-footed, and they did somewhat move a little too quickly, I think, without the proper groundwork being done. I find it very alarming that–and I know some of the agencies are conducting business very, very well, and there are very, very few problems in some of the agencies, but I find it somewhat alarming that I believe it's five are now under review, and I think that's very close to one-third of the total number of agencies. I got some conflicting numbers. It's either 13 or 15, and I think there's a real need to somewhat standardize things but also to explore exactly what the ones that are operating well are doing and what they're doing right and then develop a template that they all somewhat work under. I'd like the minister's views on that. It may well be that you're in that process right now.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just on the issue of standardizing more, I know there are always regional differences and many other differences that have to be taken into account. What I do see–and I think we could have further discussions with the member on this one–is, in fact, the standing committee office is doing that now.
For example, we're seeing the foundational standards being enhanced. There are some 19 foundational standards now heading to conclusion, in addition, of course, building on the standards that have been in place for sometime. As well, I think many other areas where that member's advice would be well received–and perhaps we can have that as an agenda item in terms of some of the advice that he might have on other areas where he sees standardization as being called for.
I know one of the areas in the House that the member had raised was a need for more standardization for travel policies. By the way, before coming in here, I asked of the status of the collection of those from all the agencies and was advised that there was a handful or less that were still being expected. So I hope that, in the next few days at the outside, we'll have those for the member.
I know one of the cautions there is the need for some flexibility in the north and rural areas versus urban approaches. Recognizing the need for some flexibility but some basic standards, that is why a correspondence has gone out, noting that the government manual of administration, the General Manual of Administration, called the GMA, should be the guide.
As well, in terms of provincial funding of out-of-province, non-educational retreats and AGMs, a directive went out, which is relatively unusual, I would say, for arm's-length agencies. Perhaps, that's one area where we could canvass more there.
I also thought, as a result of our dialogue in the House here today, that there may be a useful exercise in having some discussions with the leadership in the child-welfare system now, with the authorities, for example. There may be some others. I think that may work mutually, that we have some discussions.
Perhaps, we can put together an agenda for discussions, for sharing of ideas and for perspectives. I think that's something that I could help to arrange, involving the member. If the member doesn't want to–the agenda is tight in the next few days, perhaps even the next month or so. Perhaps that's something we could arrange in the coming weeks, if the member would agree.
I'm always open to listening to perspectives. I just was concerned that there not be a predetermined view that devolution is at fault, when the shortcomings are identified. By the way, it's important, first of all, for the processes to conclude whether shortcomings–standards have not been followed in particular cases; that is done by professionals.
I think we always have to look to see how we can make continued improvements and devolution. Again, we always have to look for continued improvements there. I'm sure the Aboriginal leadership would do the same.
Finally, just to conclude my response on that particular suggestion, is learning from what other agencies are doing. We could certainly have some dialogue around that issue. So, if the member is willing, we can make some arrangement. If he wants to have some discussion around a process, I would certainly be willing to achieve some consensus with him and do things a bit differently perhaps, but I would like to involve some of the officials. I think we always have to be cautious that we not politicize a process as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) said today.
Having said that, as well, there will be a role for evaluation in a systematic way of the three pieces of legislation that are the foundation of child welfare in Manitoba. That is another forum that is coming.
Perhaps, whether on the record or off the record, the member and I can have some further discussions on designing some interactions, some sharing of ideas and some learning on what's happening.
My sense from questions in the committee a few weeks ago from Estimates, did suggest to me that it may be useful to have a good sharing of ideas in terms of the status of some of the development of standards. For example, the risk assessment tool, that's a very interesting area. I know the member's asked questions on that. Perhaps it would be a good place to start. We could have that information sharing and take it from there. I'm always open to a dialogue with members on a constructive basis.
Mr. Briese: Thank you for those comments, Mr. Minister. I know our time grows short here.
One thing I would just like you to touch on if we could, and I know this is basically referred to, but not in the exact same words in Bill 34, is the every-child-seen-every-time concept. I think it's a good idea; I just want to get your thoughts on how you implement it, how you make sure it is happening.
Mr. Mackintosh: I've been advised that that concept, that idea, indeed, that rule, is already being drafted for inclusion, in the introduction even, to the standards. As well, I'm looking forward to seeing how the details will be set out in terms of how it is to be implemented with regard to when exceptions would be allowed. For example, what emergencies and other circumstances would permit there to be a proxy or a reliance on a third party in terms of the well-being of a child. That's another area where perhaps we can have some discussions and dialogues, some sharing of ideas outside of the usual parameters of the House or committee.
Mr. Briese: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I certainly look forward to having dialogue with you on those issues. I think there is a lot of room to improve standards and the approaches we take on some of these issues.
I know time has literally run out here. I don't know whether to ask another question or not.
I know after the Demery inquest, the Winnipeg CFS was ordered to begin an assessment checklist previously used in cases where children had suffered abuse. Will that standard be applied across the board? I presume it's being put in place in Winnipeg. Is it expanded across the province?
Mr. Mackintosh: Just to clarify, is the member asking about a standard risk assessment tool? He just said yes, just across the floor.
The member should know that–perhaps we can pick this up again. Perhaps we can get a briefing for him on this one. Based on the new revised Ontario model, there has been an adaptation for this province that is going to be piloted and as part of the differential response model.
* (16:00)
Mr. Briese: Thank you very much for that, Mr. Minister.
I know that was one of the recommendations that came out of the Demery inquest, and I would appreciate getting that from you.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. According to the sessional order, by 4 p.m. today, the question on the concurrence motion in the Committee of Supply must be put. The committee's report must be presented to and received by the House, and the question on the concurrence motion in the House must be put. These actions must now be put without further debate, amendment, or recorded vote.
In order to meet the time deadline, I will now put the question on the concurrence motion in the Committee of Supply.
It was moved by the honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Chomiak) that the Committee of Supply concur in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009, which have been adopted at this session by a section of the Committee of Supply or by the full committee.
Shall the motion pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Madam Chairperson: The motion is accordingly passed.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a motion regarding concurrence in Supply.
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for St. Norbert (Ms. Brick), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on House business.
Mr. Speaker: On House business.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might canvass the House to see if there's unanimous consent to have the House sit concurrent with the two sections of Supply until midnight tonight. Pardon me. The House can sit concurrent with two standing committees, like I am doing, miserably. Do we have unanimous consent for the House to sit concurrently with the two standing committees until midnight?
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for the House to sit with the two standing committees until midnight? Is there agreement? Concurrently. [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Chomiak: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that this House concur in the report of the Committee of Supply respecting concurrence in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak), that there be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for Capital Purposes the sum of $1,366,898,000 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by, once again, the Minister of Justice, that there be granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009, out of the Consolidated Fund, the sum of $9,585,745,100 as set out in Part A, Operating Expenditure, and $579,080,300 as set out in Part B, Capital Investment, of the Estimates.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 42–The Appropriation Act, 2008
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the long-serving Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), that Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2008; Loi de 2008 portant affectation de crédits, be now read a first time and be ordered for a second reading immediately.
Motion agreed to.
* (16:10)
Bill 42–The Appropriation Act, 2008
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Literacy (Ms. McGifford), that Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2008; Loi de 2008 portant affectation de crédits, be now read a second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any speakers? Seeing none, okay, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Whoops. [interjection] No, okay.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 43–The Loan Act, 2008
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ashton), that Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2008; Loi d'emprunt de 2008, be now read a first time and be ordered for a second reading immediately.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 43–The Loan Act, 2008
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald), that Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2008; Loi d'emprunt de 2008, be now read a second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Health, that Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2008, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.
Is it the pleasure of the House–any speakers? No speakers?
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
House Business
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on House business, I wonder if you might call Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008; Loi d'exécution du budget de 2008 et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité.
Bill 44–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading of Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik).
What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No? That's been denied.
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I'm assuming that we are speaking to Bill 44. Is that what you've indicated to me? The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act? I noticed with interest in The Loan Act that the amount of debt that the Province is authorizing itself to borrow in the coming year has increased by $2.3 billion, and that is not the amount that can be used to refinance debt. I know that there are capital items that we need to have funds for in this province, but to ask for an increase in the authorization of–not ask for, to authorize. This bill will authorize the government to borrow for purposes other than to refinance debt, be increased by $2.3 billion.
The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, just brought in by the Finance Minister certainly looks at the items that they brought forward in the budget that Manitobans are aware of. This bill, of course, is budget implementation; it's the authorization that allows the government to spend the funds that it needs, that it's budgeted for throughout the year, taking it into March, 2009, the end of the fiscal year, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that there are a number of areas in this bill that one could speak to.
I want to look at, for instance, the retail sales tax. Providing new and expanded exemptions is an area and it's a concern to me that the government–I'm pleased to see that the items that they have expanded exemptions for, and that being nicotine replacement therapy products, non-returnable dunnage materials, press rolls and rolling mill rolls, bricks and liners for kilns, welding tips and laser and plasma nozzles, services to direct agents. That's pretty broad, in my estimation, that latter one. Certainly, the bricks and liners for kilns should help our industries as far as that sort of thing goes, but we have an opportunity, I guess, to look at these.
It's good to see that the government has reduced those, but I have to chastise the government for the fact that, over the years, they have increased the PST. You notice that Bill 38 that we've been debating in committee for the past number of days, how the government sneakily got around the fact that they did not–you know, they met–they're always proud to say that they qualified, that they met the circumstances around Bill 38 by saying that they have not increased the percentage of the PST. You know, that's true. The PST in the province of Manitoba is still 7 percent, but the government of the day, since they were elected first in 1990, has increased the PST twice, if you will, which they didn't have a referendum; they didn't go to the people with it; they certainly didn't run on any of the elections that they've won on going to the people of Manitoba saying, we will increase the PST.
* (16:20)
They have not increased the percentage of the PST, but they have certainly broadened it out. And the broad base that they have had on the PST now includes the labour around building materials. It was just on building materials before; now it’s on the labour to do construction, wiring, plumbing, those items. And I think that's a sneaky way of saying to Manitobans, well, we didn't increase the percentage, but you are going to pay more. That was what the balanced budget, debt reduction and taxpayer accountability bill was brought in for in 1995 with the previous Progressive Conservative government in the first place, Mr. Speaker, was to be as accountable as you could be with the taxpayers' money in the province of Manitoba.
So that was the only example of increasing it. That wasn't enough. As the population continues to grow and buildings be built and we've seen Waverley West which, of course, the government received funds for, being directly involved with that process. They slid that one through the levels of bureaucracy that they needed to to make sure that they could capture their share of the funds from the increase of land sales on the Waverley West area and making sure that that proceeded.
We need the housing in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. There's a lot of redistribution of people and persons within the province. There are a lot of immigrants coming into the province of Manitoba. There are a lot of people leaving the province of Manitoba, to the point where our population hasn't changed very much over the last 10 years. That's a detriment to our future when we are in particularly good times in regards to transfer payments coming in and some businesses expanding.
We have to be cautious that that will not last long into the future given the increased dollar value, the lack of tourism that may occur. The numbers are already down on our American tourists, American friends coming north to travel and such things as fishing and sightseeing in many of our northern communities in the province. Particularly we'll see how it impacts things like Folklorama which is becoming a much more cultural festival, one of the biggest cultural festivals in Canada actually, very well known, and the volunteerism is tremendous that goes into the project, and I believe it's great.
We will be looking at where our dollars continue to come from and the indications are with the price of gas going up that people are going to be a little more cautious. They don't have any more disposable income at home, so they have to be cautious in their spending. Therefore, to say that when the economy is good the government goes back out and increases the PST on architectural designs, lawyers and accounting fees, is quite staggering. I just feel that this is a very underhanded way of doing something that you said you wouldn't do as a government and that is to increase the PST to a very substantial manner in that way.
I look at the books of the Province. I look at the income tax levels and, yes, there is a reduction in the personal income tax rate for the lowest tax bracket. It went down 0.1 percent. They raised the upper limit of the middle tax bracket by $1,000. My goodness, Mr. Speaker, $66,000 to $67,000. That isn't going to make much difference to a family of four living on a one-income source of that level. I would just say that Saskatchewan's tax rate for that similar middle bracket, they only have two, but it's at least $100,000 is the level that they're at.
Manitoba once again is the highest tax west of Québec, still. We're very, very highly taxed on a personal basis and the government hasn't taken that into consideration in these appropriations, in the Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act.
They have not indexed the personal exemptions which means that Manitobans continue to fall further and further behind in this area. The increase in personal basic exemptions, if I'd have been them I would have been cautious about even bringing this up at the rate that they have. They increased it by another $100 to $8,134 this year, Mr. Speaker. That includes the maximum spousal and eligible dependents as well.
This looks good to individuals on the street. But I want to refer back to the indexing and just to let my government colleagues know that they, as well as other Manitobans, will still be falling behind in keeping up to other provinces because $100 doesn't keep up with inflation. Manitobans have not been keeping up with inflation since this government took power in 1999. They can honestly say that they have increased the personal basic exemptions, but they are not keeping up. So Manitobans fall further and further behind.
The increase of the education property tax credit to $600 now is a good thing from the perspective of those who are receiving that amount. It certainly eliminates many people from having to pay any tax in the lower ends of housing in the province, throughout the whole province, Mr. Speaker.
The situation that we face with corporate general taxes going down 1 percent, the small business taxes have been decreased, but, Mr. Speaker, we are still the only province with a payroll tax out here in western Canada. The payroll tax negates–we used to think that it negates the benefits of some of the reductions in corporate tax rates that this government is doing because we always tend to think that perhaps it's the very, very large industries, the very, very large businesses that we have, the banks, some of our grain companies, some of the people that are the mainstays of Portage and Main in this province and the city of Winnipeg, but it's not. They pay it, there's no doubt about that, but it's an inhibition for many, many small companies in Manitoba to stay and do business here.
In fact, I just had one approach me in Virden on the weekend, saying: You know, we did a really great thing. We've expanded our business, Larry. I don't get time to get out in the field and do the things that I was going to do there that I normally did anymore. Our business is growing. We really like it here in Virden. We really like the surrounding area. Our business is here.
It's not the oil industry, but it's directly related to it. Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden, he says: I get to this certain level and I get hit with this huge payroll tax. It's not progressive. It doesn't come in a little bit at a time, you know. There's no increment at 100,000, and there's not another increment at 500. It's a million and a quarter. Once I hit that in payroll, all of a sudden, I get hit with this huge bill.
To be very honest, he just indicated to me that, if he was surprised by any more of those types of taxations in the province of Manitoba, they would move to Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, when you're in Virden, it's not very far to move to Saskatchewan. You can go 30 miles down the road to Moosomin, and people drive back and forth to commute to work in both of those communities on a daily basis. It's like living in Niverville, or any other communities around, like Selkirk, or any of the communities right around Winnipeg. Lots of people drive from our bedroom communities and other communities into the city to work.
So, Mr. Speaker, with those few comments, I would look forward to having others put some remarks on the table.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading on Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Okay. The House will now resolve into Committee of the Whole to consider and report on the Capital Supply bill, The Loan Act, Bill 43; the Main Supply bill, The Appropriation Act, Bill 42; and The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, Bill 44, for concurrence and third reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair.
* (16:30)
Madam Chairperson (Bonnie Korzeniowski): The Committee of the Whole will come to order to consider the following bills: Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2008; Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2008; and Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.
During the consideration of these bills, the tables of content, the enacting clauses, the schedules and the titles are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.
Also, if there is agreement from the committee, for the first two bills I will call clauses in blocks that conform to pages with the understanding that we will stop at any particular clause or clauses where members may have comments, questions or amendments to propose.
Is that agreed? [Agreed]
Bill 42–The Appropriation Act, 2008
Madam Chairperson: We will begin with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2008. For the information of the committee, as the 100 hours have now expired, according to our rules, this bill is not debatable.
Clause 1–pass; clauses 2 through 4–pass; clauses 5 and 6–pass; schedule A–pass; schedule B–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.
Bill 43–The Loan Act, 2008
Madam Chairperson: We will now move on to Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2008. For the information of the committee, according to our rules, as the 100 hours have now expired, this bill is not debatable.
Clauses 1 and 2–pass; clauses 3 through 5–pass; clauses 6 and 7–pass; schedule A–pass; schedule B–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.
Bill 44–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008
Madam Chairperson: We will now move on to Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. Note, this bill is debatable.
Due to the length of this bill and the number of clauses, if there is agreement from the committee, the Chair will call clauses in blocks that conform to the parts of the bill with the understanding that we will stop at any particular clause or clauses where members may have comments, questions or amendments to propose.
Is that agreed? [Agreed]
Does the minister responsible for Bill 44 have an opening statement? Thank you. We thank the minister very much.
Does the critic from the official opposition have an opening statement? We thank the member.
Part 1, pages 1 to 6, clauses 1 through 5–pass; part 2, pages 7 and 8, clauses 6 through 12–pass; part 3, page 9, clauses 13 through 16–pass; part 4, pages 10 to 45, clauses 17 through 40–pass; part 5, page 46, clauses 41 through 43–pass; part 6, pages 47 to 50, clauses 44 through 51–pass; part 7, page 51, clauses 52 through 54–pass; part 8, pages 52 to 65, clauses 55 through 71–pass; part 9, pages 66 to 68, clauses 72 through 81–pass; part 10, page 69, clauses 82 through 84–pass; part 11, pages 70 and 71, clause 85–pass; table of contents–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.
That concludes the business currently before us.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the following bills: Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2008; Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2008; Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, and reports the same without amendment.
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 43–The Loan Act, 2008
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2008; Loi d'emprunt de 2008, reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): The Loan Act gives the government the authority to borrow more money, and this government has shown its expertise in being able to borrow money, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, the debt in the Province of Manitoba has continually gone up, and if you can make comparisons even between the net debt and the gross debt, at this point in time, the debt of the Province of Manitoba, net debt, is some $10.9 billion.
* (16:40)
I analyzed the debt of the other jurisdictions, particularly, in western Canada, and I identified, Mr. Speaker, that the debt in Saskatchewan, Alberta, which has none, and British Columbia, has been reduced over the last five years, where, in fact, the debt for this particular government has been increasing on a rather alarming rate over the last five years and, particularly, the last nine years.
At $10.9 billion, we have now authority in this particular act, The Loan Act, to attach another, a further $2.3 billion, and it says, the authority of the government to borrow for purposes other than to refinance debt is increased by $2.3 billion. That means, other than to refinance.
As we all know, sometimes you have to refinance and you roll over debt because it comes due at different times, but this is new debt. This is an additional $2.3-billion authority to add to the debt of the province of Manitoba, to add to the debt of Manitobans, their children and their grandchildren going forward, Mr. Speaker.
We know that in Bill 38 the minister will be given authority, because of a summary budget's financial statement, to take all of the earnings and all of the retained earnings of all of the Crown corporations to show a fairly reasonable, balanced budget on the summary budget, but what he's going to do is he's going to overspend on the operating side and borrow those dollars, Mr. Speaker. We have no doubt that that's going to happen, and it's going to happen because this government can spend, but they don't know how to save.
A long, long time ago, a man told me the best thing that one can do, the best investment that one can make is to retire debt. This government, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, didn't get that lesson, and right now, they're going to saddle Manitobans with a debt that is probably, at some point in time, not going to be paid. Right now, our total interest rates on an annual basis with all of the Crown corporations is about just slightly over $800 million; $800 million to service the debt. That's just to pay bankers and investment houses and other people our money so that we can pay for the debt that we've already borrowed, and that's going to go up quite dramatically.
So, Mr. Speaker, I will suggest that our party will not support this legislation simply because we do not want to give the authority of this government to go out and mortgage our children's futures, as they have done in the past and how we anticipate they're going to do in the future. I would like to simply put on the record that the Progressive Conservative Party, a fiscally conservative party, will not support this act. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I realize that we're in third reading on this particular bill, and I wanted to be able to just put a few words of comments, I should say, on the record before its ultimate passage.
Mr. Speaker, we do want to acknowledge that there is a great deal of debt that the province has. At the same time, we've seen a significant increase in expenditures with the government. At one time, when they had first taken office, we spent just over $6 billion. That is now well exceeding $9 billion. Manitobans need to be concerned. Ultimately, what we want to see in government is smart spending, a government that spends the tax dollars in a fashion in which it's practical, that there's some common sense applied to it and that it's really making a difference, to spend it as if it had more meaning than what is often portrayed from the government.
A good example of it, Mr. Speaker, is in the whole area of health care. Manitobans have a high expectation in terms of services provided in the whole health-care area. We see a government that has had not too much of a problem in terms of pushing money into health care. It's the way in which it's actually being spent and the types of things that government could be doing to spend the money better than it has been.
The Leader of the Liberal Party has talked a great deal about FASD and the costs to government by not acting, not taking the necessary actions, and, the other day, in question period, made reference to the billions of dollars that it's going to cost over the next number of years because the government is not doing what it is that it should be doing in regard to dealing with that particular issue.
You can talk about the millions and millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, that's being spent in health care, regional health-care authorities. I would ultimately argue much of that money could be better spent in terms of providing bedside care, supporting our nurses and supporting our doctors or the health-care workers that are really having an impact with delivering the service.
The growth of bureaucracy is of great concern and, if we don't start spending smarter, at the end of the day, it's going to be our younger generation that's going to have to pay the price of bad decisions that we're making today.
With those few words, we anticipate that the bill will go to vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers?
Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 42–The Appropriation Act, 2008
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2008; Loi de 2008 portant affectation de crédits, reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 44–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), that Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008; Loi d'exécution du budget de 2008 et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité, reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Just a few words on Bill 44, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that implements all of the measures that were announced in the budget and, indeed, a budget that we couldn't support in this House and one that I think the government could have spent a little more time and ensured that Manitobans would be the ones who would benefit from the windfall of opportunities that have come the government's way, both by transfers from the federal government and by the increases in revenues that the government has received from its own sources.
Yes, there are some minor tax concessions that the government is prepared to share with Manitobans but not nearly to the extent that one would expect, if you compare it to other jurisdictions in this country. Manitoba is starting to lag behind, significantly, other jurisdictions.
When we look west, I know this government used to pride itself by comparing itself to Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has now left us in the dust; Saskatchewan has now become one of the have provinces. Manitoba, unfortunately, still remains as one of the have-not provinces, not because we lack resources. We don't lack the energy of people who are creative and who are prepared to invest in a province if, indeed, they could have some confidence in a government that could manage its affairs, manage its tax regime and, indeed, make us competitive with other jurisdictions.
Although this bill will pass, Mr. Speaker, because it does give authority to the government to implement the measures announced in the budget, it is something this side of the House cannot agree with because we think the government could have done better, should have done better, but it means that it would have had to manage its affairs in a much more prudent way.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) would need to change his attitude from a spendthrift government to one that, perhaps, looks after its affairs at home and makes sure that we benefit from all of the opportunities and all of the resources that we have within our province.
* (16:50)
Mr. Speaker, when you look at the opportunities that could exist for Manitoba and what other jurisdictions are doing, you have to wonder why Manitoba is sitting and watching the train go by, so to speak. Saskatchewan is busy investing in its resources, is busy developing its oil resources, its potash resources, and Manitoba seems to be stuck in the mud. In all instances, it takes a government to encourage this kind of investment in our natural resources and to ensure that our province moves ahead.
Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in Manitoba where our youth are leaving our province. They're leaving–they were educated in our province, they were born and raised in this province, but they leave for opportunities outside of Manitoba and to fulfil their dreams, if you like, in other jurisdictions. And, unfortunately, too many times, we have an educated work force that we educate for another jurisdiction in this land.
So, Mr. Speaker, I once again express, I think, the feelings of many Manitobans when they say that government has not been attentive to its duties over the course of the last nine years. We have continued to lag behind other jurisdictions and we continue to do that today. The Minister of Finance has not kept us competitive, and what we're seeing is, things like the continuing payroll tax in this province, we are seeing that, indeed, many jurisdictions are moving ahead of us quite rapidly.
And so, Mr. Speaker, with those few words, I'm going to ensure that people understand that this is not a measure that we can support. This is not a bill that we can support. This is one that is tied to the budget and I think speakers before me have said many, many times that we cannot support the budget and, indeed, along with that, the measures that are put in place to implement the issues of the budget. I think Manitobans deserve better. They should expect better of this government, and I know it's the first year of their four-year term, but we're going to be calling on this government to do much better for the citizens of this province because the citizens of Manitoba deserve much better from their government. Thank you.
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): It's with some intrepidation that I speak to a bill that allows the government to bring some of the items in that this does because it's not near enough to keep up with the rest of Canada. We've got a Premier (Mr. Doer) today that's got his directions mixed up. He's south when he should be east. He's building a line west when he should be going east. He never seems to be in the right place. He's off-base with Manitobans on bills like 17 for the direction of a major industry in our province and that puts doubt in the minds of many, many other people. Budgets are supposed to provide certainty for a province, certainty for people to do business in a favourable climate. This bill does anything but that.
There are some things that I pointed out earlier. The government's quite proud to say that they've reduced some of the taxations, and I will repeat what I said when speaking in second reading just because it's noteworthy, that to think that you could actually take into consideration that a 0.1 percent, moving the personal income tax rate for the lowest tax bracket from 10.9 to 10.8–you know, I once calculated when I was Finance critic what it would take to reduce that to 10 percent to be even with Alberta. We don't have to be even with Alberta on all tax levels, but surely for our lowest income tax level, the people who are struggling the most to provide food and clothing and heat for their homes and families, we could be competitive with our neighbours. Madam Deputy Speaker, we've got a long way to go now, even to catch up with Saskatchewan.
As I said, they raised the middle tax bracket from $66,000 to $67,000 but Saskatchewan starts that bracket at over $100,000. And it's unbelievable to think that this government thinks that they're catching up by making these changes. They haven't indexed the personal tax exemption as I indicated earlier, which means that the hundred dollars that they provided Manitobans puts them further behind when we're already the highest tax bracket west of Québec.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it's rather ironic that we continue to have–I know they made some adjustments in the payroll tax, but I, too, put words on the record earlier indicating that many of our businesses that are trying to get forward, they're small family businesses, but that are impacted by this all-of-a-sudden big bill that they get when they hit the $1.25-million mark on payroll tax in the province of Manitoba, and that is somewhat discouraging. It certainly is a benefit to reduce the small business tax rate on active-business income down to 1 percent and eliminate it, but if you're continuing to provide the payroll tax, not provide the payroll tax, but continue to charge the payroll tax to these businesses, there is no incentive for new businesses to locate in Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it's with concern, as I say earlier, that this government continues to have broad-based tax increases in the PST, the provincial sales tax in this province, as I alluded to earlier. They have increased it to expand the tax, which is against the balanced budget, debt reduction and taxation accountability act that was brought in by the Progressive Conservative government in 1995.
I know they're replacing that act with–their intent is to replace that act, if it gets through, with Bill 38, The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act and the smoke and mirrors of trying to leave Manitobans with the impression that they are reducing debt and maintaining balanced books, when the new bill that replaces the one that was accountable, where you had to balance the books every year and pay down debt, being replaced by an act that basically is an act that legalizes deficits for the province of Manitoba forever in the future, with very little definition around the impacts of what, whether, or impacted by another level of government are in this bill. It's so open-ended and so lacking in definition that it will be up to the whims of whatever future premier and finance minister want to have unless, of course, the province completely falls apart and our Crown corporations go into huge debts as well.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
I know that this government has had a track record of taking money and passing bills that would allow them to take three-quarters of the province out of our most obvious Crown corporation, Manitoba Hydro, in this province and so, Madam Deputy Chair, as they give–Mr. Speaker, I should say–as they give away Manitoba Hydro in many of these areas and reduce its value and put more basically taxation on the ratepayers on the kind of users that we have in the province of Manitoba, it's a very unresponsible bill. I've coined it in any of the press interviews, radio interviews that I've done across the province of late by saying that it's the most horrific bill that's ever come before the Manitoba Legislature.
You know, here we are. We're in our 138th year of existence as a province, and I would say this, that we are living through history in this province. This is, Bill 38, will be the worst bill in Manitoba's history. It will be proven to be the worse bill in history, and this government is sitting there all smiles and happy that they're passing this. I guess it's because they know they're going to be able to continue to give out money wherever it's asked for. They never have to be accountable. They'll never have to make hard decisions in regard to this. They will do what Mr. Pawley did from '84 to '88 when he tripled the debt of this province. He tripled, 370 percent increase in the debt in four years, Mr. Speaker.
This government, after 11 years where the debt increased 1 percent under a Progressive Conservative government from 1988 to 1999–it went up 11 percent–370 percent in four years, 11 percent in 11 years. Now it's gone up 180 percent again in the last nine years. That's what this government has built its legacy on. The same thing as the past, Mr. Speaker. It's New Democrat policy to be able to continue to capitalize debt, capitalize deficits, pardon me, into debt and force future generations to pay down that debt. That's exactly what Mr. Pawley did. I am absolutely shocked that the backbenchers of this government are allowing this to happen.
* (17:00)
I doubt that a lot of them have even read the act. I doubt that a lot of them have even read the bill–I shouldn't say the act; they certainly haven't read the act–but I would doubt that a lot of them have read Bill 38 to know how onerous it will be on their children and future generations of this province.
It's with a lot of querying, I guess. There are just not enough questions that you can ask this government to try to correct this ugly bill. It's just tremendous that they would ever dream up coming forward with something like Bill 38. They've got a situation where–they've also got 37, and it's no coincidence, they're trying to squelch information going out from the opposition at the same time as they're trying to give them free rein to borrow themselves into oblivion in the future.
We haven't even passed the bill yet, and The Loan Act, which was just given reading here in this House, authorizes the government to borrow for the purposes other than to refinance debt, be increased by $2.3 billion. That's billion, not million, Mr. Speaker, $2.3 billion, and that's not to refinance debt. It's amazing that the government has the audacity to not even get the bills through yet and they're borrowing that kind of increased money to keep themselves in operation.
That's been our suspicion all along, Mr. Speaker, that the government's either broke in good times, doesn't know how to be fiscally responsible, can't manage the money that they've already got, so they're having to pass bills that will allow them to save 20 percent of their salaries as Cabinet ministers down the road.
That's unfortunate because I know some of the Cabinet ministers didn't even know that this bill was coming in. That's a caution. You've got a Premier (Mr. Doer) and a Finance Minister, maybe a House leader, that knew this bill was coming in, but they didn't tell the rest of Cabinet. The indication I got is that they didn't know. Certainly, the backbenchers didn't know that this bill was coming forward. You know, it's unloaded on them in the House, the final day before the bills that are going to pass this summer have to be tabled in the House, by House agreement.
It's unbelievable that they would have the audacity not to bring this bill–call the House early in March or end of April, give it lots of publicity, give it lots of time to be debated. Give it lots of time for people to come to committee and talk to this bill across the province of Manitoba. But what did they do? They snuck in it in the darkness of night at the last hour they could and put it on the record so that it would have to be passed by the 12th of June.
Well Mr. Speaker, as they've seen, this bill is still before committee. It and Bill 37 are in committee, probably going to be the longest standing bills in the history of the province, where people have come to make presentations against this ugly kind of bills for the future of Manitoba, these bills that are going to be so detrimental to the future of our province and so unaccountable.
The main reason is because the government of the day has set it up so that they can list all the Crown corporations, list all the profits in the Crown corporations, tally it all up at the bottom and then borrow against–run a deficit against that other ledger of Crown corporation surpluses, run a deficit against that. As long as they are within a $1 of it, short of a $1 of it, they can say they balanced the books, then borrow more money against it, borrow the money against the deficit and add it to the debt.
It looks like Howard Pawley wrote this. Maybe it was Eugene Kostyra, who didn't get his budget passed there. The Premier sure was, he was in there, that’s for sure. I think it was Mr. Kostyra's budget that never passed in the House. We all know that he was the Premier's chief adviser until a few years ago. Maybe he gave him advice to go to Mexico this week and check out the beaches down there.
It's certainly a pretty sneaky attack when you're the Premier and you bring a bill in like this and then take off and let your colleagues try to handle it through the House.
You got a bill here, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, that the government will certainly vote for, but it's not good for Manitobans. It's just not good enough for Manitobans.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) knows that he's had tremendously good years, huge transfers payments coming in from his east–oh, that's right, there is something coming from the east, Mr. Speaker, its money. Yet our Premier (Mr. Doer) hasn't got the decency–pardon me, I'll take that back. He hasn't got the initiative, hasn't taken the initiative to go to Ottawa to help set up a trade deal either with Ontario or Québec, and he wasn't successful in getting one done with Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. to the west last week.
So he goes to Mexico under the auspices of, well, there's going to be a huge deal there, we'll get a trade corridor coming back to Winnipeg. There wasn't anybody there, as the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) says. You know, I mean here we are, five of 30-some states in Mexico showed up. No U.S. governors. One other Premier from Canada, Mr. Charest, that spoke highly of the trade agreements that we have, and our Premier didn't even defend him. He's fallen back into the days when he was in opposition in this House, when he absolutely says that free trade is no good. Of course, the Deputy Premier (Ms. Wowchuk), the Agriculture Minister, stood up today and basically said the same thing in the House. You know, we're not going to have any pork to export because she's going to put them out of business before she's done.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I can see that others want to be involved in the debate on this particular bill as well, and so I will close with just saying that Manitoba could do so much better than it is today. This government didn't even use any vision in putting this bill before us. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a great deal that could be said on Bill 44. I would refer some members, if they want to get a better sense in terms of where we stand in regard to the budget, they could always read my leader speech at the budget, response to the budget. I think I even had an opportunity to comment on the budget myself.
But I want to spend special focus, a little bit of attention on a couple basic facts. Number 1, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been a great influx of money and financial resources coming to the Province. We've seen that over the last number of years. I've always argued that anyone can manage and do well when the economy is doing good and the revenues are coming in. Anyone could be a good premier in that sort of a situation.
I think where leadership really–where we really start to take note of what kind of leadership we have in the Premier's office, in the Minister of Finance's office, is when we start to see the economy maybe not doing as well. Whether it's in Ontario and the impact that that could have on equalization payments, whether it's the local economy, gas taxes to income taxes, and if they start to go down, what sort of response will the government do? Will it cut services, will it increase debt or–I know there's a third one–reduce services? What we have seen based on the past is that government seems to be inclined to increase debt, and that does cause some concern.
The other thing that I want to put some emphasis on is the fact that the government has had an opportunity to be able to provide good, positive legislation that can have a real impact in the province of Manitoba. I want to talk about legislation that the Liberal Party has put forward, in particular, that I have done on behalf of the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker. The issue of second-hand smoke. We hope and we wait that the government will be true to its words, and will bring in a bill that will deal with second-hand smoke in vehicles before the end of the year.
We have the helmet legislation. I brought that up, Mr. Speaker, in question period today. The government continues to flog its own program, a program that their own report shows very clearly is not working. But they're sticking to it, even though they know, I believe, that the program is just not working. They need to be able to accept compulsory helmets, especially for that age bracket that I pointed out, for the 12 to 15.
Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the fetal alcohol syndrome bill. Again, it's a bill that could have a huge impact, and the government again, where it says, well, it's about education. The Minister of Healthy Living (Ms. Irvin-Ross) has to either start changing her policy or leave the position that she currently holds and allow someone else to take on that ministry so that we can see more tangible actions being taken.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks by making quick reference to the Crocus Fund. The Crocus Fund disaster still needs, just as much today as it did in the past, a public inquiry. We want to see a public inquiry in regard to the Crocus Fund.
* (17:10)
Let alone, let's do what's right in terms of Manitoba Hydro. The third option that I believe is probably the most viable option is going under the lake, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): Bill 44 is identified as The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. It's a fairly complex bill. It's fairly large in nature, but it's really fairly simple. What it does in simple terms is it implements the promises that the government made when it tabled its budget for 2008-2009. Unfortunately, the promises that are encompassed in the budget and, therefore, encompassed in this bill are promises that Manitobans really didn't want to hear.
Let's talk about the promises that are in the budget, the money spent on behalf of Manitobans for this next fiscal year, the monies that are collected from Manitobans to be spent on services. We recognize that that's a very important thing, but this bill deals with a number of things. Certainly, one of the promises they made is that they would spend realistically, responsibly. That's what a government should do. If they put a budget forward to the people of Manitoba, it should say, we will take your money and we will make sure that we spend it responsibly.
Well, the first thing they promised in this budget, Mr. Speaker, that they were going to spend 6.2 percent more dollars in this fiscal year than last fiscal year; 6.2 percent more dollars of our money is going to be put in the hands of the Finance Minister and the ministers of their departments to be spent whichever-which way they want. Now, I don't believe that a lot of those dollars they spend are spent efficiently, and we can talk about a couple of the inefficiencies. I guess Spirited Energy comes to mind immediately, and I guess things like spending an extra billion and a half dollars going down a west side as opposed to an east side with Manitoba Hydro. We do know that they've made out-of-court settlements for the Crocus fund. We know they've made out-of-court settlements with other people, so they don't necessarily spend all of our money wisely, but they've decided in their wisdom–the Finance Minister decided in his wisdom that 6.2 percent more dollars this year will be expended than last year. I think that's wrong. I think, a CPI being at 2.2 or 2.3 percent, that's probably a more realistic opportunity to take those types of dollars, probably get the same services, and maybe even get better services with efficiencies in the departments. I think we could do that.
But this government–and people know, people of Manitoba know that the NDP are good at some things, but one thing that they're not good at is fiscal management. Manitobans know that; they've never put their confidence in this government to spend their money realistically and responsibly. So, first of all, they're going to spend 6.2 percent more, but then again in this bill right here, Bill 44, they're also going to give us some tax breaks. They're going to say that Manitobans are overtaxed and–you know what?–they're absolutely correct. When you analyze all of the jurisdictions in this great country of ours, we find that Manitobans–you, me, them, us, our friends, our neighbours, our sons, our daughters, our children–we are the most heavily taxed people west of Québec.
All of the other provinces, all of the other people who reside in those provinces pay less in personal income tax than Manitobans do, but they are going to give us some of our money back. As a matter of fact, what they are going to do is they're going to increase our basic personal exemption by $100. It's now going to go up to $8,134; that's identified in this budget, in this bill. They're going to increase it by $100 to $8,134. What they forget to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if we compare with other jurisdictions we'll find out that those basic tax exemptions, basic personal tax exemptions are the lowest here in Manitoba, than any other jurisdiction. But that's okay, they're going to also keep the rates almost identically the same and they're not going to change the tax bracket that much. They're going to take the one top tax bracket from 66,000 to 60, I'm sorry, from 65 to 66, I believe it is; 66 to 67, that's what they're going to do. They're going to take it from 66 to 67.
Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, the top tax bracket in Saskatchewan is 111,000. Let me repeat that, we're going to go to 67,000 for the top tax bracket, so anybody in Manitoba who makes over $67,000 is considered to be very, very wealthy in this province because that's the top tax bracket. In Saskatchewan, it's 111; in Alberta right now, it's 117, but this is last year's numbers, 117 in Alberta. But $67,000 is our top tax bracket. By the way, we also have the highest tax rate in that bracket. Our highest tax rate right now is 17.4 percent, the highest of any western Canadian province.
So, with all these wonderful little changes that they're doing in here, taking us to $67,000, increasing our basic personal exemption by $100, a family of four earning $60,000 is going to get about a $55 savings on their taxes. Mr. Speaker, oh, I forgot to tell you that in this same piece of legislation they're also going to increase the fee for our vehicle registration by $20. So, if you have a family of four and you earn $60,000 in Manitoba, they're going to give you $55 back, but they're going to take $40 away from you in vehicle registration if you have two vehicles, which you probably do. So you now have a net savings of $15 for next year.
This fiscal year is going to give you back $15 of your own money. Well, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, you shouldn’t rush out and spend all of it in one place. It might include the cost of the increase in gasoline. It might, in fact, include a breakfast for the family, but that's about it. So they spent 6.2 percent more. In this bill they're going to give us some tax money back of about $15 a year. Also, they're going to increase their debt. In fact, we just looked at The Loan Act, and we now have the opportunity of raising another $2.3 billion in debt. That's wrong, absolutely wrong because right now this province is already got more debt than any other province per capita in western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Province is also spending not only our money, but they're spending other people's money from across this great country because right now we are what's referred to as a have-not province. Quite frankly, I take exception to that. I live, I work, I raise my family in this province, and I should tell you right now, to be continually seen as a have-not individual in a have-not province is very depressing. But we're not going anywhere to change that. Honestly, we're going in the opposite direction.
In this budget, in this budget of this year, province of Manitoba and Manitobans will receive $2.063 billion in equalization. That's not transfer payments. That's not for education and health like every other province gets. In Manitoba, we receive $2.063 billion of other people's money, so we can balance this budget that they say they're going to balance. And that's a whole other issue, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, because it isn't going to be balanced. That's the last thing I want to talk about.
First of all, we depend on the federal government for almost 40 percent of the total budget that we've put forward before Manitobans, and that's wrong. If you don't have the flexibility to be able to deal with your own finances, you're going to get yourself in trouble. This government knows that they're in trouble. They put forward a piece of legislation right now to try to snow Manitobans and show them that, no, we're not in trouble; we're going to use the Crown corporations to balance our summary statement. People are going to be so excited because we're going to have the Crown corporations balance our budget and they won't even recognize it, but they're still spending too much money of other people's money. So they're spending too much money and they're getting too much debt.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba has always been seen as fiscally conservative. We've always been seen as good managers of your money and my money. We will vote against this budget because we see nothing in it that deviates from the spend-and-tax ways of the NDP government.
We're going to vote against this budget for a number of reasons, and I'll just highlight them.
* (17:20)
We're going to vote against the budget because of the massive increase in debt. It's wrong. It shouldn't happen. It seems it's the only way that they're going to be able to balance their books over the next three years. They're going to hide it, and they're going to make sure Manitobans pay in the long run.
Mr. Speaker, we're going to vote against this budget because they don't treat taxpayers fairly. We are the highest taxed. We will continue to be the highest taxed, and there is no relief in sight, none whatsoever. As a matter of fact, what they have to do is they have to index the tax brackets. They have to index the basic personal exemption, and they're doing none of that. They have no desire to do it, and it's reflected in Bill 44.
Mr. Speaker, we're going to vote against this bill because, in this budget, this Finance Minister has identified a surplus of $2 million in a budget of $10 billion. That is completely irrational. As a matter of fact, with the expenses that are going on right now in the province that are extraordinary, I would say it would be very hard for this Finance Minister to balance an operating side budget for $2 million, but, if I look at the summary side statement, which was just put back on the desk because of a change, the summary financial statistics are going to show a net profit of $96 million for the province.
In 2007-2008, which we haven't seen the financials yet, they're showing a net revenue of $329 million using the Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker, using Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Lotteries, MPI and WED. This government is not being truthful with Manitobans, and that's why we're going to vote against the budget. We're going to vote against the budget because all they know how to do is spend. They don't know how to manage their fiscal affairs.
So I would like to close on that note and simply say if these individuals across the way of government were realistic about how they were treating Manitobans, they, too, would vote against the budget and make sure that they changed it so they treated Manitobans more fairly and they put their financial affairs in order before our children are bankrupt. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers? Okay.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the motion, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Official Opposition House Leader): Recorded vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order. The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 44, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allan, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Brick, Chomiak, Dewar, Howard, Irvin-Ross, Jha, Korzeniowski, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Marcelino, Martindale, McGifford, Melnick, Oswald, Reid, Robinson, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Wowchuk.
Nays
Borotsik, Briese, Cullen, Derkach, Driedger, Dyck, Eichler, Faurschou, Goertzen, Graydon, Hawranik, Lamoureux, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Pedersen, Schuler, Stefanson, Taillieu.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 30, Nays 19.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* (17:30)
Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr. Blake Dunn): His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
"Happy Birthday" was sung to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
His Honour John Harvard, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba, having entered the House and being seated on the Throne, Mr. Speaker addressed His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in the following words:
Mr. Speaker: Your Honour:
The Legislative Assembly of Manitoba asks Your Honour to accept the following bills:
Madam Clerk Assistant (Monique Grenier):
Bill 42–The Appropriation Act, 2008; Loi de 2008 portant affectation de crédits
Bill 43–The Loan Act, 2008; Loi d'emprunt de 2008
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): In Her Majesty's name, the Lieutenant-Governor thanks the Legislative Assembly and assents to these bills.
Mr. Speaker: Your Honour:
At this sitting, the Legislative Assembly has passed a bill that I ask Your Honour to give assent to.
Madam Clerk Assistant (Monique Grenier):
Bill 44–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2008; Loi d'exécution du budget de 2008 et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité
Madam Clerk: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour assents to this bill.
His Honour was then pleased to retire.
Mr. Speaker: Please be seated.
House Business
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you. On government business.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would canvass the House to see if it's acceptable to recess the House until 7 p.m., and, at that time, when the House–following recess, the House will not require a quorum.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. Is there agreement to recess the House until 7 p.m., and then, when we reconvene at 7 p.m., that there will be no requests for quorum calls? Is that agreed? [Agreed]
Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House.
I wonder if we could change the start time for the Standing Committee on Justice, which was scheduled to start at 6 p.m., to start instead at 7 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time, perhaps we could also change the start time for the Committee on Legislative Affairs to also not start at 6 p.m., but rather start at 7 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. Is there agreement for the standing committees of Justice and Legislative Affairs both to start at 7 p.m., not 6 p.m.? Is there agreement? [Agreed]
Okay, so now the House will recess, and we will reconvene at 7 p.m.
The House recessed at 5:40 p.m.
____________
The House resumed at 7 p.m.
* (19:00)
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please be seated.
House Business
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might canvass the House to see if we have leave to recess the House until 9 p.m. tonight.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House for the House– just the House, right?
Mr. Chomiak: Just the House.
Mr. Speaker: For the House in the Chamber to recess until 9 p.m.
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, that's been agreed to.
So the House will now recess and reconvene at 9 p.m.
The House recessed at 7:01 p.m.
____________
The House resumed at 9 p.m.
* (21:00)
House Business
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I ask if you would canvass the House to see if there is leave to recess until 10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for the House to recess until 10 p.m. [Agreed]
The House recessed at 9:02 p.m.
____________
The House resumed at 10 p.m.
* (22:00)
Mr. Speaker: Please be seated.
House Business
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, again I ask if you would canvass the House to see if there is leave to recess until 10:30.
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for the House to recess until 10:30? Is there agreement? [Agreed]
It has been agreed to, so the House will now recess and reconvene at 10:30 p.m.
The House recessed at 10:01 p.m.
____________
The House resumed at 10:30 p.m.
* (22:30)
Mr. Speaker: Please be seated.
House Business
Mr. Chomiak: On House business, Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the House and all the members and the staff, the Clerks and everyone, for their diligent work.
I wonder if you might recess the House–with leave of the House, if you might recess until 11 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for the House to recess until 11 p.m.? [Agreed]
Okay, there is agreement, so the House will now recess and will reconvene at 11 p.m.
The House recessed at 10:31 p.m.
____________
The House resumed at 11 p.m.
* (23:00)
Mr. Speaker: Please be seated.
House Business
Mr. Chomiak: If I might just have a moment, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder if we can adjourn the House–pardon me.
Mr. Speaker: Recess.
Mr. Chomiak: –recess the House for five minutes. [interjection] Not see the clock.
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement? [Agreed]
There is agreement.
The House recessed at 11:01 p.m.
___________
The House resumed at 11:10 p.m.
* (23:10)
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I again want to give my heartfelt, on behalf of all members, thanks to the work of the committee, the staff, the translators, the legal, and all of the people who worked so hard to make this Legislature function and allow us to have the honour of bringing forward legislation, et cetera.
With leave, would you canvass the House to see if we have leave, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that the following Sessional Orders apply to this session, despite any other rule, practice or Sessional Order of the House.
PART 1 (Spring sitting)
Application of previous Sessional Orders
1. The Sessional Orders for this Session that were made on June 14, 2007, continue to apply to the following bills:
Bill 3 The Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Bill 4 The Provincial Court Amendment Act (Family Mediators and Evaluators)
Bill 5 The Witness Security Act
Bill 7 The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Child Pornography Reporting)
Bill 8 The Phosphorus Reduction Act (Water Protection Act Amended)
Bill 9 The Protection for Persons in Care Amendment Act
Bill 11 The Optometry Amendment Act
Bill 12 The Securities Transfer Act
Bill 14 The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act
Bill 18 The Testing of Bodily Fluids and Disclosure Act
Bill 20 The Gunshot and Stab Wounds Mandatory Reporting Act
June 5, 2008 (Completion of Committee Stage)
2. This Sessional Order applies to the following bills:
Bills referred to the Legislative Affairs Committee
Bill 6 The Securities Amendment Act
Bill 25 The Embalmers and Funeral Directors Amendment Act
Bill 29 The Business Practices Amendment Act (Disclosing Motor Vehicle Information)
Bill 38 The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act
Bills referred to the Justice Committee
Bill 26 The Legal Profession Amendment Act
Bill 35 The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2008
Bill 37 The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act
Bill 39 The Court of Appeal Amendment Act
Bill 40 The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act
If any presenters are registered to speak when the committee meets on Thursday, June 5, 2008, the committee may hear presentations until all have been heard or until 11 p.m., whichever occurs first. If presenters have not been completed at that time, the Chair must interrupt the proceedings and commence clause-by-clause consideration of the bills then before the committee.
Any member of the committee who wishes to move an amendment during a clause-by-clause consideration of a bill after 12 midnight on that day must file 15 copies of the amendment with the Clerk of the committee by 12 midnight on that day, and the Clerk must distribute the amendment to members of the committee.
At 1 p.m. on June 6, 2008, those amendments that were filed with the Clerk and have not yet been moved are deemed to have been moved. The Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bills then before the committee.
The committee must report the bills to the House not later than Monday, June 9, 2008. In the event that the committee fails to report a bill on that date, the bill is deemed to be reported to the House, as amended by the committee (if applicable), and the report is deemed to be received by the House.
June 6, 2008 (Completion of Committee Stage)
3. This Sessional Order applies to the following bills:
Bills referred to the Social and Economic Development Committee
Bill 13 The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Damage to Infrastructure)
Bill 16 The Child Care Safety Charter (Community Child Care Standards Act Amended)
Bill 19 The Liquor Control Amendment Act
Bill 21 The Advisory Council on Workforce Development Act
Bill 22 The Worker Recruitment and Protection Act
Bill 23 The International Labour Cooperation Agreements Implementation Act
Bill 27 The Shellmouth Dam and Other Water Control Works Management and Compensation Act (Water Resources Administration Act Amended)
Bill 31 The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act
Bill 32 The Personal Health Information Amendment Act
Bill 33 The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act
Bill 34 The Child and Family Services Amendment and Child and Family Services Authorities Amendment Act (Safety of Children)
Bill 36 The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Notwithstanding, sub-rule 92(8), the Social and Economic Development Committee must meet on Friday, June 6, 2008, at 10 a.m. to complete its consideration of these bills.
If any presenters are registered to speak when the committee meets on that day, the committee may hear presentations until all have been heard or until 1 p.m., whichever occurs first. If presentations have not been completed at that time, the committee must interrupt the proceedings and commence clause-by-clause consideration of the bills then before the committee.
Any member of the committee who wishes to move an amendment during clause-by-clause consideration of a bill after 6 p.m. on that day must file 15 copies of the amendment with the Clerk of the committee by 6 p.m. on that day, and the Clerk must distribute the amendment to the members of the committee.
At 11 p.m. on that day, those amendments that were filed with the Clerk of the committee and have not yet been moved are deemed to have been moved. The Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to complete the clause-by-clause consideration of the bills then before the committee.
The committee must report the bills to the House not later than Monday, June 9, 2008. In the event that the committee fails to report bills on that day, the bill is deemed to be reported to the House, as amended by the committee (if applicable), and the report is deemed to be received by the House.
June 7 - 10, 2008 (Completion of Committee Stage)
4. This Sessional Order applies to the following bills:
Bills referred to The Social and Economic Development Committee
Bill 2 The Public Schools Amendment Act (Trans Fats and Nutrition)
Bill 10 The Legislative Library Act
Bill 15 The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act
Bill 24 The Public Schools Amendment Act (Cyber-Bullying and Use of Electronic Devices)
Bill 28 The Strengthening Local Schools Act (Public Schools Act Amended)
Bill 30 The Crown Lands Amendment Act
Notwithstanding sub-rule 92(8), the Social Committee and Economic Development Committee is to meet to consider these bills on the following dates and at the following times:
Saturday, June 7, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 12 midnight
Monday, June 9, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon
Monday, June 9, 2008, from 6 p.m. to 12 midnight (if necessary)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008, at 6 p.m. (if necessary)
If a bill has not been reported back to the House by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, June 10, 2008, the committee must meet at 6 p.m. on that day to hear any remaining public presentations to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
If any presenters are registered to speak when the committee meets at 6 p.m. on that day, the committee may hear presentations until all have been heard or until 8 p.m., whichever occurs first. If presentations have not been completed at that time, the Chair must interrupt the proceedings and commence clause-by-clause consideration of the bills then before the committee.
Any member of the committee who wishes to move an amendment during clause-by-clause consideration of a bill must file 15 copies of the amendment with the Clerk of the committee by 9 p.m. on that day, and the Clerk must distribute the amendment to members of the committee.
At 11 p.m. on that day, those amendments that were filed with the Clerk and have not yet been moved are deemed to have been moved. The Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bills then before the committee.
The committee must report the bill to the House not later than Wednesday, June 11, 2008. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill is deemed to be reported to the House, as amended by the committee (if applicable), and the report is deemed to be received by the House.
June 11, 2008 (Completion of Report Stage)
5. This Sessional Order applies to the following bills
Bill 2 The Public Schools Amendment Act (Trans Fats and Nutrition)
Bill 6 The Securities Amendment Act
Bill 10 The Legislative Library Act
Bill 13 The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Damage to Infrastructure)
Bill 15 The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act
Bill 16 The Child Care Safety Charter (Community Child Care Standards Act Amended)
Bill 19 The Liquor Control Amendment Act
Bill 21 The Advisory Council on Workforce Development Act
Bill 22 The Worker Recruitment and Protection Act
Bill 23 The International Labour Cooperation Agreements Implementation Act
Bill 24 The Public Schools Amendment Act (Cyber-Bullying and Use of Electronic Devices)
Bill 25 The Embalmers and Funeral Directors Amendment Act
Bill 26 The Legal Professions Amendment Act
Bill 27 The Shellmouth Dam and Other Water Control Works Management and Compensation Act (Water Resources Administration Amended)
Bill 28 The Strengthening Local Schools Act (Public Schools Act Amended)
Bill 29 The Business Practices Amendment Act (Disclosing Motor Vehicle Information)
Bill 30 The Crown Lands Amendment Act
Bill 33 The Salvation Army Grace Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act
Bill 34 The Child and Family Services Amendment and Child and Family Services Authorities Amendment Act (Safety of Children)
Bill 36 The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Bill 39 The Court of Appeal Amendment Act
Bill 40 The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act
These bills are to be considered to be at report stage at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, June 11, 2008, unless they are listed for concurrence and third reading. At that time the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, take all steps necessary to conclude Report Stage on these bills.
If a motion for a report stage amendment was previously moved, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker must allow each motion for a report stage amendment that was distributed to the House before 5 p.m. on that day to be moved. Notwithstanding sub-rule 138(6), notice of a report stage amendment under this Order is not required for amendments to Bills 2, 10, 15, 24, 28 and 30. Immediately after the motion has been moved and spoken to by the mover of the motion, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendments.
June 12, 2008 (Completion of Concurrence and Third Reading)
6. At 5 p.m. on Thursday, June 12, 2008, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock,
(a) take all steps necessary to conclude, without further debate or amendment, concurrence and third reading on each bill to which Order 5 of these Sessional Orders apply; and
(b) take all steps necessary to conclude, without further debate or amendment, first and second reading on Bill 45, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act.
Royal Assent
7. Royal Assent of all bills that have had third reading agreed to must take place before the House adjourns on June 12, 2008.
* (23:20)
PART 2 (Intersessional Committees)
Bill 17 – Committee meetings
8. The Agriculture and Food Committee considering Bill 17, The Environment Amendment Act (Permanent Ban on Building or Expanding Hog Facilities) is to sit for seven additional days between June 16, 2008, and September 5, 2008, to consider public presentations and complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. It may sit for less than seven days if it completes clause-by-clause consideration beforehand. The Government House Leader (Mr. Chomiak) is to determine the days and the hours that the committee is to sit, but with unanimous consent, that committee may sit past the adjournment hour set for any day. Two days notice is required, notwithstanding sub-rule 4(6).
Bill 45 – Committee meetings
9. The committee to which Bill 45, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act is referred is to sit for 10 days between June 16, 2008, and September 5, 2008, to consider public presentations and complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. It may sit for less than 10 days if it has completed clause-by-clause consideration beforehand. After consulting with the Official Opposition House Leader, the Government House Leader is to determine the days and hours that the committee is to sit, but with unanimous consent, the committee may sit past the adjournment hour set for any day. Two days notice is required, notwithstanding sub-rule 4(6).
Completion of Committee Stage on Bills 17 and 45
10. If the committee considering Bill 17 or Bill 45 has not, on the last scheduled day for the committee to meet, completed clause-by-clause consideration, the following rules apply:
(a) If the presenters are registered to speak on the last day the committee is to meet, the committee may hear presentations until all have been heard or until four hours before the committee is scheduled to adjourn, whichever occurs first. If presentations have not been completed at that time, the Chair must interrupt the proceedings and commence clause by clause consideration of the bill.
(b) Three hours before adjournment on the last day the committee is to meet, any member of the committee who wishes to move an amendment during clause-by-clause consideration of a bill must file 15 copies of the amendment with the Clerk of the committee, and the Clerk must distribute the amendment to the members of the committee.
(c) One hour before adjournment on the last day the committee is to meet, those amendments that were filed with the Clerk and have not yet been moved are deemed to have been moved. The Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bills then before the Committee.
(d) The committee must report the bills to the House on Monday, September 8, 2008. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill is deemed to be reported to the House, as amended by the committee (if applicable), and the report is deemed to be received by the House.
PART 3 (Fall Sitting)
Fall Sitting of the 2nd Session, 39th Legislature (Sept. 8, 2008 to Oct. 9, 2008)
11. Subject to sub-rule 2(2), the 2nd Session of the 39th Legislature is to resume on Monday, September 8, 2008, and is to adjourn on Thursday, October 9, 2008.
Completion of Remaining Stages on Bill 45
12. This Sessional Order applies to Bill 45, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act.
Report Stage
(a) At 5 p.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, take all steps necessary to conclude report stage on this bill.
If a motion for a report stage amendment was previously moved, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker must allow each motion for a report stage amendment that was distributed in the House before 5 p.m. on that day to be moved. Immediately after the motion has been moved and spoken to by the mover of the motion, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment.
Concurrence and Third Reading
(b) At 5 p.m. on Monday, September 15, 2008, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, take all steps necessary to conclude concurrence and third reading on the bill without further debate or amendment.
Royal Assent
(c) If third reading of the bill has been agreed to, Royal Assent of the bill must take place before the House adjourns on September 15, 2008.
Completion of Remaining Stages on Other Bills
13. This Sessional Order applies to the following bills:
Bill 17 The Environment Amendment Act (Permanent Ban on Building or Expanding Hog Facilities)
Bill 31 The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act
Bill 32 The Personal Health Information Amendment Act
Bill 35 The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2008
Bill 37 The Lobbyists Registration Act and Amendments to The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act
Bill 38 The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act
Report Stage
(a) At 5 p.m. on Tuesday, September 30, 2008, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, take all steps necessary to conclude report stage on each of the bills then at that stage.
If a motion for a report stage amendment was previously moved, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker must allow each motion for a report stage amendment that was distributed in the House before 5 p.m. on that day to be moved. Immediately after the motion has been moved and spoken to by the mover of the motion, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment.
Concurrence and Third Reading
(b) At 5 p.m. on Thursday, October 9, 2008, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, take all steps necessary to conclude concurrence and third readings on each of the bills then at that stage without further debate or amendment.
Royal Assent
(c) If third reading of a bill has been agreed to, Royal Assent of the bill must take place before the House adjourns on October 9, 2008.
PART 4 (General)
Priority of actions to be taken
14. Where
(a) these Sessional Orders require the Speaker or Chairperson to take any action at a specified time; and
(b) at the specified time, a point of order or a matter of privilege has been raised and is under consideration by the House or committee;
the point of order or matter of privilege is to be set aside, and no other point of order or matter of privilege may be raised until the required action has been taken and all matters relating to the required action have been resolved.
Interruption of proceedings
15. Where these Sessional Orders require the Speaker or a chairperson to interrupt proceedings to take any action, the interruption is to take place and the action is to be taken whether or not the orders of the day have been called.
No deferral of vote
16. Subrule 14(4) does not apply to a division to be taken on a question required to be put under these Sessional Orders.
En francais, M. le président? [In French, Mr. Speaker?]
Un instant, merci. [One moment, thank you]
Do I have leave to do that, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Yes. [Agreed]
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, might I also have leave, if anything or any changes for procedural reasons have taken place to deal with any of these matters on Friday, Saturday or Sunday, that the matter can be dealt with in the House on Monday? That's just a catchall in case we missed anything.
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable Government House Leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that the following Sessional Order–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense. This has to be done by leave. Is there leave? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Chomiak: I would like to also announce that meetings of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs scheduled for Friday, June 16, Saturday, June 7, Monday, June 9, and Tuesday, June 10, to deal with Bills 6, 25, 29 and 38 are now cancelled.
I would also like to announce that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet on Friday, June 6, at 10 a.m., to deal with the following bills:
Bill 13, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Damaged Infrastructure)
Bill 16, The Child Care Safety Charter (Community Child Care Standards Act Amended)
Bill 19, The Liquor Control Act
Bill 21, The Advisory Council on Workforce Development Act
Bill 22, The Worker Recruitment and Protection Act
Bill 23, The International Labour Cooperation Agreements Implementation Act
Bill 27, The Shellmouth Dam and Other Water Control Works Management and Compensation Act (Water Resources Administration Act Amended)
Bill 31, The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act
Bill 32, The Personal Health Information Amendment Act
Bill 33, The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act
Bill 34, The Child and Family Services Amendment and Child and Family Services Authorities Amendment Act (Safety of Children)
Bill 36, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to announce that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet on Saturday, June 7, from 10 a.m. to 12 midnight; on Monday, June 9, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon; on Monday, June 9, from 6 p.m. to midnight, if necessary; and on Tuesday, June 10, at 6 p.m., if necessary, to deal with the following bills:
Bill 2, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Trans Fats and Nutrition)
Bill 10, The Legislative Library Act
Bill 15, The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act
Bill 24, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Cyber-Bullying and Use of Electronic Devices)
Bill 28, The Strengthening Local Schools Act (Public Schools Act Amended)
Bill 30, The Crown Lands Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that meetings of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs scheduled for Friday, June 6, Saturday, June 7, Monday, June 9 and Tuesday, June 10 to deal with Bills 6, 25, 29 and 38 are now cancelled.
It is also announced that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet on Friday, June 6, at 10 a.m. to deal with the following bills: Bill 13, Bill 16, Bill 19, Bill 21, Bill 22, Bill 23, Bill 27, Bill 31, Bill 32, Bill 33, Bill 34 and Bill 36.
It's also announced that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet on Saturday, June 7, from 10 a.m. to 12 midnight; on Monday, June 9, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon; on Monday, June 9, from 6 p.m. to midnight, if necessary; and on Tuesday, June 10, at 6 p.m., if necessary, to deal with the following bills: Bill 2, Bill 10, Bill 15, Bill 24, Bill 28 and Bill 30.
* (23:30)
Mr. Chomiak: I would like to canvass the House, Mr. Speaker, to see if there is leave to extend the period of reporting, the Special Committee on Senate Elections to extend the reporting period to the Assembly within 12 months or with any longer period allowed by the Assembly.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to extend the period of reporting for the Special Committee on Senate Elections to extend the reporting period to the Assembly within 12 months or within any longer period allowed by the Assembly? Is there leave? Is there an agreement? [Agreed]
Mr. Chomiak: I guess I'm asking if you see the clock now. Do we adjourn?
An Honourable Member: Should we call it midnight, is that what you mean?
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, I guess–should we call it midnight? [interjection]
Mr. Speaker, will you call it midnight?
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 12 o'clock? [Agreed]
As previously agreed, the hour being 12 a.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday.