LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, December 4, 2008
PRAYER
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I'd seek leave of the House to go directly to second reading of Bill 228.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to go directly to Bill 228? [Agreed]
Bill 228–The Grandparents' Day Act
Ms. Erna Braun (Rossmere): I move, seconded by the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that Bill 228, The Grandparents' Day Act; Loi sur la Fête des grands-parents, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Ms. Braun: I'm very pleased to have moved this bill and to put a few words on record to illustrate the value of grandparents and their contributions to our society. I would also like to thank the seconder of this motion, the Member for Inkster. I'm pleased that grandparents and their importance to families and communities is recognized by all.
I'm particularly pleased to be bringing this bill forward as the MLA for Rossmere. My community has a vibrant and energetic senior contingent. In fact, northeast Winnipeg has one of the highest concentrations of older citizens. When I meet with my seniors, they often talk with pride of their children and grandchildren, which demonstrates to me that they take their roles and their families very seriously. Visits always include a tour of the family photos which are displayed prominently throughout their homes. But my community also has grandparents who, for a variety of reasons in the absence of the parents, are the primary caregivers for their grandchildren. Thank goodness for their devotion and commitment to assuring that their grandchildren will grow up in warm and supportive homes.
This bill resolves that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the provincial government in establishing Grandparents' Day as an officially recognized day in Manitoba on the first Sunday after Labour Day in September. Instituting Grandparents' Day gives us a chance to publicly affirm their value in our society. I think most of us can recall fondly our grandparents and the impact that they have had on our lives. My own family's story is one in which my grandmother had a profound influence. As immigrants to Canada after the Second World War, my parents faced the struggles that many families have as they try to establish themselves in a new land with new customs and new challenges. Early in my life, my father contracted tuberculosis and was confined for nearly three years to a sanatorium. My mother had to find a job, but that also meant having to find child care.
Although I've never asked how it came about, but, knowing my grandmother well, I expect that she simply stated that she would be moving in to help. Packing up their meagre belongings and catching the bus from Steinbach to Winnipeg, my grandmother, along with my mother's three younger siblings, moved into our little family home in the west end. I can recall many years later visiting the home as an adult, wondering how the heck we all fit into that tiny little house.
So there was my grandmother, not only parenting two teenagers and a 10-year-old but dealing with me as a two-year-old toddler. I was cared for and nurtured and kept safe while my mother entered the workforce. My oma was a godsend, not only for me but for my mother and father who could be assured that the home front was taken care of while they did what they needed to do.
Even after my father's health returned and he was able to work again, like many immigrant families, both incomes were required to make ends meet. My grandmother and my aunts and uncle by that time had also moved into a house and, like many extended families, they moved just two streets over. Until I was eight and we moved to North Kildonan, each day we made the trek to oma's house where I was left in her loving care.
I have been reminded of this childhood on many occasions as I've knocked on doors in my constituency and found myself greeted by grandparents with toddlers on their arms and little ones at their sides who cheerfully translated for their grandparents as I introduced myself.
My personal example is certainly not unique. This story of grandparents and their contributions to their families repeats itself in every corner of Manitoba. Grandparents play an important role in strengthening the family and in the parenting process. They bring stability, continuity and boundless affection to youngsters, which is important in developing caring and healthy individuals.
A grandparent's influence certainly continues throughout the life of a grandchild. From childhood into adolescence and certainly even into adulthood, grandparents provide a continuity, a constancy, an anchor in our fast-paced world that we live in. Certainly I can recall how grandparents can serve as wonderful intermediaries between parents and teenagers. I can recall many times when tensions with my parents were put into thoughtful perspective by my oma.
In society today, our families often do not reflect the traditional definition of family from decades ago. With divorce and separation a greater reality than a generation or two ago, Grandparents' Day is also an opportunity to remind people of the valuable role that grandparents can play during the transition periods for children between separation, divorce and remarriage.
It is also important that we recognize grandparents so that they remain an integral part of families and family life. Our motion today is also an occasion to shed light on the issue of grandparents' access to grandchildren in custody cases. In 2006, our government recognized the difficulties grandparents and other extended family members may have who wish to spend time with a child when, as a result of disagreements that have arisen with the parents, access is not possible, because we do recognize that parents are ultimately responsible for making the decisions about their children.
The Grand Relations strategy was developed to provide better options and more help for grandparents and extended family members in resolving access and guardianship disputes. Mediation service and other dispute resolution alternatives were put in place to assist families in dealing with access issues.
* (10:10)
One of the supports provided through Grand Relations is that of a grandparent adviser who can work with families to find the best solutions or services that they need in resolving these disputes and, hopefully, arriving at an agreement that is satisfactory to both the parents, the grandchildren and the grandparents.
The Minister of Healthy Living (Ms. Irvin-Ross) stated at the time: These initiatives recognize that a child can benefit from a healthy relationship with a grandparent. We need to support loving relationships between children and their extended families, including elders.
Grandparents' Day is an important official marker of intergenerational relationships. Children who have close relationships with their grandparents have a greater appreciation for the elderly and gain a sense of their family history. Through their contact with their grandparents, children are also able to view life and to acquire an understanding of the world around them from the perspective of someone older.
But Grandparents' Day is not only about appreciating grandparents, it is also about the many gifts that grandparents in turn receive by having had contact with their grandchildren. The excitement and youthful enthusiasm of the youngsters can bring about a renewed purpose and energy. Hearing about their grandchildren's interests and activities can keep them young at heart and more in touch with new ideas.
A friend of mine who lives in Toronto recently was telling me that she now kept in touch with her father here in Winnipeg by e-mail and that was thanks to her nephew instructing his grandfather on the use of this new technology.
My father once commented to me that I was very much like his father, a grandfather I had never met. So, whether we consider nature or nurture, each of us is part of the generation that came before us and who we are today and may be credited in part to the relationship we had with our grandparents.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to go on record in support of a motion that will assign special recognition to our grandparents and to show them that what they do each day is appreciated. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, it's with pleasure that I rise to speak to this bill. This is, in fact, a bill that I am very pleased to be the seconder of and I appreciate the gesture from the Member for Rossmere.
I know without doubt that every member inside this Chamber recognizes the value of Grandparents' Day. Our very first official Grandparents' Day will in fact be September 13, 2009, assuming that this bill does pass, and there's no reason for us to believe that it won't be passing.
For me, life is all about relationships and the strongest relationships that are often developed or fostered are that of a parent and their child. Next to that–and many would ultimately argue even–quite often, you will see the greatest relationship between a grandparent and their grandchild. I know, as all of us know from first-hand experiences, how we could talk about the value of that relationship.
In my office, I have Henry and Erlinda Celones who are grandparents. I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about their grandchildren and wanting to do things for their grandchildren as much as I've heard these two individuals.
The graduation services that I go to, I often talk about lolo and lolahs, those being grandparents in Tagalog, Mr. Speaker, because I see first-hand, whatever ethnic background, it seems that you have grandparents that are truly involved in everyday living of their grandchildren.
I, for one, believe that anything that we can do inside this Legislature in recognition of that love, of that relationship should be done and encouraged.
I had written the Premier (Mr. Doer) actually a few years ago and made the suggestion that we should recognize Grandparents' Day and to proclaim it as a day. I'm glad to see that it's evolved to the point where we're saying that we are going to pass legislation to recognize that day.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, I actually established on my own Web site a Grandparents' Day, making, promoting and encouraging. I had in fact even written to my schools at one point, encouraging them to acknowledge the importance of Grandparents' Day because it has been around for a long time. In fact, in the United States, they've had it for 25-plus years. They have recognized it as the first Sunday following Labour Day and that's in essence what this legislation is doing. So, North America ultimately, I believe other provinces hopefully, will follow suit in terms of recognizing what Manitoba is doing and accept that as the official Grandparents' Day. In fact, a number of years ago, I understand that there was a motion that was moved in the House of Commons, but after the passage of that motion, nothing really occurred.
What I'm hoping is that members of all political parties will encourage our media outlets, our education facilities and others to recognize Grandparents' Day, much in the same fashion that we would do Father's Day or Mother's Day. So when you think of what should we be doing on a Grandparents' Day, well, reflect on what you would do on a Mother's Day or a Father's Day. Maybe it's flowers, it's cards, it's going out for a supper or having a meal or making a telephone call. There's a wide variety of things that we could be doing in promoting and encouraging for Grandparents' Day. The most important thing is to establish and reinforce that wonderful relationship and do it in whichever way that you feel is most appropriate.
I look forward to encouraging the schools, for example, in my area to the degree of saying that, look, the Manitoba Legislature has now adopted this and passed and made into law Grandparents' Day and encourage some sort of school participation. I look forward to seeing children in the classroom writing up some cards of expressions to their grandparents or coming up with ideas on their own in terms of the types of things that they could be doing.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the role of the grandparent, especially today–you know, over the last 20 years, the way society has evolved with broken families, divorces, separations and so forth. One of the things that I want to acknowledge is that the role which the grandparent has played has been that of an anchor or as a rock of stability quite often. They're there in a very real and tangible way more than they ever have been, I would ultimately argue. And it's not to take anything away from previous generations of grandparents in any fashion but to suggest to members that the role of our grandparents is so critically important to today's society and, as a legislative group of individuals, we have to recognize that there might even be some other things that we can do. Ensuring rights of access, as an example, for a grandparent when a family is broken up, that a grandparent should still have rights to be able to visit and see their grandchild. You know, earlier I had talked about–and I see, you know, the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) is here–the opportunity of ensuring that grandparents have the right to ensure that their grandchild is being educated in a public educational facility, just to really do what we can to protect the rights of our grandparents.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make an interesting note that I believe the flower that has been adopted down in the United States is the forget-me-not flower for Grandparents' Day. At the very least, it will be a flower which I'll be promoting along with Grandparents' Day.
* (10:20)
I did want to just conclude my remarks by acknowledging, in particular, the Member for Rossmere (Ms. Braun) and the government for seeing fit to move forward with the Grandparents' Day bill. I think that it's a wonderful piece of legislation and there's no doubt in my mind that all members here would support this particular bill. We hope to see it passed and ultimately promoted.
If it does get passed through today, it just allows us to have that much more advance time to make sure the first Grandparents' Day here in Manitoba will be a huge success. I thank all members for their opinions and hopes that we will be able to see the bill passed.
Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, this is a great pleasure for me to rise and put very brief comments on this beautiful bill that the Member for Rossmere and the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) have proposed.
I'm delighted to be a part of 5.67 million grandparents in Canada that will be very happy to know that we are recognizing grandparents by giving a day in their respect.
I cannot share my excitement and joys, Mr. Speaker, with all the members here how much fun it is to be a grandparent. I remember when my first grandchild was born my wife brought home a pillowcase that said: Had I known grandchildren are so much fun, I would have had them first.
That made me really so much enjoying the grandchild that my children would say: Dad, you're spoiling them. I'd say: Well, that's our privilege. This is like a bonus, a dividend. We invested in you guys. Now these are our dividends; let me enjoy the dividend.
I think that it is so interesting to see how great it is to recognize in a family value that grandparents have some place of recognition. I really once again thank the members to bring this motion.
I have five grandchildren, Mr. Speaker. Two of them were born in the U.S.A., one in Geneva, one in India and one in Canada–the first one born in Canada. I'd like to share with my colleagues here in the House all five love Grandpa's home; that's Canada. All five would favour to permanently settle. I asked them: Where would you like to live? Canada. That is another pride I have that all my grandchildren, they follow Grandpa's leads and Grandpa's thinking and philosophy.
I'd like to share this. My first grandchild's name is Chandini Jha; second one is Shreya; third one is Anjali; fourth one is Vedika, and fifth one is Ria. All these are girls; they're all females. It is so interesting for me to see my family with a lot of males–I have six brothers and four sisters but, on my other side, they were all boys. All these five grandchildren, they are all females.
Whenever I meet with them with my wife, my daughters-in-law and my daughter, it's such a dominant female background that you feel a little bit isolated. But when I have fun with them, they tell me that my mother, who is 97 years old, I mentioned several times, is another dominating chief executive officer of that whole empire that whenever we do anything, we need her formal approval. So this is something that is of great excitement because these are some of the family values, Mr. Speaker, we bring in our homes and bring that cohesiveness and togetherness in the family.
This is very interesting, and I might like to share that Chandini and Anjali, they're in Washington, D.C., and in the recent election in the U.S.A.–my eldest one was born here, St. Boniface Hospital. She is, I think, 12 or 13 years old now, and she was campaigning, and she was in the E-day with Obama camp. I was so delighted. Another one, little one, called me about 10 o'clock in the night–and she calls me Nana. She said, Nana, looks like Obama is going to be the president, and we are all very excited in this school.
I was really laughing that day that she's five years old, and she's actively interested in politics. This makes me feel very, very happy to see how these wonderful children are giving me purpose, that nobody can literally compare the pleasure I have having these wonderful grandchildren. So I would like to say that October, seniors month, and I think we also look that all these seniors are literally the grandparents, or somehow related to grandparents, that they will be delighted to hear we have passed a day to honour them.
I think I'm looking forward to see how this particular event, day, will bring some new values into the families of seniors. Most of us here will be grandparents. Some of us, we're already grandparents, and I think that this will be a privilege that we will all enjoy. I am enjoying, and I'm pretty sure that younger ones here, they'll all enjoy.
I think this is something I'm really very, very proud to share with my colleagues here, and I think this is an interesting bill, so I will not take much time and perhaps share with my other colleagues here to put their words and thoughts. But I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest joys of my life is when I get all these five wonderful girls and I hug them and I feel so rich that nothing can compare that wealth when I hug them and they kiss me and they say, grandpa, I love you. That's the wonderful thing. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Minnedosa. I recognize the honourable Member for Minnedosa.
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to rise today and put a few comments on the record with regard to Bill 228, The Grandparents' Day Act. I think it's fitting today of all days that this bill was brought forward, for today we're going to have a special guest visit the Legislature. My husband's 104-year-old great aunt is actually going to be watching question period and enjoying a bit of the session today so I think today is an excellent day to have this in Hansard for her because I believe she will be reading Hansard over and over again, realizing there was a significant point in the day that we were going to recognize her as well.
Auntie Sue actually has a connection to this building. Her father was an MLA in 1908 for the constituency of Gilbert Plains, so she does have a connection to the building. Her father was a Conservative MLA, and Auntie Sue has very strong Conservative values and actually provides a lot of advice to her great-niece, through marriage, on politics and her opinions on how things should be done in our province.
I'll save some of my stories in a statement later on today, but I think this is a great opportunity to recognize individuals who have contributed in so many ways to Manitoba's prosperity and vision.
* (10:30)
I also would like to pay tribute to my own grandparents, Baba and Dyido Semochko, and Baba and Dyido Kostuik. My grandparents, actually, we nicknamed little granny, big granny, little grandpa, big grandpa. Big granny was married to little grandpa, and little grandpa was married to big granny. But they raised us. They did a lot with us. My parents worked. My mom worked. It was my babas who really raised us and taught us a lot about the Ukrainian culture, a lot about politics, because my grandparents were very active in community politics as well as an interest in provincial and federal politics. So I understand the significance and the importance of having that network and that connection with the family.
Now my parents are proud babas and dyidos to my kids and my children. It's fairly important for them to realize the significant role that they play in my life. There's not a chance that I would have been able to do what I do today if it wasn't for the support of my mom and dad, Baba and Dyido Kostuik. If it wasn't for them and their role in helping my children have a fairly normal time of it when I'm away for extended periods. My mom and dad live in Angusville, which is about an hour and a half, two hours away from Souris, where my family lives. They will be at my house at the drop of a hat. If I need them for 10 o'clock in the morning, they will be there. So I think it's important that we understand the important role that grandparents play.
My husband's family, Grandma and Grandpa Rowat, also play a very significant role in helping my children. I don't know how many summers my children have been to Silver Beach and taking swimming lessons. They have helped in helping make sure that my kids learned how to swim and understand nature and appreciate the outdoors. So, on that aspect, I've been blessed with having strong support in my family and through my husband's family.
But, also, I would like to put on the record that there are a number of families that don't have that benefit, that opportunity to have grandparents provide the support and love that we cherish in our family. I think that's where, a few years ago, I think, in 2004, when I was meeting with some constituents, they raised the issue of grandparents' access. I met with a group out of Brandon. They shared stories. There's a support group out of Brandon that meet on a regular basis. They talked about the importance of trying to gain access to their grandchildren, which has been lost, it's been severed, the relationship's been severed. They spoke of the devastation of not seeing their grandchildren or being able to access them or to be free and open in sharing gifts and correspondence. And that was devastating, as I had said earlier, as a person who has enjoyed and has benefited from the support and leadership of grandparents.
So I worked with them and we introduced legislation, in this House, a bill that would ensure that grandparents would be able to maintain a loving relationship with their grandchildren. To the credit of the government, even though they did not accept my legislation and my bills that I brought forward, they did bring in legislation that addressed that. I think that it transcends partisan politics when we understand the significance and the need to have certain supports available for families, to strengthen families in our province. So I want to say that I feel that was a highlight in the time that I've served as the MLA for Minnedosa, I've been able to help push an issue forward and help make legislation occur that provides supports for families.
Mr. Speaker, we've seen a number of things in the Throne Speech that were missed. I think some areas that we need to be looking at is supporting the resource councils in a better way within our province. I think that these are things that–you know, the session was short, but there are a number of things that I would like to see this government revisit before we resume sitting in the spring.
I think there are examples of service to seniors groups in many areas of the province and specifically in the areas that I represent where they have to fundraise to purchase emergency response information kits or ERIK kits from the local RHA. These cost about $1 each and the Service to Seniors groups give them out to local seniors for free. Actually, in a lot of health-care facilities they're automatically given to seniors who leave facilities so they have a lifeline or a response to emergency needs.
What we're seeing in some of these communities is that these response kits are critical, but we're finding that these Service to Seniors people have to fundraise and try to find dollars to have these kits available to them. So there seems to be a disconnect, and I think that we need to be looking at ways to ensure that services are available to our seniors, especially when their health is at risk and their well‑being. So we need to be looking at ways to provide more supports for seniors out there.
We do know that Seniors Resource Councils and Service to Seniors groups are an integral part of keeping the independence as an option for seniors. Again, I'm going to reflect back on Auntie Sue. She's 104 years old. She lives in her own home, in her own apartment in Webb Place, and she does get services provided to her. At times it's a challenge to find those supports and services but she is maintaining her own quality of life.
She's living on her own. She's relying on some supports from family, but she also relies on these supports from outside agencies. She was recently panelled for personal care, and that's another area that needs to be looked at. She is panelled at 140th on a list to get into a seniors home. So I find that rather interesting. She's 104 years old, obviously is looking at being panelled into a personal care, and she is 140th on that list. That speaks well of her health and well-being, but it also raises some very serious questions about wait times in getting into these centres.
So, in closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I think introducing a bill, The Grandparents' Day Act, is great. I think today is a good day to do it, obviously for Auntie Sue, and I just want to say that we've got some work to do in this area, and I think we are going to look to the government to do more. Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to begin by congratulating the Member for Rossmere for bringing this private member's bill through and for the co-operation of the opposition to get it passed.
I'd like to begin by putting a few remarks on the record about my grandparents, beginning with my grandparents Martindale. I have fond memories of them. They lived on a farm at Mount Healy, Ontario, on the Grand River, and that farm is still in the family. My Uncle Ray lives there and my first cousin Steven is buying the farm and lives there as well.
My grandfather's name was John Featherstone Martindale, and my grandmother's name was Charlotte Pettit. They had 10 children and 21 grandchildren, so I have 17 first cousins and they still get together. There's a Martindale family reunion every year and also a cousins reunion. I don't know how long the Martindale reunion has been going on, but I do know that my grandmother's family, the Pettit family, this past year had their 100th annual Pettit reunion, and my brother Gerald was the president this past year.
Unfortunately, because these reunions happen in Ontario I don't get to attend them very often, but I think it shows that people are very interested in their family and their family history and want to get together and enjoy each other's company.
On the other side, my mother's father's name was Jack Cleverley Bellinger, and my grandmother was Elizabeth Ellen Bellinger. My Grandfather Bellinger was born in Basingstoke, England, and was a soldier in the First World War fighting with a Saskatchewan regiment.
* (10:40)
Recently, my wife and I went to Halifax and we went to Pier 21 which is now a museum and a research centre. The staff there are very helpful. They will do family-tree research and look for immigration records, and so we were able to find the name of the ship that my Grandfather Bellinger came back to Canada on after the First World War and the date. It was in March 1919. Unfortunately, he was a victim of gas attacks. He fought at places like Ypres, Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele and other battles of the First World War and was invalided and never really worked very much after the First World War.
My Grandmother Bellinger was born Elizabeth Ellen Fraser at Breadalbane District, north of Virden, Manitoba. Her parents homesteaded there in 1879 and helped build Breadalbane Presbyterian Church and Breadalbane School where her father was a school trustee.
Now my wife and I have two children, but no grandchildren. However, that is something to look forward to and the possibilities are getting better all the time because our son, Nathan, is engaged to Lea Helbrecht and are getting married August 29, 2009.
So we hope that we may be grandparents in the future; there may be grandchildren. We don't want to put any pressure on them, of course, but I think it would be a very enjoyable experience. Some of my friends and acquaintances are quite a bit ahead of us. For example, I have a friend in Toronto, Libby Hooper, who's the same age as me. We grew up together in Thornhill, Ontario, and she has 28 grandchildren, and I have none.
Then, in Winnipeg, I know a chap who has 28 grandchildren and then there are twins expected in the family, so he'll have 30 grandchildren. So I don't think we'll ever catch up to them, but it would be nice to just have one, or two would be great.
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
I would like to go on and pay tribute to some grandparents, particularly a group in Burrows. I actually did a member's statement about the grandparents' swim program that celebrated its 25th anniversary this year. This is a group of grandparents who belong to the Dufferin Seniors–sorry, not the Dufferin, but the–it's named after the swimming pool in the North End–North Centennial Seniors club. They started this grandparents' program 25 years ago whereby they swim on a regular basis with children from about six different child-care centres.
This is just a wonderful experience not only for the seniors but for the children, because some of them don't have grandparents and, also, all the benefits of making them familiar with being in the water and getting them started as swimmers.
The Member for Minnedosa mentioned our government's legislation about grandparents' rights, so I'd like to speak to that very briefly. When I was the Family Services critic in the 1990s, I met with an organization called GRAND inc. or GRAND association, and they were campaigning especially for visiting rights for grandparents in situations where their children were estranged and they'd been denied visiting rights.
We were pleased to announce in 2006, as a government, the Grand Relations strategy which supports positive family relationships with grandparents and extended family. Our Grand Relations strategy allows for grandparents to have better access to their grandchildren during family‑access disputes.
In conclusion, whether we called our grandparents grandparents or elders or seniors, we know that they're very important parts of families. It's good to be paying tribute to them today and to inaugurate a Grandparents' Day once a year. Maybe every year, we'll hear a member's statement about the importance of Grandparents' Day and we'll get the opportunity to not only acknowledge our grandparents, but all grandparents that are important in the lives of their children and grandchildren. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am rising to speak to an important bill–the bill which will establish Grandparents' Day on the first Sunday after the Labour Day weekend in September.
This is a very positive step, and I note that the bill is a collaborative effort between the NDP and the Liberal Party, and I appreciate the spirit of co‑operation in this Chamber which has facilitated this.
It was, of course, the MLA for Inkster who first suggested in this Chamber that we have a Grandparents' Day and he even recommended that it be an NDP MLA who put it forward, and we are very pleased that the MLA for Rossmere has brought this bill forward.
It should be mentioned it took a little bit of manoeuvring, perhaps. In the last session, the MLA for Rossmere had one of her own party members seconding it, but with the MLA for Inkster adroitly bringing in Bill 227 before the MLA for Rossmere and Bill 228, it sort of gave precedence to the MLA for Inkster's bill, and we're glad and we're pleased at the final result. It was a partnership between the MLA for Rossmere and the MLA for Inkster, between the NDP and the Liberals. Thank you to all who've made this happen.
The final, important, result of this is that we're going to have a lot more attention to grandparents, an appreciation of grandparents, and that really is what this is all about. I should note, by the way, that it was only the other day that the Premier (Mr. Doer) got up, and he accused us of being in a coalition with the Tories. What I should say is that we are neither in a coalition with the NDP nor the Tories, but we're prepared to work with other MLAs in this Chamber, whatever parties, to get things done that we see are in the best interest of Manitoba. This is a good step and we are solidly behind it, as indeed the MLA for Inkster demonstrated by first proposing this in the Chamber.
I'd like to spend a moment just talking about my own experience about my grandparents. They were models for me and supportive. On my father's side, my grandfather and grandmother dedicated their lives to helping people, to building communities. They were, for many years, in parts of Africa, for quite a number of years in what was then Northern Rhodesia–is now Zambia–and they were for quite a number of years in Kenya. They were builders, building a school, hospital, church. They were healers, working together looking after those who were sick. My grandfather was a physician, and my grandmother helped with what he was doing in fairly isolated communities and together they achieved a great deal. The buildings that they built many years ago are still standing.
On my mother's side my grandfather and grandmother also worked closely together in the healing profession. My grandfather was a family physician, and they were not, sort of, well off–didn't have what you would have today, which was an office on a street or in a building, an office building. They had the office in their home, and it meant that they worked together trying to help people and used what they had to help people in the community. They lived through some pretty turbulent times for a whole variety of reasons, but they lived through them successfully, and their efforts are a tribute to their contributions and our tradition and what I have learned from all my grandparents has been useful for me.
* (10:50)
Today, my wife and I are now ourselves grandparents. We have two grandchildren, Grace [phonetic] and Alice [phonetic], who are with their parents, currently in Vientiane, in Laos, in southeast Asia. We very much enjoy their yearly visits. They were here last summer for about six weeks, and we enjoy seeing them and talking to them on a regular basis through Skype, which is a wonderful invention, and tremendous in being able to feel that you're close even when you are on the other side of the world. They are about 12 hours difference in time and right now quite a bit different in terms of climate. It's quite a bit warmer there than it is here as they're closer to the equator. My daughter and her husband are making a contribution in the whole area of the environment, fisheries, water treatment and so on in Laos and Alice [phonetic] and Grace [phonetic], our grandchildren, are growing up in an environment which is a fascinating, exciting and nurturing environment for them.
Grandparents, of course, are elders, respected in traditions, in cultures around the world and it is very important that we have the respect and the support for elders and grandparents. It is, you know, really important that they are there and that we learn from their knowledge as grandparents not only in raising children, but in helping in many, many ways in our community, in our province. The importance, I believe, and I have spoken out on many occasions in this regard, of honouring and respecting elders is, I think, vital. It is a tradition which may be particularly strong in Aboriginal culture, but it really is in, I believe, all cultures, and as people age, that we are looking after and making sure that people who have made a contribution have an opportunity to continue to make some contribution but are also well‑supported.
We'll be raising some issues later on today in question period which relate to this, but certainly, let us not forget the contributions of grandparents and let us remember in having Grandparents' Day the tremendous importance of grandparents to our society, to Manitoba and to people all over our province. Thank you.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Deputy Speaker, it's my pleasure to rise to add my comments to Bill 228, The Grandparents' Day Act. I want to start first by congratulating the honourable Member for Rossmere (Ms. Braun) for the introduction of this bill and also the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who has seconded this piece of legislation. That shows that from time to time there is co-operation in this House and we appreciate when that occurs.
I have to say, in starting, I was quite impressed by the members who have spoken here today. Just listening to the personal stories about the impact that grandparents have had on their lives, and you can see quite clearly that grandparents have made a significant contribution to the lives of the individuals who have spoken, and I'm sure to all members of this Assembly, whether they've spoken or not, that grandparents would have indeed played a great role in their upbringing and in the people in which they turned out to be.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
In my particular case, Mr. Speaker, my grandparents also had a similar role in my upbringing as a young person in my community. Grandparents, my paternal grandparents, were the closest to my family and, of course, my grandfather had a role. He's worked at the railway for a number of years before his retirement and then after that we watched him plant the gardens in the community and we watched him plant trees in the community and we learned by the roles of our grandparents before us. My grandmother, of course, was the nurturing one in the family and would tend to the care of the younger children as we were growing up, and then would provide those special treats to children like most grandparents do.
Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to know my maternal grandparents that well. My grandfather died when I was quite young. I didn't have a chance to really know him. My maternal grandmother, of course, we got to know, but, unfortunately, she moved away a short time after my grandfather died. We didn't get to know her that well, but she did have an effect on my life. For the time that we did get to spend with her, we appreciate, value and treasure those memories from both sets of grandparents because of the role that they played in our lives.
Now this day I know recognizes not only this day–but for the events in the coming days that will be tied to this and other announcements, will be like–I guess you could compare it to tossing a pebble into a pond of water. Some will say that if you toss a small pebble, there will be ripples out from that over a period of time. If you toss a boulder into the water, of course, you'll have waves that will be coming about as a result of that effect. I know, by the legislation the honourable Member for Rossmere has tabled here today and hopefully will pass, that we'll see this effect rippling throughout our society for many, many years to come, and we'll recognize and honour the grandparents for the role that they have played.
I know I have had the opportunity over my years as the MLA for my community, having interacted with many of the grandparents in my community–they state quite clearly that they want to remain in the community close to their families. Of course, as they age, as we all will do, they want to remain in the community and they'd like to see more seniors housing in the community so they can remain close to their families.
I suspect, though, as a result of this act, that hopefully we will pass here today, there will be boom for the card industry. Perhaps Hallmark Cards and other card companies will be able to see those cards purchased which will add to the economy of our province as we honour our grandparents and taking those special mementos over to our grandparents and recognizing the day that we're about to enact here.
With respect to the seniors of my community, we also want them to remain fit and well. Of course, in keeping with that, in keeping close proximity in the housing aspect of the community, they also want to remain fit to be with our grandchildren well into the future. I think it's only fitting that we look, as our government has done with respect to wellness models, to make sure that our grandparents and others of our community, can continue to stay with us for many, many years into the future.
On behalf of the people of my community, I want to thank the honourable Member for Rossmere (Ms. Braun) and the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for their work here today in bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I look forward to the first Grandparents' Day here this coming fall, the first Sunday past Labour Day in this province where we will be able to honour our grandparents of our community. We thank them and honour them and look forward to the passage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Public Bill 228, The Grandparents' Day Act, brought forward by the honourable Member for Rossmere.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Official Opposition House Leader): I would just like the record to reflect that there was unanimous support for Bill 228.
Mr. Speaker: The record will show that it was unanimously passed.
Is there agreement for it to be unanimous? [Agreed]
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Is there agreement of the House to call it 11 o'clock?
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House to call it 11 o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: I heard a no. Is that a real no?
Mr. Chomiak: I believe, because of ongoing discussions in Parliament, there might have been something going back and forth. I think if you canvass the House, you will see that there's agreement.
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House to call it 11 o'clock? [Agreed]
There is agreement. The hour being 11 a.m. we will now move forward to resolutions, and the resolution we will be dealing with is the resolution, Making Manitoba a "Have" Province.
Res. 1–Making Manitoba a "Have" Province
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): I move, seconded by the Member for Carman (Mr. Pedersen),
WHEREAS Manitoba is now the only "have not" province in Western Canada; and
WHEREAS Manitoba is not immune to the negative effects of a global financial crisis rooted in the mismanagement of financial resources; and
WHEREAS a strong indicator of a jurisdiction's prudence and accountability is the provincial government's ability to live within its means and balance its operating budget; and
* (11:00)
WHEREAS this provincial government has passed legislation that allows it to run operating budget deficits without consequence; and
WHEREAS for Manitoba to move from "have not" to "have" status will require a positive business environment for entrepreneurs and business owners; and
WHEREAS this provincial government in a global economic crisis has passed legislation that has created a climate of fear and uncertainty among many family farmers, investors, entrepreneurs and workers; and
WHEREAS many Manitobans are exercising financial restraint during this period of economic downturn; and
WHEREAS this provincial government passed legislation that directs taxpayer revenue to the New Democratic Party of Manitoba; and
WHEREAS a bold and innovative vision is needed to take Manitoba from "have not" to "have" status, and no such vision is evident in any of this government's Throne Speeches or budgets; and
WHEREAS this provincial government has instilled neither spirit nor energy in the developing of a long-term vision for Manitoba's future as a have province; and
WHEREAS receiving money from external and fluctuating sources of revenue is neither prudent nor visionary; and
WHEREAS Manitoba has become significantly more dependent on equalization payments from the federal government; and
WHEREAS Manitoba is currently receiving an unprecedent amount of equalization payments from the federal government; and
WHEREAS Manitobans are weary from the dependence on our neighbours that has grown under this provincial government and want to see Manitoba become economic leaders in Canada.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider acknowledging that being a "have not" province is not acceptable and that it is not in the best interests of the Province of Manitoba; and
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider, after being in government for nine years, accepting the challenge to make Manitoba a "have" province.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable Member for Brandon West, seconded by the honourable Member for Carman,
WHEREAS–dispense?
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Mr. Borotsik: As you heard and as members of this House have heard, there were a number of WHEREASes which kind of set the table for the substance of the resolution.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is fundamental philosophy that I hold, that individuals and governments should be self-reliant. They should be able to manage their own affairs in a fashion where they're not dependent upon others for their livelihood.
As a father, Mr. Speaker, when I was raising my sons, I made sure they had to earn their own way in order to appreciate what they were able to earn and achieve. If they wanted a vehicle, I made sure that my children went out and earned the money in order to buy, if not all, a portion of that particular vehicle, or whatever it was, what good and service they wanted to purchase.
You do that for your children because you want to make them self-reliant. You don't want to make them dependent on family forever. You want to, eventually, gently encourage them to leave the nest and to go and make it on their own and become, believe it or not, a constructive member of our society, a member of our society that's going to be able to contribute to that society.
That's where I think Manitoba should be, but we're not there, Mr. Speaker–in fact, quite the opposite.
I hear constantly from the members on the opposite side that, if they want to have something else going on in Manitoba, then it's the federal government that has to come to their aid. The federal government, we asked for more infrastructure programs, so that their economic ability will not be impacted going forward in this terrible economic downturn that we're suffering right now, Mr. Speaker.
But they don't have any ability as a provincial government and we don't, as Manitobans, have the ability to be able to go forward and depend on ourselves. We have to depend on the federal government, and the other provinces throughout this great country of ours have to pay for it.
Now there's more to it than that. There's a philosophy. There's a philosophy of pride, of being able to stand up in this country and say: We, as the province of Manitoba, are now contributing to this great federation of ours.
But we're not. We continue to take. We continue to ask for more. It's like the Oliver Twist: more, please; more, please. Quite frankly, it gets to the point where it's embarrassing to go outside of our borders in Manitoba and say to people that I come from Manitoba. If I go to Saskatchewan, nay Saskatchewan, now looks down their nose at us in Manitoba. That's wrong, and I don't like that feeling, Mr. Speaker.
I flew the flag of Manitoba constantly wherever I lived, whether it be in Alberta, or whether it be in Ontario, or whether it be in British Columbia. I flew the Manitoba flag constantly because I'm proud of this province. I'm proud of what we can achieve but, unfortunately, we're not getting that leadership, nor are we getting that ability from this particular government, Mr. Speaker.
Self-reliance is so vital and important because, right now, with dependency, the $2.1–2.063, to be exact–billion of equalization that we depend on services a major share of our budget. If we lose some of that which we're dependent on, and we have no control over, then how is this government going to react? They don't know. They don't know how to manage, so how are they going to react if and when those equalization payments are put into jeopardy, and they can well be put into jeopardy because we know right now, under the equalization formula, the provincial governments, the federal government has a formula that shares income. We know now that the federal government is talking about a deficit. If they're going to go into deficit, I can assure you they are not going to fund the services of other provinces, like Manitoba, to the levels that they funded them in the past.
I want to feel good. I don't want a hang-dog attitude. I want to be able to be proud of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, in saying that–and the two Resolveds are so very important, and I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and I hope members opposite will actually look at the Resolveds, because they are fundamentally correct. If they disagree with this fundamental correctness, then they wish to be the biggest squeegee kid in Canada for the rest of their governing lives.
This simply says, acknowledge that being a have-not province is not acceptable. That's pretty simple. Listen, please stand up in your chairs and say: Being a have-not province is not acceptable. Why can't you stand up and say that? Being a have‑not province is not acceptable. We want to leave the nest. We want to be able to be self-reliant. We want to be able to depend on ourselves and not others. It also says, accept the challenge of making a Manitoba a have province.
Those are the two Resolveds, and those are pretty fundamental. They're pretty simple to follow. If you can't accept that fundamental philosophy, then we're going to stay the squeegee-kid capital of Canada, and we're not going to be able to embrace the opportunities that have us.
Now, we do have opportunities that face us. We can become a have province. Let's talk about agriculture; 12 percent of our GDP right now is generated from agriculture. Let's have a vision. Let's have a plan to make that 25 percent of a growing GDP. Let's do that. But you can't do it by banning agriculture. You can't do it by banning hog production. What you have to do is, let's become more productive. Let's process the produce that we grow here in Manitoba. Why can't we do that? We'll have industry going hand-in-glove with agriculture– like we do in my community where we have Maple Leaf, which is a phenomenal economic engine for this province.
But let's not stop there. Let's develop more. But we can't do it when you ban agriculture. So change your views. Change the way you're going with agriculture.
How about mining? We have such wonderful opportunities in mining here, in this province alone. I met with the mining industry just last week, and they said that they are in a position now to leave the province. Why would they leave the province and leave their capital improvements, their capital investment in this province and walk away from it? Why would they do that? Because of the excessive tax regime and the regulatory requirements that are being thrown at them constantly.
Don't think that we are immune to having mining leave this province, because we are not. So why can't we use mining as being a growth industry of the GDP so that we can now become a have province? Because we put in regulations that are contrary to business practice, and that's wrong. We also have opportunity–by the way, Mr. Speaker, we talk about mining–potash is a great opportunity. It's a golden opportunity sitting there for us to grasp but, under this current government's legislation and regime, they're going to go someplace else, and we're going to say, well, it wasn't our fault; they just went someplace else because, 10 years ago, you didn't do anything when you were government.
* (11:10)
So you can't make that excuse constantly. You have got to put into place rules and regulations that are going to be business friendly but, unfortunately, this particular government doesn't really have a friendly business attitude, and that's why they don't embrace the have province status.
Manitoba Hydro is, without question, a real opportunity. Unfortunately, when you have government involvement in a corporate decision-making requirement, then we have what we see today–potential expenditure of an additional $600 million going down a goofy, daffy detour down the west side. Don't let government become involved in sound corporate decision.
We can have Manitoba Hydro developed to the point where it's going to generate revenues that will make us a have province, but first of all you have to have the desire to be a have province. Then you need the desire to stand away, as a government, to pull back and let corporations, like Manitoba Hydro, manage to the best of their ability. Do not force them into doing a $400-million office tower in downtown Winnipeg when, in fact, those investment dollars could be best spent generating revenue than expending revenue.
Forestry is a real opportunity in this province until just recently when you ban forestry in all of the provincial parks for whatever reason. You've now banned forestry; you've now banned agriculture. You've now banned mining. You've now banned just about everything that we really look at as being a real advantage to the province of Manitoba.
So, Mr. Speaker, again the WHEREASes speak to the resolve. I simply want this minister and this government to stand up and say: If we have the ability, we would like Manitoba to be a have province. Do not simply say, constantly, we will be recipients, on dependency on equalization, for the rest of our provincial lives, because if that's what they believe, then they deserve the welfare state status that they've put in place for us as Manitobans. And it's wrong. Please, just simply say, you want to be a have province. Thank you.
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I have to say at the outset that the member is one of the most pessimistic people I've ever seen about the province of Manitoba.
The member says we're a have-not province. You know, Mr. Speaker, that kind of language is completely inappropriate. We are a have province; we always have been a have province. We're a have province–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Selinger: We're a have province for many, many reasons. The first and most important one is because of the people we have in Manitoba, people with initiative, people with creativity, people with a multicultural heritage.
Our First Nations communities are people that have come here and settled here. From day one, this province has been a contributor to this country. It has been a contributor to the quality of life we have now. It has been a contributor to the policies. It has been a contributor to the policies that we now all believe in on both sides of this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, if you take a look at it strictly from an economic perspective, since we've been in government the growth in our economy in the last three years and projected for the next year is above the Canadian average. The reality is that Manitoba in 2008-2009 will probably be in the top three in this country for economic growth. And why is that? Is it because of the failed policies of the members opposite? Hardly. When they were in office, Manitoba was growing slower than most other provinces and people were leaving in droves.
Since we've been in office, the economy has been growing much more rapidly. People have been coming to this province; Manitobans have been returning to this province. We've seen some of the policies that we put in place have contributed to the entrepreneurial energy and the community development energy that Manitobans have brought forward.
We now have the lowest small-business rate in Canada. We had the highest small-business rate under the members opposite.
They seem to think that the minute they step in office, that everything is wonderful. They ignore the fact that they had the highest corporate tax rates in the country, the highest small-business tax rates. They moan and groan about the payroll tax, but they had 11 years to do something about it, and what do they do? They left it in place all those years.
They complained about taxation. What did they do on personal income tax? They had a surtax that they kept on for their 11 years in office. We removed it in our first budget. They had a surtax as well as an additional tax that levied itself on every individual taxpayer, creating literally thousands of different tax levels in this province. We simplified our tax system down to three levels and we brought in a family tax reduction which the members opposite have never acknowledged as being a contributor to the disposable income of Manitobans.
They had taken the property tax credit, Mr. Speaker, and reduced it, reduced the value of that property tax credit by $75. We've taken it from $250 up to $700. That's where we're going with the property tax credits. We're virtually tripling that tax credit to the advantage of all Manitobans and, in particular, to the advantage of Manitobans with modest incomes.
So the members opposite say we are a have-not province, I say they're wrong. I say we are a have province. We always have been a have province, and what we're doing will make us even stronger as we go forward and they know that. That's why they're trying to rip us apart as members of the opposition because they're just frustrated by the fact that we've been able to do things that they never even thought were possible. They never even conceived of the things that we're doing, and therefore they know that the vision we've got for this province is fundamentally different than the vision they had.
They talk about red tape, Mr. Speaker, they talk about red tape. They did nothing to modernize the procedures that we have in this province. We have reduced red tape, and even business advocacy groups acknowledge that the amount of red tape we have in this province has been among the lowest in Canada, and every year we take additional measures to make it easier for business to do what they do, which is to create jobs and invest in the opportunities inside this province.
Now, the member opposite says that he's frustrated by the fact that we banned logging in provincial parks. He liked logging in provincial parks. That's why they allowed it to go on for 11 years. Well, I've got a news flash for him: Manitobans don't like logging in provincial parks. They do. Manitobans don't like logging in provincial parks. One solution to that problem, Mr. Speaker, was not to go out and just pull the trigger on that. We worked with the industries that are doing the logging, and we found alternative sources of fibre for them outside of provincial parks and gave them the necessary compensation to shift their source of fibre to outside those parks so that we maintain jobs and economic development and protect the environment.
You can actually do both. You can actually grow the economy and protect the environment, something members opposite just have never understood. They've always understood that you have to destroy the environment to have economic growth. We see it opposite to that. We see that you can protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time.
As a matter of fact, if you have a sustainable and green policy, if you support Kyoto, you can actually be more innovative and grow the economy even more effectively for the future and more sustainably for the future, which is why the members opposite voted against our Kyoto plan. They voted against it. We will be the first province to meet our Kyoto targets at the same time as we prosper, which is why we're doing things like building hydro development in northern Manitoba.
We had 11 years of do nothing in northern Manitoba. We now have a major project coming off the ground, the Wuskwatim project in partnership with First Nations where they're getting the majority benefit of those jobs being created. We're moving ahead on that project. The contract has been announced this week.
We're in the planning stages for Keeyask, which will be another significant project in the order of several billion dollars of investment, and as we work on that project, we're proceeding on the Conawapa project, which, when you get down to it, will have in the order of $12 billion to $18 billion of investment in clean hydro energy projects as we go forward over the next 15 years.
These are not speculative projects, Mr. Speaker. These are projects where we've gone out and actually secured customers, customers that want to buy those products, customers in Wisconsin, customers in Minnesota. These are people that actually like what we're doing with hydro development and support our policies of protecting the boreal forest. They think it makes sense to develop hydro as a clean product with a good reputation. That makes it a more valuable product in their markets.
* (11:20)
The members opposite just seem to have forgotten that there was an election in the United States where we have a new president, a president that believes in a green economy. These guys, they're still back in the W phase of American history. They think that the W phase is where they should stay. Their policies look backwards; our policies look forward.
So when the member opposite gets up and disparages the citizens of Manitoba, disparages the entrepreneurial spirit of Manitobans by slagging us and calling us a have-not province, he completely misses the boat. He doesn't recognize that Manitobans are recognized for their innovation in terms of economic development, they're recognized for their innovation in energy efficiency, they're recognized for the innovations in the biotech sector, they're recognized for the innovations in the immigration sector and refugees sector. We're growing the population of this province through our Provincial Nominee Program. The members opposite have never acknowledged that, or supported it, or voted for it. They've always been against it.
We've developed opportunities for research and development in this province. Members have never supported it in the budget.
The Speaker tells me I have two minutes left, which is just enough time to summarize some of the things we're doing to make Manitoba prosperous.
When you're growing in the top half of the Canadian economy, you're a net contributor. Members opposite don't even recognize that, historically, we've had one of the lowest unemployment rates in this province, with one of the highest participation rates in the economy. We have more people of working age participating in the economy at around 79 percent than the majority of provinces. Our overall unemployment rate is among the lowest in the country. In the last few years, we've seen growth in wages faster than the Canadian average. We've seen growth in disposable income, which puts more money in the pockets of Manitobans, which has fuelled the consumer demand we see in this province. The retail sector has been growing at around 7-8 percent a year, faster than the Canadian average. Members opposite don't recognize that. They should be out shopping and visiting in the malls with all the rest of Manitobans and just seeing how confident Manitobans are about their future.
I was talking to some business people last night at an event I was at and they're telling me they haven't seen any effects of the so-called slowdown yet. They still think things are going very well in Manitoba. They believe Manitoba will weather the international global slowdown better than most other parts of Canada. They're proud to be in Manitoba.
This morning I was at an announcement in my own constituency of St. Boniface that celebrates its 100th anniversary as a city. One of the CEOs of one of Manitoba's largest corporations says he's very happy that the head office for that corporation, that Canadian corporation, is in Manitoba because it's better to be in Manitoba than virtually any other jurisdiction across this country. But the members opposite don't know that because they're not talking to anybody but themselves and their colleagues at the federal level as they trash and burn this country.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a few words on the record in regard to this resolution. Simply, what this resolution is saying is that it's not acceptable to Manitobans to be a have-not province, and we're asking that this government be forward-thinking. But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) said that we are a have province. There are a few things that we are a have province is, we have debt, we have dependency and we have the New Democrats. So there you go.
It's not about disparaging Manitobans; it's about creating an atmosphere in which businesses and individual citizens of Manitoba can prosper and move ourselves from this federal dependency that this government has set us into. It's about creating a balance between social concerns, environmental concerns and letting businesses build in Manitoba so that they really can succeed.
Bill 38 is not going to do that. It's going to hide the debt and the dependency that this government has. We will not be able to know where we are in terms of financial. I just want to go back. Last week we had the AMM conference, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities had their conference in Winnipeg here, and one of the major debates and major resolutions coming out of this conference was that they were asking for a portion of the provincial sales tax. The reason that they're doing that, municipalities are very forward-thinking in this province. They have visions for long-term development within their municipalities. They were looking for predictable funding from this and how they would achieve it. This government has no vision on their own, so, of course, they're not interested in looking at municipalities, helping municipalities fulfill their long-term visions.
It's about creating an atmosphere of development of the go-forward attitude, and we only have to look at Saskatchewan next door to us–which was always considered our poor cousins for so many years–how well they're doing. It's not just that they have natural resource wealth, it's they've created the abilities, and they've created the atmosphere for companies that want to move to Saskatchewan now. They've put plans in place and actions in place where they really can move ahead. If a business comes to Saskatchewan, they really can move ahead. We hear great things about how they've–we have the lowest basic personal exemption in all of Canada in Manitoba. They're going to raise it a hundred bucks as of January 1. Yet, in this very House last week, I brought forward a senior citizen in my constituency, her Pharmacare was going to go up $266 to her. In reality, I guess I could tell her she should feel good, it's only going to go up $166 then in real dollars. That's the type of perverse attitude that we have in this province from this government.
It's make a little announcement on one side but tax on the other side. It defeats the people of Manitoba that want to get ahead. We have this government that's in banning mode now. We've banned hogs or hog development. In a great portion of Manitoba they've banned hog production. In fact, one of the provisions was that in the ban area, in the hog production in the ban area, you could put in an anaerobic digester to get carbon credits. The latest discussions on carbon credits are coming out now saying, if it's government financed it's because the government program that you're putting that anaerobic digester in, you're not eligible for those credits. So here we are in Manitoba, we can't get ahead with any side of this discussion.
You're going to ban logging in most provincial parks. Now you're going to allow it in Duck Mountain. Is there any provision in there to offset the deadfall in those parks? Those parks will not be attractive to people if they're burned clean because of deadfall buildup in those parks.
The mining industry has come to us and said, this province is anti-mining; we're leaving–the tax regime, the regulations. This government says they're going to build a road on the east side for access to east-side First Nations. Great, but why are you going to bother building a road? You're not going to allow mining. You're not going to allow logging. You're not going to allow any industry there, so how do you expect them to get ahead if on one side you're going to allow them access and on the other side you're not going to allow them do any kind of development? The First Nations people are certainly wise enough to know that a road only does not build development. It takes access, but after that it takes action to encourage businesses to come and to develop in those areas. If on one side you're going to build a road in, and then on the other side you're going to say, no, there can't be any development on here, what good does that do to these First Nations communities?
The Finance Minister likes to tell us about the GDP per capita. The reality is that under this government, Manitoba dropped its ranking from fifth to sixth place in real GDP per capita from 2006 to 2007. If sixth place makes you happy, don't go to the Olympics because you're not going to win anything.
* (11:30)
The goal here is to be first. At least, that's the goal of most of us–to be first. We're not satisfied with sixth or eighth or 10th anywhere in this country. The other provinces, the federal government sees us as being a have-not province, and they are beginning to question the money that's being spent in this province.
If they have to put support into this province, if they have to prop up this province because you don't have enough business within yourselves to sustain yourself, they're going to start to question: Why do we put money in? Why would we put money into Manitoba, to spend $640 million to go around the west side of Manitoba, the long loop around Manitoba? Why not make it the shorter, safer, quicker, cheaper, eastern route?
And it would create economic development, despite what the government will tell you. It will create development and it will get exports going. It'll help Manitoba Hydro. Instead of seeing this government running interference with Manitoba Hydro, let Manitoba Hydro get on with doing what they do best, and that's produce and sell power. They can't do that with government interference telling them to spend an extra $640 million elsewhere.
We'd like to see this government get involved in a TILMA agreement, in a trade-mobility agreement with the western provinces. Their idea of involvement is wait for the feds to do it. The feds have to do it. Be creative. Be proactive. Get out there with the western provinces and create a trade, investment and labour mobility agreement that will actually help Manitoba. Even in spite of the payroll tax, we can maybe encourage some businesses to come if we have that type of mobility around. But this province just–they've built this culture; they built a culture of defeat.
If I can just end my comments, Mr. Speaker, on–I've got a quote off the Spirited Energy Web site: "Manitoba's image is often based on our own self-deprecating attitudes."
That is not Manitoba's attitude. That is this government's attitude. We can do better in here. Let's see this government help us to be better. Thank you.
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it could be a bright sunny day in Manitoba and the members opposite would only see clouds. If there were no clouds, they would be saying: Well, eventually there'll be clouds. They'd be saying, eventually, day will turn to night.
I've never heard more negativity than from the two members who spoke. The Member for Brandon West–I realize it's tough being a Finance critic. It's tough being a Finance critic when you're a Tory, after nine years of good management of the public's finances and in terms of the recognition that we're getting as having one of the strongest economies in the country, but to bring in a resolution that again–it focusses not just on a negative but on, I think, a completely wrong impression of this great province.
Now I want to say what I've said publicly and I said it to the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce when I spoke to them this year and last year. They started a whole discussion about being a have province or not being a have province. I want to say that the key element for this province is what's increasingly evident economically, and that is we're a hope province, a province which clearly has hope for the future.
They can look for all the negatives, and I want to thank the Member for Brandon West for clearly indicating that what they want to see happen in this province is–they're opposed to ending the logging in provincial parks.
I remember the words from the song, Mr. Speaker: "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot." We know members opposite have a slight difficulty with anything to do with the environment, but I've had nothing but good comments about our common-sense approach to logging in parks. We have more than enough compensated the logging industry and we're protecting our parks.
Now if that's their idea of economic progress and development, I want to thank them for saying that because I want to stress again the Member for Brandon West thinks that we shouldn't be banning logging in provincial parks.
We know their views in other industries in terms of the hog industry, et cetera, but what they don't get is that we're moving forward in every single sector of the economy and every region of this economy. Now, I don't know how many more good-news announcements they can ignore. Not one mention of wind power. Did you notice that? There was a lot of wind from the Member for Brandon West, but no mention of wind power, you know, 300 megawatts of wind power, again Manitoba Hydro taking a lead role.
You don't hear him talking about hydro development. I always ask this; it's a bit of a trick question. Wherever I go I ask people, you know, which dams have the Tories built since 1969? It's like none, zero, none, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you what they shut down, because they are great at mothballing. They did it first with Limestone, which was resumed by the Pawley government. They did it with Conawapa, and I say that now we have Wuskwatim, watch out because Keeyask and Conawapa are very much on the horizon.
You know what? They have no vision in terms of Manitoba Hydro. But they don't have a vision, I believe, in terms of any other sectors. I mean, they're talking about mining. We've seen unprecedented investment in our mining sector over the last number of years. More than $200 million of investment in my own home community of Thompson, and the Member for Brandon West, he should take a trip to Wabowden, Manitoba, in my constituency. The first time since the 1970s there's mining activity with the Bucko mine, the Bucko mine which is going to employ over 200 people, in fact, in the development stage is already employing nearly that number of people.
We've got the Lalor mine, which is going to be developed in Snow Lake. I call Snow Lake our phoenix in Manitoba. I know the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) who represents Snow Lake will point out the fact that when the mine closed down a couple of years ago there was a lot of concern, but people never gave up hope. They weren't Tories. They didn't have a negative view of the future. Right now you cannot get a house or a trailer or an apartment in Snow Lake. It is a boom town with the development and the exploration that is taking place. I just met recently with the mayor of Snow Lake. They are planning growth in that community because of the pressure of one of the world's biggest zinc discoveries.
I won't even get into the tremendous potential in northwest Manitoba, I know with uranium again in the constituency of the Member for Flin Flon, a lot of the exploration that is taking place east of Lake Winnipeg, the Victory Nickel mine which has a great deal of potential. But, you know, members opposite, I mean, all I've heard, you know, every time they mention mining it's always in a negative context. Notwithstanding the downturn in the economy, Manitoba is a good place to do business in terms of mining, and we have strong mining communities. We have a relationship in this province between companies and between unions, which is a key part of that. Mining is here to stay in Manitoba. We are national and world leaders in terms of mining.
The members opposite, you know, if they took a drive up north some time, which they rarely do, particularly during elections, they might see that not only are we fixing the highways in northern Manitoba, but we're developing our potential in the mining industry.
I want to say the members opposite have completely missed the boat when it comes to our agriculture sector. They can talk all they want about the, for example, the hog moratorium, but what they miss is the fact that there has been significant growth in the hog industry the last number of years. But we recognize if you want further growth it has to be sustainable. They don't ever acknowledge the fact that for all the talk, now by the way Tories–not in question period. It's not important enough to ask questions on the farm sector, but in general they talk more about agriculture probably than any other party. I said talk, because you know what? We have invested more through our Department of Agriculture than they ever did in supporting the farm sector in times of crisis, but also in terms of the diversification of the farm economy.
When I look ahead, biodiesel as a good example, what's happening in terms of ethanol in this province? We are moving forward in areas of this province and in sectors that were unheard of building a diversity that's out there. I want to talk about our diversity in terms of our manufacturing sector. You know, I'm amazed at members opposite, especially the ones that represent areas in southern Manitoba where we're having significant growth in the manufacturing sector. Now they don't like us to say anything positive, not one word. But, you know, look at the growth in Morden, in Winkler and Steinbach in southern Manitoba. You know, that's something we should all be proud of, and I want to commend the businesses, I want to commend the communities. But, you know, this suggestion is somehow there's this dark cloud over Manitoba. Take a trip to Steinbach and see what is happening in that community, the growth, because, you know what? It doesn't matter whether it's northern Manitoba, my community of Thompson, or southern Manitoba, in Steinbach, there is significant growth, and members opposite, maybe they should get their head out of the sand because they would see, I think, if they took a trip around.
* (11:40)
You know, the Finance Minister talked about population growth. I said this yesterday: 1.2 million Manitobans, 1.2 million Manitobans. We've reached our target in immigration. As a former immigration minister, I can tell you, we've gone from about 2,000 to 3,000 immigrants a year to 10,000.
Most significant is the fact that one-third of the immigrants are going where, Mr. Speaker? They're going outside of the city of Winnipeg. This is the only jurisdiction in Canada where immigration is not going almost entirely to the main urban centre or centres. That's good. That's good for Brandon. That's good for Steinbach, Morden, Winkler. That's good for my own community of Thompson. Population is growing, and it's growing throughout the province.
I just want to finish, Mr. Speaker, because I have one big advantage. You know, tomorrow, I'll be driving home to Thompson. I get to see a good part of the province every weekend. You really get a sense of what's going on on the ground, but as Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, I've had the opportunity not only to meet with but to travel to many people, many municipalities throughout the province.
You know what? I think members opposite don't get what's going on in this province. Don't attach some label like have-not. This is not a have-not province. We have a lot going for us, tremendous quality of life. We've got a diversity of population that's an important part of that. We have the most diverse ecosystem probably anywhere in Canada. We have a diverse economy, and we've got one of the youngest populations, the second youngest in the country, in our province.
That's not have-not. That's a lot of the things that we have, but what we really need is the vision that this government puts forward every single day, every single hour, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we see the strength of the province, the strength of our people. We see this province as a hope province. The members opposite, you know, they're doing a very good job of being a very negative opposition. You know what? They're doing such a good job, I suspect they're going to be there for some time longer.
What the people of Manitoba want isn't the negative, negative approach of members opposite. They want us to be working for the future. They see, no matter what will happen in terms of economic downturn, that this is a hope province, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to put forward that agenda for hope for Manitoba.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): You know, after listening to the diatribe from the Member for Thompson, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, one cannot help but get up in the House and put some accuracy to what the reality in Manitoba is rather than listen to things that are not realistic, things that are not true, and indeed, the Member for Thompson, if you listen to him, you'd think you were living in some other province.
But, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Thompson needs to have a reality check because it is his government that has driven this province into a situation where a major part of our budget, on an annual basis, is dependent upon transfer payments from Ottawa. Now, I don't know any other province in Canada that has the resources, the people, actually, the entrepreneurs that we have in this province, and still relies for a majority of its expenditures, or its income, from the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, when the members opposite–and I listened to the Minister of Finance who kept talking about that this is a have province. Well, in fact, if it is a have province like he says, then why on earth are we so dependent upon transfer payments from Ottawa? Can anyone on the government side answer that question? [interjection] Or do they understand at all?
Now, any jurisdiction in this country, whether it's B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, don't depend on Ottawa to send money to them as Manitoba does. Where does Ottawa get that money? Well, it gets it from other provinces. It gets it from other provinces and then that money has to flow into Manitoba. Well, why would that happen if this province were prosperous and if this province were moving ahead?
It happens because this government doesn't have an idea of how to get the economy rolling. The Premier (Mr. Doer) stands in this House, and he talks about the cranes in the city of Winnipeg and the building cranes that are–but every project, every project where you see a crane, you know that that's a government-sponsored construction. It is not private construction. Take a look. The Hydro building–can we say that that's private construction? I don't think so. Can we say that the WRHA is private construction? I don't think so. Can we say that the MTS arena was totally private? I don't think so.
Mr. Speaker, this government talks about construction, talks about growth. All of this is at the expense of the taxpayer. I support things like a new arena in this city. I support things like the Museum for Human Rights. Those are good things. But added to that, added to that, you have to have private entrepreneurs who are also contributing to the building of this city and the building of this province, and that is what is missing.
Why is it that our Premier (Mr. Doer) has to go to Ottawa with cap in hand and ask for more money for transfer payments to this province? Why? Because this government has driven this province into a situation where people are moving out to other jurisdictions to set up their businesses. And why is that happening? Because of the high taxes, the payroll tax, that is taking place in this province. Ask the Canola crushers who went to Saskatchewan to build Canola crushing plants from Manitoba. Why did they go to Saskatchewan? Because this is an unfriendly province to do business in, in terms of taxes and in terms of the business climate.
Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Member for Thompson talk about the mining sector. If they were at the mining conference, they got the report from the mining association. They understand. The mining association understands where this province is vis‑à‑vis other jurisdictions. We're No. 10.
We have a resource on the west side of this province that should be developed. It's called potash. Mr. Speaker, if you go to Saskatchewan, they're not developing one new mine, they're developing three new mines. Why are they doing it? Is that because potash stops at the border? No. They have a government in Saskatchewan that is pro-business, that is pro-development, that is looking at how they can build their province, and they're moving ahead. Where is this province going? Well, first of all, we are a province of ban everything.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago, in the last Legislature, this province shut down the hog industry. The hog industry was contributing to the net economic benefit of this province, but this government decided that no, no, no. Instead of working with them, instead of finding ways to address some of the issues, this government simply put the hammer down and said no more hog development, no more hog production in this province. So is it a wonder why people are moving out of the province, why we don't have processors in this province?
I remember in the BSE crisis, the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) stood up and said that there was going to be a processor for livestock in this province. Well, that was about five years ago. We've spent millions of dollars chasing a project, but the government couldn't get its act together to bring it to fruition, and today we don't have any livestock processing in this province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs blast us because we might be in favour of logging. You're darned right we're in favour of logging. I'm not ashamed to stand up here and say that we're in favour of logging. Today, the sustainable growth of forests in our province is higher than it was 30 years ago. Why? Because the loggers understand how to do sustainable logging in our province. But you get government interfering and we're going to have chaos.
Now the government has said no more logging in our provincial parks like Whiteshell. Well, what happens when the loggers move out of our province and we have devastation in our parks because of windstorms? Who's going to clean that up? Oh, it's fine to call the loggers in to clean that up, but don't you ever take a log out of that park.
* (11:50)
It is a foolish approach and I'm not afraid to stand here and say it is a foolish approach, because it's unsustainable.
I like our provincial parks. I like to go whether it's fishing or whether it's hiking or whatever it is in our provincial parks–enjoying the scenery–but you can have both.
Now if the Province is going to ban logging, why did they allow it in the Duck Mountain? Why wasn't that shut down? I'll tell you why it wasn't shut down. Because the Minister of the Agriculture and the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) both represent that area of the province. That's why it wasn't closed down. We understand that. Don't think that people out there don't understand it.
I want to go back to how this Province needs to get its act together because, Mr. Speaker, within the next minute or so, I'm just going to indicate that if in fact this Province, this government started to look seriously at how it's overtaxing the people of this province and how it could give back by lowering taxes in this province, we could definitely see an improvement in where this province is going.
If you compare the taxes paid by a family of four in Manitoba and compare that to what's happening in other jurisdictions, you will find that Manitoba is way overtaxed.
We have to, indeed, get our store in order. We have to get our ship sailing in the right direction here, and it is not with this government at the helm. We have to turn this province around, from one that is dependent on Ottawa for transfer payments to one that can generate resources here in the province, because we take a proactive approach to development, to manufacturing, to business and to the people of this province, so that we become a friendly province, not a have-not province, as we are labelled by other jurisdictions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): I'm pleased to rise in this House to speak against this resolution and echo some of the comments that have been made by my colleagues, particularly the opening comments made by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), who spoke about one of the strengths that we have in this province and that is the people of this province.
As Minister of Education, of course, my portfolio is one that is focussed on the people of this province, focussed on the future of this province and focussed on the fine young Manitobans who are choosing more and more to stay in Manitoba, make Manitoba home, to raise a family and make a living here in Manitoba.
It's rather curious that this resolution would come from the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Borotsik). As a teacher, I must tell you I was quite offended by what I heard from the Member for Brandon West yesterday, heckling in the Chamber.
The Member for Brandon West said: You guys can't balance a budget; you're a bunch of teachers. I asked him, heckling across the floor: You have a problem with teachers?
He said, and I quote: I like teachers in the classroom; I like teachers in the classroom.
That is offensive on so many levels, Mr. Speaker. That suggests that teachers shouldn't be allowed to participate as members of the Legislative Assembly; we shouldn't let our names stand. He likes us in the classroom. That's offensive to every teacher that's ever let their name stand publicly. That's offensive to many members.
An Honourable Member: What about RTAM? What about the retired teachers?
Mr. Bjornson: Oh, now, here he goes. The member opposite, being loud doesn't make you right, but being right, you got to be loud. Being right, you got to be loud. You got to shout down opinions that are contrary to your own, because you can't accept opposite opinions in this Chamber.
That is the loudest member in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I tell you, if he was a student of mine, he would be spending a lot of time in the hallway until he would settle down and learn to listen. I can't believe the behaviour of the member opposite, but I tell you, the member opposite is also–[interjection] Oh, there he goes again.
The member opposite also sat in this Chamber and said he was embarrassed to be from Manitoba. I find that really, really unfortunate that an elected member of this Legislature says he's embarrassed.
Quite frankly, I am proud to be a Manitoban. I'm proud to be in this province. I'm proud to be in this Legislature. I'm proud to be a team of educators that were elected.
The member opposite seems to think teachers should be in the classroom. He's insulting to participatory democracy. He's insulting to the constituents of my constituency in Gimli, Rossmere, Brandon East, Flin Flon, La Verendrye, Lord Roberts, Seine River, Assiniboia, St. Boniface, Dauphin-Roblin and Swan River, all educators on this side of the House.
Maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe there's a reason there are so many educators on this side of the House, because we believe in the future of this province. We believe in investing in education.
The members opposite are a one-trick pony. Cut taxes, make this a have-not province. Well, what happened during the 1990s? Make this a have province, I should say. That's the one-trick pony of the member opposite. Cut taxes. Well, when members opposite were in office, taxes went up by 60 percent on property to fund education because they were cutting funding to education, and the Member for Brandon West stands up in this Chamber with a petition on property taxes for education. He won't ask any questions about quality of education, but he stands up and talks about cutting property taxes when, in Brandon School Division, from 1990-1999, property taxes went up 66 percent.
Well, since we've been in office, they've gone down 31 percent. But we're not cutting taxes and doing that at the expense of the education system, Mr. Speaker. No. We're doing that at the same time that we're increasing funding to education.
When you look at the election promises from the last election, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) said, well, we don't need to put any more money into the education budget because enrolments are flat or declining. So we won't need to increase the funding of the education budget. Well, what would that say to the education system when we put in $53.5 million more into the system this past year? How many teachers would have been laid off? How many programs would have to be cut, with a $53.5-million investment, if members opposite were in power, and they chose not to put any more money into the education system?
So they have to get past this tunnel vision that cutting taxes is the be-all, the end-all, and a solution. What we've been able to do, as a government with nine consecutive balanced budgets, we've been able to do so by maintaining and improving programming for Manitobans and by affordable, sustainable, predictable tax cuts.
Members opposite promised–what was it, $1.6 billion, or something like that?–they were going to cut out of taxes. Had they done that, and the markets went in the tank they way they did this past year, where would we be now? I hate to think where we would be at this point in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, and what cost that would've meant to social programs, what cost it would've meant to health-care programs, what cost it would've meant to education. So members opposite have this tunnel vision, this tunnel vision that we need to cut taxes to make Manitoba more competitive, and that's the be-all and end-all.
Well, we are cutting taxes. We're doing so in an affordable, sustainable and predictable way. But, you know, the attitude that I get from the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Borotsik), I'm not surprised to hear this anti-teacher attitude. I'm not surprised to hear that, because that's something that's been consistent throughout the history of the Filmon government, where he had a Minister of Education stand up when teachers were exercising their democratic right and she said, Those aren't real teachers. [interjection] Linda McIntosh was pointing to the teachers who were here exercising their democratic right, saying, those aren't real teachers. [interjection] But I know that the member opposite, he wasn't here when that happened. He wasn't here when that happened because he was in Ottawa advocating for increased funding for political parties from the public purse. So, he wasn't here when that happened.
But, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to stand on this side of the House, and I'm proud to stand up for Manitobans. We stand up for Manitobans every day, and we're seeing the results of our labour. We're seeing, in a recent Canada West Foundation survey of western Canadians, 89.5 percent of Manitobans report that it is likely they will still be living here in five years. That's higher than the average of western Canadians reporting they'll stay in their home province of Alberta. And there's also, amongst 18‑to‑24-year-olds, 81.7 percent report that they'll stay in Manitoba over the next five years; it's over B.C.'s and Alberta's averages.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to be said for investing in Manitobans, and that–
Mr. Speaker: Okay. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have three minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Official Opposition House Leader): No. Call the question, maybe–[interjection]
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time, the time for dealing with this matter is one hour, and because we had started at 10:59, it could only go to 11:59, and the time to debate was expired.
The honourable member will have three minutes remaining when this matter is again before the House.
I see now it's 12 o'clock noon. So the House will recess and will reconvene at 1:30 p.m.