LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Monday, June 1, 2009
Mr. Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom, know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.
Routine proceedings; introduction of bills; petitions.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Seven Oaks Hospital–Emergency Services
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
The background to this petition is as follows:
The current Premier (Mr. Doer) and the NDP government are reducing emergency services at the Seven Oaks Hospital.
On October 6, 1995, the NDP introduced a matter of urgent public importance that stated that "the ordinary business of the House to be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the threat to the health-care system posed by this government's plans to limit emergency services in the city of Winnipeg community hospitals."
On December 6, 1995, when the PC government suggested it was going to reduce emergency services at the Seven Oaks Hospital, the NDP leader then asked Premier Gary Filmon to "reverse the horrible decisions of his government and his Minister of Health and reopen our community-based emergency wards."
The NDP gave Manitobans the impression that they supported Seven Oaks Hospital having full emergency services seven days a week, 24 hours a day
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Premier of Manitoba consider how important it is to have the Seven Oaks Hospital provide full emergency services seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
Mr. Speaker, this is signed by J. Joss, S. Hovoseluik, A. Rosko and many, many other fine Manitobans. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Neepawa, Gladstone, Ste. Rose, McCreary–Family Doctors
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Access to a family doctor is vital to good primary health care. Patients depend on their family doctors for many things, including the routine health-care needs, preventive care and referrals for diagnostic tests and appointments with specialists.
Family doctors in Neepawa, Gladstone and Ste. Rose are unable to accept new patients. The nearby community of McCreary has not had a doctor available to take patients in months.
Without a family doctor, residents of this large geographical area have no option but to look for a family doctor in communities as far away as Brandon and Winnipeg.
Residents of these communities are suffering because of the provincial government's continuing failure to effectively address the shortage of doctors in rural Manitoba.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) to consider prioritizing the needs of these communities by ensuring they have access to a family doctor.
To urge the Minister of Health to consider promptly increasing the use of nurse practitioners in these communities in order to improve access to quality health care.
This petition is signed by Colette Murray, Sharon Tucker, Linda Murray and many, many other fine Manitobans.
Long-Term Care Facilities–Morden and Winkler
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Many seniors from the Morden and Winkler area are currently patients in Boundary Trails Health Centre while they wait for placement in local personal care homes.
There are presently no beds available for these patients in Salem Home and Tabor Home. To make more beds in the hospital available, the regional health authority is planning to move these patients to personal care homes in outlying regions.
These patients have lived, worked and raised their families in this area for most of their lives. They receive care and support from their family and friends who live in the community, and they will lose this support if they are forced to move to distant communities.
These seniors and their families should not have to bear the consequences of the provincial government's failure to ensure there are adequate personal care home beds in the region.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) to ensure that patients who are awaiting placement in a personal care home are not moved to distant communities.
We urge the Minister of Health to consider working with the RHA and the community to speed construction and expansion of long-term care facilities in the region.
This is signed by L. Aust, Katharina Friesen, Denise Cox and many, many others.
Traffic Signal Installation–PTH 15 and Highway 206
Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
In August 2008, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Lemieux) stated that traffic volumes at the intersection of PTH 15 and Highway 206 in Dugald exceed those needed to warrant the installation of traffic signals.
Every school day, up to a thousand students travel through this intersection in Dugald where the lack of traffic signals puts their safety at risk.
Thousands of vehicles travel daily through this intersection in Dugald where the lack of traffic signals puts at risk the safety of these citizens.
In 2008, there was a 300 percent increase in accidents at this intersection.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Minister of Transportation consider the immediate installation of traffic signals at the intersection of PTH 15 and Highway 206 in Dugald.
To request that the Minister of Transportation recognize the value of the lives and well-being of the students and citizens of Manitoba.
Signed by bus driver, Pat Hollingshead; Barbara Acton, bus driver, Janet Onsowich and many, many other Manitobans. Thank you.
Photo Radar
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
It is important to protect the safety of construction workers who are on the job by having reduced speeds in construction zones when workers are present.
The provincial government handed out tickets to thousands of Manitobans who were driving the regular posted speed limit in construction zones when there were no construction workers present.
A Manitoba court has ruled that the reduced speed zones in construction areas were intended to protect workers and that the tickets were given when no construction workers were present were invalid.
The provincial government has decided not to collect unpaid fines given to motorists who were ticketed driving the normal posted speed limit when no construction workers were present.
The provincial government is refusing to refund the money to the many hardworking, law-abiding Manitobans who had already paid the fine for driving the regular speed limit in a construction zone when no workers were present.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Attorney General (Mr. Chomiak) consider refunding all monies collected from photo radar tickets given to motorists driving the regular posted speed limit in construction zones where no workers were present.
And this is signed by Carilee Radtke, Kevin Radtke, Erica Loewen and many, many other Manitobans, Mr. Speaker.
* (13:40)
Midwifery Services–Interlake Region
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition.
Residents of the Interlake Regional Health Authority do not have access to midwifery services.
Midwives provide high quality, cost-effective care to childbearing women throughout their pregnancy, birth and in the post-partum period.
Women in the Interlake should have access to midwifery care.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) to consider working with the Interlake Regional Health Authority to provide midwifery services to women in this health region.
This is signed by K. Kolesar, Jill Dowson, Diane Bender and many, many others.
Photo Radar
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
It is important to protect the safety of construction workers who are on the job by having reduced speeds in construction zones when workers are present.
The provincial government handed out tickets to thousands of Manitobans who were driving the regular posted speed limit in construction zones when there were no construction workers present.
A Manitoba court has ruled that the reduced speed zones in construction areas were intended to protect workers and that the tickets that were given when no construction workers were present were invalid.
The provincial government has decided not to collect unpaid fines given to motorists who were ticketed driving the normal posted speed limit when no construction workers were present.
The provincial government is refusing to refund the money to the many hardworking, law-abiding Manitobans who already paid the fine for driving the regular speed limit in a construction zone when no workers were present.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Attorney General (Mr. Chomiak) consider refunding all monies collected from photo radar tickets given to motorists driving the regular posted speed limit in construction zones when no workers were present.
Signed by Doug Bender, John Smyth and Bill Sowiak and many other rural Manitobans, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
And these are the reasons for this petition:
It is important to protect the safety of construction workers who are on the job by having reduced speeds in construction zones when workers aren't, are present.
The provincial government handed out tickets to thousands of Manitobans who were driving the regular posted speed limit in construction zones when there were no construction workers present.
A Manitoba court has ruled that the reduced speed zones in construction areas were intended to protect workers and that the tickets that were given when no construction workers were present were invalid.
The provincial government has decided not to collect unpaid fines given to motorists who were ticketed driving the normal posted speed limit when no construction workers were present.
The provincial government is refusing to refund the money to the many hardworking, law-abiding Manitobans who had already paid the fine for driving the regular speed limit in a construction zone when no workers were present.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Attorney General (Mr. Chomiak) consider refunding all monies collected from photo radar tickets given to motorists driving the regular posted speed limit in construction zones where no workers were present.
Mr. Speaker, this was signed by L. Kussin, G. Imhoff, J. Currie and many, many other Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker: Committee reports; tabling of reports; ministerial statements. [interjection]
Order, please.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today from the Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities, we have Josie Conception, Libby Zdrilik, Jim Derksen, Valerie Wolbert and Harry Wolbert, who are the guests of the honourable Member for Fort Rouge (Ms. Howard).
And also in the public gallery, we have with us from Portage Collegiate Institute, we have 60 grade 11 students under the direction of Ms. Joellen Sevcenko. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou).
And also in the public gallery, we have with us from Robert–[interjection] Order, please.
We also have from Robert H. Smith School, we have 21 grade 6 students under the direction of Mr. Dave Leochko. This school is located in the constituency honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today.
Oral questions.
Campaign Returns
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Following the 1999 election, 19–sorry, 13 NDP official agents as well as the central NDP campaign filed false election returns. Those false returns triggered payments to the NDP that came at the expense of Manitoba taxpayers. When the matter was discovered, it was swept under the rug. The party was allowed to refile returns in 2003 without the auditor's sign-off, even though auditor's sign-off is mandatory under the act.
Mr. Speaker, these 13 official agents, some of them are saying that they had initially prepared the returns properly and yet they were changed by somebody centrally within the NDP before they were filed.
Can the Premier shed light on this and indicate whether it's the 13 official agents who got it wrong, or was it somebody on his team in the central campaign who changed the documents before they were filed?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): We spent two hours in committee on Monday night, a, a week ago today, and a number of the issues that were raised by the members opposite in quite a–quite a forceful way, I might add–which is quite unusual for an independent officer of the Legislature to appear before that kind of attacks. Implicit in the questions–was, Mr. Speaker, have other parties had similar kinds of work with Elections Manitoba? The answer is yes. Are they free of fear and favour? The answer was yes. Do they require and get legal advice under the new system post-Monnin? The answer was yes. Who were the lawyers? And those names were provided as well.
We stand with Elections Manitoba. I know there's always issues before Elections Manitoba. We might even have a concern with members opposite in the last by-elections, Mr. Speaker.
We're not gonna try to bully around an independent officer of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McFadyen: I want to thank the Premier for making reference to investigations that are now under way by Elections Manitoba, and I want to just ask him if he will respond to the question about the 13 election returns that were filed, false returns, after 1999.
There're people who signed off on those returns that include certified general accountants. There's a Monica Girouard, who is a current member of the PUB who signed a return that turned out to be false, Mr. Speaker. There was a refiled return with no audit on it, and obviously this creates concerns for the individual official agents if documents are being changed, and I just want him to be clear: Did Ms. Girouard sign a false return in 1999, or did somebody on his team change it before it was filed?
Mr. Doer: Well, Mr., Mr. Speaker, the, the Elections Manitoba dealt with the issue. There was no cheques that were ripped up. We didn't have two bank accounts, one at, on Lombard and another one somewhere else. There was not–the head of Treasury Board was not going in ripping up cheques. The disclosure was completely up front.
The, the filing was disagreed to by Elections Manitoba. It was therefore amended as they have done with other parties.
Mr. McFadyen: There was a–there was a cheque‑swapping scheme that was engaged in by the central NDP along with, with outside parties. It turns out that there're actually false, phony invoices that were prepared by those outside parties in order to trigger payments that were designed to look like expenses but which were, in fact, donations in kind, Mr. Speaker.
Phony invoices, cheque swapping, false returns, illegal rebates; Manitoba taxpayers paid for it, and, yet, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where Manitobans who travel under the speed limit face the full force of the law. Friends of the NDP who engage in these schemes get away without, without any penalty.
I want to ask the Premier whether he thinks it's appropriate that friends of the NDP who file false returns and rip off Manitoba taxpayers face no consequences, but Manitobans driving under the speed limit face the full force of the law, including the threat of collection agencies.
* (13:50)
Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member, the member opposite acts like Snow White. The Conservative Party–every member of the–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: –every member–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Order.
Mr. Doer: –every member of the Legislature across the way, I think, filed for over $60,000 for electeds–every elected member of the Conservative Party cost the taxpayers, under public financing–which they don't support but they always ask for–$60,000. This side of the House, it was half as much, Mr. Speaker, in terms of effectiveness.
Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that I am very proud of the fact that in Manitoba we have banned the past practices of the past: corporate donations; decisions being made by government; corporate donations to the political parties; rebates being issued. We have banned union and corporate donations. We're proud of that, we stand by it, and members opposite voted against it.
Southdale Riding Returns
Mr. Speaker: The honourable leader–order. Order. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): On a new question, Mr. Speaker.
I don't, I don't know how he can brag about banning union donations when, at the very same time, they are finding illegal ways of circumventing the very laws that were on the books, Mr. Speaker, which is exactly what they did, phony invoices acting as though they were expenses when, in fact, they were donations. To stand in this House and say that he banned union donations when, in fact, they were actively engaged in a cheque-swapping scheme to violate the law is of no comfort to Manitobans.
And I want to ask the Premier, given that the Southdale constituency in 1999, 49 percent of the expenses filed in Southdale in 1999 turned out to be ineligible and phony expenses under this scheme. I want to ask the Premier if he thinks it's appropriate that the Southdale NDP association, today, is in a position where they have a false return from 1999, where they have a restated return which, to this day, no auditor in Manitoba is prepared to sign off on. Is that right that the Southdale NDP association has these false returns still on the books, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the–last July, last July the aud–the Chief Electoral Officer reported that, in dealing with this issue, (a) that all parties have been treated the same over the years, (b) that when, when, when the issue was dealt with, with by Elections Manitoba, it was reviewed by their auditor. I believe they quoted Deloitte, that's in Hansard in July, and they also stated that it was reviewed by the two key investigators: Mr. Graham, I believe his name, Blair Graham–the member may have worked with him in the past as a junior partner for him–and Mr., Mr. Michael Green, another member of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, I believe another senior partner that the member opposite probably learned some things from when he was junior at that firm. Those are the people that recommended to Mr. Balasko, and we're–we'll take their expertise over the political comments of the member opposite every day.
Apology to Lawyers
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): I'm glad the Premier has raised the names of Mr. Green and Mr. Graham, and I think it's absolutely extremely unfortunate that he is attempting to blame Mr. Graham and Mr. Green; Mr. Graham for the double standard that was applied where there's a cheque-swapping scheme and no charges, but other relatively more minor offences with the full force of Elections Manitoba. And the lawyers who said at the time, we are acting under instructions from our client, Elections Manitoba, to show no mercy when it comes to Conservative candidates, for him to suggest that those lawyers may have breached their obligations by setting up this double standard, I think, is regrettable.
Will he today apologize to Mr. Green and Mr. Graham?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in almost 10 years, I've never heard such an absurd statement made by a leader of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I have said–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Doer: –20 occasions, I've said I trust the experience, the integrity and the knowledge of Mr. Green and Mr. Graham over the member across the way. Mr.–both–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: –you have the choice. The member has a choice of choosing the advice given by Mr. Green and Mr. Graham to Elections Manitoba as testified and reported at the committee last week and in July, or you have the choice of disregarding it. The member opposite is disregarding it. We're respecting it.
Tabling of Elections Manitoba Recommendations
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): The Premier's made reference to opinions that he seems to indicate, that he'd seen, that were provided at the time in 1999.
I want to ask the Premier if he's aware of what was in the opinions provided by Mr. Green and Mr. Graham. Will he table those opinions today, along with all of the other professional advice received in 199–after 1999, by Elections Manitoba, including the advice from Mr. Asselstine?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the–Mr. Speaker, Mr. Green and Mr. Graham are retained by Elections Manitoba, not by the government. That is the issue. Members don't understand it, we do.
Validity for Passport Canada
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the Manitoba birth certificates issued prior to 1983 are no longer acceptable proof of Canadian citizenship.
Why did the minister responsible for Vital Statistics make this decision and why did he not inform Manitobans of the decision?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, there was, before 1983, a Manitoba division registrar birth certificate which was issued in a form that was difficult to validate, and these certificates were emp–issued on a temporary basis. Passport Canada did not notify the public until Friday, when they put it on the Web site, that they would not accept these documents to validate passports.
What we have done and what we will do to rectify the problem is anybody that needs to expedite the conversion or the exchange of a deposit registrar certificate for a Vital Statistics birth certificate, we will va–waive the fee of $60 to expedite it and just charge the normal fee of $24. So that will be a way to speed it up for the next three months and resolve this matter.
Mr. Faurschou: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not good enough. According to Passport Canada, indeed, the Manitoba certificates by–issued by the registrar, have not been acceptable for passport validation since January.
I want to ask the minister why, being that it was a Manitoba document that had been made invalid by Passport Canada, why did the minister not inform Manitobans that an officially registered government document was no longer acceptable?
Mr. Selinger: First of all, I would like to thank the member for confirming what I put on the record that Passport Canada, a federal agency, was the agency that decided not to accept the registrar birth certificates, and that was unfortunate. They have corrected that as of Friday. They're responsible for the notification of their own procedures.
What we have agreed to do, when I learned of this matter, is to waive the $60 fee for expediting the conversion of a deposit registrar birth certificate into a Vital Statistics birth certificate. We will waive the expedition fee and just charge the normal fee of $24, and give them priority service to get this done if anybody needs to make that conversion to get a passport quickly to go another country. So we are doing our part to solve this problem. I hope the member accepts that on good faith.
Mr. Faurschou: Well, Mr. Minis–Mr. Speaker, the minister has it all wrong. It was the Manitoba government, when they were putting together the enhanced driver's licences, that made the decision, the cab–the minister's seatmate, the honourable Minister responsible for MPI (Mr. Chomiak), made the decision that the certificates issued prior to 1983 were not valid. And so this is the government that, that is saying Manitoba–Canada, Passport Canada made the decision. That's not true. They were following the lead of this government.
So I want to ask this minister whether he knew that his Cabinet colleague, res–cab–Minister responsible for MPI had made this decision.
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, each, each agency, whether at the federal or provincial est–level that issues a document determines their own procedures for what evidence they will accept as part of issuing their document. Passport Canada's responsible for what documents they will accept or not. In this case, they refused, they refused to accept the registrar certificate. MPI also believed that the registrar certificate was not sufficiently able to be validated. In both cases, in both cases, the agency–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
* (14:00)
Mr. Selinger: –if I, if I could come to conclude, Mr. Speaker, in both cases, the agency, Vital Statistics, which reports through Finance, has agreed to waive the expedition fee to allow people that want to get an MPI licence, an enhanced driver's identification certificate or a passport, anybody that needs to expedite it, will get it at the normal fee of $24. Thank you.
Kyoto Targets
Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, it is Environment Week here in Canada, and today might be a good day to check on Manitoba's record on this file. Interestingly, Canada's greenhouse gas inventory report was released late last week. The report clearly shows Manitoba's emissions trending upwards. In fact, emissions are up 14.5 percent since 1990, which is the base year for Kyoto.
Mr. Speaker, the minister will remember Bill 15, Manitoba's Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act. This legislation says the government will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 6 percent of the 1990 levels by 2012.
How can the minister, with any credibility, say this government will now meet its Kyoto commitments?
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mines): I'm pleased to respond to the member opposite. If the member opposite remembers, the act was passed on June 12, 2008. The plan came out on April 21, 2008. These are 2000 numb–2007 numbers, and what's happened since then, I'll go through.
We now have over 6,000 geothermal installations. We just announced a triple E green energy efficiency program for trucking. We have more energy efficiency going on as far as Power Smart where we have $188 million of loans where people have done energy efficiency on their houses. We've gone through on hou–announcing a new rapid transit system with the City of Winnipeg, which is moving out very effectively. We now have got biomass that's working.
These are all programs that are reducing emissions now and have moved forward since 2008.
Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr. Speaker, we're going to put this in perspective for the minister. I'm not sure if he's done the math on this thing, but emissions are up 14.5 percent since 1990. Their legislation sets a target at a reduction of 6 percent.
An Honourable Member: We're working at it.
Mr. Cullen: But in true NDP fashion–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Cullen: And it's not working very well either.
In true NDP fashion, the target is conveniently set for 2012, after the next provincial election. It's no wonder the NDP voted against our amendments to establish earlier targets and to penalize the government if they didn't meet these targets.
Mr. Speaker, will we see yet another NDP flip‑flop, and will they be revising Bill 15 targets to meet their own criteria?
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I hope the member takes time to look at the numbers. Actually, the rounding errors used by the federal government in determining these numbers, some of these emission numbers are as high–some of these rounding errors used by the federal government are as high as half a megatonne, 500,000 tonnes. So the rounding errors are in excess of the increase. And that's in math that you should read on the report.
But, also, we've also implemented a new ethanol mandate where 8.5 percent of all our fuel is ethanol. That will decrease the greenhouse gases. And–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Rondeau: –[inaudible] that we actually have an active transportation–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Rondeau: –and then we have a commuter challenge going on this week, and we have ex–we've won the commuter challenge in many years, and we're going to win it again this year.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the figures clearly don't lie, and 14.5 percent is not a rounding error. All the government spin and all the government advertising cannot change the figures.
The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act was clearly a feel-good piece of legislation aimed to deceive Manitobans. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as an example, the legislation may actually impede our ability to capture greenhouse gas from landfills. Many jurisdictions are recovering and recycling the energy from landfills. They also receive revenue from the carbon market.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is he aware his legislation may actually hamper the recovery of greenhouse gas emissions for landfills?
Mr. Rondeau: We are working with the City of Winnipeg to capture landfills as we are with Brandon. We're also working with climate-friendly woodlot plac–practice. We're working by planting trees with the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers). We're moving forward on that. We're actually talking about more and more energy efficiency with people, and also, if you're looking at a huge effort, we actually licensed the first biodiesel manufacturing facility in Manitoba that are making spec. So these are all initiatives that work, working forward.
We have e-waste collections. We have a wind farm up and running and moving forward, and the next wind farm which is at St. Joseph, and we're continuing to move forward on local energy efficiency programs which are making us efficient, and may I remind the member opposite that we rated A-plus in the energy efficiency–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Driver Merit System
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Manitoba Public Insurance is moving towards a rating system for drivers that would determine their Autopac rate. Last week the Public Utilities Board said that MPI should look at including photo radar tickets as part of the rating system.
Already the NDP government is refusing to refund tickets where the court said they should never have been issued. If the PUB recommendation goes ahead, you could have the NDP issuing photo radar tickets against the court ruling and then refusing to refund the money and then having those tickets go against the driving record of Manitobans, forcing them to pay more for Autopac. It's a great little scheme, Mr. Speaker.
Will this minister responsible today say that the PUB recommendation is not on the table?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, first off, the member knows full well that the only place that photo radar is used is by the City of Winnipeg, and the only tickets that are issued are by the City of Winnipeg police, not by the provincial government. In fact, we've said we are not using photo radar on provincial routes.
Also, Mr. Speaker, for a very good reason in the first place, we said that no demerit points would be charged against photo radar. That was our policy in the past and that will continue to be our policy.
Photo Radar
Tabling of Annual Report
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): See if we can get agreement on the second question, Mr. Speaker. The photo radar annual report was due to the province on April 1st. The NDP said two weeks ago that it was not ready. This would be troubling at any time, but especially so when there is a significant public outrage and concern about the use of photo radar in this province.
Can the minister repon–responsible tell us whether he is prepared to table the annual report for photo radar today so we can look at the numbers and have a real debate about how much revenue's coming in?
Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation): I understand that the report should be in this week, and we'll be prepared to table it when we receive it.
Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, the MLA for Rossmere (Ms. Braun) recently received an e-mail from a 17‑year veteran of the police force, and that officer has said that having photo radar in construction zones where there are no construction workers is nothing more than a tax grab. The Member for Rossmere is going to have the opportunity to vote on the issue of this tax grab in the coming days.
Will the minister responsible, will the Premier (Mr. Doer), ensure that there is a free vote on this issue so the Member for Rossmere can vote the wishes of her constituents, and will they also ensure that the annual report is tabled prior to that vote?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, min–Mr. Speaker, the chief of the City of Winnipeg police has indicated that photo radar can be used in the construction zones for safety reasons, both for drivers and pedestrians, and he put out–the City of Winnipeg put out four press releases about their policy in that regard, and the chief of police who's been contradicted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen), whom I'm waiting to apologize to the chief of police, has said otherwise.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the City of Winnipeg report that'll be provided to the minister, I'm sure the City of Winnipeg will say it's all right to table their report that they'll be providing to us in this Legislature to the public, but I want to indicate it's the City of Winnipeg that administers and provides that, despite what the Member for Steinbach wants to–unless the Member for Steinbach is asking us–if the member's municipality wants to ask for photo radar, they have to receive legislative sanction, and we have not given them that.
Administrative Costs
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Looking at the audited financial statements of RHAs, it appears that administrative costs at the Burntwood Regional Health Authority have skyrocketed instead of being put into doctor recruitment and patient care.
Can the Minister of Health explain why the Burntwood Regional Health Authority spent $760,000 on administrative costs in 1999, and in 2007-2008, they spent almost $6 million?
* (14:10)
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we know that the member opposite has been having some difficult recently in reading financial statements.
We know last, last week, for example, when she was speaking about access centres, she was wrong on doctors. She said that access centres in Winnipeg were having difficulty recruiting doctors. As of today, Mr. Speaker, there are no doctor vacancies in the access centres in Winnipeg.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, she was wrong on deficits. She incorrectly alleged that the Winnipeg access centres ran a $26-million deficit, but we know, of course, when you allege a deficit you have to look at both the revenue and the expenditures. You need to look at them altogether.
We know, in fact, that she completely ignored–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Oswald: –the revenue side and, in fact, that the Winnipeg access centres are indeed not running a deficit and they have a minor surplus.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the material that was being referenced last week came from the minister's office. So maybe she wants to talk to her staff about what they're sending out through Freedom of Information documents. If they are wrong, then she needs to be talking to the WRHA and her own staff because they are then misrepresenting information coming out of her own department.
Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent audited financial statements, the Burntwood Regional Health Authority spent the most of any RHA on administrative costs at 8.2 percent of total costs.
Considering that there was a spending scandal there in 2006, is the Minister of Health confident that all the spending today is above board?
Ms. Oswald: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, any numbers that come forward from the member opposite need to be reviewed. This is historically true. If the member opposite has trouble with arithmetic, this is not my difficulty. I would suggest it is hers.
I can also say, Mr. Speaker, that the external review of regional health authorities that was completed last year showed, as a general rule, that administrative costs in Manitoba R–RHAs are consistent, if not lower, than other jurisdictions in Canada.
We know that as a result of difficulties faced in burntword–Burntwood a couple of years ago, that accountability and transparency has been increased. We continually review administration and all costs as a result of increasing accountability in our regional health authorities and the member opposite, I, I think needs to check the math.
Physician Vacancies
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. statement, as she did with the Brian Sinclair death, this minister is very good at covering up information.
We're asking some very serious questions today about the Burntwood Regional Health Authority. Mr. Speaker, 1,471 doctors have left Manitoba under the NDP, and they appear to be leaving the Burntwood Regional Health Authority in droves. Issues with administration there seems to be one of the reasons.
My office called the Burntwood Regional Health Authority to find out if doctors had left in the last year and a half, and nobody there returned our call. So, so much for accountability and transparency by this government.
Can the minister tell us: Did 50 percent of the doctors leave the Burntwood Regional Health Authority in the last year and a half?
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we take issues of transparency and accountability with the RHAs very seriously. That's why we have increased the requirements for reporting in ways that have never been done before in Manitoba and certainly in stark contrast to when the member opposite was assistant to the Minister of Health during her time.
Last week she was wrong on doctors for access centres. She was wrong on the deficits. She was wrong on the leasing and capital cost. She was wrong on, on issues concerning travel costs–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Order. Order. Let's have a little order, please. The honourable minister for Health has the floor.
Ms. Oswald: I'll continue, Mr. Speaker. She was wrong on supports for, for community health and for providing for community health. She's been wrong on the downtown access centre. She was wrong on whether or not the Grace Hospital was going to be closed. It never was. She's wrong on the net increase of doctors coming to Manitoba.
I only have 45 seconds, Mr. Speaker, but she's wrong, wrong, wrong.
Government Buyout of Homes
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, last week when I raised concerns about the residents of Breezy Point, the minister for Intergovernmental Affairs was flapping around arrogantly. The people, the people of Breezy Point who are being dispossessed of their homes, who are seeing their lifelong dreams and hopes shattered, deserve much better from this government.
These are people who've invested heavily to raise their homes far above what the government asked for to make sure that they were flood proofed and, indeed, they were, and yet the minister who is dispossessing them has never met with these people or visited their homes to see for himself.
I ask the minister: Will, at the very least, he meet personally with affected individuals at Breezy Point and on the other side of the river?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, if, if, if the member, if the member from across the way is talking about the people that are living at the Breezy Point north area on Crown land, then I think that everybody understands that we've made a very–I, very generous offer to these folks to help them in relocating to, to areas that won't be subject to ice and water and all of this every spring.
Mr. Speaker, we need–I think we need to be very sympathetic, very empathetic to the people that live in the area and be very generous but be very clear that we don't wanna leave them and rescuers in harm's way every spring.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, there's still inadequate reason that the minister has never met with them to discuss these issues. The fact is that these are people who've been through many spring floods in the past, who can teach the minister and his staff some lessons in safety, the precautions that they've taken, what they feel needs to be done, and yet the minister, himself, has not even given a plan for the future, what's gonna happen with that land at Breezy Point.
Let us give a dialogue here and the minister–I ask the minister: When's he gonna present the long-run vision for that area? What's gonna happen? When's he gonna talk to the people, one-on-one, at Breezy Point so there can be a little bit of a dialogue?
Mr. Struthers: Well, Mr. Speaker, fir–first and foremost, we need to, we need to deal fairly and generously in the short term with the people who are moving from those areas elsewhere. We don't want them to be in harm's way next year. We don't want workers and rescuers to be in harm's way again like they were this past year.
We want to continue to work with the reeve of St. Andrews like we have in the past. He's been very helpful and his, and his council and their staff's working with us. We want to make sure we get this right. We had people from a number of different departments meet to talk about the technical parts of this arrangement with the homeowners, themselves, to answer some questions that they had. It was a very good meeting that they had, and we answered the questions that homeowners had.
We, we think this pre-flood market value, fair market value, is a very generous offer, and many of those homeowners agree with us, Mr. Speaker.
Revenue Canada Tax Receipts
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. When the NDP made the, the switchover or attempted to switch it over from a donation in kind to 13 candidates had claimed into a cheque exchange process, let there be no doubt that there would have been, in all likelihood, tax receipts that would have been issued.
My question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger): Has Revenue Canada been contacted in regards to the possibility of tax receipts that would have been issued by the New Democratic Party, and there would have been a responsibility for the New Democratic Party to have written those that would have given those tax receipts and to request that those tax receipts be resubmitted, which would mean, Mr. Speaker, that they would have–should have informed Revenue Canada if, in fact, they were claimed.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): No, Mr. Speaker, those union individual–or union groups were not subject to, to tax refunds.
I want to point out that when we brought in the legislation to ban union and corporation donations, members voted against it. They voted against it.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Chomiak: Now, Mr. Speaker, they're raising questions about 1999, the time they really don't want to think about, and the Elections Manitoba said, very clearly, that all three parties had–all three parties had filed returns that had problems. All three parties had had them corrected, and in all three cases they were treated alike.
Mr. Speaker, Elections Manitoba officials said it's done consistently for all three parties. He said that last week at–
* (14:20)
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.
Government Initiative
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr. Speaker, while Manitoba has the lowest unemployment rate in the country, there are some workers being affected by the economic tu–downturn.
Last week, I was pleased to give an announcement in St. James about an exciting retraining and support strategy that will help low‑income workers hurt by the downturn return to work faster.
Would the minister of competitiveness and training and trade please inform the House about this important announcement?
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): Last week I was pleased to be at a great Manitoba employer, Standard Aero, with the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Mr. Mackintosh) and the Member for St. James to launch Rebound, an $11.2-million two-year retraining and support strategy, a program that will help those vulnerable low-income workers who may be hurt by the economic downturn beyond our borders. This is part of Manitoba's ALL Aboard poverty reduction strategy.
Rebound will provide a new proactive approach to identify and support low-income workers in transition who don't have employment insurance coverage, thanks to Liberals and Conservatives, help them reconnect with jobs or update training as quickly as possible and help them remain off welfare and also provide those workers with easy access to assessment services and training opportunities through a one-stop process.
And it's very interesting to have Tory members, who won't ask an economic question, heckling when we're talking about helping workers here in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Emergency Room Closure
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, earlier today I–the Minister of Health said she didn't have a doctor deficit. Well, emergency room services at the Melita hospital were cancelled last Monday. This all-too-often recurring disastrous situation is as a result of the NDP government not recruiting and retaining doctors in rural Manitoba.
Having lost over 1,470 doctors in Manitoba since promising to fix health care in six months with $15 million in 1999, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Health today tell the citizens of Melita and the surrounding area of southwestern Manitoba when she will provide doctors to reopen Melita's emergency hospital services?
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): We know that the Assiniboine Regional Health Authority has an ongoing challenge in providing enough doctors and nurses. They're uniquely positioned to have the largest number of hospitals and personal care homes. On average, most RHAs have five or six. The Assiniboine Regional Health Authority has 20 facilities.
They do have an ongoing challenge and they're continuing to work through recruitment. They've brought a number of nurses from the Filipino nursing recruitment. They've brought a number of doctors through the international medical graduate programs, but there is a concern in Melita right now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to some other areas in the Assiniboine Regional Health Authority.
When members opposite talk about recruitment of doctors and net–or losses of doctors, they never talk about the net gain, do they, Mr. Speaker; 288 more doctors today than in 1999.
Mr. Maguire: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's the same old story, and that's no solace for the citizens of Melita, Pierson, Waskada, Goodlands, Tilston, areas of southeastern Saskatchewan, our neighbours to the west, as well.
Many of these people have to drive over an hour now to get to an emergency hospital services facility. Melita's doctors have been exceptional in their efforts to keep the ER services in their region open, but you can only be overworked with little or no backup for so long.
When will this minister supply doctors to Melita to reopen their emergency facilities, and what is her plan to do this, Mr. Speaker?
Ms. Oswald: We're going to continue to work with the RHA to bring doctors to rural Manitoba. We know that we've seen that net increase which is in stark contrast to when members opposite had their hands on the wheel, where we saw a net decrease of doctors virtually every year in the 1990s.
We know that we've been able to increase our complement of rural doctors by 21 percent since 1999, but we also know that in this time of national shortage of physician complements, that we have more work to do. That's why we promised to bring a hundred more doctors to Manitoba in the last election.
How many did the member from Arthur-Virden promise? I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker; it was zero.
Regulation Changes
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, the provincial government recently finished its consultations on the proposed changes to the on-site water management systems regulation under the environmental act. Those proposed changes will impact private property owners and municipal governments alike, and they are creating a great deal of uncertainty in rural and northern Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell this House how many submissions his department received on the proposed changes, and does he plan to make any changes to the regulations based on this input?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we, we were very thorough in, in consulting with people who live in all parts of this province. What they've told us very clearly is they want us to protect Manitoba's waterways. They want us to put in place a framework that will guide the installation of septic fields, septic tanks, all those things that we need to be concerned about if we are going to be serious about protecting Lake Winnipeg and other water bodies in Manitoba.
So we will review those comments, and we'll do so in such a way that water protection is our first priority.
Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.
Members' statements.
Jim Derksen
Ms. Jennifer Howard (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the invaluable contributions of Jim Derksen, who joins us here today.
Mr. Derksen has been a leading advocate for the rights of people with disabilities in Canada and internationally for over 30 years. This past Tuesday, he became Dr. Derksen when the University of Manitoba presented him with an honorary Doctor of Laws at their May convocation.
Jim's tireless efforts were integral to ensuring the rights of people with disabilities were recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He helped to organize many advocacy groups, such as the Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities, Disabled Peoples International and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. His expertise is called upon by federal and provincial governments, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the United Nations. He was the founding executive director of the Manitoba Disabilities Issues Office, serving my predecessor, the Honourable Tim Sale. Under Jim's leadership, the first provincial strategy for people with disabilities, Full Citizenship, was developed.
Currently, Mr. Derksen is an adviser to VP-Net, the vulnerable persons and end of life care new emerging team, a group of researchers looking at end-of-life care issues for people with disabilities. He has never shied away from a challenge. They continue to build bridges between people with disabilities and the palliative care community.
Later today, the Minister responsible for Persons with Disabilities (Mr. Mackintosh), will pro–will proclaim this week Access Awareness Week. I cannot think of a better way to kick it off than by this House paying tribute to a champion of accessibility and inclusion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, students at Rosser elementary school have gone green, and were recently recognized for reaching Earth III status. SEEDS Canada's Green Schools project awards Earth Day III status to schools who have successfully completed 3,000 actions that have positively benefit the environment. The program began in 1991, and is intended to give recognition to schools that attempt to create environmental change in the world.
Across Canada, approximately 8,000 schools participate in the program and only a handful of schools that participate in the program achieve Earth III status. Given the small size of Rosser elementary school and difficulty of reaching Earth III status, this was truly an amazing accomplishment for the students.
Some of the actions that students can take part in to make a positive impact on the environment range from a variety of different activities. This can include handing down old clothes to a younger relative, composting or riding a bike instead of getting a ride in a car. Once these tasks are complete, the student records their action on a piece of paper and signs their name to the recorded task. Students were so willing to participate in the program, they would often go home for the weekend and come back with 20 completed tasks.
Rosser elementary school has been able to complete the Green Schools project very quickly. They finished their first 1,000 projects in 2000, earning them Earth I status. Only three years ago, the school earned Earth II status before now earning their Earth III status. This school does not intend to slow down on their assignment and plans to achieve Earth IV status in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate Rosser elementary school for achieving Earth III status. Manitobans should consider the students of Rosser elementary as role models in our community, and we should all work harder to take positive action on our environment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (14:30)
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, on May 13th, 2009, I had the privilege of participating in the 2009 Fred Douglas Foundation's Humanitarian Awards. Founded in 2004, these awards recognize the individuals who enrich Manitoba's communities with their outstanding service to seniors.
Four awards were given out on this evening. The Love of Caring Award is for volunteers who demonstrate a commitment to improving the lives of seniors. This year, the recipients were Elgin and Ruth McConnell from the Hamiota Senior Council. In addition to their volunteer work, Elgin and Ruth also work to bridge the generation gap by assisting the Hamiota District Health Centre with recruitment, retention and training of young physicians.
The Art of Caring Award is for individuals who demonstrate in their professional life a commitment to enhancing the quality of life for seniors. This year's recipient is Jill Hannah-Kayes, a community mental health worker for the elderly. She provides assessments, recommendations and ongoing support to older adults and their families. She has also served on local, regional and provincial committees addressing elder abuse, in addition to teaching a course to psychiatric nursing students.
The Learning by Caring Award is for students who demonstrate compassion and respect for the elderly. This year's recipient is Brittany Hargreaves, a student at Teulon Collegiate. Brittany has volunteered at the Goodwin Lodge, a personal care home in Teulon, for the past three years and dreams of working with the elderly after graduation.
The last award of the evening was the Award of Merit given to the Collège Pierre Elliott Trudeau Senior Citizens Prom Committee and its founder, Vanessa Nowastawski. The college hosts an annual senior citizens prom each year in an effort to express gratitude to the seniors in the community. Nearly 400 seniors attend the annual prom and spend the night dancing with students, teaching them the polka, waltz and jive.
These awards recognize individuals in our community who help make the lives of seniors better every day. Congratulations to the award recipients and the Fred Douglas Foundation for another successful year and commendations on their hard work and dedication to striving to improve the quality of life for seniors.
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate Canadian Environment Week. Indeed, we are extremely fortunate to be able to live in a country rich with natural resources. But while we have been blessed with these riches, we must also realize that we have a great responsibility to properly care for our environment from which we take so much.
Canadian Environment Week is a good opportunity to focus on this responsibility and how we as a society and as individuals are impacting our environment and our communities by the choices that we make. We should all treasure the quality of life that we often take for granted, including abundant energy sources, clean water and vast amounts of space. It is how we choose to manage what we are so fortunate to have that will impact the ability of future generations to enjoy the same privileges that we share today.
While there are currently some good initiatives in our province and our country to help mitigate the negative effects of our overconsumption, we must continue to make more of an effort to protect and preserve Canada's and Manitoba's resources from further pollution.
Manitoba is currently showing a substantial increase in the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere. According to a recent study, greenhouse gas emission in Manitoba is up 2 percent since 2006 and is 14.5 percent higher than 1990 levels.
A result such as this can be viewed as a benchmark that reflects the consequences of our everyday choices. As responsible citizens, let us all press this government for further action on reducing greenhouse gas levels in our beautiful province so our children and our children's children can enjoy the many blessings Manitoba has to offer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to share with members some exciting news coming out of the University of Manitoba. On May 21st, the university held its annual Campus Beautification Day, a day in which students, staff and members of the community volunteer to clean up the Fort Garry campus. Activities included planting flowers, edging trees, picking up litter, removing debris from lawns and shrub beds, raking, pulling weeds and spreading mulch. The event was co-ordinated by the Physical Plant staff.
That same day, the provincial and federal governments together announced an investment of over $40 million in the University of Manitoba. The investment is part of the Knowledge Infrastructure program, the federal government's two-year, $2‑billion plan to repair and expand research and educational facilities at Canadian colleges and universities. The program is helping to generate the advanced technological infrastructure needed to keep Canada's colleges and universities at the forefront of scientific advancement. The investment will also provide a significant short-term economic stimulus to south Winnipeg, including my constituency of St. Norbert.
The provincial government is contributing $21 million to the program to ensure that Manitoba remains competitive in the knowledge-based international economy by giving students improved access to digital technologies in fields like engineering, biotechnology and agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, Campus Beautification Day was a wonderful opportunity to see staff and students taking pride in their university. I congratulate everyone who took pride in the, in the opportunity to improve the learning environment at the university. Manitoba has an active and engaged student population, and I'm proud to be a part of a government that invests in their education. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Grievances.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Arthur-Virden, on a grievance?
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. The honourable Member for Arthur-Virden, on a grievance.
Mr. Maguire: It's a concern–it's with concern that I rise in the House today to bring a grievance in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. There are a host of areas that are of great concern to not only my constituents, but–in Arthur-Virden and the southwest part of Manitoba–but to all citizens in this province. And it's timely to be able to have the opportunity to put some of these on the record prior to this government being allowed to proceed any further in its budgetary process.
And I also–I bring to the, to the point Bill 30, of course, the fact that the government didn't want to pay down any debt at all in this province, Mr. Speaker. Tried to get away with that, and has continued to say that they wanted to only do $20 million in their budget and which was directly opposite to their $110 million that they said they would reduce their budget with, in their own budget, Bill 38, that was passed last October.
But, Mr. Speaker, there's other areas that are even much more disconcerning to me I guess than, than this particular area, as grave as it may be, following on the heels of one of the worst bills that's ever been brought before this Legislature in Bill 38 last year. And that is the fact that the government continues to say that they are–that they couldn't even reduce any of the debt for the next three years at a time when they're getting $4 billion, record increases in transfer payments from, from other provinces through Ottawa, this year.
One of the things that I think Manitoba citizens need to be warned about is the fact that if the, that the transfer payments–or equalization payments, pardon me, 'cause all provinces, as I've said many times in this Legislature, receive some form of transfer payments, Mr. Speaker. It's the equalization side that, that we won't be eligible–that we are the only ones, rather, eligible for across western Canada.
And, Mr. Speaker, when and if the economic uncertainties that we're faced with today continue, then this government cannot budget in the future for those kinds of $2-billion windfalls to come into their budgetary process. And this wouldn't be such a big issue if it was a $100-billion budget or even a $50‑billion budget that we have, but with a $10‑billion operating budget in the Province of Manitoba, $2 billion ends up being 20 percent of it. Now, if you were to cut a billion even out of that, which could be possible, we would see, of course, a 10 percent reduction in the overall budget of Manitoba.
And then this idea that Manitoba is in a situation of, well, we're balanced and we–equitable and we might get through this. And we will get through it, Mr. Speaker, we will get through it because Manitobans are resilient. But at the same time, they don't like to be misled. They like to make sure that they know what the situation is out there in the budget today, out of the province of Manitoba. And many of them know that we are a have-not province while the government continues to preach that we are balanced. I would only say that, that I would want to point out that the balance that the government continues to talk about could dry up and disappear very, very quickly if the other provinces are not able to provide the funds to the federal government to put those transfer payments back into each of the provinces as they've gotten used to.
* (14:40)
I want to say as well that there are areas of–well, and of course, Mr. Speaker, there are other areas that the government has been using to increase its revenue sources. One of them being something that was raised in the House today and that is the photo radar cash grab, but construction sites with no workers on them, where the people have been travelling below the speed limit and the government's increased about $10 bill–million in their coffers because of that cash grab. And, of course, that's on top of the increased provincial sales taxes that they've put on other areas and increased the fines and fees across the province, as well, on average hardworking Manitoba citizens as they go about their daily lives, and also, even, in the point where they're trying to make improvements in their homes and, and conditions for their families, and they just get taxed more by this government.
I want to say that, that the government has also made efforts to move towards removing the education taxes off of farmland, Mr. Speaker, but has completely negated the opportunity to eliminate that and continue to force the rural municipalities in Manitoba to administer this process for them at over a million-dollar cost to the rural municipalities each and every year in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, it wouldn't be so bad either if the government really was spending $545 million or 535, I guess it is, in their budget that they brought forward on highways in their new budget. But we know from their own third quarter reports, and the fourth quarter one not being out yet, we need to, we probably should be able to see it any day, but the government hasn't tabled it yet, and I would hope that they would do that before this session is over, as well, in the next few weeks, this week or next, because at the end of the third quarter report we know that, at the same pace that they were on, they would have lapsed at least $100 million in that infrastructure and transportation budget, and that means that this government, while announcing $535 million to be spent on infrastructure in the province of Manitoba this year, isn't spending one more cent than they were a year ago. All they're doing is taking the $100 million that they lapsed last year, adding it on to the 400 million that they said three years ago that they would spend every year, and adding–and last year, of course, they added in 35 million for bridge infrastructure, which was direly needed across the province of this–and a pittance as to what is required to fix the bridges in this province, even by their own admission.
And so it's ironic that the 400 and the 35 add–and when you add the $100 million that they lapsed last year, comes to exactly what this year's budget is, 535 million, Mr. Speaker. And so I need to see that the Province of Manitoba is becoming much more accountable in its efforts to provide those dollars. And so we, we are encouraging the government, on this side of the House, to actually not only spend more than what they're saying, but at least spend what they're saying in regards to the transportation budget and pri–infrastructure budget for highways in this province.
Mr. Speaker, and while I'm at that, I, I, I want to ask the government why they haven't been able to provide us with information in regards to when they will finish paving the shoulders of the province's major highways so that they can increase the speed limit to 110. We have no problem, on this side of the House, with those speed limits rising to 110 on our major thoroughfares, like 75 and No. 1, and the Perimeter Highway, in that regard. But that infrastructure is crumbling and needs to be put into a much more safe scenario before we would, on this side of the House, would like to see those speed limits increased, and the government having already done it up to the St. Jean area from 75 and the U.S. border north for a few miles and from the Saskatchewan border into Virden is just the beginning of what's needed to–in the overall revamping of the situation here in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, the challenges continue. The public needs to know more about the unaudited statements from the '99 election that this government has not been able to be more forthcoming with in regards to solving their own internal situations. And I guess I would also say that I would like to see a, a situation, as was raised by my colleague from Portage la Prairie today in this House, and who brought in this idea that you had to have–we'll pick up another cash grab on these Vital Statistics forms that even people who have had birth certificates across this province, since–obviously, since they were born or received them prior to 1982, or earlier, have to go out, now go out and spend at least $25 to get them replaced. And the minister says he'll expedite that process over the next three months and you'll be able to not put in the extra dol–the extra $60 to get that done. My question is, what is expedited?
The last thing I want to make sure that I say, Mr. Speaker, is that this government has not done anything to alleviate the drought situation from '07 and '08 in southwest Manitoba. They have given lip service to it. They know that they have extended the cattle deferral program for selling of livestock, but they have not done anything to implement the, the Manitoba Forage Assistance and Feed Assistance programs for southwest Manitoba in regards to the fall of '07 and the drought of the spring of '08, as well, and the people in that area that are raising cattle, many of them have had to sell their whole herds. Many of them have had to sell off portions of their herds. Many of them had to haul water. I've written letters to the minister on this.
I've asked questions a year ago at this time in question period about this drought, and the minister seems to not feel that the drought in southwest Manitoba is as bad a disaster as the droughts, or as the floods, rather, of the Interlake and some of the other regions of Manitoba. And the end result for the people in the southwest, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the same. There is no feed available for the cattle. They have to buy it and they have to haul it great distances. And so–and many of them had to haul water all this past winter to continue to keep the herds going.
That's what I mean about the resilience of Manitobans, Mr. Speaker, but they do expect some support and some infrastructure development from the provincial government, and that is a role that the provincial government can play very readily–
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Order. The honourable member's time has expired.
The honourable Member for Inkster, on a grievance?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, on a grievance, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. The honourable Member for Inkster.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, thank you. Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern that I rise in my place today to express what I believe is a very important issue to all Manitobans, and it's related, obviously, to one of our greatest expenditures, that being health care.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity, over the last number of months, to get a better appreciation in terms of what health-care professionals are saying about our regional health‑care authorities, in particular Winnipeg regional health-care authority.
And I was quite offended by the fact that so many health-care workers feel the intimidation of regional health authorities. It surprised me. I didn't expect it to be there to the degree in which it is, and I believe that government needs to pay attention as to what is actually taking place within our health-care system and the types of things that our regional health-care authorities are doing. It saddens me that the government seems to be quite content, say nothing and do nothing and barely listen as to what is being brought to their attention on what I believe is a critical issue.
Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of health-care workers that have felt frustrated because they don't believe that they can share their opinions and their concerns with members of the public, definitely with politicians. If they have a concern that is dealing with an action that has been taken by a regional health-care authority, it is in their best interest to be quiet and say nothing, and that is what I'm being told by nurses and by doctors and others within our health-care field.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why I brought it up today, is that what I thought kind of adds insult to injury, is what is taking place by the Burntwood Regional Health Authority. I am offended by the fact that you have a regional health-care authority which is 100 percent funded by the taxpayer, now taking an individual, a freelance reporter, to court, or threatening to take a reporter to court.
I have a very difficult time with that. In fact, I read Mr. Brodbeck's article over the weekend, and I thought that it was a great summarization of exactly what has taken place. I've seen the letter in question in which this health authority has provided, Mr. Speaker, to Mr. Guisti, and I was taken by the wording of it and how direct and how intimidating a letter of this nature can be, and, you know, I have had the opportunity to read a couple of the articles that are referred to inside this letter of threatening of a lawsuit, and I didn't see anything that resembled or required in any fashion a letter from a lawyer threatening to sue unless the individual ceases and stops writing articles in regards to health care in the province of Manitoba related to the Burntwood. And I think that, as legislators, we all need to, to be concerned of that because where, where do you draw the line.
* (14:50)
You know, if I have, as many members are aware, a great deal of concerns about regional health‑care authorities, in particular Winnipeg regional health-care authority, and I do not have any problems in pointing out when I believe regional health has made a mistake. I will do so, Mr. Speaker.
So today now we have a health-care authority using tax dollars in order to threat–threaten and intimidate a reporter who's trying to make the public more aware of what's happening in a region of, of our province. We should be concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, because not only if, if a health-care authority feels that bold and that they have a right to do that against reporters, who's to say that they're not going to do it against others? Who's to say that I'm, for example, won't get a letter now from Winnipeg regional health threatening to, to sue me if I don't stop talking about Winnipeg regional health-care authority or any other member of this le–Legislature?
I can guarantee you that not every polit–not–the NDP will not be in power forever. There are gonna be days in which the NDP are gonna rely on being able to talk to health-care workers to, to get a better understanding of what's happening in health care and to raise concerns as, as given to them by others, Mr. Speaker, and share those concerns with their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, they should not have to fear that they are going to be sued by a hundred-percent taxpayer-funded organization by saying and stating an opinion. And whether or not–and whether or not the health-care authority can justify it or not I, I question why it is that they feel that they have the right to be able to do that.
You know I was–I listened to the member from Charleswood question today in terms of the Burntwood and the administrative costs that, that are incurring in that particular health-care region, and one of the thoughts that came across my mind is how much money are they paying in order to hire a lawyer to threaten to sue someone that's talking about things that are happening out in that, in that area.
Is, is this particular regional health-care association suing others, Mr. Speaker? This is just someone that's bold enough and has the, the courage to, to inform us as to what's, what's taken place and another reporter has decided to, to make a, make a story of it.
To what degree are regional health-care authorities in our province feel that they have the liberty to go out and start suing Manitobans with their tax dollars? Mr. Speaker, Manitobans wanna see more money spe–spent on bedside care and if, I guess if they focus more attention on the delivery of service, well, then maybe some of the articles that would be printed wouldn't be maybe as, as harsh, but their focus is wrong and we should all feel offended by it.
I have suggested to this government, whether it's the Premier (Mr. Doer) or the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald), that we need to have accountability within regional health-care authorities and the best way that we can ensure accountability of those regional health authorities is to have them come before standing committees of this Legislature. The health-care authority spends hundreds of millions, it goes into billions of dollars, every year, Mr. Speaker, and we are totally reliant in terms of ensuring accountability through one individual, that being the mini–the Minister of Health.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this government has demonstrated very clearly that the, the government alone, the minister alone cannot hold our health care, regional health-care authorities accountable. There are other provinces that are, in fact, now looking at holding regional health-care authorities accountable by having them come before a standing committee. I know of one, that being Alberta, that's actually already happen.
I believe in Manitoba and that's why I bring forward these petitions. It's out of frustrations of listening to health-care workers that feel that they're being intimidated, that they're feel that they're being bullied into silence, that they cannot talk about the concerns that they have. And then when you have a, a, a, a freelance reporter bold enough and having the courage to share some, some thoughts in what's actually happening you got a health-care authority following through by having a lawsuit launched against them, Mr. Speaker.
This type of intimidation and bullying must stop, and I look to the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) to do the honourable thing and to write a letter, at the very least, or talk to Burntwood regional health and tell them that what they are doing is not acceptable behaviour and that it should be withdrawing and, in fact, apologizing for the threat of this lawsuit, Mr. Speaker. That's what should be happening if the government had any integrity on the issue.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I believe firmly that it's time that the regional health-care authorities come before standing committees of this Legislature where they can be held more accountable for the types of decisions that they are making that are affecting the lives of every Manitoban, either directly or indirectly, every day.
I could talk about an hour plus just in terms of what's happening at the Seven Oaks Hospital and the problems and the decisions that have been made there, Mr. Speaker. Winnipeg regional health-care authority, other health-care authorities, must be held accountable, and I ask once again that the government ensure that accountability by having regional health-care authorities come before a standing committee of the Legislature, and to conclude, I appreciate the members' attention on the issue. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Grievances; orders of the day.
House Business
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, first, I have a number of announcements concerning committees and concerning House business.
I'll just start with committees, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to announce that for the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources called for Tuesday, June 2, at 7 p.m., in addition to Bills 13 and 18 that have already been referred to committee, two other bills will also be referred to that committee meeting. Those bills are Bill 11, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, and Bill 15, the victim bill of rights amendment act.
I would also like to announce a change for the meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs called for Tuesday, June 2, and Wednesday, June 3. The announcement that I made on Thursday for the meeting is now rescinded and, instead, there will be a different configuration for the bill lineup for these two meetings.
On Tuesday, June 2, the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet at 6 p.m. to consider the following bills: Bill 3, The Forest Amendment Act; Bill 17, the workers compensation act; and Bill 21, The Labour Mobility Act.
On Wednesday, June 3, the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet at 6 p.m. to consider the following bills: Bill 5, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Promoting Safer and Healthier Conditions in Motor Vehicles); Bill 12, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act; Bill 19, The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act.
Also, on Wednesday, June 3, the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet at 6 p.m. to deal with the following bills: Bill 20, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act, electrical reliability; and Bill 29, The Environment Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, it's been announced for the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources called for Tuesday, June 2, at 7 p.m., in addition to Bills 13 and 18 that have already been referred to committee, two other bills will be referred to that committee meeting. Those bills are Bill 11, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act; and Bill 15, The Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act
And it's also announced a change for the meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs called for Tuesday, June 2, and Wednesday, June 3. The announcement that was made on Thursday for those meetings is now rescinded, and, instead, there will be a different configuration for the bill lineup for those two meetings.
On Tuesday, June 2, the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet at 6 p.m. to consider the following bills: Bill 3, The Forest Amendment Act; Bill 17, the workers compensation act; and Bill 21, The Labour Mobility Act.
Then, on Wednesday, June 3, the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will met at 6 p.m. to consider the following bills: Bill 5, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Promoting Safer and Healthier Conditions in Motor Vehicles); Bill No. 12, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act; Bill No. 19, The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act.
And also, on Wednesday, June the 3rd, the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet at 6 p.m. to deal with the following bills: Bill No. 20, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act (Electricity Reliability); and Bill No. 29, The Environment Amendment Act.
* (15:00)
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can indicate I'll be making further announcements on House business throughout the afternoon.
But, for the next period of time, I'd like to call debate on the second reading on the following bills, in the following order: Bill No. 6, the east side traditional lands planning and special protected areas law; Bill No. 14, the consumer protection act; Bill No. 22, The Cooperatives Amendment Act; Bill No. 23, The Buildings and Mobile Homes Amendment Act; Bill No. 24, The Colleges Amendment and le Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface Amendment Act; Bill No. 25, The Statistics Amendment Act; Bill No. 27, The Gaming Control Amendment Act; Bill No. 28, The Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Act; Bill No. 32, The Centre culturel franco-manitobain Act–Loi sur le Centre culturel franco-manitobain–and Bill No. 10, The Civil Service–pardon me, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 7, The Food Safety and Related Amendments Act.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day. We will resume debate on second readings, and in this order will be: Bill No. 6, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 32 and 7.
Bill 6–The East Side Traditional Lands Planning and Special Protected Areas Act
Mr. Speaker: Okay, I will now call resumed debate on Bill No. 6, The East Side Traditional Lands Planning and Special Protected Areas Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
Is it the will of the House to let the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, it's been denied. Okay, the honourable Member for Tuxedo to speak?
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Yes.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Tuxedo.
Mrs. Stefanson: I'm pleased to rise today and put a few words on the record with respect to Bill 6, The East Side Traditional Lands Planning and Special Protected Areas Act.
The goal of this legislation is to give First Nations on the east side of Lake Winnipeg a role in ensuring protection, management and development of lands that they have traditionally used. Bill 6 also allows for areas of Crown land on the east side of Lake Winnipeg to be designated as special protected areas.
As anyone involved in the development of, in this province–in development in this province will tell you, it's important to have a well-thought-out land-use planning process. Planning in a vacuum can certainly lead to undesired outcomes. It is also important that there be stakeholder feedback in the land-use planning process.
The minister indicated during the bill briefing that the land-use plans will go out to the general public for input and feedback, and we certainly look forward to, to that process taking place. Certainly, we were, we are always in favour of as much general public input as possible when it comes to further regulations and recommendations that are going to be brought forward and legislation that will be brought forward in our province.
I believe all users of Crown lands should be contacted for their input on the, on the interim plans, such as First Nations, lodge owners and other stakeholders. Transparent–transparency is an important component of the planning process.
The minister also indicated to me during the bill briefing that First Nations will not have a veto over the Province when it comes to decision making for the east side, but they will still have a voice at the table during the planning process. In other words, the provincial government ultimately still makes the final decision on developments to be on roads, or hydro lines, or the creation of provincial parks, and most of that will fall at the, the discretion of the minister and Cabinet.
Many Manitobans may not have an appreciation of how large a planning area will be taken into account by the planning process set out in Bill 6. Some 36,000 people live in the region, an area that covers more than 82,000 square kilometres. This includes land traditionally used by 16 different First Nations communities.
This is an area of the province that shows great promise when it comes to future economic development opportunities, and many Aboriginal and First Nations communities in Manitoba stand to gain from the development of land and resources on their traditional land, and yet there seems to be a bit of a reluctance in the past for this government to develop a clear Aboriginal and First Nation consultation and framework, and so we're pleased. We think this goes–it's one step in a direction here of consultation. But, of course, it comes down to the actual consultation that will take place, and we hope that members opposite will respect those people within the areas and will listen to the consultation from all people in those areas.
There has not been a clear direction from the Province, from the Province of Manitoba regarding a framework for consultation in the past. The Province of Manitoba's failure to develop a consultation framework has the potential to jeopardize future hydro-electric development and mining companies are frustrated by the lack of clarity regarding consultation requirements, are choosing to delay development or to develop resources in other jurisdictions, and unfortunately, this has resulted in lost opportunities for Aboriginal and First Nations people in the area, and it's unfortunate from that standpoint.
But there are also significant challenges in bringing these opportunities to fruition largely due to ongoing infrastructure shortfalls such as the lack of an all-season road through much of the region. I think we can all agree that providing more opportunities to develop economic activities such as ecotourism will be important tools in bettering the economic and social conditions of First Nations people living on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. But it's important to bear in mind that this NDP government should also be taking a big-picture view of economic development and not ruling out the benefits that the construction of a Bipole III line could bring to the region.
Ms. Marilyn Brick, Acting Speaker, in the Chair
I know the members opposite get a little nervous when we start talking, and they don't like to talk about any side power line, but they should be giving a very serious consideration given all the economic opportunities that this could bring to communities on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. Their failure to do so is going to be very costly for Manitoba taxpayers. We anticipate that it's going to cost at least in the ballpark of $650 million more for the bipole line to go down the west side of the province as opposed to the more direct and easy route on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. And it also takes away from the sorely needed economic opportunities such as job creation for residents on the east side of Lake Winnipeg.
So, with those few words on Bill 6, in closing, the provision of additional planning tools for the east side of Lake Winnipeg is a worthy process. We look forward to hearing from affected stakeholders when Bill 6 goes to committee. And so, at this point in time, we would be prepared to pass this through to committee with those words. And we, again, look forward to hearing from various stakeholders in the community with respect to this bill and where they stand on this bill. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): We too, ultimately, would like to support the principle of the bill and see it go to the committee stage, to see if in fact there is any feedback that might come on the legislation prior to its ultimate passage.
The principle of planning for protected land areas and traditional use areas of our province, in particular that eastern portion, is a positive thing and we do need to move forward on it.
* (15:10)
I just wanted to share with members a constituent of mine, Mr. Williams [phonetic], best known in terms of the department, as just Tiny. You get a better appreciation of Tiny if you actually see him. He's a very huge man and obviously picks up the name Tiny as a nickname. And this is someone that is–just loves rural Manitoba. Tiny would probably be, well I'm not sure exactly how old he would be, but definitely well into his 70s, possibly in his 80s. You wouldn't know that to, to see him. He is an avid hunter, fisherman and loves rural Manitoba and has a, a passion that I suspect is, is likely second to no other.
Having, having said that, he, he'd brought me a map the other day and showed me, because he's talked about a lake that he always goes out to, and he shows me this, this lake and it's a blowup and magnified to, I'm not too sure to what degree, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it was, it was interesting in the sense that he takes great pride in pointing out this, this is the lake and, as you know, Manitoba has so many lakes in, throughout the province, but including on the east side there that this lake doesn't even have a, a name, a name to it. You'd have to be familiar with the lake. You would have to have, you know, and there's geographical terminology, latitudes and longitudes and so forth, and you can actually map it out and find the lake if, if you're not familiar with it.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, what I, what I thought was interesting and the reason why I bring it up is that there are–there is, I should say–a great deal of, of pride in, in and about our province in regards to our natural resources.
Manitoba has been very fortunate and blessed as a, as an entity, to be able to have so much, so much land and water, and a lot of that land and, and water is, is never really seen by, by Manitobans and it's because of its remoteness. And it was interesting where Tiny would say to me that, you know, you can't really drive out there; you've got to be flown into it.
And it's–in the wintertime it is exceptionally difficult even to, to get out, in–into that area. So you have this vast wilderness that is there and I believe, ultimately, we have many Manitobans that, that have had the privilege to enjoy that wilderness first, first‑hand.
We have had many First Nation people through the many years of their existence here in, in the province who have really benefited by using and being a part of the land for literally thousands of, of years, and they have such a wonderful–in most part–a wonderful appreciation of the value of that, of that wilderness. And, whether it's the First Nations of today or many of those Aboriginal communities that, in essence, ensure that there is a–in some cases–a human presence in many of the different regions of our province, and that would obviously include the east, the east side.
So it, it stands to reason that the provincial Legislature would bring in legislation. And, when we think about the, the future and the future development of our province, that it is the responsible thing to do in terms of setting up a, a mechanism that will look at the, the long-term best interests of that, of that east side and, of course, in, in looking at that, one has to take into consideration our First Nations and our Aboriginal communities and the need to have those planning committees so that we have some sort of a, of a plan going into the future in terms of how the, that whole area is going to, to be developed; to respect some of the traditional usage of some of the lands that are in that vast, that vast tract; to also take into consideration individuals like, like Tiny.
There are many Manitobans that, that do have a passion for being in those settings of the wilderness, Madam Deputy Speaker, and even though I myself have never really been in that sit–sort of a situation where the only way to a community is, is to fly in, I hope to at some point in, in the future to get even a better and more, more of an opportunity to be able to travel into some of these remote, remote communities, because I think it's, we all benefit if our elected officials have first-hand experiences about the wilderness and get to, get it–experience it first-hand.
You know, in Tiny's case, they had a situation, and I brought it up with the Minister of Water Stewardship (Ms. Melnick)–I believe it was the Minister of Water Stewardship, or water conservation–in regards to fish in this lake. You would think that the lake would be loaded with fish because, after all, if there's not too many people out there, you would figure that there would be a lot of fish in that lake. And, for a number of reasons, a number of years ago, that that lake, in fact, had virtually no fish, and the water conservation actually had made a commitment to drop in, I believe it was just over 100,000, I think they're called fishettes, or, I'm not too sure of the proper terminology, but–[interjection]–fingerlings? It's a very small fish, that's all I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very small fish. And it was 100,000 of them that were supposed to be dropped in. Tiny swears to this day that they must have missed the lake, because he doesn't see any proof of those fish being dropped in.
And, you know, there are so many lakes all around that, that area. And the reason why, the reason why I say that is because it is a valuable resource. And through Conservation and other departments, we try to ensure that our lakes–and we have thousands of them–are, in fact–
An Honourable Member: You're not supposed to try and catch the little fish.
Mr. Lamoureux: –in healthy, in healthy shape. For the member from Wolseley, little fish, in time, grow up to be big, bigger fish, and nothing wrong with catching bigger fish. In fact, Manitoba, and many, many Manitobans have benefited by the fishing industry for a good number of years, Madam Deputy Speaker.
And, in Tiny's case, what he's hoping to do is he would like to, ultimately, see more fish in that lake. And it's at such a, such a stage in which there is a need for the Province to take more of an interaction, or interactive role. And, and we do have the ability to do that. We should be looking at our lakes and finding out how we, collectively, could make our rural areas, whether it's our lakes, our forests, even healthier. In some situations, it might be through reforestation. Others, it might be through, through ensuring that there's more fish in our, in our lakes. There's, there's many of opportunities.
So, when we look at these planning councils, I think that, in vast majority of the, the cases, people are quite responsible and wanting to see a wilderness in, on the east side that is very much alive, alive with all sorts of, whether it's game, or just life, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I think that, in good part, that that's what it is that we should be encouraging and promoting and why it is I believe, ultimately, that Bill 6 is a bill that's, in principle, worthwhile in terms of supporting.
We look forward, because there is dependency here to come up with some, some regulations, and it would be interesting to see in terms of how the board is actually put together, and I look forward to hearing into the future how it is that that vast wilderness on the east side is ultimately going to, to be developed. There's been a great deal of concern here in the Legislature in regards to hydro expansion and the impact of hydro and the buildering, building of a, of an additional highway is going to have on the east side. I think that there is merit in terms of the transmission line still going down the east side for a wide variety of reasons, something in which I could get into at a later point if, in fact, it's found out that it is and makes the most sense to have it go down the east side as opposed to, let's say, under Lake Winnipeg. I have a difficult time believing that the west side is the right side to go on with hydro, but we'll have to wait and see and trust that the government is going to take the right action, not the–necessarily the political party's best interests in terms of action, but the right action in the form of what's in the best interests of Manitobans.
Mr.–Madam Deputy Speaker, with those few words, we're prepared to see the bill pass into a committee. Thank you.
* (15:20)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): The question before the House is second reading of Bill No. 6, The East Side Traditional Lands Planning and Special Protected Areas Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): Agreed and so ordered.
I declare the motion carried.
Bill 14–The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): To resume the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), second reading of Bill No. 14, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Emerson.
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): It gives me great pleasure to raise–rise today to put a few words on the record for–about Bill 14, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act, which we refer to–or has been referred to as the payday loans act.
This, this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, amends the provisions of The Consumer Protection Act relating to payday loans including some provisions that were enacted in 2006 and are not yet in the–in force.
In 2008, The Public Utilities Board held hearings about the cost of credit on the payday loans and issued an order setting formulas for determining the maximum cost of credit for payday loans. That order is under appeal.
Under the bill, the Public Utilities Board is–order is rescinded and the lieutenant governor general in Canada is empowered to make regulations governing the maximum cost of credit for payday loans. The Public Utilities Board will review these regulations within three years after they come into force and will conduct public consultation in the course of that review and will make recommendations to the minister.
The bill prohibits a payday lender from making a loan for more than a prescribed percentage of a borrower's net pay, and, Madam Deputy Speaker, that's very important–an important aspect of this–of this particular bill that, in many cases up until now, lenders were able to, to lend to the full, full value of, of any paycheque or any perceived and expected paycheque which led to a lot of, a lot of inconsistencies and a–and the ability of not being able to, to repay and causing a lot of undue stress and worry to the, to the, the borrower's family. The lender, however, was–and had ways and means, I suspect, of collecting.
It also prohibits lenders from discounting loans and, and restricts tied selling. The bill strensens–strengthens the government's ability to regulate the activities of payday loan–payday lenders and to en–enforce payday loans provisions of the act and the regulations.
The regulation-making powers are also expanded to provide for the regulation of Internet payday lenders. It also establishes the Manitoba Payday Borrowers' Financial Literacy Fund in order to provide funding for programs for improving the financial literacy of borrowers.
Payday lenders will be regarded–required to contribute to the fund by means of a financial literacy level–levy. The amount of the levy is to be determined in accordance with the regulation, and, Madam Deputy Speaker, that's a very important part of this bill that a lot of the people that are, are using these payday lenders probably do not have a great deal of education and don't quite understand the, the fine print.
What they need or what they know is that they need money today. They need it and that's a day or two days before payday. They need to have that money for whatever purpose, whether that's to fix a car or whether that's to, to fix something in the house or they need groceries for their, for their families or whatever. And so they'll borrow the money at any cost, but they don't understand the fine print that's in the contracts that they sign or the agreements with which they are going to operate under going forward.
So it's important to note that we believe it's absolutely the duty of the government to protect consumers, and it's my belief that this legislation is required to regulate the payday loan industry to prevent vulnerable people from being taken advantage of.
It's an unfortunate circumstance, because of poor credit or a lack of accessibility to standard banks and financial institutions, that many people, often those who are vulnerable and with fewer means, as I've said before, turn to high-interest-bearing loans and credit products. This bill introduced April 8, 2009, changes the authority from the PUB to the government for setting maximum payday loan lending rates. It rescinds the order that gave the PUB the power to set rates, and as I've said earlier, I believe that it is the government's duty to protect the consumers.
The legislation is meant to shut down a court challenge by the Edmonton-based Cash Store Financial Services against the PUB. The Cash Store had won the right to appeal a decision. So in 2008 the Public Utilities Board had held hearings about the cost of credit under payday loans and issued an order setting formula for determining the maximum cost of credit for a payday loan. The order is under appeal, and under this bill the Public Utilities Board's order is rescinded and Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council, as I've said before, or Cabinet is empowered to make regulations covering the maximum cost of credit payday loans.
The Public Utilities Board will review these regulations within three years and I'm almost wondering, Madam Deputy Speaker, if three years is perhaps too long a time to wait to have this reviewed, but perhaps it should be reviewed after the first year and again after the second year just to see if these types of regulations are having the effect that they were meant to do as they were brought in, in this particular bill.
The bill prohibits a payday lender from making a loan for more than a specific percentage of the borrower's net pay, and again it's very, very important–I can't imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, someone wanting to lend money to somebody for more than what they were expecting to get on a payday. However, I suspect there are unscrupulous people out there, and if they're charging the interest rates or exorbitant interest rates, then it would be quite conceivable that some people do end up borrowing more than what their pay cheque would be–because of previous loans perhaps.
And I believe, if I understand right in this bill, that you can't just keep adding to the loan. Each loan would be a separate contract and I think that with, with the process of letting people know or teaching people what the financial literacy powers that will be in here. I think that with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, it may well encourage–not just encourage but enlighten the borrowers to the fact that they can't continue to do this, that, that it's actually going to lead to finally where they can't pay a thing and it doesn't matter if they're working or not, they won't be able to pay any of the loan off.
And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, with those few words I, I'd just like to put those on the record and thank you very much.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): The question before the House is second reading of Bill No. 14, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): Agreed and so ordered. I declare the motion carried.
* (15:30)
Bill 22–The Cooperatives Amendment Act
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick) To resume the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), second reading of the corporations amendment act, standing in–the act is currently standing in the name of the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Graydon).
An Honourable Member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): No?
Is leave denied for the act to stand–the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Emerson? Agreed? Agreed.
Is–[interjection] Leave is denied.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I appreciate the opportunity to rise and participate in second reading debate of Bill No. 22, The Cooperatives Amendment Act, as proposed by the gover–government, and as–now, this particular legislation was introduced as a, as an amendment to the current Cooperatives Act to accommodate changes in the federal legislation regarding income tax, and, more specifically, it is related to the tax deferred co-operative share, TDCS program.
Now, what this legislation does is incorporate the changes to the federal Income Tax Act allowing for agricultural co-ops, and I would like very much to, to stress agricultural co-ops, because there are many co-ops around Manitoba that members are familiar with, and then quite possibly have membership in, those being Red River Co-op or the Portage Consumers Co-operative, to name a couple. These particular co-operatives are not considered under the federal income tax as being agriculturally based. The agriculturally based co-operatives, of which there are more than 35 here in the province of Manitoba, deal exclusively with enhancements to agricultural products, by way of processing and marketing and assist in the value-added operation, thereby enhancing the return to individuals that are in the production of, say, chicken or turkey.
It is also important to recognize that these co‑operatives would like to continue to expand, based upon our competitive advantage here in Manitoba, and this change allows members to effectively convert their patronage dividends into, into shares and not have to pay income tax at the time of that conversion, thereby allowing the opportunity for investment in the co-operative for growth.
So I would like to take this opportunity to, to commend the government for bringing in this legislation, and we are, indeed, looking forward to seeing this legislation go on to committee. I understand that, at the present time, there is no presenters registered with the Clerk's office; however, I might qualify the, the–my compliments of the government to a more qualified nature. I would like–would have liked the government to have contacted all of the agriculturally oriented co‑operatives operating in Manitoba upon the introduction of this legislation, so that they, then, would take it upon themselves to look up the legislation, perhaps on-line or to request a copy from the Queen's Printer, so that they, indeed, could then study the bill and make sure that they are totally comfortable with all of the amendments that are laid out in Bill 22, because I truly believe that, that, there should not be legislation pass through this House without a complete consultation or opportunity for consultation with those affected. I know that there was a working group put together to craft or assist in the crafting of this legislation, but that did not include all affected parties or co–or co-operatives.
So, Assistant Madam Deputy Speaker, it is, it is our opinion on this side of the House that this legislation is very important to the, to provide an economic climate that will be one that the agricultural-based co-operatives can, can prosper. It's not–it is a small step, if I will, because there is still a climate that is not overly conducive to the, in the best interest of our manufacturing and processing industry, when, when this government continues to, to see the employer–employer-employee tax still in existence here in Manitoba, more commonly known as the payroll tax, that is–encumbers expansion of business here in Manitoba, and we would like to see the, this tax go be suspended and be only referred to in the history books rather than in the, in the common, common practice.
Also, too, we'd like very much for this, this government to, to look as we've asked in the past. You know that expansion of, of agricultural operations in the province, a, an exemption be applied as it pertains to the provincial sales tax, because all in all, and I hope the government members are listening, that whenever you have a tax on agriculture in the province of Manitoba, effectively it is a tax on food. And I look to government members as, as they often say that they are here representing the people and are in wanting always to represent in the people in the best interest, in their best interest. And I don't believe that their best interest is well served when you, in fact, have a tax on food.
So, Assistant Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have participated in the debate of Bill 22, and I look very much forward to, to this bill coming before committee so that we then provide the, those affected by the legislation an opportunity to make presentation and share their thoughts regarding the legislation. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Deputy Speaker, I, too, want to put a few words on the record prior to Bill 22 passing into the committee stage. I appreciate the comments made by the member from Portage la Prairie. I thought they were very informative, and I really do acknowledge right up front the value of co-operatives to rural Manitoba and through that all Manitoba, because he's quite right in terms of Red River Co-op as a gas station and provides more services that just gases, is a co-op that is used a great deal by a good number of my constituents as a, have enjoyed the benefits of being a member that particular co-op.
Having said that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do recognize that the legislation that we have before us, in, in good part, at least in good part, not entirely, is there because of some changes to the federal income tax, and this will, in essence, enable co-operatives, agricultural-based co-operatives, the opportunity to be able to take advantage of some of those changes, and we see that as a, as a positive thing. We all know the value that the co-operatives have provided to our province over the years, and we suspect that, that they will continue to contribute immensely to the future prosperity of our province. And this is but one piece of legislation that will better enable them to do so, from what we understand and how it's been explained.
* (15:40)
Also recognized within the bill that there is going to be an increase in terms of pena–penalties levied against areas where there's been offences committed. Also just want to, to acknowledge that the legislation that we have before us is, in principle, positive for our co-ops, co-operatives, and that it is indeed, as the member from Portage la Prairie points out, there to serve, I think he said 24. I didn't realize it was 20–[interjection] over 35, almost three dozen agricultural based co-ops, and knowing the value personally, in terms of how one co-operative can make a difference, imagine, if you will, having 30 plus co-operatives hard at work building prosperity for our province, so on that note, we just want to acknowledge and commend all those involved in this process and look forward to the bill's ultimate passage. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): The question before the House is second reading of Bill No. 22, The Cooperatives Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): Agreed and so ordered. I declare the motion carried.
Bill 23–The Buildings and Mobile Homes Amendment Act
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): To resume the interrupted debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour and Immigration (Ms. Allan), second reading of Bill No. 23, The Buildings and Mobile Homes Amendment Act.
The bill is currently standing in the name of the honourable Member for Morris.
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I would like to say, put a few comments on the record in regard to Bill 23, the building and mobile homes amendment act. Currently, farm buildings are exempt from The Buildings and Mobile Homes Act, but this bill makes a farm building subject to the act if it has a building area that is larger than the size specified in the regulations. And I think the regulations are key to this bill because as the minister has promised in this House, she intends to consult in regard to the regulations and the interest groups that I have spoken with. The Manitoba Pork Council, Keystone Agricultural Producers are supportive of the bill but recognize that the detail is in the regulations and as long as they're consulted and are happy with the outcome of the regulations, they will be happy with this legislation.
Fires on farms pose a special threat because they are widely disbursed geographically and different–difficult to respond to in an emergency. In rural Manitoba, where farm buildings are scattered across the countryside, as farms are not close often to municipalities or municipal fire services, it then becomes a challenge to send fire services to these areas. Not only are they more remote, but it's difficult sometimes to even find where they may be.
So providing fire services to the areas has posed a bit of a challenge so it would be desirable to lessen the number of barn fires that would occur. Also, some of the buildings collapse due to poor design and don't take into account environmental factors such as wind and snow loads, and this is what we did see tragically this year in Portage la Prairie when a person was killed when working in a vegetable shed and the roof collapsed from snow. So ultimately, the bill, I believe, is about protecting people, protecting farm animals, and protecting firefighters who would be engaged in a fire, should that occur.
We know that farmers invest and devote a lot of time and money into their operations and many of the individuals, for them, it's not only an occupation, but it is a way of life. And when fires occur, it's tragic and, in some cases, fatal and there's a loss of not only the, the structure, but there can be–as previously I noted–there even can be a loss of human life and certainly there has been many incidents of loss of a significant number of livestock. Sometimes these operations cannot recover from such a tragic event as this and it's a blow not only to them, but to the wider local economy.
I think that there have been concerns that the non-regulation of farm buildings creates a risk to the lives and safety of the occupants and emergency personnel and any lack of regulation causes significant financial loss for those who own or insure the buildings, as well as for those whose jobs and incomes are most–are lost following the loss of the building. Now, I know that the office of the Fire Commissioner has consulted with the proposed bill–before the bill was proposed, I will correct myself there–and the proposal will be that this will apply to all farm buildings over 600 square metres. Now, barns, or farm buildings, are–they represent a significant capital expenditure collectively on farms. Millions of dollars are spent on, on buildings, construction, repair and maintenance and the buildings are used for a variety of reasons, from machine sheds, storage, animal barns, as I've mentioned, and grain storage, so losses here would be quite significant. Also, the ability for farmers to get insurance of their buildings may be compromised if buildings are not meeting the code.
Although there have been a degree–decrease in barn fires, from 65 in 2002, to 59 in 2008, the damage these fires has cost has increased substantially. In 2002, fire damage was estimated at $7,000,544 and some change, and over 2,000 animals were lost. But this has grown substantially because, in 2008, the estimated losses were 28 million and over 31,000 animals were lost. But we should also note that, in 2002, there were no injuries, but in 2008 there were five injuries, and it's possible that some of these losses may have been prevented or mitigated had building codes been put into effect, which would include fire stoppings, fire alarms for certain cases, and smoke detectors.
* (15:50)
I also note that in the report provided by the office of the Fire Commissioner, because it was the office of the Fire Commissioner that undertook to do some consultation, that local municipalities are normally responsible for classifying buildings, land‑use planning, zoning and building permits. And all municipalities are required to issue building permits for the construction of residential buildings and commercial and industrial buildings smaller than 600 square metres. And some municipalities are able to permit buildings over 600 square metres, but in many areas of the province this is done by the office of the Fire Commissioner. And I know that this, this creates a, the inspections of these buildings does create a revenue stream for the office of the Fire Commissioner. So they would be the recipient of any new monies coming in through permits required for these new buildings which would fall under the regulation.
In speaking with some of the stakeholders, I noted that there was some support for this bill. As Manitoba Pork Council did say that they did not want to lose insurance capabilities, because what is happening is insurance companies are starting to bring out their own standards. So, if insurance companies are bringing out standards for insurance of farm buildings, then there would need to be compliance in the building code to ensure that insurance is possible.
However, the pork industry noted that they're not in the mood for another hit right now and don't want to be forced into new regulations. What we saw recently from this government is a sharp, stinging slap to the pork industry, where moratoriums were placed on expansion of hog barns, something that many farmers needed to do to remain viable in the industry, and that has actually had quite a negative effect on some. And so I think the mood with the Pork Council is, even though they support the legislation of having buildings included in the fire code and the building code, they are not in the mood to play any games with this and want to make sure that there is consultation with the regulations and they are not going to be finding themself in a position where the industry is going to take another hit here.
Also, the Manitoba Pork Council did want it noted that older buildings are grandfathered in this legislation so there would not have to be any retrofitting of old buildings, because as they said to me, if it is not grandfathered, then we're in big trouble. So this is again something that will be explored in the regulations and the minister has said that she will be consulting before the regulations are finalized, and if she does that, and the stakeholders are happy with the consultation and happy with the direction the minister takes after the consultation, then I, I believe that there would be support from the Manitoba Pork Council.
And I also note that in speaking with the Keystone Agricultural Producers, they said to me, well, if we get what we think we're getting, we have no problem. So, again, it is up to the minister to live up to her promise and consult with the stakeholders, and if the process goes how it has been outlined that it will, then there should be no problem.
I believe that some of the comments made to me were in regard to the different size of barns and different codes and so, again, that would be deciding on the size of the building that would, would, would require inclusion into the building code, and that being over 600 square metres.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we can say with this bill that it's a bill that we can support. However, as I mentioned, the devil's in the details and, in this case, the devil's in the regulations and as long as there's consultation in the regulations with the stakeholders, and the stakeholders have said this to me, that they would be supportive of this legislation and happy, happy with the bill.
It's interesting that some of the municipalities are able to permit buildings over 600 square metres and some are not, and I would encourage the minister to look at the municipalities that are asking for the ability to permit buildings over 600 square metres because they have the necessarity–necessary expertise with staff to do that. I would encourage the minister to look carefully at that, because that means, in effect, that municipalities will be able to do the inspections and, therefore, accrue the revenue that would come from those inspections, and municipalities in many incidents would appreciate that ability to do that, rather than have those funds channelled to the government, Madam Deputy Speaker.
So, with those few words on Bill 23, I think if there are presenters at committee we would like to forward this bill to committee. We'd like to see what Manitobans have to say, whether there's agreement or whether there's some points that others out there may be able to raise, because that is the reason for committee, to allow Manitobans to come forward and have their say as to what may or should not be in a bill, or something that may, may have been included that is not desirable, or something that could be included that isn't there, Madam Deputy Speaker.
So I just would like to conclude my remarks then by saying we look forward to passing this bill to committee and hearing if there are Manitobans who want to comment on the bill. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Deputy Speaker, I, too, wa–was hoping to put a few words on the record before Bill 23 actually passes.
You know, it's interesting in terms of how things evolve through time. You know, at one, at one point you wanted to, to build a home you'd acquire whatever materials you could get your, your hands on and find, find a bit of a plot, wherever it might be, of land and, and then erect that, that home or that garage or whatever it might be in the mind of the individual that wants to construct whatever it is that they, he or she, wants to, to construct, and, you know, in some ways many of those homes are still around and facilities are still around today.
I know over the, the years, I've had the opportunity to visit many of those structures, and you can see signs of those structures today. Some of 'em are quite dilapidated. Some you wonder in terms of how it is that they can actually still be standing. You know, the, I, I can recall knocking on, on doors in–I guess it would be back in '87, '86, just before they got that Keewatin underpass put into place–and you walk into some of these houses where they actually bulldozed them down and you'll–I was just absolutely amazed, in terms of the construction of them. And there was, there was one where it was missing some boards and it looked like it was crates that were used as–for those inside walls and there was no insulation. There was some old newspaper stuffed in, in, in bits and pieces of it. I can remember seeing electrical wires on the outside of the wall, in particular, kind of like looping from one corner to the centre of the ceiling where you see a, a loop of, of wire and just a, a normal standard bulb being lit with a, with a switch. I'm not too sure exactly what they used as a breaker. I'm not even too sure if there was, in fact, a breaker, but, you know, those types of homes did exist, and it's interesting through time how we have seen the need to–for all the right reasons. It was all about safety and the structure of these homes that government, at all levels in its collective wisdom, in its collective wisdom made the decision that we need to do what we can to ensure that these buildings are in fact being done safely.
* (16:00)
And, you know, it's interesting, when we get legislation like this, quite often we'll be provided some speaking notes or a spread sheet regarding the bills. Some ministers are fairly good at it. Other ministers are not as good at it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it's actually a fairly straightforward piece of legislation, and it now looks into our rural communities and ensures that there's a little bit more in terms of responsibility to erect buildings that are architecturally more sound and it's all for the right reasons.
I'll go back to, to my examples because it was only a couple of years ago, I have a cottage out in the Pelican Lake or out at Pelican Lake, beautiful, beautiful area, right? [interjection] Well, I don't want to give you the impression that it's–that I'm wealthy because I'm not wealthy. Having said that, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know, it was interesting, my daughter for a couple of years used to say, well, there's a haunted house that's not that far from our cottage and she didn't necessarily–she didn't really want to tell us where it was or anything of this nature, but it was, it was a fun thing.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
Her and a number of the youth would go out to this quote, unquote, haunted house, and it was either last year or the year before she actually asked me for the first time, would you come out and see the haunted house. There's actually something living in it upstairs. And so we went–I went on this little bit of a ride on our quads and a bit of a walk and what we found was a house that was virtually embedded into the ground and it had become completely dilapidated–
An Honourable Member: That's called a storage room.
Mr. Lamoureux: No, that's not a storage room, to the member from Wolseley. You know–
Well, the point is, Mr. Speaker, that if you go out into many of these rural communities, you will see some of those structures and especially some of those older structures that will be leaning, like you, you talk about leaning buildings from abroad, from Europe. Well, go into rural communities, whether it's in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, you'll see a number of homes or older buildings that are, in essence, leaning to the degree in which you wonder well, how are they possibly still standing.
And this particular haunted house that my daughter had referred to is one of those buildings and one could ultimately question, well, how was that house built to any standard that would have ensured safety for those people that were actually living in that home at one point in time.
And, true to form, as we started to make changes that, in legislation, and it wasn't only by legislation. People often took it upon themselves when they realized that, you know, putting up this type of a wall or using this as part of a building material, that it would in fact make a difference in the longevity of the building, in its structural soundness and for safety reasons.
You know, you don't see, for example, wires that are being hooked up on the inside–I shouldn't say the inside, on the outside of walls any more. They're all buried into, into the walls and there's insulation and there's plastic and all other types of components, building materials, that are used in order to ensure that that would be a safe building.
And that's really what Bill 23 is all about. It kind of takes it to, to the next, to the next level for many rural buildings that are going to be constructed into the future.
The bill itself, from what I understand, does not have a retroactive component to it. And if it does, I would look to the minister to, to provide comment on that. But my understanding is, is that it doesn't make it retroactive, that the current structures are, in fact, in essence, grandfathered. But going into the future, there is now going to be a different expectation put on individuals in, in rural communities in terms of when they construct something on a property, that it meets different codes. And all in all, I think that that is, that is a positive step forward.
I believe, in most part, you will find that farmers, in particular, and others that are living in rural communities have recognized the value of, you know, putting in that extra sheet of drywall as a fire precaution or doing something with regards to electricity in order–as a fire precaution, and so forth. A vast majority, I would suggest to you, have taken it upon themselves because they see the value for safety reasons, for building longevity reasons, maintenance reasons, to, to, you know, to raise the standard of construction on their premises.
But what this bill does is it, in essence, sets it into a law so the government can, in fact, ensure that all buildings that are, in fact, being built today in those rural communities within certain criteria–and that criteria will be better defined in regulation–that those buildings will, in fact, be safer for people, whether you–it's a building in which you might be working in or ultimately living in, potentially, and that those standards will protect their interest.
And at the end of the day, as many would point out, even though there might be an increased up‑front cost factor that has to take into–be taken into consideration, you'll find that there will be some cost savings, and an example of a cost savings might be insurance premiums. As insurance companies are more aware of codes that are put into place, there is a better willingness to provide better insurance rates. And that's–that's one example.
I make reference to maintenance costs. Maintenance costs should, in fact, go down, and those are the costs associated with dollars, Mr. Speaker, not–the real benefit, of course, is the environment that is actually going to be there as a result of having a building code which will ensure that there is more safety for individuals that are using that facility.
So, in principle, in looking at Bill 23 and having these building codes extended, in principle is something in which we can support. We look forward to it going to the committee and seeing if, in fact, there are other individuals that would like to express what they have to say about Bill 23 and, ultimately, its passage through third reading.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to see the bill go to committee. Thank you.
* (16:10)
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in second reading debate of Bill No. 23, The Buildings and Mobile Homes Amendment Act, as presented to the House on April the 22nd, 2009.
I, too, am supportive of this bill, and to go on to committee, so that we, as legislators, can hear from the public. And to all groups and organizations that have a vested interest in the, in the legislation, I will say that I personally am very supportive of changes to the, to the act as I am representing a constituency that, that has been very, very, very affected by current events.
The Portage Mutual Insurance Company operates with their head office in Portage la Prairie, and have brought forward the concerns over a course of many, many years now. They're, as an insurer, they had–they have seen the increased capacity and size of buildings that are related to agricultural production, and ha–and their concerns have been that they're, that when one must be very conscious of, of the–how these buildings are constructed, not only for fire, but also for snow load. And I–many of us in this House have not considered snow load as a, as a major concern here in Manitoba. Elsewhere in the country we've seen a number of occasions with–for with building collapses after a significant snow fall, but here in the province of Manitoba that is a rare occasion. But it did happen in Portage la Prairie earlier this year, and to, to dev–devastating consequences. I lost a very close personal friend. Mr. Scott Giffin was fatally injured when the farm building which acted as a storage and shipping area for their vegetable production collapsed under extreme snow load that was not just that of snow, but it was a–it came out arou–about as an event of heavy precipitation in the, in rain fall and which made the snow extremely heavy–that was on the roof–and which is a ver–does not–is a rare occasion, I might say, to happen in February and the–here in Manitoba when we expect that that be in the very cold temperatures of winter normally. But that was not the case this year.
So those are two examples of the reason that I am supportive of this legislation going forward to committee. I though, do though want to put forward my concerns that the regulations be balanced with common sense, and that the process, that the process of consultation, as this government has said it will, that the consultation be, be made with regulation, proposed regulations in hand. That way, then, persons are able to see what the government is thinking. In that way, then, the consultative process is one that–of value, rather than consulting with individuals when the sky's the limit as to how the regulations might be crafted.
So I encourage the government to craft the legislation–and I look very specifically to the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), whose responsibility is to represent the best interests of, of all of those, including myself, that are engaged in the agricultural industry here in Manitoba, that she provide those regulations in a draft form and then go out to the agricultural community for the consultative process whereby the responses will be, be relevant and then small alterations, if necessary, are, are able to be, to be accommodated before the regulations are, are passed by Executive Council.
There is not one of us in this House that wants to see a repeat of the tragedy that was experienced at Mayfair Farms earlier this year. A life cut short and each one of us has our own memories of, of Scott Giffin, and we cherish his, his friendship always. And I am certain that he would be most supportive of changes being made so that no other family here in Manitoba experiences the loss and the devastating emotional consequences of losing a loved one occurs again in Manitoba.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to, to put forward those comments in debate of Bill No. 23, and I look forward to the opportunity to attend committee and hear from those persons, groups or organizations that this Bill No. 23 will be affected. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable–
The House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill No. 23, The Buildings and Mobile Homes Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to, to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on House business?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might have leave to bring a motion of stand–sessional order to the House.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms. Wowchuk), that the following sessional order apply to this session despite any other rule or practice of the House.
Definitions: 1. In this session order, "specified bills" meets the following bills.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder, insofar as this sessional order has been distributed to all members of the House, whether or not I have leave of the House to have the printed version of the sessional order included verbatim into Hansard.
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: So, is it agreed that the text, the text of the sessional order will be printed in Hansard as printed?
Is there agreement?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, there's agreement.
That the following Sessional Orders apply to this Session despite any other rule or practice of this House:
Definitions
1. In these Sessional Orders,
"specified fall Bills" means the following Bills:
Bill 4 The Community Revitalization Tax Increment Financing Act
Bill 8 The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment Act (Enhanced Manitoba Hydro Employee Benefits and Other Amendments)
Bill 9 The Social Work Profession Act
Bill 16 The Police Services Act
Bill 26 The Apprenticeship and Certification Act
Bill 31 The Manitoba Floodway Authority Amendment Act
Bill 35 The Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act (Various Acts Amended)
Bill 36 The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Enhanced Compensation for Catastrophic Injuries)
Bill 217 The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Heritage Act
Bill 226 The Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Day Act
Bill 228 The Grandparents' Day Act
Bill 238 The Service Animals Protection Act
"specified spring Bills" means all government bills distributed in the House before May 28, 2009, other than
(a) bills given Royal Assent before that day; and
(b) specified fall Bills.
Spring Sitting of the 3rd Session, 39th Legislature (ending on June 11, 2009)
June 2, 2009 — Conclusion of Second Reading on specified spring Bills
2. At 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, put all questions required to conclude the Second Reading Stage on all specified spring Bills then at that stage. The questions must be decided without further debate or amendment.
June 8, 2009 — Completion of Committee Stage for specified spring Bills
3. Committee Stage on all specified spring Bills must be completed in sufficient time for the Committees considering the Bills to report them to the House on or before Monday, June 8, 2009. If a Committee considering a specified spring Bill has not completed clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by midnight on a day that fewer than 20 presenters are registered, for all Bills under consideration by the Committee, at the time that the Committee is scheduled to begin meeting that day, the following rules apply:
(a) Notwithstanding subrule 92(6), the Committee must sit beyond midnight to continue hearing presentations, if any, and to consider the Bills clause by clause.
(b) At 1:00 a.m., if presentations are still being heard, the Chair must interrupt the proceedings and commence clause-by-clause consideration of the Bills.
(c) At 2:00 a.m., any member of the Committee who wishes to move an amendment to a Bill after that time must file 20 copies of the amendment with the Clerk of the Committee, and the Clerk must distribute the amendment to the members of the Committee. After that time, an amendment may be moved only if copies of it were filed with the Clerk and distributed as required by this rule.
(d) At 3:00 a.m., the Chair of the Committee must interrupt the proceedings and, without further debate or amendment (other than an amendment distributed as required by rule (c)), put every question necessary to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the Bills under consideration.
(e) The Committee must report the Bills to the House at its next sitting. In the event that the Committee fails to report the Bills at that sitting, the Bills are deemed to be reported to the House, as amended by the Committee (if applicable), and the report is deemed to be received by the House at that sitting.
June 9, 2009 — Opposition Day Motion
4. Tuesday, June 9, 2009, is designated as a day for debate of the Opposition Day Motion proposed by the Honourable Member for Steinbach and set out in the Order Paper for May 27, 2009.
June 10, 2009 — Conclusion of Report Stage on specified spring Bills
5. At 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 10, 2009, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, take all steps necessary to conclude Report Stage on all the specified spring Bills that are then at that stage.
If a motion for a Report Stage amendment was previously moved, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker must allow each motion for a Report Stage amendment for which notice was given in accordance with subrule 138(6) to be moved. Immediately after the motion has been moved and spoken to by the mover of the motion, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment.
Subrule 138(7) does not apply.
June 11, 2009 — Conclusion of Second Reading on Police Services Act
6. At 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 11, 2009, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, put all questions required to conclude the Second Reading Stage on Bill 16 — The Police Services Act. The questions must be decided without further debate or amendment.
June 11, 2009 — Conclusion of Concurrence and Third Reading on specified spring Bills
7. At 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 11, 2009, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, take all steps necessary to conclude Concurrence and Third Reading on
(a) each specified spring Bill for which a Concurrence and Third Reading motion has previously been moved; and
(b) each specified spring Bill for which a Concurrence and Third Reading motion may then be put under subrule 138(14), if the minister responsible for the Bill wishes to put the motion.
In the case of a Bill referred to in clause (a), the Speaker must put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment.
In the case of a Bill referred to in clause (b), the Speaker must allow the motion to be moved. Immediately after it is moved, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without debate or amendment.
Royal Assent of all bills that have had Third Reading agreed to must take place before the House adjourns on that day.
At the conclusion of business on that day, the Speaker must adjourn the House without a motion for adjournment.
Intersessional Committee on Bill 16 — The Police Services Act
Committee meetings for Bill 16
8. If the Second Reading motion for Bill 16 — The Police Services Act is passed before the House adjourns on June 11, 2009, the Committee is to sit after June 14, 2009 and before July 1, 2009 to consider public presentations and complete clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill. After consulting with the Official Opposition House Leader, the Government House Leader is to determine the days and the hours that the Committee is to sit, but, with unanimous consent, a Committee may sit past the adjournment hour set for any day. Two days notice is required, notwithstanding subrule 4(6).
Completion of Committee Stage on Bill 16
9. If the Committee considering Bill 16 — The Police Services Act has not, by midnight on a day scheduled under sessional rule 8 for the Committee to meet, completed clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, and fewer than 20 presenters are registered for that Bill at the time that the Committee is scheduled to begin meeting that day, the following rules apply:
(a) Notwithstanding subrule 92(6), the Committee must sit beyond midnight to continue hearing presentations, if any, and to consider the Bill clause by clause.
(b) At 1:00 a.m., if presentations are still being heard, the Chair must interrupt the proceedings and commence clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.
(c) At 2:00 a.m., any member of the Committee who wishes to move an amendment to the Bill after that time must file 20 copies of the amendment with the Clerk of the Committee, and the Clerk must distribute the amendment to the members of the Committee. After that time, an amendment may be moved only if copies of it were filed with the Clerk and distributed as required by this rule.
(d) At 3:00 a.m., the Chair of the Committee must interrupt the proceedings and, without further debate or amendment (other than an amendment distributed as required by rule (c)), put every question necessary to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.
(e) The Committee must report the Bill to the House on September 14, 2009. In the event that the Committee fails to report the Bill that day, the Bill is deemed to be reported to the House, as amended by the Committee (if applicable), and the report is deemed to be received by the House on that day.
Fall Sitting of the 3rd Session, 39th Legislature (Sept. 14, 2009 to Oct. 8, 2009)
10. Subject to subrule 2(2), the 3rd Session of the 39th Legislature is to resume on Monday, September 14, 2009, and is to adjourn on Thursday, October 8, 2009.
September 22, 2009 — Conclusion of Second Reading on specified fall Bills
11. At 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22, 2009, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, put all questions required to conclude the Second Reading Stage on all specified fall Bills then at that stage. The questions must be decided without further debate or amendment.
October 1, 2009 — Completion of Committee Stage on specified fall Bills
12. Committee Stage on all specified fall Bills must be completed in sufficient time for the Committees considering the Bills to report them to the House on or before Thursday, October 1, 2009. If a Committee considering a specified fall Bill has not completed clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by midnight on a day that fewer than 20 presenters are registered, for all Bills under consideration by the Committee, at the time that the Committee is scheduled to begin meeting that day, the following rules apply:
(a) Notwithstanding subrule 92(6), the Committee must sit beyond midnight to continue hearing presentations, if any, and to consider the Bills clause by clause.
(b) At 1:00 a.m., if presentations are still being heard, the Chair must interrupt the proceedings and commence clause-by-clause consideration of the Bills.
(c) At 2:00 a.m., any member of the Committee who wishes to move an amendment to a Bill after that time must file 20 copies of the amendment with the Clerk of the Committee, and the Clerk must distribute the amendment to the members of the Committee. After that time, an amendment may be moved only if copies of it were filed with the Clerk and distributed as required by this rule.
(d) At 3:00 a.m., the Chair of the Committee must interrupt the proceedings and, without further debate or amendment (other than an amendment distributed as required by rule (c)), put every question necessary to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the Bills under consideration.
(e) The Committee must report the Bills to the House at its next sitting. In the event that the Committee fails to report the Bills at that sitting, the Bills are deemed to be reported to the House, as amended by the Committee (if applicable), and the report is deemed to be received by the House at that sitting.
October 7, 2009 — Conclusion of Report Stage on specified fall Bills
13. At 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 7, 2009, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, take all steps necessary to conclude Report Stage on all the specified fall Bills that are then at that stage.
If a motion for a Report Stage amendment was previously moved, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker must allow each motion for a Report Stage amendment for which notice was given in accordance with subrule 138(6) to be moved. Immediately after the motion has been moved and spoken to by the mover of the motion, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment.
Subrule 138(7) does not apply.
October 8, 2009 — Conclusion of Concurrence and Third Reading on specified fall Bills
14. At 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 8, 2009, the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings and, without seeing the clock, take all steps necessary to conclude Concurrence and Third Reading on
(a) each specified fall Bill for which a Concurrence and Third Reading motion has previously been moved; and
(b) each specified fall Bill for which a Concurrence and Third Reading motion may then be put under subrule 138(14), if the minister responsible for the Bill wishes to put the motion.
In the case of a Bill referred to in clause (a), the Speaker must put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion without further debate or amendment.
In the case of a Bill referred to in clause (b), the Speaker must allow the motion to be moved. Immediately after it is moved, the Speaker must put the question necessary to dispose of the motion without debate or amendment.
Royal Assent of all bills that have had Third Reading agreed to must take place before the House adjourns on that day.
At the conclusion of business on that day, the Speaker must adjourn the House without a motion for adjournment.
Priority of actions to be taken
15. Where
(a) these Sessional Orders require the Speaker or a chairperson to take any action at a specified time; and
(b) at the specified time, a point of order or a matter of privilege has been raised and is under consideration by the House or committee;
the point of order or matter of privilege is to be set aside, and no other point of order or matter of privilege may be raised, until the required action has been taken and all matters relating to the required action have been resolved.
Interruption of proceedings
16. Where these Sessional Orders require the Speaker or a chairperson to interrupt proceedings to take any action, the interruption is to take place and the action is to be taken whether or not the Orders of the Day have been called.
No deferral of vote
17. Subrule 14(4) does not apply to a division to be taken on a question required to be put under these Sessional Orders.
Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members of the House for their agreement.
I'd like to make some committee announcements, Mr. Speaker. [interjection] Oh.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable Attorney General, seconded by the honourable Minister for Agriculture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk), that the following sessional orders apply to this session despite any other rule or practice of this House, and–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Order.
A motion, I can't–I can't dispense a motion.
So, but the sessional order will be as printed according to–will be attached to the motion.
Is the pleasure of the House to, to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, on House business.
In addition to the committee announcements made earlier in the day, I would like to announce that for the meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, scheduled for Tuesday, June 2nd, the following bill will also be considered at the committee meeting: Bill 23, The Buildings and Mobile Homes Amendment Act.
I'd also like to announce that for the June 3rd, 6 p.m. meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, the following bills will also be considered: Bill 14, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans); and Bill 22, The Cooperatives Amendment Act.
I'd also like to announce that Bill 5, which had been referred to the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs for June 3rd at 6 p.m., will now be considered by the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development on June 3rd at 6 p.m.
And I'd also like to announce that the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet on Thursday, June 4th, at 6 p.m. to consider the following bill: Bill 6, The East Side Traditional Lands Planning and Special Protected Areas Act.
* (16:20)
Mr. Speaker: Okay, in addition to the committee announcements that were made earlier in the day today, it's also announced that, for the meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs scheduled for Tuesday, June 2nd, the following bill will also be considered at the, at the committee meeting: Bill 23, The Buildings and Mobile Homes Amendment Act.
And it's also announced that for June 3rd, at 6 p.m. meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, the following bills will also be considered: Bill 14, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans); Bill No. 22, The Cooperatives Amendment Act. And it's also announced that Bill 5, which had been referred to the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs for June 3rd at 6 p.m., will now be considered by the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development on June 3rd, at 6 p.m.
It's also announced that the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet on Thursday, June 4th at 6 p.m. to consider the following bills: Bill 6, The East Side Traditional Lands Planning and Special Protected Areas Act.
Bill 24–The Colleges Amendment and le Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface Amendment Act (College Degrees)
Mr. Speaker: Okay. We'll move on to, on to second reading of bills, and I will now call Bill No. 24, The Colleges Amendment and le Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface Amendment Act (College Degrees), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet.
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): I'd just like to put a few words on the record for Bill 24. We are in favour of Bill 24, and we look forward to moving that bill to committee in due course, and I'm sure that the, the Government House Leader (Mr. Chomiak) will likely be announcing, hopefully, the committee for that bill as well for this week.
The colleges amendment act allows certain colleges within the province, not all of them, but certain colleges within the province, to grant applied degrees, Mr. Speaker, and the key word in that is: applied. University degrees are not necessarily applied degrees. They have professional degrees, and they also have very general degrees, and colleges, of course, grant diplomas and certificates to individuals within applied sciences and arts, and what this does, this particular act, is it extends the ability of–to colleges to grant applied degrees.
Degrees, of course, as we know it, is, are granted at this point exclusively to universities in this province and most other provinces, and this bill will allow colleges to grant degrees in the same way, except only in the applied arts and sciences area. And why are, is this happening, Mr. Speaker? Well, it's evident, that of course there's been increased knowledge. There's been increased demand for certain kinds of skills within the workplace and what colleges are finding is that certain diplomas and certificates that are issued today, rather than issuing them after one or two years in a college, it requires some certain fields require longer periods of time in order to disseminate the information and knowledge to students and as a result of that, it, many, some of the, some of the fields are requiring three and four years to complete and, therefore, colleges in this province and other provinces are asking for the ability to grant a degree in the place of a diploma as a result. And this is, I know this bill is as a result of representations made by certain industries within the province and within the country to ensure that they have the, a properly educated work force to ensure that, that, that students, in fact, will be able to come out with a degree as opposed to a diploma, recognizing, of course, the longer period of time of study that's going to be required.
About six months ago, Mr. Speaker, I was in Alberta, and many of you know that my spouse, in fact, is the dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies in Alberta and accepting that position about a year ago, and so I asked her, in particular, about the phenomenon that was happening in Alberta at the time. And I noticed in the newspapers in, in, in Alberta that, in fact, university, universities in Alberta were allowing certifi–certificates by colleges in Alberta to be granted as degrees and it, it was quite odd to me, growing up in the, in the university and, and going to university in the 1970s that colleges would in fact be–have the ability to grant degrees. And I noticed that, that that, that that was happening in Alberta and in other provinces across the country. So I asked my spouse about this, and she said that, in fact, that this was a phenomenon that has been occurring over the last few years and likely it would happen in Alberta–or, or in, in Manitoba since it was happening in Alberta and other provinces across the country.
So I took the opportunity to speak to the universities in our province prior to the session starting this spring. Believing that perhaps if there was any opposition to a bill that would come forward this session–anticipating that perhaps the Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. McGifford) would grant–allow the colleges to grant degrees–I spoke to the universities here in Manitoba to determine whether or not they had any concerns about a bill that might actually be proposed in this Legislature, and to my surprise, at the time, all the universities actually would have approved of that kind of legislation. And so came as no great surprise when the Minister of Advanced Education, in fact, tabled a bill to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I graduated from university three times–not in the same degree, of course–but in 1973 and 1976 and 1979, so I've been at university for most of the 1970s and had quite an experience at university and I know that many of us in this Chamber have done the same. They probably would believe, as I believe, that some of the best years of your life were actually during university years and I can–I, I myself, I graduated from the University of Manitoba in each of those three degrees, and my spouse, as well, who has a Bachelor, a Master's and a Ph.D., as well, also graduated, all from the University of Manitoba, so our university education, in fact, was all in Manitoba.
And at that time in the 1970s, it was quite unheard of that the colleges would actually grant degrees, and there was quite a separation between a college education and a university education; were very distinct lines drawn between the colleges in the province and the universities. Universities, of course, would only grant degrees–and some instances, they, they granted diplomas, such as in agriculture–but by and large, almost all awards or, or, or acknowledgements to uni–to students certi–were, in fact, degrees.
University was more of a theoretical education and, of course, colleges were more of an applied education, a trades education. But not any more, Mr. Speaker. In fact, a number of years ago, if you'll recall, there's been some changes to colleges and universities. They've been co-operating much more fully than they had in the past. And take as an example, the engineering faculty at the University of Manitoba co-operated, of course, with Red River College in, in the sense that Red River College graduates who graduated with a two-year certificate or diploma in Red River College could move on to the University of Manitoba as a continuation of that education; not, not apart from that education, but a continuating–continuation of that education in university would be able to, within a couple of years, get a degree in engineering.
The same thing happened in accounting where, under–after a two-year diploma in accounting at Red River College, the university again co-operated, the professional faculty of business co-operated to allow students who graduated with a diploma in Red River College to move on to university and, of course, obtain a university degree, a Bachelor degree in business administration. Nursing, the one I'm most familiar with because my spouse taught nursing there for many years, at the University of Manitoba, the same thing was happening where anyone with a two‑year certificate or diploma from Red River College could, in fact, within a two-year period, under an accelerated program, get a university degree in nursing as well. So that's been happening over a number of years already, and so the natural progression then, would, of course, be to allow colleges to be able to grant degrees as well to allow them to grant degrees in certain very limited circumstances, and that's in an applied degree fashion.
* (16:30)
So there's been a progression over the years since 1970, since I first started university. There's been a progression, and in my view, it's been an improvement to the education that we have seen here in this province, a progression from college to university and on. So I think it's only good for students and it's good for universities. So I say on the record today that we do, in fact, we do, in fact, support Bill 24, and I look forward to it going to committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I do appreciate the opportunity to rise and participate on second reading debate of Bill No. 24, the colleges amendment and St. Boniface amendment act, college degrees. It is an important piece of legislation as it enhances the course offerings or ability for the colleges here in the province of Manitoba to enhance their programs. I will state at the outset, I'm very pleased to see this government building on a foundation that was established by the Conservative Premier Duff Roblin, who created the colleges and the University of Winnipeg chartered as a, as a university during his tenure as a very, very visionary premier of the province of Manitoba.
It is important that we continue to offer programs that add to the educational opportunities of young Manitobans, and indeed any of those persons of any age from anywhere in the world to come to Manitoba and learn because education, in my mind, is the most important aspect of life where you are everything that you are and everything that you aspire to be is based upon education, and with this bill, it does afford the opportunity to expand from diploma and certificate programming to baccalaureate degree program through the amendments that are before us today.
I would like to say that I appreciate the post‑secondary educational opportunities here in the province of Manitoba as I participated in the mid‑'70s, 1974 through '79, at the University of Manitoba in the Faculty of Agriculture, and it was not only a learning experience enhancing my skills in the field of agriculture, but I believe, also, it enhanced one's social, social skills as well that have, have added to the my abilities to represent Portage la Prairie as the member of the Legislative Assembly.
Also, too, I would say that when one does attend a post-secondary educational institution here in the province, it allows one to meet new people and foster relationships that, indeed, do last a lifetime, and significantly enhance the network of individuals that we potentially might call upon to assist us in, in our business careers. And I will say that I have had numerous occasions to contact and be able to, to learn from individuals that I, that I met while attending university.
Although some people do come out of university quite expecting to pursue a career along the lines of their course of study, however I will say that the, a classmate of mine at the faculty of Manitoba that was, is now in the–a man of the cloth. It's church of the, Church of the Rock, I believe is the name of his–yes, Mark Hughes is the pastor of the, of the church, and he and I were in the same agricultural classes together, and I will say that we had a rather active social life while attending the University of Manitoba, but it is quite interesting as to the changes that come to us as we–after graduation. And I would never of, of thought that Mark would go the pathway of the cloth and aspire to the position to which he now occupies. But I would like to say that he, indeed, is a, is a good friend, and I'm most proud of his accomplishments after graduation, and a true testament to his success is not only the congregation which is active within his church but his family as well. When one looks to an individual, you also want to recognize the family in which they, they have fostered, and through relationships, and Mark is certainly an excellent example of that on all fronts.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in second reading debate of Bill No. 24 and very much look forward, with support from this side of the House, seeing this bill through to committee. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I, too, was wanting to put a number of thoughts on the record in regards to Bill 24 and, ultimately, its passage. I'm anticipating that it'll probably pass into committee this afternoon and, first, to kind of start off by acknowledging Red River College. I drive by it a great deal. Whenever I go to the airport, Wendy's, Polo Park, a litany of places, where Red River College, I'm constantly driving by and from that Tyndall Park area into that Polo Park area.
And one of the things that I have noticed over the years is the growth over at Red River College. I've had opportunity to visit the site for numerous reasons, and it just seems to be a college that's on the move, and it's encouraging to see the type and level of expertise that has been demonstrating–demonstrated outside of that college, or by that college, I should say, Mr. Speaker.
* (16:40)
I'm amazed with the level of participation that we get from the private sector and how Red River College will, in fact, work with other secondary institutions to ensure that it sustains a very healthy graduation class coming from our high schools, and one high school, in particular, would be Tec Voc High. I have many constituents of mine that attend Tec hoc–Tec Voc, and Tec Voc is a phenomenal high school under a great administrative control through the, the principal, Mr. Cook, and down, where they have really motivated the student body to seek post-secondary education in, in many ways.
And one of the things that I've noticed, because I really–I've had the, the privilege of being able to attend the Tec Voc High School graduation, is I've had the opportunity, as others, to be able to, to witness first-hand the relationship between our colleges, in particular Red River College, and our high schools, in particular, Tec Voc High School, by attending their graduation. There is excellent participation and, I would suggest to you, even incentives through bursaries and so forth, that are provided that even go beyond our publicly financed, in part, post-secondary institutions to include our private sector, Mr. Speaker, whether it's, in particular, our aerospace industry, but other industries that have really come to the table to provide additional incentives. And I've been to other graduations, whether it's Sisler High or to the Maples Collegiate, large bodies of highly intelligent individuals every year that graduate from those three, those three high schools. But it seems that Tec Voc puts a great deal of effort in terms of trying to get individuals to go into post-secondary education, with a special focus on Red River College, or that college education, and I applaud them for doing so.
If you, if you take a look at the industrial arts program at, at Tec Voc and other programs that are related to, to trades, and some of the initiatives that they have taken on, even in terms of working with private sector from, from what I can understand, they have been highly successful in bringing it to the next level in terms of providing more opportunities for our young people today.
And, when I look at Bill 24, I see yet another stage that is in fact being developed as we recognize the benefits of the baccalaureate degree, or the potential of that type of a degree, for students that are not only at Red River College, but at two other colleges, Mr. Speaker, the Assiniboia College and the St. Boniface, or–St. Boniface College, and I see that as, as a very strong positive–or I should say the, the College University at St. Boniface–but I see that as a very strong positive, because it is, indeed, important as, as things change and the demands of our economy are, are changing, the level of expertise that is, that is required that we do need to, to look at focussed areas within different industries and equip with our–and allow our colleges to be able to provide diversification in terms of what it is that they're able to provide the students that choose to, to go to their, their facilities, and, and we should be encouraging that, and that's, in fact, what we see in Bill 24.
And, again, what I do is I look at Red River College and I see Red River College kind of leading, not only in, in the province of Manitoba, and that's not to take away from other colleges that we have here in the province, Mr. Speaker, but Red River College has really done wonders over the last number of years. And I wanted to take this particular opportunity just to, to commend all those that have been responsible for what's been taking place at Red River College.
You know, former Mayor Glen Murray, for example, and others that came up with the, the thought and the idea of having a, a branch office, if I can put it that way, for Red River College in downtown, downtown Winnipeg. And the programming that's now provided out of the Red River College in downtown Winnipeg, in many ways what it does is it provides alternatives, in particular, for individuals in things such as the culinary arts, and others, as another site location that is in the downtown area, which quite often is more, more convenient for, for students, Mr. Speaker, or potential students going, going into the future.
At the same time, it does wonders in terms of assisting in revitalization. I believe that's even an area that you currently represent, Mr. Speaker, in that–right, right by, right by City Hall, and, you know, it does, it does change, you know, the façade of, of a number of, of streets. In this particular case, it's downtown.
I made reference to Route 90 and driving down that Route 90, and the expansion. You know, there was, there was a time in which you could drive down Route 90 and you could see Red River College pretty far in the, in the background and, if you take a, a before picture, let's say late '80s, early '90s, and you were to compare it to, to today, you will see that the overall square footage has dramatically increased for Red River College. And I suspect, as the other colleges, that the, that the student body as a whole–and I'm not just talking high school graduates. I'm talking overall student body of–whether they're 18 years graduating from high school or they find themselves in a position in which they're having to retrain at age 35 and older, Mr. Speaker, you will find that our colleges are playing a more significant role today than they did in the past in terms of overall numbers, the types of courses that are being provided, and so forth.
And they're better equipping Manitobans to be able to ultimately keep our province competitive in the many different industries that we need to be competitive in, and the industry that I would look to as a great example is that of the aerospace industry. You know, Manitoba has an aerospace industry that has seen over the years substantial growth, and that growth has added to our economy in the province of Manitoba in a very significant, very significant way. And the role that our colleges have played in to providing the skills necessary in order for our aerospace industry to grow into the future has been very significant.
And, so, even if you're not within the aerospace industry, you need to recognize the value of an industry of that nature by how it contributes, because the larger the industry, the more jobs that are created, and the skilled workers that perform those jobs all contribute to income tax. They are all consumers. They will, they will purchase items, whether it's houses, appliances, the small, small items of merchandise or widgets, if I can put it that way, not to mention the service industries, Mr. Speaker. They all will utilize many different ways in which money and the economy is cultivated because, because of that particular industry.
Well, I use it as an example because if we do not have the ability to be able to provide that first-class education and development of the skill sets that are necessary, well, we wouldn't be able to fill those jobs. Today, thankfully, we have a good number of people coming to our province through immigration that assist us in filling many of those jobs so that we don't lose them. But equally important, and many would ultimately argue more important, is, is that we are enabling our student bodies to be able to take advantage of those jobs by gaining the skills that are, in fact, necessary in order to fill those, those, those types of jobs.
* (16:50)
And I really believe that the aerospace industry is a good example for us to look at as a model because I know–I go back to Tec Voc, where we will see the aerospace industry taking an active interest in terms of what's actually being taught at a local high school and how they might be able to enhance what's being taught there through promotion and encouragement that would enable that student to take it right from high school into the college and quite often directly into, into a job situation. And that's why I believe that the aerospace industry is, is probably a good model for us to look at.
Another industry that has really come–is in, in, through time, is that of the computers. If you were to take a look at the types of jobs that were there within the computer industry back in the mid-'80s and compare it to today, you would be amazed in terms of the numbers and the differences, Mr. Speaker. I suspect you could probably count the number of courses that would have been offered in one term on your hands at some of our college facilities, and that's going back into the '80s. Today, you would need–you're probably looking into your three digits in terms of the number of courses that are being provided through our colleges to educate individuals in regards to computers and providing them the types of expertise.
And, if you look at the future of our colleges, in particular the three that, that I've referenced, Mr. Speaker, the three in which this bill refers to, you will see that the future for commut, commut–computer courses is actually going to increase as we specialize more and more in many aspects of the needs of the computer industry, everything from the sales, to the Internet, to programming, to the, to the detailed operations of, of computers, themselves, the hardware. Networking is just a phenomenal industry as more and more industries want to develop their own networks. The demands for computer literacy in every facet has dramatically increased.
So our colleges have responded and justifiably so, Mr. Speaker. So when we look at the baccalaureate degrees that are going to be having more of an applied focus, I suspect that it will deal with computers and other industries by trying to raise the standard and raise the level of expertise in recognition of the skills that our, our graduates that are graduating from these facilities are going to be bringing into, into the work force.
I haven't had the opportunity to be able to do some of the research in terms of other colleges outside of the province of Manitoba, but I suspect that you will see that there are other colleges that are aggressively pursuing whatever advantage they can in order to be able to attract students. And that's why it's important that we, as legislators, provide the opportunities for our colleges to be able to be competitive, Mr. Speaker, with colleges outside of the province of Manitoba, because we want our young people, and people in general, to feel confident that our colleges are second to no other colleges in, in Canada. And that's why we need to look at innovative ideas that can really add value to our post-secondary facilities.
And that's how I see this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It adds value to post‑secondary education in the province of Manitoba in an area in which has seen substantial growth over the years and will continue, I believe, to see growth if the government gives it the attention that it, that it is warranted.
You know, there was a time in which a person could get a job, you know, you could go to CN and anticipate that if you got hired on with a company like a CN or a CP, that you would have a career job and you'd be there for 35, 40 years and they, you would–[interjection]–then they'd become a politician, as someone points out, Mr. Speaker.
You know, well, you know, you could have that career job of 35, 40 years and there were many of employers of that nature. Well, today what you find is that it's important that you develop the skill sets that are necessary, that are gonna be able to make a career and hopefully, hopefully you might only have to go to two or three different employers. More often than not what we're seeing is the number of employers in order to be able to succeed in terms of a, the long term, that 30 to 40 years. You're gonna be dependent on having to have a number of employers and that's why, more so today than it was in the past, we have to develop the skill sets of an individual.
So, when we take a look at a university education or a college education, we need to ensure that the skill sets that are being taught can, in fact, in, in some ways be universal to the degree in which you're gonna be able to take 'em into other areas.
And I always thought one of the interesting examples of that would be that of a teaching profession or health-care profession. You know in, in health care you have colleges working in co‑operation with universities in order to maximize the value of the type of education that is being acquired by the student and that student is gaining skill sets and degrees and certificates that will enable that person to be able to get a wide variety of jobs that are out there.
And I think that that's more and more what we're going to be, be seeing going into, into the future. And with those few words we're prepared to, to see the bill pass. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill No. 24, The College Amendment and le Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface Amendment Act (College Degrees).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and–agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, in addition to the committee announcement that I made earlier in the day, I'd like to announce that for the meeting of the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development for Wednesday, June 3rd, at 6 p.m., the following bill will be also considered at the committee meeting: Bill 24, The Colleges Amendment and le Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker: It's be–it's been announced in addition to the committee announcement that were made earlier in the day, it's been announced that for the meeting for the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development for Wednesday, June the 3rd at 6 p.m. the following bill will be also considered at that committee meeting: Bill No. 24, the colleges amendment, le Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface amendment act, college degrees.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Order. The time being now 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.