LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Mr. Speaker: Please be seated.
Routine proceedings; introduction of bills.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Bill 215–The Elections Amendment and Elections Finances Amendment Act
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the member from Steinbach, that Bill 215, The Elections Amendment and Elections Finances Amendment Act, be now read a first time.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable Member for Inkster, seconded by the honourable member of Steinbach, that Bill No. 215, The Elections Amendment and Elections Finances Amendment Act, be now read a first time.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is somewhat relevant in the sense that we need to have more accountability, and what this bill will do is will ensure that there's more accountability on behalf of things such as what we've seen in the last little while in terms of investigations that election Manitoba conducts. All we need to do is to take a look in terms of see during the last number of questions periods related to the changing of donation of kinds to cheque exchange. These type of investigations should be coming back and reported to the Legislature. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Photo Radar
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): 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 reduced speed zones in construction areas were intended to protect workers and that the tickets were given when no construction workers were present, where 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 are, who have 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.
This petition is signed by Gerry Wieler, Shelley Johnson, Laura Znak and many, many more fine Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Ring Dike Road–Ste. Rose du Lac
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:
The Ring Dike Road is a well-used gravel municipal road that is used as a secondary road in and out of the community of Ste. Rose du Lac.
Given this heavy pattern of use, there is a strong interest in the community in seeing the Ring Dike Road upgraded to a paved provincial road.
It would be most cost-effective to upgrade the Ring Dike Road to a provincial road at the same time that upgrades are being undertaken at the junction of Highway 68 and Highway 5.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation (Mr. Lemieux) to consider upgrading the Ring Dike Road at Ste. Rose du Lac into a provincial road;
To request the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation to consider upgrading the Ring Dike Road at the same time that work is being done on the junction of 6–Highway 68 and Highway 5.
This petition is signed by Maurice Maguet, Alain Ingelbeen and Emile Bernardin 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.
And these are the reasons for this petition:
Many seniors from the Morden and Winkler area are currently patients in the 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; and
To 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 John Unrau, Jake Hamm, Bill Friesen and many, many others.
PTH 15
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 2004, the Province of Manitoba made a public commitment to the people of Springfield to twin PTH 15 and the floodway bridge on PTH 15, but then in 2006, the twinning was cancelled.
Injuries resulting from collisions on PTH 15 continue to rise and have doubled from 2007 to 2008.
In August 2008, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Lemieux) stated that preliminary analysis of current and future traffic demands indicate that local twinning will be required.
The current plan to replace the floodway bridge on PTH 15 does not include twinning and, therefore, does not fulfil the current nor future traffic demands cited by the Minister of transpitition–Transportation.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Minister of Transportation consider the immediate twinning of the PTH 15 floodway bridge for the safety of the citizens of Manitoba.
Signed by Barbara Acton; bus driver, Janet Onsowich; bus driver, Gordon Smith and many, many other Manitobans.
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 Doris Unger, Lisa Rempel, Jo Reimer and many, many others.
Winnipeg Regional Health Authority
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:
Manitoba's Premier and the NDP government have not recognized the issues of public concern related to the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority.
The W–WRHA is building an administrative empire at the expense of bedside care.
Winnipeg Regional Health Authority needs to be held accountable for the decisions it is making.
Health-care workers are being pressured into not being able to speak out no matter what the WRHA is doing or has done.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the NDP government to call a meeting of a standing committee of the Legislature and invite representatives of the WRHA to appear before it.
Mr. Speaker, this is signed E. Tongol, J. Tongol, T. Polvoros and many, many other fine Manitobans. Thank you.
Photo Radar
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, 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.
Provincial government handed out tickets to thousands of Manitobans who were driving the regular posted speed limit in construction zones where there were no construction workers present.
A manicor–Manitoba court has ruled that reduced speed zones in construction areas were intended to protect workers and that tickets were given areas intended to protect workers that 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.
Provincial government is refusing to pay–refund the money to 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 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.
Submitted on behalf of Leona Weisz, Ken Dunsmore, Larry Klimpke and many, many others.
* (13:40)
Mr. Speaker: Committee reports.
Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development
Second Report
Ms. Erin Selby (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development–
Mr. Speaker: Dispense?
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on Social & Economic Development presents the following as its Second Report.
Meetings
Your Committee met on June 3, 2009 in room 254 of the Legislative Building.
Matters under Consideration
· Bill (No. 5) – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Promoting Safer and Healthier Conditions in Motor Vehicles)/Loi modifiant le Code de la route (promotion de la santé et de la sécurité dans les véhicules automobiles)
· Bill (No. 20) – The Manitoba Hydro Amendment and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act (Electricity Reliability)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro-Manitoba et la Loi sur la Régie des services publics (fiabilité du réseau électrique)
· Bill (No. 24) – The Colleges Amendment and Le Collège Universitaire de Saint-Boniface Amendment Act (College Degrees)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les collèges et la Loi sur le Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface (grades des collèges)
· Bill (No. 29) – The Environment Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement
Committee Membership
· Hon. Mr. Ashton
· Mr. Cullen
· Mr. Derkach
· Mr. Dewar
· Mr. Dyck
· Hon. Ms. Irvin-Ross
· Ms. Marcelino
· Hon. Ms. McGifford
· Mrs. Mitchelson
· Ms. Selby
· Hon. Mr. Struthers
Your Committee elected Ms. Selby as the Chairperson.
Your Committee elected Ms. Marcelino as the Vice‑Chairperson.
Substitutions received during committee proceedings:
· Mr. Maguire for Mr. Mitchelson
· Hon. Mr. Rondeau for Mr. Dewar
Public Presentations
Your Committee heard the following eight presentations on Bill (No. 5) – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Promoting Safer and Healthier Conditions in Motor Vehicles)/Loi modifiant le Code de la route (promotion de la santé et de la sécurité dans les véhicules automobiles):
Derek Hay, Radio Amateurs of Canada
Bob Dolyniuk, Manitoba Trucking Association
Jeff Dovyak, ARES-Amateur Radio Emergency Service
Loretta Corbeil, Manitoba Lung Association
Geof Bawden, Winnipeg Amateur Radio Club
Joan Wilson, Unicity Taxi
Curtis Basso, Manitoba Association of School Business Officials
Phil Walding, Duffy's Taxi
Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 20) – The Manitoba Hydro Amendment and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act (Electricity Reliability)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro-Manitoba et la Loi sur la Régie des services publics (fiabilité du réseau électrique):
Gaile Whelan-Enns, Manitoba Wild Lands
Your Committee heard the following three presentations on Bill (No. 29) – The Environment Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement:
Greg Bruce, Ducks Unlimited Canada
Gaile Whelan-Enns, Manitoba Wild Lands
Glen Koroluk, Beyond Factory Farming
Written Submissions
Your Committee received the following two written submissions on Bill (No. 5) – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Promoting Safer and Healthier Conditions in Motor Vehicles)/Loi modifiant le Code de la route (promotion de la santé et de la sécurité dans les véhicules automobiles):
Bryan H. Crowley, Consider the Possibilities
Murray Gibson, Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance
Bills Considered and Reported
· Bill (No. 5) – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Promoting Safer and Healthier Conditions in Motor Vehicles)/Loi modifiant le Code de la route (promotion de la santé et de la sécurité dans les véhicules automobiles)
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill, with the following amendments:
THAT Clause 3 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed subsection 215.1(3):
Exception C police, fire and ambulance personnel
215.1(3.1) Subsection (2) does not apply to any of the following persons in relation to the use of a hand‑operated electronic device in carrying out his or her duties:
(a) a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force or another police officer, police constable or constable;
(b) a firefighter employed by a fire department;
(c) an ambulance operator as defined in section 1 of The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Transportation Act.
· Bill (No. 20) – The Manitoba Hydro Amendment and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act (Electricity Reliability)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro-Manitoba et la Loi sur la Régie des services publics (fiabilité du réseau électrique)
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 24) – The Colleges Amendment and Le Collège Universitaire de Saint-Boniface Amendment Act (College Degrees)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les collèges et la Loi sur le Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface (grades des collèges)
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 29) – The Environment Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
Ms. Selby: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Wellington (Ms. Marcelino), that the report of the committee be received.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for Southdale, seconded by the honourable Member for Wellington, that the report of the committee be received.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs
Third Report
Ms. Erna Braun (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Third Report.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense?
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS presents the following as its Third Report.
Meeting
Your Committee met on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building.
Matters under Consideration
· Bill (No. 12) – The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location à usage d'habitation
· Bill (No. 14) – The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (prêts de dépannage)
· Bill (No. 19) – The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les courtiers d'hypothèques et la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières
· Bill (No. 22) – The Cooperatives Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les coopératives
Committee Membership
Committee Membership for the Wednesday, June 3, 2009 meeting:
· Mr. Altemeyer
· Hon. Mr. Bjornson
· Ms. Braun (Chairperson)
· Ms. Brick
· Mr. Briese
· Mrs. Driedger
· Mr. Faurschou
· Hon. Mr. Mackintosh
· Mr. Nevakshonoff (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Pedersen
· Hon. Mr. Selinger
Public Presentations
Your Committee heard the following five presentations on Bill (No. 12) – The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location à usage d'habitation:
Ron Penner, The Professional Property Managers' Association
Larry Todd, Private Citizen
Lois Todd, Private Citizen
Jean Yves Rochon, Manitoba Council on Aging
George McBride, Private Citizen
Your Committee heard the following six presentations on Bill (No. 14) – The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (prêts de dépannage):
Antoine Hacault, Cash Store Financial
Gloria Desorcy, Manitoba Branch of the Consumers Association of Canada
Robert Thompson, The Money Tree
Byron Williams, Public Interest Law Centre
John Silver, Community Financial Counselling Services
Laurie Johnson, New Directions for Children, Youth, Adults & Families
Your Committee heard the following two presentations on Bill (No. 19) – The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les courtiers d'hypothèques et la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières:
Buzz Grant, Mortgage Logic
Daryl Harris, Canadian Association of Accredited Mortgage Professionals
Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 22) – The Cooperatives Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les coopératives:
Randy Schroeder, Granny's Poultry Cooperative (MB) Ltd.
Written Submissions
Your Committee received the following two written submissions on Bill (No. 14) – The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (prêts de dépannage):
Gerry Charlebois, A1 Financing & Loans
Hon. Stan Keyes, P.C., Canadian Payday Loan Association
Your Committee received the following written submission on Bill (No. 19) – The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les courtiers d'hypothèques et la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières:
Murray J. Taylor, IGM Financial Inc.
Bill Considered and Reported
· Bill (No. 12) – The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location à usage d'habitation
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill, without amendment.
· Bill (No. 14) – The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Payday Loans)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (prêts de dépannage)
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill, without amendment.
· Bill (No. 19) – The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les courtiers d'hypothèques et la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill, without amendment.
· Bill (No. 22) – The Cooperatives Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les coopératives
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill, without amendment.
Ms. Braun: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for St. Norbert (Ms. Brick), that the report of the committee be received.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for Rossmere, seconded by the honourable Member for St. Norbert, that the report of the committee be received.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Tabling of reports; ministerial statements.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today the Minister of Agriculture for the State of Punjab, India, Honourable Mr. Sucha Singh Langah; and the managing director for Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., Mr. Santosh Kumar Sandhu.
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today, and these are the guests of the honourable minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives.
And also in the public gallery we have with us from Wild Rose School, we have 7 grade 5 to 9 students under the direction of Mr. Marshall Toews. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
Oral questions.
Campaign Rebates Investigation
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): In addition to the false election returns filed by the NDP after the 1999 election, it appears that the NDP manufactured a paper trail that included cheque swaps that totalled more than $150,000, and it appears, also, Mr. Speaker, to, to have involved questionable invoices.
Mr. Speaker, all this was designed to take Manitoba taxpayers to the cleaners, all of which is known to Elections Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) said that these transactions were deliberate and that, as he understands it, the practice had been going on for an extended period of time prior to 1999.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance what steps, if any, he has taken as a trustee of taxpayers' money to recover money wrongly paid to the NDP in the period prior to 1999.
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, one would note that the, the Minister of Finance obviously was involved and commented yesterday on this issue. When the filing was made with Elections Manitoba, it was first–firstly accepted. It was then brought to our attention that there was concerns that they had in terms of the filing, and we worked with them in a co-operative way. We worked with them in a co-operative way to amend the statements and the money was paid back.
I also would want to point out, Mr. Speaker, just to make sure on the big picture that the public is aware of what's going on. In the 1999 election, in terms of a level playing field, the Conservatives did outspend the NDP in the 1999 election.
In the 2003 election–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Order. Let's have some order, please. We need to hear the questions and the answers.
The honourable First Minister has the floor.
Mr. Doer: In the 2003 election, under former Leader of the Opposition Murray, the NDP did outplay, out–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Order. Order. The honourable First Minister's time has expired.
Mr. McFadyen: We are, we are aware of the fact that, that between party, union and government spending in 2007, they spent three times as much of us, and I'm sure that's gonna be his next point. But, beyond that, Mr. Speaker, beyond demanding and reserving–and receiving a self-serving letter from his central party, beyond demanding and receiving this self-serving letter on the part of the Minister of Finance, what steps did the minister take to raise this with the leader of his party, and what other steps did he take to protect Manitoba taxpayers who he has been sworn to defend?
Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, and I would point out that this party in dealing with the issues in, in 1995 and then, again, in 1999, promised to ban union and corporate donations. Certainly we did so in the belief that it improved the level playing field and democracy. We did so in recognition of the, the challenges in terms of union donations that were made to us over the years. We also did so in terms of the corporate donations that were made to the Conservative Party, some of which came from companies that borrowed money from the provincial government and never paid it back.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Doer: I'm sure they had the same concern for the taxpayers when those transactions happened, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, and we are, we–we're familiar with the union contributions made to the NDP in 2007, and we'll have a discussion about that as time goes forward.
But, referring to the issue of, of the Finance Minister's comments yesterday, we know that it was a deliberate scheme. We know that a paper trail was put together. There, there was a cheque swap, a series of transactions. There were questionable invoices. There were false returns. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) said yesterday that he knows it was deliberate. He knows it went on for an extended period of time.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance: Why hasn't he done his duty? Why hasn't he gone and recovered that money on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba?
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would note that the, the Minister of Finance talked at great length about the capacity and decision to ban union and corporate donations. We–I would point out that between 1990 and 1994, contributions to the Conservative Party from brokerage firms that worked eventually for MTS were $49,000. From '95 to 90–2000, the bro–same brokerage firms donated $150,000 of corporate donations in return–in return for the sale of the telephone company–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Doer: –we're more than willing to–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Order. Order. Let's have some order. We don't need no shouting back and forth here. Order. It's time for questions and responses to questions.
The honourable First Minister has the floor.
Mr. Doer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was over 100,000 additional money collected from brokerage firms that were hired by the Conservative government to sell the telephone system against the wishes of Manitobans. So let not the members act like Snow White. We worked with Ma–Elections Manitoba. We worked with them in a co-operative way, and we stand by the decisions with Elections Manitoba.
* (13:50)
Campaign Rebates Investigation
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the NDP 1999 election scandal, the wall that they're content to hide behind is that Elections Manitoba conducted an investigation. We learnt yesterday that one of the NDP official agents who had his election return falsified by the NDP party, to trigger taxpayers' dollars back to the NDP, was never even interviewed by Elections Manitoba.
The Minister of Finance wants us to believe that he didn't hear about it to 2003, and I gather that he wasn't interviewed.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Goertzen: –does the government still want to hide behind the crumbling wall that there was an investigation when the official agents and the candidates weren't even interviewed by Elections Manitoba?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I, I note that the elections report that the members opposite are talking about, some wall, Mr. Speaker. This was tabled in 2004 in this Legislature, in December, in this House, tabled in this House, available to all the public. It went–it went to the legislative committee in December of 2004. It went to the legislative committee in 2006. It went to the legislative committee in 2008.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: It went to the legislative committee and the Chief Electoral Officer answered in 2009. We co‑operate with Elections Manitoba. We trust their integrity. This report was public, and we worked with them, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, there was no answer to the question. Elections Manitoba, Elections Manitoba didn't bother to interview–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Goertzen: –the official agents.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Order. The honourable Member for Steinbach.
Mr. Goertzen: The Elections Manitoba didn't bother to interview the official agents who had their election returns falsified. They didn't talk to the candidates. It's a bit like after a bank robbery not having the police talk to the people who were actually in the bank when the robbery took place.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, the only person Elections Manitoba was interested in are the ones who apparently conducted the scheme. That's who they talked to.
Does the campaign co-chair for the 1999 campaign, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), does he still stand behind the fact that this was a good investigation when they didn't bother to interview the official agents, when they didn't bother to interview the candidates who had their returns changed, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, under the Conservative des–definition, if you file a statement and then amend a statement, allegedly under the Conservatives, it's false. One should look at a number of people that have amended their statements from the 2007 election. Elections Manitoba could speak for themselves. They don't need the member from Steinbach, they don't need the member from Steinbach–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Let's have some order. Order. Order, please. Let's have a little decorum here. The honourable First Minister has the floor.
Mr. Doer: Elections Manitoba can speak for themselves. They cou–they presented before the committee in 2008 with many media members present–that the Deloitte accounting firm was involved in the, in this issue. They also stated that Michael Green and Blair Graham were involved. I would suggest with the greatest respect to the member of Steinbach, they have a lot more credibility as lawyers than the member opposite, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, in fact, Elections Manitoba can't speak for themselves. We'd love to know why they didn't interview the 13 official agents. We'd love to know why they didn't interview the candidates. You know–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Goertzen: –the only people that they responded to was the NDP who pressured them to get rid of the forensic auditor on the 1999 campaign. You know, it was the Premier who in 1998, on June 25th, said that when there was an investigation by Elections Manitoba, there was found to be lacking, that there needed to be, and I quote, a credible person who is independent of the first ingest–investigation to conduct an investigation into the new allegations.
Does he stand by the comment back in 1998?
Mr. Doer: Yes I do, Mr. Speaker, and if you go on further through the comments, you'll find, that they, that I stated they didn't have the tools. They didn't have The Evidence Act. They didn't have the ability to have forensic audits. They didn't have the ability to have an independent, an independent, an independent person who could prosecute crimes. All of those changes were made post the Monnin inquiry. Justice Monnin came to the same conclusion I did, that Elections Manitoba was a, was a body–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: a body–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: –a body of integrity, a body that with–that all they required was more tools. They made recommendations to the Legislature. We changed the, the, The Elections Act, Mr. Speaker.
And I'll go on further on Mr. Balasko's comments 'cause he made a number of comments in July of '08 and in '09, not all of which was reported and should be on the public record.
Forensic Auditor Concerns
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): When we asked Mr. Balasko to explain the investigations, he said, sorry, I can't talk to you about that. We asked the question over and over again. The Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) asked him the same series of questions nine times in a row, Mr. Speaker, and that was the response we got.
Now, Mr. Speaker, David Asselstine, who is a respected forensic auditor, in fact, has worked on behalf of the International Monetary Fund, he's a certified fraud investigator, he is a respected international forensic auditor, has raised concerns with Elections Manitoba about another separate issue, one that's separate and apart from the issue of the cheque swaps and false returns that we're now talking about. The issue involves a dispute between Mr. Asselstine and Mr. Balasko over contributions to the federal and the provincial New Democratic Party.
Can the Premier shed any light on any transactions involving the provincial and federal NDP that caught the attention of this internationally respected forensic auditor?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, the matters dealing–we did not have two bank accounts as we saw with the Lombard account and the Progressive Conservative Party. Everything in terms of the financial statements is available to Deloitte, as Mr. Balasko has testified, and available to Mr. Green and Mr. Blair Graham.
Mr. Speaker, we know that they go over the forms. In fact, they went over them in considerable length. That's the conclusions they made. This report was tabled on December of 2004. It was before the legislative committee and on a number of occasions, Mr. Balasko said, and I quote, we rely on independent legal advice, we rely on the individual that all of us have accepted as the investigator for Elections Manitoba.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Asselstine raised concerns with Blair Graham in 2004 about the Deloitte opinion that the Premier is referring to and the fact that he had never been contacted by Deloitte's in connection with whatever review it was that they undertook, Mr. Speaker. We know that that review has never been released publicly, even though there is a legal requirement for auditors' statements to be on the public record, and now we have a situation where Mr. Asselstine has raised a concern and is in a dispute with Mr. Balasko over certain contributions made to the federal and the provincial New Democratic parties.
I want to ask the Premier whether he has any concern about the fact that Mr. Asselstine and Mr. Balasko have differing opinions on this and whether this may call for somebody independent to take a look at all the files and come to a conclusion that Manitobans can have faith in.
Mr. Doer: The individual mentions that he would discuss it with Blair Graham, the legal counsel for Elections Manitoba. Mr. Balasko said at the committee that he discussed these issues with Mr. Graham and Mr. Green. He said that at the committee nine or 10 times, and he relied on their advice.
Mr. Speaker, the individual the member opposite mentioned, said, you know, we would lose elections. That's his opinion. He's entitled to it. At the end of the day, any kind of issues of law are dealt with by the two lawyers that report to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the Elections Manitoba prosecutions following 1999, one of the judges commented on the heavy-handed approach taken by Elections Manitoba toward Tory candidates.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what the view would have been of those people who were involved if they had been aware of these transactions which Mr. Asselstine raised in a letter to Mr. Graham as a concern about the incomplete disclosure contained in the Elections Manitoba report which didn't come out until after the 2003 election, and which didn't come out until after the 2003 election because as Mr. Asselstine says, he and Mr. Balasko agreed that may have had an impact on that election if the public was made aware of what had gone on.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier if he can shed any light today to restore the credibility of all involved in the process on the transactions that Mr. Asselstine is referring to involving the provincial and the federal NDP, or whether the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Blaikie) can help us with that one.
Mr. Doer: On page 17 of the report, page 17 of the report goes into full detail. I won't have time to go through it. If members opposite haven't read it yet, it was tabled in this House in December of 2004. It was at the committee in 2004. It was at the committee in 2006.
Mr. Speaker, if members opposite thought this was a huge issue, I assume they would have raised it in the election campaign in 2007. You know, maybe I should stand up here and whine about fighting two political parties in 1995. Maybe I should complain that the overexpenditure that was made in 9, 2 thou, in 1995 didn't become public until 2000.
That's not the way it works, Mr. Speaker.
* (14:00)
Forensic Auditor Concerns
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, the 1999 election investigation by Elections Manitoba seems to have been nothing more than talking to the NDP people who had the most to hide. The official agents were never called. It doesn't appear that the candidates who had their returns changed were ever contacted. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), who was only worried about protecting himself, he says he didn't know. The chief ethics officer for the NDP, the Premier (Mr. Doer), he wasn't talking about it.
Now we learn that there was another matter that was also investigated by Elections Manitoba, and that appears to be the issue of taking a contribution for the provincial NDP and splitting that donation, that tax receipt, with the federal NDP.
Does the Minister of Justice, or does the Premier, do they know how rigorously this investigation was into this issue?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): You know, Mr. Speaker, calling out names and calling out allegations, one-sided–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Chomiak: –is the way things worked when Monnin said he'd never seen so many liars in his life.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Chomiak: I know that Elections Manitoba investigated me.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Chomiak: I know Elections Manitoba investigated other members of this House. Then they bring about a result. The fact that some of your candidates were convicted is a problem for you. The fact that they said to us, amend your regulations and we accept it, is what happened.
Because you can't handle the truth, Mr. Speaker, you have to make allegations spuriously in this House.
Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table for the House a letter written in December of 2004 to Elections Manitoba lawyer by the, by Mr. David Asseltine, the world-renowned forensic auditor who will also look at the 1999 election campaign.
In the letter, in the letter, Mr. Asseltine indicates that the CEO of Elections Manitoba looked into the legality of federal NDP tax receipts being issued for donations that may not have been intended for the federal party. While the CEO concluded that charges were not warranted–and, boy, that sounds familiar–Mr. Asseltine says that he may not have been of the same opinion, but he was not able to make that final conclusion because he wasn't given the information to look into it.
Mr. Speaker, does the NDP co-chair for the 1999 campaign, the Minister of Justice, does he know how thoroughly this was investigated?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, and I swear I never beat my dog.
You know, Mr. Speaker, allegations are made–you know, I just love these guys. Allegations are made to the CEO who says there's no basis for charges, and now–allegations are made. The CEO says there's no charges, and you stand up six years later–
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Chomiak: –and try to make an issue out of it. The leader of the Liberal Party stood up and said there was a problem with NDP hacks working at the Legislature. We were investigated. No charges were laid. The Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) stood up and investigated. You're being investigated. I suspect we're all being investigated. If charges are laid, charges are laid. We'll deal with it.
When the auditor said there was an accounting error, it was fixed. It was put in the report and it was public.
This is an opinion. This is an opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the CEO rejected.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Goertzen: I think if the Minister of Justice had a dog, it might help his temperament a little bit, Mr. Speaker.
Elections Manitoba investigation didn't include the official agent. It didn't include the candidates. The forensic auditor who was investigating was removed after the NDP complained about him. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) was worried, so he got a letter to try to cover himself. The president of Treasury Board, an official agent from the NDP, some of the media are calling for an inquiry.
The Premier (Mr. Doer), himself, in the past said that when there was a bad investigation by Elections Manitoba, there needed to be an outside investigator, another credible source. You know, there are now further questions about how tax receipts were issued by the NDP, whether they were split between the provincial and the federal party.
Is the Premier so concerned about his political skin, is he so worried about his political legacy that he won't do the right thing like other premiers in the past have done who had integrity and called for that public inquiry?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, there's been hours and hours of committee testimony on this. There was an investigation. The members opposite alleged it was a bad investigation. They argued. They argued it for hours.
Mr. Speaker, the federal Conservative Party was found–
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Order. Order. The honourable member asked a question. Let the honourable member give a response. The shouting back and forth trying to drown the member out is not gonna work in this House. We have to hear the questions and the answers.
The honourable Attorney General has the floor.
Mr. Chomiak: Elections Canada found that the federal Conservative Party used a cheque-swapping scheme. The federal Conservative Party took Elections Canada to court.
Mr. Speaker, we have an independent process. It's independently investigated. Now to go back six years and start dropping letters about opinions and allegations that are made, that are investigated, that are reviewed and put into a report, when, in fact, in 1995 the same thing happened with the Conservative Party when their auditor would not sign off on a statement. He refused–it's in, it's in the report. He did not sign the statement, and the Tories had to give the money back. It's the exact same thing except we–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Chomiak: –have more rigorous controls now.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mandatory Physical Education Program
Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, we have an alarming crisis in Manitoba or rather another alarming crisis in Manitoba where nearly one out of every three children in the province is overweight, and the response to this crisis, we have the Minister of Education who promotes light dusting as physical activity for grade 11 and 12 students.
I ask the minister: Has he ever participated in a physical fitness program himself that he would know that light dusting isn't going to raise your heart rate, let alone break out in sweat? Can this minister admit that his mandatory phys ed program, at an initial cost of $2.1 million to the taxpayer, is more about scoring political points and less about improving the health of our young people?
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know where to begin with that question, but I do recall the promises made by the opposition in 2003 election that they would focus spending on basic education and determine whether physical education, art, music, performing arts, band and other specialized programs are part of that new definition. That's what they said.
Two or three schools might have to share one phys ed or music teacher if the subject was not considered part of basic education. Well, Mr. Speaker, we think that physical education is part of basic education. We think that physical education is something that has been recommended by the all-party task force, that we have it compulsory in grade 11 and 12. It is compulsory in grade 11 and 12, and we have research conducted to assess the impact of that model, and we're finding it's working.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, 31 percent of Manitoba's children and youth are considered overweight or obese. Where's the minister been? He should know that number.
We also know that 87 percent of children and youth are not meeting the physical activity guideline of 90 minutes of physical activity a day. Fortunately, we have an NDP government who would rather develop farcical programs to score political points rather than take, than take real action to improve the overall health of our young people. For example, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) suggested that sandbagging be included in the school curriculum.
Great. Our kids, Mr. Speaker, our kids with–our kids have the highest drop-out rate in the nation, but they can sure make a mean sandbag–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Schuler: I ask this–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Schuler: –Minister of Education: Is he satisfied with his failed mandatory phys ed program that promotes light dusting–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Schuler: –and a degree in sandbagging–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Schuler: –as part of an active lifestyle?
Mr. Bjornson: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and you know, it's, it's rather fascinating because this is a group that was going to fund $10 million for all schools. That was the increase they proposed for schools of excellence, and he's making light of the fact that we spent $2.1 million last year on the education curriculum alone.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had our education consultants at national conferences where they are holding up our curriculum as an example nationally, and the healthy kids, the Active Healthy Kids Canada report that was issued, said in September of '08, Manitoba became the first province in Canada to take a strong leadership role regarding phys ed policy. [interjection] Now–if heckling was a credit they'd, they'd have graduated long ago. [interjection] They'll be repeating that for a few years.
* (14:10)
Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba is the fourth fattest province in all of Canada. The minister should be doing his job. To turn this crisis around, we need to get our kids more active throughout all their school years. To think that we can turn overweight, sedate kids into robust lean versions of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt in grade 11 and 12 by putting a feather duster in their hands is absurd. This 2.1‑million mandatory phys ed program was flawed from the start because this minister didn't take into account the lack of resources and facilities.
One family was outraged. Their son was wasting time in a computer lab in a mandatory gym class. How do students achieve physical fitness sitting at a computer?
Will he roll up his sleeves, show leadership and actually deal with the health issues facing our students?
Mr. Bjornson: Well, as, as the Active Healthy Kids Canada report card said, the value of this policy is that it requires specific amounts of physical education and stems the drop-out in phys ed typically observed during secondary school. In other provinces, rate of participation in phys ed declined dramatically once the required credits are completed. We in Manitoba require compuls–compulsory physical education, Mr. Speaker.
And, Mr. Speaker, if he–if he were to talk to the phys ed teachers across Manitoba, he'd get a much different version of his, his perspective on the realities in our schools, and he's really not giving credit to those phys ed teachers across Canada, but, of course, they don't talk to teachers. They don't listen to teachers, so they wouldn't understand this.
Physical education teachers across the province have embraced this program, and there is daily quality physical education. And, yes, there is a component that does require learning about health and the healthy living choices that you make, and that's why it's computer based for some of the learning that is required in the health curriculum, Mr. Speaker. It's a holistic approach.
First Nation Communities Consultations
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, Bill 6, The East Side Traditional Lands Planning and Special Protected Areas Act, is going to committee this evening.
The Minister of Conservation said when the bill was introduced: For, for too many years, people living in the east side–on the east side of Lake Winnipeg living in First Nations have been left out of the decision-making process.
I have been informed that the only consultation was a brief meeting where the Province made a PowerPoint presentation. After the presentation, the government picked up every copy of the presentation.
Mr. Speaker, how can Manitobans have any faith in the decisions that this government makes when they don't include Manitobans in their decision-making process and they want to unilaterally develop a land-use strategy?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): I would–I would advise the member opposite to do a little bit of homework before she comes in and makes those kind of allegations, 'cause she's just wrong again, Mr. Speaker.
I'll have the member think back to many conversations we have had here, where we have informed the House that over 80 meetings on the east side of Lake Manitoba have occurred, Mr. Speaker. That's a start. We did get together with those chiefs that the member has recognized in her question today, and we met with them.
Since then, we've met with each of the different regions in which we're looking at management boards for each of them. We've met with those chiefs and councils in those meetings. We've done a whole series of meetings in the communities with chiefs and councils, with their elders, a whole host of meetings with the communities themselves.
We've been there; we've done that consultation, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Rowat: And this minister is misinforming the House. Those discussions were suspended over three years ago without any resolution, and any ideas that were presented were dis–dis–displaced, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Gods Lake Narrows First Nation wanted to make a presentation on Bill 6. They were informed by fax this morning that committee was meeting tonight. This commun–community is isolated. The ice roads are not in operation, and the community members could only access Winnipeg by plane.
Mr. Speaker, does this minister not realize that this legislation impacts one-seventh of Manitoba is captured in this bill?
Mr. Speaker, how can community members be expected to travel to Winnipeg with less than one day's notice? Gods Lake Narrows is 547 kilometres by air northeast of Winnipeg. How can this government claim that they are being inclusive to these communities?
Mr. Struthers: At, at many of those meetings that the member refuses to believe were actually attended by those chiefs that she's talking about, we talked about the procedure by which they could register to make presentations on Bill 6 when it, when it did pass at second reading.
Those who registered were informed by the Clerk's office, in their very efficient way, to those who had put their names forward to be notified and they were all notified. Over and above that, Mr. Speaker, I took it upon myself to contact each of the, of the chiefs involved to make sure that they knew that this bill was coming forward because only one of the chiefs had put their name forward on the list.
So I thought that would be a good thing for me to do to contact them. We sent letters. We faxed them letters as soon as we knew, and we contacted the band offices and talked to the chiefs directly. So, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Minnedosa is just wrong.
Mrs. Rowat: Mr. Speaker, the chief for Gods Lake Narrows received a fax from this minister's office this morning telling them of the committee tonight. That's not communication.
When the–a chief asked for a clarification and indicated the concern of getting to Winnipeg, this minister had no response and no solution for him. It is clear that proper consultation has not taken place. There is need for open discussion, and we need to ensure that proper consultation does take place.
East-side communities wanna be given an opportunity to understand and accept the options. Instead, this government is making decisions and ignoring these communities.
Mr. Speaker, when will the minister defer this–will the minister defer this bill until the fall so that the communities affected are given a real opportunity to participate in this process? They are not consulting. They are stonewalling this–the communities on the east side.
Mr. Struthers: This, this approach by the Member for Minnedosa is a thin disguise for their non-support of a historic piece of legislation that will finally, finally, Mr. Speaker, include these First Nations in the decision making.
Mr. Speaker, two months ago, when I met with Chief Andrews of Gods Lake, we talked about the process by which he could get on the list to be notified like everybody else in the province when the bill comes forward for presentation.
I spoke with Chief Andrews today and we talked about Bill 6, and I explained to him the process, again, by which you would go to get your name forward to, to be, to make presentations. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, this government ma–remains committed to working with Chief Andrews and every other chief on the east side of Lake Winnipeg so that we can right the wrongs of the past, which former members never had the courage to do.
Campaign Returns
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, following the 1999 provincial election, the campaign central of the New Democrat Party, which is chaired or co-chaired by today's Minister of Justice, instructed that 13 candidates, NDP candidates, would change a donation of kind into a cheque exchange for the party central which would, if successful, would have illegally gotten over $70,000 for the NDP party.
The question I have for the Minister of Justice was, is: Was the Minister of Justice aware that the NDP campaign central intending on doing this before it was actually done?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member may or may not have been present at the committee when these matters were, were publicly made in 2004, and it indicated that following the '99 election, amended forms, form 921, of 13 candidates filed amended statements and the financial statements contained expenses such as gas expenses, whereas the detailed review concluded that the expenses should have been classified as donations in kind.
The subsequent amendments had implications for reimbursements that had been paid to them, the New Democratic Party, and the resulting $76,036 overpayment of election expense and reimbursements have been repaid.
The Auditor went on to say in committee that this has happened with every single political party, Mr. Speaker–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Public Inquiry
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is making my case. You see, I asked him if he was aware of something and he goes off complete topic avoiding answering the question.
Manitobans have a right to know the truth. Trying to get this Premier–it would be easier to get this Premier to resign, Mr. Speaker, than to have him call a public inquiry. This Premier refuses to call a public inquiry. It would, as I say, it would be easier to get him to resign.
Mr. Speaker, the public interest, the public interest would be best served if there was a public inquiry. When the Premier, when the Premier was in opposition he had no problem calling for public inquiries. Can he tell Manitobans why he refuses to call public inquiries when, in fact, there is justification and need? All he needs to do is to look at his seat buddy and he will see the need, Mr. Speaker.
* (14:20)
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, since, since I have been in this House and in this Chamber, the only member who has ever threatened to resign if he was proved wrong on the record was the Member for Inkster who threatened and said he would resign if he was proved wrong. He was proved wrong. I think he can be–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Chomiak: If he wants to talk about resignation, let him do the honourable thing that he promised both in the Chamber and in the hallway, Mr. Speaker. He said if these claims–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Chomiak: –that I'm making that I sat on for six months and didn't reveal for six months, but if these claims are found to be not true, I will resign. He said that in the Chamber, and he said that here. He ought to explain that before he starts pointing fingers at other individuals, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I never did like Goofy from the cartoons, and, and, you know, it's, it's a fairly simple and straightforward–[interjection]
Mr., Mr. Speaker, you know, I, looked–I looked at the Premier (Mr. Doer) and I–ref–have one of those flashbacks. Remember to the–in the '90s where you'd see the Premier jumping from his seat: we want a public inquiry on this; we want a public inquiry on this; it's in the public's best interest.
That was the Premier back then. Now when there's a genuine need, there's a justification for a public inquiry the Premier says nothing. And that's why I say it'd be easier to get him to resign than to call a public inquiry. The reality is it's in Manitoba's best interest to have a public inquiry.
What has changed, Mr. Premier? Why do you believe that public inquiries have no place in Manitoba's society today?
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, Mr. Speaker, while the member is having flashbacks, I wonder if it'll flash back to the time when he stood up in this House and said if his allegations weren't proved true, he would resign. Is that–is that part of the memory process in his flashback?
And I also like to indicate to the member opposite that Elections Manitoba said, Mr. Speaker–Mr. Speaker, the Elections Manitoba said that every single political party in this House, there is not a political party, quote election Manitoba, that hasn't refiled a financial statement that has not repaid reimbursement at one point, in some cases, more than once–I think the Liberals, but I don't know–this has not happened in the past across the board having not resulted in prosecutions in either cases.
Let me repeat it again: there is not a political party in this House that hasn't refiled a financial statement. Process that for a while and maybe flash back [inaudible]
Government Initiatives
Ms. Jennifer Howard (Fort Rouge): This is Access Awareness Week this week, and I had the great opportunity this morning to tour one of the most inclusive and the newest accessible housing communities in the city at Place Bertrand, and I would like the Minister of Family Services and Housing, the minister responsible for people with disabilities, to inform the House of the new strategy taking place to ensure accessibility for all people in Manitoba.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister responsible for Persons with Disabilities): Just, Mr. Speaker, initially, I think I want to thank the MLA for Fort Rouge for her dedication and hard work to co‑ordinate the development of the strategy document.
Well, Mr. Speaker, today, along with the member for tr–minister for Training and Trade and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and many members of the community, were able to launch a proposed new strategy for Manitobans with disabilities.
But, Mr. Speaker, while consultations are ongoing, we wanted to ensure that there was immediate action as well, and as a down payment we've committed $30 million in, in funding to ensure more options for housing–accessible housing to enhance accessibility at 39 public buildings across Manitoba, to enhance services for Manitobans with disabilities, to enhance the inclusion policies and the work in child care, and as well, the employment services available for Manitobans with disabilities. We have to make sure this is a province for everyone.
Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.
Members' statements.
Food Development Centre in Punjab
Mr. Mohinder Saran (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the beginning of a historic new partnership between Manitoba and India. Today, the Province signed a memorandum of understanding with the State of Punjab to market Manitoba's expertise in supporting the establishment of a food development centre in Punjab to help expand India's agrifood industry.
Joining us in the building for this announcement were the Honourable Sardar Sucha Singh Langah, minister of agriculture for the State of Punjab and Mr. Santosh Kumar Sandhu, managing director for the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation.
This new partnership builds on the positive agriculture, trade and business relationships this government has been developing with India in recent years. Alliances developed between governments and agribusiness industries have since helped to create mutually beneficial economic, educational, research and development and commercial relations.
This new partnership promotes Manitoba's expertise in the agrifood industry. The Food Development Centre in Portage la Prairie is a leader in agricultural innovation. As a specialist facility, it has developed expertise in client and facility management, food safety processes that are consistent with market demands and pilot plant procedures.
The exchange of knowledge, research and technology will create profitable advantages for both Manitoba and India. The ability to foster economic growth and support commercialization of value‑added agrifood processing are important activities to any country moving to expand its agrifood industry.
Mr. Speaker, this memorandum of understanding signifies our willingness to act in the spirit of co‑operation with India. Our province has much to offer in all aspects of the agriculture and food development industry, and this partnership will only bring about new opportunities for both Punjab and Manitoba. Thank you.
Renee Kaplan
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Renee Kaplan on being the recipient of the Lieutenant-Governor's Volunteer Service Award. This award recognizes individuals throughout Manitoba for their contributions to the community through voluntary services.
I have known Renee for 10 years through my contact with Oak Park High School as the MLA for Charleswood. Renee has always been quick to offer her involvement in any projects that involve youth and the school.
As founder and teacher adviser for the Community Service Committee and the Youth in Philanthropy program, Renee has been a driving force behind these active groups. She firmly believes that students can make a difference in society, and she can point to the efforts of these students. Over the past 10 years, she and her students have raised over $500,000 for different charities. This included $33,000 for UNICEF Canada, where they have been the highest fundraiser amongst high schools in Canada, and $31,000 for World Vision.
The Community Service Committee has raised money and volunteered their time for causes such as UNICEF, World Vision Canada, diabetes research, the Women's Legal Education and Action fund, the Children's Wish Foundation and the Christmas Cheer Board. This year's project is raising money for the homeless.
Over the last 10 years, Renee has involved hundreds of students in service learning. Students have worked at Winnipeg Harvest, Siloam Mission and Agape. They have also organized whole school initiatives in support of Darfur, in opposition to land mines, and in efforts to bring sports equipment, eyeglasses and fresh water to areas of the third world. They have organized blood drives at Oak Park, placing first with the highest percentage of blood donors from 65 high schools from 2002 to the present.
Renee Kaplan also works with the Asper Foundation Human Rights and Holocaust Studies Program. She has participated in trips to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., to learn about human rights issues. Renee and two other teachers created the curriculum that is being used nationally in schools participating in the program. This education program is going to be part of the program of the Canadian Museum of Human Rights when it opens.
Oak Park High School and the Charleswood community are very fortunate to have such a dynamic, passionate and committed professional teaching our youth. Her commitment to youth and to seeing them blossom as integral members of the community has made a significant impact in Charleswood.
I congratulate Renee on this tremendous honour and want to acknowledge her unwaivering dedication to our youth. Renee was also nominated for a Woman of Distinction Award this year. Her commitment to excellence in education and devotion to community service are very much appreciated by our community. She has certainly done her part in making our world a better place by volunteering countless hours mentoring Oak Park students who will be our future leaders. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Family Choices Program
Ms. Erin Selby (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, with more and more parents participating in the labour market, demand for safe and quality child care has been increasing over the years. Parents are facing a difficult task of balancing both work and family commitments, especially in the current economic environment. We are committed as a government to providing families with more choices to help them better strike that balance.
On May 27th, the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Mr. Mackintosh) and I provided an update on Family Choices, Manitoba's five-year plan for chi–early learning and child care.
* (14:30)
We made the announcement at the construction site of the newest facility for Rainbow Day Nursery in my constituency. Eleven point four million dollars in new funding was committed to support new child‑care sites, revitalize existing child-care centres, create more child-care spaces, hire more child-care workers, enhance child safety, and develop a curriculum framework.
In 2007, we promised to create 2,500 newly funded child-care spaces across Manitoba within the first two years, and I'm proud to report that since then, we've surpassed that commitment creating 2,859 newly funded spaces across the province and on our way to creating 6,500 newly funded spaces by 2013.
In my constituency of Southdale, there are a large number of young working families, and I'm happy to announce that since June 2007, the Rainbow Day Nursery in Southdale has seen a 33 percent increase in newly funded child-care spaces with 20 newly funded infant spaces, 38 newly funded preschool spaces and 127 newly funded school-age spaces. The new Rainbow Day Nursery, located at the corner of Berver Hil–Beaverhill Boulevard and Vermillion Road, is expected to be up and running this summer.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank Karen McDonald, president of Rainbow Day Nursery parent board; Diane Hale, executive director of Rainbow Day Nursery; the staff of Rainbow Day Nursery, along with all the parents who volunteered their time to make this project happen. I'm proud to be part of a government that believes in and is committed to early learning and child care and will continue to work towards creating more child-care spaces for families in Manitoba. Thank you.
Souris Velocity Volleyball Team
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): I would like to take this opportunity to extend my most sincere congratulations to the Souris Velocity volleyball team for an exciting and successful season. The Souris Velocity team consists of players Tanner Butler, Troy Chandler, Sosefo Gordon, Luke Hill, Sean Morrison, Cameron Rowat, Colby Suski and Brett Young.
They competed in the Manitoba Volleyball Association provincial championships on April 17 and 18 in Winnipeg, bringing home a bronze medal and earning a spot at the national championships in Ottawa from April 30 to May 3. The team experienced an exciting and challenging tournament in Ottawa, which was held at beautiful Carlton University. An astonishing 216 teams participated in the event and more than 3,000 spectators attended the locally televised and Web cast tournament.
Team Velocity faced some tough competition throughout the tournament and felt intense pressure on the first day of matches. They lost the first three games in tie breakers, but by the second day, those nerves had settled and Velocity won all their games. The final day of competition was even more intense than the first as Velocity faced their opponents in the tier 2 gold medal game. The young men played solidly but lost the final match to settle for a very respectable silver medal.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to again congratulate the Velocity team on their success at both the provincial and national levels. I would also like to congratulate and thank coaches Warren Birch, Becky Young and Rhonda Young for their outstanding coaching and for being a force of encouragement to these young men.
As a community and as parents, we are very proud of you and wish you all the best as you take the time to celebrate your recent accomplishments and achievements and reflect on a successful season. Well done.
Youville Centre
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): The Youville Centre is a community-based accessible health resource for the communities of St. Vital and St. Boniface. It is a place where individuals and families can work on their health concerns with health professionals or with others who have similar experiences. The Youville Centre officially opened on February the 2nd, 1984 in St. Boniface. In 1998, a second set of doors–office–doors opened in St. Vital.
I rise today to celebrate Youville Centre's 25th anniversary. Youville Centre was named after a pioneer, Saint Marguerite d'Youville, a widow, who founded the religious order, the Order of Sisters of Charity of Montreal, commonly known as the Grey Nuns of Montreal. Orphaned at a young age, a student without funds, a mother of six, a bereaved parent, a deserted spouse, a debt-burdened widow, she dared to be different and learned how to overcome challenges and keep moving forward towards building a positive future.
Youville Centre has continued on the tradition of determination and daring to be different. They are a community-based health organization that provides a diverse mix of services ranging from health care and wellness education to counselling and support. They encourage people to become involved in the management of their own health concerns. The mission of the Youville Centre is to enhance the health of individuals with respect, compassion and hope, to support them in a caring and nurturing environment. The Youville Centre has long been recognized as a Manitoba centre of excellence in diabetes education and services, and recently had a $500,000 expansion which will mean even better care for Manitobans affected by this disease.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members of the Legislature to join me in wishing Youville Centre's continued success in the community.
Mr. Speaker: Grievances; orders of the day.
(Continued)
House Business
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, could you please canvass the House to see if there's unanimous consent to extend reporting deadline of the Special Committee on Senate Reform from June 4th, 2009, to June 11th, 2009?
Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend the reporting deadline on the Special Committee on Senate Reform from June 4th, 2009, to June 11th, 2009?
Is there, is there agreement?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. There is agreement.
The honourable Government House Leader, on House business.
Mr. Chomiak: I'd–I would like to also announce, Mr. Speaker, that the Special Committee on Senate Reform will meet at 11:30 a.m. on Monday, June 8th, 2009, to consider preparations for developing the final report of the committee.
Mr. Speaker: It's been announced that the Special Committee on Senate Reform will meet at 11:30 a.m. on Monday, June 8th, 2009, to consider preparations for developing the final report of the committee.
The honourable Government House Leader, on House business.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, could you then–could you please call for third reading the following– [interjection]
By leave, Mr. Speaker, would you please call for third reading of the following bills: Bill No. 11, the highway traffic amendment act; Bill No. 13, The Medical Amendment Act; Bill No. 15, the victims' bill of rights; Bill No. 19, the mortgage dealers amendment; Bill No. 22, The Cooperatives Amendment Act.
And when those are completed, I will ask for further direction, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to, to deal with concurrence and third reading of bill, bills in this order: 11, 13, 15, 19 and 22?
Is there agreement?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. There is agreement.
Bill 11–The Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: So, now I will call concurrence and third reading of Bill No. 11, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Bill No. 11, The Highway Traffic Amendment act and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route à la Loi sur la Société d'assurance publique du Manitoba, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable Attorney General, seconded by the honourable Minister of–
An Honourable Member: Greg. Greg.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable Attorney General, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance, that Bill No. 11, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amen–Amendment Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise today, this afternoon, in the House to put some more words on the record regarding Bill 11, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act.
At second reading, I had the opportunity to speak to a few of the various issues in the act and some of them bear some elaboration and some of them bear some repeating.
The act, as we know, comes as a result of changes that happened to the federal Criminal Code in Ottawa and new provisions that were included under the federal Criminal Code for acts such as street racing and other forms of, of malfeasance under the Criminal Code, including changes to how drinking and driving is, is registered under the code. And so that resulted in a need to change Manitoba's legislation and the right to seize vehicles.
* (14:40)
It's important to remember that the decision and the act to have vehicles seized was something brought forward by the former Conservative government when it looked at ways to curb drinking and driving and other acts in society that all of us would agree need to be restricted.
There was, at the time, some individuals who suggested that it might be an unconstitutional move because the Province was, in a sense, impeding upon what was historically considered to be federal responsibility in a criminal act. But, through foresight and good determination, the legislation was found to be just and to be upheld because the Province, in fact, had the right to act administratively on issues related to property. And so the seizing of vehicles, even in relation to a Criminal Code act, was seen to be constitutional in Canada because it impacted on a, on a property issue and impacted on driver's licences which are under the provincial jurisdiction under our Constitution.
And so that is no small feat, I would say, Mr. Speaker, because it takes some degree of foresight to know that this is something that not only could impact and improve the behaviour of individuals but that will withstand the time and the test of a court challenge, which it has ultimately. In fact, that same principle was applied to the safer communities act which was introduced or its predecessor introduced in 1999 under the former Minister of Justice under the Conservative government, and it has proved to be a very successful act, one that was adopted by the NDP after they got elected after 1999 with a few changes administratively in terms of how orders get submitted under the community safety act.
And we're pleased, in fact, that the act was kept and promoted by the NDP. They sometimes forget, of course, where it originated from, that it was a Conservative government. I'm sure it's a minor oversight by the government, that they forget that that groundbreaking piece of legislation came forward under the now a member of Parliament for the constituency of Provencher and the former Filmon government.
Ms. Marilyn Brick, Acting Speaker, in the Chair
But, regardless of who brought forward the legislation, we're pleased that it's been kept and been expanded by the NDP government, in fact, replicated and modelled by provinces right across this country. But the same principle applied in the safer communities act, 'cause they were looking at ways to stop and prohibit criminal acts that would normally be cap–capsulated under the Criminal Code but using provincial jurisdiction through acting upon property and through administrative law.
And so that was certainly something that many, I remember, professors and maybe even some New Democrats, at the time, said probably wouldn't stand up in a court challenge and shouldn't be supported. But, in fact, it did stand the test of time and now it's been universally adopted and supported by all members of this House and, certainly, other provinces, and I don't hear a lot of complaints among academia or others regarding the legislation. It seems to have served a good purpose.
So good work on behalf of those who were involved with that legislation, and this is similar in the sense that we're looking at having driver's licence and vehicles removed or suspended as a result of certain criminal acts under the Criminal Code, an extension of what was done under the former Conservative government.
The changes in Ottawa to the Criminal Code are important for a number of different reasons. We've seen recently the inclusion or the commitment to an inclusion of auto theft as a separate Criminal Code offence, which is important, I think, supported, I would say, on behalf of all members of this House. I know that the New Democrats and Conservatives, and I believe even the Liberal Party, also called for that change to the Criminal Code, and so that's an important addition.
Also the provisions on street racing, which had gotten some attention here in Manitoba, and particularly in Ontario and in British Columbia, also are important in ensuring that there's a separate offence for street racing, those who would use our public roads as a forum of racing vehicles at incredible speeds and dangerous speeds, Mr. Speaker.
And so I commend the federal Conservative government for being very progressive and very bold, in many ways, in changing the legislation of the Criminal Code. In fact, I don't know that there's been a government in history, of Canadian history, that has been so aggressive in such a short period of time on laws that govern our country and that are trying to restrict criminals. And, certainly, all provinces and all provincial governments could look to Ottawa as a lesson and to have that same sense of boldness and that same sense of determination to try to create–rid the province and the country of criminals.
I note that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak) hasn't been as proactive and hasn't wanted to take the same steps as the federal government in terms of their proactiveness on crime. In fact, he often uses the shield to say that he's not able to do many of the things that the public would demand, that he puts it all over to Ottawa and says that he's powerless. In fact, Manitobans know that he collects a ministerial salary for a reason, and that's because as a Minister of Justice he does have certain powers that are entrusted to him and that are given to his office, and that's been proven by the bold action of the former Conservative government provincially and the legislation that has stood the test of time and served this province well for more than a decade now.
Also included in the changes under this act are the restriction of benefits to individuals who are convicted of some of these specific actions, whether it's street racing or others, for the benefits under Manitoba Public Insurance. I think that all members of this Legislature, and I hope that all members of the public would agree that, when an individual is convicted of an act like street racing and has injured himself or herself in that act, that they shouldn't be entitled to benefits under Manitoba Public Insurance because they themselves put themselves into a position to be injured, and that they shouldn't be compensated and in some ways enriched through that criminal action, Mr. Speaker. I think that that's a principle of fairness in a way that that shouldn't happen. There are many in society who struggle to make ends meet day to day who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in difficult circumstances. So, when an individual is convicted of an act like street racing and is injured through that act, I think it would be fair to say that most Manitobans would say that there should not be benefits that flow as a result of that criminal action.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the government could take this a little further. We remember in the past campaign that there was a discussion about benefits and since then benefits going to auto thieves, those who steal vehicles in the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba and then get into an accident and are somehow injured. While there are some reductions under the legislation in terms of the benefits that they receive, they are still entitled to more benefits than an average Manitoban–an average law-abiding citizen–would receive who is injured in some other fashion. So I think that many Manitobans and probably most Manitobans would find that to be unfair and unjust and in some ways a disincentive for individuals to stop committing crime.
To say to an individual, if you steal a car and then you get into an accident, we're going to provide you with some benefits that an ordinary law-abiding Manitoban wouldn't receive in a circumstance where they were injured in some other way would be considered to be unfair. So I would encourage the government to look at that issue again. I know that, for whatever reason, in this matter, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak) has stood behind the car thieves and said, no, we're going to ensure that they continue to have those benefits and not have the full reduction of benefits under Manitoba Public Insurance, and I say that it's difficult to reconcile the words that he sometimes has with car thieves to the actions that are taken by continuing to allow those benefits to flow.
So, while this legislation in and of itself stands as something that's worthy of supporting, it's not without improvement and it's not that there couldn't be other things that could happen within the legislation to make it stronger and to make it more effective legislation in the future in terms of trying to reduce crime and other sorts of actions in the province of Manitoba. And I know that throughout the provinces, there are many innovative pieces of legislation that are coming forward from ministers of Justice across Canada on how to fight a variety of different sorts of crimes, and I would encourage the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak) to look at those innovative measures and how to reduce crime, even Criminal Code offences, through provincial action. And I think if he did that, and it takes a degree of energy and a degree of boldness to do those sorts of things, Madam Acting Speaker, I think that the Minister of Justice would find that he would be applauded by Manitobans who want to see a tougher approach, a tougher stance on crime in Manitoba.
* (14:50)
You don't have to go very far anywheres in the province to hear the stories of victims, many, many victims of crime and, and not always just the hope–high-profile crimes. And I know that individuals who become victims and, and families of, of victims and get sort of thrust into the media because of the high-profile nature of their crimes, they do it very reluctantly, and they don't do it of their own volition, but they do come forward often because they want to make a change to the system, Madam Acting Speaker. They want to ensure that there is a, a, a change made to the system in terms of how victims are treated.
And I would say that it's not just those who are, are, are high-profile victims, but also many thousands of Manitobans who, unfortunately, on a daily basis, are victimized through property crime and a variety of other things that are sometimes written off as nuisance crimes. And I, I use that term reluctantly because I don't think that we should ever classify something as a nuisance crime because in some way every criminal action impacts an individual and, and in some cases, very deeply, even though you might think that it's a, it's a smaller kind of crime on the hierarchy of crimes that we have in Canada and Manitoba. And we always need to be remindful of the fact that individuals who are victimized in any way often carry the scars of that victimization into the future and into other aspects of their life.
And so when we look at all pieces of legislation, when it comes to the criminal justice system, it has to be through the lens, not just simply of the criminal, but also of the victim, of the individual who has been left to either deal with a, a significant emotional impact or they're a family member of somebody who's been victimized. We always must be re–remindful. That's the other side of the equation when it comes to the justice system and, unfortunately, there's a perception and probably a reality, Madam Acting Speaker, that the scales of justice tip to the, to the side of, of criminals and those who are committing crimes in our society, and very unfortunate, because not only do individuals who are victims feel victimized again by the system, but generally, across, across the province and across Canada, people lose faith in the justice system when they don't think that there's equality, when they don't think there's an equal measure within the system that that they're the, they're the forgotten voice in the court system.
And so, you know, there are more things that could be done with this piece of legislation or with others, and I would encourage the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak) in his role to ensure that he's always mindful of the fact that there are victims out there who are crying for changes to the system, and sometimes it takes bold action. I'm not going to suggest for a minute that it's easy to do. I'm not going to suggest for a minute that it's something that can, that can be taken as simply or without any sort of concern or repercussion of the actions. It does take a bold person to make these steps, 'cause you will sometimes get criticism from those who think that you're overstepping your bounds. I understand that. I recognize that. But I think, in the fullness of time, you'll find that, generally, Manitobans and Canadians will stand behind you and support you for the ideas that you bring forward, if you're doing it in a meaningful and measured way trying to change the system of justice to benefit those who have been impacted by crime.
So, in conclusion, in conclusion, Madam Acting Speaker, I know that there are other colleagues of mine in the House who want to speak to this particular bill, but I, I can indicate that we'll be supporting the legislation, but also, that we'll be looking for further changes to the laws in Manitoba to benefit victims and to ensure that there are less victims in Manitoba because crime is reduced and not increasing as it currently is in our province.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Deputy Speaker, it's with pleasure that I, I rise today to put on the record a few words in regards to Bill 8, is a bill that I think that merits a great deal of, of support.
You know, we–we're all very much aware of the harms that are caused through drinking and driving and the importance of forfeiture of driver's licence as an issue. I know that over the, over the years, you know, there has been a, a great deal of change in, in at–attitudes towards the whole issue of crime, drinking and, and driving.
You know, there's one incident that it wasn't that long ago where, in fact, you had a, a driver that was involved in an accident, at least that I was aware of, and there was alcohol that was involved and the question mark as to well, why does this particular individual derive the type of benefits or should this particular individual derive the type of benefits of someone that was not past 0.05 or 0.08.
And I think that what we've–what we have seen as, as time has progressed, legislation, both at the provincial level and at the national level, that takes a look at responsible behaviour, and this is one of those pieces of legislation that I think tries to bring some, some justification in areas in which the public is, is looking for politicians to take action on. And I think that in that sense that Bill 11 is a very important, important bill.
The ability to automatically suspend a driver's licence is very important. I can tell you first-hand, in terms of surveying that I've done within my own constituency–and I believe that if you ask Manitobans as a whole, you will find that there is a great deal of support behind the idea of being able to suspend a person's driver's licence in certain situations. And, if I reflect on some of the comments that I've had, some of those would include, first and foremost, drinking and driving. People are greatly offended by drinking and driving, and it's so encouraging when you attend–and, as we all will attend graduations over the next month, you'll find that virtually every high school has some form of a safe grad program, and the feeling of young people today and attitudes towards drinking and driving is considerably different than it was when I was graduating high school, Madam Deputy Speaker.
An Honourable Member: When was that?
Mr. Lamoureux: Oh, it'd be a few years ago anyway, '89 I think it was. No, a little while ago.
Anyway the mindset, the mindset has changed. You know, I can, I can recall attitudes of, of people when they were–and, you know, I go back into the '70s where you would have people drinking in the car with, with children and had no problems in terms of being able to do that. I believe at one point there was even a–if you got caught drinking and driving, I think it was called a 60, and it was called a 60 because it happened to be a $60 fine and that was it.
Well, we have seen the value, in terms of, of changing that–[interjection] and, and today–the member–we, we'll shy away from the age factor at this point. Let me kind of withdraw some of those comments, Ma–Madam Deputy Speaker, and get more focussed here.
The point is, is that you will find that there is, there is a great deal of public support behind suspending a driver's licence in certain situations. That is one of those situations.
Another situation I believe that is there, that is very real, is street racing. There's been so many tragedies that have occurred on Winnipeg streets, and, in fact, in, in rural communities, as a direct result of, of street racing, and that is an area in which there's very little tolerance in terms of public acceptance when you have that sort of behaviour taking place. And, again, one raises the need to be able to look and consider issues such as having immediate suspension of driver's licences.
You know, if I was to provide additional comment, which is a little bit off topic here, but I think it's an important one because it's something that is, is raised with me on, on numerous occasions, and that is, you know, what we have seen in the last number of years is a dramatic increase in the number of, of vehicles that have been stolen, and I know, when I say dramatic number, you know, I think we've kind of went–spiked up to 2003, 2004, where we had about 14,000 vehicles being stolen in the city of Winnipeg, and now I think we're back down to just under 10,000, which is still fairly high.
* (15:00)
But the point is, is that a vast, and I shouldn't say a vast majority, but a good number of those vehicles that are being stolen are being stolen by, by children, individuals that are well under the age of, of 16. And, you know, I'm not too sure in terms of exactly how best to address the issue of driver's licence once they hit 16, given that they're stealing cars before they're, they're 16, but there does need to be a consequence there. But for those individuals that are stealing cars that are ab–over the age of 16, I think that the government will find that there is a great deal of public support again at looking at the idea of suspension of driver's licence to emphasize the consequence of some of these serious crimes that are in fact taking place.
So when, when we look at Bill 11 and we, we have it before us today and anticipate that it is going to be likely passing this shortly after I sit down, I think that Manitobans as a whole will benefit by the passage of this bill and I suspect that the government will find that it does have all-party support for it.
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 concurrence and third reading of Bill No. 11, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation 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.
CONCURRENCE AND THIRD READINGS
Bill 13–The Medical Amendment Act
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Chairperson, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice, pardon me, of Finance, that Bill No. 13, The Medical Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi médicale, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Justice and seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) that Bill No. 13, The Medical Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to third reading of Bill 13, The Medical Amendment Act, and like to acknowledge that I think this is good legislation for Manitoba.
I think the issue of having physician assistants working in Manitoba is a, a good thing. I think it's innovative. We've certainly seen physician assistants being part of the system in the military in Canada and the United States for many, many years and it does make good sense to incorporate them now into our health-care system but it does become somewhat interesting to look at why we need physician assistants. And one of the things we're seeing in today's health-care system is certainly a shortage of doctors and in order to make up for that shortage of doctors there are some innovations that now are being forced upon the system and one of them is physician assistants.
Now whether or not we were in the predicament we were in, you know, this just forces the situation but certainly physician assistants could of easily been part of the system for, for sometime and would have been, you know, a significant component of it but it's interesting to see that right now with the shortage, in desperation, I guess, we, we are, are seeing the need for looking for alternatives to the shortage of doctors that we have.
We know that under this government 1,471 doctors have left Manitoba. That has created a revolving door of doctors in this province and it destabilizes your health-care system. You can't have that many doctors. It's a 60 percent turnover of doctors since the NDP came to power. That's a significant turnover of doctors and we're not doing as good as other provinces in recruiting and retaining doctors.
If we look at the statistics across Canada that will certainly be acknowledged and, and when we have a revolving door like that with that many doctors coming and going you do not have a very stable health-care system. You do not have the continuity in health care that patients want and deserve. And when you don't have continuity in health care you end up in situations where you don't have the quality of care that is needed in the system either and so patients are at the losing end of that.
And, you know, the minister likes to stand in the House a lot and talk about the number of doctors that are coming into Manitoba, but the reason they're coming into Manitoba is because we cannot keep and retain the doctors that we have, and so we're constantly in this vicious cycle of doctors and coming and going. And it creates a very destabilizing effect on the health-care system. And I would think it's probably worse in smaller communities, too, where they are going to be affected much more dramatically than the, you know, larger centres that, you know, have other doctors that they can turn to. But the smaller communities are certainly affected by this.
So, whether or not physician assistants will be able to be utilized in an innovative way in rural Manitoba is certainly going to be an interesting question to be asking in the future. And this, you know, if there was one place that we could probably use physician assistants today, it's certainly in rural Manitoba where we have now, I believe, with the closure of the Melita ER upon us, 18 rural EM–18 rural ERs closed. And that is going to, you know, continue to have a profound effect on rural Manitoba and on the health care people receive in rural Manitoba.
And research shows us that outcomes of health care for patients in rural Manitoba is far poorer than it is for patients in larger urban centres that have much more easy access to doctors. In rural Manitoba, the access isn't as easy. In fact, sometimes the access is not there at all, and patients are burdened with poor access to doctors, poor access to ERs, poor access to preventative care, poor access to health prevention. And when you add all of that together, what you end up is poorer outcomes for patients in recovering and poorer outcomes for patients in prevention of illness.
So I hope that physician assistants can be part of the solution to what we're seeing because we've seen a very, very poor job done by the NDP government, in their time in power, of retaining doctors. And even the former Minister of Health Tim Sale has publicly acknowledged that and indicated that this government has done a poor job of retaining doctors.
And we certainly haven't been able to keep a lot of our med students. Only recently has there been a turnaround in that effort, and for a long time we were only keeping one-third of our med students when they graduated. And those aren't healthy statistics for a province, and obviously a lot more has to be done to address that.
We also have seen a very, very poor percentage of rural students being accepted into medical college, which also has then a profound effect on the number of doctors we see in rural Manitoba because there is a higher tendency of those rural students, if they were to come from rural Manitoba and take their training here, we would see, in all likelihood, more of them going back to, to rural Manitoba, setting up practices there, wanting to be in their communities and with their families, and we might not have seen such a significant shortage of doctors in rural Manitoba.
You know, another aspect of doctors in rural Manitoba is the number of doctors that are actually international medical grads that we are forced to rely on in rural Manitoba. And what is happening right now, and it's very, very concerning, is the speed with which these doctors come into Manitoba and then leave. There seems to be an inability by this government to keep a lot of them in Manitoba.
We're seeing that right now in the Burntwood Regional Health Authority and, and the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) actually totally ignored the question that was asked of her the other day about how many doctors were actually leaving the Burntwood Regional Health Authority, and we have been told that it is in the vicinity of 50 percent in the last 18 months have left the Burntwood Regional Health Authority. There are a lot of costs being occurred–incurred up there because of having to bring doctors in either on locums or to have doctors that are working, you know, in, in different ways in order to try to keep that system afloat.
* (15:10)
And, and, you know, while the Minister of Health stood in the House and, and said that it's very important that we have transparency and accountability within our, our RHAs, we saw an absolute lack of it by her in this House the other day when she wouldn't even answer the questions about how many doctors were actually in the Burntwood Regional Health Authority and how many have left.
And, so, when you have the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald), you know, being so unable to provide answers here–unwilling to provide answers here–and a total lack of transparency and accountability from her, I, I can see why the RHAs behave in the same manner and don't want to provide information, either, because the Minister of Health has set the bar very low on that. And if she's going to set the bar so low and treat health-care questions as a, as a little, petty political questions and, and play a little, petty political game in the House all the time, we are never going to see the kind of, of improvements we need in health care because the, the minister has really set the bar low in terms of transparency and accountability.
Burntwood Regional Health Authority has been only one example recently of the Minister of Health choosing to play some political games in this House and, and it's such a, a, a petty way to address these challenges in health care. We have 10 freedom of information documents from 2005 that show that the two access centres in Winnipeg have trouble retaining doctors, and yet the Minister of Health, gleefully and very arrogantly, the other day just took one day in time and said, well, we don't have any doctor shortages here at the moment, while ignoring the, the track record of the last four years, which has been a significant doctor shortage. Doctors have not wanted to work in the access centres. But instead of, of, you know, coming clean with her answers in the House, instead of acknowledging the challenges there, instead of saying, yes, you know, we've heard from the doctors–and they have heard from the doctors; doctors are on record having left there, doctors are on record as being critical of how expensive these access centres have become and the doctors have been critical of how overmanaged they are there as doctors and they have not had great experiences in these access centres.
So, when we asked about it–and we can provide 10 FIPPA documents that actually attest to the fact there has been a constant doctor shortage, except now for perhaps one day in time. And the minister chooses, instead of being responsible and answering the questions about that, instead she stands in the House and makes political hay out of it.
We had a young boy we just heard about this week. And, again, maybe this is where physician assistants can come in and help, again, in a shortage of specialists; I don't know. I don't know if we can see physician assistants being able to come in and plug some of the holes with the specialist shortage that we see. But we know that in the WRHA alone, we have 80 specialist shortages right now, and it's been vacillating between 80 and 100 specialist shortages in Winnipeg over the last many, many years, so I suppose as physician assistants, there could be an opportunity here in any of these areas, if they choose to subspecialize as a physician assistant, to come in and help out. One area that would be good would be around the area of neurology because we've got two child neurologists, position vacancies, and we're also short three adult neurologists. And that area, for sure, has seen a, a pretty consistent shortage for many, many years and whether it's a troubled area, I don't know, but for some reason, again, neurology can't seem to maintain a full complement of its specialists.
So, could physician assistants fill the gap? Maybe. Maybe then this little four-year-old boy–or sorry, this 15-year-old boy wouldn't have had to have been told that he would have to wait four years to see a pediatric neurologist. That is absolutely unconscionable in our health-care system; that a, a child who cannot walk, sit, stand, who goes blind when he stands up, who cannot have a blood pressure taken on, on him when he stands up because the professionals can't get a blood pressure on him, to have raging headaches when he stands up, missing school, now, for three and a half months, because there is a shortage of neurologists. His mother, if it wasn't for her begging, begging for health care, this little boy would still not be treated. And when I asked the question in the House yesterday, it was only then where we saw action taken. Otherwise, for three and a half months, the mom and the pediatrician have been calling all over Canada looking for a neurologist to see this child, and if we hadn't asked the question here, what would have happened to this little boy? The mom was petrified that he was going to die. His symptoms are severe. There's obviously something very wrong, and he couldn't get in to be seen.
Now, physician assistants helping in this area would make a huge impact, I'm sure. So might nurse practitioners–somebody that could step in and make a difference in better access to care. Physician assistants can certainly play a role in addressing a lot of the challenges that are in the system, and I hope that the government certainly rolls this out in a timely manner. I know that there are clinical assistants out there and there might be some confusion amongst the public as to what is the difference between clinical assistants and physician assistants, but indeed, they are two different entities and they both have different training programs, and there is a role certainly for both groups to practise in our health-care system.
Certainly, physician assistants, knowing that we're short almost 1,500 doctors, there's obviously a very significant role for them to play. Clinical assistants can work alongside them as well. In working with doctors, I've certainly worked alongside clinical assistants as they have worked in hospitals with cardiac surgeons, and I am sure that there is going to be a role for physician assistants to play in that same area, and it is good to see that Manitoba is going to be one of the first provinces in Canada to roll out this position. I know other provinces are certainly looking at what is going to be happening in Manitoba. I know that the University of Manitoba has set up a training program, and the training program will put forth a number of physician assistants that are going to be able to help to address some of these challenges in our health‑care system.
And we know that we could use them. I'm sure physician assistants could have a role also in our ERs, and that would be one really good place for physician assistants to start in addressing some of those challenges because we've seen a significant shortage of ER doctors in Winnipeg particularly, but we're seeing them through rural Manitoba as well. So this might be a very good place for physician assistants to begin to actively work within the health‑care system, and that is to take up the slack for the shortage of ER doctors that are not able to provide the care because we don't have enough of them in our health-care system. So, certainly, clinical assistants might have an opportunity working in the ERs, nurse practitioners, and certainly physician assistants.
I know that the NDP government in trying to address the crisis a number of years ago with a shortage of ER doctors was quite prepared to look at bringing in clinical assistants to help solve the problem in the Grace Hospital ER. I know that the–I know that there was a doctors' meeting at the Grace Hospital, and I know that one doctor–and Madam Deputy Speaker, it was discussed at a doctors' meeting at Grace Hospital that they were afraid this government was going to close the hospital. And had the community, had the community not rallied around this, then we would have seen perhaps something happen, but the whole West End of Winnipeg rallied around and, you know, because of the community rallying around, they saved the Grace Hospital ER and kept it open. It wasn't what this government did. There were conversations that were going on by the WRHA, and, and those conversations included a discussion about closing that ER.
And, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was interesting, then, that the NDP started to scramble, but they waited until a crisis hit the ERs. They waited like they do with all other health-care problems in Manitoba.
* (15:20)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Brick): Order. I just want to remind all members that we're currently doing third reading of Bill No. 13, The Medical Amendment Act, and I just want to make sure that the information being put on record relates to the Bill No. 13. Thank you.
The honourable Member for Charleswood.
Mrs. Driedger: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can assure you it absolutely does, because having physician assistants is going to become part of the solution to the doctor shortage, and by outlining the doctor shortage, we can actually demonstrate where there is an opportunity for physician assistants to fill the void. And when we look at where those shortages are, whether it's in specialists, rural medicine or, you know, primary care within the city, whether it's access centres, those all demonstrate shortages of doctors, and that is where physician assistants can actually come in because they can do 80, something like 80 percent of what doctors do. They can help to fill the void.
And, so, by demonstrating how this government has failed in, in retaining doctors in Manitoba, we can see where this legislation is absolutely critical because they haven't been able to resolve the doctor shortage. They can't retain the doctors. We're seeing patients fall through the cracks because of it, and so this legislation which will put forward physician assistants, we will certainly be able to see this, this new group of professionals be able to fill some of the gap.
And I'm just pointing out right now that with the Grace Hospital ER, perhaps if we had had physician assistants a whole lot sooner that could have been plugged in before all of the ERs went into crisis, before this government let it go into crisis–because they didn't try to come up with innovative solutions. They allowed it to reach a crisis, as they did after Dorothy Madden died waiting for care in an ER, after we saw patients die waiting for heart surgery in this province. There were some blatant examples of this prob–of this government not doing a good job of this situation.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, certainly with physician assistants, yes, there is an opportunity. I wish they'd have brought them in sooner. I wish they'd have done a better job of retaining doctors, because then we wouldn't be in the crunch we are in now with many, many other situations in this province. Maybe physician assistants can help to keep some of the rural ERs open. Here we are now, closing another rural ER. Maybe the physician assistant could be working in the ER if they were to take this course and subspecialize some of these physician assistants.
I know, with nurse practitioners, they do subspecialize, and I hope that there is an opportunity, you know, for that to happen within the physician assistant program as well, because these–you know, the criteria for people going into this program is certainly very good, and these people will come out very, very qualified as a profession, and they can be filling many, many gaps. The hands-on ability for them to come and work in, for instance, primary health care might be something that is, is particularly important, too, that nurse practitioners, we know, also have a good opportunity there. We heard in question period today that one in three children in Manitoba now are obese and, you know, the more health professionals we have in the system, the better we will be able to address some of these challenges, particularly in managing chronic illness.
So, when we look at what physician assistants can do, they can write prescriptions. They can assist in surgeries. Maybe, then, we wouldn't see so many heart surgeries bumped because the doctor might have an assistant that can help him, because, right now, despite the promise by the government that when they consolidated the cardiac surgery program at St. Boniface Hospital, there would be no more bumping, well, bumping is what led to cardiac patient deaths. And what is still happening now despite their commitment to stop the bumping? Patients are still being bumped. In fact, the numbers are quite significant in terms of, in terms of how many patients are being bumped.
They can also order and analyze diagnostic tests. Now, that's also a good thing because, again, perhaps we can see diagnostics tests read more quickly because, again, shortages are leading to a backlog in that area. They can write treatment orders. Well, that is good, too, because, obviously, when we've got 150,000 Manitobans without a doctor, then this will definitely help the system because, according to CIHI, and those are the latest numbers, we've got 150,000 people in Manitoba that do not have a doctor, and we wonder why our ERs are jammed. We wonder why our walk-in clinics have hours and hours of waits where we see patients lining up at 8:30 in the morning at a walk-in clinic not far from my house in order to get their name on a list to be seen at a walk-in clinic. We've got people desperate for doctors.
So I certainly hope that what this government will do is train enough physician assistants and not mess up this program like they messed up the midwifery training program in the north. That had so much potential, but they didn't do their homework. They rolled out the program, and they promised to take in 10 midwives in the first year and five every year thereafter. There's only five total in the program right now. What happened? The Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) gleefully stood up, making an announcement about midwifery, took a lot of credit, loved to make the announcement, and the program is in trouble. And, now, what we see are only five midwives being trained when front-line workers have said maternity care in Manitoba is in crisis, and yet, this, you know, this program is good, but I hope they don't mess it up like they messed up the midwifery training program.
And the other thing that the physician assistants can do is to provide procedures that provide care to patients and free up a doctor's time for the tasks that only a doctor can do.
So, really, it, it all sounds very, very good. I just hope that it in fact turns out as good as the potential is here. I hope the government doesn't mess up on it, because they tend to like to make a lot of announcements. They love to cut the ribbons. They're out there gleefully doing that, but what we're seeing from this government more and more often is a lot of talk and not enough action that follows the talk. So, when they put this program in place, I hope it does succeed. I hope we do have physician assistants that can, can help to fill the gap that is in health care, and I hope that they can further specialize and have the option to complete a residency program that is being talked about within the legislation. Because, right now, we desperately need help in this province. We have such a significant shortage of doctors, and we need to address this because it all comes down in the end to better patient care, better outcomes for patients, and it's not just about, you know, survival. This is about, actually, let's move forward and have better outcomes so that people in rural Manitoba can have good outcomes, so that, that poorer sections of Winnipeg and, and poverty–physician assistants can help to work in that area, too, so that we can in fact ensure that everybody has access to good health care, and if we have good access to health care, we're going to see improved health outcomes for patients.
Right now our, our survival rate for babies is almost the worst in Canada, and we've got to do better at infant mortality prevention, and when we have that horrible statistic and it shines out across the country, then we know that there is a problem here in people accessing health care and doctors in this province.
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
* (15:30)
So people more and more often are talking about our, our infant mortality rate and how high it is in Manitoba. We need to be able to resolve that issue, and this government needs to do a better job in ensuring that happens.
And, you know, despite all the rhetoric from the government, despite all the spin from the government, they are not doing that great a job in health care, contrary to what they like to put forward. And, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting how they, they choose to twist information too. And I think we're far beyond the, we're far beyond, we're far beyond the type of poor job that this government is doing in health care. I think they do need to do a better job.
I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak) there, is, is heckling away and, certainly, his track record in, as the Minister of Health was not the greatest. I know he tried hard, and he does have a passion for it. So I can understand his heckling in the House. But he needs to acknowledge that his government is doing a very poor job of retaining doctors. There is a 60 percent turnover since they got into government.
And so now here we are, moving ahead, trying to find solutions to their incompetence, in many aspects of delivering health care. And we welcome the legislation. We look forward to it moving forward and we're certainly supportive of it, and wish all the physician assistants who are going to be taking it, we wish them all the best, and we hope that this government doesn't set up any stumbling blocks for them as it moves forward. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill No. 13, The Medical Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 15–The Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Chairperson, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson), that Bill No. 15, The Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Déclaration des droits des victimes, be reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It's been moved by the Minister of Justice, seconded by the Minister of Education, that Bill No. 15, The Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Agreed?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Oh, sorry.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for recognizing me to put a few words on the record regarding this particular act.
I always like to start with this act by acknowledging the reason for it. And it came from recommendations from Justice Salhany as part of the Taman inquiry, and it's always important to remember that in that inquiry, there's a number of people's lives who were affected from the Sveinsons and the Taman family.
And we continue to remember them and the difficult time that they went through and are pleased that some of the recommendations from Justice Salhany have found their way into this legislation. And hopefully, there will be other changes that come forward to the victims' bill of rights, to give victims more support and more access to the information that they deserve, so that they don't feel victimized a second time. The first, obviously, by the criminal act which brought them into contact with the justice system, and then secondly, by the justice system itself.
And far too often victims will tell us that they feel victimized by the system, that they feel it wasn't responsive to their needs and their rights and that all of the rights seem to fall to the accused person in the justice system. And that's a common complaint that we hear over and over again from victims. And I think it disassociates society generally from the justice system.
And, so, we need to look further and not just responded to inquiries and recommendations that come from those inquiries, but be more proactive in ensuring that those who, unfortunately, come in contact with our justice system by way of being a victim, either directly or as a family member of a victim, know that their rights and that their concerns about the system are listened to as seriously–that they are considered rigorously and that they're not simply thought of as an afterthought to the justice system, that they need to be full participants in terms of ensuring that their rights are adhered to and that they're given the information on the system that they deserve.
Unfortunately, this bill is necessary because there simply are more and more victims in the province of Manitoba because crime to continues to rise in the province of Manitoba. Over and over again, when we see the statistics from national organizations and sometimes from other sources, like Maclean's magazine, we get the dubious distinction of being one of the, either cities for Winnipeg or provinces for Manitoba, highest rated when it comes to crime and violent crime in all of the country.
That's a dubious distinction and one that hurts us in many ways. I mean, there's the obvious ways, of course, in terms of victims and those who are impacted by that crime, but there are less obvious ways, economic ways, and difficult to attract businesses and people to a province when it's associated with a high crime rate. And all of us know that there are many glorious things about our province, both those that are naturally brought forward and those that are created otherwise, and we like to celebrate those, and we would like to ensure that everybody knows about the great things we have here in Manitoba.
But there is, unfortunately, a stigma that has grown under the NDP government that there is a crime problem in the province, and whether that shows up in Maclean's magazine, on the front of the magazine, or whether that comes through statistics or labels like the murder capital of Canada. All of those things impact us negatively and hurt us time and time again. And it's unfortunate because the government seems to be on cruise control when it comes to issues of crime. They are more than willing to give all of the responsibility to the federal government when provinces all around them, to the east and the west, make innovative measures and take innovative steps to try to reduce crime in their province, and it's no wonder, then, that while our province seems to be going up when it comes to certain crimes, like violent crime, other provinces seem to be going in the other direction. They seem to be having less and less crime.
And I know that every member of this Legislature will have had constituents to contact them on a regular basis regarding crime and trying to prevent crime, and the frustration that they have with the level of crime. Every member will have their own experiences with constituents contacting them about this concern. And it just stands in stark contrast to how this government treats other things in the province.
And one of the ones that are more recent that I'd like to bring to your attention, Madam Acting Speaker, is the whole issue around photo radar. And we have in the province right now, some 60,000 people, or at least in that range, those are numbers provided by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak), who were given tickets for driving under the regular speed limit in construction zones where there were no construction workers.
And I know that, that members opposite have been getting e-mails. I've seen many of those e-mails that the members have been getting–[interjection] Well, that's interesting, you know, the member for Water Stewardship says, the member for Water Stewardship says that they're all my members, that they're all my people. I'd be happy, I'd be happy to go through all of the different e-mails that I know that she's been sent from her constituents, asking her to do the right thing on Tuesday, and voting–[interjection] I have been copied, I've been copied on many of the e-mails and I know that the minister will have the opportunity, in this House, on Tuesday–[interjection] Well, now she says there's a form letter.
And, you know, this is the sort of disrespect that I would expect from some, from some members, you know, where you have, in some cases, single mothers. In some cases, you have seniors, and I was contacted by an individual who is 80 years old, who was driving on his way to church on a Sunday morning, having served this province and this country in many different ways, who got a ticket for $200, going under the regular posted speed limit, and was devastated by this. This is a law-abiding citizen that couldn't understand how the government could set up a scheme like this to have tickets issued in places where there were no construction workers, where the sign says that the speed limit is something other when workers are present. Very upset individual, paid the ticket because, you know, 80 years old he couldn't stand the thought of going to court and having to fight it out. And then he found out later on that the government was absolving some people of the tickets, but everybody else who had paid, oh, too bad, you apparently pleaded guilt–guilty, says the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak).
* (15:40)
So I suppose that the words from the Minister of Water Stewardship (Ms. Melnick) shouldn't surprise me. They disappoint me that she would write off some individuals who have written her, her own constituents, by saying, well, that's a form letter, it doesn't really matter, they really don't care. She'll have the opportunity–she'll have the opportunity. She can stand–[interjection] I look forward on Tuesday to her standing in her place and putting on the record–and putting on the record, what she feels about this, and I'll ensure–I'll ensure that her constituents and every other member of this Legislature who wants to speak to the issue–that their constituents will hear, that their constituents will hear–they'll see the words that these members will put on the record and the frustration. I know the Member for Southdale (Ms. Selby) has gotten many, many e-mails. I know the Member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady) has not only gotten e-mails but many, many phone calls that have gone to her–to her office. [interjection]
Well, and there again, you know, the arrogance continues. The arrogance continues because now the Member for Kirkfield Park wants to say that it matters how those phone calls from her constituents got to her office. She wants to discount them because they were sent to her office, her own constituents. Well, she can squawk here in the Legislature, but her opportunity will come on Tuesday to stand in her place and to either decide to vote with the wishes of her constituents or against them. And I can tell the Member for Kirkfield Park, I know that she may not think that this is the case. I'm sure that in their caucus somebody has stood up on a chair in the middle of the room and said, oh, don't worry about the phone calls; don't worry about the e-mails; the election's a long ways away. People will forget.
We'll make sure that they don't forget. We'll make sure that they remember that this government took their money, took their money at a time when they won't even go after real criminals, when there are gang members on the street who are out there doing a variety of different crimes, when they're doing break and enters, when they're doing violent crimes, when they're doing tagging on different buildings. We'll remind them that they closed their eyes to the gang members, while the Member for Kirkfield Park put her fist down and said: We've got to go after these single mothers; we've got to go after these seniors; we've got to go after these individuals who are driving responsibly and reasonably in construction zones where there are no construction workers. We'll ensure that they hear that, and I look forward to the Member for Kirkfield Park standing up in this House on Tuesday and putting her words on the record.
And there are many other members. I know that the Member for Brandon–
Point of Order
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Member for Kirkfield, on a point of order.
Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): I would like to rise on a point of order. I believe the member from Steinbach has put some false accusations and some false words on the record. I said no such thing about going after certain people, and to impugn my reputation and my responsibility and role as representing a constituency–as a single mother, no less. So I believe that the member opposite should put accurate information on the record and remove those false accusations from the permanent record. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Member for Steinbach, on the same point of order?
Mr. Goertzen: On the same point of order, Madam Chairperson. You know, perhaps there is a dispute over the facts. It's possible, in fact, that I misunderstood the member because there's a distance between her and I, and we'll find out on Tuesday whether or not she will support the other single mothers in her constituency, whether or not she'll support those individuals. And so, if I was wrong, we'll find out on Tuesday and she won't be able to hide from the vote. She'll have to come here, stand in her place, and decide whether or not she'll support her caucus or whether or not she'll support her constituents. That's a choice she's going to make on Tuesday.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the point of order–on the point of order, this is a dispute over the facts and not a point of order, and just a reminder to all members that points of order are not supposed to be used to debate or argue points. Thank you.
* * *
Mr. Goertzen: That was a very judicious ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward for all the members opposite on the opposite side of the House who've been getting the e-mails, who've been getting the phone calls, they're all going to have a great opportunity, a democratic opportunity to stand up and decide if they're going to simply bow to the wishes of their Premier (Mr. Doer) and of their Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak) or whether or not they might do something that their constituents would want them to do, to represent them in a way that they've asked them to represent them in sending them to the Legislature, 'cause a time will come when they'll be knocking on the doors, and they'll be knocking on the doors of individuals and saying, I want your support in the upcoming election.
It might feel like a long ways away. It might feel like a long ways away, but time will go quickly. And they'll knock on those doors and they'll come across many individuals who say, boy, you know what, sir, or you know what, ma'am, there was a time when I got a ticket which was unfair, which the court said was unfair and now you want me to vote for you. You want me to stand with you, but sir or ma'am, did you stand with me when you had the opportunity in the Legislature to do what I asked you to do? And all of those members will face that day and they'll remember Tuesday. They'll remember this coming Tuesday whether or not they voted with their constituents or whether they put party ahead of the constituents and they will want them to send them back to here to the Legislature next time, and we'll ensure, we'll remember, we'll remember, we'll remind the individuals, Mr.–or Madam Acting Speaker of what their members did. We'll send them the words. We'll send them the action of what they did in the Legislature.
The issue on this bill, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not the government will ensure in the future that they go after real criminals, not just those who have to pay fines for tickets that the court said should never have been issued. But whether or not they'll go after the ones who are dealing drugs to children, in school zones or in communities, whether or not they'll go after the gang members for creating violence, who are bringing guns into the community and bringing guns into the province of Manitoba, whether or not they're concerned about individuals who are getting addicted to drugs because they're having them presented to them in, in their community and possibly within their schools.
Whether or not they're concerned about the individuals who don't know if they can walk the streets of their community or of their neighbourhoods at night and do it safely. Whether or not they're concerned about individuals who are taken advantage of in the communities by criminals and by the criminal element, that is what we have to find out from the government. Whether they're concerned about that or whether they're more concerned about taking money from individuals who pay fines simply to line the pockets of the government and get more revenue in. And we'll find out for sure, we'll find out for sure in a few days where all of these members stand, Mr. Speaker.
You know, at some point, you have to let your yes be your no, your yes be your yes and no be your no, and we determine whether or not they're going to stand up for their constituents or whether or not they're going to stand up for the party, and that day is coming soon. It's only two more legislative days that that day will come and each of the members, from Southdale and from Kirkfield Park, maybe, maybe there's a misunderstanding. Maybe they actually are going to vote in favour of the resolution. I know the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell) has gotten the e-mails. The Minister of Water Stewardship (Ms. Melnick), Member for Fort Rouge (Ms. Howard), St. Norbert, the Member for Gimli (Mr. Bjornson), they've all been contacted. They've all been contacted, and they've all been asked to do what their constituents want them to do. And is there a higher calling? Is there a higher calling than to walk into this Legislature and stand up and say, I will represent the people that sent me here. You have to at some point put those individuals ahead of your party, because those are the ones who ensure that you're held accountable at the next election.
So, Mr. Speaker, we look forward to Tuesday. We look forward to each of these members standing in their place and either deciding to be with their constituents or be with their party and we can ensure whatever their vote is, we'll hold them accounted, accountable and so will their constituents. Thank you very much.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill No. 15, The Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt to motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The motion has been adopted.
Bill 19–The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): I move, seconded by the Minister of Water Stewardship (Ms. Melnick), that Bill No. 19, The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act; Loi modif–modifiant la Loi sur les courtiers d'hypothè–typothetiques et la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred and now read for a third time and passed.
* (15:50)
Madam Deputy Speaker: It's been moved by the Minister of Education, and seconded by the Minister of Water Stewardship, that Bill No. 19, The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in third reading debate of Bill No. 19, The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act. Indeed, the–we had the opportunity last evening to, to hear from individuals that had a vested interest in this–the legislation and how it might affect their legis–their, their daily activities and their investments.
The, the bill itself is, is supported on this side of the House, as it had received last evening support from the presenters, and it recognized that Manitoba was now taking the, the steps that previously had been taken in Saskatchewan, Québec, Ontario and, and Alberta and was bringing a, a framework to the mortgage dealers here in the province of Manitoba. I might mention that it is also a change to the titles of individuals engaged in the provisal of monies, that being referred to now as mortgage brokers.
So I appreciate that the government has brought forward this legislation. It will, indeed, bring a, a framework to those engaged in the loans–loaning of monies to persons, and the–for the most part will be the most substantive obligation that anyone might experience within their lifetime. It is, though, a concern to individuals, and I, I do appreciate that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), responsible for this legislation, did make a commitment to the presenters last evening that they would, would be engaged in, in the consultative process as, as came forward with the regulations that are yet to come but made provisos for through this, through this legislation. I know that the minister was quite pleased to, to hear that the persons were supportive of the, of the legislation.
I know that the Province of Manitoba is just following the lead of other provinces to do so; however, it–better late than never. And it is, it is welcomed that there is now a revision to the legislation so that the Manitoba Securities Commission can, can be engaged and through the, through this act and to provide this, the assurance to those persons that are, are going to be borrowing monies that they are doing, doing it through advice and counsel by individuals that are, are indeed schooled and credible in their, their role as providing for the advice to, to those individuals.
And I, I will say, once upon a time I was of that position myself, looking for monies to go forward in my farming operation and, and being quite naive at the time as to what was required of me to acquire monies that, that would add land to my farming base and to provide for growth in my farming enterprise, and it was done with some trepidation as to whether I was receiving the information that was accurate and also whether or not I was fully comprehending of all of the responsibilities that I was undertaking with the contract to which I was signing.
But I do believe that this legislation will give persons that assurance because the individuals will have to be in compliant with the various regulations in order to operate in the mortgage business. And this also provides for amendments to the security act authorized to appoint staff members as investigators for the purposes of investigating the four acts administered by the commission and that being The Commodity Futures Act, The Mortgage Brokers Act, The Real Estate Brokers Act and The Securities Act.
In addition, this legislation increases the maximum amount that the commission may order a person or company to pay to a claimant as compensation for financial loss–is increased from $100,000 to $250,000, and, again, that is recognizing the level of investment that persons are putting forward and the sizable amounts of money that we speak of and engage in at the present time.
I have mentioned that this will change the name of the act from Mortgage Dealers to Mortgage Brokers, and this is expanding the scope of the act to include all types of broker activities. The description of the activities that are subject to the act will be expanded to now include soliciting to lend or borrow on a mortgage, provide information to a consumer who is considering obtaining a mortgage, assessing a borrower on behalf of a lender.
Other sections of the act will limit the application of the act to commercial types of transactions which are being conducted by business for profit. The act will not require registration in situations where one person recommends a mortgage provider to another without the expectation of renumeration. Now, one would like to expand on that point and emphasize that this is a case where reference is made without the expectation of being paid for it. However, if persons are expecting a reward for their referral, then, in fact, they do come within the scope of the legislation.
The exemptions from the requirement to register under the act are set out where registrations under the act is not necessary to protect the public. It also adds a requirement where renumeration to be paid as part of the registration section means that there no longer needs to be a registration exemption for someone who uses their own money to buy or sell a mortgage.
So the act is indeed bringing this province into the 21st century with the recognition of what is proper in the marketplace, and I commend the government for recognizing it, that this is a needed change in our current legislation.
* (16:00)
So, Mr.–or Madam Deputy Speaker, it is–I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in this afternoon's debate regarding Bill No. 19, The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act, and, as I stated earlier, we did have opportunity to hear from the public and had three presentations made, made to committee last evening, all in support of the, of the legislation. But also each qualified their, their support based upon the consultative process when in fact they're–the government will, will be bringing forward regulation to, to make this act in–enforceable and able to, to be active.
Now, we're looking, looking forward to, to this act coming, coming into place, but I will, though, once again, put forward ano–the reservation that I, I spoke about in, in second reading that this legislation will not come into, into place at the point in time where royal assent is received. It will, though, remain inactive until this government decides that it wants to proclaim the act, and we're well aware of numerous acts of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly passed by all members of the Assembly, in some cases, that remain unproclaimed and thereby inactive. And it's something that I have quite a bit of reservation on when we put clauses like this in the legislation that are really leaving it open-ended as to when the legislation will in fact come into, into play.
And so I, I look to the, the Government House Leader as minister responsible for Justice here in the province and our Attorney General that he will keep, keep the, the–his Cabinet colleagues feet to the fire when it comes to legislation such as Bill 19 and, and hope to see that this, this bill will come into force very soon because other provinces already have similar acts in place. And the individuals that are operating in the lending industry in those provinces are, are already working with rules and regulations that are more current and indeed up-to-date and reflective of the current marketplace.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I, I believe that the House is ready for the question as it pertains to Bill No. 19, and I, I look forward to, to the government passing this legislation, and once we have provided royal as–provided the third reading passage and royal assent is received, that the government not, not be tardy in bringing this legislation into activity through, through their proclamation.
And, but I, I, I will make one further ob–observation before I, I conclude my remarks on third reading debate is that this legislation, outside of the very brief presentation of the bill into the House, has received no debate, no comment, by any members of the government side of the House. And I wonder whether or not the, the government members are, are told to remain in their seat or whether it's that they have no interest in their constituents that are, are, in fact, engaged in this industry. And I would suggest that there are examples in every single member of this Ma–Manitoba Legislative Assembly that has constituents that have borrowed monies and have entered into mortgage agreements.
And, having said that, I, I would suspect that members of the government side of the House would've had interest in this legislation and, and studied the, the bill and been willing to put forward some commentary during the debate of the very–at the various readings. But, once again, this–all government members have remained mute, and I wonder why.
So I will be concluding of my, my remarks, and I, I do look to the government side of the House to see whether or not the members on the government side take this last opportunity to, to stand and, and speak on behalf of their constituents as it pertains to Bill No. 19. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill No. 19, The Mortgage Dealers Amendment and Securities Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 22–The Cooperatives Amendment Act
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the minister responsible for Agriculture, Rural Development, deputy leader, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and, and tons of other things, that Bill No. 22, The Cooperatives Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la loi sur les coopératives, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Justice, and seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture, that Bill No. 22, The Cooperatives Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is, once again, a privilege to rise this afternoon and participate in third reading debate of Bill No. 22, The Cooperatives Amendment Act, and as it has been brought to us without amendment back from committee last evening which I, I attended. It was a pleasure to, to receive presentation from Mr. Randy Schroeder, who is the chair of the, of the board representing Granny's Poultry, a co‑operative, an entity to which I believe each and every member of the House is, is familiar.
Mr. Schroeder provided to us a, a history of the co-operative currently known as Granny's, but previously known to many of us in the agricultural fi–field as, as Manco dairy and poultry. And I will say that I contributed to the produce that, that Manco dairy and poultry processed and put on consumer shelves throughout the province of, of Manitoba. It required a lot of early rises in the morning to collect the eggs and to milk the cows and to take the milk and separate it into cream and take the, the cream cans into the Manco depot and, and receive the, the, the cheque, which, in turn, was reinvested in the farm for more feed and more advanced equipment to, to work with on the farm. And it was truly appreciated by myself, and I, and I know other members of, of committee last evening that–of rural background to, to hear Mr. Schroeder speak of the Manco dairy and poultry days that preceded the renaming to Granny's, that it's–because all of us have, have come from agricultural backgrounds where we had diversified farming operations and which included production of, of eggs and of, and of milk.
* (16:10)
So it was very nice to have that chance to, to go back in, in–and reminisce as to the good old days, although some of us, I don't think would perhaps always, when we were living those good old days, would totally have appreciated the rising before the sun is up to make sure that the chores were done and prior to, to heading off to school, and–but those were our responsibilities as, as youngsters being raised in–on the farm and, and it was a, a repeat of what our, our fathers and our, and our grandfathers did before us as, as life on the farm engaged everyone regardless of age. If you were old enough to, to carry a bucket of milk, you did, and if you were able to carry a, a bucket of feed, you did so, and you gathered the cows from the corral, and, and tethered them in the stalls and made sure that they had their feed and they were content and, and those that were then charged with the, the chance to, to milk, they were, they were–did so without getting their–flicked by the tail of the cow or the–or stepped–or the bucket of milk being stepped in by the cow and all of the little, little activities that took place that made life interesting, and it was, it was an event in the morning that was actually quite enjoyable. It engaged every member of the family as, as, as did it all of our pets because the pets came, came looking for their breakfast when the milking was taking place as well. And so it is with, with fondness, I, I do, I do reminisce to my farming days.
But this is an opportunity to, to recognize a co‑operative, not just Granny's, but more than 35 other agriculturally based co-operatives operating in the province of Manitoba, and to make for a proviso that I will say should have come forward in a much more timely fashion. But once again, this government is–remains tardy in bringing forward legislation that most parts of the, of the country have already updated and are benefiting from.
It was–it's been almost two years now since the federal government passed legislation through the Income Tax Amendment Act that provided for tax-deferred co-operative shares, more commonly known as TDCS, and this is a, a proviso for persons that are, are, are receiving patronage dividends from agriculturally based co-operatives through business activity with those co-operatives, and allowing their patronage dividend to be converted into–to a share position and thereby allowing their invested monies to be available for further investment by the co‑operative to enhance their operations and to ultimately provide a better service to not only their–those that are, are providing the raw materials, but those that are consuming the processed products. And by issuance of these shares now under the Income Tax Act of Canada, any of the previously payable capital gains is, is now deferred till a later date. And so not only just the shareholder benefits from the investment opportunities but the co‑operative benefits by the invested monies from being made available to them. And I know that the Member for the Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff) was in attendance last evening to the committee meeting, and he, too, lamented that it was a disappointment that it took so long for this bill to come forward and stated that it's long overdue and that the agricultural co-operators, co-operatives of the province should not have had to wait as long as they have for this legislation that should have come forward much earlier and indeed, helped our co-operatives better prepare for the recessionary period that we see now right across Canada, not just here in Manitoba indeed, worldwide.
Now the legislation that we have before us, I want to make very clear, does not have any impact on those persons that are members of co-operatives that are not agriculturally based. I did make mention earlier that my membership in the Portage Consumers Co-operative would not be affected by Bill 22. The patronage dividends that I receive from being a member of the Portage Consumers Co‑operative will indeed still remain taxable and payable by the co-operative. Taxable to myself and payable by the co-operative for clarification.
And another co-operative not eligible is maybe more well known to urban members of the Assembly would be that of Red River Co-operative which is not, not considered eligible under this legislation being that it's not engaged in the percentage of agricultural activity as required by the Income Tax Act. Now there are many articles throughout this act but it does provide for the terms and conditions imposed on a co-operative issuing shares or other securities that will make proviso for the ability to comply with the federal tax deferred co-operative share provision in the federal Income Tax Act.
There is another commonality within this legislation that is, I think, far too often, we're seeing in the Legislative Assembly and that is that this act will also be delayed even more so than we've already experienced because of clause No. 39(2) that will come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation. And this, I know, allows the government time to make certain that everyone is informed of the changes and if any regulatory changes are required, that the time is allowed for. However, we are seeing once again, this government leaving it open-ended as to when proclamation could potentially be expected.
* (16:20)
I, for one, would like to see that this Chamber adopt a policy not to pass legislation without some degree of assurance as to when the legislation will, in fact, be enacted. It might say that the proclamation no later than a six-month period or be proclaimed within the, the year following passage, but at least provide for a time frame that those that are stakeholders, those that are affected by the legislation, can, can plan as to when the legislation will, will come into force and that they then can continue with their business dealing–doing their business under the new regime. And, as we say, that already across this country that other provinces are, are benefiting from legislation in place, and this government has already been very tardy in bringing this legislation forward, as it is only bringing our province in compliance with legislation that has been in place by the federal government for, for some length of time now.
Also, too, we would like to make absolutely certain, and the request was made of the, of the minister that all agriculturally based co-ops be consulted, and I was pleased that the minister in attendance, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), did give his personal assurance that this–his government would be in consultation with all those affected stakeholders as to when the act would be proclaimed and any changes to the regulatory regime that is in support of, of the, this legislation.
And so another observation that I, I want to repeat again is that of the government's inactivity as it pertains to Bill 22. The member from Interlake, as I referred to earlier, is a strong proponent of the changes included within Bill 22, yet has not risen in this Chamber, either at bill–at the second reading of the Bill 22 or at third reading, and opportunity, as well, was presented at committee for comment to the contents of the bill and, yet, he has remained silent.
And I look at members of the government. You know, I, I, I don't see any other occasions as to when the honourable ministers remain silent. They are always very talkative and, and engaging and wanting to share their thoughts until it comes to legislation such as this, and, and, and the silence is, is deafening when you members of the government side of the House fail–they all fail to, fail to, to stand and, and participate in debate, and it does leave one curious as to why, at this juncture in time, government members fail to represent their constituents in this Assembly by participating in, in debate on legislation. And it's not, not just Bill 19 and 22 to which I am referring to at the present time. We have seen no activity in, in debate on virtually any of the government sponsored bills here in the House.
So, with those few words, Madam Deputy Speaker, I, I would say that Bill 22 is long overdue and we on this side of the House would like to see the, the conclusion and passage of this bill and speedy proclamation. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill No. 22, The Cooperatives Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): Yes, on House business, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I wonder if you could canvass the House to ask if there's leave to distribute a report stage amendment on Bill No. 12, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave of the House to–
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so–[interjection]
Is there leave to distribute to the House the–a report for Bill 12–report, report stage amendment–oh, you're here.
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Swan: Yes, also on House business, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if you would canvass the House to ask if there is then leave to consider the report stage amendment on Bill 12, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The amendment needs to be distributed first or–
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
Mr. Swan: Yes, on House business. Now the Clerks have so efficiently distributed the amendments, I wonder if you could ask the House if there's leave to consider this report stage amendment on Bill 12.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to proceed with the amendment to Bill 12?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 12–The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the MLA for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that Bill 12 be amended in clause 17 by replacing the proposed section 29.2 with the following: rules re pets, 29.2. A landlord may not discriminate against owners of pets, but may provide rules about pets, and, in this case, subsections 11(2) and (3), house rules apply.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable Member for River Heights, seconded by the honourable Member for Inkster, that Bill 12 be amended in clause 17 by replacing the proposed section–dispense?
* (16:30)
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Mr. Gerrard Mr. Speaker, this, this bill would prevent the discrimination that currently exists against owners with pets by landlords in Manitoba. This legislation has existed for many, many years in Ontario and it has had very positive results. One of the major benefits is that individuals who have pets, companion animals in their apartments, are healthier, and there is a long study completed at the University of Melbourne which basically looked at the cost savings, the impacts of pets on Australian health budgets and found that there were annual savings in Australia of about a billion dollars and if that was transferred to Manitoba, we would be looking at savings of a hundred million dollars or more as a result of more people having pets.
There are a whole lot of myths that exist in terms of why there is the current legislation which discriminates against pet owners and the fact is that all of these myths are basically wrong. Landlords can count on lower vacancy rates and dependable tenants because that's the nature of pet owners. They stay longer; they're more dependable.
A 2005 survey found that landlords who permitted pets in their building described the tenants as ideal because their sense of responsibility toward their animals extended to higher levels of responsibility toward property. Tenants, renters with pets, actually contribute to a sense of safety and security in a building, partly because their work-home schedules tend to be more predictable and low key, and their dog-walking schedules in fact provide for regular night-time patrols which helps not only the apartment building but the neighbourhood.
Landlords can, you know, work to work out any problems; they can do things like establishing pet‑friendly floors, they can work with the tenants who–where renters with pets tend to be more socially connected. They have better mental health, less depression, higher levels of fitness and activity, and they make fewer medical appointments and their children miss fewer school days. Landlords can benefit, and, in fact, this act provides for a pet deposit, so we should make the goal the rest of the way in this act.
The number of problems dealing with pet-related issues have been hugely exaggerated. A study in 2005 noted that landlords spent less, spent less than one hour a year dealing with a pet-related issue. Problems can be headed off at the beginning by having renters submit up-to-date veterinary records with their leases. They can even submit their dogs' obedience school diplomas. They can access simple contracts on the Internet for clauses about cleanliness, barking, accountability. Some landlords include a three-month trial and so on and so on. All of these lead to better control throughout the whole building and improve renting and improve renters.
Renters with pets experience a sense of good will toward their landlords and the research shows that people with pets are co-operative, problem‑solving, helpful people, a positive benefit to the situation. There are–and I think it's fair to add, let's look at the experience in Ontario with what they call a fluffy law. It's been a very successful policy. It's had enormous positive impact on the lives of pet owners and on others. And other jurisdictions that have brought about this change have also shown their experiences have been very positive.
What happens with the current Residential Tenancies Act is that Bill McDonald at the Humane Society says, look, it renders thousands of pets homeless each year because when people move into an apartments they've got to get rid of their pets. It's a huge problem for the Winnipeg Humane Society which, you know, in, for example, 2007, received 5,640 cats and 1,976 dogs. The majority of the cats and a significant number of the dogs were family pets that weren't allowed into apartment complexes. That's huge, Mr. Speaker. Just think what we could do to benefit not only Manitobans, improve things for the Winnipeg Humane Society, improve things all the way around, better, better crime protection with pets and pet owners, all sorts of benefits.
All these positive potential, I want to thank Larry and Louise Todd [phonetic] who brought this up at the committee meeting last night. I want to thank Bill McDonald for his helpful discussion and comments, and I want to thank the Leg Counsel for putting this together so speedily.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that all members will get together and pass this and make a difference for Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House, the amendment moved by the honourable Member for River Heights to Bill No. 12.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say no, or nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
House Business
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): On House business, Mr. Speaker, could you canvass the House to see if there's leave to move on to concurrence and third reading of Bill No. 12, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to proceed to concurrence and third reading of Bill, Bill No. 12?
Is there agreement?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. There's agreement.
Bill 12–The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): I move, seconded by the honourable minister for Labour, Immigration and multiculturalism, that Bill No. 12, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location à usage d'habitation, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable Minister for Competitiveness, Training and Trade, seconded by the honourable Minister of Labour and Immigration (Ms. Allan), that Bill 12, The Resident–Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I do appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to rise and participate in the third reading of Bill No. 12, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act.
It is, it was a privilege last evening to listen to presenters that spoke very passionately regarding the, the bill and, as stakeholders both from a property owner's perspective and as a, a tenant perspective, we heard very passioned experiences related to us, and I, I felt that it was a very well-balanced discussion, as I do believe this legislation before us is.
It does provide balance between the landlord and, and the tenant and it does provide the opportunity for persons to put forward a, a deposit to a landlord and, and, and be able to bring a pet to the, the rental premises and, as the honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) mentioned, continue to benefit from the, the many cited experiences that a pet, pet brings to the–an owner.
* (16:40)
Indeed, the legislation is not limited exclusively to the dealing with pets and pet owners in living in rental properties, but it does also deal with a more detailed explanation of services to accommodations that more and more of us are seeing within our communities and that would offering assisted living and supportive living accommodations, and to make recognition of these services being provided in these new complexes to tenants and to spell out very clearly within a landlord-tenant agreement what these services entail and also the costs related to those services. So it is legislation that has received significant support from all sectors of the, of those in the, looking to rent premises in Manitoba.
It was a very well-thought-out presentation by Jean Yves Rochon from the Manitoba Council on Aging that spoke very informatively regarding services that are coming forward to persons looking to minimize their responsibilities in their accommodations, movement from their home to apartments that provide a level of care and a significant level of respite from those duties that one is most familiar with if one is a home-owner, and the activities that are engaged in each and every day maintaining a home.
With those short few words, I conclude my remarks regarding Bill No. 12, and I'd like to see the third reading debate concluded and this bill passed into legislation, and I want to make certain that the government does though bring into force as soon as possible the various sections that are, won't come into force until proclamation takes place. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, a pleasure to rise to put a few words on the record regarding this particular piece of legislation. I want to commend the member for Portage, our critic on this issue, who, I know, has examined this and many other pieces of legislation as it relates to consumer and corporate affairs, and the not always easy pieces of legislation, I know, to go through, sometimes very technical but important to individuals. And so the member for Portage–[interjection]–the member for Portage takes on the responsibility with enthusiasm and gusto and ensures that he's in communication with individuals who are impacted by the legislation, and I commend him for that because, again, it's not always easy work but it certainly is important work here in the Legislature.
Any time you're dealing with legislation regarding the residential tenancy act, you know, there's two parties involved, and sometimes those two parties have what appear to be competing interests. They're not always aligned with each other. One is the tenant and one is the renter. I know, having talked to many people who have rental properties, that they sometimes are surprised when they get into that particular business, as it is, that there's so much paperwork that needs to be done, and there are so many regulations that need to be followed and unfortunately, many people go into the particular business of renting property without realizing exactly how much paperwork and how many regulations and rules they need to follow, and, unfortunately, they also sometimes get caught in that and find themselves in difficult situations having to go and defend before the branch, the board, why they took certain actions. And I think that the vast majority of renters in Manitoba do it with good faith, and they do it because they have the, sort of an economic interest on one side, but they also want to provide reasonable and good accommodation for those who might rent properties from them.
We do sometimes hear of the bad cases, the cases where individuals are renting property and it's not the kind of accommodation or the upkeep isn't there that we would hope for, Mr. Speaker, and in those rare situations, there needs to be rules and practices in place to ensure that things are acted upon and that things are changed and done correctly.
But, really, we, those are the ones, unfortunately, that get the attention, that draw the attention of the media and others. But we need to remember that for every one case like that, there are hundreds of others who are renting properties and doing so in a reasonable and respectful way, Mr. Speaker, and we applaud those individuals who do that, because sometimes it takes a lot of personal time and a lot of personal sacrifice. Many people who have properties that they rent have to do a lot of the upkeep themselves to make it economically viable. And so they go to the homes and, you know, they do the regular stuff, like mowing the lawns and clearing the driveways, and they do a lot of the mechanical stuff, as well, in homes to ensure that the upkeep is in place and they do it well and they do it for the benefit of their tenant and, of course, ultimately, for the benefit of their business.
But, of course, there are, you know, on the other side, there is the tenants who have an obligation, a financial obligation, to meet each and every month for the property that they're renting. And I think, again, most of the tenants in Manitoba fulfil that obligation, fulfil it to the requirements that they sign on to, either through a lease or through some other contractual arrangement with the landlord, and they do it respectfully. But every landlord will tell you that there are sometimes those tenants that they take on who there are challenges with. And, for whatever reason, some quite legitimate and some maybe less so, they aren't able to meet that requirement and they aren't able to meet that monthly obligation. And so when you have this dispute between two parties, you have to have rules and you have to have regulations in place to ensure that the–there's an orderly way to resolve that resolution and an orderly way to resolve that dispute, because, otherwise, you would have landlords and tenants taking matters into their own hands and nobody, I think, would think that would be the appropriate way to have a dispute settled.
But I also know that it's a balancing act because depending on which side of the scales you're on, you will think that the other side has more rights than you. So I have some sympathy for those who are involved both as renters and those who are tenants, and the board who has to arbitrate these disputes and come up with a reasonable solution to the debates that happen between tenants and between those who are renting properties.
I think, by and large, I mean, you know, we can always sort of pick at issues where you might find differences with, and those are important to bring to light. But, by and large, I think, that there is a willingness to try to find that balance. And so the amendments, or the bill that we have before us today, and the amendment that the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) brought forward is part of that discussion and part of that debate to ensure that there is a reasonableness and a balance between competing interests of landlord and tenants, and that one isn't disadvantaged over the other, that tenants aren't taking advantage of the landlords and that landlords aren't taking advantage of the tenants.
And I'm not sure of the percentage of individuals who are involved in rental properties, either as being a tenant or a landlord, but I'm sure it's substantial. And so the disputes are many, but probably a small percentage of the number of renters and rental agencies and properties that we have. And so that speaks very well, both of the people that we have in Manitoba and the process that we have in place.
I know that there are other members of this Chamber who would like to put a few minutes of words on the record and so I look forward to hearing from those members, as well, before this bill moves to a vote on third reading.
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on House business?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave of the House that, notwithstanding the outstanding House order that we have with respect to the House business, would you canvass the House to see if there's leave for the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs to meet on Monday, June 8th, at 6 p.m., to continue consideration of Bill 6, The East Side Traditional Lands Planning and Special Protected Areas Act.
* (16:50)
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs to meet on Monday, June 8th at 6 p.m. to continue consideration of Bill 6, The East Side Traditional La–Lands Planning and Special Protected Areas Act?
Is there agreement?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, there is agreement.
The honourable Government House Leader, on House business.
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, thank you. Also, Mr. Speaker, would you please canvass–I'd like to announce that the mee–I'd like to announce that the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources to consider Bill 30 previously announced for Friday, June 5th, at 1 p.m., has now been cancelled. The committee will still meet this evening at 6 p.m. to consider Bill 30 as previously announced.
Mr. Speaker: It's been announced that the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human, Human Resources to consider Bill 30 previously announced for Friday, June the 5th, at 1 p.m., has now been cancelled. This committee will still meet this evening at 6 p.m. to consider Bill 30 as previously announced.
* * *
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I want to speak on Bill 12, the third reading, the residential tenancies act. I want to indicate that in spite of our disappointment that the government will not support the nondiscrimination clause against pet owners, that we're certainly prepared to support the rest of this bill, and want to, to indicate in a few remarks that we hope that in putting forward the concept of deposits for pets and hopefully making it a little easier for landlords to consider pets, that the government should have gone further and done what has been done for many, many years in Ontario and that is allow owners to–renters to have pets under reasonable house rules so that there are not problems. And certainly that's the experience that there was in Ontario.
I think that the reason, quite frankly, that we're disappointed that the government didn't support this is that there are many, many seniors who, when they move from their home into an apartment, are finding that they're having to give up their pets and this, of course, is heartbreaking for the owners of the pets and for the pets themselves. So we, we hope that in the future this can be reversed and, and changed and improved in Manitoba, but even without this change, we're, we're going to support this legislation and hope that it should move promptly through to implementation.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I do want to add a few thoughts on this particular bill. It's–landlord and tenant relations is, is interesting to say the very least. Some would say at times it can be quite controversial in terms of relationships be–between the, the two stakeholders and that is the reason why we have the residential tenancy branch, and there is a need for us to have legislation to protect both the landlord and the tenant.
I want to take this opportunity to comment in terms of what the largest landlord in the province of Manitoba is the Province of Manitoba. We have thousands of units throughout the, the province and ultimate responsibility of providing shelter for many thousands of Manitobans. And this is probably a good opportunity to suggest to the government that there are other options than owning a hundred percent, and I would suggest that the government give serious consideration to what some of those options might be, and we have, in the Liberal Party, have talked about the conversion of government apartment blocks in certain situations that could be converted into housing co-ops.
Even the idea of looking beyond that in terms of how we might be able to use some of that housing stock in the long-term best interests of thousands of Manitobans, that the answer isn't necessarily that we have to own a hundred percent of the houses, and I would suggest to you that it should be kind of a progressional thing in, at times, there is a need for government to expand into, into housing, and then there's a time in which it, it has the opportunity in certain situations where it can empower and provide individuals the opportunity to, to own.
The government housing is not obligated to comply with the residential tenancy and many would argue that there's a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst tenants in government housing complexes and that's why it's very important that we invest in education, primarily, of having tenant resident associations that can ensure that there is certain standards that are even within government housing complex.
When we think in terms of the private sector, Mr. Speaker, we'll find that the private sector, in, in vast majority, and when we say vast we're talking 90 percent-plus, where the private sector provides wonderful shelters and the relationship with the, the tenants is, is very positive and vica versa. You will find a vast majority, well into the 90 percent-plus, that are, in fact, great tenants and those, those tenants in, in fact, will say wonderful things about the, the landlord.
So in most, vast majority of the cases, there is really a great relationship between tenants and landlords but I would also acknowledge that there are things such as slum landlords and there are things such as irresponsible tenants and those are the individuals, the slum landlords and the irresponsible tenants, that cause a vast majority of the problems that we, that we experience, which causes us to require legislation of this, of this nature, Mr. Speaker.
And, you know, I have had opportunity to meet with both of that small–both sides of that small, small percentage and it can be frustrating. You know, I can recall having to deal with slum landlords in communities, whether it's Shaughnessy Park, Weston, Brooklands, some of the older communities of the past in which I've represented.
I've had to deal with lan–landlords that have been, had irresponsible tenants where they've ransacked, done things with water, destroyed facilities and so forth, and it's sad to see such a small percentage that cause 90 percent of all the problems related. And with those few words, Mr. Speaker, 'cause I understand that we do want to see this particular bill passed this aft–this afternoon, we're prepared to, to see the bill pass and ultimately, I believe, be given royal assent within the next week and Manitobans will have better legislation. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence, third reading of Bill No. 12.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, insofar as there's committee hearings at six o'clock and it's, could we call it five o'clock?
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it five o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed.
Okay. The hour being 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday.