LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, December 2, 2010
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Bill 14–The Prescription Drugs Cost
Assistance Amendment Act
(Prescription Drug Monitoring and Miscellaneous Amendments)
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I move, seconded by the Minister for Family Services and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 14, The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act (Prescription Drug Monitoring and Miscellaneous Amendments); Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide à l'achat de médicaments sur ordonnance (contrôle de certains médicaments couverts et modifications diverses), be now read a first time.
Motion presented.
Ms. Oswald: Bill 14 will include provisions to enable further monitoring of designated drugs such as OxyContin, as well as facilitate retrospective drug reviews, focus on drug effectiveness and to enable prescriber education.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Multiple Sclerosis Treatment
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
More than 3,000 Manitobans and their families are impacted by multiple sclerosis, and Manitoba has one of the highest rates of MS in the world.
New research indicates that there may be a link between a condition known as chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis. Preliminary studies indicate that many MS symptoms can be relieved with angioplasty, a common procedure.
In order to test this procedure for safety and effectiveness, additional research and clinical trials are needed. Manitoba is not testing for CCSVI, conducting research or conducting clinical trials.
The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be monitoring MS patients who have undergone the liberation treatment and studying its impact. Saskatchewan has announced that it will move forward with a clinical trial when their research community presents a proposal and has invited other provinces to join them. Meanwhile, Manitoba's provincial government has not taken up this initiative nor shown leadership on this issue.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the Minister of Health to consider making the province of Manitoba a leader in CCSVI research and to move forward with clinical trials as soon as possible.
This is signed by C. Walker, J. Gerbasi, I. Kuziw and many, many others, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
RCMP Rural Service
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
And these are the reasons for this petition:
Manitobans deserve to live in a safe environment and to feel secure in their homes and their communities. Some regions of rural Manitoba have been hard hit by crime, including residential break and enters, property theft, vandalism and other offences that threaten people's security.
In some areas, RCMP detachments are not staffed on a 24-hour basis. Criminal elements capitalize on this, engaging in crimes at times when officers may not be readily available to respond to the calls for service.
Some believe the current RCMP detachment boundaries need to be redrawn so that service delivery could be faster and more effective.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Minister of Justice to consider working with the RCMP, the federal government and the communities to develop strategies to address services–service challenges in rural Manitoba, such as the possibility of having response units that could be dispatched to regions affected by crime waves.
And to request the Minister of Justice to consider working with stakeholders to determine if the current RCMP detachment boundaries are designed to ensure the swiftest, the most effective service delivery.
This petition is signed by D. Turko, C. Marr, A. Moar and many, many other fine Manitobans.
Auto Theft–Court Order Breaches
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
On December 11th, 2009, in Winnipeg, Zdzislaw Andrzejczak was killed when the car that he was driving collided with a stolen vehicle.
The death of Mr. Andrzejczak, a husband and a father, along with too many other deaths and injuries involving stolen vehicles, was a preventable tragedy.
Many of those accused in fatalities involving stolen vehicles were previously known to police and identified as chronic and high-risk car thieves who had court orders against them.
Chronic car thieves pose a risk to the safety of all Manitobans.
We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:
To request the Minister of Justice to consider ensuring that all court orders for car thieves are vigorously monitored and enforced.
And to request the Minister of Justice to consider ensuring that all breaches of court orders on car thieves are reported to police and vigorously prosecuted.
And, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by B. Woods, O. Shadlock, L. McGimpsey and many, many other Manitobans.
Bipole III Project
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
In September of 2007, the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro directed the utility to abandon an east-side route for its Bipole III project. Five days later, Manitoba Hydro announced that the utility will be proceeding with a west-side route.
Manitoba Hydro staff, technical experts and regular Manitobans have communicated to the provincial government that they would prefer an east-side route.
A west-side route will be almost 500 kilometres longer than an east-side route, less reliable, and cost taxpayers at least an additional $1.75 billion.
The extra cost being forced on Manitoba Hydro and Manitobans by the provincial government will mean that every Manitoba family will end up paying $7,000 for this decision.
Since the current provincial government has come into power, hydro rates have already increased by almost 20 per cent. If this decision is not reversed, it will result in further rate increases for Manitobans.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to allow Manitoba Hydro to proceed with the shorter, cheaper and greener east-side route, subject to necessary regulatory approvals, enabling the utility to keep our hydro bills lower and to ensure a more reliable electricity system.
And this petition is signed by A. Morrison, M. Morrison, M. Detimmerman and many, many more fine Manitobans.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
In September of 2007, the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro directed the utility to abandon an east-side route for the Bipole III project. Five days later, the Manitoba Hydro announced that the utility would be proceeding with the west-side route.
Manitoba Hydro staff, technical experts and regular Manitobans have communicated to the provincial government that they would prefer an east-side route.
The west-side route will almost be 500 kilometres longer than an east-side route, less reliable and cost ratepayers at least an additional $1.75 billion extra.
The extra cost being forced on Manitoba Hydro and Manitobans by the provincial government will mean that every Manitoba family will end up paying an additional $7,000 for this decision.
Since the current provincial government has come to power, hydro rates have already increased by almost 20 per cent. If this decision is not reversed, it will result in further rate increases to all Manitobans.
We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:
To urge the provincial government to allow Manitoba Hydro to proceed with the shorter, cheaper and greener east-side route, subject to the necessary regulatory approvals, enabling the utility to keep our hydro bills lower and to ensure a more reliable electricity system.
This petition is signed by C. Morris, W. MacDonald and B. Dawson and many, many other fine Manitobans. Thank you.
Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
In August 2008, the Minister of Transportation stated that traffic volumes at the intersection of PTH 15 and Highway 206 in Dugald exceeded those needed to warrant the installation of traffic signals.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Minister of Transportation consider holding a public consultation process with Springfield residents to present design options and rationale for the planned changes to PTH 15 and Highway 206 intersection and also in regards to the planned hard median at a public open house in Dugald.
* (13:40)
To request that the Minister of Transportation recognize the value of the businesses affected by the proposed changes, as well as the lives and well-being of the students, seniors and citizens of Manitoba.
Signed by E. Yakubicka, D. Ethier, E. Prokopchuk and many, many, many other Manitobans.
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I'm pleased to table, pursuant to The Regulations Act, a copy of each regulation registered under that act after the last regulation tabled in this House and more than 14 days before the commencement of this session.
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 20 of the public officials act, chapter 230, I am tabling the Fidelity Bonds crime insurance information.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Morden Collegiate, we have 22 grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Royce Hollier. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
Also in the public gallery we have from Kelvin High School, we have 24 grade 9 students under the direction of Gerry Urbanovich and Ms. Tegan Quesnelle. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today.
Planning and Preparations
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): With the significant rainfall over the summer and the early start with snowfall this winter, we share the government's concern about the potential for flooding this coming spring and certainly support the Premier's steps that he's now taking to prepare in the event that we do have flooding this spring.
I wonder if the Premier can just advise the House and all Manitobans about the steps being taken by him and his government over the coming four months to prepare us as best we can for what may happen this coming spring.
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Planning is under way with officials to look at what needs to be done to prepare for the flood. Equipment inventories are being reviewed. Additional equipment will be ordered and purchased as required. As the member opposite knows, I have raised these matters with both the regional minister and the Prime Minister at the federal level. They can play a role, and have played a role in the past, in participating in flood preparation, and so we will also be in close contact with municipalities as well to look at how we can co‑ordinate our–all of our efforts among all three levels of government.
So, as the member knows, there have been significant investments over the last decade–the floodway, raising and protecting individual properties and businesses. There are additional announcements that have been made which allow for further resources to be available to Manitobans to protect themselves from flood eventualities.
Mr. McFadyen: I thank the Premier for the response and support the steps he's taking to engage other levels of government, including both municipalities and the federal government, and we certainly are prepared to assist in any way we can in terms of providing information and offering support in those areas.
It's indicated in the media this morning that the government is looking at a third Amphibex, tube dams, torches and other measures, as well as a meeting which is coming in January with American officials.
I wonder if the Premier can just indicate whether there are other issues which have been raised in connection with bridges and internal diking within the city of Winnipeg and if he can provide any indication to the House today as to whether those are legitimate concerns, and if so, whether steps are being taken to address them.
Mr. Selinger: I thank the member for the question. I have had a brief discussion with the mayor of Winnipeg about any additional concerns that the City might have, areas that might need additional protection. We've undertaken to take a review of that.
With respect to bridges, the member will know that the one-in-700-year protection was achieved by doing additional excavation, and that excavation allowed the one-in-700-year floodway protection to be achieved for Winnipeg.
Mr. McFadyen: Certainly that commitment to one‑in-700-year protection is one made by both this Premier and his predecessor, Mr. Doer, and that's something that we certainly support.
I just want to ask the Premier: In terms of the coming four months, which is the critical time period in terms of preparation, whether there are issues–and we know that they're difficult in terms of private property within the city of Winnipeg–but whether there are issues with respect to internal dikes that need to be addressed proactively over the coming four months?
Mr. Selinger: Again, I've already discussed this with the mayor and I've asked him to identify if there are any spots within the city of Winnipeg that we might need to pay additional attention to, and he undertook to get back to us of any specifics that he's aware of.
Highway 200 Bridge Concerns
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Can the Premier just indicate whether he's been briefed on any concerns around the first stretch of the floodway channel and, in particular, the bridge on Highway 200, which hasn't yet been dealt with as part of the floodway expansion project, whether he's been briefed on that issue, whether there are any legitimate concerns related to that bridge and, if so, what steps are being taken to address them?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Again, with respect to bridge projects, I'll undertake to get specific information on that particular bridge for the member. But, with respect to bridge projects more globally, additional excavation was done to accommodate the one-in-700-year standard that we wish to achieve with the floodway, and I will verify for the member if that applies to the bridge he raises here.
Mr. McFadyen: There's been–and the Premier is engaged in this file with the City of Winnipeg, and there were exchanges with his predecessor, and he wasn't involved at the time on these files, and nine different exchanges in April of 2009, as well as exchanges in this House in April of 2006.
Just on those issues, I'm wondering if his predecessor, Mr. Doer, was a–has had the opportunity to share with the current Premier the discussion that went back and forth and whether the issues that were raised have been dealt with.
Mr. Selinger: I invite the member to share any emails he might have with me, and we'll review them to see if there's any details that he would like us to pay attention to. The reality is that in discussions with the City we've asked them to identify if there are any particular specific sites in Winnipeg that may be more vulnerable and what measures might be taken to address them.
Mr. McFadyen: The references to Hansard from April 9th, April 14th, April 20th, April 21st, April 22nd and May 19th of 2009, as well as Hansard on April the 20th of 2010, and also Hansard going back to 2006, where there is an exchange, his predecessor didn't think that the issues were legitimate ones to be concerned about.
I'm wondering if the Premier will undertake to take–review that Hansard and satisfy himself that those issues have been addressed.
Mr. Selinger: Yes.
Financial Preparations
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Further to the issue of flood preparation that the Leader of the Opposition has been asking, the issue of financing the preparation and defences in the event of a flood is also of critical importance, I believe, to all Manitobans, and, given the Province's projected deficit is already more than $500 million, can the Minister of Finance tell us what financial preparations are being made to prepare for the flooding?
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Finance): Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member across the way that we are not going to take half a billion dollars out of the budget to balance, as her party has suggested.
* (13:50)
But, Mr. Speaker, as we have done in other situations, we will take the necessary steps when emergencies arise, just as we had emergencies in–this spring when there was flooding, when there was forest fires, when there were other issues to be dealt with, just as we had to deal with the flooding at Waterhen and at Sapotaweyak Cree Nation. We dealt with them and the budgets are available to deal with emergencies.
I can assure the member that this is a very serious matter, as the Premier (Mr. Selinger) has indicated in his answer, and we will–meetings are being held and we will be–do what we have to do to prepare.
Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Speaker, given that the provincial government in 1997 had to flow the equivalent of nearly $290 million to fight the flood at the time, and given the concerns flood experts are showing about the Red River Valley, among other areas in Manitoba, I ask the Minister of Finance again if she could tell us what financial preparations are being made to prepare for the flooding that they are talking about for next year.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, just as in previous floods, when there have been significant floods, we've worked in partnership with the federal government, with the municipal governments, with the City of Winnipeg, if that's the case. We all work collectively and people on all departments are working collectively right now, looking at what the challenges might be. We've already indicated that additional equipment will have to be bought, that we will take the necessary steps. And I can assure the member that this will not mean a cut in budget, as her party would do, to balance.
When there are emergencies, Mr. Speaker, we all have to step up to the plate and address those emergencies. And we will do it this time, but we all hope and pray that things will turn out–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Stefanson: And I would ask the minister again, given that the provincial government in 1997 had to flow the equivalent of nearly $290 million to fight the flood, money that had to flow from the Province before it could be recovered partially from the federal government, and that, even so, the Province was still left with an additional $600 million of additional expenses in current dollars, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us what financial preparations, given the existence of more than a $500-million deficit, what financial preparations are being made in order to cover these costs?
Ms. Wowchuk: The member opposite talks about 1997. I would remind her and ask her to look at all of the investments that this government has made.
This government has made significant investments in the floodway. This government has made significant investments in ice cutters and Amphibexes and tubes that, I would remind the members opposite, they voted against all of that. They did not support any of that, Mr. Speaker.
We have made a lot of progress since 1997. Is there still going to be a challenge? It appears that there will, and we will work with all departments–the provincial government, the federal government–and we will put in place what is necessary to ensure that if there is a flood and there are consequences that we will have–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Water Level Increases
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Water Stewardship had a rough day. I'd like to revisit the Shoal Lake flooding issue once again and ask her to really focus on a response this time.
The KSG study report is complete. Everyone agrees that the plan is to tackle the flooding on a–just as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker. Just driving through the Interlake on the way to a caucus meeting in Ashern doesn't mean that she or her Premier (Mr. Selinger) knew where the Shoal lakes even were until such time they were told.
Mr. Speaker, action is needed on this file now. Will the government stand up, outline an action plan to help the flood residents now and a longer term plan?
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): Well, maybe the member can concentrate on the answer today.
We have been working with the Shoal lakes communities since the beginning of this incident. We have been providing funding for the KGS study. There was a community meeting in September. We have asked the municipalities to come together and let us know how they would like to move forward on this. They are working on this. I'll be meeting with them within the next week and we will work together, instead of attacking, instead of dividing, instead of being part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, since 2001, this issue's been at the forefront of this government and they've done nothing.
The Water Stewardship Minister talked about a flood-proofing program yesterday. With all due respect, Madam Minister, that is only a stopgap measure. The Shoal lakes are still growing, threatening more homes, farms and the local economy. This issue's a priority for the victims of flooding, is a priority for the affected municipality, and it should be a priority for this government.
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Water Stewardship tell this House whether her government intends to draw down the Shoal lakes, yes or no? They deserve an answer.
Ms. Melnick: I can assure members opposite that water management within this province is a priority of this government, which is why I'm very privileged to be the only Minister of Water Stewardship in the country of Canada. We were the first to bring in a water protection plan. We were the first to bring in legislation that deals with caring for the water throughout this province. We're the first to actually tackle drainage in the way that water resource officers–who members opposite refer to as the water police–deal with communities.
We are on this file. We are working in partnership, and we encourage members opposite to get on board and, again, be part of the solution instead of always part of the problem.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Selinger) recognizes the Devils Lake issue affects Manitoba and is working on a plan to deal with it.
The Shoal lakes situation is very similar. The farmers, the municipalities, the business community, the school divisions and all others affected by rising Shoal lakes know swift action is needed. The long-term socioeconomic health of this region is being threatened.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister today announce a definitive plan to deal with the Shoal Lake flooding, or will she get out of the way, hand over the file to another minister and get the job done?
Ms. Melnick: Well, reading from his notes, the member talks a fine line, but what he doesn't talk about is what the Tories call getting the job done was slashing the budget for water resources by 43 per cent. They missed their time to help the people of Shoal lakes, to help the people of the Interlake, to help the people of this province deal with water throughout the entire province of Manitoba.
It's time for them to get on board and, again, instead of always complaining, be part of the solution and realize that they were the cause of a lot of the damage we're seeing today by cut, cut, cut, and they would cut another $500 million out of the budget if they ever got on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. We're going to work really hard to make sure they don't.
Structure Removal Order
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Well, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Premier (Mr. Selinger) is acutely aware of the potential of flooding in this coming spring, and he's given us some hope that, indeed, he's going to be prepared. However, it appears that there is no communication between him and his Minister of Water Stewardship.
Mr. Speaker, Sandy Lake, in the RM of Harrison, was allowed to put in a structure to lower the water in Sandy Lake so that cottages, municipal infrastructure and roads could be saved. The minister decided that this structure must be taken out by the 15th of January.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems that in Manitoba spring arrives in March and April, and I'm wondering why she's given the order that the licence will not be extended beyond January the 15th when, indeed, the spring flood will happen in March and April.
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, we rely on the people with the expertise who work for the Province of Manitoba and work with communities. When there is a state of emergency–a state of local emergency declared, it is done so with the acceptance that once the danger has passed, the actions that have been taken around the state of local emergency will be discontinued. I trust that the people in Water Stewardship and Conservation and the others who are working with local communities are working, again, not only for the safety of local communities, but also for the water management within this province.
Again, it's a shame that the member opposite wants to run roughshod over the experts, ignore their advice, ignore their expertise and let water flow wherever it wants in Manitoba.
Structure Removal Order
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Well, Mr. Speaker, the person that's riding roughshod over municipalities is this minister.
* (14:00)
Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the municipality this morning. They are worried that, indeed, the spring flood is once again going to cause that damage to cottages, to roads, to infrastructure if that structure is taken out. There's an enormous amount of water in that water body, and we don't know why the minister thinks that that structure should be removed by January the 15th.
Mr. Speaker, we have a similar situation at Thomas Lake where the minister has ordered the municipality to remove that structure by April the 15th, right in high tide of spring thaw and flooding.
I want to ask the minister whether she's really in communication with her Premier or is she just–doesn't know what she's doing.
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): Well, the member in this House that doesn't know what he's doing is the member from Russell, who yesterday talked about the high water levels around Thomas Lake that have been low for about the last six months.
So we are the ones who are in touch with the RMs. We are the ones who are working with the communities. We are the ones who are ensuring safety for communities while there is a threat. We're making sure that we're already preparing for next spring.
Again, specialists have the knowledge that the member from Russell doesn't have. We rely on the advice from these specialists, and we will trust them over the minister for–or over the member from Russell any day.
Meeting Request With Minister
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Well, Mr. Speaker, the RM of Strathclair has desperately wanted to meet with the minister. During the AMM convention they asked the RM of Shoal Lake if they could join them in meeting with the minister because their meeting had been cancelled. Do you know what the minister did? The minister refused to conduct the meeting until the members of the RM of Strathclair left.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Selinger) whether this is what he calls good relationships with municipalities in the province of Manitoba.
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): Well, Mr. Speaker, again the member from Russell is not communicating with his leader. Today his leader talked about preparation for spring flooding. We have assured not only members opposite, but all of Manitobans, that we are preparing for that. We're preparing for all of Manitoba.
We're working closely with all of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, which includes the areas in Russell that the member from Russell is talking about, and we will continue to do so. I think better communication needs to happen between the Leader of the Opposition and the member from Russell.
Design Update
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier would be disappointed if he didn't get a question today on his No. 1 infrastructure priority, the badly needed Winnipeg stadium.
I want to ask the Premier: Is the stadium design yet finalized? Is the due diligence done, and when can we look forward to an announcement?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): I thank the member for the question, a project which he has opposed from the outset. He's now made two points: that he likes the location of it, and he now acknowledges that it needs to be built. This is significant progress, Mr. Speaker, from his flat-out opposition to it.
And I can tell you all the partners are working on finalizing the details of going forward on the stadium. The design has been put in–out there for public review and discussion, and the project will be announced when all those details are confirmed and finalized.
Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has just said that they are continuing to review the design, and I would just want to table for him a shot taken about noon today from the blueandgold.ca live construction webcam. And what that shows are what appears to be two backhoes digging dirt. There seems to be a dump truck, a couple of other vehicles and a pile being driven into the ground. That was at noon today.
I wonder if the Premier can just indicate: If the design isn't yet finalized, what exactly are these folks up to down at the university?
Mr. Selinger: I'm very glad that the member opposite has time to visit the website and see the progress that's proceeding on something that I said. I mean he can't–he really can't have it both ways. He can't argue that progress is proceeding and then say the project's being stalled.
He's actually just–he's just brought forward evidence that this confirms everything he's been arguing before that the project's stalled. The excavation work has been proceeded with. Final details are being confirmed with respect to prices. All the partners are working together to advance the project.
And I'm glad the member now has confirmed that he likes the site and that he's also confirmed that he thinks the new stadium needs to be built. This is significant progress, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr. Speaker, he hasn't indicated what the final design is or announced that. He still hasn't figured out whose paying for it, but we see piles being driven in as of an hour and a half ago, and lots of digging and other work going on.
I just wonder if the Premier can indicate for the House today: Is somebody paying for the work that's going on or is this just a volunteer endeavour by those who are down at the site?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite likes to mock a project he doesn't support, but now we're seeing him edge his way into supporting the project, just like he did on the MTS Centre. They opposed it, and then they started putting on the Jets jerseys and claiming they were always in favour of it, and we're starting to see them change their position.
The reality is, Mr. Speaker, all the partners are working on the final details. The project–we now have a bipartisan support that the project needs to be done. This is very significant progress. I look forward to the project moving forward with all the details being made available to the public when they are finalized by all the partners.
Children-in-Care Increase
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I know this government was very disappointed with the results of the–Monday's election in Winnipeg North. Perhaps the new crime statistics that emerged yesterday are part of the reason why people in Winnipeg North, and Manitoba as a whole, feel that the government is out of touch with the issues which are important to them.
Mr. Speaker, it's no secret that there is about 8,600 children who are in the care of the Province and that these children are most at risk in terms of juvenile delinquency and committing crimes. Considering that the number of children in care has grown each year and the percentage of crime grows each year–at this time, up 23 per cent in the north of Winnipeg, will the Premier finally admit that he's indifferent to the children suffering in the care of Child and Family Services and he's failed to keep the streets of Winnipeg North safe?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the member is–takes some satisfaction in the result of the federal by-election.
I'd like him to explain to the public today why he voted against the budget that put more money into child care, to put more money into child welfare, to put more money into crime prevention, to put more money into public education, to put more money into recreation opportunities for youth. He wanted to cut a half a billion dollars out of the budget.
He stands here being very smug today. I can tell him, if he wants to make progress, he should consider who he is supporting in the next election, who will make real investments in childrens and families all throughout all of Manitoba. And I can tell you, him and his colleagues on that side of the House are not the ones that advanced that agenda. It is the members of this side of the House that have made a commitment to protecting front-line services.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I didn't support the budget because the Premier likes throwing money all over the place and it's not very effectively used and were not getting good outcomes, and our crime stats, as I just mentioned, are going up.
I was sick to my stomach, because as I said earlier, about the total indifference of this government in terms of the 50 to 60 children who die every year while in the care of Child and Family Services. And I'm appalled at the indifference of this government in making the connection between increasing numbers of children in care, the chaos in Child and Family Services and the increased rates of crime. Mr. Speaker, the theme of this government is chaos in child welfare, chaos in the streets.
Will the Premier admit that he's a–got a dire problem here, which he's not effectively addressed, and that he's indifferent to the destruction in our streets and the destruction of the lives of kids?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, not only are we not indifferent, but we're actually willing to take the risk to do what's necessary to help young people. That's why we've negotiated with the federal government more money for prevention in the child welfare system. That's why we've made significant investments in education when other jurisdictions are cutting that back. That's why we've brought forward legislation this fall to enable young people to stay in school till 18 years old. That's why all the measures we have taken are intended to allow young people to succeed in school, to enter the labour market and get jobs. And while we're doing that, we're also ensuring that community policing are available to keep neighbourhoods safe.
* (14:10)
The member has voted against all of those initiatives. What's his proposal? To go back to when he was in the federal government and they cut 40 per cent out of the budget, including programs for–daycare was cut, social assistance was cut, legal aid was cut, health care was cut and post-secondary education was cut. If that's his formula for success, let him say that today.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Premier consider that the terrible mismanagement he's making of the money that's being spent in this province is the reason that the crime rates are going up. It's a reason we've got more kids in Child and Family Services. It's a 'meason' we've got chaos in child welfare in this province.
Will the Premier not admit that the buck has got to stop somewhere? Will he finally take accountability for everything that's gone wrong with Child and Family Services, the chaos, the problems in our criminal justice system with the increase in crime rates and the inability that this Premier has in his government to protect the streets of Winnipeg?
Mr. Selinger: Again, Mr. Speaker, we have invested in over 219 additional police officers in this province, 93 in the city of Winnipeg. And our auto theft suppression strategy has generated a 70 per cent reduction in auto theft in this city.
The same useful approach on auto theft is now being turned to addressing gang issues in this city, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan) and this government have brought forward very specific measures to address those very serious crime issues, and we will continue to do that in spite of the member never having actually spoken in supporting these measures at any point in his career in this House. We will also continue to do those things that allow families to thrive, whether it's support for schools and Healthy Child initiative, or daycare, or recreation programs. Where programs make a difference we will invest in them. And we are also doing research to identify what works in these programs, and that is why our Healthy Child initiative has received support from around the world for the efforts we are taking on that, and that's why we are the only province in Canada with a Cabinet-level committee focusing on healthy children and families.
The member opposite has never achieved any of those things–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Bioenergy Project
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I've a question for the Minister of Water Stewardship.
Mr. Speaker, the Netley-Libau Marsh, which is in my constituency, is the largest coastal marsh on the continent. It acts as an important filter for Lake Winnipeg and, as many members know, it's a home to thousands of ducks and geese.
Can the minister explain to the House the recent announcement that was made by the government that will improve the health of this marsh and Lake Winnipeg?
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): It's my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the announcement made earlier this week at the Lake Winnipeg summit which was sponsored by the IISD and very strongly supported by this government. It is a pilot project that will be unique in our province. It is in partnership with the IISD and the University of Manitoba. It is a bioenergy project which will build on the actions we have already taken around the protection of Lake Winnipeg. This project will prevent nutrients from entering Lake Winnipeg, and those who understand the water flows understand that prevention of input of nutrients is much better than having to take nutrients out at the other end. This project will see the harvest of about 200 hectares of march–marsh grasses which can be turned into clean bioenergy product. Once fully developed the project will produce about 3,000 tons of biomass, offset approximately–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Co-Management Plan
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, since 2000, this NDP government has spent $600,000 and counting to develop a co-management plan for the Lake Dauphin fishery. Approximately 150 thousand additional dollars have been spent on frozen fish, much of it given away to non-fishermen.
Mr. Speaker, why has this Minister of Water Stewardship and her NDP government failed so miserably in developing a co‑management plan for the Lake Dauphin walleye fishery?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Acting Minister of Conservation): For a number of years my colleague in the Department of Conservation has been working very hard with the West Region Tribal Council, the Intermountain Sport Fishing Enhancement Group and other stakeholders in the area to make sure that we have put in place a co-management plan that makes sense, that is based first and foremost on the conservation of the pickerel stocks in Lake Dauphin. And, Mr. Speaker, from those discussions we have moved forward quite strongly in terms of two years in a row with closures of the tributaries flowing into Lake Dauphin, something that members opposite never, ever lifted a finger to try to get done when they had their chance in this province.
Tributary Closures Extension
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, existing legislation allows the minister to implement a conservation closure during the critical spring spawning season on the Lake Dauphin tributaries. This past spring, a closure was placed on three of the tributaries of Lake Dauphin.
After we rise next week, we don't know when this House will sit again. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask: Will the minister today commit to doing the right thing in 2011, extend the conservation closure to the other four tributaries of Lake Dauphin for the duration of the spring walleye spawning season?
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the people around the Lake Dauphin area, the West Region Tribal Council and those who traditionally had fished, but who recognized the need for a sustainable fishery, and through the last two years have observed the closure during the spring spawn on the various tributaries.
Again, we relied on science from the department. We consulted with the local communities. We consulted with the First Nations people. We are serious about providing a sustainable fishery, not only on Lake Dauphin, but throughout all of the lakes, and there's some 110,000 lakes that we enjoy in the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Briese: Mr. Speaker, almost three quarters of a million dollars spent on the Lake Dauphin fishery issue. These funds could've had a great impact on fish enhancement programs. There's still no co‑management plan in place. A 10-year MOU has never been acted upon. There are declining walleye stocks in many year classes.
Mr. Speaker, this minister has failed to manage one small fishery in this province. How can Manitobans have any confidence at all in the NDP government protecting any of the valuable fisheries in Manitoba?
Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have absolutely no credibility on this issue. In April 1999, they issued a press release announcing a closure. They walked away from it, did nothing to enforce it, and nearly 6,000 pounds of fish were taken during the time of that spring spawn.
That's their record. Ours is to work in co‑operation with all of the communities. We will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, to protect this fishery.
Open House Public Meeting
Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Well, Mr. Speaker, there are currently plans being developed for a hard median going through the town of Dugald.
I would like to ask the minister: Can he, again, confirm that a public house will be held where the plans will be presented and where feedback will be sought?
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation): I appreciate the member has raised this with me, and one thing that the department does do with design of any of our major projects is ensure maximum consultation, and I have noted the particular desire on this particular issue that–which I know the member has raised, and I've asked the department to ensure that we do have a public hearing.
Mr. Schuler: Residents and businesses of Springfield, including Jim McCarthy, the reeve of Springfield; Gary Brown, one of our councillors; Dick Vlaming, the fire chief; and bus drivers, have all come forward to petition the minister for this open house.
Could he perhaps tell this House when that open house would be held?
Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Speaker, soon. And I do want to indicate that there are a lot of challenges facing our department currently with a record capital program, more than $360 million, and it has stretched the resources of our department to the limit.
But they've stepped up to the plate, and one thing they do is they make sure they not only bring the best design–and we do, by the way, have some of the best engineers in Canada working for the provincial government–but they also listen, and we will indeed make sure that we listen to the people, the member's constituents.
Dredging Plans
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Rapid City has a reservoir that is used for recreation to help maintain water levels in local wells for water conservation and other purposes. Problems have arisen due to the silt buildup and vegetation in the reservoir. These concerns have been raised with Infrastructure and Transportation and Water Stewardship with no assistance offered.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister: Can you confirm today that Rapid City will receive their much-needed funding to dredge the reservoir?
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation): I'm aware of some of the background of the issue that's involved, and, as members opposite often do, I think it's important to recognize in this particular case we're dealing with numerous challenges on the infrastructure side across the province, particularly on the drainage side.
* (14:20)
Right now we're putting a specific focus, following the comments of the Premier (Mr. Selinger), I know, that reflect that earlier today, on the immediate flood situation.
We are identifying, across the province, areas where we can target in terms of immediate supplementary work. And I want to stress that we have increased maintenance over the last number of years on our waterways and we put a significant increase in the capital. But we're working with a number of challenges.
I realize this as an issue in the member's area, and in terms of dredging, we've also got the challenges on the Red River where the federal government has unilaterally moved away from dredging. So we also have been very much working with trying to get the federal government to the table, as well, because, quite frankly, we're dealing with some of the challenges faced in terms–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Rowat: Mr. Speaker, this government's lack of commitment to maintaining important water structures in many rural communities is atrocious. In a memo to a constituent, Water Stewardship staff confirmed that the maintenance of the Rapid City reservoir is the responsibility of the Province of Manitoba, yet another infrastructure and–yet neither Infrastructure and Transportation nor Water Stewardship wants to live up to their responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, will one of these ministers explain to the community of Rapid City why this government is abdicating its responsibility when it comes to maintaining important reservoirs?
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): Well, Mr. Speaker, there's no abdication of responsibility.
The member said that the Province of Manitoba has recognized their responsibility in this issue and they're working on it. There are two departments, MIT and Water Stewardship, who are working with the community. I know the member doesn't understand it takes time to do the proper planning that needs to happen but that's what we'll do.
But, again, this is a party that would remove all water–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Rowat: Mr. Speaker, what I do understand is this minister has been asked to meet with different municipalities and she continually closes the door on them.
Mr. Speaker, proper maintenance of the Rapid City Reservoir is important for the local fish population. The use of the Rapid City fish ladder has also been affected by the silt and the vegetation buildup of the reservoir. As a result, fish counts have fallen dramatically from 2,300 in 1999 to only 15 in 2008.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Water Stewardship: In order to help protect this fish population, will she commit today to getting this reservoir dredged in a timely manner?
Ms. Melnick: Well, the member from Minnedosa has made my point. There are many elements to any work with water in the province of Manitoba, be it the fishery, be it dredging needs, be it clean water, there are many aspects of this. We have to take the time to make sure the proper planning is done and then the proper actions are carried out. Again, MIT and Water Stewardship are working with the local people. We will make sure that we get the decisions that are made–we will make sure that the decisions that are made are the right ones.
And, again, members opposite don't want to deal with waste-water treatment. They want to let urine and E. coli run throughout the waters of Manitoba and they also want to remove all the water regs, and instead of working with water resource officers, as they should be, they call them the water police. What do you expect from a team like that?
Mr. Speaker: Time for oral–Order. Time for oral questions has expired.
Anthony Friesen
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to acknowledge the perseverance of a young man from my constituency. Twenty-one-year-old Anthony Friesen of Somerset, Manitoba, was the recipient of the Junior Player of the Year Award, which was presented at the Baseball Manitoba Awards Banquet.
Anthony Friesen is presently on the rosters of three baseball teams, including the Pembina Valley Orioles Junior Team, the Oak River Dodgers in the Manitoba Senior AAA Baseball League, and the Baldur Regals of the Border West Baseball League.
Mr. Friesen is also a student at Minot State University where he plays baseball with the MSU Beavers. As a left-handed pitcher, Anthony Friesen pitches on an average speed of 86 to 87 miles per hour and has mastered four pitches including the fastball, curve, slider and change-up.
This past summer Anthony Friesen joined the MJBL all-star team for the Baseball Canada National Junior Championships, which were held in Trois‑Rivières, Québec. The team from Manitoba won the tournament's gold medal, with Mr. Friesen throwing in 13 innings during the tournament and picking up a win and a save.
Anthony Friesen was recognized at the top of his peers, as he was rewarded with two trophies at the tournament. He was the recipient of the Alain Lesage Trophy for the best pitcher of the tournament, and the Mathieu Demontigny Trophy for the tournament's Most Valuable Player.
Anthony Friesen has also been successful in playing with his local clubs, which has made him a good choice for the Manitoba team. In 16 games with the Pembina Valley Orioles, he displayed a 12-1 record, striking out 116 batters in 66 innings. He averaged less than three hits per game with–and had a 0.71 earned run average.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Anthony Friesen on his outstanding baseball season. Winning the Baseball Canada National Junior Championships as well as the tournament's MVP are both exceptional accomplishments. I hope that he knows just how proud Manitobans are of his achievements, and I wish him the best of luck in his future in baseball.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Southdale Scouts
Ms. Erin Selby (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, we all want to teach our kids about sharing, about caring for the earth and about the value of helping our neighbours, and the Southdale Scouts embody these lessons and more. It's been a pleasure to learn more about my constituency's branch of Scouts Canada, and I'm proud to say that, with over 100 kids involved, Southdale has one of the largest scouting groups in Manitoba.
The Southdale Scouts get kids of all ages involved in different kinds of volunteer projects, and there are four sections. The littlest, Beavers, ages 5 to 7, learn about sharing. The Cubs, 8 to 12, learn about outdoor camping skills. Scouts, age 11 to 14, go on hiking and canoeing trips as well as gain more experience with service opportunities in the community. The older sector are Venturers, from 15 to 17, who mentor younger scouts and help seniors at events like a recent Remembrance Day ceremony.
This year scouts of all ages are working to raise funds for the 2011 Pacific Jamboree. This is a chance for our youth to meet and share stories with scouts from across the country. It's an incredible experience, so Southdale Scouts is working hard to make sure that all their scouts get to go at least once. However, the kids themselves earn their way. The scouts give out apples for donations as well as deliver papers and run bottle drives to raise funds, because, when kids put their own effort into this kind of initiative, it makes the trip that much more meaningful.
This holiday season the Southdale Scouts will be helping with the Salvation Army with food drives and will be singing carols in local seniors homes.
Mr. Speaker, our kids are the heart of our community, and it's a pleasure to have so many budding philanthropists in Southdale. Thank you.
Breezy Point Home Buyouts
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I want to read onto the record a letter that was addressed to the Premier of the Province:
We the undersigned, residing on Breezy Point Road, Highway 320, are worried about the future of flooding and want to be bought out.
We are not confident that promised diking will adequately protect our safety and property. Further, we do not believe we should have to pay a 14 per cent protector for the Province-diked shore of Lake Winnipeg in 2008 at no cost to seasonal residents.
The following, in 2009 flood, cottages on leased land were expropriated, and selected, privately owned properties who were bought out.
When waters–when flood waters crossed the Clandeboye Road, two mile–to the Two Mile Road and the bridge at Ducks Unlimited pond, we became an island, surrounded by water–the increased risk for our safety and those making rescue efforts.
We wish to have the following same consideration for buyout as former neighbours. Further, we believe the buyout should not be left to the reeve, council of St. Andrews to decide. This should be left up to the Province to negotiate directly with us.
Property owners look forward to your support.
And this was submitted by a number of people, the residents of Breezy Point: Myrtle Gorda, Nick Gorda, William McCaw, Adele McCaw, Roxane Anderson, John Anderson, Albert Makara, Darlene Makara, Patrick Schuit, Barbara Mason, Duncan McIvor, Theon McIvor, Kathy Monkman, Lee Hanson, Joyce Ward, Jean Welch, Ed Zinnick, Karen Fey, Tim Gutheil, Leverne Tucker, Bert Crocker, Kenneth Fey, Myrna Fey, Dennis Fedorchuk, Steve Bileski, Ron Delaney, Gregory Wakaluk, Lorna Wakaluk, Helen Wiess, Jean Atkins, Bill Atkins, Shelley Smith, Ken Prychun and Natali Schuit.
These all brought this to our attention. They felt that it was an issue that they wanted to bring forward to the government in power. We agreed to read this into the record so that the voice would, in fact, be heard, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Jocelyn House Hospice 25th Anniversary
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Education): One of the most difficult things to experience in life is the loss of a child. But even more difficult is to imagine, how do we emerge from this experience and use it to create hope?
Bill and Miriam Hutton did just this when they opened the Jocelyn House Hospice in memory of their daughter who passed away from cancer at age 17. Led by her example, whose wish was to share as much joy and friendship in her last days as possible, they turned her passing into a means of helping others live their lives out in friendship and comfort.
* (14:30)
This November marked the 25th anniversary of Jocelyn House, and I was pleased to attend the celebration luncheon and bring greetings on behalf of the Province.
Jocelyn House was founded in St. Vital in 1985. It was Jocelyn Hutton's final wish to be surrounded by family in a loving environment. With this in mind, Jocelyn House offers warm, home-like support and progressive palliative care for Manitobans in their final stage of life. We strongly appreciate and support all efforts towards quality end-of-life care, including individual choice on where those services should be received. Our government has focused on expanding services to better support palliative care so that Manitobans, both rural and urban, can choose to spend their final days at home–of–at a home of their choice.
Jocelyn House is a leader in providing such care, as it was the first hospice in western Canada. I hope all members will join me in thanking Jocelyn House Hospice's volunteers, staff and contributors for their dedication over the past 25 years. We wish them all the best as they continue to enhance end-of-life care and provide comfort to the residents and families who call Jocelyn House home.
Manitoba Individual Flood Proofing Initiative
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, with the heavy snowfall that we've experienced so far this season, we must prepare for what is likely to be another wet spring.
The provincial government are taking strides in pursuing a comprehensive flood mitigation program to protect individual homes, farms and businesses. The program is aimed at helping those in the areas where the flood risk is highest, such as the Red River area north of Winnipeg. The 2010 Manitoba Individual Flood Proofing Initiative is providing $9.8 million to assist eligible landowners to protect valuable–vulnerable buildings and structures from future flood damage.
Homeowners, farmers and businesses can now apply for assistance to cover the costs of permanent flood-protection works for their properties. This program will be delivered over six years and covers a maximum total cost of $100,000. It's similar to the 1997 program; the landowner is responsible to pay 14 per cent of the total cost.
It's also important to note that existing permanent flood-protection works, which were constructed following the 2009 spring floods, are also eligible for funding under this program. In other words, if you constructed a permanent flood-protection works for your home, farm or business after March the 1st, 2009, you're eligible to apply for reimbursement. I'd like to remind those affected by the flood of 2009 to apply before the deadline of December the 31st, 2010.
Mr. Speaker, these investments are only part of our government's flood mitigation program, which includes icebreaking equipment, flood tubes, buyouts and diking.
I want to thank the Premier (Mr. Selinger) and the Minister of Water Stewardship (Ms. Melnick) and the Minister of Infrastructure (Mr. Ashton) for their support of these initiatives, and, Mr. Speaker, I know that it'll require all of our best efforts to deal with the challenges ahead. Thank you.
(Continued)
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on House business.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe we're prepared to move to debate on second reading of Bill 12.
Bill 12–The Highway Traffic Amendment and Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Okay, we will resume debate on Bill 12, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act, and it's standing in the name of the honourable member for Steinbach.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I want to put a few words on the record regarding Bill 12, a bill whose intention it is to reduce drinking and driving in the province of Manitoba. And I know that this has been a priority of different governments. I remember the previous Conservative government, which was a leader in Canada in bringing forward different pieces of legislation regarding drinking and driving and the seizure of property, and I know at that time not everybody who represented political parties in this House believed that that piece of legislation would stand the test of time or that it could be done. But, in fact, it was shown to be both constitutional and it still remains as one of the tools that we have to reduce drinking and driving.
This particular piece of legislation, I think, is part of a two-pronged approach. Obviously, enforcement is one of the critical areas, to ensure that people get the message about drinking and driving, and that isn't always the case. We hear and read with heavy hearts too often, and particularly recently, about families who've gotten that knock at the door in the middle of the night that all parents and, I think, all Manitobans dread to hear, that a loved one or a child has lost their life, and–the result of a drinking‑and-driving fatality. And anything that we can do to try to reduce that is important, Mr. Speaker.
We also know, unfortunately, that the issue of awareness is one that was overlooked a bit by this government. They didn't–they underspent their budget in terms of the drinking and driving awareness campaign.
And so you have to ensure that both prongs of the strategy are in force. If you have both a rigid enforcement policy so that individuals know that there'll be punishment when they are caught drinking and driving, but there needs to also be a rigorous campaign to ensure that awareness is–continues to grow and that people continue to know that drinking and driving will be taken seriously and that it costs lives and destroys families. And we're disappointed on the second of those strategies that the government failed to continue to put resources into the advertising campaign to raise awareness. Of all the places that this government could've cut, I suspect that that is probably one of the last that they should have been looking at. And yet, instead of looking at other issues, like the waste of $1.75 billion by putting a hydro line on the wrong side of the province, they decided to cut funds from an advertising campaign that may have saved lives by reducing drinking and driving.
So, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the bill itself and the fact that it deals with issues of enforcement, one of the two prongs, we look forward to this going to committee and having further discussion and hearing from Manitobans who may wish to make comment on the bill at that time.
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): I'm pleased to stand and put a few words on the record on, I think, this very important highway traffic amendment and drivers vehicles amendment act, Bill 12. I'm reminded, listening to the member for Steinbach, thinking about the progress that is made–been made over the decades–really, I suppose, over the generations. I can remember a time, Mr. Speaker, when the thinking and the attitudes were quite a bit different than what you see out there today.
And, you know, sometimes we say, we can't legislate a change in people's thinking; we can't regulate a change in, you know, people's actions. And I partially agree with that. I don't want to discount the role that we can play in this Chamber with our legislation. I note that this legislation provides for stronger penalties and, I think, continuing a tougher approach towards those who would drink and drive. I think part of the improvement that we've seen over the generations in people's attitudes towards drinking and driving comes through a lot of education.
I remember back in–when I was at university, we did a–we had a team that did a lot of curling in the southwest part of Manitoba; I went to Brandon University and curled in many of the men's bonspiels down in the southwest corner of our province. And it was well known that one of the skips on one of the teams had done a little work on his half-ton. Now, I can't imagine him getting away with this today, but here's what he did. He drained the windshield wiper fluid out of the truck and replaced it with rye whisky, then ran the hose from his windshield wiper container through the dash of his half-ton–
An Honourable Member: Teddy?
Mr. Struthers: No. No, wrong part of the province. Ran a–the dispenser through the dashboard, and every time he then turned his windshield wipers on he got about an ounce and a half of rye whisky into his glass as he was driving.
Now, that was a long time ago. I don't know if this fellow still does that to this day. I would highly doubt that he does, for a whole lot of different reasons. First of all, the laws probably sobered the guy up. Maybe the societal pressure on the fellow not to behave in this way changed his attitudes, maybe the thought of getting caught. Maybe the thought of him causing an accident that would hurt or kill someone changed his ways. Maybe he still does this today, and I hope he gets caught, Mr. Speaker.
* (14:40)
But, in 1977, '78, '79, in those days, there was a whole different regime by which we made these decisions. I mentioned the role that education plays in this. When I was–when I graduated from Swan Valley regional school in 1977, we had our grad exercises and we had our supper and everything in the town of Swan River. And then a whole bunch of graduates and their guests drove up that winding road, all the way up the north side of the Duck Mountains to Wellman Lake, stayed the whole night there, partaking in some alcoholic beverages and then, in the dark, proceeded to drive all the way back down that winding gravel road, home to various points located throughout the Swan River Valley. How somebody didn't get killed over those years, Mr. Speaker, is beyond me.
Today, there's a different approach taken by high schools, a different approach taken by the leadership of student councils, the leadership of parent councils, the leadership of the principal and the staff, superintendents and school divisions. When I was a principal at Rorketon Collegiate, we had a safe grad. We had a way in which students could get together and celebrate graduating which, I think, everybody understands we need to do. But the difference between the grad that we did in Rorketon and the grad that I participated in, X number of years earlier in Swan Valley, was a world of difference, Mr. Speaker, a world of difference in the way that approach was taken, a much safer approach, a much more responsible approach, an approach that allowed graduates that ability to celebrate and have some fun but, at the same time, make sure that that was done in a safe manner.
And I, as a school principal, I always complimented the good work that parents did, the hard work that parents did, to not only impart upon their children the importance of being safe and those sorts of lessons, but also being right there to supervise, to chaperone, to volunteer, to be with the–their young adults as they celebrated earning a high school diploma.
I think, what it–what most of all, what that signified to me, I think, by far, was a shift in society's view towards drinking and driving and it was a long time coming and there were deaths and injuries along the way, and that, I think, everybody understands is a tragedy. But today, I think we're moving along in the right vein and this Bill 12, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act, continues that evolution, I think, continues that spirit in which we approach this blight in terms of drinking and driving.
I want to give credit, too, to MADD, a group that does continue to bring this issue to the forefront and I think continues to advocate on behalf of society in terms of protection. Because, fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that all Manitobans have a right to be safe in their communities, to be safe on their streets. And one way in which we can ensure the safety of people on the streets is to make sure that those operating motor vehicles on these streets do so not under the influence of alcohol, and do so with all of their faculties available to them and do so in a safe manner.
I mentioned the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Last year, in 2009, I want to point out that they saw fit to award Manitoba an A- ranking. And I want to also say that this is the first, I understand, the first province in Canada to receive two straight A's from Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
So I think the approach that this government is taking is something that certainly is complementary to the work done by that group. It's complementary to the work that has been done through police forces, whether they be here in the city of Winnipeg or throughout the rest of Manitoba, where I really feel great when I see members of the RCMP, anywhere in my constituency, participating in events to try to get that safety message across, trying to get that message across that this is a serious issue and that we need to be vigilant and vigilant always, Mr. Speaker.
I also can't help but notice when my nephews and nieces and people of that age get together and they talk about their evenings out and, I've got to say, when I was their age, I don't remember these conversations happening much because I don't think they did happen a lot, but they planned out how they're going to handle, you know, the evening. Who was going to be that designated driver? Who was going to be the one responsible for getting the other ones home safely? Would they line up a cab to get home safely? Would they have their parents on call, so to speak, throughout the evening to make sure that the people got home safely? I've been quite impressed when I hear these kind of conversations, the kind of strategizing, strategizing for safety kind of conversations that I see happening with that next generation. And that gives me a lot of hope that–it gives me a lot of hope that this next generation takes this issue seriously. but also, it gives me a lot of satisfaction knowing that the messages that many of us, irrespective, really, of partisanship, have been trying to get across to people for one generation after the next.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that there has been good progress made on this, and this government on this side of the House takes a back seat to no one when it comes to that kind of support. I commend our minister for bringing forward Bill 12 for the kind of work that he has done on this to make sure that we do still lead the country in terms of our approach to drinking and driving, and I commend him for his hard work on this matter. And with those few words, I commend this bill for the consideration of the House and ask that it be supported from all quarters of the Manitoba Legislature. Thank you.
Ms. Erin Selby (Southdale): I, too, would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan) for bringing this bill to the House. I think it's an important bill. I think we all can agree that it is the right thing to do, but I also suspect that the minister probably works from some of the similar motivation that I do that he is a father, that his daughters are a bit young for this bill to apply directly to them, and certainly in terms of driving, but we're always, as parents, thinking of the future and some of the challenges that we all will face in the next few years as our children grow and start to test the boundaries a little bit of our own authority and, hopefully, just the authority at home and not anything further than that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today and I have the privilege of speaking in this House as the member for Southdale, but when speaking about drinking and driving, it really–I speak as a mother. It's an issue that brings a lot of passion out when people discuss it because it's an issue that–it makes you feel angry when you hear about another accident, and particularly a tragedy where someone is killed, and first, of course, we feel compassion for any family facing that but, then, afterwards, is anger that that choice was made.
Certainly, as a parent, I think we all know that the most important thing we can do is set the example. Our children do watch us and occasionally listen to what we say but I think we all know that it's less about what we tell them to do and more about what they see. And when we have laws in place that, like this, again, enforce the fact that we don't tolerate drinking and driving in Manitoba and that there is consequences if you make that choice, our children see that it's the planning ahead that is the most important part of it.
* (14:50)
Manitobans do have a right to feel safe in their communities and on their streets and, occasionally, an accident will happen, but drinking and driving is not an accident. It's a choice. It's a lack of planning. It's someone who didn't think ahead and that's really the most important part, is the education side, which this province has been doing and this government supports. But for those people who aren't listening to that message, who refuse to listen to that message, then we take a hard line on impaired driving and that means strict measures that we've put in place to provide stiffer penalties for impaired driving and we're proud to be moving forward on this subject.
This issue needs more of attention, then this government is going to do that. The Winnipeg Police Service supports our hard line on impaired driving. In 2009, the Winnipeg Police Service annual report said that Manitoba has among the toughest impaired driving legislation in Canada and it's going to get tougher. We appreciate the support of the Winnipeg Police Service and will continue to work with them because, of course, they're the folks on the front line.
We also work with MADD Canada. I have a lot of admiration for this group. They've taken what in many cases has been a personal tragedy for some of the members involved and used that to educate people, to really bring such an awareness, and the member for Dauphin was speaking earlier about how times have changed and they really have. Not only do we see, you know, people of our generation making better choices before they go out in the evening and young people, as well, but an older generation has had to make really big changes and that's through education because it's true. There was a time when one for the road was a saying; that's when people have one more for the road.
Well, we don't say that anymore, and I think, for those of us who are my age, we remember our parents drinking and driving was not considered a bad thing. They also smoked with us all around as well. There was a lot of things we don't do that our parents did. But they've changed as well and that's because of education and that is of course the most powerful message that we can put out, is education. But, beyond that, if people refuse to hear that message, well, that's when enforcement comes in.
MADD Canada has consistently rated this province among the best in terms of being proactive in dealing with drunk driving but of course if just one person dies, then we know that we have to do more and that's why we are today. MADD Canada president, Karen Dunham, has said, we're hoping that each province and jurisdiction will look at what Manitoba has done and adopt the solutions that Manitoba has done to lead the way.
We are proud of that record and we will continue to lead the way on this.
We're also pleased–the member for Dauphin also mentioned that in 2009 Mothers Against Drunk Driving saw fit to award Manitoba our second straight A- ranking, and Manitoba is the first province to receive two straight A's from MADD, which shows that we are on the right path and it's not time to stop, though. It's time to keep going on that by sending a strong, clear message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated in Manitoba.
That's why we're pleased to move forward with this bill to fight against impaired driving. Bill 12 has several key provisions and included in that is it will expand the scope of the highway traffic motor vehicle driver's licence sanctions to persons found operating a vessel, aircraft, railway equipment who have a blood alcohol concentration of .05 or higher.
Now, this sort of seems obvious, I guess. Well, of course, if you have been drinking, you shouldn't be driving a car but you probably shouldn't be driving anything if you've been drinking. You're probably better off to call a cab, a friend, maybe even walk home, but you certainly shouldn't be flying an airplane, operating a vessel or any kind of machinery such as that, or any kind of vehicle.
It also says that if they fail a physical co‑ordination test or refuse a police demand to provide a breath or blood sample or to participate in a physical co-ordination test or are too impaired to respond on demand, that too is addressed in this bill. We also are introducing a short, tiered suspension by changing the range of the motor vehicles driver's licence suspension for driving between .05 and .08 because we know that science shows us that if your blood-alcohol level is between .05 and .08–and, of course, that's different for everyone depending on your size and weight; that can be a big difference on what it would take to get you there. But we know that, when people start to get into that range, they start to not be able to make very good choices and their reaction times are not as quick as you would need.
Failing a physical co-ordination test from 24 to 24 hours on the first violation, 15 days for the second, 30 days for the third or 60 days for a subsequent within 10 years, and I think that's a really important part of this bill because I do believe that most Manitobans are getting this message. You see it all the time. You see people making the right choice, having a designated driver, planning a cab, calling Operation Red Nose at this time of year. But for those–and I don't think the numbers are high of those repeat offenders–but we know that those repeat offenders are a problem and are the most dangerous people on the road. And this sends a really clear message that you need to figure this out the first time. You need to figure it out before you go out, actually. You need to have a plan in place before you even head out to a bar or to a party, and, at this time of year, there's lots of opportunities to celebrate, and certainly not discouraging people from that, but celebrate responsibly with a plan ahead. But, if you're going to continually make that choice to drink and drive, well, this Province is going to come after you, and we're going to come after you every time that happens until that message is clear to everyone in this province.
Bill 12 also provides an appeal process for the short-tiered suspension, which will allow suspended drivers to challenge the grounds for the suspension to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, and if the suspension is upheld, to apply to the Licence Suspension Appeal Board for a conditional restricted driver's licence if the suspension will result in undue hardship, such as job loss. And I think that's an–also an important consideration. I mean, certainly, under the law we have–people are allowed to say that, no, I don't think this is fair and I don't agree, and they have that chance to redress that if that's how they feel. They can also talk about–as it says here–if that will result in undue hardship, so opportunity for people to be heard even afterwards.
This bill will eliminate the seven-day driving permit that currently applies at the end of the short‑term suspension and at the start of the three‑month administrator driver's licence suspension, and provide that drivers who are over .08 or who refuse to comply with breath, blood or physical co‑ordination demands, rather–would receive the three months' administration driver's licence suspension immediately at the roadside rather than receiving both a short-tiered term suspension and a three months' administration driver's licence suspension. I think that's a really important part as well, that you can't just say, you know what? I don't want to take the Breathalyzer. I don't want to do any of those tests. I–you're just going to have to trust me. This gives police at the roadside who, of course, who are the front line. These are the people who are dealing with people drinking and driving, and I think this time of year you actually–you see a lot of them. You probably see them–and I know everyone in this House will meet them and know that they've made their plan in advance. But for those who haven't, you can't make an excuse not to comply with an officer's wish for a Breathalyzer or a blood sample. That won't be enough.
I think, and as I said, that this–the importance of this bill is that it really does focus on repeat offenders. I think for most Manitobans, and as I said, most Manitobans are already heeding this message, I think, listening to this message, and this just reinforces how strong and clear our message is. And there's no doubt, in Manitoba this is not something we joke around with. This is a serious issue, and I think that people hear that. But this bill does put focus on those repeat offenders. That's why the tiered short-term suspensions are necessary because repeat offenders are at a greater road-safety concern than first offenders and should receive a higher suspension for repeat offences. I think that makes the message really clear. You do it once and there is a consequence, but you continue to make this choice in your behaviour and those consequences will increase. And I think that message is really clear. It's kind of similar to what we do with–as parents. You make one bad choice, but you continue to make that same bad choice then we increase the consequences until that message is clear, not just to that person, but to other people as well.
We're not the only Province who is doing this, and that's because the message of don't drink and drive is certainly a national message. You see that right across Canada. PEI, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories have already amended their highway traffic legislation. So you can see that this is the way that–the way of the future, the way things are going.
When it comes to–I talked earlier about boats and trains and planes, and, obviously, if you've been drinking, then you shouldn't be driving, you shouldn't be operating any of those vehicles either, but those are regulated federally. So the Province can extend the roadside driver's licence suspension sanctions to those found driving and–driving a vehicle while impaired and driving while impaired and found operating boats and planes and trains. That makes sense and that's going to make the roads safer to all Manitobans.
* (15:00)
I think that it's important to look back at our record of why this message has obviously been heard by the majority of Manitobans, and it is because of the significant initiatives that we have already done to combat drunk driving. Obviously, we have been proactive in this. MADD has recognized the efforts that we have made. We've strengthened sentencing to create stiffer penalties for repeat offenders, and this will just do even more. We've increased meaningful driver licence suspension penalties for impaired driving causing death or bodily harm and Breathalyzer refusal penalties.
We've targeted a wider range of vehicles, which includes ATVs and snowmobiles, which, you know, I think there was a thinking at one time that, okay, I won't drive my car; I'll just drive my snowmobile home. But obviously that is just as dangerous, whether it's someone else you harm or harm yourself for that matter. It's a clear message that just–if you've drank and you can't drive, that means you can't drive an ATV or a snowmobile for that matter either.
We've also introduced a zero blood alcohol for new drivers because we know that a new–when you start driving it's certainly challenging enough just to drive in a summer day with dry roads, never mind adding anything like snow, rain or alcohol. So new drivers have a zero blood alcohol level, is all that's acceptable and I think that's another way that we are pushing that message.
Young people today are growing up in a time when they can't imagine that drinking and driving was ever considered a normal thing. And, when they get their licence in a few years, I guess I have to face that all three of my daughters will get their licence at about the same time, and I will never, ever have access to a vehicle and will have to ride my bike everywhere at that point, which might not be a bad thing, actually. That's probably good; more of us could be riding our bikes.
But they will, from day one, have zero blood alcohol level will be expected and–well, expected from me at home, anyways, but now it's nice to know that the Province is on board. It's always good when your parenting choices are reinforced so that you can say, this isn't just me; this is everyone in Manitoba tells–says that you're not ready for this, so.
And I don't know that I will ever be ready for all three of them to be driving, but at some point they will get there and they will learn from day one that they need to make another plan because drinking and driving will not be an option.
I talked a little bit earlier about education and how that really is the most important thing. We've instituted intensive public education campaigns with MPI and others and certainly supported MADD in theirs as well and in–that's in schools. Kids are learning, hopefully long before they even start drinking, they learn the message of it's not acceptable to drink and drive. And it's the best way to prevent deaths on the road from drinking and driving is to prevent somebody from doing it in the first place.
And I think we're heading that way, where the norm is now, that you just don't do that. And kids growing up now, that's what they believe, that this is not something that we do and we make a plan in advance.
We've also amended The Highway Traffic Act to enhance police powers, and that's a really important thing because those are the folks on the front line, the ones who actually have to deal with impaired drivers. And I can't imagine anybody who is more angry than police officers when they see that, and hopefully most of the time, you know, that they come in contact with a drink driver it's–a drunk driver it's stopping them and preventing any accident. But I know that in the horrible case of an accident then some of the first people to arrive are often the police officers who have to arrive on scene and perhaps break some just unbelievable news to families as well.
We do recognize that there's more work to do and as long as there's one death on the roads in Manitoba from drinking and driving we will continue in this effort, but we appreciate the recognition of folks like MADD and appreciate their advice as well. We'll continue to work with them and other stakeholders and this issue will always continue as an important issue until we can get through a holiday season where at the police stops and the checkpoints that they find no one drinking and driving. And wouldn't that be lovely if we could get through this holiday season and at those checkpoints not one driver to be found to have alcohol in their system.
So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I will give some time for somebody else to speak, but I do want to say that I'm very pleased we're bringing in this bill. I think it's a really important bill and I think it sends a strong message to people in Manitoba that this will not be tolerated. Thank you.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to be able to stand up following the comments of my colleagues that are both enlightening and educational with respect to this particular issue.
It's not that long ago when the Criminal Code of Canada was at least one-quarter to one-third comprised of pages dealing with drinking and driving and, Mr. Speaker, it took the lead, I think, of many of the provinces to adhere to and provide for strict administrative laws and jurisdiction over The Highway Traffic Act to prompt the better and more regulated and stiffer penalties that we now see in the Criminal Code.
As the members opposite know, members opposite who are–who have one agenda that sort of–they climb the crime platform every election and all–between elections and play the crime card at every chance they get. They know full well that jurisdiction over the Criminal Code–it's a federal responsibility, and despite prompting from the Province, et cetera, we do not have the ability to deal with the Criminal Code.
Fortunately, in the last few years, we had some co-operation with the federal government to change the Criminal Code in a lot of areas, and I think no area is more ripe for change than in dealing with drinking and driving and impaired driving offences. As has been eloquently stated by my colleagues during the course of this debate, it wasn't that long ago when it was an acceptable practice to have a drink and hit the road, and that has changed 360 degrees in a generation, and that's through education, and that's through enforcement, and that's through changes brought about to the extent that provinces can, within their constitutional jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think there's a Province in the country that has gone further in terms of utilizing our administrative structure to deal with behaviour–criminal behaviour–and social responsibility than the Province of Manitoba. Notwithstanding, the cheap, daily–well, I wouldn't say cheap. I'd just say worn, daily comments by members opposite on crime and crime and crime, notwithstanding that they know that jurisdiction for crime is under the federal government, of which they are the same party, of which members trot out every election day and vote for and support, and–but the only card they seem to have in their repertoire is that of crime.
And we have done everything we can, within our administrative framework, to deal with social and criminal responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and it's sad. It's sad that the once mighty Progressive Conservative Party has been reduced in this Legislature to a rump of crime-calling individuals who use every day to raise the crime card, even though we have worked co-operatively with the federal government to deal with criminal sanctions and criminal activities.
The one-trick pony party opposite, Mr. Speaker, who are absent in debate–they're absent to debate with respect to an issue that's of prime importance to the citizens of Manitoba: drinking and driving. Manitoba has been recognized across the country–has been raised across the country as an example.
You know, Mr. Speaker, members opposite, who crow from their desks right now, who, every day stand up when the cameras are here, bashing the–bashing their–putting on their crime-fighting capes. The member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) gets up in the morning, hops in his car, puts on his crime-fighting cape, drives into Winnipeg, has a press conference, virtually attacking the federal government–virtually attacking the federal government, of which he wanted to be a member, and which, I expect, soon he will try to be again.
And they had that one-trick pony. Now we have an opportunity to debate a significant issue of which the Province has jurisdiction–of which the Province has jurisdiction–and I don't hear a peep from members opposite, Mr. Speaker. Nary a word from members opposite. Nary a word from members opposite about the support for Manitoba getting another A rating from MADD Canada. And you know, one almost likes–would like to think that members of the opposition are using crime and criminal activity as a political tool.
* (15:10)
Now, I wouldn't go that far. I do remember the former Premier Gary Filmon, in 1995, having ads where he materialized in front of a jail and talked about getting tough on crime in 1995. That was just after there had been a terrible gangland slaying in my constituency, after someone had been killed as a result of a stolen car in my constituency, and the government did nothing, Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. And, when we introduced our auto theft strategy, members opposite criticized it. But you know what, they don't rise–they don't rise–in this House any time now on auto theft. Never. Never, because they know we've reduced it and we've taken action within our jurisdiction, but we've gone further. We've worked with the federal government to make better sanctions on that.
And it's the same with drinking and impaired driving, Mr. Speaker. Within our jurisdiction, within our constitutional responsibility, the one that members opposite seem to have trouble differentiating against–within our responsibility, we have gone to the utmost to discourage the use of alcohol and other substances and to make it as easy as possible for Manitobans to understand and to adhere to the driving laws and regulations of this Province. We still lose too many Manitobans to drunk and impaired driving, but, as my colleague very eloquently stated, one death is too much. And, if this bill and this amendment can improve the situation on the roads, if it can take one driver off who's had one too many, then we have succeeded in our goal and we've achieved something significant.
Mr. Speaker, you won't hear members stand up when MADD Canada stands up and says Manitoba's got the best and the most informed laws in the country. Members opposite–the one-trick pony members opposite have only one horn they blow: it's the horn of negativity; it's the horn of noise; it's the horn of cover-up; it's the horn of crime. And, when the Province takes a positive step, nary a word is heard from members opposite, nary a whisper, because they know what we are doing is in adherence to what Manitobans want us to do, that is, to be tough on impaired driving, and to work with the federal government on the Criminal Code, but to go further than that, to work on the education and to work on recidivism and to work on the remediation to prevent individuals from being in a situation where they're forced or where they're locked in a period of addictions or have difficulty with substance abuse. And prevention–prevention–is something members opposite seem to–they adopt the old Tory line, you know, one line only, and that's punishment, as opposed to deterrence, as opposed to education, as opposed to rehabilitation.
And, Mr. Speaker, it's–I think it's significant that this jurisdiction has been rated for a number of years as being the most advanced in terms of dealing with this matter, and that we are seen as a leader in this field, and that's not something's that's acknowledged. We don't brag in Manitoba; we simply do the work that we do and do it the best we can and we lead by example in a variety of fields. And I'm very proud to be part of a government that recognizes that, and further, I'm very proud to be part of a government that has looked at creative ways of dealing with social responsibility and dealing with matters of addiction and the causes of behaviour, which is as significant as the penalties we put on. And the day that members ever stand up and find anything meaningful in the legislation we bring forward are few and far between, and I–it's very apparent from comments of members opposite and question period the last few days.
This is the holiday season. This is the season when–of festivities and the season of friendship and the season of sharing, Mr. Speaker, and unfortunately it's also the season where there's a tendency on individuals to perhaps go over the line. And by bringing in this legislation and by passing it quickly, we hope to reinforce the message in Manitoba that you can have a good time–you can have a good time anytime, anyplace, anywhere, but you ought not to operate a vehicle after you've had a drink or a couple of drinks because that very act–that very act–could lead to not only an administrative penalty, but, ultimately, a criminal conviction. And I think it's significant that we have moved forward on this, year after year after year. We filled the vacuum that was there in the 1990s, a vacuum that saw only one way for government to go, and that was government to cut and lay off and slash and burn and discredit the very nature of government.
Instead, we've taken on our responsibility of working with the public to try to put in place meaningful programs to help youth, to help adults, to help people with hope, to build the economy, Mr. Speaker, to move forward on a positive basis, and this is part of those actions. This is part of the actions of building a Manitoba where people feel safe, people have hope, people can look forward to the future and not be caught in the mean-spirited spiral of only sanctions and–of only sanctions as the only methodology, and only talk as the only methodology with dealing with issues.
We've taken concrete actions, Mr. Speaker, and I would welcome support from all members of the House with respect to this–the ability of the Province to do what it can within the–within its administrative powers to discourage drinking and driving.
I had the pleasure and opportunity to take part in checkstops, and found it a very interesting and a very significant occasion, because it not only made the public aware of the fact that drinking and driving was something that is not tolerated in Manitoba but, in fact, I think it provides assurance for the public that the public authorities–the police, the prosecutors, the government, are going to be out there and vigilant to make sure that even the odd individual who has the misfortune to–and the intolerance and perhaps the lack of judgment to go behind the wheel or the controls, as it be, to control a vehicle should not do so if they've had anything to drink.
And it's changed significantly in the last few years, and no small part is due to the work of the Attorney General, who's worked with MADD Canada, who's worked with the police services, to try to change the culture and change the view towards drinking and driving, towards impaired driving, towards the attitude towards driving, in a whole variety of the areas, be it graduated licences or be it the changes of The Highway Traffic Act or the administrative procedures that are within the jurisdiction of the Province of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker.
I often sit when I hear members opposite catcall about the changes and about criminal activity, and wonder if members aren't sort of mistaking the authority for criminal control with that of the United States, where states have control of criminal matters. And members opposite like to put on this façade, this screen or this scrim with respect to their activities, that somehow we control criminal law, Mr. Speaker, and that could be–nothing could be further than the truth from that.
And we've had in Ottawa now a government for five years that's been, quote, a law-and-order government. For five years, Mr. Speaker, a law‑and‑order government that we've worked with to change the Criminal Code, and yet the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) increasingly stands up and criticizes those changes. He criticizes his own federal government. He criticizes the activity we've taken place with changes to the Criminal Code, and I think Manitobans see through that. They see through the desperate rattling of members opposite on a one-trick pony. Crime–crime–is the only issue that they seem to revolve around, which is an old tactic, an old Conservative tactic from way back. When you've got nothing else to talk about, when you have no hope, when you have no inspiration, when you have no ideas, you play the crime card.
* (15:20)
And the member from Steinbach plays it very well every day in this Chamber, every press conference that he drives in from Steinbach in, to talk about some new concoction that he's drummed up, with–he doesn't realize that he's criticizing the federal government, in fact, with control over the Criminal Code. He never thinks about picking up the phone and talking to the federal government. No, he shouts across the floor and talks to the provincial government who've done everything in their power to deal with the administrative changes and the Criminal Code changes. He yells across the room, but fails to pick up the phone.
You know, it's–I think Manitobans see through that. They know when you have a one-trick pony; they know when you have an opposition that plays the crime card day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, that it's phony, that it's a phony card played by members opposite who are–who play that card because, frankly, Mr. Speaker, they don't have much else to talk about. They can't even talk about this bill. You know, this bill, which is significant to Manitobans, I would've hoped I would've heard some informed support from members opposite. Instead, there's catcalls; there's silence. And silence is indicative of the wellspring of thought that comes from members opposite. It's lacking, and I'm very glad we have a government that works with the public, that works with MADD Canada, that works to deal with issues that they can, within their jurisdiction, to deal with matters that affect Manitobans.
Our streets are safer by virtue of our administrative laws and our highway and traffic act that we put in place. It makes–every time we do one of these changes, it helps make our streets safer. And, you know, Mr. Speaker, every time the members opposite vote against extra police, every time they vote against one of our crime prevention initiatives, every time the member for Steinbach criticizes one of the initiatives we put in for preventing gang violence, they are only displaying their own lack of knowledge and their own lack of creativity with respect to how we have to deal with some of the societal and criminal problems that face us today. I've been proud to stand beside the federal Justice Minister, as my colleague has, on many occasions, as a government that's leading the way with respect to how we should deal with crime and how we should deal with Criminal Code offences and how we should intermingle both the sanctions in the Criminal Code and the sanctions in The Highway Traffic Act to make them both interchangeable and mirror each other–[interjection]–to deal with our constitutional jurisdictions.
I can hardly hear myself talk because of the crowing of the member for Steinbach. And I welcome his comments, Mr. Speaker. I dare him to stand up and ask a question about auto theft. He's been very silent since he heard that it's been reduced by 75 per cent in this province. And, you know, I dare members opposite to oppose our changes to the Criminal Code that we've asked the federal government to institute. You know, they're absent from the discussion when we go to Ottawa to talk to the federal government, but they're always there honking on the horn at question period time when they can try to grab the cameras and try to grab attention on the crime agenda, which is, frankly, the only agenda they put forward.
The only agenda, the only thing that the members opposite can talk about is crime. And that's a shame because Manitobans understand the broad nature of society, and they understand that the Criminal Code is a federal initiative. It's constitutionally the responsibility of the federal government, and it's our duty as a province to provide advice and assistance to the federal government in this regard, of which we've done on many occasions. But it's hard to believe that an opposition could be as negative as members opposite have been with respect to the changes we tried to put forth. In fact, it betrays a fact, and that fact is that while we've tried to be as forthright and as rigid as we can on our changes, the members opposite, in an attempt to honk the horn as it were, come out every day blazing against the changes that we've put in place and attacking rather than acknowledging the fact that the changes that we've put in place–and this is a classic example, the amendments to The Highway Traffic Act will provide more safety, more security to residents in Manitoba, rather than the pale and the vague, desperate crowings of members opposite that we hear on a regular basis.
Now, I know that it may appear that I've talked a little bit about the opposition, but that's only because, having sat in this Legislature now for 20 years, it's–you know, when the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) was working for the former minister of Justice, and members opposite may have not–you know, who often professed to knowing, you know–cozying up in the coffee shops to those people in rural Manitoba and saying how great things are. Having recognized the difference that has occurred in Manitoba from the time that they unfortunately–the mean and lean years of the '90s, Mr. Speaker, that were mean and saw layoffs and saw firings and saw the kind of discord that is unManitoban.
In the last decade, Mr. Speaker, we've seen advancement, we've seen hope to young people, we've seen movement in social areas, we've seen an inclusiveness in this province that we didn't see during the years, the mean and lean years of the 1990s. And part of the advancement is progress in our administrative laws and our capacity to ensure, yes, by education, but also by very significant sanctions, progressive sanctions, on those that violate The Highway Traffic Act, to ensure that Manitobans know that it won't be tolerated, that the effects of drinking and driving are far too serious and the consequences are far too significant to Manitobans to allow to occur. And everything that we can do, we should do and ought to do to prevent any individual from taking control of any vehicle at any time after they've had, I would say, virtually any significant amounts of alcohol or any other substance that may impair their ability to drive or to monitor or to have control over any type of vehicle.
And this is something that's been brought in on a progressive basis; it's been something that's brought in incrementally. It's been something that's been brought in on an educational basis, Mr. Speaker, year after year, in order to, again, raise the spectre, to not have it be a one-trick pony where you just get a headline, but where you reiterate, year in and year out, to the public, that we won't tolerate drinking and driving in this province and we'll do everything possible to dissuade individuals from drinking and driving. And, in doing that, we in the Legislature are providing for our social responsibility and our collective responsibility to all citizens in Manitoba to have safer streets, safer neighbourhoods. And that's something that we've strived for since the time we took government and we're continuing to build on. We're going to build on in the future.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the one-trick pony opposition with their one crime issue are kind of bereft of anything to talk about. They're kind of bereft when we come forward with legislation like this because it takes away their fire. It gives them nothing to talk about.
Just like the future, you know the program put forward by the Conservatives to slash half a billion dollars to the budget? What would that mean to the police services that we provide for? To the additional hundreds of officers that are on the street. Members opposite talk about–they talk about criminal activity and crime, but you have to provide for it. And removing half a billion dollars from our budget in one year, what impact would that have on corrections? What impact would that have on court services? What impact would that have on policing services? What impact would that have on social services offered to individuals? A dramatic impact, Mr. Speaker.
As we saw in the 1990s, when those services were slashed, when they were cut, when, during the mean and lean years of the '90s, we saw what it's like to be a cold and uncaring government. That's what they'd have us do. That's why there's no program for the future. That's why it's one-trick pony. It's crime everyday, all the time, as loud as they can–as loud as they can, because they're bereft of any positive ideas. They're bereft of ideas of developing the economy, the working in the economic engine that's Manitoba. And while it's not pumping at the head of the Canadian experience, it's right up there with some of the top provinces and it's providing hope and opportunities to young people.
You know, Mr. Speaker, people aren't leaving Manitoba like they did in the 1990s. We've seen net increases of population for the past 10 years. That's no–that's not by accident, that's by working collaboratively with the community, with services, with our immigration program, with social services, with building the kind of economy where places like Rolls-Royce could say, Manitoba's the best place in the world to do business.
* (15:30)
I'd like members opposite to travel a bit sometimes, to get outside of some of the communities, Mr. Speaker, or some of the closed and closeted that they're stuck in and talk to people, talk about what Manitoba's doing, talk about the booming economy of Steinbach, the booming economy of southern Manitoba, the 1,500 jobs in the oil patch, the 5,000 jobs in the mining sector. That's the north. That's north of Winnipeg, in case members opposite don't know. When you go outside of the Perimeter and you go north you can find mines that are operating. You can find the expansion, the largest mine in Manitoba–50–history, at Lalor Lake. That's what's happening outside. But, you know, the members have to go into their little closeted world of crime and crime and victimization when, in fact, there's a whole world out there happening in this province, where we're expanding our immigration, where the economy is growing, where First Nations have a equity stake in hydro development.
And what do members opposite want to do? They want to stop all that. They want to tear it all out, Mr. Speaker. They want to rip the heart out of the northern boreal forest.
And, when we bring forward legislation dealing with providing more stability, more safety on our roads, we don't hear a word from members opposite. Why? Because they don't have an agenda, Mr. Speaker–they don't have an agenda–they don't look forward. They don't have an agenda. They only look back, and if you look back, if you look in the rear‑view mirror, you can't have a vision. You can't have a vision, you can't attract people to this province. You can't build the province.
So this has become a province of builders and then a province of naysayers, which are increasingly tiny group of members opposite who look into their coffees in the morning and say, gosh, what question could we ask? Oh, maybe we'll ask about crime today. Oh, yes, maybe we'll ask about crime. Oh, yes, let's ask about crime. And then the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) stands up and says, hey, let's ask about the stadium too.
Why don't you ask about the jet engine facility that's been built at Thompson? Why don't you ask about the millions of dollars coming every day in southwestern Manitoba from the oil patch that's booming? Why don't you ask about the new mines that are built in northern Manitoba? Why don't you ask about Manitoba being one of the leading biotech provinces in the entire world? Why don't you act about–ask about some of the leading 'ed' agri‑research that's happening in the Richardson nutraceutical, where we're worldwide recognized for some for some of the best practices in the world? Why don't you ask about that? You know why, Mr. Speaker? Because a one-trick pony only goes one way. It goes on the crime agenda–crime, crime, crime–and overlooks the positive developments.
So I'm very proud to be part of a government that looks forward not only on a social agenda, Mr. Speaker; it looks at our administrative laws, that looks at our–ad–[interjection]
And, I'm very pleased to have had this opportunity and I joyfully–I joyfully–ask all members opposite to support us–support us–in bringing forward this legislation and supporting Manitobans and supporting that's going forward, Mr. Speaker, not backwards. And I suspect that I've been able to surge something through the veins of members opposite with respect to trying to deal with this particular bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
House Business
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Steinbach, on House business?
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I apologize; earlier today, I inadvertently, when announcing the private member's resolution to be held next week on behalf of our caucus, identified the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) as the sponsor. In fact, the member who is sponsoring that resolution is the member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu). I apologize. I would have announced it sooner. I didn't realize the government would be stalling this bill, so.
Mr. Speaker: So it's Morris?
An Honourable Member: Yes, right.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, so the resolution that was brought forward this morning, where it was announced that it was brought forward by the honourable member for River East, has been changed by the honourable Official Opposition Deputy House Leader, that it will now read brought forward–will be brought forward by the honourable member for Morris. Okay.
The honourable Government House Leader, on House–well, I'll recognize the honourable Government House Leader on House business, but normally we do them between bills, not during debate. But I've already recognized you, so we'll do your House business.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to announce that the following bills will be referred to the meeting of the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development already called to meet on Monday, December 6th, at 6 p.m.: Bill 3, The Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act (Denying Compensation to Offenders and Other Amendments); Bill 8, The Legal Aid Manitoba Amendment Act; Bill 9, The Summary Convictions Amendment Act.
And I'd also like to announce that the Standing Committee on Justice will meet on Tuesday, December 7th, at 6 p.m. and that Bill 2, The City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment Act (Winnipeg Police Service Auxiliary Cadets); and Bill 7, The Polar Bear Protection Amendment Act, which had previously been referred to the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development for Monday evening will now be considered by the Standing Committee on Justice on Tuesday evening.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. It's been announced that the following bills will be referred to the meeting of the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development already called to meet on the evening of Monday, December 6th, at 6 p.m.: Bill 3, The Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment Act (Denying Compensation to Offenders and Other Amendments); Bill 8, The Legal Aid Manitoba Amendment Act; Bill 9, The Summary Convictions Amendment Act.
It's also announced that the Standing Committee on Justice will meet on Tuesday, December 7th, at 6 p.m. And also, as announced, that Bill 2, The City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment Act (Winnipeg Police Service Auxiliary Cadets); and Bill 7, The Polar Bear Protection Amendment Act (International Polar Bear Conservation Centre), which had previously been referred to the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development for Monday evening, will now be considered by the Standing Committee on Justice on Tuesday evening.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Okay we'll–[interjection] Order, please.
We'll now go back to resume debate on Bill 12.
Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): Mr. Speaker, as so many have done in this House in speaking to this bill, I come at this from a number of perspectives, and, most importantly, I would like to address this not only as someone who's been privileged to represent my neighbourhood and the values of my neighbourhood but also as a parent.
And I do find it passing strange, as other members from this side have noted, that members opposite, while liking to wrap themselves in the banner of being tough on crime, have only put up one person to speak on this legislation and yet–and go on saying that they want to pass it.
Well, I really do hope that when the question is finally called and that when we get to–especially to third reading, that we will have unanimous consent on this legislation. I really hope that's the case. I hope they put their money where their mouth is because, again, so often they talk and, again, this is what–
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Tuxedo, on a point of order?
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm wondering if you could canvass the House to see if there's leave to allow this bill to move forward to committee, which is what members on this side are wanting to do, and it seems that other members, on the opposite side of the House, on the government side of the House, want to filibuster their own bill. We want to move forward. I'm wondering if there's leave of the House to move forward on this bill.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it interesting that this is the second time today that members opposite haven't wanted to hear debate in this House.
I don't know why they come to this House if they're not interested in what people have to say. We have every intention of passing this bill on to committee today. There are a number of members who would like to speak to the very important issue of drinking and driving, especially at this time of year, and I would ask of the members opposite, as we so often do in this House, listen patiently to what their colleagues have to say.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Tuxedo has asked if there is leave of the House for the Speaker to put the question, or do members want to continue further debate?
Is there leave to put the question?
Some Honourable Members: Agree.
Ms. Howard: Mr. Speaker, we have every intention of passing this to–on to committee. There are more people–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. When the Speaker is asking a request by a member for an action there is–the answer is yes or no. It's not up for debate.
* (15:40)
Is there leave for the Speaker to put the question or does members deny it so they can continue debate?
The question is: Is there leave for the Speaker to put the question?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, there is agreement. Okay, there is agreement.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: So the question before the House is second reading–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A request has been asked for and has been received, so that I have to–my–the request is for me to put the question, so please allow me to do that.
The question before the House is second reading of Bill 12, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on further House business?
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on further House business.
In addition to the announcement I made about committee a few minutes ago, I'd also like to announce that Bill 12, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act, will also be considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Tuesday–on Tuesday evening.
And, Mr. Speaker, I'd also ask if you would canvass the House to see if there's leave that if the following bills are reported back to the House on Wednesday, December 8th, from the Standing Committee on Justice, that there is agreement for these bills to be considered for concurrence and third reading on the afternoon of December 9th. Those bills would be Bill 2, The City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment Act (Winnipeg Police Service Auxiliary Cadets); Bill 7, Polar Bear Protection Amendment Act (International Polar Bear Conservation Centre); and Bill 12, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, it's been announced that, in addition, Bill 12, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act, will also be considered by the Standing Committee on Justice on Tuesday evening. And also is there leave that the following bills are reported back to the–that if the following bills are reported back to the House on Wednesday, December 8th, from the Standing Committee on Justice, that there is agreement for these bills to be considered for concurrence and third reading on the afternoon of December 9th, that is, Bill 2, The City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment Act (Winnipeg Police Service Auxiliary Cadets); Bill 7, The Polar Bear Protection Amendment Act (International Polar Bear Conservation Centre); Bill 12, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act.
Is there agreement? [Agreed]
The honourable Government House Leader, on further House business.
Ms. Howard: Yes, we are prepared to move to Bill 11.
Bill 11–The Planning Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Okay, we will now resume debate on Bill 11, The Planning Amendment Act, and it is standing in the name of the honourable member for Ste. Rose.
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise on Bill 11, The Planning Amendment Act. This is principally a bill that's enabling the government to put regulations in place, and, having very little idea what those regulations might be, I think we will wait to see what they may be and see what kind of consultation the government does on those regulations when they go into place. I think there'd be a–certainly a good opportunity to reconvene the Standing Committee on Agriculture when they're looking at those regulations.
Mr. Mohinder Saran, Acting Speaker, in the Chair
We continue to be disappointed that this government, for the last 10 years, has still failed in any way to improve the condition of Lake Winnipeg, and the–for the last 10 years, every year the problems with Lake Winnipeg have just got worse and worse.
So we'll look for the feedback out of the standing committee–or out of the committee on this bill and I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to put a few words on the record on this bill.
It is important, I think, for the House. I think it's important for the House just to understand that we had agreed to move to condolences at 4 o'clock, to consider condolences for Ed Mandrake. Those arrangements were made with the family to come at 4 o'clock, and so, you know, we are certainly prepared to make sure that the House is still sitting at 4 o'clock so that we can have those condolences.
So I will endeavour, since I've very little co‑operation–
An Honourable Member: Point of order, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Point of Order
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Saran): The honourable member for Steinbach has a point of order.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Beauchesne's is clear in terms of process of debate that there should be clear facts put on the record. The honourable Government House Leader's suggesting that somehow it's our responsibility to keep the House going; they set the agenda. We agreed to a 4 o'clock motion. We look forward to that but they try to somehow foist this onto opposition. They're the government. If you can't keep the House operating because you don't have an agenda, that's not our responsibility.
An Honourable Member: Thank you very much, Mr.–
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Saran): On the same point of order.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): On the same point of order. Thank you very much, Mr. Government House Leader. I was simply endeavouring to explain–[interjection] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was simply endeavouring to explain to the House some of the arrangements that have been made. I'm not sure if they're all aware of that. A great deal of the operation of the House is based on co-operation, and I've experienced very good co-operation among the House leaders. And so those were my comments, that in the spirit of co-operation, I am up to speak to this resolution so that we can–
An Honourable Member: Bill.
Ms. Howard: –have the–to this bill so we can have the family come to hear the condolence motion at the appropriate time. That's why I was–I was simply starting my debate. The members opposite are so uninterested in hearing anyone speak but themselves it seems, that they don't–[interjection]–that they're not even interested in hearing me speak on Bill 11. I assure them I have some scintillating comments yet to come that I'm sure they'll enjoy as much as they enjoyed my speech yesterday on Bill 7.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Saran): It is a dispute over the fact, so there is no point of order.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Saran): The honourable minister, to resume on this debate.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Thank you very much. I'm up to speak to Bill 11. These are amendments to The Planning Act. My understanding of the bill is that it is meant to provide more transparent process for people who wish to engage in the discussions about planning that happen, especially with regards to intensive livestock operations, the ability to do that.
I think that's an important recognition of people's ability and desire to participate in the democratic process, especially at the municipal level. You know, one of the things that I've learned in my brief time being an elected member is that many of the things that are considered at the municipal level are those things that people are most concerned about. When you go and knock on people's doors and talk to them, often the kinds of things that they do want to talk to you about are issues that are handled by the municipal level, whether that–whether those are issues like garbage removal, whether those are issues like snow removal. I hear a lot about those issues in my constituency, and so giving people more opportunity to engage at that level is very important.
Under the current planning act, as it stands, applications for large-scale livestock operations are approved by a municipality as a conditional use. The municipality is required to hold a public hearing to consider the application. This amendment to The Planning Act is to ensure the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has clear authority to make regulations respecting the process and procedures to be followed by the technical review committee when reviewing an application for a large-scale livestock operation under section 113 of The Planning Act.
In other words, this proposed amendment allows the minister to develop a regulation to govern how a technical review committee would operate. There's nothing in the legislation and the proposed regulation that overrides any bylaws or any municipal decision making.
This action that we're taking is part of our plan of action that we announced March, 2008, in response to the final report of the Clean Environment Commission on environmental sustainability in hog production in Manitoba, and I know the work that was done by CEC on that report was exhaustive. I know they heard from a lot of people on–who have lots of interest in this issue. I know, coming from a rural part of the province and having been part of a lot of the discussions about intensive livestock operations, that people take a keen interest in this issue, both people who raise that livestock and people who live in the surrounding area.
And so I think, for us, it was the responsible course of action to refer those issues to the Clean Environment Commission and have them take a look at it.
* (15:50)
Now, we've accepted those recommendations that are contained in chapter 12 of that commission report and one of those recommendations include that the Manitoba government adopt a new approval process where proponents submit a detailed site assessment that is placed on a public registry for comment on the proposal.
So this bill is being brought forward to ensure that the intent of that report can be achieved.
Now, it is, of course, part of our overall government plan to ensure that our waters, that our lakes and rivers are kept clean and pristine for people's use, and that is another issue that when I go door-to-door in my constituency that I hear a great deal about. It doesn't matter if you live near a lake or you live near a river in this province or not, people see it as very important to keep that water clean, and even people who maybe don't live near the lakes, enjoy the lakes. I–one thing that has been clear to me, in speaking to Manitobans, is that everybody feels like they have ownership over those lakes.
And so this bill is yet another part of our strategy to make sure that our water can be kept clean. This bill builds on our continued progress on implementing recommendations from the Clean Environment Commission report.
Other things that we have done, I think something that happened recently in my own department: including farm buildings in the Building Code for Manitoba. And that was a very good example of working together, Mr. Acting Speaker, because we had all of the folks who were representing agricultural producers, KAP, the pork council, representatives of which I talked to about the farm building code. We had them working with the office of the Fire Commissioner, and we had them also working with people who are in the environmental movement to talk about how we structured what was going to be the first building code for farm buildings in Manitoba to make sure that it was practical, that it was cost efficient and that it achieved the safety goals that we were trying to achieve. And I think we did that. And I think you could see that we did that because we had such positive comments from representatives of both the Keystone Agricultural Producers and the pork council when we brought in those changes to the building code to cover farm buildings.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
We–there was a lot of pressure to install sprinklers in those buildings, but, in discussions with the producers, we heard pretty clearly that not only were sprinklers extremely costly, but they likely wouldn't be effective for what they were intended. We heard concerns from pork producers that putting those sprinklers in those farm buildings could result in them going off when there is no fire present, because of, sometimes, the high levels of ammonia in those buildings, they can sometimes set off the sprinklers. And so we would run the risk of damaging the health and well-being of those animals when the idea of bringing in a farm building code was to protect the safety of people who were working in those buildings.
We also had really great discussions with the vegetable growers about the farm building code. They had some concerns about the buildings that they use and some of the provisions in the building code that required exits at certain intervals, and they came and they explained to us that for vegetable growers, really, having a long building without exits in-between is what they needed to do, that putting exits where there were no people was not something that made sense to them.
So the office of the Fire Commissioner worked with them to come up with equivalencies so that we could both take in–into consideration their concerns with the code, but also continue to make sure that we had the kind of safety provisions that we needed.
So I would like to thank the producers who worked very hard on those amendments to the building code for the farm building code. I'd also like to thank, very much, the office of the Fire Commissioner, who not only do a tremendous job when it comes to building code reviews and working with stakeholders, but also do a tremendous job working with volunteer firefighters and paid firefighters all over the province and helping to keep us safe.
Theirs is not an easy job. They're the people that not only go into a house when it's burning, but they're also the people that have to do the inspections after a fire has consumed a house or a premises and, certainly, this week, when we heard the tragic news of the death of a two-year-old in a fire at Lynn Lake, I just want to say that we all owe a debt of gratitude to those people who go in to inspect and determine the causes of those fires and help us understand what we can do better to prevent that.
So those are my few comments on Bill 11, and I look forward to this passing to committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I, too, am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. And, in general, it seems to me, as I indicated in my previous comments with respect to the highway traffic amendment, that one of the things that we do very well in Manitoba is balance, and that's a balancing of interests, safety versus the economy versus the environment and versus the various issues that face us on a day-to-day basis.
And these amendments dealing with large-scale livestock operations on the recommendation of the CEC after extensive discussion have resulted in this bill that result in regulations dealing with the plan of action that we announced in the spring of 2008, Mr. Speaker, which is, again, part of going forward, going forward planning as a province, looking at all of the interests, the economic interests, the environmental interests. And I, you know, I suggest to members opposite that the one-trick pony approach to issues just doesn't work in a complex society that has occurred in this century. You can't balance off environmental interests on one hand with the economic interests, they go hand in hand. The world that we're going to leave our children and our children's children is very–it's very much influenced by actions we're taking today, by initiatives like this that balance the economy and balance the environment and balance the day-to-day life and the activities of Manitobans. And that's where it's important to look to the future, and that's why it's important to look forward and not backwards, not in the rear-view mirror, because this is a province of growth. This is a province of immigration. This is a province of innovation. This is a province of development.
Mr. Speaker, some of the greatest developments in the world in agriculture have occurred in the province of Manitoba with wheat, with canola, with value-added nutraceuticals–[interjection] and I thank members opposite for helping me to get that quite out of my mouth. And, you know, that's–we're pioneers in this province, and pioneering means going forward, not going back, not going back to the 1990s of that spirit, but rather going forward, going forward in the environment, going forward in the economy and recognizing that this has always been a province of hope and a province of future. It's been a province where people have come from many, many lands to this landscape, not just the geographic landscape, not just the physical landscape, but the social and cultural landscape that makes up this province. Through all their inputs they've made a province that is demographically young, that is demographically growing, that is demographically poised for the future–for future development, for a future economy, for a future environment that's both growth orientated and recognizing that very important balance, that balance between the environment and growth.
And part of The Planning Act, part of the message coming out of the CEC is clearly that you have to meld these concepts together. You can't be single minded. You can't be one-trick pony, Mr. Speaker, on these issues. You have to look them–it's a complex environment which requires complex planning, concrete technical solutions and the ability to explain and examine these within the public forum. And that's what this amendment is all about, the ability to go to communities, the ability to go to forums and discuss the technical, the conditional use implications, the ramifications of dealing with these planning initiatives so that the public, on whose future these issues are determined, that they have the opportunity to have input, meaningful input–
* (16:00)
Mr. Speaker: Order. When the matter is again before the House, the honourable minister will have 25 minutes remaining.
As previously agreed, it is now 4 p.m. and the agreement was that we would move on into condolences.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, we're just–I know that the Premier (Mr. Selinger) is wanting very much to put forward the condolence motion, and I know that he will be doing that, so I just ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know sometimes it takes a bit of time to get things sort of set up to ensure that everybody is here. My understanding, I've just learned that that wouldn't–won't take very long and that we'll be ready to proceed with this particular condolence motion in just a matter of minutes, and we certainly look forward to the respectful comments by all members of this House at the passing of a former colleague.
Mr. Speaker: So, as previously agreed, it's now 4 p.m. We will now move on to condolence motions.
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): I move, seconded by Minister Chomiak, the Minister responsible for Innovation, Energy and Mines,
THAT this House convey to the family of the late Edward Charles Mandrake, who served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement and its appreciation of his devotion to duty and a useful life of active community and public service, and that Mr. Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable First Minister, seconded by the honourable Minister of–
An Honourable Member: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to change the–
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable First Minister.
Mr. Selinger: If I could, I'd like to change the seconder to the minister–member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard).
Mr. Speaker: Okay, is there agreement for–to change the seconder to the honourable member for River Heights? [Agreed]
Okay, it's been moved by the honourable First Minister, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights,
THAT this House convey to the family of the late Edward Charles Mandrake, who served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement and its appreciation that his devotion to duty in a useful life of active community and public service, and that Mr. Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family.
Mr. Selinger: I rise to pay tribute to the contributions of the former member for Assiniboia, Edward Charles Mandrake, who passed away last spring at the age of 71. Ed Mandrake ably represented the Liberal Party from 1988 to 1990. Today we offer our condolences to his spouse of 51 years, Marie, and to all of his family and friends.
It's appropriate that we take this time to remember his life as he served in the Canadian Army for 12 and a half years and one of his greatest passions was speaking to students on Remembrance Day. Ed joined the Service Corps in 1956 and served in Canada and Europe. He was honourably released with the rank of warrant officer in 1968.
Ed spent a lot of his time volunteering, particularly with young people and was a dedicated volunteer for Big Brothers. He was also a scoutmaster, both in Brandon and while he held an administrative post in Germany. There he worked with the 1st Soest Scout Troop and earned the playful nickname Hawkeye.
Ed joined provincial politics in 1988 after defeating the Conservative incumbent in the riding of Assiniboia. Even after his term ended in 1990, he remained involved in politics and with the Legislative Assembly in particular. He acted as treasurer for the former Manitoba members of the Legislative Assembly association and, in 2004, helped put together a young adult essay contest in the association's newsletter.
My condolences go to Ed's family as they fondly remember a beloved husband, father, grandfather and family member. Ed was profoundly committed to the democratic process in Manitoba and will be remembered for his hard work and many contributions to our province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my condolences to Marie Mandrake, who's Ed's wife, and to the family members on the passing of Ed Mandrake.
Ed was quite a guy. He was born in Ethelbert. When he was in the Legislature, he was the critic for Transportation, and he'd been interested in cars from very early on. In fact, on the farm, he was driving a car just around the farmyard when he was about age 11 and doing various other things in the car which we wouldn't necessarily approve on, but that was Ed. He wasn't going to let anybody stop him.
He–when he grew up, he served in the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps for a number of years from 1956 to 1968. Some of that time was in Germany. After that, he was living in Portage la Prairie, where he owned and operated a pet shop and a pool hall. He was always known for talking and getting along with people in the community and, particularly, young people, as a scoutmaster. And I think that that was part of the reason that when he ran in 1988 he was successful. He was one of these people who had a real grassroots feel for what was happening and he was in touch with people all over Assiniboia when he was living there.
He went back to school, graduated from Red River College's motor vehicle work program. His interest, obviously, in cars, owned a body shop for a while before he was elected to the Legislature.
In 1988, when he ran, you may recall that that election was–it came rather precipitously after a vote in the House, and somewhat unexpectedly, and when it–the defeat–or when the–happened in the House, Marie was in the hospital, and when she came home, she arrived home and there in the window was Elect Ed Mandrake sign, and that's when she realized that Ed was running. It was–there were a lot of people who got in very quickly and unexpectedly, and I think that was part of the reason that there wasn't a lot of time to get organized.
Ed, you know, was parsimonious. He actually be call–it was sort of nicknamed Mandrake the Magician because he won the seat, spending only about $1,200 and doing a lot of door-to-door campaigning and coffee shops and pool halls and various other places, and that was Ed's style. He was going to connect with people and he was going to make sure that he knew what was going on and that he represented people well.
After the election, he was named the Liberal Transportation critic. He focused in on transportation issues related to–whether it was taxi cabs, to railways, and he spoke out against privatizing VIA Rail, paid special attention to roads all over Manitoba and, particularly, in isolated communities which needed better roads.
He was always in his constituency office in the Legislature, had kind of an open-door policy and inviting people in and people dropping by and coming to visit and making suggestions and–just his way of keeping in touch. He–his focus was entirely on what was happening in his constituency except for his Transportation portfolio, and he did very well as a constituency person.
* (16:10)
After I became leader, Ed would drop by in my office on a regular basis to give me suggestions or to go after me if he didn't think I was doing a good job–keep on top of, particularly, transportation issues.
I remember, in particular, he was–came in to talk at some length about the NDP policy on taxicab shields because there was quite a bit of discussion. I think, in fact, the MLA for Radisson did a study of what should happen with taxicab shields and there was a lot of debate about these shields and how effective they were going to be and there was a number of different designs that were being considered.
Ed Mandrake was right in the thick of it, not only talking with taxicab owners but knowing exactly what the details were of the different designs and the different options. He was, oh, particularly in the period 2004 and 2005, when there was a lot of problems with road maintenance, when there was bridges coming down–and he was in my office a lot at that point, pointing out that, you know, things were in a terrible state of disrepair and something had to be done, et cetera, et cetera.
There was nothing that was going to stop Ed, and when he was forced to come in a wheelchair, he came in a wheelchair. He never stopped and he kept up, right until very near the end. He was very actively thinking and engaged and very passionate about the future of Manitoba and particularly about the transportation and the transportation opportunities happening in Manitoba.
It's always sad when you lose a good person, somebody who's been a friend. So it's sad to have to say goodbye to Ed. I was at the funeral service and the memorial service and now here, as we say goodbye, as we do in the Legislature and extend our condolences to the family and friends. And to Marie and the others who are here, thank you for coming in. And we remember Ed and his contributions, and we certainly still miss him. Thank you.
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): I want to thank both the Premier (Mr. Selinger) and the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) for both moving and seconding this motion, and I'm honoured to speak in its support and to convey our condolences to the family of the late Ed Mandrake, some of whom are with us here today.
Others have commented on his background as a person who was very active as a community person and somebody who was very committed to serving his country and, in particular, through the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps and with the Canadian Army for a number of years, including a time spent here in Canada as well as in Europe. And those are years of–were years of important service for him. And the story of his life before and since has been one of service to other people and of being an honourable person who did a lot in our community.
Others have commented on his background; his interest in working on vehicles, his education at Red River Community College, his volunteer work for Big Brothers, Scouts and other organizations. He was involved as well with the Masonic lodge in St. James and also involved in business and other areas of life as well.
He was known to be somebody who loved animals and was very friendly and compassionate, and was somebody that I had the chance to meet briefly on a few occasions back in that period between 1988 and 1990 when he was an MLA. And I was very privileged to work as a volunteer in both of those campaigns in 1988 and 1990. We crossed paths a few times.
It was a really important and interesting period in Manitoba's history and certainly an important period in the political life of this province. It was the time when the big debate in this Chamber was over the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord, and there was lots of debate and lots of passion on that issue. And it was a significant public debate that raged throughout the province, and other members will be able to comment on some of the more salient aspects of that debate, but that was something that Ed Mandrake was part of and it was a time period during which he served. So, although it was, by standards of most MLAs, a relatively brief period of service here in this House, it was a period of time that was incredibly full and rich in terms of the seriousness of the issues that were dealt with and the significance of those issues in terms of their legacy for the country as well as for Canada. And so he was here during a very important and interesting time and was a really good contributor to the discussions by all accounts.
I remember him as being just friendly and even to people who weren't working on the same side as him politically, but somebody who was just decent, friendly to everybody including myself. In the few times that we met, I remember his just sense of humility and sense of humour and just his real, basic decency. And so I want to just, on behalf of my colleagues, thank his family for being here, say that I was honoured to have met him albeit very briefly on a few occasions, and certainly have nothing but respect for the contributions that he's made to our country and our province and this Legislature both during those two years but also before and after. It's been commented that he was a treasurer for the former members of the Legislative Assembly association and so, in that sense, he retained his connection to this place through that entire period of time.
And so, with those comments, Mr. Speaker, I again extend my condolences to his family, to his wife, Marie, his other family members who are in attendance, his daughter, Karen, his three grandchildren. My understanding is that his mother and sister, Diana, as well, are–survive him and may or may not be here but are important people, were important people in his life. So my very best wishes to the family, our condolences, and thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about Ed Mandrake who was a very good public servant.
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Healthy Living, Youth and Seniors): I'm pleased to put a few words about Edward Mandrake on the record. Mr. Speaker, Ed Mandrake worked very, very hard for the constituents of Assiniboia from which I'm now very, very proud to represent.
I'd like to take a moment to reflect on his life and extend my condolences to his family and his many friends. He was born in Ethelbert in 1938 and passed away May 2, 2010, at the age of 71. He leaves behind a strong family who will miss him, chiefly his wife, Marie, his daughter, Karen, and grandchildren and other family members.
He was really a great person because he had passion, passion and tenacity. He was a member of the Legislative Assembly from 1988 to 1990 when he defeated the Conservative incumbent by 187 votes and he did it using one-sixth of the budget. And he had a philosophy, he said that he needed to go talk to the people and he made a huge effort to build relationships, to talk to people and to be accessible. One of the interesting parts about Ed's constituency work is he held a meeting every second Saturday at Unicity Mall and he'd come and talk to everyone and he'd just deal with people as an individual–and he'd open up the doors and whether it was any issue, he'd just come and talk to you about it. And I think that was really an impressive outreach process and it was one that was unique and really made a good effort at building relationships and being a true MLA that other people could emulate.
He started young with his emphasis on motor vehicle work. Politically, he was elected to the student council and was awarded the student council honorarium ring. He owned a body shop before he entered politics. He did lots of things and I think that added to his character and added to his legacy.
* (16:20)
He also was the Transportation critic and I noticed when I was doing some research, I knew that he cared about seniors transportation, but I didn't realize that he had actually asked a lot about regulation of handicapped transportation. He pushed to make sure that there was adequate transportation for all, and he actually also really pushed for mandatory safety inspections of used cars before they were resold. And I thought those were all very, very progressive, and I actually was happy to say that he was pushing for these things back in '88 and '89 and '90, and now they're all law. And I think that was very, very good.
It was also interesting on that he loved–he was out there canvassing. And I thought it was very good because he believed in the personal touch and whether it was through the air, Canadian Air Division, which he volunteered at, Ethelbert Museum cairn, the Scouts, the St. James Masonic Lodge. He was very, very active, and it wasn't just active in one realm, it was active in many realms, and I think that was sort of showed his personality.
Mr. Speaker, Ed Mandrake served the community very, very well. He had lots of knowledge, willing ear, and he was always ready to listen to people's concerns. It was also neat that once he was stopped serving in this constituency, if you take note, he will have been–he's been noticed in the loge multiple times. And it was interesting to note that every few years he would appear in our halls. He would definitely have a discussion with me and tell me what I needed to know. He had an opinion. He became vibrant and aware of many, many issues and would express them and would hold me to account, which was very, very good.
When I look at Ed, I think about five separate words. The first one was "service"; second, "active"; third is definitely "tenacity"; fourth, "dedicated"; and last, "passionate." And so, with those words, I think that that sums up Ed's contribution. He really did make a huge contribution and the passing away of a loved one is always difficult, but Ed's family can be proud of his full, rich life, his contributions to his fellow citizens. And my deepest sympathies go out to his family and friends. I know it's a tough time, but you can rest assured his legacy is appreciated. Thank you.
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation): I speak today as someone that sat in the House with Ed Mandrake and continued to get to talk to Ed on many occasions after. There have been many comments made about his biding interest in transportation. Believe you me, I may not have had as many visits, personal visits to my office, as the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), but Ed was always someone that would greet you with a smile and he immediately would have some advice for you, especially on transportation. And, having now been Minister of Transportation in various different forms a number of times, I want to echo what many have said.
And what was interesting, by the way, is I want to reflect on the time in which Ed served in this House. It was indeed, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) referenced it, a very interesting time in Manitoba political history. And one of the things that struck me, by the way, as someone that's had the good fortune to be elected and re-elected a number of times, is the degree to which we serve this province and the impact we can leave really has got very little to do with how many elections we win or lose. In a lot of cases, it's the legacy we leave and the kind of follow-up that we can give in our private life to what we've done here.
You know, there's been many references to Ed on the transportation file. I remember many of the substantive issues. One thing I remember about Ed, by the way, is he was tenacious. I still remember–I can't remember if it was a bill or a resolution that would have required that you cleaned your licence plates, that they could not be muddy. What was interesting actually, there was a big debate over that. There was this urban-rural dimension. There were various people said, couldn't happen; you know, it wouldn't be fair. But what was interesting, I remember talking to Ed one time and he said, well, he said, actually, he says, it's probably the law anyway. I just thought that we should make sure that people cleaned off their licence plates so that the, you know, the police and others can see what the licence plate was. And that was kind of classic way Ed would deal with things. It was kind of straight-up. It was common sense.
As the member for Assiniboine talked about, there were many issues he was talking about then which have now become policy. It was interesting–I was just reminded by the member for Assiniboine's comments on vehicle inspections. In fact, I remember when I was Minister of Highways a number of years ago, he was continuing to lobby and we did in fact bring in the enhanced inspections that we have today.
And what was interesting, I think, really about Ed was what I appreciated in my discussions with him–and I used to run into him as well in particular at the former MLAs' events and I know many members will have, you know, that contact and he stayed very active–is the degree to which he really saw his time in this House as the ultimate in public service. Now he served this country in a very significant way prior to being an elected official but, you know what, he was always proud of having been an MLA. And I don't think we appreciate sometimes, those of us who are in this place, with the give and take that we get, just how much that that commitment to public service is something that many MLAs in their private lives after serving in this House carry it throughout their lives.
As I said, Ed was, I think, one of a kind and I say that to his family because I think he was a very unique individual and he made a real contribution in this House in one term and I think it's a bit of a reminder to all of us that, I think it was Sterling Lyon a few years ago, and it's probably not Sterling's phrase, but he said, we're all, you know, temporary governments, temporary MLAs. When we're elected, we have the opportunity to make a difference. I can tell you, I sat with Ed Mandrake. I watched what he did. He was an opposition member; he was a critic. He made a difference then and he continued on after his time in politics and I can say on the record as someone who sat with him, that he was a fine public servant, the kind of person, to my mind that gives a good name to members of the Legislature and to this Legislative Assembly.
He will certainly be missed by any of those who came into contact with him and I can say to his family they should be very proud of his service to this province.
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I never did have the privilege of knowing Ed Mandrake, but I have to say as a west Winnipeg MLA and a part of the neighbouring community of west Winnipeg, his name has certainly been mentioned on a number of occasions in a very respectful way. And so, just on behalf of the constituents of Charleswood, I would like to indicate to the family, from those of us in Charleswood, our profound sympathies to you and certainly hearing the stories today, it was interesting and I wish I had had a chance to get to meet him. But I know that his name has come about a number of times, you know, in our area and in this building. So, from Charleswood, from all the constituency people there, I'd like to just indicate to the family our sympathies are with you.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion? [Agreed]
Would honourable members please rise and remain standing to indicate their support for the motion.
A moment of silence was observed.
* * *
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): I wonder if there's will to call it 5 o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 5 o'clock? [Agreed]
Okay, the hour now being 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday.