LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, May 26, 2011
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Bill 42–The Caregiver Recognition Act
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Healthy Living, Youth and Seniors): I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 42, The Caregiver Recognition Act, now be read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, The caregivers Recognition Act includes proclamation of the first Tuesday of April, each year, as Caregivers Recognition Day, requires a report on the progress for caregivers, also authorize the establishment of a caregiver advisory committee and requires the government to promote the general principals relating to caregivers and consider them when implementing new policies and providing new regulations.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 44–The Civil Service Superannuation and Related Amendments Act
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission): I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald), that Bill 44, The Civil Service Superannuation and Related Amendments Act, be now read for a first time.
Motion presented.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this bill enacts two acts.
The key–The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment Act: The key amendments to the existing act are to enable employee contribution rates to be set by regulation on the joint recommendation of the employee Pension and the Insurance Advisory Committee and the Superannuation Insurance Liaison Committee. It is–enables reservists to purchase, in accordance with the regulations, periods of service related to their period of leave of absence with the Canadian Forces, and enables phased retirement programs and addresses inconsistencies between the act and amendments to The Pension Benefits Act.
The Civil Service Superannuation Act: Under this act, the Civil Service Superannuation Board and the Civil Service Superannuation Fund will continue and the board will have equal representation from the plan members and the participating members, and under the new act, this pension plan is to be continued as set out in regulation.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
PTH 16 and PTH 5 North–Traffic Signals
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
And these are the reasons for this petition:
The junction of PTH 16 and PTH 5 north is an increasingly busy intersection which is used by motorists and pedestrians alike.
The Town of Neepawa has raised concerns with the Highway Traffic Board about safety levels at this intersection.
The Town of Neepawa has also passed a resolution requesting that Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation install traffic lights at this intersection in order to increase safety.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation to consider making the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of PTH 16 and PTH 5 north a priority project in order to help protect the safety of the motorists and pedestrians who use it.
This petition is signed by S. Jakubowski, L. Braun, D. Galvin and many, many other fine Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Auto Theft–Court Order Breaches
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. 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 of Manitoba 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.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by D. Piec, D. Fisher, S. Ferens and thousands of other concerned Manitobans.
Burntwood Regional Health Authority
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Thousands of people residing in northern Manitoba are devoid of the basic right to adequate health care within the Burntwood Regional Health Authority, due to poor administrative practices, lack of staff and an absence of health-care planning.
In just over a year, nearly 40 per cent of the physicians either left or handed in their resignations at the BRHA. Many of the physicians who've left went on record attributing BRHA management squarely for their departure.
Over the past three years, the nursing shortage in the BRHA jumped 250 per cent and nursing locum costs shot up to $3.75 million in 2008 from only $570,000 three years earlier. The nursing vacancy rate of 24 per cent is the highest in the province.
The RHA administration costs jumped nearly 400 per cent in just over four years to a very high level of nearly $6 million in 2008.
Burntwood has among the lowest vaccination rates, the highest diabetes, hypertension, dental cavities and obesity rates in the country. Burntwood has seen epidemics of necrotizing fasciitis, whooping cough, H1N1, MRSA and TB, yet the health authority has failed to take adequate initiatives to tackle these outbreaks and improve public health standards in northern Manitoba.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Minister of Health to consider holding the BRHA board and the management team accountable for their actions.
To request the Minister of Health to consider replacing the BRHA senior management.
To request the Minister of Health to consider ensuring the BRHA hires public health specialists and third-party human resource and financial consultants to audit the working and financial running of the authority.
To request the Minister of Health to consider ensuring that the BRHA initiates adequate public health programs.
This is signed by J. McKay, C. Seiw and M. Thorassie and many others.
* (13:40)
Flooding and Ice Jams Update
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister responsible for Emergency Measures): Though high water levels will remain a significant challenge for many months, particularly on our lakes, we are now entering flood recovery stage in many parts of the province. This stage not only includes our special programs announced in the Building and Recovery Action Plan, but also working with municipalities to rebuild municipal and provincial infrastructure such as roads. As flood waters recede, we will be working to inventory such damages and prioritize repairs. We're also offering municipalities advances on their disaster financial assistance claims of $100,000 or 60 per cent, whichever is greater, to ensure that they have capital available to assist with rebuilding infrastructure as quickly as possible.
It's been a long and difficult flood season for many and it is still far from over. In the almost two months since melting began, we have seen flooding in almost every stretch of the province south of The Pas, with everything from significant ice jams to record open water flood levels in some areas. We have seen 53 states of local emergency in municipalities across the province, which, again, speaks to the record geographic scope and scale of the flood. In total, over 5,000 Manitobans were evacuated from their homes, 2,900 of whom remain out today. We have seen significant disruptions to the lives of many Manitobans, but nothing compared to the monumental damage that would have occurred without our flood protection infrastructure, floodfighting tools and strong emergency plans.
For the people still evacuated, we understand it's a very difficult time and hope that they can take some small comfort in the fact that we are committed to further improving our ability to manage flood waters in this province to help prevent future evacuations. We are committed to working with the City of Brandon to enhance protection up to one-in-300-year levels, and we are committed to working with the federal government and chronically flooded First Nations such as those around Lake St. Martin to alleviate their very challenging and ongoing vulnerability to flood waters. We're also committed to broader enhancements across the Assiniboine watershed and will be making other improvements to our floodfighting abilities as we assess the lessons and experiences of the historic 2011 flood.
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the latest update on the flood situation.
We would like to thank the federal and provincial governments for their joint statement yesterday about the impact of flooding on Manitoba's First Nations communities and the need for longer term solutions to address these very serious challenges. We recognize these issues cannot be resolved overnight, but there is certainly a commitment from all parties to try and find ways to address these pressing problems.
Flood mitigation work is continuing in earnest in a number of different locations around Manitoba. Work is under way at the Sandy Bay First Nation to try and protect the properties at risk in that community. Similarly, people in the Ochre Beach area of Dauphin Lake have been working to protect homes there as the lake level has risen substantially this spring. Work continues, as well, in a number of different municipalities in the vicinity of Lake Manitoba, including St. Laurent, Siglunes and Grahamdale, among others.
As always, help with sandbagging efforts around Lake Manitoba continue to be welcomed. Progress in the flood fight is being made in the Red River Valley. Most evacuees have been able to return home, and partial ring dike closures in the valley are now being removed.
Unfortunately, there is still more than 2,900 Manitobans out of their homes, creating ongoing stress and uncertainty for them. In addition, damage to municipal and provincial roads continues to cause disruptions in several areas and will take some time to repair.
We would again like to thank the volunteers, the military, the EMO staff, municipal councillors and the staff–and their staff for the tremendous commitment they have made and are still making toward protection of the public and property during the spring flood. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to speak to the minister's statement.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? [Agreed]
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his statement and compliment the minister and the federal government for the agreement to help the communities of Lake St. Martin, Little Saskatchewan, Pinaymootang and Dauphin River with the flood mitigation compensation in repair and placement–replacement of homes and the study to be done with the people of Lake St. Martin community in terms of the future of their community. That's a step forward. We'll be following things closely and note the fact that for communities around Lake St. Martin, the peak of their flood probably will be the 1st of July, so they still have some time to go and some ways to go before they are clear.
I think that the–it's also a step forward to hear that the closure at the hoop and hollow cut is going to be permanent, and I would suggest that that's a very positive development and, hopefully, that we'll see things–levels come down in–along the Assiniboine River.
I would note that at a meeting that I was at with mayors and reeves of the Capital Region, they were mentioning the importance of lowering the water level slowly along the Assiniboine River so that you don't have slumpage of banks. So, as that comes down, if that can be done with that in mind, I think that would be helpful and wise. Thank you.
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, we have The Westhaven seniors, who are the guests of the honourable member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady).
Also in the public gallery we have from Reston Elementary School, we have 15 grade 6 students under the direction of Ms. Lori Greig. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire).
And also in the public gallery we have with us from Neepawa Area Collegiate, we have 19 grade 9 students under the direction of Ms. Michelle Young. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Briese).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today.
Bipole III West-Side Location
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, retired engineers, including former Hydro chairman Len Bateman, along with members of the AMM, thousands of other Manitobans, have called into question the wisdom of the government's directive to build the next major transmission line down the far west side of the province, costing every family in Manitoba more than $11,000. [interjection]
I want to ask the–
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let's have a little order.
Mr. McFadyen: I want to ask the acting Premier today, Mr. Speaker, why the government is determined to proceed with a decision that so many experts and regular Manitobans are saying is just so wrong for the future of Manitoba.
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a wonderful day in Manitoba when Manitoba Hydro and this government were able to announce a $4-billion sale to the United States. Four billion dollars in revenue for this province, and instead of the member opposite looking at the positive of this, all he can do is talk about the negative.
And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the information that he puts on the record is misleading and inaccurate when he talks about the amount of money that this bipole is costing, because with the numbers he is putting on the record, we know full well that he intends to cancel Bipole III, the converter stations, the power dam. He–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McFadyen: And in addition to the 80 per cent reduction from Gary Doer's announcement of three years ago on the Wisconsin power sale, yesterday's news release projected $1.5 billion in less revenue than what Mr. Doer promised only three years ago.
But apart from the missing $1.5 billion, we also know that the long west-side line brings with it technical issues, brings with it other concerns, Mr. Speaker. And I just want to ask the minister whether she's received any advice or reports from the chair of Hydro or the board of Hydro that would highlight other concerns or issues that they may have with the far western route.
Ms. Wowchuk: You know, Mr. Speaker, when the previous premier announced the term sheets on the possible sales, the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, said that it was nothing more than a note on a cocktail napkin. That was his idea.
And across the way they kept asking for us when we're going to have a sale. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a sale. And we signed an agreement, and I will remind the members that there is more to come. There is more to come because the sale for Wisconsin is for 100, but there is a commitment to work on the balance of it. And there is legislation in Wisconsin that will ensure that Manitoba's clean, green energy is sold for a 'prestine' price. They want our power. The members opposite–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, the difference between yesterday's news release and the one from three years ago is that they ended up losing 80 per cent of the Wisconsin sale and $1.5 billion. Manitobans preferred the cocktail napkin that Mr. Doer announced three years ago.
* (13:50)
But I want to ask the acting Premier again. They have talked about–they have given a variety of explanations for following the long western route, a variety of explanations to add 500 kilometres to the length of the line completely unnecessarily. And I want to ask the minister again: Were there any reports, technical reports or concerns raised with her by the chairman of Hydro or the board of Hydro with respect to the far western route? Can she just respond to the question that's been asked? Has she had any concerns raised, any prior reports raised with her by the board of Manitoba Hydro concerning the long western route?
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, we've had this discussion many, many times, and we know that we made the right decision to go on the west side of the province. We know we made the right decision. The member opposite would take the shorter route. That's what he would do.
But, Mr. Speaker, we know that that–what that shorter route would be. The shorter route would be poles and wire but no power going on it. There would be no power going on that line. That's the issue that we have been raising time and time again. The member opposite wants to continue to keep his head in the sand, but in reality what he wants to do is shut down Manitoba Hydro, shut down those revenues. He would not build anything. He would not build bipole, he would not build the converters, and he would not build the power dams, and we would not have this agreement for Manitobans to keep low energy rates.
West-Side Location Concerns
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Again, the minister doesn't want to respond to questions to whether concerns were brought forward by the chairman of Manitoba Hydro. The reason, Mr. Speaker, the question is being asked is that we've just learned, as a result of leaked documents from Manitoba Hydro, that for six years they have been sitting on a report that was prepared in January of 2005, presented to the board of Manitoba Hydro and discussed by that board, and that report concluded, and I quote: That the long western route contained significant problems and cannot be recommended.
I want to ask the minister if she can–will acknowledge that they've had that report, they've tried to cover it up for six years, and the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that report is now public, and Hydro itself, the experts at Hydro itself, have said that their decision has significant problems and cannot be recommended.
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Well, Mr. Speaker, the member thinks that he's come out with some new revelation here, some new revelation, but there is a difference between Bipole II and Bipole III. That discussion happened several years ago. A decision was made to build on the west side of the province to ensure reliability of supply for Manitoba customers and to ensure that we have the converters in place so–to–for Manitobans' reliable supply and that we could export.
We now have the sales that prove that we do have to build the bipole line, and we–the members opposite would not build anything. I know where the member opposite wants to go. He wants to go back to his record on Manitoba Telephone System, and just like he helped privatize Manitoba Telephone System, he wants to privatize Manitoba Hydro, and that is not the agenda we're on.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, the second thing that the report says to the government, which was discussed at the board of Hydro, is that, and I quote: The longer west-side route covers similar areas of boreal forest, similar numbers of First Nations and has no advantage in terms of environmental impact.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: In light of what they've been telling Manitobans now for the past three years, why would they be going around telling the people of Manitoba one thing when, in fact, the experts at Manitoba Hydro concluded that the long west-side route contains no advantage in terms of environmental impact and, in fact, has a larger physical footprint? Why would they ignore that advice from the experts? Why are they damaging the environment with their longer west‑side route?
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member opposite that in the '90s the Conservatives had a report that bipole–
Mr. Speaker: Order. If I can't hear you from here, I'm sure our guests up there can't hear you. They've travelled a long ways to hear the questions and the answers. I think we need a little co-operation here. Let's have a little decorum in the House here.
The honourable minister has the floor.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When they were in government, they knew we had to build Bipole III for reliability of supply. They ignored all that despite the fact that there was serious risks shown to them that if we did not have another converter station, we'd have another line, Manitoba's power supply was at risk.
Mr. Speaker, we have taken action. We've consulted. We've worked with our customers. We've had meetings on the east side. We've had–Hydro's had meetings on the west side with all of the communities. A decision has been built to build Bipole III on the west side. We are going to proceed with it to ensure that we have a reliable supply for Manitobans and that we have the line to export our power so we can keep the lowest hydro rates that we have right now.
The members opposite want to go to–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McFadyen: The report that they've been trying to conceal now for six years goes on, Mr. Speaker. In addition to saying that the west-side route has significant problems, covers a similar area of boreal forest, impacts a similar number of First Nations, has a larger physical footprint, it also goes on to say, and I quote, that the long west-side route traverses significant areas of private land adding complexity to the land acquisition process.
Mr. Speaker, why would they make a decision that added complexity to the land acquisition process, increased the cost and thereby delayed the in-service date for this important project?
Ms. Wowchuk: I'm pleased that the member opposite now recognizes that this is an important project. He recognizes that we need bipole and we need converters. You would never believe that was true, Mr. Speaker, from the comments that the member opposite is saying. If he is saying that he is going to save Manitoba families $11,000 each, that means that he is cancelling everything. He's cancelling bipole, he's cancelling the converter stations, he's cancelling Keeyask and Conawapa, and he's cancelling the $4 billion of revenue that was announced yesterday from the sales to Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can't have it both ways. He can't say he's having–going to be saving Manitoba money and then say that he will build something. He would destroy it all.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Mr. McFadyen: I want to thank the acting Premier for that response.
Mr. Speaker, the report prepared by Manitoba Hydro itself, which went to the board of directors for discussion prior to their making the decision, identifies issues with the boreal forest, with First Nations, larger physical footprint, added complexity of the land acquisition, and it gets worse. The report also says, and I quote, that the long west-side route will, and I quote, result in negotiations with Ontario for a significant power sale to be compromised.
I want to ask the acting Premier: Why would they make a decision that would compromise significant power sales to Ontario, which is what the Hydro experts said to them in a report six years ago?
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, I think the member–Leader of the Opposition was part of that privatization of that Ontario Hydro. He was part of that.
Mr. Speaker, I said many times, we are going to develop hydro and we are prepared to sell this in order to generate revenue for the province, whether it's to the south, east, west, north. We will work with everybody. We work on agreements. We work at producing clean, green energy. We want to sell it for a premium price, and we are.
* (14:00)
The member opposite talks about Ontario. Ontario changed their mind. They decided not to buy the power. We continued to negotiate with others, Mr. Speaker. We have one agreement yesterday. There's more to come. And although the member opposite doesn't believe it, we are working with other jurisdictions as well, and we will continue to grow and development Manitoba Hydro–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McFadyen: And, again, I want to thank the acting Premier very much for her response today.
And the report prepared by Manitoba Hydro in 2005 goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, and I quote: Prices on US power sales could be downgraded due to reliability concerns. I want to ask the acting Premier why they would make a decision that would result in a downgrade of prices that we might get on the US power sales due to reliability concerns resulting from the far west-side route. Hydro has told her that those prices will be downgraded due to reliability concerns.
Why would this acting Premier proceed with the decision to downgrade prices and to deprive Manitobans of the wealth that they would otherwise be entitled to?
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member opposite to look at the agreement yesterday and to look at what Wisconsin and Minnesota are looking for. Clearly, Minnesota and Wisconsin, particularly Wisconsin, are looking for green, clean energy, and they're prepared to pay a premium price for that energy, and in their legislation they're recognizing the new developments that we are doing in this province that are being done in a new way in consultation, in partnership with First Nations. And that is what they are looking for, and I can assure the member that this sale, as Mr. Bob Brennan said yesterday, without this sale of $8 billion, surely we would see rates going up in Manitoba. We want the lowest rates that we can in this province, and we want the revenue–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, just when we thought the news couldn't get worse, the report goes on, and it says, and I quote: that the long west-side route gives rise to serious concerns about the viability of future development of northern hydro projects. It's in reference to the future development of Keeyask and Conawapa and that the–because of the technical issues around the long western route, Hydro itself has said that there are serious concerns about the viability of future development of northern hydro projects.
I want to ask the Hydro minister and the acting Premier: Why, when Hydro told her that she could be compromising the development of future northern projects, would they go ahead and ignore that advice and put in jeopardy the development of further northern hydro projects?
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, we know full well who would put development of hydro in jeopardy. We know the record of the Conservatives. They've never built anything, and when they had the opportunity they privatized the MTS Centre, and we know, and I'll quote for the member as well, that Manitoba Hydro said: The west route would address the catastrophic outages of Dorsey and of Bipole I and Bipole III Interlake corridor. It would reduce the possibility of a tornado outage to one-in-3,249 years.
That's in the report. Hydro says the chance of a major fire at Dorsey was determined to be one-in-29 years. The possibility of fire can never be estimated and has–can never–and is a major concern in complex stations such as Dorsey.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite refuses to recognize that we need another converter station. He would cancel it, and I can quote further for the member opposite–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, the report prepared by Hydro, which they've been trying to hide for six years, in addition to concerns about the boreal forest and in addition to the larger environmental impact, in addition to the complexities of land acquisition, in addition to compromising negotiations with Ontario, in addition to downgrading prices on the US market, in addition to compromising the viability of future northern hydro projects, the report goes on to say, and I quote: Additional rate increases would be experienced due to the much costlier western routing.
I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Selinger): Given that the advice of Manitoba Hydro to the board of directors is that rate increases would be experienced due to the much costlier western routing, why would they choose to raise rates on Manitoba family, which is what the concern is raised–Manitoba families, which is the–[interjection] Well, Mr. Speaker, they're in the process of raising rates at the PUB today. Hydro warned about it six years ago. Why are they punishing Manitoba Hydro's–Manitoba families for their incompetence?
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder where rates would go if the member opposite had his way and, as he suggested, we should go to market rates. I think that we would see much different rates.
But I would just remind the member that he should think about what Mr. Brennan said yesterday, and he could not have been clearer. He said, if we didn't get this sale, rates would be higher for Manitoba families. That's what the CEO said, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, but the members opposite refuse to recognize the importance of this sale, and the members opposite should be pleased, despite the fact that they would probably rather privatize, that a sale such as this is very important to Manitobans. It will keep our rates low, but the line that he talks about is not only important for the sales, it's important for reliability of supply. The converters are important. The members opposite would cancel it all.
Mr. McFadyen: And I want to thank the acting Premier for that response today.
Mr. Speaker, the report raises concerns about the viability of future generating projects. It talks about the downgrading of prices in the US market, compromising negotiations with Ontario, hurting the environment. It goes on to talk about concerns about the excessive cost of the western route and rate increases for Manitoba families.
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, the report goes on to say, and I quote, that the long western route will create additional complexity, which would raise the probability of bipole outages in both of the existing bipoles. This is something–this is a reliability issue that had not been raised previously, that in addition to the reduced reliability comparison between west and east, that the complexity of the long western route will also compromise the reliability of both existing bipoles.
In addition to downgrading prices, increasing rates, hurting the environment, why are they also compromising the integrity of the entire direct‑current transmission system in the province of Manitoba?
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, I'm very pleased that the member also recognized the importance of–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
I think that one question has already been raised. Would members please have a little patience here? There's conversations going back and forth and I can't hear a thing that is being said. Let's have a little co-operation here. We still have a lot of time for question period, and the members that wish to answer and the members that wish to ask questions will have lots of time.
But let's deal with one question at a time and one answer.
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I think what we have to think about, as we are addressing these issues, is we have to think about the numbers, the different numbers, that the Leader of the Opposition has been putting on the record with regard to Bipole III and the converters.
He has been completely wrong, Mr. Speaker, in the numbers that he has, and he has to–I would really appreciate if today he would stand up in this House and admit that he was wrong. He was wrong in his numbers, he was misleading in the information that he was putting on the record as far as the costs go, and he really has to admit that what he is saying is completely opposed to an economic development plan for this province.
We know that he would, in fact, push Manitoba backwards, Mr. Speaker, if he–because he would not build bipole, he would not build converters, he would not build the dams and we would not have these record sales of $8 billion to–and to keep low hydro rates in this province.
* (14:10)
Mr. McFadyen: And, again, I want to thank the Deputy Premier for her response to the question.
Mr. Speaker, the report that was prepared by Manitoba Hydro engineers and experts was supplemented by another technical report supplied by other experts in power line transmission. The report, as we've just indicated, talks about the additional complexity also creating the probability of bipole outages with both of the existing bipoles. We only have two bipole lines in Manitoba currently, and the long western route, the report says, would raise the probability of bipole outages in both of the existing bipoles.
I want to just ask the minister, after being warned that the long western route could increase the probability of bipole outages on both of the existing bipoles, why wouldn't she take that advice? Why wouldn't she listen to the experts? Why would she put our hydro grid at risk?
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, we aren't putting anything at risk. We're building bipoles. We're building converters. Manitoba Hydro is negotiating deals. We've built Wuskwatim. Keeyask we'll be starting shortly. Conawapa will be the–part of the next sale because there is a further sale with Wisconsin.
The member opposite refuses to recognize that he would mothball everything. He had the opportunity when he was chief of staff to look at the risks that we had at Dorsey station and the risks we had with bipole. They chose to do nothing, Mr. Speaker.
We're moving forward. We're building bipole. We're building the converter stations. We're building dams, Mr. Speaker, and we're generating revenue for Manitoba and keeping Manitoba at the lowest rates.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Mr. McFadyen: And it gets even worse, Mr. Speaker.
The report, Mr. Speaker, prepared by Manitoba Hydro–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I've gotten up about eight, nine times, and I don't think I should have to do that. I think members in here should have enough respect for the integrity of the institution we're in and enough respect for the guests that we have in the gallery to bring forward a little better decorum than what we're showing today. I'm asking the co-operation of all honourable members from this point on.
The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition has the floor.
Mr. McFadyen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the–obviously, Manitobans have a great attachment to Manitoba Hydro and they're optimistic about the future.
This report has warned the minister, in addition to the issues already raised about rising rates, diminished reliability, compromised power sales to Ontario, added environmental damage, the report goes on, Mr. Speaker, and it says, and I quote, that the long west-side route will threaten the Manitoba load and threaten export sales through degraded product reliability.
I want to ask the acting Premier: Why is she degrading Manitoba's product reliability in terms of our hydro sales?
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I will put our record of development of Manitoba Hydro beside their record anytime.
Mr. Speaker, ours is a record of building. Ours is a record of addressing reliability of supply by building bipole and building converter stations. Their record is mothballing, and I believe that the next step in their record would be privatization. I look at the members' record of where the Conservatives and where he stood on MTS, and I have no doubt his idea would be to run Manitoba Hydro into the ground so they could sell it to their friends. Ours is much different.
That report he is referring to is six years old. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, we have built generation stations. We've negotiated deals and we've kept the rates low, and there's more–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McFadyen: In addition to rising rates, environmental damage, degrading the product reliability, threatening export sales, giving rise to concerns about the viability of future development of northern projects, the report goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that the long western route will, and I quote, result in serious degradation of Manitoba Hydro's emergency operations.
I want to ask this acting Premier: Why, when they were warned six years ago that the decision would result in a serious degradation of Manitoba Hydro's emergency operations, why would they politically interfere? Why would they degrade Hydro's emergency operations? Will she explain that to Manitobans today?
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should question himself about why, when he knew there was a risk of reliability of supply and concern about fires at Dorsey when he was chief of staff for the premier of the day, they chose to ignore all of that. We, on the other hand, have chosen and are moving forward to address reliability of supply, to address the issue of converters. We continue to build and negotiate sales. We have built Wuskawatim, we will build Keeyask and we will build Conawapa, and we will continue to use Manitoba Hydro to generate revenue for Manitoba, not run it into the ground like they would do.
Government Position
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Manitobans expect that somebody will be ensuring the reliability of our hydro services.
I appreciate the great show of support from members opposite on this important issue, and I want to just–I just want to ask the–and I know they're agitated today, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand why. But it's an important issue. Hospitals, personal care homes, schools, homes, Manitobans from every walk of life need to know that their power will be there for them when they need it, patients in hospitals, seniors in personal care homes, families around the province. And this minister has now had a report, and the Premier's (Mr. Selinger) had a report for now that talks about serious degradation of emergency operations, that talks about the compromising of the existing two power lines.
In light of all of this, Mr. Speaker, why don't they just have the courage today to admit that they're wrong and flip-flop on this issue just as they have on so many others?
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite doesn't have to admit anything, but we know that he was wrong when he was part of a team that did not recognize that there was concerns with power lines, there was concerns with the Dorsey station. There was concern about reliability of supply. We have been saying for–since we started to talk about Bipole III, that we needed Bipole III for reliability of supply for Manitobans.
We need the converter stations so that we have another option should there be difficulty at Dorsey. The member opposite did nothing with that. And if we look at his numbers he would cancel Bipole III, he would cancel the converter stations, he would cancel the dams because, if you calculate his numbers, at $11,000 per family, Mr. Speaker, he is cancelling everything. There would be no dams built, there would be no power sales, and there would be no reliability of supply, which has suddenly come to light for the member opposite.
* (14:20)
Government Position
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): And again, Mr. Speaker, this report, which I'll table for the minister, which was prepared by Manitoba Hydro as advice to the board of directors prior to their making of the decision, gives rise to 12 very serious issues. It talks about rising rates. It talks about environmental damage. It talks about compromising the reliability not just of a western line but the existing two lines. It talks about degradation of the product. It talks about reduced prices to the US. It talks about compromised sales to Ontario.
In light of all of this, that were–there were warnings provided to her by the experts at Manitoba Hydro. It's not a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker. It's in the report provided by Manitoba Hydro. In light of all of that, will they just acknowledge today that they need to go back to getting the expert advice? They need to resist the temptation to politically interfere in Manitoba Hydro and they need to accept the advice of the experts who are saying that rates are going up and reliability is going down under this NDP government.
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm really pleased that the member opposite has finally decided to read some of the information that has been tabled here in the Legislature. This leaked report that he was talking about was tabled in the Legislature January 20th, 2005.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Come on. Let's not make a mockery of this great institution. Come on. Order. I remind members we're very fortunate our constituents sent us down here to represent them and I think they expect a little better than what we're showing right now.
Order. All members, order. Let's have a little decorum and a little respect for this institution.
The honourable minister has the floor.
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The member talks about what happened six years ago. I would remind him that in these six years, we have made a lot of progress with Manitoba Hydro. We've done rounds of consultation. We have talked to the people. Manitoba Hydro was out consulting. There are routes that have been designated. But we have made a decision that we are proceeding with Bipole III. We are building the converter stations. We are building hydro dams. We are getting sales.
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite want to go back to decisions or reports that happened–were available and made available 2005. This, however, is–we have moved forward since that time. We have moved forward and we are building this–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this minister didn't even know whether or not this report was tabled in the Legislature six years ago shows how completely wrong and out of touch they are. It shows that they will say absolutely anything, even things that are completely unconnected to the truth. I'll read the stamp that she was referring to, if she wants. It says, to the members of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board; it doesn't say it was tabled in the Legislature.
Now, I know they think that they run Manitoba Hydro from the Legislature. But there is a difference between the board of Hydro and the Legislature, and I want to just ask the Premier–or the acting Premier, no need to apologize for the foolish mistake she just made, but will she reverse the bigger decision for the benefit of Manitobans?
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can remind the member opposite of some foolish decisions that he made. I can remind him of the foolish decision that he made when he advised the premier of the day to sell Manitoba Telephone System. That has had some serious consequences for Manitobans. I would remind him that he was part of privatizing and advising Mike Harrison on the privatization of Ontario Hydro.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should also apologize for his attitude to this important sale that we have made. Manitoba Hydro has made a sale for power that will lead the further development in Manitoba, will create new revenues for Manitoba. And he can't even think of a positive thing to say about Manitoba Hydro because his objective is to privatize it.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the mistake about whether the document was tabled, the minister, who's the minister of Hydro, doesn't even know that Hydro One, the corporation she's referring to, is a publicly owned corporation in Ontario. So, again, Mr. Speaker, she's got all of her facts wrong again.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is this: That she has had a report in front of her for six years that's talked about compromises to reliability. It's talked about rising rates. It's talked about environmental damage. It's talked with degrading the product for the purpose of sales to the US and to Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I know it's difficult to admit a massive mistake this far into the game, this close to an election, but it would show incredible courage and incredible strength, rather than weakly sticking to the position, which is just so completely wrong on every level according to every expert.
Will this minister today do the right thing, admit they've had it completely wrong for the last three years, and stand up for the families of Manitoba?
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I will stand up, put our record of standing up for Manitobans beside the members opposite record of standing up for Manitobans, whether it be in health care, whether it be education, whether it be in justice or in agriculture. I will put our record beside theirs any time and I would be proud to defend our record and Manitobans recognize that.
Mr. Speaker, we are moving forward in this province. We are not listening to what the members opposite said. There was a report six years ago; since that time, we've made decisions. We've sold power and we're building the lines to get that power to customers and it's clean, green energy, energy development that protects the environment, reduces greenhouse gas and sells for a premium price in the United States.
Children-in-Care Suicide Rates
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, in the most recent year for which we have a report from the Children's Advocate, 2009-2010, there were 18 children who committed suicide in Manitoba. Sadly, 12 of these children, or two-thirds, were children in care or who had been receiving services from Child and Family Services. This is a very sad and very serious situation.
The Children's Advocate and many others have talked about the chaos in the NDP's child welfare system. This chaos is evident in these statistics: 12 children, so anguished about what's happening to them, that they committed suicide.
Can the minister tell this Chamber what he's going to do to make sure that no more children being looked after through the child and welfare system in this province will die from suicide?
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Family Services and Consumer Affairs): Well, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member asked some questions from the same report and, unfortunately, made sure that the information was taken out of context, but we'll just be wary of how he presents his information. But, indeed, the annual report was–is not a recent synopsis of what has been happening. In fact, the reports are quite dated and go back two or three years.
* (14:30)
Having said that, last year, Mr. Speaker, there was a child or youth in foster care who died of suicide, and I will say that that is far, far too many. This is a most tragic circumstance to befall the youth of this province. But that is why new efforts have been made and new investments and a suicide strategy put in place for Manitoba children.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, as the minister should know, an act of committing suicide by a young person is most often a call for help in a very desperate situation. The Child and Family Services system should be providing exemplary care for vulnerable children. It should not be so dysfunctional that a child involved in the system is at an enormously higher risk of committing suicide than a child who is not.
These are data from 2010, and I ask the Minister of Family Services what action he is going to take to address this appalling situation of an extraordinarily high suicide rate for children involved with the Child and Family Services system.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Mr. Speaker, first, just some technicalities: he's going on about–this is data from–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The honourable minister has the floor.
Mr. Mackintosh: The data is not from 2010, but having said that, it doesn't matter if it's one child or not.
There have been some indications that there is some progress being made. The new strategy that's been put in place, an $8-million strategy called Reclaiming Hope, is going to work for Manitoba children. And there are many other investments that are being made strategically to ensure that we follow the advice of those who have looked very carefully at this very serious challenge that has been plaguing Manitoba youth for a long, long time.
But if the member had his way, he would just leave the children in their homes with the abuse and neglect, Mr. Speaker. That's what he said last week when he got up in this House. He said: Why are you taking children from their families? Sometimes it's necessary to save lives.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the report says right here, child deaths in Manitoba, 2009-2010.
We know that staff and families are doing their very best to protect vulnerable children, but when 12 children choose to end their lives, there clearly is a gap in care and services from this minister. Two‑thirds of the children who committed suicide last year, 2010, were receiving services from his department at the time of or shortly before they committed suicide.
When will this minister stand up and admit that he's failing to adequately protect and provide for these vulnerable children in Manitoba after his government has been in power for almost 12 years?
Mr. Mackintosh: We rolled out a strategy led by Healthy Child to address the serious issue of suicide. I think it is a leading-edge approach in this country and has been looked at. But we recognize that there have been areas, particularly, that are vulnerable because of a lack of supports, and we know, Mr. Speaker, that what has happened historically on reserves in Manitoba is very, very unfortunate. And, now, we're getting some new attention from the federal government to make investments, to make sure that families are healthier, that children have the better supports on reserve.
The member raises a serious issue, but if he was acting seriously, we know where he stood when he had his hands on the levers, on the buttons of power. When he was in a very small, select group of Cabinet ministers in Ottawa, he cut funding for on-reserve supports for children, the most vulnerable children in this province. That was a terrible, shameful decision. There might be over 300 people in that institution in Ottawa, but we know where he stood. He wasn't with the children.
Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.
Norberry-Glenlee Community Centre
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, community centres serve a vital role in bringing together friends and neighbours throughout the year. I know this first‑hand because of how important the Norberry and Glenlee Community Clubs have been to generations of residents in my constituency.
When Norberry Community Centre first opened its doors in 1949, it was nothing more than a converted boxcar. In the early years, hockey and baseball ruled the rinks and fields, but soon ringette, softball, soccer, football, lacrosse and many other sports were added. Dancing, bingo, the winter carnivals, New Year's galas and the Norberry spring carnival also drew many to the community club.
The neighbouring club, Glenlee, was established in 1951. As with many community clubs, it was largely due to many dedicated volunteers that programming and events took root and brought community members together. Events included dances for local youth, bingo and fundraisers to improve the facilities. This was in addition to the many children and youth who proudly donned a Glenlee Vikings uniform over the years.
Amalgamated in '06 and expanded in '09 with provincial funding of almost $500,000 under the Manitoba-Winnipeg Recreation and Leisure Infrastructure Program, the Norberry‑Glenlee Community Centre now proudly serves both former communities under one larger, streamlined organization. Now serving more families than ever, the board of directors turns its attention to improving the playing fields.
Towards that end, a lot of hard work and time was spent to secure the funding they needed to make that dream a reality. Recently, all of the hard work of the board of directors, volunteers and staff was rewarded when they received $400,000 under the Building Communities Initiative offered through the government of Manitoba. This money will go towards their site redevelopment project, which includes putting in a new baseball diamond, a full‑sized youth soccer pitch, new trees throughout the site and new land drainage systems to help improve the playing conditions.
Manitoba views this project as a cornerstone of the community and has provided over $1.2 million in support through various programs in the past, and is pleased to offer continued support through the Building Communities Initiative II. I, along with the member from St. Vital, would like to congratulate the efforts of the volunteer staff and board members of the Norberry-Glenlee Community Centre. It is because of them that families in the area will now be able to enjoy the new and improved facilities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Charleswood Art Group 60th Anniversary
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I rise today to congratulate the Charleswood Art Group on the occasion of their 60th anniversary. I was honoured to attend the Charleswood Art Group's art show, called Springtide, on April 30th at St. Andrew's River Heights church. Many of the members of the group gathered to display and sell their works of art, and it was a very prolific offering of their many and varied talents.
The president, Bonnie Taylor, joined me in presenting certificates of appreciation to three long‑time members of the group, Len van Roon, Alma Bentley and Wayne Scarrow, in commemoration of his wife, Linda Scarrow. All three of these members have contributed greatly to the world of art. Len, a long-time Charleswood resident, who, along with his wife, Verna, have also been responsible for safeguarding many items of historic interest to Charleswood. They were responsible for publishing a book about Charleswood's heritage and, as members of the Charleswood Historical Society, set up the Charleswood historical museum.
If you visit Len's property in Charleswood, you will find that his home is surrounded by "guffleworfs"–171 stick people he makes from deadfall found on his wooded property. You will be impressed by his amazingly creative, humorous and original artwork.
In 1951, a new art group, the Charleswoood Art Group, was formed by a group of well-known local Winnipeg artists. In 2011, they were celebrating a 60-year tradition of providing a stimulating, supportive environment in which members can develop their painting skills.
Mr. Speaker, the group has undergone many changes in the last few years, meeting on Mondays from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. in various locations over the years, including Gloria Dei church and the Eric Coy garage in Charleswood. There is an exciting program featuring local guest artists giving watercolour, acrylic, drawing, and mixed media workshops, as well as member artists demonstrating their talents to the group.
The Charleswood Art Group website, featuring activities, group photos and links to other relevant sites, was also established five years ago.
Their group organizes yearly shows at the Assiniboine Park Conservatory, Great-West Life, and they actively seek other venues for members to show their work.
Charleswood is very fortunate to have found so many talented and wonderful artists who have chosen to belong to the Charleswood Art Group and sustained this group for 60 years. Congratulations and thank you to all of them for making our world a more interesting place with their many contributions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Transcona Trails Inc.
Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Today, I rise to talk about the dedication of organizers at Transcona Trails Inc. in my constituency. I recently had the pleasure of joining their members as well as many people from the community to celebrate improvements made to the Transcona Trail. It was really wonderful to see many children and their families enjoying the outdoor activities together.
* (14:40)
Since forming in 2003, Transcona Trails Inc. has worked hard to build a recreational trail system throughout Transcona. Their goal is to create trails that provide people with a safe place to enjoy the outdoors while also promoting the health of the community and people living in it.
The first phase of the trail was completed in 2005-2006. It is two kilometres long and connects the Bradley grass prairie with the Transcona Community Bioreserve. Since then, other trails have been constructed and improvements have been made, including a two-phase expansion of the Transcona Trail, the five-kilometre-long Manitoba Lotteries Fitness Trail in the Buhler Recreation Park, and additional Cordite Trail.
None of these would have been–would have happened, Mr. Speaker, if it weren't the strong community support and the hard work of Transcona Trails Inc. volunteers. Members included Gail Kauk, Delsie Cousineau, Valerie Cousineau and Jim Bromley. Generous grants from our government Community Places program, totalling over $65,000 since 2004 and 2005, have also played a pivotal role in rail–in the trail construction and improvements.
Today, Transcona has a variety of paved and limestone trails as well as grass paths that provide a variety of outdoor experience. The final result is a network of trails that connect green spaces, highlight local habitat and provide a safe space for children and adults alike to enjoy and appreciate their natural surroundings without having to travel outside the city limits.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I like to congratulate the people of my constituency and other Transconians for supporting this venture. I wish them a beautiful summer in the coming months.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Forrest & Forrest Law Firm
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, for over a hundred years, Forrest & Forrest law offices provided clients in western Manitoba with sound legal services and advice. As of December 2010, their Souris office was sold to another firm, and the Forrest family has retired from the law profession.
The Forrests' practice began in 1907, when Sam Forrest purchased the Taylor portion of the Taylor and Boswell law firm in Souris, Manitoba. After a number of years practising with Sam Forrest, C.M. Boswell enlisted in the army, leaving Sam as the sole practitioner for the firm until his son, Harry, joined the practice in 1946. Prior to joining the family firm, Harry served in the Air Force for four and a half years during the Second World War.
In 1945, the now Forrest & Forrest law firm expanded its practice to Reston where–after Harry purchased another practice from the late Alexander Kippen Cates. Harry recalls travelling once a week to Reston by train, which was then called The Peanut. It was easy–not an easy ride, particularly in winter, when the only source of heat was a burn barrel.
Along with practising law, Sam and Harry both had other interests that they enjoyed, but continued to operate their busy law office. Sam had taken an interest in education and was the chairman of the Souris School Board for 35 years. Harry served as a police magistrate and Provincial Court judge for 47 years.
The Forrest law business has extended to many members of the Forrest family, not limited to Sam and Harry. In 1920, Harry's older sister, Catherine, obtained her LLB in the–at the age of 19 and enlisted–and enrolled, pardon me, as a solicitor in 1935, although she never practised law. In 1974, Harry's son, Brian, joined him as a partner, and later Brian's sister, Jean Murray, practised with them for several years.
Mr. Speaker, as the Forrest legacy of strong, quiet business support for their clients throughout their century-long business in Souris-Reston area has ended, I know that the Forrests' expertise will be missed.
Having known Mr. Brian Forrest since high school, I want to particularly congratulate him on his nearly four decades of sound commitment and service to his loyal clientele. On behalf of the member for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat), myself and all Manitobans, I wish him all the best in his future endeavours and may he find time for an extra round–few extra rounds of golf at the beautiful Souris course.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Selkirk Municipal Transit System
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): As I spoke earlier in this House this week about much to celebrate in Selkirk, Mr. Speaker, I know that some have said in this House that there's nothing to celebrate here in Manitoba–I believe some of those members should come to Selkirk.
And the–I want to speak today about the official launch of Selkirk's first community transit service which I attended with the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Lemieux), Selkirk Mayor Larry Johannson and many other community activists who worked to make this system come to life.
Mr. Speaker, this is exciting development for Selkirk residents. We'll now have public transit that, of course, will help people get around the city with greater ease. The transit system benefits the environment and will help us become a greener, healthier city.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has been working with the City of Selkirk to make this vision for the transit system a reality. The Province will cover half the Selkirk Transit's net operating costs and half of the start-up capital costs such as the buses, bus stops and shelters through the Province's 50-50 transit funding partnership.
Mr. Speaker, Selkirk Transit is the result of many years of planning, discussion and community consultation. I want to thank Deputy Mayor Duane Nicol, who was the chair of the Transit Committee, and committee members, Larry Johansson, Councillor Darlene Swiderski, and citizen rep, Dennis Fitzpatrick, for their hard work. This new transit system is an important asset for Selkirk and will help Selkirk continue to grow as a vibrant and sustainable community.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Springfield, on a grievance?
Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): On a grievance.
Mr. Speaker: On a grievance.
Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, earlier on today we had the opportunity to deal with private members' bills and resolutions and one of the resolutions in front of the Chamber this morning was on Manitoba bedbug reporting. And I'm absolutely appalled at what some of the things were put on the record by members opposite, members of the NDP, and, frankly, I'm just as appalled by the fact that the Minister of Housing (Ms. Irvin-Ross) decided to not get up and put any comments on this, and it does actually come to a great deal under her department and she chose to say nothing about it, and that is very unfortunate because, if there was ever a member in this House that should have, it should've been the Minister of Housing.
But I do want to talk a little bit about the resolution. It's modelled after the Saskatchewan model and what it does, it says that: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to implement legislation requiring landlords to provide prospective tenants with a report on any bedbug occurrence at the rental premises.
We had the member from Assiniboine, first of all, get up and he gave his traditional, if-I-don't-see-it-and-I-don't-hear-it-it-doesn't-happen response. It was the ostrich speech, Mr. Speaker. Bury your head in the sand and you ignore it and then it's not there. He said we should not be talking about bedbugs. We should not be talking about the fact that it's a growing problem in society. What he actually encouraged people to do was to go to his website that's somehow supposed to be activated some time tomorrow, or whenever; that it wasn't even something that was currently active. He went on and started to criticize members opposite for the fact that we felt that all people in society–and we were very clear on that–that it was all individuals in society that needed protection from it and he went out and started to pick out on various individuals and it was most unfortunate.
What was equally troubling was the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), who, in amongst other things, contradicted the member from Assiniboine and then went on and started to trash talk the mayor of the City of Winnipeg. It was very unfortunate in which he said that because, you know, the mayor didn't show leadership, the Province had to, as if somehow the Province doesn't have the ability to show leadership considering that they are the largest landlord in the province of Manitoba. They have the most suites of anybody. They should be taking a leadership role, and trash talking the mayor of the City of Winnipeg is terribly unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, and is worthy of a grievance today.
And, Mr. Speaker, I will be sure to send the member's comments to the mayor to tell him exactly what's being said by NDP members in this Chamber and in this House. You know, members should be careful and choose their words carefully when they put those kind of comments on the record. The mayor has shown a lot of leadership on this issue as he has on a lot of issues, and he doesn't need the member from Burrows trash-talking him in this Chamber.
Then, of course, we had the member from Kildonan get up and start to put some comments on the record, and besides being brutally political, then tried to encourage members to not be political and then promptly went and became more political.
This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, that's being addressed by a lot of different jurisdictions. So I don't think there's any one group, any one party, any one government, anybody around who has the magic solution to the bedbug problem, and I'm not saying that some of the things that this government attempting aren't the right thing. But there are other programs and other ideas, and the one that we put forward today is built on the Saskatchewan model and it's a good idea. Because, you know what, why wouldn't you let people know what kind of conditions they're moving into? Why wouldn't you let them know, for instance, that there are bedbug problems in a particular building? It doesn't mean that they won't move in. It gives them a heads up. It means that they can protect themselves from it. It works in other jurisdictions, to the member for Assiniboine. It works in other areas. Why wouldn't we at least give it some consideration here instead of getting up and just dissing it right off the hand?
* (14:50)
In fact, I think it was the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) who said that this was a terrible idea, over-reactionary and extreme right wing. Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker? I think the people in Saskatchewan are going to be very pleased with the fact that they are getting protection from their government, something that they're not going to get from the member from Assiniboine, the member from the Burrows or the member from Kildonan. They get nothing from those members, nothing but political talk. And that is what was so unfortunate about it.
We mentioned, on the record, that there are other jurisdictions who are doing really good jobs. We mentioned Toronto and New York. I mean, clearly, they're large urban centres and these are issues that have to be dealt with. I mentioned in my comments the fact that you can now pick these up from movie theatres, hotel rooms, basically anywhere where you're sitting on any kind of cloth.
And I think we should be open, up front about it. We should talk about bedbugs and say it is an issue, it is a problem, and be aware of it. You know, protect yourself. On the one hand, the member from Assiniboine, one of the ministers who–I give him credit, he did have the courage to get up and speak to the bill, unlike the Minister of Housing (Ms. Irvin‑Ross). But, on the one hand, he says, you know, we have to have a website and we put brochures out and we put advertising out. And then, on the other hand, he says we shouldn't be talking about it. I actually think the best thing you can do when it comes to these kinds of things is be open and be up front with people. Tell them where the problems are. Tell them what the problems are and then give them the solutions. Let them figure out what's best for them to figure out how to mitigate the bedbug problem.
But, no, not the member for Assiniboine; what he wanted to do was refer people to a website that, evidently, is not even activated yet. In his comments, he said that would be Friday–and I don't know if that's this Friday or the week after or the week after or the week after; we'll give him benefit of the doubt and assume that it's this Friday–and, Mr. Speaker, doesn't give them much information. In fact, I put on the record that we had a freedom of information request. We just wanted to know what was spent in the following years. We wanted to know from 2003 up to 2010, what was spent every year. It was denied. It was denied by the member from Assiniboine and the member from Kildonan. They denied it, so we had to go to the Ombudsman, and what would you know, the Manitoba Ombudsman actually overturned them and said the information should be forthcoming.
And what's interesting is the member from the Burrows, he said in his comments, he said, oh, now that I have these speaking notes, now I can give them to my constituency assistant, and when people call about bedbugs, now I have an answer for them. He didn't even have the information. This is such a tight ship over there when it comes to any kind of information. The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), one of their own caucus colleagues, he's left out in the cold. He has to wait till the issue comes up in the House, put forward by the opposition, before he can get any information. And we had to go to the Ombudsman to get something as innocuous as how much is spent every year on the bedbug issue.
And I actually have empathy for the member from the Burrows, that he had to wait until this bill, this private member's resolution came forward, and I'm happy that I could do something for him because he should have the information in his office as should everybody else. And, frankly, I wish he would have tabled his speech and would have put all that information on the record because we've been looking for it through freedom of information requests and everything is continuously denied by the member from Assiniboine and the member from Kildonan. They keep denying everything, and that's very unfortunate.
Minister of Housing, she won't let any information go public, and that's their approach to dealing with bedbugs. You batten down the hatches. You make everything as tight as you can and you give nobody any information. We have to wait for a PMR to come forward for the member from Burrows to thankfully give us a little bit more information.
You know what? I think he just mitigated two of our freedom of information requests, the member from the Burrows–the information he put on–and we thank him for that. Least he put some information on the record. And you know what? Yes, we'll photocopy his comments and we'll hand them out to various constituency offices. At least they have something that they can give forward. And I thank the member for Burrows. In fact, you know what, I should've asked him if he would've been the seconder for this PMR the way he put information on the record.
And, Mr. Speaker, it was shameful that the comments that were made. It's shameful the way it was approached. It's shameful, in fact, that we have to go to the Ombudsman every time we want information and it's a disgrace that the Minister of Housing sat in her seat and wouldn't even get up and speak to it and the member from Burrows owes the mayor of the City of Winnipeg an apology for the kind of comments he put on the record.
Mr. Speaker: Honourable member for Steinbach, on a grievance?
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a grievance.
I was hoping I wouldn't have to go on a grievance. I searched to see if there was other ways I could make this point. But it appears that with the limited time we have available left in this session that a grievance is not only the best way to do it, but the most expedient way to do it. And my grievance is in relation to the Attorney General (Mr. Swan) and the difficulty we're having getting information from the Attorney General on a number of important issues. I saw during question period he leaped halfway out of his seat, but he did it in error. Of course, it was regarding something else when he thought that there was an issue being tabled when, in fact, it had never been tabled. But I thought maybe that he was going to prevent this grievance from happening by providing the information that we've been looking for.
You know, one of them is regarding a gang database, and we talked about this yesterday in concurrence. I appreciate the fact that the Attorney General was actually here for concurrence. There was some members, I won't name them individually, Mr. Speaker, but there were some members who may not have been here, but the Attorney General was and I'm glad for that. But even though he was here we had difficulty getting information and it was regarding the gang database. And the Attorney General, remember when he was running for leadership of his party, it wasn't for a very long time that he was in the leadership race, but for that short period of time that he was actually in the race one of the announcements he made–and I think it was actually an announcement he made the day before he dropped out of the race–was regarding bringing back a gang database, and that's something that this government, of course, stopped. They unplugged. They went into the place where the gang database was operated and they pulled the plug and they said that's it we're not going to be tracking gang members any more.
And so I asked the minister yesterday during concurrence why it was that they did away with the gang database and he sort of, you know, hedged and hawed and he said it's not really our responsibility and yet he had promised to bring it back, Mr. Speaker. He promised during his aborted leadership race to bring back the gang database. He acknowledges that it's a good thing, that it's an important thing to have in the province of Manitoba and yet he refuses to give us any specific information about why it is that he won't reinstate a program that he promised.
We also asked him about the helicopter, the police helicopter that was advocated by all members of the Progressive Conservative Party and caucus that was stalled by the government for a number of years even though it was seen to be an important thing that was held up by the government by refusing to provide just a few thousand dollars I believe it was to get the helicopter off the ground and into operation.
In fact, it had to be the mayor of Winnipeg, Mr. Katz, who had to shame this government in supporting that important initiative. In fact, the very same mayor that the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) was criticizing this morning as was discussed by the member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler). But I ask those questions about the operation of it because there is some provincial money now that's involved after the mayor was able to shame the Attorney General. I think he was actually taken off the file and somebody else had to get the deal done.
But I asked about some of the operational issues and the Attorney General said, well, I know nothing. I don't have any idea about what's going on. I am not going to ask anybody. I'm just going to leave it, and that's not acceptable. I mean, Manitobans send us here to be vigilant, to ask the kind of questions about things that are happening in the province of Manitoba that they want to know about to be transparent, and clearly the Attorney General yesterday in his conduct in concurrence wasn't being forthcoming.
I also asked about accidental releases, something that has been in the news recently. But also was in the news last year that the Attorney General indicated there is an independent review that's going to be happening on accidental releases. This, of course, is after the review that he did last year because every year he reviews something it seems to actually get worse not better, but he's reviewing it again. But there was a particular individual who was still on the loose and I asked whether or not that person had been apprehended. He indicated that they were. So I followed up by suggesting that we'd like to know whether or not they were apprehended in the commission of another crime, whether or not they were victimizing somebody else and they'd been apprehended, or whether or not this was sort of an incidental find by the police, or whether the police were able to go and track this individual down.
* (15:00)
And he said, well, I'm not really interested in talking about that. I'm not really interested in giving you that information. We weren't asking about the nature of any sort of offences or things that would be beyond the scope of the Attorney General (Mr. Swan), just simply how it is that this person came back into custody. And the Attorney General said, well, I, you know, I'm just not even going to bother because I don't want to answer this particular question. And I think that that sums up some of the difficulties that we're having in relation to the whole issue of concurrence or questions that happen more generally in this House. I mean, these are important processes. These are important things.
I know the members opposite don't like it. They feel that they're above these sort of things. They don't feel that they should have to answer questions and that maybe it's above them and we shouldn't have to–they feel that they shouldn't have to be part of that process. But it's there for a reason, Mr. Speaker. There's a reason why we have this ability to come into the Legislature and to ask these questions, and it's not simply for the benefit of the opposition.
And, you know, I worry that the members opposite have become so partisan, so rigid, so bitter in their ways, Mr. Speaker, that they feel that they shouldn't have to participate in these sort of things that we have; that they hold it, sort of, in disregard; that they almost have to hold their noses to come, whether it's to concurrence or other things to answer questions by members.
But, you know, it's not our process. It's not something that we've put in place as legislators. We haven't said, well, you know, we're going to create this particular process. We do it on behalf of Manitobans. I mean, this fine Chamber that all of us have the great privilege to be elected to, has a certain set of rules for a reason. Many of them are very historical, and I don't have to tell you that, Mr. Speaker; you're very learned in the history of the parliamentary process. But it's–there's a lot of good reasons why we have these sort of things and it's not to frustrate the ministers. It's not so that they have to be here to answer questions of the opposition, who's trying to cause them no good. And I'm sure that's how they feel.
But it's really on behalf of Manitobans that we are here to ask these questions. So when I asked the questions of the Attorney General (Mr. Swan) yesterday in concurrence–and he was good enough to be there–but we asked these questions and he just, you know, well, I don't want to answer that and, well, I'm–yes, I probably could get that information, but, whatever, I'm not going to bother to find it out for you. Well, sure, that's frustrating for me as an opposition critic. I mean, it's hard for me to do my job, I acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem saying that, but it's more than my own frustration. It's more than me, personally, saying, well, this is a difficult thing to do my job when the government doesn't think that these are serious things. These are things that they have to participate in.
It's frustrating, I think, for the broader public. And I know that Manitobans don't cling to every word that's said here in the Legislature–I would be surprised, perhaps, concerned if they did–can be clinging to everything that's said here. But they do expect us to go here and to respect not only the dignity of this Chamber, but the rules that govern it. Well, all of us believe that that's one of the reasons we're elected here for.
So I stand on this grievance as concern that I think that the Attorney General–I stand and–oh, and, you know, Mr. Speaker–and I know there are times when I, perhaps, myself, have run afoul of a rule or two. And I don't mind acknowledging that. I don't stand here as somebody who was without guilt on some of those things. But, you know, when there is a problem, when there is a challenge, I want to raise it in a fair way and give the Attorney General an opportunity to set right a wrong that happened yesterday and that's happened before. But it's not just him. I certainly think he is part of the problem. But, I mean, I think it's a general feeling among the members of the government, that they've been in government so long, they're so arrogant, they're so–the feeling that they have a divine right, an entitlement to be in the government, that they take these–that they take this process as though it's something that's above them–that is above them.
And that's an attitude that doesn't reflect well, not only on them, Mr. Speaker, but on the Chamber as a whole. It doesn't work well for any of us. So my hope, and I say this in a bipartisan way, I rose on a grievance because I wanted to help restore some of the important things that happen in this Chamber. It wasn't for my own benefit or for anyone's else's; it's really on behalf of the Chamber that I rise on this grievance to ask the members opposite to take these things seriously, to not just simply dismiss them as some sort of opposition tactic or opposition game. That this is important, that you should be here and you should be active and you should be engaged and interested in answering questions, not for my benefit but for the benefit of Manitobans. So, with those words, I hope that the Attorney General has taken them to heart and has received them in the spirit that I offered them and that was the spirit of bipartisanship.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a grievance?
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): No, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: On a point of order.
Mrs. Taillieu: On a point of order. I certainly was expecting that we would be doing concurrence today because, as we just heard from the member from Steinbach, it's a very important part of the business that we do here today, and it's a opportunity for opposition members to bring ministers into the Chamber, put questions to the ministers, and expect to try and get some answers, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we put the Premier (Mr. Selinger) on notice to appear today, and today we read in the newspaper that he had different intentions. There's important work to do but the government members don't consider it important. Yesterday, the acting Government House Leader had the opportunity to let the Opposition House Leader know that there may have been a change in schedule. Between 3 and 5 yesterday, there was opportunity. He did not make any notification to me.
It is the Government House Leader's duty to ensure members are to be where they are to be when they are called, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the Premier and the acting House leader knew that there was other intentions yesterday. I guess that photo ops are more important than the work of the people, but the acting Government House Leader could have informed us yesterday before the House adjourned, and we could have had, at that opportunity, an opportunity to table an alternate list.
But no mention was made of that, Mr. Speaker, and obviously, to me, that means there was a deliberate attempt to avoid answering questions in concurrence, and he was aided by that in the acting Government House Leader. The Premier could only be called once to concurrence. If we had had an opportunity we could have made an alternate arrangement, but today was the only day the Premier was called to concurrence.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to quote rule 15 from our rule book that says, every member shall attend the service of the House and each committee thereof of which he or she is a member unless leave of absence has been given to the member by the House. To my knowledge that was not done and we expected the Premier here today. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.
I have to say it grieves me to have to rise to speak about this point of order in the Chamber. In the past, I think House leaders have had a practice of working out schedules of concurrence in advance so that there's been the opportunity to get the ministers here that the members of the opposition want here to ask questions when they want to ask those questions.
We haven't been able to do that this time round and I'm sorry for that. I have made several offers to the House leader for the official opposition last night and today to get together to talk about a schedule for concurrence so we could ensure that they had the members here that they needed.
I learned last night that the Premier (Mr. Selinger) wouldn't be able to be here. Unfortunately I was ill yesterday and so I couldn't attend to the duties as I would have liked to, but when I heard that, I made–sent an email to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. McFadyen), offered to discuss scheduling today. I offered to recall the Premier next week on a day when he is available to be here for concurrence.
* (15:10)
I've tried to make efforts for the concurrence to go as smoothly as possible, and I'll continue to make those efforts because I think that the House functions smoothly when we can have those kinds of conversations outside of the floor of the Chamber. So I'll continue to make those efforts and we are ready–
Mr. Speaker: Order. I'm going to interrupt the honourable members because I appreciate hearing from members and I appreciate concerns of members, but there's things that are sometimes best negotiated off the floor of the Chamber, where you have two House leaders and, from what I could see, from my experience, have been working very well. And something happened yesterday. I'm not going to try and judge it, but I think it would be wise if the two House leaders would get together and sort this out between them. And, if it's not possible, then I think that would be the appropriate time for the House to deal with it. But I think it would be wise to give the House leaders an opportunity, and I appreciate your raising the concern, and–order.
Because negotiations usually are done off the floor–order.
Just let me continue. Because negotiations have always pretty well been done off the floor by House leaders, and that's all I'm encouraging. And I would encourage the two House leaders to get together and have a chat and see if they can sort this out.
And, if you're wondering if it's a point of order, if that's what you're waiting for, it is not a point of order.
But I would encourage the House to–the House leaders to work together for the best opportunity for the House to continue functioning. I would encourage you to either use the loge or your offices or see if you can work it out. That's what I would strongly encourage.
Mrs. Taillieu: Well, respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the ruling.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. First of all, for clarification of the House, I was trying to give some advice from my past experience as the Speaker, and that's what I was sharing. But the point of order that was raised, I had to–that I ruled that it was not a point of order. But I hope that advice would be taken by and understood by members of the House.
So the ruling of the Chair has been challenged.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All of those in support of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, say aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to sustaining the ruling of the Chair, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Ayes have it.
Formal Vote
Mrs. Taillieu: Recorded vote, please, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
* (16:10)
Order. The hour provided for the ringing of the division bells has expired. The bells will now be turned off and the House shall proceed to the vote.
The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allan, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Brick, Chomiak, Dewar, Howard, Jennissen, Jha, Korzeniowski, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Marcelino, Martindale, McGifford, Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Reid, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Struthers, Swan, Whitehead, Wiebe.
Nays
Borotsik, Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Dyck, Eichler, Faurschou, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Rowat, Schuler, Stefanson, Taillieu.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 29, Nay 17.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.
* * *
Mrs. Taillieu: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: On a point of order. Order, please.
Mrs. Taillieu: Mr. Speaker, earlier, during question period, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) tabled a document from Manitoba Hydro, and the Deputy Premier (Ms. Wowchuk) incorrectly stated that that document had been previously tabled in this House, and has not been.
She put false information on the record, Mr. Speaker, and she's had an opportunity to correct the record and she's not done that. I think she needs to do that.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order.
Ms. Howard: On the same point of order.
There was some incorrect information put on the record. I sit right here behind that member. I heard her admit to that. And the correct information, of course, is that that document had not been previously tabled. So, hopefully, that will clear up things for the information of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. That's been clear in Beauchesne.
Mrs. Taillieu: Well, respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I'm challenging the ruling.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.
Call in the members–order. Okay, all those–order.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, say aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to sustaining the ruling of Chair, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Ayes have it.
Formal Vote
Mrs. Taillieu: A recorded vote, please, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
* (17:00)
Order. The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allan, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Brick, Chomiak, Dewar, Howard, Jennissen, Jha, Korzeniowski, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Marcelino, Martindale, McGifford, Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Reid, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Swan, Whitehead, Wiebe.
Nays
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Dyck, Eichler, Faurschou, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Rowat, Schuler, Stefanson, Taillieu.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 28, Nays 16.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Okay, the hour now being past 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday.