LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Monday, June 13, 2011
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom, know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Bill 221–The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler), that Bill 221, The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act, be now read for a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes an administrative forfeiture mechanism where there is property under the value of $50,000 that is the proceeds of crime or where it's been the instrument of crime where no person claims an interest in that property. It is intended to strengthen and streamline The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act that applies where no person disputes the property is from crime or an instrument of crime and where no one claims an interest in the property. For example, it might apply to large sums of money found in a drug house.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is similar to legislation that exists in other provinces in Canada who are leaders in seizing the profits of crime and redirecting those funds to victims. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Mount Agassiz Ski Area
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
And these are the reasons for this petition:
For several decades, the Mount Agassiz ski area, home to the highest vertical between Thunder Bay and the Rocky Mountains, was a popular skiing and snowboarding destination for Manitobans and visitors alike.
The operations of the Mount Agassiz ski area were very important to the local economy, not only creating jobs, but also generating sales of goods and services at area businesses.
In addition, a thriving rural economy generates tax revenue that helps pay for core provincial government services and infrastructure which benefits all Manitobans.
Although the ski facility closed in 2000, there remains strong interest in seeing it reopened, and Parks Canada has committed to conducting a feasibility study with respect to the Agassiz site and future opportunities in this area.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the appropriate ministers of the provincial government to consider outlining to Parks Canada the importance that a viable recreation facility in the Mount Agassiz area would play in the local and provincial economies.
And to request that the appropriate ministers of the provincial government consider working with all stakeholders, including Parks Canada, to help develop a plan for a viable, multiseason recreation facility in the Mount Agassiz ski area.
This petition is signed by R. Dumesnil, A. Vanderburgh and V. Bodnar 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.
Bipole III–Cost to Manitoba Families
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
Manitoba Hydro has been directed by the provincial government to construct its next high voltage direct transmission line, Bipole III, down the west side of Manitoba.
This will cost each family of four in Manitoba $11,748 more than an east-side route, which is also shorter and more reliable.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to build the Bipole III transmission line on the shorter and more reliable east side of Lake Winnipeg in order to save each Manitoba family of four $11,748.
This petition is signed by R. Massinon, R. Massinon, G. Massinon and many, many more fine Manitobans.
Auto Theft–Court Order Breaches
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
On December 11th, 2009, in Winnipeg, Zdzislaw Andrzejczak was killed when the car that he was driving collided with a stolen vehicle.
The death of Mr. Andrzejczak, a husband and a father, along with too many others–other deaths and injuries involving stolen vehicles, was a preventable tragedy.
Many of those accused in fatalities involving stolen vehicles were previously known to police and identified as chronic and high-risk car thieves who had court orders against them.
Chronic car thieves pose a risk to the safety of all Manitobans.
We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:
To request the Minister of Justice to consider ensuring that all court orders for car thieves are vigorously monitored and enforced.
And to request the Minister of Justice to consider ensuring that all breaches of court orders on car thieves are reported to police and vigorously prosecuted.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by B. Gilmore, B. Menard, C. Turner and thousands of other concerned Manitobans.
Agricultural Compensation Programs–RM of Sifton
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition.
And the background to this petition is as follows:
In the Rural Municipality of Sifton, flooding has affected the Assiniboine River Valley, Oak Lake, the Oak Lake Marsh, Plum Lake, Plum Creek, the Maple Lake area and the Griswold Marsh.
Farmers, as well as Oak Lake beach home and cottage owners, have been severely impacted by this flooding.
Water in the RM of Sifton is–was required to hold back in its catchment area due to provincial government requirements has caused even more hardship and losses in the area.
Those affected by flooding would like the Premier and appropriate ministers to visit the region as soon as possible to see first-hand the impact of the flooding.
We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:
To request the provincial government to consider enacting a compensation program to help address the extra costs facing agricultural producers due to severe flooding in the Rural Municipality of Sifton.
To urge the provincial government to consider developing a long-term strategy to more effectively address future flooding events in the RM of Sifton.
And, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by R. Plaisier, K. Batho, M. Plaisier and many, many other citizens of the region.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Chairperson): I wish to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Human Resources–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on HUMAN RESOURCES presents the following as its First Report.
Meetings
Your Committee met on June 9, 2011.
Matters under Consideration
· Bill (No. 20) – The Defibrillator Public Access Act/Loi sur l'accès du public aux défibrillateurs
· Bill (No. 21) – The Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Day Act/Loi sur la Journée de sensibilisation aux dons d'organes et de tissus
· Bill (No. 24) – The Innovation Funding Act/Loi sur le financement de l'innovation
· Bill (No. 26) – The Université de Saint-Boniface Act/Loi sur l'Université de Saint-Boniface
· Bill (No. 38) – The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Accountability and Transparency)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les offices régionaux de la santé (responsabilisation et transparence)
· Bill (No. 42) – The Caregiver Recognition Act/Loi sur la reconnaissance de l'apport des aidants naturels
· Bill (No. 50) – The Thompson Nickel Belt Sustainability Act/Loi sur la viabilité de la ceinture nickélifère de Thompson
Committee Membership
· Hon. Mr. Bjornson
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Mrs. Driedger
· Mr. Eichler
· Mr. Jennissen
· Hon. Ms. Oswald
· Mr. Reid
· Hon. Mr. Rondeau
· Mrs. Rowat
· Hon. Ms. Selby
· Mrs. Taillieu
Your Committee elected Mr. Reid as the Chairperson.
Your Committee elected Mr. Jennissen as the Vice‑Chairperson.
Substitutions received during committee proceedings:
· Hon. Mr. Ashton for Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak for Hon. Mr. Ashton
Public Presentations
Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 20) – The Defibrillator Public Access Act/Loi sur l'accès du public aux défibrillateurs:
Diana Bayles, Heart and Stroke Foundation
Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 21) – The Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Day Act/Loi sur la Journée de sensibilisation aux dons d'organes et de tissus:
Dr. Brendan McCarthy, Transplant Manitoba
Your Committee heard the following three presentations on Bill (No. 26) – The Université de Saint-Boniface Act/Loi sur l'Université de Saint‑Boniface:
Jeff Leclerc, University of Manitoba
Leo Robert, St. Boniface College
Daniel Boucher, Societé Franco-Manitobain
Your Committee heard the following three presentations on Bill (No. 42) – The Caregiver Recognition Act/Loi sur la reconnaissance de l'apport des aidants naturels:
Darell Hominuk, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Manitoba
Syva-lee Wildenmann, Rupert's Land Caregiver Services
Nadine Konyk, Private Citizen
Written Submissions
Your Committee received the following written submission on Bill (No. 20) – The Defibrillator Public Access Act/Loi sur l'accès du public aux défibrillateurs:
Jodi Possia, Paramedic Association of Manitoba
Your Committee received the following written submission on Bill (No. 26) – The Université de Saint-Boniface Act/Loi sur l'Université de Saint‑Boniface:
Edward H. Lipsett, Private Citizen
Bills Considered and Reported
· Bill (No. 20) – The Defibrillator Public Access Act/Loi sur l'accès du public aux défibrillateurs
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 21) – The Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Day Act/Loi sur la Journée de sensibilisation aux dons d'organes et de tissus
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 24) – The Innovation Funding Act/Loi sur le financement de l'innovation
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 26) – The Université de Saint-Boniface Act/Loi sur l'Université de Saint-Boniface
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 38) – The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Accountability and Transparency)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les offices régionaux de la santé (responsabilisation et transparence)
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 42) – The Caregiver Recognition Act/Loi sur la reconnaissance de l'apport des aidants naturels
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 50) – The Thompson Nickel Belt Sustainability Act/Loi sur la viabilité de la ceinture nickélifère de Thompson
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill with the following amendments:
Your committee voted to defeat Clause 2 of the Bill.
Your committee voted to defeat Clause 3 of the Bill.
Your committee voted to defeat Clause 4 of the Bill.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member from Flin Flon, that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
* (13:40)
Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development
Fifth Report
Ms. Marilyn Brick (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Social and Economic–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT presents the following as its Fifth Report.
Meetings
Your Committee met on June 9, 2011.
Matters under Consideration
· Bill (No. 13) – The Preparing Students for Success Act (Various Acts Amended)/Loi visant la réussite scolaire (modification de diverses dispositions législatives)
· Bill (No. 15) – The Firefighters and Paramedics Arbitration Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'arbitrage relatif aux pompiers et aux travailleurs paramédicaux
· Bill (No. 23) – The Employment Standards Code Amendment Act/Loi modifiant le Code des normes d'emploi
· Bill (No. 28) – The Public Schools Amendment Act (Reporting Bullying and Other Harm)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques (obligation de faire rapport des cas d'intimidation et des préjudices subis)
· Bill (No. 32) – The Essential Services (Health Care) and Related Amendments Act/Loi sur les services essentiels (soins de santé) et modifications connexes
· Bill (No. 33) – The Pension Benefits Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les prestations de pension
· Bill (No. 34) – The Workers Compensation Amendment Act (Presumption re OFC Personnel)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail (présomption s'appliquant au personnel du bureau du commissaire aux incendies)
Committee Membership
· Hon. Ms. Allan
· Ms. Braun
· Ms. Brick
· Mr. Cullen
· Mr. Dyck
· Mr. Goertzen
· Hon. Ms. Howard
· Mr. Martindale
· Mr. Pedersen
· Mr. Saran
· Mr. Wiebe
Your Committee elected Ms. Brick as the Chairperson.
Your Committee elected Mr. Saran as the Vice‑Chairperson.
Public Presentations
Your Committee heard the following six presentations on Bill (No. 13) – The Preparing Students for Success Act (Various Acts Amended)/Loi visant la réussite scolaire (modification de diverses dispositions législatives):
Floyd Martens, Vice-Chair, Manitoba School Boards Association
Brian O'Leary, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents
Paul Olson, Manitoba Teachers' Society
Suzanne Hrynyk, Board Chair, Winnipeg School Division
Ian Mogilevsky, President, Manitoba Association for Christian Home Schools
John Bobbette, Winnipeg Technical College
Your Committee heard the following two presentations on Bill (No. 28) – The Public Schools Amendment Act (Reporting Bullying and Other Harm)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques (obligation de faire rapport des cas d'intimidation et des préjudices subis):
Paul Olson, Manitoba Teachers' Society
Rebecca Ulrich, Canadian Red Cross
Written Submissions
Your Committee received one written submission on Bill (No. 13) – The Preparing Students for Success Act (Various Acts Amended)/Loi visant la réussite scolaire (modification de diverses dispositions législatives), from:
Marty Snelling, Chairperson, Brandon School Division Board of Trustees
Bills Considered and Reported
· Bill (No. 13) – The Preparing Students for Success Act (Various Acts Amended)/Loi visant la réussite scolaire (modification de diverses dispositions législatives)
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill, with the following amendment:
THAT Clause 9 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed subsection 259.1(3):
Application
259.1(4) Subsection (3) applies only in respect of a child who has withdrawn from parental control.
· Bill (No. 15) – The Firefighters and Paramedics Arbitration Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'arbitrage relatif aux pompiers et aux travailleurs paramédicaux
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 23) – The Employment Standards Code Amendment Act/Loi modifiant le Code des normes d'emploi
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 28) – The Public Schools Amendment Act (Reporting Bullying and Other Harm)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques (obligation de faire rapport des cas d'intimidation et des préjudices subis)
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 32) – The Essential Services (Health Care) and Related Amendments Act/Loi sur les services essentiels (soins de santé) et modifications connexes
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill, with the following amendment:
THAT Clause 3(1)(a) of the Bill be amended by adding the following after subclause (v):
(v.1) Diagnostic Services of Manitoba Inc.,
· Bill (No. 33) – The Pension Benefits Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les prestations de pension
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 34) – The Workers Compensation Amendment Act (Presumption re OFC Personnel)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail (présomption s'appliquant au personnel du bureau du commissaire aux incendies)
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
Ms. Brick: I move, seconded by the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Saran), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Minister of Conservation): I have the honour to present the following two annual reports: the 2010 Annual Report of Tire Stewardship Manitoba and the 2010 Annual Report of the Manitoba Association for Resource Recovery Corporation.
Flooding and Ice Jams Update
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House.
I am rising to provide the House with an update on the current flood situation in Manitoba.
Last night and this morning, rain has fallen throughout much of western and south-central Manitoba with upwards of 30 millimetres of rain having already fallen in isolated locations such as Dauphin, Minnedosa and Brandon.
The weather system is unstable, and while current conditions look more favourable than what was anticipated last week, we could expect the system to change in a very short period of time.
The forecast is calling for continued rains throughout western and south-central Manitoba for much of this week. South Interlake could also see as much as 20 to 30 millimetres of rain today and tomorrow.
Strong south winds will also continue to be a factor throughout the week on Lake Manitoba, Lake Winnipeg and Lake Winnipegosis.
I want to assure Manitobans impacted by the flood that they can expect swift and fair assistance from this government to help get their lives back on track. The Province has already received over 800 applications of financial assistance and has flowed almost half a million dollars in advances to folks in need. Today, we announced that former Association of Manitoba Municipalities President Ron Bell will serve as the Flood 2011 Building and Flood Recovery Action Plan appeals commissioner.
Over the weekend, the Treesbank Bridge crossing the Souris River near Wawanesa failed. A provincial bridge inspector was on the bridge at the time and was swept into the river. It is my understanding that he is recovering, but our hearts go out to him and his family. This incident highlights the often hazardous work that is called on–that is called for during floods of this extreme nature. Again, I would like to acknowledge and commend all the people involved in this year's flood fight.
In closing, I am urging Manitobans to remain vigilant in their efforts to protect their homes and properties and to assure them that the Province will stand behind them as this flood fight continues and that we will provide the support needed to get everyone back on their feet. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the latest update on the flood situation.
As the minister noted, the flood situation is rapidly evolving. Due to the challenging conditions this morning, more than 100 properties at Sugar Point and Lundar Beach are to be evacuated very quickly. These latest evacuations are an important reminder of the effects that will be felt when adverse weather conditions combine with high winds and create problems around Lake Manitoba.
We continue to hear reports of people struggling to protect properties around Dauphin Lake, with some people even resorting to hiring people to help sandbag their properties. We hope that all resources are being made available to those people and others in similar circumstances to help them protect their properties.
We note there was no flood bulletin issued by the provincial government on Sunday as part of its regular news release, and we hope they will continue with the daily issuance of those bulletins and include the lake level charts with the bulletins, as that information is very important to the people on the front line of a flood fight.
I and several of my colleagues attended a packed meeting of the Twin Lakes Beach Association where the flooding on Lake Manitoba was discussed last night. It was clear from that meeting that people are–need information from the provincial government on a broad range of flood issues, from how to mitigate to compensation to what is happening with the level of Lake Manitoba for the long haul.
As always, we encourage the government to maintain the strongest lines of communication possible with all those affected by this year's flooding. 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 thank the minister for her update and extend sympathies to the flood inspector who was on the Treesbank Bridge, and best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Certainly the situation with the wet weather now here and expected is of major concern moving forward. There are at this time some very critical decisions which need to be made in many communities, communities like St. Laurent, Twin Lakes Beach, Delta Beach, Dauphin Lake, areas in terms of–although quite a number of houses and cottages have been lost, that there are still some houses and cottages which are there on the front lines and which were not lost in the first wave of major problems, but the effort and the approach to save those homes and cottages needs to be beefed up and using the information that we have gleaned from what has worked and what has not worked successfully in Lake Winnipeg. So I pass that along.
I also think that from what I'm hearing from many, details of the compensation need to be clear from 100 per cent to contracts which don't seem to say that and so on, and I think it is good to have a commissioner in place such as Ron Bell, and, certainly, we hope that that smoothes things out.
But in this time of stress for many people, communication and clear communication is certainly very important, as well as help directed where it is needed and, of course, today, particularly in areas like Sugar Point and Lundar Beach. 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 today, we have Murray Gibson who is the president of Bishop Grandin Greenway Incorporated who is the guest of the honourable Minister for Water Stewardship.
And also in the public gallery we have with us from Springs Christian Academy, we have 10 grade 11 and 12 students under the direction of Mr. Brad Dowler. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable First Minister.
And also in the gallery we have with us from Tec Voc High School, we have 13 grade 12 law students under the direction of Mr. Colin Bruce Smith. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister for Culture, Heritage and Tourism.
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today.
* (13:50)
Advertising Campaign
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): As of today, as we know, over 2,000 Manitobans are evacuated from their homes. Hundreds of homes have been swamped, damaged or destroyed as a result of the current flood. Millions of acres of farmland are under water and can't be seeded, and, in fact, the minister just said, quite correctly, that this is a flood of an extreme nature.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has been a strong partner to Manitoba through this flood fight, and all Manitobans recognize the importance of provincial and federal governments working well together during such a crisis.
I want to ask the Premier, that instead of working with the federal government during this crisis, he has this morning decided instead to launch a taxpayer-funded attack campaign against the federal government.
Manitobans want to know, at this time of crisis, why would this Premier launch a negative, divisive, taxpayer-funded attack campaign against the federal government, our partner in this flood fight?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the provincial and federal governments have, indeed, worked very closely together on the issues of managing the flood and trying to provide support to Manitobans and will continue to do so. I'm confident of that.
We also know that the Wheat Board is of fundamental importance to the people of Manitoba. We know that, and for the Leader of the Opposition to take the view that this is not a concern to the provincial government or anybody in the provincial Legislature is a mistaken view. Farmers' ability to market their products, to be able to get support to market their products, is absolutely essential, and the provincial government has to stand up and support those producers; otherwise, they could see permanent damage to the economy, much worse in the long run than the flooding that has occurred right now this spring.
This is not a time–this is not a time, Mr. Speaker–to abandon farmers. They're going through a flood. They need support for the Wheat Board, as well, in Manitoba.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the Premier realizes that there are currently millions of acres of farmland under water in the province of Manitoba, farmland where farmers can't even seed their crops. This is a time when 2,000 Manitobans have been evacuated from their homes. It's a time when hundreds of homes have been swamped, damaged or destroyed, and this Premier's top priority is trying to overturn the results of a federal election that was settled six weeks ago.
The decision was made by Manitobans. The decision was made by Canadians. That decision was clear for a strong, stable national government in Ottawa, and six weeks later, Mr. Speaker, this Premier's top priority is to abuse the tax dollars of Manitobans running an attack campaign against the federal government.
How could he possibly think, Mr. Speaker, that his attack campaign, at the expense of taxpayers, six weeks after the decision was made, years after he failed to keep Viterra, years after he failed to keep JRI, could possibly have any positive benefit for Manitobans when what they need is for their governments to work together?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, for the member opposite to abandon farmers at a time when they're under severe stress and to abandon them at–when they're at a period of severe stress with the flooding that's going on in Manitoba and to say that their ability to market their product globally throughout the world will be reduced, to say that they will no longer have the support of the Wheat Board, really is an example of non-leadership on the part of the member opposite. He is skating away from this issue at a rapid rate.
The reality is, Mr. Speaker, the federal government and some of the members of Parliament who were elected in this province have not been clear. They had said, during the last election, that they would support the Wheat Board. Only the member opposite and his caucus does not want to stand up for rural Manitoba and farmers.
We will stand up for them all the time, 24-7. Every single day and every single year we will stand up for them when it comes to supporting the Wheat Board. Over 70 per cent–over 70 per cent–of producers say that when you control the organization and you pay for it, you should have a say on its future. Manitoba producers–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the government that failed to keep Viterra in Winnipeg when we lost hundreds of head office jobs. This is the same NDP government that failed to get JRI to invest in Manitoba, who instead invested in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, in their canola-crushing facility. This is the Premier who failed to save Crocus. This is the Premier who at every opportunity has used the power of his government to attack farmers, to attack producers in the province of Manitoba, every opportunity to blame farmers and producers.
Why doesn't he just acknowledge that he couldn't care less about farmers in Manitoba? What he's happy about today, Mr. Speaker, is he's got yet another new excuse to run attack ads.
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the member clearly does not understand the role of the Wheat Board. They have played an integral role in 1997 and in 2009 in allowing farmers to get their wheat out of flood‑affected areas. That is a role they can continue to play.
They have helped farmers move their wheat to markets to be able to get a price for that wheat. They have a worldwide brand which allows prairie producers, Manitoba producers, to get a premium price for their product, and at a time when farmers are under stress, the Leader of the Opposition wants to abandon them. He wants to stick his head in the sand on the Wheat Board. He does not want to stand up for Manitoba producers.
We will stand up for Manitoba producers. The member opposite will abandon them at their time of need.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr. Speaker, that shouting might be persuasive if, in fact, it had happened before the decision was made and not after. This is a decision that was made six weeks ago. He's six weeks late coming into this debate again. The decision was made by Manitobans who voted overwhelmingly on this issue. It was a decision that was made by Canadians, and he may not like the outcome of the federal election, but the reality is for him to spend tax dollars trying to overturn a federal election six weeks late puts him in the same category as the defeated candidate Jim Maloway.
He's nothing but the leader increasingly looking like somebody who's a fringe politician, fighting battles that have–that already–have already been fought, when he should be focused on the future, focused on jobs of the future and focused on protecting Manitobans. Why not just admit, Mr. Speaker, he's a failure.
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may want to put up the white flag when it comes to defending farmers; we won't do that. Our position has always been clear, that we support the single-desk Wheat Board in this province. Producers in Manitoba have also been very clear that they support the single desk. They have also said that under the current law producers have the say on whether or not there's a single desk. They are asking for their democratic rights to be preserved.
Let the Leader of the Opposition stand in this House. Does he support the right of producers to have a say on who–how the Wheat Board will run? Does he support producers, yes or no? Does he support producers? Does he support democracy? Does he support them having a voice? No, he doesn't, Mr. Speaker. No, he doesn't.
And you know what, Mr. Speaker?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. You have a few seconds left. The honourable First Minister.
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, farmers have the right under the Wheat Board Act to vote on the future of the Wheat Board. That democratic right is being taken away from them. If the member opposite supports that, let him stand and say that in the House today.
* (14:00)
Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the Premier is aware, there was a vote six weeks ago and in that vote six weeks ago, farmers and Manitobans voted overwhelmingly in favour of a federal, stable Conservative government. They voted overwhelmingly against the negative, backward-looking, out-of-touch NDP.
Why can't the Premier just get over it and acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that he lost?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the member's argument, what he's really saying is the federal election means he has no responsibility to defend Manitoba farmers.
We take a different view. Manitoba farmers, prairie producers, have in a great majority elected the Wheat Board. Their representation on the Wheat Board supports the single desk.
If the member opposite is against producers having a say in the future of the Wheat Board, let him not hide behind the federal election. Let him stand in this House and say he supports the abandonment of democracy for producers on the Prairies and, in particular, for farmers in Manitoba.
Let him stand up and abandon farmers in Manitoba. He's done it before. Let him continue to do it today.
Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the party that has spent the entire time in office attacking producers in Manitoba, blaming producers in the province of Manitoba, well, let me tell you, on Friday, I went to Ottawa. I met with the Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, and we talked about the future of farming in Manitoba. We talked about the government's broad vision for the development of the north, the vision of the four‑pillar strategy to develop Churchill, to develop the north.
We talked about the future, Mr. Speaker. We didn't talk about the past, and while I was in Ottawa meeting with federal ministers to move the province forward, he was in Manitoba working up attack ads.
Why doesn't he just acknowledge he's a failure, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, if the member really was doing a job, the Wheat Board would retain its democratic right to allow producers to determine its future.
If the member wants to put up a white flag on that and try to switch gears, he can entirely do that, but let it be very clear in this Legislature, let it be very clear in the public and let it be very clear in Hansard, the member, the Leader of the Opposition, has abandoned farmers' democratic right to elect their members to the Wheat Board and to determine in a plebiscite whether the Wheat Board will have a single desk.
Mr. Speaker, if he wants to abandon their democratic rights, let him be clear about that. No amount of plane tickets anywhere will change that reality in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Mr. McFadyen: While I was in Ottawa meeting with the federal Agriculture Minister, when I was meeting with other federal ministers on matters of significance to Manitoba, we talked about the very significant situation that has arisen as a result of this serious flood. We talked about the millions of acres of farmland in Manitoba that are today under water. We talked about the need for a federal-provincial partnership to address the needs of those farmers.
We talked about the federal government's bold and optimistic vision for Churchill and the north of Manitoba. We talked about the need to encourage private and public jobs everywhere in this country, Mr. Speaker.
And while we were doing that, Mr. Speaker, he was working on attack ads at the expense of taxpayers right here in the province of Manitoba.
Why doesn't he acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, instead of being a premier of action and a premier who stands with Manitobans, he's nothing more than a premier of advertising and photo ops?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, you know, I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition has caught up with the government who already met with Minister Ritz and made the case for Churchill.
Ninety per cent of what goes through Churchill is provided by the Canadian Wheat Board. If that disappears, Churchill is at very serious risk. The mayor knows that. The people of Churchill know that. If the member was so effective on Friday, what guarantees did he get that Churchill will remain viable and that wheat and barley will be able to flow through there?
It's one thing to go to the Conservative convention and to have a cocktail chat with members in the hallways. It's another thing to get results for Manitoba.
We're working to get results for Manitoba. We want to reserve–we want to preserve the democratic right of farmers to determine how the Wheat Board serves them. They control it. They pay for it. Why is the member opposite abandoning their right for something they pay for, to have a say in it? Why is he abandoning their democratic rights?
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, and, again, we are at a time of significant crisis in this province. There are almost four million acres of land under water. There are thousands of Manitobans who are evacuated from their homes, and I had a chance to speak to the Minister of National Defence about the military role in supporting Manitoba. There are, today, thousands of people dealing with great hardship, and we saw many of them meeting last night in Winnipeg.
Mr. Speaker, it's a time when we need our leaders and our parties to work together. Instead, this Premier launches an attack campaign on the federal government at the expense of Manitoba taxpayers. It's become very clear he couldn't care less about farmers; he couldn't care less about homeowners; he couldn't care less about people around Lake Manitoba. All he cares about are attack ads and his own future on October 4th.
Why doesn't he come to grips with the fact that there's more people in Manitoba than just this weak NDP leader?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the substance of what the member said, he basically said while we were working in Manitoba to support producers and people affected by the flood, he was at the national Conservative convention schmoozing with people. What results did he get? Absolutely nothing. The reality is when the question was raised with him in rural Manitoba whether he would stand up for the Wheat Board, he said that is not a matter of provincial concern.
Mr. Speaker, every farmer in Manitoba is a matter of provincial concern. Their income is a matter of provincial concern. The head office jobs for the Wheat Board in Winnipeg, 400 jobs, are a matter of provincial concern, and the future of the Port of Churchill is a matter of provincial concern.
If the Leader of the Opposition won't stand up for Manitoba producers, we will.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, the same NDP leader that attacks producers every chance he gets, the same NDP leader that blames Manitoba producers every chance he gets, the same NDP leader that ran Crocus into the ground, the same NDP leader who said nothing when Viterra pecked up–packed up and left, the same NDP leader that said nothing when JRI built their canola-crushing facility in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, is suddenly coming in six weeks after a decision was made, and the only thing that's driving it are his own petty political concerns.
Why doesn't he acknowledge that he is out of touch, he is weak, he's late to the party and he's letting down the farmers and the people of Manitoba today?
Mr. Selinger: What the Leader of the Opposition is practising here is the best defence is a good offence. This is the Leader of the Opposition who has a rural caucus over there, many of whom are involved with producers or are producers themselves, and he is completely abandoning them when they have, by 70 per cent, said that they should have a say in how the Wheat Board runs in this province and on the prairies.
Seventy per cent of producers have said they should have a say. He's not willing to stand up for them to retain their ability to have a democratic voice in the future of the Wheat Board. That is putting up the white flag, Mr. Speaker, and no amount of smoke and mirrors, no amount of cocktail parties in Ottawa will cover that up.
He's abandoning Manitoba producers. He's abandoning the people that work in Winnipeg at the head office, and he's abandoning the Port of Churchill. Manitobans know that, the people in the Legislature know that, and they'll know that on October 4th.
* (14:10)
Water Level Forecasting
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, during this year's flooding, the work of EMO has been exceptional. The work of municipal governments has been phenomenal. The role of the military has been superb. Volunteers, property owners have given all they could and then given more, and we are grateful to all of the above.
The failure of this NDP government has been in forecasting the magnitude of the flood and communicating the seriousness of the situation to the people. Will the Minister of Water Stewardship (Ms. Melnick) apologize for her management on those issues?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That's enough yelling. We've got students here. I think we're not setting a very good example. I've let it go for a while. I thought you guys would calm down a little bit, but let's have some decorum here. We have to set an example. We have students in the gallery, the viewing public, and this is time for questions and answers.
The honourable First Minister has the floor.
Mr. Selinger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Everybody that the member mentioned has done a superb job. Manitobans have worked shoulder to shoulder to fight this flood. They're still doing that.
That remains our fundamental priority, is to protect as many people and property as possible. Our provincial civil servants have done that, including our forecasters. They have taken the best information available in the public sector, the private sector, at the federal level, at the local level.
Everybody has done their very best to predict these very volatile weather conditions. The member opposite knows that. He's playing politics when he suggests that the weather conditions have been something that have been entirely predictable.
The reality is that the weather conditions have beat all the forecasts both short term and long term. This is a one-in-300- to a one-in-350-year event, and everybody's working together to solve that problem as they continue to meet the enormous challenge.
Mr. Briese: This province's civil service has worked diligently throughout the flood. There's no question about that. The Minister of Water Stewardship expects them to do her heavy lifting too. She sent the deputy minister to last night's meeting of the Twin Lakes Beach Association to answer questions about Lake Manitoba flooding, rather than face the crowd herself.
Mr. Speaker, when we are faced with flooding of this magnitude across the province, it is critical that preventive actions take place. We raised concerns two and three years ago with letters, questions and even a grievance that a major problem was developing.
Mr. Speaker, I ask again: Why did this Minister of Water Stewardship ignore those warnings?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, this government has invested a billion dollars in flood prevention works in this province over the last decade, and the record is clear. The members opposite have voted against every one of those investments in flood mitigation.
So for them to stand up and say that they warned everybody three or four years ago is completely hypocritical in the absence of them being willing to support resources to include and improve flood prevention in this province. The member knows that. All the members opposite know that.
Mr. Briese: Mr. Speaker, in recent years, wetlands, retention areas and even farmlands were saturated full to overflowing, yet the Minister of Water Stewardship took no action. The minister was informed repeatedly of what was happening, yet she ignored the advice that was offered. She did absolutely nothing to prepare for those very conditions she knew were coming.
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Water Stewardship today admit her failings, apologize to the farmers, ranchers, First Nations and property owners that she placed in peril by the mismanagement of the flood file?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, indeed, people knew that there were very saturated soil conditions this fall, and this was a year when everybody, all the officials in Water Stewardship, the ministers in Emergency Measures and Water Stewardship–the ministers in Emergency Measures, Water Stewardship and Infrastructure all started very early with their officials planning to do as much as possible to mitigate the very serious conditions which could occur in this province.
They also engaged with municipalities as early as possible to ensure that flood preparation measures were taken, and all of those measures have made an enormous difference.
They planned for the worst event on record, plus an additional two feet, and what has happened, is we have seen unprecedented precipitation in this province, unprecedented precipitation in excess of a one-in-300-year event, and that precipitation continues. So the members opposite–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ministers' Attendance at Meetings
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, under normal floods, normal conditions, a flood can last anywhere from three to six months, maximum. People around Lake Manitoba are desperate to know how long the lake level will remain high. Last night, at a packed meeting of the twin beach association, an official from Manitoba Water Stewardship said lake levels won't be down much until October and could still be at 814 in December.
No NDP Cabinet ministers attended the packed meeting, even though dozens and dozens of people had questions about how this flood is being handled. The reeve of the RM of St. Laurent had to handle many of these questions.
Mr. Speaker, will the government apologize to the people of Lake Manitoba and to the affected municipalities for their no-show last night at this important flood meeting?
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, we are now into a one‑in-350-year event. There is 50 per cent more water in the Assiniboine Basin than was in the flood of record in 1976.
We communicate on a daily basis through EMO. We put information up on a daily basis, including all the levels of the lakes.
Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with very high waters. We are running capacity through Fairford. We are working with the local EMOs. We understand that people are going through a very difficult time which is why, in an unprecedented time frame, we announced a comprehensive compensation package.
We know Manitobans are having a difficult time and we, unlike members opposite, are standing with them.
State of Emergency Declaration
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): She had ample opportunity to make that loud and clear last night. Not one minister–not one minister showed up. They had ample notice. Shame on this government.
Mr. Speaker, we heard very loud and clear the RM of St. Laurent was doing an outstanding job standing up for their ratepayers. All the councillors, the reeve, were in attendance last night and filled in the questions as best they could. The council has been working 20 hours, 24-7, which has taken a toll on them. Under normal conditions, we could see the light at the end of the tunnel, but with no forecast from last night, no one expects the RM council and staff to be able to continue at this pace. But someone has to be there for the ratepayers, and they have been there for them.
I would like to ask the Premier: Will the Province declare the RM of St. Laurent a state of emergency, take over the management of this flood and process that comes with it, while maximal our council people?
They're stressed out, Mr. Speaker. It's time for this government to take some action and some leadership.
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister responsible for Emergency Measures): Mr. Speaker, this morning I was in St. Laurent. I met with the reeve and the council. This meeting had been scheduled, at their request, over the last number of days, and I took the time, as well, to visit some of the hardest hit areas. And I can tell you, they are doing an incredible job in St. Laurent.
I can also tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they're getting the full backup of every provincial resource that's available. I can also indicate that there were specific requests that the reeve and the council had put forward, such as an area where permanent mitigation could be put in place. We are proceeding with that on an expedited basis. There was a request for road access on an urgent basis. We are, again, going to meet that request. There were requests in terms of engineering planning which we'd been putting in place the last number of weeks.
They are in the front lines, and we as Manitobans are there to back them up.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, I would have invited the minister to be there last night to carry on and show their support for the RM of St. Laurent. Where were they? They were missing in action.
Mr. Speaker, the council of St. Laurent and their staff has done an outstanding job to date. They need help to manage the flood and take charge of the unforeseen future. They need someone very familiar with how disaster policies work and funding works and how to get standards set by the Province. The RM councillors and staff have regular duties to fulfill on top of this flood and are still getting burned out with no end in sight. When is this flood going to end? We have no idea. It's too hard on the councillors.
Mr. Speaker, the RM needs the Province to come in and take control and work with the RM in order that they can get some of their other work done, too. I would ask this government: Will the Premier take the steps needed to ensure that the RM and councillors will not get burned out?
Provide assistance today, Mr. Speaker.
* (14:20)
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): I thank the member for the question. I myself have met with the RM of St. Laurent twice. The Minister of Emergency Measures has met with them, and every time we meet with them, we listen to their concerns and follow up on their concerns and try to provide them support, whether it's releasing staff, whether it's providing them cash flow, whether it's taking a look at what specific technologies can be used for mitigation.
And I can tell you, the leadership at the local level in St. Laurent is doing an outstanding job. They are facing a very difficult situation. We will support them in every way possible, and if the member has specific recommendations that he wants to make, we will listen to them as well.
But, Mr. Speaker, we will be there with the people of St. Laurent. We will be there with the Rural Municipality of St. Laurent, not only to fight on the emergency basis to protect as much property as possible but also to do restoration work.
The last time I was there, I indicated to the reeve that we had announced over $3 million of money for young people to be hired through Green Teams, teams of 15 people that would be available for municipalities to help them with the tasks they have. That process is unfolding and we expect to have people in place very shortly.
We are going to be with them every step of the way. We are not going to stop–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Flooding Financial Compensation Information
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Well, yesterday, I and two of my colleagues attended a meeting in Griswold where the impact of this year's flooding and excess moisture conditions in southwest Manitoba was discussed. This included damage to property, damage to municipal infrastructure and the impact on livestock and grain producers.
Can the–Mr. Speaker, can the minister responsible for emergency services and measures provide an update as to the type of assistance to be offered to municipalities coping with these ongoing challenges?
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister responsible for Emergency Measures): Well, Mr. Speaker, it's hard to believe now, but we've been into the flood season in this province for three months. Very early on, in addition to all of the proactive mitigation measures that we had put in place, we indicated very clearly there would be a disaster financial assistance program that will cover the damage across the province.
We have worked with the federal government who have clearly recognized the magnitude of what we're dealing with, and, certainly, indications are that in the member's area and across the province, we could be looking at damage that could approach or even exceed what we saw in 1997.
So, Mr. Speaker, the clear message to the municipalities and many individuals there is there is a disaster financial assistance program, and along with all the other things we're doing across this province, it will be there to deal with the significant damage to property that we're seeing from this point.
Flooding Financial Compensation Information
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, in western Manitoba, we didn't have a flood in 1997, but it certainly is more devastating than it was in 1999.
Yet a week ago, the Minister of Agriculture couldn't provide an analysis of the magnitude of this year's flooded cropland, hay land and pasture destruction. It's unfortunate he still has not got a handle on the devastation taking place in these flooded farm families and their land and livestock, Mr. Speaker. There is over at least a million acres in western Manitoba alone that are flooded out at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture inform these devastated farmers what, if any, support he is considering? Will producers at least end up on par with their Saskatchewan neighbours, and will livestock producers be allowed–included, rather, in any compensation packages–announcements that may be made?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member knows that the deadline for crop insurance that we use is June 20th. That's still on the way.
But having said that, I think everybody understands that there's going to be a lot more unseeded acres this year than there was last year and probably more than the history of our province can point to at any other point in its time.
We understand that; we get that. The federal minister gets that too, Mr. Speaker. When I met with him and talked to him about an AgriRecovery program, I know that he understands that, and he knows, too, that we understand that it's going to be grain farmers and, of course, a program to get cattle to feed and feed to cattle.
We've come through for farmers before. We'll do it again.
Mr. Maguire: Well, Mr. Speaker, clearly, this is much more devastating than it was in 1999, let alone last year; '99 was probably the benchmark for flooded acres in that region. With nearly a foot of rainfall over large areas of southwest Manitoba in June on top of the 300 per cent of normal rainfall in May, farmers, ranchers and their families are desperate for any programming that the minister can impart. They need to know whether it's worth moving their livestock to drier ground or to market.
Mr. Speaker, they need to know that after the crop insurance deadline, grain farmers will not lose their unseeded acreage payments if they choose to seed green feed for livestock.
Will the minister at least supply hope to these families by announcing some signs of planning for these desperate farm families throughout Manitoba?
Mr. Struthers: Mr. Speaker, if the member was at least a little bit interested in helping out farmers, he'd know that we've already done that, and maybe if he wanted to be useful in helping farmers, he'd help us get the message out that we've already started this process with the federal government.
We've been doing our part. They're doing their part. The only people I don't–that I think don't get it are members across.
Diagnoses and Treatment Resources
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question's for the Minister of Healthy Living. Manitobans are now fully aware of the scope of this NDP's indifference to kids with FASD. The Winnipeg Free Press had an excellent series this winter about FASD, and the underlying picture and theme was how the NDP steadfastly refuses to implement an effective screening strategy for FASD and also how the NDP services are spotty, and the schools, the courts and the job world are almost perfectly set up for people with FASD to fail.
Mr. Speaker, knowing that kids who are not diagnosed don't receive treatment, will the minister answer why the NDP are so indifferent to children who have FASD?
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Healthy Living, Youth and Seniors): I am very pleased to get a question on FASD because I believe that when we started in government there was no funding for FASD programs. Now there's $12.5 million of programming for FASD that deals with prevention, things like InSight and Project CHOICES.
It deals with actually–every single RHA now has a person set up to diagnose. Family Services have people embedded in them to assist the families and individuals who need support. And, you know, things like Stepping Out on Saturdays that have just been expanded to four different locations to help the individuals suffering for FASD and to provide support and respite for their families are world renowned.
I'm very pleased with where we've gone and, by the way, Mr. Speaker, that member voted against every single investment.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, after 12 years in power, this government is still failing kids with FASD by failing to diagnose an estimated two-thirds of the children who are suffering in this province. While implementing programs to determine whether or not a mother will drink during pregnancy and whether this government has started the odd pilot program, neither is an effective province-wide screening strategy for diagnosing this condition.
Because the NDP has spent so much tax money trying to win in suburban elections but almost completely neglected these kids, there's no money left to prevent FASD and to help children with FASD.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister now admit that the NDP indifference to this problem has created this crisis?
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to let the member know, InSight, which is a world-renowned program which prevents FASD, that works with individuals who could be susceptible to FASD, now gets a $1.38-million investment, a 400 per cent increase since 1999.
I'm pleased to see Project CHOICES, which makes a difference, now gets funded at $280,000 and has been expanded this year. I'm pleased to see that we help fund and support their families.
I'm pleased to see that we've gone on a comprehensive prevention strategy throughout the province, whether it's in the affluent neighbourhoods or the less affluent neighbourhoods. This is an issue that's across the province. I'm pleased we stepped up and have a very comprehensive $12.5-million strategy.
And, by the way, Mr. Speaker, we just did yet another expansion which is working with Mount Carmel Clinic on a local project to really work intensively with mothers that are susceptible, and I think that will also show results. I think we're very proud of what we've accomplished.
* (14:30)
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, this government has spent more than $12 million and yet drinking while pregnant is on the rise in Winnipeg. What kind of a strategy is that?
Mr. Speaker, by properly screening for FASD at an early age, kids can participate in programs that will prevent them from entering the justice system. But the NDP doesn't want that. They allow crime to run rampant on Manitoba's streets because that's a politically easier thing for them to do.
For 12 years, this NDP has ignored safety issues in our streets. For 12 years, the NDP has refused to screen for FASD, leaving kids to suffer.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister apologize for this NDP's indifference and ineffective when it comes to addressing crime and to helping suffering kids?
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, let's be clear, the FASD clinic which diagnoses people was voted against by that member and all members opposite.
Let's be clear, the people who are working in each RHR–RHA to diagnose kids and work with families was voted against by that member and all members opposite.
Let's be clear, Stepping Out on Saturdays, which helps families and individuals suffering from FASD, which has been expanded now to four communities, was voted against by that member and all members opposite.
People have been diagnosed, but more importantly, we're preventing, we're intervening early, we're supporting people, and we have vast mounts of programs that are making a difference for individuals, and every single one was voted against by the Liberals and the Conservatives.
I'm proud of being NDP, moving forward in this important area, and I'm not voting against families and young people who need our support.
Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.
* (14:30)
Philippine Heritage Week
Mr. Mohinder Saran (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, last week was Philippine Heritage Week, which is an opportunity for many people in our province to celebrate their cultural identity. Festivities started on Saturday, June 4th and lasted until Philippine Independence Day on Sunday, June 12th. The roots of the Filipino community in Manitoba stretch back to the first wave of immigration in the late 1950s. Thank you to my fellow Manitobans who invited me into their heritage celebrations.
On the opening day of celebrations, I attended the flag-raising ceremony along with the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism, who is a Filipino immigrant herself. Many people joined outside of the Philippine-Canadian Centre of Manitoba and came to events throughout the week, which included a celebration of Philippine films, a picnic in the park and a Philippine Independence Ball on Friday evening, which I was pleased to attend together with the Premier, the ministers for Culture and Justice, and the member for Wolseley.
On June 12th, 1898, the Philippines declared itself independent from Spain, although it remained a colony of the United States until 1946. This is a vibrant country whose cousins in Manitoba contribute to almost every industry, including health care, agriculture or hospitality.
Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg has a long history with the Philippines. In 1979, our respective mayor declared the twinning of the city of Winnipeg and Manila. We have hosted many delegations here in Canada, and we have had many trade missions and visits to the Philippines. The Philippine Association of Manitoba has been active since 1972 and the Filipino-Canadian community participates in many areas of performance with several community newspapers, theatrical productions and concerts by Filipino entertainment, such as internationally acclaimed violinist Gil Lopez Cabayao.
When people rebuild their lives in a new country, it is crucial to celebrate the culture and wisdom of people's homelands because that is a defining feature of who people are. Thank you to all the volunteers and the Philippine Heritage Council co-ordinating committee for organizing the Philippine Heritage Week celebration. You all did a wonderful job. Thank you.
Beaverlodge Elementary School
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I rise today to congratulate Beaverlodge Elementary School on an amazing accomplishment, that of attaining Earth status II–Earth Schools–sorry–that of attaining Earth School II status. This feat means the completion of another 1,000 Earth projects to bring their total to 2,000 Earth projects, qualifying Beaverlodge to be recognized by the SEEDS Foundation of Canada as an Earth II School.
SEEDS was first established in 1976 by members of the gas industry who wanted students to learn about energy issues. Over the next four years, an energy program was developed, meeting the original goal of the foundation. In 1989, a new goal was established: SEEDS will work towards the development of a society that understands and is committed to actions leading to wise stewardship of resources, resource utilization and the environment.
Mr. Speaker, in 1991, the GREEN School program was begun, which encourages students to be environmentally responsible and to take personal action at school and with their families.
I remember, in 1999, when Beaverlodge was first recognized as a Jade school, having completed 250 projects. It was recognized as an Earth School in 2006, having attained 1,000 Earth projects. Since then, the school has maintained an active green kitchen and recycling boxes. A garden club was developed, and children began to show an interest in growing and caring for plants at the front of the school.
Last year, they introduced an outdoor education program at Beaverlodge to enrich their students and introduce them to the beauty found in nature and in the schoolyard. They established a butterfly garden and began to work on the idea of an outdoor classroom and ways that they could enhance the natural beauty of the front of the school, successfully obtaining grants from the S'Cool Fund, the Toyota Evergreen Foundation and the sustainable development fund of the Pembina Trails School Division.
They began working towards their goals as soon as school started in September and continue to tally up projects, with reusing containers, using white boards instead of paper, using both sides of the paper, turning off the lights, learning about animals, plants and various aspects of nature, collecting plastic bags, planting and growing and performing hundreds of actions that helped to make them a GREEN School.
By mid-April, they had achieved their goal of 1,000 projects, thus becoming an Earth II School. This is an awesome accomplishment that makes Beaverlodge one of only 16 schools in all of Canada to have attained this status.
Way to go, Beaverlodge. You are helping care for our planet, and we truly appreciate it.
Thank you.
Bishop Grandin Greenway Ponds
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, a week ago, the Bishop Grandin Greenway Inc. group celebrated the new names of the three ponds that are part of the Bishop Grandin Greenway. Until recently, they had been referred to as ponds 1, 2 and 3.
In an effort to engage community and create a greater sense of ownership among local residents, the group held a pond-naming contest. The members of the selection committee had their work cut out for them, as they received 107 entries and could choose only three of them. In the end, the names they chose were submitted by people who all have a deep connection to the area and use the greenway on a regular basis.
Pond 1, located near Red River, is now called Apakway Pond. A University of Manitoba student, Melanie Burt, submitted this entry. She explained that this is the Ojibwa word for cattails, and she felt the name would remind people that the area was originally inhabited by Aboriginal people, mostly Ojibwa, and would serve as a reminder of the greenway's past.
Guent Salzman's contest entry was chosen as the name for Pond 2, now called Eagles Pond. Although he has seen an increasing number of bald eagles in the area recently, the inspiration for the name comes from the Eagles Athletics Club he used to go to when he first moved into the St. Vital area in the 1920s.
Pond 3, located close to the Home Depot, just west of St. Anne's Road, is now called Nature's Haven. This name was the successful entry of grade 8 student Nicole Hallett. Having come across the word "haven" in a book, she felt that it was an appropriate description of the pond as she often rides her bike past.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the three contest winners for their successful entries and for their long-lasting contribution to the Bishop Grandin Greenway. I would also like to thank the members of the Bishop Grandin Greenway Inc. group, including their president, Murray Gibson, who's in our gallery today. Your hard work and vision have resulted in a wonderful, safe and accessible green space for everyone to enjoy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Slade Doyle
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, the 2011 Canada Winter Games took place in Halifax over a two-week period from February the 11th to the 27th. Manitoba athletes had a very successful showing at the games, and Manitoba finished in fifth place with 25 medals: five gold, seven silver and 13 bronze.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate all the athletes for Manitoba for their considerable efforts at the games, but today I would like to focus on the exploits of a very inspirational individual, Slade Doyle, who was selected to be Manitoba–Team Manitoba's flag‑bearer for the closing ceremonies.
Doyle is a double amputee, who lost both his arms below the elbow in an electrical accident in 1997. Unlike the majority of his competitors, Doyle, a Para-Nordic skier, skis without the use of his prosthesis and ski poles. He recognizes that he is at a disadvantage, but he believes that it is best to focus on himself and using his height and fitness to his advantage.
The 35-year-old Hydro technician from Brandon, Mr. Speaker, Doyle is a natural athlete and six-time member of Team Canada's International Standing Amputee Ice Hockey Federation world championship team. Despite his success, Doyle decided to put hockey on hold to compete in cross‑country skiing events for the first time at the Canada Winter Games.
* (14:40)
Astonishingly, Doyle won the first two events he competed in, the 800-metre and the 2.5-kilometre men's standing para spirit–sprint, rather, events, but it was his third event, the 5-kilometre standing classic, which presented a remarkable challenge.
Only two days prior to the 5-kilometre standing classic, Ted Bigelow, Team Canada's Chef de Mission–or Team Manitoba's Chef de Mission, rather–realized that somehow the Games' technical package was not ready–was not read properly, and Doyle was set to ski in the event, even though he had never skied the classic style before.
As it turns out, the Games board made a change in November to make the race a classic, but Doyle, a natural skate skier, approached the unique situation with the desire of a true champion.
After buying boots and replacing the bindings on the skis borrowed from Bigelow, Doyle had two instructors, Megan Carter and Nadene McBride, teach him the basics of classic skiing. The trio hit the trails and, in no time, Doyle had the hang of the style.
Doyle went on to win the 5-kilometre standing classic convincingly which allowed him to bring home a gold medal for each of his personal cheerleaders, his daughters Alexandra, 8, Samantha, 6 and Annabelle, 3.
Mr. Speaker, it's truly my pleasure to share the story of such an inspirational athlete and person and to know his parents personally. Congratulations to you, Slade Doyle, and all the best in the future to you and your family.
Grand Beach and Birds Hill Provincial Parks
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, parks are an important asset that we have here in Manitoba. Just recently, the government announced a slate of exciting new investments in our province's treasured parks. I'm happy, today, to talk about two of those, Grand Beach and Birds Hill Park, which are located within my constituency.
Grand Beach Provincial Park will undergo major upgrades for cottages, campers and other visitors to enjoy. As members will recall, last fall a major storm resulted in damages to the beach, including the boardwalk and surrounding areas. Mr. Speaker, these improvements which will be starting this year will include the reconstruction and expansion of the boardwalk among–excuse me, plus other park improvements. Additional plaza and rest areas, recreation space and infrastructure upgrades will make up the $10.5-million investment in this beautiful public space. Many of these developments, including the boardwalk, will be ready just in time for the hot summer–for the hot weather this summer.
Birds Hill Park will also enjoy major changes and improvements over the next five years. Birds Hill Park is the busiest provincial park in Manitoba. The plan will include expanding the campground, new recreation areas and construction of a new visitors centre and, importantly, expansions to the existing lake and beach areas. This will be a $22‑million investment to make Birds Hill an even better summer escape for Manitobans.
These exciting investments are part of our plan to invest over $100 million in provincial parks over the next five years, Mr. Speaker, and we're also continuing the free entry program, meaning hundreds of thousands can enjoy these parks for free for the third year in a row. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, we will now move into Opposition Day motion, and we'll deal with the motion brought in by–that will be brought in by the Leader of the Official Opposition:
THAT the Legislative Assembly urge the provincial government to consider repealing sections 70.2 to 70.4 of The Elections Finances Act.
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): I move, seconded by the member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson),
THAT the Legislative Assembly urge the provincial government to consider repealing sections 70.2 to 70.4 of The Elections Finances Act.
Motion presented.
Mr. McFadyen: This resolution is brought in recognition of a few realities that today face our great province of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker.
We have many things to celebrate in Manitoba but, of course, we have a provincial government that is running record deficits, Mr. Speaker, with no end in sight. We have record levels of debt in the province of Manitoba and that debt is growing at a rate of some 10 per cent, Mr. Speaker, now at record levels, and, of course, we have rising hydro rates.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, this calls on governments to review their spending and set priorities and be very clear about what is a priority area of expenditure and what are those areas that would fall under the heading of waste and mismanagement that could be removed for the sake of protecting front-line social services and protecting Manitoba taxpayers.
One such example, Mr. Speaker, is the opportunity we have today before this House for all members to vote to be on the side of Manitobans, to say that we are wanting to ensure that Manitoba tax dollars are spent well, that we respect those people who work hard each and every day around our province who play by the rules and pay their taxes, and we have a rare opportunity to send them a very clear message about whose side the members of this Chamber are on.
Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of removing these sections from the act that were brought in by the NDP government a couple of years ago and that we opposed at the time and we have opposed consistently every minute since that time. We have not waffled or flip-flopped or moved from one side of this issue to another. We have very clearly and consistently said that taxpayers should not have to pay annual subsidies based on votes to political parties, that there are better ways to spend their money and it's better to leave that money in the pockets of those taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, political parties, as has been well established, already receive benefits through the tax system already in the form of tax credits to donors who make contributions to parties even more generous than those provided to those who make charitable donations. And, secondly, there are rebates provided to political parties that relate to election expenditures. So Manitobans ask, quite rightly, why on earth would political parties need a third form of handout at our expense, at the expense of taxpayers? You've got these two areas already.
Why on earth, Mr. Speaker, when we're working so hard and struggling to get by when our hydro bills are going up, when we are paying more by way of taxes than any other province west of Québec, when we have a government that is wasting money on attack ads against the federal government is their latest target, when they're wasting money attacking at the federal government for decisions made weeks ago, when they're wasting money on their west-side bipole just because they're afraid to stand up to international environmental activists, and when they're wasting money to line the pockets of political parties, how could they possibly say that they're on our side when they have brought in a bill that so clearly demonstrates the opposite of that, a bill that takes money right out of the pockets of Manitoba taxpayers and puts it right into the pockets of political parties, indirectly into the pockets of members of this Chamber?
And that's why, when we had the opportunity, we said no to that vote tax money. Even though we could have accepted it, we said no to that money, and we said that if Manitobans want to contribute to our political party, we should go out there and earn it, Mr. Speaker. We should ask them to provide those contributions voluntarily because they want to provide support for our party, because they agree with our plans for the future, because they are optimistic about the future of Manitoba and because they want change for the sake of the future of Manitoba.
Those are good reasons for Manitobans, as they are doing in record numbers today, to contribute voluntarily to political parties, to make that choice that I believe in my local candidate. I believe in the good work being done by my MLA. I believe in this newly nominated candidate for office and their ideas. That's why, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to show, in my own way, in amounts that I can afford, my support for those candidates, for those ideas and for that political party.
* (14:50)
And we are so happy that Manitobans responded in record numbers to those requests for support, voluntary support, and that's why we don't think they should be forced by a heavy-handed, out-of-touch government to contribute money to parties that they may not want to support going into the future.
And that's why, Mr. Speaker, we see that Canadians in very large numbers just six weeks ago voted overwhelmingly in favour of a platform that contained within it a commitment to get rid of the federal per vote subsidy. Canadians liked that idea; they respected it. They liked the fact that there was a federal party that was on their side, and they rewarded that party with their votes just six weeks ago.
And now, we have an opportunity at the provincial level to send a similar message to the people of Manitoba that there is a party that's on their side, Mr. Speaker, that is prepared to say that we will take less from taxpayers. And it will, in fact, have an impact on us, a negative impact on our party in not taking that money, but we feel so strongly that this is the right way to go that we're prepared to allow our party to suffer the negative consequences of not taking that money because we believe that at a certain point in time, all parties have to be prepared to put their money where their mouth is and say that they are prepared, even at expense to themselves, to stand on the side of hard-working Manitobans.
Today, Mr. Speaker, every member of this Chamber is going to have an opportunity to vote on that very question and the vote is very simple. Am I on the side of Manitobans or am I on my own side? Am I in it for myself, or am I in it for the people who elected me, for the people I was sent here to serve?
It should be, Mr. Speaker, an easy decision for all the members of this Chamber to make. It's very, very clear, and I know that members of this Chamber will want to send that message today to those who sent us here.
Mr. Speaker, we know, as a result of what has come to light through disclosures made by members of the New Democratic Party, that this is a party that went around falsifying election returns in order to get more money from taxpayers than they were entitled to.
At the same time as they were falsifying their election returns, including the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger), Mr. Speaker, they were also gaming the system with a two-for-one federal tax credit. But those tax credits weren't available to just any old NDP contributor; they were only available to a select group of senior NDP insiders, including a number of members of the current caucus, including the member for St. Boniface who received those very same two-for-one federal tax credits, and who has yet to apologize to Manitobans, who has yet to give the money back to taxpayers, and who has yet to make a straightforward and clear statement that they were wrong to engage in their two-for-one tax credit scheme; they were wrong to falsify their election returns; and they have a chance today to start to make amends by saying they were also wrong to impose on taxpayers for annual grants. I know members opposite want a chance to say that they were wrong to falsify their returns; they were wrong to engage in the two-for-one tax credit scheme.
And, even though the member for St. Boniface got a secret letter claiming in order to cover himself, we now learn that he personally destroyed that letter. And so we don't know what he was trying to hide when he personally destroyed that letter, but we know that that is a member who spends his time working on attack ads, on shredding documents, on falsifying election returns, on telling people that Crocus was a good investment, even as he's writing secret memos to Cabinet saying that it was headed for a liquidity crisis.
With all those on his background record, Mr. Speaker, he's got a chance today to stand up and start to make amends and start to say to Manitobans, I'm on your side. We recognize this bill never should have come in in the first place. We recognize that, when federal voters went to vote six weeks ago, they sent a very clear message. We're listening to that message. We were wrong before; we'll make up for it today by voting in favour of a resolution that very clearly defines: Are you on the side of Manitobans or are you just in it for yourself? I look forward to their support.
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, what utter hypocrisy that we just heard from the members opposite. What utter hypocrisy. They can stand up here in the Legislature and they can make a whole bunch of airy-fairy, hot air speeches that they like, Mr. Speaker, but when it comes down to brass tacks, when it comes to standing up for Manitobans, they blew it.
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski, Acting Speaker, in the Chair
Right now, Madam Acting Speaker, we're dealing with farmers in this province who are facing unseeded acreage numbers that they've never faced ever before in this province. We've got farmers who are trying to sow wheat and trying to sow barley and they can't get to the land, and what are they putting up with? What are they putting up with? They're putting up with a federal Conservative government that's running a knife through something that actually works in favour of the farmer.
More so than that, they're running a knife through–I know they don't want to hear this, and they can try to shout me down if they like. They can try that, because that sums up their approach to democracy on the other side.
Not only are they running–the federal Conservatives, Madam Acting Speaker, running a knife through the Canadian Wheat Board, something that works for farmers, they are–they're running the knife through an organization that is controlled by farmers, controlled by farmers who are voted on as directors to the Wheat Board. I know they're not interested in that. They can say, when they stand up in this House, that they're all in favour of democracy, oh, it's nice to talk about it, but they're running a knife through a farmer-owned, farmer-voted-upon, farmer-directed Canadian Wheat Board that works for farmers.
Madam Acting Speaker, for this Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) to suggest that this is nothing more than a federal issue, nothing more than a federal file, is absolutely ludicrous. For him to try to palm that off in a political way is absolutely shameful. This is a Manitoba issue. The Wheat Board and the democracy of the Wheat Board is a Manitoba issue, and he can't face that. He's playing a political game. He's gambling politically, and he rolled his dice, and now he's going to have to life with it. He has to live with it. He won't stand up for Manitoba farmers, but we are.
Madam Acting Speaker–[interjection] Who's my MP, they want to know? My MP is Bob Sopuck, and you know what he did? Do you know what he did? Now, they don't want to hear this either. He ran full bore in favour of the Wheat Board, against–in favour of single-desk selling and against what his own minister has brought forward. Absolutely, clearly, and I heard him do that. And now you're standing up and letting him off the hook too.
Madam Acting Speaker, we make choices. We make choices in this Legislature and then we have to live with them. Your choice is the wrong one. Your choice was to support your cousins in Ottawa, instead of supporting the Manitoba farmer, and you're going to pay for that, let me tell you.
It's not just the undemocratic, it's–they don't want to hear this, and they want to shout me down. I know that's their approach to democracy. It's not just the undemocratic view that they have towards farmers. What about the Port of Churchill? What about those jobs in Churchill? What about the town of Churchill, that port that serves Manitoba farmers so well. Members opposite should understand–and I think they do, but they give in to their ideology. They give in to supporting their federal cousins in Ottawa, rather than standing up for Manitobans.
Every single grain of wheat that went through the Port of Churchill last year was Wheat Board wheat, not a single grain from a private company. When I asked the federal minister for a business case to show to me and to Manitoba farmers and others–when I asked him to show that business case, he had nothing. He had nothing. When I asked him–yes, they don't want to hear it, I know. They're the most undemocratic group going. They don't want to hear any kind of other voices come forward. They–yes, they love to shout people down that don't agree with them. They don't let farmers vote either when farmers disagree with them. That's what they're scared of across the way.
Madam Acting Speaker, the future of the Port of Churchill is at risk, and this Leader of the Opposition won't lift a finger to help them. He won't stand up for the Port of Churchill. Well, I'm telling him right now, we're going to stand up for the Port of Churchill. We're going to stand up for those jobs. We're going to stand up for the farmers who depend on that line right through to the Port of Churchill.
* (15:00)
And any MLA, especially in the western side of Manitoba where that is a very big benefit to farmers, shouldn't be simply knuckling under to the Conservative ideology. They shouldn't be just standing up for the federal minister and the Prime Minister.
For crying out loud, Madam Acting Speaker, the Prime Minister of this country offered Canadians an opportunity to vote on the name of his cat. They voted on the name of his cat. Why can't that same Prime Minister let farmers vote on their economic future? What's the difference? I'll tell you what the difference is. The Prime Minister doesn't care what the name of his cat is, and I got to say they picked a good name for the cat. I like the name of the cat; Stanley's a fine name.
I'm not quibbling with the results; I'm quibbling with the process by which the Prime Minister offered Canadians a vote on that and then just ran a knife through the Wheat Board, a farmer-controlled, farmer-voted-upon entity.
Madam Acting Speaker, the Port of Churchill is at stake, the future of farming is at stake, and I want to also add, the future of a head office, an internationally renowned head office in this province is at stake. Worse than that, it will be toast. It will be toast if we don't convince the federal Conservatives to change their approach.
Again–[interjection] Shouting down the Agriculture Minister of Manitoba is something they can try, but they're not going to be successful at that, Madam Acting Speaker.
Madam Acting Speaker, in excess of 400 jobs directly are connected to the Wheat Board here in the city of Winnipeg. Those jobs will not be there when the federal Conservatives, aided and assisted by the provincial Conservatives, run a knife through the Wheat Board. They won't be there and somebody needs to be held to account on that. Two thousand–in excess of 2,000 jobs connected to the Wheat Board here in Winnipeg and more–double that when you go province wide are at jeopardy. They will not be there when the Conservatives run the knife through the Wheat Board.
And somebody needs to be held account to that. Somebody needs to be–we're going to stand up for those farmers. We're going to stand up for the Port of Churchill. We're going to stand up for the Canadian Wheat Board head office. We're going to stand up for those Winnipeggers who work at the Canadian Wheat Board and we're going to make sure their voices are heard, whether or not members opposite choose to serve their political bosses in Ottawa or whether they decide to fight for the Manitoba economy and the Manitoba farmer.
How could you be against having farmers vote on an issue? How can you even stand in this Legislature and talk about what you call is a vote tax and not stand up for farmers' right to vote on their economic future? How can you do that? How can you be so hypocritical? Madam Acting Speaker, that is uncomprehensible.
You know, and then they go–then they stand up here facetiously the other day and vote in favour of Bill 46. Madam Acting Speaker, it is almost beyond words how hypocritical, how phony, how ridiculous the position of members opposite is. Why don't you grow a backbone and stand up for Manitobans? Do that. Do that.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
Take some political advice from me, at the very least. Mr. Speaker, these Conservatives don't represent Gerry Ritz across the way. You don't represent the people at the cocktail parties at your Conservative convention that you attended. You represent farmers. You represent people in Winnipeg who work for the Wheat Board. You represent people in Churchill whose futures are at risk. You represent short lines in this province that are trying to get up off the ground and now you're going to squash them.
Mr. Speaker, this a group of people who want to turn these folks over to the multinationals, whether they be grain companies or otherwise, or big rail lines, and the guy who thinks he can be premier won't stand up for Manitobans. It's awful.
They have some nerve coming forward with a phony approach that I just heard from the members opposite, that I just heard from the Leader of the Opposition. It's as phony as a three-dollar bill, Mr. Speaker, and it ain't going to work with Manitobans. Manitobans want a premier who's going to stand up for Manitobans. They want a government that's going to stand up for farmers and Churchill and Winnipeg–
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member's time has expired.
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Well, I know certainly the member for Dauphin can be confused at times, but rarely does a minister of the Crown show up with entirely the wrong briefing binder for a piece of legislation and for a motion in this House. And I think obviously we are here, Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing today is abolishing the vote tax in a motion that has been brought forward by our leader–Leader of the Official Opposition–and, you know, rarely does a minister of the Crown show up for the entirely–for a debate in this Legislature with the wrong briefing binder, but I guess that's happened today, and we'll see if others have shown up with the wrong briefing binder as well.
But, Mr. Speaker, this motion calls on the government to repeal section 70.2 to 70.4 of The Elections Finances Amendment Act eliminating the controversial vote tax. The Elections Finances Amendment Act allows for a taxpayer-funded annual allowance to registered political parties of $1.25 per vote to a maximum of $250,000. In election years, this maximum could even be thousands of dollars higher as the $250,000 cap is removed in election years. So this is a very important issue for us to be discussing and debating in this House, and I would suggest that members opposite try and focus a little bit of attention on this very, very important matter that Manitobans care a lot about.
Mr. Speaker, it's a–this is unacceptable. Manitobans already contribute $4 million to political parties in this province each and every election through tax credits and subsidies, and why should taxpayers be forced to contribute up to an additional half a million dollars a year? The Progressive Conservatives believe taxpayers already contribute enough to elections, and the responsibility should rest with the political parties to earn support through voluntary donations and not by means of another tax grab.
Mr. Speaker, the–our party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba, is not alone in this matter, and voters have told us time and time again that they are opposed to this vote tax. And this vote tax was introduced through a controversial piece of legislation, Bill 37, where over 100 Manitobans came out to committee to speak against this very part of it as well as other parts of that piece of legislation, and, unfortunately, members opposite didn't listen to them. They should have taken this part out of that piece of legislation, at least this part, and, unfortunately, they didn't.
Mr. Speaker, many presenters were strongly opposed to having their tax dollars go towards supporting political parties in this way at a time especially when thousands of Manitobans are being forced from their homes due to the flooding situation that is taking place in our province right now. Where is the priorities of the members opposite? It seems to be in a vote tax and a tax grab for Manitobans. It seems to be in the way of ads–campaigns attacking the federal government and attacking these other attack ads, Mr. Speaker, and, unfortunately, their priority is nowhere near where it should be in this province, and that is protecting those thousands of Manitobans who have been forced from their primary residences in Manitoba and forced from their other–forced from farmland, forced out of their homes, and yet, instead, this government is more concerned about attack ads and about collecting more money than they already do from–in the way of a vote tax.
Political leaders need to put the province ahead of narrow party interest, Mr. Speaker. It is measures such as the vote tax that make people becoming disenchanted–become disenchanted by politics. The vote tax is an undemocratic concept as each $1.25 that's collected when one votes goes to all registered political parties. This means that even if someone voted Conservative or Progressive Conservative, the biggest part of their vote tax would go to the NDP, and we believe–and it goes the other way as well where NDPers who contribute to–have to contribute through–by way of vote tax, maybe if they voted NDP, they don't want it going to a Conservative. It just should be abolished altogether.
* (15:10)
And, Mr. Speaker, when Bill 37 passed, our leader took a very strong stand against the vote tax by refusing to allow our party to accept that money, and that's–that was a tough decision for a political leader to make at the time and to take, especially, as an opposition party, and he took a very strong stand on this issue on behalf of our party. It was the right stand to take, and I want to congratulate him on that.
He also, beyond that, Mr. Speaker, has called on the government to also not accept the vote tax, which they followed his leadership. So far, they've followed his leadership, but if they wanted to do the right thing, they can do it today. They can stand up in favour of this motion. They can repeal this vote tax and stand up and follow the leadership of our leader and vote in favour of this motion today.
And I encourage each and every one of the members across the way to do the right thing and vote in favour of this motion today, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with this particular motion, and I think this motion says if–speaks volumes about the priorities and about the intentions of members opposite.
Here we are in the middle of one of the worst flooding situations in the history of Manitoba and when the Wheat Board–when the Canadian Wheat Board is under threat of dismantling, the members opposite exercise their typical judgment. This is called a judgment decision. Bad judgment, Mr. Speaker, poor judgment. They have an opposition member day–they have a Opposition Day, and of all things to talk about on an Opposition Day, the members, the once mighty Progressive Conservative Party–the once mighty Progressive Conservative Party that used to represent or purport to represent all Manitobans, come up with this flimsy little resolution that they don't want to have some funding gone to political parties, even though we haven't taken it, in the midst of the greatest flood in the history of western Manitoba. But members opposite throw their–turn their backs on the public and put up a little flimsy sign of what they're going to represent.
It's pathetic, Mr. Speaker, how low the once mighty Progressive Conservative Party–in fact, they're not even progressive–how low they have sunk. How poor is their judgment. How poor is your judgment in the middle of June in the province of Manitoba when you have an Opposition Day, but you put up a little resolution on a subsidy.
You know, Mr. Speaker, it might be an issue with members opposite, but I dare say, if you go out and ask those farmers who are flooded out, you ask those farmers who are going to lose–they're going to lose their right on the Wheat Board, their right to vote, if you ask those people who are at the head‑office jobs in Winnipeg, if you ask the people in Churchill what's important, what an opposition should be raising in the Legislature, oh, it's going to be a little, flimsy little issue. I don't think the–they have even close to the reading of what's out there in the public.
Mr. Speaker, what this exhibits is bad judgment, reckless behaviour, poor judgment, political arrogance at its worst. The Legislature is sitting to debate issues that are important to the people of Manitoba, and we have the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) and all his little minions, particularly the member for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat), who loves–
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let's pick our words carefully here. All members are honourable members, and I don't think minions–we have to–"little minions" I don't think describes any member in this House. All members are identified by the constituency they hold or ministers by their portfolios, please.
Okay, that's just a caution to all honourable members.
Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the word "minions", but the member for Minnedosa has been chirping from her seat and I want to hear her justification. She represents an area. I would love to hear why she should stand up on an Opposition Day when you have hours to debate matters of extreme importance to Manitobans, when we're under emergency in several areas of the province–
An Honourable Member: Point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Minnedosa, on a point of order.
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Opposition Day motion today is talking about a minimum of $250,000 from this government side to–that could go towards communities throughout the province who are suffering right now, Mr. Speaker.
I have attended meetings every weekend, have talked to people every night for the last six to eight weeks, Mr. Speaker, about flooding issues and about how people cannot get to their homes because of the flood waters. I've heard from people who have indicated to me that this Premier is more interested in a photo op than helping people in rural communities, Mr. Speaker. So I believe that when this–when the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) wants to why I want to put a–I want to support an Opposition Day motion that speaks about a vote tax where the dollar should be going back to the communities. That is my answer, Mr. Speaker. This money should go to farmers, to people in the north, to people who are fighting the flood, not the back pocket of this government.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of orders are raised–are supposed to be raised to point out a breach of a rule of the House or a procedure of the House.
Points of order should not be used for debate, and all members that do not agree or do agree will have their opportunity. All members will have a chance to–that's the time for debate, not as a point of order. Okay.
* * *
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, the member makes my point. They have a choice. They chose in their caucus to make a motion on Opposition Day, not about the flood, not about the Wheat Board, not about the matters affecting Manitoba, but to make a political choice. That's what members opposite chose. They had a choice, which is more than they're offering farmers on the Wheat Board. They're not allowing them a choice. That's the most undemocratic bunch of people that I've seen in my–they're very undemocratic.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it might work in their caucus. They may not be able to listen in their caucus. And I know the senator has a lot of influence, and in the caucus they might say, this is what you're saying, and this is what you're doing. But I'm astounded that we're in the middle of the–one of the greatest floods that we've had in western Manitoba, that we're in the middle of a crisis and we're facing the dismantling of the Wheat Board, and members opposite choose not to use the time to talk about those issues. But, instead, they want to chit-chat about a particular political issue and hide under the guise of a federal mandate in an election as to why they can't defend farmers, people on the railroad, the people of Churchill, the people of western Manitoba, why they can't do that.
It shows precisely why members opposite are, should and will be remaining in opposition, Mr. Speaker, because they have poor judgment and they're not in touch with Manitobans. They're so out of touch with Manitobans that on a day that they have a chance to make a motion, a chance for all members of the Legislature to make a point about the Wheat Board, a point about flooding, a point about matters that resonate with all Manitobans, they stand up and they do a little motion up the flag. They run this little motion up the flag on a matter that's been debated before, dealing with supports to political parties which, by the way, this political party has never taken funding from.
But I digress, Mr. Speaker. What I'd like to hear, if members wanted to talk about–if they wanted to talk about that issue, I'd like to hear them–whether or not they support union and corporate donations. That's the other issue they completely avoid. They have never stated that they'll–they've never stated that they won't roll back and allow their big corporate buddies to provide corporate and union donations. You know why? Because they will. They will if they ever got a chance in power.
Think of it, Mr. Speaker. Here we are in the Legislature. They're in minority and they run up the biggest issue that they can find. The biggest issue that they can rally out there to talk to their supporters about is a–is about a political subsidization scheme.
They do that at a time when Canadian farmers do not have the right to vote on the Wheat Board. What all Canadian farmers are saying is give us a chance to vote in a plebiscite. And at the very same time, this very poor-judgment party is raising that as the most important issue in the Legislature–the most important issue in the Legislature? They have the gall to stand up and debate this for hours while farmers are looking around for support, are looking around for someone to stand up for them and say, wait a minute–we have a right to a vote.
Mr. Speaker, we have a right to a vote as to how our Wheat Board should be operating, where people in Churchill are saying, wow, 90 per cent of the product that comes through here comes from the Canadian Wheat Board; when short-line railroads, Mr. Speaker, are in trouble but can thrive with support from the Wheat Board; when there's head office jobs in Winnipeg. I know members opposite have written off Winnipeg. They haven't–they don't support anything in Winnipeg. The member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen)–as far as they're concerned, Winnipeg could be eliminated. They don't care about Winnipeg.
* (15:20)
But we care about all of Manitoba. We care about a head office here, Mr. Speaker. We care about the entire province, but members opposite put up a little motion. They've run it up the flag, this little thing. Here we are in the Legislature, and you know, Mr. Speaker, if I were out–if this were publicly televised and 1.2 or 1.3 Manitobans were seeing what the opposition considered a priority, what they consider a priority in the Legislature is this little item on a subsidization, right at the same time when members opposite are not prepared to stand up to the rights of farmers, to have–the farmers are simply asking for a plebiscite. They're asking for a right to vote; they're asking for the democratic right.
And the ears of members opposite are covered and their mouths are closed, Mr. Speaker, and they don't dare speak out against the direction they've been given by their political masters. We know that. I know that. People talk to me; people talk to us. We know that the cone of silence is down.
We know that, Mr. Speaker, but when it comes to standing up for Manitoba, and standing up for farmers, you can have disagreements with the federal government and you can still work with the federal government. I've had disagreements with the federal government, but I've worked very well with the federal government, as had the Premier. In fact, the federal government appointed our former leader to be ambassador of the United States, Mr. Speaker. We didn't agree a hundred per cent with what they're doing. We don't agree with what they're doing in the Wheat Board, but we do agree to the farmers' right to have a say and members opposite are silent on that. They do not want to say anything about that. They're taking away the democratic right of Manitoban farmers, and that speaks volumes. It speaks volumes about priorities; it speaks volumes about what members opposite stand for, and it says a lot about a party that used to represent all of Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, they don't represent Winnipeg. They say anything they can negative about Winnipeg and now they turn their backs on farmers in rural Manitoba. We know they've spent no interest in northern Manitoba. For heaven's sakes, the Leader of the Opposition said, oh, the highway should be in the south of Manitoba, promised there'd be no highway building in the North. And now on a matter of basic democracy, on a day when they have a chance to raise their voice, our opposition motion day, that they decided to put on the Order Paper by their caucus, by their decision to talk about their most important issue. What did it amount to? This little motion, this motion on subsidization, and they're afraid to talk about the Wheat Board. They're afraid to talk about going against the directive. They're afraid–they don't stand up and as I believe the member for–the Minister of Agriculture said, you know, when you look around for your friends, you look for your friends to support you, not to turn you down and turn down your right to have a vote. This issue speaks volumes about Conservative priorities. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I do want to put a few things on the record. The member from Kildonan called this a scam. Well, I couldn't agree with him more. Whenever this vote was–tax was brought in in 2008, where was his caucus then? Why didn't he stand up to his caucus and say, look, this is a scam. We don't need to put this vote tax in. In fact, it was after our government and us as oppositions brought forward the idea the fact that we shouldn't be taking it, so we shamed the government into not taking the $250,000 per year that it was allowed. So that speaks volume in itself. So it is a scam.
In regards to what the member from Dauphin said in regards to the Bill 38 and said that he's the minister that brought in the tax on food, on poultry and dairy. Where was he standing up for farmers then? He talks about all these issues that are so important to the everyday Manitoban and we're fighting and asking questions each and every day in regards to the flood, trying to make sure, in fact, that their voice is heard, and these farmers out there have been asking for question after question, and this adds up to a significant amount of money. What we're looking at is a quarter of million dollars a year, almost $2 million that's going into the pockets of those parties that want to take the vote tax. Shame on them for even thinking about taking this type of money, and I know that if we was going to take ours, they'd have been first in line to make sure that they were going to take theirs.
In fact, we shamed them out of doing that, Mr. Speaker, and we're proud of the fact that we took the lead on it. In fact, the member from Kildonan talked about the fact that he was talking people every day. Well, so do we, and we heard loud and clear that this message was not something that we wanted to be able to take to the voters and say to them that, in fact, they asked us not to take the vote tax. We listened to them. In fact, what we go out and do with each and every Manitoban is we put our life on hold. We make sure that they contribute, those that want to support us; if not, they don't. It's not a tax that's forced on them in the future in the days of the next generation to come.
So I know back in 2008 when Bill 37 was brought forward, in regards to–Bill 37, into the committee, there was over a hundred people that made their voice loud and clear, but instead of listening to the public, what the government did was go ahead and move forward and bring in this vote tax forward.
So I thank the Leader of the Opposition, the member from Tuxedo, for bringing this motion forward because I do know that the $4 million brought forward each and every year through election finances, credits and subsidies, where was the government? I mean, they've been getting their fair share, the 50 cent dollars during the regular election, so what we got to do is we got to have more money. Oh, we can't raise money. We can't go out and make a plea to make sure that we have our finances in order, so what we'll do is we'll put a tax on each and every Manitoban that votes for us.
What's that going to say to democracy? Unfortunately, that speaks loud and clear that we don't have the ability to go out and raise money. Shame on this government. And whenever we talk about the amount of money that's being raised, we could use that money on health care, public safety, education. Oh, wait, we've had people in the Interlake that's been flooded out for four years. Where has that been? Where has that been? We've asked every session about where this government's at to help the farmers in a time of need, and now we have a flood of record in 2011. What do we do? We look at vote subsidies instead of looking after the people that need money each and every day.
In fact, I know–listen to the government and what they've put on the government so far, this $1.25 that's collected would go to each and all registered parties. It's unacceptable. It's unacceptable. Under the vote tax, they have no choice. It's been legislated by this government. Whether they like it or not, they're going to say, hey, you owe us $1.25 for each and every time you check our ballot. We want $1.25.
So, Mr. Speaker, I know that our party has refused to take the vote tax. In fact, the Premier (Mr. Selinger) confirmed that the NDP won't be accepting the vote tax this year, which we're glad that Premier saw the error in his ways and he followed our lead, which is a great thing to do. But what this House should do is the right thing. Remove the vote tax from legislation completely rather than leave the option for this government in future years and years after, if they happen to get into power again.
But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate. They had an opportunity in 2008 to listen to each and every Manitoban and make sure that this vote tax was repealed. Unfortunately, they didn't. They didn't do that, and I can tell you, as a result of that, that people are listening, and we're listening to those people as well. So what we've been hearing loud and clear is the fact that whenever we are out there in the trenches talking to voters each and every day, we want to make sure that the right thing is done, and by doing that, we ask the government to make sure they vote with this Opposition Day motion in order to be fair to those that want to get out and work and talk to the constituents on a regular basis and make sure that if they want to raise money for their own party, they do so by getting in the trenches and talking to them each and every day.
With that, I know others want to speak to this motion as well, so thank you for the opportunity to speak on this motion.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister of Labour and Immigration): It's my pleasure to speak a bit to this resolution today, and I know that the topic under discussion today is really about democracy and how do we go about making sure that democracy in Manitoba is as strong as possible.
And I think, on this side of the House, we've always started from the premise that one of the ways you have to do that is you have to have a level playing field for the competition that is democracy. You have to make sure that big money does not have an undue influence when it comes to who gets elected, and that's why we took the step of banning union and corporate donations. And that's the premise that we start from. And that's not a philosophy that we share in this House with members opposite. They have never repudiated their position that they would repeal that ban on union and corporate donations. So we know very clearly the starting point that they start from. They start from the starting point that really, how much money you have should determine how democracy works in Manitoba, and we reject that. And so that's where we start from when we talk about democracy.
* (15:30)
And I really, Mr. Speaker, expected, when we heard the announcements from Ottawa about their plan to dismantle the Wheat Board–I really expected that we would see some kind of resolution, some kind of stand, some kind of question, something standing up for farmers on the Wheat Board, and that's not what we've heard.
And you know, it's puzzling to me that I remember growing up, and I grew up in Brandon, of course, and grew up knowing many people in rural Manitoba and have farmers in my family–and it was always puzzling to me that the Conservative Party was considered the party of rural Manitoba and the party of farmers. It was puzzling to me because the farmers I knew and the farmers in my family embraced values that were very similar to NDP values.
They embraced the value of co-operation because they knew that if they didn't stick together, if they didn't work together, that they wouldn't get very far. They knew that they had to come together, for example, and form co-ops so that they could get the kinds of machinery and things that they needed for their farms. They knew that they had to come together and form credit unions. No bank was going to build in rural Manitoba. No bank was going to take on making sure that farmers had the money they needed to farm, so farmers came together and created credit unions in a co-operative way. And the Wheat Board is an example of that co-operation, because farmers knew that going it alone meant that they weren't all going to be able to survive.
And so, when I heard the questions come out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) today, I was shocked that they would take a position against Manitoba farmers, that they instead would side with Ottawa, that they would side with their pals in Ottawa over the interests of Manitoba farmers.
And what I also am interested in, Mr. Speaker, is this notion that you vote once every four years and that's it. You don't do anything else. Once you vote every four years, shut up, be quiet, don't say a thing. That is their position. That's their philosophy and that's a philosophy that they would bring to bear should they ever form government again. Once you have an election, that's it. No more talking, no more democracy, no more dissent, no more opposition, no more discussion. And I'm shocked at that.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, if that had been the philosophy of the government in the days of the CF-18 controversy, if the philosophy at the time had been, well, this is what Ottawa has decided and they had an election, so I guess we'd better not say anything, I guess we just better shut up and sacrifice the interests of Manitoba to the desires of Ottawa? And that's the path they're on.
And, you know, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, after this weekend's Conservative AGM or conference or coffee klatch or whatever they call what they do every few years, I'm sure, because I saw the Leader of the Opposition there on TV in his Jets jersey, you know, wearing it proudly, it doesn't matter he voted against–his party voted against the building of the MTS Centre. Now he's got that jersey on 24-7. It doesn't matter that that's what he did.
I saw him there talking to folks, and I'm sure he came back to his caucus this morning, he said, don't worry, I've been told by the boys in Ottawa it's going to be fine. The Wheat Board, you know, dismantling the Wheat Board, it's not going to hurt farmers, I'm sure he said, don't worry about it. Don't worry about those 4,000 direct and indirect jobs that are going to be lost. Don't–I've talked to the boys in Ottawa and it's going to be fine.
But what I can't believe, Mr. Speaker, because I know there are members of their caucus–I know there are members of their caucus that know better than that. I know there are members of their caucus who have made their careers and their elected lives about working with farmers, and I know that they know that this move by Ottawa to dismantle the Wheat Board is going to hurt farmers. I know that they know that this move is going to drive farmers off the farm. I know that they know that, and the fact that even though they know that they have let the Leader of the Opposition define their position as standing with Ottawa and against Manitoba farmers, that I can't believe, because I know that they are stronger than that and I know that they're smarter than that.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'm troubled by their position, but I am satisfied that we on this side of the House, whether it's the Premier (Mr. Selinger) as we heard today or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Struthers) or the Minister of Finance (Ms. Wowchuk) or the Minister for the Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Robinson) or any MLA on this side of the House, I am satisfied that farmers in this province do have a champion. They do have someone that will speak in their interests and will speak in their interests for their right to have a voice in what happens to the Wheat Board.
That, I think, is perhaps the most distressing thing about all of this: They don't even want farmers to have a voice in the Wheat Board. Even though, Mr. Speaker, in the past, 70 per cent of those wheat producers have voted in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board, but that's not good enough to save it.
Apparently, an election six weeks ago is all you need to dismantle the Wheat Board. That's all you need to destroy thousands of jobs in Manitoba. That's all you need to kick families off the farm, according to the members of the opposition.
So that, to me, Mr. Speaker, is a sad day in Manitoba. And it's a sad day, I think, for the Conservative Party, that that's where it's come from, because I'll tell them this: When you start listening to the words of Ottawa senators and stop listening to the words of Manitoba farmers, it's the beginning of the end.
And I wish we could have an honest discussion about the issue of public financing but, you know, as long as we are in a House with a party that took $1.2 million in public financing after the last election, more than any other party represented in this Legislature, and that party continues to talk as if it would never touch a dime of public financing, as long as that's going on, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we can have a very honest and frank discussion in this House about that issue because we don't start, as I said, from the same philosophical framework.
We believe, and we've always believed, that when you vote to Manitoba, when you participate in elections, that you should be able to do that free of fear and that you should be able to do that no matter how much money you make, that democracy is the tool and is open to everybody in this province. And we are going to continue to work in–to that effect, and we're going to continue to stand up for farmers and rural Manitobans and the people of Churchill. I mean, the other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I think that they're perhaps not understanding or not grasping is that this move to dismantle the Wheat Board will kill the Port of Churchill. Ninety per cent of the Port of Churchill's business is from the Canadian Wheat Board grain, and the loss of the Canadian Wheat Board would make its survival difficult, if not impossible.
But that isn't enough for them to change their tune. So, Mr. Speaker, we will ensure that farmers in Manitoba and rural Manitobans, people who work at the Wheat Board, people who work with people who work at the Wheat Board, people whose businesses depend on the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board is strong and is in Winnipeg, those folks that live in Churchill and work at the Port of Churchill, we will make sure that those people know whose on their side and they know who isn't on their side.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): While this, indeed, is a sad day, Mr. Speaker, when you see a government come in and are afraid to speak to a resolution that has been brought forward, about abolishing the vote tax, and instead what we see is more of an NDP government that is talking about a sense of entitlement that they have to a vote tax. And it's very disappointing that we are hearing this kind of an arrogant view from the government, when they should be here talking about the vote tax, instead they seem to be confused and are choosing to talk about other issues.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think this motion and the comments from the government, indeed, does speak volumes about priorities of the government. When we see that this government is more interested in having money doled out to them through a vote tax instead of getting out there and working for it, it, indeed, is disappointing for us to hear that. You know, some people might say lazy socialist; then you'll hear others say keep your hands out of my pocket. It does speak volumes about the government.
Many of us go out and work hard to earn our money, and ever since I've been elected, I go out and I talk to people, and I raise money the hard way. I go out and talk to people. I don't think I need a vote tax. I think I need to go out and speak about my track record in here, my hard work, and ask people to then support me for my efforts and my hard work in this Legislature. I don't need a handout; I'm quite prepared to do what's right and to go out and earn it.
But we see the member from Kildonan, for instance, today, talk about this being a flimsy resolution. I can't imagine how offended the public would be to know that, you know, after a hundred people came in here earlier to speak to, I believe it was Bill 37 in 2008; a hundred people coming here and talking about this particular issue is not a flimsy topic at all. And, in fact, this government, if they were listening more to people out there, would realize that this is more significant to a lot of people out there. You know, I think what this is pointing to in the comments that they're making today and trying to avoid the topic, is just a demonstration of their poor judgment about the significance of a vote tax. I think it's a lot of political arrogance is what we're hearing.
* (15:40)
We are quite prepared, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, to work hard for our money and to do it the right way. Instead, what we see with this NDP government is a government that's out of touch with ordinary Manitobans. We are seeing where they have a sense of entitlement rather than where that money could be better invested.
I am dealing right now with a man that's waited four years for orthopedic surgery. His whole body is deteriorating because he cannot have orthopedic surgery in Manitoba. His hip joints are affected, his spine is affected, he's in excruciating pain, he's taking bottles of Aleve, and those are the kind of people where this money should be going to, and not to this government to line their pockets for their own political agenda. It should be going into health care, and it should be going into, maybe, the pediatric MRI that they promised us seven times or however many times already.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, we see a government that has priorities that are more in their interest and not in the interests of the people of Manitoba. So I wish the government would support this resolution, because it is better for Manitobans than what the NDP are doing right now.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I rise to speak to this resolution. We want to change sections 70.2 to 70.4, rather than to repeal them. In the last decade, there has appropriately been implemented increasingly rigorous accounting requirements for all dollars raised and spent by political parties, and we have supported this. Contributions from corporations and unions have been ended, and we have supported this. To recognize that all parties must spend a lot of time ensuring that financial records are in good order, we believe a public subsidy is appropriate in support of the democratic process. Mr. Speaker, it is reasonable that this subsidy recognize the need for administrative and accounting support to political parties. We do not support excessive subsidies which allow parties to build a war chest. Thus, we would change sections 70.2 to 70.4 to reflect these views.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that if one adds the total subsidy to all political parties, through such grants and through various political tax credits, then both the Conservative and the NDP parties currently receive far, far more in public resources than the Manitoba Liberal Party. The Conservative Party should recognize this and not target only one form of support provided by public dollars to political parties. Thank you.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, I guess my first question would be is why do the NDP even think that they deserve to have taxpayers fund their party, their operations. Why do they think that? Why do they believe that they should have their opportunity to keep their hands in the pockets of Manitoba taxpayers to give them the funds necessary to run their political machine? That should come from donations, Mr. Speaker. If they can't come up with their own donations, why do they figure Manitoba taxpayers should be burdened with that tax–that task?
Mr. Speaker, Margaret Thatcher said it best. She said, it's easy to be a socialist until you run out of other people's money. Well, you know what, the Manitoba socialists are fast running out of other people's money. We recognize that debt in this province is out of control. But they don't care; they can go out to the New York markets and borrow and borrow and borrow some more, and pay it back with Manitoba taxpayer dollars. We know that deficits right now are out of control. We know that the deficit that this Minister of Finance (Ms. Wowchuk) has put together is a structural deficit. It's not something that she's going to be able to control, but that's okay. There's other Manitoba taxpayers that are prepared to spend more and more money into the coffers of the Province of Manitoba, so say the NDP.
Mr. Speaker, we are the highest taxed province west of the province of Québec–the highest taxed. We already, in this province, pay more in taxes than any other person in any province west of Québec. That's not something to be proud of. But now this NDP government want to take more money. And why do they want to take the money? Do they want to take the money to make sure that health care is better served in the province? No. They don't want to take the more money to put it into programs that are going to service Manitobans. No. They're going to take $250,000 a year to put into their own party coffers.
That's wrong, absolutely wrong, and they should know that because they haven't been taking it. It's in legislation. They have the right to take it, but, no, they refused it. So if they refuse it, why not, Mr. Speaker, rescind this particular part of the legislation? Repeal it, don't allow it to stay on the books, because if they do, they will at some point in time want their little sticky fingers on Manitoba's–Manitobans' taxes.
They're socialists, Mr. Speaker, lazy socialists who aren't prepared to go out and raise their own money, or maybe it is that these socialists can't get people to donate to their party. Maybe they can't get normal Manitobans to put their hard-earned cash to the NDP coffers, so now they have to find another way to find their money.
But do you want to know what the most deplorable condition that was placed on the original piece of legislation was? Not only was it going to be $1.25 per vote, about $250,000 to the NDP, but, Mr. Speaker, there was a COLA attached to it. That means that they were going to get the cost-of-living increase on that vote tax, when they took COLA away from the retired teachers. They took it away from the retired teachers. They wouldn't give retired teachers who earned their pensions COLA. But, no, they didn't earn the vote tax, but now they wanted to put a COLA on it so that if the vote tax fell below what they needed to service that NDP machine, they were going to get a cost-of-living increase in the vote tax. That was the most deplorable thing that they could've possibly done, absolutely awful.
Now, we had the Leader of the Liberal Party stand up and speak in favour of it. He's been taking the vote tax. He's been taking it. Of course he's going to speak in favour, because nobody in the province of Manitoba is going to support the Liberal machine, because why would they? They don't have any policies. They don't have anything that they have that they can put forward to Manitobans, so nobody wants to give them money. So they have to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers simply by legislative means. So they took it. They're going to support it.
The NDP would support it in a minute, in a flash, Mr. Speaker, they'd support it if they thought they could get away with it. But they can't, because we told them that, in fact, we were not going to take that vote tax and we didn't take it.
We have principles. We have integrity. They have nothing, absolutely nothing but selfishness and their hands in the pockets of Manitoba taxpayers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): It was interesting listening to the member for Brandon West, how he's completely flip-flopped on this issue when he was a Member of Parliament to when he is now a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker.
And I just want to go back to those days when he was a Member of Parliament and he spoke to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs April the 10th, 2003, Mr. Speaker, and this is what he said back then. He said, in Manitoba there's a piece of legislation that has, in fact, banned all corporate and union donations, labour donations; however, they do not have a public financing component. As a matter of fact, I would suggest, sir, that there is now a democratic deficit with that piece of legislation being put in to Manitoba. Which is completely contrary to what he just said in this Chamber, completely in contradiction to what he just said only a few minutes ago in this very Chamber.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, on that same standing committee, he was arguing that the Québec system of political financing works better than the Manitoban one because it has a public financing component to offset its ban on union and corporate donations. In fact, we haven't heard a single member of the Conservative caucus when they spoke to this resolution stand up and state unequivocally that they would not bring back the ban on union and corporate donations. Anyway, so he says there, again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, there are two provinces that have these kinds of restrictions. One is Manitoba, the other is Québec, and he says that Québec works better, I think, than Manitoba.
* (15:50)
Finally, Mr. Speaker, and again, on the–May the 8th, the same member who just spoke, he talked about the–Manitoba's lack of public financing as a problem for the provincial Conservative, and he says in the–he says, the problem, I understand, is our counterparts in Manitoba are encountering–is that there's no public contribution to their legislation there.
We are–we–where you have 50 cents per vote per annum, in Manitoba, there's nothing. This is what the member said only a few months–years ago when he was a Member of Parliament. Clearly, he has changed his position. They haven't stood up today in this House to tell us where they stand on the Wheat Board. They haven't stood up to tell us where they stand on the banning of union and corporate donations. But we do know one thing, when they're in Ottawa, they said one thing, and when they're in Manitoba Legislature, they're saying something else.
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): It's my privilege to put some words on the record in regards to this bill, this private member's bill, Mr. Speaker, on removal of the vote tax in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of leadership and it's certainly being displayed by the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba, not the honourable members in the government today who flip-flopped on their own bill. They brought this forward thinking that they could pocket a quarter of a million dollars a year, when, in fact, this bill costs taxpayers in Manitoba a half a million dollars a bill–a year if we had've taken it and the Liberals. Fortunately, it's about $60,000, the Liberals being the only ones taking it. But it's leadership that forced the government side to back down from taking their own money. The money that their members in Beausejour riding, or Beausejour, or the Lac du Bonnet riding, at their own convention just said is our entitlement. Well, we are entitled to take these–this quarter of a million bucks out of–pick Manitoba's taxpayers' pockets to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars. Where else in civilization would you be allowed to do that? This is a preposterous attempt by the government to hoodwink Manitobans into blindly having to be forced–not blindly–to be forced to support them, when Manitobans are saying more every day they don't want to see this government stay in power.
So, Mr. Speaker, this government has made so many mistakes and going down so many roads the wrong direction, not to make a pun of any of the flooding that's going on in the province, but they are certainly not leaders when it comes to the support for political affairs–or financial affairs of political parties in this province.
Mr. Speaker, the political partisanship in this, or the opportunism in this, smacked right back to their former leader and he can see that it wasn't the right thing to do. He finally left and went on to be the ambassador. So, you know, even he flip-flopped on this. You know, he chided us in the House every day that we would take the bait and take the money when the bill was passed, but the leadership of our Progressive Conservative leader, the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. McFadyen) called a news conference which every one of us supported him on and indicated publicly that we would not take these dollars, that we felt that it was the wrong way to go. With the other mechanisms that are already there to support political parties, as was pointed out today, it's preposterous that this government felt that they needed that.
The only reason they needed it is because they can't get Manitobans, or they're afraid to go an ask them individually to donate to them, Mr. Speaker, because they're afraid to knock on the door and find out that they're rejected by the policies that they're bringing forward as the government today. And we get that every day as we knock on doors, that this government's policies are going the wrong way. And so they are afraid to deal with that, that not just their policies are going the wrong way, the hydro line that they want to build is going the wrong way too. And we're being told that more every day in this House as well.
Their priority was to bring out attack ads, instead of getting rid of the vote tax, Mr. Speaker. And, you know, the member from Kildonan felt that this was a frivolous act. Well, you know, nothing could be more frivolous than trying to be responsible with Manitoba's taxpayers' money and take it and put it into his coffers.
And, when it comes to credibility, he has to look at his own Premier (Mr. Selinger) in regards to the amounts of things that have been pointed out by several of my colleagues today, in regards to the falsified election returns, the direction of telling Manitoba Hydro to build the line the wrong way, to take away choices from people, that's what this Premier's done. He's taken choices away from many people and that's what this bill did. This bill took people's choice away, Mr. Speaker, when all they're asking out there today is for others to have a choice.
So I will leave that by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I find it incomprehensible that any of the members of the government would not vote unanimously in favour of getting rid of the vote tax through–and by supporting this bill. They should unanimously support this bill and move on and admit they were wrong. Thank you.
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to this motion today. This motion is about democracy, and just to give you a little bit of background, personal background, in '86, I took the opportunity to run for the local council and I was fortunate enough to be elected. But, at the same time, I didn't expect someone to pay for my campaign.
In 2006, the opportunity came that I was able to run for the nomination for the Emerson Progressive Conservative Party, and there were four other candidates that ran. Not one of them ran with the idea that their expenses were going to be paid for by anyone else. Not one of them asked for that. They just wanted to participate in democracy. They didn't ask for people to pay for that right to do that, and it's unfortunate when I see that the socialists, they believe that this happens to be a job. They think this is a job. Actually, it's an honour; it's an honour and a privilege to serve the people, and you shouldn't have to be paid extra to win the election. You should be able to go out and support–get support from the people in your ridings. You should be able to get support, not just a vote–support. They should be able to support you with money if they think that you're worth it. If you can't raise that money out there, then you shouldn't be sitting in here. That's the reality.
That's the reality of democracy, Mr. Speaker, but it's apparent that their fundraising efforts are failing. They're failing in that department badly. At one time, the unions represented them, and they said they would take out union and corporate donations. They devised a way of bundling, and now it's called bungling. That's what they've done for the last 12 years; they've bungled. They've bungled the fundraising to the point where they had to come in with this type of a tax. They wanted to bring this tax in for survival, for their political survival, and it's failing. It's failing.
They knew in 2008 it was the wrong thing to do, so they didn't take the money; in 2009, they knew it was the wrong thing to do, they didn't take the money; 2010, they knew it was the wrong thing to do, they didn't take the money. They know today that this motion is the right motion, but they can't resist putting their sticky fingers in the piggy bank. They can't resist that opportunity because they know that financially, their party is in trouble. They know that, and they know because of the way they filed their reports way back in 2003, when they filed them fraudulently. And then the Premier, the now-Premier of the province, the Premier then said, I got a letter but I got it shredded. I'm sorry. I'd like to give it to you.
But at any rate, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the members opposite, the socialists opposite, will step forward and support this bill. It's a bill of democracy. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, and for the few moments that I have to speak on this legislation, I would term this as a debate about two divides. We have on the one side a government that has bought into the argument that they are entitled to their entitlements, and we have individuals and groups across this province that are struggling and are in need of help and are not receiving it.
Last night, Mr. Speaker, was a meeting of the Twin Beaches and various communities that are affected by flooding along Lake Manitoba. Unfortunately, not one government member, not one member from the NDP government saw fit to show up and actually give some kind of plausible explanation why the provincial government has taken no leadership in the flood taking place around Lake Manitoba. And they were getting up, individual after individual, frustrated, in tears.
One individual said that emotionally they are so stressed out that they need some kind of closure. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about homes and investments where it's not just that it's broken down; it's not just that their investment is maybe missing a door or has a broken window. It's gone.
* (16:00)
Mr. Speaker, I know in one case where we have friends of ours that have a cottage there, and on either side, and I have–I went back into my photo archives and I have beautiful pictures from years gone by where we visited them, but there was a cottage next door. There isn't a post. There isn't a bush. There isn't a tree. There is nothing left of the cottage, and these individuals came forward and they were looking for some kind of leadership. They were begging their provincial government to please proclaim a provincial state of emergency so that all kinds of help and funding could be kicked in, but there was no NDP, no government representation whatsoever.
That's where Manitobans are today, Mr. Speaker. That's where they want their government to be. That's where they want the debate to be. Instead, what we have is a government that feels they're entitled to their entitlements. Today, all of a sudden, we get NDP member after NDP member getting up and defending their entitlements, where last night when individuals were stressed out, where I know individuals have had to take time off work because they are so stressed–everything that they have, their home, their pictures, their family heirlooms, everything is gone–that opportunity not one NDP member took to get up and speak to last night.
And there's another issue and my colleague from Brandon West raised it, the retired teachers who had to come here in the darkness of night in the middle of summer and had to beg for some respect, beg for their cost-of-living increase, and they were told that there was no money for that. But there was money put aside for the NDP party's entitlements.
Mr. Speaker, and they will get up–and we heard the member from Kildonan talking about his entitlements, how this is something that they're entitled to. Where were they when retired teachers–14,000 retired teachers–were thrown under the bus? It's called the pensionater years, the years where retired teachers had their pensions slashed by this government. [interjection] And the Deputy Premier will have the opportunity to get up and put her comments on the record about this.
But, Mr. Speaker, where were they when it was time to stand up for retired teachers asking for some kind of dignity, asking for a little bit of a cost-of-living increase, which was slashed by the honourable Deputy Premier herself. She's the one who slashed 14,000 retired teachers' pensions, but she's going to take her entitlements. Oh, yes, she will because she, like other governments, that have come to the end of their tether, who have lost any moral authority to govern, they feel that they are entitled to their entitlements. They should actually be ashamed of themselves and support this resolution. Thank you.
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): It's a pleasure to stand and put a few comments on the record and just after having listened to the very few people that have the courage on the government's side of the House to stand up and speak to this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on some of the discussion that has taken place and comments that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) put on the record. And he was quite right when he called this legislation, the vote tax legislation, a scheme, because it truly is a scheme, and it was a scheme by this NDP government to pick the pockets, once again, of taxpayers who work hard for their money because the NDP believe that they're entitled to additional taxpayers' dollars to run their political campaigns and their political agenda.
And I know that the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Finance (Ms. Wowchuk) is doing a lot of talking from her seat, and I would like her to have the courage to stand up and put some comments on the record about this legislation. She's afraid, Mr. Speaker, because she doesn't want those comments to go back to her constituents during the next election campaign.
But, Mr. Speaker, what about the hypocrisy of this government that talks about supporting hard‑working Manitobans and taxpayers. We've heard many of them talk about the priority of the flood, but where were they last night when hundreds of Manitoba residents that have been impacted by the flood came out to a public meeting to voice their concerns?
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a government that went into hiding. Not one member from the government benches of the House were there to listen to Manitobans. They're more concerned about the cash grab that they get from the vote tax that they can put in their pockets and support their political party than listening to real Manitobans that are feeling hurt and pain.
Not one government member had the courage to be there to listen to what Manitobans had to say. But they want to, through the back door, Mr. Speaker, take taxpayers' dollars and support their political agenda and their political party. And we're talking about a million dollars of taxpayers' money from one election to the next.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have a government that is arrogant, that is out of touch with Manitobans, and they believe, after being in government for 12 years, that they are entitled to take more of Manitoba's hard-earned tax dollars. Well, members of our Manitoba community will not stand for it. They know what the agenda of this government is, and we will certainly ensure that, come the next election campaign, we will be talking about repealing this legislation, legislation that this NDP government brought in because they're too lazy to go out and raise money on their own.
They expect taxpayers to pay for them, and we do not expect that. We do not want it; we will not support it. And I would encourage those members on government side of the House to stand up today and indicate clearly to Manitobans that they will support the repeal of the vote tax, and that's what Manitobans want. I hope they will have the courage to stand up and support this resolution today. Thank you.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise this afternoon and participate in Opposition Day debate pertaining to the resolution before us today, where the government, indeed, should be apologizing to Manitobans.
Does this government not realize that Manitoba is a have-not province by this government's design? They look at Manitoba as a province where they can go to other provinces and say, look, we need your money, your taxpayers' money so that we can have a standard of living in Manitoba which we're really not willing to work at trying to provide for ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, this government and this particular bill, where they said that their party deserves taxpayers' money, is not just looking at Manitobans for that money. They're looking at all other Canadians to provide resources to their New Democratic Party here in Manitoba. That simply is not right, and I do not know how they can go door to door to their constituents and say, I want your money so that I, as an NDP Party candidate, can spend it, because you have no need of it.
Well, ladies and gentlemen of–across this province do work very hard for their money, and they do deserve to spend it as they see fit, not as government sees fit. I'm embarrassed to say that we are going the opposite direction than what other provinces are as far as providing for their citizens with their own resources. I look at Saskatchewan and where they were considered a have-not province; Newfoundland and Labrador, where they were considered a new–a have-not province; both those provinces are now have provinces by their own design, coming from their governments, who are–have made the critical decisions, the tough decisions that saw them through to being a have province. Why can we not do the same here in Manitoba?
* (16:10)
Are we that much inferior? Are you, as members of the government side of the House, in–willing to admit that you're inferior? Well, this resolution is exactly that. You're saying that you are inferior. You need to take through legislation what you cannot garner by your own performance, and that truly is shameful. And standing here in the Legislative Assembly from the second-to-last day as the member for Portage la Prairie, I am terribly ashamed to say that this legislation passed during my tenure here in the Assembly. It is not something that Manitobans wanted. I heard not one single lobby group come forward saying that political parties need more money.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that we should be going in the opposite direction. We should be looking at the suggestions that came through the Lower Tax Commission some decade or more ago that suggested perhaps we should be looking at a new taxation structure where charitable and not-for-profit organizations qualified for refundable tax credits the same as political parties. I personally do not believe a political party is more deserving of a tax credit than any of the other charitable and not-for-profit organizations that struggle each and every day to provide the services which Manitobans most–are most deserving.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity.
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): In speaking to this resolution, and, obviously, the message is not getting through, I have a feeling that they're not going to apologize and they're certainly not going to repeal their legislation on Bill 37 and the vote tax. And I don't know whether they're just lazy or whether it's ineptness, but they just don't–they're afraid to go to the people and ask for financial support from an individual Manitoban.
In my constituency, there are lots of issues, particularly Bipole III, Mr. Speaker, which happens to be a very relevant issue throughout my constituency. And, when I talk to my constituents about Bipole III, they say, what is this government trying to pull off? And, obviously, they're not about to go to the doors and ask for money in my constituency, because they'll certainly get an earful. They'll get everything but money when it comes to–in my constituency for their poorly thought-out legislation here.
And they passed this legislation, but they've been shamed into not taking it. And they've been shamed into not taking it because of the strong stand of our leader and of our party that we would not take this subsidy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, being the shrewd socialists that the government is, had they not been shamed into not taking it, they would have–they could have taken their quarter of a million dollars a year–and I realize this is math and it's not your strong suit, so I'm okay with that–but you could have taken this quarter of a million dollars for four years, a million dollars, put it in the bank, not used it between year, between campaigns, and then you could have taken that million dollars and spent it during the campaign and qualify yourself for another half a million dollars in public subsidy. So you're going to take a public subsidy and add another public subsidy on it, and that's how this government operates. They have no credibility. They refuse to go talk to individuals on their own and on their merits of their own work.
This–and, obviously, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the federal government, the federal Conservatives are bringing in legislation now to get rid of the vote tax federally. The federal NDP is offside. It's–I'm sure there's not going to be an angry letter from the Premier to Mr. Layton, the federal opposition leader there, telling him that he's offside with that, because these are the only two governments in the country now that are–that really do want a public subsidy on vote taxes.
Ms. Marilyn Brick, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
And so it's unfortunate that this government continues to have their head in the sand. I was at that meeting last night, the Twin Beaches meeting, 350‑plus people. There was people walking in the door crying; they didn't even have to get to the meeting and they were upset.
Not one government member was at that meeting. Not one had the courage to show up and face those people. Instead, they sent the deputy minister to take the heat for them. How shameful is that? Madam Deputy Speaker, it just shows the cowardness of this government.
They have–their time is expired. They have no new ideas. They're out of ideas. The only idea that they cling to is taking public subsidies and it's wrong, and they should vote for this resolution, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): I'd like to put a few words on the record with regard to our Opposition Day motion, which is abolishing the vote tax.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think this is a symbolic Opposition Day motion because it talks about government waste and government priorities, and I think what Manitobans are looking for is a government who will look out for the best interests of Manitobans as a whole. And I believe by this government bringing in a vote tax bill in 2007, I believe it was, or 2007, this government was really looking out for its own best interest.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we, the Progressive Conservatives, are not alone on this matter, and I believe that Manitobans have spoken out with regard to this issue. In that committee there were over 100 Manitobans that presented at committee, indicating that the government was offside. The government had not paid attention to what Manitobans wanted. And today, of all days, we're seeing more Manitobans hurting. We're seeing Manitobans who are having trouble getting crops into their fields. We're seeing families who cannot get to their homes because of water levels, Madam Deputy Speaker. We're seeing families who are transporting cattle to other places in a desperate way, trying to make sure that their cattle are taken care of.
And I know that the people that I am friends with, the people that I know in my communities and my constituencies are–have really a strong–or compassion and passion for what they do and the animals that they take care of. And it breaks my heart when I go to meetings like I did yesterday in Griswold, the community hall was packed and the people at these–at this meeting have the same look of hurt and disbelief on their faces. And I believe that when I see members from the government side, like the members from Kildonan making comments and making goofy gestures in the House with regard to his comments on the record, you have to stand up and challenge them on it. And I did that today because I believe that this government is out of touch with what is happening in Manitoba, Madam Deputy Speaker, out of touch with what is happening in rural Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when the government has an opportunity to put back into the–into Manitobans' pockets over a quarter million dollars at just the blink of an eye, I think that this is something that has to be addressed and brought forward. And this Opposition Day motion I think is an excellent motion because it speaks to how this government is failing to understand the significance of the dollar, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
I believe that by putting in a bill such as they did in 2007, thinking that nobody would pay attention is again another symbol of how this NDP government operates. They think that they can go and do whatever they want, without the regard and the understanding of how that will affect Manitobans. So our refusal to accept the vote tax, I think, is based on our understanding and our support for Manitobans across the province. So I believe that the NDP have failed to listen to Manitobans in 2007 and 2008 and hopefully, they will listen to Manitobans today and repel the vote tax, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to speak to the Opposition Day motion today because this is just a shameful piece of legislation that this NDP government has done to pacifically and purposely take money out of the pockets of Manitobans and put into their own pockets for their own political reasons, Mr. Speaker. That is just a cash grab from Manitobans and it's a lazy, lazy way to go about things.
Instead of taking the money which they think they're entitled to, Mr. Speaker–imagine, they think they're entitled to take this money for themselves for their own political purposes, instead of going out and raising the money with their own policies, going to the door and going to people and saying, this is what we believe in and will you support us? And the fact is they can't get that done so they're–have to go, have to resort to the fact of going and just taking the money, legislating it, legislating this money to be put into their own pockets.
* (16:20)
I'd like to know who came to them and said, would you please bring in a bill that pays yourself money out of our pockets so you can use it for yourselves? I'd like to know what people came to this government and said, please legislate yourselves vote tax money from us. I just have a hard time believing that anybody out there would be doing that, Mr. Speaker.
There is–over the course of a four-year term, they could collect a million bucks from people in Manitoba and that's absolutely wrong. There's a lot of other things that could be done with that money, and certainly what we're seeing right now with issues with people, the hardships that they're going through, losing their homes, losing their farmland, losing their livelihoods, their businesses, not to mention losing their income because they have to stay in their homes and keep their sump pumps running because if they don't, they lose their homes, there's a lot of other ways that that money could be spent instead of lining their own pockets for their own political purposes.
It's just shameful and I know that they must have people in their constituencies that come to them and say this is not right, Mr. Speaker. They have to be hearing this from people, because we know at committee when this bill was brought forward, there were hundreds of people coming forward to say this is just wrong.
I would say today, if they vote against this resolution, we know exactly what their plan for the election is, should they win, Mr. Speaker, that they are going to take this money–they are going to take this money and they're going to line their own political pockets with this, because they just are too lazy to go out with their own policies and get the money through people committed to them.
Instead of that, they decide they'll just legislate it. That is the laziest thing I've ever heard of, Mr. Speaker, and you know what? A vote for that party is going to cost Manitobans money. A vote for them is going to cost every Manitoban $5. A vote for us costs nothing and I'm going to take that to the door. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): It's indeed a pleasure to speak to the opposition motion brought forward today in regard to the vote tax, and, quite frankly, I think most Manitobans would recognize that this is an issue about democracy and it's also an issue about priorities.
And, clearly, Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, the NDP government decided this was going to be a priority for their government, and their priority is to dig a little deeper into the pockets of Manitoba taxpayers, and we're talking something to the tune of $250,000 which the NDP have an opportunity to take from the taxpayers of Manitoba.
And I think it's important to recognize and the governing party should recognize that they already have contributions from the taxpayers of Manitoba, and the taxpayers of Manitoba should recognize they already pay a considerable portion to help finance elections across our great province here when those opportunities exist every four years, Mr. Speaker.
So this really is a real serious look at the priorities this government has laid out. You know, as the member for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat) talked about, we're meeting with producers across Manitoba who are significantly impacted by the flood this year, and, also, you know, cottage owners across the province here have been severely impacted by the flood this year. And, you know, the Premier (Mr. Selinger) has been out with photo ops all spring. He thought the flood control was under control back in, you know, April when things didn't look too bad, and March he was out there spending money in terms of the flood, thinking things were going to be great, and 23 photo ops across the province–things were good; things were under control.
Well, now, Mr. Speaker, now that stuff has hit the fan and people are significantly impacted by the flood, we don't see any leadership on behalf of the Premier. The Premier's disappeared on this file. So we're asking where his leadership is here. And we go back to the bills here, the bill they brought forward, and, you know, his leadership is let's dig deep and take some money out of the taxpayers' pockets, a significant issue.
You know, Mr. Speaker, we had a debate here on teachers' pensions not very long ago about trying to get some more money in the pockets of Manitoba teachers and the hard work that they've done over the years on behalf of students and all of Manitobans, and, obviously, that's not a priority for this government in that regard.
But they're interested in taking the money out of taxpayers' pockets here in the province of Manitoba, and, really, that's what the priorities are all about. It's all about politics for this government and we see that in the legislation they bring forward. It's all about politics. These guys are out to win the next provincial election at all costs. It doesn't matter. Don't let the facts get in the road of a good argument, Mr. Speaker. That's their approach to government here in the province of Manitoba.
And, Mr. Speaker, we think it's important. We look at what the federal government is doing–the federal Conservative government has done. They've decided which is the right approach, in this regard, in terms of the vote tax. You know, they've done the right thing here. They said, you know, the taxpayers are on the hook for enough, in terms of election financing, so we're going to do the right thing. We're going to get rid of that vote tax. And that's what the government of Manitoba should be doing as well. They should be having a really serious look at this.
Now, we realize over the last couple of years, they decided, geez, that doesn't look like it's going to be politically correct for us to take that money, so they backed off of their own legislation. And that's what this government's about. It's all about politics. And that's the way it is, Mr. Speaker.
So we're hoping, Mr. Speaker, you know, today, the government will have a look at our resolution and certainly vote for it and signal to the–all Manitobans, that that's the right thing to do. Get rid of this vote tax.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, in just a few minutes you're going to call this House to order and you're going to put this particular motion to a question. And all members will have a choice. They'll have the choice whether they can stand with Manitobans, whether they'll stand with the hard‑working men and women who, even as we speak in the Legislature today, many of them are at their jobs, you know, working to earn enough money to put food on the table, to do a little bit of extra for their family. And that's what they do every day. They don't have the luxury, you know, they're not elected like the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) who can come in here and spend his day spending other people's money. They go out and they earn their own money and they do what Manitobans have done for decades and for times long beyond that.
But not the members opposite. They believe they have the right, just because they have the legislative authority, to reach into the pockets of Manitobans, to take money from those hard-working individuals and to put it into the pockets of the NDP Party. They believe, just because they have the legal authority, that they also have the moral authority to take money from these Manitobans.
And, you know, the member for Kildonan, he squawks loud in this House from his seat, but I wonder if he would go door to door on this issue, if he would knock on the doors and have a public debate. Well, the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) says, yes, he's willing to do it. He's willing to go to Selkirk and have a public debate and ask the residents of his constituency whether or not they support a vote tax. I'll take him up on that challenge. I'll go with the member for Selkirk. I'll go with the member for Kildonan. We'll have that debate. And we'll see whether or not they're willing to stand in front of real Manitobans and say what they say here in the House or say what they say with their caucus members. But they'll have the opportunity today. They'll have the opportunity today to decide whether or not they're with those hard-working Manitobans.
Whether the member for Fort Rouge (Ms. Howard), the member for Southdale (Ms. Selby), the member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady), the member for Seine River (Ms. Oswald)–and I know that the member for Seine River will be busy and engaged in an election, and she will face a candidate who will stand up and say, I don't believe we should take money from the pockets of taxpayers and put it into the political parties. We should stand up on our own, say what our ideas are and ask people to give money based on our own ideas. What a unique proposition, Mr. Speaker, to actually want to run on your own ideas.
And the member for Seine River, the member for Kirkfield Park, the member for Southdale, they'll all face opponents, all face Conservative opponents who will say, we will stand up for Manitobans, we'll eliminate the vote tax. We believe in hard-working men and women, hard-working families. And I wonder where they'll stand today? Will they stand with Manitobans or will they stand with their political party, their own self-interest? Because they will be held to account, Mr. Speaker. There'll be a day of reckoning. That day will come in a few months, and they'll be facing real men and women who will stand up for the right of Manitobans.
So this is a preview. We'll have a preview. Today they can decide whether or not they'll be with Manitobans, whether or not they'll be with hard-working individuals, whether or not they'll stand up for Manitobans, or will you just stand up for your party and pay the price–
* (16:30)
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hour being 4:30 p.m., pursuant to rule 28(14), I must interrupt the debate to put the question on the motion of the honourable member–honourable Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr McFadyen).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, say aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the motion, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Formal Vote
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, a recorded vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order. The question before the house is the motion moved by the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.
* (16:40)
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Borotsik, Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Dyck, Eichler, Faurschou, Goertzen, Graydon, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Stefanson, Taillieu.
Nays
Allan, Altemeyer, Ashton, Blady, Blaikie, Braun, Brick, Caldwell, Chomiak, Dewar, Gerrard, Howard, Jennissen, Jha, Korzeniowski, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Marcelino, Martindale, Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Reid, Robinson, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Struthers, Swan, Whitehead, Wiebe, Wowchuk.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 17, Nays 32.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on House business?
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on House business.
Would you canvass the House to see if there's leave not to see the clock until we have dealt with second reading debate on bills 44 and 51 and I've had a chance to announce their referral to committee?
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for the Speaker not to see the clock to deal with Bill 44 and 51 and also for the House leader to deal with it to go to committee upon completion? [Agreed]
Ms. Howard: Would you please call for resume on second reading debate on Bill 44 and Bill 51?
Bill 44–The Civil Service Superannuation and Related Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: Okay, resume debate on bill–on second reading, Bill 44, The Civil Service Superannuation and Related Amendments Act, standing in the name of the honourable member for Tuxedo.
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I'm just pleased to rise and put a few words on the record with respect to Bill 44, The Civil Service Superannuation and Related Amendments Act.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by, first of all, thanking all of the hard-working civil servants that work each day, every day in–for the betterment of Manitobans. I especially want to thank all of those civil servants who have taken time out of their schedule to help with all of the flooding victims. We know that many of the civil servants have spent hours beyond just working hours and paid working hours; they've spent volunteer hours out in the community, and we just want to thank them for all their hard work and dedication for everything that they do for those that are suffering as a result of this flood, but for everything that they do to–for all Manitobans. So I want to start off by thanking them in that way.
I also–I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised when the minister brought in this bill, and she was talking about it in second reading the other day when she was introducing it for second reading that she announced that half the bill is no longer going to be moving–we're no longer going to be moving forward with that.
* (16:50)
And I was quite taken aback by her comments in the Legislature that schedule B will no longer be going forward because they haven't done an adequate amount of consultation and so they have to scrap that part of this legislation in order to go back and do their homework.
And I think that that's an unfortunate thing. I think it goes–I think it–I think members opposite should be doing their homework before introducing legislation at the eleventh hour in this House, especially on the eve of an election. I think what we see here is we have a minister who hasn't done her homework and hasn't done the proper consultation throughout all this, Mr. Speaker.
And so we think that it's unfortunate that they have taken this route. They should have done this beforehand, and we look forward, Mr. Speaker. We'll allow this to pass through today to committee, and I would encourage all those people–and I believe the minister mentioned that it was those members of the MGEU who were perhaps not properly consulted when it came to this, and, again, I was quite taken aback by the minister's comments on that. So I would encourage all those people to come forward to committee to explain what it is that they had concerns of with respect to this bill.
So we at this point in time are prepared to pass it through to committee, and we look forward to those who will come forward at committee, Mr. Speaker, to talk about what their concerns are with this bill. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 44, The Civil Service Superannuation and Related Amendments Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 51–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2011
Mr. Speaker: Bill 51, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, standing in the name of the honourable member for Tuxedo.
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): And, again, it's a privilege to rise and put a few words on the record with respect to Bill 51, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that brings forward what the government has talked about in their budget. Again, this is a budget which was clearly a pre-election budget. We think it's extremely unfortunate that the government has chosen–and in their own words they use the word "chosen" to run deficits in this province that were unnecessary had they properly managed throughout the last 12 years that they have been in government in this province. These were deficits of choice, not deficits of necessity.
And I think Manitobans know that. They know that on the eve of an election, this is a desperate government that's tired and out of ideas. They're now bringing forward ideas that are just for photo opportunities and have nothing to do with things that are for the betterment of Manitobans as a whole.
I think Manitobans will see through a lot of this, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we'll see those who have concerns with this come forward at committee and will put on the record at that time what their concerns are with this government.
But we believe, Mr. Speaker, that this government is tired and a desperate attempt on the eve of an election, they have chosen to put forward the–some of the ideas within the budget and this budget implementation bill, and we believe it's nothing more than a desperate attempt to try and get the votes for the next election on the eve of an election.
So we're prepared to pass it through to committee at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, to listen to those that have–that want to bring their concerns forward with respect to this.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 51, The Budget Implementation Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on further House business.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on further House business, I would like to announce that in addition to the bills already referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources meeting tonight, Monday, June 13th at 6 p.m., the following bill will also be referred to the same meeting: Bill 44, The Civil Service Superannuation and Related Amendments Act.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, it's been announced that in addition to the bills already referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources meeting tonight, Monday, June 13th at 6 p.m., the following bill will also be referred to the same meeting: Bill 44, The Civil Service Superannuation and Related Amendments Act.
The honourable Government House Leader, on further House business.
Ms. Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would you canvass the House to see if there's leave to transfer the private member's resolution scheduled for tomorrow from the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) to the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen).
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement to transfer the private member's resolute from the honourable member for Selkirk to the honourable member for Flin Flon for tomorrow? [Agreed]
The honourable Government House Leader, on further House business.
Ms. Howard: We're prepared to move on to report stage amendment debate on Bill 31.
Bill 31–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 31, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, and it's in the name of the honourable–first of all, the honourable member for Steinbach has nine minutes remaining.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): A pleasure to put a few more words on the record. As I was saying in the last time that I had the opportunity to debate this amendment, which I think is a good amendment brought forward by the member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu), the Attorney General (Mr. Swan) has an opportunity now to either decide whether he's going to stand with the auto thieves or whether or not he's going to stand with law-abiding Manitobans.
And, Mr. Speaker, what the amendment does is to ensure that money doesn't flow to those who are charged with an offence of auto theft until that charge has been dealt with, and, if there's a conviction, then money would never flow. And the reason is–and this will come as a surprise to the Attorney General–is those who commit auto thieves aren't very good, necessarily, at paying their bills. And so, if he believes he's going to be able to go and collect all sorts of money from auto thieves after they're convicted, and MPI's been paying them for–you know, our court system isn't the quickest in the land, it could take a year or two–he–they've been paying them for a year or two until a charge is resolved, if he thinks he can then go and reclaim that money from these individual car thieves, he's either living in a world that most Manitobans don't, or he simply is naive to the fact of what criminals do in the province of Manitoba.
I don't think that he's naive. It could be that he just simply overlooked this, and then he has the opportunity now to vote for this common-sense amendment–what they're doing in Saskatchewan–to prevent money from flowing to auto thieves until their charge is dealt with, and then they would never get the money if, in fact, they are convicted. That seems to make the most sense in terms of protecting ratepayers who are paying into MPI.
So I'll take it that the Attorney General has simply made a mistake in the drafting of the legislation and that he'll take this opportunity to correct that mistake, to accept the amendment that the member for Morris has brought forward, and to ensure that ratepayers are protected. If he does anything less, of course, then I'll have an opportunity to question his motives in terms of why it is that he would put the interest of these auto thieves ahead of the interests of MPI ratepayers.
I look forward to the Attorney General voting for this good, common sense amendment and it strengthening this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment that is brought forward by the honourable member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
The amendment has been defeated.
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on further House business.
Ms. Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe you'll find there's a will to call it 5 o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Is there will to call it 5 of o'clock? [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The hour now being 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.