LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, June 16, 2011
[Applause]
Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much; I really appreciate that.
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.
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on House business.
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, can you canvass the House to see if there's a will to proceed directly to Bill 221, The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker: Is there will of the House to go directly to Bill 221, The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act? [Agreed]
Bill 221–The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Good morning, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to see you this morning.
I move, seconded by the member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu), that Bill 221, The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Goertzen: And good morning again, Mr. Speaker. I want to put a few words on the record regarding this particular bill and why I think it's important here in the province of Manitoba.
I know it's potentially late in the legislative session. One never knows how these things will go here in the Legislature, but there's always time to move a good bill, I believe. There's always time to bring forward legislation that'll benefit safety in the province of Manitoba.
And that's really what this bill is about. It extends and adds on to The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act by allowing for administrative forfeiture. And what that would do is allow where there is property–personal property under the value of $50,000 that is either deemed to be proceeds of crime or seen as an instrument of crime, and where nobody claims an interest in that property, it would allow the government to seize that property in an administrative way, as opposed to having to tie up the courts and going through a more cumbersome process.
So, for example, if there was money found in a drug house, for example, and that was deemed to be either as a result of criminal activity or the instrument of crime, and if nobody came forward and said, well, that $50,000 is rightfully mine, it would allow the government then to go forward and have an administrative forfeiture process under that–under this particular part of the act.
This act has been passed in British Columbia. Recently, this spring, in fact, it was passed in British Columbia. BC has been a leader in terms of The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act and its associated powers in Canada. They were one of the leaders in terms of seizing assets from organized crimes like the Hells Angels, from other organized criminals. And they have a different sort of organized crime in British Columbia than we do here in Manitoba but they've been very successful in seizing millions and millions and millions of dollars under their particular act. And they brought forward this amendment to allow for smaller pieces of personal property, where nobody puts in a claim, to have the property then seized if it's deemed to be a proceed of crime or an instrument of crime.
There are a number of things in here to protect individuals who believe they have an interest in the property. They could certainly make an application. The government would have to make a notice–a public notice that a piece of personal property was going to be seized, and then individuals could come forward and say, I have a claim in that property, and then it would go through the normal forfeiture process that's established in Manitoba. If somebody finds out later on, after the notice period, that a piece of property has been seized and perhaps even disposed of by the government, they could still come forward and say, I had a claim in that property, and they could be compensated by the government.
So there are some fail-safe measures in the bill to ensure that people who have a legitimate claim in property–and certainly, nobody wants to seize property from an individual who has a legitimate claim in it. But where it's seen to be and where it's shown to be an instrument of crime, we also want to ensure that there are no profit motives in crime.
And we know that the Supreme Court, through the Chatterjee case, has also indicated that the Province has a right to seek compensation for the cost of crime. And this would allow them to do that without having to go through a process when there's nobody claiming an interest in the property.
So it's already in effect in other places in Canada. I hope that the Attorney General will see the legislation as worthy and be willing to move it forward today. And I'm sure that there are ways, through the instruments of our two House leaders, who I know who are both creative and hard-working–they could, I'm sure, come up with a way to move the bill today, and we could add this piece of legislation to those that might otherwise get passed this afternoon.
So I look forward to hearing the comments from the Attorney General and seeing what we can do to move this legislation forward. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): It's actually a pleasure to be able to stand and to talk a little bit about The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
Of course, Manitoba has been one of the leaders in this country using civil remedies to deal with issues in our community that affect the safety and the peace and enjoyment of neighbourhoods of Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, and I look to bills like The Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, a groundbreaking legislation from 2002, which set up an independent provincial unit which has now closed down more than 500 drug houses, places where sexual exploitation are taking place, booze cans, other properties that have negatively impacted on neighbourhoods.
The Fortified Buildings Act is another important bill which gives a civil remedy to allow that same unit, the Public Safety Investigation Unit, to take steps against organizations and individuals who improperly put fortifications into their home that can be there, frankly, for no valid reason.
And so too has The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act become an important part of the ongoing fight against gangs and organized crime in the province of Manitoba. And, of course, The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act allows a team of provincial investigators to move against properties where it's believed that either they've been obtained as the proceeds of criminal activity or where the property has actually been used to conduct criminal activity. And we're always looking for ways to continue to improve that act.
I would point out, of course, that since that–the act was amended to create an independent unit, there's been tremendous success. I understand there's been more than 23 successful applications. Almost one and a half million dollars has now been seized, forfeited. There is about $8 million still in the queue of other properties that that unit will be going after.
* (10:10)
And it is very interesting, and again, I know, perhaps in jest, I put some comments on the record about the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) the other day, but I know how frustrating it must be for him to have his leader continually out there really denigrating the tremendous efforts this government has made to take on organized crime. And the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen), rather than pursuing solutions, chooses to play politics instead.
And, you know, it was just over a year and a quarter ago when we discussed the success The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act was having. The Leader of the Opposition chose to go out in the hall and say to the Winnipeg Free Press that these improvements and this new unit, and his quote, to be exact, was: "It doesn't do anything substantive to help in the fight against organized crime or to improve resources."
Well, there's 9 million reasons, over 9 million reasons, why the Leader of the Opposition was wrong then and is wrong now.
And I presume and I give credit to the member for Steinbach. I'm sure he tries to tell his leader, stop playing politics, let's actually do some things that can make a difference. It must be very frustrating in that caucus room to try and get anything past the leader who chooses to play politics when sometimes, Mr. Speaker, that's not just the best way.
And, indeed, not only have we been able to seize these properties, but, as the members of this House should be aware, we've now invited proposals from law enforcement agencies across this great province to ask them what they would like to do to help us spend this money under The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act. And, indeed, this month we expect to receive some great proposals for some short-term money that we can send out to police forces who have particularly good ideas. It could be the Winnipeg Police Service, Brandon Police Service, could be any of the other municipal police services, could also be the RCMP who come forward with some great ideas, and my officials will be looking very forward to reviewing these great ideas.
Now, I have had a chance to take a quick look at the bill that we are debating today. I know that, once again, it is based on what's happening in British Columbia, and it is something that is worthy of taking a closer look. And here's the issue, Mr. Speaker. The bill effectively changes the way that The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act operates.
At the present time, our investigators can make an application to have property seized and held and ultimately forfeited. That application can only be approved by a Queen's Bench judge. That's an independent, federally appointed judge who decides whether, on a balance of probabilities, it's in the interests of justice for that to happen. I'm very pleased to have been successful. I believe we've been successful on nearly every application, which would mirror the experience in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, the part of the bill that I think we need to think very carefully about and consider is that this now removes that provision and allows the director–so, a civil servant–to make a forfeiture as long as they–there's reason to believe that there has been either proceeds of crime or the property used to do something unlawful. And that does change the way that this act would operate.
Right now, we've been trying to meet concerns by people on all sides of the issue by pointing out there's an independent Queen's Bench judge who has to look at the evidence. British Columbia, I know, has now taken a different route, taking away that independent oversight by a judge unless there's a subsequent application made. And I think we need to carefully take a look at whether that is the next step that Manitoba should take or whether there's other steps that should be made to make this bill even stronger.
So, certainly, we are very excited about the way that The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act works. We are doing everything within our control as a provincial government to take on organized crime, to hit them where it hurts, right in the wallet, to try and shut down organizations. Again, I point out some very successful operations. Right now, the former Hells Angels gang house on Scotia Street right here in Winnipeg is subject to an order of seizure, and the Hells Angels are no longer there, which is something that's good for people in the neighbourhood and, indeed, all Manitobans.
We're going to keep improving this bill. I do commit to the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) that we will take a closer look at this bill. We'll receive the appropriate advice to make sure that any changes don't undermine all the successes that we've had in this bill.
And, again, Mr. Speaker, I know he'll be trying his best to control the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen), who chooses to say anything any time if he thinks there can be some short-term political gain. I actually do have some confidence in the member for Steinbach being able to convince his leader that maybe he should think just a little bit more carefully before he speaks the next time. Thank you very much.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that debate now be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on further House business.
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, could you call for third readings on Bill 220, Bill 205, Bill 222, Bill 204, Bill 217, Bill 300 and 301.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. Let's just–okay. Do we have leave of the House to deal with concurrence and third reading of public bills, and I'll name them in order.
First of all, do we have leave? [Agreed]
Okay, I'm going to call in this order. Okay? For concurrence and third reading of public bills: 220, 205, 222, 204, 217, 300 and 301.
Bill 220–The Justice for Victims of Child Pornography Act
Mr. Speaker: So, first of all, I'll call Bill 220, The Justice for Victims of Child Pornography Act, as amended.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I move, seconded by the member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler), that Bill 220, The Justice for Victims of Child Pornography Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in and now read for third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see this bill reach this stage and I hope to see it receive royal assent later this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, it's groundbreaking legislation in Canada; there's no bill like it in any other province. It's going to allow the Province to sue on behalf of known and unknown victims of child pornography in civil court, and those awards that are granted in civil court will go to the victims, where they're known. And where they're unknown, will go into a fund to support organizations that fight child pornography in Manitoba whether they're outside organizations, private organizations or the police.
I think we're leading the way in Canada with this particular bill. It's taken three years for me after introducing the bill to get it to this stage and getting it passed. I won't go on about the frustrations of the length of time that it's taken. I am glad, though, that it is here today.
I want to thank the Attorney General for working with me on this bill. We did have a couple of amendments at committee which, I think, will strengthen and improve the bill, so I appreciate the fact that we were able to work together, to see this bill come to this stage and hopefully receive royal assent.
When it comes to issues like the protection of children, it's important, I think, to put aside partisan differences, to put aside different ideological beliefs, because we all believe in the same thing when it comes to the protection of children and that is we have to do all that we can.
I think this bill leads the way and I hope that it will not only stand the test of time but be adopted in other provinces in Canada as well.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good day in this Legislature whenever we, as legislators, can take steps to protect the most vulnerable people–our young people.
So I do thank the member for Steinbach for bringing this bill forward. And I'm glad that we were able to provide some suggestions on how the bill could be strengthened, how it could be made stronger and also, we expect, stand the test of time, if indeed there's individuals out there–predators, I think, we would all agree–who want to challenge the groundbreaking laws that Manitoba is moving on so many fronts to protect our children.
Now, of course, Manitoba has been the leader in combatting child pornography for a long time. We could also be proud, as legislators, that back in 2009, we enacted first-of-its-kind legislation that makes the reporting of child pornography mandatory, so that Manitobans can't simply avert their eyes or close their eyes when they discover that child pornography is out there on someone's computer.
* (10:20)
And, Mr. Speaker, those provisions require Manitobans to–requiring police to advise an employer, when an employee having access to children in the workplace is charged with a related offence–something every parent, I think, would agree is a good thing. Tough penalties for violating the provisions of the act, including maximum fines of $50,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 24 months.
It's also very notable that–I was very pleased, we've also moved ahead on groundbreaking legislation on protecting the victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation–groundbreaking legislation that is going to continue to keep Manitoba at the forefront.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think it was a good example of co‑operation. Again, I thank the member for Steinbach for bringing this forward. I'm glad we were able to make the bill that much stronger, and, of course, we will continue in future to take the steps we need to pass laws within our control to make sure that the police have the appropriate resources to do the difficult work they do combatting child pornography, combatting human trafficking, combatting sexual exploitation, and also making sure that all Manitobans, wherever they may live, are vigilant, are aware of these dangers, and that Manitobans are prepared to speak out to protect our children. So I do look forward to this bill being passed by this Legislature, hopefully, by the end of today. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 220, The Justice for Victims of Child Pornography Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill
205–The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act
(Mammography Accreditation)
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson), that Bill 205, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Mammography Accreditation), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Driedger: The reason for looking at this legislation occurred a few years back when there was an article in The Globe and Mail that indicated that there were some mammography machines in Canada that were not accredited. That did raise some concerns for me because it indicated that there were two machines in Manitoba, busy machines, that were actually not accredited, and the issue around that is the lack then of quality control and, you know, safety concerns that might arise from that. So not to say that those machines weren't working as they should be, but it did raise some concerns that without being accredited, we didn't really know.
So it's been a bit of a long journey in the last couple of years, and it was a little bit concerning to know that the machines in Manitoba were supposed to be accredited and for some reason, over the last two years, have not been. So I'm pleased that we were all in agreement. I appreciate the support from the minister's office in helping to bring forward some amendments that would actually make some clarifications to the legislation, but I am pleased that we're able to move forward with this legislation because I think it's important for women, particularly, who are going through the issue of worrying about breast cancer. And I don't think they need to have to worry about whether or not the machines that are doing mammography exams are in good order or not. This would help with some of that assurance. So I'm pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we were able to reach this point on a private member's 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 205, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Mammography Accreditation).
As amended, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 222–The Sexual Assault Awareness Month Act
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I move, seconded by the member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson), that Bill 222, The Sexual Assault Awareness Month Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Driedger: I am very pleased to be able to bring forward another private member's bill to this legislation that addresses itself to women's issues. I am particularly pleased to be able to bring this bill forward because I think it's the first legislation of its kind in Canada, and what it will do will create the month of April as a sexual assault awareness month in Manitoba. It will allow women's organizations and other organizations and children's organizations to address the issue of prevention and providing more awareness around the issue of sexual assault.
The reason that's important is because we still see nine out of 10 women who do not report sexual assault. There is a lot of fear in doing it, a lot of stigma in doing it, and I think we have all got to find all the tools we can to move forward so that we can make the public, and particularly women, more aware of the resources around them, more issues around prevention, and to try to address some of the feelings that women go through who are too afraid to report if they have been raped or sexually assaulted.
Mr. Speaker, I would note that there are other provinces in Canada that address this issue in the same way. The Minister of Justice in Alberta–oh, sorry, in Saskatchewan actually moved in this direction through a resolution last year. Ontario's been doing something in this area since 1998. Universities across Canada have been addressing it, and there are many states in the United States that actually do declare a certain month as a sexual assault awareness month.
So I'm pleased that we've been able to bring this forward in Manitoba to create legislation here, which would be the first in Canada, to actually find another way to help to do whatever we can in this province to improve women's safety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): I just want to indicate our support for this bill and thank the member for bringing it forward. And I agree that whatever all of us can do in this House to raise awareness of sexual assault, to let women know, who have been victimized, that it's safe to come forward, that they'll be believed, and to also, I think, help each other and help everybody understand the pain of that experience, but also I think it's important in this House we also have very good men who can be leaders with other men in talking about what they need to do to also end sexual assault.
So, with that, Mr. Speaker, we're pleased to see this bill pass.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 222, The Sexual Assault Awareness Month Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 204–The Consumer Rights Day Act
Ms. Erna Braun (Rossmere): I move, seconded by the member from Burrows, that Bill 204, The Consumer Rights Day Act; Loi sur la journée des Droits du consommateur, reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, will be concurred in and now be read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Ms. Braun: This bill provides an opportunity to increase our awareness as consumers that we have rights in the marketplace, and I look forward to a speedy passing of this bill. Thank you.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Appreciate the opportunity to participate in debate of Bill 204 on its third reading.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed important that we in the Legislative Assembly recognize consumers, because, ultimately, that is why we are here. Consumers of services offered not only by private enterprise or by government, it's vitally important that we provide to consumers that recognition of their importance and to safeguard the well-being of consumers.
* (10:30)
And I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and to recognize the passage also of a historic number of private members' bills. It is an experience that I have yet to see in this House, but it does recognize that we, as members, are bringing forward the concerns of our constituents and addressing those here in the Chamber.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 204, The Consumer Rights Day Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill
217–The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
(Expanded Grounds for Early Termination)
Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): I move, seconded by the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou), that Bill 217, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Expanded Grounds for Early Termination); Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location à usage d'habitation (nouveaux motifs de résiliation par anticipation), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Ms. Blady: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to see this bill move to third reading, and I'd like to thank the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou) for seconding this reading, and moving it forward, because his support has been helpful. And I'd like to thank him for the time here and bid him farewell. It's been a pleasure to work with you as a member opposite. It's nice to see that we've had some place of common ground over the years, and especially on a piece of legislation like this because of the work that it does for so many people, that it is groundbreaking in many respects.
That what it will do is, it will allow victims of domestic violence to move onto safety. And having worked with shelters, and having been a victim of domestic violence myself, I know that finding a safe place is a very significant thing, and can be the turning point. And so, what this will do is allow women, and others who are victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, stalking, things under The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act, to move on to safe places.
It also means we get to recognize those who serve in the military and–whether they are in full service reserves or, again, the unique location that we have here in Winnipeg, with 17 Wing and NORAD, to accommodate those who come to serve on our behalf.
And then, finally, the case that again has a very special place in my heart, due to personal experience with those who have suffered through this situation, is those with health conditions that are evolving and make their current residences inaccessible.
So it has been a pleasure to work with the various communities on this, and a pleasure to work with–in consultation with them. And we will be moving forward on regulations so that this can come into place. Because, really, one of the things that is so crucial about this is, is while it is best practice for many landlords, the information does need to be out there on this kind of legislation, as really there is no parallel for it elsewhere in Canada.
On a more personal note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your leadership and your mentorship in this Chamber. I do not envy you the task that you have had before you, and you are a better man than most of us will ever aspire to be. I know that had I the obligation to sit in that chair, I think my maternal instincts, at some point, would have had me issuing time outs to various members of the Chamber in the loges. So I appreciate your patience, and your fairness with us, and your ability to rein us in when passions arise.
I would also like to, I guess, on a–again, on a very personal note, recognize that you and I have been on very life-altering journeys this past session, as we both dealt with cancer and our own diagnosis and treatment, and nothing made me happier than watching you come back into this Chamber after your recovery.
So, with that, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, it is, indeed, a pleasure for me to rise on third reading, and thank the honourable member for Kirkfield Park for allowing me to participate in the debate, and–as–by–and also to second the third reading of this bill.
It is unfortunate that we, as legislators, have to pass legislation for a very small group of individuals, but this is, indeed, a necessary bill, because there are a few landlords there that do not recognize the extraordinary circumstances that persons are having to endure, and this bill does address three very specific concerns and issues that people are faced through in their lives.
I will say that I, too, share with the honourable member for Kirkfield Park personal experiences in all three of the situations addressed by this bill. Having served with the Portage la Prairie women's shelter, I saw very tragic cases of abuse and the complications of trying to find a safe residency away from that abusive situation. I also, coming from a military town and a military background, I can certainly appreciate that we must do all that we can in this Legislative Assembly to recognize the sacrifices that the men and women in uniform are making on behalf of ourselves in this Chamber and, indeed, all Canadians. It's also recognizing of health concerns that, unfortunately, do afflict us through our life, and we would, in the Chamber, would like to recognize that those health concerns ultimately do cause for relocation. And this bill enhances the situation and reduces the concern as it pertains to finding new accommodations that are more applicable to addressing and coping with health concerns.
So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and participate and debate this morning. Thank you.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister of Labour and Immigration): It's my pleasure to speak to this bill briefly, and I want to thank the member for Kirkfield Park for seeing this bill through the process. It's very important–makes some very important changes that are going to benefit people who are vulnerable in our society, people who are in rental accommodations and then, for various reasons, need to leave them, either because they've become unable to make it up the stairs to their apartment, or because they're fleeing violence, or sometimes because they have made the very important choice to serve in the Armed Forces and they get posted somewhere else. So I want to thank her for recognizing a need and a need that came directly from people that we represent, and then taking the steps to address that need.
And I also just want to say, Mr. Speaker, you know, what a pleasure it is to be in the Chamber this morning. We look at the range of bills that we're talking about today and good ideas put forward by members on both sides of the Chamber, and if you look at them, they are really designed to help some of the folks who are most vulnerable in our society, the people that we're sent here to represent, whether they be, you know, people who–women who are suffering with breast cancer or suspect they have breast cancer, or women who have been victims of sexual assault, or people who, in this bill, are needing to end their rental agreements because they have some unforeseen circumstances, or those tragic victims of the tragedy and disgrace that is child pornography, and also, you know, bills that remind us of our duty to represent the public, such as The Consumer Rights Day Act.
So I just think it's important for us to take a moment and appreciate that today, this morning, anyways, for the last 40 minutes, has been the best of us, and I'm going to hope that's the spirit that's going to continue on through the rest of the day. But we'll see. At least we've enjoyed 40 minutes of it and that can get you a long way in this life.
* (10:40)
I also just want to take an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say how much I've appreciated knowing you, as a House leader and as a MLA and also before that. And I just want to reflect on a trip that we took early in my time here, when I got to go on a trip with the Opposition House Leader and the Liberal House leader and you, and we looked at other legislatures in the country. I think we went to Alberta and British Columbia, and I'm sure when I told people about the trip, they thought it was maybe the most nerdy thing I could've done, is go on a tour of other legislatures to talk about the process of making legislation. But it was actually not only fascinating but just a very great opportunity to get to meet with other House leaders, to get to meet with other Speakers, and I've referred to that trip and the things we learned there many times in my current job as House leader, and the fact that in every Legislature the goal is try–is to try to balance the duty of the government to do what it was elected to do and the rights of the opposition to hold that government to account. And every Legislature finds ways to create that balance, and our Legislature has also found ways to create that balance. And every Legislature is also unique and has unique rules and quirks that sometimes drive us crazy but are there for the benefit of every member, and I want to just give you my appreciation for the way that you have stood up in this Chamber for the rights of every member to be heard.
I've often thought that, you know, you have a unique job in here and I think sometimes that maybe it's a lonely job. The rest of us get to go back after we've been in here, to our caucuses and let off a little steam and joke around and have some fun. And I know for you, you are a servant of the whole House, and so, for you, you don't have that opportunity, and I know that before you were Speaker, that was an opportunity you very much enjoyed. So I'm sure that for the last 12 years it's been something that you've missed, and I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that we've missed you around the caucus table also.
And so I'm looking forward in your retirement then when you choose to come back for a visit that you come and visit us. You'll always have a place around the table and you'll always have a place in this Chamber, and we so thank you for the service that you've given to the whole House. I know it's been at a cost to not only you. I know it's sometimes been at a cost to the constituency you represent because you–you know, we all get to stand up in here and talk about our constituents and mail that home and let people know that we're here fighting for them; you don't get that opportunity. You have to advocate for your constituents in a much quieter way and you've done that admirably, and so I want to thank you and I'm sure we'll hear more of this today. I want to thank you for your service to the House.
I also want to tell you in my whole school career I was never called into the principal's office. In my tenure as House leader, it's happened to me twice. And I'm sure, although you are a gentle master, I am glad that I was never called in when I was in school because it's a nerve-racking experience, I got to tell you, when you stand up in the House and put a pause on proceedings and call the House leaders into your office. So–but you do get our attention and you're fair in those Chambers and you do remind us of our duties also to do what we need to do as politicians but at the end of the day treat each other with respect, treat the public with respect and treat the people we represent with respect.
So thank you for your time with us. We all wish you well in whatever you choose to do next and we hope to see you back here very soon.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate support for this legislation, and I also want to comment positively on the series of bills that we're passing this morning. And I want to thank you for the job that you've done as Speaker over the last 12 years and it's certainly been a pleasure having you as Speaker and working with you, and you've, I know, done your very best under some very difficult circumstances to keep good order and good conduct here in the Chamber, so thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 217, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Expanded Grounds for Early Termination), as amended.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
And before we move on to bill–let me find it here–
Ms. Blady: I wonder if you could ask leave of the House to have it recorded as unanimous.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, is it the will of the House to have it recorded as unanimous? [Agreed]
Okay, it will be recorded as such.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: But before we move on to Bill 300, I would just like to take a moment to introduce a very special guest we have. In the gallery we have Katelyn Faurschou, who is the daughter of the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou).
And on behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here this morning.
CONCURRENCE AND THIRD READINGS – PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 300–The Winnipeg Foundation Amendment Act
Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that Bill 300, The Winnipeg Foundation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la fondation dénommée « The Winnipeg Foundation », reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Ms. Brick: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to stand here at third reading and put a few words on the record in regards to Bill 300, The Winnipeg Foundation Amendment Act. This bill proposes to increase the number of Manitoba residents on the board of directors of the Winnipeg Foundation from the current maximum of 12 to a maximum of 17. I'm very proud to be able to be the sponsor for Bill 300, The Winnipeg Foundation Amendment Act.
The Winnipeg Foundation, as many members are aware, was established in 1921, and it's Canada's oldest community foundation. The mission of the Winnipeg Foundation is to be a catalyst for strengthening community well-being now and for future generations by promoting philanthropy, creating partnerships and supporting diverse and charitable organizations. And, Mr. Speaker, I think that we can all say that promoting philanthropy is something that we can all get behind. It fulfills this mission by being a grant-making organization that makes wise and effective distribution in regards to meeting community needs. It provides leadership to serve the public and support the local needs that are identified by charitable organizations.
In terms of looking at some of the programs and projects that the Winnipeg Foundation itself supports, there are a number of special programs and projects that the Winnipeg Foundation supports. Mr. Speaker, they include things like Nourishing Potential Fund, Youth in Philanthropy, Camp and Summer Programming Grants, EnviroGrants Program, Legacy Circle, Literacy for Life Fund, Downtown Green Spaces Strategy, Will Week, and Philanthropy and Law Symposium.
Throughout its history, the Winnipeg Foundation has distributed more than $260 million to hundreds of projects and organizations. In addition to managing a collection of charitable endowment funds that support the needs of our community, Mr. Speaker, the foundation also provides a variety of services to 47 other community foundations across Manitoba. I know, as an MLA, I have had many opportunities to direct community organizations to the Winnipeg Foundation and I've done that, in particular, knowing that when I do that they're going to act with professionalism and they're going to be very community-orientated in terms of their approach. Last year, the Winnipeg Foundation distributed a total of $21 million in grants to almost 700 charitable organizations, nearly half of which were community organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I've really enjoyed working with the staff at the Winnipeg Foundation and the staff of the law office of the Legislative Assembly in terms of putting this act forward.
In 2004, this was the very first act I introduced as an MLA, so I thought, in terms of this act, I would take a opportunity to use this act and thank some of the people who have been involved in terms of my career here as an MLA. This will be my last opportunity to put words on the record.
So I, first of all, Mr. Speaker, wanted to take the opportunity to thank my constituency assistants, Mr. Bob Newman and Ms. Alice Kightly, Eliude Cavalcante and Elena Derksen, who've been working very hard in my office and have been the driving force in terms of making sure that community needs are met for our St. Norbert residents.
* (10:50)
I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank our caucus staff here at the NDP. They have always been people who have been there whenever we need them. Whenever we need anything we can always ask them for help, and I've been so appreciative of all their help.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank the table officers who are here at the Legislative Assembly. The time when I served in your stead as the acting Speaker, I always knew I could count on them. They were there with advice and they were very, very diligent in terms of making sure that everything was looked after and everything was taken of. So I very much appreciate their assistance.
In terms of my family, Mr. Speaker, my husband, Gerald, my daughter, Janelle, and my son, Steven, have been really supportive of my adventures, I would call them, as an MLA. Many of us know how hard it is to be an MLA, how much time we spend away from our families, and they were always supportive of that time and were never begrudging the amount of energy and effort it took me to be an MLA.
Some of the opportunities I've had here as an MLA being on the Healthy Kids, Healthy Futures Task Force and serving with the current Minister for Health was a great opportunity to learn about the whole province and to learn more about some of the members who are here. I served as well with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan) and I must say it was fabulous travelling the province, learning what people's interests were across the province, but also getting an opportunity to know the members who are here in the Legislative Assembly much closer, and I very much enjoyed that.
I would like to also take the opportunity to thank my executive. The executive, as many of us know, is the lifeblood of a–for an MLA. They're the ones who keep you focused, they're the ones who keep you on track and they're the ones who make sure that everything that you need as a political person is taken care of, so I really want to thank them.
I've had the opportunity to serve under several ministers as a legislative assistant, and those ministers treated me with nothing but an amazing amount of respect. I'd first like to pay tribute to the Minister for Healthy Living, who allowed me to be his voluntary Legislative Assembly–legislative assistant with no money attached, but definitely an opportunity to learn a lot, and when he took a look at the tobacco legislation and the legislation on second-hand smoke, and it was my first opportunity to be involved in any kinds of legislation, and I must admit it was a great learning opportunity and something that I didn't think I would have the opportunity to do, and you find out how many intricacies there are in terms of writing legislation. So I thank him so much for all of his support.
I also served under the current Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines (Mr. Chomiak), the Minister of Education (Ms. Allan), and the current Minister for Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Robinson), and I must say that those people gave me the opportunity to do things that I never, ever thought I would have the opportunity to do: to travel on their behalf, to represent them at press conferences, to represent them at events. And they treated me very much as their equal, and for that I very much want to thank them.
Being involved in policy at that level was something that I never really envisioned when I became an MLA and I want to thank them so much for their ability to make me feel part of a team, because they did do that, so I want to thank them for that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you. You've done an amazing job of being a mentor. I don't think I could have stepped up in any way to serve as the Acting Speaker for this spring when you were away if you hadn't have taken me under your wing and made me feel so much a part of everything that was going on in the House. You serve as a mentor but you also serve in a broader capacity as being the first-ever elected Speaker here in the Legislative Assembly, and you've done that role with dignity and you've done that role with what I would have to say is class. So I congratulate you on doing that. We always know that your rulings are going to be fair and that you’re going to be very calm and very relaxed in your approach to everything that takes place in the House, and I know how much you take this job seriously, so I really want to congratulate you on doing an excellent job.
In terms of my role as an MLA, I especially want to thank my constituents. It's my constituents who've allowed me to be here, who've put their trust in me, and I want to say so much to them everything that they've allowed me to do has been so much of a pleasure for me. I've had the opportunity to work with them on projects that are close and near and dear to their heart. And so I want to thank my constituents for giving me that opportunity.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone here in the House for allowing me to serve with them. It's been an experience that I've very much enjoyed.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Under–as a result of an abundance of caution, I wonder if it's the will of the House to not see the clock until Bill 300 and Bill 301 have been concluded third reading.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House for the Speaker to not see the clock until we deal with Bill 300 and 301? [Agreed]
Mr. Goertzen: Just on this particular bill, we've indicated our support for it at second reading, at committee, and will do so again today.
I want to thank the member for St. Norbert (Ms. Brick) for her comments. I know there's a lot of heartfelt comments being said today and there'll be more this afternoon. And we appreciate all of the members who are leaving and moving on to other things this–after this election in October.
I want to thank you as well, Mr. Speaker; I might not have the opportunity in the afternoon to do so. As one of the members of the Legislature who from time to time has gone a little further maybe than even I would like in my comments on and off the record, I do appreciate the–[interjection] I know, I know it's a surprise to some. I do appreciate your even hand. There are members who have different styles in the House. Some are quieter than others, some are more exuberant than others, and it's your job as Speaker to defend the rights of all of them and to ensure that everyone has that same equal right to participate, be heard and to hear.
I, like the House leader for the government, have also made a few trips to your office, both when I was House leader, even a couple when I wasn't House leader, Mr. Speaker. I think I made one with the member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler) once and–a memory that I've tried to purge from my own mind.
But I do really appreciate the fact that you have governed with an even hand, have been fair, have called us in when we needed to be called in, have given us rein when we needed a little bit of rein. I think you found the right balance of the parliamentary system, and that's not an easy thing to do. I know a lot of people come and watch the Legislature and don't always understand or maybe respect the way things happen here in the Legislature. I think things can always be improved. There is room for improvement, but I think you found the right balance in giving us room when we needed room and making sure that when it was time to rein things in, you did that, and you did that in a way that you were able to keep the respect of the Chair, and I don't think I could have done that job. I know I couldn't have done that job. But you have the right demeanour and the right temperament, and I wish you well in the–in your days ahead. And I'm sure we'll see you again when we have the opportunity, not just in the months ahead but even after the election.
So congratulations and thank you for being fair but firm with me in particular and probably a few others as well. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 300, The Winnipeg Foundation Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 301–The Providence College and Theological Seminary Incorporation Amendment Act
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the MLA for Rossmere, that Bill 301, The Providence College and Theological Seminary Incorporation Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
* (11:00)
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, Bill 301 is a very short bill. It's only five pages but it's of huge significance to Providence College and Theological Seminary. It adds the word "university" to the title and expands its investment powers. And they are very, very happy that this bill is passing this session, and that the word "university" is being added to their title because this helps them in advertising and attracting students from around the world. And it was my honour to be the private member to sponsor this bill. This is the fourth time that I have sponsored a private bill, which, at least in recent years, may be a record.
I would like to pay tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, the MLA for Point Douglas. We're both members of the class of '90, and there are interesting stories about how each of us got elected in 1990. But maybe we'll save that for another day, maybe for telling stories at the former MLA association luncheons, which I look forward to attending from time to time.
We enjoyed each other's company from 1990 to 1999. And one of the highlights of that time together was when Habitat for Humanity had a build in Point Douglas constituency. And they called it the Jimmy Carter build because President Jimmy Carter was there with his wife Rosalynn for the entire week. And we worked on various houses together but we also got to meet President Carter, because he was there all the time that we were there. And they had a barbecue for him, and there was also a reception in the Rotunda of the Legislature.
And one of the more amusing things that happened was that one morning when I was leading worship, the president got up and walked out on me. So I can say I've had a president walk out on me. He always thought that worship and announcements and singing lasted too long. So at 10 to 8, he would pick up his tool belt and go off to work while everybody else was still in the tent. So that was one of the more exciting things, I think, that happened in Point Douglas constituency between 1990 and '95 because, as I recall, we built 10 houses in five days. It was an amazing experience.
After 1999, we missed you in caucus because the Speaker does not attend caucus or caucus retreats or party events. And, as a result, I think being the Speaker can be oftentimes a lonely existence, an isolated existence. However, the Speaker did a marvellous job in his role of being the referee, to use a hockey analogy, since there's hockey players in his family. And I think all of us, on both sides of the House, on all sides of the House–all three parties would agree that you were a very fair and impartial Speaker and did an excellent job. And because of that, I think you enjoyed the respect of everybody in the House.
This is probably the last time I'm going to be speaking in this House, so I just want to briefly say, happy retirement to the 10 people who are retiring. I look forward to seeing you again and I look forward to coming back from time to time and sitting in the loges so that I can visit with people and keep in touch with the current events which may be helpful in my teaching career. Thank you.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank and commend the member for Burrows for this bill and wish him well as he goes on to other things after he leaves this House. I've had the opportunity to travel a little bit with the member in the past and get to him on a more personal basis. I think he's an honourable gentleman and I know that he'll do well in his future teaching career.
This is an important bill for Providence College, soon to be known as Providence University College. They're a great institution that do good work in teaching young people and preparing them for the future, and not just preparing them in an education sense but in a broader sense, Mr. Speaker. And I know that many of the grads have gone on to do great things in their community, in our country and across the world.
So I want to commend the member again, wish him well, and look forward to this bill passing this morning and receiving royal assent this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 301, The Providence College and Theological Seminary Incorporation Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
House Business
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, on House business, Mr. Speaker.
In accordance with rule 31(9), I would like to announce that the private member's resolution that would be considered in the event that we were sitting next Thursday is the resolution on Provincial Government Fails Manitoba Youth, sponsored by the honourable member for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat).
Mr. Speaker: Okay, in accordance with rule 31(9), it's been announced that the private member's resolution that will be considered on the next sitting Thursday is the resolution on Provincial Government Fails Manitoba Youth, which will be sponsored by the honourable member for Minnedosa.
Okay, the hour now being past–
The honourable Government House Leader, on House business.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on House business.
I wonder if we could just have leave to put a couple of motions so we can pay for a couple of bills we just passed.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave? [Agreed]
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Blaikie), that the fees paid with respect to Bill 300, The Winnipeg Foundation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la fondation dénommée « The Winnipeg Foundation » , be refunded, less the cost of printing.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on further House business.
Ms. Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on further House business.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Conservation, that the fees paid with respect to Bill 301, The Providence College and Theological Seminary Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le « Providence College and Theological Seminary », be refunded, less the cost of printing.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt those motions? [Agreed]
Okay, the hour now being past 11 a.m., we will move on to resolution, and we'll deal with Resolution 19, Apology for Per-Vote Subsidy.
Res. 19–Apology for Per-Vote Subsidy
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I move, seconded by the member from Portage la Prairie,
WHEREAS the provincial government enacted The Elections Finances Amendment Act in 2008; and
WHEREAS the content of the amendment is under–undemocratic except for the unnecessary burden taxpayers; and
WHEREAS the amendment forces Manitobans to financially support a political party against their wishes; and
WHEREAS the federal government should be commended for proposing to eliminate the federal per-vote subsidy; and
WHEREAS the New Democratic Party has followed the example set by the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba by also rejecting the annual allowance of the per-vote subsidy every year since 2008.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba ask the provincial government to apologize for enacting per-vote subsidy legislation and refusing to repeal it in case it accepts annual allowance in the future.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable member for Lakeside, seconded by the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou),
WHEREAS the current–dispense?
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Mr. Eichler: Before I start the debate on this resolution, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your decision to move on in life. So I certainly can say that the last eight years that I've been here, I've enjoyed you as Speaker and admired your tenacity in dealing with each and every one of us in a very respectful way.
Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't pass on my best to the members from Lord Roberts, St. Norbert, Burrows, St. James and, of course, Flin Flon, and on our side of the House, the member from Lac du Bonnet, who's already moved on to a different pasture of life, a path that he has decided to take and, of course, the member from Brandon West, the member from Portage la Prairie and, of course, the member from Russell and Pembina. And I know that life is like a book and many of those challenges that are going to be facing them in the days and weeks to come, they'll certainly make the best of those.
* (11:10)
And I want to also say, while–before I start the debate on the vote tax, each and every member in this House, you know, October the 4th, there will be some changes that–some of us will not be back. And none of us really know. We do our utmost to serve, and anybody that serves in this Chamber is an opportunity that I don't know how, really, to put into words, but I can tell you it's an honour. And we all take that role very seriously and we want to make sure that we do the best that we can for our constituents and make sure that their voice is heard loud and clear in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, and I know we get very passionate about some of the issues that we bring forward, and I can tell you, I know, I've had my share of them, with–starting off with BSE back in 2003. And then, of course, the flood in 2004–or the drought, actually, in 2004. And then I remember very clearly we were knocking trees down to feed our cattle, and you sure wouldn't think about that right now. I mean, what we're worried about now is trying to get them on dry land so they can actually eat.
So, I mean, how times change. And I know that, you know, the flood again come back in 2005. It was the first major disaster that we had after the BSE had broke out. And then 2006 wasn't a real bad year overall. It was a fair number of issues that come forward and, of course, you know, we've–in the Interlake area, we've been wet for the last four years, and my heart goes out to a number of those producers and ranchers and farmers that haven't been able to sustain themselves. Unfortunately, most farmers in my area and people in my area, it's a significant issue when you talk about the farming issues, because the communities are based on that, that income that comes from those. And not a–not one of those farmers want a mailbox farm. They want to be able to get a fair price for their product. They want to be able to go out and say, look, this is my hard work, these are the efforts of my hard work, and I want to make sure that I be able to sustain myself and my family.
Of course, the last other few years, of course, the issues have been in regards to the Shoal Lake, of course, as well. That issue is not going away soon. It's an issue that's going to be there for a long period of time to come. And, unfortunately, because of the weather, and the water that's in Lake Manitoba, the government has decided not to go forward with the drain on that particular lake, which means the water's going to come this direction.
And I have made it very clear that we need to be paying attention to it, of course, the drain out of Lake Manitoba, to drain that down so those people could have their properties back that they've been fighting so hard to keep. And I hope the water does go down very soon. The forecast is not that great for the next week, anyway, with more rain. I know that is something we sure don't need.
But whatever those issues are, I know that each and every day, every member in this House brings their issues forward and I know that that is very important to them to make sure that they make sure that that voice is heard.
So with that, I'll move on to the debate on this vote tax. And I know that we talked about this the other day in the House in regards to the amount of money that is going to be paid out or could be paid out. And I know the government has said, look, you guys aren't going to take it, we're not going to take it. So I commend the government for that action, that they're not going to take the quarter of a million dollars they could get each and every year.
So I think that it's time that Manitobans move on and repeal this bill. In fact, I think it's a perfect opportunity for the government to apologize for even bringing the bill forward. So I think this is an opportunity, through Bill 37 that they brought forward in 2008, that is their opportunity to say, look, we're sorry, we made a mistake. We agree with the Conservatives on this issue, that it's important that we don't move ahead with it, because it's, quite frankly, money that we could spend well on other areas that are important, that we need to be focused on in the next weeks and months and years to come. So let's just say, look, we're sorry, we made a mistake and we'll move on and not have to worry about whether or not we're going to take this quarter of a million dollars every year.
In fact, I think it would send a message out to those people in Manitoba that's saying, look, there's nothing wrong with saying we're sorry, we make mistakes. In fact, we've asked for apology on a number of issues this week, and I think this would probably be the right opportunity, the right time to be able to make that happen.
And so the message that would be coming out from the government–it's like, look, we had, oh, a sight here that we thought was probably a good idea, but it's not. It's not a good idea at all. In fact, we're going to say we're sorry. We're going to repeal this. In fact, I imagine if they ask leave of the House, we could probably do that this afternoon. I know we'd certainly be prepared to work with the government in making sure this bill would be drafted in a timely manner. In fact, I would be happy to second that bill for the government in order to make sure that they do do the right thing.
And we've done it in the past. We made sure that certain bills have been put through in a very short order, and I know that this would be an opportunity for the government to do the right thing on the last day of the House for this session, right before an election, right on the eve of an election. It would give the opportunity to say, look, we are truly sorry for bringing in the vote tax. We're going to be like the federal Conservatives, and what we're going to do there is we're going to make sure that this don't happen again. So it would send a loud and clear message to the people, the voting public out there, that we don't need to be forcing them to pay for each and every vote that we get.
Mr. Speaker, there is plenty of opportunity to get half of your expenses covered up to a maximum that's set by Elections Manitoba, and we feel that's sufficient, and we feel that if we need money to run our campaign, we go out and we have our campaign teams, our fundraising teams, those members that help us and guide us each and every day. It gives us those opportunities to be able to raise the issue and raise money for our campaign. In fact, I just read yesterday that the NDP convention is on this weekend in I believe, BC, and just to go and have supper with Jack Layton, for $300 you can go and have a pot of tea with Mr. Layton.
So they're getting the message federally. Federally, they're saying, hey, I want to raise some money so this is what we're going to do. We're going to pay $300 to go and have some lunch with Mr. Layton. And, by the way, I mean, they're starting to get innovative in their own way. They're saying that by golly, we can raise some money.
So, Mr. Speaker, we got a lot of people out there that want to support us, and they'll be able to do that in a way where they'll be able to say, look, let's look outside the box without having to force everyday, hard-working Manitobans by putting a vote tax on them, where we can get a quarter-million dollars a year for nothing other than letting them vote for us.
So what'll happen as a result of that, we'll send that loud, clear message to each and every Manitoban that, look, we as New Democrats changed our mind. We want to make sure that our message is loud and clear. We're saying we're sorry for that, and I would, again, like to see that bill brought forward this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and I know there's a number of others that really want to address this issue, and I look forward to this bill passing–this resolution, rather, and look forward to hearing what the government people have to say on that side.
I know the member from Selkirk's saying it should pass and I agree with him, and maybe that would be the right thing to do. So maybe he's the one that's going to be speaking on that side of the House, and since he is saying, pass, I will give him that opportunity, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): It is always interesting to watch Tories talk about the integrity of the electoral process and attempt a straight face. I've got a fairly hefty document here which is not in any way comprehensive. It just touches on some of the highlights, some of the dirt on their hands when it comes to very recent Manitoba elections, which I think all Manitobans need to keep in mind when they listen to this debate and make their decisions looking forward to the fall.
Before I get into that, though, on a less partisan note, I do want to extend, as I did in my comments earlier this session, my sincere thanks to everyone involved in making this amazing building run as smoothly as it does. You look around the world at other decision-making processes, I guess you could call them, and you do realize just how grateful and special this place is and the incredible responsibility that all of us have to continue with the progress in our province and to do what we all believe is best for our citizens. And, granted, those opinions are different, but we have a way of resolving those differences that certainly does not involve violence and entire groups of people disappearing. And that is always something to keep in mind.
* (11:20)
And, in particular, I would like to extend my thanks to my most honourable colleagues, the members for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) and Lord Roberts (Ms. McGifford) and St. Norbert (Ms. Brick) and St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski) and to you yourself, Mr. Speaker, as MLA for Point Douglas. It has been a true privilege to have you in our caucus and share many stories. I've gained so much wisdom and insight from all of you. You will be deeply missed. You probably won't be missing us quite as much when the email comes in saying, oh, we've got another late-night committee hearing and we need bodies to sit around the table, and you can tell us to go stuff it because you might not even have a BlackBerry anymore. That might be a wise move on your part.
But I do wish all of you the very best of luck in your retirement, a difficult decision, I am sure, to make, and one that I'm sure will suit all of you very, very well. And, in a similar tone, I also want to acknowledge and thank the members opposite for their years of service, all of them, I think, here predating me with, I guess, the exception of the member for Brandon West (Mr. Borotsik). But lots of history has been made in this Chamber by all the members present, those staying and those retiring, and we should all feel very proud of what you brought here. And to name them, of course, the members for Lac du Bonnet, Brandon West (Mr. Borotsik), Portage (Mr. Faurschou), Pembina (Mr. Dyck) and Russell (Mr. Derkach), and an honest thanks to each of you for what you have brought to our Chamber.
And the comments that I have here really are just–it's not anything new, Mr. Speaker; it is providing a reminder, some historical lessons of what our province has seen when it comes to elections financing. And I have a bit of a connection to this in that a book that was written about one of the more scandalous chapters in our province's history was written by one of my constituents, a gentleman by the name of Doug Smith who took the phrase from Judge Monnin, "as many liars," and made that the title of the book that he authored.
And I think it bears repeating, particularly for younger members, younger voters who may have been in grade school at the time that this was going on and understandably not able to follow the events at the Legislature. We should tell this story. So let's just review some of the facts.
In 1995, the provincial election was held. The provincial Conservatives, under Premier Filmon, were in office at the time. They had been for a term in office, and this was a regular provincial election, and allegations emerged afterwards that the Conservative Party had actually encouraged phony candidates to run in three specific constituencies in an attempt to split the vote so that the NDP candidate would lose and enable the Conservative candidate to win.
Started off, it was just allegations. You couldn't–you know, no one was able to prove things definitively, but then, as often happens, Mr. Speaker, more facts come to light, more people come forward and confirm the earlier rumours, and before too long we find out that, in fact, there had been an organized, conscious, deliberate effort to undermine the democratic process in our province.
The plan was, quite blatantly, Mr. Speaker, for those independent candidates to siphon away enough votes from NDP candidates. These were areas where the NDP had a good chance to win or had incumbents in place already, and the pressure, the political pressure, became so much that the Conservative government under Gary Filmon did finally cave to our party's demands and many other members of the public's demands to hold a public inquiry.
Now, this was all against the backdrop of the law at the time governing Elections Manitoba, which put a time limit on when criminal charges, if merited, could be filed. And that was just six months. So the public hearing did not happen in time for that. There was never a question, legally, of if there was any wrongdoing that was discovered and confirmed. There was never a question of whether criminal charges could be brought forward because the law wasn't strong enough to even allow that to happen. Nevertheless, they still resisted mightily at every step of the way to even have the public inquiry and only finally caved when the political pressure became far too powerful for them to ignore.
So Chief Justice Alfred Monnin looked into the allegations, and for the public record, Mr. Speaker, this is what Judge Monnin found in his independent public inquiry, that Conservatives Taras Sokolyk, Allan Aitken and Cubby Barrett had hatched the plot to induce Aboriginal candidate Darryl Sutherland to run in the Interlake in order to draw votes from the NDP candidate, the honourable member for the Interlake during the 1995 election.
Mr. Speaker, Judge Monnin found further that Gordon MacFarlane, the party accountant, the actual accountant, the person who's managing the money for the Conservative Party, the party accountant, Gordon MacFarlane, during the 1995 election broke the law when he deliberately filed a false election return.
Judge Monnin also found that, as I mentioned earlier, there was nothing that could be done legally because The Elections Act did not allow for any charges to be brought against any of these individuals just because a time limit had expired.
Judge Monnin further found that the Treasury Board Secretary, Julian Benson–this is near the top of the political power structure back in the Filmon era. The Treasury Board Secretary, Julian Benson, had helped cover up the scheme so that it wouldn't become public knowledge. He, subsequently, lost his position.
It was also discovered that a party fundraiser named Arni Thorsteinson, who was a member of the board of Manitoba Hydro at the time and was also a fundraiser for the party–his role in all of this was also exposed by Judge Monnin, and he ended up losing his position because he was, in fact, providing money to the phony Aboriginal candidate to run in these three constituencies.
This is appalling behaviour, Mr. Speaker, and even though it happened under the previous government– thankfully many years ago; we've had some years to restore some faith in democracy in this province–I can't imagine how anyone on that side of the Chamber can stand up and talk about election fairness with this type of a track record.
You want to talk about an apology that is owed to the First Nations and Aboriginal people of this province, that is owed to everyone in this province, let's start with that apology first, Mr. Speaker.
And Judge Monnin was not at all impressed with the people that he was forced to deal with. He was not at all impressed with the information that they refused to provide, and he provided some rather dramatic quotes when it came to the integrity of Conservatives and election fairness.
Let me just read off a couple from page 16 of his report, Mr. Speaker. He said: In all my years on the bench, I never encountered as many liars in one proceeding as I did during this inquiry.
It's not my words, Mr. Speaker. It's the words of a judge who looked into this, independently, in a public hearing.
He also added: It is disheartening, indeed, to realize that an oath to tell the truth means so little to some people.
On page 13, he said–
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and participate in debate on this very wise, very well thought out–and, indeed, reflects the attitude of Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since I've seen legislation that is so self-serving, and, indeed, I'm in the Chamber and part of this legislation pertains to myself as a member of the Legislature and a candidate through the past elections, but I believe that it is not right. I believe that this particular resolution speaks to why the legislation is not in keeping with Manitobans.
Why not look at other ways in which the Treasury of Manitoba could, indeed, make a difference to the next generation, for instance?
Mr. Speaker, why has this government not looked to supporting a revamped student loans program which I've raised with the honourable member from Swan River on many occasions as Finance portfolio.
* (11:30)
All persons looking to better themselves through education should qualify for a student loan, regardless of their background or affluence. I believe it is vitally important that persons that have made that conscious decision to better themselves through education should be availing to a student loan, a student loan that will not only cover the books and the tuition, but we all recognize we–the vastness of our province and the need to relocate in order to provide for certain higher ed opportunities. And that is why it is so important that we look at common-sense Manitoba–Manitobans and address what they believe is important to them.
Another suggestion, although the government again has proceeded in what is so synonymous and so in keeping with their game plan, and that is working in half measures. I speak specifically of the student loan–or student tax credit that came through a few years ago. But why not 100 per cent? Why only 60 per cent? That in itself shows that this government only wants to pay lip service to a particular problem or concern and only address it in a half measure.
The suggestion of a student tax credit came forward in the 1999 election, and it was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press by the–by reporter by the name of Nick Martin. He said that was the most innovative policy that the Filmon government had come up with in many a year, and, unfortunately, it took years and years and years to get that particular policy in place, and then it was only in a half measure with this government.
So why, instead of what we have on the books today and–that should be rescinded, but we look to aiding students once–upon graduation coming back to the province if they were forced to go elsewhere to get their education, but offering that carrot to come back and ply their new expertise and skills to making this province a better province and, in turn, building this province with their skills.
Why not, instead of supporting this, the allowance of pre-vote subsidy, do they–does the government not want to raise personal income tax exemption levels? Why? Why would anyone on social assistance, income assistance, here in the province of Manitoba be required to pay back to the provincial Treasury income tax? Far below the recognized poverty line. In fact, Mr. Speaker, no one working in this province and being under the personal income that's recognized by–as being in poverty should be paying income tax. This is atrocity.
I cannot believe that this government has not moved, as almost all other jurisdictions have, and raised the personal exemption. I can't believe the persons opposite can go to the doors in the upcoming election and effectively say that we do not believe that persons in poverty should not pay income tax, but that they should pay income tax. Individually, if I talk to members opposite, they will all agree. So why not collectively has this not been changed? [interjection] It is shameful. Indeed, it is shameful.
And further to that, Mr. Speaker, I know we pay a lot these days as a parent towards making certain that our children have activities that will broaden their horizons and provide skill sets for future involvement in sport and other activities. And yet, again this government is coming forward in half measures.
Why is it being restricted? Why is this government only looking at specific situations and not being totally inclusive? If a parent is expending money on a child and their activity and it's through a recognized organization, should it not qualify? Why do you need to be specific? Why not have it entirely open to all activities, not ones that are just decided on through legislation? It's, once again, an example of this government not seeing the whole picture, and coming forward with half measures.
Further to that, Mr. Speaker, we also as MLAs are exposed on a daily basis to charitable and not‑for-profit organizations in our own community and across this province that are–do indeed filling voids and providing services and goods to those less fortunate. Why are those groups and organizations not availing to the income tax credit system? Why not? Why not recognize a donation with a tax credit from government that that charitable and not‑for-profit organization is indeed providing a valuable service? There are many groups and organizations in Portage la Prairie which I donate to annually, and I cannot see why the government cannot recognize the importance of these charitable, not-for-profit organizations with a tax credit.
I know the tax credit that exists for political parties, and there are tax credits for other specific instances. However, I believe that if there is a charitable or not-for-profit status granted to a group organ or an organization that they, indeed, can qualify for tax credit at varying levels throughout the province. It not–may not be a specific carte blanche percentage but perhaps it could be a 25 per cent level, a 50 per cent level, a 15, a 10, whatever persons look to the organization and their extensive operations and how, indeed, they deliver goods or services to those that are in need.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler) for providing us with the opportunity to debate the finances of this current government and perhaps to look into the future, and some of the ideas that I put forward here this morning can, indeed, be acted upon because I do truly believe that they reflect the wishes of our constituents. Thank you.
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Minister of Conservation): Before I speak to the resolution at hand, I, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to express a word of appreciation to you for the job that you do in the Chair and wish you well in your retirement. In the course of nine parliaments and one legislature, I've had the opportunity to experience eight different Speakers, and I can say without reservation that the way you execute your office in this Chamber is certainly–would be on my short list of Speakers to admire and to recommend to future Speakers, that they look to how you have conducted yourself as a way to do the job properly.
And, of course, as you–as I'm sure you know, Mr. Speaker, I had some experience for a couple of years in the Chair myself in the House of Commons as the Deputy Speaker so I have some appreciation of how difficult it can be from time to time to keep order, particularly during question period. And I'm not sure, even though I might have thought at one time that keeping order amongst 57 would be easier than keeping order amongst 308, that that's actually true, that there is an intimacy to the chaos here during question period that sometimes might actually make it even more difficult than what obtains in the House of Commons.
* (11:40)
So, Mr. Speaker, the very best to you on your retirement and on your last day in the House here, barring unforeseen procedural difficulties.
I would also, of course, like to extend my best wishes to all the members who are retiring and who are–and for whom this is their last day, particularly members on this side of the House but, of course, also members on the other side of the House who are paying close attention to what I have to say. I hope for all those who are retiring that they have more luck at retiring from politics than I did, and my wife likes to say that I failed retirement, and I've pledged to get a higher mark some day. But–so for those who are ostensibly leaving political life, I hope that you succeed and–unless, of course, an opportunity presents itself that you can't resist.
So, having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it's somewhat–the resolution that we have before us is obviously frivolous. It's obviously political in the pejorative sense of the word. It doesn't reflect any sustained or deep analysis of how elections should be funded and the proper balance between public financing of elections and private financing of elections. It's just merely an attempt to exploit a couple of key buzzwords: tax, oh, this is a vote tax.
It's an attempt to bring into disrepute public financing of elections, which is something that I think was a great breakthrough in the 1970s. It was achieved, I believe, during the minority Parliament of 1972-74 when the NDP was–held the balance of power. And it was a breakthrough, Mr. Speaker, because what Canadians wanted to do then and what they did then and what has evolved since then is a number of ways to break the power of private money over the outcome of democratic decision making.
And what we see here today on the part of the Conservatives opposite–it would be a mistake to call them Progressive Conservatives any more. I don't know why they don't just change their name to reflect the name of the national party because whatever it was that was once progressive about the Conservatives on the other side–and I remember, you know, when they had a tinge of that–has long since departed. So they–what they are about here, Mr. Speaker, is trying to–I see I'm starting to get their attention, and that's good. You can always tell, you know, when you–you can always tell when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, if they start to yelp, you know you've hit something.
So now what they are about here is trying to discredit the ability of Canadians and, in this case, Manitobans by their vote. This isn't a tax. This is a grant to political parties based on how people vote. People will decide when they vote where that money will go. It's not something that's being imposed on Canadians. They can decide that their money should go to the NDP by voting NDP. They could decide that their money should go to the Conservatives by voting Conservative. They could decide that their money shouldn't go to anybody by not voting at all. So you've got a complete system of choice here, Mr. Speaker.
So what this is really about is an attempt on the part of members on the other side to discredit public finance, because they would like to go back. They would like to go back to the days when all they had to do was touch up their friends in the corporate community. They didn't have to raise any money. They're not being honest about this, because the Leader of the Conservative Party here has been challenged time and time again in this Chamber to say where he stands on whether or not he would keep the ban on union and corporate donations, and when he's asked that, time and again, by the Premier of this province and the leader of our party, a silence descends. A cloud of silence descends around the Leader of the Conservative Party because the real agenda here is to create an environment in which they can go back to corporate financing of the Conservative Party. That's what's really going on here, Mr. Speaker. And they don't want to admit that, but anybody who pays any close attention to what–not just to what they're saying, but to what they're not saying, will realize that that's what this is all about.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the other thing that's amusing about this is that $250,000 which, by the way, the New Democratic Party has never taken, $250,000 a year, because of the situation that's been created by members on the other side. It's interesting to see how many times they've spent that $250,000. I think, while I sat here this morning, they spent it about half a dozen times, and they spent it about a half–on a half a dozen other things in questions they've asked in the last little while.
That $250,000, I suppose, if you spend it often enough, on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, all the way down, it'll somehow make up for the $500 million that they want to take out of the Public Treasury, Mr. Speaker. So we get the member from Portage saying, you could spend that $250,000 on education, you could spend it on this, you could spend it on that, while, at the same time, you know, with his right hand–[interjection]–well, he only has got two right hands, he doesn't have a left hand–with his right hand, he wants to spend that $250,000 on some identifiable need, probably a justifiable need, but, with his other right hand, he wants to cut $500 million out of the provincial budget. I wish they'd make up their mind.
Is it $250,000 or is it $500 million that they want to cut from the provincial budget? It's $500 million. And it'd be a lot more than that. It's even–you know, they can hardly even talk about this and keep a straight face at the same time. You know, they spend that $250,000 over and over and over again, Mr. Speaker.
So, again, I see, Mr. Speaker, there's not that much time left. Time passes quickly when you're denouncing those who are worthy of denunciation. And, the fact of the matter is, is what this is about is returning to a time when money decided who would win elections in this country. That's not what Canadians are about. They would like to see more democracy, not less democracy. They would like to see an ability for them to choose how political parties will be funded, and they do that when they vote. And they–and this is the choice that the members opposite want to deny them.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are not ashamed to stand in the way of an agenda that wants to put money back at the centre of democracy. We are proud to say we're in favour of public financing; we always have been. We can debate the nature of public financing, but we're not going to have any truck or trade with people who want to go back to increasing and concentrating the power of private wealth when it comes to democracy instead of public choice.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Well, I want to put a few comments on the record today with regard to this resolution because–and I want to congratulate the member from Lakeside for bringing this resolution forward, because this resolution really speaks to Manitobans. It speaks about the fact that somebody has to stand up for the ordinary person in this province.
And, Mr. Speaker, I hear, oh my, oh my, and all of those kinds of comments from across the way, but it's always easy to reach into somebody else's pockets when they don't have any defences, and to pull money out of their pockets for your own agenda. And that's exactly what's happening here. The New Democratic Party has followed a process where they, in fact, don't want to go out and ask somebody for support. It's easier to simply put a bill through the House and impose a tax on ordinary Manitobans to support their habit, to support their party, to support their political causes. And not every Manitoban, in this country, believes in their philosophy. Not every Manitoban, in this province, believes in this party.
* (11:50)
And I know the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Blaikie) gets a little excited about this, but he has forever grown up on the public tit, so to speak, and continues to want to be there. And I can understand that, but I say to them, get out into the real world and get a real job and then–and then–you'll know what a dollar means.
And so that's where I'm going, you know, and I'm not ashamed of that. What I am ashamed of is that by one stroke of a pen in this Legislature we can bring a bill in–they are the ones who want to reach into the taxpayers' pocket, take out money without the taxpayers' consent, and say, now we're going to use it for our own political purposes. That's just simply wrong. That's no difference than highway robbery. You know, maybe it's more sophisticated, but the effect is the same. You're taking money from people that you don't have permission to take it from.
An Honourable Member: Yes, you do.
Mr. Derkach: And, oh, well, the member says, yes, you do. Well how do you have permission? Simply by using your majority in the House to pass the bill? Now that's not permission. You see that's called something like the tyranny of the majority here if you're going to do it that way, and, just because you have a majority doesn't mean that you are not obliged to listen to what Manitobans are saying about this. And Manitobans are offended by this. I have talked to my constituents. I have talked to my constituents and I know they're offended by this. And now we hear other things coming in. Well, I can tell you that we are talking about taking money out of people's pockets without their permission to run your own political agenda and to run your own advertising and to run your own political philosophies. Well, taxpayers' money should not be used for that. Taxpayers' money should be used for the good of all, and that's not what is being used in this case.
Mr. Speaker, I tell you that Manitobans not only are offended by this, but they object to this kind of approach. They object to this kind of high-handed, big government, Big Brother approach where you simply pass the legislation because you've got the majority and you force it through. And you force it through. We have seen this government act in undemocratic ways, and Manitobans are offended by that as well. But this is probably the most offensive thing that they can do to the taxpayer.
The vote tax is an undemocratic concept. What it's saying is that as a taxpayer I have to reach into my pocket and shell out money to support the New Democratic philosophy. I'm offended by that because I don't believe in that philosophy. And there are many, many Manitobans who don't believe in that philosophy and should not be forced, through a bill in this House, to pay for a philosophy they don't support. It goes against the principles of democracy, because in democracy you're supposed to have the freedom to be able to use your resources to speak out in favour of what you believe in, and here Manitobans are denied that by simply forcing their money to go to a cause that they don't believe in. And we will not accept the vote tax. Our party has made it very clear that we will refuse to accept it.
Mr. Speaker, after facing some pressure from our side of the House, the NDP didn't even have the gumption to take that tax in the last year, and that isn't there forever. They will not repeal the bill, and what it tells me is that they're waiting for that opportune time, that vulnerable time when they can put their fingers in the cookie jar and extract whatever they need out of there for their own political purposes, and that's simply wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I can't describe it in any other way. You know, the federal Conservative government recently announced plans to repeal the vote tax at the federal level. Why aren't we here in Manitoba following that example? Why aren't we going that direction? But you know what? The fact is that the NDP just don't want to get out there and raise any money. It's easier for them to go to, well, they could go to their union friends and now they can go to the taxpayer. What easier way is that–is there than that to raise the money that they need for their campaigns.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think there's a better way. I think that if you want to get elected, you should go out there and ask for the support, both financial and physical, for the people to come out and put signs up for you, for the people to go out and knock on doors for you, for the people to reach into their pockets and actually contribute to your campaign. That is what democracy is about. It's not about forcing people who don't support you to pay for your political causes.
And, so, Mr. Speaker, it's with that that I simply register my objection to the philosophy that the NDP have put forward in terms of thinking that it is their right. They have taken the position that it is their right to reach into taxpayers' pockets and use the taxpayer money for their benefit. They're not giving a taxpayer any choice. The taxpayer didn't have any choice in this legislation.
But, Mr. Speaker, I simply say that this is wrong, and I will continue to say that this is wrong for as long as I live. Thank you.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I listened very carefully to the comments of the member for Russell, and it seems to be that the member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler) is rubbing off on him too much. Maybe he'll look forward to his retirement to get away from that influence.
But I'd like to congratulate the members of this House, Mr. Speaker, that are retiring. The member for St. Norbert (Ms. Brick), the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), the member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski), the member for Lord Roberts (Ms. McGifford), the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), the member for Russell (Mr. Derkach), the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), the member for Portage La Prairie (Mr. Faurschou), Brandon West (Mr. Borotsik) and, of course, the member for Lac du Bonnet who has left this place already.
And I'd like to also, Mr. Speaker, recognize you, Sir, the Speaker of this Legislative Assembly and the member for Point Douglas, for the years of service that you have given to this Legislative Assembly and how very much we appreciate your guidance through all of these years.
And I want to talk a few moments, Mr. Speaker, about my experience with you over the years here, and I can remember the very early years when we were first elected coming to this building, and, of course, one of the first things you wanted to do with your new colleagues was take them to northern Manitoba to show them, as we flew over, some of those hot fishing spots that you would point out to us along the way to our different places in northern Manitoba and how proud you were to have played a role in the training program for Manitoba Hydro as we trained our young people in northern Manitoba and having them to participate in the development of our hydroelectric projects in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, you were always proud of the First Nations youth of the north and the role that you could play in helping to educate and train them.
Of course, in Churchill, which was your home, you took us many times to the rocket range, the Arctic trading posts and to the recreation centre in Churchill where you played hockey in your youth, and, of course, the few times that I've had the opportunity to play hockey with you, I quite note the times you would back-check all the way to centre ice and, of course, you would peel off at that point and wait for the pass from your defenceman for the puck coming back to you and, of course, the many breakaways you would have in those hockey games.
Mr. Speaker, you were an early supporter of the Port of Churchill and, of course, you showed us the home on the flats of Churchill and how meagre an early life that you had living on the flats of the Churchill and how proud you were of your family members as they tried to eke out a living in that part of the community and, of course, for the community of Rankin Inlet, which was also your home and the people of northern Canada, and, of course, your many memories of your family, including Brad and Terence and Jordin and all the other members of your family who you have mentioned many times to us in our time together over the years.
I'd like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the experiences that we have shared together during your years in this Legislative Assembly and, of course, as we travelled to northern Manitoba.
Now, considering that our time, Mr. Speaker, I know is very limited with respect to speaking about this private member's resolution that we have before us, the members of the Conservative Party here want very much to have the ability of the millionaires' club of the province of Manitoba deciding who will have the opportunity to run for election in this province. You want–the Conservative Party wants to have the millionaires of this province deciding who–
Mr. Speaker: Order. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Transcona will have six minutes remaining.
The hour now being 12 noon, we will recess and we will reconvene at 1:30 p.m.