LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, everyone. Please be seated.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Personal Care Homes and Long-Term Care–Steinbach
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
And these are the reasons for this petition:
The city of Steinbach is one of the fastest growing communities in Manitoba and one of the largest cities in the province.
This growth has resulted in pressure on a number of important services, including personal care homes and long-term care space in the city.
Many long-time residents of the city of Steinbach have been forced to live out their final years outside of Steinbach because of the shortage of personal care homes and long-term care facilities.
Individuals who have lived in, worked in, and contributed to the city of Steinbach their entire lives should not be forced to spend their final years in a place far from friends and from family.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Minister of Health ensure additional personal care homes and long-term care spaces are made available in the city of Steinbach on a priority basis.
Mr. Speaker, this is signed by D. Martin, H. Martin, B. Unger and thousands of other Manitobans who will be heard from in the fall.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they have been deemed to have been received by the House.
Access to Clean Water for Manitoba First Nations
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Many Manitobans living in First Nations communities do not have the same access to clean water as the majority of Manitobans.
Manitobans living in First Nations communities with poor sanitation experience poor health.
Lack of access to clean tap water will continue to increase health risks for Manitobans in First Nations communities.
Too little has been done in the last 12 years by the provincial government to ensure all First Nations communities in Manitoba have adequate water infrastructure.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Premier consider advocating and partnering with the federal government to ensure all First Nations communities have access to clean running water for all their homes.
To request the Premier to consider working closely with the federal government and First Nations communities to address and erase the massive water infrastructure gap that exists on many First Nations communities in Manitoba.
This is signed by V. Andres, M.K. Singh, D. Duhame and many, many others.
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Second Report.
Meetings
Your Committee met on the following occasions in the Legislative Building:
· December 22, 2004 (3rd Session – 38th Legislature)
· May 2, 2006 (4th Session – 38th Legislature)
· July 10, 2008 (2nd Session – 39th Legislature)
· May 25, 2009 (3rd Session – 39th Legislature)
· March 10, 2010 (4th Session – 39th Legislature)
· May 20, 2010 (4th Session – 39th Legislature)
· June 13, 2012
Matters under Consideration
· Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2003 including the conduct of the 38th Provincial General Election June 3, 2003
· Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2007 including the conduct of the 39th Provincial General Election May 22, 2007
· Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2008
· Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2009
· Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2010 including the conduct of the Concordia by-election March 2, 2010
Committee Membership
Committee membership for the December 22, 2004 meeting:
· Hon. Mr. Ashton
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Hon. Mr. Doer
· Mr. Cummings
· Mr. Dewar
· Ms. Irvin-Ross (Vice-Chairperson)
· Ms. Korzeniowski (Chairperson)
· Mr. Loewen
· Mr. Murray
· Mr. Penner
· Mr. Schellenberg
Substitution made during committee proceedings on December 22, 2004:
· Hon. Mr. Mackintosh for Mr. Schellenberg
Committee membership for the May 2, 2006 meeting:
· Mr. Derkach
· Mr. Dewar
· Hon. Mr. Doer
· Mr. Hawranik
· Hon. Mr. Lemieux
· Hon. Mr. Mackintosh
· Mr. Martindale
· Mrs. Mitchelson
· Mr. Reid (Chairperson)
· Mr. Rocan
· Mr. Schellenberg (Vice-Chairperson)
Committee membership for the July 10, 2008 meeting:
· Hon. Mr. Ashton
· Ms. Brick (Chairperson)
· Mr. Dewar
· Hon. Mr. Doer
· Mr. Goertzen
· Mr. Hawranik
· Ms. Howard (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. McFadyen
· Hon. Ms. McGifford
· Hon. Mr. Swan
· Mrs. Taillieu
Substitution made during committee proceedings on July 10, 2008:
· Mr. Faurschou for Mr. McFadyen
Committee membership for the May 25, 2009 meeting:
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Mr. Derkach
· Mr. Dewar
· Hon. Mr. Doer
· Mr. Faurschou
· Mr. Goertzen
· Ms. Howard (Chairperson)
· Mr. Nevakshonoff (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mrs. Taillieu
· Hon. Mr. Swan
· Hon. Ms. Wowchuk
Substitution made during committee proceedings on May 25, 2009:
· Mr. Maguire for Mr. Faurschou
Committee membership for the March 10, 2010 meeting:
· Hon. Mr. Blaikie
· Ms. Brick (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Derkach
· Mr. Eichler
· Mr. Goertzen
· Hon. Ms. Howard
· Mr. McFadyen
· Mr. Reid (Chairperson)
· Hon. Mr. Selinger
· Hon. Mr. Struthers
· Hon. Mr. Swan
Committee membership for the May 20, 2010 meeting:
· Mr. Altemeyer (Chairperson)
· Hon. Mr. Blaikie
· Ms. Brick (Vice-Chairperson)
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Mr. Eichler
· Mr. Goertzen
· Hon. Ms. Irvin-Ross
· Mr. McFadyen
· Mr. Pedersen
· Hon. Mr. Selinger
· Hon. Mr. Struthers
Committee membership for the June 13, 2012 meeting:
· Mr. Dewar
· Mr. Ewasko
· Mr. Gaudreau
· Mr. Goertzen
· Hon. Ms. Howard
· Mr. Marcelino
· Mr. McFadyen
· Mr. Nevakshonoff
· Mr. Schuler
· Hon. Mr. Selinger
· Hon. Mr. Swan
Your Committee elected Mr. Nevakshonoff as the Chairperson.
Your Committee elected Mr. Gaudreau as the Vice-Chairperson.
Officials speaking on the record at the December 22, 2004 meeting:
· Mr. Richard D. Balasko, Chief Electoral Officer
Officials speaking on the record at the May 2, 2006 meeting:
· Mr. Richard D. Balasko, Chief Electoral Officer
Officials speaking on the record at the July 10, 2008 meeting:
· Mr. Richard D. Balasko, Chief Electoral Officer
Officials speaking on the record at the May 25, 2009 meeting:
· Mr. Richard D. Balasko, Chief Electoral Officer
Officials speaking on the record at the March 10, 2010 meeting:
· Mr. Richard D. Balasko, Chief Electoral Officer
Officials speaking on the record at the May 20, 2010 meeting:
· Ms. Shipra Verma, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer
Officials speaking on the record at the June 13, 2012 meeting:
· Ms. Shipra Verma, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer
Reports Considered and Passed
Your Committee considered and passed the following report as presented:
· Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2007 including the conduct of the 39th Provincial General Election May 22, 2007
Reports Considered but not Passed
Your Committee considered the following reports but did not pass them:
· Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2003 including the conduct of the 38th Provincial General Election June 3, 2003
· Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2008
· Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2009
· Annual Report of Elections Manitoba for the year ending December 31, 2010 including the conduct of the Concordia by-election March 2, 2010
Mr. Nevakshonoff: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Gaudreau), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Immigration and Multiculturalism): I'm tabling an errata sheet to replace page 31 of the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, 2012-2013 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Immigration and Multiculturalism, to correct a typo under pension liability.
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to table a 2011 annual report from Manitoba Public Insurance.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today from the Salvation Army Wayne Bungay, Tiffany Marshall, Wendi Park and Samuel Tim.
On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon.
And also seated in the public gallery, from Nellie McClung Collegiate we have 30 grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Grant Caldwell. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Midland (Mr. Pedersen).
And also in the public gallery, from Melita School we have 22 grade 6 students under the direction of Ms. Leanne Bugg. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire).
On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here today.
Accountability
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Thank you. [interjection] Be careful what you ask for.
Mr. Speaker, the band Green Day performs a song called "Boulevard of Broken Dreams," and if they were to write a song about this session, it would have to be called the session of broken promises, or, alternatively, the session of broken laws.
This is a government that in this session broke their promise to Manitoba families on taxes, broke their promise to seniors, broke their promise to farmers, broke their promise to flood victims, broke the rules on the civil service regarding political activities, and broke the law with respect to government announcements.
Mr. Speaker, with all of these breaches of their commitments to Manitobans, how can anybody trust anything they have to say?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): One thing I agree with the Leader of the Opposition is this session has seen many serious breakthroughs, Mr. Speaker: 900 more child-care spaces, free cancer care drugs for patients who are in their homes having cancer, more QuickCare clinics for the first time in the history of the province, and taking concrete steps to expand training so that every Manitoban can have access to a doctor over the next five years, and reducing class sizes for children in schools between the ages of K to 3.
And many more to come as we go through question period.
Mr. McFadyen: I want to thank the Premier for the latest list of yet-to-be-broken promises, Mr. Speaker, coming from this government.
If we look at the gap between what the government says and what they do, Mr. Speaker, it's very clear. Before the election, they said no tax increases; after the election, taxes went up. Before the election, they were ahead of schedule on the deficit; after the election, they're behind schedule on the deficit. Before the election, they're going to protect health care; after the election, they're cutting personal care home budgets. Before the election, it's promises to seniors, farmers, and flood victims; after the election, it's broken promises to seniors, farmers, and flood victims.
Mr. Speaker, this is a government that, even in the introduction of its budget implementation bill, has added yet another hidden tax increase on the people of Manitoba. In addition to what was announced in the budget, the government, in its recently tabled BITSA bill, has also expanded taxes not just on group insurance policies but on individual insurance policies for disability, for critical illness, and for accidental death and disability. None of this was disclosed in the budget. It's now come through in sneaky expansions under the BITSA bill.
Again, how can anybody trust anything they have to say?
Mr. Selinger: I thank the member for the question.
Some of the promises that we've kept in this session, Mr. Speaker, among the many–among the many: capping tuition fees in legislation, changing Manitoba's Human Rights Code to protect people based on social disadvantage and people with respect to gender identity.
And with respect to the tax code, I can announce today that after very fruitful discussions by the Minister of Finance and his officials with the insurance industry, there will be an amendment this afternoon that will exclude individual insurance for disability, critical illness, or accidental death and dismemberment with respect to the application of the PST.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, it's unbelievable that the government only responds when they get caught on something. The bill was brought in without regard to what was actually contained within the budget in an obvious attempt to grab more taxes from hard-working Manitobans, and only when the matter goes into the media does the government retreat at the last moment, and we look forward to their support for the amendment that we are going to bring forward this afternoon on that bill.
* (13:40)
But with all of that said, Mr. Speaker, again, the Premier was very clear in the election: no tax increases, and then he increased them. He said he would eliminate property taxes for seniors and farmers, and they haven't delivered. He said that they would be fair to flood victims; those flood victims are yet to receive the justice that they deserve. This is the government that broke the rules with respect to the use of the civil service and broke the law with respect to the abuse of election laws.
Mr. Speaker, with this track record, again I ask the Premier: How can any Manitoban have faith in this NDP government?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, another promise that we made that has been delivered on in this House–I look forward to the members voting on it–is we guaranteed that there would be in Manitoba the lowest rates for home heating, electricity, and auto insurance over the next four years. That bundle of services would be in the lowest in the country over the next four years, and you know what? That's exactly what we've done. We've taken care of business.
And, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the flood, the member knows full well that the 'namount' that has been disbursed by this government, over $850 million–$850 million–has gone out to protect Manitobans, to compensate Manitobans, 100 percent funding. No support from members of the Conservative Party with respect to the Lake Dauphin Emergency Flood Protection Program or the Lake Manitoba flood assistance for cottages or the Greenfeed Assistance Program for producers or the Shoal lakes agriculture flooding assistance program.
None of those programs have been supported by the member opposite. The Leader of the Opposition knows that, and I only wish he would put it on the record and let everybody know that that's the decision they made.
Accountability
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): We all know that the NDP government broke their election promise to Manitobans not to raise taxes when they introduced a $184-million tax hike in the budget. Their record of saying one thing and doing another speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker.
And now there was an attempt to, also in the budget, in the BITSA bill, to include something that wasn't in the original budget in the way of insurance products. The fact of the matter is, had they properly consulted the industry in the first place, they would never have had to make that amendment, Mr. Speaker. So shame on them for not properly consulting the industry.
But, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the NDP government, a promise made is a promise broken. Will they just admit that this is the direction of their government?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): That's quite something, Mr. Speaker. You know, I wish that the member for Tuxedo would've taken me up on my offer to brief her on the BITSA bill that she's now so misguided on. If she had taken us up on that briefing, we could've explained about the negotiations that have been going on with the insurance industry from the–at least from the time we brought the budget forward, if not before that.
Mr. Speaker, we've had some very productive discussions as members of the insurance industry. We have talked about a whole list of pieces of advice that they've given to us. We have accepted many of the proposals that they've brought forward. We've reasoned with them on many proposals. I thought the latest one that they brought forward this morning to us made sense, so we've agreed to that. The BITSA–the amendment in the BISTA bill will reflect that.
Government Plan
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, had they properly consulted the insurance industry in the first place, they wouldn't have had to have this happen.
The problem here is that the NDP only changes things when they get caught, and that is an extremely unfortunate way to govern this province. There have been numerous tax increases when members opposite had promised not to increase taxes to hard‑working Manitobas and families.
Mr. Speaker, the figures of this government, of $184 million where they increased the taxes, $114 million in fee hikes–the list goes on and on, doubling the debt, and so on. These figures represent the record of the NDP government that they–yet they claim to be on track to balance the budget by 2014‑15.
How do they plan to achieve that? Another record tax increase? Tripling the debt? Or will they simply just break their promise again?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): Well, Mr. Speaker, the member for Tuxedo is just wrong, and if she had come and met with us and been briefed on the issue, she'd understand how wrong she is on this. We've had some very productive meetings with representatives of the–not just the Canadian insurance groups, but here in Manitoba as well. They made some proposals that I thought made good sense, so we listened to them and we're moving on that. They made suggestions to us on the retroactivity of the bill. We listened to them on that as well. That was weeks ago.
Mr. Speaker, it's very clear that we will come back into balance in 2014. We'll do that by–as well as protecting health care and education and infrastructure and all those things that Manitoba families really do value. We'll do that, and we'll do it in a balanced way, unlike members opposite who right here in this Legislature proposed the motion–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Minister's time is expired.
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, the NDP will break their election promises. They will politicize the bureaucracy. They will even break the law. The short–in short, they will stop at nothing to push their hidden political agenda forward.
Will they just admit that their real agenda to balance the budget is by imposing future record tax and fee hikes on Manitobans? Or is it their plan, again, Mr. Speaker, to simply just break that promise?
Mr. Struthers: Mr. Speaker, it's awfully funny to hear somebody talk about something that's hidden when it was introduced in this Legislature on April 17th, debated for eight or nine days after, we had a hundred hours of Estimates, we had I don't know how many hours of concurrence. We're awfully poor at hiding it if members really look at this.
Mr. Speaker, very clearly, we have said to the people of Manitoba that we're going to come back into balance and we're going to do it in a balanced way. We're not going to hack and slash as we see from members opposite, the same party that came in here with a resolution taking out $500 million all in one swoop. And then on the eve of the election–was it 11 o'clock at night the night before the election was called, was it that close to the 11th hour?–you changed your position to get votes from Manitobans, and now you come in here talking to us–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
The honourable member for Morris has the floor.
Request for Independent Investigation
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration and Multiculturalism has stooped to a no–new low by politicizing the civil service.
She had her ADM–or he did it on his own, both of which are particularly unsatisfactory, Mr. Speaker–send emails to the civil servants to have them come to the Legislature to attend her own political rally. She even then had them forward those emails to their contact lists. This just gives a black eye to democracy in this province.
Will the Premier (Mr. Selinger) call an independent investigation into this debacle by this Minister of Immigration? Otherwise, how can we trust anything this government does, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Immigration and Multiculturalism): Well, talk about a new low, Mr. Speaker, when members opposite–including the member from Agassiz, who represents HyLife; the member from Brandon West, who represents Maple Leaf; the member from Morden-Winkler, who represents newcomers–talk about the new low when they all stood in this House and voted no against the Manitoba model, voted no against settlement services, the most successful model in Canada.
Did they stand up for Manitoba? They all stood down.
Mrs. Taillieu: That minister stood down for Phoenix Sinclair, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we know from a freedom of information request that this minister was forced to provide to us that emails from her ADM, Mr. Ben Rempel, went wide and deep through the civil service. They even revealed that former NDP political staffer Colin Lemoine, who is now a bureaucrat doing political work for the NDP, he was involved. It also reveals that Rachel Morgan from the Premier's own Cabinet Communications office was getting involved in this.
When will this Premier (Mr. Selinger) call an independent investigation and get to the bottom of just how bad it is in the civil servant under this government? Otherwise, we can never trust this government, Mr. Speaker.
* (13:50)
Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, you can trust this government to welcome discussion on issues that are very important to the province of Manitoba.
The economy of this province is directly tied to the more than 100,000 newcomers who have arrived since 1999, over 25,000 of whom have gone into the communities that a lot of members opposite purport to represent. You can trust this government to welcome in people who want to see democracy in action. You can trust this government to talk with Manitobans all over the province. I'm talking to people all over the province, Mr. Speaker.
The real problem here is the member from Morris doesn't want anybody to talk to anybody else about anything of importance in this province, Mr. Speaker. That's what she's really upset about.
Mrs. Taillieu: The only thing that we can trust this government to do is raise taxes when they said they wouldn't and break the law, Mr. Speaker, the laws they put in place themselves.
Again, the issue here is that this minister has politicized the civil service, Mr. Speaker, and these people are supposed to serve all Manitobans, not the NDP party. What we need is an independent investigation into just how far and into how many departments this has gone, because it's very obvious it went pretty wide and pretty deep into the civil service.
So I'm going to ask this Premier: Will he call an independent investigation? Does he support democracy, Mr. Speaker, or does he support the politicization of the civil service? We can't trust them for anything.
Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, this side of the House supports immigration. This side of the House supports new people coming to Manitoba from 140 countries.
And we put our money where our mouth is, which is why we put $7.8 million into Immigration and Multiculturalism this year. My colleague the Minister of Education (Ms. Allan), $11.1 million for EAL for school-age learners through education and literacy. My other colleague here, $1.2 million through Employment Manitoba, $1 million for the PNP business settlement service. Not only do we support people coming, we provide the services that means they'll stay: over 84 per cent rate of retention, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank my colleagues for the partnership. We still want to bring in six–we still want to bring in 20,000 people by 2016. We're going to work hard to do that. Members–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member for Charleswood, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have 14 adult English language students from Winnipeg Technical College under the direction of Ms. Vivian Schultz. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Minto, the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan).
On behalf of honourable members, we welcome you here today.
Government Record
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, this NDP government likes to make a lot of promises. Sadly, they turn their backs on Manitobans after they get their headline.
Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Health especially likes her photo op, even if she has to break the law to get it. She talks about accountability, then she sneaks out of the back door so she doesn't have to face a grieving family.
So, Mr. Speaker, why should Manitobans believe anything that this Minister of Health promises when she breaks her promises, makes so many excuses, and turns her back on grieving families?
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Well, that was cheerful.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the people of Manitoba that when we commit to them that we are going to bring nurses to the province of Manitoba, we'll do it. In fact–[interjection] Yes. For every single nurse that the Tories fired during the 1990s, we've hired three back.
And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, when we tell the people of Manitoba that we're going to bring more doctors to Manitoba, even in an uncertain economic time, we're not going to cut the spaces in medical school like they did. We're going to increase them to record levels.
And finally, even when those times are challenging, we're not going to freeze all health capital spending, Mr. Speaker. We're going to build, renovate or renew over a hundred facilities, like we've done since 1999.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to listen carefully to the questions, because she's breaking so many promises. She promised to fix ambulance off-load delays; she failed, and today the problem is worse. She promised to fix the ER waits; instead, we've got 22,000 patients left the ERs last year without being seen because they were frustrated by the long waits. She promised to eliminate scheduled appointments in ERs; eight years later, the problem is worse.
So I'd like to ask this Minister of Health: After she gets her photo op, why does she feel she can go and break her promises then?
Ms. Oswald: On emergency medical services, in addition to replacing the entire fleet of ambulances and adding new, we have the largest full-time complement of paramedics in Manitoba's history.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have brought uninterrupted ambulance helicopter service to Manitoba. When they came for the flood in 2011, we contracted with them so that they would stay and transform and save the lives of over a hundred people. Members opposite are pretty silent on the fact that they would've tendered and let people languish and have interrupted service. I asked her directly; she refuses to answer, but I think we all know the answer.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of long-term care, we are providing more personal care home beds, more home care. We're not going to try and privatize it like they did.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health doesn't seem to want to answer questions related to patient care in Manitoba. Instead, she's off on her usual rhetoric.
This Minister of Health promised health care for families when they need it. Instead, Heather Brennan and Frances MacKay were pushed out of an ER, still sick, without a diagnosis, only to die shortly thereafter. That's why this kind of spin is so offensive from this minister.
Fourteen hundred elderly patients right now are being forced to wait for personal care home beds. The Minister of Health promised to slash administrative spending in RHAs while at the same time allowing them to skyrocket under her watch.
So I'd like to ask this Minister of Health: Why should people believe her anymore when she says one thing and does something totally different?
Ms. Oswald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that they should have confidence in us because of the facts.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just suggested that scheduled visits are going up. In actual fact, according to the data, scheduled visits in ERs are down 20 per cent.
The member opposite suggests that administrative spending in Manitoba is going up. In actual fact, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information–an independent body, not my opinion–Manitoba's hospital administration rates are trending down when they're going up across the nation and, indeed, are among the lowest in the nation.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to put patient safety first. We're not going to sweep medical errors under the rug, as happened during the pediatric cardiac inquest during the 1990s. We even tried, in legislation, critical incident reviews. We're going to follow those to continue to make our system better, not keep them secret like members opposite.
Mr. Speaker: I'd like to ask the honourable members if you would, please, just co-operate a little bit to keep the level down in the Chamber. I'm having difficulty hearing the questions and the responses to the questions. I'm sure you'd want me to rule if there was a breach of the rules.
Accountability
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I'll do my best to keep it down, Mr. Speaker. I always try to.
If there's one thing that we've learned this session, Mr. Speaker, is that the NDP feel that they're above the law. When an NDP Cabinet minister breaks the law, the Premier (Mr. Selinger) says there's going to be no consequences. And I'm sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that Premier himself is still under investigation by the elections commissioner. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that he doesn't think there should be consequences for breaking an election law.
And then earlier this week, just to confirm it, the NDP voted against the resolution that stated that NDP Cabinet ministers shouldn't be above the law, Mr. Speaker. They voted against that resolution.
Will the Attorney General just admit today that when it comes to laws in Manitoba, there are laws that apply to all Manitobans and then there's special laws that apply to the NDP?
* (14:00)
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister of Family Services and Labour): The member opposite made reference to a vote earlier this week on a resolution. It's important to remember the wording of that resolution. The wording of the resolution only referred to the Premier and Cabinet ministers. It didn't refer to members opposite, Mr. Speaker. It clearly didn't say that all members should be held to the same standard, and we've seen very clearly this session that they don't hold themselves to the same standard.
Members on this side of the House, when asked, disclosed all of the tickets that they had received to Jets games from private businesses. We have yet to know if any member over there went to any Jets game, invited by a private business and paid for by a private business.
They have refused to disclose that, that they hold themselves to a different standard, Mr. Speaker. It was clear on that–a lower standard was clear in that resolution, and that's why we opposed it.
Reduction Strategy
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, we also learned this session that the Attorney General simply doesn't know his portfolio.
You know, we asked him about using a section 810 on the Criminal Code to monitor high-risk sex offenders. It took him two days and help from Ottawa to realize that he could actually do that. We asked him about pornography being shown in Manitoba jails. It took him a week to figure that out.
Well, I know he's busy, Mr. Speaker. Of course, he's the NDP champion of free taxpayer funded Jets tickets. So he's been spending lots of time being entertained.
I wonder whether or not he'll indicate whether he'll spend less time being entertained on the taxpayers' dime and more time trying to figure out ways to reduce crime in Manitoba.
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): If the member for Steinbach stays in his seat for a couple more hours in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, he'll see us passing The Missing Persons Act, requested by the police to help them bring back people who go missing. Cutting-edge, first-of-its-kind legislation in Canada–I hope he sticks around and votes in support of that.
You know, later on today we'll be passing more measures to take on drunk drivers in Manitoba. MADD has again recognized Manitoba for leadership on that issue. I hope the member opposite is going to stick around and support that.
And, as well, police and first responders wanted us to take steps to go after individuals who break the law and who put the public and first responders at risk. Manitoba is the first province in the country to bring in innovative legislation to protect our first responders. I hope the member opposite is going to stick around and support that too, because we're doing a lot of things in this province as we continue to lead the way in improving public safety and coming up with new ideas, innovative ideas, to protect Manitobans.
I hope the member for Steinbach joins us for once, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Goertzen: You know, Mr. Speaker, I know it's difficult for the Attorney General to keep track of everything that's going on in the province from the front row of the MTS Centre, but, you know, he's been dropping the ball on a number of things.
We asked him how many gangs were already listed on the evidence act this session; he said, well, there's not even one. We asked him how that four-year review is coming for electronic monitoring; he says it's still not done. We wondered when the investigation unit in the police act would be set up; he says he's got no idea. When it comes to downtown crime, he has no solutions how to fix it. Stabbings are going up; murders are going up; violent crime is going up.
I just want to know whether or not the minister is going to get out of the front row of the MTS Centre and get into the front of the line in fixing crime in this province.
Mr. Swan: Well, in just a few more hours, Mr. Speaker, we'll be putting the final–the finishing touches on all the budgetary measures in this province. And I expect the member for Steinbach will stand up, as he has done every year he's been in this Legislature, and he'll vote against more police officers for the city of Winnipeg, for Brandon, for the RCMP, across Manitoba. The member for Steinbach has never voted in support of a police officer in his life.
And, Mr. Speaker, in just a few more hours, the member for Steinbach, he can get up and he can vote against more Crown attorneys, the lawyers who work every day to make sure there's appropriate penalties for those who break the law. Every year our government has supported Crown attorneys by adding more Crown attorneys, more staff. And the member for Steinbach and the rest of the gang that can't shoot straight will be up voting against those measures to make this a safer province. And, of course, the member opposite will be voting against more court clerks. He'll be voting against more efficiencies in the court system.
So the member from Steinbach should take a look in the mirror and really ask himself, who is on the side of safety in this province? It's us.
Need for New High School
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): I'm very proud of the fact that while the member for Minto (Mr. Swan) is at the front row at the MTS Centre, the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) churns out idea after idea, bill after bill, in order to improve public safety in the province of Manitoba. The member for Minto gets back from the Jets game, puts the copy and paste into the photocopier and then passes it off as a government bill. Kudos to the member for Steinbach for getting the ball rolling, Mr. Speaker. On another–and when the member for Steinbach retires from politics, I'll have more to say about him as well.
But on the issue of–a completely separate issue, Mr. Speaker, I want to move from that segue to ask the government and comment on the fact that, for years, families and children throughout southwest Winnipeg have been waiting patiently for the government to keep its promise on a new high school for the betterment of the education system throughout southwest Winnipeg. For many of my constituents, on a daily basis they have to travel all over Winnipeg in order to attend high school. For years the government has made the promise; for years the government has broken the promise.
When are they going to actually follow through and keep their commitment to the families of southwest Winnipeg?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member from Fort Whyte because he's paying attention to his constituents.
And he will know that over $300 million has been invested in public schools in this province over the last decade, a record investment in public schools in this province, Mr. Speaker. And has he ever supported that that capital investment? No, he has not. We'll invite him back for all the school openings we do as we go forward over the next four years.
And where there's a demonstrated demand, those schools will be built, as they will be in every single budget as we go forward. We're the government that put additional money into education this year consistent with economic growth. We're the government that put 5 per cent into universities. We're the government that's put a record investment in school facilities all across Manitoba, and we continue to do that as we move Manitoba forward.
Mr. McFadyen: The Premier says, where there's a demonstrated demand. The fact is for six years they have been committed to the reality that southwest Winnipeg needs a new high school. They've already acknowledged that there's a demonstrated demand and, in fact, the words they've been using is that, it's not a matter of if, but when. So the demand is there. They've said it's not a matter of if, but when.
So the question, again, to the government, Mr. Speaker, is: When is when?
Mr. Selinger: That's a very profound question, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know if I can plumb the depth of that conundrum right now.
But I will say this, that we will continue to work with that school division to meet the needs of their students out there. We know there's record people moving to Manitoba; we only wish the members opposite would support the program that’s brought them here. We know there's a record growth in the economy in Manitoba; we only wish the members opposite would support our economic growth strategy. We know there's a record number of young people coming to Manitoba, going to schools, getting support for English as an additional language; we only wish the members opposite would support that. And when we invest in schools, we only wish the members opposite would support that as well.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, let me just put some facts on the record.
It was a provincial Conservative government that brought in the Provincial Nominee Program. It was the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) that was the pioneer on the Provincial Nominee Program. It was a provincial government that brought it in. It's a federal Conservative government that's going to protect it and expand it, because their government–because the NDP government dropped the ball; they cut services to settlement, and a federal Conservative government is going to pick up on where the provincial Conservatives left off. That's a good thing for immigrants and it's a good thing for Manitoba. And so we acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that the population is growing because of these great Conservative initiatives.
When's the NDP going to keep their promise and get that high school built, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Selinger: Well, Mr. Speaker, since 1999, $737 million invested in public schools capital in this project: new schools, rehabilitated schools, green schools, better systems all over the province of Manitoba.
And as the member full well knows, when we have growing communities, which we will have in the future, we will look for their support on the immigration program which has become the best model in Canada, and they're walking away from it as we speak. They may have been instrumental in getting it started, but they've done a terrific job in ignoring supporting it over the last 10 years.
* (14:10)
We will support the program, and that program will involve investments in public schools so that newcomers' families, newcomers' children have good facilities to go to. They will have apt opportunities to get English as an additional language supports in those schools. We will train teachers for those schools; we will train teacher's aides for those schools.
We will do things that help young people succeed in Manitoba. We just wish the members opposite would support us when we do that.
Index Rates
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I've made the plight and the rights of Manitoba children under this NDP government the focus of this spring session.
NDP policies have created situations of pure misery for thousands of children, and yet this Premier refuses to admit his role in province-wide, NDP-controlled poverty. He refuses to raise welfare rates and index them for inflation. They've stayed virtually the same for 12 years. The number of children using food banks has gone up by 500 per cent in 10 years.
The Premier refuses to regulate astronomical northern food costs, yet children without nutritious food are at risk of apprehension by his child and family services system under the new NDP's structured risk assessment scale.
I ask the Premier: When will he index welfare rates so that parents can buy food for their children?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): I do appreciate the question from the member for River Heights, because he will know that we have the Northern Healthy Foods program for the first time in the history of this province. There were simply a handful of community gardens in northern Manitoba a decade ago; we have over 900 now. We have a program to assist people in buying fridges and freezers in northern Manitoba. We have greenhouse programs for the first time in the history of the province in northern Manitoba. We think there are things that you can do to ensure food security all around this province.
There's a very important program that we are partnering with the Winnipeg Foundation on; it's called Nourishing Potential. It's a $5-million permanent fund to do food security projects all across this project–all across this province. Over 120 projects have been initiated this year. We were one of the lead funders of that program, which will provide a permanent resource for food security in Manitoba.
I look forward to further questions for the member from River Heights.
Request for Resignation
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, on the prompting of Grand Chief Morris Swan Shannacappo, I urged the Premier and his Minister of Family Services (Ms. Howard) to ask for the resignation of Children's Advocate Darlene MacDonald, who stated that the Phoenix Sinclair inquiry is a waste of government dollars. Both the Premier and the Minister of Family Services have said they won't.
In my member's statement yesterday, I asked the NDP to make section 4 reviews under Child and Family Services Act public, as they look at the problems in the child welfare system and the reasons for the deaths of children in care.
I ask the Premier: Will he ask now for the Children's Advocate's resignation and will he make section 4 reviews public so that children and youth endangered under this NDP's CFS system finally receive the care that they deserve?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, again, the member knows that the Children's Advocate is an appointee of all members of the Legislature, including the Leader of the Liberal Party. This person was supported by all members of the Legislature. She is accountable to all members of the Legislature. She is supposed to be in a role where she speaks without fear or favour with respect to recommendations that improve the well-being of children in Manitoba.
She has made it very clear, on the public record, that the public has a right to know what went on in the situation that the member refers to today. That is her commitment to seeing public disclosure in a full public inquiry with respect to this tragic case, and that we support, Mr. Speaker. We support the inquiry; we're funding it; we look forward to the findings of it, because we believe those findings will help all of us do a better job raising children in Manitoba.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, under this NDP government, 1,400 homes in Manitoba are without running water. I've urged the Premier on many occasions to take the lead as Bob Rae did in Ontario and retrofit these homes.
NDP's policies make a child who lives with no running water at much greater risks of apprehension under Child and Family Services, thanks to the new risk assessment scale called Structured Decision Making model that CFS must now utilize. Thanks to the NDP's massive role in child poverty in this province, children from loving families are taken from–by CFS to live hundreds of miles away from their homes and their communities.
I ask the Premier: When will he put significant dollar amounts on the table to secure these retrofit agreements with the federal government and the First Nations leadership to provide running water to people in Manitoba–everyone in Manitoba?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): And we–I've–I appreciate this question, again, from the member from River Heights. We've discussed this before.
In our budget, we have resources to train northern people in the communities directly affected to have the trades and the skills necessary to do the retrofits on the houses. We're also investing a record amount in an east-side road which will bring goods and services to those communities at a lower cost than we've ever seen before. We also are working with the Frontiers Foundation, which has some technologies which will allow more cost-effective approach to providing sewer and water in these homes.
We will do our share with respect to these First Nations communities in northern Manitoba. The member knows that. The member has to recall that when he was a federal Member of Parliament, he did nothing with respect to those communities up there. We will do things for those communities, not only with respect to healthy foods, not only with respect to clean water, not only with respect to sewage, but also with respect to housing. Our hydro programs, right now as we speak, are in those communities, helping people save money on energy in the homes that they live in, Mr. Speaker.
Class-Size Cap
Mr. Clarence Pettersen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, being a teacher for 33 years, there's one thing I know for sure, and that is that this government, the NDP government, has stood up for education in Manitoba.
Today we have another important announcement. We know that success in life depends on having the access to quality education early in life.
Will the Minister of Education please inform the House about today's exciting announcement that our government is moving forward with its commitment to reduce class size in kindergarten to grade 3?
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Education): As everyone knows, during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, we promised to reduce class sizes here in the province of Manitoba, from kindergarten to grade 3.
Today I was at a school in Seven Oaks and I had the honour and the privilege of announcing with my education partners that we are going to start reducing class sizes in this province in September. Every school division will receive funding and they will put that funding towards professional development, to teachers, to pedagogical issues that will help our youngest learners get a good foundation in life.
This will complement the excellent work that was done by the oversight committee in regards to a new report card that'll also help us, Mr. Speaker, in regards to the excellent public education system that we have here in the province of Manitoba.
And we know it's in stark contrast to what went on in the '90s.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Time for oral questions has expired.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): On behalf of members of the PC caucus, our staff, the PC Party board and its members, it's a pleasure to say a few words of tribute to the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. McFadyen), the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, since becoming the Leader of the PC Party in April of 2006, the member for Fort Whyte has had the opportunity to travel our province and to meet thousands of Manitobans. Those that have spoken with him personally will have appreciated his sincerity, his depth of understanding of the issues that affect Manitoba and his willingness to stand up for what's right for Manitoba, and for Manitobans.
Over the past five years we, as his colleagues, have seen his willingness to identify issues and to take a clear stand on them. He stood up for all Manitobans who saw the routing of new bipole line as a bad decision. He stood up against the vote tax, Mr. Speaker, and he won that fight. And he reminded us today that he's always stood up for his own constituents, demonstrated by his quest for that high school in Fort Whyte, probably to be aptly named Hugh McFadyen High School in the future.
Mr. Speaker, the demands of modern-day leadership in a political party are many. We, as caucus members, his caucus members, and staff, often marvel at our leader's ability to meet each of those demands with grace and with good humour. He demonstrated in this House a good sense to know when to fight, to know when to join with government in a cause and to know when to put aside our partisan differences that often come between us as individual members.
* (14:20)
All members of this House have seen the wit that he has demonstrated in what can be a pretty combative environment at times. As his seatmate for the past number of years, I've heard much of went on–what went on the record and, thankfully, much of what did not go on the record, Mr. Speaker. But all along he demonstrated that he took the job seriously, as Manitobans, of course, demand, while not letting it consume the sense of perspective that each of us need in this job.
As a leader he has helped to bring our party back to a strong financial position and helped us to attract many new voters and many new supporters. And while those of us on this side of the House will regret that his many fine leadership qualities were not able to be brought to the position of premier, the fact is that of all the things we leave this Chamber with, titles are among the least valuable. If we achieve the respect of our constituents, respect of our colleagues and the respect of those who we fought to make a difference for, we have achieved the best that this job has to offer. And I say without hesitation or reservation, Mr. Speaker, the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. McFadyen) has achieved each of these in spades.
On behalf of our caucus, our staff, our party and its members, and I would dare say on behalf of all members of this House and the staff of the Assembly, we thank you, along with Jen, James and Rachael, for the sacrifice that you have made to Manitoba in your capacity of Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, and as friends we say, God speed and good fortune in the days ahead.
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I rise, as well, to pay tribute to the Leader of the Official Opposition, the member from Fort Whyte.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words. We have not always agreed on everything that goes on in this House, but one thing we do agree on, we love this province and we want to see it prosper, which is exactly how it should be. When the time has come to put aside partisan differences, the Leader of the Opposition has been up to the task. During last year's floods when waters were rising and we saw the imminent risk to Manitobans, the Leader of the Opposition was always willing to put forth the concerns and issues of those affected. He knew that was not the time or place for politics, and I commend him for this.
I recall his speech at the apology to residential school advisors–survivors. He talked about the importance of growing up in a family that insisted on understanding the great injustice of the residential school system, and that was a message that he carried to this House. He spoke movingly about the need to vindicate the optimism of Dr. Martin Luther King. Similarly, I know that many of my colleagues on this side of the House have expressed admiration for the Leader of the Opposition's grace after the passing of our dear friend and colleague, Oscar Lathlin. It was a moment for healing, and he captured it perfectly.
In 2009 the Leader of the Opposition paid tribute to my predecessor. In that speech he said: I think every opposition leader learns something from the premier they're up against. That's–this is true, but it is equally true that every premier learns something from the opposition leader they are up against every day.
I have learned a lot from this Leader of the Opposition. He is a formidable debater who has kept those of us on this side of the House, and particularly me, on my toes. He has a wicked sense of humour. I know that after today I will be a little less worried about what one-liner or preamble he'll come up with next, and a lot less worried about what happens at the press gallery parties.
We all know the public life is never easy, particularly with a young family. I know that the Leader of the Opposition will continue to contribute to public debate and life in this province and to his community. And as he forges his life forward, whether it's in public or private activities, he will make a contribution to this province. And I know that he will always, always move forward as he goes forward with future challenges.
So on behalf of all the members on this side of the House, I wish him and his family the very best as he transitions from the role he's in now and takes on new and exciting challenges for his future.
Point of Order
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I don't have a member's statement, but I rise on a point of order just to recognize the contributions of Hugh McFadyen over the last–I guess I should say, the Leader of the Opposition–being correct here–I want to pay a tribute to the Leader of the Opposition and to recognize his contributions in this House, where we have worked together and sometimes where we have differed.
But, certainly, he has been a very formidable presence and force in the Legislature, and he is forever coming up with humorous and new ideas, and I think that that contribution has been important and important in terms of the workings of this House.
Many people who are, you know, in the public don't see what happens behind the scenes and what can happen in terms of making things work better, not just in the House, but for people all over Manitoba. So I want to thank and pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition today.
Mr. Speaker: I regret having to do this on the point of order raised by the honourable member for River Heights, but I must rule that there is no point of order, but I appreciate his sentiments to the House.
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): I want to begin by thanking the Premier (Mr. Selinger), the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) and the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) for their comments. They really are deeply appreciated and comments that I will take with me with great appreciation.
I also would just like to say to the Premier that you have chosen to step up into a role of leadership within your party and in our province in a very challenging time–great uncertainty throughout the world for political leaders of all political stripes–and I commend you for doing that. It's a–the post-2008 world is a challenging world, and you're in a position of being forced to make hard choices. There are many debates that will take place over that choice. There'll be agreement and disagreement with some of those choices, which is as it should be in a democracy. But I do want to say that I respect you for standing up and showing leadership through these very challenging times.
And we all, as the Premier said, share a love for the province. We all want to see our children and grandchildren grow up here. And for all of those reasons, we–notwithstanding the politics of what we engage in–we want you to be successful and certainly wish you strength and wisdom as you confront the challenges in the weeks and months ahead.
Certainly, you won't be exempt from comment and criticism along the way; that's the nature of a democratic society, and certainly, our caucus will continue to provide that in an effective way. But know that it's done in a way that is intended to move our province forward, not in a way that's designed to diminish you or your colleagues or anybody else who's made the great sacrifices that they do make to lead the province.
I just want to just add one quick caution and caveat here: I have announced that I'm leading–leaving as leader. There are further discussions to take place in terms of what I do with the seat, so I just don't want anybody to be caught off guard if I show up here again at some point. And I suspect I'll have a more panoramic view from the next seat, but in any event, as the member for Steinbach would say, there's no bad seat in this House and we are, all 57 of us, greatly privileged to be members of this Chamber. But that is a decision that will be made in consultation with my successor in due course.
* (14:30)
I want to just say that it is and has been an incredible privilege for me to lead this great party over the past six years, the party of Duff Roblin, the party whose ideas and principles are grounded in notions of human liberty that go back to the Magna Carta. And it's a party of great accomplishments throughout its history, a party that respects the traditions of our democracy, puts paramountcy on the issues of human liberty and the respect for differences between different human beings, and always adapts and pursues pragmatic approaches to new and emerging challenges.
To have the opportunity over the past, just over six years to come to this great building every day to work and to lead this great party has been just an incredible honour. I've enjoyed it immensely and it's been a source of much happiness. And I'll tell you that as I–when that time comes for me to pack up and depart, it will be a sad day and one that will be filled, I'm sure, with many different emotions.
I do leave knowing that we have a strong party. We have a great history and we also have many, many great days and months in the years ahead, and so that's a source of satisfaction and something that I am extremely optimistic about in terms of the party's future.
I couldn't have performed the role that I've been in without the support of many, many people. There are too many names to cover, but I do want to mention a selection of those people who have helped and supported me to do the job. And all of us know in this Chamber that we can't do our jobs without the support of family, friends, and co-workers. But I want to just start with my family, Jen, Rachael, and James. My kids were three and one when I started. They're now 10 and seven and growing up into wonderful, interesting people with all of their own opinions. Jen has been nothing short of remarkable.
Many people don't know this, but Jen is a direct descendent of one of the founders of the CCF, the predecessor to the NDP. Her great-grandfather was a fellow by the name of Charles Gordon, who wrote novels under the pen name, Ralph Connor. He was the first moderator of the United Church and very active in the establishment of the CCF in the day. And so it causes you to view your adversaries in a slightly different way when you are married to a descendent of one of the founders of the NDP and when the children–when your children are direct descendants of an early pioneer in the CCF movement here in this province.
And I had the occasion a few years ago to share that story with Jack Layton in Ottawa. He was particularly delighted by it as the son of a Tory politician. And so it's a–this is a–the nature of the job is one where you have lots of opportunity for those sorts of conversations and they're the sorts of moments that just make this such a wonderful vocation.
I also want to thank my mom and my dad who have been just an inspiration to me. I think that you're–with the recent passing of my father, it's a reminder of how much we make choices that are designed to make our parents proud and to honour the values and the lessons that they've instilled in us. And my parents, certainly, have provided–set both high standards, but also correspondingly provided unconditional support and love along the way. My brothers, Ian and Scott, my sister-in-law Mary Beth, and my entire extended family, aunts, uncles, and cousins, all of whom have supported me in various ways over the years.
I also just want to go through and identify some of the other individuals who have helped out along the way. Jonathan Scarth was the first person to sign on to my leadership campaign, what seems like an eternity ago, and many others have come along and helped out in a whole bunch of different ways. So I want to thank Jonathan. I want to thank Jonathan Lyon, my tremendous chief of staff, who bears slight resemblance to his father–some of you may have noticed–for his passion for politics and his knowledge of the party. Greg Burch, Janinne Petrie, Barb Craven, Jennifer Davidson and the rest of our–Rochelle Squires and the rest of our great staff here at the Legislature and at our party headquarters at 23 Canada. You've been just a wonderful group of people to work with.
I want to thank some of the outstanding volunteers that we've had in the party as well: David Filmon at the PC Manitoba Fund; Ken Lee, our CFO; Mike Richards; Jennifer Zyla; George and Verna Froese; and my team in Fort Whyte; and, particularly, Brian Leon, who have been just unbelievable as volunteers. And we're all so grateful to–for the efforts of the volunteers who make it possible to do our jobs.
I want to thank the staff of this Assembly. I'm always impressed by the professionalism of the staff here, and I think we're all rightfully proud of the fact that many of them are acknowledged nationally as leaders in terms of their work in supporting the activities of our Legislative Assembly in Manitoba. And I also want to thank the very many outstanding and dedicated civil servants and workers within our Crown corporations across the province, who do outstanding work on behalf of our province and its people.
I've had the great privilege, over the time I've been in this job, to meet Manitobans from all walks of life. I've had the chance to meet with recent immigrants in all corners of the province, First Nations people who are doing incredible things to build their communities and to support one another, and many, many other people across the board who are doing incredible things without, necessarily, need for support from government, just because they're dedicated to their families and their communities.
I've been amazed at the–those involved in agriculture that I've met over the years, the innovative approaches they take to protecting the environment and ensuring sustainable practices and high-quality food production, and the very many other people in the public sector and small businesses who provide inspiration to me and to all of us.
I've been very fortunate in this job and within this party to receive the encouragement and support of former leaders of our party and ministers, and I want to thank those who have made–been very generous with their time and their advice, including the late Duff Roblin, the late Sterling Lyon, Gary Filmon, Stuart Murray, Eric Stefanson, Jim Downey and others, who have been very good to me and to members of our caucus in providing support and advice along the way.
And I've also been grateful for generous comment and encouragement from other people engaged in politics outside of the province, and I want to mention just a few of them today, who have taken the time to pick up the phone and offer encouragement and advice along the way, including Alison Redford, Preston Manning, Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper, Tim Hudak, Brad Wall, Jean Charest, Jamie Baillie and Jim Prentice, all of whom have been kind enough to extend their good wishes and support of various, really important points along the way.
I want to just offer a particular thank you to Senator Terry Stratton. Senator Stratton took me under his wing in 1988 as a young member of the party, gave me the chance to get involved in a fairly significant role in the 1988 federal campaign. And it was really because of that experience and his ongoing support and mentorship over the years that I've been able to continue to play a significant role in this party. Terry is the closest thing to a political father than I have, and I want to just acknowledge Senator Stratton for his ongoing, wise advice and support.
Finally, I want to just thank my colleagues, past and present, who have been a tremendous group of people to work with. I have been proud to serve with all of you; I've appreciated the friendship, as we discussed earlier today, in caucus. We sometimes don't put enough value on the importance of the official opposition within the–within our system of government, and I believe that our–my colleagues have done a tremendous job in working to ensure good government for the people of our province.
And now, just before I get to my final closing statements, I should just tell you I took a look at my Winnipeg Sun horoscope this morning, something I don't normally do, but I did this morning. It contains a few comments which may or may not be helpful, but for a Gemini, it says, take on a challenge that will help a cause and enhance your reputation, which I thought was a helpful bit of advice. The second point was, idleness will lead to an argument. Always good to bear in mind as you're moving out of a position of responsibility. And the final point, which was a little bit bothersome, actually, was, free up cash by selling off an asset you no longer need or use. Now, I'm not quite sure how I'm supposed to interpret that last point, but I trust that it's not a cryptic reference to selling off Manitoba Hydro. That'll be the last time I read my horoscope for a while, Mr. Speaker, but not the last time I read The Sun, I want you to know.
* (14:40)
But, finally, I just want to say to all 56 of my colleagues in this House, including you, Mr. Speaker, regardless of party, I've really grown to know and appreciate all of you in different ways. In this job you get unique opportunities to get to know each other in context, outside of question period. And those opportunities have given me a much greater appreciation for the decency and the humanity of each and every one of you. Get to know a little bit about your families, and the experiences you had growing up, and your hopes for the future, and that's been tremendously enriching for me.
I have a particularly fond memory of a 10-hour flight from Toronto to Tel Aviv with the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). We took turns napping on one another's shoulders on the flight over.
An Honourable Member: Oh, that's nice.
Mr. McFadyen: I know. I–and I know–we had agreed that what happens in Tel Aviv stays in Tel Aviv, but I–but it's opportunities like this that give us a chance to know one another, and appreciate one another for who we are. And there are lots of other great memories and stories of our time together over the years.
I've got a special place in my heart for anybody who enters the arena of politics. It is a privilege, of course, but it also brings with it relentless criticism and pressures that most members of the public and many members of the media can never fully understand.
I think Teddy Roosevelt expressed it better than I could. And there's a famous passage from a speech that he gave in Paris just over a hundred years ago that I look at every now and then on the tougher days, and I would encourage other members of the House to make reference to it on those dark and difficult days. Everybody who spends time in politics will know both victory and defeat, and will have good days and bad days, and on those difficult days, I think it's been helpful to me, and I recommend to others that you take the opportunity to read what Teddy Roosevelt said in Paris 112 years ago.
And it's this passage well known to many, but I think it's worth repeating. He said at that time: It's not the critic who counts, not the person who points out how the strong person stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the person who's actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, who comes short again and again. Because there's no effort without error and shortcoming. But who does actually strive to do the deeds, who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends him or herself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who, at the worst, if he or she fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his or her place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Thank you very much. [applause]
Mr. Speaker: Honourable Minister of Education, on a member's statement.
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in St. Vital we are lucky to have many strong, dedicated community organizations where people come together to learn, support, and take care of each other. The Salvation Army does good work all over the world and their St. Vital location has been an invaluable resource for many years. Now they are opening a new facility that is even better equipped to provide a wide array of services.
The highly anticipated Barbara Mitchell Family Resource Centre was made possible through a partnership between the provincial and federal governments and the Salvation Army. It features a large gymnasium, well-equipped kitchen, television and video game lounge, as well as classroom space and a computer lab.
Construction began in June, 2010, and the official grand opening will be held on July 30th. A local philanthropist has also made a nearby section of land available to the Salvation Army for development as a green space.
The new resource centre will empower local families and help them overcome barriers to education and employment. In particularly–in particular the centre offers a range of transition services and training to new immigrants including the Life and Employability Enhancement Program.
Co-ordinators provide training and mentorship to youth from war-affected countries helping young people improve their language skills and prepare for job interviews. Students are then matched to a two-week internship at a local business which can lead to long-term employment.
The centre's other programs include Kids Club, Family Foundations, Families 'R' Us, Teen Night and the Community Corner Coffee Time. All of these initiatives are helping local families build the confidence, connection and skills they need to succeed, to thrive and to participate fully in the economy in the province of Manitoba.
I'd like to thank staff and volunteers from the Salvation Army, and particularly those at the new Barbara Mitchell Family Resource Centre, who work hard to support families and strengthen our communities.
Thank you.
Mr. Ron Schuler (St. Paul): Rainbow Stage is North America's longest running outdoor theatre located in Kildonan Park, Winnipeg. It's a non-profit organization that is proudly supported by adoring patrons, a wide range of local businesses, The Winnipeg Foundation and Crown corporations. A team of committed volunteers helps out with fundraising, staffing and running the summer events, and I believe the organization has become a staple in the Winnipeg arts and culture community.
Fifty-eight years ago, Rainbow Stage was developed with the vision to make available facilities for the purpose of contributing to the dramatic, musical and artistic standards of Winnipeg, to provide further opportunities for the development and expansion of local talent, and to provide an additional summer attraction of interest to visitors. I am proud to say the Rainbow Stage project has achieved their goal of offering Manitobans a community where performers of all ages and abilities can participate and develop their talents and appreciation for musical theatre, and I believe the project has been a great success for culture and the arts in Winnipeg. It is my honour to rise today in recognition of Rainbow Stage and the performing arts in Winnipeg.
This summer, from August 9th to 31st, 2012, Rainbow Stage will be showcasing their 130th musical production, Annie. In fact, this year's director, Donna Fletcher, began her career at Rainbow Stage as an orphan in Annie, and this year Ms. Fletcher will be making her directing debut. Special thanks to choreographer Kimberley Rampersad, and I'd like to introduce this year's cast: Aaron Hutton, Debbie Maslowsky, Donnalynn Grills, Erik Markewich, Gerrit Theule, Jillian Willems, Kevin Klassen, Melanie Whyte, Paula Potosky, Rob Herriot, Samantha hill, Stephanie Sousa, Sabrina Boge, Sophie Janzen, Cassandra Consiglio, Madison Lacombe, Genessa Ruffeski, Isabella Consiglio, Joel Taylor, Kelsey Lacombe, Kevin Aichele, Jaden Dahl-Sokalski, Anton Dahl-Sokalski, Steven Ratzlaff, Tim Gledhill, Tom Soares, Zoe Adam, Meaghan Moloney, Shannon Ward, Raegen McGinnis, Danika Burdeniuk, Noah Luis and Noah Staerk.
And I'm pleased to announce a very special debut to Rainbow Stage from their proud father, the MLA for St. Paul: This year's newest orphans are Corina and Brigitta Schuler.
I encourage all Manitobans to support the arts and support local theatre, support local talent, volunteer your time or resources if you can, and visit Rainbow Stage this summer in Winnipeg.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Deanne Crothers (St. James): On June 14th, the St. James Assiniboia 55+ Centre is celebrating its 20th anniversary, and this non-profit organization encourages seniors to improve their quality of life by providing educational, recreational, health and social opportunities.
Since they first opened, the centre has worked to meet the needs of the growing 55+ population. They've become a second home to many men and women living in St. James, in Assiniboia and the surrounding communities. More than 850 members can access affordable programs and services at the 55+ centre. Many of them are retired, but they are just as busy now as they were during their professional careers.
The centre offers dance and cooking classes as well as a number of volunteer opportunities, and last year 200 centre volunteers gave 8,000 hours of their time to worthwhile initiatives. That is far from all. The 55+ centre also provides a variety of health and education services. These range from reflexology and massage treatment to stroke recovery and Parkinson's support groups. These groups give participants a chance to talk about their day-to-day challenges and learn from health professionals. Other education programs cover topics like the disability tax credit, housing options, wills and estimates, income tax and home security. If the centre doesn't provide a service, staff can tell members where to find it through a number of community referral networks.
* (14:50)
The 55+ Centre receives some government funding, but the majority of costs are covered through their creative fundraising efforts. In the past, they published a calendar featuring photos of members, and staff are currently promoting the Tree of Life giving campaign.
I look forward to attending tonight's celebration of the St. James Assiniboia 55+ Centre at the Viscount Gort Hotel with the members from Assiniboia and Kirkfield Park. I would like to congratulate the centre's current executive director, Bryan Metcalfe, as well as staff, board members and volunteers. Thank you for the time and effort you dedicate to strengthening our community. The centre helps people stay healthy and happy, which has a ripple effect that benefits all of us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the honourable Government House Leader, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members that, since there is some possibility that we may be adjourning today, I encourage all honourable members to remove the contents of their desk here in the Chamber. I also encourage members to use the recycling as much–for as much of the material as possible and advise that the blue bins that we have on either side of the Chamber here are designated for recycling of our Hansard, and any other materials that you would like to recycle may be placed in the large recycling containers in the message rooms located just outside the Chamber itself.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(Continued)
House Business
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): On House business, as per the agreement tabled earlier this week between House leaders and the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), I'm asking for leave to not see the clock at 5 today until the Chamber has completed consideration of the main and capital process, including consideration of The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, The Loan Act, and The Appropriation Act, all report stage amendments on today's Order Paper have been disposed of, and all private members' public and private bills and government bills reported from committee have completed third reading and royal assent.
Mr. Speaker: Under orders of the day, is there leave of the House not to see the clock at 5 o'clock today until the Chamber has completed consideration of the main and capital process, including consideration of The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, The Loan Act, and The Appropriation Act, all report stage amendments on today's Order Paper have been disposed of, and all private members' public and private bills and government bills reported from committee have been completed third reading and royal assent? Is there leave? [Agreed]
Ms. Howard: Yes, on further House business, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to announce the following meetings for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts:
July 5th, 2012, at 5 p.m. to consider the Auditor General's Report–Annual Report to the Legislature, dated January 2012, Chapter 5–Personal Injury Protection Plan: Manitoba Public Insurance. Witnesses to be called: the Minister of Justice and Marilyn McLaren, the CEO of MPI.
August 23rd, 2012, at 2 p.m. to consider the Auditor General's Report–Report to the Legislative Assembly–Audits of Government Operations–November 2009, Chapter 4–Members' Allowances; Auditor General's Report–Follow-Up of Previously Issued Recommendations, dated January 2012, Section 15–Members' Allowances Program; Auditor General's Report–Annual Report to the Legislature, dated January 2012, Chapter 2–Appointment Process to Agencies, Boards and Commissions. Witnesses to be called: Minister and Deputy Minister of Housing and Community Development.
And September 12th, 2012, at 2 p.m. to consider the Auditor General's Report–Annual Report to the Legislature, dated January 2012, Chapter 8–Wireless Network Security: Winnipeg Regional Health Authority and Manitoba eHealth; Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. Witnesses to be called: the Minister and Deputy Minister of Health; Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation; and Winston Hodgins, CEO of Manitoba Lotteries Corporation.
Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that–the following meetings for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts:
July 5th, 2012, at 5 p.m. to consider the Auditor General's Report–Annual Report to the Legislature, dated January 2012, Chapter 5–Personal Injury Protection Plan: Manitoba Public Insurance. Witnesses to be called are the Minister of Justice and Marilyn McLaren, the CEO of MPI.
August 23rd, 2012, at 2 p.m. to consider the Auditor General's Report–Report to the Legislative Assembly–Audits of Government Operations–November 2009, Chapter 4–Members' Allowances; Auditor General's Report–Follow-Up of Previously Issued Recommendations, dated January 2012: Section 15, Members Allowances Program; Auditor General's Report, Annual Report to the Legislature, dated January 2012, Chapter 2: Appointment Process to Agencies, Boards and Commissions. Witnesses to be called include the Minister and Deputy Minister of Housing and Community Development.
And September 12th, 2012, at 2 p.m., to consider the Auditor General's Report–Annual Report to the Legislature, dated January 2012: Chapter 8, Wireless Network Security; Winnipeg Regional Health Authority and Manitoba eHealth; Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. Witnesses to be called include the Minister and Deputy Minister of Health, the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation and Winston Hodgins, the CEO of MLC.
Ms. Howard: Would you resolve us into Committee of Supply to continue the concurrence process.
Mr. Speaker: We'll now resolve into the Committee of Supply.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you please take the Chair.
Mr. Chairperson (Tom Nevakshonoff): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order to resume consideration of the concurrence motion.
The committee has before it for consideration the motion concurring in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013.
On June the 13th, the Official Opposition House Leader (Mrs. Taillieu) tabled the following list of ministers of the Crown who may be called for questioning in debate on the concurrence motion: the honourable Minister of Local Government (Mr. Lemieux); the honourable Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines (Mr. Chomiak); in addition, the honourable Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation (Mr. Ashton) was also held over from yesterday's list to answer questions today.
Floor is now open for questions.
* (15:00)
Mr. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye): I would like to ask the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation some questions pertaining to the municipalities that were former local government districts.
Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation has now cancelled the main market road and 50-50 road programs in the 2012-2013 budget. The government has indicated that funding will be made available this fiscal year through the Department of Local Government in the form of grants for the affected rural municipalities.
Can the minister indicate whether this funding will be carried over into subsequent years, or is the government's plan to eliminate support altogether to the RMs for main market and 50-50 roads?
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation): Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have indicated that there is a–has been a transfer to Local Government. We feel this reflects the nature of the funding and, obviously, as the member knows, without going to the details of background of this program, this funding goes directly to the municipalities. And certainly our intention here was to continue the program, but in this case under the auspices of Local Government. And that program continues and, as the member's aware, funding will be available this year through Local Government and that is basically the decision that's been announced, that it will be responsible to Local Government from this point on in.
Mr. Smook: The condition of some main market roads have been deteriorating in rural municipality for years now because maintenance has not been done as it should have been.
Can the minister indicate whether he has any intention of bringing main market roads up to the standards before releasing them to rural municipalities?
Mr. Ashton: Yes, I'm not sure I accept the premise of the question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I can indicate that one thing we are looking at–and this is a reflection of what is the case with some of those roads–is the degree to which some of them actually should really be in the provincial highway system and that is a review that is ongoing. Of course, that's a reflection of the–that many of these roads which may have initially continued to be municipal roads have had significantly increased traffic flows. Some of them serve surrounding communities, First Nations communities. So we are considering bringing some of them under the auspices of the provincial highway network. And I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know first-hand some of the potential roads we're looking at.
Mr. Cliff Cullen (Spruce Woods): Mr. Chair, another question for the minister.
Going back to the flood of last year, and I'd indicated I'd sent a letter to the minister back in December, and it has to do with some diking that was done on Provincial Road 110, the eastern access in Brandon, and in that letter I was requesting some information relative to the diking and some of the information around that. And my understanding is that that review of those figures were done in terms of water levels. I think the department has undertaken those, and I just wondered if the minister would endeavour to provide me with the results of that–those surveys that were done at the time.
Mr. Ashton: Yes.
Mr. Cullen: Perfect. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
In addition, going back to the flood again last year, and I know there's quite a number of provincial bridges that are either damaged or in some cases completely wiped out, and my understanding would be that a lot of those structures will be–there will be disaster financial assistance available through the federal government.
Does the minister have a list or could provide a list to me which of those structures are on the list for federal disaster financial assistance and which bridge will–bridges will be repaired and any bridges that will be replaced?
Mr. Ashton: In a general sense I can indicate that the FA does apply to return a road or bridge back to its original state. But we do have a number of bridges that we are rebuilding that were either severely damaged or destroyed in the flood which will be built to a higher standard to reflect, you know, the fact that when the bridges were first built it was a very different situation in the area. And, certainly, for example, southwest Manitoba, now, with developing the oil industry, a lot of the growth in traffic, et cetera. So you will get bridges which will have some eligibility for DFA funding and some additional capital funding.
I think the member is probably aware of some of the major bridges, certainly, in his region that have been impacted, but I can certainly undertake to get a list of the bridges. But there are currently 80 of them. In fact, there may be even more. Had a report for a couple weeks, but I can certainly get an indication of that.
Not all of them have a requirement for major repairs. You know, there's scouring; there's, you know, some issues in some cases with foundation erosion in around the area, but it ranges, really, from relatively minor damage all the way through to some of the bridges the member is quite aware of which were either significant damaged or destroyed.
So there's, you know, really, in the terms of DFA funding, it really depends. And I can indicate, by the way, in terms that the overall funding from the capital budget, we're anticipating about $50 million this year and $50 million next year flood-related, not of all–not all of which will be recoverable from DFA.
Mr. Cullen: I appreciate that response from the minister. And I'm certainly interested in the bridge that did exist previously on the Souris River on Provincial Road 530 and there's also a bridge adjacent to Wawanesa that's closed at this point in time, so if the minister could include the status for those two in particular, I'd appreciate it, and any other information he could provide me on those bridges I would also appreciate.
Just quickly, we did have a conversation in Estimates about the sandpoint water systems, and I know we're getting some feedback from a number of the insurance companies that the minister said did offer coverage previously. I think there's maybe some misunderstanding in terms of the interpretation of those–of that initial–original survey that the Province committed.
So I'm just wondering if there's going to be an opportunity for EMO to have a second look at those particular situations or if the minister has discussed it with EMO.
Mr. Ashton: As I indicated, the key issue is whether it's an insurable or a non-insurable loss. Certainly, the indication was that it was an insurable loss, in the sense that there were insurance companies providing that coverage.
I do appreciate the member having raised this. I know from his previous background he has some knowledge of this issue. Certainly, any information that's brought forward to EMO is something that would be looked at.
I can indicate the key issue with this is there's 100 per cent provincial liability if we proceed with anything that is not coverable under DFA. So we have our own accountability, which is the, you know, to the guidelines of the DFA. There certainly is the appeal mechanism available as well.
But I certainly appreciate the fact that the member has been following up in terms of information, and I know EMO will certainly look at it.
Mr. Cullen: I do–I appreciate the minister's comments on that. I will follow up with letters just to confirm our discussion, and I look forward to getting that information. So thank you very much.
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I want to ask the minister, as well, just a quick question on the Coulter bridge, the situation on the Souris River and where they are at with that at the present time.
Mr. Ashton: Obviously, there's the two dimensions. One is the longer term bridge. We're on track to get that built on an expedited basis. Work is being done as we speak.
I haven't received an update on the issue of temporary access, really, that's any different from what the member is aware of in the previous meeting. And one of the things I will be expecting probably by next week is a further update on the situation.
So we continue to be aware of the concerns in the communities about access. We are rebuilding the bridge, but I will get an update on the specifics on any temporary connection that could be made available.
Mr. Maguire: Could the minister tell me if they've applied for the environmental permits yet?
Mr. Ashton: Yes, I'm expecting an update on it next week, so I'll be in a better position to provide that information to the member at that time.
Mr. Smook: Did I hear the minister right when he mentioned that some of the main market roads should be turned into PR roads? It was a little difficult to hear in here if that's what he had said.
* (15:10)
Mr. Ashton: Yes, we are looking at a number of the roads that are currently main market roads that do meet what would normally be considered, you know, the requirements that we have to put into the provincial highway system and we are looking at that. So what I want to stress is the program continues in Local Government, but there may be an opportunity for at least some of those roads to be picked up by the provincial system. Yes, so the answer's yes.
Mr. Smook: Would the minister be able to provide me with a list of some of these roads that they're considering changing?
Mr. Ashton: Well, what we know is we're reviewing the entire network that's there and I don't want to give any false hope that all of these would be picked up by the provincial system. Obviously, we have a significant capital budget, but we do have to make budgetary decisions. So it's going to be based on criteria. The key principle here is we're looking at roads and we are looking at bringing some of them onto the provincial system because, quite frankly, they really resemble our provincial highway network much more in terms of the kind of traffic and, you know, the importance in the region than they would in terms of municipal roads.
So we don't have a finalized list yet, but when there is a finalized list I will certainly make it available to the member and, first of all, make that information available to municipalities. It's under the municipalities. I mean, arguing for quite some time. I think that's one of their major concerns and it varies by different municipality. Some municipalities have, you know, have greater concerns than others in this area, so we're looking at it very seriously. Should have a decision made this fiscal year on potentially bringing some of them into the provincial system.
Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): My questions are directed at the Minister for Local Government. The Minister for Local Government brought forward Bill 20 which is going to third reading this afternoon, and in the briefing that I received there was indication that there'd been full consultation done with the Winnipeg Airports Authority. I wonder if he could expand a little bit on that consultation process.
Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Local Government): I just received–like I heard part of the question. I'm sorry, there's members speaking. So I didn't catch the beginning of it, but I understand it's with regard to the CentrePort and the airport authority. Sorry. If the member could repeat the question, please, sorry.
Mr. Chairperson: If members of the House could keep the conversations down a little bit, we're having difficulty hearing.
Mr. Briese: The question is: Would the minister expand a little bit on the consultation process he used with the Winnipeg Airports Authority?
Mr. Lemieux: We, of course, have a very, very good working relationship with Barry Rempel and the Winnipeg Airports Authority and, of course, Mr. Mauro and others on the board, and have a great deal of respect for them and their opinions and their suggestions that they may give.
And I know, as the lead minister at the time, when CentrePort was just in its infancy and we were just beginning we certainly wanted to make sure that the airport authority had a seat at the–on the board, CentrePort board, to ensure that we would get direct input from them with regard to anything they felt was really important. So there was 'ongoaling' dialogue and there continues to be with my department and officials with the airport authority.
So we're very, very pleased with the relationship we have with Mr. Rempel, specifically, but also in general with the board of the airport authority and of CentrePort.
Mr. Briese: At the briefing I had on Bill 20, the indication, at least the note I made was that the draft development plan is already done. I'd just ask the minister: Is that the case, the draft development plan for that area is already done?
Mr. Lemieux: Well, Mr. Chair, all issues around CentrePort are certainly ongoing and moving, and I know I heard a report just recently from Ms. Gray, the CEO of CentrePort, I believe that's her title, and talking about CentrePort Way. I know the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation (Mr. Ashton) would have more detail than I would with regard to CentrePort Way, but I heard on the news that CentrePort Way was well on its way, without overuse of that word, and that in the next number of months, that particular part of the project will have been completed. So we look forward to that. That's a first step, and I was really encouraged to hear a number of companies that are looking to forward to coming on board and looking at developing in the CentrePort area. So it looks like things are well on its way and that's very, very encouraging.
Mr. Briese: I've had some contacts just over the last couple of days with the Winnipeg Airports Authority, and they're informing me that there is some–this particular bill could lead to a federal-provincial jurisdictional dispute, and I'm not sure that that's where we want to go with this. And I'm just trying to question that the minister is absolutely comfortable with the way this is proceeding at the present time.
Mr. Lemieux: Well, Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. This legislation, quite frankly, Bill 20, is nothing more than just a first step in a process of tailoring The Planning Act to fit the unique circumstances that result from having CentrePort land fall within two municipalities. We've always committed to be supportive of Rosser, to be supportive of the city of Winnipeg.
Yes, the city of Winnipeg has approximately 55 per cent of the population of Manitoba, but Rosser also has a lot of that land, of the 20,000 acres that CentrePort is part and parcel of. And we certainly–we really look forward to continuing to work with the working group that we have and airport authority will be part of that. So will, of course, the municipalities, which we look forward to.
So there's no question in our minds that Bill 20 as drafted fits within the existing constitutional framework that we're allowed. I mean, the Province of Manitoba is very much aware that–fully aware, that–of constitutional limitations on provincial land use planning respecting federal land and that it's used for the purpose of aeronautics. So we understand this. We know it. We've tried to express our views to the airport authority and to others that would listen, and we–as I mentioned, I just want to reiterate, we have a very, very good working relationship with Mr. Rempel and the airport authority, and they're highly valued and their opinions are valued. And as I mentioned that, yes, we feel that Bill 20 is nothing more than a first step in the process of tailoring The Planning Act to fit this particular and unique circumstances. Thank you.
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Chair, I have a question. I'm not sure which minister I should be directing this at. I guess the Minister of Energy is maybe available to field this question, and it's in regard to the low-speed vehicles. And we have a company that has a low-speed vehicle, and they would like to operate it in Riding Mountain provincial park. And it's basically designed as a–to carry people.
And–but the problem is they're having problems getting insurance on this particular vehicle because Manitoba Public Insurance won't insure these vehicles. And it seems to be an issue with the registration from the Province; the Province has to make an exemption to get this vehicle registered.
Is the minister aware of this particular situation on these low-speed vehicles, and is there an exemption that can be applied in this particular case?
* (15:20)
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines): It's similar to the question that was raised by the minister–by the member for Carman–or Midland, and it's an issue respecting the safety and viability of low-speed vehicles on roadways. I don't know the specific situation the member's referring to regarding Riding Mountain, but I will endeavour to find out and get back to him directly with respect to those particular vehicles.
There's a bit of a long history on this and there is some validity to the argument because it's used in other locations, particularly American southern states, that they allow these vehicles' registration on their particular roadways. There's some issues with respect to how it's licensed federally with respect to the safety provisions as well as the application of insurance.
We're running a test at the University of Winnipeg with regard to low-speed vehicles.
I've committed to get back to the member for Midland (Mr. Pedersen) on the issue with respect to the vehicles in Carman, and I'll endeavour to get back to the member with respect to the Riding Mountain vehicles and whether or not we'd expedite this and go forward.
Mr. Cullen: Well, I'd appreciate that. We'll make sure the minister has a copy of the–some of the correspondence that's been going back and forth. Certainly, it's a low-emission vehicle, as well, so certainly would fit in nicely with the park situation there.
I also want to ask the minister a follow-up question on the mining side and it's in regard to potash mining or lack of potash mining in the province here. You know, we've seen quite a substantial expansion in just across the border in Saskatchewan of the potash industry, and I know the Town of Russell has sent a letter to the Premier (Mr. Selinger) asking what can be done here in Manitoba in terms of developing the potash mining here in Manitoba and, certainly, in the Russell area.
Can the minister explain to us what his department is doing in terms of looking at the potash development or potential for potash development in Manitoba?
Mr. Chomiak: This is a–the potash industry in respect to Manitoba has a long history in this Chamber. I recall being on the other side of the Chamber and talking to the former minister of mining–I guess it was in the mid-'90s–about potash development around Russell area.
I should indicate to the member opposite that with respect to potash mining in Saskatchewan, the Deni–the Jenison mine, which is the most recent development in Saskatchewan, has now been put on hold by the company with respect to expansion.
There's the capacity for a potential mine in Manitoba with–is probably–about roughly two million tonnes a year over a six-year period with respect to potash development. The issue with respect to mining of potash in Manitoba is that the deposits in Manitoba are part of the deposits from the Rocanville segment that swings into Manitoba and aren't as sufficient in terms of potassium.
And, in addition, there's also potential for both water and water leakage as well as the fact that the potash mineral deposits abut against potential petroleum deposits in that region of the province. I would like nothing better than to develop a potash mine. We would like nothing better than to develop a potash mine in Manitoba. The economics and the scale of it are always in question.
The member from Russell and I used to have this ongoing debate about potash and the fact that I spent some time in the potash industry was of some advantage to me with respect to deposits. I used to regularly check the annual reports of the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan and every time the need for potash and the commodity prices were raised and the need for potash was raised, I noted that the Saskatchewan Potash Corporations' inventory would go down and their production would go up. They have a virtual lock on potash production in the world and the development of a–you know, a two-million tonne, six-year, even 15- or 10-year deposit in Manitoba is marginal at best.
If it could be developed we'd encourage it. Given its proximity to the oil and petroleum deposits in Manitoba, it's marginal. So it's always a difficult question. And it remains a potential that's not being produced, but I might add that the most prolific deposit of potash probably in North America, the Jameson deposit, has now been put on hold by the Australian company that's looking at it.
So, in a roundabout way, I'm giving the member my sense of where the potash deposit is. I–it would be good, but at this point I don't see it happening. I actually don't see it happening as long as the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan has a hammer hold on the industry. And I tell them that when I'm there; I used to work for them. Thank you.
Mr. Maguire: Yes, I also have a question for the minister of mines and energy and it's to relation to the comments that I made to him in Estimates, I believe, or at some point here, or in question period, about the timing of Hydro being able to supply hookups and connections with businesses in southwest Manitoba.
One of them is a company, and I am prepared now to provide that name to the minister. It's Magellan Resources, and they are a company that has set up a battery north of Hargrave, Manitoba, north of the No. 1 Highway. They applied for their permit last October. They received notice that they would get their permit last February, just this past February. They had to put down a deposit of $1.3 million, and then they were told that they might get their hookup by February of 2013.
So that would be roughly 18 months after they applied for the permit before a company could be hooked up to a battery that the lines and wells are already in place and they're ready to go. They're basically having to buy a 100-horsepower generator to operate in the meantime. And I'm just–and there are a lot of other examples of large businesses that can't get hooked up. One electrician alone has got 60, and a house is not considered a major business. He calls these 60 major enterprises that they can't get permits out of the Brandon office for.
So I just want to bring that to the minister's attention and see if he can provide me with any update on why that would be taking so long. And I know it's–there's a lot of work being done in southwest Manitoba, but that just goes with the growth of the oil industry and the quickness that they need to move.
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, Mr. Chairperson. I thank the member for the specific instance. I will follow up on that specific incidence. The member's correct. Resources have been augmented towards that part of the province from Hydro due to the increased activity.
They've assured me, and I followed up on the previous instance the member had mentioned, and it appeared that it had been quicker than we had thought. I will follow up on this, and I will get back to the member on the specific of Magellan. I do know that Hydro has a specific policy they follow. They have moved, actually, people into that area to try to augment the capacity there. And I think they're doing everything that's reasonable and possible under the circumstances. On the specifics, I'll get back to the member.
Mr. Maguire: Yes. My last question to the minister is–the people in the field I commend because they're doing everything they possibly can. It just seems to maybe be if there could be a few more people directed to help in the Brandon office to get the permits turned around faster. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Morris.
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): We're ready to–so do I have to release these members?
Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions from members?
Seeing none, the question for the committee, moved by the honourable Government House Leader (Ms. Howard), seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), that the Committee of Supply concur in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013, which have been adopted at this session by a section of the Committee of Supply or by the full committee.
Shall the motion pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: On division.
The motion is passed on division.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
* (15:30)
Committee Report
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a motion regarding concurrence in Supply.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Gaudreau), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), that this House concur in the report of the Committee of Supply respecting concurrence in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Family Services and Labour, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance, that this House concur in the report of the Committee of Supply respecting concurrence in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013.
Is that agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services and Labour (Ms. Howard),
THAT there be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for Capital purposes, the sum of $2,433,065,000 for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services and Labour,
THAT there be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for Capital purposes, the sum of $2,433,065,000 for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013.
Is that agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Mr. Struthers: I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services and Labour (Ms. Howard),
THAT there be granted to Her Majesty for the Public Service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013, out of the Consolidated Fund, the sum of $11,548,711,000, as set out in Part A, Operating Expenditure, and $750,910,000, as set out in Part B, Capital Investments, of the Estimates.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services and Labour,
THAT there be granted to Her Majesty for the Public Services of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013, out of the Consolidated Fund, the sum of $11,548,711,000, as set out in Part A, Operating Expenditure, and $750,910,000, as set out in Part B, Capital Investments, of the Estimates.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Bill 40–The Appropriation Act, 2012
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services and Labour (Ms. Howard), that Bill 40, The Appropriation Act, 2012; Loi de 2012 portant affectation de crédits, be now read a first time and be ordered for second reading immediately.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Bill 40–The Appropriation Act, 2012
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the minister for housing and co-operative development, that Bill 40, The Appropriation Act, 2012; Loi de 2012 portant affectation de crédits, be now read a second time and be referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Motion presented.
Mr. Struthers: I move, seconded by the Minister of Health–
Mr. Speaker: Oh, oh, sorry. I thought you were debating the bill.
Is there any debate on Bill 40? No debate on–
The House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
* (15:40)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 41–The Loan Act, 2012
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): I move, by the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald), that Bill 41, The Loan Act, 2012; Loi d'emprunt de 2012, be now read a first time and be ordered for second reading immediately.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Health, that Bill 41, The Loan Act, 2012, be now read for a first time and be ordered for second reading immediately.
Any debate?
Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
SECOND READINGS
Bill 41–The Loan Act, 2012
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan), that Bill 41, The Loan Act, 2012; Loi d'emprunt de 2012, be now read a second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate?
Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of adopting the motion, please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it.
* (15:50)
Formal Vote
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): Recorded vote, please, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order, please.
The question before the House is second reading of Bill 41, The Loan Act, 2012.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allan, Allum, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Caldwell, Chief, Chomiak, Crothers, Dewar, Gaudreau, Howard, Irvin‑Ross, Jha, Kostyshyn, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Pettersen, Robinson, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Whitehead, Wiebe, Wight.
Nays
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Smook, Stefanson, Taillieu, Wishart.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 35, Nays 20.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motioned carried.
House Business
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Would you resolve the House into Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker: Now resolve the House into Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you please take the Chair.
Mr. Chairperson (Tom Nevakshonoff): The Committee of the Whole will come to order to consider the following bills: Bill 39, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2012; Bill 40, The Appropriation Act, 2012; and Bill 41, The Loan Act, 2012.
During the consideration of these bills, the table of contents, the enacting clauses and the titles are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.
Also, if there is agreement from the committee, I will call clauses in blocks that conform to pages. Is that agreed? [Agreed]
Bill 39–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2012
Mr. Chairperson: We will begin with Bill 39, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.
Does the minister responsible for Bill 39 have an opening statement?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): I have an amendment. It'll take place at clause 64. Just–okay. But I have no opening statement.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister.
Does the critic from the official opposition have an opening statement?
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Just briefly, I know the minister has indicated that he has an amendment to this bill. I'm glad that he finally has listened to the committee. It's unfortunate he did not take that opportunity to properly consult the industry prior to this, and now we're faced with having to have amendments to the BITSA bill which is very rare that this would take place, Mr. Chair.
So we do have an amendment, as well, that we will be introducing as well and–but it's because they didn't get it right in the first place and they have, you know, not properly done their homework here and the industry has spoken out. And so, you know, I–we'll wait–await to see what his amendment says.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member.
Due to the size and structure of Bill 39, is it the will of the committee to consider the bill in blocks of clauses corresponding to its nine parts, with the understanding that we will stop at any particular clause or clauses where members may have comments, questions or amendments to propose. Is that agreed? [Agreed]
Part 1, pages 1 to 4, shall clauses 1 through 6 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 1 through 6 are accordingly passed.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: On division.
Part 2, pages 5 to 7, shall clauses 7 through 17 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 7 through 17 are accordingly passed, on division.
Part 3, pages 8 to 28, shall clauses 18 through 41 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 18 through 41 are accordingly passed, on division.
Part 4, pages 29 to 31, shall clauses 42 through 51 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 42 through 51 are accordingly passed, on division.
Part 5, pages 32 to 46, shall clauses 52 through 63 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: No.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 52 through 63 are accordingly passed, on division.
Shall clause 64 pass?
Some Honourable Members: No.
* (16:00)
Mr. Struthers: I have an amendment to clause 64
THAT Clause 64 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed clause 4.1(7)(f):
(f.1) insurance in respect of the disability, critical illness or accidental death and dismemberment of an individual, other than insurance under a group insurance contract;
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): On a point of clarification, is there a seconder required here?
Mr. Chairperson: On a point of clarification, Clerk informs me that a seconder is not necessary.
It has been moved that the honourable Mr. Minister of Finance
THAT Clause 64 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed clause 4.1(7)(f):
(f.1) insurance in respect of the disability, critical illness or accidental death and dismemberment of an individual, other than insurance under a group insurance contract;
The amendment is in order.
Floor is open for–the honourable Minister of Finance.
Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, we've–as we know, the budget was introduced on the 17th of April. Pretty much immediately following the presentation of the budget, we consulted with–for the last, almost three months, with the insurance industry on a number of issues that came forward in terms of our decision to broaden the 7 per cent PST to include these services. We had many meetings, our officials from Finance with officials of the insurance industry. I, myself, has met with Mr. Frank Swedlove and others of the insurance–in the insurance industry, different players on the Canadian scene and on the–in the Manitoba insurance industry have met with me, discussed all of these issues.
There have been negotiations that have taken place. Our request of the industry was to help us in terms of making this decision doable. I want to commend the insurance industry for giving that advice and making it so that we could implement this tax. This morning, we received a–sort of, a final compromise proposal from the industry, from their representatives. I thought it made sense, Mr. Speaker, I thought it maintained the integrity of our intent of what we announced in the budget. The industry officials indicate that as well. I just came off the phone with Mr. Swedlove, who represented the insurance industry.
This wording in this amendment is exactly the wording that they've put forward to us. They're happy with it; we're happy with it. I want to commend the insurance industry for the advice that they have given us over the last three months or so. They understand that we couldn't come to them before the 17th with a budgetary issue that–in detail, so we did our best to make sure that the insurance industry was included in the discussions leading up to this amendment here today.
With that, I also want to say that the insurance industry is an important part of our provincial economy. We appreciate their support in helping us with amendments to The Insurance Act, and we also recommit our commitment to continuing to meet with the insurance industry to receive their advice and their opinions on things that matter in the insurance world in Manitoba.
So, with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I recommend this amendment to the House.
Mrs. Stefanson: And I do have a couple of questions with respect to this amendment for the minister. The way I read the budget book that was originally introduced by the Minister of Finance, it says that, and I'm going to read this out because this is directly from the budget books, page C6, and it indicates, it says, and I quote: "Sales tax will be applied to prescribed insurance premiums under a contract of insurance, effective July 1, 2012, other than for health, accident or sickness, Autopac or individual life insurance."
And the way I read that, because you specify individual life insurance but you don't specify individual in the other areas, I read that as, that those–that both individual and group health, life–or health, accidental, sickness–and sickness would be–group–both group and individual would be exempt from that. Now, your amendment only covers off individual and it leaves it open for group insurance to still be subject to the 7 per cent sales tax. Is that correct?
Mr. Struthers: Only individual is excluded. This is something that we've worked very hard with the insurance industry to nail down, to make sure that we're on the same page. We've put things, generally, in the budget and then we follow up, our tax officials with the insurance stakeholders, through bulletins that go out. A number of draft bulletins are put together which encourages–which is a good vehicle by which we can encourage industry to be involved and to solicit their advice. A number of draft bulletins were put together. She will also note the change in the deadline and the date. That was at the request of the industry as well. There was some questions about retroactivity and when we start, and we made some changes there to accommodate the industry, which we think really made the implementation of this measure possible.
So the process is to have it start in the budget, refine it through bulletins and meetings with the industry partners, and then settle out on exactly what the decisions will look like. And the amendment today was our–was us ensuring that the implementation act that goes along with the budget accurately put in place the way in which these measures are going to be implemented.
Mrs. Stefanson: Well, I guess I would ask the minister, then, if it was his intent only to exempt individual health, accident and sickness, why did he not specify that in the budget books? Why was it just specific to life insurance where only the individual life insurance was exempt. Because by having individual in front of life insurance but not in front of the rest implies to me that it would be both group and individual insurance that would be exempt.
I would like to know why it was just in front of life insurance and not in front of the others then?
* (16:10)
Mr. Struthers: Well, as I've said–I mean, the budget puts it in place. We use bulletins to make sure we can drill down into the finer points of how the budget measure's going to be implemented. This budget amendment implements the intention that we had from the beginning. We had said to the insurance–on budget day we had said clearly to the insurance stakeholders that we're going to use the Ontario model for this measure because they do have experience with this measure, on a much bigger scale, but nevertheless we believe that model was a good one. This amendment makes sure that we're coming through on our commitment to the industry to do here in Manitoba what they do in Ontario; in other words, build on that success in Ontario here in Manitoba.
So it's the budget bulletins that are used to refine what is in the budget and implement ultimately and make doable what we–what I read out in this House on budget day.
Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Chair, I just–I believe that it doesn't accurately reflect–the amendment doesn't accurately reflect what was originally–like, what was in the original budget books. And if the minister wanted to impose an amendment that accurately reflected what was in the budget itself, he would've included group insurance for those products, as well as individual insurance, if that was his intent because, clearly, individual life insurance was specified–it was specified in the budget books but individual was not specified in the other products, which would include disability insurance, et cetera. And I don't believe that this amendment accurately reflects what is in the budget books.
It does indicate–and I want to just say to the minister that I believe this, you know, and it's clear that this came about because it hit the media this morning, and that that's why the minister has decided now to act quickly because he's finally had the industry come forward and be very proactive, which is great on their part. Thank goodness they did, Mr. Chair, because that is–seems to be the way that this minister likes to react to things, is only if they get caught do they move amendments and do they do what the industry is maybe asking for. It's only after they're caught, and I think it's very unfortunate that only when it's on CJOB will the minister act on this.
So–but I think again, you know, that as we move forward–and I don't want to go on too long about this–the minister obviously disagrees with my interpretation, or our interpretation, or I would say probably most of Manitobans' interpretation of the original budget books. If Manitobans came and paid their $25, which they had to do this year to get a budget book here in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, when they were forced to pay their $25 and then, you know, they would read through this and they would want to know what kind of sales tax is going to be applied to them.
And now we see from this that they would read through this and they would interpret, okay, because individual life insurance was specified but individual and group was not specified on the others–on the other products. So they would probably read that and say, oh, you know what, I've got a group disability insurance and so I'll be exempt, so that's okay then and move on. I think this will come as a surprise to Manitobans out there who are concerned about reading one thing. Again the NDP saying one thing and doing another; this is a prime example of what this NDP government does, and I think it's unfortunate, Mr. Chair, that it has to come to that.
Now, we do recognize that this does go some way and is a positive thing for the insurance industry in Manitoba, that the minister, at the eleventh hour, has decided to make an amendment to Bill 39 to reflect part of what the industry was expecting from the budget books. But I would go so far as to say that consumers should be consulted in this as well because–and it should extend to group insurance as well, and that's why I'm wondering if the minister would entertain a further amendment to this, which would call on both individual, as well as group insurance, when it comes to health, accident, and sickness, so that it would accurately reflect what is in the budget books.
Mr. Struthers: No, Mr. Chairperson. We have an amendment that does that already, in my view. We have an amendment that is based on–you know, she can say all she likes that there was no consultation, and, okay, that's fine. But this amendment is based on weeks, if not months, of consultation with the industry and with stakeholders in the industry. We have made many–we have made a number of changes based on those consultations that we've had. Any of the requests that the industry had that we weren't prepared to move on, we spoke to them and gave them our rationale for not moving ahead. When this–when this proposal came forward this morning from the industry this morning, from our industry stakeholders, we thought it made sense and we thought that it helped us to fulfill our commitment to the Ontario model in Manitoba, and we thought that it also remained within the intent and within the spirit of the budget that I presented in the House.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy with the amendment we're bringing forward, and I will be voting in favour of it, obviously.
Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Chairperson: Shall the motion pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly–is there a no?
An Honourable Member: Sorry, I just have an amendment.
Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly passed. On–the motion is accordingly passed.
* (16:20)
Mrs. Stefanson: And I, too, have a motion that I'd like to bring forward, an amendment to–and it reads that clause 64 of the bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed–sorry, if we could just have a minute, here.
I move
THAT Clause 64 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed clause 4.1(7)(e):
(e.1) insurance in respect of the disability, critical illness or accidental death and dismemberment of an individual;
Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by the honourable member for Tuxedo
THAT Clause 64 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed clause 4.1(7)(e):
(e.1) insurance in respect of the disability, critical illness or accidental death and dismemberment of an individual;
I must respectfully advise all honourable members that the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Tuxedo is out of order and cannot proceed because it contravenes rule 66(2) which provides that any member who is not a minister of the Crown cannot move an amendment to provide an exemption or increase an exemption from a tax or a proposed tax.
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if I could ask for leave of the committee to just put a few words in–of explanation when it comes to this motion.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Tuxedo is seeking leave to put a few words on the record in regard to her motion? Does she have leave? [Agreed]
Mrs. Stefanson: I thank the committee for that.
The reason that I'm bringing this amendment forward was after the last amendment passed–and we supported that amendment because it moved somewhat in the direction of what is reflective in the budget books itself, but it doesn't quite go far enough and doesn't quite accurately reflect the entire picture of what is in the original budget books. And I believe that this motion actually does accurately reflect what is in the original budget.
And the minister only included individual insurance and we want to ensure that group insurance as well applies here. And I believe that was the original intent of, certainly, what we read and I think what average Manitobans would read in a budget book, and would be very surprised if they turned around come–I know the minister's changing the date to July 15th of when this becomes effective. But I think there'll be surprise, a lot of surprised Manitobans out there to find that this insurance will be subject to–or the PST on their group insurance and disability insurance will be applied.
And so I think this more–this amendment more accurately reflects what is in the actual budget books and I hope that members–I would hope that members opposite would have supported that, and I would encourage them–I would encourage the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) to actually bring this amendment forward himself. I know I've been ruled out of order because I'm not a minister of the Crown and cannot, under the rules of the Legislature, bring forward such an amendment. But I would encourage him to bring forward such an amendment because it more accurately reflects what is in his own budget books.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the honourable member for Tuxedo for her commentary.
Clause 64 as amended–pass.
Continuing with part 5, shall clauses 65 through 72 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 65 through 72 are accordingly passed, on division.
Part 6, pages 47 to 53, shall clauses 73 through 88 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 73 through 88 are accordingly passed–
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: On division.
Part 7, pages 54 to 56, shall clauses 89 through 97 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 89 through 97 are accordingly passed, on division.
Part 8, page 57, shall clauses 98 and 99 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 98 and 99 are accordingly passed, on division.
Part 9, pages 58 to 60, shall clause 100 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clause 100 is accordingly passed, on division.
Shall the table of contents pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Mr. Chairperson: The table of contents is accordingly passed.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: On division.
Shall the enacting clause pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Mr. Chairperson: The enacting clause is accordingly passed.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: On division.
Shall the title pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Mr. Chairperson: The title is accordingly passed.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: On division.
Shall the bill as amended be reported?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Chairperson: It is agreed the bill shall be reported as amended.
Bill 40–The Appropriation Act, 2012
Mr. Chairperson: The next bill for consideration is Bill 40, The Appropriation Act, 2012.
Shall clauses 1 and 2 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 1 and 2 are accordingly passed, on division.
Shall clauses 3 through 6 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 3 through 6 are accordingly passed, on division.
Shall the schedule pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: The schedule is accordingly passed, on division.
Shall the enacting clause pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: The enacting clause is accordingly passed, on division.
Shall the title pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: The title is accordingly passed, on division.
Bill be reported.
Bill 41–The Loan Act, 2012
Mr. Chairperson: The last bill for consideration is Bill 41, The Loan Act, 2012.
Shall clauses 1 and 2 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 1 and 2 are accordingly passed, on division.
Shall clauses 3 through 5 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 3 through 5 are accordingly passed, on division.
Shall clauses 6 and 7 pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 6 and 7 are accordingly passed, on division.
Shall the schedule be passed?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: The schedule is accordingly passed, on division.
Shall the enacting clause pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: The enacting clause is accordingly passed, on division.
Shall the title pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: The title is accordingly passed, on division.
Shall the bill be reported?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Chairperson: It is agreed that the bill shall be recorded? [interjection] Reported.
For clarity, it is agreed the bill shall be reported.
That concludes the business currently before us.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
Committee Report
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the following bills: Bill 40, The Appropriation Act, 2012; and Bill 41, The Loan Act, 2012, and reports the same without amendment.
The committee also–has also considered Bill 39, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, and reports the same as amended.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview (Mr. Allum), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
* (16:30)
Bill 41–The Loan Act, 2012
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), that Bill 41, The Loan Act, 2012; Loi d'emprunt de 2012, reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate?
Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of adopting the motion, please signify it by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, by signify by saying Nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it.
Formal Vote
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes. Recorded vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Recorded vote having been requested. Call in the members.
Order, please.
The question before the House is Bill 41, The Appropriation Act, 2012. All those in favour of the motion, please rise. [interjection]
Okay. The question before the House is Bill 41, The Loan Act, 2012. All those in favour of the motion, please rise.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allan, Allum, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Caldwell, Chief, Chomiak, Crothers, Dewar, Gaudreau, Howard, Irvin‑Ross, Jha, Kostyshyn, Lemieux, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Pettersen, Robinson, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Whitehead, Wiebe, Wight.
Nays
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Smook, Stefanson, Taillieu, Wishart.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 35, Nays 20.
Mr. Speaker: Declare the motion carried.
* (16:40)
Bill 40–The Appropriation Act, 2012
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill 40, The Appropriation Act, 2012; Loi de 2012 portant affectation de crédits, reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any debate?
Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
All those in favour of–
An Honourable Member: On division, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: On division? On division.
Bill 39–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2012
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), that Bill 39, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2012; Loi d'exécution du budget de 2012 et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité, as amended and reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate?
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): And just to put a few words on the record in the third reading of this bill, this is obviously not a bill that we will be supporting. It has a whole host of tax increases that, again, the Minister of Finance–or, sorry, the Premier (Mr. Selinger) of the province promised in the last election not to raise taxes, and then at his first available opportunity, he introduced a piece of legislation that–and brought in a bill that calls on a number of different tax increases for Manitobans.
We do–we did understand, and through–in the Committee of the Whole, the Minister of Finance brought forward an amendment where we believe that had he properly consulted members of the insurance industry and consumers about what was in the bill and what was–and the insurance products, had he properly consulted them in the first place, I don't think that he would have had to have brought in that amendment. We're happy that he did listen to the insurance industry. We don't believe, still, his amendment quite accurately reflects what is in his budget, Mr. Speaker, but we do support that amendment because it offers a further exemption for those products and services, those specific ones in the insurance industry. But we do feel that it should have gone further and should have also included group insurance.
So it's unfortunate that, once again, we do have a bill that doesn't accurately reflect what is specific in the budget, but we do support those in the insurance industry who fought hard for their clients, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that that PST was not going to be applied to certain services within the industry.
So, having said that, Mr. Speaker, again, we won't be able to support this bill. Thank you.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, from the Liberal perspective, you know, this is not a bill that, you know, is to be supported. It's–introduces a lot of new tax measures, which, in our view, is the result of the poor fiscal management dating back the last 12 and a half years, overspending on every budget spending account, and, quite frankly, it is a sad day when we see this happening in Manitoba, and that's why it's not to be supported.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on this bill?
Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 39, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it.
Formal Vote
Mrs. Taillieu: Recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker: Recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order, please.
The question before the House is Bill 39, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allan, Allum, Altemeyer, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Caldwell, Chief, Chomiak, Crothers, Dewar, Gaudreau, Howard, Irvin‑Ross, Jha, Kostyshyn, Lemieux, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Pettersen, Robinson, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Whitehead, Wiebe, Wight.
Nays
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Smook, Stefanson, Taillieu, Wishart.
Madam Clerk: Yeas 34, Nays 20.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
House Business
Ms. Howard: Yes, would–could we please move to report stage amendments, starting with Bill 6, followed by Bill 33 and then Bill 208.
Mr. Speaker: We'll proceed to report stage of Bills 6, 33 and 208, starting with Bill 6, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement).
* (16:50)
Bill
6–The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act
(Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement)
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I have an amendment.
Yes, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers),
THAT Bill 6 be amended by replacing Clause 16(2) with the following:
Coming into force: sections 2, 8, 9, parts of sections 12 and 13, and clauses 14(a) and (b)
16(2) The following provisions come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation:
(a) section 2;
(b) section 8;
(c) section 9;
(d) section 12 insofar as it enacts section 51.3;
(e) section 13 insofar as it enacts clause 59(k.2);
(f) clauses 14(a) and (b).
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable Minister of Health, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance, that the proposed amendment to Bill 6, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement)
THAT Bill 6 be amended by replacing Clause 16(2) with the following:
Coming into force: sections 2, 8, 9, parts of sections 12 and 13, and clauses 14(a) and (b)
16(2) The following provisions come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation:
(a) section 2;
(b) section 8;
(c) section 9;
(d) section 12 insofar as it enacts section 51.3;
(e) section 13 insofar as it enacts clause 59(k.2); and
(f) clauses 14(a) and (b).
The amendment is in order.
Ms. Oswald: Bill 6 was introduced as part of our plan to reduce the number of regional health authorities from 11 to five to support front-line care and to improve fiscal responsibility and community involvement in health care. Manitobans are right to expect increased accountability and transparency for the public funding we invest in health care. Bill 6 will help to do just that.
During standing committee on Monday night we heard from a few faith-based health organizations concerned that Bill 6 could allow a regional health authority to interfere with their ability to operate a facility consistent with their faith and values. And I want to clarify this is certainly not the case.
First, I think it's important to note, once again, that faith-based health organizations have literally built the foundation of health care in this province, delivering quality care to those in need decades before medicare was created, and that dedication endures to this day.
We respect and value the role of faith-based organizations, and we, indeed, want them to continue in that role in health care. In 2001 we enshrined that respect into law, recognizing and preserving the unique role of faith-based facilities and meeting the needs of their patients and residents.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 6–nothing in Bill 6 diminishes these principles or the ability of faith-based organizations to continue to deliver care to patients across our province for the way they have for decades.
The amendments to the RHA act proposed in Bill 6 are intended to add checks and balances to improve accountability and transparency for public funding in regional health authorities and health facilities. These amendments respond to some concerns that we have seen here in Manitoba and help to avoid some really egregious issues we have seen in other provinces.
After listening to the presentations in standing committee on Monday evening, we reiterate our commitment to work with non-profit and faith-based health organizations on the issues they raised, specifically the development of CEO hiring processes, executive compensation policies and regulations about the reporting and proposed use of surpluses of public funding before these are finalized.
To reaffirm that commitment, we have proposed an amendment to Bill 6 that will defer bringing these sections into force to allow time for further consultation and discussion. This amendment specifically changes these sections from coming into force on royal assent to proclamation, to allow for consultations.
As Mr. James Friesen from Eden Mental Health Centre described it, during his presentation at standing committee, most facilities already consult with the RHA on CEO hiring, compensation and surplus use. Bill 6 will update the RHA act to further foster a collaboration and co-operation which will be good for all Manitobans.
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I have to indicate that we're pleased to see that the minister listened to the presentations the other night on Bill 6. There were certainly a number of groups that, after they had seen the initial legislation tabled, they were actually quite shocked and alarmed at what was in the bill, and a number of them came forward.
We had a packed room. Half of that room was filled with face–faith-based organizations, and they were very, very concerned about what the government appeared to be doing in this legislation in regards to hiring of CEOs, regards to compensation and regards to the autonomy of faith-based organizations, surpluses. There were some very, very serious concerns. They did come forward, the room was jam packed. They did very well present their cases. They were very articulate, and it appears that the government has listened to them and has agreed, at this point now, to wait and proclaim these specific aspects of the legislation and will now go out and do what probably should have been done ahead of time, was to do some consulting on this legislation. And it certainly would have avoided a lot of angst out there, because I have to say, there was a significant amount of angst and alarm and worry that perhaps could have been avoided if the government wasn't in such a rush to do what they should have done a long time ago, and that is, consult more within the health-care environment in the first place, before they moved forward with this legislation.
This legislation, in itself, you know, nobody was objecting to parts of it related to the amalgamation and looking for administrative efficiencies. There weren't complaints about that part of it. There certainly were complaints, though, about a whole lot of other provisions within that act.
So I'm hopeful that what we're hearing is the fact that the government will listen now and will go out and consult and then once more of that has been finalized and people are more clear about what the government's intent is, that then those aspects of the legislation will be proclaimed.
So we'll be watching very carefully. We'll be listening very carefully. We will be out there talking to a lot of groups, because there still are aspects of this bill that are troubling for a lot of people. So we will be paying attention to what this government does in moving this legislation forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I note that the minister, in acknowledging that there was a problem with the legislation, recognizes that she and her government had not properly consulted and talked to people in faith-based institutions, and that some of the approaches that they are proposing to take in the legislation have clearly raised a lot of concerns.
What is troubling, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is not proposing to actually change the legislation in any way, except the implementation. And, while this will hopefully result in it being implemented in a way that is going to be more acceptable to faith-based institutions, it doesn't actually change the nature of the legislation or the powers of the government in respect to faith-based institutions. And so many of the concerns which were very passionately and eloquently brought forward the other night at committee stage will remain.
And so I think that, although recognizing the step that the minister is taking, that I want to provide a caution that those concerns are still there because the legislation, as it was written and as it has been presented, is still there.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on the amendment?
Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? [Agreed]
We'll now proceed with Bill 33, the elections financing act–elections act–amendment act.
* (17:00)
Bill 33–The Election Financing Act and Elections Amendment Act
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen),
THAT Bill 33 be amended in Schedule A (The Election Financing Act) by adding the following clause after Clause 93:
93.1 MINISTER REMOVED FROM CABINET
If the commissioner finds that a government department or Crown agency has violated section 92, the minister responsible for the government department or Crown agency may not be a member of the Executive Council for a period of 18 months.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to consider the amendment as printed? [Agreed]
THAT Bill 33 be amended in Schedule A (The Election Financing Act) by adding the following after Clause 93:
93.1 MINISTER REMOVED FROM CABINET
If the commissioner finds that a government department or Crown agency has violated section 92, the minister responsible for the government department or Crown agency may not be a member of the Executive Council for a period of 18 months.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Taillieu: You know, Mr. Speaker, what we've seen with a minister of the Cabinet is a Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) that went out and broke the election laws knowing full well that that law was in place and that she was breaking it and, you know, we believe that ministers of this government should not be allowed to break the law. They shouldn't be above the law. They should be held to account the same way as any other Manitoban would be should they break a law and we even brought a motion before this House stating that, that ministers of this government should not be above the law and there should be consequences in place should they break that law. And they voted against that, so in effect they voted themselves above the law.
Now the Premier's (Mr. Selinger) refused to put any consequences in place and, Mr. Speaker, there may be good reason for that. I mean if he puts some sanctions on a minister for breaking the law, maybe that sets a precedent for what may occur later on when there's a ruling brought forward on the Premier. That's still being investigated so we don't know what's going to happen there.
But we do believe that there should be consequences and if the Premier isn't going to put consequences in place we hope that the government people will look at this amendment and say, yes, you know what, maybe we shouldn't be above the law. That's how they voted the last time, here's another opportunity to have a second look, examine their conscious and think about it because, really, there should be some sanctions and some consequences when people in Cabinet break the law.
So I would hope that they would have a look at this and say, you know what? I don't want to do this again. I don't think that I want to break the law and have to be–relinquish my seat in Cabinet for 18 months. It might be a bit of a deterrent to say, you know, I'd better uphold the laws in this province just like everybody else. So I would like to have them look very closely at this because they vote this one down again, Mr. Speaker, that's two strikes and that is really unconscionable.
So I look forward to them supporting this amendment, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister of Family Services and Labour): I want to speak to this amendment put forward. I want to start off by saying, as we've said many, many times in the House on this issue, that this was, of course, the first general election for which this law applied. And when you look at the decision that the members opposite are referring to it's clear in it that nobody breached that section intentionally and, in fact, that's exactly what the commissioner said.
I should say that I have no reason to think that anyone breached section 56 intentionally. That being said, we still took responsibility for that breach. We apologized for it. We owned up that we'd made a mistake in the interpretation of that part of the act. It was the first time that we were working with that legislation. I do think it was the first time in a general election that we were working with that legislation and so, I think, you know, we've learned about what–how it's going to be interpreted.
I do think one of the things that's important to remember in terms of penalties for breaching parts of an act, it's sort of a generally accepted principle that if you're going to apply penalties, then you should be very, very clear what the interpretation of that act is going to be ahead of time. I don't think that's true in this case.
The interpretation generally happens after the fact in the complaint process, and so I think, for those reasons, it's probably not entirely following the normal procedure that you would put in place harsh penalties when the only way to know if you've breached the act is after the fact, when it's interpreted in a different way than you were interpreting it in the first place.
So, that being said, I think we've been very clear that we made a mistake in this case. People have apologized for that mistake and we've learned from it and certainly we're quite willing now to move on and take a look at how we can make sure that the spirit of the legislation is maintained in the future with additional clarity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, this amendment should never have been necessary. I mean, you would think that when a Cabinet minister breaks the law, that there would be some better recognition of the fault that had been perpetrated, and that whether you have a Cabinet minister resign, whether you have the Premier (Mr. Selinger), you know, put forward some sanctions on somebody who has broken the law, I mean, it would be expected.
And there have been many examples in the past where Cabinet ministers who have broken the law have resigned, and certainly it is the sort of thing that you would normally have expected that there would be–have been some measures taken under these circumstances to reflect the gravity of breaking the elections law and the elections finances law in this kind of fashion.
So I think, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this has happened, and it's unfortunate that this amendment is necessary. But one would have expected better from the government, but in view of the fact that we've not had better from the government, we seem to have no other choice but to have this amendment not only put forward but be supported.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Nays have it.
* (17:10)
Formal Vote
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): Recorded vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order, please. The question before the House is the amendment to Bill 33 proposed by the honourable member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu).
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Smook, Stefanson, Taillieu, Wishart.
Nays
Allan, Allum, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Caldwell, Chief, Crothers, Dewar, Gaudreau, Howard, Irvin‑Ross, Jha, Kostyshyn, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Pettersen, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Whitehead, Wiebe, Wight.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 20, Nays 34.
Mr. Speaker: Declare the amendment lost.
* * *
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I move, seconded by the member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson),
THAT Bill 33 be amended in the proposed subsection 49.1(3) of The Elections Act, as set out in Clause 2 of Schedule B (The Elections Amendment Act), by striking out "the general election must be held instead on the third Tuesday of April in the next calendar year" and substituting "the general election must be held no later than six months before the date of the general election to be held under the Canada Elections Act".
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable member for Morris, seconded by the honourable member for Tuxedo,
THAT Bill 33 be amended in the proposed subsection 49.1(3) of The Elections Act, as set out in Clause 2 of section–Schedule B (The Elections Amendment Act), by striking out "the general election must be held instead on the third Tuesday of April in the next calendar year" and substituting "the general election must be held no later than six months before the date of the general election to be held under the Canada Elections Act".
The amendment is in order.
Mrs. Taillieu: You know, what we seen with this government, the track record since the election and all of the things that they promised before the election and all the promises they–that have broken, Mr. Speaker. You know, this is a government that before the election promised they wouldn't raise taxes. The Premier (Mr. Selinger) said, I won't raise taxes and I'll deliver on that.
But what did he do? His first order of business, once he was elected, he raised taxes to the tune of $184 million in new taxes and fees on Manitobans, Mr. Speaker.
What does this government do? They politicized the civil service. They go out and they get deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers to do their political will in organizing political rallies in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. That's just shameful what that does to democracy in this province.
We have a Cabinet minister that went out and purposefully broke an election law, and a law that she knew was there. She knew that she was breaking the law; she's not held to account for that. In fact, this government actually voted not to put any sanctions in place. We just saw that, and they voted themselves above the law, Mr. Speaker. They actually voted themselves above the law, the law that's in place for every other person in this province does not apply to Cabinet ministers of this NDP government.
They stack Crown corporations with political donors; they accepted tickets from Crown corporations, publicly paid for by the taxpayers of Manitoba; they promised that they would eliminate the education tax for seniors and farmers. They did not do that. A whole list of things, broken promises and broken laws. The government of broken promises and broken laws, and this is a government that wants to legislate themselves six more months in office, Mr. Speaker. That is not right.
A government with this record of all of the things they've done, broken promises and broken laws, they do not deserve to legislate themselves six more months in government. That's up to the people of Manitoba who they put in, not up to the NDP government to decide when the election is going to happen if they want to just give themselves six more months.
And, yes, Mr. Speaker, they will say, oh, we're just following Saskatchewan. Well, if they wanted to follow Saskatchewan, there's a lot of good things that they could follow with Saskatchewan. They could join the New West Partnership, for one.
So if they want to think about emanating–emulating Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of other things they could do as well, but this is a government that does not deserve to just write in themselves six more months in office, and that's why we have proposed this amendment. I think they need to examine this themselves and look very closely at what they–it is they are doing here. Thank you very much.
Ms. Howard: I'm pleased to rise to speak to this amendment.
So what this amendment essentially does is does away with set-day elections in Manitoba, and I don't think that's the direction we want to go in. It was this government that gave up the power to decide when the election date was when we changed the law to have set dates, and that has been a power that governments have had in our parliamentary system for a very long time, and an advantage for the governing party.
We gave up that advantage, because we believed that it was in the better interests of democracy if people knew when the elections were happening and had some certainty to do that.
* (17:20)
This amendment also puts the decision for when Manitoba's election should be in the hands of the Prime Minister. I don't think that that is right either, Mr. Speaker. I think that we as a Legislature and as Manitobans should be able to set the election date for ourselves.
I know that the members opposite want to follow everything that Ottawa does. I understand that, that they believe that that is how that they should govern themselves. But I think that we in Manitoba can set the election dates ourselves. The change that we have put forward we want to be very clear about. We believe that the election should be in the fall of 2015 as was previously decided upon.
But the issue is, Mr. Speaker, that there would be a federal election at the same time, and I think everybody has agreed and can see that having an overlapping election with the federal election is not going to serve democracy well. It won't serve voters well. It will cause tremendous difficulties in terms of recruiting staff to enumerate, to work at the polling stations. It will cause enormous difficulty in finding places to rent for returning offices and for polling stations and for advance votes.
So, I mean, I think it's all of those reasons that provinces who also found themselves in this situation, like Saskatchewan, have also decided to move the election in the event that the federal government does not move their election. We have written to the Prime Minister and requested that, given that their election is the same time as many other provincial elections, that they give some consideration to moving their election date. If they don't do that by January, in which the election would happen, then we will move our date to the following spring.
I would also say, Mr. Speaker, that a four-and-a-half year term of government is not unusual in Manitoba. The last two terms of the previous government, of the Filmon government, were both four-and-a-half years long. And that's when the government of the day got to decide to go to the polls whenever they wanted within five years and they chose to take four-and-a-half years.
The next government of the province, whoever wins the next election, will also govern for four-and-a-half years. And this change will permanently take us off the collision course with the federal election date that we're currently on. It will also maintain–after this election we'll also maintain a fall election date which is something that we had all agreed to within this House when we first passed the legislation to set a fixed date.
So for all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against this amendment.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the fundamental basis for this decision to put a clause in here to be able to switch the election if necessary is eminently reasonable. That is, if the federal election has–federal government decides to call their election in the fall of the year which corresponds with the time that we have designated already to have our provincial election, it makes eminent sense to move the provincial election.
You know, ordinarily I would think that it would be reasonable to move it, you know, after. But there are some particular circumstances with this current government. You know, this government this year is running up a deficit of a billion dollars, has shown very poor fiscal management over the last number of years. This government, in spite of spending huge amounts of money, has record numbers of children and families having to go to food banks because they haven't addressed, you know, basic and fundamental issues of poverty and equity, and I could go on and on. We've had the problems in handling of the flood. We have had problems in so many other areas.
So I think under this circumstances it would be advisable for the government to be having an election, the province to have an election where we could have, you know, elected a, hopefully, a Liberal government at three-and-a-half years after the last election so that we could correct, you know, many of these huge problems that have arisen under the current government.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on the amendment? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment proposed to Bill 33 by the honourable member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, please signify it by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Nays have it.
Formal Vote
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): That wasn't clear enough to me, Mr. Speaker. I'd like a recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order, please. The question before the House is the amendment to Bill 33, proposed by the honourable member for Morris.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Smook, Stefanson, Taillieu, Wishart.
Nays
Allan, Allum, Altemeyer, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Caldwell, Chief, Crothers, Dewar, Gaudreau, Howard, Irvin‑Ross, Jha, Kostyshyn, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Pettersen, Robinson, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Whitehead, Wiebe, Wight.
Madam Clerk: Yeas 20, Nays 34.
Mr. Speaker: Declare the amendment lost.
* * *
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. McFadyen)
THAT Bill 33 be amended in Schedule A (The Election Financing Act) by adding the following after Clause 61:
61.1 PARTY LEADER'S APPROVAL OF ADVERTISING
(1) – Party leader's approval
A registered party – or a person acting on the party's behalf with its consent and knowledge – must not publish or distribute advertising for the use on radio or television or another electronic medium, unless
(a) if the advertising is in audio form, the leader of the registered party personally announces his or her approval of the contents of the advertising together with the advertising, and
(b) if the advertising is in visual form, a personal statement of the leader of the registered political party approving the contents of the advertising is shown with the advertising.
(2) – When is party leader's approval of advertising required?
This section replies to advertising
(a) during election period, and
(b) outside an election period in the year of a fixed date election.
(3) – Definition of "advertising"
In this section, "advertising" does not include promotional materials.
* (17:30)
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to consider the amendment as printed and distributed? [Agreed]
THAT Bill 33 be amended in Schedule A (The Election Financing Act) by adding the following after Clause 61:
61.1 PARTY LEADER'S APPROVAL OF ADVERTISING
(1) – Party leader's approval
A registered party – or a person acting on the party's behalf with its consent and knowledge – must not publish or distribute advertising for use on radio or television or another electronic medium, unless
(a) if the advertising is in audio form, the leader of the registered party personally announces his or her approval of the contents of the advertising together with the advertising, and
(b) if the advertising is in visual form, a personal statement of the leader of the registered political party approving the contents of the advertising is shown with the advertising.
(2) – When is party leader's approval of advertising required?
This section applies to advertising
(a) during an election period, and
(b) outside an election period in the year of a fixed date election.
(3) – Definition of "advertising"
In this section, "advertising" does not include promotional materials.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Steinbach, seconded by the honourable member for Fort Whyte,
THAT Bill 33 be amended in Schedule A (The Election Financing Act) by adding the following after Clause 61:
61.1 PARTY LEADER'S APPROVAL OF ADVERTISING–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense?
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense. The amendment is in order.
Mr. Goertzen: We had debate this morning on a similar private members' bill. It was not approved by the government. But I'm an optimist, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the government has had some opportunity to change their mind to look at the poor arguments that they put forward this morning.
I know the Government House Leader (Ms. Howard) did her best, but the arguments were full of holes in terms of when she pointed out that the financial officer currently approves the advertising. Of course, they're approving not the content of the advertising, but the financial implication of that advertising on a campaign. We had good representation from the deputy electoral officer yesterday indicating that voter turnout is down and because largely because people are disconnected from politics. We think this is one way to improve that. Certainly, we would surmise by saying that if a party is unwilling to have their leader on an advertisement they might want to rethink that advertisement.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Howard: We did have a good debate about these provisions this morning, so I'm not going to repeat a lot of what I said. I will say again that I think the member opposite kind of missed my point this morning, so I'm going to try to make it in a different way.
There are clearly provisions currently in the legislation that clearly lays out that advertising has to be approved by the party that it is coming from that clearly communicates to people who are looking at those ads that that ad is coming from a particular political party. I don't think there can be any doubt in political advertising which party is putting up that ad. I said this morning, and I'll say again, I think that this is really an Americanization of our process, which I don't think helps the process, does anything to improve it, and for those reasons we will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, while I have some sympathy with the general direction of this, I'm a little bit concerned that the way that this is put together it could apply to not only party advertising by the central party, but advertising by any candidate in a constituency who represents the party. And I think that this is, as it states here, is going further than it needs to, and I don't think that this is–this step is necessary, so I'm opposed to this amendment.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, is the House ready for the question on the amendment?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Nays have it.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Bill 208–The Remembrance Day Awareness Act and Amendments to The Public Schools Act
Mr. Speaker: We will now proceed with report stage amendments to bill–public bills, Bill 208, The Remembrance Day Awareness Act and Amendments to The Public Schools Act.
Ms. Deanne Crothers (St. James): I move, seconded by the member for Emerson (Mr. Graydon),
THAT Bill 208 be amended in Clause 2(2) by adding ", which must include two minutes of silence," after "exercise" in the proposed subsection 85.1(2).
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for St. James, seconded by the honourable member for Emerson,
THAT Bill 208 be amended in Clause 2(2) by adding ", which must include two minutes of silence," after "exercise" in the proposed subsection 85.1(2).
The amendment is in order.
Ms. Crothers: Unlike some of the members who spoke previously on this bill, I did not have the opportunity to hear first-hand stories from my family members about what it was like to serve in the war. My grandfather that did serve in the war died before I was born, so I didn't hear any of those stories. And my other grandfather was a farmer, and his work in agriculture was deemed too valuable to allow him to go.
However, as a child in school, I remember very clearly having opportunity to meet with and hear the experiences of those that served in the war, and it made a significant impact on my understanding of an experience I probably could not come close to estimating the brutality of living through.
Often these presentations were simple. They were delivered directly and plainly and the message was heard quite clearly regardless of the age range of the audience.
These powerful stories should be given time to consider, and I can recall, even as quite a young child reflecting on what I heard during that period, that moment of silence and in those few short moments, quietly offering thanks for the immense acts of sacrifice people made, pity for those that died and wonder at those who survived it.
And, as an older person now, I think, in that moment, I also feel quite a bit of gratitude for not having experienced anything like that myself.
I think it is also appropriate to take this time to reflect on those that have served more recently as well. I have a nephew who returned from Afghanistan last year, and I'm keenly aware of how grateful my family is that he did return safely.
I believe the amendment to this bill of including two minutes of silence during Remembrance Day services in public school ceremonies is a very appropriate way to show those who have served the honour and respect they deserve. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): I concur with the member for St. James on this amendment, and I thank her for bringing it forward. Thank you.
Mr. Gerrard: I support this amendment.
Mr. Speaker: House ready for the question on the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The amendment before the House is one proposed to Bill 208 by the honourable member for St. James.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? [Agreed]
An Honourable Member: On point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, I believe we could record that that amendment was adopted unanimously.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to let the record indicate that the amendment was adopted unanimously? [Agreed]
* * *
Ms. Howard: We're prepared to move on to third readings and concurrence of Bills 208, 212, 300 and 301.
* (17:40)
Mr. Speaker: All right, we'll proceed now with concurrence and third readings of Bill 208, Bill 212, Bill 300 and Bill 301. Starting with Bill 208, The Remembrance Day Awareness Act and Amendments to The Public Schools Act.
(Continued)
Bill 208–The Remembrance Day Awareness Act and Amendments to The Public Schools Act
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): I move, seconded by the minister–or the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 208, The Remembrance Day Awareness Act and Amendments to The Public Schools Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, and subsequently amended, be concurred in and now be read for the third time and passed.
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, by the member of St. James (Ms. Crothers).
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable member for Emerson, seconded by the honourable member for St. James, that Bill 208, The Remembrance Day Awareness Act and Amendments to The Public Schools Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, and subsequently amended, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Any debate? Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 212–The Apprenticeship Recognition Act
Mr. Dave Gaudreau (St. Norbert): I move, seconded by the member from Flin Flon, that Bill 212, The Apprenticeship Recognition Act; Loi sur la reconnaissance de l'apprentissage, reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any debate? Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 300–The Jewish Child and Family Service Incorporation Act
Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson), that Bill 300, The Jewish Child and Family Service Incorporation Act; Loi constituant en corporation le Jewish Child and Family Service, reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any debate?
Ms. Blady: I just want to take this opportunity to once again thank Jewish Child and Family Service for the opportunity to shepherd this private act through the legislative process as its sponsor and with the support of the member for Tuxedo.
I'd like to congratulate them on a century of caring and look forward to their leadership and compassion in the century to come, and I also look forward to the passage of this bill with unanimous consent of all members of this Chamber. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I just want to, as well, extend my congratulations to those members of the Jewish Child and Family Service and those in the community and to say that we support this bill and I very much thank the member for Kirkfield Park for including us in this. Thank you.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I just want to salute the efforts of the Jewish Child and Family Service and hope that in the coming century that things develop and continue to progress as they have in the last century.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 300, The Jewish Child and Family Service Incorporation Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 301–The Young Men's Christian Association of Brandon Incorporation Amendment Act
Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Mr. Jha), that Bill 301, The Young Men's Christian Association of Brandon Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation « The Young Men's Christian Association of Brandon », reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Caldwell: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate the Brandon YMCA for their very good work for over a century in building a stronger community in Brandon. I want to commend them for the project that they've got under way in Brandon, and commit my full support to them, as well as other organizations and agencies seeking to build downtown Brandon.
Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): I, too, wish to rise to speak to the bill. I think it's great to see it move ahead and that the Y can continue to move ahead with their project, bring them into the modern times here with their borrowing abilities and owning land and such. So they are a great part of the city of Brandon and will do great things in the future with their new building.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gerrard: I just want to recognize and acknowledge the work of the YMCA in Brandon and salute and support their efforts in continuing forward. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on this bill?
House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 301, The Young Men's Christian Association of Brandon Incorporation Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, would you please canvass the House to see if there is leave to bring forward a motion to provide for a refund of fees regarding Bill 301.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to bring forward a motion to provide for a refund of the fees regarding Bill 301? [Agreed]
Mr. Caldwell: I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Mr. Jha),
THAT the fees paid with respect to Bill 301, The Young Men's Christian Association of Brandon Incorporation Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation « Young Men's Christian Association of Brandon », be refunded less the cost of printing.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate?
House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Would you please call third readings and concurrence of the following bills: Bill 8, 12, 16, 17, 26, 28 and 37.
Mr. Speaker: We'll now proceed with calling bills for concurrence and third readings, starting with bills 8, then followed by Bill 12, 16, 17, 26, 28 and 37.
Bill
8–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act
(Use of Child Safety Seats)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 8, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Use of Child Safety Seats); Loi modifiant le Code de la route (utilisation de sièges de sécurité pour enfants), reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate?
House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
* (17:50)
Bill
12–The Consumer Protection Amendment Act
(Motor Vehicle Work and Repairs)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 12, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Motor Vehicle Work and Repairs); Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de consommateur (travaux et réparations concernant les véhicules automobiles), reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate?
Seeing none, the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill
16–The Consumer Protection Amendment Act
(Improved Enforcement and Administration)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 16, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Improved Enforcement and Administration); Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de consommateur (amélioration des dispositions d'application), reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any debate?
House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 17–The Non-Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 17, The Non-Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la santé des non-fumeurs, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? Seeing none, we're ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 26–The International
Interests in Mobile Equipment Act
(Aircraft Equipment)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 26, The International Interests in Mobile Equipment Act (Aircraft Equipment); Loi sur les garanties internationales portant sur des matériels d'équipement mobiles (matériels d'équipement aéronautiques), reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Question.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 28–The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 28, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location à usage d'habitation, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any debate?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Question.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill
37– The Highway Traffic Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act
(Bicycle Helmets)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 37, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act (Bicycle Helmets); Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires (casques de bicyclettes), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any debate?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Ms. Howard: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, would you please call third readings and concurrence in the following bills: Bill 4, 11, 15, 19, 22, 36, 10, 18, 27 and 34.
Mr. Speaker: We'll now proceed with calling bills for concurrence and third reading in the order: Bill 4, Bill 11, Bill 15, Bill 19, Bill 22, Bill 36, Bill 10, Bill 18, Bill 27 and then Bill 34.
Bill 4–The Missing Persons Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan), that Bill 4, The Missing Persons Act; Loi sur les personnes disparues, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any debate? Seeing none, we're ready for the question.
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill
11–The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act
(Administrative Forfeiture and Miscellaneous Amendments)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan), that Bill 11, The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act (Administrative Forfeiture and Miscellaneous Amendments); Loi modifiant la Loi sur la confiscation de biens obtenus ou utilisés criminellement (confiscation administrative et modifications diverses), reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any debate?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 15–The Fortified Buildings Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan), that Bill 15, The Fortified Buildings Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les bâtiments fortifiés, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate?
Mr. Gerrard: I just want to say briefly, I have raised some concerns about how this legislation could be misused. Notwithstanding those concerns, I believe that this important legislation, to support, because of the potential to provide additional protection to police who may be involved in enforcing matters related to gangs and other criminal investigations in enforcement practices. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
* (18:00)
Bill 19–The Use of Animals to Shield Unlawful Activities Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan), that Bill 19, The Use of Animals to Shield Unlawful Activities Act; Loi sur l'utilisation d'animaux dans le cadre d'activités illégales, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Debate?
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, as on Bill 11, I had raised concerns about the potential for misuse of this bill at second reading. I still have some concerns but I think that on balance, it's important to have this legislation to be able to protect law officers and police who are trying to enforce the laws of the land and to make sure that we decrease the potential for people who are involved in gangs and mischief to perpetrate bad deeds.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 22–The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
(Extension of Ignition-Interlock Program)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan), that Bill 22, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Extension of Ignition-Interlock Program); Loi modifiant le Code de la route (extension du programme de verrouillage du système de démarrage), reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 36–The Human Rights Code Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan), that Bill 36, The Human Rights Code Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Debate?
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to put a few words on the record about this bill. In 1970, the Manitoba Legislature broke new ground by passing Manitoba's first human rights act. In 1987, almost exactly 25 years ago, this Legislature passed The Human Rights Code, which both modernized and advanced the cause of human rights in Manitoba. As many Manitobans recounted recently that struggle was not easy.
This bill will continue Manitoba's reputation as a leader in human rights by expanding protections against discrimination to socially disadvantaged persons and transgendered persons. We want Manitoba to continue to be seen not just in Canada, but by the world as a place of tolerance and of diversity. So I encourage all members to support this bill.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize as I did at second reading my support for the advancement of human rights here. I think we still have some areas where we need to improve, but I think this is an important step forward.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 10–The Securities Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), that Bill 10, The Securities Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 18–The Affordable Utility Rate Accountability Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), that Bill 18, The Affordable Utility Rate Accountability Act; Loi sur la responsabilisation en matière de tarifs de services publics abordables, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 27–The Insurance Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), that Bill 27, The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 34–The Public-Private Partnerships Transparency and Accountability Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), that Bill 34, The Public‑Private Partnerships Transparency and Accountability Act; Loi sur la transparence et la responsibilité en matière de partenariats public-privé, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Stefanson: And I just want to indicate for the House that we will not be supporting this piece of legislation. As has been common practice it seems with the NDP government, they don't do proper consultation with the various stakeholders in the community prior to bringing forward legislation. We believe that this is one of those pieces of legislation where there should have been significantly more consultation that took place prior to having this bill come forward in this House.
So, for those reasons, we don't–we believe that this bill should not be passed in this House today.
Mr. Gerrard: This legislation, I think, is important in recognizing that P3s are an important instrument of the way that governments work and the way that governments support the construction of infrastructure projects, and that P3s should be regulated, and there should be a framework for that. But, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, in this circumstance, I believe, particularly, given the comment and the discussion that there was at committee stage, that this bill is premature and that the government should go back and do some additional work and consultation and bring this legislation back in the fall as an improved piece of legislation instead of the current legislation.
Mr. Speaker: Further debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I heard a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment–or the motion, please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it.
* (18:10)
Formal Vote
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Deputy Official Opposition House Leader): Recorded vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order, please.
The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 34, The Public-Private Partnerships Transparency and Accountability Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allan, Allum, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Caldwell, Chief, Crothers, Dewar, Gaudreau, Howard, Irvin‑Ross, Jha, Kostyshyn, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Pettersen, Robinson, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Whitehead, Wiebe, Wight.
Nays
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Smook, Stefanson, Wishart.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 35, Nays 19.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Ms. Howard: Would you call third readings on bills 20, 23, 31, 32, 6, 14, 30, 3, 5, 9 and 21.
Mr. Speaker: We'll now call concurrence and third readings on bills 20, 23, 31, 32, 6, 14, 30, 3, 5, 9 and 21.
Bill 20–The
Planning Amendment Act
(Inland Port Area)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Local Government (Mr. Lemieux), that Bill 20, The Planning Amendment Act (Inland Port Area); Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire (zone intermodale), reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? Seeing none.
The House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
* (18:20)
Bill 23–The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Local Government (Mr. Lemieux), that Bill 23, The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act; Loi modifiant certaines lois d'administration locale, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 31–The Bilingual Service Centres Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Local Government (Mr. Lemieux), that Bill 31, The Bilingual Service Centres Act; Loi sur les centres de services bilingues, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill
32–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act
(Power of Traffic Authorities over Cycling Traffic)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Local Government (Mr. Lemieux), that Bill 32, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Powers of Traffic Authorities over Cycling Traffic); Loi modifiant le Code de la route (pouvoirs des autorités chargées de la circulation à l'égard des bicyclettes), reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of increased active transportation, increased cycling, and increased safety of cycling, which continues to be a major and ongoing concern.
The problem I see with this act is that it was not as well thought out as it should have been in carefully delineating what powers would be kept centrally in the Province and what powers would be the responsibility of the municipalities. I think the last thing we need is 197 different rules around cycling with different rules in every municipality, but I think that certain aspects of cycling and the regulation of cycling, certainty, should be done locally, and that we should have much more ability to have cycling paths and to be able to have much safer approaches to cycling where cyclists will be safer.
But I don’t believe that this bill as it is written at the moment is ready, and I don't believe it's in the best interest to pass this bill right now, because I think it needs more work, and, therefore, I'm against this bill as it is right now.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Bill
6–The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act
(Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald), that Bill 6, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement); Loi modifiant la Loi sur les offices régionaux de la santé (accroissement de la responsabilité financière et de la participation communautaire), reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources and subsequently amended, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which is to promote the amalgamation of regional health authorities, I believe, has been put forward by the government, as they have said, to save money and to, you know, improve things for health care in this province.
Mr. Speaker, I disagree. You know, there is no evidence when the regional health authorities of South Westman and Marquette were amalgamated to form Assiniboia that there was any significant savings. They were eaten up in extra travel, extra committee meetings and extra activities. And the next thing is that you had people who were at the edges of the regional health authority in areas like Neepawa who were very opposed and felt separated from much of what was going on in the regional health authority. You had situations where people were less supported in their local community than before and where there were more concerns about what was happening instead of less.
Mr. Speaker, the–I asked in Estimates for the minister to table the study she had which shows that this amalgamation will save costs and improve quality and the minister completely failed to table even a single study. It was a terrible performance by a minister who–there is a lack of basic confidence in many of the things that she has done in health care because many of the indices, including the wait times for personal care homes and the way that she has approached many other areas of health care. And when a lack of confidence is there, then we need to be asking real questions.
There is no evidence that the minister has put forward that this will actually improve the quality of health care in this province. The minister has said this will increase sensitivity to local community needs, but, in my view, this is another instance where the minister is saying one thing, but doing something completely different. She is removing the central authority of the regions further and further away from community needs in many areas.
There are concerns that faith-based institutions have come forward. Again, it was a demonstration that the minister was not sensitive to what was happening locally, and she may be able, in some fashion, to partly correct this, but as I've already said, that the act itself wasn't changed.
I have argued for much better accountability, but to change the funding structure from global budgets to what is being used now in BC, which is patient-focused funding where funding is based on services delivered, and, I believe, through doing this we can bring in a different approach to accountability and much better accountability. It has to be done, obviously, well, and I'm not sure that this minister can do things well.
We have certainly argued that there are certain aspects of health care which need to be done at a provincial level. The diabetes epidemic which has been going on since 1996 and is still going on, and, in fact, from all the evidence we have is increasing because of the inaction and poor approach taken by this minister.
We have certain areas of specialty networks, bone and joint health, for example, which should be looked at and handled and be a responsibility provincially. But trying to amalgamate and get five health regions instead of 11 is going halfway in certain areas, but it's not addressing other areas and, really, there is no evidence that this is actually going to increase the–either the efficiency or improve the quality of health care. And it's going to be, quite frankly, a big effort in changing much in the system as we saw in other areas, but not necessarily going to get us any better result. But it will have people focusing on the amalgamation instead of the improvement of quality of services and improvement in the health system.
* (18:30)
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am–we are, in the Liberal Party, opposed to this legislation. We may be the only party in this Legislature opposed to this, but I think that there is another direction, a better direction, and in this case the minister has chosen the wrong direction.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on Bill 6?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of–in support of Bill 6, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement), please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.
An Honourable Member: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division, declare the motion carried.
Bill 14–The Protection for Persons in Care Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald), that Bill 14, The Protection for Persons in Care Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection des personnes recevant des soins, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 30–The Regulated Health Professions Amendment and Personal Health Information Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald), that Bill 30, The Regulated Health Professions Amendment and Personal Health Information Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées et la Loi sur les renseignements médicaux personnels, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 3–The Highway
Traffic Amendment Act
(Speed Limits in School Zones)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Robinson), that Bill 3, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Speed Limits in School Zones); Loi modifiant le Code de la route (limites de vitesse dans les zones scolaires), reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I have considered this matter quite carefully, listened carefully to presenters at the committee stage and want to review some of the facts related to this bill.
On the face of it, it would appear to be a kind of a motherhood bill and, certainly, I'm in very much in favour of safety for children. I have fought very hard for safety for children in this Legislature and outside for many, many years.
However, as I think has become clear through careful look at what is being proposed in this act, that I believe that this measure is at this point premature and that what the government should do is to go back and do some more work and bring this back in the fall.
Let me review some of the issues here when it comes to the consideration of lowering speed limits in school zones. First of all, let me start with the city of Edmonton. Now, the city of Edmonton currently doesn't have 'rezused' speed in school zones and what they have done is to do very detailed studies on their collision history in Edmonton. And Edmonton right now has 15 per cent fewer collisions involving elementary-aged children compared to the city of Calgary, which does have reduced speeds.
I'm concerned, as the evidence would bear out, that this provides the appearance that we are doing something without in fact doing what needs to be done, as in fact Edmonton has done. What Edmonton has found is that the main traffic concern during school drop-off and pickup times are congestion, improper turns, failure to yield to pedestrians, and speed is generally not the major issue right around schools at the time of drop-up and pickup. They also concluded, as I have mentioned a moment ago, that a reduced speed in school zones creates the perception of safety without actually creating safety, a false sense of security. And, quite simply, children have the expectation that the zone is safe; they have a perception of safety. They're more liable to run out in the road. They're not trained as well, because people expect the road to be slowed down.
Now, Edmonton did trial school zones just to test this. They found that 89 per cent of the traffic did not comply with the reduced limits. Saskatoon had similar findings, and they also found when they looked at this that kids are getting hit more outside of the zones than within the zones. They're getting hit on their way to school not actually in the school zone, but they are getting hit on their own streets. They also found that there were problems with the school zone speed reductions in creating excessive congestion, and, as I said already, that the main problem in the school zones are not actually the speed, but they are these other areas, improper turns, congestion, illegal parking, jaywalking. Those are the kind of issues that there needs to be education, and they have focused on addressing those in Edmonton.
The other thing that is clearly a problem here in Manitoba in relation to school zones is, in fact, in the city of Winnipeg, the signage around school zones. It has been found by Chris Sweryda and others that there are big problems with signage around a number of school zones in Winnipeg, and, in spite of these issues being raised, that they have not been addressed, and this bill doesn't address the missing signs. So this becomes a real problem if we have issues around school zones which are not being addressed by this bill. The–there are, for example, in Winnipeg in 60-kilometre-per-hour zones, there are 28 school zones in Winnipeg in 60 kilometre-per-hour roads, only 13 of these are properly signed. You know, there needs to be some major attention to this basic and fundamental issue of signage.
Now what has happened in Edmonton, and in other places, is that–you know, in Edmonton they have created 'crommunity' safety zones and that is where there are some issues related to safety. They will lower the speed limit on that road and it will become a community safe zones.
It's not just specific to schools. Some residential schools where there's problems have become 40, you know, that's instead of 50, but they are addressing the specific problems. Instead of what's happening here in Winnipeg, and what this government is trying to do, is to come in with legislation, which, as I've said, really gives more of a perception of safety rather than real safety. There are–and this has been emphasized by a number of presenters, including Charles Feaver, that when we're seeking safety for pedestrians and cyclists that we should be looking at broader zones and not just school zones. And I believe that there really needs to be an overall plan which will in a major way address cycling safety as well as pedestrian safety in Winnipeg. And that this broader plan–and in some areas including broader zones with lower limits, or community safety zones, as I've already talked about in Edmonton, which should be emphasized, and not just a blanket approach to reduce speeds by schools.
* (18:40)
As, again, in this case, Lynne Warda, who was presenting, emphasized, that studies of the effectiveness of school speed zones have been very mixed, and there is documentation of poor compliance with school and playground speed limits. And, indeed, Lynne Warda has emphasized that if active transformation–transportation of children is to be promoted, we should reduce speeds and use traffic-calming measures as well as crossing guards to maximize the impact. We're concerned that limiting speed reduction to school zones may not have the desired impact, and Lynne Warda, again, talks about using and considering broader community safety zones instead of just school zones.
This government should have sat back and done some more work, done some more consulting and, I believe, should've brought in a broader and more effective plan than this approach, which, as presenters have said, that may give the illusion of safety rather than real safety.
As Mr. Giroux pointed out at committee stage, Winnipeg has unique problems. We have a massive number of school zones; there's 259. And you shouldn't just compare Winnipeg to other areas. We should have a very comprehensive and unique plan that's very effective in reducing injuries and making it more safe for communities, for pedestrians and for children and for cyclists. But, you know, this blanket approach which just addresses school zones, quite frankly, based on the evidence which there is at the moment, is not the right way to go. You know, we do not, Mr. Giroux points out, have accidents to speak of in school zones. Indeed, part of the issue here, MPIC has no collision data in school zones.
This government has not done the basic research work, the foundational work which–on which we should have this sort of a plan. I suggest that the government go back and do this foundational work and bring back legislation which is broader, more comprehensive, which will be much more effective, in the fall. And I think that, thus, that this is premature.
Planners and engineers should have access to a gamut of tools, not just this one, where there are questions about whether it's actually going to be effective. And we need to have an overall plan, as many presenters emphasized.
I think that there is more room, actually, for reform otherwise in The Highway Traffic Act as well, but let us emphasize real safety. Let us do things which work. Let's do an overall plan. Let's do the consultations and the groundwork to make this a really, really good effort which will provide greater safety instead of passing this legislation today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on Bill 3?
House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 5–The Highway
Traffic Amendment Act
(Inter-City Bus Service)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation (Mr. Ashton), that Bill 5, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Inter‑City Bus Service); Loi modifiant le Code de la route (service d'autobus interurbain), reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment that a number of the bills that this government has brought forward on this occasion were not well-planned and well thought out. They really should've had a lot better work.
And this is an example of a bill that should've been put–brought forward and passed a year ago so that there was adequate time, instead of bringing in this sort of major, major transportation change for buses on July the 1st, just a couple of weeks after we're passing this legislation.
You know, it puts at risk bus services to lots of small communities, and somebody, Mr. Speaker, needs to stand up in this province for small communities, and that's why I'm getting up here because we–this government is not paying adequate attention to small communities which have had bus service. They are not giving enough time for the switchover to a new system for many small services, and I just have a great deal of concern and I want to emphasize that concern. I think that this minister should have done much better planning and should have put this legislation in place a year ago instead of now.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on the bill? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 9–The Public
Schools Amendment Act
(Community Use of Schools)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Children and Youth Opportunities (Mr. Chief), that Bill 9, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Community Use of Schools); Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques (utilisation communautaire des écoles), reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 21–The Public
Schools Amendment Act
(Code of Conduct for School Trustees)
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. Selby), that Bill 21, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Code of Conduct for School Trustees); Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques (code de conduite à l'intention des commissaires d'écoles), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
House Business
Ms. Howard: Would you please call third readings and concurrence on bill–bills 13, 24, 25, 29, 33 and 35.
Mr. Speaker: Now call concurrence and third reading on the following bills: Bill 13, followed by Bill 24, Bill 25, Bill 29, Bill 33 and then, finally, Bill 35.
Bill 13–The Renewable Energy Jobs Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the First Minister, that Bill 13, The Renewable Energy Jobs Act; Loi sur les emplois dans le domaine de l'énergie renouvelable, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
* (18:50)
Bill 24–The Energy Savings Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Kostyshyn), that Bill 24, The Energy Savings Act; Loi sur les économies d'énergie, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? House–honourable member for Brandon West.
Mr. Helwer: I rise speak to this, the third reading of this bill; we will not be supporting it.
We heard many people speaking to it in committee and there was call for a more consultative process getting to this period where we are with this bill. They were asking for targets to be apparent in the bill and much more transparency. And we've spoken much about transparency for this government, in this House.
The things that are kind of concerning in this bill is our calls for Hydro to have a broader change to their lending practices and there would be much more extensive due diligence be required on Hydro's behalf. And I'm not sure that they're able to do that with the structure they have set up just at this point. It also makes hay–Hydro into a social agency, and that is not the intent of Manitoba Hydro. There is no guidance on how, or where, or when, the money is to be disbursed, and in terms of paying it back, well, on the meter, when it–when you install something in your house–but if it's in a social program, there's a question of that.
Taking it off the gross export sales, you know, if–when the sales are down, like they are now, obviously, in order to fund this, it's coming out of–right out of Manitoba ratepayers' pockets, and I do not believe that that is the intent of Manitoba Hydro. It certainly could in–result in increased rates for Manitobans, and there's also a question of whether this bill undermines the authority of the Public Utilities Board.
So all of those are concerns for us, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Mr. Gerrard: You know, I think that the concept here, in this bill, which is that you can help people to move to more energy-efficient circumstances by doing some creative approaches in which the payback that will come from energy savings can be used to support the conversion of homes to a more energy-efficient status. That the concept behind this bill is an interesting and–ID–I think, quite a reasonable one.
I think that there's a lot of details that need to be sorted out in this bill, which I have concerns about–targets, and so on. But I think that, I mean, we've heard quite a number of positive concerns about the concept here, and I think it has some significant potential. It, of course, has to be done well and carefully. I'm not sure that this government is necessarily up to doing that, but I do think that, you know, this is a concept that has some significant merit.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate?
House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it.
Formal Vote
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): Recorded vote, please, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order, please.
The question before the House is Bill 24, The Energy Savings Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allum, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Caldwell, Chief, Crothers, Dewar, Gaudreau, Gerrard, Irvin‑Ross, Jha, Kostyshyn, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Pettersen, Robinson, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Whitehead, Wiebe, Wight.
Nays
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Smook, Stefanson, Taillieu, Wishart.
Madam Clerk: Yeas 33, Nays 19.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Bill 25–The Groundwater and Water Well and Related Amendments Act
Hon. Steve Ashton (Acting Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the minister of northern Aboriginal affairs, that Bill 25, The Groundwater and Water Well and Related Amendments Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 29–The Contaminated Sites Remediation Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Conservation and Water Stewardship (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 29, The Contaminated Sites Remediation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assainissement des lieux contaminés, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any debate?
Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 33–The Election Financing Act and Elections Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan), that Bill 33, The Election Financing Act and Elections Amendment Act; Loi sur le financement des élections et Loi modifiant la Loi électorale, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Debate?
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I've spoken several times already on this particular bill, but I just want to recap that we cannot support this bill and we think it should be brought back at a later date. Looking at the amendments that we have proposed, which are penalties for ministers that break election laws, looking at a date before the federal election in 2015, looking at the very good idea of voter identification at the polls, Mr. Speaker, which is standard in other elections, and the notion that the leader needs to approve advertising under his own name–or his or her own name.
So I think there's a lot of other things in this bill that are very nebulous and really not very specific. So I think it would be a better idea to bring it back at a later date considering all the amendments that have been proposed and considering all parties' input and do it later.
So we won't be supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker: Any further–
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, several points.
I think it was apparent that there was need for overhaul of The Elections Act and Election Finances Act, and the government has done that, but they certainly should have done more consulting with all political parties before they brought in this legislation.
I believe that the concept of having a provincial election which doesn't conflict with the federal election is a good one, but, certainly, with this particular government and their performance with a huge deficit, their lack of attention to children in Manitoba suggests to me that it would be far better having that election earlier rather than later.
Certainly, our approach would support the change to funding political parties, which is more based on the needs to address the requirements for–administrative requirements for complying with The Elections Act, et cetera. And so I think that this is in the right direction.
But, as I said, I don't feel that there was adequate consultation in this bill. And so, overall, given some of the deficiencies on this occasion, we think that it could have gone back and had more work and come back again. And so, we'll not be supporting this on this occasion.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on the bill? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Some Honourable Members: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it.
Formal Vote
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Official Opposition House Leader): That was close, Mr. Speaker. I think we need a recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order, please.
The question before the House is Bill 33, The Election Financing Act and Elections Amendment Act.
* (19:10)
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allum, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Caldwell, Chief, Crothers, Dewar, Gaudreau, Howard, Irvin‑Ross, Jha, Kostyshyn, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Pettersen, Robinson, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Whitehead, Wiebe, Wight.
Nays
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Smook, Stefanson, Taillieu, Wishart.
Madam Clerk: Yeas 33, Nays 20.
Mr. Speaker: Declare the motion carried.
Bill 35–The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment Act
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Entrepreneurship, Training and Trade (Mr. Bjornson), that Bill 35, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail, reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate?
House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Ms. Howard: Would you please resume third reading debate on Bill 2, and then move to third readings and concurrence on Bill 7 and Bill 38.
Mr. Speaker: We'll now call for third reading of Bill 2, preceded–or followed by concurrence and third reading on bills 7 and 38.
Bill 2–The
Protecting Affordability for University Students Act
(Council on Post-Secondary Education Act Amended)
Mr. Speaker: So we'll start with third reading on Bill 2, The Protecting Affordability for University Students Act (Council on Post-Secondary Education Act Amended), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Paul (Mr. Schuler), who has 29 minutes remaining.
Is there leave for this matter to remain standing in the member for St. Paul's name?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Any further debate?
Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): I'd like to put a couple comments on the record.
On Wednesday, June 6th, 2012, during the Standing Committee on Human Resources, 33 people had signed up to present; 24 people had presented, and three had submitted written submissions. We had quite the diverse group of presentations: administration, professors, parents and students. Not one presenter was in favour of this bill. Many of the presenters had brought forward amendments, Mr. Speaker. They also stated that during consultation with the minister they shared their concerns, but none of these concerns were made it–had made it to the bill.
Some of the concerns were that Bill 2 only includes universities. Bill 2 does not include 52 per cent of students who are attending post-secondary institutions in the province. International students are also not included in this bill.
Another concern is that the tuition fees increase formula to inflation–if we faced a large inflation rate, the tuition fees would go up dramatically. I asked what would happen if the rate of inflation or if we suffered deflation, would the fees go down, Mr. Speaker. I did not get an answer from the minister on that point.
The policy for designated degree programs does–in regards to the policy of designated degree programs, does this leave a loophole, Mr. Speaker? Will we possibly in the future see only the faculty of arts and science as non-professional programs?
Many questions were put forward to committee on June 6th, but few comments or answers were from the minister. It was obviously–it was obvious at committee on June 6 that there is more work and consultations to be done on Bill 2.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to put some comments on the record.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, Liberals are opposed to this bill.
It's interesting in this legislation that the bill tries to go after some Liberal ideas, tuition rising with the rate of inflation and three-year funding horizons for post-secondary education institutions. But it fails in that it does neither of these objectives well.
First of all, on allowing tuition to rise with the rate of inflation: This bill covers less than half of the students–you know, less than 50 per cent is a fail, Mr. Speaker. Let's be blunt and let's recognize that. The bill doesn't cover college students, international students or students in professional programs. And for professional programs, it doesn't provide a clear and adequate definition, so it's a–you know, we not sure exactly where it's going to end in that area.
On a three-year funding for post-secondary education institutions so that institutions can plan better, it also fails. The three-year funding is only provided every third year, there's no guarantee funding commitments will be met and no sanctions to a government which doesn't meet the three-year funding commitments. This, too, is not good enough. There's clearly no justification for intruding on the autonomy of post-secondary education institutions without having adequately met both of these objectives and made sure that there was very secure and adequate funding for post-secondary education institutions.
In our view, this bill should not pass in its current form. I note that we, as legislators, listened to many presenters, but the government did not listen very effectively and no amendments were brought in. Let me just mention some of the things that presenters said. Jennifer Black said, you know, education is a crux; it's a tool by which better–the better society to the benefit of all. I think that in that end, she says, this bill does not protect access for students and it does not create access to the most marginalized and at need communities.
Bilan Arte, a student at–with University of Manitoba Students' Union, said, what other legislation that provides fundamental rights to residents of this province allows the provincial government to step in and diminish those rights as it sees fit?
Student Zach Fleisher, said, I'm here to speak against this piece of legislation as I believe that such a bill could potentially harm this province's post-secondary education institutions. He says, I think it's a poorly constructed bill. He mentions that the government is still failing to address the funding disparities between the University of Winnipeg compared with other universities, the University of Winnipeg getting much less per student than others. He says, I believe that Bill 2 should not go further.
Allen Mills, who's a professor, said, universities are crucial to the civilized development of life in this province. He asks about the three-year commitment; is that three-year commitment solid, hard? If it is, well a solid, hard commitment, what are the sanctions? There aren't any. You know, this is not appropriate and it's not good. And, again, Professor Mills says the–reference to his university, the University of Winnipeg, that it's worked very, very hard to increase the number of students that come there, but it gets no reward for that. It gets no reward at all because there's no funding formula, perhaps, tied to the issue of per-student enrollment and so on.
Nicolas Audette, University of St. Boniface, said, what bothers me about Bill 2 is that it won't necessarily be capping tuition fees to the rate of inflation, because universities will still be able to raise tuition fees more than this and the 'techsniques' used to penalize universities for this is the clawback method, which I don't agree with.
Mohamed Ammoumou, of the Canadian Federation of Students, says, Manitobans were promised tuition fee increases no higher than inflation, but in this bill are given increases no lower than inflation. He says, as it stands, Bill 2 will offer mild protection to students, while leaving enough loopholes for universities to increase fees by either applying for increases above inflation or increasing ancillary fees.
Pamela McLeod, representing the board of regents at the University of Winnipeg, says, the board of regents is unanimously opposed to Bill 2; Bill 2 may compromise the ability of the board of regents to meet its fiduciary responsibilities in presenting a balanced budget.
Lloyd Axworthy emphasized the importance of quality as well as the issue of access. He–if–the University of Winnipeg, in a low-income, high-risk area of Winnipeg, talked about the careful surveys that they had done and found that the barriers are much more than just tuition fees and that they start much earlier than you even begin to start thinking about tuition fees.
* (19:20)
Dr. Axworthy says, I would say let's amend the bill to also say, how do we promote excellence in education and make sure there's enough flexibility and governance available within that bill so that the–these people who are given the authority and legitimacy to make those decisions can exercise them fully without interference?
But what did this government do? They didn't make an amendment to address this which is a central issue.
Sharon Alward of the University of Manitoba Faculty Association said university funding should be on a three-year period each year, a rolling three-year period rather than what it is here. We agree. With respect to the operating grant, she goes on to say there's only a requirement that COPSE must provide a three-year forecast in the 2014-15 fiscal year and then every third fiscal year after that. There's no guarantee of any increase at all and nothing that prevents a decrease in the operating grant if the government decides to do that.
Matt McLean of CUPE said we feel the legislation, as it stands, doesn't effectively regulate fees nor does it provide adequate protection for both our members and all Manitoba students.
Kyra Wilson talked about the fact that Aboriginal funding was not addressed; we agree.
Ashley Shewchuk a student–Canadian Federation of Students liaison director with the University of Winnipeg Students' Association says that the title, Protecting Affordability for University Students Act, is a fallacious statement. This legislation, as it stands, does not achieve its intent.
Irene Fabura-Manuel, the women's rep on the University of Manitoba Students' Union, said if this was protection it would be like an umbrella with holes in it, and international students and colleges and students in professional student programs they will be drenched because you can't see anything here that actually helps them.
Jordan Poitras says he–who will be applying to enter post-secondary education, says, if you are protecting affordability, you won't pass this bill.
Kahleigh Krochak says this bill is nothing less than a form of discrimination against those of us who aren't as lucky as I am. It's a bill that denies those who were not born into a high enough socio-economic status with the ability to realize their dreams, either by keeping them out of school entirely or saddling them with a crushing debt. She says, I urge this: Vote against Bill 2 and to work towards the Canadian value, the human value of equality by removing barriers to education, not adding to them.
Cameron Monkman says, I don't agree with this bill.
Theodoros Messinezis Zegeye-Gebrehiwot says, the serious danger and problem with this bill is it's very discriminatory and it doesn't include colleges and international students.
And those are a bit of a summary of what was said and, clearly, there's a lot of opposition to this bill. There's not very much support for it and that's a reason why I will be opposing this bill.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on the bill? House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
CONCURRENCE AND THIRD READINGS
(Continued)
Bill 7–The Community Renewal Act
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Housing and Community Development (Ms. Irvin-Ross), that Bill 7, The Community Renewal Act; Loi sur la revalorisation des collectivités, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate?
House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 38–The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2012
Ms. Howard: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan), that Bill 38, The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2012; Loi corrective de 2012, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any debate?
Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Ms. Howard: I believe we're ready to start the royal assent process.
Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms (Ray Gislason): His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
Mr. Speaker: Your Honour:
The Legislative Assembly of Manitoba asks Your Honour to accept the following bills:
Clerk Assistant (Claude Michaud):
Bill 40–The Appropriation Act, 2012; Loi de 2012 portant affectation de crédits
Bill 41–The Loan Act, 2012; Loi d'emprunt de 2012
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): In Her Majesty's name, the Lieutenant-Governor thanks the Assembly and assents to these bills.
Mr. Speaker: Your Honour:
At this sitting, the Legislative Assembly has passed certain bills that I ask Your Honour to give royal assent to.
* (19:30)
Clerk Assistant:
Bill 2–The Protecting Affordability for University Students Act (Council on Post-Secondary Education Act Amended); Loi sur la protection de l'accessibilité aux études universitaires (modification de la Loi sur le Conseil de l'enseignement postsecondaire)
Bill 3–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Speed Limits in School Zones); Loi modifiant le Code de la route (limites de vitesse dans les zones scolaires)
Bill 4–The Missing Persons Act; Loi sur les personnes disparues
Bill 5–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Inter-City Bus Service); Loi modifiant le Code de la route (service d'autobus interurbain)
Bill 6–The Regional Health Authorities Amendment Act (Improved Fiscal Responsibility and Community Involvement); Loi modifiant la Loi sur les offices régionaux de la santé (accroissement de la responsabilité financière et de la participation communautaire)
Bill 7–The Community Renewal Act; Loi sur la revalorisation des collectivités
Bill 8–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Use of Child Safety Seats); Loi modifiant le Code de la route (utilisation de sièges de sécurité pour enfants)
Bill 9–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Community Use of Schools); Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques (utilisation communautaire des écoles)
Bill 10–The Securities Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières
Bill 11–The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act (Administrative Forfeiture and Miscellaneous Amendments); Loi modifiant la Loi sur la confiscation de biens obtenus ou utilisés criminellement (confiscation administrative et modifications diverses)
Bill 12–The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Motor Vehicle Work and Repairs); Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (travaux et réparations concernant les véhicules automobiles)
Bill 13–The Renewable Energy Jobs Act; Loi sur les emplois dans le domaine de l'énergie renouvelable
Bill 14–The Protection for Persons in Care Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection des personnes recevant des soins
Bill 15–The Fortified Buildings Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les bâtiments fortifiés
Bill 16–The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Improved Enforcement and Administration); Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (amélioration des dispositions d'application)
Bill 17–The Non-Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la santé des non-fumeurs
Bill 18–The Affordable Utility Rate Accountability Act; Loi sur la responsabilisation en matière de tarifs de services publics abordables
Bill 19–The Use of Animals to Shield Unlawful Activities Act; Loi sur l'utilisation d'animaux dans le cadre d'activités illégales
Bill 20–The Planning Amendment Act (Inland Port Area); Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire (zone intermodale)
Bill 21–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Code of Conduct for School Trustees); Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques (code de conduite à l'intention des commissaires d'écoles)
Bill 22–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Extension of Ignition-Interlock Program); Loi modifiant le Code de la route (extension du programme de verrouillage du système de démarrage)
Bill 23–The Local Government Statutes Amendment Act; Loi modifiant certaines lois d'administration locale
Bill 24–The Energy Savings Act; Loi sur les économies d'énergie
Bill 25–The Groundwater and Water Well and Related Amendments Act; Loi sur les eaux souterraines et les puits et modifications connexes
Bill 26–The International Interests in Mobile Equipment Act (Aircraft Equipment); Loi sur les garanties internationales portant sur des matériels d'équipement mobiles (matériels d'équipement aéronautiques)
Bill 27–The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances
Bill 28–The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location à usage d'habitation
Bill 29–The Contaminated Sites Remediation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assainissement des lieux contaminés
Bill 30–The Regulated Health Professions Amendment and Personal Health Information Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées et la Loi sur les renseignements médicaux personnels
Bill 31–The Bilingual Service Centres Act; Loi sur les centres de services bilingues
Bill 32–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Powers of Traffic Authorities over Cycling Traffic); Loi modifiant le Code de la route (pouvoirs des autorités chargées de la circulation à l'égard des bicyclettes)
Bill 33–The Election Financing Act and Elections Amendment Act; Loi sur le financement des élections et Loi modifiant la Loi électorale
Bill 34–The Public-Private Partnerships Transparency and Accountability Act; Loi sur la transparence et la responsabilité en matière de partenariats public-privé
Bill 35–The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail
Bill 36–The Human Rights Code Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne
Bill 37–The Highway Traffic Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act (Bicycle Helmets); Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires (casques de bicyclettes)
Bill 38–The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2012; Loi corrective de 2012
Bill 39–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2012; Loi d'exécution du budget de 2012 et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité
Bill 208–The Remembrance Day Awareness Act and Amendments to The Public Schools Act; Loi sur la sensibilisation au jour du Souvenir et modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques
Bill 212–The Apprenticeship Recognition Act; Loi sur la reconnaissance de l’apprentissage
Bill 300–The Jewish Child and Family Service Incorporation Act; Loi constituant en corporation le Jewish Child and Family Service
Bill 301–The Young Men's Christian Association of Brandon Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation « The Young Men's Christian Association of Brandon »
Madam Clerk: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour assents to these bills.
His Honour was then pleased to retire.
"God Save the Queen" was sung.
"O Canada" was sung.
* (19:40)
Mr. Speaker: Please be seated.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): I just want to briefly thank you for your patience and hard work. I want to thank, on behalf of all members, the table officers, the staff of the Legislature, the pages, all of which who have served us so well through this session.
And with that, I would ask you to please adjourn us.
Mr. Speaker: Prior to calling the adjournment, I'd like to remind honourable members that I have a reception in my office after this and you're all invited to participate and I would welcome you there in a show of friendship.
And, of course, the hour being past 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until the call of the Speaker. Enjoy your summer. Come back safe.