LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, everyone. Please be seated.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): On a matter of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: On a matter of privilege.
Mr. Goertzen: I rise on a matter of privilege. Matters of privilege, as you know, Mr. Speaker, are serious matters and should be raised infrequently, and the recent history of this House demonstrates that.
Matters of privilege are to be brought forward when they demonstrate that the rights and the immunities of members, either individually or collectively, have been breached. In this case, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that both collectively and individually this is the case. Specifically, I am raising the issue of information that has been withheld from members: in this case, the 'disposure' of untendered contracts.
Mr. Speaker, there are very specific rules in place for when government issues an untendered contract, a contract for which no competition is allowed. And those rules exist for many legitimate reasons, not the least of which is that untendered contracts should be unusual; they should be the exception. Regrettably, that is not the case under this NDP government, and the frequency of untendered contracts have increased to become routine.
The reason that specific rules of disclosure are in place is when there is an untendered contract, it is difficult to ensure that Manitobans are getting the value for money because that contract is not tested against competition. As well, when contracts are awarded without competition, it increases both the likelihood and the appearance that they may be awarded because of friendships or connections and not because they represent the best possible product or the best possible price. For these reasons, there must be disclosure of untendered contracts so that they can face public scrutiny and scrutiny from us as members. That is part of our parliamentary duties, to analyze and to scrutinize expenditures.
Untendered contracts that are entered into are supposed to be disclosed on a lone computer in the Manitoba Legislative Library without delay after that contract has been entered into. This meagre reporting requirement is problematic in and of itself. But even with only this, it was discovered during our sessional break that untendered contracts related to Tiger Dam contracts in the millions of dollars were not disclosed for five years. This was in violation of The Financial Administration Act. In fact, when–only when our staff and our caucus uncovered these contracts were they ever disclosed, five years in delay and in violation of the law. Even today, contracts are not appearing and not being disclosed which are legally required to be disclosed on the library system.
On April 19th, 1993, Speaker Fraser of the House of Commons found that the failure to disclose information was, in fact, a prima facie case of privilege. And how could it not be, Mr. Speaker? As outlined by Speaker Hickes in his ruling in this House on July 25th–or July 26th of 2000, he describes, as other Speakers including yourself have, Mr. Speaker, that interference or obstruction is a breach of parliamentary privilege if it obstructs the member in his or her parliamentary work. The ability to analyze expenditures and to test the value that Manitobans are getting for their tax dollars is at the heart of a member's parliamentary work. It is fundamental to the work that we do as members. But how can that duty be fulfilled if the information is not provided? How can we or any member of this House scrutinize expenditures that are not disclosed according to law? You can't question what you can't find.
Mr. Speaker, the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practices by O'Brien and Bosc indicates on page 111 that while it is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, some matters found to be a prima facie case include the provision of misleading information. And it cites, as but one example, a ruling in the House of Commons by Speaker Jerome on December 6th, 1978.
Mr. Speaker, the net effect of Speaker Fraser's ruling and the failure to disclose information and the instructions from O'Brien and Bosc on the provision of misleading information point clearly to this matter being an obstruction of members' rights, individually and collectively. By not following the law, again, and not disclosing the untendered contracts appropriately, the NDP have both failed to provide information and, through omission, provided misleading information. The end result is members of this Assembly are not able to fulfill their parliamentary duty to ensure that Manitobans are getting true value for their tax dollar, which members on our side take very seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that I have raised this at the earliest opportunity as these matters are not traditionally brought forward during private members' business debate, but also that this information was verified prior to the House sitting this afternoon.
In conclusion, we believe that a prima facie case of privilege has been established using past precedent and that the issue of untendered contracts by the NDP government not being disclosed in accordance to the law has breached the privileges of members of this House individually and collectively.
And, as such, I move that this matter involving the lack of past and ongoing disclosure of untendered contracts as required under provincial procurement rules be referred to a standing committee of this House, and Mr. Speaker, that motion is seconded by the honourable member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson).
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the matter of privilege.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member's statements are both inaccurate and not factually correct.
In fact, the matter of the contract tendering was an item that had been brought to the attention of the Legislature through a standing committee that has met, I believe, this year at least 10 times and, most recently, two weeks ago where the member and others had the opportunity for several hours to ask and be provided with information in regard to this issue. And with respect to a specific issue as relates to one of the matters, Mr. Speaker, that matter has already been referred the Ombudsman for review. So it's hardly–it's totally inappropriate for the member to say that misleading information has been provided.
In fact, as we speak, all contracts over $10,000, whether tendered or untendered, for the first time in provincial history, probably for the first time in Canada, is available to anyone online.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a process in the past that was inherited, an older process where untendered contracts were put on one computer system available in the Legislative Library. We have listened to what the recommendations have been by the provincial auditor, a report, I might add, that members had the opportunity to both review and amend or agree with. But to say that it's misleading when, in fact, this matter's been discussed, when, in fact, we have indicated not only going forward, but that all contracts untendered and otherwise will be on the province-wide system as we roll that out.
And as recently, Mr. Speaker, as several months ago after the recent–before adjournment–just after adjournment when this House adjourned, the members opposite stood up and asked the very same question and had the opportunity to get the answer in the PAC committee where they spent several hours on it.
So it's hardly misleading and, in fact, it's inaccurate and, in fact, for the first time, as I said, in the history of the province we have the opportunity to get contracts both untendered and tendered online across the entire province. And this suggests to me, as we open this session, it–the opposition is, shall I say, fishing, Mr. Speaker, for an issue with respect to this matter.
It's hardly a matter that has not been both undertaken and reviewed by a standing committee of this Legislature and has been under the adjudication of that standing committee through several meetings and is still being discussed with respect to the contents of same.
So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it's simply a ploy on the part of members opposite. That information has been both offered and what is available has been provided. What members had questioned is the subject of review by the ombudsperson. How more open can you get? Computers are providing the information online. Going forward, the ombudsperson is investigating any matters that have been deemed to be inaccurate, and we have an ongoing standing committee of the Legislature that's looking at the very report that suggested improvements in the system. That is what's available to all members, and if the member wants, he can attend the next meeting of PAC which I think will be scheduled. He'll have an opportunity to ask more questions. Thank you.
* (13:40)
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights, on the same matter of privilege.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, I have some additional comments on this matter of privilege, which is an important matter which has been brought forward by the MLA for Steinbach.
First of all, you know, being able to get things going moving forward, while that's to be applauded, it doesn't make up for the fact that this government has been here for 16 years and that those laws that we're talking about have been on the books for some time.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, what needs to be understood is that this government has been not only shocking in their misuse of contracts and tendering of contracts and having so many untendered contracts that it's hard to understand why they would do this, but it is shocking that these contracts which are untendered have not been reported properly and openly so that they can be found where they should be found, on the computer in the Legislative Library. And the fact that this practice has been so disregarded by this government is something that needs to be investigated very thoroughly. It is a disrespect to all members of the Legislature when this happens. It is, indeed, a serious matter of privilege, a breach of privilege, what has happened here, and it needs to be addressed. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: As all members will know, I take matters of privilege as very serious items to deal with, and I've listened very carefully to the comments made in the Assembly with respect to this matter of privilege and I'm going to take it under advisement. I'm going to consult with the procedural authorities and look at the information and the facts of this matter, and then I will bring back a ruling for the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
We'll now move on to routine proceedings, introduction of bills.
Mr. Speaker: Seeing no bills, we'll now move on to committee reports.
Mr. Dave Gaudreau (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Human Resources presents the following–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on HUMAN RESOURCES presents the following as its First Report.
Meetings
Your Committee met on the following occasions in the Legislative Building:
· September 9, 2015
· September 14, 2015
· September 29, 2015
· September 30, 2015
Matters under Consideration
· Bill (No. 30) – The Non-Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act (E-Cigarettes)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la santé des non-fumeurs (cigarettes électroniques)
Committee Membership
Committee Membership for the September 9, 2015 meeting:
· Hon. Mr. Chief
· Mr. Chomiak
· Hon. Ms. Crothers
· Mrs. Driedger
· Mr. Graydon
· Mr. Marcelino (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Martin
· Mr. Rondeau
· Mr. Swan
· Mr. Wishart
Your Committee elected Mr. Rondeau as the Chairperson at the September 9, 2015 meeting
Committee Membership for the September 14, 2015 meeting:
· Hon. Mr. Allum
· Mr. Altemeyer
· Hon. Ms. Crothers
· Mrs. Driedger
· Ms. Lathlin
· Hon. Ms. Marcelino
· Mr. Martin
· Mr. Rondeau (Chairperson)
· Mr. Smook
· Hon. Ms. Wight
· Mr. Wishart
Your Committee elected Mr. Altemeyer as the Vice‑Chairperson at the September 14, 2015 meeting
Committee Membership for the September 29, 2015 meeting:
· Hon. Mr. Allum
· Hon. Ms. Crothers
· Mr. Cullen
· Mr. Friesen
· Mr. Gaudreau
· Mr. Graydon
· Hon. Mr. Kostyshyn
· Mr. Marcelino
· Mr. Pedersen
· Mr. Swan
· Mr. Wiebe
Your Committee elected Mr. Gaudreau as the Chairperson at the September 29, 2015 meeting.
Your Committee elected Mr. Wiebe as the Vice‑Chairperson at the September 29, 2015 meeting.
Committee Membership for the September 30, 2015 meeting:
· Hon. Mr. Allum
· Hon. Ms. Crothers
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Mr. Gaudreau (Chairperson)
· Mr. Graydon
· Hon. Mr. Lemieux
· Mr. Marcelino
· Mr. Martin
· Hon. Mr. Nevakshonoff
· Mr. Piwniuk
· Mr. Smook
Your Committee elected Mr. Marcelino as the Vice-Chairperson at the September 30, 2015 meeting.
Public Presentations
Your Committee heard the following forty-four presentations on Bill (No. 30) – The Non-Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act (E-Cigarettes)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la santé des non-fumeurs (cigarettes électroniques):
September 9, 2015 meeting
Erin Crawford, Canadian Cancer Society–Manitoba Office
Andrew Klukes, Western Convenience Stores
Alex Scholten, Canadian Convenience Stores Association
Beju Lakhani, Canadian Vaping Association
Tracy Fehr, Manitoba Lung Association
Donald Reay, Private Citizen
Christine Houde, Heart and Stroke Foundation
Jim Baker, Manitoba Hotel Association
Garry Iwankow, Private Citizen
Kerwin Unger, Private Citizen
September 14, 2015 meeting
Caroline Martel, Nicoventures
Kathy Martin, Private Citizen
Rob Cunningham, Canadian Cancer Society – National Office
Charlene Haste, Vapemate
Eden Sorrell, Theravape
Murray Gibson, MANTRA – Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance
Dr. Marcia Anderson-DeCoteau, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority
Scott Jocelyn, Manitoba Restaurant and Foodservices Association
Steven Stairs, Private Citizen
Shaun Croatto, Private Citizen
Jim Chabai, Vapetastic
Clayton Olson, Private Citizen
Jennifer Vasas, Private Citizen
September 29, 2015 meeting
Nicole Gomes, Jade Solomon and Jenna Kalinski (by leave), Manitoba Swat (Student Working against Tobacco)
Cindy Neniska, Private Citizen
John Haste, The Electronic Cigarette Trade Association
Cam Irving, Private Citizen
Jordan Vedoya, Fat Panda
Cierra Giesbrecht, Private Citizen
Neil Migalski, Private Citizen
Jason Doornink, Private Citizen
Leroy Kehler, Private Citizen
September 30, 2015 meeting
Suzane Bouchard, Private Citizen
Kyle Bloomfield, Private Citizen
Edward Wei, Private Citizen
Alexander Derksen, Private Citizen
Randy Klassen, Private Citizen
Will Cooke, Private Citizen
Leona Weday, Private Citizen
David Lofchick, Private Citizen
Stephanie Mitchell, Private Citizen
Craig Billows, Private Citizen
Thomas Glas, Private Citizen
Julie Wei, Private Citizen
Written Submissions
Your Committee received the following fifteen written submissions on Bill (No. 30) – The Non‑Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act (E‑Cigarettes)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la santé des non-fumeurs (cigarettes électroniques):
Melanie Koncur, Private Citizen
Gerald Dales, Private Citizen
Cristopher Britton, Black Tie Vapour
Matt Anderson, Private Citizen
Eric Mutter, Private Citizen
Kerry Miller, Private Citizen
Deanna Hinson, Private Citizen
Laura Cosford, Private Citizen
Allan Wald, Private Citizen
Ron Jerome, Private Citizen
Gord Tagg, Private Citizen
Tyler Korman, Private Citizen
Christine Dales, Private Citizen
David Ryman, Private Citizen
Brennden Mackenzie, Private Citizen
Bill Considered and Reported
· Bill (No. 30) – The Non-Smokers Health Protection Amendment Act (E-Cigarettes)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la santé des non-fumeurs (cigarettes électroniques)
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill, with the following amendments:
THAT Clause 3 of the Bill be amended in the proposed definition "vapour product shop" by adding ", subject to any additional criteria specified in the regulations," after "means".
THAT Clause 15(1) of the Bill be amended in clause (a) by adding the following after the proposed clause 9(1)(a.0.1):
(a.0.2) specifying additional criteria for the purpose of the definition "vapour product shop";
THAT Clause 15(1) of the Bill be amended by deleting clause (b).
Mr. Gaudreau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Wiebe), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Any further committee reports?
Mr. Bidhu Jha (Chairperson): I wish to present the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development.
Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT presents the following as its Seventh Report.
Meetings
Your Committee met on September 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building.
Matters under Consideration
· Bill (No. 4) – The Farm and Food Awareness Act/Loi sur la promotion du secteur agroalimentaire
· Bill (No. 15) – The Foreign Cultural Objects Immunity from Seizure Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'insaisissabilité des biens culturels étrangers
· Bill (No. 19) – The Legal Profession Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la profession d'avocat
· Bill (No. 23) – The Boxing Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la boxe
· Bill (No. 28) – The Personal Property Security Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les sûretés relatives aux biens personnels
· Bill (No. 32) – The Noxious Weeds Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la destruction des mauvaises herbes
· Bill (No. 34) – The Safer Roads Act (Drivers and Vehicles Act and Highway Traffic Act Amended)/Loi sur la sécurité accrue des routes (modification de la Loi sur les conducteurs et les véhicules et du Code de la route)
Committee Membership
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Mr. Ewasko
· Mr. Goertzen
· Mr. Helwer
· Mr. Jha
· Hon. Mr. Lemieux
· Hon. Mr. Mackintosh
· Ms. Oswald (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Pedersen
· Mr. Struthers
· Mr. Swan
Your Committee elected Mr. Jha as the Chairperson
Public Presentations
Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 4) – The Farm and Food Awareness Act/Loi sur la promotion du secteur agroalimentaire:
James Battershill, Keystone Agricultural Producers
Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 19) – The Legal Profession Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la profession d'avocat:
David Grant, Private Citizen
Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 23) – The Boxing Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la boxe:
Bill Tibbs, Manitoba Combative Sports Commission
Your Committee heard the following presentations on Bill (No. 32) – The Noxious Weeds Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la destruction des mauvaises herbes
James Battershill, Keystone Agricultural Producers
Written Submissions
Your Committee received the following two written submissions on Bill (No. 32) – The Noxious Weeds Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la destruction des mauvaises herbes:
Joe Masi, Association of Manitoba Municipalities
Kent Shewfelt, Manitoba Weed Supervisors Association
Agreements
Your Committee agreed to continue with public presentations and clause by clause consideration of Bill (No. 19) – The Legal Profession Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la profession d'avocat, at a future meeting.
Bills Considered and Reported
· Bill (No. 4) – The Farm and Food Awareness Act/Loi sur la promotion du secteur agroalimentaire
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 15) – The Foreign Cultural Objects Immunity from Seizure Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'insaisissabilité des biens culturels étrangers
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 23) – The Boxing Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la boxe
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 28) – The Personal Property Security Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les sûretés relatives aux biens personnels
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 32) – The Noxious Weeds Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la destruction des mauvaises herbes
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 34) – The Safer Roads Act (Drivers and Vehicles Act and Highway Traffic Act Amended)/Loi sur la sécurité accrue des routes (modification de la Loi sur les conducteurs et les véhicules et du Code de la route)
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
Mr. Jha: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member from St. Norbert, that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Bidhu Jha (Chairperson): I wish to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations.
Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Crown Corporations presents the following–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on CROWN CORPORATIONS presents the following as its First Report.
Meetings
Your Committee met on the following occasions in the Legislative Building:
· October 23, 2013 (2nd Session – 40th Legislature)
· October 15, 2014 (3rd Session – 40th Legislature)
· September 10, 2015 (4th Session – 40th Legislature)
Matters under Consideration
· Annual Report of The Workers Compensation Board for the year ending December 31, 2013
· Annual Report of The Workers Compensation Board for the year ending December 31, 2014
· Annual Report of the Appeal Commission and Medical Review Panel for the year ending December 31, 2013
· Annual Report of the Appeal Commission and Medical Review Panel for the year ending December 31, 2014
· The Workers Compensation Board 2013-2017 Five Year Plan
· The Workers Compensation Board 2014-2018 Five Year Plan
· The Workers Compensation Board 2015-2019 Five Year Plan
Committee Membership
Committee Membership for the October 23, 2013 meeting:
· Hon. Ms. Braun
· Mr. Briese
· Mr. Caldwell (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Dewar
· Hon. Ms. Howard
· Hon. Ms. Marcelino
· Mr. Pettersen (Chairperson)
· Hon. Mr. Robinson
· Mrs. Rowat
· Mr. Schuler
· Mr. Wishart
Committee Membership for the October 15, 2014 meeting:
· Hon. Ms. Braun
· Mr. Cullen
· Mr. Dewar
· Mrs. Driedger
· Mr. Gaudreau
· Mr. Jha (Chairperson)
· Hon. Mr. Mackintosh
· Mr. Marcelino (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Saran
· Mr. Smook
· Mr. Wishart
Committee Membership for the September 10, 2015 meeting:
· Hon. Ms. Braun
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Hon. Mr. Dewar
· Mr. Friesen
· Mr. Jha
· Hon. Ms. Marcelino
· Hon. Mr. Saran
· Mr. Smook
· Mrs. Stefanson
· Mr. Struthers
· Mr. Wishart
Your Committee elected Mr. Jha as the Chairperson and Mr. Struthers as the Vice-Chairperson at the September 10, 2015 meeting.
Officials Speaking on Record
Officials Speaking on Record at the October 23, 2013 meeting:
· Michael Werier, Chairperson of the Board
· Winston Maharaj, President and CEO
Officials Speaking on Record at the October 15, 2014 meeting:
· Michael Werier, Chairperson of the Board
· Winston Maharaj, President and CEO
Officials Speaking on Record at the September 10, 2015 meeting:
· Michael Werier, Chairperson of the Board
· Winston Maharaj, President and CEO
Reports Considered and Passed
Your Committee considered and passed the following reports as presented:
· Annual Report of The Workers Compensation Board for the year ending December 31, 2013
· Annual Report of the Appeal Commission and Medical Review Panel for the year ending December 31, 2013
· The Workers Compensation Board 2013-2017 Five Year Plan
Reports Considered but not Passed
Your Committee considered the following reports but did not pass them:
· Annual Report of The Workers Compensation Board for the year ending December 31, 2014
· Annual Report of the Appeal Commission and Medical Review Panel for the year ending December 31, 2014
· The Workers Compensation Board 2014-2018 Five Year Plan
· The Workers Compensation Board 2015-2019 Five Year Plan
Mr. Jha: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member from Tyndall Park, that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Jha: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations.
Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Crown Corporations–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on CROWN CORPORATIONS presents the following as its Second Report.
Meetings
Your Committee met on the following occasions in the Legislative Building:
· April 4, 2012 (1st Session – 40th Legislature)
· April 9, 2013 (2nd Session – 40th Legislature)
· October 2, 2013 (2nd Session – 40th Legislature)
· September 24, 2014 (3rd Session – 40th Legislature)
· September 15, 2015 (4th Session – 40th Legislature)
Matters under Consideration
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014
Committee Membership
Committee membership for the April 4, 2012 meeting:
· Mr. Allum
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Mr. Cullen
· Mr. Dewar
· Mr. Helwer
· Mr. Jha (Chairperson)
· Hon. Ms. Marcelino
· Mr. Marcelino (Tyndall Park)
· Mrs. Stefanson
· Ms. Wight (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Wishart
Substitutions received during committee proceedings on April 4, 2012:
· Mr. McFadyen for Mrs. Stefanson
Committee membership for the April 9, 2013 meeting:
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Ms. Crothers (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Eichler
· Mr. Dewar
· Mr. Ewasko
· Mr. Friesen
· Mr. Jha (Chairperson)
· Mr. Marcelino
· Mr. Schuler
· Hon. Mr. Swan
· Mr. Wiebe
Committee membership for the October 2, 2013 meeting:
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Mr. Dewar
· Mr. Ewasko
· Mr. Helwer
· Mr. Jha (Chairperson)
· Mr. Maloway
· Hon. Ms. Marcelino (Logan)
· Mr. Marcelino (Tyndall-Park) (Vice‑Chairperson)
· Mr. Schuler
· Mrs. Stefanson
· Hon. Mr. Swan
Committee membership for September 24, 2014 meeting:
· Ms. Allan
· Mr. Briese
· Hon. Mr. Chief
· Mr. Dewar
· Mr. Eichler
· Mr. Graydon
· Mr. Nevakshonoff (Chairperson)
· Mr. Pedersen
· Hon. Mr. Struthers
· Mr. Wiebe
· Ms. Wight (Vice-Chairperson)
Substitutions received during committee proceedings on September 24, 2014:
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak for Mr. Wiebe
Committee membership for September 15, 2015 meeting:
· Mr. Altemeyer
· Mr. Briese
· Mr. Eichler
· Mr. Jha (Chairperson)
· Mr. Maloway
· Hon. Ms. Marcelino
· Mr. Martin
· Hon. Mr. robinson
· Mr. Pedersen
· Hon. Mr. Saran
· Hon. Ms. Wight
Your Committee elected Mr. Altemeyer as the Vice‑Chairperson at the September 15, 2015 meeting
Your Committee elected Mr. Maloway as the Vice‑Chairperson at the September 15, 2015 meeting
Substitutions received during committee proceedings on September 15, 2015:
· Mr. Schuler for Mr. Martin
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak for Mr. Altemeyer
· Mr. Cullen for Mr. Pedersen
Officials from Manitoba Hydro speaking on the record at the April 4, 2012 meeting:
· Mr. Scott Thomson, President and Chief Executive Officer
· Mr. Bill Fraser, Chair of the Board
Officials from Manitoba Hydro speaking on the record at the April 9, 2013 meeting:
· Mr. Scott Thomson, President and Chief Executive Officer
· Mr. Bill Fraser, Chair of the Board
Officials from Manitoba Hydro speaking on the record at the October 2, 2013 meeting:
· Mr. Scott Thomson, President and Chief Executive Officer
Officials from Manitoba Hydro speaking on the record at the September 24, 2014 meeting:
· Mr. Scott Thomson, President and Chief Executive Officer
· Mr. Bill Fraser, Chair of the Board
Officials from Manitoba Hydro speaking on the record at the September 15, 2015 meeting:
· Mr. Darren Rainkie, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer
· Mr. Bill Fraser, Chair of the Board
Report Considered and Passed
Your Committee considered and passed the following report as presented:
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011
Reports Considered but not Passed
Your Committee considered the following reports but did not pass them:
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014
Mr. Jha: I move, seconded by the honourable member from St. Norbert, that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Standing Committee on Crown Corporations
Third Report
Mr. Jha: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations.
Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Crown Corporations–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on CROWN CORPORATIONS presents the following as its Third Report.
Meetings
Your Committee met on the following occasions in the Legislative Building:
· April 4, 2013 (2nd Session – 40th Legislature)
· October 21, 2013 (2nd Session – 40th Legislature)
· September 30, 2014 (3rd Session – 40th Legislature)
· September 28, 2015 (4th Session – 40th Legislature)
Matters under Consideration
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 29, 2012
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2013
· Annual Financial Statement of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2013
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2014
· Annual Financial Statement of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2014
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2015
· Annual Financial Statement of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2015
Committee Membership
Committee Membership for the April 4, 2013 meeting:
· Mr. Briese
· Ms. Crothers (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Dewar
· Mr. Ewasko
· Mr. Gaudreau
· Mr. Helwer
· Mr. Jha (Chairperson)
· Mr. Maloway
· Mrs. Rowat
· Hon. Mr. Robinson
· Hon. Mr. Swan
Committee Membership for the October 21, 2013 meeting:
· Mr. Caldwell
· Mr. Dewar
· Mr. Eichler
· Mr. Ewasko
· Mr. Helwer
· Mr. Jha (Chairperson)
· Mr. Maloway
· Mr. Marcelino (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Smook
· Hon. Mr. Swan
· Mr. Wiebe
Committee Membership for the September 30, 2014 meeting:
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Ms. Crothers
· Mr. Eichler
· Mr. Goertzen
· Mr. Jha (Chairperson)
· Hon Ms. Marcelino
· Mr. Pedersen
· Mr. Rondeau (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Schuler
· Hon. Mr. Swan
· Mr. Wiebe
Committee Membership for the September 28, 2015 meeting:
· Mr. Altemeyer
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Mr. Ewasko
· Mr. Goertzen
· Ms. Howard
· Mr. Jha (Chairperson)
· Hon. Mr. Mackintosh
· Hon Ms. Marcelino
· Mrs. Mitchelson
· Mr. Schuler
· Mr. Wiebe
Your Committee elected Mr. Wiebe as the Vice‑Chairperson at the September 28, 2015 meeting.
Substitution received during the committee proceedings:
· Mr. Cullen for Mr. Ewasko
Officials Speaking on Record
Officials speaking on the record at the April 4, 2013 meeting:
· Ms. Marilyn McLaren, President and Chief Executive Officer
· Mr. Jake Janzen, Board Chairperson
Officials speaking on the record at the October 21, 2013 meeting:
· Ms. Marilyn McLaren, President and Chief Executive Officer
· Mr. Jake Janzen, Board Chairperson
Officials speaking on the record at the September 30, 2014 meeting:
· Mr. Dan Guimond, President and Chief Executive Officer
Officials speaking on the record at the September 28, 2015 meeting:
· Mr. Dan Guimond, President and Chief Executive Officer
Report Considered and Passed
Your Committee considered and passed the following reports as presented:
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 29, 2012
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2013
· Annual Financial Statement of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2013
· Annual Financial Statement of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2014
Reports Considered but not Passed
Your Committee considered the following reports but did not pass them:
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2014
· Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2015
· Annual Financial Statement of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2015
Mr. Jha: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member from Concordia, that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Any further committee reports?
Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development
Sixth Report
Ms. Nancy Allan (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development.
Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Social and Economic–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT presents the following as its Sixth Report.
Meetings
Your Committee met on September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building.
Matters under Consideration
· Bill (No. 10) – The Municipal Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités
· Bill (No. 13) – The Planning Amendment Act (Special Planning Areas)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire (circonscriptions spéciales d'aménagement du territoire)
· Bill (No. 20) – The Architects Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les architects
· Bill (No. 21) – The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ingénieurs et les géoscientifiques
· Bill (No. 24) – The Wildlife Amendment and Fisheries Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la conservation de la faune et la Loi sur la pêche
· Bill (No. 31) – The Registered Professional Planners Act/Loi sur les urbanistes professionnels
Committee Membership
· Ms. Allan (Chairperson)
· Hon. Ms. Braun
· Hon. Mr. Caldwell
· Mr. Cullen
· Hon. Mr. Dewar
· Mr. Eichler
· Hon. Mr. Nevakshonoff
· Ms. Oswald
· Mr. Piwniuk
· Mr. Smook
Your Committee elected Ms. Oswald as the Vice‑Chairperson
Public Presentations
Your Committee heard the following three presentations on Bill (No. 13) – The Planning Amendment Act (Special Planning Areas)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire (circonscriptions spéciales d'aménagement du territoire):
Diane Gray, CentrePort Canada Inc.
Frances Smee, RM of Rosser
Jim McLandress, Winnipeg Airport Authority
Your Committee heard the following three presentations on Bill (No. 20) – The Architects Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les architects:
Judy Pestrak, Manitoba Association of Architects
Verne Reimer, Private Citizen
Ralph Stern, Private Citizen
Your Committee heard the following three presentations on Bill (No. 21) – The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ingénieurs et les géoscientifiques:
David Grant, Private Citizen
Grant Koropatnick, Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba
Vicki Poirier, Private Citizen
Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 24) – The Wildlife Amendment and Fisheries Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la conservation de la faune et la Loi sur la pêche:
Brian Strauman, Manitoba Wildlife Federation
Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 31) – The Registered Professional Planners Act/Loi sur les urbanistes professionnels:
Valdene Lawson, Manitoba Professional Planners Institute
Written Submissions
Your Committee received the following four written submissions on Bill (No. 21) – The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ingénieurs et les géoscientifiques:
Alan Pollard, Private Citizen
Bev Pike, Private Citizen
Don Osman, Private Citizen
Roger Rempel, Private Citizen
Your Committee received the following two written submissions on Bill (No. 31) – The Registered Professional Planners Act/Loi sur les urbanistes professionnels:
Joe Masi, Association of Manitoba Municipalities
Braden Smith, City of Winnipeg
Bills Considered and Reported
· Bill (No. 10) – The Municipal Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill, with the following amendment:
THAT Clause 2 of the Bill be amended by replacing the French version of the proposed clause 147.1(2)(a) with the following:
a) d'une majorité qualifiée de ses membres, laquelle consiste de 50 % des voix plus deux;
· Bill (No. 13) – The Planning Amendment Act (Special Planning Areas)/Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire (circonscriptions spéciales d'aménagement du territoire)
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 20) – The Architects Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les architects
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 21) – The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ingénieurs et les géoscientifiques
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 24) – The Wildlife Amendment and Fisheries Amendment Act/Loi modifiant la Loi sur la conservation de la faune et la Loi sur la pêche
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
· Bill (No. 31) – The Registered Professional Planners Act/Loi sur les urbanistes professionnels
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
Ms. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Seine River (Ms. Oswald), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs
Fourth Report
Ms. Nancy Allan (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs.
Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Fourth Report.
Meetings:
Your Committee met on the following occasions in the Legislative Building:
· June 9, 2015 (4th Session – 40th Legislature)
· October 6, 2015 (4th Session – 40th Legislature)
Matters under Consideration:
· Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee dated November 20, 2014
· Process for hiring a new Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Lobbyist Registrar and Information and Privacy Adjudicator
Committee Membership:
Committee membership for the June 9, 2015 meeting:
· Mr. Bjornson
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Mr. Eichler
· Mr. Friesen
· Mr. Gaudreau (Chairperson)
· Mr. Goertzen
· Hon. Mr. Mackintosh
· Hon. Ms. Marcelino
· Mr. Pedersen
· Mr. Struthers (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Swan
Committee membership for the October 6, 2015 meeting:
· Ms. Allan (Chairperson)
· Mr. Briese
· Hon. Mr. Chomiak
· Mr. Ewasko
· Mr. Goertzen
· Mr. Helwer
· Hon. Mr. Mackintosh
· Mr. Marcelino (Vice-Chairperson)
· Mr. Swan
· Mr. Wiebe
Public Presentation at the June 9, 2015 meeting:
By leave, your Committee heard one presentation on the Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee from:
Susan Dawes, Provincial Judges Association of Manitoba
Motions:
Your Committee agreed to the following motions at the October 6, 2015 meeting:
· THAT the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs:
accept the recommendations in Schedule A,
reject the recommendations in Schedule B for the reasons set out in that Schedule and,
recommend the same to the Legislative Assembly.
SCHEDULE A
Recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee accepted by the Standing
Committee on Legislative Affairs
1. That the annual salaries for puisne judges shall be:
(i) April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 - $239,000;
(ii) April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 - cumulative adjustment equal to the annual percentage change in the average weekly earnings for Manitoba on April 1, 2015;
(iii) April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 - cumulative adjustment equal to the annual percentage change in the average weekly earnings for Manitoba on April 1, 2016.
The percentage change in the average weekly earnings should be calculated based on the percentage change over the preceding calendar year.
The recommendation should apply to all who were judges as of April 1, 2014, including those who retire or otherwise leave the Bench prior to implementation.
2. That the salary differentials for the Chief Judge and Associate Chief Judge remain in place as of April 1, 2014. This will mean a salary of $258,120 for the Chief Judge and $250,950 for the Associate Chief Judges.
This recommendation shall apply to all judges who were either a Chief Judge or an Associate Chief Judge as of April 1, 2014, including those who retire or otherwise leave the Bench prior to implementation.
3. Simple interest shall be paid, from April 1, 2014 to the date of retroactive payment of salary increase(s) including the differentials for the administrative judges and related per diems for senior judges, in accordance with the relevant prejudgment and post-judgment interest rates as set out in The Court of Queen's Bench Act.
4. Prejudgment interest shall be payable from April 1, 2014 to the date the salary and per diem recommendations are implemented (whether by vote of the Legislature or by virtue of s. 11.1(29) of the Act), and post-judgment interest should be payable from that date to the date that judges are paid the retroactive adjustments.
5. That as it relates to Senior Judges:
· the per diem rate for senior judges shall be set at 1/218 of the annual salary of a full-time judge;
· Interest shall be paid on the retroactive per diem rate;
· Each senior judge shall be afforded an educational allowance of $3,000 and a professional allowance of $2,000;
· A fund shall be set up for each allowance based on the number of judges (including a pro rata share for senior judges who come into the program partway through a fiscal year). The fund shall be distributed by the Chief Judge based on the needs of the judges in question; and
· These recommendations shall be effective April 1, 2014, and shall apply to all who were judges as of April 1, 2014, including those who retire or otherwise leave the Bench prior to implementation.
6. That as it relates to the Limited Pooling Of Education Resources:
· Effective April 1, 2014, each judge's annual education allowance should remain at the current level of $3,000 per annum per judge;
· The combined amount of the education allowances ($3,000 per judge x 41 judges) shall be provided to the court in a fund to be administered by the Chief Judge in accordance with the principles set out below;
· Individual judges shall have access to their educational allowance in order to fund their attendance at conferences and seminars, and/or for other educational purposes, as approved by the Chief Judge in accordance with court policy. With the consent of each individual judge, unused portions of each judge's education allowance may be used to the benefit of the court as a whole. All uses of the allowances are subject to approval by the Chief Judge in accordance with court policy.
· This recommendation shall be effective April 1, 2014, and shall apply to all who were judges as of April 1, 2014, including those who retire or otherwise leave the Bench prior to implementation.
7. That the Province pay 75% of the Judges' legal costs and fees for the Judicial Compensation Committee process, up to a maximum aggregate payment by the Province of $45,000.00.
8. That the Province pay 100% of Judges' disbursement costs and fees for the Judicial Compensation Committee process, up to a maximum aggregate payment by the Province of $22,500.00.
9. That unless otherwise stated, all changes shall be effective on the date of approval by the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
10. In these recommendations, "date of approval by the Legislative Assembly" means
(a) the date that the vote of concurrence referred to in subsection 11.1(28) of The Provincial Court Act takes place with respect to these recommendations; or
(b) if the recommendations must be implemented because of subsection 11.1(29) of The Provincial Court Act, the first day after the end of the 21‑day period referred to in that subsection.
SCHEDULE B
Recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee rejected by the Standing
Committee on Legislative Affairs
1. That the contribution rates to be paid by judges into the Civil Service Superannuation Fund are those currently set out in the Employee Contribution Rates Regulation, 178/2011. To the extent the Regulation is amended in the future, the recommendation of a JCC must first be sought.
2. That at the time of their appointment, all judges should be enrolled for life insurance coverage worth five times their salary (up to the policy maximum), unless they elect a lower level of coverage at that time, or following their appointment.
Reasons
In considering the Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee, the Standing Committee has examined each of the recommendations individually and collectively. The reasons for rejecting these recommendations are as follows:
Recommendation 1:
· The Standing Committee does not accept the view of the Judicial Compensation Committee that changes to pension contributions require a Judicial Compensation Committee recommendation or that it is a constitutional requirement.
· While the Standing Committee fully respects and understands that the Judicial Compensation Committee process is required by the Constitution in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary, the Standing Committee has considered this very carefully and disagrees that the manner in which pension contributions are currently set out in the Employee Contribution Rates and Regulation, 178/2011 are a threat to such independence.
· The Standing Committee notes that any changes to contribution rates for all members of the Civil Service Superannuation Fund are made through a Joint Stakeholders Committee and apply equally to all members of the Fund plan.
· The Standing Committee understands and accepts that any changes in pension contributions have an impact on the remuneration of judges, but these contemplated changes which were the subject of the recommendation, apply to all members of the Fund plan and are similar to the changes that are made from time to time to other benefit plans, such as Blue Cross, which have never required a Judicial Compensation Committee recommendation prior to implementation.
· Moreover, the Standing Committee is concerned that if changes to the contribution rates to be paid by judges into the Fund required a recommendation from a Judicial Compensation Committee, then judges would be treated differently than other members of the Fund plan. This, in and of itself, may well impact judicial independence as the perception may be that judges are being treated differently than other members of the Fund plan.
· The Standing Committee is of the view that as members of multi unit pension plan, judges ought not to be treated differently from any other Members of that plan. The Civil Service Superannuation Fund covers nearly 34,000 active employees and over 53,000 total members. If additional contributions are necessary to ensure the stability of the plan, all stakeholders are consulted, including the Judges. Giving any group a veto power could jeopardize the plan.
· The Standing Committee notes that the Judicial Compensation Committee has recognized that the timing of the Judicial Compensation Committee Process may have an impact on how the recommendation would be implemented. However, the Standing Committee disagrees that adjustments can be made in the ordinary course, as suggested, given the statutory requirements for any change.
· In the event any issues arise as they relate to the contribution rates paid by judges into the Fund plan, such issues could be addressed by a subsequent Judicial Compensation Committee to ensure the judicial independence of the judiciary is always maintained.
· It should be noted that the Judges also have a supplementary plan where it is reasonable for future changes to be subject to the recommendations of a subsequent Judicial Compensation Committee.
· Accordingly, after careful consideration of the recommendations made in this regard and for the reasons set out above, the Standing Committee rejects the Judicial Compensation Committee's recommendations as they relate to pension contributions.
Recommendation 2:
· The Standing Committee does not accept that special provisions ought to or even can be established for judges, as recommended by the Judicial Compensation Committee.
· The Standing Committee understands the principle that all judges be treated in the same way at the time of appointment, but does not accept that the proposed recommendation achieves that result. While it would provide all judges with the same amount of insurance coverage, it would treat judges differently than all other members of the life insurance plan.
· The Standing Committee previously accepted the recommendation of a prior Judicial Compensation Committee to have the judges participate in the same insurance plan and coverage as that which the Government makes available to public servants, including the same Dependents' Life Insurance Policy. Moreover, the Standing Committee accepted that same Judicial Compensation Committee's recommendation that judges pay the same premiums for life insurance as civil servants.
· Consistent with those recommendations, the Standing Committee is of the view that judges ought not be treated differently from those who are members of that plan.
· This evidence of insurability is a current requirement for all plan members and is designed to prevent "adverse selection" in an insurance plan. It is a principle of virtually all life insurance plans.
· The Standing Committee has considered the matter very carefully and the change may not even be possible with a third party insurer, it is a matter of equities and fairness. If it is possible it is not clear that it would be an insubstantial cost. The Standing Committee does not accept that it is simply a housekeeping matter, for the reasons outlined above.
· The only feasible compromise solution would be for the Government to arrange for a separate insurance plan for Judges only with the likelihood of significantly higher premiums for Judges and Government. In effect reversing the decision of the previous Judicial Compensation Committee's recommendations.
· Accordingly, the Standing Committee rejects the recommendation that at the time of their appointment, all judges should be enrolled for life insurance coverage worth five times their salary (up to the policy maximum), unless they elect a lower level of coverage at that time, or following their appointment.
· THAT a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs be struck to manage the process of hiring a new Conflict of Interest Commissioner and Information and Privacy Adjudicator for the Province of Manitoba, under the terms and conditions as follows:
(a) the subcommittee consist of four government members, two official opposition members and one independent member;
(b) the subcommittee have the authority to call their own meetings, the ability to meet in camera, and be able to undertake duties it deems necessary in order to fulfil its responsibilities in the hiring process;
(c) the subcommittee may only report back to the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs with a recommendation that has been agreed to by all members; and
(d) the Committees Branch staff as well as the Legislative Assembly Human Resource Services staff be authorize to attend all meetings of the subcommittee.
Item Considered and Not Concluded:
Your Committee has not completed consideration of the process for hiring a new Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Lobbyist Registrar and Information and Privacy Adjudicator.
Report Considered and Concluded:
Your Committee has completed consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee dated November 20, 2015.
Ms. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Any further committee reports? Seeing none, tabling of reports?
Federal Election 2015
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement about the federal election. I'll provide copies.
* (13:50)
Yesterday we saw Canadians embrace a compassionate and inclusive vision for Canada. I would like to thank everyone who ran for the federal election. Democracy is stronger due to your efforts.
I would also like to congratulate all the newly elected and re-elected members of Parliament for Manitoba, who I know will be a strong voice for Manitobans in the capital. I would also like to thank all those members of Parliament who are leaving their seats and thank them for their work and many years of service to their constituents and to the people of this province. It's never easy stepping back from public service, but we all greatly appreciate their efforts to make life better for Manitoba families.
I want to take a moment to thank our own members from the Legislature that have moved on to new challenges. Thank you to the former member for Southdale, Erin Selby, and the former member for Gimli, Peter Bjornson. It's been an honour working with you. I know they will continue to be a positive force in our communities, helping to make Manitoba a better place to live for us all.
And thank you to each of the federal party leaders for putting forward ideas and running good campaigns. Voter turnout was higher than any time in the last 20 years.
J'aimerais remercier Stephen Harper pour ses années de service comme Premier ministre. Nous avons apprécié les efforts de son gouvernement durant la récente récession.
Translation
I would like to thank Stephen Harper for his years of service as prime minister. We appreciated the efforts made by his government during the recent recession.
English
I'd like to thank the Prime Minister for his service over nine and a half years and for his stellar work during the recession.
Et merci à Tom Mulcair, qui a mené une campagne pleine des idées visionnaires que, on l'espère, le nouveau gouvernement élu revisitera–des idées comme une stratégie nationale de la garde d'enfants.
Translation
I would also like to thank Tom Mulcair whose campaign was full of visionary ideas that, we hope, will inspire the new government, ideas like a national strategy for child care.
English
I want to thank the federal leader, Tom Mulcair, for his work in the campaign and particularly for his ideas on a national strategy for daycare.
Finally, I would like to congratulate Prime Minister-elect Justin Trudeau on his victory. He ran a positive 'cambay'–campaign based on forward‑thinking vision combined with a plan for infrastructure investments that will help to grow Canada's economy.
I look forward to working with the Prime Minister Trudeau and his newly elected Manitoba caucus on our many shared priorities. He has joined our NDP government in committing to building Freedom Road and the east-side road, enabling us to connect those communities to the rest of Manitobans years sooner.
Prime Minister Trudeau's infrastructure plan complements our own record investments in roads, bridges and flood protection, projects which create good jobs and lay the foundation for future economic growth.
We look forward to working together on priorities like health care, particularly home care, to keep our health-care system strong and public, as well as universally accessible daycare, on priorities like First Nations education and training and education opportunities so families can stay and work in the communities they grew up in, as part of a larger response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and in the spirit of reconciliation, and priorities like ensuring our seniors are respected for their–working their entire lives by allowing them to retire with pensions that start at the age of 65.
Finally, I look forward to Prime Minister Trudeau fulfilling our government's repeated calls for a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.
Je peux certainement dire que j'ai hâte à ma prochaine rencontre du Conseil de la fédération où le Manitoba trouvera un nouveau partenaire pour bâtir le futur de notre province.
Translation
I can certainly say that I am looking forward to my next meeting of the Council of the Federation, where Manitoba will find a new partner to build the future of our province.
English
I look forward to getting together with all the first ministers where we can build a better future for not only our province but for the country.
It is deeply important that we have a federal partner that is at the table addressing our priorities and working for an agenda that is inclusive not only to all Manitobans but to all Canadians.
Thank you, merci, miigwech, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Leader of the Official Opposition): I want to add my congratulations, on behalf of our caucus, to the Prime Minister-Designate Justin Trudeau and his team for their historic victory yesterday.
I also want to add our thanks to Mr. Harper and to his colleagues for their almost decade of service to our nation as a government.
I would like to add, also, our condolences of a sort, I suppose, to Mr. Mulcair and to his team in respect of the results but not in respect of his efforts on behalf of his party and on behalf of the people of Manitoba throughout his career, and we expect those efforts to continue.
I also want to say a thank you to the families of all candidates, to those who put their names on the ballot, of course, and also to those who volunteered–to make the system work effectively it requires that volunteer effort–and also to Manitobans and Canadians who voted in increasing numbers, which we all agree is good for our democracy and a healthy thing. Our democracy's stronger today because of the efforts of these Canadians.
Canadians and Manitobans went to the polls in the federal election and they voted for change. Our team on this side of the House will continue to bring forward fresh energy, new ideas to give Manitobans an opportunity to vote for change in the rapidly approaching provincial election as well.
We look forward to working in a co-operative manner not only with one another but with others who represent the best interests of their constituents, who we share, on the priorities of Manitobans. It is worrisome that Manitobans are among the highest taxed citizens in our nation, and yet the quality of and access to our services like health care, education and our social services rank at or near the bottom of all rankings in our country.
Successfully addressing these challenges–these are real challenges for the people of Manitoba, which government members should understand. Successfully addressing these challenges in the future will require a team effort, something we understand both here in Manitoba and among all of the elected officials of this province, municipally, federally and, of course, provincially as well.
I want to close by congratulating all successful Manitoba candidates and assure each of those candidates now elected to represent the people of this province that we on this side are ready to work with them, together with them, to build a stronger Manitoba team for the strength and future strength of Manitoba families.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to speak to the minister's statement.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for River Heights have leave to speak to the ministerial statement? [Agreed]
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the Premier's (Mr. Selinger) statement on the federal election which was held yesterday.
First of all, I want to recognize and to thank all those who participated. Voting is important, and our democracy could not function well without people getting out and voting.
Second, I want to congratulate the members of Parliament who were elected yesterday and welcome them aboard our national government, and look forward to being able to work with them from–as a provincial member of the Legislature as we move forward as a nation.
I want to say a thank you to those who worked in the last Parliament, including the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet, who have contributed to where we are today as a country. I want to also recognize those who ran not successfully, because each of those who ran has contributed to the dialogue and the discussion of this last election and, of course, a long election, but one in which there was a very vigorous and, I think, helpful discussion.
Thirdly, I want to express my excitement and pleasure at the election of a Liberal government in Canada, a Liberal government under Justin Trudeau as the Prime Minister-elect. And I want to say that Justin demonstrated during the election that he is ready. Justin Trudeau showed character in emphasizing a positive vision for our country, in appealing to Canadians' better qualities of compassion, of embracing diversity, of welcoming new immigrants and of being concerned for our environment as well as for our economy.
Justin Trudeau has showed his ability to reach out to others, to listen to Canadians across our great country, and a willingness and a desire to sit down with all premiers in Canada and to address the major issues that we face as Canadians. He has shown in particular a concern for First Nation, Metis and Inuit people, and a recognition of the need to address and improve long-standing issues like First Nations education funding and the completion of Freedom Road.
The Liberal Party went, last night, from third‑party status to government. It was the first time that this had happened at the national level in Canada. It took a lot of hard work and teams and teams of volunteers from coast to coast.
* (14:00)
I want to acknowledge all who came forward and helped in the election. It is through participation that change can be achieved, and last night we had real change.
Mr. Speaker: Any further statements, ministerial statements?
Mr. Speaker: Seeing none, we'll move on to introduction–or members' statements, pardon me.
Cottage Fee Increases
Mr. Shannon Martin (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this summer to speak to many cottagers angry and frustrated with the NDP's massive increases to cottage fees and leases.
They are particularly frustrated with an NDP government that plays the politics of division, a government that paints cottage owners as freeloaders and a drain on public resources, an NDP government that vilifies them in public and refuses to meet with them in private.
According to the NDP, the existence of Manitoba's cottagers results in the diversions of millions of dollars each year from health care and public education.
I met Joyce, a retired teacher who had to take a part-time job just so she can continue to retain the family cottage.
I met Ruth and Herman who came to Canada after World War II and spent years building a modest cottage only to have the NDP's fiscal ineptitude threaten to take it away.
To a person, I have heard a willingness by cottagers to pay their fair share of the true costs. The challenge becomes that the same NDP government that said, trust us, we won't raise the PST, is again saying, trust us, you don't pay enough.
There's an obligation under The Provincial Parks Act for the minister to provide full transparency and accountability in terms of costs and revenues to operate each park district for the review of any owner. But as you aware, the government continues to disregard the law.
Cottagers, whether from Moose Lake, Childs Lake or West Hawk, will not be bullied into accepting a 750 per cent fee increase that, in many instances, threatens the viability of retaining ownership of cottages, many of which are intergenerational.
Dan Lussier, who owns a cottage in Falcon Lake, wrote the minister, and I quote: Our park fees will go from over–from approximately $1,000 to almost $5,500. Our cottage is not hooked up to town water or sewer, don't get any services in the winter, communal garbage pickup in the summer, and residents actually get together and pay for dust control.
While the NDP may not believe in transparency and accountability obligations as laid out in The Provincial Parks Act, we on this side of the House do. And next spring, we will open the books to cottagers.
Thank you.
Carla Martinelli-Irvine
Hon. Sharon Blady (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in my life I have learned that those who are the kindest in life are also usually the toughest. It takes a lot of inner strength to maintain a generous, forgiving and caring outlook on life. Carla Martinelli-Irvine, one of the recent recipients of the 2015 Manitoba heroes award, is the perfect example.
I'm so pleased that Carla has been recognized for her hard work as the founder and director of the Winnipeg Pet Rescue Shelter. It's Manitoba's first no-kill animal shelter and has helped rescue over 10,000 animals, some incredibly neglected. Carla and her team ensure each animal receives medical treatment, find more suitable homes and, most importantly, are not euthanized.
The shelter houses 150 animals at a time and imposes no time limit on their stay. The shelter operates solely on donations, and Carla has faced seemingly insurmountable difficulties in the past to keep the shelter open when those donations have dried out.
Carla and her team take immense pride in their work, which is evident when you visit the shelter. It's always in pristine condition, and the animals are all clearly well cared for.
Mr. Speaker, running that shelter is not easy. Caring for the animals, drumming up donations, finding foster homes, promoting adoptions and finding the money to pay the bills are all daily challenges that Carla and her team take in stride. A job like that requires a lot of heart, and Carla has a tenderness which extends to all animals, in every situation. But her resilience and fortitude are what make her so special and so deserving of the Manitoba heroes award. As a strong-willed and gentle-hearted woman, Carla makes for a fantastic leader in our community.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all honourable members, I would like to thank Carla for her continued work in Kirkfield Park and congratulate her on her much-deserved Manitoba heroes award.
Thank you.
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Rural Manitoban surgeon Dr. Gerald Clayden says it's scandalous that a state-of-art operating room in Altona is not in use because of a shortage of nurses. Dr. Clayden said no surgeries have been carried out at the Altona Community Memorial Health Centre, a 22-bed facility, since April of 2015.
The minister said, in Hansard, May 12th, 2015, that the suspension would be rectified by the fall or sooner. Dr. Clayden says administration's indicated the operating room would remain closed until at least the end of the year. Dr. Clayden said any delay in reinstating surgeries beyond the end of the year would jeopardize the facility's future. A local family physician who performed the anaesthetic with Dr. Clayden operated said that he would need to upgrade his training if his skills were allowed to lapse. He's not prepared to give up his thriving practice for a couple of months to do that.
The minister has referred to this issue rather callously as a dead horse, Hansard, June 22nd, 2015. Tell that to the vulnerable Manitobans who no longer have an operating room and who are taking to highway medicine to seek treatment. This is a cut in the 'ensential' front-line services and another case of paying more and getting less with this NDP government.
In May 2015, the minister compared my line of questioning to Fox Mulder. I've repeatedly been asking the minister for an honest answer to why the people of Altona must again suffer these closures under the NDP highway medicine. She compared me to Fox Mulder, so, again, I will ask: Why has the OR closed? What is it this minister's hiding? What is her secret agenda in closing the OR and the ER? Like Fox Mulder, I believe the truth is still out there, and Manitobans deserve the truth, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): This past Sunday, Mr. Speaker, a great event happened. The Weston Memorial Community Centre had its grand reopening. This wonderful inauguration was all about welcoming the community to the new facility.
The first 200 guests were welcomed with free hot dogs and drinks. There was also face painting and a beading craft station for kids and some adults too. All in all, it was the perfect little get-together to celebrate community and friendship. Weston Community Centre has so much to offer to people of all ages. Places like Weston Community Centre give kids the healthy activities they need to stay active and out of trouble.
Ryan Dufreane, who is here, is the facility manager of Weston. He is in the gallery with Margaret and Don Vader, the facility bingo co‑ordinators, and Carrie Gingras, a Weston staffer. Along with their volunteers, they act in partnership with Winnipeg Harvest, ACCESS NorWest, the Brooklands Senior Centre and the Salvation Army. They help make Manitoba a happier, healthier, better place to live in. Thank you for all you do.
Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): Today, I rise to speed–speak about the effects on the family when a child or children from that family are–is taken into the care of Child and Family Services. Family experience many issues in the course of life. Some of these can lead to crisis, whether it be addictions, family violence or mental health. Finding support for a family in crisis is essential to keep these families together, yet so many Manitobans are not able to access supports they need in order to keep their families strong and together. Accessing support is particularly difficult in rural and northern Manitoba.
When a child is apprehended into care, the family's often given a shopping list of changes they need to accomplish in order to have the child returned to their care. Unfortunately, these families are then left to navigate the complicated system to find these services with little or no support from Child and Family Services. The challenges facing families in rural and northern Manitoba increase as access to the necessary services and supports are largely concentrated in Winnipeg. Parents are expected to find these services, programs and supports with no support, while reeling from having their child torn from their homes. Children are left wondering what they have done wrong; why are they being punished and taken away from their homes, their families, in many cases, their school, their community, all the stability they've known in their young lives?
* (14:10)
The child and family services system is failing Manitoba families and failing Manitoba's children. Parents are unable to access the services and supports they need in order to keep these families together. And yet, when the child is apprehended, the family is expected to utilize the resources that they couldn't find in the first place.
More tragically, perhaps, are the effects of the children–are the effects on the children that are apprehended. The lack of support for parents keeps children away from their families.
Mr. Speaker, families and children all have hopes and dreams for their future. The actions of the CFS should not be responsible for the destruction of those dreams. CFS should be there to help right the ship and keep those families on track.
Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.
Mr. Speaker: Just prior to oral questions, I have a number of guests that I will introduce.
Seated in the public gallery we have with us today from Murdoch MacKay Collegiate, we have 24 grade 9 students under the direction of Ms. Kim Dudek and Ms. Marlies Beesley. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
And also seated in the public gallery we have with us today–draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery again where we have with us today from the Winnipeg pet rescue centre–or shelter Carla Martinelli-Irvine, Michelle Caughy and her family members, Michael and Chris, who are the guests of the honourable Minister of Health (Ms. Blady).
And also seated in the public gallery we have with us today from Weston Memorial Community Centre, we have Margaret and Don Vader and Carrie Gingras, who are the guests of the honourable member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino).
On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome all of you here this afternoon.
And also, seated in the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today six individuals who are serving on the Manitoba Legislative Internship Program for the 2015-16 year, and in accordance with the established practice, these three interns were assigned–these interns were assigned to the government caucus and three to the official opposition caucus, and their term of employment is 10 months and they will be performing a variety of research and other tasks for private members. These interns commenced their assignments September 14th of this year and will complete them next June.
And they are, working with the government caucus, Ms. Emily Coutts of the University of Winnipeg, Mr. Sean Goertzen of the University of Manitoba and Mr. Stephen Spence of the University of Winnipeg; working with the caucus of the official opposition, Mr. Lane Boucher of the University of Manitoba, Ms. Tara Jago of the Brandon University and Ms. Meagan Vestby of the University of Manitoba.
Professor Kelly Saunders of Brandon University is the academic director of the program, as most members will know, and the administration of the program on a day-to-day basis is carried out by our own Clerk, Ms. Patricia Chaychuk. And the caucus representatives on the internship administration committee are the member for Concordia (Mr. Wiebe) and the honourable member for Spruce Woods (Mr. Cullen).
And I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all honourable members, to congratulate the interns on their appointment to the program and hope that they will have a very interesting and successful year ahead with the Assembly.
Thank you very much for your service.
And it's also my proud duty–my apologies to the members of the Assembly who are waiting for question period; we have a lot of guests today. It's also my proud duty, if I could take a moment, to introduce our two pages who are with us here; we'll introduce the other ones as they come into their assignments. We have with us Ceanray Harris-Read, who is a student at Collège Churchill, and Kieran Smith, who is a student at Miles Macdonell Collegiate.
On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here to the Assembly and we hope you enjoy your experience.
Thank you for your patience, to members of the Assembly.
Mr. Speaker: We'll now proceed with oral questions.
Fiscal Management
Mr. Brian Pallister (Leader of the Official Opposition): Thanks, Mr. Speaker, and I want to welcome you back and say a welcome back to all our colleagues here and to our staff. It's been a–I hope for all of us–a good opportunity this summer to enjoy Manitoba's many blessings with families and friends, and certainly change was in the air last night, and change is in the air now in our province, of course, with our beautiful seasons changing.
One of the unfortunate changes since we sat here last, however, Mr. Speaker, is the change in our province's credit rating, resulting, naturally, unfortunately, from the government's inability to listen to the warnings they were given just a few months back. And the costs of these unheeded warnings, unfortunately for Manitobans, are millions if not tens of millions of dollars wasted, going to additional debt service costs over and above what needed to happen if the government had listened. So these unheeded warnings have a cost, and that cost is less resources, fewer resources available for the priority services Manitobans value most.
Now, the reality, of course, of this is that this could have been prevented had the government listened. The Premier apparently now is going to be the agent of change for our province.
I'd like to ask him: How will he change his approach and restore our credit rating to our province?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, our credit rating has improved at least three times during our time in office. It's higher than any credit rating that the members opposite ever had during their entire careers.
The debt as a proportion of the economy is lower than when the member opposite was a member of government. The debt servicing costs are 58 cents lower than when the member was in office. When he was in office, debt servicing costs were over 13 cents on the dollar. They're now 5.6 on the–cents on the dollar.
The member opposite continues to pursue an aggressive agenda of cuts to core services in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. It's no surprise he's asked that question today.
We choose to be on the side of Manitobans, to protect essential services for Manitobans, to ensure Manitobans are working. And when we do that, and grow the economy, that will allow us to move forward towards a balanced budget in every sense of the word.
Mr. Pallister: The Premier continues to misrepresent our agenda and is unwilling to show Manitobans his own, Mr. Speaker, and that is interesting, and an interesting lack of integrity and credibility on display on a daily basis already here.
So our credit rating is now with Anne of Green Gables in PEI, when it used to be with Saskatchewan and Alberta, our neighbours to the west. And the Premier is defending it and saying it's a good thing for our province, when every Manitoban knows it's not a good thing to have your credit rating go down.
After years of neglect by this Premier and his colleagues, they now defend the indefensible. They have doubled our debt, and despite promises to get our province's spending, wasteful spending, under his mismanagement under control, he never changes. And the result is broken trust, not just with credit rating agencies, Mr. Speaker, but with Manitobans at large. The result is a lower credit rating. The result is higher interest charges on our debt and an annual waste of money that was preventable.
When will the Premier, who says he's the agent of change, embrace the challenge of changing his reckless approach of mortgaging our future and that of our children?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, last night, these extreme views that we see from the member opposite were rejected by Canadians. They support our agenda.
They support an agenda of creating good jobs for Canadians through infrastructure investments. They support an agenda of building on our universal health-care system, with additional support for home care, a program that was invented here in Manitoba more than 40 years ago, Mr. Speaker. They support opportunities for people to get skills training, something we're doing in Manitoba, with over 10,000 internships in this province.
The member opposite's social and views on the economy make him look like–make Stephen Harper look like a moderate. His views make Stephen Harper look like a moderate.
His plan is to cut core services. He says there's inefficiencies. Tell us which services he thinks are inefficient: education for young people, early childhood development?
He says he wants to privatize daycare. He says he wants to privatize social services.
It's very clear, Mr. Speaker, that his extreme views do not serve Manitobans today or tomorrow.
Mr. Pallister: Wow, Mr. Speaker, what a diatribe from a fearful man. He's just labelled every Manitoban who believes in the importance of balancing their own books as an extremist. Unbelievable.
Manitobans understand the necessity of balancing their books. Municipal officials all across the province understand the necessity of balancing their books. Only the Premier and his misguided and clueless financial management team does not.
* (14:20)
They have doubled our debt, and the agent of change is not over on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, because the same tired and reckless approach that has seen us steal from our future hopes to pay for his political agenda continues.
His own colleagues, Mr. Speaker, half of them in his leadership race, did not acknowledge him as the agent of change. Rather, they wanted him replaced, and this is why: because he refuses to accept the need to change.
Is his former front-bench member who said that his priorities were not those of Manitobans but rather his own, to get re-elected, is that member right, or is everyone else right?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, it's very clear that there has been no change in the Leader of the Opposition over the summer holidays. He's recycling–and it's the only recycling program he supports–the same old lines over and over again.
We will have a more robust strategy for climate change as we go forward. We will have a more robust strategy for early childhood development. We will have a more robust strategy for growing the economy with infrastructure investments, and we will see a federal partner supporting us on that now. We will have a more robust strategy for prevention for children coming into care, Mr. Speaker, that respects indigenous people, their language and their culture and their capacity to look after themselves.
Those are the things that we strive towards, Mr. Speaker, and we will do it in a fiscally responsible way. Our debt servicing costs are less than half than when he was in office. Our debt as a proportion of the economy is less than when he was in office. Our economy has doubled. We have the best job creation record in the country–best job creation record in the country–the second lowest unemployment rate.
Only the member opposite has missed that obvious truth, Mr. Speaker, and wants to turn the clock back once again.
Debt Servicing Costs
Mr. Cameron Friesen (Morden-Winkler): Mr. Speaker, where this NDP government is robust is in debt and deficit accumulation.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP's broken financial record remains the same. A year ago, Moody's Investors Service, a leading provider of credit ratings and risk analysis, revised their economic outlook on Manitoba and threatened to lower the province's credit rating. And this summer, Moody's acted, and they downgraded Manitoba's credit rating for the first time in 30 years in this province.
What does the Finance Minister have to say about his lack of action to lead to this and the millions of dollars that will now be required to service the debt at higher lending rates?
Hon. Greg Dewar (Minister of Finance): Well, Mr. Speaker, the member is simply wrong. We came into office, Moody's ranking for Manitoba was a Aa3; we're now a Aa2. The bottom line is our ranking is higher now than it was when the Leader of the Opposition was in government.
You know, Moody's looks at the bottom line. Our government's position, our job is to look at the bottom line for Manitoba families. That is why we have the second lowest unemployment rate in Canada. And it is our government's job, it's our government's goal, Mr. Speaker, to have the lowest unemployment rate in Canada, and we're heading in that direction.
Mr. Friesen: Well, the Minister of Finance is correct about one thing: Moody's looks at the bottom line. And when they looked at it, they cited a loss of fiscal discipline leading to a continued and sustained increase in debt and debt service ratios beyond projections. That's not good news.
This government has doubled Manitoba's debt in just eight years, debt service costs are up, international bond rating agencies have lost confidence with this government's financial record, and all Manitobans pay the consequence.
My question for this Finance Minister: Will he indicate how much more Manitobans will spend this year on debt service costs as a result of his financial mismanagement?
Mr. Dewar: When we came into office we were spending about 13 cents on the dollar to service the debt. Last year it was 5.7 cents on the dollar to service the debt. This year it's 5.6 cents on the dollar to service the debt.
Our net-debt-to-GDP ratio is lower than what it was when the members opposite were in government, Mr. Speaker. We're focusing on the bottom line for Manitobans.
We have a new partner in Ottawa; we're eager to work with them. You know, I was reminded the other day about, you know, the Liberal leader in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, he's going to run small deficits and invest in infrastructure, just like this government.
Mr. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Finance Minister that a structural deficit of half a billion dollars is nothing small.
Mr. Speaker, Dominion Bond Rating Service, in their August Manitoba rating report, said that the Manitoba government continues to disappoint. And Manitobans are disappointed to learn that millions more is now going to service rising debt costs, and that means millions less for front-line services that Manitobans rely on.
Mr. Speaker, it's bad news even if the Finance Minister won't admit it in this Chamber. Will the Finance Minister today admit the strong likelihood of more bad news on the horizon when Standard & Poor's issues their report on the NDP government's failed economic record?
Mr. Dewar: In reference, Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada, TD Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Scotiabank, CIBC, Bank of Montreal, all of these indicators are projecting that Manitoba will have one of the fastest growing economies in Canada.
Unemployment rates fell last month, 5–to 5.2 per cent, only a tick above Saskatchewan, and it's this government's goal to have the lowest unemployment rate in Canada, and the only ones who don't like that is the Leader of the Opposition and the negative nellies that sit with him.
Auditor General's Report
Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, according to the Auditor General of Manitoba, we know that the NDP government supper–suffers from an epidemic, an epidemic of awarding untendered contracts. The AG office emphasized in its report that government must ensure that citizens receive good value for their tax dollars when it acquires goods and services. A competitive procurement process helps achieve that and also ensure vendors get fair access to government business. Manitobans are tired of the same NDP broken promises of accountability.
Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Finance defend the exponential rise in the use of untendered contracts by this NDP government?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Mineral Resources): As the matter was discussed earlier during the course of these events, normally, Mr. Speaker, I understand the matter's under your perusal, but notwithstanding that, we have no problem talking about what new processes are now in place as a result of an Auditor General's report, an Auditor General's report that looked at the processes, asked for changes, and, in fact, we are the first place, I believe, probably in Canada that provides online all contracts tendered and untendered, online to all Manitobans, 24 hours a day. We've taken a system that was an archaic system and we're building it into a more functional system.
And with respect to any contracts that are–that have been particularly raised by the members opposite, that matter is under perusal and has been directed to be asked for a review by this government by the Ombudsman.
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General found that at least $274 million was awarded in untendered contracts by the NDP during an 18‑month audit. This does not include the untendered STARS clan–contract of $159 million.
The NDP's addiction to untendered contracts is a clear sign Manitobans are paying more and getting less under the NDP.
Mr. Speaker, how can the minister responsible ensure that Manitobans are getting value for their tax dollar?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of contracts are competitive and, in fact, the places that are untendered are generally places of emergency situations like spending money in floods, spending money in other emergencies, something members opposite might go away on holidays and not recognize.
The largest untendered contract in the history of Manitoba was the wholesale sale of MTS and privatization by members opposite, Mr. Speaker. That was the biggest scandal and the biggest untendered contract in the history of Manitoba.
Mr. Helwer: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister forgot to read the report, because out of a test sample, the Auditor General found that more than 50 per cent of untendered contracts were awarded without an acceptable demonstrated circumstance. This points to the fact that the NDP is not following its own due diligence when awarding these contracts and may be wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister concede that the NDP's epidemic dependence on untendered contracts is one of the many ways in which NDP waste is threatening front-line services?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, members opposite ought to be careful what they say. It was members opposite who wanted to privatize home care. It was members opposite who privatized the MTS. It's members opposite who want to privatize daycare. It's members opposite who want to privatize our health‑care services.
* (14:30)
And, you know, if members opposite really knew what they were talking about, they would know that in the budget legislation they could've passed months ago there are measures in that budget legislation that deal with tendered contracts and they would've passed that legislation. Instead, they've delayed the passage of the very legislation that would've helped improve the situation.
And the Auditor General–and most contracts that are untendered are emergency situations or situations like Bombardier where you only have one manufacturer that can provide parts to emergency planes that deal with flood and fire situations.
Mr. Speaker, they are looking at the wrong issue. They could've–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's time for this question has elapsed.
Manitoba Numbers
Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): All Manitobans are concerned with the number of children in care under this Family Services Minister. Freedom of information requests to this department have taken longer than five months to be answered. Accordingly, the latest number we have for the number of children in care of CFS is from April, putting it at 10,852 children in care, plus over 600 with extensions in care.
This minister must know how many children she is responsible for. Could the minister please tell this House and all Manitobans: How many children are currently in care?
Hon. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Minister of Family Services): We are all very aware of our responsibility of the priority of keeping Manitoban children safe, and that's what the front-line staff do every day. They're working in communities across this province addressing the issues of families with the priority of keeping families together, and that's why we've made record investments in prevention. That's why we're supporting our not-for-profit organizations for parenting courses, providing child education and support. We're going to continue to do that.
We know we have a lot more work to do. We know that the issues facing some of our families–the trauma that they have experienced through residential schools, the racism, the colonization, the '60s scoop–we need to address them. We have the partners. We're continuing to work, and every day our job is to keep Manitoba children safe while keeping families together.
Long-Term Impact
Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): I would take it the answer is, no, she doesn't know.
Time and time again we see parents who have lost their children to CFS speaking up about heavy–how heavy-handed this minister and ministry has been in apprehending children, yet the minister repeats ad nauseam that they only apprehend when they have no other choice.
As of April, Manitoba had 10,852 children in care. The province of Saskatchewan, which has nearly identical populations and demographics, has 4,600 children in care.
Perhaps the minister can tell us why she reaches the last resort so much more often than Saskatchewan.
Hon. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Minister of Family Services): As I've stated previously and I will continue to state, the No. 1 priority is the safety of children in Manitoba. We work every day with our community partners to address those issues and we will continue to do that.
We know that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to prevention, and that's why we're making record investments. That's why we've been talking about supporting universal child care. That's why we've increased the funding for prevention programs by 60 per cent when dealing with families in the Family Enhancement program. We're going to continue to do that. We are going to continue to do that while we build a system that prevents children from coming into care.
We are not going to take the reckless cuts that the members opposite when they slashed the rates to foster parents, told front-line workers to take 10 days off, put children at risk.
We're going to continue to work with families, to work with our partners and to support devolution.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's time on this question has elapsed.
Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, she continues to apprehend at twice the rate of our neighbouring province.
To this government these children may merely be numbers, but they are far more. Each is a child with hopes and dreams. When children and their families are separated, these hopes and dreams are often destroyed.
We know that over 40 per cent of the children in care had at least one parent who was in care. It would appear that the care offered by this ministry through CFS to children is doing little to break the cycle.
So I ask the minister: Where are these supports that these children need to help accomplish the dreams in their lives?
Ms. Irvin-Ross: The apprehension of a child does not come lightly. It is after a critical assessment has been completed; it's after family conversations have happened; it's after they've identified the need of protection of a child.
I know that the member opposite said we should set that aside, that shouldn't be the priority. Well, I'm telling you today, this is this side of the House, that is our priority: the safety of children.
We know that when children are in care we need to provide them with the services that they require, and that's why we do. That's why we've supported the development of specialized foster parents. We did not cut the rate for foster parents at all like the members opposite. That's why we continue to look at developing strategies, as we have at Marymound, for children with complex needs that are dealing with mental health and addictions. That's why we're investing in StreetReach to ensure that we have the ability to work with these families and these children where they need the support.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's time on this question has elapsed.
Case Concern
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, this minister has repeatedly blamed everyone but herself for the waste and mismanagement of the health-care system. There are over 30 ERs closed at any one time in Manitoba, many being closed permanently. During question period on June 22nd, she referred to our questioning, and as I quote, they're beating a dead horse.
Will the minister relay that message to Esther Hildebrand [phonetic], who waited for an hour and a half for an ambulance to come from Steinbach to get a ride to the Health Sciences Centre while the Altona ambulance sat in a garage beside the Altona community health centre?
Hon. Sharon Blady (Minister of Health): I'd like to thank the member for the question, and what I would like to do is assure all Manitobans, especially those in rural Manitoba, that we are making efforts and working hard to make life better for rural Manitobans in terms of health care. We are making sure that all families–again, they all deserve access to safe, high-quality health care close to home.
And that's why we've been adding medical facilities and expanding services in those areas. We have been working on physician recruitment and retention, which is–and, again, we are working with our communities in each of those areas, and we are working with the regional health authorities.
So I can assure Manitobans that we continue to work, and we continue to work with those communities and those RHAs in a way that was not heard of with members opposite, who sent doctors fleeing and who closed hospitals.
Mr. Graydon: Well, Mr. Speaker, the R–ERs were open when this government was in power.
Mr. Speaker, Esther Hildebrand [phonetic] is a senior, lives on a fixed income and has learned to manage her money carefully. She could not understand why an ambulance had to come from Steinbach, an hour and a half away, when another ambulance sat 200 yards away. She now has proof that Manitobans are paying more for less and this minister is threatening front-line services.
Mrs. Hildebrand [phonetic] wants to know why and desires a response to her letter to the minister.
Ms. Blady: I thank the member for the question, and I can assure him that I deal with all correspondence and will deal–and will respond directly to the member–to the individual noted.
I can reassure her not only that we are working with the region but also that–again, to remind her that the members' opposite plan involves one of two-tier health care, something that I don't think she would be very impressed with. The fact that they have, you know, in their time, decreased the number of medical training spots, can you believe that, they're advocating for increased health care, but they're the very folks that decreased medical training spots?
And Charles Adler asked the simple, direct question of the Finance critic five times in a row, actually, what solutions did they have for Manitoba's health-care system, five times, but the member for Morden-Winkler (Mr. Friesen) didn't want to answer. He couldn't answer because there are no plans.
He also, when asked–when–if he would commit–Geoff Currier asked him if he would commit to ensure that they would–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's time on this question has elapsed.
Access to ER Services
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, if I could give the minister some advice, she would be better off if she paid more attention to her job than what we think.
With over 30 ERs being closed in Manitoba, it's clear that the NDP's policies are failing Manitobans not just in Altona but in every corner of the province. The Manitobans who do not have access to the health-care system have paid for that service, Mr. Speaker.
And when will this minister quit making excuses and be honest with Manitobans and provide them with the quality care that they have paid for in advance?
Hon. Sharon Blady (Minister of Health): I thank the member for the question.
I will tell Manitobans what we've been doing. We joined with the community in Notre Dame de Lourdes to begin construction on their new health‑care centre. We recently began construction for the new Tabor Home in Morden-Winkler. We opened our first two rural QuickCare clinics in Steinbach and in Selkirk. We have new or renovated hospitals in many communities across Manitoba, including Beausejour and Pinawa, and a new hospital on the way in Selkirk.
* (14:40)
We've invested in 175 new ambulances, most for rural and northern Manitoba, including an announcement this September for a further 52 replacement ambulances to further modernize the fleet, which contrasts greatly to the cuts in, oh, Morden-Winkler back in 1997 where over $8 million from hospitals and PCHs were cut, including $1.3 million in the Morden area. Portage hospital, $1.6 million was cut by the members opposite.
So we are working with people. We are working with communities–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's time on this question has elapsed.
Costs and Long-Term Impact
Mr. Shannon Martin (Morris): Mr. Speaker, under today's NDP, we have seen the single largest economic and environmental disaster occur that, due to the zebra mussel infestation in Lake Winnipeg, it has been declared, I quote, a lost cause.
This government has known since 2009 that this 'invasi' species has entered our watershed, and they have done nothing, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister explain to Manitobans how his government could go from standing on the bow of the SS Minnow and declaring victory last summer to declaring a lost cause this summer?
Hon. Thomas Nevakshonoff (Minister of Conservation and Water Stewardship): I want to thank the member for the question. I sincerely thank him, because it's very important that we get to repeat the message that Manitobans have to hear.
Each and every one of us individually has a responsibility to try and address–[interjection] Well, if members would like to listen, I will give them the response.
The message, Mr. Speaker, is clean, drain and dry. Each–an individual Manitoban, with boats, when they leave waters that have challenges with zebra mussels, have to take individual action to make sure that their boats are clean and dry and are safe to transport and put in other bodies of water.
So, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the member for the question that allows me to put that message once again on the record.
Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, the NDP has always been more interested in headlines than hard work.
Will this minister acknowledge that before his government even initiated the half-million-dollar science project, dumping hundreds of tons of potash into Lake Winnipeg, he knew, as noted by University of Winnipeg biologist Dr. Pip, and I quote, that the lake was past the point of saving?
Mr. Nevakshonoff: Mr. Speaker, I'm astonished that the member opposite–members opposite–that they would criticize an action of this government taken to sincerely–[interjection] Well, they can make all of the noise that they want, but we made a sincere effort last summer to contain the spread of zebra mussels in the four harbours in Lake Winnipeg. It was an entirely legitimate act taken in order to try and stave this off.
Unfortunately, veligers had already spread into the main body of the lake, and at that point, Mr. Speaker, you're dealing with a different situation, which we continue to do so, and–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's time on this question has elapsed.
Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, according to Dr. Pip, and I quote, the problem is irreversible, and, in fact, it's a catastrophe; it's a disaster. End quote.
While zebra mussels multiply by the millions, so does the cost of the damage incurred.
Can the minister provide Manitobans an estimate of the long-term cost implications resulting from his government's absolute failure on this file?
Mr. Nevakshonoff: Well, Mr. Speaker, members opposite may be ready to give up on Lake Winnipeg, but this government certainly is not.
And if members opposite think that this was something that we just became aware of, they're wrong as well. This is a problem that has been on the horizon for many years. When, in fact, my predecessor, the honourable Clif Evans, when he was first elected in 1990, the first question he put to the Environment minister opposite was a question on zebra mussels.
So this is a long-standing problem. The provincial government has been engaged for years in the process of communication with the public in order to get them to tread carefully. If members opposite aren't aware of that, then that's their loss–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's time on this question has elapsed.
Timeline for Proclamation
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the impact of zebra mussels, the invasion in Lake Winnipeg, on hydro dams, on beaches, on recreation, on our fishery in Lake Winnipeg, remain very concerning.
Even worse, the introduction and passing of the bill essential to give powers to conservation officers to address and prevent transfer of aquatic invasive species to other lakes has proceeded in glacial slow motion. The bill still has not been proclaimed.
I ask the Premier: When will Bill 12, The Water Protection Amendment Act, which received royal assent on June the 30th, finally be proclaimed?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): I thank the member for the question because, essentially, he's acknowledging that we have put additional measures in place to deal with zebra mussels. It's very important.
It's a responsibility of all of us to put proper regulatory measures in place. It's the responsibility of boaters to make sure that their boats are properly cleaned. We will provide facilities to them to do that kind of cleansing of their boats. We will provide additional facilities for them to do that, to make sure that their boats are properly cleaned.
This issue is not unique to Manitoba. It's on two lakes now. We want to make sure–and in the Red River. We want to make sure it doesn't spread any further, so we will be taking all the necessary measures that we're aware of.
And we will be working with scientists as well, something that hasn't been done–something that hasn't been done–as the member knows from River Heights. The ability to work with scientists to identify ways that we can continue to reduce the risk of zebra mussels is an important step that we're taking. And we have a scientific advisory committee working with the department, and that resource will allow us to inform the public on the best ways possible that we can prevent the spread of zebra mussels in Manitoba.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, by July 2014 it was very clear that zebra mussel invasion of Lake Winnipeg was of a large scale. Manitoba Liberals knew that urgent action was needed to prevent the spread to other lakes and called for return of the Legislature last summer immediately in September to pass the legislation and get it proclaimed.
But this government has dilly-dallied. This government didn't even introduce the bill until December last year. It wasn't passed until June of this year. The bill has not even been proclaimed.
Why has this government, I ask the Premier, why has this government been so slow on such a critical issue to Manitobans, and why has the government been so slow that the zebra mussel problem has now spread to Cedar Lake?
Mr. Selinger: Again, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. He will know full well that the transport of zebra mussels is illegal under federal law. Our measures are intended to enstrengthen our capacity to prevent the spread of zebra mussels in Manitoba. They have now been detected in the Red River. They have been detected in Lake Winnipeg.
When they were detected in Lake Winnipeg, we took a very vigorous–we put in place a very vigorous program to ensure that they didn't spread further. Regrettably, some of them have done that. We've recently been informed that one veliger was discovered in Cedar Lake, one too many, I might add, Mr. Speaker. That lake is not directly connected to Lake Winnipeg, so it suggests that there was a transport there by some human conveyance to that lake.
So the most important thing to do, Mr. Speaker, is to get resources in place, including public education, which members opposite have scoffed at. The more we can equip our citizens to do the right thing on the way they transport boat and the way–boats and the way they handle recreation opportunities, the greater our capacity to protect the 100,000 lakes we have in Manitoba, and we will do that in co-operation with the citizens of this province.
Lake Protection Plans
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights):
Mr. Speaker, the problem is this government hasn't even proclaimed the legislation which is so critical and they're not even enforcing other aspects of legislation which are there.
The government has had, at best, intermittent deployment of a few watercraft inspection stations. Are there inspection stations in Dauphin River to prevent the spread up Dauphin River into Lake St. Martin from Lake Manitoba? Is there a plan to prevent spread by float planes? Where is it? Why would the Premier increase the responsibilities of conservation officers while reducing the budget to pay for them and to do inspections?
Why is the Premier going so slow and employing half measures to deal with a crisis on lakes in Manitoba?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Again, I appreciate the question. The federal Conservative government slashed the Department of Environment in a way that had not been seen since the member opposite was in Parliament, when the Liberals slashed the Environment Department.
* (14:50)
We in Manitoba have increased resources–we have increased resources to deal with zebra mussels in Manitoba. We have brought in very vigorous legislation to reduce nutrient loading in Lake Winnipeg. That is an important dimension of controlling zebra mussels, and we will look at additional ways that we can do that.
The bill has been passed in the Legislature. We all agree it took too long to pass. The opposition could have expedited that. We were ready to pass it as soon as it was introduced into the Legislature. They wanted to dilly-dally on that. The bill has now been passed.
Proper regulations will be put in place, but in the meantime we will continue with a public education program. We will continue with enhanced support for treatment of boats to ensure that those veligers and zebra mussels do not transport to additional lakes.
But it's really important that we all have a team effort on this with citizens and government and non-profit–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's–First Minister's time on this question has elapsed.
Prairie Climate Centre
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): Well, it's good to see the environment finally getting some attention from members opposite. We must be getting close to a provincial election. Doesn't happen the three and a half years prior to now.
And speaking of the environment, wouldn't you know it, I had a chance meeting with one of my lifetime idols, a fellow by the name of Dr. David Suzuki. I don't know if members opposite know who he is or the work that he has done, but he actually came to Manitoba because our government made a commitment to his Blue Dot declaration campaign before any other province in the country did.
I'm wondering if our wonderful Minister for Conservation could inform this House, particularly the members opposite, what the environment is and what we're doing to protect it for all Manitobans.
Hon. Thomas Nevakshonoff (Minister of Conservation and Water Stewardship): I want to thank the member for the question. It gives me the opportunity to put on the record that Manitoba is now the first province to sign on to the Blue Dot accord of Dr. David Suzuki, one of the premier environmentalists in the world, in case members opposite aren't aware of that fact.
Part of the announcement, we will be putting $400,000 toward the constitution of the Prairie Climate Centre based in the University of Winnipeg. They will be working in conjunction with the international institute of sustainable development. The host entity will be the Richardson College for the Environment. The focus will be on the environment.
If members opposite have any doubts left that climate change is a reality, I would just remind them of the flood of 2011, the greatest natural disaster–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's time on this question has elapsed.
Physician Numbers
Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Health: As of today, how many doctors are we short in the Interlake-Eastern Regional Health Authority?
Hon. Sharon Blady (Minister of Health): I'd like to thank the member for the question.
And I would like to remind, you know, members that we are working diligently with all members of the regional health authority. I know they have a problem with hard work, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you that what we've been doing is we've been increasing class sizes from the 70 that they cut them down to, and what we've done with that as well is we've already fulfilled our 2011 election commitment to add 200 more doctors. In fact, we've added 276. And we're working with the regional health authorities on how to better deploy and how to get them out, get doctors out to where they're needed.
Whether it's building the My Health Teams, whether it's bringing out QuickCare clinics to rural areas, we are actually working with doctors, and we're doing so in a way that will meet the needs of communities all around Manitoba.
Mr. Ewasko: Mr. Speaker, Manitobans know that this NDP government's waste and mismanagement is hurting essential front-line services. In fact, at the Interlake-Eastern Regional Health Authority's AGM it was reported that, in fact, the IERHA are short 60‑plus physicians.
How can hard-working Manitobans trust what this Minister of Health and her government has to say?
Ms. Blady: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question.
And I can tell you what Manitobans can trust. They can trust a team that actually hires more doctors, trains more doctors, and that according to CIHI, Manitoba is among the best in the nation on rural doctor retention. That's CIHI.
And I look to the numbers that we get from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and you know what? Our very worst year was 2005, where we only attracted, only gained, 10 docs. You know what their best year was? Zero: 1994, zero. They flatlined. That was their best year, a flat line. Our worst year was a gain of 10. Their worst year was a loss of 75. Our best year was a gain of 83. Their best year was a flat line. I'll put our worst year up against their best year any day, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.
Mr. Speaker: It is now time for petitions.
Highway 10 and Victor Avenue in Onanole–Pedestrian Safety
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Riding Mountain): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
And the background to this petition is as follows:
Local and seasonal residents have expressed safety concerns regarding the intersection of Highway 10 and Victor Avenue in Onanole.
Highway 10 has two double lanes of traffic flowing north and south, which makes it difficult to make left turns and also creates difficulties for motorists and pedestrians crossing the highway.
This intersection is in close proximity to the south entrance of Riding Mountain National Park and serves one of the two exits from Sportsman's Park.
Recent commercial development near this intersection has dramatically increased vehicle and foot traffic in the area.
Motor vehicle and foot traffic in this area increase dramatically in summer months, making safety a concern.
On August 2nd, 2014, a 14-year-old girl was struck by a motor vehicle at the existing crosswalk.
We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:
To urge the provincial government to install a pedestrian corridor at the intersection of Highway 10 and Victor Avenue in Onanole to replace the existing crosswalk.
This petition signed by A. Mandziuk, B. Forbes, A. Forbes and many other Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker: Honourable member for St. Paul. Oh, wait a minute. Pardon me.
Prior to that, I just want to read into the record that, in accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to have been received by the House.
Provincial Trunk Highway 206 and Cedar Avenue in Oakbank–Pedestrian Safety
Mr. Ron Schuler (St. Paul): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
The background to this petition is as follows:
(1) Every day, hundreds of Manitoba children walk to school in Oakbank and must cross PTH 206 at the intersection with Cedar Avenue.
(2) There have been many dangerous incidents where drivers use the right shoulder to pass vehicles that have stopped at the traffic light waiting to turn left at this intersection.
(3) Law enforcement officials have identified this intersection as a hot spot of concern for the safety of schoolchildren, drivers and emergency responders.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge that the provincial government improve the safety at the pedestrian corridor at the intersection of PTH 206 and Cedar Avenue in Oakbank by considering such steps as highlighting pavement markings to better indicate the location of the shoulders and crosswalk, as well as installing a lighted crosswalk structure.
This is signed by B. Rettaler, M. Wicks, P. Dyrda and many, many other fine Manitobans.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: That concludes petitions.
We'll now move on to grievances. Are there any grievances?
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(Continued)
Mr. Speaker: Seeing none, we'll move on to orders of the day, government business.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule 38(8)–30–pardon me. Pursuant to rule 31(8), I'm announcing that the private member's resolution to be considered next Tuesday will be one put forth by the honourable member for The Pas (Ms. Lathlin). The title of the resolution is Calling on the Federal Government to Work with Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to–
Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that, pursuant to rule 31(8), that the private member's resolution that will be considered next Tuesday will be the one brought forward by the honourable member for The Pas, and the title of the resolution is Calling on the Federal Government to Work with Manitoba.
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the House advance notice that although Estimates will be called on Thursday afternoon, there is no intention to sit in Estimates on Friday morning.
I'd also like to ask–canvass the House, Mr. Speaker, to see if there is agreement to waive quorum calls for this Thursday morning.
Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that although the Estimates will be called on Thursday afternoon, there is no intention to sit in Estimates on Friday morning. That's for information of the House.
* (15:00)
And also, is there leave of the House and agreement to waive quorum calls for this Thursday morning? [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on further House business.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank the members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, could you please canvass members to see if there's leave for the House to consider concurrence and third readings of bills 34, 10, 20, 21, 31, 24 and 32 which were reported to this House earlier today?
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to consider concurrence and third readings of Bill 34, Bill 10, Bill 20, Bill 21, Bill 31, Bill 24 and Bill 32 which were reported to the House earlier today? Is there leave? [Agreed]
The honourable Government House Leader, on further House business.
Mr. Chomiak: I again thank members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, could you please call first for concurrence and third reading on bills 34, 10, 20, 21, 31, 24 and 32; after that, could you please call report stage amendments for bills 18 and 70?
Mr. Speaker: Bills are going to be called in the following order for concurrence and third reading: Bill 34, followed by bills 10, 20, 21, 31, 24 and 32, and after that we'll be calling for report stage amendments for Bill 18 and Bill 70.
Mr. Speaker: Starting first with Bill 34.
Bill 34–The Safer
Roads Act
(Drivers and Vehicles Act and Highway Traffic Act Amended)
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Mineral Resources): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that Bill 34, The Safer Roads Act (Drivers and Vehicles Act and Highway Traffic Act Amended); Loi sur la sécurité accrue des routes (modification de la Loi sur les conducteurs et les véhicules et du Code de la route), 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. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): It's a pleasure to speak again to this particular piece of legislation. I had the opportunity at second reading, back in June, I believe it was, and then also at committee that was held intersessionally, I think in September, and I've been able to speak with the different interest groups regarding this particular bill.
As I indicated in committee, we will support the legislation. We certainly agree with the general principles of it, Mr. Speaker. We aren't entirely sure that it'll always meet the objectives that the bill sets out to meet. And that is of a concern, but not of enough of a concern to not see the bill pass here today.
In particular, I know the bill deals with some additional measures for drinking and driving and trying to reduce drinking and driving in the province of Manitoba. And this, of course, has been a long‑time concern for all members of this House. I don't think it's limited to any particular party, Mr. Speaker. I've heard members of all different parties talk about the dangers of drinking and driving and how we need to continue to try to ensure that that terrible act gets reduced.
I recall the former Attorney General, one Mr. Vic Toews, who was then, I believe, the member for Rossmere and was the Attorney General between '97 and '99, I believe, Mr. Speaker, bringing in legislation in terms of seizing vehicles for those who are caught drinking and driving. And there was a lot of discussion about whether or not that was actually a constitutional provision and whether or not it was allowed to be done under our laws here in Manitoba. And Mr. Toews and the staff within the Department of Justice I think ably and skillfully argued that, in fact, it was the ability for Manitoba to do that because it was acting on property. It was essentially a seizure of property through the vehicles and that that falled within the constitutional provisions of a province to act on property matters.
And that bill was tested, and it was tested, I believe, vigorously within the courts and, ultimately, it was upheld. And since that time there have been a number of other measures that have taken place. And we have seen other provisions related to drinking and driving and the provincial actions on it also be upheld, Mr. Speaker.
So this is not a partisan matter. There have been different Attorney Generals under different political stripes who have tried to take action on drinking and driving and to try to reduce it in Manitoba. And while I do think that there's been good work done in many cases, we continue to see an unacceptable level of drinking and driving. That's measured in many different ways. We know that the check stops that happen are one measurement, and there are other measurements, perhaps when people are found to be drinking and driving when there is a fatality or something less than a fatality, but something very serious. And we are–continue to be concerned about that level.
Now, I have often spoken both in this House and beyond this House that enforcement and presence is as much a deterrent, I believe, to drinking and driving, as the actual penalty itself, Mr. Speaker. Those who believe that they might actually get caught in the act of drinking and driving I think are far less likely, regardless of the penalty, to take that chance. If you have a very strong penalty, and there are very strong penalties for drinking and driving, but you don't actually believe that you're going to get caught or there's almost no chance of you getting caught, then, of course, that reduces the ability or the deterrent factor if you don't actually believe that the penalty is ever going to be applied because you don't think you're going to be caught.
Now, there are many different forms of deterrent. I understand and I know that MPI sponsors check stops, and I think that's something that the members would see as valuable, but, of course, also police presence is something to ensure that police are able and are out there in terms of traffic control and have a presence in the communities, both rural and urban, to provide that deterrent, Mr. Speaker, and we've seen many places in this province, particularly in rural Manitoba I'll speak to, because I'm familiar with that from my own living experience, that you often don't see a police presence because there are so few officers who are tasked with policing such a large area.
And I've had the opportunity in the past, and I should do that again sometime soon, to do ride‑alongs with members of the RCMP, and I know there's been a lessening of that type of thing in the past for different reasons, but when I was able to do a ride-along with the RCMP most recently, I found it very instructional, and, you know, I was interested in how they're able to communicate with each other, which is important, but also I found it somewhat concerning about the distance that they were between each other at any given time when they were the rural part of the RCMP dealing with the southeast corner–a large land mass, but also a significant number of population as the area grows in population, and the response times are very difficult, and if you had one unit that was dealing with a traffic accident or some other matter, it was–it really tied them up for a very long time and they weren't able to put out any presence.
So it's not unusual for us to hear concerns about that, Mr. Speaker, and I want to relate that to a bill that was passed in this House earlier–the community safety officers program, and I believe that I've got the name right, and I know that there's a pilot project that's ongoing, or maybe it's completed in the city of Thompson as it relates to community safety officers, and there are other communities that would like to participate in having those that have the ability to, within their community, to enforce some pieces of provincial legislation, whether it's the liquor control act or whether it's The Highway Traffic Act, and they've been denied the ability to do that.
And I've raised this with the Attorney General, this Attorney General and past Attorney Generals about, you know, why it is that communities–and I'll use my home community of Steinbach, which is the third largest city, but also the surrounding area of Hanover, which, I think, is the largest municipality in terms of population, why they aren't able to access the community safety officer program and ensure that those who are there to enforce their bylaws can do it properly, that they can ensure that they can use that program to enforce some aspects of The Highway Traffic Act, to enforce some aspects of the liquor control act. I was told when that bill came forward that that was a significant portion of what the bill was intending to do. I was given an assurance by the now former, former Attorney General that it would apply to communities such as the one that I represent and, of course, others who've been asking for it as well in Manitoba, and yet we find that that's not the case, and there's a growing frustration.
* (15:10)
Now that relates, of course, to this particular piece of legislation because, as we talk about deterrents, deterrents come from a presence, Mr. Speaker, and the presence can come not only from those who are RCMP officers or in a municipal force, but they can come from a program such as the Community Safety Officer program, not unlike the urban cadet program that we have in the city of Winnipeg.
So I leave that with the Attorney General. I'll use other opportunities to speak to him about that, but I am very, very concerned that a bill that was promoted as being something that would help communities deal with their concern about a lack of ability to enforce pieces of legislation doesn't seem to be being extended. So that is certainly a concern that I have, Mr. Speaker.
I, also, on this particular bill, want to note that the provision that allows now for Manitoba Public Insurance to learn about a charge that a person has when it relates to their driving record I think is important. I believe that this has come forward as related to the tragic circumstance and the death of Kendall Wiebe, Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago that also related to a driver who was, we learned publicly, of course, that had an atrocious driving record, and I think that those were the sentiments that were expressed by the judge as his case went through the trial.
So, you know, I think that, you know, would this law have done anything to change that tragic circumstance or prevent the death of Kendall, Mr. Speaker? I don't think so. But will it prevent the death of somebody else? I don't know. I don't think it's–it's not going to cause any harm and so I think it's certainly worth trying and giving the possibility for a charge to be provided to MPI. But, ultimately, there needs to be a very clear system in terms of when Manitoba Public Insurance is going to take action on a driver when they determine that a driver's record is so poor and so egregious that there needs to be some action taken. And I have yet to be given an assurance that that system is forthright, that that system is established and that that system is robust.
I asked in the committee, the Crown Corporations Committee on MPI, to be provided with the chart that essentially they use in terms of when they intercede on a driver. I think I referenced the one that I've seen in MP–in British Columbia, as related to their insurance agency. I was told that it's very similar to what Manitoba has. I was told I would be getting a copy of that shortly and now, I guess almost a month later, I still haven't received it. So I'm not sure that that is the case, that there is that sort of system in place to ensure that if somebody has more and more infractions when it comes to driving, that that's registered.
I was also concerned, and I raised this at the Crown Corporations Committee as well, that an individual who gets into an accident but decides to buy out their accident essentially and essentially pay for the vehicle, that that doesn't become part of the criteria in terms of their driving ability.
Now I know that there aren't many people who have the financial wherewithal to buy out a series of accidents and then not have those accidents count against their driving record, Mr. Speaker, in terms of whether or not they should have a driver's licence suspended. But just like this particular provision of this bill might have a small impact and might ultimately make a difference, that–changing that provision, I think, would also have the potential to save a life down the road.
So those concerns still exist, Mr. Speaker, and I'll continue to raise those concerns with the government and with the minister, both in terms of the ability to have a greater presence in our rural communities and to expand the community officer program so that it can be used in other communities other than the city of Thompson, as was promised by the former, former Attorney General. I will continue to raise concerns about how MPI acts upon drivers who have demonstrated to be very bad drivers and who are a danger to others who are on the road.
So I–we are willing to, of course, allow this bill to go through because the intention of the bill, I think, is the right intention, and we all want to reduce drinking and driving, and all of us want to ensure that those drivers who are dangerous, for those reasons and for others, aren't on the road because they put our families and ourselves potentially at risk, Mr. Speaker. And so we want to act on behalf of all Manitobans in that regard. So we're prepared to see this bill passed this afternoon. There will be others I'm sure who want to speak to it, and I look forward to their comments.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I want to put a few comments on the record on Bill 34, The Safer Roads Act. My understanding is that part of the reason that this legislation was brought forward was because of the tragic accident in which Kendall Wiebe was–died. She was working in a hair salon, and a individual drove a car right into the hair salon and she died.
My understanding is, according to the newspaper report, that this deadly crash in 2012 was the latest in a string of bad driving offences for the individual driving the car. In total he'd been involved in 11 collisions in the past 10 years, eight of which were determined to be his fault. Now, clearly, the concept here is where there's an individual who's had a bad driving record, that we want to be able to prevent the tragedies by being able or in a position that his licence can be suspended and that he will not be allowed to drive at least until he can get things in order and figure out how to, you know, get things done properly instead of driving and causing accidents.
Certainly, this is a reasonable approach from this point of view and we're prepared to support this legislation for that reason. I have–I think whenever we bring forward legislation like this which will–in this case to try and address this issue–it includes provisions in which drivers can have their licence suspended after a high-risk driving charge rather than Manitoba Public Insurance having to wait for a court conviction.
I think we always have to be careful about measures which will presume what a court will decide or will take away individual's privileges in this context, because without actually having a clear conviction and, clearly, when licences are taken away in this fashion, there needs to be a very significant amount of due diligence done to make sure that individuals are not penalized incorrectly.
Mr. Speaker, it is in this context that I think it becomes very important that MPI clarify very clearly in writing and on their website the conditions that can lead to the suspension of driver's licence. This is an issue that I know the member of Steinbach has been interested in and is one that I feel strongly about. I searched the MPI site. I tried to find out what the list of conditions were for suspending a driver's licence; that list was not on the MPI site. This is something which the government, before you bring in legislation or when you bring legislation that makes changes, you need to make sure that these things are up on the MPI website and that all drivers in this province can have easy access to this sort of information.
And I think it goes beyond the–just having the information about what are the conditions that somebody's licence can be taken away from us, because when we were at the committee dealing with Manitoba Public Insurance we heard an explanation of what this process was for taking someone's licence away. Not–there was a lack of specifics and the description of the process, quite frankly, led me to have some concerns about what the process was and why it couldn't be enunciated a little bit more clearly. Indeed, I think the member from Steinbach commented at the time that the whole process seemed a bit arbitrary. It certainly appeared confusing to me in the way that it was presented, and it seems to me that it would be very important to have not just the conditions for which somebody can have their licence taken away, but what the process is that MPI goes through before taking someone's licence away, and when and where the appeal process applies and how that works. So this information is lacking, at least so far as I was able to find on a quick search of the MPI website.
* (15:20)
Clearly, there is some work that needs to be done, and, clearly, you know, we should have access to this kind of process information because it's important that innocent people don't get caught up in having their licence taken away because, you know, they weren't aware of the process, they got caught up in situations. Let me give you an example. Manitoba Public Insurance, where there is an accident, two people are involved. Under some conditions, MPI is very quick to decide that it's a 50-50 fault, and, you know, I have, you know, agree to some extent, but it's not always easy to determine. But if, in fact, one knew all the knowledge about a particular accident, I think that you would find that in quite a number of instances where MPI ascribes 50-50 fault, that, in fact, you know, one person was much more at fault than the other or one person was sometimes completely at fault and the other person was not at fault at all.
And so it's very easy for somebody to get caught up in a situation where they're in a, you know, usually, I think it would be a minor accident, but, nevertheless, you can get penalized. It could be a major accident and somebody can be ascribed being at fault under conditions where, in fact, if you knew all the information, they were not at fault at all.
And so we have to be very careful, particularly if we're building up a system where you may be taking people's licence away, taking their privilege of driving, taking their ability to go to work and to perform many of the functions which we take for granted, that you have to make sure that you have a system which is robust. And I had the impression when Mr. Guimond from Manitoba Public Insurance was talking about this process that in some instances they are adding up these at-fault accidents, or 50 per cent at-fault accidents, as part of what they would consider in whether you would be going on the track to having your licence taken away or not. You know, I can't say for sure because the process was not explained very clearly, and that's why it's so important that that process actually be explained very clearly on the website so that people can understand it, how it works and not be caught out because they didn't have quick access to the information that they should've had and they didn't understand how they could be treated and how this could result in penalties. I mean, somebody who is found to be 50 per cent at fault can have many of their merits taken away or can have their demerits extended.
It is a–an issue which, when we build up a system which, in general, works very, very well, the Manitoba Public Insurance system, that there are some areas where we have to have a little bit of extra caution just because of the way the system is designed and can sometimes ascribe fault incorrectly. We are human after all and–but that can incorrectly penalize certain individuals and cause a lot of harm and difficulties for individuals. Now, if individuals deserve that, I mean, it's appropriate. But, if individuals are caught up in a situation where, you know, they were innocent and they're being treated as guilty because of the way the system works, then it is much more of a concern.
And so I would mention this and bring it forward to the government as something that clearly should have attention. It is–I'm not the only one who has noted these inconsistencies and the unclearness of some of the things which are on the MPI website, and I believe that there is some significant work to be done.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that there were no presentations at the committee stage either for or against. It would appear that, you know, there is no particular objection to this legislation, even though there may not be, you know, a huge amount of support because no one came up in support of it. But nevertheless, you know, I'm prepared to move forward on this and to support this legislation. I just believe that we need to go forward with a little bit of caution as we move forward. Thank you.
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to put a few words on the record today about this Bill 34, The Safer Roads Act.
And it's been, as has been measured–mentioned earlier today, that it was probably Kendall Wiebe's tragedy that started this particular bill and brought it forward. But the minister has not said whether these charge–changes are a result of the death or not.
And so the driver who killed Kendall pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death. But he had a long, long list of prior driving offences, Mr. Speaker.
It's an unspeakable tragedy, and I would ask all members to keep Kendall Wiebe in their thoughts and prayers as we undertake this debate today. That's very important. It's important not only to us, but also to the survivors, her daughter and her parents. Her parents are constituents of my constituency, and they don't want restitution as such, or penalize the individual, what they want is that this does not happen to someone else again. They want to see something that can prevent this type of an accident from happening.
But as our–as the colleague from River Heights just pointed out, we also have to be cognizant of the fact that when we do make these laws, and the common–the effect of a number of these no-fault or 50-per-cent-fault accidents could cause someone from–to lose their licence. And they don't know that. They need to know that. And unfortunately, none of us know the law totally.
And I'll give you an example. A number of years ago I was involved in an accident at an uncontrolled intersection, a blind intersection, or basically blind intersection. And I hit the neighbour's car, or pickup, broadside. It wasn't that I was speeding, which was–is unnormal for me. I was doing 20 miles an hour. I could not see him because of the bush. I didn't stop at the intersection. I hit him broadside. His vehicle spun around, rolled down the road. Luckily, all it did was take the front end off my pickup. It was written off. They wrote off his pickup, and he was shaken up.
But the fact is, I would have been charged 50 per cent of that accident if it was the RCMP. In fact, MPI tried to charge me with that. Had I not known the law, and the law is very clear that in an uncontrolled intersection, the vehicle on the right has the right of way. But none of us, or not many of us, would know that. And, unfortunately, then, you would start off with points, points towards losing your driver's licence. Also, you end up with points on your licence that cost you more money in insurance.
So this is the thing, that we need to put this out, and MPI have a responsibility to let people know, because they're just happy to do the bookwork and say, there, that's fine, we'll just collect a little more money. That's not the purpose of this.
The purpose of this is to take drivers off the road that are chronic poor drivers. People can have bad luck, but 10 accidents in 10 years is not bad luck. This is an individual that is accident-prone or just a terrible driver.
We also would like to see, and we don't disagree, that impaired drivers should be taken off the road. There's no question about that. And what we are seeing now is with the initiative of phoning when you suspect that there's an impaired driver on the road. That's not a bad initiative at all.
* (15:30)
What we do have to do, though, is that the authorities have to realize when these individuals start to run, that perhaps they can quit chasing a little bit sooner.
We've seen a terrible, terrible accident happen just recently now, and I believe it was in the Midland constituency, where a drunk driver ran from the police, high-speed chase. They quit the chase, but he didn't quit and he killed a 20-year-old. That's unfortunate because they didn't have to chase that far; they knew the vehicle; they knew where it's going. They have radios; they can radio ahead. There has to be common sense used in these situations.
Well, I'm not suggesting that somebody that's got the fastest car should get away with no charges. That's not that at all, but we have to use better judgment in these situations.
In rural Manitoba, you've only got so many places to go, and it's not that difficult to get a helicopter in the air if you want to go and chase them. In the city of Winnipeg, the chances of a serious accident, of more fatalities when people are running in this situation exists a lot more than it does in rural Manitoba.
So, Mr. Speaker, I don't see a lot that I would oppose in this bill; I just see that there's some of, many of the things have been brought up prior. But, because the parents of Kendall only want to see that this doesn't happen to any other family, they don't want to lock this individual up forever. They just want to, something on the record, some law that will stop this from going forward.
So thank you very much for those, the opportunity to put a few words on the record.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on this matter?
Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Safer Roads Act (Drivers and Vehicles Act and Highway Traffic Act Amended).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
We'll now–the honourable Government House Leader, on House business–no?
Mr. Speaker: Okay, we'll now proceed to call Bill 10, the municipal planning act.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Mineral Resources): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the minister of municipal affairs, that Bill 10, The Municipal Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités, 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.
Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Municipal Government): Monsieur le Président, je suis un Anglo-manitobain et je parle français avec un accent et vocabulaire anglo-manitobains, et mon français est mauvais.
Translation
Mr. Speaker, I am an Anglo-Manitoban, and I speak French with an Anglo-Manitoban accent and vocabulary, and my French is bad.
English
Mr. Speaker, while my French is quite poor, this piece of legislation will provide for significant support to bilingual municipalities across the province of Manitoba. Manitoba was founded, entered Confederation as a bilingual province. That is an historic fact that I am very, very proud of, and I know those of us on the government side of the House are very proud of.
Mr. Speaker, we in this province value diversity and value the full spectrum of the cultures that make up Manitoba, the founding cultures of our province: the First Nations, the French-speaking peoples of Manitoba and the English-speaking peoples of Manitoba in 1870 who created this province under the active leadership at that time of, locally, of Louis Riel, and under the active participation nationally of the national government in Ottawa under Prime Minister John A. Macdonald, created a province that was bilingual in nature, that respected the founding cultures of this province. And this bill continues a historical fabric that stretches back to the very founding of this province, and it is a very important piece of legislation.
We have had, in this province, a number of historical flashpoints around the issue of bilingualism and the issue of French language rights, not only at the beginning of our journey as a province with the–under the leadership of Louis Riel and the subsequent historical drama that played out with Mr. Riel and the Metis people, culminating, of course, in–with the 1885 rebellion and the subsequent hanging of Riel, which was a signal and signature event in Canadian history that continues to resonate not only here in Manitoba but across the country.
We've had a flashpoint subsequent to that with the abrogation of French language services under the–that were provided for under the Constitution and the Manitoba schools language–the Manitoba language questions that emerged in the early part of the 20th century. We had flashpoints on this issue as recently as the 1980s when the government of Howard Pawley sought to restore French language services in this province and the French language reality, the constitutional reality of the French language in this province, and that was a courageous and brave period of leadership for the New Democratic Party in this province and for Premier Pawley, and it was recognized and constitutionally reaffirmed that Manitoba was, in fact, indeed, a bilingual province, and there had been a grave disservice to the French language and the French component of our population that had been decades long, Mr. Speaker, that was rectified under our previous NDP government.
And there are people in our government caucus that were staffers during that time, Mr. Speaker, when the French language was restored to its constitutional place, rightful constitutional place in the province of Manitoba, and I'm certainly proud to be part of a government that has been–and part of a party that has been very active in its leadership in terms of respecting and affirming and reaffirming the French fact in this province.
In fact, I'm also very proud to be part of a government caucus that today reflects the full spectrum of this province–north, south, east, west, urban, rural, francophone, anglophone, Cree. We have, in this House, members from the full rainbow of Manitoba's population. We have a wide range of ethnicities in our government. We have a full gender representation that we can do better at achieving, Mr. Speaker, but we do have the caucus, a government caucus that truly does reflect the face of Manitoba in all its glory.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, continues to identify our party and our government with fairness, with justice, with social justice, with supporting the people of Manitoba in their full diversity. This bill will provide for municipal councils to–who are elected to represent the interests of their citizens in their municipality and to ensure that desired services are continuing to be provided. In several municipalities across the province councils have chosen to deliver municipal services in both French and English. These long-standing municipal bylaws define the services such as signage and public notices that are available to citizens in both French and English.
Bill 10 fundamentally recognizes the importance of French language services to citizens and supports the continued delivery of these services by municipalities, and given the importance of bilingual services to citizens in municipalities across the province, the proposed amendments ensure that changes to bylaws to reduce existing services are given careful consideration by councils. This bill does so by requiring a larger majority of council to approve a change to a bylaw as well as approval of the minister.
* (15:40)
Other significant municipal matters such as the selling of parkland or land-use development plan issues also require a higher level of approval, Mr. Speaker, so this bill is consistent with other pieces of existing legislation.
This bill is intended to ensure the French language services, as defined through existing municipal bylaws are maintained, and new amalgamated municipalities where one part of the municipality is bilingual and the other isn't, and the bill will apply to all municipalities with the French language service bylaw recognizing the importance of French language services in municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank and congratulate municipalities who have been working very, very diligently over the last number of years with our government, particularly those who have recently merged through the amalgamation that took place about a year ago this time. The election was last October, the municipal election, and I will be attending my second AMM convention in Brandon in November, which will allow me to work again with municipal colleagues and to meet again with municipal colleagues to get an update on not only issues of amalgamation, but I think, most importantly, for all municipal councillors and councils across the province to meet and discuss infrastructure investment, and infrastructure investment is the top priority of municipal governments across Manitoba right now. It's the top priority of this government.
I'm very pleased to note, Mr. Speaker, last night with the change of government in Ottawa that Mr. Trudeau has made infrastructure investment his top priority. And, in fact, the platform under which Mr. Trudeau was successfully elected last night, mirrors the platform of this government, a focus–a fundamental focus on infrastructure, the building of infrastructure across Canada and in the province of Manitoba, the willingness to run small deficits, to invest at this time in jobs and growth in the economy, to invest in infrastructure. It's the very same policy that our government has been pursuing for the last number of years and it is a policy that I will counsel the Prime Minister on that's been very, very successful in the province of Manitoba and I commend him for running a successful campaign based upon a policy of investment in infrastructure.
Not only investment in infrastructure but a focus on child care, a focus and commitment to home care, a recognition that reckless and extreme cuts to budgets do not benefit anyone, Mr. Speaker, in an environment that is very fragile, an economic environment that is very fragile globally. That investment in infrastructure, investment in jobs, investment in growth in a low-interest environment with a very fragile global economy is exactly the right way to go. That was recognized by Canadians coast to coast to coast last night.
I know, in Manitoba, Manitoba never does better, Mr. Speaker, than when we have a strong federal Liberal government in Ottawa and a strong provincial NDP government in Manitoba. That was the case under Premier Schreyer and former Premier Trudeau when this province was literally transformed by investment in hydroelectricity, by investment in public insurance, by investment in growing communities and bringing communities together.
Mr. Speaker, in my home community of Brandon, we expanded the boundaries of the city of Brandon to include a massive industrial tax base that provided the way for Simplot to move into Brandon, provided the way for the Koch Brothers who currently have a fertilizer plant in Brandon. Brandon's tax base, the expanded tax base that Brandon has was a direct result of investments made by my predecessor Len Evans and Premier Schreyer and former Premier Trudeau all across this province, in fact, Manitoba was transformed by that partnership.
More recently, Mr. Speaker, the partnership between Premier Doer and Premier Chrétien provided for the largest investments in health care, education and infrastructure in Manitoba's history, an investment that we're continuing with today and an investment that we're very enthusiastic about picking up the pace on with a full partner in Ottawa that believes in the same principles of investment and infrastructure as we do. It's a very, very good time for Manitobans. The result last night will usher in a new era of co-operation between governments, between provincial and federal governments, and I look very much forward to working with my new counterpart when he or she is appointed to Cabinet in Ottawa and working with Prime Minister Trudeau to pick up the pace of investment in infrastructure in this province.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are a government that believes in supporting municipalities. We are a government that, with this particular bill, are providing a–our continued ongoing support for bilingual municipalities in the French language in this province. It is a tradition that this party, the New Democratic Party, has been proud to uphold since we were first elected in 1969 under Premier Schreyer. We have made many great strides forward and exercised courageous leadership in the French language area throughout the course of history as a New Democratic Party in this House, and I do reference again the very bold and courageous leadership of Premier Pawley and his government caucus when they chose to make French language services and the restoration of the French people's constitutional profile and presence in Manitoba a major priority. They were opposed, of course, by the Conservative members. [interjection] I just picked up a heckle from one of the members over here about that issue. But it was the right thing to do. It supported Manitobans. It supported Franco-Manitobans historically. It has been lauded not only in Manitoba but nationally as a bold initiative that provided leadership for French people in the province, and this bill will continue that sort of legacy of the New Democratic Party of Manitoba supporting Manitobans in their full diversity, realizing their full potential and respecting the French language in this province.
Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I do want to congratulate all those that let their names stand for election yesterday at the federal level, and we know the sacrifices that those individuals make and their families and, of course, their volunteers. And, of course, not all of them are going to be successful, but we certainly do want to congratulate those that were successful and best wishes for those that were not successful.
Now, let's talk about Bill 10, and that's really boils down to what this government placed on Manitoban municipalities at an AMM meeting, unannounced, untalked about. What–and that was the forced amalgamation of those municipalities. And this was one of the pieces that the government did not look at whenever they forced the municipalities to amalgamate. Those with less than 1,000 population were forced to amalgamate by January the 1st of 2015. It went from 197 municipalities to 137 municipalities. Apart from the city of Winnipeg, there's 16 other bilingual municipalities in Manitoba, which I think we need to put on the record, and this is significant, Mr. Speaker. While we're supportive of the legislation, this does impact the city of Ste. Anne, the Rural Municipality of Alexander, the Rural Municipality of De Salaberry, the Rural Municipality of La Broquerie, the Rural Municipality of Montcalm, the Rural Municipality of Ritchot, the Rural Municipality of St. Laurent, the Rural Municipality of Taché and Lorette, the village of St. Leon, the village of St-Pierre-Jolys, the village of Somerset.
Ms. Jennifer Howard, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
The three new municipalities created as a result of false mergers will be impacted by this change in law, those being the RM of Ellice-Archie, formed by the previous village of St-Lazare and the RM of Archie and Ellice, and as well, the RM of Grey, formed from the merger of the village of St. Claude and the RM of Grey. And then, thirdly, the RM of Lorne, formed from the merger of the villages of Notre Dame de Lourdes and Somerset and the RM of Lorne.
* (15:50)
What we've seen here, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that municipalities didn't have an option. We remember very clearly in 1997 that The Municipal Act was predicted upon, a local decision; that was a good thing. And we know that approach is not something that this government agreed with. There's nothing wrong with municipalities merging. In fact, there was a number of municipalities already having discussions prior to the announcement made by this government, which they would have no debate on, or be able to come to the government and say this is something we want. This is something we want to work at. Instead, they forced it through, and a number of those municipalities have been in touch with me.
So, the minister talks about going to AMM in November and listen to those municipalities, I can tell you I've met with a number of those municipalities over the past eight to nine months and, I can tell you, it's not going very smoothly. There's a number of them, and he's familiar with them, that have asked the minister to intervene and allow them to go back to the way they were. And those municipalities, Madam Deputy Speaker, are ones that he needs to be listening to. They've inherited debt from other municipalities. It caused communities to split. It caused those communities that used to once work together now at loggerheads. Unfortunately, this government has missed the boat on that.
As far as the French language services in respect for those municipalities, we strongly support the provisions for French language services and we know that 'municipable'–municipal amalgamation were simply another step in the NDP's attack on rural Manitoba. And whenever we talk about rural Manitoba we know that those municipalities are the ones at the local level, the ones that really get down in the trenches with those municipalities that are making the local decisions. The ones that are, in fact, balancing the budgets on a daily basis.
The minister thought it was a great idea that we run deficits, that we spend more than what we can afford. And he thinks this is a great way of increasing the economy. I don't know if he's going to carry that forward to the municipal convention and allow the municipalities to start running deficits similar to what this government feels is the right thing to do. It remains to be seen what's really going to happen as a result of this debate. And I hope he asks the municipalities what their take is on that. And they're going to change The Municipal Act to where they can run deficits. We know that would not be in the cards, and we know the municipalities would not want that in the cards as well, Madam Deputy Speaker.
So, we look forward to hearing the debate from the minister with those councils that are going to be attending, and I know all municipalities look forward to this opportunity to meet with government, meet with opposition. And, of course, hear what we have to say as opposition and what the government has to say as government. But what we do want to make sure is that we're listening, that we're listening to those Manitobans and those municipalities whenever we're talking to them, and hearing what their concerns are on a whole host of issues.
And I know my meeting with AMM and, of course, some of those local municipalities that I mentioned earlier, they made it very clear that they want to be at the table, they want to be part of those discussions, and we look forward to making sure that they are heard and they are part of that discussion.
So we do look forward to this bill passing. We are in support of this bill, and we do want to ensure that the French language services are protected, that we have through all levels of government fought so hard to get and protect, and it's unfortunate the government forced this upon those municipalities and, in hindsight, is now rectified once and for all.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I just want to say a few words about this legislation which provides some additional protections for French language rights in municipal areas. This builds on the history that we have in Manitoba of ensuring that there are adequate and substantial French language rights for francophone people in Manitoba, in areas where there are francophone communities. The legislation really comes out of the bill which brought forward amalgamation of many municipalities, and it looks like the government was not fully prepared for some of the discussion which happened in terms of the future of francophone rights and francophone services in areas of Manitoba where there were two municipalities merging, and one of which was a bilingual municipality and one was not; one had a major community which was francophone and one did not.
And, certainly, it has been a matter which has been discussed. The bill provides some leeway for the minister to listen to what people are saying in municipalities, but it does provide the minister the discretion to be able to give extra protection where that is seen to be needed.
I note, Madam Speaker, that when we had this come forward to committee stage, that there was an opportunity for the municipalities or their representatives to come forward and discuss and present and raise, you know, either positive or negative points about this measure. And there were no municipalities which brought forward any objections. And, as a result, I think that, you know, what we're doing is following the wishes of municipalities in Manitoba. And so I'm certainly ready to support this legislation and have it bumped forward and put in place.
So thank you, Madam Speaker, and I look forward to comments from the MLA for Midland, because I think his area was one that there were some issues and concerns about.
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Midland): Yes, this bill does have a direct effect on a number of communities within my constituency, particularly the RM of Grey and the town of St. Claude, the community of Notre Dame de Lourdes, St. Leon, Haywood; at one time even Fannystelle was predominantly French‑speaking, although it has changed a lot now in its–as time has gone on.
But this bill is just another example of the mess that this government created with their forced amalgamations. Had they stopped and listened to the municipalities back at the time of bill, I believe it was 33, the municipal amalgamation bill that forced amalgamations, they would have heard these issues. But this government's not good at listening. They would have heard that there was issues about this.
And in true municipal politics, if they would have let the municipalities deal with these issues, it would not be necessary to have a bill like this coming forward because the municipalities themselves are protecting their bilingual language rights here.
In the RM of Grey, which was forced to amalgamate with the town of St. Claude, I know from personal experience that the RM of Grey is quite willing to continue to protect French language services within the town, within the former town, RM of St. Claude, within the local unincorporated village of Haywood. They were willing to work out a mutual agreement on this.
But now government has come in and said that unless they put in bilingual signs–the government has the intention of forcing the municipality of Grey to put in bilingual signage, et cetera, through the entire municipality. And this is going to be at a cost to the municipality. That's what the RM of Grey has been arguing all along, is how this is going to cause an unnecessary financial burden on them.
This is not about French language services and the ability to have French language services. It is about the ability of a municipality to balance a budget, to maintain services with–for their ratepayers, because municipalities are at the ground level. They do hear about these issues right off the bat. And unlike this government, municipalities are forced by law to balance their budgets, balance their accounts, budgets each and every year.
* (16:00)
So this is going to put some financial strain on the RM of Grey because the minister now has the ability, under this act, to override whatever the municipality decides to do, even if it's in the best interests of all the ratepayers throughout the municipality.
In the RM of Lorne, there has long been a working relationship between the Rural Municipality of Lorne, the town of Somerset, the town of Notre Dame de Lourdes, the town of–the unincorporated village of St. Leon. French-language services are available. In fact, in Notre Dame de Lourdes, they have the Service Canada federal office there, and there is a–just a really thriving town in Notre Dame de Lourdes that has been working. And now, we–with forced amalgamation, they caused–this government caused some real friction within the communities. And they're trying their best to work their way through it, in spite of this government.
So, while we're all very supportive of French-language services continuing, this bill is just another example of how the government has messed up the relationship between the Province and municipalities and the relationship that municipalities have within the communities within a municipality. So, while we certainly want to encourage more French-language services throughout our–all our communities in Manitoba, it's unfortunate that, again, because of the mess that they created from their forced amalgamation, now this bill is trying to pick up the pieces, some of the pieces that they created through their own mismanagement of this issue.
So we look forward to working with municipalities. I'll continue to work with the municipalities within my constituency because this has a direct effect on them. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is–look like it's going to pass, and the municipalities will do their best to continue to provide the good service that they always have provided.
Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 10, the municipal planning act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 20–The Architects Amendment Act
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Mineral Resources): I move, seconded by the Minister of Housing, that Bill 20, The Architects Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les architectes, 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. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye): I, too, would also like to thank and congratulate all the candidates who took part in the federal election yesterday. I know it's an extremely important job to have people fill these positions, so I would just like to thank them for all their effort in yesterday's election.
We're here today to talk about Bill 20, The Architects Amendment Act. I am pleased to put some words on record regarding Bill 20.
Manitoba has many great buildings, and these were all created by architects. This building that we work in right now is an architectural marvel and was created by an architect with great vision.
In Manitoba, we have many buildings that have remarkable architecture whether they be historic, whether they be new, but they're all great looking buildings. The Canadian museum of human rights, Hydro place–we as Manitobans, are fortunate to have access to some of the most appealing buildings that our country has to offer.
In recent years, several new buildings in Manitoba by Manitobans, have received many awards and international praise. Among them are the H2Office at the U of M smart pack by Cibinel architects, the University of Manitoba's new ART Lab by LM Architectural Group, and several new facilities at Assiniboine Park by various local firms.
Manitoba firms are also doing remarkable architectural work in other provinces. Recently, we saw the Number TEN Architectural Group receiving a Prairie Design Award for their work on Douglas Park's school in Regina.
Architects in Manitoba make essential contributions to our communities. Whether it be a school, a hospital, office or public space, architects are responsible for the designing of that space, and we do have a lot of beautiful buildings in Winnipeg and in Manitoba. We live and work out of these buildings, so it is nice to come to work in a building that is pleasant to the eye.
Mr. Speaker, we have remarkable architecture and remarkable architects in the province. What Bill 20 does, it amends The Architects Act as follows: the act's provision about bylaw and rule-making powers is restructured and a power to make rules about mandatory continuing education is added. Extra education is always important no matter what career you're in. Keeping up with the standards of today is important. It's–whether it be professional development for teachers, professional development for architectures, it is important.
Bylaws are to be published on the internet rather than being distributed by mail, another way of keeping up with the times. The power to make bylaws about professional discipline is described in more detail. Mediation is added as an alternative to disciplinary action. Appeals of discipline, decisions to the court of appeal are available only after an inquiry hearing is held.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill so also amends provisions dealing with architectural work may be done by non-architects by explicitly stating criteria that were previously incorporated by referring to the Manitoba Building Code. These amendments are intended to make this part of the act reading–reader-friendly and not substantively change the meaning of existing provisions. Minor amendments are made to ensure consistent working in the act and make provision gender neutral.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are happy to see a bill that reduces barriers to the kind of great work being done by architects in Manitoba. We are happy to see a piece of legislation on that–reduces barriers to employment in Manitoba. We agree with legislation that will help ensure that there are fewer barriers to highly educated people entering our province and seeking work in their specialized field.
Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I've got a bit of a throat problem.
This legislation gives the Manitoba Association of Architects the ability to create and implement its own bylaws. This bill ensures that architects and their professional body are in control of their field of work in this province. On this side of the House, we believe that it is the professionals themselves who best know how to sector–how their sector should operate and encourage the government to increasingly let professionals govern their own work.
* (16:10)
I was glad to hear from stakeholders that the government was willing to listen and to work with the association in creating this piece of legislation. The association should be commended on taking the initiative to modernize this act and updating it to make it easier for architects to make the great contributions to our province that they do. The one thing that surprises me about this legislation is that this NDP government actually listened to a stakeholder. To stakeholders, this coming from a government that has devoted much of their time to setting up more red tape and regulations, for Manitoba professionals, in many ways, doesn't make any sense for this government. But it was great that they did it.
In the four years that I have been in this House, the one thing that keeps coming up when I talk to stakeholders from different areas is that the NDP government may set up stakeholder meetings and say they are consulting, but they don't listen. They just do what they want. This is not a democracy; it's more like a dictatorship.
There are lots of examples of this; it doesn't matter what department you go to, whether it be Health, Education, Finance, MIT–Madam Deputy Speaker, there's a lot of examples out there. Bipole III, consultation but no listening. Manitoba- Minnesota transmission line, all kinds of consultations, but they're not listening. All kinds of people are upset with this line, but the government is just not listening. The New West Partnership, we talk about getting rid of red tape and making things easier for businesses–the New West Partnership is an area that would help this, but obviously nobody across the way has any business sense as what should be done in this province, and they're not listening.
But the best example of this NDP government not listening to Manitobans was their election promises of the 2011 election. During the election they all went door-to-door and promised not to raise the taxes. But, soon as they became part of–soon as they became government–they got elected, they gave Manitobans some of the highest increases to taxes that we've seen in decades. They expanded the–what PST is charged on to things like haircuts and home insurance. They didn't consult with Manitobans then; they didn't go around door-to-door and asking would you like to have PST put on your home insurance. Would you like to have PST put on your haircut? Would you like to have PST put on just about everything that you purchased today? That takes away dollars from the low-income earner, which is not fair to Manitobans.
In the next budget they decided, once again, to break their promise to Manitobans. They increased the PST from 7 per cent to 8 per cent. That's a 14 per cent increase, Madam Deputy Speaker. Fourteen per cent. The government feels that they can spend people's money better than people can, which is absurd, because we know that it's small business that builds the province, not the government. Small business, big business, but it's not the government who creates the wealth in a province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, where was the consultation there? The NDP broke the law in increasing the PST without a referendum. Manitobans are tired of the same NDP broken promises and want a change for the better and, April 19th, hopefully that change will come. This NDP government says one thing and does something else. They say they are helping Manitobans, but they are not.
This NDP government is tired. They are not willing to listen to Manitobans any more. A good example was this morning when my colleague from Lac du Bonnet brought forward a private member's bill–[interjection]–a fine member at that, did research on it, a bill that would fight cyberbullying. We all know that this problem of cyberbullying is increasing. The problem is growing. The problem grows with the availability of the Internet. Internet's available all over the place, now. The introduction of more cellphones in the city of Winnipeg. The smartphones–it makes it easier to go online and be a bully. It's easy to hide behind a computer screen and a keyboard. It's easier today to be a bully than it was years ago. But this NDP government is not willing to support this bill. They spoke it out. Not even willing to work with it.
I understand some people have a hearing impairment here, so I'll speak a little louder. My throat must not be carrying far enough.
That's not caring for Manitobans, Madam Deputy Speaker. If they were concerned about Manitobans, they would listen. They would try to help, maybe make the bill better, do whatever it would take. But just speaking the bill out is not an option. We in the PC Party want to support Manitoba architects so they can continue to do the great work that they do and continue to make this province a place of beauty and prosperity.
We agree with this legislation as it empowers architects to govern their own profession. And I would like to congratulate the architects for taking the time to modernize this act. As far as other things, I wish this NDP government would start looking at other areas where they can help the people of Manitoba instead of fighting against them and making it harder to live in this great province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a great province but, at present, we have a government–a have-not government. And it's easy to see that the government cannot even get along with itself. Look at the rebel five. Where are they? Why are they upset with the rest of the party? There's all kind of disagreements in the party. That makes no sense at all. You can't govern when you're all broken in parts.
I thank you very much for the time, and I'll let the rest of my colleagues speak to this.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Just before we move to the next speaker, just for the–order, please. Just for the information of the House. I misspoke on the last bill; I want to correct the record. The bill that we had voted on and passed the motion of concurrence was Bill 10, The Municipal Amendment Act. I just want to correct the record; I misspoke. I apologize to the House for that and thank you for letting me clarify it. Hopefully, it's the worst thing I do today.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, just a few words with regard to Bill 20. This is a bill which was brought forward and involved the architects wanting to have some changes to their legislation dealing with, among other matters, the nature of disciplinary proceedings and the nature of their mandatory continuing education program for architects.
For the most part, as we've heard from the architects that these really is putting in legislation procedures which have been ongoing for some time. But, you know, in the nature of time and the nature of events, they wanted to make sure that these matters were in the law and that they were therefore less able to be challenged if there were individuals who didn't want to do the mandatory continuing education or other matters.
So, you know, this is fairly straightforward changes, certainly welcome the involvement of the architects and the presentations that they've provided.
At the committee stage, we had Judy Pestrak, who is the executive director of the Manitoba architects association, and she provided a good comments and understanding of the changes related to disciplinary procedures. Verne Reimer provided–who's on the council–comments regarding the continuing education for architects, why this is so important. Certainly, as in any other profession, there are constantly changes in the way that buildings are designed, that there's changes in codes, there's changes in all sorts of things, and it's absolutely essential that our architects are up to date using the latest information and making sure that the buildings that we have in Manitoba are not only strong but attractive.
* (16:20)
We have what I would consider an extraordinary architectural history in Winnipeg and, to some extent, in communities around the province. And it's important that we know this, that we pay attention to it and that, as we move forward, we recognize that having exciting and functional architecture is really important in terms of a community which works well. People are happy and productive because the spaces are well designed and functional. And certainly there have been occasions where there has been issues, not always problems related to architects, but that–we had some issues related to the stadium, for example. But there are areas which we need to make sure that we have people who are skilled and talented and going to would–do a good job for us and this is going to be increasingly important, not just in terms of what we've been concerned about in the past, but is becoming very, very important in terms of how effective the buildings are from a climatic point of view, with climate change, reducing greenhouse gasses, making sure they're more efficient and less costly on an ongoing basis. So we welcome the comments and the involvement and the changes and certainly very supportive of the changes related to architects.
I want, before I close, just to put a couple of things on the record because a couple of the members of the government have tried to draw parallel with what the Manitoba government is doing and what Justin Trudeau was–is proposing to do.
First of all, I think it's important that people understand that there's a difference in scale. And that is to say, that a–what Justin Trudeau is talking about is running deficits for three years of about–up to, it may not be as much as, but up to $10 billion. That, on a Manitoba scale, is about a deficit of $300 million for three years or $900 million total. If we look at what happened under the NDP over the last number of years here, we had a deficit of $1 billion one year, something like, you know, three times the order of magnitude that Justin Trudeau is talking about at a federal level when you do this on a per capita basis. And Justin–it’s–[interjection] Yes, but when you're looking at what the NDP are doing here, and sure, it's twice as long–it's going to be 2018 before we get to a balanced budget here in this province. It's actually a little more than twice as long as what Justin is proposing. And it's much higher deficits because we've had not only, you know, $1 billion deficit–
An Honourable Member: Per capita it’s a huge deficit–per capita.
Mr. Gerrard: Yes, per capita we have a very, very high deficit, and we're continuing to very high deficits of–running in the order of $500 million and so on. Maybe slightly lower this year, but–or this last year but not very much. And not as much progress as there should have been. But–so it's important that there be an understanding that what this government is doing is actually spending, and having much bigger deficits, on a comparable scale than what Justin Trudeau is proposing.
And, second, you know, it's about results, and getting results for what you're doing. And, you know, part of the problem here is that this government has been spending a lot of money and yet, when we look at the outcomes, the PISA scores, for example, have been falling for our kids in the educational system. When we look at outcomes, the number of children in care has been going up–is way higher than other provinces–more than double the situation in Saskatchewan. The situation is not getting better; it is getting worse.
When we look at the situation in health, we have some of the longest wait times in some of our hospitals in Winnipeg in the country. We're not getting the outcomes that we should from the expenditures. We have more than double the number of people with diabetes than when the NDP came into power. We're not getting the preventive health measures that we should have been getting.
So it's about, you know, spending and making sure that we've got the imperative numbers to recognize that the NDP are actually talking about much, much bigger and longer budgets that we've had compared to what Justin Trudeau is talking about, and second, that when we're talking about measured outcomes that, you know, the outcomes here haven't been–for the dollars that have been spent, they haven't been nearly what they should have been.
So just wanted to make sure that was on the record and that people had some appreciation that there is some significant differences in terms of what Justin is proposing than versus what's actually happening here in Manitoba. Thank you.
Mr. Cameron Friesen (Morden-Winkler): Madam Deputy Speaker, it's my pleasure to speak this afternoon and put some comments on the record with respect to Bill 20, The Architects Amendment Act.
And, as my colleagues did before me, I would like to just also congratulate all of those candidates who ran in the federal election that completed yesterday, and both those candidates who were elected, either for the first time or who were incumbents running, and to those candidates who were defeated. As we know in this House, anytime a person puts their name on that ballot and performs the work that goes around–along with that–I think we have a special empathy for others who do the same, who choose to serve democracy in that way, and indeed they are all servants of democracy.
And we understand, too, not just the consequences and the implications of their decision to run on them, but we understand it for their families as well. And I'm thinking today about lots of those other families of Manitoba candidates and others, some who have family members who will be returning to Ottawa and–or are going there for the first time and some who will not. So we thank them for their service to democracy, and I just wanted to add my comments to those that had already been expressed earlier today.
With respect to this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak because I represent a region in the south of Manitoba as I know you understand that area of Morden and Winkler is growing. And it's interesting how even as an MLA, in my first term of representing that area, I understand that the area that I represent is becoming more urbanized.
With the boundary changes that occurred previous to the last provincial election, we now have a jurisdiction for Morden-Winkler which includes the city of Morden, the city of Winkler and approximately four miles around on either side that brings in a number of smaller centres. But, nevertheless, it's becoming a more urban area to represent.
The issues that come across my door in the constituency office certainly do include things like agriculture, which we typically would have had. My predecessor, Peter George Dyck, would have had the same issues come across his door, but they also include other issues, issues like access to affordable housing. They include issues like access to transportation. We have discussions in our community around rapid transit, even in Morden and Winkler. We talk about public transit, and we're having some of those discussions for the first time.
We're having discussions about planning–urban planning and the development of new neighbourhoods. Those might be terms that we more closely associate with planning districts like the city of Winnipeg and the city of Brandon, but I assure you, those discussions are happening where we are–live too.
Now with respect with this bill, I mention the fact because, as communities grow, as construction happens, there is inevitably a desire to focus as well on design and not just utility. And so, in the cities of Morden and Winkler, we have had more and more of architectural firms coming into the area and looking at new builds and saying, we can help with that. And I wanted to just put on the record this afternoon, that when it comes to the Manitoba participants of the Prairie Design Awards, we've had a number of facilities and new builds in the cities of Morden and Winkler, and even in the RM of Stanley, that have been cited and short-listed for those awards.
* (16:30)
Going back to 2008, I can tell you we had two facilities in Morden and Winkler, one of them being the new administrative offices for Decor manufacturing in Morden. That was a beautiful new build and I believe if you just indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm locating it here in my notes, albeit slowly, I wanted to mention the fact that–oh, and here it is. It was the Decor Cabinets corporate office and the architect was RODE architecture. Really interesting facility, interesting use of open space and structural concrete, exposed elements, and also an energy efficiency that far surpasses any kind of minimum threshold. And I won't suggest to you whether it was a silver LEED. I always forget these terminologies; I would need to go check my notes. A great space, south-facing, making use of passive light–really need to see it in our community. I've been in the building many times, and I can tell you it's functional, but it's also very aesthetically pleasing–gives us a sense of pride in the community.
Another project that I should cite for the house was the Winkler Centennial Library, which was completed in and around 2008. That was a product of Friesen Tokar architects and landscape and interior designers. This is a really unique building in the Winkler downtown area, directly adjacent to the Bethel Heritage Park which I've also talked about in this Chamber. But that's a–it's a beautiful building and it's a–it fits really well into the landscape, into the environment. It has a series of tiered roofs. It also makes use of natural light and passive heating from the south side. There's many features about that building that are just a wonderful to sight. But there's also that sense of community pride that comes along with just saying: This is not just a functional space, but it's a beautiful space.
And I really have to recognize that architects in Manitoba–we're such a pragmatic people in Manitoba, all of us–and architects are able to come in and not break the bank, per se, to be able to come in and say, we can intelligently help you create a space for generations to come that will be beautiful, that will make use of good building techniques. They know their code. They know their regulations. They know that–far beyond that, they know the elements that might work well. They work well. They consult with their–with that contracting company, and they're able to do that work very well.
I'm pleased to say that Manitoba is home to many professional architectural firms and we have more and more of that work going on in our own area in Morden and Winkler. And I'm–as soon as I cite a few examples of good architectural models in my community, I'm going to run the risk of omitting others. I should probably just mention, as well, that in the RM of Stanley there is the Stanley business park–I believe that's the title–and it's actually a group of three brand new buildings: one of them housing the RM of Stanley offices, one of them housing the Access Credit Union and credential investing, one of them housing BDO. The reason this project is important is not only for its architectural design, but the fact that it's the only–it's the first-of-its-kind complex of buildings in the province of Manitoba that actually makes use of a central geothermal loop. So that's a really interesting, exciting new venture. Not a geothermal system serving a single building but a geothermal loop servicing three different facilities on the same campus. Really interesting. It really got the attention of a lot of people across the province, and it shows you the extent to which we're getting cutting-edge design elements incorporated into buildings even in my own area, not just the City of Winnipeg, not just the City of Brandon, not just the village of Steinbach–I mean, the City of Steinbach.
So I want to say this afternoon that this bill is a bill that my colleague has already said, the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Smook), that that is a good bill in that it would seek to create the conditions in which a particular specialized professional group can make necessary changes to its own articles in order to continue to do their work, to do it well, to do it efficiently. We understand that, with any profession, there is a need for ongoing education. We understand that, at times, there is a need for internal discipline. We understand that along with that credentialing comes that responsibility of groups to maintain those strict guidelines that go to all members of that profession. And we understand, as my other colleagues have said, there's a need to be up to date.
What this bill essentially does is it creates the conditions in which the Manitoba Association of Architects can implement its own bylaws, and the bill ensures that architects and the professional body are in control of their field of work in this province.
That's a good thing. In general, that is a good thing, because what it does is it says that this process and this activity can be ongoing. It is always important for government to address issues, to say to what extent are we partnering with professional groups, to what extent are we respectfully partnering with others.
You know, and there's no better example that I can think of, as a Finance critic for this province, than the slowness with which the government brought legislation designed to see three professional accounting groups come together under the certified professional accounting act. That work was a long ways along towards completion in other provinces. In almost every other jurisdiction in Canada though–that enabling legislation had already been either introduced by a provincial Legislature, debated, sent to committee, or indeed passed and proclaimed. And we were slow to come to the table. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would submit that a large cause for that, of course, would have been the internal discord within the NDP caucus.
I do remember as a matter of fact, it was last October, I was entertaining the CPA–the CPA working group at the Manitoba Legislature. They made presentations to us as a party as I'm–I know they would have made to you in your time as the Finance critic, and I'm sure they made to your successor in that role.
But I remember that day in particular because they were on their way to our offices at–on the exact same day as the media was parked outside the Premier's (Mr. Selinger) door, waiting for a response on the day that five MLAs here had had their chance to have a press conference and to call into question the Premier's ability to continue to lead his party and indeed govern the province. That process, I can speculate, must have stalled the process of bringing a bill on the CPA.
And I did forewarn that group at that day in the Legislature that they had–they–I suggested to them that they had to pay careful attention to all the activities going along–going on in the Legislature and indeed within government because those were processes that were threatening to distract a government, distract key members of the Cabinet from what should be their focus on legislation, on bringing it, on working with groups, on weighing that legislation, on inviting presentations from stakeholder groups.
And that's what we saw in the province in Manitoba. Indeed, it was a warning that stayed true because it was only in December that the Finance Minister did, in fact, table that legislation. I might be mistaken by a few days; it could've been the last day of November, could've been the first sitting day of December, but it was a long time coming. And groups within Manitoba said the same.
I am pleased to say that at this point in time we were able to do our part as an opposition party to keep the heat on the government, to continue to point them in the right direction, to work behind the scenes with the Finance Minister and indicate to him in strong terms that it was important that we all work together. This might not be the perfect legislation, but we understood we were having good presentations made by industry, by professional groups. We had good presentations at committee and it was important to keep our eye on the ball.
That process did not need to be so encumbered. That process did not need to be so protracted. That process could have been more lean. It could have been efficient but it goes to the heart of having that good working relationship with professional groups. And as colleagues have said that this afternoon, it is unfortunate that in this province, under this government for 16 years, that has been the case less often than it should be.
We've had numerous examples put on the record this afternoon. Colleagues spoke about the amalgamation process, whereby this government moved largely unilaterally. Even outside of the respectful participation of groups like AMM to lower the boom on municipalities and say you are amalgamating by this date, it was a disrespectful process. And it was not one that took into account the nuance of what that meant.
* (16:40)
This government showed up late, and guess what, they got caught with their fingers in the door, because I can only imagine that in that minister's department, he had assistant deputy ministers and assistants scrambling to understand–oh my goodness, we've made an error. There–here's another exception to the rule. Here's another exception to the rule. It's the wrong way to enact policy. Policy should be enacted when a careful process of dialogue, of participation, of collaboration has been done.
That's the partnership that's–is needed to avoid a lot of the pitfalls that this government has fallen into. Even when it comes to the expropriation of land by landowners now, with the process that is being undertaken, that is being hastened, as being speeded up by Manitoba Hydro, there's a lack of commitment to the duty to consult and to collaborate.
My colleague the member for Midland (Mr. Pedersen), I know that my colleague the member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler) and others have continued to put on the record that landowners feel gone around. This is the largest expropriation of land, probably in the history of the province of Manitoba, without going through the proper channels.
So process matters, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the point that I'm trying to make. Process matters. Collaboration matters. Consultation matters. I'm pleased to see this bill on The Architects Amendment Act. It's somewhat surprising coming from a government that has done so very little to create the conditions in which groups would feel that they are being heard. It's why my colleague the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Smook) said only minutes ago this afternoon that this government simply isn't listening. More than half the time, they simply aren't listening to groups, listening to Manitobans.
It reminds me of the current Finance Minister's–I call it the travelling road show, his recent endeavour to take his what he calls the budgetary consultation process on the road. Only what the Finance Minister has not been disclosing to this Chamber or to Manitobans is the fact that when you subtract his attendance at the meeting, and subtract the attendance of his aides and his assistants, and then subtract the attendance of the local PC MLA or the nominated candidate and their supporters, there's really only about two or three individuals in the room.
Now, we have to ask ourselves, why is that? Why is it that the Finance Minister's travelling road show has not got the kind of success that you see on the more successful TV venture, where they go and do the whole road show and you bring in your artifacts and–we could talk for a while about bringing in the artifacts as well. But any–do–they do an independent assessment on those artifacts, and they determine whether they have any value whatsoever. And so there's probably a lot of connections we could make with respect to that kind of–the Finance Minister coming in with his artifacts and then independent assessors try to determine whether there's any value in this exercise whatsoever and is there any take-away for the Finance Minister.
Well, the fact of the matter is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I believe I would–I could venture a guess as to why there aren't many more Manitobans in the room. And you know, I confess that I am one of those people who, if I hear that a Finance minister's coming to my community, I'm one of the ones who's going to show up. I'm going to go into the room. I will avail myself that opportunity to ask questions. And, you know, good on them for those who chose to do it.
But I think that Manitobans are reading between the lines. And they understand that when this minister says he is consulting, they remember that in 2011, when that's–when the Finance Minister's predecessor's predecessor, that would be the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), would have had the reins and he would have done a similar consultation.
The fact of the matter is that no one in those consultative processes, I would venture a guess, would have told the member for Dauphin that what they were really hoping from, as a result of that process, would be that the NDP would come back and raise the PST. I doubt it. I doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that anyone in that consultative process would have told the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) at that time, that they wanted him to increase the gas tax. I doubt any one of them would have said they wanted him to widen the retail sales tax.
To identify and include for tax whole areas that had never been contemplated before. Not even by the Howard Pawley government, they haven't been contemplated. Areas like extending retail sales tax to home insurance policies. How do you extend a retail sales tax to a home insurance policy which is–it's an annuity paid on a deliberation of the prospect of risk. How do you do that? Well, this government found a way to do it.
But the fact remains that Manitobans would have gone away and they would have said, we got fooled, we got fooled. We went to a consultative process, we were naive, we showed up, we told the Finance Minister and who knows, what did Manitobans say at the time? They probably told him to pay down the debt. They probably would have told him to drive down children-in-care ratios. They probably would have told him to reduce ambulance offload times at hospitals. They probably would have told him to focus on education results because, as the member had said this afternoon, the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), results matter, measurement happens and measurement matters–and all those messages that Manitobans would have delivered in 2011. They understood after the fact that they got fooled. They got fooled. And what happened instead is something very different than what the government promised. [interjection]
So the take-away of course, as the member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson) rightly says, is don't get fooled again, but maybe another take-away for those Manitobans was we're not going to show up at that meeting where we understand there is no meaningful and sincere expressed interest in actually consulting.
So, coming back to the bill, I guess for myself what I would suggest is that in the same way it's a bit surprising to see a bill like this tabled by a government that has a such failed record of consultation with groups. I was at one time as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the critic for Health for the province, and I remember at the time one of my first briefings was about The Regulated Health Professions Act, and I know if I say that, yes, heads will start to nod in this Chamber because this is not a new bill.
I remember one of the most, it was one of the first briefings I receive, talking about, you know, I thought we were talking about new legislation because I was just across the line and I didn't know all the technical terms and I certainly did not know all the abbreviations and acronyms. But the RHPA, as they indicated, was already through the House. It had been through the committee stage; it had been presented in second reading and then committee. It was referred back, but it was after it was passed there was basically not enough working proclaimed.
Now, I get it, it is a complex piece of legislation. There is some pieces of legislation which are less complex, like, for instance, my bill that I brought last spring to recognize the mosasaur as an official emblem of the Legislature. That is less complex, I would submit to you than the RHPA. But, that said, it seemed to me that the ball was being dropped, that we needed to enact The Regulated Health Professions Act. We needed test groups; we needed someone to go first; we needed to write the regulations.
And that communication with professional groups who were relying on this, who were depending on it, they came back and with one voice–as I would meet with these groups, they would say this work is not being done. We're not in communication; we don't know where this bill is at. What is happening behind closed doors, and, Madam Deputy Speaker, that's a problem. It goes to the same issue of consultation, collaboration with groups. So that's why I mention what I do about this bill.
So I know that there are others who are eager to put comments on the record with respect to this bill, so I want to say that I know that our party supports the good work that architects are doing. We know that we see their work; we know that we appreciate when they are bringing that professional expertise that says, as we build, we should build for the future; we should build not just for utility but for aesthetics, for design. And, as someone who has a fine arts background like myself, that is important, is more than utility; it is about design, it's about beauty. And we realize that this bill empowers architects and we think that's a good thing.
So I'm pleased to put these comments on the record and I invite my colleagues to do the same.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education acting as the Deputy Government House Leader, on House business.
Hon. James Allum (Acting Government House Leader): On House business, for the information of the House, earlier today the Government House Leader (Mr. Chomiak) called for concurrence and third reading on Bill 32 by leave. We have since been advised that a report stage amendment has been filed for that bill, so the bill will not be called for debate today, but rather will be listed under report stage amendments on Thursday's Order Paper.
* (16:50)
Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable deputy government House leader for that. That's for the information of the House that third–concurrence and third reading on Bill 32 will not be called for debate today, but will come back on Thursday for report stage amendments.
Further House business?
Mr. Allum: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am also announcing that the PMR announced earlier today calling on the federal government to work with Manitoba will be put forward by the honourable member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino) rather than the member for The Pas (Ms. Lathlin), as previously announced.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the deputy government House leader for that–announced that the private member's resolution calling on the federal government to work with Manitoba will be put forward by the honourable member for Tyndall Park rather than the member for The Pas, as previously announced.
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate on Bill 20, The Architects Amendment Act.
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to put a few words on the record on The Architects Amendment Act, and I'd like to start out by making a couple of comments to the words that were put on the record by the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard).
He was referring to Justin Trudeau in investing a certain amount of dollars in investments and a deficit for two or three years to stimulate the economy, and I hope–I hope that Mr. Trudeau does not take any lessons from the NDP because he's in exactly the same position today that the NDP were in 16 years ago. They inherited–no deficit–they inherited a balanced budget. That's exactly what Mr. Trudeau has inherited. I hope that he takes lessons from the NDP and doesn't squander the opportunity that he has.
It's good to see this bill come forward, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it's a well-known fact throughout the world that where you have an abundance of architects and engineers you're going to see development. What we have done in Manitoba in the last 16 years have chased them away. We have chased them out of the province. We have not let them do their job here, and we have seen the NDP meddle–meddle–in their businesses. They should have been just providing an environment for the economy to grow, but instead, no, they had to get involved in it themselves, and they didn't know how to run a business. They couldn't run a lemonade stand, for goodness' sakes, and they want to start trying to build a coliseum.
And now you see what happened at the stadium. Look at the mess there, but it has employed a lot of lawyers. It certainly has. That wasn't the intent, though. That wasn't the intent.
So they've had a number of failures, Madam Deputy Speaker. They've been pointed out by many people here, but there is an opportunity with this bill to give the architects and the engineers the opportunity to go forward and do what they do best, and that is to create.
When we take a look in Winnipeg, and it's been pointed out by many of the members today, of the architecture that's available in the city of Winnipeg, and possibly somebody has mentioned the Legislature here. We have one of the best designed legislatures in North America. I don't think there's a person in this room that would disagree with that. And that's what you get when you let architects and engineers use their imagination to create without dictating–without dictating–from political interests.
An Honourable Member: You mean the one that brought down the Conservative government?
Mr. Graydon: It may well have done that, sir, but at the same time you have a beautiful building. You have something to show for it, and it didn't have to be repaired a dozen times.
What we also find from our side of the House, Mrs.–Ms. Deputy Speaker, is that we are willing to co-operate. We're willing to co-operate with other provinces–[interjection] Are you helping me or are you heckling me?
An Honourable Member: I'm not helping.
Mr. Graydon: We look forward to co-operating. As we go forward, we will co-operate in a New West Partnership. We can learn from other provinces. We don't have to make the mistakes that the NDP government have made and remake and–remade. We can learn from other places. So co-operating with the New West Partnership will give us an ability to move forward, at a reduced cost to Manitobans. So all Manitobans will benefit from that.
Manitobans' isolation from such ties and partnerships under the NDP government have hurt our economy and our business sector. Our business sector right now has a difficult time trying to attract skilled workers. We hear of all of the skilled worker training that's being talked about on the other side of the House, but none of it's getting–none of it's happening. None of it is materializing.
And, when we do–when we do–actually educate some of these individuals to become skilled workers, where do they go? They go to BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, the United States; they don't stay here. And, in fact, when the Manitoba government does take on a project, like Wuskwatim, they give the contract to someone from outside of the province who hired many, many people from outside of the province.
And I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the unions were very, very unhappy. You know that. You were told that, but you did nothing about it. I see–
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order, please.
I just want to take this opportunity to remind honourable members that during debate there should be no reflection on the Speaker. And you certainly should put your comments through the Speaker, but should not reflect on the Speaker. I know that that is–we're having a very good debate. I want it to be an open debate, and I want people to feel like they can express themselves. But, in order for whoever is in this Chair to maintain order, they cannot become the subject of debate. So I'd just ask the honourable member to consider that as he continues to make his comments.
The honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Graydon), to continue his comments.
Mr. Graydon: It wasn't meant that I was directing them directly at you; I was directing them to the House, through you. That's–that was my intent.
But, at the same time, Madam Deputy Speaker, our time is very short, and one of my colleagues has a few words he would like to put on the record. And so I will, with the few words that I have put on, I will let him do his.
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Arthur-Virden): Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to put a few words on this about this bill, Bill 20–of architectures amendment act.
I was fortunate to have been working with architects over certain projects, over the years, about my own buildings and my own–even volunteer commitments that I had, that we worked with architects doing some projects in the area of Virden. It's been great to work with professionals who have great ideas, who have great opportunities to design great buildings.
I'm actually a fan of architecture. If I wasn't in the finance world before, I would have probably chose this as my second career. I enjoyed going to different parts of the world to look at the buildings that we see. Some of them–I don't even know if they consider them as buildings but more as cultural arts that–I would say.
Being the critic for arts and culture for the PC Party, I really think that buildings that architectures develop are pieces of art. We've been so fortunate, even in our city of Winnipeg, to have such great buildings from the past, the present and going into the future.
We have a lot of great talent that's our–in our universities right now, of U of M, who have created opportunities to see in the future that, you know, we could be a city that's prosperity. And I think that the way that we can do that is eliminate red tape.
Right now, one of the projects I worked with in the last year was a nightmare. I was in my first year as an MLA, and we were building a seniors complex in the town of Virden, and, with the red tape and the restrictions on tenancies act and the working with the–that the financial institutions have to follow, we actually built this building and actually had people in that building living there before we even got our finance in order, because of the red tape–
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.
The hour being 5 p.m., this House–when this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have–the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Piwniuk) will have 28 minutes remaining.
The hour being 5 o'clock, this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow.