Manitoba Hansard — 23 May 2013 (Sitting 46B, 40th Legislature, 2nd Session)

40-2-46b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Daryl Reid Speaker Vol. LXV No. 46B - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, May 23, 2013 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Fortieth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital NDP ALLUM, James Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson NDP BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli NDP BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park NDP BRAUN, Erna Rossmere NDP BRIESE, Stuart Agassiz PC CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East NDP CHIEF, Kevin, Hon. Point Douglas NDP CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan NDP CROTHERS, Deanne St.

James NDP CULLEN, Cliff Spruce Woods PC DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk NDP DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FRIESEN, Cameron Morden-Winkler PC GAUDREAU, Dave St. Norbert NDP GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Liberal GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge NDP IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Richmond NDP JHA, Bidhu Radisson NDP KOSTYSHYN, Ron, Hon. Swan River NDP LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. Dawson Trail NDP MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns NDP MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden PC MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor, Hon. Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel NDP MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East PC NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake NDP OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River NDP PALLISTER, Brian Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine Midland PC PETTERSEN, Clarence Flin Flon NDP REID, Daryl, Hon. Transcona NDP ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Kewatinook NDP RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia NDP ROWAT, Leanne Riding Mountain PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron St. Paul PC SELBY, Erin, Hon. Southdale NDP SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo PC STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin NDP SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto NDP WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas NDP WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WIGHT, Melanie Burrows NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC Vacant Morris

1619 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, May 23, 2013 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, everyone . Please be seated. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 46–The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2013 Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), that Bill 46, The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2013; Loi corrective de 2013, be now read a first time. Motion presented. Mr.

Swan : I can tell already the House is very excited about the continuation of an annual springtime tradition. This bill is primarily concerned with correcting typographical, numbering and minor drafting errors. This bill also includes some minor amendments to a variety of acts and repeals a private act and three outdated or obsolete public acts. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Mr. Speaker: Any further introduction of bills? Seeing none, we'll move on with petitions. PETITIONS Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mr.

Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election. Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. And, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by J. Sawatzky, M. Sawatzky, B. Klassen and many other Manitobans. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to have been received by the House. Further petitions? Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Manitoba Legislature.

And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election. And through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.

This petition's signed by E. Bourbonnais, R. Helda and M. Lafreniere and many more Manitobans. Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The reason for this petition is as follows:

1620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013

(1) The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

(2) Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.

(3) An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.

(4) Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition is signed by M. Gobel, M. True, H. Miles and many other Manitobans. Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Riding Mountain): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And these are reasons for the petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when tax –major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legisla tive Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition signed by D. Temblay, D. Simard, M. Fouillard and many, many more Manitobans.

Municipal Amalgamations–Reversal Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Midland): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background to this petition is as follows: The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents. The provincial government did not consult with or notify the affected municipalities of this decision prior to the Throne Speech announcement on November 19th, 2012, and has further imposed unrealistic deadlines.

If the provincia l government imposes amalgamations, local democratic representation will be drastically limited while not providing any real improvements in cost savings. Local governments are further concerned that amalgamation will fail to address the serious issues currently facing municipalities, including an absence of reliable infrastructure funding and timely flood compensation. Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and led by the municipalities themselves.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate. And this petition is signed by J.R. Didychuk, D. Donowalchuk and A. Alkouir and many more Manitobans. Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election. Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without a legal required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1621 We petition the Legislative Assembly o f Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. And this petition is signed by G. Lange, C. Bueckart, L. Rodewald and many fine Manitobans. Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): I wish to pr esent the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax i ncreases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition is signed by T. Bredir, K. Fedora, M. Kroker and many other fine Manitobans. Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for the petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election. Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Man itobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. And this is signed by L. Hildebrand, H. Boschmann, M. Fehr and many others. * (13:40) Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase in the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This is signed by A. Comack, A. Estrada, T. Comack and many others. Mr.

Cliff Cullen (Spruce Woods): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election. Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

1622 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition is signed by R. Gillis, A. Cuthbert, K. Gordon and many other Manitobans. Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assemb ly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election. Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.

An increase of the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assem bly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government not to raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. Submitted on behalf of L. Lampshire, A. Seidel, V. Williams and many other fine Manitobans. Hydro Capital Development–NFAT Review Mr. Cameron Friesen (Morden -Winkler): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

And these are the reasons for this petition: Manitoba Hydro was mandated by the provincial government to commence a $21- billion capital development plan to service uncertain electricity export markets. In the last five years, competition from alternative energy sources is decreasing the price and demand for Manitoba's hydroelectricity and causing the financial viability of this ca pital plan to be questioned. The $21- billion capital plan requires Manitoba Hydro to increase domestic electricity rates by up to 4 per cent annually for the next 20 years and possibly more if export opportunities fail to materialize.

Therefore, we petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge that the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro create a complete and transparent Needs For and Alternatives To review of Manitoba Hydro's total capital development plan to ensure the financial viability of Manitoba Hydro. And this petition is signed by J. Olfert, P. Goertzen, B. Goertzen and many others. Mr. Speaker: Any further petitions? Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur- Virden): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

And these are the reasons for this petition:

(1) The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

(2) Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase th e retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.

(3) An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. And

(4) Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. And this petition is signed by L. Keen, B. Peters, H. Hoeppner and many, many others, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And these are the reasons for this petition:

(1) The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

(2) Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.

(3) An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1623

(4) Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by B. Spence, W. Friesen, D. Sager and many, many others. Mr. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye) : I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government not to raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition is signed by A. Chubaty, V. Turick, D. Osadchuk and more fine Manitobans. Municipal Amalgamations–Reversal Mr.

Reg Helwer (Brandon West): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background for this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipalities with fewer than a thousand constituents.

(2) The pr ovincial government did not consult with or notify the affected municipalities of this decision prior to the Throne Speech announcement on November 19th, 2012, and has further imposed unrealistic deadlines.

(3) If the provincial government imposes amalgamations, local democratic representation will be drastically limited while not providing any real improvements in cost savings.

(4) Local governments are further concerned that amalgamation will fail to address the serious issues currently facing municipalities, including an absence of reliable infrastructure funding and timely flood compensation.

(5) Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and led by the municipalities themselves. We petition th e Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than a thousand constituents to amalgamate. Signed by L. Koehn, R. Koehn and R. Dinair and many other Manitobans. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon.

Ron Lemieux (Minister of Local Government): J'aimerais déposer le R apport sur les services en langue française pour l'année 2011-2012. Translation I would like to table the 2011-2012 Report on French Language Services. English I'm rising to table the 2011- 2012 Report on French Language Services. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have a number of guests with us this afternoon.

I'd like to start by acknowledging the grade 6 class in the gallery from Arthur -Virden community of Reston on behalf of the entire House and, of course, the honourable member for Arthur -Virden (Mr. Maguire). And, of course, we also have seated in the public gallery from Horizons adult learning centre 15 students under the direction of Ms. Tara Debreuil. They are located in the constituency of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).

1624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 And also in the public gallery, we have with us today students from Omega School under the direction of Patti Dola. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler). And also in the public galle ry today, we have with us Shania Sveinson, Lisa Ewanyshyn, who are the guests of the honourable Minister of Entrepreneurship, Training and Trade (Mr. Bjornson). Also in the public gallery, we have with us today from the Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycle Gr oups Brian Segal, Sheila Farago, along with other members of the CMMG.

And, of course, we also– who are the guests of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Gaudreau). And also in the public gallery, we have with us today Matt Barton, Jennifer Frain and Lori Hunter and staff from New Directions, who are the guests of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Crothers). On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon. * (13:50) ORAL QUESTIONS Vote Tax NDP Convention Mr.

Brian Pallister (Leader of the Official Opposition): Well, this weekend's NDP convention will certainly be a love -in but probably not a think - in, not a think-in because when you're unanimous on approving of the broken promises of this Premier (Mr. Selinger) and this government, that doesn't show you're thinking. When you're of one mind that it's okay to hike taxes by $1,600 per household in this province, that's not thinking. And when you're in complete agreement when it comes to jacking up the PST and tearing up the taxpayer protection act as well, that tells me you're not thinking.

And on the vote tax, it looks like there's going to be a Kumbaya moment there as well, everybody in accord with each other. But that wasn't the case last year. Last year, I understand there was a little division there, and that's good; healthy discussion can produce that. But why? Why be against taking the vote tax when the PST is at 7 per cent and for it when the PST is at 8 per cent? Hon. Jennifer Howard (Acting Premier): I–it's an unprecedented level of interest in our convention. I will look forward to welcoming the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Pallister) there.

I just –I do want to say to him, though, I, you know, it's fine in this House to disparage us and call us names, but the folks who come to our convention and their convention, the folks who come out and volunteer and work on campaigns, the folks who do that for no gain of their own but because they believe in something, I would never call the members of his party stupid, a nd I don't think he should call the members of mine that. Mr. Pallister: Just a tad ironic from a party that wants to pay itself for not working and volunteering, I think. Mr.

Speaker, you know, here we have –I don't know what the Premier's afraid of. I don't know why the Premier won't get up and answer the questions I ask on the vote tax. I repeatedly ask these questions. I get no response from the Premier of Manitoba, and I'm disappointed–disappointed–in that. The vote tax is a subsidy for lazy political parties; it's nothing more than that. And if it's so noble, why is the government so quiet about it? They have 192 communications staff with duct tape over their mouths? D oesn't make sense. No ribbon cuttings, no announcements. Why so secretive?

It's almost as if the government was ashamed, as if the Premier was embarrassed. Now, the Premier yesterday claimed he was open in this House, but we learned today that his speech will not be open; it will be closed. It will be closed to the public. It will be closed to the media. Now, is the reason for this so that the Premier can speak to the only group in this province who actually supports the vote tax? Ms. Howard: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that his slogan there, when he was running unopposed for leader, was to aim higher, but it's certainly not the motto that he lives by in this House.

I think it would be incumbent upon him to apologize for disparaging the members of any political party because they don't agree with him. But that's fine, he doesn't have to do that, I suppose. Today, of course, is the day of the funeral of Elijah Harper in Red Sucker Lake, Mr. Speaker, and I think, perhaps, knowing that, we should be a littl e

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1625 bit more respectful in our tone in the House if the members opposite are capable– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Mr. Pallister: Just so there's no confusion, the group I'm disparaging is the 37 Manitobans over there who disregard the right of Manitobans to have the right to vote on tax increases. This, Mr. Speaker, is a closed-shop meeting, and it's a closed -shop organization. It's a private speech, and it's an exclusive member -only speech where the Premier (Mr.

Selinger) may, if he's accountable, may speak, but only to a small group of Manitobans, about his real plans for jacking up taxes next year and how much vote tax he's actually going to take. But you have to pay only $40 to be in the club. It's pretty open, unless you want to be an observer. If you want to go and observe it's $500, which might be worth it because you won't have to listen to that speech. Now, the fact of the matter is it's a closed shop and every Manitoban is funding the NDP now with the vote tax, s o this year they can have a closed meeting.

But I hope they understand, and I hope that Premier understands, that Manitobans now are paying dues for the NDP, and if they're paying dues for the NDP it better not be a closed meeting next year, Mr. Speaker. Ms. Howard: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is indeed something, coming from the party that closes their convention to the media. I believe the speech he is referencing is the speech that will be delivered at the dinner. That dinner is open to anyone who wants t o buy a ticket. If he wants to buy a ticket, he's more than welcome to come and listen to that dinner. The Premier will also speak Friday and Sunday.

Both those speeches are totally open. I imagine the media will be in attendance and will be there to hear those speeches, Mr. Speaker. But I just want to say, on the issue of public financing, the member for Fort Whyte, who recently ran in a by -election, received $16,000 in public subsidy for that by -election. I assume that cheque is being returned, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Morden-Winkler. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Morden-Winkler has the floor. PST Increase Impact on Families Mr. Cameron Friesen (Morden -Winkler): Mr.

Speaker, this NDP government continues to show that they are unwilling to listen to Manitobans regarding this proposed PST hike. Nick Clayson is a constituent of mine who took the time to contact my office to send a message to this government. He sat down and he worked out on paper what the PST hike would cost he and his wife, and he's asking the NDP to reconsider their ill-conceived PST hike. Nick has said that there are many families living in Manitoba who simply cannot afford these kind of increases. Nick's message to the Minister of Finance is this: Manitobans simply cannot afford your PST hike.

What is the Finance Minister's message to Manitobans like Nick? Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance ): Well, Mr. Speaker, people like Nick do work hard for their money; there's no doubt about that, we understand that. People like Nick work hard for their money and they pay their taxes like Manitobans do so that they can have decent services in this province, services like health care, services like education. People like Nick pay their taxes and work hard so that they can– we can invest that money into roads and bridges. What would really hurt Nick's family, Mr.

Speaker, is if members opposite had their wa y and cut health care and cut education and cut investments in infrastructure. That's what would really hurt Manitoba families. Mr. Friesen: Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, what really hurts Nick and his family is $400 million a year out of Manitobans' pockets back to this government. Nick took the time to put pen to paper and provide an account of how the NDP's tax hike will actually affect one Manitoba family.

He got out his calculator and he crunched the numbers, something that this Finance Minister would be advised to do with more frequency and accuracy, but Nick's math adds up. He conducted a budgetary examination of income and expenses for he and his wife, and he wrote that he was alarmed at the numbers. He calculated that 40 per cent of his spending wa s subject to PST, and as a result of the hike this family

1626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 of two will pay an extra $576 in one year to this NDP government. Mr. Speaker, can this Finance Minister explain to Nick why this hard-working family– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr. Struthers : Well, maybe my friend across the way can get Nick to sit down and talk to his own leader, the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Pallister), about those numbers, because the member for Fort Whyte has inflated the number up to 1,600, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Fort Whyte has trying to convince Manitobans that the PST increase will cost each family $1,600. Mr. Speaker, we have–members opposite should just pick a story and stick to it. Mr. Speaker: The level is going up a little bit again. We have a lot of guests with us here this afternoon. Some of them are schoolchildren and I would like the honourable members to reflect on the fact of the impression that we're leaving upon the schoolchildren who are here visiting us today , perhaps for the first time, and I'm sure we would all want them to return to the House and visit our democracy in action.

So I'm asking for all honourable members to please reflect on the level and the decorum in the House here this afternoon. The honourable member for Morden -Winkler, with a final supplementary. Mr. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, what's clear again is that, once again, the Finance Minister is not listening. A family of two, one year, PST alone, calculated out at $576 per year back to this government. * (14:00) There's a lot that this Finance Minister could learn from Nick, who is speaking out against this tax hike.

He goes on to say that because of this PST hike their family of two has to make decisions about where to scale back their spending , and he wonders how many families are in the same predicament. Nick says that many highly skilled people are going to Saskatchewan and Alberta for economic reasons and that he has done the math and if their situation doesn't improve they will also have to go west. Will the Finance Minister crunch his numbers, do his math and admit to Manitobans like Nick that they cannot afford his spending addiction? Mr. Struthers : Mr.

Speaker, what Manitoba families understand is that they live in one of the most affordable provinces in this country. We have the lowest auto insurance rates in the country. We have the lowest hydro rates in the country and, courtesy of this government, $2.9- billion worth of tax relief over the time that we've been in government. That's rea l benefits for Manitoba families. Compare that to when the Leader of the Opposition had his turn at government. A single low-income Manitoban at $20,000 today pays less – pays $326 less than when he had his opportunity. You know, Mr. Speaker, their– Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Keeyask Centre Project Update Mr. Ron Schuler (St. Paul): This NDP government has now spent $4.5 million on a non- existent virtual Keeyask Centre, starting in 2009. The agreement calls for, and I quot e: The main building would be designed to fulfill several functions in addition to a reception area containing work by local artists. The local artists would like to ask the NDP member for Kildonan: Where is their Keeyask Centre? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Yes, as I indicated yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, this matter was discussed in committee on April 9th. We talked about Hydro for about five hours. The member asked several of the questions, and the president of Hydro said, and I quote: The funding was advanced i n accordance with the agreement. The band determined–and we are involved in how they have decided to earmark the funding for the project for various offsetting programs. We don't have oversight over the construction contracts. That's a band responsibility. Mr.

Speaker, the adverse- effects agreement on TCN provides for programs for access, land stewardship, healthy food, fish, traditional lifestyle experience, knowledge learning, Cree language, traditional foods. It's funding that's guaranteed from Hydro provided to the band for those programs that the band operates. And as the Hydro president indicated at the time when he discussed it and when we discussed it last month, it's the band's

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1627 responsibility. The –Hydro doesn't provide the construction. Mr. Schuler: The same agreement that the member quotes from says, and I quote: It would house museum-like displays of artifacts and a reference centre for information about Aboriginal language, culture and history in general. The NDP member for Kildonan said, and it's on the record, none of this will happen because of a misunderstanding. Now, under the Keeyask agreement, $340,000 has to be paid to the Keeyask Centre this year for operating costs.

Has the NDP member for Kildonan already paid the $340,000 to run the virtual, non-existent Keeyask Centre? Mr. Chomiak : Mr. Speaker, the members have a habit: first two questions, they just make it up. The comments the member made about my statements are just made up. They think they can say whatever they want. Mr. Speaker, construction was delayed last year and construction will start this summer. Mr. Schuler: Mr.

Speaker, the money was flowed in 2009 and it was supposed to, and I quote: It would also provide a suitable environment for related uses such as traditional teachings, language teaching and perhaps displays of special student projects. The NDP member for Kildonan spent $6 million, and what does TCN get? No centre, no art display, no museum, no reference centre, no language teaching and no display of special s tudent projects. This has to be the mother of all misunderstandings. How could the member for Kildonan have failed TCN is such an epic way? Mr. Chomiak : Mr.

Speaker, notwithstanding that members do not want us to have agreements with First Nations, Hydro negotiated an adverse- effects agreement with TCN to provide guaranteed funds to TCN, adverse effects to deal with Hydro. And, in fact, TCN got ownership of the dams that the members opposite did not want us to build and want to hold up. And, as I indicate d earlier, there's provisions in the contract for Hydro to provide funding to TCN to carry out those projects. Construction was delayed last year because of the construction season, and construction will commence this summer.

Waabanong Anishinaabe Interpretive Learning Centre Project Update Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): In September of 2010, with great fanfare, the Premier (Mr. Selinger) stood on the riverbanks of Hollow Water First Nation and announced that the $2.5-million Waabanong Anishinaabe Interpretive Learning Centre would be built by fall 2011. I ask the Culture, Heritage and Tourism Minister: Is it built? Hon. Flor Marcelino (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): I thank my colleague for the question and the first one in a very long time. Mr.

Speaker, much as our government wanted all this infrastructure projects, cultural projects, to happen, some things sometimes go awry. There's some problem with–when all the bids were done, a construction company or a company was chosen, but something happened with that company and there's now some civil litigations. Mr. Ewasko: Mr. Speaker, it's really nice to see that the seatbelt light is off on the ministers' chairs today. Yesterday and again today, we had heard evidence of $6 million that this NDP government had forwarded through Manitoba Hydro to the Keeyask Centre that doesn't exist.

Can the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism tell us whether her government has now added the $2.5- million interpretive centre in Hollow Water to the list of the money is gone with nothing to show for it? Ms. Marcelino: Mr. Speaker, no. Mr. Ewasko: So which are we talking about? No to the centre? No, the money's not there? The money's been sent, but we don't have an idea what's going on? Mr. Speaker, $6 million for Keeyask Centre, 2 and a half million dollars for Waabanong Anishinaabe interpretive centre.

Can the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism stand up today and be truthful with these communities? Where are their centres, and where is the money? Ms. Marcelino: Mr. Speaker, after the dust has settled, a new construction outfit is chosen, I think there'll be something that the member opposite would be delighted to see. So I suggest stay tuned.

1628 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 The Pari-Mutuel Levy Act Changes to Legislation Mr. Cliff Cullen ( Spruce Woods ): Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Finance got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. The minister illegally withheld money from the Manitoba Jockey Club, money that was legislated by The Pari -Mutuel Levy Act to go to the horse racing industry. The minister st ated in his budget that he's going to make legislative changes to The Pari-Mutuel Levy Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is he still going ahead with those changes to The Pari -Mutuel Levy Act? Hon.

Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance ): Well, Mr. Spea ker, members opposite obviously believe that if they tell the same lie over and over often enough that they–it becomes the truth. Mr. Speaker, we said very clearly to the Jockey Club, we said very clearly in the budget, we said very clearly in this House just exactly what we're going to do. Judge Dewar says that we have every authority to do it.

We're going to move forward and make the changes necessary to realize $5 -million worth of savings and have that $5 million transferred from the Jockey Club into health care, into schools, into hospitals, into infrastructure. We think that's a better– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. * (14:10) Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask the minister to read the whole report from Judge Dewar . If he goes to page 22, it clearly says –Judge Dewar said: The minister must act in accordance with the law as it now stands. In my respectful opinion, he has not done that.

Guilty as charged, Mr. Speaker. Is this minister committed to killing the horse racing industry in Manitoba, a $50- million industry with 500 jobs around it? That's what the question is. Is this minister going to change The Pari -Mutuel Levy Act? Mr. Struthers : Mr. Speaker, the Jockey Club–the Manitoba Jockey Club is subsidized by the Manitoba taxpayer to almost 90 per cent of what the money they bring in.

I am absolutely shocked that members opposite, who pretend to be entrepreneurs and free marketeers, that they would support an industry to the tune of 90 per cent of the M anitoba taxpayer dollar, especially when there's a private partner out there that can partner up with the Manitoba Jockey Club and help that jockey club become a lot less reliant on the Manitoba taxpayer. We think Manitoba tax dollars– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Mr. Cullen : Well, if the minister reads the report, even Judge Dewar is questioning the agenda of the Minister of Finance.

And I'm trying to determine the minister's agenda as well in relation to the Jockey Club a nd Assiniboia Downs. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder. I ask the minister: What is his agenda? Is he going to renege on the deal that –of the VLT revenue? Is he going to renege on the deal that's signed by the Jockey Club and the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation? Is he going to renege on that deal and kill the industry? Mr. Struthers : Mr. Speaker, Judge Dewar said no such thing. Judge Dewar was very clear.

He said, in black and white, he said that this government could move forward and make changes to the VLT site-holder agreement. He said that this government could move forward and make changes to The Pari-Mutuel Levy Act. He said that this government could move forward on the government subsidies that are provided to the Manitoba Jockey Club. Nearly 90 per cent of the Jockey Club's money comes from the Manitoba taxpayer, Mr. Speaker. We think that money can be better spent on health care and on education and on roads and bridges in this province. If–Mr.

Speaker, if the Manitoba Jockey Club has a private industr y partner that can help save horse racing in this province, I think we should support them doing that, not like members opposite– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Bill 20 Public Presentations Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, the NDP members are packing their bags and they're ready to head off to sing Kumbaya at the NDP

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1629 convention even though there'll be nothing on the formal agenda about what Manitobans are talking about the most, and that's the proposed increase to the PST. Now, maybe at 3 a.m. in the morning in the dark hallways of the hotel some NDP members will be questioning their heroes on their bungling of the economy and the PST increase, but 3 a.m. isn't good enough for ordinary Manitobans, Mr. Speaker, who don't want to come to the Legislature to discuss the PST increase at a committee.

Will this government commit not to ramming through Bill 20 in the middle of the night at committee so that Manitobans don't have to be here at 3 a.m. to question this government, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Jennifer Howard (Acting Premier): I want to let my friend know some of the topics we'll be talking about this weekend at convention, for his information, if he wants to come and listen and hear some of the debate. Some of the resolutions talk about providing a strong minimum wage for Manitobans. Those are the kinds of things that people think are important.

Some of the things people want to talk about: building Manitoba Hydro for the future for all generations, protecting core services in these uncertain economic times. That's very important to some of our members. One of the motions that's attracted the most support is the motion supporting Bill 18 and supporting our agenda on antibullying legislation– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Mr. Goertzen: You know, I'm looking for the resolution that said that the government should have broke its promise in the 2011 election.

I'm looking for the resolution that says the government should increase the PST from 7 to 8 per cent , Mr. Speaker . I'm looking for the resolution that says that they should do away with a referendum that Manitobans are legally entitled to, and I'm looking for the resolution that NDP members want Manitobans to be stuck here at committee at 3 in the morning giving presentation to a committee that the Premier (Mr. Selinger) invited them to. Will they do the respectful thing and say to Manitobans, we won't jam you through the night, we'll listen to your presentations, not at 3 a.m., Mr. Speaker? Ms.

Howard: You know, we have rules in the House that govern committees. Those are rules that are agreed to by all parties. Those are rules that we've all lived with and many, many people in this House who have come down to the Legislature in past lives to present to committee at various times during the day and night. We know that sometimes, in order to do the job of governing and listening to Manitobans, it means that you have to be prepared to stay a little bit after 5 o'clock at night and listen to people, and we're prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker.

We look forward to a vibrant debate at committee, and we look forward to a vibrant debate this weekend. Mr. Goertzen: Now, maybe the NDP are accustomed to cutting deals at 3 a.m. in the morning. They cut a 3 a.m. deal to falsify election returns, Mr. Speaker. They cut a 3 a.m. deal to hire a retired MLA to a job that should have gone to a current MLA. They cut a 3 a.m. deal to get the member from Minto to leave a leadership so the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) wouldn't win the leadership. But Manitobans shouldn't have to come here at 3 a.m. in the morning to cut a deal with this government.

They want to be able to come at a respectful time. Will this government respect Manitobans, not jam Bill 20 through the night at 3 a.m., Mr. Speaker? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Howard: You know, it's interesting to me that the spectre of a few hundred people coming together to have some democratic debate about the iss ues that are important to them –issues like child care, issues like tuition programs for vulnerable youth, issues like environmental protection, issues like assistance for seniors and strengthening pension plans –it's interesting to me, Mr.

Speaker, that the spectre of that should cause so much anxiety in the hearts of members opposite. There's really nothing to fear. There's nothing to fear in this gathering that's going to happen. Health-Care Gap Low-Income Manitobans Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, as Evelyn Forget, University of Manitoba health economist, reports, under the NDP, Manitobans with low incomes have a declining health status. This is reflected in the Ds Manitoba received in today's

1630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 Conference Board report on life expectancy and the incidence of disease. The poor health support in Manitoba, as shown by Ds in accessibility and continuity of care, are contributing to the poor health status of low-income Manitobans. I ask the Minister of Health: Will she commit today to take ne w measures in the next six months to reverse the growing and appalling trend, the gap in health care received by the 20 per cent of low-income Manitobans compared to the rest of Manitoba? Hon.

T heresa Oswald (Minister of Health): We know that the Confere nce Board of Canada report is very clear across Canada about the great disparity that exists in health status between the wealthy and the poor. We know it is very, very clear that there is a great gap in health status between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Manitobans.

We're very committed to doing everything that we can to reduce that gap by bringing services on reserve, like dialysis in Island Lake and in Berens River, by applying the Healthy Baby program to all babies in Manitoba and ensuring that we're providing all Manitobans with access to a family physician with a very aggressive target of 2015. Certainly, I concede the point that the member is making about this gap in health status, and it's a shared responsibility. We all have to work together on this. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Mr.

Gerrard: As Professor Forget has pointed out April 23rd in Calgary, there's this appalling and growing gap in health care and health- care status between low -income Manitobans and the rest of Manitoba. As one example, rates of Pap tests for women are sadly dropping for the 20 per cent of women with the lowest socio -economic status.

This government has failed dismally in ensuring that those who are the most vulnerable get adequate preventive health care. * (14:20) I ask the minister to tell this Legislature: What specific measures is she taking to increase the proportion of all women who receive a Pap test at the recommended frequency, but particularly those on low incomes? Ms. Oswald: Yes, and I thank the member for the question. I believe the member knows that a project under way in Manitoba, the PIN project, the Physician Integrated Network, is a critically important project for primary care taking place all across Manitoba.

We know that the supports that we've offered through the PIN project on electronic medic al records have helped prompt the family doctors in ensuring that they're providing more Pap tests. We've seen, as a result of the PIN project, a dramatic increase in the number of Pap tests performed. We believe, as this particular measure rolls out among all of our family physicians, the ones we're committed to providing to all Manitobans by 2015, will indeed dramatically increase that, and the member is right to ask this good question. Mr.

Gerrard: Well, I'm pleased the minister acknowledged the appalli ngly low results at the moment and the very poor results on the Conference Board report. Professor Forget also highlighted that the lowest income earners in Winnipeg have 10 times the rates of tuberculosis, four times the rates of suicide and attempted suicide, two and a half times the rates of amputation for diabetes and twice the under -age-5 mortality rate compared to the rest of Winnipeg and Manitoba. These figures are atrocious.

I ask the Minister of Health: What specific measures are she and her gov ernment taking to reverse these appalling trends and the low Conference Board marks, which have occurred during the last 13 and a half years of NDP government? Ms. Oswald: Mr. Speaker, well, again, I can say to the member the greatest commitment that we'r e making is continuing to invest in health care regardless of global economic circumstances.

I would say to the member I find his line of questioning, while important, curious strange that it would come from the member that sat at the Cabinet table while withdrawing health and social transfer payments. We know that during that time, Mr. Speaker– Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights. Mr. Gerrard: I would like a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable membe r for River Heights, on a point of order.

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1631 Mr. Gerrard: The point of order that I would raise is that the member–the minister is astonishingly short of the mark, because while the Liberal government was in Ottawa from 1993 to 2006 there was a huge and dram atic increase in the expenditures and transfers for health care and for equalization payments. And this minister should recognize those large increases that happened rather than trying to deflect from the poor performance of her own government. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on the same point of order. Mr.

Brian Pallister (Leader of the Official Opposition): Well, I would just have to add to that point of order if I might, Mr. Speaker, that the actual reduction in transfer support during the mid -'90s is a matter of historical fact, and so, in fact, in one year in particular there were double- digit reductions, in percentage reductions, in the amount of transfers from the federal Liberal government to the provincial government at that time. That's something that hasn't occurred, I would remark, and–since 1999 when the actual increases in transfers and various other supports have increased at a record pace.

So, in fact, the comments of the previous speaker and his point of order are quite in error. I would put that on the record. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for River Hei ghts, this appears to be clearly a dispute over the facts of this matter. And I want to caution honourable members not to engage in debate or use points of order as a matter to engage in debate. So, therefore, I must respectfully rule that there is no point of order. * * * Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to continue her answer. Ms. Oswald: Yes, very simply, Mr.

Speaker, Manitoba's infant mortality rate actually got worse in the 1990s while the member for River Heights was cutting health payments, while the Tories had their hand on the wheel. The rate was, in 1991, 8.4 per cent. Today the rate is down nearly 40 per cent, at 5.2. We've got more work to do, but, honestly, these lectures, really? Youth Addiction Services Government Initiatives Mr. Dave Gaudreau (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, someone's extended family has people in it that have overcome addictions with help and support.

I was pleased to hear that the government of Manitoba has made a series of great announcements in the recen t months aimed at improving addiction services for Manitobans. Could the Minister of Healthy Living and Seniors and Consumer Affairs please inform the House what supports have recently been in place for fighting youth addiction? Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Healthy Living, Seniors and Consumer Affairs ): I'm pleased that we were able to continue to enhance addiction treatment throughout the province.

Two of the recent announcements were very, very heartening, because one was opening the first nonmedical detox outside the city of Winnipeg, where in Thompson we opened a six- bed unit. It's fabulous because it's going to provide great services in Thompson, Manitoba, and surrounding areas, and that was a good enhancement. And again, a few days ago, we, again, announced that we were going to expand youth treatment.

And the treatment that we are going to provide is one comprehensive facility for youth so that they could get detoxification, they could get treatment, they could get involuntary treatment, in one facility that's being managed by Marymound. And that is in addition to the Behavioural Health Foundation expansion of women treatment just north of Selkirk. I am pleased to be a minister that believes we need to continue to invest in treatment, unlike t he Tories, who actually decreased– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Post-Secondary Education NDP Funding Promise Mr.

Stuart Briese (Agassiz): In the NDP's annual document of broken promises and lies, the spenDP broke a promise. They broke a promise on funding for post-secondary institutions in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Advanced Education: Why was she asleep at the switch whi le

1632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 her NDP government broke its promise to post-secondary institutions and to every post-secondary student in Manitoba? Hon. Erin Selby (Minister of Advanced Education and Literacy): I'm surprised a Conservative would ask a question about university funding in this House, because all we need to do is look at their record of funding. Mr. Speaker, when we were faced with tough choices, when we were faced with difficult economic times, we made health care and education and family services a priority for families.

And that is why Manitoba has the highest university funding in the country, a stark contrast to what they did when they were facing difficult choices. They cut or froze funding to universities for five years in a row. Mr. Speaker, we don't do that on this side of the House. On this side of the House, post -secondary funding is a priority because we know it's the future of all Manitobans and the right– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Mr. Briese: Mr.

Speaker, over the past few years, the Minister of Advanced Education has wasted approximately $15 million on a failed program called the student financial aid system. I say approximately because our FIPPAs on cost and the status of the program have been refused. The wasted $15 million would have been enough to fulfill the funding promises to post -secondary institutions for a further two years. We see broken promises on funding because of this minister's waste and mismanagement. Mr. Speaker, will she apologize today to the institutions and students for in–her incompetence as Minister of Advanced Education? Ms.

Selby: Mr. Speaker, I will never apologize for making post -secondary education a priority to this government. And, Mr. Speaker, I'm also proud of the fact that when students go to financial aid, when they go to our system, they can find a bursary there, because when their leader was in Cabinet they cut the bursary program. There were no bursaries for students in the '90s under the Tories, but we brought the bursary back. Mr. Speaker, we have increased enrolment since we've come in as government. We brought in affordable tuition and we've got a quality education. Mr.

Speaker, this year we have the best funding to universities across the country, stark contrast to what they did when they were in power when they cut or froze university funding for five years straight. Mr. Briese: Mr. Speaker, I tried to keep the questions fairly simple, but I see the minister's still overwhelmed. Tuition was frozen for 10 years in Manitoba and is now linked to inflation. Promises have been broken. Recent surveys indicate that the University of Winnipeg ranks 13th in Canada.

Brandon University is 60, and the University of Manitoba is dead last when ranked with other universities in their classification across Canada. The minister has now tied their hands, given them no opportunity, no option to improve their rankings. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Advanced Education: Is she satisfied with those rankings? Is she content with bre aking her promises to every post-secondary student in this province? * (14:30) Ms. Selby: Mr. Speaker, the promise I make to Manitoba students is that they will have an affordable, accessible and quality education when they come to Manitoba.

We have the t hird lowest tuition in the province. We have the highest funding to universities across the country, the third lowest tuition across the country. Mr. Speaker, the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is we have guaranteed that tuition will be capped at the rate of inflation. But while they were cutting and slashing university budgets, you know what else they were doing? The member of the opposition–the Leader of the Opposition raised tuition 132 per cent at the same time as they slashed funding.

I'm proud that we've got the third lowest tuition across the country but the highest funding to universities. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The honourable member for Midland has the floor.

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1633 Bill 33 Request to Withdraw Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Midland): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Local Government introduced Bill 33, his forced amalgamation bill, for second reading on Tuesday. In his comments the minister praised the 1997 legislation as having broad public consultation. He also praised voluntary amalgamations, but these ideas seem to have escaped this minister, as his legislation was introduced under a veil of secrecy. Will the minister withdraw his –this poorly designed piece of legislation and begi n a process of broad public consultation? Hon.

Ron Lemieux (Minister of Local Government): Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to see the opposition raise the 1990s, especially 1997. I recall the Leader of the Opposition standing beside Premier Filmon of the day blaming everyone who lived south of Winnipeg because they lived in a flood plain. This government stands beside people who endeavour flooding and who have flooding, but the Leader of the Opposition stood and blamed rural Manitobans, Manitobans south of Winnipeg, for somehow causing the flood and being involved in a flood. Mr.

Speaker, you know, they don't like to talk about the 1990s, you know, but maybe they should talk– Mr. Speaker: Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition. Mr. Brian Pallister ( Leader of the Official Opposition): I think it's a clear case of false-memory syndrome, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order –on a point of order. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: On a point of order, the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition. Mr.

Pallister: The member has just put on the record that he recalls me standing with the former premier–I don't know exactly the location–but it's a false-memory syndrome, I think, exhibiting itself, because I wasn't a member of the Legislature at that time. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.

I believe I am correct in stating that it is the Leader of the Opposition who called the Filmon government one of the finest governments that Manitoba had ever– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Honourable Government House Leader, to continue. Ms. Howard: I'm glad to see they stand by that remark. This is the same –this, of course, is the same former premier that the minister was referring to when he talked about a premier of the day, Premier Filmon, blaming people during a flood for living in a flood plain. They're welcome to stand by that comment, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, I thank the honourable members of the House for their advice on this. There appears to be a clear dispute over the facts of this matter, and I will let that stand where it is. So I must respectfully indicate that there is no point of order. * * * Mr. Speaker: The honourable metre –Minister of Local Government, to continue with his answer. Mr.

Lemieux : You know, with a House leader mention about Premier Filmon, I don't hear them clapping now, because that premier of the day did blame Manitobans, southern Manitobans, for living in a flood plain. And that was despicable, Mr. Speaker, and rural Manitobans r emember that comment today. Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Motor Cycle Safety Awareness Rally and CMMG Mr. Dave Gaudreau (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, everyone who knows me knows that I love all things motorcycle.

What's essential to enjoying freedom on the road is that enthusiasts like me take safety precautions at every turn. In every effort to promote road safety, I was honoured to deliver the proclamation for Motorcycle

1634 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 Safety Awareness Month at the rally org anized by the Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycles Groups, or CMMG. This annual rally is a –successful in raising consciousness of motorcycles being on the road after a long Manitoba winter. Come spring time, many drivers forget about checking for bikes that a re now back on the road. So, on May 4th, all levels of riders with all kinds of motorcycles came out for the safety rally. These riders met at the Legislature, received bingo cards –depending on where they travelled, riders received stamps from sponsor deal ers.

They rode around Winnipeg, Selkirk and even as far as Morden. The rally ended up with a wind -up dinner and there was lots of great prizes there. CMMG, the driving force behind the rally, is a non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of motorcycle safety, and this is achieved by a– supporting legislation reforms, encouraging education and spreading information to assist and continue enjoyed safety –enjoyment of two -wheeled motorization transportation. The coalition has many effective campaigns over the year.

Key to initiating the Mandatory Motorcycle Training Program, CMMG's recommendations were incorporated in the graduated licencing program. It was instrumental in securing pleasure and all-purpose classes for motorcycles, and they have helped 145 motorcycles removed from the higher, premium sport -bike category and successfully advocated for insurance-rate rebates. By working with MPI and Safety Services Manitoba, CMMG has prepared motorcycle awareness and training videos. Thank you to the CMMG for the important work that they do, their strong determination–you are undoubtedly protecting and saving lives.

And as the saying goes: watch for motorcyclists, check and check again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Canadian Foodgrains Bank Mr. Dennis Smook ( La Verendrye) : April 13th, 2013, marked the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. The Canadian Foodgrains Bank started with a simple idea –sharing food. The Mennonite farmers that began the Foodgrains Bank saw that they had an abundance of food and created the Foodgrains Bank so they could share their resources with others.

The Canadian Foodgrains Bank plays a vital role in ending hunger in the world through receiving public donations of money, grain, time and commodities from their volunteers. Projects to support the Canadian Foodgrains Bank have sprouted across Manitoba, continuing to the Canadian Foodgrains Bank national total of more than $5 million in donations to 76 countries around the world. In its 30 years of existence , the Canadian Foodgrains Bank has made significant progress in alleviating hunger.

A report by the food and agricultural organization indicates that the prevalence of hunger in developing countries has fallen from 23 per cent to 15 per cent in the last 20 years, however there are still 870 million people in the world who are hungry –and there is more work to do. Today, more than 1.1 million tonnes of food has been provided to people who are hungry in 80 countries around the world. In celebration of 30 years of harvesting crops for the hungry, the Canadian Foodgrains Bank has put out the call for a –special contributions made in denominations of 30 for their 30 for 30 challenge.

Whether it be 30 bushels of grain or $30 a month in donations, Manitobans can be a part of a global effort to end hunger. Branches across Canada are also organizing special fundraisers to celebrate the work of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. Mr. Speaker, I encourage members of this House to congratulate the Canadian Foodgrains Bank on their 30th anniversary by participating in the 30 for 30 challenge. I hope to see a day where the Canadian Foodgrains Bank accomplished their goal of feeding all who are hungry in this world. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. New Directions Ms. Deanne Crothers (St.

James): Today I want to commend the organization New Directions; it is an organization that works with children, adolescents and adults in a variety of settings in St. James and across Winnipeg. * (14:40) New Directions provides many different services to our communities. They offer counselling, support and prevention programs to families affected by sexual assault and by fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. They work with young single parents to help them

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1635 develop vocational plans and life skills. They facilitate recreation, education and work experience opportunities for youth and adults with intellectual disabilities. They assist newcomer youth from war-affected countries in attaining essential skills for the Canadian workplace. They run several supported living and community treatment centres for those who need them and much, much more. Last week I attended a community barbecue held at New Directions' Erin Street location for the International Day Against Hom ophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia.

I had a chance to speak with Dr. Jennifer Frain, the executive director of New Directions, and was overwhelmed by the multitude of ways that this unique organization touches the lives of people in our communities, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Frain emphasized that their approach is not a one-size-fits-all. They find ways to support an individual's growth toward well -being on a case-by-case basis. New Directions has been providing these kinds of social supports in this way since 1885. So I think they're onto something. This is an organization that believes in emotional, physical, intellectual and cultural well-being.

Their holistic approach can include everything from drug treatment to music lessons, and many participants are involved in several of their programs. They honour people's strengths and develop partnerships with the children, youth, adults and families that take

part in their programs to help them reach their goals. Success can be measured in a variety of ways. Many of New Directions' clients have found balance within family, become addiction- free or found employment. However, I noted something else. The clients that were in attendance at the barbecue were enthusiastic, comfortable, engaged and seemed clearly to have a sen se of belonging in the community, which is, as far as I'm concerned, is one of the first steps to well-being. I would like to thank New Directions' staff and Dr.

Frain for their amazing work in empowering people to improve their own lives and, as a result , improve our communities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Snake Pits of Narcisse Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, if you go anywhere near Narcisse, Manitoba, this spring or summer, be prepared to find thousands of slithery, writhing red- sided gart er snakes. Only 150 kilometres north of Winnipeg, Narcisse is home to thousands of snakes which for years have been entertaining and frightening thousands of visitors.

Each year in the spring, over 70,000 snakes emerge in Narcisse after making –after spending the winter hibernating in the limestone snake pits. These snake pits are unlike anything else found in the world. Scientists from across the country and the United States will travel to Narcisse to study the rare site of thousands of snakes in one location, as well as their mating and migration habits. The snake pits of Narcisse are a network of caves and crevices formed by underground water and collapsed limestone, and are the perfect location for hibernating snakes.

Only by congregating below frost lines and taking up shelter in the limestone pits are the garter snakes able to survive from the harsh prairie winters. Once the sun begins to shine and the snow starts to melt, the snakes slither forth for yet another exciting season. The Narcisse snake p its are protected by Manitoba Conservation and it's estimated that as many as 20,000 people come to the area each year to visit. At the site, visitors will find many orientation signs to guide them on a –and a three–on a three -kilometre walking trail that w inds through native grassland and aspens –groves.

There are even viewing platforms for those who are less fond of our cold- blooded friends and wish to keep their distance. Regardless of whether you are a snake fan or not, Mr. Speaker, I encourage the membe rs of this Legislature to put their fear aside for just a day and marvel in the wonders of nature and the importance of conservation. The thousands upon thousands of slithering, crawling red-sided garter snakes that mate and hibernate at the snake pits of Narcisse are worth the short drive for a summer trip you'll never forget. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Shania Sveinson Hon.

Peter Bjornson (Minister of Entrepreneur - ship, Training and Trade ): Mr. Speaker, in every community in Manitoba there are children and youth who go above and beyond to make the world a better place and Shania Sveinson is one of those outstanding youth. Last night, I was pleased to attend the Manitoba Teachers' Society Young Humanitarian Awards,

1636 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 where Shania was recognized for her outstan ding contributions. This prestigious award recognizes students from across the province who have shown leadership, compassion, creativity and a desire to improve the lives of others. In presenting the award, my former colleague and Gimli High School Vice - Principal Leona Groot was joined by Manitoba Teachers' Society President Paul Olson and Young Humanitarian Awards Committee Chair Arlyn Filewich, as well as my colleague the Minister of Education (Ms. Allan).

As a student leader at Gimli High School, Shania has demonstrated that volunteering in social justice initiatives can have an incredible impact in building a healthier and more vibrant community and province. In addition to being a member of numerous school clubs and a dedicated athlete, Shania has al so volunteered with festivals and events in the Gimli area and has worked to protect the health of Lake Winnipeg. As a member of the Gimli Fair Trade Town committee, Shania has worked with the community and the Manitoba Council for International Co -operation to develop Gimli as a fair-trade-certified town.

She also helped organize and facilitate public awareness events in partnership with the Interlake Women's Resource Centre for International Day of the Girl and the Silent Witness Project Memorial. Shania's involvement in her community and school also led her to win a Manitoba School Board Association Citizenship Award, as well as the Association of Manitoba Municipalities' 2013 George Harbottle Memorial Young Community Leader Award earlier this year. Young people are capable of accomplishing great things in this province, Mr. Speaker.

The passion, determination and hope demonstrated by committed youth like Shania is an inspiration to all Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, Shania Sveinson and her mother, Lisa Ewanyshyn, join us in the gallery today, and I would like to ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in thanking Shania for her commitment to better–to a better world for everyone; you truly are an inspiration. MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent public importance. Mr.

Speaker: The matter for –the honourable member for Lakeside, on a matter of urgent public importance. Mr. Eichler: In accordance with rule 36(1), I move, seconded by the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen), THAT regularly scheduled business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the provincial government's response to the country of origin labelling and the apparent refusal of United States to follow the World Trade Organization's ruling regarding this matter. Motion presented. Mr.

Speaker: The honourable member for –before I recognize the honourable member for Lakeside, I just want to reference this for honourable members. I believe that I should remind all honourable members that under rule 36(2), the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other parties in the House are allowed not more than 10 minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately. As stated in Beauchesne citation 390, under urgency–in this context means urgency of the immediate debate, not of the subject matter of the motion.

In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is an urgent need for this debate today and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate would enable the House to consider the matter earlier –early enough to ensure that the public interest would not suffer. I just wanted to reference that for all honourable members. Mr. Eichler: Yes, I do want to comply with subsection 36(2) in regards to this matter of urgent public importance.

And I know today, just the announcement from the World Trade Organization in regards to the country of origin labell ing, has a significant impact on the province of Manitoba, the country of Canada as a whole. And I know members of the governments also has been very much engaged in the debate in this particular ruling, that United States has decided to go against the country of origin labelling, not only against the country of Canada, but also the country of Mexico. And I believe it's very important for us to debate this today, Mr.

Speaker, as a result of the impact it's going to have, not only in the beef industry but the

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1637 pork industry. I know tomorrow there's going to be a debate on the farm bill, the US farm bill, so I think it's imperative that we, as all members of this House, have an opportunity to discuss this matter of importance here this afternoon * (14:50) Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I–we certainly agree that this is an important issue. Whether or not it precisely fits the definition of a MUPI, we are prepared if the House is willing to set aside the next hour to allow members to debate it. Mr.

Speaker: I want to thank all honourable members for their advice to the Chair on whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler) should be debated here today. I would note that the notice required on–by rule 36(1) was provided. Under our rules and practices, subject matter requiring urgent consid- eration must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention. There must also be no other reasonable opportunity to raise the matter.

I, no doubt–I do not doubt that this matter is one that is of serious concern to all members of the House as agriculture is an economic activity of vital importance to our province. I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward; however, I was not persuaded that the ordinary business of the House should be set aside to deal with this issue today. I would like to note that there are several other avenues for members to raise this issue including questions in question peri od and raising the item under members' statements or grievances and, also, during the Estimates process.

Therefore, with the greatest of respect, I rule that the motion is out of order as a matter of urgent public importance, but I do note and reference the fact that there appears to be a willingness of the House to consider this matter, as has been indicated, perhaps up to an hour in length. I would then, therefore, put the question to the House if there's a willingness to debate this matter for one hour. So is it agreed that we will debate this matter for one hour? [Agreed] Then we'll proceed with the debate on the motion put forward by the honourable member for Lakeside. Mr.

Eichler: I thank all members of the House for the opportunity to discuss thi s, and as we know, I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) has been involved and I know the current Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Kostyshyn) has been involved in regards to the debate on the country of origin labelling. And today's ruling that's come out, in fact, today–tonight is the deadline for this particular ruling to the United States to comply with, and they've taken it just too lightly.

And I think that whenever we have the opportunity in this House to debate such things as the country of or igin labelling and the impact that it's going to have on each and every Canadian, in the household budget, and we've talked about this before. The cost of processing the beef alone is in the neighbourhood of between $40 to $90 per animal is what it's going to be for beef, anywhere from $25 to $40 for pork. And what this really does is goes against what everything we have been doing in this House, in this province, in this country that's going to benefit all Manitobans.

And I know that the Minister of Agri culture has been very active on this file. I know the federal Minister of Agriculture has been very busy on this file. I know that the Trade Minister also has been involved in this file. And I know that the national cattlemen's association in the United Sa tes has been involved on this file and the Canadian beef producers been involved and the Manitoba producers, as well.

And I know that we're all very disappointed; we're all very disappointed in the stand the United States has taken to go against the country of origin labelling and carry on with the mandatory labelling that we have fought so hard. In fact, this morning I talked about it briefly in our discussions in regards to the New West Partnership and with our organization called SARL, and I can tell y ou, Mr. Speaker, that we, as members of agricultural leaders and members of the United States agricultural leaders have also been very clear, very clear on our stand about country of origin labelling.

This is an unnecessary cost that's going to impact ever y consumer in the province of Manitoba, every consumer in the country of Canada, and also every consumer in the United States of America. This is a protectionism that's going to hurt each and every beef producer, pork producer, and it's unfortunate the Uni ted States has taken this stand. I know the Minister of Agriculture, federally and provincially, I will let him put his own things on the

1638 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 record. I know he has a lot to say about this issue as well. And I can guarantee you that we will do as opposition, w e'll work with the government, we'll work with the federal government to make sure that whatever we can do, whatever tools in our tool box we can use to make the United States change their mind, we will be more than happy to assist the federal and provincial governments in that regard. Now, I know the current president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Martin Unrau, he's going to be at our convention. He's been out in front of this issue.

The numbers they use–and I'll just put them on the record so we're very clear on it–they say it's going between 90 and a hundred dollars per head on beef. Now, in regards to the pork, again, as I said, it was between 25 and 40 dollars. And whenever we're looking at any changes to the COOL responsibilities for United States and Canada and Mexico –in fact, I know the Canadian Cattlemen's Association did get partnered with Mexico. And they talked about what was going to happen in regards to the obligations with United States.

And Mexico has come on side with our Canadian president, Martin Unrau, who is from Manitoba, and we're very proud of that fact that he has done that. In fact, the Secretary of Agriculture for Mexico is Enrique Martinez , and also Bob McCain [phonetic], also from Mexico, they're very clear on their position as well. And whenever we're looking at what's going to happen down the road, we really don't have that crystal ball.

But I can tell you that the national cattlemen's association also has –and their –that president is from Montana, and he's also said that–let me get the wording here for you–that if the United States continue to ignore their international obligations, the fault of the WTO's ruling will be excessive to all consumers. And whenever we look at what–the Canadian Cattlemen's Association has spent $2 million on this issue alone–this issue alone.

So I know that in a couple of weeks we're going to be meeting with our agricultural leaders, our counterparts from United States, Mexico and Peru, and I can tell you this is going to be on our agenda. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Kostyshyn) is going to be there to support his views, and I know Minister Ritz is also going to be there to bring us up- to-date on what the country of Canada's going to do. And I can tell you that the United States is also paying attention at the state and –levels at not only the Senate, but the Legislative Assembly members as well.

So we know that we're going to hopefully try and get United States government, the administration, to change their mind. I know t hat the US farm bill, as I said, is going to be debated tomorrow again, and I know I have a conference call at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. And it's never too late–it's never too late–for a government to change their mind in regards to a ruling that they decide they want to enforce. And this goes against every trade organization, not only Canada but Mexico and the other countries that we've been negotiating with in good faith.

This takes us back a long ways, back too far, because whenever we get to the point where we've changed positions –the United States has changed its position through their own ideas, and I'm still having a hard time grasping my idea about what they want to do other than protectionism, but I can tell you it's a decision that's going to impact the trade agreements as we move forward. And I know that we only have an hour and I've spoken close to my allotted time already, but I do know that all members of the House want to put a few things on the record so we'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. Hon.

Ron Kostyshyn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Thank you to the MLA for Lakeside of bringing forward the issue, and I definitely want to echo a number of the comments the member from Lakeside has brought forward. I've–as he indi cated, I've been in some serious discussion with Minister Ritz a number of months ago, because we sensed if there was going to be trade actions, 'retally' actions we need to start focusing on possible solutions.

And I want to assure you that I've reinforced it in the media numerous times that we, as the Manitoba government, Agriculture Minister, support Minister Ritz's movement towards –to deal with the COOL regulations. And I want to just reminisce on my personal experience as a cattle producer for a number of years of my life. And the BSE definitely took its toll on a number of the livestock producers in the beef industry, and this is just really another institution of trying to recover from the BSE scenario.

And I want to assure the livestock producers–I want to ensure all livestock producers –that we, as the Manitoba government, are going to be there with Minister Ritz, the federal government, to move forward to lobby as hard as we can, because we value the importance of livestock industry in the province of Manitoba, and

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1639 we will continue to fight with them. So I want to ensure, for the record, the livestock industry is a major, major benefit to our economy in the province of Manitoba. * (15:00) But I also want to recognize the importance of the–of previ ous ministers have spoken against this, and unfortunately, we've made some mileage but all of a sudden we've lost some mileage. But I was –also want to indicate that I was down in Minnesota this March, and I had a fairly lengthy discussion with US legislators, agricultural officials and industry representatives.

In fact, some of the industry representatives were people from the pork industry in Minnesota, and there was no negativity whatsoever. They were looking forward for additional hogs coming in from the province of Manitoba because their processers need the hog numbers in the US as well. And we have a fine Maple Leaf. We have HyLife in our province. But we do grow a lot of hogs in our industry and we could definitely export them, and that's an added benefit to the US economy.

So I'm very proud to say that we're here on behalf of all the livestock industry, but I also want to recognize the beef industry, which I'm quite familiar with, and as I indicated, the BSE definitely took its toll. And also with th e latest situations with the feed prices, whether it's in the hog industry, whether it's in the beef industry, this is added to another challenging scenario as far as us trying to sustain the livestock industry in the province of Manitoba.

But I also want to make note on the record that it's been over a decade that we've lobbied for the COOL, and I, first of all, want to indicate that, and the COOL was a key factor when Mr. –former Premier Doer was on a trade mission to Washington in 2008 that we had a very long discussion. In March of 2–March 14, 2008, former Premier Doer discussed MCOOL with Minnesota governor in one of the one meetings that he had with him. Also, on November 13th–oh wait.

Minister Agriculture Rosann Wowchuk met with a federal counterpart to discuss the implications of MCOOL on livestock on the industry in the province of Manitoba. And July 7th of 2009, former Minister of Agriculture Rosann Wowchuk and her western colleagues wrote federal ministers of agriculture and international trade urging Canada to request a dispute settlement at the WTO. March of '09, Michael McCain, president of – CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, praised Manitoba for defending hog producers on COOL.

He wrote: You have previously taken a very active and helpful role in defendin g Manitoba's interests in COOL issues, and on behalf of Maple Leaf Foods and the entire pork industry, we are grateful if you would express your concerns to the Prime Minister and US political leaders. And we did, we did, Mr. Speaker. In February of 2010, Premier Selinger was in Washington and lobbied for changes to COOL.

So I'm very proud of our government of moving forward to sustain the COOL regulations as they are, and we need to be very 'vigent' working with Minister Ritz, the federal government, towards the importance of the livestock industry in the province of Manitoba. But I also wanted to indicate to you that in our discussion with Minister Ritz, it was very 'vigent' about the fact that we need to work together, and I want to e nsure members opposite that we are going to stand united in fighting the COOL regulations.

But just on some additional facts, in 2012, slaughter hog exports are down 77 per cent from the pre-COOL of 2007. Also in a recent report from the Alberta estimates that since the implication of COOL legislation in 2008, the financial harm to the Canadian pork industry has been approximately $1.9 billion. This figure does not include the negative margins of isoweans. Since COOL, many US processers in the northern plains and the Midwest stopped accepting and restricting access to Canadian animals in their facility.

Despite the WTO ruling in June 2012 against COOL, today, the US introduced changes that will not bring them into compliance with the WTO. So I want to e nsure you that I had been in consultation with Minister Ritz. We continue to have discussions with other Ag ministers across the – across Canada, and I want to assure the livestock industry for the record that we are going to be –stand united to fight the COO L 'regislation' as much as we can, and I thank the opportunity to speak to this motion. Thank you so much. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I want to thank the member for Lakeside (Mr.

Eichler) for bringing forward this matter of urgent public importance, thank the Minister of Agriculture for his comments as well. Obviously, the damage, Mr. Speaker, to the COOL legislation is well known in Manitoba. It's already been outlined by members of this House, so I won't repeat that because I know there's other members who want to speak on this particular MUPI.

1640 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 But, certainly, I think all of us can recognize that the decision, the apparent decision by the United States not to follow the WTO decision is not only damaging, I think, to the industry, but it is damaging, I think, to broader discussions and broader relations.

And I want to indicate that as a member of the Midwest-Canada-US relations committee I'll certainly be speaking to my colleagues in the United States who are on that committee to express the disappointment on behalf of the Legislature for the decision that has been made in the United States, and asking them to also speak to their colleagues in the United States so that we can have a decision that is respectful of the WTO decision.

All of us know that the dispute mechanism – resolution mechanism within the World Trade Organization is there exactly for this reason, to ensure that where there are disputes among trading countries–and, of course, we don't –we acknowledge that United States is a great–a frie nd and ally, generally, Mr. Speaker. But where we have disputes, and people will have disputes whether they're in families or business or in the Legislature, but there needs to be a mechanism to deal with those disputes and the World Trade Organization and the mechanism for dispute resolution is there exactly for that reason.

And the strength of the WTO dispute resolution is in people adhering and countries adhering to those decisions. And so it was with great disappointment, of course, that we learned toda y, obviously disappointing to the producers who are so impacted by this trade barrier and, certainly, the COOL legislation from the US is a trade barrier, disappointed that the government down south doesn't look like they're going to adhere to the WTO decision.

So I want to commit, on behalf of my constituents and other Manitobans and MLAs in this House, that my role on the Canada -US relations committee, I'll certainly be in contact following the resolution of this debate with my friends in the United States to express our disappointment. And I recognize the federal Conservative government, Mr. Speaker, has been a strong ally of the industry in bringing forward the challenge. I know they'll continue to be a strong ally of the industry.

I recognize the amba ssador to the United States, our former premier, has also been a strong ally in terms of trying to overrule the COOL legislation in the United States. So I think this is probably one of those issues where we're unanimous and we have unanimity. It's importa nt that we speak with a united voice on this particular issue of ensuring that the dispute mechanism and the order that was issued from the WTO is followed. So I want to assure, again, the House that I'll do my

part in terms of my role on the committee with the midwest legislators' forum, and I know that other members want to speak to this resolution, so I'll keep to my comments brief and to those points, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on– The honourable Minister of Entrepreneurship, Training and Trade. Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Entrepreneur - ship, Training and Trade ): I'm very pleased that the members opposite have brought up this matter of urgent public importance.

It's not very often that we do agree in this Chamber on a number of issues, but we certainly agree that this is a matter of urgent public importance, and I appreciate that they've brought this to table for this discussion today. In fact, in my role as Minister responsible for Trade, I've been asked to be the Manitoba chai r for the International Legislators Forum, and have done so for the last couple of years –to be the government representative and co -chair, I should say, with my colleagues across the floor.

And the reason for that was because although the International Legislators Forum was initially introduced to deal with issues around flooding on the Red River basin, we thought that it's a good forum that we can use to expand interests of mutual concern such as COOL.

And the very first time I had the opportunity to be the government lead at the International Legislators Forum, we were able to get topics for discussion that included barriers to trade. * (15:10) We all know that the United States, though they've still–are a long way from recovering from the global economi c downturn, we all know that it's a very important trade partner for Manitoba.

We are the third least reliant jurisdiction on the United States for trade, compared to other jurisdictions in Canada, but they still account for the lion's share of trade with Manitoba, over 60 per cent, if I'm not mistaken–I think about 63 per cent, Mr. Speaker. So it's important when issues like this arise, that have the impact that they have, that we have allies in the United States who can look at these issues through that lens of understanding the impact that it's

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1641 going to have on a very integrated supply chain, Mr. Speaker. So I appreciate that the members opposite have brought this particular issue forward.

And that I would suspect, in light of the fact that it was a v ery recent ruling that was brought forward, and in light of the fact that the Americans have chosen to introduce new rules that don't necessarily address the concerns that were raised by the panel ruling, that there'll be a further discussion about this pa rticular issue as trade continues to be on the agenda at the International Legislators Forum that we are privileged to host this year.

And we did have very good discussions two years in a row now, talking about our integrated supply chain, and how decisi ons like this can not only impact the producers here in Manitoba, but also those that are in the processing industry in the United States. And we know that the impact has been not only negative on this side of the border, but also negative on the south side of the border, though it's perhaps a protectionist measure that they've included in times of economic uncertainty.

Protectionist or not, it actually has had the reverse effect, by impacting some of the processing plants that rely on the fine quality of product that has been shipped from Canada to the United States, as part of that integrated supply chain. So I think it's very important that we stand united on this matter, that we do talk to our federal government. And I know that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Kostyshyn), has been having those discussions with Minister Ritz.

And it has been mentioned–members opposite have also referred to the fact that former Premier Doer, now the Canadian ambassador to the United States, has been a champ ion on such causes, not only in his previous role as premier of Manitoba but, certainly, very much aware of the issue and the impact that it's had on our producers, in his role right now as the Canadian ambassador to the United States. So, again, I'm very pleased that we're having this conversation today.

And I think it's important that we do stand united and send that signal to our colleagues that this is not acceptable, and that we have to find a solution that works in the best interests of, not only as I said, producers on this side of the border, but those involved in the processing plants south of the border, as the impact has been considerably negative, Mr. Speaker. So we know that we have a lot of work to do to get this message out.

And we did have a commitment from our friends in the International Legislators Forum that they would look through that lens, each and every time they hear of protectionist measures that are being considered or proposed in the United States–COOL is one of them, Buy Americ an is another–and it has a significant impact on a very integrated supply chain. We had excellent presentations from people who are affected on both sides of the border. We had excellent presentations from people affiliated with manufacturing here in Manitoba, and those who relied on our imports –our exports, their imports, in the United States.

So I think this is important that we carry on with that discussion at the International Legislators Forum, which again, we had the privilege of hosting at the end of June, here at the Inn at the Forks. Now we know that trade agreements are very important, we know that. And we know that the World Trade Organization, in ruling against COOL – we know that the Americans have introduced measures that are not going to bring them in compliance. In fact, we feel that it's going to be more detrimental to this particular situation, Mr. Speaker.

So, again, the fact that everyone is standing here in a non-partisan way with a very united voice, this is a matter of urgent public importance and we do need to pursue this and work together to ensure that our voices are heard, and work with our colleagues right across the country, in the ag sectors right across Canada, and work with our federal government to ensure that the United States does not impose these new rules and regulations, and have the unintended consequence that, I think, COOL has originally had in terms of the impact on those that depended on our supply chain in the United States.

Just like the unintended consequences of the Buy American and how that impacted companies in the United States. I know that in one case in a Buy American rule, a company actually had to invest –in the United States, an American company that relied on the integrated Canadian product –because of the rules in their country designed to pr otect that company, I believe, they had to invest over $3 million in changes to their particular facility to accommodate products that needed to be manufactured under their new rules in the United States even though their Canadian company and a subsidiary of that particular company

1642 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 was doing an excellent job in the production of that particular item. I wish I could remember the name of that company and –but it was presented to us at the International Legislators Forum. Sometimes these measures are brought in and I understand that –that they can be brought in with the best of intentions, in a somewhat of a protectionist environment. And we all know why governments go down that path on occasion when you have situations of economic uncertainty.

But we do know t hat these unintended consequences, perhaps, are something that our American friends need to realize are impacting both sides of the border. We have seen a lot of good things happening with some of the changes that are being made to facilitate trade betwee n Canada and the United States. We know that Emerson is, I believe, the second-busiest land port in North America as far as the product–or number of goods and services that are crossing that border every single day.

We know that every minute in the 10 minu tes that I'll be speaking today, we will have traded over $13 million with the United States in goods and services –just in the time that I am giving my speech today. So we know how important this particular relationship is, we know that sometimes things t hat are brought in have unintended consequences and we know that we have to very clear that this is not acceptable to our producers here in Canada. It's not acceptable to our government here in Manitoba or our government in Canada.

And we know that the best way to address this is to continue to work with various organizations to lobby our friends and neighbours to the south to work with the International Legislators Forum; to work with our friends at the western legislators forum as well–I– An Honourable Me mber: Midwest legislators forum. Mr. Bjornson : Midwest legislators forum which I have yet to attend, but perhaps there's an opportunity in the not-too-distant future. But that said, there are a lot of vehicles that we can use to advance our common voice on this very important issue.

So, again, I really appreciate that we have an opportunity to have this conversation and I appreciate and commend the work of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Kostyshyn) who has been working with our federal Minister of Agricu lture; his predecessor, the minister of Agriculture, currently sitting as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), as well; and of course his predecessor, who is Minister Wowchuk, who was a champion of our producers through this process. So it has been a long, frustrating road and I appreciate that.

And, unfortunately, we're seeing that the panel ruling through the WTO is not being honoured in the spirit of that ruling.

And we know that we have work to do with a united, non- partisan voice to make sure that we can be champions for our producers and that we can have our American friends see the folly of this initiative and that we can get back to what we do best, and that is working together in a North American economy in a very integrated supply chain to ens ure that our producers are benefitting north of the border, their processors are benefitting south of the border, and we can get the best agricultural products in the world to the markets without such obstructionist issues as COOL and Buy American.

So I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and I applaud the members opposite for bringing this to the floor. Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): I'd like to commend my colleague and the member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler) for bringing this MUPI forward today. This is terribly important that we deal with this immediately. And I can say that over the years now, since BSE, that Manitoba producers and Canadian producers have suffered a lot of hardships. And when COOL was introduced in 2002 we started to see that there was going to be a huge effect and started to address that.

There was address from many, many different angles. It was addressed provincially, federally by our cattle organization and by our –by Canadian–our national pork organization and Manitoba pork organizations. * (15:20) But COOL has impacted the Canadian agriculture sector in a massive way, and since implementation, billions of dollars have been sucked out of the agricultural community, and the reason for dealing with this as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker, is that tomorrow there's a conference call on a farm bill.

And there will be –some of our members will be on that conference call, and I would suggest that this particular country of origin labelling is not on the docket right now to be discusse d at the farm bill.

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1643 But, obviously, after this announcement today, when we see that it is going to be an additional $75 to $90 a head cost to producers in the province or in Canada, and we've also seen the announcement by the federal minister that he is no t taking this lying down, that he's actually looking at retaliatory tariffs to offset the losses of Canada and Canadian hog producers and cattle producers, that this will probably force this particular bill to be discussed in a US national farm bill.

It's important that it's done there, and I can say that if it turns out that they continue to go ahead on this path of protectionism, that it will be brought up or I will be part of bringing this up in Vancouver at the SARL meeting along with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Kostyshyn) and my colleague from Lakeside as long –as well as some other members from–or other heads of state here in Manitoba or heads of companies. I know that Martin Unrau will be there.

I know that one of the shareholders –main shareholders of Hytek will be there and they will be expressing their concerns as well to the minister and also to our American counterparts who–when we sat in Washington one year ago in January and passed a motion that the United States should comply with the World Trade Organization's recommendations, I think that we will have a group of people there, a group of state legislators there that are certainly sympathetic to our cause here in Canada and in Manitoba in particular, just as they are and recognize what's happening in their country and in their states and in the packing plants there that have been closed because of these types of regulations and because of this type of protectionism.

I'll also be talking to the Midwestern legislative forum later this year at the beginning of July. I have an opportunity to be there and because of the position that I have there I will be bringing this up with them, and I suspect that we will also have some very sympathetic individuals there as well.

It's unfortunate to see this nontariff trade barrier that's been thrown up, and I don't –there's no way that I want to apologize for the stance that Canada is taking in this situation, and there's nothing in our trade between Canada and the United States that should have precipitated this type of action by the American government. Nothing should have precipitated this type of action. When we see that our trade minister, Ed Fast, has opened up markets all over the world– he's opened up markets faster after BSE in other parts of the world than we have opened up a free trade with the Americans.

I also would like to say that the Mexican governments have been just as distraught as we have in Canada, and their producers are just as poorly affected by this as we are here in Canada. So, Mr. Spe aker, when we see support in the cattle industry like we have from Mr. George Scott – he is the president of the national cattlemen's association.

He's from Wyoming–I believe he's from Wyoming, and it was from that part of the country that R -CALF started to throw up barriers, trade barriers, and here we have the very same people from the same area –or are people from the same area, that are standing up [inaudible] to this country of origin labelling. I would suggest that the hurt that it has done to Canada is not irreparable, but it cannot continue to go on the way it has been, and I'm sure that there's not any member in this House that will not support Minister Ritz when he puts up tariffs on whatever other products that he thinks are fitting.

And he's said that he's prepared to do that; I'm sure that he has a list of products that will bring attention to this on the American side of the border and from their exporters and producers in United States. I know that there are other people that want to speak to this today, Mr. Speaker. So with those few words, thank you very much. Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): I thank members of the House for the opportunity to put a few thoughts on the record, and I want to begin by thanking the member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichl er) for bringing this MUPI forward.

He and I have not been getting along all that well in recent times over some unfortunate misquotes that he's been putting on the record, and I'm still waiting for a retraction, but today he and I are united on this front, as are we all, I think it's safe to say, in the House in speaking against this latest action by the United States government. I also want to acknowledge the good works of our Minister of Agriculture, the member for Swan River (Mr. Kostyshyn), and our Pre mier, the member for St. Boniface (Mr.

Selinger), for the work that he's done, and acknowledge the good works of past members, in particular, the honourable Rosann Wowchuk, former minister of Agriculture, and, obviously, Ambassador Gary Doer, who, as our premier, also fought long and hard on this file over the years. It is what it is, Mr. Speaker. This is a classic case of protectionism. This is power politics at its worst, I have to say, and it's based on the trade imbalance that Canada has with United St ates. I think it said we

1644 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 export almost three quarters of our product produced in Canada into the United States,

whereas the Americans depend on our market for maybe 5 per cent, so obviously we need them a lot more than they need us. And we do our utmost to conform to international agreements, and it's just unfortunate that our allies –friends, I'd like to think–south of the border cannot show equal respect to the rule of law, to international law, to the World Trade Organization and other such entities. I think that it's safe to say that into modern times that the cattle herd in Canada and the United States was a continental herd.

There was so much interaction between our two countries that in essence it was one herd of cattle. And that unfortunately has been eroded in recent times, and it goes back, specifically, in my mind, to that date that I will never forget, May the 20th, 2003, when BSE was announced in this country. And, you know, we did the right thing and have always done the right thing in terms of doing our due diligence as regards monitoring our herds, doing the testing to make sure that the product that we produce is the best in the world. And I think we did a much better job than our counterparts to the south.

And when it did crop up, unfortunately, in a herd in Alberta we did the right thing and stepped up. And that set off years and years of trade action that was highly politically motivated by groups such as R -CALF that did their upmost to block product coming south by any means possible in order to enhance their marketing position in the United States. It was pure economics for them, and they were very vocal and obviously were successful in convincing their political people to do what they have done. I've always thought that Canadian beef was superior to American beef given their propensity to finish using corn,

whereas we're more grass-fed farmers to the north here. So maybe that's what motivated them –that we had that competitive advantage already in terms of quality, so they had to undermine that using other means. * (15:30) We've seen this before–obviously, the Canadian Wheat Board, a classic example. I think 17 times the World Trade Organization ruled in our favour, and yet the United States continued to ignore those rulings, cost us billi ons of dollars.

The softwood lumber issue before that was ongoing for a decade or more and, you know, the same scenario where we had the support of the international community, but the Americans were able to ignore those rulings at their will because of th eir economic advantage over us.

And that's really the nub of the issue here, and I would hope as we go into the 21st century that we could start truly being more co- operative, that our friends to the south would refocus on a multilateral approach and start playing ball and being a little more fair in how they deal with the international community, especially with the country of Canada, who is, I would say, their staunchest, strongest ally that they could possibly have. We've got an excellent relationship with them.

We're, I think, the largest supporter of energy to them, for example, whether it's oil from United States –or from Alberta, excuse me–or hydroelectric power from Manitoba here. They depend on us for energy, which is what drives all economies. I look to the military as another example. You know, we supported them and the international community in Afghanistan and I would just like to tell a –briefly, a little story.

When I was in Washington several years ago when we used to have an exchange program where provincial legislators could go lobbying to the United States, something that was curtailed by the federal government, unfortunately, and I would encourage them to reconsider that. But I had a trip to the Congress building and we went there during the day and it was like trying to get into Fort Knox with metal detectors, with hundreds of soldiers with machine guards–or machine guns–standing around. It was not easy to enter, and I recall Conrad Santos who set off the metal detector no less than a d ozen times.

He virtually had to disrobe before he finally got into the Congress building. But that same night, Mr. Speaker, I was just wandering around, you know, taking in the sights, and I was wandering around the Capitol building and came around a corne r and I noticed a couple of guards were standing by a door having a cigarette. So I went up to talk to them and they asked me where I was from, and I said I was a Canadian, and I could see the change in attitude that they had toward me. It was no longer di strustful.

I could see the positive attitude that they had, and they said, would you like to come into the Congress building and maybe go up into the House of Representatives? I said, sure. They said, well, here you go. Just come in this door and walk down this hallway and we'll radio ahead to the guard ahead there and he'll let you in to the chamber, and inside of two minutes I was sitting in the House of Representatives gallery. So easily done, and that was based on the good

May 23, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1645 relationship that Canada had developed through its participation in the situation in Afghanistan. So, you know, if any Americans are listening to this or are going to bother reading our speeches here today, I would hope that they would take that to heart, that when it came to even la ying down our lives we were there with them in that particular circumstance. So my final point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to also acknowledge our federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Gerry Ritz, in this regard. He is in this case doing the right thing, and I applaud him for that.

And I would close my remarks by just making reference to the hardship that the cattle producers in the Interlake have experienced since the flood of 2011, who are still experiencing hardship. This last season was very difficult for them, and, if Mr.

Ritz is listening, I would hope that he would take the opportunity going forward to retract his comments that ranchers in Manitoba wanted to be compensated twice for the same flood, that he would put that behind him and he would recog nize that we are still experiencing a hardship as ranchers in the Interlake, and that he would begin to participate fully with the Province of Manitoba in AgriRecovery programs as we try and bridge our producers through to this coming season. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): Mr.

Speaker, and it's a pleasure to stand and put a few words on record in support of the issue that's been brought forward by the member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler). This is an important issue f or a lot of Manitoba and actually to all Manitobans in the bottom line. Certainly, it–the immediate impact is in the cattle and the hog industry. Both sectors have had a pretty rough time.

Certainly, the cattle industry, since the BSE issue in particular , with –as has been referenced, there's a wide range of trade irritants with the Americans and also with a number of other countries not–most–in most cases, not well justified, because we did handle the issue of BSE probably better than any country in the world ever has. It's been very rare for any country to actually remove or reduce the incident of a disease like this from their basic herd population, and we have, it appears, effectively done that. We certainly haven't had an outbreak in some time, and that's unique in itself.

And in the pork sector, it's –we've had an integrated trade pattern, in terms of shipping animals and killing plants, for many years across North America that impacted not only Canada, but also Mexico as well and the Americans. And t o suddenly try and put it–a trade irritant like COOL–in place that actually forced people to keep their products separate and have them identified separate in the marketplace, cost everyone in the market –that is in the market–all three of those countries, a great deal in terms of costs.

And, of course, we all know that that eventually gets passed down to the producer, and that has taken a great deal of profit out of the agriculture industry, in particular the red meats industry, and we would certainly want to do our best to try and stop that. And very often it's unclear to people what is the significance of something like the WTO. Why do we need trade rules? Well, certainly this is a prime example of why you need trade rules.

If you do not have a standard –hopefully a world standard or a standard between countries that you can follow –you find people doing arbitrary things that are outside the marketplace that really are intended in some ways to protect their particular portion of the market, but very often th ere are unintended consequences. I would submit that a lot of the cost actually of the MCOOL has actually been experienced by American consumers as well as Canadian consumers, so that there was a rule of unintended consequences which we often see in trade issues.

And for those of us in Manitoba who think, well, maybe there's a few things here, we certainly had the softwood lumber industry, you think back a number of years, not to this last WTO agreement, but the one before was actually the end of some industries here in Manitoba and some in Winnipeg here, because we did not get what we needed in a trade agreement.

And that would've been the demise of the sugar processing industry and the sugar beet production industry, which was basically killed because of a very minor issue on WTO agreement where we stayed open, in terms of our marketplace, to offshore sugar and the Americans did not. And, of course, sugar began to come into Canada in huge quantities, processed mostly in–at the coasts and moved into the US marketplace. And, of course, very quickly the Americans became resentful of that, because we had one set of rules; they had another set of rules.

And so they shut us down –shut us down to the point where we could not even produce for our own domestic consumption. And to this day, we no longer have a

1646 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 23, 2013 sugar production industry in Canada. We produce about 4 per cent of our domestic needs and depend on the rest of the world for that, even though we were very competitive in the marketplace. But we could not com pete with a dumped product from some Third World countries. And that was the implication of having a good set of rules under WTO, so it's absolutely essential that we do that. And I think, in this case, with the deadline

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-2-46b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 2nd hansardpdf 46b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	18f9dcbb1233aaa6774220245db8c3e1153bbf4e

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).