Manitoba Hansard — 30 May 2006 (Sitting 79B, 38th Legislature, 4th Session)

38-4-79b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LVII No. 79B - 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 30, 2006

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Scott, Hon.

Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

2771 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, May 30, 2006 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 215–The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Drug-Endangered Children) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), that Bill 215, The Child and Family Services Amendmen t Act (Drug-Endangered Children), be now read for a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Speaker, what this bill does is it recognizes that there is a need to protect our children who are put into positions where more and more often we are seeing grow-ops and other illegal drugs being produced, and quite often children are used as a shield. We find that totally unacceptable. This bill addresses that issue so that Child and Family Services and the government will have more ability to be able to ensure that the child's interests are first and foremost being taken care of. Mr.

Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] PETITIONS Removal of Agriculture Positions from Minnedosa Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: Nine positions with the Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives Crown Lands Branch are being moved out of Minnedosa. Removal of these positions will severely impact the local economy. Removal of these positions will be detrimental to revitalizing this rural agriculture community.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing current technology in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. This petition signed by Karen Parenteau, Benita Nylen, Kara Burton and many, many others. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Mr.

Leonard Derkach (Russell): I wish to present the following petition, and these are the reasons for the petition: Nine positions with the Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives Crown Lands Branch are being moved out of Minnedosa. Removal of these positions will severely impact the local economy. Removal of these positions will be detrimental to revitalizing this rural agriculture community.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider stopping the removal of these positions from our community, and to consider utilizing current technology in order to maintain these positions in their existing location. This petition signed by Greg Bradco, Wilf Steinhilber, Greg Marchischuk and many, many others. Child Welfare Services Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, and these are the reasons for this petition: The Premier (Mr.

Doer) and the Minister of Family Services (Ms. Melnick) have the responsi- bility to provide safety, care and protection to children in care in Manitoba. Thirty-one children have died since 2001 while in care of the Province or shortly after being released

2772 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 from care. Last year nine children died, the highest number recorded. Little Phoenix Sinclair died in June of 2005, but her death went unnoticed for nine months even though she had extensive involvement with Child and Family Services beginning at birth. Manitobans want to know how the system could fail little Phoenix Sinclair and the 31other children. Manitobans want assurances that no other children will fall through the cracks of the child welfare system.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to consider calling a public inquiry into all aspects of the delivery of child welf are services throughout Manitoba. This is signed by Jean Roy, Georgina Dayton, Betty Preusentanz and many, many others. * (13:35) OlyWest Hog Processing Plant Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

The background for this petition is as follows: The Manitoba government, along with the OlyWest consortium, promoted the development of a mega hog factory within the city of Winnipeg without proper consideration of rural alternatives for the site. Concerns arising from the hog factory include noxious odours, traffic and road impact, water supply, waste water treatment, decline in property values, cost to taxpayers and proximity to the city's clean drinking water aqueduct. Many Manitobans believe this decision represents poor judgment on behalf of the provincial government.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the provincial government to immediately cancel its plans to support the construction of the OlyWest hog plant and rendering factory near any urban residential area. Signed by Donna Guspodarchuk, Karrie Ouchas, Meagen Abraham and many, many others. Crocus Investment Fund Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

The background to this petition is as follows: The government needs to uncover the whole truth as to what ultimately led to over 33,000 Crocus shareholders to lose tens of millions of dollars. The provincial auditor's report, the Manitoba Securities Commission investigation, the RCMP investigation and the involvement of our courts, collectively, will not answer the questions that must be answered in regard to the Crocus Fund fiasco. Manitobans need to know why the government ignored the many warnings that could have saved the Crocus Investment Fund.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Premier (Mr. Doer) and his NDP government to co-operate in uncovering the truth in why the government did not act on what it knew and to consider calling a public inquiry on the Crocus Fund fiasco. That is signed, Mr. Speaker, L. Kirton, H. Braun, J. Erickson and many, many other fine Manitobans. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Neepawa Area Collegiate 47 Grade 11 students under the direction of Mrs.

Michelle Young. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTIONS Greenhouse Gas Emissions Kyoto Targets Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the Premier (Mr. Doer) indicate d on the record that the Province of Manitoba will exceed its Kyoto targets. The government's own documents say they will exceed the targets and plan to reduce emissions by

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2773 up to 18 percent below 1990 levels by 2010, which is only four years away, but, in fact, the record speaks to a different story. Emissions have increased by half a megaton between 1999 and 2003 under this government's watch. Now we are used to government spin coming from this NDP government and phoney promises, but how can the government talk about exceeding targets when our own emissions in Manitoba are continuing to climb? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Mr.

Speaker, I am glad the member asked this question because I want the member to know a couple of facts for a change– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Chomiak: The Kyoto protocol came into effect in 2005 when the Government of Canada signed on. The period under which Kyoto emission targets should be met are the years 2008 until 2012. The argument about emissions going up between 1990 and this period has happened, Mr. Speaker. The target dates are 2008 and 2012. That is when the commitments must be met.

That is why Manitoba was named by the David Suzuki Foundation as having the best climate change program in Canada. Mr. McFadyen: The minister wants to talk about facts. Yesterday, he said in this House that no defendant was allowed to file a motion to dismiss a lawsuit before the certification application went in. With the lawsuit proceeding against Crocus, the defendant, Ms. Lederman, filed her application shortly after the statement of claim was filed and had the claim against her dismissed.

That is what confident defendants–[interjection] The minister, reading from his old dusty law books, has got the facts wrong on that point. I was just pointing to a couple of members of his own caucus who are pretty good lawyers, the Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh ) and the Member for Minto (Mr. Swan). I would encourage him, if he wants to talk about facts, to go and speak to some other lawyers in his own caucus about what the facts are. Now let us come back to Bill 11. Mr.

Speaker, Bill 11, on the very important issue of greenhouse gas emissions in Manitoba, given that this government's Bill 11 encourages the use of natural gas which adds to emissions and does not cut them, how can they call themse lves the champions of Kyoto when they are encouraging the burning of more natural gas? * (13:40) Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I choose not to question the ability of the member opposite who I think practised law, worked for Premier Filmon, helped the Mike Harris campaign and then was going to run in one riding and another riding and another riding.

I do not want to question the integrity of the member opposite. I asked a lawyer from Alberta that very point, Mr. Speaker, about the filing of a statement of defence in the $200-million award that the member said was going to be imposed on the Government of Manitoba. After he stopped laughing, after the Conservative lawyer I asked stopped laughing, I checked with our lawyer and he had the same difficulty. With respect to Bill 11, it does not cross- subsidize. We will ensure in our amendments that it does not cross-subsidize. The point is– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr.

McFadyen: In light of this government, this NDP government's phoney promise to end hallway medicine; its phoney promise to build the floodway; phoney, phoney, phoney promise to end hallway medicine in six months; its phoney promise to build the floodway on budget; in light of the actual steps backward taken between 1999 and 2003 and in light of Bill 11, is the Premier's Kyoto promise not just another example of the NDP being all spin and no substance? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, in 1999, $10 million of production of ethanol in Manitoba; next year, $130 million litres of ethanol in Manitoba.

In 1999, no biodiesel projects; today, two plants; four to five plants on stream in the next year. In 1999, there was not a wind turbine within a thousand miles of Aikins, MacAulay law office; today, 99 megawatts running and providing for the rural economy of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, BusinessWeek rated this province as the leading jurisdiction in the world on energy and climate change. Gary Doer was named the No. 1, top 10 in the– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

2774 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time had expired, but I want to remind members that when making reference to other members in the House, it is members by their constituency or ministers by their titles. Next question. Bill 11 Withdrawal Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Former NDP Premier, Ed Schreyer, called Bill 11 perverse and he also said, I quote: It is "the most retrograde step the government could possibly take." Mr.

Speaker, we have many, many Manitobans lining up to speak in opposition to Bill 11, people who are saying it is absurd, it is unfair, it does not promote conservation, it is perverse, it is poor public policy. Will the government and the Minister responsible for Hydro today stand up and indicate that he will withdraw Bill 11? Hon. Dave Chomiak Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Mr. Speaker, the members opposite forgot to tell the public, with respect to Bill 11, that it is a two-year bill. It was only designed to prevent rate shock over two years.

The members forgot to tell the public that there is no cross- subsidization. We will amend the bill to ensure that there is no cross-subsidization to deal with members opposite. The members opposite say the short-term money will help Manitobans, people on low incomes, people in the North, people in rural Manitoba, who are going to have no choice but to have high energy costs, can help use that period of time to decrease their consumption so in the long period they will not have to pay those excess costs, something that has been done in every province.

We will amend the bill to make that clear so members cannot distort it. * (13:45) Mrs. Mitchelson: The last time the NDP brought in a Hydro bill for two years was to raid Manitoba Hydro for $203 million, and this is just a repeat, Mr. Speaker. The minister has said that Bill 11 is needed to promote energy effici ency when many successful Power Smart programs are up and running already. Why is this bill needed now? Mr. Chomiak: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will speak to that. In fact, it is even more timely now.

The member may not know that the federal government has pulled out of the EnerGuide and the energy savings programs that were previously promised. The federal government has pulled out. We have had to increase the costs and subsidize the EnerGuide program $340 to allow people to do en ergy audits because the federal government pulled its funding. We have a whole period of time until the federal government comes back in. They say, in the fall and I accept them at their word, with more programs.

There is more reason than ever to have some short- term relief to allow people to do conservation because the federal programs have been cut. We are waiting till the fall to see what new programs will be instituted. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just made my case for why legislation is not needed. They have programs now. They can backfill now without legislation for the federal programs. There is no need to put in place legislation to run Power Smart programs. We have heard from many, many, over a thousand Manitoba families, that oppose Bill 11. Manitobans are sending this government a message.

They do not want to see another raid on Manitoba Hydro revenues. They do not want this government to create another slush fund like they did in 2002. I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Hydro: Will he stand up today, protect the ratepayers of Manitoba Hydro and withdraw Bill 11? Mr. Chomiak: Yes, thank you– Some Honourable Members: Oh. Oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, we will protect ratepayers which is why we put in place a bill like this, which is why 4,830 people in Winnipeg last year took

part in the EnerGuide; 2,030 outside of Winnipeg took

part in EnerGuide; 789 took

part in EnerGuide. On the high-efficiency furnace replace- ment program, the new program, 1,599 individuals took part. The insulation program doubled or tripled because we provided a rebate on the insulation which was a new program. We have a short period of time to assist Manitobans in dealing with high energy prices. Red River Floodway Federal Support Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): To the Minister of Water Stewardship:

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2775 Given the estimates of at least $60 million in taxpayers' dollars that are going to be lost due to the sweetheart deal cut by this government with his friends in the unions, and in light of the Premier's (Mr. Doer) comments last w e e k t h a t s o m e o f t h e work related to the floodway may be cut out in order to bring it within the revised budget estimate, my question to the minister is how much safety for Manitobans will this government bargain away in order to put more money in the pockets of their friends? Hon.

Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, since the member opposite raised the issue of safety and the importance of the floodway, I am wondering if he agrees with the comments of one Brian Pallister, who apparently today has been reported as saying he wants the work halted until the overrun is explained. I want to explain to the member opposite that no thanks to the Conservative Party, we have built to 1-in-140-year protection already. We are building by next spring 1- in-300-year protection, and we will continue to target 1-in-700-year protection. We are committed to the floodway expansion.

The only issue that the Tories keep raising is this issue. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the project management agreement was in place for phase 1 and there– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made the point both today and yesterday that we should be doing the work of talking to the federal government on this issue. The Premier (Mr. Doer) yesterday said that he is not going to raise the floodway issue with the Prime Minister, even though he is going to be sitting next to the Prime Minister tomorrow in Gimli.

So my question to the minister is: Why will the Premier not raise this very important issue for Manitobans with the Prime Minister? Is it not because your government has no credibility, zero credibility, when it comes to discussing financial issues with the federal government? * (13:50) Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has raised this with the Prime Minister. I have raised this with Mr. Cannon, with Minister Toews, and, again, if he wonders why we might have some concerns, maybe they could talk to Brian Pallister to persuade him that it will be absolutely wrong to stop construction of the floodway expansion.

We need to protect Manitobans and we will protect Manitobans. Mr. McFadyen: We on this side of the House will not apologize for one second because the government has zero credibility when it comes to speaking with the federal government on significant issues of public finance. Zero credibility, Mr. Speaker, which is why this issue is before us and in the media. My question to the minister is: Will he do the right thing? Will he put the safety of Manitobans first?

Will he change the rules for the second phase of floodway work so that the safety and the finances of Manitobans will not be sold down the river in order to pay back friends of the NDP? Mr. Ashton: Well, I notice the Leader of the Opposition did not reference Brian Pallister's comments. I take by that, Mr. Speaker, he does not care that a member of the Conservative Party would suggest shutting down the project, which would be absolutely irresponsible. I know that members opposite do not have much experience in construction.

For 11 years, believe you me, the C in PC, under the Filmon government, did not stand for construction. They do not know what it is like to be dealing with a major project. They have not done one in 30 years in this province. But, Mr. Speaker, phase 1 was on time and on budget, and phase 2, we have done the prudent thing which is go back, sharpen the pencils, make sure we can arrange the construction

schedule in a way that is most efficient to take into account the higher price of steel and the higher price of fuel. But, let me put on the record again, Mr. Speaker, it has taken an NDP government to extend the floodway– Mr. Speaker: Order. Manitoba Economy Equalization Payments Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): At the Premiers' conference in Gimli this morning, the premiers of British Columbia and Saskatchewan indicated that there was a long discussion on equalization payments between the premiers.

Given that there was a long discussion, can the Minister of Finance update this House as to the nature of those discussions and what position the Premier (Mr. Doer) took with respect to equalization?

2776 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The position of Manitoba is well known. It extends across two governments, the former government of the PCs and Premier Filmon and the current government. Both governments have always said they believe in a 10-province average for equalization with all revenues included, including natural resource revenues, including user fees . That is the standard position of the government going back well over a decade. Mr. Hawranik: Mr.

Speaker, increases in equalization payments relative to other provinces are an indication that Manitoba's economy is not keeping pace with other provinces. It means we are falling behind. Equalization payments are up 75 percent from 1999 levels. Contrast that with Saskatchewan which will receive no equalization payments this year. So I ask the Minister of Finance: Why has he failed to grow Manitoba's economy on pace with the rest of Canada? Why has even failed to keep up with Saskatchewan? Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, there has been nothing but good news coming out on the Manitoba economy–[interjection] I have a list here of 20 indicators, three of which, manufacturing capital investment of 61 percent versus the Canadian average of 3.4 percent; construction work up 24 percent versus the Canadian average of 7 percent; capital investment up 14.6 percent versus the Canadian average of 6.1 pe rcent. All of those are leading indicators for the country. I hope the member gives me a chance to enumerate the rest of them. Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, let me give the Finance Minister some more good news.

As Gerry Price put it, a prominent Winnipeg businessman, the Finance Minister is completely naive, and he absolutely misses the point because we are failing in this province. Manitoba sticks out in western Canada like a sore thumb. It is the only have-not province in western Canada. No longer can we compare ourselves to Saskatchewan. Now Saskatchewan compares itself to Manitoba and it points to Manitoba in its latest budget as an underperformer. So I ask the Minister of Finance: Why will he not spend more time growing our economy and less time begging Ottawa for more handouts? * (13:55) Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated earlier, there are 20 indicators where we exceed the Canadian average. Now the member wants to know what kind of company we are keeping in terms of our prospective. KPMG says that we are very competitive on labour rates, we are very competitive overall. We have one of the best environments for business manufacturing in the country. That is KPMG. C.D. Howe Institute, we have the best marginal effective tax rate west of New Brunswick.

The Fraser Institute, a well-known friend of New Democratic governments everywhere in this country, ranked Manitoba as fourth-best investment climate in the country. These are C.D. Howe Institute, Fraser Institute, KPMG. That is the kind of naiveté we need, support for the economy of Manitoba. Children in Care Minister's Awareness of Concerns Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, 31 children in care or recently released from care have died under the watch of this minister and this government.

This Minister of Family Services originally refused to ask for an accounting of children in care, has refused to table terms of reference, has refused to say what concerns were coming from the review. The minister says no concerns were raised to her, but the letter she tabled last week clearly implies that concerns were being raised. I find it incredulous that this minister would not have asked what are the nature of these concerns. Why has this minister not asked for the details regarding the concerns raised?

Is she deflecting responsibility from herself and laying blame with the authorities, or does she simply not care? Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no deflecting of blame here. There is respect for the front-line workers from this government and from this side of the House. Children come into care for various reasons. There are challenges for the children. There are challenges for the families. It is very important that as children come into care, receive services and hopefully overcome these challenges, that there is the support that is needed.

The letter that was tabled last week by Elsie Flette, to the acting executive director of the Child Protection Branch, was ensuring him and ensuring Manitobans that any concerns that were raised were being dealt with, Mr. Speaker. This is the message to

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2777 Manitobans, our front-line people care about the children and are working with them. Mrs. Taillieu: Well, Mr. Speaker, Manitobans want to know what the concerns are and how this minister is addressing them. Thirty-one children have died and this minister still refuses to act in a meaningful way. The letter from the s outhern Aboriginal First Nations authority that this minister tabled indicates the authorities are followi ng up on concerns that were raised. I applaud the authorities for taking that initiative to do these face-to-face meetings.

This minister is on record as saying that no concerns have been raised to her. This minister has a duty to find out what the concerns are and not bury her head in the sand on this very important issue. This minister is perpetrating a culture of do not know, do not ask. Mr. Speaker, when will this minister fulfill her duty and ask the authorities to inform her of the nature of the concerns that are being raised? Ms. Melnick: Again, I will say that the authorities are doing work on the front lines and my duty is to work with them and to support them. That is what we are doing.

The member opposite has a duty to respect the laws of this province. She knows, or she should know, perhaps she does not, but discussing individual cases across this House is inappropriate. In the past, she has brought in vulnerable people going through very difficult times in their lives and has exploited them for no purpose other than cheap political games. Shame on her. We will respect the front-line workers and the laws of Manitoba. * (14:00) Mrs. Taillieu: Well, Mr. Speaker, as usual, when this minister is backed into a corner, she goes on the attack. She has a duty to protect children in this province. Mr.

Speaker, 31 children have died and this minister still refuses to be accountable. The letter she tabled in Estimates and in this House indicates that there are concerns that are being addressed, and, yet, she does not know what th ese concerns are. She has the attitude that if she does not know about concerns then there are no concerns. It is this minister's responsibility to find out and act on these concerns. Does she not do this because she does not care or is she simply being negligent and irresponsible in performing her duties as the minister responsible for children in care? Ms. Melnick: Well, Mr.

Speaker, when you look at the record of this government, where we have increased funding for child protection, it is over $80 million. When we look at the devolution of child welfare, which was supported unanimously including by the Member for Morris, and when you look at the Estimates process this year and the budget this year where there is some $27 million in new monies for the Child Protection Branch, I look forward to the Member for Morris doing her duty for the children of Manitoba in supporting our budget. Children in Care Minister's Awareness of Concerns Mrs.

Leanne Ro wat (Minnedosa): When this minister speaks about the record of this government, 31 children have lost their life because this minister has no leadership skills to address the issues. If there have been concerns raised during the current reviews of the children in care, the Minister of Family Services has a duty to apprise herself of these concerns. Mr. Speaker, when will this minister inform Manitobans what concerns were raised, how were they dealt with and is she satisfied that the children in her care and under her watch are not at risk? Hon.

Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I will quote from the letter that was tabled last week, and it says: Please be advised that all our respective agencies have completed their review of current cases. Agencies were also instructed to immediately attend to any concerns about a case arising from the review, and they have assured us that they are following up on any concerns identified. We would like to assure you that any concerns that are identified about any particular case are being followed up on by the authorities.

We will not be waiting for the final report to address such concerns. These are professionals working on the front line, very delicate situatio ns, vulnerable children, vulnerable families, and members opposite do nothing more than try to undermine their good work. Shame on members opposite, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Rowat: Shame on the minister. She is refusing to answer the question. The letter to Jay Rodgers from the Southern First Nations Network of Care implies that there are concerns that are being dea lt with, even if she said none have been brought to her attention. It is her responsibility to follow through.

2778 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 Mr. Speaker, will the minister ask the authorities to brief her on the concerns raised during the review and to ensure herself that all children in her care are safe? It is simple, respond. Ms. Melnick: Well, you talk about ministerial responses. Within a week of learning of the tragic incident, I called for an external review based on cases for an extended

section 4 review. This is in contrast to the former minister who sits in the front row of the opposition bench who, when the issue of caseloads was raised, and it was 45 to 80 caseloads, said: That is the responsibility of Winnipeg Child and Family. She refused to work with them. She refused to acknowledge that she had a responsibility of a minister. I think the Member for Minnedosa should talk to the former minister about responsibility. Mrs. Rowat: Mr. Speaker, what is she hiding and what is she afraid of? The minister refuses to be accountable and responsible. The minister shows no leadership.

When questions are asked, she needs to satisfy herself that the children are being taken care of that are in her care. Mr. Speaker, will the minister responsible for children in care tell the Ho use today what concerns authorities have brought forward, what actions she is taking and will she respond to the questions? Ms. Melnick: This is a government that not only supports front-line workers, we also support foster families. That is in direct contrast to the former minister who cut foster family rates three times; '93, '94 and '96. She also cut all funding to the Manitoba Foster Family Network.

We have increased foster family rates four times and we have restored funding to the Manitoba Foster Family Network. I am pleased to say that I have gone to many of their AGMs. We support the foster families, we support the front-line workers and this is the government that cares for the children of Manitoba. Manitoba Housing On-site Security Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I recently met with reside nts at 170 Hendon, a government department building operated by the Minister of Family Services and Housing.

Residents have repeatedly complained about drugs, violence and prostitution in the minister's building. The residents say complaints to Manitoba Housing are like whistling in the wind. It took some eight months to get a known drug dealer evicted as a tenant and soon after he was back in the building peddling drugs. The Metro newspaper quotes Tom Moody, the minister's Director of Property Services, as saying Manitoba Housing did bar the resident after evicting him.

Can the minister today confirm that this drug dealer has in fact been barred from the building, and can she tell us what measures are being taken to make sure that he never returns? Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the member has answered his own question. He has shown that when there is an issue that arises in a Manitoba Housing unit, in a Manitoba Housing complex, that the department responds.

In this case, they have responded to an individual who was of concern not only through eviction but also through looking at making sure that he is not in the building. The member also had a briefing from the department and he knows full well that there has been a security review that has been undergone under the new security and prevention officer that we hired in 2002. There have been extensive reviews, there have been security cameras put in, there has been card access put in. Again, he is not only trying to undermine child– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Gerrard: But, Mr.

Speaker, residents tell me he is still coming back and th e minister seems impotent to do anything. This minister and her government are operating a den of sin and vice. There is a problem and I was shocked to learn that it is so bad at 170 Hendon that when residents even dared to complain, they are given surcharges to their rent by this government. Every resident that I me t with cried for on-site security. There are many residents in the building with disabilities who receive disability assistance and their cheques will be coming in the next three days.

Will this minister take action to immediately put 24-hour on-site security in the building to protect vulnerable tenants? Ms. Melnick: Mr. Speaker, I think I heard the words operating of sin. I am wondering if he is now wanting to add the MHA staff to his list of minions. That is as much respect as he has for the people in Manitoba Housing. We have also worked with the apartment watch program that was brought in by the Professional

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2779 Property Association. Perhaps they too are minions of this government. We also work with the Winnipeg Police Service. I wonder if he is going to call them minions too. As you can see, there is a community response when concerns are raised to the MHA, through the Winnipeg Police Service, through the property managers of Manitoba. There are no sin bins or whatever he wants to call them at MHA. There are concerned people who are working on very serious issues. Red River Floodway Cost Overrun Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, the government again, time after time, demonstrates its incompetence and mismanagement. Now all we need to do is look at the floodway, over 135 million more dollars. That is the minimum. That is $100, whether you are nine months old or 90 years old, that this government is reaching into the pockets. Why? Because of its pure incompet ence and its inability to come on budget on time on the critical issue of the floodway here in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, given the single importance of this issue, my question to the Deputy Premier is: Why does the Premier (Mr.

Doer) not recognize how important this issue is and that he needs to talk to the Prime Minister? He has a golden opportunity here tomorrow to talk to the Prime Minister. Why does he refuse to talk to the Prime Minister on this critically important issue? Already, Mr. Speaker, they have an absolute disaster in protecting the taxpayers of our province. It is time that our Premier stand up and talk. * (14:10) Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Deputy Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, if the member across shouts any louder, they might hear him all the way in Gimli. Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite do not support– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The members opposite, the Liberal Party, try to have it both ways. One time they speak against the floodway; next time they speak for the floodway. The project, phase 1, that has been completed, has been on time and on budget. So let the member opposite not say that phase 1 is over budget. What he really should say is that he is against the project, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you that our Premier supports this project. He has raised it with the federal government.

He raised it with the previous Liberal government and I hope that the Conservative government– Mr. Speaker: Order. Manitoba Economy Increased Growth Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Mr. Speaker, given the misleading information and doom-and-gloom outlook from the members opposite regarding our provincial economy, can the Minister of Industry, Economic trade and Mines update the House on how competitive Manitoba has become under this government's initiatives? Hon.

Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): I thank the member for the question because it is giving us a chance– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives us some time to put some correct information on the record. The first thing is the small business rate which was 9 percent under the members opposite, second highest in the country, has now dropped to second lowest.

The Toronto-Dominion Eonomics says that this initiative will put Manitoba's small business income tax rate on par with Alberta's and well below the rate of its neighbours in Saskatchewan and Ontario. As far as the corporate tax rate, members opposite, when they were in government, did nothing, absolutely nothing. This is the fourth drop of the corporate tax rate which does well. We have increased the R and D Tax Credits and the RST on manufacturing is getting refundable. We started that last year a nd we are increasing that. Because of that– Mr. Speaker: Order.

2780 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 Walkinshaw Place Property Taxes Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Peter Albrecht of Walkinshaw Pl ace, a country vacation, has been assessed a property tax increase this year that is nearly double: from $2,500 to $5,000 in one year. The Board of Revi sion in Morton over- whelmingly ruled in favour of Mr. Albrecht's case last fall. The minister has directed his department to further pursue an excessive tax grab in this area. Tomorrow Mr. Albrecht has to defend himself again before the municipal appeal board.

Why is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not defending economic development instead of killing rural initiatives taken by this and other farm families? Hon. Scott Smith (Minist er of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Thank you very much for the member raising the issue of farm families, and certainly on the issue of what we have done in rural Manitoba. The members, for a number of years, through the nineties, sauntered into the coffee shops with their fingers tucked in their pockets telling farmers exactly what they were going to do for them and how they were going to reduce their taxes.

What did they do? They increased the taxes on farmland. Certainly on the school side, they increased the portioning rate for farmers which drove their prices up, not to mention the sale of MTS that drove every one of their costs up. But, Mr. Speaker, we reduced that. There is a process certainly on taxation. What we have seen in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, is we have seen an increase in values of land all across Manitoba; rural, urban and throughout this province. It is based on that. Highway 201 Bridge Reconstruction Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Our roadways and our bridges in this province are in shambles.

Yesterday the people in the municipality of Franklin, businessmen, farmers and others, met to discuss the state of the highways and the bridge on 201 highway crossing the Red River. The minister has neglected to take action and to construct a new bridge choosing only to order the installation of useless traffic lights on the current bridge. Mr. Speaker, when can we expect that this minister will order the rebuilding of the bridge on 201 highway crossing the Red River? Hon.

Ron Lemieux (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): The member opposite speaks of increasing transportation budgets and all kinds of other issues which, of course, he votes against, Mr. Speaker. I have to tell you that we are working in consultation with rural municipalities to address this situation. He talks about traffic lights on the bridge. It is addressing a safety issue currently, and we are doing the engineering, looking at enhancing this particular structure and looking at rebuilding it. It is a bridge that is 50 years old.

We have had those challenges dropped on us after the 1990s which nothing was done, quite frankly. The 1999 pre-election budget, they had $174 million in the transportation budget; now it is $257 million more; $83 million more per year, and yet, they still vote against budgets that we bring forward just like that. Mr. Penner: The longer this minister will wait, the more the cost of the bridge will be on the Red River and it would be– Some Honourable Members: Oh. Oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr.

Penner: It is interesting that the NDP caucus on the government side is applauding the desecration of our business community on the east side of the river. Emerson Milling, a major processor of oats on the east side of the Red River, has no access for its product to come into its mill. They have 12 people who are in jeopardy of being laid off and this minister refuses to build a bridge.

Is he waiting for unionization of the bridge project as well as the Winnipeg floodway, or is he going to tell the people of the R.M. of Franklin and the rest of southern Manitoba when he is, in fact, going to construct the bridge on 201 leading across the Red River? Hon.

Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): I t t o o k t h e M e m b e r f o r E m e r s o n , who I almost miss as my critic, to get up and put on the facts that clearly, because of the construction industry that is happening right now, costs are going up whether it is bridges that the Minister of Transportation is designing right now, or whether it is for the floodway. Finally, it has taken the Member for Emerson to point out what everybody except the

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2781 Leader of the Opposition and the remaining Conservative members have not seen, that is, right now, we are in the middle of something that is unheard of certainly when the members opposite were in power. It is called a construction boom, Mr. Speaker. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Time for Oral Questions has expired. * (14:20) MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Pansy, Manitoba Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out an injustice that has been put upon the residents of a small community in the riding which I represent.

The 2005-2006 highways map, of which this government was proud of, removed from the map the southeastern hamlet of Pansy, Manitoba, which is located on Highway 403. I know that the community of Pansy may not be important to this government, but I can tell you it is a community with history and heritage and still very much with us, Mr. Speaker, despite its removal from the map. Each year I have been fortunate to attend the Pansy Day Celebration. I would invite the minister of highways to come with me. I know they are off the map, so I will take him with me this year so he can find his way, Mr. Speaker.

Pansy has a community hall. It holds regular events. There is a poker derby every year. The community residents still get their mail in the Pansy post office. The community has two churches, one which I attended, not far in fact from where my grandfather farmed, Mr. Speaker. I know that going south for the members opposite sometimes means walking to the fountain in the back of the Legislature because that is as far south as they get, but I can tell them that there are still important communities like Pansy in Manitoba. I am proud to have family roots in Pansy.

I believe these small hamlets still play a role in the future of our province. I want to ensure that Pansy gets back on the map for next year so that I can tell members I still believe in a place called Pansy, Mr. Speaker. Fort Richmond Collegiate Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize an exceptional group of students from Fort Richmond Collegiate. Numerous students have displayed impressive levels of determination and study in the field of science and have distinguished themselves and their school as the leaders of tomorrow.

Ted Paranjothy, 16 years old, and Ravindi Gunasekara, 15 years old, have already set themselves apart. Ted has published a paper in a major medical journal and has patented a process that could help find the cure for some of the deadliest cancers: prostate, lung and breast cancer. Meanwhile, Ravindi has conducted research into ways to lower blood pressure and a possible correlation between yellow peas and preventing certain forms of cancer. Recently they both made award-winning presentations at the Canada-Wide Science Fair held in Saguenay, Québec.

Ravindi was the recipient of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sciences award, while Ted was awarded a silver medal in biotechnology and pharmaceutical senior sciences award. At the same time, a group of Grade 12 students will soon be leaving for Australia in order to participate in a Biotechnology Innovation Week at a prestigious Australian high school.

Emily Blunden, Alex Wishart, Saba Naghipur, Andrea Evans, Lynda Kong, Zexi Wang and Olwyn Friesen will put their extensive scientific experience and coursework to work in an international setting exchanging expertise and knowledge about the fields of biotechnology. Mr. Speaker, I need not emphasize the extraordinary achievements made by these students. I would like to take this opportunity to thank both the teachers and the mentors at Fort Richmond Collegiate who have nurtured many budding scientists, as well as the parents who have supported their children throughout their endeavours.

I would like to congratulate the st udents and the school for their commitment to science and to excellence and wish them the best for the future. We will be watching them, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Virden Regional Air Show Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to inform all Manitobans of the very successful Virden regional air show held in Virden this past weekend, and, as well, recognize Zone Command of the Royal Canadian Branch No. 8

2782 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 of Virden for their effo rts and dedication of the portion of 259 highway as Commonwealth Drive. The air show featured none other than the Canadian Forces Snowbirds led by Major Ian McLean and the Canadian Forces team of pilots, technicians and support me mbers of that crew. Mr. Speaker, also there were other show participants including Bill Carter Pitts Special, the Third Strike Wingwalking of Carol Pilon from Québec, Bob Mays P-51 Mustang and Peter McLeod, a young aerodynamic pilot that was taking

part in his first air show. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to bring greetings on behalf of all Manitobans on Friday evening at the Grand Central Hotel where owners Darcy and Val Cockbill hosted the welcoming reception. Greetings were also offered by His Worship Mayor Stan Ward and reeve of our R.M. of Wallace, Vince Heaman.

Congratulations go to the organizing committee chaired by Brock Andrew of Virden, a former Snowbird pilot himself I might add, and exceptional work done by his brother and the whole Andrew family, as well as the town of Virden and the R.M. of Wallace for their participation in making this event so successful. The many, many volunteers including the firefighters that were on hand throughout the whole event of the two-day show were exceptional in their efforts to make this what may turn into a biannual event, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, as well, on Sunday morning, the Royal Canadian Legion Zone Command hosted by Branch No. 8 of Virden he ld the Zone Decoration Day and dedication of the former Airport Road to Commonwealth Drive. This dedicated portion of No. 259 highway is from No. 1 highway north to the airport, and his Honour, the Honourable John Harvard, P.C., O.M., Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba, was in attendance to cut the official ribbon and to open Commonwealth Drive. Mr. Lloyd Horn and Mr.

Aubrey Paul both trained at the elementary flight training centre school in Virden at the time of the war, held the official ribbon, and acting chaplain Jaclyn Evachesen provided the prayer at both the ribbon cutting and at the dedication ceremony held earlier in the Virden auditorium, where master of ceremonies Greg Tough officiated. The Lieutenant-Governor, Honourable John Harvard, addressed the audience and laid a wreath in honour of war veterans and fallen comrades.

Wreaths w e r e a l s o l a i d b y M a j o r Ian McLean, representing the Canadian Armed Forces; Walter Murray, the zone commander and president of Legion No. 8, Fred MacDonald. We look forward to making this air show a biannual event. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the honourable member, I would like to remind members that when making reference to members of the House to do so by constituencies or ministers by title. Maples Collegiate Unity March Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight an important event which occurred today.

That event was the 11th annual Maples Collegiate Unity March. I am pleased to say that I was able to welcome this nationally recognized group at the steps of the Legislative Assembly and bring greetings from the government. The march began at the Maples Collegiate and finished on the front steps of the Manitoba Legislature. Mr. Speaker, the Unity March is a significant event undertaken by the students and staff of Maples Collegiate to raise awareness of racial discrimination. I am proud to say that the Maples Unity Group co-ordinates this march every year.

The march reminds us legislators that we must promote the end of discrimination in our communities. The group also promotes peace through its many yearly activities. This includes food drives, bringing speakers to speak on racism, volunteering at homeless shelters and participating in Remembrance Day ceremonies. One of the biggest events planned by this Unity Group is Unity Day. This day is held in conjunction with the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say several hundred students attended today's march.

Participating students come from many different cultures and backgrounds and, indeed, they represent a microcosm of the diversity of our communities. Their efforts show us that people from many backgrounds can unite to promote values of mutual respect, cultural inclusion and the embracing of diversity. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the staff and students of Maples Collegiate who participated in today's march. I commend everyone for promoting peace and the elimination of racism. Thank you. * (14:30) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to be able to add some

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2783 comments on two very important issues. The first, as the Member for Maples has made reference to the annual Unity March, being an MLA that represents a good portion of the Maples, I would like to extend, with a great deal of pride, my heartfelt congratu- lations to those that have participated in this year's Unity March. I know myself and others have had the opportunity to participate and actually walk with the students, which I think is very, very important to support our students.

I think it is really important that we encourage our children and young adults to be that much more aware and educated about what types of issues are very real today. You know, the issues of racism, the need for peace are critically important issues. I just want to extend my congratulations to all those who helped or assisted in any way whatsoever in the organization of this wonderful event. We look forward to being able to participate with it in the future. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to let all members know that in the week of June 9, the Philippine Independence Week is upon us.

I would encourage members of this Chamber to participate in the many different activities of that week. What you will sense is what I have sensed for many, many years, and that is that Filipino hospitality is second to no other community. If people will take the time and attend some of these events, I am sure you will experience that hospitality in a very real and a very tangible way.

So I did also want to take this opportunity just to congratulate again those individuals within the Filipino community, primarily, that put that week together because I know it takes a great deal of energy, a great deal of resources, time and commitment and so forth in order to make it happen. I think it is the responsibility of all of us to get a better appreciation of a wonderful community that has done so much for our province, whether it is socially or economically, whatever else it might be. ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, would you please call Bills 22, 31, 14, 24, 25, 37 and 30. Mr. Speaker: Okay, we will resume debate on second readings of Bills 22, 31, 14, 24, 25, 37 and 30. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 22–The Elections Reform Act Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading of Bill 22, The Elections Reform Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Stand. Mr.

Speaker: Standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina. Is it the will of the House for the bill to remaining standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No? It will not remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina. It is also standing in the name of the honourable Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen), who has four minutes remaining. Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Steinbach? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No? Okay, that has also been denied.

Speakers? Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): I am pleased to rise today on Bill 22 to put on the record some comments from the official opposition on this important piece of legislation. It is hard to imagine legislation touching on topics and subjects that are more important to the functioning of our democracy here in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to offer some comments on this particular piece of legislation. There has been a long history in the evolution of election laws here in Manitoba.

The traditions and rules that govern our elections are rooted in the tradition of British parliamentary democracy and have been through a process of evolution and change as we have moved along through the decades, as technology has changed, as we have learned lessons

2784 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 from past experiences. As we have gained experience with changes in other jurisdictions, the process of evolution in our democracy in Manitoba has proceeded. This bill, with considerable flaws, is the next stage in that evolution.

We will be indicating our support with respect to the bill and its principles, but we will also be introducing at committee some amendments to this bill which we think will make it a better piece of legislation and will better serve the underlying objective, which is to ensure free and fair and transparent elections here in Manitoba so that Manitobans get the sort of government that they want, the sort of government they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I want to first comment on some areas in this bill that we support.

It is important, in opposition, to be constructive and to indicate that there are sometimes areas of legislation and legislation that are worth supporting. We think that there are some provisions here that are good changes and a good evolution in the process of changing election laws in Manitoba. In particular, I point to the amendment which allows for child care costs related to a candidacy to no longer be included as an election expense, although they are fully eligible for reimbursement. This is a recognition, an important recognition, Mr.

Speaker, of the fact that many people running for office in our province are people with children who incur expenses related to child care as they run for office. It is a reflection of a modern process of campaigning in Manitoba, where both men and women put their names forward for office, men and women who have responsibilities for the care of their children, sometimes bringing cost with it, and we think that is a good change to the bill.

We think that this is one step toward providing further support to those candidates, from whatever party, who may have children that need care in the course of an election campaign. There are other areas that, in spirit, we support in this bill. There are ch anges which govern the reporting of financial transactions related to election campaigns. We will not be objecting to most of those provisions, Mr.

Speaker, and we think that transparency and proper re porting, followed up by appropriate sanctions for violations, are important steps for it in the evoluti on of our reform of our elections rules here in Manitoba. There are several areas, though, that we have concerns about related to Bill 22. One of those areas, which I will touch on briefly, is the removal of the appeal regarding boundaries decisions, which exists today in law, and which this bill seeks to take away.

Currently, where the commi ssion that goes out and makes decisions on election boundaries, consults with Manitobans, does what they think makes sense with respect to ensuring the communities of interest are properly delineated and properly represented under the boundaries of the election divisions. There is a process for appeal so that Manitobans who have concerns about that report, recognizing that the people who overse e this process are human beings, that they will make mistakes.

There is a process under law today that allows Manitobans to appeal those boundaries and to have some sober second thought when it comes to boundaries decisions, so that the boundaries we end up with properly reflect true communities of interest in Manitoba and adhere to a very important principle of one person, one vote in Manitoba, to ensure that every Manitoban's vote is equally weighted, or weighted as equally as possible given the geographical realities of our province.

We worry that the removal of that appeal provision allows that commission to make decisions which may, in the end, not serve Manitobans well, and there will be no recourse available to Manitobans who may have concerns about boundary decisions. So we think that is a bad, regressive step in this piece of legislation. We think it is inappropriate and, for example, Mr. Speaker, I can think of my own riding with close to 40,000 Manitobans residing within it. It is a large population. The vote of any individual Manitoban within my own constituency is not worth the same as the vote of Manitobans in other constituencies.

I recognize there are geographical realities in our province, and the large regions need to have a special consideration so that the member representing that area can properly address the concerns of their constituents. But there are situations where we see growth in population that needs to be rectified so the principle of one Manitoban, one vote, is adhered to as closely as possible. I think of another example. The town of Pansy in the riding of my honourable friend, the Member for Steinbach (Mr.

Goertzen), which, I think, should be a candidate for consideration to be redistributed into the constituency of La Verendrye. I jest, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want those comments to be left on the record as anything other than a light-hearted comment about the need to consider, though, the

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2785 needs of all communities in our province and to ensure that they are well represented. I know the people of Pansy are extremely well represented, as evidenced today by the comments by the Member for Steinbach in his comments about the unfortunate omission from the map of Manitoba of that great community in the constituency of Steinbach. But there are serious issues about boundaries and representation that need to be properly reflected in the processes we have for establishing boundaries here in the province of Manitoba.

So that is one area of concern is the lack of recourse for Manitobans when bad decisions are made on boundaries. * (14:40) Secondly, we have significant concerns about the amendment regarding government advertising and advertising by government agencies in the course of a writ period. Notwithstanding the strenuous and unconvincing denials by the Premier (Mr. Doer) on this point when it was raised in Question Period, we are concerned when we see the existing law allowing for advertisements concerning ongoing programs, quote, unquote. Mr. Speaker, ongoing programs are the subject of advertising.

Currently, under law in the province of Manitoba during election campaigns, that provision as it stands today seems to be an appropriate limitation on advertising by Crown agencies during elections. We are concerned that the government has made an amendment to that provision, an amendment which says that government agencies' business plans can now be advertised in the course of an election campaign. A business plan, Mr. Speaker, is something that is far broader than an ongoing program.

A business plan would, for example, allow Manitoba Hydro to embark on an advertising campaign in the course of a writ advertising the grand vision that it has for the future of Manitoba. Some might say that that would stray into the realm of politics. We would be concerned that such a general and vague notion as business plans is an inappropriate limit when it comes to election advertising during a writ, using the resources of the people of Manitoba, the rates paid by ratepayers to Manitoba Hydro and the premiums paid to other corporations.

Crown corporations in Manitoba should be used for the purpose of serving Manitobans. They should not be used for the self- serving purposes of re-electing this NDP government. We are concerned that this amendment is designed in a very cynical way to allow the government to embark on major advertising campaigns in the course of a writ using the resources of Manitobans, not donated funds to the NDP, but funds that they are required to pay to Crown corporations as a matter of law, then turned around and used for slick political advertising during an election campaign.

That is a concern that we have which we think is fundamental. We are concerned that that is a provision that needs to be changed and amended in the act so that we do not have Manitoba taxpayers and ratepayers have their fund subject to abuse by the current government when we get into an election campaign. I am troubled, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that in the general description of the provisions of the amendments contained at the

preamble to Bill 22, the explanatory notes, that it simply says that the provisions respecting government advertising are clarified. Well, to say that these provisions are clarified could not be further from the truth. That is simply an attempt to gloss over by attempting to characterize what is a fundamental change to the law as a mere housekeeping provision. It is sneaky. It is slick. It is cynical. We think it is wrong and we will oppose that provision in committee. We will propose amendments to ensure that Manitobans are protected from this government when it comes to advertising during an election period.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to some other areas of concern. We also, while we are talking about election reform and the reform of our public institutions to make things more open and transparent and to make our system function better for the people of Manitoba, that it is time for a serious debate on the Public Accounts Committee of this Legislature. Now this is something that is of fundamental importance. The provincial auditor has commented on this issue.

It is critical in order to hold the government to account to have an effective Public Accounts Committee with real power, real teeth, to compel witnesses, to compel people to come forward and answer questions for the people of Manitoba so they know what is happening inside their government. Today Manitoba has one of the weakest Public Accounts committees in the co untry. It is one of the weakest committees in the country. Manitobans do not get answers to the questions that they need answers to, and we have seen it time and again. You know, Mr. Speaker, it would not be an issue if we

2786 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 could get straight answers in Estimates and in Question Period to our questions. We have seen the Premier evade in excess of 140 questions on the matter of Crocus, 140 questions without anything even approaching a direct answer and that is unacceptable. It flies in the face of the traditions and the requirements of a well functioning parliamentary democracy. So we need change to our institutions and it is time for a broader debate on the way democracy works in Manitoba, or does not work, as the case may be.

We think it is important for a broader public debate on this very important issue of accountability to this House. We in opposition think that it is also time while we are talking about electing senators and we support the provision in this bill, Mr. Speaker. We support the spirit of those provisions. We may have amendments on the details but we support the idea, the spirit, the concept of having an all-party discussion on the issue of electing senators to represent Manitobans in Ottawa.

We on this side of the House think that a reformed Senate is an important way of ensuring we have regional representation in Canada, to ensure that regions like the West, provinces like Manitoba have the strongest possible voice in Ottawa. We think it is time to reform the Senate. We are glad that the government agrees that it is time to reform the Senate. So we will support the provision in this bill that establishes a process to get on with this very important debate on the matter of Senate reform here in Manitoba. But, while we are at it, Mr. Speaker, why do we not do something else?

Why do we not expand the debate? Why do we not do other things to improve democracy in Manitoba and have a debate about setting election dates? Why not set election dates in a way that ensures that there is some certainty for Manitobans and for people involved in the process around when elections are going to be held, so that when parties go to the polls they win on the basis of their record, their people and their plans, and they do not win on the basis of tactical advantages arising as a result of manipulations of existing rules? Mr.

Speaker, I do not want to try to suggest that the current government is the only party or the only government that has ever been susceptible to manipulation of these rules. It cuts across party lines. It has happened. Some might say it is a time- honoured tradition. I do not know if it is an honoured tradition, but it has been a tradition in our system for timing of elections to be used by the government to create an advantage to the incumbents and a disadvantage to the challenging parties. We need to deal with some details on that point, Mr. Speaker.

We need to iron out questions around what happens when a government loses the confidence of the House, as happened in 1986 in this Chamber when the government of the day, the NDP government, following the disastrous Kostyra budget of 1986, decided that that government, the Doer- Pawley government, no longer had the moral mandate to govern our province. [interjection] This House, in its wisdom, in 1988, the honourable member corrects me and I thank for that correction. It was 1988.

I will not refer to my third year at university, the good time I was spending there studying politics and how, for me, as a young Manitoban, it was more a matter of academic interest. But today as the stakes rise and as we see the ongoing mismanagement of the current government and the way in which taxpayers are being abused, we just know how very important it is that this House have the last word when it comes to bringing down a government that no longer deserves its support. So we need to deal with that issue as we deal with the question of set election dates.

We need to consider what happens as was the case in 1988 when there was the disastrous Kostyra budget of 1988 that raised taxes on Manitobans and ran a budget deficit in the range of $350 million. I know members opposite do not think $350 million is very much money. It does not go very far in this day and age under this government. But in 1988 it was a lot of money. There was a massi ve Doer-Pawley-Kostyra deficit in 1988 and this House voted to bring the government down. It was the right thing to do at that time.

We need to be sure that this House maintains the authority to topple a corrupt, rotten, mismanaging government. We need to ensure that that principle of parliamentary accountability remains intact as we look at the issue of set election dates. So we will want to explore that issue. I think, and I would submit to this House, that it is time for a debate on the issue of set election dates so that we can get rid of this idea of governments having a tactical advantage as opposed to an advantage that simply should come through good government.

I know that might be something that the current government will not want to give up lightly. I expect

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2787 they will not want to give up that tactical advantage lightly, because when you do not have a record, Mr. Speaker, when you do not have the people and when you do not have the plan, it makes it pretty tough to get re-elected. We know on this side, or we suspect, that they will want to sustain that tactical advantage.

But we think, in the interests of Manitobans and in the interests of our future, that we should set aside partisan politics for the time being and we should have an all-party discussion on moving the goalposts forward, on moving the ball down the field on the issue of electoral reform for Manitobans. So we think it is time for a debate on these important issues. We will support those provisions of this bill that move things in the right direction, including the debate on Senate reform. We look forward to going to committee and having further discussion on these important issues. * (14:50) We note, Mr.

Speaker, on one other point that the government, in the typical way that a government that is out of steam and out of ideas does, it has picked up on an idea that was raised in the course of our party's leadership campaign to require members who want to cross the floor to sit as an independent. This was an idea that had come forward some weeks before the government's announcement that members who cross the floor would not be eligible to sit in Cabinet. That takes away the incentive to cross the floor. If somebody wants to cross the floor on a matter of principle, that is important.

We think they should have the right to do that, but they should not come straight into Cabinet because that distorts the process, that allows a government to, in effect, offer inducements to a member from the opposite party to come across, with all the perks of sitting in government and all the power of sitting in government. I, as a then-candidate for the leadership of our party, thought it was important to get rid of that possibility of inducements being offered to members to cross the floor.

So some weeks later the government came out with its own slowly introduced, copycat measure in this bill, just as it has done on crystal meth and so many other areas where ideas have been brought forward by the opposition and picked up by the government. But, as I have always said, there is no property in good ideas. We will support any good idea that comes before the House, regardless of whether we are in government or in opposition. I am going to wrap up in just a moment. We will support that provision. We note that it follows up on something that we had first introduced.

We will support it because it is a good idea, notwithstanding the fact that it was introduced by this government as a copycat measure. Mr.

Sp eaker, we are concerned about loopholes that this government has introduced in the past to tilt the balance in favour of its friends when it comes to third-party advertising and designed to punish others and restrict others who may want to have a say in an election campaign, but the bungling example where the government designed its own loophole under the last piece of legislation, they designed it for their own loophole and then ran a Mack truck through it in order to ensure that the Teamsters and the other friends of the government could continue to support them. We think that is wrong.

We are going to be going through this piece of legislation with a fine-toothed comb to make sure that they can no longer abuse the electoral process to their own advantage. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, we will look forward to committee. We will look forward to introducing amendments and look forward to further discussion on the important issue of making democracy work for the benefit of all Manitobans. Thank you. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Crystal City Early Years 36 Grade 3 and 4 students, under the direction of Mr. Larry Hamilton. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Cullen). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. * * * Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, I am only going to take a few moments here this afternoon as we debate Bill 22. I believe our leader has put most of the pertinent information that we, as a caucus, had certain reservations to.

The reason that I want to put a few words on the record here this afternoon is because I think when congratulations are due, one individual should actually put that on the record. I will take a moment here to thank, and I want to say quite openly and personally to the Premier (Mr. Doer), because several years ago–I say several years ago when this

2788 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 issue first arose in 1999, where there was some discrepancy in the number of voters required for a polling station–in the constituency of Carman, I had the misfortune of losing six polling stations because the number had gone from 250 which, traditionally, is the threshold that they were using, and it had been bumped up to 350. I was told back then by the Chief Electoral Officer this was gratis to members in this Chamber, myself included, where we had made changes that I guess kind of got slipped by, it was not noticed, whatever it was.

We did not realize the impact that it was causing on, especially, the rural constituencies. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair I recall during that election campaign writing a personal letter to the six communities involved, every resident in those six areas, advocating on their behalf that I would find a way, one way or another to reinstate their polling stations. Well, in the first year several discussions I had with your Government House Leader (Mr.

Mackintosh) on this issue, and he kept telling me that, yes, the Premier was considering revisiting the entire Elections Act and that we would get with it. Another year had passed and, all of a sudden, Rory took on the challenge, and Rory was given a job to review the entire act and to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly to see what sort of a compromise we might make. Well, in my discussions with Rory, they were not getting very fruitful, I have got to tell you. We were not really moving along at that point in time.

So I prepared a particular piece of legislation that would reinstate the number back down to 250. Well, that was when things really got moving.

I have got to give Rory credit also because he was trying to find out at that point in time what would be acceptable to everybody, and I recall the discussion quite clearly, that I had said to Rory that, well, the Premier had made a commitment that, if we could, we would bring it back to 250 so that we could reinstate, especially in my area, those six voting areas because, if you look at the town of Fannystelle, an individual coming from the furthest north end of Fannystelle would have to drive all the way past Fannystelle, roll by Culross, end up in Elm Creek in order to vote.

Well, I have to tell you, that trip is somewhere between 35 and 40 miles, and I will venture a guess there were not an awful lot of individuals who would have spent that amount of time. So it seemed to be grossly unfair. Mariapolis being another community, Bruxelles being another one, St. Leon being another one, and Lavenham. Now these communities all suffered that same fate.

So the legislation that I had drafted up and was going to propose to the Legislature, and upon the recommendation of Rory, was that we would incorporate my bill into the Premier's bill that was going to address the issue, and I am proud to say this afternoon that I see in a particular

section that they have addressed the issue, that the number will be brought back down from 350 to 250. So we in the rural area, on this one particular section, I want to tell you, we will support this

section without a doubt. The other ones, there appears to be some controversy, and I understand there will probably be certain amendments that will be brought forward, and these will have to be identified and discussed more than likely in committee. So, at this point in time I thank the Government House Leader, I thank the Premier, and indeed I thank Rory for all his hard work in making sure that my little private member's bill was incorporated into Bill 22, and with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am prepared, as my leader said, to move it forward. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are you ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is the second reading of Bill 22, The Elections Reform Act;

Loi sur la réforme électorale. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] * (15:00) Bill 31–The Animal Diseases Amendment Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill 31, The Animal Diseases Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les maladies des animaux, currently standing in the name of the honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). Is there leave that it remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Inkster? [Agreed] Bill 14–The Water Rights Amendment Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill 14, The Water Rights Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les droits d'utilisation de l'eau, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2789 Stand? Is it agreed that the bill shall remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? [Agreed] The honourable official leader of the opposition, Member for Steinbach. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Thank you. Just as a correction, though, I am not the Leader of the Opposition; I am the House leader. But I do appreciate the comments. You would not want to leave those comments on the record uncorrected, "Mr. Speaker." It could be career limiting. But I do want to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is a pleasure to speak to this legislation.

When we deal with issues regarding water management, it is certainly an issue that is key in my own constituency. There are a lot of different issues that we deal with virtually every spring regarding water management. I would say that the government opposite, while we certainly on this side of the House have supported the expansion of the Red River Floodway, we know that is only one component of managing water here in the province of Manitoba, that is only one component of a good system to ensure flood protection for the province.

In fact, I know that in my own constituency there are a number of different concerns regarding the lack of infrastructure on dikes and on waterways within the constituency. I always hear from those who are living along the Manning Canal, for example, about how every year it seems that the Manning Canal overflows its banks and those that are living near it become victims of that flood water that comes over. There are a lot of different questions and concerns about how it is that there seems to be increased flooding here in the southern part of the province.

There has not been the sort of drainage work that we need in southern Manitoba. So, when we talk about this bill as it relates to water stewardship, I think it is important, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we put on the record the critical need that we have for more infrastructure in the province of Manitoba as it relates to drainage. You know, when we chat with those within the region, particularly those who live or have lived in the area for many, many years, they continually tell me we have not seen water like this in past years.

It is not because the flood events are necessarily more likely to occur now than they have in the past, but the reality is that the water is moving more quickly from different areas. So that requires that we keep those channels, those water-controlled areas like the Manning Canal and others, clear. They need to be dredged on a regular basis. It is, in fact, critical that we have those systems in place where we have the water infrastructure ready to go when there are occurrences. But I do not think this government has paid enough attention, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, to the need for infrastructure as it rela tes to water stewardship in southern Manitoba and in different areas of Manitoba. I think that when we look at the infrastructure needs of the province that we need to consider not only an important project like the Red River Floodway expansion, which is one component of flood protection, but all of the waterways and dredging that has to happen. I have the opportunity on different occasions to talk to my friend from Emerson.

He certainly is an advocate for these issues of good drainage, proper drainage, and a system for Manitobans to ensure that flooding is relieved for those farmers in his constituency and my area around Manitoba. He has done a good job of raising issues regarding the need for more drainage and for more systems, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So I say to him when we look at this kind of legislation that we cannot look at it in isolation. We cannot say, well, we are just going to focus on one project. We need to look at the overall scheme of flood protection in the province of Manitoba.

We know that the budget for some of these projects has not been to the point that we would like to see. I know, talking to municipalities and municipal officials, I ofte n feel sorry for municipal officials because they really get the brunt of these concerns. They deal with the localized flooding; they get the calls from their local residents, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the front lines, as it were, the municipal officials are, and they have to, on a regular basis, deal with this sort of localized flooding.

So they come to me and they come to other MLAs and they say, well, how is it that we cannot get the drainage work, whether it is clearing the ditches or ensuring that the culverts are up to standards, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that the water is moving in a way that keeps it off of farmland. Still, it gets off the farmland, but still moves as it is towards the Red River. Those are challenges. I certainly do not mean to minimize it. I would never stand here in this

2790 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 Legislature, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and say that these are easy things or that you solve these things in easy ways. I recognize from those who have been in government in past, and I have the opportunity, I should say the good fortune, to serve with members like the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach), who has served notably and honourably in previous Cabinets. I know, in speaking with him, the work that he did on some of these issues. Drainage issues are not simple and they are not easy issues to deal with. But they do need resources and attention.

I think that we have not seen that sort of attention paid to these issues by this current government. This government has not, in fact, paid the needed and the proper attention to the issues related to drainage in Manitoba. So, while there are some very legitimate concerns that have been raised here in the Legislature, regarding the expansion of the floodway and being over budget, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is only one aspect; it is only one component of a larger picture. It is important that we, as legislators, look to the broader picture about the need for an overall and comprehensive view.

We certainly support, as Progressive Conservatives, the efforts that deal with illegal drainage, and that sort of leads into the comments that I had, but we are concerned about the approach that this government is taking. There is a sense within the bill that individuals might be presumed to be guilty at first before th ey are, in fact, proven innocent. That, of course, we know is contrary to all that we believe as a demo cracy, as a democracy that believes in the rule of law, but also believes that those individuals are considered to be innocent before they have any sort of evidence brought to bear against them.

We question some of the issues regarding compliance and the ability for landowners to be given that chance to comply with certain regulations, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We think that that needs to be looked at within the context of this law. Mr. Deputy Speaker, certainly we understand the challenges that landowners and farmers are dealing with across Manitoba. I think that farmers have all the expectations every spring that they are going to have a tremendous crop, that this is going to be the year that they have the best crop ever. I remember my own grandfather.

I had earlier in this House the opportunity to speak–the Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) remembers it, and I am glad. He remembers the community of Pansy. It is a name that sticks with you for a while, but I would say not only does the name stick with you, but for those who have roots in the community, the spirit of the people also remains strong with you, as well. * (15:10) I had the opportunity as a young person to often help out on the farm of my grandfather in the Pansy area, not probably as much help as I thought I was being.

You know, as a young person, you think you are really contributing to so me of the efforts that are going along, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Probably, in hindsight, it was more of a favour to me from my grandfather to allow me to participate in the interests of the farm. But I do think that each farmer believes that this is always going to be th e year where they have a strong crop. To have those hopes and those dreams and expectations dashed because of drainage issues, I know certainly it is a challenge.

I would ask this government to look to putting in place a longer-term strategy for drainage, a lo nger-term strategy that would see proper drains throughout Manitoba. Again, the floodway is one aspect of it, but there are other aspects of flood protection for others in different areas. In fact, the money that goes into drainage, I would say, should not be looked at as a cost, but it should be looked at as an investment. We saw recently, Statistics Canada released their farm income numbers last week, and again we saw the suffering of Manitoba farmers here in our province.

One way to alleviate some of the pain or stress that farmers face is through this entire issue of drainage, Mr. Deputy Speak er, ensuring that those who are working on the farm have a fair chance in the spring to get that crop in, get at it in time, and to harvest a fulsome crop at the end of the year. So those are some of th e challenges that I would issue to members opposite. I know that the members, there are not an awful lot of farmers on the benches opposite. I hear a few of the members of the NDP saying that they have met a farmer once or they maybe saw one in a book, in a storybook.

The Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has seen a farmer in a book somewhere, as I understand, maybe he was read to as a chil d about farms. But I would certainly encourage all members, you know, we could organize a bit of a farm tour maybe to show

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2791 some of the urban members of the NDP what a real farm looks like– An Honourable Member: To read his kids "Old MacDonald Had a Farm." Mr. Goertzen: Well, there you go. I understand the Member for Burrows has taught the song "Old MacDonald Has a Farm" to his children, and that is a good thing. I think that is part of the way. [interjection] Well, the Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) asks if there are farmers in Pansy. I may have wondered before how it is that Pansy got wiped off the map by this particular government. I think that the question was answered.

If the Member for Selkirk does not even know there are farmers in the community of Pansy, where they have a thriving hog industry, where they have a thriving cattle industry, where they have dairy oper ations. When he does not even know that, it is no surprise that the government in one fell swoop would pull out their eraser and erase Pansy from the map. Well, I say to turn that pencil around next year, just sharpen up the pencil, to use the term they always use, to sharpen up the pencil, to use the terminology of the Premier, and write Pansy back into that map.

We believe you need to represent all Manitobans, not just segments of Manitobans. We are builders; we are not dividers, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We believe in ensuring that there is equality for Manitobans from Thompson to Emerson, from West Hawk to Virden. That is the sort of party, that is the sort of province that we want to build, and we would certainly encourage all members to join with us in that effort.

Specifically, on the issue of drainage, again, I do think that landowners in the province have been facing increased difficulties because of a lack of investment on the infrastructure side for those who need drainage needs, and municipalities have borne the burden of some of that and some of the challenges. Enforcement has to deal somewhat with this bill. We have concerns about how the enforcement procedure is in place. It is only one aspect. You also need to ensure that there is funding in place and maybe that would alleviate a lot of the issues.

Maybe that would take a lot of the stresses off, if they truly had a long-term plan for investing into the infrastructure, the drainage infrastructure of rural Manitoba. So, with those few words, I know that there are other members who want their words on the record regarding this particular piece of legislation. As I always do, I look forward to hearing their sage words of wisdom. Thank you very much. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have thought that a member on the government side would have wanted to engage in this debate seeing that this is legislation they brought forward.

I see that the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) is with us, and I know that he should have some interest in this legislation. We would certainly welcome his words of knowledge on this legislation, and also his understanding of the impact this is going to have on many of the individuals across our province in his constituency specifically as well as mine. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I cannot help but oppose this legislation on the basis that it has been brought forward without a great deal of understanding on the part of the government with respect to the impact it is going to have on constituents of mine, constituents of the Member for Dauphin-Roblin, the constituents for the Member for Swan River, the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) and other rural constituencies across this province. Now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if we sit in urban Manitoba and we talk about drainage, one would have to say that you simply want to stop this illegal drainage because it is having such a devastating impact on people downstream. If you talk to some people even in rural constituencies, who perhaps have been impacted negatively by drainage, they want all drainage stopped. We have seen some of these individuals. As a matter of fact, they are people who would like to drain their land, but do not want anybody else to drain their respective lands.

These people do not speak with any credibility, and so, therefore, we need to be careful as to who we listen to when we talk about putting in laws as it pertains to drainage. We have a mechanism in our province, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that does handle drainage in a fairly effective way, and it was started not even under our administration, but it was a process called the establishment of conservation districts across this province who were given the mandate to look after watershed areas. In those watershed areas, they were given jurisdiction to do certain things.

You do not accomplish anything by holding a big stick over people's heads. You can accomplish a great deal by

2792 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 getting people together, by co-operation and by people understanding what the end goal could be. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we should not be opposed to drainage simply because it is drainage. If you look at southern Manitoba, most of the Red River Valley is land that was drained. All of this land was a swamp at one time, and in order for it to become productive land, as it is, it needed to have some drainage work done.

For years, we as a province decided that this was such a breadbasket in our province that we spent provincial dollars to drain the land so that crops could be grown. We have some very well-to-do entrepreneurs, farmers, and this has become a very productive area in our province. But there are other regions of this province, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that today have not had the benefit of having provincial dollars spent on cleaning out provincial drains, first of all, and secondly, to help individual producers with their drainage works. So along comes this whole notion that drainage is bad.

Now we have people who want to preserve wetlands, and that is not a bad thing. That is a good thing. But, what we have done is we have allowed the pendulum to swing so far that now if you want to drain a pothole on your yard, someone is going to object to it, and you cannot have the authority to do that. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is irrational to begin with. Secondly, it does no one any good. If you go across the city, for example, if we have a little pothole lying anywhere, all it is is a mosquito- breeding ground, and we want to make sure that we get rid of those.

It is no different in my yard; it is no different on my farm. But there is a common-sense approach to all of this as well. * (15:20) Now, if you vest the responsibility for drainage in the hands of local people who understand the issues–and I am talking about local people as being conservation districts–if you vest the responsibility in these people, they will work together with the producers, the landowners, the municipalities to ensure that the proper approach is taken, and you have to give them the tools to be able to do their job.

We as legislators have the responsibility to give these organizations the tools to work. But this bill takes all of that away and invests the responsibility with the minister who is going to put the police out to look after the drainage issues. If in fact it is perceived, from that bureaucrat's point of view, that this drainage is bad, then the government has the ability to impose fines. Mr. Deputy Speaker, then this becomes nothing but a cash grab. It does not achieve anything.

All it does is use a big stick over the heads of producers who are probably trying to do nothing more than improve their land so that it can be productive. There is nobody that I know out there who is trying to drain vast amounts of water. On the west side of the province, we face a different challenge, and that is the drainage that is occurring on the Saskatchewan side. The land between the community of Churchbridge, which is midpoint between my community and Yorkton, Saskatchewan, and the border, drops about 25 feet in elevation.

So any water from Churchbridge, which is about 15 the 20 miles inside the Saskatchewan border, all that water simply drains into the Assiniboine Valley. The problem with it is it occurs at a time of the year when we have the snow melt and of course it overloads the capacity of the river. Then we have, of course, the flooding of the Assiniboine Valley and downward into Winnipeg here.

When we see our walkway under water here on the Assiniboine, as we will for the next month, a lot of that is due to the fact that there is an excessive amount of water that comes down the Assiniboine on an annual basis, added to by the, I think, excessive drainage that is going on in Saskatchewan. Quite frankly, much of that drainage is unregulated. They do not have the kinds of mechanisms in Saskatchewan that we have had in Manitoba.

The conservation districts in our province have been working very diligently to ensure that there is not over-drainage, that in fact people downstream are consulted, that there is capacity built into the downstream people who are going to be receiving the water when people upstream drain as well. So it is kind of a comprehensive look on how we do drainage in a proactive and a positive way. In this legislation, there is not anything that the government is doing to do enhance the quality, if you like, of our land, the quality of how we can better make our land more productive. Instead of incentives, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, this government is providing punitive measures to deal with landowners who perhaps try to do drainage without a licence. Now what is a licence, and how do you achieve a licence? There are times of the year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when licences are difficult to get because, of course, once this falls into the bureaucratic hands, it takes forever and a day to do anything. It will take

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2793 months to get a licence. Conservation districts, because of their nature, because of the fact that they know the people, they know the area, they know the land, could respond far more quickly. Sometimes, this has become a thorn in the side of the municipalities because all of a sudden the municipality finds itself, oh, all of a sudden we have more water than what we thought we used to have, and so we are going to try to blame somebody for it. So we are going to blame the upstream people for dumping water on us. That, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, from all of the work over the 20 years that I have been in this Chamber, one of the most, I guess, controversial issues out there in municipalities has been the water issue. But many times when you investigate what the real problem is, you find that it is not necessarily the upstream water that is coming and causing the problem within the municipality. Ninety percent of the time it is the activities, even of municipalities, that have taken place right within that municipality that are causing a lot of the problem.

So what we have witnessed time and again is that the finger is pointed at people upstream, municipalities upstream when in fact sometimes the people should look in a mirror themselves. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know how this is going to achieve anything in a positive sense. We have heard from landowners. We have heard from the organization. They are opposing this legislation. There is not anything good about it because it is a punitive way of approaching a problem.

If drainage is a problem, if municipalities do not want to deal with it, then I suggest that we should do the common sense thing and allow conservation districts which have the resources, give them the resources, give them the tools to be able to manage these areas, because conservation districts are organized on watershed basins. They are not organized on municipal basins; they are organized on watershed basins. For that reason they are much better equipped to deal with these. I can tell you some positive things that have happened as a result of conservation districts. Right on my back doorstep, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I have an area that is about 600 acres in size that is largely wild meadow grass, and in that area we would get water coming down in the spring flushing through, and that land basically becomes a wasteland because it needs water to be able to grow any kind of wild hay. Mr. Speaker in the Chair What has happened while we were in government is that a reservoir, a dam, was constructed, Mr. Speaker, and water is now held back. It is held back until, probably, June and then it is allowed to flow out of the dam.

This does two things: First of all, it protects all of the crossings that are downstream from the dam from being washed out, and that is a big issue for municipalities; and then, secondly, it allows for the water to be held back and then becomes a useful tool for the production of hay land. Additionally, it provides the wetland habitat for a lot of our ducks, if you like, in the area, who nest around the edges of this water body. By the time farmers are ready to go in and take the hay crop off, the ducklings have gone, the meadowland is dry, and we have a good crop of hay. So it achieves many things.

This was done in co-operation with the conservation district in the area and the municipality. Although, Mr. Speaker, some of the municipalities or farmers, landowners in the area, have drainage ditches that actually go towards this particular holding area, it does nobody any harm. As a matter of fact, it has done an extreme amount of good in the area. Now there are always complaints. Downstream, if you ask some people about this, they say, oh, well, my land has never been underwater as much as it is now. When you examine th e area, Mr.

Speaker, if people understood how an operation like this works, as a matter of fact, it helps them, both in the short term and in the long term. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not provide anything in terms of helping the landowners and helping conservation districts or municipalities to achieve a semblance, if you like, of order when it comes to drainage. All this does is it simply halts what they call illegal draining and, then, allows the bureaucrats to enforce their laws or their stop orders, if you like, and then bring down penalties on the people who perhaps have crossed the line. Mr.

Speaker, we need to ensure that we work with landowners. We need to ensure that we work with municipalities, that we work with conservation districts and together we need to come up with a mechanism that is going to put some sense into how we achieve some of these goals that are trying to be achieved by this legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, although the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) has responsibility for this, I regret to say that he has not had any experience

2794 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 when it comes to rural agro-Manitoba with regard to drainage. He has no experience in that area at all. As a matter of fact, living in Thompson, where there is little drainage taking place, someone like that coming to take responsibili ty for Water Stewardship in agro-Manitoba is, first of all, I think, somewhat inappropriate, in terms of that minister leading the charge and enforcing rules and punitive measures like are being called for in this piece of legislation. So, Mr.

Speaker, we all understand that there has to be balance between incentives and between penalties. That balance I do not see in this legislation. We do not see anything in this legislation, either, that talks about specific fines, but the minister has alluded to the fact that in the regulations they will be bringing in punitive measures, punitive fines, for people who do not comply with the orders or perhaps who go ahead and do drainage work without the proper permits in place. * (15:30) Mr.

Speaker, this is an evolving issue, and I think we need to bring the public along with us, or maybe we need to follow the public, in that as the public become aware through an education process that there is a proper way to do drainage and that there are requirements unde r the law that they have to follow, people will comply. But, if you simply go out there and, for every transgression, if you like, we bring down the law on the heads of these people, I think that is going to be unnecessary.

It is going to provide a lot of unrest in the rural communities, and people are going to become suspicious about the motivation the government has. Mr. Speaker, I would favour a less heavy-handed approach to this. I would say that we need to vest the responsibility in local authorities, and, to my way of thinking, it is the conservation districts that are the local authorities that should have the responsibility here. I am a big fan of conservation districts.

I think they have done some tremendous amount of work in this province and good positive work, not only just for drainage but when you talk about conservation issues and you talk about the education process that takes place with schools, with adults, with farmers, with people from towns and when you look at some of the projects that conservation districts have done and some of the benefits that have accrued to the province and to communities as a result of those projects, we should not turn a blind eye to that.

As a matter of fact, I th ink that by expanding the responsibilities, expanding perhaps the amount of money that we extend to conservation districts because they do such good work, this is not an expense, Mr. Speaker, it is an investment. It is a good investment, not only to make our land more productive but indeed to make our land probably more conscientious in terms of the conservation issues and the environmental issues that we have before us today and that we as a society expect. When we talk about clean water issues, Mr.

Speaker, the work that conservation districts do in that regard alone should be noteworthy. I think the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) probably understands as well as I do the good work that conservation districts do. I know when we were in government and I had responsibility for conservation districts, the minister who is responsible for conservation districts now did take advantage of many of the openings and many of the events that took place in rural Manitoba. I know that that experience and that education that he gained there is probably standing him well as a Minister of Conservation.

So I look to him and I ask him to examine the elements of this bill and perhaps to offer his comments and, more importantly, offer his advice to the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton), because I think he understands better some of the issues that we have outlined in our response to this bill than the Minister of Water Stewardship does. Mr. Speaker, I cannot see how he can be a party to this bill. I honestly do not understand how the Minister of Conservation can actually say this is making Manitoba a better place, because it is not. This bill does not make rural Manitoba a better place.

All it is doing is giving government more authority, a bigger stick. It does not do anything in terms of respecting the work that conservation districts have done in the past. I think, if anything, the Minister of Conservation should be talking to his colleague and telling him that this is an area of responsibility that you can assign to conservation districts and you might be surprised at the good work that conservation districts will do. You have to empower them, yes.

Municipalities do not want this responsibility because they find themselves fighting with their neighbours over this, so they are not unhappy about just handing this over to the government and let the government be the big, bad guy. But I think government needs to use its brains and it needs to use its collective head, if you like, and assign responsibility for something like this

May 30, 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2795 to a body that understands what the implications are when they make decisions. Mr. Speaker, the government can sit there very smugly and say, we are going to pass this legislation through anyway. But let me assure the minister that when his term and this government's term is done, there will be a more sensible approach to how we address some of these issues in rural Manitoba. Maybe it is because of a lack of rural members on the other side of the House, people who have any experience with agriculture.

I do not know, but when you take a look at some of the measures they are coming up with today, it makes you wonder whom they are really representing, because we have seen the outcry of people in rural Manitoba to some of the steps this government has taken. I refer to the measures that they are doing with livestock in our province. Can you imagine, when we have had 1,500 people in one building tell the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) that she is wrong and her government is wrong, they still continue to pursue that checkoff legislation, which is mandatory?

Auction marts, cattle dealers have indicated to this government they are not going to collect the levy because it is offensive. It is not a productive way to use money. Yet the government continues to proceed down its path. Who is the government listening to? Are they listening to one Bill Uruski who destroyed this cattle industry back when he was Minister of Agriculture? I think they should talk and listen to the producers who understand the issues. But that is a trait of this government. They have not been listening.

The arrogance has crept into this government, and they are now just moving ahead without listening to what people are saying. So, when I appeal to the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) I do this quite legitimately and quite seriously, when I say he should be advising his colleague, the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) that this bill does nothing to enhance the quality of life in rural Manitoba. It does nothing to enhance the quality of land in Manitoba, and it does nothing to enhance the way that drainage is done.

All it is doing is putting police in place, again another level of police in place, that are going to go around and fine producers or landowners who might want to drain a pothole or two. Mr. Speaker, I think there is a far better approach. I think there is a far more practical approach than what this government is doing with this legislation, and that is why I will be opposing this bill. I cannot support it on behalf of the constituents that I represent. They have given me a very loud and clear message.

I ask the government whether they are listening to their constituents, whether they are listening to the people that in fact they have been elected by, and whether or not they are responding in a positive way. So, for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this legislation, and I will be voicing my concern, both in the newspapers and to individuals that I speak with, and the reasons why I will oppose it. I am hoping that the government will bring some amendments in that are going to make this a much more acceptable piece of legislation than it is at this point in time. Thank you. Mr.

Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to put a few words on the record in regard to Bill 14 and probably echo some of my colleague's sentiments. I hope that I will be allowed a few more minutes than I was this morning when I went up to speak to a piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is very similar to other legislation that this government has brought forward in this session. What it is, it is a reactionary piece of legislation.

In reactionary I mean in this particular bill they want to bring forward more rules and regulations, and basically they are bringing this forward because they have not done their job in the past. We have seen other legislation brought forward, and I am talking about whistle-blower legislation. Now, quite clearly, we know that bill was strictly damage control, and I think they are going down the s a m e r o a d w i t h B i l l 1 4 . I t is more damage control because they have not done their job.

Also, we have seen, of course as a result of the Crocus fiasco, the government has brought forward changes to the labour-sponsored regulations and legislation there. So, obviously, this government, as we know they have done in the past, they are completely reactionary. Instead of being proactive and going out there and actually trying to determine what the fundamental proble ms are within a piece of legislation, they bring forward additional legislation that is reactionary and not really trying to address the fundamental problems that are out there.

2796 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2006 Mr. Speaker, this government, I know they keep talking about consultation when they bring forward legislation. Well, we know, quite frankly, that that again is more rhetoric than actual reality. We can point directly to another water bill. We talk about The Water Protection Act that was brought forward a year ago in the Chamber. Clearly, we as opposition tried to bring forward some amendments to make the bill a little more workable. In the end that particular legislation was passed.

Our intent, our understanding was that the regulations that were going to be brought forward under that particular act would take some time to develop and that there would be a consultation with the stakeholders and consultation with opposition members. Well, quite frankly, that did not happen. * (15:40) The bill, Bill 22, was passed in June, and by the end of July the government had proposed water quality management zones as regulation under that particular bill. Then what the government did, instead of going out and consulting, they said, here are the regulations.

Give us your feedback, but you have a month to do it. Well, that, in our view, as opposition, is not an effective consultation process. I think what happened over the next few months, Mr. Speaker, is we saw just a great outcry from the public and from rural Manito ba in regard to water quality management zones and those regulations. Quite frankly, Manitobans are telling us those regulations do not work. Obviously, this government does not know what they are doing when it comes to water management acts and regulations.

So this in our view is just another example of misguided legislation brought forward on behalf of this government. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to water and water management, a lot of common sense comes into play. I think that is something that is sorely lacking on behalf of this government. Because I know that a lot of people read Hansar d and they are probably wondering what the intent of this particular bill is, I just want to take a second and describe what is on the government's spreadsheet in terms of their

summary for this particular bill, why they are bringing this bill forward and what they hope to achieve by bringing this bill forward. Clearly, there are only three items spelled out in their

summary. One is to establish an office under the act which will enable common offence notices to be issued under the offence notice regulation. Two, officers will be provided under this particular act and provided with the appropriate authority to enforce the act, and, three, they will provide those officers protection from liability under the act. So, clearly, Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is to give the government the authority to fine people that they deem are not acting appropriately in water management issues.

We think the existing act certainly has the parameters within it to allow the government to enforce existing legislation without coming in with this heavy-handed side of government. We know the government of the day likes to spend money, so in their quest to spend money, they have to find revenue to offset that spending. Our view is this is just another means for them to generate some more revenue to throw into their coffers so that they can continue to spend money beyond their means. Mr. Speaker, we believe that the conservation districts could play an important role in drainage throughout Manitoba.

I believe that the fundamental issue here, why we have got

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-4-79b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 4th hansardpdf 79b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4127a52a0ea8b7e3b8c477f4eb8846cedbf4f80f

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