Manitoba Hansard — 14 May 2013 (Sitting 41B, 40th Legislature, 2nd Session)

40-2-41b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Daryl Reid Speaker Vol. LXV No. 41B - 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 14, 2013 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

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

1239 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, May 14, 2013 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, everyone. Please be seated. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills. No introduction of bills? PETITIONS Municipal Amalgamations–Reversal Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Riding Mountain): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And these are the reasons for this petition. The background to this petition is as follows: The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipality with fewer than 1,000 constituents.

The provincial government did not consult with or notify the affected municipalities of this decision prior to the Throne Speech announcement on November 19th, 2012, and has further imposed unrealistic deadlines. If the provincial government imposes amalgamations, local democratic representation will be drastically limited while not providing any real improvements in cost savings. Local governments are further concerned that amalgamation will fail to address the serious issues currently facing municipalities, including an absence of reliable infrastructure funding and timely flood compensation.

Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and led by the municipalities themselves. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the r espect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate. This petition is signed by B. Morris, J. Piwniuk and D. Piwniuk and many, many more Manitobans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to have been received by the House. Further petitions? Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for the petition:

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

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

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

(4) Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. Signed by M. Kaatz, J. Boychuk, L. Schewe and other– Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Steinbach. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present the following petition. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

Through Bill 20, the provi ncial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.

1240 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by S. Manchulenko, L. Zurba, B. Zurba and many other– Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Portage la Prairie. St. Ambroise Beach Provincial Park Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): Mr.

Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And these are the reasons for the petition: The St. Ambroise provincial park was hard hit by the 2011 flood, resulting in the park's ongoing closure and loss of local access to Lake Manitoba, as well as untold harm to the ecosystem and w ildlife in the region. The park's closure is having a negative impact in many areas, including disruptions to local tourism, hunting and fishing operations, diminished economic and employment opportunities and the potential loss of the local store and a decrease in property values.

Local residents and visitors alike want St. Ambroise provincial park to be reopened as soon as possible. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the appropriate ministers of the provincial government consider repairing St. Ambroise provincial park and its access points to their preflood conditions so the park can be reopened for the 2013 season or earlier if possible. This petition's signed by R. Courcelles, T. Lambert and P. Hunrick– Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Lac du Bonnet. Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mr.

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

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government t o not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition is signed by C. Wojcik, A. Wojcik and S. Balcsok– Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Midland. Municipal Amalgamations–Reversal Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Midland): I wish to presen t the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background to this petition is as follows: The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents.

The provincial government did not consult with or notify the affected municipalities of this decision prior to the Throne Speech announcement on November 19th, 2012, and has further imposed unrealistic deadlines. If the provincial government imposes amalgamations, local democratic repr esentation will be drastically limited while not providing any real improvements in cost savings. Local governments are further concerned that amalgamation will fail to address the serious issues currently facing municipalities, including an absence of re liable infrastructure funding and timely flood compensation.

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1241 Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and led by the municipalities themselves. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate. And this petition is signed by A. McKenzie, L. Reid, B. Bohm– Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Emerson. Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mr.

Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

(2) Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without legall y required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.

(4) Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government not to raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. And this petition is signed by S. Boyle, C. Ursell and F. Foy– Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Agassiz. Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase in the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when a major tax increase–major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition's signed by W. Tully, C. Small, D. Kennedy– Mr.

Speaker: The honourable member for River East. Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election. * (13:40) Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase in the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.

Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. And this petition is signed by A. Bruinooge, K. Bruinooge, D. Daudrich– Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for La Verendrye. Mr. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye) : I wish to present the following peti tion to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition:

1242 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election. Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government not to raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition is signed by C. Thiessen, P. Penner, W. Doomernik– Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Spruce Woods. Mr. Cliff Cullen (Spruce Woods): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democr atic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition is signed by G. J efferies, T. Jonsson, H. Russell– Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Lakeside. Mr.

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

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government not to raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. Submitted on behalf of G.J. Purdy, V. Hotel, R. Sarahs– Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Morden- Winkler. Municipal Amalgamations–Reversal Mr. Ca meron Friesen (Morden -Winkler): Mr. Speaker, I wish to pre sent the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents.

The provincial government did not consult with or notify the affected municipalities of this decision prior to the Throne Speech announcement on November 19th, 2012, and has further imposed unrealistic deadlines. If the provincial government imposes amalgamations, local democratic rep resentation will be drastically limited while not providing any real improvements in cost savings. Local governments are further concerned that amalgamation will fail to address the serious issues currently facing municipalities, including an absence of r eliable infrastructure funding and timely flood compensation.

Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and led by the municipalities themselves.

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1243 We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate. And this petition is signed by B. Burkitt, N. Turnbull and T. Bisschop and many– Mr. Speaker: No further petitions? Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have from River West Park School 14 grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Todd Johnson. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger). And also seated in the public gallery, from Kildonan-East Collegiate we have 31 grade 9 students under the direction of David Ramsay, Nelia Resendes-Marques, Carol Ripley and Darlene Sopher. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Wiebe).

And also in the public gallery, we have with us today Kelly Legaspi, RN, BSN, vice-president of the Philippine Nurses Association of Manitoba Inc., who are the guests of the honourable member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino). On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Tax Increase Impact on Families Mr. Brian Pallister (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, governing is about making choices, and the Premier has decided that he can't reduce his spending by 1 per cent.

He would prefer to reduce the income of the average Manitoba family by 3 per cent instead, but that amounts to broken- promise taxation. Taxes on gasoline, life insurance, group benefits, haircut styles, home insurance and the PST add up, and that's $1,600 per year for the average Manitoba family. That's a 3 per cent reduction for a family with a net income of $50,000. So the question of how Manitobans will cope, I guess, the government hasn't considered, but they will cope if they have to. Manitoba seniors will take fewer trips to see their grandkids, a nd Manitoba couples will make fewer payments on a mortgage.

Manitoba families who struggle already will struggle that much more, but the fact of the matter is that the government doesn't seem to get that. I want to ask the Premier: How is it that he feels he has the right and his government has the right to cut Manitobans by 3 per cent when they won't cut their own spending by 1 per cent? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member of–the Leader of the Opposition obviously missed it. We did actu ally cut expenditure 1 per cent last year across a variety of different fields in government. We focused it on services that created more efficiencies.

We continued to support education and health care. Mr. Speaker, we do an affordability advantage every year on the same methodology that the members opposite did when they were in office, and a two-earner family of five earning $75,000 is now No. 1 in Canada for affordability; a two- earner family of four earning $60,000, in the top three for Canada on affo rdability; a lone parent earning $30,000, in the top three for affordability; and a single person earning $30,000, in the top three for affordability. That's the results of our budgeting every year. Mr. Pallister: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, and it's so easy for the Premier –so easy to take 3 per cent more from Manitoba families, but so hard for him to reduce his spending by 1 per cent –a third as much –and he has no credibility on this issue whatsoever. And he should remember that the very people, on a daily basis in this Chamber –the very people he tries to frighten with his bogeyman approaches are people whose household incomes are being eroded by his broken promises and by his tax hikes. Now, he claims that he's reduced spending last year by 1 per cent.

We have yet to see any proof or verification of that fact, but if that is the case, then, if reducing spending by 1 per cent was such a brilliant idea last year, then why isn't it a good idea in 2013? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, our per capita expenditure increases over the last five years are the second lowest in Canada, and our per –and our expenditure increases over the last two years are the lowest–second lowest in Canada.

1244 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 The indiscriminate approach put on the t able by the Leader of the Opposition would have laid off –let me see now –700 nurses, Mr. Speaker, 700 nurses in health care alone, 60 correction officers, 200 teachers and 135 social workers. The approach the member takes is one that doesn't take into accou nt a careful analysis of the priorities of Manitobans. We have decided that Manitobans want quality health care, which is why we have investments in health care, including free cancer -care drugs, including CancerCare treatment centres throughout rural Manitoba.

We have decided that we need to invest in education so that young people have a future in Manitoba, and that's exactly what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. * (13:50) Mr. Pallister: He needs the 192 spinners to work on some new talking points for him, Mr. Speaker. Here's a quote from last year's budget document, page 3: ". . . we will achieve $128 million of savings in-year–the equivalent of an additional one per cent reduction in program spending." Exactly the wording that was in our recommendations for this year. So the consequences he talks about are bogeyman consequences; he trots out the bogeyman.

But his high-tax policies are hurting Manitobans, and he should be ashamed of hi mself that he's trying to frighten Manitobans with his Chicken Little, sky-is-falling approach. Manitoba's civil servants are feeling the pain in their homes of spenDP tax hikes. The broken promises are affecting them too. Manitoba's nurses and teachers an d social workers work and live in the real world, not a fantasy world. They work with real patients, real students, real clients, and they deserve political leadership that they're not getting that can address their real priorities in a real way.

Will the Premier admit that his frightening fantasies are just a sad attempt to cover up his spending problem? Mr. Selinger: There are some people putting a lot of fantasies on the record this afternoon. Leader of the Opposition is foremost among them. Mr. Speaker, ask ourselves, who was the one in this House that said he wanted to put a chill on public spending? Leader of the Opposition. Who was the one that said he wanted to practise tough love on public services? The Leader of the Opposition. What did that m ean the last time he was in office? It meant 1,000 less nurses; they were fired in Manitoba.

It meant 700 less teachers; they were let go in Manitoba. It meant no infrastructure spending in Manitoba. Infrastructure spending was at the lowest it had ever be en in Manitoba when he was in office, and that does not even get to the point where he laid off every child welfare worker every Friday and put children and families at risk. That was his approach. It is not our approach. Tax Increase Impact on Families Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Well, Mr. Speaker, who was the leader in the last election who said they wouldn't raise taxes? The Leader of the NDP.

Now, this is a Premier who leads a government who has a spending problem. Now, and instead of trying to find 1 per cent savings in their government, they're going to all Manitobans in Brandon, in Winnipeg, in rural Manitoba, in the north and saying, we want you to find 3 per cent savings in your budget. Now, for the average family, that can be very significant. That means maybe they won't be able to have music lessons for their kids. Maybe that means they won't be able to have their kids in a sporting program.

Maybe that means they won't be able to take that family vacation that they're hoping to take this summer. I want to ask the Minister of Finance why these good, hard- working Manitoba families should have to pay for his spending addiction. Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance ): Well, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has done it again. He gets up and makes up numbers as if they're anywhere related to reality. He just pulls them out of mid-air from someplace again. Mr.

Speaker, these hard -working Manitobans that the member for Steinbach talks about, for example, a two -income family of four at $60,000 is paying $2,410 less today than when members opposite were in government in 1999. A two- income family of four at $80,000 is paying $3,372 less today than they did when those guys were in office. We don't need to take any lessons from people across the way when it comes to supporting Manitoba families, Mr. Speaker.

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1245 Mr. Goertzen: And I'm not going to take lessons from a Minister of Finance who promised Manitobans that he wouldn't increase taxes and then increased them the highest rate in 25 years, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a Premier (Mr. Selinger) and a Minister of Finance who's trying to convince Manitobans that they can't find 1 per cent savings across government so they're going to Manitobans and they're saying, we expect you as individual families to sit around the kitchen table and come up with 3 per cent savings.

That might mean that they won't be able to go to a summer fair this summer. Maybe that means they won't be able to visit friends and families. Maybe they'll have to cancel that camping trip. So maybe the Minister of Finance may give them some advice. What advice would he give to these Manitoba families? Should they cancel vacation? Should they cancel going to a Manitoba fair? What advice would he give to these Manitoba families for his spending addiction? Mr.

Struthers : First thing I'd advise Manitoba families to do is take a good hard look at what members opposite are saying when they put numbers out there that make no sense, Mr. Speaker. Last year, as part of our gov ernment's budget exercise, we took on a number of initiatives to reduce expenditures in government. We didn't take the approach of laying off 700 nurses like members opposite have said they'd do. Instead, we reduced regional health authorities from 11 down to five. Mr. Speaker, that saved millions of dollars to the Manitoba families.

That's money that we've redirected into the front lines of health care rather than cutting the front lines of health care like members opposite would do. Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Steinbach, for the final supplementary. Mr. Goertzen: The Minister of Finance is saying that we shouldn't believe the numbers that are in his own budget. Maybe we shouldn't, because we can't believe anything else that he said, Mr. Speaker. Ultimately, the government had choices. They had the choice not to take a million dollars in the vote tax, but the Minister of Finance decided that that was a priority.

They had the choice not to hire former NDP MLAs into positions that were be fore held by current NDP MLAs, but they decided they wanted to pay off their friends, Mr. Speaker. Those are the choices that he decided to make, but now he's saying to Manitoba families, you also have to make a choice. Maybe you have to not put your kid into a sports program. Maybe we're going to have to delay that family vacation. So if he's so full of advice, I want to know what advice he's going to give to those hard -working Manitoba families who are going to be sitting around the kitchen table makin g those decisions.

Does he advise they not they put their kids in sports programs, music programs, or does he advise they cancel– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member's time has expired. Mr. Struthers: Mr. Speaker, our choice was to fund, at 2.3 per cen t increase, public schools in this province so that we can support Manitoba students, we can support Manitoba families, and–very key–we can support the future of our economy in this province. Our government chose to increase spending to health care this y ear, Mr.

Speaker, not zap it by 1 per cent like people across the way would do, not reduce it by millions of dollars and show no support for the front lines. That's not the approach that we're taking. We are–we said we would reduce our spending to make su re that we take that money and put it in the front lines. We said we would do that, and we did it. PST Increase Impact on Low-Income Earners Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): The proposed increase of one point of the PST will have dramatic impacts at all levels, especially for those Manitobans who are struggling to get out of poverty.

Essentials for life for those in poverty have growing costs. An increase in the PST will apply to many incidentals there, as well, limiting the budget for food. The poor or those with disabilities or fixed income are already taxed to the max. Mr. Speaker, how will this budget help those in poverty? Is it really not taking money out of their pockets? Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Entrepreneur - ship, Training and Trade): Well, Mr. Speaker, one

1246 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 of the things that we've consistently said is that education is a great equalizer, and we've been investing in education. We've been investing in training–meaningful training. Not just any job for the sake of having a job, but we're taking a new approach where we'll be providing wraparound services for people on employment income assistance and talk to them about meaningful training opportunities for long-term sustainable employment. That's the equalizer.

Members opposite have already said what they would cut –or said that they would cut a certain amount, but they're not telling us what they would cut. And we know from past experience that they would be cutting education, Mr. Speaker. Not this government. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, in today's paper Harry Wolbert, a long- time advocate for the poor and disabled, is quoted as: Another tax increase will only hurt those who can least afford it. A hike in the PST will hurt Manitobans struggling to get out of poverty. Mr.

Speaker, why should this government expect Manitoba's most vulnerable citizens to pay for their spending addiction? Mr. Bjornson : Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I think past behaviour is the best indicator for future behaviour, and we know that there is a record on the floor across the way. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Entrepreneurship. Order, please. The honourable Minister of Entrepreneurship, Training and Trade. * (14:00) Mr. Bjornson : And we know that the Filmon government essentially declared war on EIA recipients, Mr. Speaker.

We know –we know –that they cut nearly $150 per month from the benefits of people that need the help the most. We know that a single person was –nondisabled was reduced by $40 in '93, reduced again by $14 in 1994 and reduced yet again by $95.60 in 1996. We know that it wasn't enough then, that they decided to claw back the National Child Benefit, and we ended the PC clawback to the child benefit. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time h as expired. Mr. Wishart: Mr.

Speaker, by the government's own numbers, an increase in EIA or RentAid would likely be eaten up by the increase of the PST, which Harry Wolbert has described as a regressive tax which hits our poorest and most vulnerable citi zens hardest. Mr. Speaker, why is this government targeting Manitoba's poor to play for their –pay for their spending habits? Mr. Bjornson : Mr. Speaker, every family should have a roof over their head, should have food on the table, and that's what we're doing by focusing on what matters most in this budget: investing in education, investing in supports for families.

And again, in my last answer I didn't quite get it on the record, but I'll remind members opposite that when they clawed back the child tax benefit, it was a $48-million loss to families in Manitoba, $48 million for the most vulnerable people. And we ended that clawback and made sure that that universal child tax benefit stayed with the parents, Mr. Speaker. These benefits put $533 per month into the hands of a single parent with two small children –$533 per month. They clawed it back. Mr. Speaker, we're on the side of education and supports and trainings –training for meaningful employment for families.

That's our– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. VLTs Additional Terminals Mr. Cliff Cullen (Spruce Woods): Mr. Speaker, it's very clear this NDP governmen t is hooked on the revenue generated by VLTs. Despite a so -called moratorium, the NDP have increased the number of VLTs in Manitoba almost every year since 1999. With the announcement of 500 more machines yesterday, this brings the total increase in VLTs to 1,850. This represents a 42 per cent increase in VLTs since 1999. Clearly, the NDP need to feed their spending habit.

Unfortunately, they are doing this on the backs of some of Manitoba's most vulnerable. I ask the minister how much money the additional 500 VLTs will generate for this NDP government.

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1247 Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act ): Mr. Speaker, it's a bit rich coming from members opposite, and they do know about rich–talk about V LTs–because they brought VLTs into the province. They also commissioned the Bostrom report, which recommended up to five First Nations casinos. And, indeed, we have been implementing that in partnership with First Nations. That's something we're proud of because it's providing significant economic development opportunities.

There'll be that for Spirit Sands in southwest Manitoba coming up. So what we're doing, Mr. Speaker, unlike members opposite, is we're also bringing social responsibility. I want to remind members opposite they brought in VLTs and they cut funding for AFM. That's the Tory approach to VLTs. Mr. Cullen: Well, the minister said yesterday it was going to generate $18 million for the NDP government, Mr. Speaker. Now, clearly, Manitobans are already the– among the highest taxed Canadians. Now the NDP are after as much of our after -tax dollars as they can get their hands on.

They plan to take another $18 million out of our pockets, this on the backs of Manitoba's most vulnerable. This will have a direct impact on Manitoba families. Mr. Speaker, I ask this government: Why has the NDP allowed themselves to become so financially dependent on gaming revenues to fund their out-of-control spending? Mr. Ashton : Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members opposite that it wasn't members on this side, it was the member for River East (Mrs.

Mitchelson), who was minister at the time, said, ultimately people choose whether or not they are going to spend their disposable income on gambling or smoking or drinking or attending a movie or going to see Phantom or going to the ballet, going to a sporting activity. People do ultimately make those decisions. I want to point out we've not added a single new site through an announcement that was made over the last couple of days. What we're doing is raising the cap from 35 to 40 machines in sites where the public is deciding to game, Mr.

Speaker, and on top of that we're putting, for the first time, 2 per cent of funding into social responsibility. That's more t han double what they put in place in the 1990s, and again, they brought in VLTs and they cut funding for AFM. Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, clearly the NDP have their hands in our pockets at any turn. We have one minister who plans to roll out 500 more VLTs to take another $18 million out of our pockets. We have another minister who wants to take at least $5 million out of Assiniboia Downs to fund his spending habits.

This will put a $50- million industry and 500 jobs at risk, an industry which has positive economic spinoff for the province. Mr. Speaker, is this NDP government in such desperate need of money it will continue to tax Manitoba's most vulnerable and at the same time put a $50-million industry at risk here in Manitoba? Mr. Ashton : Well, Mr. Speaker, the inherent contradiction is within that question, its

preamble one. We starts–the member opposite starts by talking about the change in terms that VLTs generate, but then he's got problems with the fact that we're actually reallocating not all but part of the proceeds from VLTs that currently go to Assiniboia Downs to support schools and hospitals and other needed public services in this province. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing, and Manitobans will remember this: We take no lectures from members opposite when it comes to VLTs. They brought in VLTs. They cut funding for social responsibility. That's how much they care about finding a balance in this province.

VLTs Social and Economic Impact Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Riding Mountain): Mr. Speaker, what we see is a government that is addicted to the spending and is continually increasing the number of VLTs in this province. According to surveys conducted by the Canadian Gambling Digest in 2001, Manitoba had the highest prevalence of p roblem gambling of any province at 6.1 per cent. Rather than addressing this serious issue, we see this NDP government promoting VLTs to the point of ridiculous, having increased the number of terminals by a staggering 42 per cent since 1999. In a recent

article I read, a woman talks about how she planned to end her life, not as would be expected as the VLT addict himself. She said, and I quote: I was so lost in his lies, his deceit and mental

1248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 abuse that I actually set myself up. Got my papers in order to take my– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member's time has expired. Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Healthy Living, Seniors and Consumer Affairs ): I think it's important to put some facts on the record. Since 1999, we have increased funding by about 115 per cent and that's gone from $14.4 million to $34.8 million. It's also interesting to note that the former government moved funding from $10.4 million to $9.6 million, and that happened between 1997 and 1998.

I'm pleased to be a part of a government th at continues to support addictions and support individuals who need those services, and I'm pleased to be a minister that's moved so that we have multiple agencies creating wonderful supports and wonderful services throughout the province. And I'm also pleased that we have gambling supports– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Mrs. Rowat: What I hear from this member is he's proud that he is a part of a government that has the highest prevalence of problem gambling in our province at 6.1 per cent. Mr.

Speaker, a study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry noted that VLTs in communities and casinos are the No. 1 and 2 modes of gambling associated with problem gambling among Canadian women aged 50 and under. The provincial government has–the Provincial Council of Women in 2009 had requested that the government create an independent working group to examine the social and economic costs of gambling. Mr.

Speaker, I ask this government: We all know of the social and economic damages caused to families when a family member becomes an addict to VLTs, so why are they ignoring the victims of the VLTs, the spouses and the families? Mr.

Rondeau : In addition to moving the funding from $9.63 million to about $20 million just in AFM and having support systems for gambling throughout the entire system –I believe it's 37 sites where you can get support –I think it's also interesting to note that we now have a program, the resource centre – Resource Assistance for Youth program that wasn't around before that focuses on youth that need support. I'm pleased that we have contracted Macdonald Youth Services; they have, again, a number of support services that were not around before. And, again, Two Ten Recovery is a good example at transition housing.

I'm pleased that we continue to expand the supports that are available, not just the– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Mrs. Rowat: And this is a government that actually closes AFM services through the Christmas season, Mr. Speaker. In a conversation with a family battling VLT addiction, the spouse said, and I quote: It angers me that the government can only see fit to trickle some money down to them of the billions they are making.

Gambling can cause acute depression a nd impoverishment. * (14:10) As the former member of Burrows stated of VLTs in 1998, use of gambling as a revenue -raising device means that these least able to pay often pay. And I guess –I ask the minister again: Is it this government–is this governmen t so greedy that it won't sacrifice VLT revenues until Manitoba's families lose everything, everything that is important to them? Mr. Rondeau : I'm pleased that when the members opposite brought in VLTs they actually cut the funding to addictions.

I'd like to let people know that we have prevention, early intervention services that have– very extensive. In fact, there's about 39,000 people who get those services, and they didn't exist when you were in government. Pretreatment: we have good detox syst ems, and there's about 1,800 people who avail themselves of that. And also, Mr. Speaker, we continue to expand and enhance the service. So it's not just the breadth, but it's the depth of the services, and I'm pleased that not only do we have services here in Winnipeg but all over. And, Mr.

Speaker, in conclusion, they closed AFM services in the summer, and I'm pleased to be the minister that opened them up. Tax Increase Impact on Manitobans Mr. Brian Pallister (Leader of the Official Opposition): Well, quite a spectacle, Mr. Speaker,

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1249 trying to wrap the blanket of a hero around themselves for treating a problem they're making worse. Whatever happened to the promise not to increase the number of VLTs? Another broken promise. But this tells us the di fference. It frankly tells us the difference yet again between this party and our own. The reality is that the NDP thinks –they really believe that Manitoba will become stronger if they take more money away from the people of the province, whether it's through gambling revenues, taxation penalties of various kinds.

They believe this province will be made stronger if Manitobans are made weaker. And that's why they bring in record tax increases over the last year. That's why they've taken $1,600 more just in the last 12 months away from Manitoba households. That's why they want to raise the PST from 7 to 8. That's why they want to eliminate the right of Manitobans to vote on tax increases. And, frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves. We believe Mani tobans deserve hope. This government is– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The leader's time has expired. Hon.

Greg Selinger (Premier): We believe Manitobans deserve jobs and an affordable cost of living. That's what'll make a difference in our province. That's why, Mr. Speaker, while the Leader of the Opposition was away from the House, a few things changed. A two- income family of $60,000 pays $2,400 less when the last time the member was here, a two -income family of $80,000 pays $300– $3,372 less than when t he member was here last time, and a two -income family of four at $100,000 pays $3,800 less than when the last time the member was here. Yes, Mr. Speaker, things have changed for the better.

People pay less, and more people are working than ever in the history of the province. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition has the floor. Provincial Comparisons Mr. Pallister: Yes, thanks for the history lesson. Mr. Speaker, the Premier's competing against a team that competed in a league 20 years ago, and he's losing against the teams that he's competing against today. We have the least competitive tax environment in western Canada.

Other provinces move ahead; this province falls behind because of the consequences of a have-not government. So reality is that taxes have gone up. We are less competitive than Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario in most categories, west of Québec the highest level of basic personal deduction. We start taxing people earlier here than any province west of New Brunswick.

We punish low-income people in this family because the government insists on taking money out of their hands and pretending to help them with ribbon cuttings funded by the children of the people they are ripping off with their tax hikes. Let me ask this Premier why he insists on fighting the battles of yesterday instead of turning to the future and competing with the people in other provinces who have a better vision of where they want to take their people in their jurisdiction than he has ever demonstrated in his time in office. Mr.

Selinger: People are paying less taxes than when he was last here, and more people are working than ever in the history of the province. T hat's the reality. And in today's cost of living and taxes, Mr. Speaker, our Manitoba advantage, a two- earner family of five earning $75,000 has moved into first place in Canada for cost of living, and all families in Manitoba are in the top three for cos t of living, as they have jobs, as they have a future. And that's why we did the skills agenda, Mr. Speaker, 75,000 more skilled workers over the next eight years.

We're investing in real hope, which means jobs, education and training. The Leader of the Opposition says he would cancel–cancel–all hydro projects for export. We're going to build it and we're going to create jobs for Manitobans, Mr. Speaker. Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Reduction Strategies Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Height s): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) boasted about the government's Healthy Child Committee, which is a mini -Cabinet of 10 ministers

1250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 presided over the Minister of Children and Youth Opportunities. This mega-committee is not effective. There has been no improvement. The extent of alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the number of children diagnosed with FASD are not going down. I table figure 8 from the government's own report. I ask the Minister of Children and Youth Opportunities: What specific measures is he taking to reduce the high level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy in Manitoba? Hon. Kevin Chief (Minister of Children and Youth Opportunities): Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question. First off, I'd like to talk about the report where he got his information, the Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet, the first of its kind in the country. Of course, we're committed to research and data and evaluation, and that's why he's –be–able to reference the mat erial. Also, we're committed to making that report public, Mr. Speaker, so our community organizations and people in our community can actually get that information. Some highlights from that –I know the member said that there wasn't improvements at the p renatal stage.

There's been improved access to care before six months. New mothers, we've seen increased high school graduation. There's been, you know, with our Prenatal Benefit, there's support for mothers from low income, healthy baby weight, our Famili es First home visiting program. So I'm glad that the member was able to use– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Alcohol Consumption Infant Mortality Rate Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Minister–Mr.

Speaker, I thank the minister for the report, which was well done, but the fact of the matter is that the report shows that there's not been the progress we should have. Indeed, high rates of alcohol use during pregnancy contribute not only to FASD but also to Manitoba's high infant mortality rates. As this table – this piece that I reference–I table shows, the evidence is clear; the government's mega -committee is not effective, you know. In contrast, smoking during pregnancy started going down only after there was an All-Party Task Force on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, which recommended effective changes.

I ask the Premier: Will he consider calling an– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member's time has expired. Order, please. The member's tim e has expired. Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): I thank the member for the question. The all-party task force on tobacco consumption was a useful exercise, as was the all -party task force on healthy kids. We have seen a decline in smoking in Manitoba. Ther e is a correlation between the cost of cigarettes and the consumption of cigarettes, and we have seen a dramatic decline in the consumption of tobacco in Manitoba.

If the member has any good ideas, we're very open to listening to them and finding ways to work with him as we move forward to make sure the health outcomes for all young mothers and all young families improve in this province and, indeed, across the country by the interventions we take. Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Reduction Strategies Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the fact is the mega- committee is not working despite many, many questions from the Liberal Party over the last decade. With regard to FASD, the number of children identified with FASD is not decreasing. The cost, Mr.

Speaker, of each child with FASD is estimated at a lifetime cost of $1 million per child, and I table this. With an average of a hundred new children being diagnosed with FASD each year, and that's not a complete number, the cost of FASD to Manitobans from this government's inaction is now more than $1.3 billion. I ask the Premier: Will he call today an all -party task force into reducing alcohol– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Member's time has expired. * (14:20) Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, FASD is a scourge for any family that experiences it and any young child.

There's no question about it, which is why we did put an FASD strategy in place and which is why Manitoba is the site of global research on AF–FASD.

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1251 One of the things that 's being done under the Canada-Israel Committee for health is to take a look at how we can do path -breaking work on FASD, and the Prenatal Benefit is a solid foundation for that, with the home visiting program that's done by nurses through the Families Fir st program. We are finding that with proper nutrition we can reduce the incidence of S –FASD in families, which is why the visiting program and the prenatal program have been and made a great difference and are looked at around the world as very good interventions.

If the member of the–Leader of the Liberal Party has any other suggestions, we'd be happy to work with him on other ways we can improve outcomes for these young families, because there's no doubt we can make improvements in Manitoba and will make improvements in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. International Students New Legislation Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): One of the fundamental and important ingredients to build any society is to support education. Personally I have done that and – at my family level, and I have been very proud to share with the young residents of my constituency and others in the province.

International students coming to our province enrich the educational, social, cultural and economic fabric of our society. Can I ask the Minister of Advanced Education to share with the House on her new legislation to attract more students to our province? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Erin Selby (Minister of Advanced Education and Literacy): I thank the member for the question. Mr. Speaker, nearly 7,000 international students choose Manitoba as the place to study each year. Those students bring more than $150 million annually into our economy, but more importantly, they enrich our classrooms and our society.

We know people from around the world are choosing Manitoba for the quality of our education, and, Mr. Speaker, this bill, the first of its kind in Canada, will ensure that international students are treated fairly, are working with reputable providers and have supports in place to help them succeed. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba is indeed a friendly province to come and learn in. Thank you. Jan Roux Rural Residency Appointment Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur- Virden): Mr. Speaker, the Virden and area recruitment and retention committee supported a local doct or–a local student, Dr.

Jan Roux, to get his doctorate of medicine internationally. They invested $70,000 with full knowledge of this NDP government for a return of service agreement. The minister's own department put in another $30,000 for $100,000 in tot al. It's obvious that six years ago the minister knew a residency would be needed for Dr. Roux, who wants to practise family rural medicine in Virden with his father. Mr. Speaker, why, after six years of her knowledge of this issue, Jan–has Jan Roux not –still not been able to get a residency match in Manitoba? Hon.

T heresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I've spoken on a number of occasions with the member opposite on this issue. I believe I made it clear to the member then, but I will endeavour to do so again. The faculty of medicine, of course, is charged with the allotting of residencies. They go through a very rigorous process, academic as well as a variety of competencies. This particular individual was not selected for that residency.

We are asking t he faculty of medicine, at the member's request, to take a second look, but I'm quite sure that the member opposite isn't suggesting that politicians should decide who get residencies rather than medical professionals. Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, the minister is the one that indicated that Dr. Roux would get to practise with his father in his own home community. The minister bragged about expanding the number of rural and northern residencies for doctors by seven just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in this House. Yet Dr.

Roux–who's here with us in the gallery today–and in spite of the minister's own department investing her $30,000 in his training and knowing of his return of service agreement for years, still he and other Manitoba -based doctors aren't able to receive residency positions in this province. Can the minister explain how putting more of her own department's money into residency positions will meet the needs of rural and northern citizens' medical needs when she's turning away y oung rural Manitoba doctors that fit her own criteria perfectly, Mr. Speaker?

1252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 Ms. Oswald: I would say to the member that we absolutely want to recruit more doctors, which is why during challenging times we increased the spaces in medical school. We don't cut them like the members opposite. Further, Mr. Speaker, we also, as the member announced, provided 15 additional residencies we announced just last week. And I would say to the member, I would say to the individual in the gallery today, that the faculty of medicine makes this decision based on academics, based on performance.

This individua l wasn't chosen; I'm sorry for that, but, indeed, that is the faculty of medicine's decision. Mr. Maguire: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I've said, a hundred thousand dollars been invested by their local retention committee and her department. So, Mr. Speaker, now Dr. Roux's been told that, quote, pursuing your residency out of the country may be the best option at this point, end quote, in spite of the minister announcing seven new rural and northern residents' positions in the House, as I've said, yesterday. Mr.

Speaker, why is the minister not concerned about spending about a hundred–spending a hundred thousand dollars of local and RHA funds being invested and yet is not accepting rural Manitoba based doctors in residency? Ms. Oswald: I'm deeply concerned abo ut increasing our spaces in medical school and not cutting them. I'm deeply concerned about getting more doctors to Manitoba, not sending them away year after year after year like they did under the members opposite. I'm deeply concerned– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, to complete her answer. Ms.

Oswald: Thank you very much. I'm deeply concerned about all Manitobans having the highest quality care. And if this is an indication of how the Progressive Conservatives would run medical school, that is to say, they would appoint their friends regardless of qualifications, then we all have problems. Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to members' statements, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Shellie Power and the Hope Centre Ministries tea m who are the guests of the honourable member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler). On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Hope Centre Ministries Mr.

Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): On April 27th, I had the privilege of attending a fundraising event for organization that exhibits and celebrates a gift and uniqueness of individuals who live with disabilities, an organization that supports specially gifted people in their walk with God in their faith communities. This unique and outstanding organization, Hope Centre Ministries, hosted a weekend conference at McIvor Avenue Mennonite Brethren Church for churches and other Christian organizations and ministries who want to grow in their u nderstanding of inclusion.

Organizer and Director of Spiritual Care Shellie Power and her volunteers provide a professional learning opportunity for anyone who was interested in supporting meaningful inclusion for people with disabilities in a church setting including pastors, volunteers, children and minister 'treams', teachers, group leaders and family members. Participants discovered that through this organization they'd access tools for their Sunday school teachers, youth leaders, access information on pacific disabilities and seek consultation to address barriers to inclusion.

Saturday night, covenant reform church on Knowles Avenue provided the venue for spectacular concert featuring international -acclaimed singer - songwriter, visionary and Pastor, Brian Doerksen. Though he currently hails from Abbotsford, British Columbia, Brian has strong Manitoba ties, and together with his band he led hundreds of people and including those the disabilities in their celebration of community through worship and song.

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1253 It was a beautiful picture of what a community everywhere can–should be. One hundred per cent of all funds raised 'goward' –goes towards providing spiritual care for individuals with disabilities.

Thanks to this initiative which will become an annual e vent, people now have a greater understanding of how they can partner with Hope Ministries in providing valuable services to people with disabilities here in this city and province; services such as camp retreats, fellowship and friendship art groups that address isolation that often exists with people on margins of society, and opportunities for community service and worship. People can become involved in fostering inclusion beyond physical needs and vulnerable people by supporting become involved in this compassionate non-profit organization. Mr.

Speaker, it is my hope that all members of the House will avail themselves to the knowledge that Hope Centre Ministries has to offer regarding universal access to ensure all Manitobans, regardless of perceived ability, have the opportunity to partake in everything is great this province has to offer. We all have gifts –they differ. I ask all members of this House to join me in welcoming Shellie Power and the fine folks from Hope Ministries * (14:30) WestJet Air Service (Brandon) Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an exciting development in my home community of Brandon.

Yesterday WestJet announced that it is coming to the Wheat City of Canada. Starting this fall western Manito bans will have access to daily non -stop flights to and from Calgary through WestJet's regional service known as Encore. I would like to begin my remarks by thanking WestJet, the City of Brandon, the Brandon Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Brandon and the gre at many Brandon citizens who lobbied long and hard to make the business case for bringing national air service back to Brandon.

Brandon is the economic hub of western Manitoba, and this will give the city even more connectivity with the wider world: to tou rism and business opportunities, to conferences and conventions and to national and global markets. Mr. Speaker, our government knows something about working to build the conditions necessary for stimulating economic development. Against the opposition of the PC Party, we worked together with others to build the MTS Centre and return the National Hockey League to Manitoba.

In Brandon, we built the Keystone Agriculture Centre of Excellence, which our opponents ridiculed as Cadillac barns, and in hosting the Memorial Cup we transformed the Keystone Centre into a national venue for sports, entertainment and business. At Brandon Municipal Airport, McGill Field, we worked with the City and federal government to install a $1.5 -million instrument landing system.

This renewal of airport infrastructure to the standards required for modern air service enabled Brandon to accommodate aircraft landing in a wide range of conditions and was a fundamental piece of airport infrastructure required to secure regularly schedu led air service. The arrival of WestJet is yet another acknowledgement of Brandon's key role as an urban hub in western Canada. Our government looks forward to working further with our partners in Brandon to ensure that the city continues to take off into the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Robert Ferguson Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): Mr.

Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to pay tribute to Robert Flemming Scott Ferguson, a proud Manitoban. Bob is a retired school teacher and has resided in Neepawa s ince 1975. He has spent many years serving his community and volunteering his time with numerous clubs and organizations. His true passion, however, lies in promoting the Legion and conserving Canada's military history. Bob lost two uncles in World War II , one on Juno Beach on D -Day and one at Antwerp. Bob has dedicated much of his life to Canadian servicemen and women, raising awareness of their service to our town and country.

When Bob first arrived in Neepawa he focused his attention into promotion of the Legion and the air cadet squadron. His air cadet service is impressive. He enrolled as an officer in 1976 and completed courses at CFB Winnipeg. He was promoted to squadron commander in '77 in charge of 75 air cadets. He remains as a squadron training officer today. Bob became an executive member of the Royal Canadian Legion in '76 and remains part of this organization still. He served as president for three

1254 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 terms, has chaire d numerous committees within the Legion, including chair of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations in '76, the Year of the Veteran in 2005 and the Veterans Gala in 2006. He was also the school liaison for the Legion Poem and Poster Essay contests and wrote Volum e 3, History of Manitoba and Northwest Ontario Command, '57 to '87. He has been the Remembrance Day co -organizer in Neepawa for many years along with being involved in the Poppy Day blitz for Neepawa and area. November 11th is such an important day to Bob.

He helps to host services in Neepawa that see more than 500 people in attendance and those numbers are growing. In '91 Bob was chosen to represent Manitoba and the Northwest Ontario Command of the Royal Canadian Legion on the Pilgrimage of Remembrance with nine other command representatives and members of veterans–and a number of veterans. They were given a tour of the battlefields in Europe where our Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen fought for our freedom. More recently, in 2009 Bob helped the Neepawa Legion branch organize a send off for 400 troops from CFB Shilo who were being 'disployed' to Afghanistan.

Bob has been involved in volunteer programs that visit care homes, the royal Canadian veterans survey program. Since 2006, he has visited approximately 350 war veterans. In 2012, Bob was nominated and received the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal for community service. Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud Robert Ferguson for all his community involvement and particularly for his dedication to honouring those that sacrificed their lives so that we can live in peace and freedom. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fifth Anniversary of the Filipino Nurses Recruitment Mission Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): Mr.

Speaker, 2013 marks an anniversary that is special to the Filipino and health-care communities. Five years ago, nurses were recruited from the Philippines to work in Manitoba. More nurses were needed across the province, especially in rural areas. A strong partnership between the Province, the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba, the Manitoba Nurses Union and the Philippine Nurses Association of Manitoba made this mission a success. More than 120 nurses arrived, exceeding the provincial target of 100 new nurses.

The recruitment mission, as well as su pport for the nurses after arriving, was very well organized and streamlined. A community settlement and integration plan was critical in supporting the nurses to settle in their new communities and has been key to longer term retention. These nurses have made a real difference to patients and families in over 20 communities across our province. In this situation, we all win. These well-educated and highly skilled nurses helped prevent hospital closures. Also, they have boosted morale among employees by increasing the staffing levels and strengthening support systems.

These health-care professionals have been wonderful additions to the nursing and Filipino- Manitoba communities and have paved the way for many more Filipino nurses to come to Manitoba. These nurses have strengthened our health- care system and expanded the Manitoba multicultural mosaic. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. WestJet Air Service (Brandon) Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate WestJet Encore, the City and residents of Brandon and western Manitoba on the announcement yesterday of air services between Brandon and Calgary starting September 3rd, 2013.

Indeed, I was pleased to be there for a –that announcement; it was very important for Brandon. There h as been a great deal of work done by many, many people in Brandon area and, of course, by WestJet to make this dream a reality. The mayor, Shari Decter Hirst, and city council; Scott Thompson, city manager; Sandy Trudel, economic development officer; and Nate Andrews, president of the chamber of commerce, are just a few of the people whose efforts should be noted. Brandon-Souris Member of Parliament Merv Tweed was also instrumental in bringing WestJet Encore to Brandon. Mr.

Speaker, early flights are alrea dy getting booked up, giving an early indication that WestJet has a good business plan. WestJet has said time and time again that if the numbers worked, if the business plan looked viable, they would fly into Brandon. Mr. Speaker, I know with two of our own children in Calgary attending university, our family will make frequent use of WestJet, and I'm sure

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1255 many others in Brandon and western Manitoba as well. It was indeed a thrill to see Brandon on WestJet's site on the drop-down menu as a destination. So, Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to be there yesterday with many, many other people from Brandon and western Manitoba, and I'm sure all members of Manitoba's Legislative Assembly would join me in welcoming WestJet Encore to Brandon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Grievances. Any grievances? Seeing none– ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon.

Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on government business. For the information of the House, tomorrow we'll be considering the Opposition Day motion, and we're ready to proceed with debate on Bill 20. Mr. Speaker: For the information of the House, it has been announced that tomorrow the House will be considering the Opposition Day motion sponsored by the honourable member for Midland (Mr. Pedersen). DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 20–The Manitoba Building and Renewal Funding and Fiscal Management Act (Various Acts Amended) Mr.

Speaker: And now we'll be considering Bill 20 on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), Bill 20, The Manitoba Building and Renewal Funding and Fiscal Management Act (Various Acts Amended), and the amendment thereto , standing in the name of the honourable member for Emerson, who has seven minutes remaining. Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Well, Mr. Speaker, and it gives me great pleasure to finish my talk and my advice to the members across the way. * (14:40) And, Mr.

Speaker, you know, it would be quite simple that we would be able to move forward in this province if the NDP government would unbreak the promises that they have done in the last two years. If they would just say, we are going to obey the law; we are going to call a referendum on the PST. If they would say that today and get 'er done, we would be able to do a lot more in this House. But it would appear, Mr.

Speaker, it would appear that the mission statement of the NDP government goes something like this: they're the ones who feel a great deal of debt to their fellow man, which debt they propose to pay off with their fellow man's money. And as we've heard today, that's exactly what they're doing. They couldn't cut the budget by 1 per cent. No, they had to raise that 1 per cent, but that's 3 per cent of the average Manitoban's income. So they want to lay that hurt on everyone in the province to the tune of $1,600 to a family of four; that's unconscionable.

There's a number of broken promises and a number of other issues that are affecting Manitobans and one of them is a vote tax. The vote tax that this NDP government has taken to fill their own pockets, every member on that side of the House will benefit by $7,000 from the vote tax–$7,000 for each member sitting there who sat in their chair and would not get up and answer questions, who would not get up and walk out and face Manitobans on the front step, who instead scurried out the back door just last week. See, Mr. Speaker, Mark Twain had a quote not so long ago.

It was a few years, but not that long ago: If you don't read the newspapers you're uninformed, but if you do read them –in Manitoba –you're misinformed. You're misinformed because of their ads in the paper, constantly in the paper professing all of the good things about the budget and leaving out the fallacies, leaving out the truths of the budget that they are not prepared to cut their budget by 1 per cent, but they will cut every Manitoban's budget by 3 per cent. And they are spending thousands a nd thousands and thousands upon thousands of dollars to do that. And there was another great man, J.P.–or P.J.

O'Rourke, who said: For those who think that health care is expensive, now wait until you see what it costs when it's free. And our members acro ss the way would say that health care is free. Tell that to the people that are having babies on the side of the road. Tell that to the hospitals that have closed ERs; 40 per cent of Manitoba's budget goes into health care and we have a minister that can't keep doctors here, that will not hire doctors after expending $100,000 on this particular doctor, and won't see that he has a job in the province. He will have a job in Saskatchewan, and without a doubt his father will

1256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 step across that imaginary line that separates a have-not province –or a have -not government in a have province to a province that has a have government and a have province. Mr. Speaker, I guess I will quote Mark Twain one more time, and this was a quote in 19–in 1866, which 147 years later holds true –says: No man's life's, liberty or prosperity is safe while this Legislature is sitting. And that's a fact. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) has made it clear to all Manitobans, it doesn't matter what you have I'm going to get it.

I'm going to get it and I'm going to waste it. I'm not going to invest it. So, in closure, Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill said it best: This inherent advice of capitalism is on equal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessings of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Cliff Cullen ( Spruce Woods): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was looking forward to having some members of government speak to this important motion on Bill 20.

I know the Minister of Finance–clearly, it's his legislation that he's trying to change, and I thought he might take the opportunity to speak to this motion that was brought forward by the member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger). And I think, Mr. Speaker, it's important to– maybe just to remind the government what that motion is on the books so that we could have a good discussion about it. An Honourable Member: We can read it on the Order Paper. Mr. Cullen: And I will, Mr. Speaker, and maybe the members don't take time to read the Order Paper.

So I'm going to take this opportunity to remind them what this motion is about. And, basically, what we're saying is is the House has not received satisfactory evidence or assurances that an increase in the retail sales tax was either considered or recommended at the government's prebudget consultation meetings, Mr. Speaker. And that's pretty clear, and we've asked, over the course of the last few question periods since the budget was introduced, who actually asked for the increase in the provincial sales tax here in Manitoba.

Now, we know the government, in last year's budget, they certainly broadened the provincial sales tax that impacted pretty well every Manitoban across this province, Mr. Speaker. And I guess, really, that was just the precursor for an increase in the percentage in sales tax this year because this increase will certainly impact every Manitoban and will, actually, will impact a lot more goods and services across our great province. So clearly, after multiple questions, we didn't get any answers from the government, in terms of who was actually asking for the increase in the provincial sales tax.

And we've gone out, and we've talked to Manitobans across the country and across Manitoba, and no one that we can find has asked for an increase in the provincial sales tax, Mr. Speaker. In fact, you know, we've got the Manitoba and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation certainly opposed to it. We've got the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who are actually doing surve ys of their membership, and certainly a substantial number of Manitobans, I believe the figure was 72 per cent of Manitobans, were in–opposed to that increase. Mr.

Tom Nevakshonoff, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair Clearly, in the business community, a lot of the business community –almost–I think it was over 90 per cent of the business community, were opposed to an increase in the provincial sales tax, because clearly that will have an impact on business operations and, in fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, an impact on all Manitobans and the economy of the province. And then we get a company like the Bank of Montreal who haven't –take a good look in terms of what the repercussions will be of a 1 per cent, or an increase of one point in the provincial sales tax.

And clearly, the alarm bells should have rang over in the NDP benches when we get numbers coming in from the Bank of Montreal, in terms of what the economic impact will be as a result of this increase in the provincial sales tax, Mr. Speaker. So, clearly, I t hink this is an important motion. We hope that the government would have stood up and addressed where they felt there was a need to increase the PST here in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, and maybe I should just talk about some of the numbers, some of the financial numbers that the NDP have got themselves in. You know, we had the Premier (Mr.

Selinger), he was the Minister of Finance for a number of years prior to being Premier. He certainly should know where the financial situation is developing in terms of the pr ovincial finances. And, clearly, the Minister of Finance has inherited the

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1257 policies and the deficit budgeting and the inherent debt in that with–over the past few years. In fact, this particular budget proposes a $500-million deficit. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is even given the increase and the broadening of the PST last year, covering a lot of extra goods and services that Manitobans use. And it also includes the enhanced revenue, about $200 million from the increase, and that turns out to be a 14 per cent increase in the provincial sales tax this year.

Even given those hundreds of extra –hundreds of millions of dollars of extra revenue that have come into the NDP coffers, the budget this year still predicts a $500-million deficit. * (14:50) So, clearly, the government is looking for ways to generate revenue. The NDP are clearly not looking at ways to cut their expenses. They haven't signalled any time to look in the mirror and reflect back and say, maybe we should curtail some of our spending in some areas. They're still continued on the idea that they can spend more money and that will solve all of our problems. Unfortunately, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we see a government that is bent on spending more, but, unfortunately, Manitobans see we are getting less out–at the end of the day. The only thing that really has increased though, at the hands of the NDP government, is the provincial debt. The provincial debt is going to be, according to this year's budget, over $30 billion at the end of this fiscal year, Mr. S peaker. And that's a substantial amount of money and clearly that's the money that will have to be paid back by our children and our grandchildren down the road.

And I want to just make a point of reminding members what a $30- billion debt means to us and what it means on an ongoing basis on an annual budget, Mr. Speaker. And what it means to the province of Manitoba is that we are losing $850 million in our provincial budget each and every year. That's $850 million out of a $12- billion budget that has to b e paid for interest to service that debt that we have. So that's $850 million that cannot be used for health care, cannot be used for education, cannot be used for infrastructure, cannot be used for social services.

Now, the government, a few years ago, had a bit of a plan in their budget where they were going to try to turn that around. We were going to get back to a balanced budget, but in this year's budget there's no sign of a plan to go forward and how we are going to curtail their spending and move t owards a balanced budget, Mr. Speaker. So, instead, they're looking for any kinds of revenue that they can get their hands on. You know, when I talk about debt -servicing charges, I'm not even talking about Crown corporations and the debt that Crown corporations carry.

I know Manitoba Hydro has about a $9-billion debt they're carrying right now, and in terms of debt financing, it's a pretty substantial amount of money. It's over $400 million a year that Manitoba Hydro has to pay to service their debt they have, and that's $400 million that we, as Manitoba Hydro ratepayers, are forced to pay out of our pockets. And that's why we see our hydro rates going up 8 per cent over the past year, and that's why we see the NDP and Manitoba Hydro looking at a 4 and a half per cent increase in our hydro rates for the next 20 years.

And, clearly, that's going to be fairly substantial and that's going to impact Manitobans for many years to come. So, if you combine the $850 million that comes out of our provincial debt budget each year –pardon me–provincial budget each year, combine that with the $400 million that Manitoba Hydro has for debt-servicing costs, Mr. Deputy Speaker –that is over $1.2 billion that we, as Manitoba taxpayers and ratepayers, are paying on interest. Th ose are strictly interest costs that we have to pay on the current provincial debt.

And I say current, because the budget appears that we are going to continue to grow the debt in the foreseeable future because there's no plan to turn that around. And, Mr. Speaker, the other, I think, would be a scary predicament for most Manitobans, the NDP are looking at spending another $21 billion on hydro capital investment, and, clearly, that money will have to be borrowed as well.

So, clearly, we're going to be facing even larger debts into the future of Manitoba, and, clearly, those debts have to be paid and those debt-servicing costs will have an impact on Manitoba ratepayers and Manitoba taxpayers quite clearly. So those are some of the issues that we are in terms of where we're at now, and, unfortunately, there's no plan to turn that around. The unfortunate part of this is it really comes down to management, and we've seen a lack of planning and foresight here in Manitoba.

And I know there's been comparisons made of premiers around Canada in terms of their ability to be fiscal managers. And, unfortunately, on the rating system,

1258 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 our Premier (Mr. Selinger) has come out 10th out of 10 of the premiers that were evaluated in this most recent study, Mr. Speaker. And it 's certainly a little alarming in terms of where we're headed in terms of our gross domestic product relative to net debt. And we're clearly headed the wrong direction, and this is what the study has pointed out. It's certainly on the wrong way. We're going to be from almost 23 per cent in 2009- 10 and headed to–it was 26 per cent in '11 and '12, and the numbers are even worse after we look at this particular budget.

And this is in clear contradiction to some of the good work and some of the good management that's undertaken in other provinces. And, clearly, these policies ha ve a direct impact on taxpayers in Manitoba. Manitoba taxpayers are already one of the highest taxed provinces and as ratepayers across Canada, Mr. Speaker. And it's incumbent upon us to have a look at why we're in that situation, and, hopefully, I've been able to spell out to you the deficit position we're in and the fact that we do have to raise taxes on the backs of Manitobans to try to balance those books.

And I know we've had pretty stark comparisons to a taxpayer in Manitoba versus taxpayers in Saskatchewan, and, clearly, just the other day, we had a conversation with a chartered accountant who compared–and he has the ability to compare what he would pay in Manitoba versus Saskatchewan, and he found out that if he was a resident of Saskatchewan, he would pay $2,500 less in taxes, Mr. Speaker. Now I know the government goes on and on about the cost of living here in Manitoba, but, boy, it takes a lot of money in terms of cost of living to make up for $2,500 in the course of the year just on that one tax alone.

Now we've seen a move from the government to generate income in other ways. We've had an announcement just yesterday that the NDP will be introducing another 500 VLTs here in Manitoba. Clearly, in our mind, that's a tax grab on the backs of low-income Manitobans. And contrary to what the government tells us in terms of a moratorium on the expansion of VLTs, the numbers prove otherwise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, we've seen an increase of 1,850 VLTs when we take into account the announcement yesterday of an additional 500.

And this means the VLTs in Manitoba have increased 42 per cent since the NDP came into office in 1999. Now, clearly, the governme nt is looking to generate as much revenue as they can from VLTs because they need that money to offset their spending addiction. They have –so, no shy –no cause that they are going to turn around and stop their spending. Clearly, it's a spending addiction, M r.

Speaker, and as a result they're also addicted to the income generated from the gaming here in the province of Manitoba, and as a result of that addiction, they're looking to find as many ways to generate as much money as they possibly can. And, clear ly, when generating money from VLTs, as I said, it's really on the backs of some of the most vulnerable Manitobans that we have. And clearly, those Manitobans will be facing challenges.

Those Manitoba families will be facing challenges as they go forward because they will be covering different issues relative to the gaming problems, and it certainly is serious for Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, you know we see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) who's clearly–the Minister of Finance has had a bad month since he introduced his budget. He's had very little–very few people, very few companies, industry, any stakeholders that are supporting his budget, so he's had a bit of a tough sell with his budget.

And, in fact, probably even worse for him la st night; his Maple Leafs took it on the chin with the Boston Bruins, and I know that was probably the last thing that the Minister of Finance wanted to hear, especially given the fact that the Maple Leafs were up 4-1 at one time and then lost in overtime. So, just to cap off a bad month for the Minister of Finance, his Leafs are now out of the playoffs and he's going to have to look for somebody else to cheer for.

But the Minister of Finance is also –seems to be headed down a path where he wants to kill a nother industry in Manitoba, and that's the horse racing industry here in Manitoba. And he's clearly driven by money, by greed; he wants to get his hands on as much money as he possibly can to finance his own spending habits, Mr. Acting Speaker.

And what he's proposing is to take $5 million out of revenue that's generated at Assiniboia Downs and use it for his own spending addiction. * (15:00) And he's also threatened to change The Pari - Mutuel Levy Act, which says that money generated by the industry is to go back to enhance and promote the industry in Manitoba, and I would think it would be fairly bold of the Minister of Finance to change that legislation to take that money out of the industry and use for his own good. But we are looking

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1259 forward to the minister introducing that legislation to see what it says so we can have an honest debate about the idea of moving money that's generated by the industry and moving it into–potentially, into government coffers. So we look forward to that. The point of this motion is to go back and have a real hard look at the existing balanced budget, debt repayment and taxpayer protection act, and it's pretty clear what the act spells out. And it says the government shall not present to the Legislative Assembly a bill to in crease the rate of any tax imposed by

an act or part of

an act listed below unless the government first puts the question of advisability of proceeding with such a bill to the voters of Manitoba in a referendum and a majority of the persons who vote in the referendum authorize the government to proceed with the changes. That's the point of the matter and that's what we're here about and that's why we're opposed to Bill 20. And I thank the member from Charleswood to bring in this motion in relation to Bill 20, which, I think, is a very positive motion that should be discussed by the NDP as well.

With that, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on this particular motion, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): It's a pleasure to rise and put a few words on record in support of our member from Charleswood's recent amendment, and it gives us an opportunity to have another look at the implications of Bill 20. And, of course, we're all very concerned that it does away with the balanced budget legi slation and in the process, of course, takes away Manitobans' rights to have a voice in any major tax changes.

And certainly that is something that most Manitobans did not expect from this government, and, in fact, I'm pretty sure in the budget consultation process that no one suggested not only increasing the PST, but then striking down the balanced budget legislation. So they're moving very quickly to take away all of their obstacles to balancing the budget any time in the future or in fact stopping them from doing anything in terms of changing taxes in this province.

And I think it's a sign that Manitobans should be very concerned, because it would make it–it makes it very easy to do further increases, and, certainly, we've seen all signs that that could easily happen again–as has been pointed out by previous speakers that they still haven't dealt with their annual deficit. They're still going to have a deficit of over $500 million, and that certainly doesn’t bode well for where they're going to go into t he future. It shows really a lack of respect for Manitobans that they do nothing really to move to consult with them on this issue.

It really comes down to: We know better; we're going to spend your money for you; and it really doesn't matter whether you l ike what we're going–what our priorities are or not. It certainly wasn't something that they went through the election to get a mandate to do. I suspect that there's a lot of ND me–NDP members across the way that are very, very uncomfortable with where things are going here and with the comments that they frequently get, I'm sure, from members of their constituencies.

We're certainly hearing from a lot of people about the problem, as they see it, with spending, and I'm sure that the members across the floor are no different – that they're getting comments as well too. And I hope that they're standing their ground and trying to defend what has been done, because it will make for some interesting discussions out in the community. It would hardly be fair to have run an election on not increasing taxes and having a balanced budget and then hiding from the constituents because you actually went against your word.

Now, certainly we've seen very little support for the increase in the PST. We see a lot of major groups like AMM and the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce and the Manitoba Business Council as well as the Heavy Construction Association who did talk before the election about needing the revenue that 1 per cent on the PST woul d generate to help to deal with the infrastructure debt–deficit that's in this province, but that is not what we've accomplished with this increase in the PST. Really, only a very small amount has actually gone towards increasing infrastructure.

In fact, t he myth that was a – perpetuated the day that we saw Bill 20 come forward, was that this was for –to deal with flooding issues. Well, we know that that's two years in the past, and certainly, if we will look at how that money is being spent, we would find a big portion of that is actually money that they will, in fact, get back from the federal government over time.

But –and I –also, that $1.2-billion number that they like to use so often is really, actually, a bit of a myth, because not only will they get a big chunk of that for –money back from the federal government–and some of it, in fact, they already have gotten back. But they counted everything they could possibly in that total, which included crop insurance

1260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 payments, which was –a significant portion there of was actually producers' own money. So it seems hardly fair to tell Manitobans that this is federal expenditures–or provincial expenditures, rather, when it's, in fact, producers' own money that they're getting back through the insurance pool. It's certainly an abuse of spin doctoring, if you want to put it that way.

Now, in 2011, every member across the floor here ran in that election on a promise not to raise taxes and they received a very clear mandate on that, one that they're quite proud to brag about, but, really, that did not include any increase in the taxes.

And they campaigned door to door, and I would wonder how many of the members opposite will be very leery about going back to those doors the next time around, to see what people have to say w hen they– 1 per cent increase appears on the PST bills, and whether everybody will be happy to see them or whether or not they will find quite a different reception than they found last time. Now, Mr. Speaker, besides breaking their election promise, they made a big tax grab in many other ways. First they broadened what was covered by the PST, and then, of course, they raised it.

Now, you have to wonder, broadening it would be the obvious first step. Did they actually have that planned two years ago, when they broadened the base of the PST, that this was where they were going this year? And where does that leave us for next year? Will things be even worse for us all next year, because, as I pointed out earlier and has been pointed out by many, that they rea lly haven't balanced their budget yet this year at all? In fact, made very little progress on that direction despite the biggest tax increase in modern history.

In fact, you have to go all the way back to the Howard Pawley days to get even closer to that . But I know that the memory for history across the floor appears to be very good, so I'm sure that they're very well versed on some of the great expenditures that were done in the Howard Pawley days. Not only is they–increase in PST and where some of the money went, but good investments like MTX, where we transferred unknown amounts of dollars from Manitobans to Saudi Arabia so that they could benefit from their largesse.

Overall, Manitobans are going to play 300–or pay, $383 million more in PST alone due to the NDP's decision to expand and increase this tax over two years. That alone equates to $1,200 per year for a family of four in PST taxes. That's money for –that families have to come up with and have to dig deep for. And it's particularly hard–and I mentioned it briefly in my –in questions in question period– particularly hard for the poor, those who are on social assistance or the working poor who are struggling to make ends meet.

Because even though there are some exemptions for PST for things like food and children's clothing, many of the basic necessities of life, in fact, are covered by PST, and people have to find that money from somewhere. And very often it comes out of the food budget and we see more and more people going to food banks. And cer tainly we've been seeing a fairly dramatic increase in the use of the food banks here in Manitoba. That is not a healthy sign and certainly we're very concerned about where they're going with that.

Actually, if you include all taxes and fees –and they were certainly quick to raise a lot of the fees as well–the actual cost for a family of four increased by another $400 a year to $1,600 for a family. And that's certainly a heavy burden to be placed on a family and puts us in the highest income -tax bracket outside of Québec, and it certainly puts us in an uncompetitive position in terms of PST in western Canada. Across western Canada, we are clearly the worse for PST in the West.

Right now we are 60 per cent higher than Saskatchewan, and, of course, Alberta, wi th no PST, makes it –quite a significant difference to those that are there. Those that live in border towns have already complained about the non- competitive aspect that existed before, and this will certainly only push in that direction. A –actually, a family that lives in a border town in Melita, Manitoba –and they've certainly noticed that it's been very hard on the business community there, a lot of the business leaving to go to Saskatchewan.

And that was before the 1 per cent increase, so it certainly won't improve things. * (15:10) Now, this increase the NDP tried to sell, is dealing with the problems of Mother Nature, the flooding, and, particularly, I find that annoying, because we look at where they have spent their money in flood preparations and find that very little of it went to anything long term. They did do a little lakeshore revitalization, and certainly the river has seen its attention, but as we know they were looking

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1261 for projects where they could find cost sharing with the federal government, and they have found it. They didn't get cost sharing on all of the programs because, frankly, they didn't seem to understand the nature of the programs. The member for Lakeside (Mr.

Eichler) the other day talked about the fact that many of the anno uncements that occurred during the flood were –very clearly didn't qualify for some of the programs that they had referenced they would link to, and with my past history with Keystone Ag Producers, I knew some of those programs reasonably well from the ag side, and we did notice during the periods of announcement, that a lot of the announcements just couldn't happen within the parameters of those programs. We weren't surprised when they had a little difficulty to get some of them qualified under the federal initiatives.

I'm really quite surprised that ministers with this much experience would have had–would not have seen this coming, that they would have a problem doing some of these things [inaudible] under there. But I'm really beginning to think now tha t the flood of 2011 isn't really so much about the –solving the problems, it's about an excuse, moving into the future, Mr. Speaker. They reference it quite frequently as to why everything costs more, why they have to have more tax revenue, and in realities , I think, the–they certainly haven't paid out anywhere near what they have implied.

In fact, in my constituency we have a vast number of claimants of many different types, actually five of the six programs that were run through Manitoba Agriculture functioned inside my constituency. And, really, very few of them worked well. I saw literally hundreds of claims from different people. Some we were able to resolve reasonably well. Many got 50 per cent or less of what were they probably were owed. And also a great number were actually rejected outright through the process, some through technicalities, some through bad advice that they got.

I can't begin to count how many constituents came to me and said, well, I was turned down; why was I turned down? And we look at their situation, go back through the process, get a hold of a different adjustor and get them back into the program, and, yes, they do get paid eventually. But they were turned down the first time. How many people had the patience to go back around the second time and–or to bring it to someone like myself who had–was working with the programs and actually could realize that the parameters and where they should fit in the program?

And I suspect there are a lot of frustrated people out there who went through the first time and were told no, and didn't make the effort. And I'm –I can't help but reference one particularly touching case. A very young family that had just bought –moved back into a community and bought a business in a small community very close to the lake, that made a fair portion of its living simply from the summer tourist trade. And, of course, that was just before the 2011 flood, and it was actually devastating for their business, devastating for the community.

The tourist trade has ye t to return, though we certainly hope that we'll get it rebuilt. But that family was turned down for business interruption under the program. They were turned down for damage to their houses. And they could have fought all of this; we were quite prepared t o work with them and go through appeals process, which, by the way, would not yet have been heard. But they simply couldn't survive that long without any source of income. So they have packed up and left the community. They do hope someday to come back when things return to some semblance of normalcy in that community.

But it is simply a very sad case and very hurtful to see programs functioning that poorly this government is actually touting as being very rich programs and talking about the amount that was paid out. That number is nothing more than misleading. Now, when you look at the amount of money that actually has been paid for capital spending for infrastructure to deal with flooding is actually down in the 2012 budget by $11 million.

And we certainly hope that they will have a good look at the task force reports and 'priorize' them, but there is really nothing in the task force reports that have come out that is actually a shovel-ready project. So, given the usual time, not only to do the proper engineering, but to do environmental studies and impact statements, we're probably two or three years away before any major construction is done.

Those projects that were actually ready to go, like expansion of the gates on Shellmouth, are now no longer cons idered feasible because damage to the Shellmouth Dam from 2011 was certainly greater than anticipated. So now that project can't be completed. We also know the PST is not going towards transportation infrastructure. The budget shows

1262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 highways capital spending is only going up by $28 million. It's only 14 per cent of this year's PST increase–really not much more than maybe one small project. I think the mayors had it right when they got together very quickly after the spin was put onto infrastructure and stated very clearly that that money wasn't going to them, that the cities were not getting their share and that they were very clear on that and, I think, put an end to that spin, because it's very obvious that that money is not going where it's needed.

But they were really quick to take $1 billion for road taxes for their political operations. A political party shouldn't be raise –run on taxpayers' money. In fact, I'm very surprised that they –we haven't heard more on that from across the floor. I'm pretty s ure that most people, when they go into politics, understand that fundraising is one of the things that is involved in politics. It may not be the nicest part of the job –certainly, ribbon cutting is probably the nicest part of the job, and we see an awful lot of that going on.

But, if you went into politics and did not expect to have to do fundraising, you were really deluding yourself, Mr. Speaker, and I'm wondering how many people across the floor are –frankly, are just too lazy to do the fundraising. It is not something that many of us really enjoy, but it is something that goes with the job and you don't see anybody on this side of the House stepping back from it. In fact, our fundraising appears to be well ahead of other years, so clearly we're being fairly successful.

They did well –very well in terms of spending money on more communicators, and we see that every day in the House when we see a new spin on whatever we have had to say the day or the previous days. And clearly they have more than enough s taff to deal with those spins, but I'm wondering how the public is seeing this. Public gets very tired of that kind of spin doctoring that goes on as well. Now, I can go on here, there are a number of other comments I'd like to make, but one of the very important ones is the issue of balancing the books.

We were told at election time that they were on time and on line to balance the books by 2014, and clearly that wasn't happening. And we–and we have not seen any movement in that direction and they're tell ing us now 2016, but that obviously is not going to happen as well. So, Mr. Speaker, I'd like –thank you for the time and the chance to make a few comments on this reasoned amendment. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): A pleasure to speak this afternoon on the reasoned amendment brought forward by the member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger). In fact, it's not a usual chance for us to speak to a reasoned amendment.

I understand that it's something that's only happened maybe three or four times in the history of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, so it's historic in some ways. I would hope that the members opposite would want to take advantage of this historic opportunity and speak to this reasoned amendment to be part of history. I know the Government House Leade r (Ms. Howard) would, no doubt, want to have her name in the logs of those who spoke to this– An Honourable Member: I'm waiting for the reasonable amendment. Mr. Goertzen: Well, she's waiting for a reasonable amendment. We have lots of time, Mr.

Speaker, in the summer for many other amendments as she might agree with and we'll have lots of things she might find that she wants to speak to and that she's going to enjoy. I want to say, on this particular amendment – because it deals with the issue of there not being consultation around the PST increase and the government not listening to people at the prebudget consultation meetings.

Now, it's been a frustration of mine over the years that this government refuses to come to the great constituency of Steinbach t o have prebudget consultation meetings –the city of Steinbach, which is known as being one of the most successful communities–and the region–in terms of economic growth and business, and yet there is no way we can get this government to have a prebudget consultation meeting. I hear the Minister responsible for Entrepreneurship, Mr. Speaker, saying that he doesn't want to come to the community, that he doesn't want to listen to the good people of Steinbach.

And it's clear, I think, in the –it's clear in their actions, because we know that they've only come once out of 11 years or 12 years to have a consultation in the community. And, you know, people in the community, they wonder why it is that the government wouldn't want to take advice from such a successful area, but, ultimately, I think, we've come to the conclusion that the government's not listening

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1263 anyway; that when they have these little dog-and-pony shows, that they go and they present what they think is the most favourable position for themselves on the economic front. But, ultimately, they're not listening to what Manitobans want because we know that not one Manitoban at these prebudget consultation meetings asked for an increase in the PST. And the reason we know that is because we've asked the government many times to stand up and identify anybody who was asking for a PST increase, and they can't do it. * (15:20) And, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that after these many days and weeks, had there been somebody who was advocating hard or an organization who was pushing hard for this PST increase the way they've implemented it and to do away with the referendum, that they would have identified that group or those individuals. But they don't exist because ultimately people understand that what the government ha s done is an undemocratic act. They've taken away an opportunity for them to have a say on this tax increase and they, certainly, Manitobans wouldn't advocate for that sort of thing at a prebudget consultation meeting.

And so the amendment really is about asking the government to not pass this bill because they haven't brought forward satisfactory information that, in fact, there was Manitobans who were asking for this. And I want to say, I've been pleasantly surprised, Mr. Speaker, by the number of Manit obans not only who have emailed –and then–that number's in the thousands, the number of Manitobans who've emailed and written and expressed concern about the PST increase.

But I've been very impressed by the number of Manitobans who not only say that we don't think we should have pay more for the PST because we–are –other ways that the government could find the savings internally. But they've really latched on to the fact that this is undemocratic in terms of how it's been done.

They've really –make a point in almost every email that I get about the PST, about the government doing away with the referendum because, ultimately, Manitobans see this as an issue of fairness and that there's a lack of fairness that the government has decided to not only increase the PST, but change the rules by which this is done. And I would caution the government, of course, Mr. Speaker, because they're racing towards a deadline of increasing the PST without actually having the legislation passed by July 1st. And we know that the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Struthers) had his day in court a couple of weeks ago, or maybe a week ago, and that day in court didn't go very well for him. He was figuratively put over the knee of the justice and given a bit of a lesson in terms of how government should operate and not operate. And I think that justice clearly indicated that government doesn't have carte blanche to do anything that it wants, that it has to follow the law–the very laws that it creates.

And so you would have thought that that warning would have been enough for the government when it comes to the PST legislation, that they wouldn't want to have to go through that again, that they wouldn't want to have to get called back into the proverbial principles office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have that lesson applied to them again that you can't simply implement something before the laws change. And that's really what the government is suggesting it's going to do. It's suggesting that it's going to increase the PST on July 1st whether or not the law has been changed or not.

So the existing law would still say you need to have a referendum. The existing law would still say that you shouldn't –that you can't bring in legislation to increase the PST without that referendum. That is what the law says in Manitoba now, and that is what it will say, likely, on July 1st. And so the government has an option. The government can decide whether or not they want to go ahead and risk breaking the law again, Mr. Speaker. And there's two sort of elements of concern that they should have regarding that.

One is certainly the judicial opinion; one is certainly a legal opinion about whether or not they are following the law as it will likely exist on July 1st. And certainly they have to be concerned and they should be concerned about another situation where the government is found not to have followed the law as it was the case with the Minister of Finance and the Assiniboine downs, Mr. Speaker. The other situation, of course, the public perception, there is the legal perception and the legal reality, but there's also the public perception.

And we know that the public is very concerned about the fact that the government doesn't feel it has to follow its own laws. There's an issue of fairness there that people withi n the public wonder, well, why is it that I have to follow the law, whether it's a speeding limit or whether it’s fines they get administered for other reasons. People within Manitoba understand that if

1264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 14, 2013 they don't follow the law there is a penalty to be paid. They simply can't change the law, and that's what this government is suggesting. But they're actually going one step further, Mr. Speaker, because they're saying even if we can't change the law in time we're still going to do the very thing that the law says we can't do, and therein lies the concern and therein lies the dilemma for the government ultimately.

Now I suppose that had they brought in stand-alone legislation on the referendum and were able to get that passed, you know, we be –might be looking at a different scenario, but that's not what they did. They decided to put these two pieces of legislation together and then put in a proposal at the back end of the legislation to try to have the bill time-travel when it is passed. But the reality is if we still have the existing legislation on July 1st with the requirement for a referendum before a PST increase and the PST increase is still applied, this is a government, in my opinion, that's broken the law.

And it risks having that same opinion brought forward to it within the courts, and more importantly–or as importantly, I would say, also risk having lost a great deal of public faith within the public who rightfully believe that we need to follow the laws, that there is an issue of fairness and that the government shouldn't be able to do something that ordinary and average Manitobans aren't able to do. So that's my caution, certainly, for the government, as they move towards this July 1st date without having been able to get this particular bill passed. Now, I know, Mr.

Speaker, that there are, I think, 175–or maybe it's more already –people who are registered to present at the committee on Bill 20. These are Manitobans who have decided on their own to do something very unusual for them, I'm sure, because it's not often that people come and make presentations at a government committee here in the Legislature. For many people that'll be an intimidating thing to do.

They are not used to, as we are, to –speaking to issues and speaking in public, and yet they've decided they are so concerned about not only the fact that the government is increasing the PST, but how they're increasing the PST, that they want to come and have their voice heard at a committee in the Legislature of Manitoba. So, 175 people or more than that now, have signed up and said, we want to have our voice heard. Now, that's important, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad that Manitobans are going to come to that committee.

I'm hopeful that the government is going to be respectful in terms of how they operate that committee, that they're not going to ram people through the night and have committee presentations at 2 or 3 in the morning. After all, it was the Premier (Mr. Selinger) himself who asked Manitobans to sign up, to come to committee. It was the Premier who said, we're taking away your referendum right, but there's another option–although not a very good alternative, not a very good substitution–but he said, we want people to sign up and come to committee here at the Legislature.

So I'd be surprised and very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, if after the Premier himself asked Manitobans to come to the Legislature, to come to committee, that he would give instructions through the Government House Leader (Ms. Howard) to have those committees at 2, 3 , 4 in the morning.

And, certainly, we would as an opposition do everything that we could to avoid that from happening, to be respectful to Manitobans, to ensure that they could present at a reasonable hour to their elected officials, and we do commit to t hat; we do commit to doing what we can to ensure that these committees are held in a reasonable way, in a reasonable fashion and a way that Manitobans will have the opportunity to speak to the government and to try to change their minds on this decision. And, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, that is a large part about what this process is about.

The reason we've been spending hours and hours debating Bill 20 is we want the government to have the opportunity to change its mind. And we want Manitobans to be able to also have the opportunity to engage with the government to get them to change their minds on this PST tax increase.

Ultimately, we know that this bill can't be held forever, that at the end of the day the government has the numbers, that they can ram this bill through eventually, but our opportunity –or our job is to ensure that Manitobans have the opportunity to change the mind of the government and to adhere– get them to adhere to the promise they made in 2011 during the election to not raise taxes. So we are still committed to do that.

We are going to do our best to ensure that committees on this bill are held in a respectable and respectful way for all those Manitobans who come to this Legislature to make presentations, Mr. Speaker. We're going to continue to ensure that the government has lots of time to reconsider this decision, and I hope some of them will get up and speak to this amendment and other motions that

May 14, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1265 might come forward so that they can have their opinion put on the record. In the years tha t come, we might have Manitobans who are studying this debate and they might wonder why the government sat silent; why they wouldn't stand up and try to defend the PST increase; why it is that they wouldn't speak to something that they, in other forums, ar e saying is so important. * (15:30) So they'll have that opportunity to speak in the days, weeks and, perhaps, months ahead, Mr. Speaker, on this bill, to ensure that they have the opportunity to change your minds.

And that is certainly something that we are committed to do, because ultimately Manitobans are looking for a few things. They're looking for the government to adhere to the promise that they made, to follow the promise and uphold the promise that they made in the 2011 election not to raise taxe s. They broke that last year, of course, Mr. Speaker, but this is a monumental reversal from that particular promise of not raising taxes by increasing the PST. So that's the first thing we're hoping that the government would do and adhere to its promise a nd that Manitobans are looking for.

We want to, of course, ensure that they respect the law, and respect the law in terms of the referendum to ensure that Manitobans –if they're committed to going ahead with this PST increase – will, in fact, hold that refe rendum as the law says today that they should and as the law, I believe, will say on July 1st, Mr. Speaker, that they follow that particular law because that is what Manitobans are expecting them to do as well.

And we are hopeful that this doesn't become a legal issue, of course, but it certainly has already become a political and a public issue, and there is a public confidence issue about whether or not the public will continue to hold confidence in a government that won't follow the same rules that they very–that they expect Manitobans to follow. Even on this particular docket, Mr. Speaker, of legislation that we have, we have the Attorney General (Mr. Swan) doing things to change fines and to change different pieces of legislation.

So he is expecting M anitobans, as the Attorney General, to expect a–to respect a variety of different laws that we have in the province of Manitoba. He implements fines; he increases fines. So all Manitobans are asking him to do and ask his government to do is to follow the very same principles that they're expecting Manitobans to follow. There is a law in place. Follow that law and let the chips fall where they may. If the government is so convinced that they would win a referendum, they have the opportunity to hold that refe rendum and then we'll all find out.

But I think, ultimately, the reason they refuse to call the referendum has nothing to do with time. We're going to have as much time to debate this bill in the Legislature as it would take to call a referendum. But they know what the result would be. They know that Manitobans don't support a PST increase because Manitobans don't believe that this government has done all that it can in terms of finding savings internally. So we hope that we're doing our best to give the government enough time to change its mind and we're giving Manitobans enough time to change the mind of the government.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-2-41b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 2nd hansardpdf 41b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	558efbd9331cf057dfe3461026f164a02f6de966

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