Manitoba Hansard — 19 May 2010 (Sitting 48, 39th Legislature, 4th Session)

39-4-48

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LXII No. 48 - 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 19, 2010 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Ninth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park N.D.P. BLAIKIE, Bill, Hon. Elmwood N.D.P. BOROTSIK, Rick Brandon West P.C. BRAUN, Erna Rossmere N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. BRIESE, Stuart Ste. Rose P.C. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P.

DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C. FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P.

MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MARCELINO, Flor, Hon. Wellington N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PEDERSEN, Blaine Carman P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SARAN, Mohinder The Maples N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELBY, Erin Southdale N.D.P. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas N.D.P. WIEBE, Matt Concordia N.D.P. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

2287 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, May 19, 2010 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): It is m y duty to inform the House that Mr. Speaker is unavoidably absent. Therefore, in accordance with the statutes, I would ask the honourable Deputy Speaker to please take the Chair. Madam Deputy Speaker (Marilyn Brick): O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province.

Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom, know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for th e glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): On a matter of privilege. Madam Deputy Speaker: On a matter of privilege. Mrs. Stefanson: And I know this is one of the first times I've had–I've stood up in this House on a matter of privilege, and I take this issue very seriously, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As we all know, there are two issues with respect to raising a matter of privilege in this House. First of all, we have to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity, and the second test is whether or not a prima facie case of privilege is made to determine whether or not there is a breach of a rule or a privilege in this House. With respect to the first test, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the earliest opportunity test, I rise on a matter of privilege as a result of the Premier's (Mr. Selinger) comments on CJOB this morning and the misleading information that he shared with Manitobans.

So I believe that this is the earliest opportunity that I've been awarded to bring this issue forward within this House. The second test, Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect to a matter of privilege is whether or not, in fact, a prima facie case of privilege can be made. With respect to Bill 5, the cottage property tax increase deferral act, the Premier said, and I quote: There is a deferral program that has been brought in by legislation this spring. It allows a cottage owner not to pay their taxes for the next couple of years.

The government will do it in the short term, charge a nominal rate of interest and, then, when they decide to get rid of the cottage, dispose it, then they pay the taxes, then, at the time of selling the cottage. End of quote. In fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 5 provides temporary tax release for incremental increases, not for all taxes as suggested by the Premier this morning. In the bill itsel f, the maximum deferrable amount is defined as the difference between the 2009 property taxes and the 2010 and 2011 cottage property taxes.

The deferral applies to the amount of the increase in taxes, not the entire tax bill as suggested this morning on CJOB by the Premier of this province, the former Finance minister of this province. I believe that this false information impedes my ability and the effective performance of my duties as the official opposition critic for Finance in this Manitoba Legislature. I believe that it infringes on the ability of the–of all members of the Legislature to impart information to their constituents when the Premier is making such inaccurate statements in–on– in Manitoba, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the radio.

This bill has not been well received by cottagers. We know that, Madam Deputy Speaker. This bill isn't something that people were looking for. The benefits of the bill are questionable at best. The interest rate that is yet to be determined and it has– the interest rate is yet to be determined, and cottage owners will have a lien on their property if they choose to go the route of this bill. This bill was introduced to give nothing more than the appearance that the NDP are doing something to help cottage owners. In reality, this bill is not providing any relief to cottage owners.

To suggest that this legislation allows cottage owners not to pay their taxes for the next couple of years, which is what the Premier said this morning on CJOB, is completely and utterly false, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Premier was providing improper taxation advice to Manitobans through his comments. Manitobans in this province make

2288 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 decisions based on information that is presented to them. The Premier's comments–and keep in mind that this is the former Finance minister of this province–keep in mind that he gave Manitobans a false impression of the program and there is a risk that cottage owners will make decisions based on the information that the Premier said on CJOB this morning. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not the first time that the Premier (Mr. Selinger) provided inaccurate financial information to Manitobans.

The Premier knew about the problems arising at the Crocus Investment Fund at the time. He failed to warn Manitobans about the security of their investments, and 34,000 Manitobans had investments worth more than 100 million in the Crocus Investment Fund. The Premier actually signed the submission to Cabinet in November of 2000 that outlined problems with the fund. And Madam Deputy Speaker, for these reasons– the Premier misled Manitobans then with respect to the Crocus Investment Fund. He misled Manitobans again this morning on CJOB.

It's the time that this Premier came clean, admitted to the fact that he misled Manitobans this morning on CJOB, that he apologize to the members of this House, that he apologize to Manitobans and start putting accurate information on the record in this province. I submit to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have made the arguments for the prima facie case of privilege and look forward to a positive response in a ruling from you. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik), that this matter be referred to the committee on Legislative Affairs.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, on the matter of privilege. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, also– Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the matter of privilege. Hon. Bill Blaikie (Government House Leader): Rising on the matter of privilege raised by the honourable member from Tuxedo. * (13:40) I agree with the honour able member that she's met one of the tests of a point of privilege, which is that she has raised it at the earliest opportunity.

But I'm afraid I have to differ with the honourable member as to whether or not she has a prima facie case of privilege. I would suggest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are precedent after precedent after precedent that these kinds of points of privilege being ruled to be matters having to do with a dispute as to the facts. This particular–in this particular case, this is something that was–this is a dispute about statements made outside the House on top of the usual case.

So I would suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a cursory look at the precedents with respect to what actually constitutes a matter of privilege would demonstrate very, very clearly that this is not a matter of privilege. The honourable member is free to disagree with what the members on this side of the House have to say about particular pieces of legislation. That's why this bill will come up for debate. We'll have second reading, we'll have debate. There'll be an opportunity in committee presumably.

If there are witnesses, there'll be plenty of opportunity to sort out whether or not the honourable member's version of what the bill actually does is the correct one and whether or not, you know, she has any point to make with respect to what members on this side of the House have said. That's all part of the legislative process. But it's not a matter of privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, on a matter of privilege. Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, on the same matter of privilege.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that the amount of confusion that has been caused as a direct result that the Premier (Mr. Selinger) not necessarily understanding his own legislation or intentionally misleading Manitobans. It's fairly significant in the sense that, you know, if you do not pay your property tax for a two-year period of time, that cottage could actually go onto the auction block. So it's a very serious issue. Manitobans love their cottages. But referring directly to the matter of privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll refer you, as the Deputy Speaker, to the bill itself. Every bill that's

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2289 introduced–and by the way, this particular bill was introduced back in December of last year. Even though it still hasn't received second reading, it was introduced back in December of last year. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you take a look at the 'explanaratory' notes, you will see–and this is why it's important–it contradicts what it is that the Premier said on the radio. So do we go by what we have been provided inside this Legislature or by what the Premier has told Manitobans on CJOB, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Here's what the proposed legislation that's before us right now states in terms of the notes, Madam Deputy Speaker: Under the proposed program, an eligible cottage owner may apply for a deferral of the property tax increase before the tax is due. If the owner and the property– Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

I just want to remind all honourable members that on a matter of privilege that we want to make sure that you keep in mind that contributions relate to the matter of privilege and that comments should be–deal with whether or not this is a prima facie case of privilege and whether the issue was raised at the earliest opportunity and should not be a debate on the subject matter. Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I agree with you, and that's the reason why we have legislation that's before this Chamber right now.

At some time point, I'm anticipating the government will call it for a second reading and in preparation for those second readings, we believe that the legislation is proposing to do exactly what it says in the explanatory notes. Yet we have the Premier of this province telling the listeners to one radio program that it's completely different than what we have in front of this House. So, Madam Deputy Speaker , I think that there is a responsibility for you, as the Deputy Speaker, to figure out which is true. Is it the Minister of Finance (Ms.

Wowchuk) and the bill that's she's introduced before this Legislature, is that what is actually before the Legislature? And the Premier (Mr. Selinger) was wrong what he told the listeners of that particular radio program? Or was the Premier right in his comments on that radio program and the Minister of Finance is wrong? One of them is wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think before we start debating this issue–and that's why it's a privilege–before we debate the issue, we should find out which one goofed. Either the Premier or the Deputy Premier (Ms. Wowchuk), one of the two.

And I think that you need to tell us which one–which one's the goof. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker: On the matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson), I would like to inform the House that it has been ruled a number of times by Manitoba Speakers that comments made outside the House cannot form the basis from a prima facie case of privilege. Beauchesne's citation 31(1) advises that statements made outside the House by a member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege.

On page 522 of the House of Commons Practice and Procedure states that the Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside of the House by one member against another. Therefore, I must respectfully rule that the honourable member does not have a matter of privilege. Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Offi cial Opposition House Leader): Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I challenge the ruling. Madam Deputy Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Voice Vote Madam Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, say aye. Some Honourable Members: Aye. Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay. Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Ayes have it–[interjection] I'm sorry, I can't hear you. I'm sorry, once again, the honourable Official Opposition House Leader. Mr. Hawranik: On division. Madam Deputy Speaker: On division.

2290 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Mount Agassiz Ski Area Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: For several decades, the Mount Agassiz ski area, home to the highest vertical between Thunder Bay and the Rocky Mountains, was a popular skiing and snowboarding destination for Manitobans and visitors alike.

The operations of Mount Agassiz ski area were very important to the local economy, not only creating jobs, but also generating sales of goods and services in area businesses. In addition, a thriving rural economy generates tax revenues that help pay for core provincial government services a nd infrastructure which benefits all Manitobans. Although the ski facility closed in 2000, there remains strong interest in seeing it reopened and Parks Canada is committed to conducting a feasibility study with respect to the Agassiz site and future opportunities in the area.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the appropriate members–ministers of the provincial government to consider outlining to Parks Canada the importance that a viable recreation facility in the Mount Aga ssiz area would play in the local and provincial economies. To request that the appropriate ministers of the provincial government consider working with all stakeholders, including Parks Canada, to help develop a plan for a viable, multiseason recreation facility in the Mount Agassiz area. This petition is signed by R. Tereck, B. Bennet, B.

Williams and many, many other fine Manitobans. Madam Deputy Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Multiple Myeloma Treatments Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition: Health Canada has approved the use of Revlimid for patients with multiple myeloma, a rare, progressive and fatal blood cancer.

Revlimid is a vital new treatment that must be accessible to all patients in Manitoba for this life-threatening cancer of the blood cells. Multiple myeloma is treatable, and new, innovative therapies like Revlimid can extend survival, enhance quality of life for the estimated 2,100 Canadians diagnosed annually. The provinces of Ontario, Québec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta have already listed this drug on their respective pharmacare formularies.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: That the provincial government consider immediately providing Revlimid as a choice to patients with multiple myeloma and their health-care providers in Manitoba through public funding. This is signed by D. Holdsworth, M. Harapiak, E. Huska and many, many others, Madam Deputy Speaker. Medical Clinic in Weston and Brooklands Area Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

The background to this petition is as follows: Community-based medical clinics provide a valuable health-care service. The closure of the Westbrook Medical Clinic has left both Weston and Brooklands without a community-based medical clinic. We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: To urge the provincial government to consider how important it is to have a medical clinic located in the Weston-Brooklands area. * (13:50) Madam Deputy Speaker, this is signed by K. Won, F. Lenarcie and G. Meluyk and many, many other fine Manitobans. Thank you.

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2291 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Forest Fire Update Hon. Bill Blaikie (Minister of Conservation): I have a ministerial statement to make to the House. Today I rise to update the House on the current status of the forest fire situation facing Manitoba communities. To date, there have been 133 fires resulting in over 4,000 burned hectares. This is just above the 20-year average for this time of the year. There is also a significant fire burning 15 miles from the community of Berens River.

Conservation ground crews and a tanker group, including two CL-215 water bombers, are actively fighting this fire, and we are closely assessing the situation and monitoring the weather conditions. Warm weather is expected to continue throughout the weekend, with some possible precipitation on Sunday. And as we approach this Victoria weekend–Victoria Day weekend, there will likely be more people and more activity in the outdoors than usual.

For that reason, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like to remind Manitobans to be careful with fire at all times, as winds can push flames at a rapid pace, igniting large areas of land and spreading to forests. Open fires are prohibited from April 1st to November 15th annually, except under a burning permit or in enclosed, approved fire pits. The provincial fleet of seven water bombers and additional single-engine air tankers are being deployed as required. Helicopters are being stationed in fire zones throughout the province, and we will continue to update the public and the House on this matter as necessary.

Thank you. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I want to thank the minister for his statement in regards to the update on the fire conditions in the province of Manitoba. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to rise and put a few words on the record in response to the statement that the minister has made, and particularly in regards to the fire burning in the vicinity of Berens River.

Although the media reported this morning that the fire was not posing any immediate threat to the community of Berens River, Conservation officials say it is a sizable fire and one that's burning quite rapidly and is still growing in size. Madam Deputy Speaker, the recent spate of unseasonably warm weather that we're being celebrated with is certainly going to be keeping provincial fire officials busy monitoring for and responding to these types of fires. It hasn't taken long for the general drenching of a few weeks ago to dry up the conditions that we're faced with.

And I know we had–the minister's indicated 133 fires burning–I know there was 50, roughly, before that drenching that we got a couple of weeks ago, and most of those were under control. So I'm glad to see that we're able to keep that in perspective. We cannot say strongly enough how much we appreciate the efforts of the Manitoba Conservation staff and the firefighters from local governments and First Nations community as they tackle these blazes. They place themselves at a considerable personal risk in performing these duties, and the importance of their work can't be overstated.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there are other types of bombers, as well, than the CL-215s out there today, and I know the government is trying to make efforts in regards to replacing some of those. I also know that there are other alternatives that would provide opportunities for– Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time has expired. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask leave to sp eak to the minister's statement. Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the member have leave to speak to the minister's statement? Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has leave. Mr. Gerrard: I welcome the minister's statement and I think it is timely, because we're moving up to a long weekend and people around Manitoba should be cautious and careful in terms of fires. We don't want to have any more than is–than we have at the moment and, certainly, given the conditions at the moment, it's something that we should be careful of.

It's also important in terms of recognizing the people in Berens River and, although they may not be immediately endangered with a fire some 25 kilometres away, that it' s certainly a concern and we extend our concern to people there and hope that this fire is contained before it gets any closer. We're heading into the fire season and all of us should be careful. Thank you.

2292 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 Introduction of Guests Madam Deputy Speaker: At this time I would like to introduce 19 German ex change students who are here with us in the public gallery from Acadia Junior High. They are under the direction of Ms. Stacey Snyder, and they are from the honourable member for St. Norbert's (Ms. Brick) constituency. We welcome you here to the Legislative Assembly. ORAL QUESTIONS Autism ABA Program Funding Decrease Mr.

Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): For families with children of autism there's been a great amount of progress of the past 15 years, both in terms of understanding autism but also in terms of the significant proven benefits that come with applied behavioural analysis. Madam Deputy Speaker, to that end 38 children and their families who are scheduled to exit the program later this year learned today that the rug is being pulled out from under them by this NDP Premier.

More than 100 other kids and families are being negatively impacted by this Premier's failure to put priority on ABA for autistic children. I want to ask the Premier: As he increases spending this year by more than $500 million, why are the needs of kids with autism and their families such a low priority for this NDP Premier? Hon.

Greg Selinger (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, services to ABA children and their families are important, which is why this government put the program in place for school-aged children, which was a follow-up on putting a program in place for preschool children, and this week an additional $200,000 was announced to provide additional clinical and expert support to families whose children are in need of further services and supports after the grade 3 period.

There has been an additional $60 million put into the education budget for special needs children within the school system so that their individual plans can be strengthened and more supports can be made availa ble to them while they're in the classroom, and we will continue to find constructive ways to support children that need special support because of autism issues and other related supports that go along with that. Mr.

McFadyen: Madam Deputy Speaker, the parents of these children have a very different feeling about this government's decision making and that's been made very clear in the media directly to us and in the debates that have taken place. With 38 children and their families exiting the program later this year, and the proven benefits of ABA, the concern is that some of these kids will end up regressing in terms of the progress that's been made through the program to date.

I want to ask the Premier, who talks about $200,000, when he's got hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars to spend on increasing the size of the NDP Cabinet, on spin doctors, on advertising campaigns that have no outcomes: Why are those things higher priorities for him than the needs of autistic children and their families? Mr. Selinger: Madam Deputy Speaker, let's bear in mind the members opposite would've slashed a half a billion dollars of spending from the budget this year. They would've taken teachers out of the classrooms. They would've reduced funding for ABA.

They would've reduced funding in family services. They would've reduced all these supports because they are voting against the additional spending we are putting in this budget to support families, to support education, to support all those people with special needs, and this week, the minister's announced an additional $200,000 of support on top of the existing supports that are already in the base of the budget through which we are supporting it with our additional half a billion dollars of additional spending. So the member opposite has to be clear that he would not have had this money in the budget.

He would not have been able to 'priorize' that; there's no doubt about that, and the reality is on the specifics, the additional supports will be there for those children and families as they move beyond grade 3, and if additional support is needed, as indicated, it will be– * (14:00) Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable First Minister's time has expired. Mr. McFadyen: The families of these children are not going to be impressed with his political attacks on the opposition.

You know, those attacks might be effective if they weren't being made by the same person who misled Manitobans this morning on CJOB, if they weren't being made by the same person who was spreading false information about Crocus. Those people were investing in that fund.

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2293 But if the attacks were coming from somebody other than the individual who consistently makes false statements publicly, then we'd be concerned about them. But that aside, Madam Deputy Speaker, the real issue is these kids, their families and the parents, who are waiting for more than political spin and phony attacks on the opposition from this NDP Premier. They made three proposals to the government in order to continue this program for their children. One of them, the most modest of those proposals, they cut in half.

They've pulled the rug out from under these kids and their families. Will he end the phony, made up political attacks on the opposition and will he address the issue at hand which is the needs of these kids and their families? Mr. Selinger: Madam Deputy Speaker, by putting these additional resources in the budget, it was our very intention to ensure that these kinds of services were continued. The members opposite would not have done that. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable First Minister has the floor. Mr.

Selinger: The reality is that we put an additional half a billion dollars of resources in the budget. Madam Deputy Speaker, 90 percent of those resources are going to support health care, education, services to family and children. Members opposite were very clear that they opposed that. On the specifics, we are the government that introduced the school-age program. We are the government that introduced the preschool program.

This week, we provided additional supports of $200,000 for experts and people that will help ABA children beyond the grade 3 level, provide additional supports in the classroom, and the core of our educational funding has an additional $60 million over the last decade, a 50 percent increase for special needs children. I only can, once again, emphasize that we have made special needs children a priority and will continue– Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Autism ABA Program Funding Decrease Mrs.

Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): What we voted against in this budget were the cuts to hearing-impaired children , the cuts to addiction services, and now, the cuts that are being made to children that need autism programming. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has been, in this budget, cutting services to vulnerable individuals, including cuts to hearing-impaired children, cuts to addictions programming, and now, cuts to children who need autism programming within the Department of Family Services.

The home program for autistic children complements the program that is run in the education system, and one piece cannot run without the other. Can the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Mackintosh) tell this House today– Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time has expired. Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Education): I think it's important to put some facts on the record in regards to the intensive ABA program that, quite frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker, was implemented by our government.

It was a program that was put in place by our government, the first program of its kind in Manitoba, and that intensive ABA program is there. It is an early intervention program because we know the research tells us that the most important thing that we can do is provide a program for the early years for young children with autism because that is what is most beneficial to those students. We have just made an announcement and had a meeting with MFEAT and told them that we will be expanding this program. Mrs. Mitchelson: And again, there are factual mistakes in that answer.

That program was started in 1997, and it was the member for Emerson that was an advocate for the ABA program that started, and has been expanded over the years, but now the programming is being cut by this government. Madam Deputy Speaker, can the Minister of Family Services indicate why he's got money for a $300,000 ad campaign with no outcomes, and he's got no money in his budget for the autistic programming for children that need that service, and there are proven measured outcomes?

2294 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 Ms. Allan: Well, I would also like to take a moment to correct information that was put on the record in the member's previous question in regards to services that were cut, made by our government in regards to hearing impaired. I want to make sure that the member opposite knows that our government has made no such cuts into services for children with hearing impairments, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our government is on record in regards to providing improved funding for children with special needs.

I would put our record up against their record any day–any day–in regards to the services and the funding that we have put in place for vulnerable children in our school systems. Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for River East, on your second supplemental question. Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Deputy Speaker, ABA therapy is proven and effective when carried out both in the school system and at home. Can the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Mackintosh) justify why his government can find money for an additional Cabinet member and six political spinners for the Minister of Health (Ms.

Oswald) and no money for special needs children that require services and autistic programming? Can he explain that? Ms. Allan: Well, perhaps the member opposite missed what our First Minist er said and what I've already told the members opposite, that this program is in place for the early–and to preschool program is in place. Early intervention is important. This is one of the most comprehensive programs in Canada, right here in Manitoba, and we have just– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable Minister for Education has the floor. Ms.

Allan: We have just expanded the program. We have made a $200,000 commitment to provide experts to work with the school teams, the–in schools who–to–for those children who are transitioning out of the program, and they will be providing expert–we will be providing expert services to the school teams for those children in school. Manitoba eHealth Travel Expenditures Information Request Mr.

Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, many Manitobans are trying to understand how a government can be running deficits of more than $600 million, how it can increase spending by more than $500 million and yet still have cuts to front-line services.

And I know after question period today there will be a hallway full of NDP spinners that will provide some insight into where all that money is going, but we have further questions now as a result of a freedom of information request filed by members of our staff with respect to out-of-province travel for eHealth within the Department of Health. We, just last week, received a response to that request for information in which the department or the WRHA indicated that it would take 126 hours and cost $3,780 to compile one year's worth of out-of-province travel expenses for in health.

Can the Premier explain why it is that they're stonewalling Manitobans when it comes to their misuse of their hard earned tax dollars? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): The member has just indicated he would prefer money to go to services for ABA children. That's what we support. If he wants to spend thousands of dollars compiling the information, let him be clear about that. We encourage our RHAs to provide timely information on their travel expenses, the same thing we do for members of the public service, as well as those elected officials, and that should be done.

That should be done in an appropriate way, and you will see that more and more of this information will be put on-line, on the Web, on a regular basis as we move forward. But if the member wants to divert resources to an extraordinary effort to compile specific information, let him say so. We'd rather put our money into the ABA program. * (14:10) Mr. McFadyen: I think what we just heard the Premier say is that even as he's cutting services to children with autism, Manitobans have no right to know how much money they spend on travel.

What an unbelievable level of arrogance after 11 years in power, Madam Deputy Speaker. The arrogance of this government that they expect Manitobans to believe that it takes 126 ho urs to compile one year's worth of travel expenses for eHealth and the Health Department. It's no wonder the debt is rising at the level it is and they're cutting front-line services. It's going into travel. It's going into unnecessary waste.

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2295 It's going to spin doctors in the hallway after question period. Why won't he just come clean and give Manitobans the information they have a right to know? They want to know why is he cutting services for autism. Why is he increasing spending for travel and why won't he want to let them know where their money is going, Madam Deputy Speaker? Mr. Selinger: Madam Deputy Speaker, we've just had a rating on the openness of the government.

I believe it received a B in terms of its willingness to share information in public, and we have strength in our freedom of information legislation to provide more information to people. The member opposite seems to want to go on a fishing expedition. We have encouraged all of our authorities to make timely– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable First Minister has the floor. I am having some difficulty hearing him. Perhaps those honourable members wishing to engage in private conversations could do so outside the Chamber. Mr. Selinger: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The reality is that we have actually increased resources this very week with a $200,000 announcement for the ABA program, which strengthens the program beyond the grade 3 period, which built on the program for preschoolers. So we have put more resources into all of our essential services: health, family services, education. Those kinds of things are where we put 90 percent of our additional resources this year. Members opposite do not want to have to admit to the fact that they voted against those additional resources.

Now the members want to divert resources to go beyond the requirements of our Freedom of Information Act from further information. They want to spend money going on a fishing expedition. We want to spend money on ABA kids and front-line services. Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition for his second supplemental question. Mr. McFadyen: If he wants to spend money on these services, why doesn’t he do it? Why is he cutting them? I mean, you know, it's meaningless when he comes into the House and says he wants to do things when his actions are the exact opposite.

Now, we've got serious concerns about ballooning debt, cuts to front-line services, taxes on food, increases in hydro rates, and I think Manitoba ratepayers, taxpayers, families want to know why it is that all of these costs ar e going up and services are going down under this NDP government. Tuition is up, services are down. Why doesn't he come clean? Why doesn't he ask one of those spin doctors that's going to be in the hallway after question period to run across to eHealth, spend a couple of hours compiling the information and let Manitobans know how much is being spent on travel in the Department of Health?

Mr. Selinger: You know, it's very clear why the opposition doesn't need additional spin doctors, the Leader of the Opposition does it all by himself. He spins this information every single day. The reality of the matter is there are increased resources in this budget for children and families that suffer from the ABA condition. There are additional resources in this budget for day care. There are additional resources in this budget for public schools education, as well as post-secondary education, and the members opposite have voted against every single one of those increases .

The reality is that the– we have strengthened our freedom of information legislation and we look for ways to provide it, information for the public, in a timely and efficient manner without racking up additional costs which would divert resources from front-line services. We're in favour of providing front-line services. We're in favour of stimulating the economy and moving Manitoba forward. The members opposite want to go fishing for salacious material that they can then use to justify cuts later on. Manitoba eHealth Travel Expenditures Information Request Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I would remind the Premier that his government is spending half a million dollars a year on spin doctors, money that would be much better spent on front-line services. Madam Deputy Speaker, there's a pattern evolving with this government. We saw it with the Minister of Health when she covered up the truth about Brian Sinclair's death. We saw it when the Minister of Health's department refused to give up information about restaurant and travel expenses–

2296 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Charleswood has the floor. Mrs. Driedger: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We saw it when this Minister of Health's department refused to give up information about restaurant and travel expenses in Manitoba's lab unless we paid $8,400. Now eHealth has become part of this fortress mentality. When information seems to be sensitive, they put up hurdles.

So I'd like to ask the Minister of Health to tell us: Why do we have to pay $3,800 to get a breakdown of travel expenses at eHealth? Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Again, as is typical of the member for Charleswood, conspiracy theories abound. I can remind her, as we said in Estimates when we had a conversation, Manitoba eHealth is administratively housed within the WRHA, and as such, it's subject to all of the policies and the procedures concerning their finances, which includes travel. There's an annual report for Manitoba eHealth.

In fact, in '08-09, it notes that approximately 275,000 was spent on travel; 219,000 in '07-08. This particular request is asking for some more detailed information, which goes beyond the two hours of free information they get in addition to the free application. And so, according to the law, they're being charged for it. Mrs. Driedger: Well, then the minister should be able to provide the breakdown of that spending. If the information is there, it shouldn't take them $3,800 worth of time to compile the information, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

The honourable member for Charleswood has the floor. And I'm going to ask for some decorum in the House, please. We are in front of the viewing public and I would appreciate decorum from all members of the House. Mrs. Driedger: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for pointing out the rude behaviour from the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). Madam Deputy Speaker, all we're asking for from this government is some transparency about eHealth. Red flags go up when we're told that we have to pay all this money and it's going to take them 126 hours to compile the information.

So if this information is so readily available, why isn't she prepared to table it? Ms. Oswald: It wasn't that long ago–I think around 45 seconds–but I think I just did give her that information. There's an annual report, Madam Deputy Speaker, that eHealth provid es. Manitoba eHealth is subject to all of the policies and procedures in the WRHA concerning travel. The nature of this request takes more time than the legislation permits for free access to information.

But while I'm speaking, I want to make sure that what we put clear on the record is that the work that Manitoba eHealth is doing to work towards an electronic health record for all Manitobans, that will improve health care for all of us, should not be underrated, and the member opposite is just smearing people again. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Prior to recognizing the honourable member for Charleswood, I just want to remind all honourable members that this is question and answer period and all honourable members who wish to participate in debate will have the opportunity to do so in due course.

Untendered Contracts Information Request Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): We also asked this government for lists of untendered contracts in eHealth. We were told it was going to take them 73 hours to compile this information and it was going to cost us $2,200 to get that information. So a big red flag starts to wave when we are told that it's going to take them 73 hours to put together a list of untendered contracts in eHealth. So I'd like to ask the Minister of Health: If there's nothing to hide, why are they stonewalling? * (14:20) Hon.

Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): And, you know, again, we will just disregard for now the fact that members opposite are seemingly entirely incapable of acknowledging the excellent work that eHealth is doing to advance Manitoba on the importance of the electronic health record and what that's going to do for patients in Manitoba.

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2297 I'll remind members that we asked for a review of the recommendations from the Auditor General of Canada's 2009 report on the electronic health records. We also asked for a review of Manitoba eHealth after the situation that developed in Ontario. We've been advised that Manitoba eHealth is far ahead in meeting very high standards concerning administration and governance structures. We're going to continue to work on this but the member opposite, I suppose, will continue to– Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Just prior to recognizing the honourable member for Morris, I just want to remind all honourable members that we are in front of the viewing public. I would ask for some decorum in the House. I would ask that members, if they wish to have private conversations, they can take those outside the House or they can make use of the loge. It's really not necessary to yell across the House. Post-Secondary Education Tuition Fee Increases Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if there's that many untendered contracts, there certainly are red flags going up.

So why doesn't she just waive the fees and give us the information and be transparent? Madam Deputy Speaker, there's no doubt that post-secondary education is one of the keys to ensuring that Manitoba has a knowledgeable work force that can meet tomorrow's challenges. The NDP have let students down time and time again with their failed policies. It's these failed policies and their own–for their own political purposes that have created a crisis in post-secondary education.

Today University of Manitoba students have become aware that they will be facing an average cost of 5 percent and some of them in law and–will be facing increases above 5 percent. When can students at the Asper School of Business, medicine or law be told what their tuition increases will be? Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Literacy): Well, and I thank the member opposite for her question.

You know, two weeks ago she was on her feet yelling at me to get out of the way of universities, to deregulate tuition, and here she is today complaining because we have allowed a very reasonable increase of 5 percent–and because–and I also point out that our tuition today is lower than 19–than it was in 1999. And I also point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that during the term in office of the members opposite, tuition for students went up 132 percent– 132 percent. This member has nothing to teach me. Mrs.

Taillieu: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very surprised at this minister but I want to read something she said from Estimates, when I asked her about funding to university. She very arrogantly responded, well I've never met a university president yet who says, I have so much money; please take some back. I'm sure that's comfort to them. Madam Deputy Speaker, students have many expenses. They have tuition. They have food and shelter and they have a limited income. Many of them are working long hours over the summer, and they really need to know what their resources are going to be for the next academic year.

Actually, these students have to budget, unlike this government, so they'd like to know what their expenses are going to be. So I'm going to ask this minister, again, if she can explain to students who are working hard these summer months, when can they expect to know how much money to set aside for their tuition? Ms. McGifford: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many things that I could point to today and one of them, of course, is the income tax tuition rebate has been brought forward, so that there will be 5 percent of that money available within the–within year.

I could also point out– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I just want to remind all honourable members that the honourable Minister for Advanced Education and Literacy has the floor. I am sure all honourable members would like to give her the courtesy of listening to her answer. Ms. McGifford: Well, thank you. Not only did members opposite raise tuition by 132 percent, they completely annihilated the Manitoba Bursary in 1992-93. We today have a $9-million bursary. We've kept tuition lower than it is in 1999. We have the in-year income tax tuition rebate.

2298 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 Madam Deputy Speaker, our students have the lowest debt in the country, the lowest borrowing rates in the country and the best pay-back record. I think, as I said, the member has nothing to teach me. Mrs. Taillieu: But I remind, again, it's this minister and this government's failed policies for their own political purposes that have caused a crisis in our education. Madam Deputy Speaker, many students are well and under way in their summer employment, and professional students just don't know how much they're going to be paying for their fees next year.

This government talks a big game about supporting students, but when it comes to such basic information as to whether–what financial and substantial increases that they're going to be facing, this government is just mute, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm going to ask again for the minister to be clear and transparent and give students a plan, a year-after-year plan, so they can plan for their academic futures, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ms. McGifford: The member opposite might have become a student activist today, but two weeks ago she was for deregulation and during the decade of the '90s tuition went up 132 percent.

Members opposite have nothing to teach us about students running– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty hearing the minister's answer, and so I am going to ask, once again, for some decorum from all honourable members here in the House. Ms. McGifford: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for your intervention. The short story is members opposite have no credibility in post-secondary education whatsoever. Maintenance Enforcement Program Employee Turnover Mr.

Blaine Pedersen (Carman): From January 2009 to March of this year, my constituent Ron Archer has had four different Maintenance Enforcement officers in the past 15 months. Through his Legal Aid lawyer, Mr. Archer has requested a stay of enforcement. Instead, this department has garnisheed his health insurance income because of a lack of continuity in the department. There's no continuity within this department to handle cases like Mr. Archer on a timely basis. Why is there such a huge turnover of staff within the department? Mr.

Archer has been very forthcoming to meet his obligations only to see the Justice Department drop the ball. Hon. Andrew Swan (Min ister of Justice and Attorney General): If the member from Carman will provide me with specifics, I will send it to my department to see if there is something that can be done. If there's a court order which needs to be varied, then I would suggest that his constituent take the necessary steps to get the ordered varied. The Maintenance Enforcement Program is set up to enforce court orders. If the individual says that he needs a stay of those payments, he should take the steps to do so.

But if the member from Carman wants to give me more specifics, I will certainly do what I can to provide more information to him. Mr. Pedersen: I can provide some more information. As part of the stay of enforcement, Mr. Archer issued postdated cheques in January of this year. The department promptly lost the cheques. The new designated officer, officer No. 4, requested more postdated cheques. Mr. Archer's insurance payments were still being garnisheed despite the stay of enforcement and, on top of this, two of the postdated cheques have been cashed in advance of the due date. How can Mr.

Archer have any confidence in this department with mistakes continuing to happen and yet another maintenance officer about to be appointed and not familiar with this case? Can the minister give Mr. Archer any assurance his department is capable of correcting the mistakes made? Mr. Swan: Madam Deputy Speaker, we do believe that the enforcement of a maintenance payment is very, very important to spouses and children in the province of Manitoba. In fact, it's one of our top priorities.

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2299 Again, if the member has more information–I just heard him, in his last comment, saying there was a stay of the order, yet, in his first question said there wasn't a stay of the order; he needed a stay. That's why it would be very helpful, in a case of this type, if he could provide me with the information. I will make sure it's sent on to the department. * (14:30) But I am pleased, of course, that we have legislation before this government that will continue to improve the enforcement system.

And I'm certainly looking forward to the opposition parties standing with us and moving ahead as we keep improving the systems to make sure that spouses and children get the support to which they're entitled. Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Carman, on his second supplemental. Mr. Pedersen: Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr. Archer is present today in the gallery. Four maintenance officers in 15 months, losing postdated cheques, cashing postdated cheques in advance, garnishing insurance payments–the list goes on and on. Will the minister today commit to at least meet with Mr. Archer?

Will he at least meet with Mr. Archer and his department–not only to straighten out Mr. Archer's case, there are many, many more cases within his department? He can give you some insight into the mess that your department is into. Will you at least agree to meet with Mr. Archer today? Mr. Swan: Again, the enforcement of support payments is something which is of a very high priority for this government. And again, if the member was aware of an individual situation that he believes could be improved, he has choices.

There are other members on the other side of the House, there are members on this side of the House who, if they have an issue, will provide it to the minister, and then I can then go and provide more information from the department. The member can choose to raise this in the House today. I've given the information that I can to the member. If there are mo re things that would be helpful, then I am quite prepared to act on that information. But again, there are some other facts that are unclear from what the member has said. There may be some ways to get better information. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Seven Oaks Hospital Emergency Services Reductions Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): It was this Minister of Health that made the decision to cut emergency general services at Seven Oaks Hospital. Today in the public gallery is Karen Taylor. Karen Taylor had a mother who went to the emergency services at Seven Oaks Hospital and, ultimately, because of that decision that this government made, had to be transferred to another hospital facility. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you ask Karen Taylor, she will tell you that her mother would have likely have lived had she had the general surgery done at Seven Oaks Hospital.

My question to the Minister of Health is: Will she tell this Chamber today that it was, indeed, a bad decision and that that decision will be reversed so that the people that need the Seven Oaks Hospital will have emergency general surgery? Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): First of all, I know that the me mber raised an issue of a case. I've sought more information from him through correspondence. If this is the same case that he's speaking of, of course, we'll be interested in doing the appropriate assessment and evaluation of what happened in this case.

I will say, generally, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the issue to consolidate general surgery was a decision that was made by medical professionals. Specialization has changed over the course of time. We know that medical doctors make recommendations about what is best for patient safety and what is best under the issue of subspecialties. And it behooves me to listen to that advice, and we'll continue to evaluate these changes in the WRHA. Mr. Lamoureux: As the–as has been pointed out, the Minister of Health has spent a great deal of money on spin doctors. Ms. Taylor's in the public gallery.

I'm sure she would be–entertain the opportunity to meet with the minister, or others, to talk about her particular case. But what I don't like, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the Minister of Health trying to pass the buck. There are general surgeons–there are people with expertise that will tell you that there was a need to have emergency general surgery provided at the Seven Oaks Hospital. It just so happens that this minister made a bad decision and doesn't want to admit to the

2300 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 bad decision. There are experts on both sides, and it's the residents in Winnipeg north and the residents that are served by that hospital that are being sold short. Will this minister make the commitment today to restore emergency general surgery at the– Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Ms. Oswald: We've had this conversation a few times, and I'm going to say to the member, as I have before, that I will continue to take the advice of medical experts.

And I've said to the member before that on any number of issues, there can be debate within the medical community, as there is elsewhere in society. I can say that the overriding position from medical experts was on the issue of this surgery consolidation. I would remind the member–we've talked about this before–that he himself, without information, made recommendations about having cardiac surgery at our community hospitals, which goes in direct contravention to what Dr. Koshal said, and, indeed, I believe, to what his own leader says. Mr.

Lamoureux: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have medical experts that'll tell you that your decision was a stupid decision, Madam Minister. You know, we can go back and forth; at the end of the day it's about the people that live in Winnipeg's North End. It's the people that are being served by the Seven Oaks Hospital, and, Madam Minister, you made a mistake. It's time that you adm it–and there's nothing wrong with saying I made a mistake. Restore the emergency general services to the Seven Oaks Hospital. That's what needs to be done.

We're asking for this minister to do the right thing: admit the mistake, restore it, and if you don't have the ability to admit to making the mistake, I look to the Premier (Mr. Selinger) to demonstrate some leadership. Ms. Oswald: And I'll say again that the surgery consolidation continues to go through ongoing review. We know, of course, that Dr. Koshal and, indeed, other members of this Legislature, shall we say, don't agree with the member from Inkster about an antiquated view of card iac surgery. This view is also held about subspecialties, which is why surgery was consolidated.

And as a point of interest, I would remind the member that we're not taking services away from the emergency department. We've added to the Seven Oaks Hospital a brand new emergency room. We've added dialysis. We've added oncology services. So when the member stands up and makes a litany of false statements concerning what's happening in Seven Oaks General Hospital, again, I'm obligated to correct the record day after day. Madam Deputy Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Bill Clement Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): It is with profound sadness that I stand in the House today to mark the passing of Bill Clement, city councillor and friend. Bill will be missed and lovingly remembered by his wife Debbie, son Michael, daughters Shannon, Kelly and Kristin and extended family and friends. Bill lived most of his life in Charleswood. Bill and Debbie married in 1979. They loved to entertain family and friends in their home and enjoyed travelling. Bill was a devoted husband and father and was most proud of his children and grandchildren.

He will be remembered by those who knew and loved him as a caring and generous man whose unconditional love will be forever cherished. His mushy birthday cards to his family showed his deep love for them. Bill was a man who served his constituents with both honour and passion. His passion was always driven by what he believed was right and best for the citizens of Charleswood who elected him. Many in all walks of life, whether business, political, sports, media, will have been touched by his passion for what he believed to be right and true and in broad best interests.

They w ill have experienced the sometimes stubborn exterior hiding a soft, gentle interior. There was always a twinkle in his eye and a story or at least four stories to be told. Many Charleswood community organizations have benefited from Bill's dedication. The Charleswood Legion, Charleswood Senior Centre, Michael Komenda Skatepark, Friends of the Harte Trail, they have all benefited from Bill's commitment to make Charleswood a better community. Charleswood was where Bill grew up and went to school and where he chose to stay and raise his family. He also owned and operated a local business, Aqua Pleasure.

Many Charleswood residents also knew Bill from the Charleswood Curling Club. He

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2301 and his family were also very active in preserving Charleswood's heritage with the Charleswood–or sorry, the Charleswood Historical Society. Bill never backed away from challenges, and the cancer to which he finally succumbed was no exception. And yet when he knew the end was near his courage was most personified in the last few and lucid moments with his family. And so Bill has reached his end of his journey leaving us with his memories.

On behalf of my husband, Hal, myself and the constituents of Charleswood, I want to express our deepest sympathy and condolences to his family. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Sargent Park School Sports Teams Hon. Andrew Swan (Min ister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a privilege to represent Sargent Park School, a West End hotbed of basketball. Sargent Park School won four Winnipeg School Division championships and three provincial school championships this season. In fact, the junior girls team has won the provincial championship three years in a row.

The Sargent Park Flames are hardworking, qu ick, agile and a force on the court. * (14:40) This school of 900 elementary and junior high students is home to 14 official sports teams, with more than 150 participating students. These student athletes deserve special congratulations for all their hours of practice, as do the families and the community which have supported them in their success along the way. The biggest challenge now is finding room for all of the banners, pennants and flags Sargent Park teams have won.

Team sports in schools provide our youth with a fantastic opportunity to improve their athletic skills, get in shape, learn disc ipline and teamwork, and have fun playing alongside their peers. They also allow students to get to know their teachers. Thirty-seven Sargent Park staff give their time outside of regular school hours for the teams. Many others support their athletes by driving them to tournaments and supervising games. I would like to thank the tremendous staff at Sargent Park for their faith in and commitment to their students.

In particular, I want to recognize teacher Larry Marquardson, who's supported student athletics at Sargent Park School for a lo ng time. He's truly made a kind, caring and positive impression on so many young people through the years. Madam Deputy Speaker, school sports can be an important part of our students' school experience. The successes of the students, staff and administration at Sargent Park School demonstrates the great capacity in our public schools, and I wish the Flames many more victories in the future. Thank you. Manitoba Volunteer Awards Recipients Mr.

David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise today to mark the extraordinary contributions of three Manitobans, Channing Lavallée, Ray Johnson and Dennis Dupont. Each are having incredible contributions to their home community of Portage la Prairie and St. Ambroise. The trio was recently recognized for their initiatives at this year's Manitoba Volunteer Awards Ceremony. Hailing from St. Ambroise, Channing Lavallée, just 23 years of age, was th is year's recipient of the Volunteer Service Award in the youth category. Over the past 10 years, sh e has dedicated countless hours to the St.

Ambroise Community Centre, which included volunteering and fundraising, the St. Ambroise Saskatoon Festival and Métis Festival, as well as organizing and conducting numerous children's activities. Channing also organized the Métis youth cultural celebration in 2008 and 2009 for the benefit of CancerCare and the Children's Wish Foundation. Channing saw the opportunity to help the Children's Wish Foundation as a way to say thank you for granting her sister's wish 10 years ago. It was most fitting that Mr. Ray Johnson was recognized with Manitoba's Outstanding Leadership Award.

A career educator, which included 20 years serving as principal at the Portage Collegiate Institute, Ray's volunteer initiatives include the 2010 Power Smart Manitoba Winter Games, Portage Lions Club, Portage minor baseball, Portage community justice forum, Neighbourhood Watch, Citizens on Patrol and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and the Community Foundation of Portage and District, which he now serves as president. Mr. Johnson is very proud of his Icelandic heritage, serving the Manitoba Icelandic community as president for the Icelandic National League of North America. Mr. Johnson has, indeed, dedicated

2302 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 his life to being involved, serving as a stellar example for all of us to follow. This year's Lieutenant-Governor's Make a Difference Award recipient was Dennis Dupont, a retired Canadian Air Force mechanic, who received his award for incredible work he has done for Central Plains CancerCare Services, the Red Cross, the local Lions Club in Portage la Prairie, and Superannuates National Association for retirees of the military, RCMP and public service.

Channing, Dennis and Ray's contribution to our community is greatly appreciated, and I invite all honourable members to join with me in extending a heartfelt thank you for th eir service. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Sledge and Wheelchair Hockey Athletes Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): Madam Deputy Speaker, every day Manitobans accomplish incredible feats through no means other than their sheer force of will. Manitoba's sledge and wheelchair hockey players have found a way to overcome physical disabilities and engage in these competitive and challenging games, simply for the love of sports.

Last month, my colleague from Assiniboia and I had the pleasure of participating in a power wheelchair hockey demonstration and challenge in the parking lot of the Madison Square Canada Safeway, and the challenge, we discovered, in attempting this activity was a learning experience in itself. Wheelchair and sledge hockey are competitive group sports that require a great deal of physical dexterity and upper body strength. Power wheelchair hockey came to Manitoba in 2002.

Sledge Hockey Manitoba started in Winnipeg during the winter of 2007, thanks to the efforts of Jon Derry and Bill Muloin and strong sup port from the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities and Hockey Canada. The sledge hockey team has continued to grow since its inception, expanding from six players to 40 in 2010, with programs for juniors and seniors. About 30 players play on four teams in the Manitoba Wheelchair Power Hockey League. Sledge and wheelchair power hockey are perfect bonding opportunities for people with disabilities and their loved ones, as they are open to people of all levels of ability.

An able-bodied player on the sledge hockey team was drawn in by his brother. Another player, who has a disability, plays on the Sledge Hockey Manitoba team with his best friend who is able-bodied. The father of another child with disabilities plays on the team. The Manitoba Sledge Hockey team has also played against able-bodied hockey teams like Kelvin High School, Dakota High School and teams from the RCMP and CFB Shilo. Their level of commitment to the sport remains unwavering regardless of their abilities. These teams have a long and promising road ahead.

Sledge Hockey Ma nitoba recently won gold at the 2010 Western Canadian Sledge Hockey Tournament. They are hoping to get players on the 2014 Winter Paralympic Games in Sochi. The Manitoba wheelchair hockey team has participated in two national electric power hockey tournaments and the 2008 North American Power Hockey Championship. I wish them all the best in future games and I am certain we will keep hearing about their successes. Thank you. Human Rights and Freedom of Religion Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to talk about the importance of individual and minority human rights.

Our country and our province have long been based on the practice of the freedom of religion and the rights of individuals to practise their religious beliefs. From time to time, persons of different faiths in Manitoba and Canada have been discriminated against, and, most recently, we have seen actions and concerns with respect to Muslims in our community and in our country, specifically in some instances, with the wearing of the niqab and hijab. Wearing these are an individual choice made by Muslim women according to their own beliefs.

It is important that we continue to allow people of all religious beliefs to continue to practise their beliefs and in this instance to wear the niqab and the hijab. Those–there has been suggested that this may be–there may be security reasons for banning these, but the reality is that those who wear the niqab will show their face for security or identification purposes and will have their face shown on their driver's licence or passport, so that this is a misunderstanding.

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2303 It's been suggested that the niqab should not be worn because of voting but, as I've said, this is a misunderstanding and we have many people who vote by mail, so that this is not a reasonable request. May 20th was designated by some people as Draw Mohammad Day. This was in response to a South Park episode that depicted the Muslim prophet as a bear.

A Facebook group has sprung up supporting the event which is very offensive to Canadian Muslims, and wh en there are those among us who are badly offended by actions like these, we should all be offended, stand up and make sure that the right to religious freedoms and the right to practise our beliefs are still there.

People like Shahina Siddiqui, president of the Canadian Islamic Social Services organization, have been at the forefront of trying to educate people, and I would encourage members of all political parties, in light of these events, to learn more about the Muslim faith and to consult with members of Manitoba's Muslim community. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon. Bill Blaikie (Government House Leader): The House will now proceed to second reading debate on Bill 31.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 31–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2010 Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume the adjourned debate on proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Ms. Wowchuk) the second reading of Bill 31, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable member for Carman, who has two minutes remaining. Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it kept me awake all night trying to decide how to finish off with two minutes on BITSA.

But somewhere in there, I just–I'm going to leave you with two final thoughts on this. And, being Wednesday, I see, again, that my written question is once again on the Order Paper. The Minister of Finance responsible for Hydro refuses to answer our very legitimate questions about Bipole III coming through my constituency. I hope that she takes the time to answer these questions. Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, balanced budgets are history in Manitoba now with this legislation, and that's unfortunate. It's a sad day in Manitoba. We now have debt by choice from this government. They choose to go into debt.

They have chosen to get rid of balanced budget legislation, and that's very unfortunate. It 's a sad day for Manitoba that we are now plunging deeper and deeper into debt and with this government at the helm. It's only going to get worse, and it's time for change. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. * (14:50) Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): A pleasure to speak today to Bill 31, and follow some of the comments, today and yesterday, by my friend and colleague from Carman.

It–I find it interesting that the Government House Leader would decide to repeatedly call only one bill that–I know that it's a bill that's near and dear to all members of the Cabinet's heart, because it protects their salary. It protects them from taking an additional 20 percent reduction in salary. But to be so bold as to continually call only one bill for your own self-interest, as opposed to all the other bills that may have some merit, there may be some other bills that, on the agenda for the session, that may very well warrant some support from all members of this House.

And yet they're not being called forward. And they're not being called forward because the Government House Leader, at the whim–at the will of his Premier (Mr. Selinger) and his–other members of his Cabinet and of his caucus, have decided that they're going to prioritize a bill that simply protects their pocketbook. They're going to–and there are, I'm sure, as there is in every political party, people of different means in a caucus, and I suspect that there are some within the government caucus who are very adamant about ensuring that their wage, their government salaries, isn't cut.

And so I expect that the Government House Leader is going to have to explain at some point–at some point–to others who might be sponsoring bills in the Cabinet, or those in the public who might find some of the bills important, to move forward. He will have to explain to them why it is that he made, and he and his government made, their top, their No. 1, their only priority this session, a bill that protects

2304 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 their salaries. He's going to have to go to them and say, we decided to put, as our No. 1 issue, a bill that's going to keep money in our pockets, instead of a litany of other pieces of legislation that might, in fact, have some merit. And, like any legislative session, you can go through the 20 to 40 bills that are introduced on average in every legislative session, and find some that are worthy of support, some that actually would make a difference. I've talked to the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Swan) about some of his bills, and I suspect that we will support some of those Justice bills because they might, in fact, have some measure of improved safety for Manitobans. And, of course, some of those ideas came from the opposition, so, of course, we would support them. But they're not going to see the light of day as long as the Government House Leader (Mr. Blaikie) and the Cabinet have their will, because they have decided that they are not going to prioritize any legislation other than that which protects their own self-interest, other than that which protects their own pocketbook.

And I wonder if the member for Elmwood (Mr. Blaikie), who, I think, in many ways, is a gentleman and someone who I personally can find some accord with–I wonder if he goes to his own constituents and says to them, we are going to not bring forward any other pieces of legislation, any other bills, any other pieces of needed legislation, until we get our salaries protected, until we can ensure that every dollar that we're not entitled to, by the current law, flows into my pocket and to the pocket of the colleagues that I share around the Cabinet table.

I wonder if he knocked on those doors around his constituency, if he went door to door in Elmwood this long weekend–and there'll be time and, I understand, there'll be some beautiful weather, Madam Deputy Speaker, so it might be on the agenda for the member for Elmwood.

He may already be planning to door knock and, if he does, I encourage him to ask those members that he talks to in his constituency, those individuals who answer the door, to say to them, we have these other 30-some to 40 pieces of legislation and then we have one that's been designed to protect our salaries, that's designed solely to ensure that I don't lose 20 percent of my salary, what do you think I should do? Do you think I should try everything I can in my legislative power to get through the bill that passes–to pass a bill that protects my own salary?

Or should we look at perhaps some of the other bills that might be important to Manitobans? And I–you know, I stand to be corrected. Maybe I'd be wrong.

And, if the member does this survey, if he knocks on a hundred doors and asks this of a hundred constituents, and if the majority of them come back to him and say, no, sir, I believe that you should, in fact, protect your salary first; every other bill is a second priority–if that is, in fact, what happens in Elmwood, and I'd be surprised if it does, but if it does, he should come back to the House, report that, and I'll stand under my place, and I'll say, that's not what I expected, I was wrong. I would have expected the majority of his constituents to say that you shouldn't put your self-interest first.

And, in fact, I think if he went a little further, if he spent more time on the doorsteps in Elmwood and explained a little further to them, in terms of why he's protecting his salary–if he said to them, when you look at the legislation, what should have happened is I should have taken a 20 percent–an additional 20 percent–reduction in salary, because of the consecutive deficits. If he said to them, the legislation that was passed by the former Finance minister, the now Premier (Mr.

Selinger), indicated that I should have lost 40 percent of my salary, but we need to change that, we need to change that because we've decided to run deficits for the next five years. I suspect that he'd get a lot of questions about that. I suspect that a lot of people would say to him, well, sir, the member for Elmwood, why is it that you don't want to live by your own legislation? Why is it that you can just change your legislation to suit your own needs? And, in fact, I suspect that if any of the members of the NDP caucus asked that of their constituents, they would be door knocking for a long time.

And they'd be door knocking for a long time because they'd be at each doorstep for a very long time explaining this and they'd be getting a lot of questions. And I suspect that some of the questions they would get are similar to some of the questions I've gotten when I've explained this to residents in Manitoba. They'd say, well, do we have the ability to change the law? If we do something, can we change the law to retroactively protect ourselves? I wonder if the member for La Verendrye (Mr.

Lemieux), for example, if the member for La Verendrye–I'm sure th at the good people of La Verendrye, I know, do th e best that they can to uphold the law in every circumstance. And I know

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2305 many of them as personal friends and I have a lot of great deal of respect for those who live within his constituency. But, like any of us, there are times when, you know, you might drive a little faster than the posted speed limit allows and you find yourself getting a ticket or photo radar ticket or something like that. I mean, it happens. If it doesn't happen very often, that's something that we would expect. But for everybody, for every general, law-abiding citizen, that's something that happens.

And when you get that ticket in the mail–and they're not cheap tickets–not that I'm saying I've gotten any, but when you get that ticket in the mail, it might be between 150 and 250 dollars. It's a significant ticket. I'm getting confirmation from the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). He says it's about $250. So I appreciate that. And the member for Burrows, I know, is a law-abiding individual. He's certainly–you know, he may make a mistake like anybody. So you get this ticket in the mail or you get it from the officer when you're pulled over, and, you know, you're frustrated.

You realize that you've made a mistake but you have no ability to go back, as an ordinary citizen, and change the law and say, well, the posted speed limit said 100 kilometres an hour on a highway or 60 kilometres or 40 kilometres in the city, so I'll just change the law to change what the speed limit was and then I wouldn't have to pay the ticket. Nobody has the ability to do that, as an average citizen, and nobody, really, is asking for that ability. They're not saying, when they get the ticket, well, I'd like to be able to go back and change the law to save myself that $250.

And that's a lot of money for a lot of people. For most people, you know, when you get that unexpected ticket, it comes out of your family budget. You have to somehow make up for that by cutting back something else or drawing it from your savings. It's not insignificant. But what has this government done? They've essentially done that. They've gone faster than the posted speed limit. They've increased the deficit more than the law said that they were allowed to, over a period of time. And so, according to the law as it is today, they should be getting a ticket.

They should be getting a ticket that says, you're going to lose 40 percent of your salary. And the member for Elmwood (Mr. Blaikie) and all of his members from Cabinet, the Minister for Water Stewardship (Ms. Melnick), the member for Gimli (Mr. Bjornson), the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Lemieux), they've all gotten this ticket, and they've said, well, you know what? Maybe we should just change the law. Maybe the law doesn't apply to us.

Maybe we should have some special status and change the law. * (15:00) My friend from Arthur-Virden mentions the whole controversy over photo radar, where, about a little less than a year ago, there were thousands of individuals in the city of Winnipeg and Manitoba who received tickets that a court, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a court in the province of Manitoba said those tickets should never have been issued. Those were essentially tickets that were illegal because of the way the law was written.

They were issued in construction zones where there were no construction workers and the court said you shouldn't be issuing tickets in a construction zone where there are no construction workers. Sometimes on a holiday, like a July 1st holiday, or late at night when there are clearly no workers–and so these tickets were issued and the court said they shouldn't have been issued. And I bet you many of those individuals who had received those tickets would've said, oh, I wish I could change the law. I wish I could go back and change the law.

In fact, before them, they were even in a worse situation because the law said they shouldn't have gotten those tickets at all. And so they had to pay tickets because of a mistake by this government. And I remember clearly. I remember clearly, Madam Deputy Speaker, the former minister of Justice, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), standing in his place in the Legislature–the same place that he occupies today–and saying, we can't. We can't refund this money. We can't give the money back because they've already paid it and the law says if you've paid the money then that's it. You can't get the money back.

Well, I mean, that frustrated a–thousands of Manitobans. I got the e-mails. I'm sure all the members in this House got the e-mails. It was a great deal of frustration for these individuals, and rightfully so, because it was a lot of money for tickets that they should never have been given. Well, what a great position, you know, the member for Elmwood and others in his Cabinet, they

2306 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 bring forward a law today that says, oh, we'll just erase the law. We'll just change it. We got caught speeding. We got caught getting a ticket–uh, but we don't want to pay that extra 20 percent so we'll just change the law. And I would suggest to the member for Elmwood (Mr. Blaikie) and all the members of the Cabinet and his colleagues in the NDP that this is one of those issues.

When it's explained to people that a government has decided, only because it has the legislative power–not the moral authority, but the legislative power–to change a law so that they won't be in violation of it to save themselves personal money. When that's explained to individuals and then you compare it to the fact that if they get a ticket or they break the law there'll be no reprieve from this government; there'll be no remorse, you'll have the Minister of Justice stand in his place–the former minister–and say, if you've broken the law or you have to pay the fine, that's the way it is for everybody.

Well, we find out, a few months later, it isn't actually that way for everybody. It isn't that way for everybody in Manitoba. It's only for those who aren't in the NDP Cabinet, because, if you're in the NDP Cabinet, you have a very special place, because all you have to do is change the law and save yourself– and save yourselves that 20 percent. And I know the hardworking people of Elmwood, the hardworking people in Southdale, the hardworking people of Kirkfield Park, they would say, I'm sure, if this was–and it will be presented to them. They will be told to them–this story will be told to them.

They would say, that, we believe, is an abuse of privilege. That, we believe, is taking power that's been granted to you and using it in a way that is abusive of that authority. And I think that they're going to be concerned about that. Compounded with the notion that this legislation is going to do that is it is the top priority for the Government House Leader (Mr. Blaikie). It's his No. 1 priority. He'll put aside every other piece of legislation. He'll put aside legislation that might actually help those who are victims of domestic violence.

He'll put aside legislation that might have some impact in helping us correct some of the gang activity in the province of Manitoba. He'll put all of that aside, put it on the shelf for one reason–for 20 reasons. So that he can save himself 20 percent on his salary, and that's going to be his No. 1 priority. That's what he's going to ensure happens this session, that this bill that'll save him and his Cabinet colleagues 20 percent. That's going to be what he's going to hang his hat on and he's going to be determined–I was going to use another word that I wouldn't want to use in this Legislature.

He's going to be darned and determined to get this bill through no matter what obstacles stand in his way. And, ultimately–I mean, the reality is that this is the government that has the majority, and in our parliamentary system–which we defend every day by virtue of being here–we know that when the majority of a government wants to get legislation through, eventually they're going to get that legislation through. That's how it works, but you also have to go then and defend that legislation. You also have to go back to your constituents at some point and explain it.

Now, I'm sure that, you know, it won't be the first thing when the member for Elmwood, or the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Lemieux), is doing the barbecue circuit. It won't be the first thing they raise. I'm sure my friend from La Verendrye, when he's out in Ste. Anne or in Lorette this summer, or Landmark, he won't go up to the constituents and say, you know what I got done this legislative session? I saved myself 20 percent on my salary. It was my No. 1 priority, and that's what I fought for in the Legislature for you this spring. I don't think that that'd be what he raises, but I'll raise it.

And I think others will raise it, and people will talk about it. And people are going to understand what it is that this government has done, that they've decided to change the law to save themselves. And then the next natural question, of course, I think the people will be dismayed. I know the people of Ste.

Anne, Lorette, and they're going to say: Well, we're hardworking individuals; we work every day to ensure that we can put food on the tables of our family and maybe have a few extras, maybe get out to Falcon Lake once in a while and to bring the trailer out to the Lilac Resort or some other recreational facility. And we work hard to do that. And yet what you did, when you had the opportunity to go to the Legislature and do something for us, to pass laws that were good for Manitobans, what you did was try to save your salary. And then they're going to ask the next logical question.

Well, what is–what law were you breaking? What law were you breaking that you had to change it? You had to fight so hard that every

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2307 other law became secondary, that everything else became something that wasn't important. And then they're going to have to tell them, if they're up front, that the legislation that we were changing was balanced budget legislation. It was balanced budget legislation that in 1999 the then-opposition leader, the Gary Doer, the former member for Concordia, stood with a sign of five promises, and one of them was to ensure the balanced budget legislation was protected.

Now, I suspect that that was always somewhat of a notional approval by the then-opposition leader, and who eventually became Premier, but at least he paid lip- service to it. At least he said, well, we believe in the spirit of the legislation, if he–even if he didn't always live up to the–or if he didn't live up to the letter of the legislation, he was at least saying he believed in the spirit of the legislation. But that was then, and, you know, I had many disagreements with the form er premier. There's a lot of policy things we disagreed on, certainly involving agriculture and other things. But I will say this.

I think, compared to what he left behind after he left for Washington to work fo r the federal Conservative government, he left behind a caucus and a Cabinet that is far more out of tune with what it is that Manitobans believe are priorities. There's far more insular–there's more of a tin ear than he ever did, because I do think that he was, at least, trying to be reflective or responsive of what the general feelings of Manitobans were. So I look forward to the member for Elmwood.

I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, you're indicating that my time is running short, but I look forward to the Government House Leader, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Blaikie), coming back and reporting to this Legislature, after he's knocked on a hundred doors and told those constituents that his No. 1 priority is to save his salary. His No. 1 priority is to save himself 20 percent.

What the response of those constituents will be if they say, well, good for you, sir; that's what we sent you to the Legislature to do, it's to save every penny that you could to change the law when we couldn't, but that's why we sent you to the Legislature. I want to hear him report that. But, if they say something else, if they say, sir, that is not what we expected from you; we expected something better, I also hope that he comes here along with all of his Cabinet colleagues and explains why it is that he can still make this his one and only priority during this legislative session.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Steinbach, to continue your debate. * (15:10) Mr. Goertzen: Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that you've added 10 minutes to my time. I feel like I've gone into overtime and it's like the Stanley Cup playoffs.

I left off–when last you heard from me, I had challenged the member for Elmwood to go within his constituency and to speak to the good people of that constituency about why it is that he's changing legislation simply to protect his salary, and there are many other things that he could ask– [interjection] There are many other things he could ask his constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, as it relates to this particular legislation.

And I would ask him–I know he didn't get a chance to serve with the former premier for very long before he fled to go work for a Conservative government in Washington, which I, you know, I have to think is a good choice. I know the member for Elmwood didn't always agree with the Conservative government when he was in Ottawa. He's trying to change that position.

It seems that he left some of those angsts and some of those concerns at the Ottawa airport, and when he boarded the plane to come to Winnipeg to run here for the New Democrats, he seems to have had a bit of a change of position on some of those feelings about the federal Conservative government, and that's good, and I hope that he can change some other positions. I hope that he's able to look at what he's–and, you know, and, again, I think, actually, that in some ways the minister has been led astray by his Premier (Mr.

Selinger), who's being told–he's being told that this is something that he needs to do, that he needs to ensure that legislation that guts the balanced budget bill is made a priority and that our salaries are saved, and he's been told that you have to be the front person for this; you have to go forward and ensure that this gets done. I suspect in the heart of hearts of the member for Elmwood, if he had his druthers, this might not be the first thing that he wanted to do primarily in his legislative career here in this Chamber.

Looking back at his track record in Ottawa, and I had the opportunity to look at some of the comments that he

2308 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 made in Ottawa, and at some point in the future we may be able to digest those further in this House, but, certainly, there were some things in terms of democratic reform that the member for Elmwood brought forward in Ottawa. I know he was one of the proponents for ensuring that private members' bills would come to a vote in Ottawa. That was done–I don't have my notes in front of me, but I think it was done in the '80s, in the mid-80s or something along that line. Now, he has, then, of course, brought that policy with him into government.

That may have been his first priority. He may have come to the Premier (Mr. Selinger) and said, you know, we're not as democratic here when it comes to private members' pieces of legislation as they are in Ottawa, and I led reform in Ottawa on ensuring that private members' bills would always come to a vote and so maybe that's what I should do here in Manitoba. That may have been his No. 1 priority when he came to Manitoba, and maybe the Premier took him aside and said, well, sir, that may be a laudable goal, but that's not going to be your No. 1 priority.

Your No. 1 priority is going to be to gut the balanced budget legislation. And I suppose, even though the member has a long track record in Parliament, it would have been difficult to say to his Premier: Mr. Premier, that's not the direction we should be going. We should be doing something that means more to the public of Manitoba. It may be that the member for Elmwood (Mr. Blaikie) went to his Premier and said: And I've been hearing about this bipole decision.

I've been hearing about the decision to put bipole on the west side of the province instead of the safer, shorter and more environmentally friendly eastern route, and, you know, Mr. Premier everybody makes mistakes and maybe we should review this decision. Maybe we should change it. Maybe it's not good for the future of Manitobans. In fact, I know his seatmate, his–the colleague from Minto, he spoke out about it. He came forward and said we s hould be looking at the eastern route.

That was during a recent leadership race by the New Democratic Party, and at that time the now-Minister of Justice, the member for Minto, he stood on the steps of the Legislature, I believe, on these hallowed grounds and he said I believe that we should move or at least look at having the hydro line on the eastern side of the province, and what a breath of fresh air that was to finally have a member of the New Democratic Party be able to crack the–and get unshackled and to come forward and say we are doing the wrong thing. Mr.

Mohinder Saran, Acting Speaker, in the Chair You know, I believe that in the heart of hearts, if you could go into the minds and the wishes of most of the members of the NDP party, they would probably say this is the wrong decision. We're putting it on the wrong side of the province and, if it was up to me as an individual MLA, we would change it. But they don't have the fortitude to come forward and say that.

Even though, I believe, that the vast majority of their constituents would say to them, you should be changing your decision; we have sent you to the Legislature to represent us and, now, in this time of need on this decision, you say nothing. And that would be a concern, I think, for the vast majority of their constituents. But not the member for Minto (Mr. Swan), because he stood up and said, this is wrong. He reflected what is probably the majority of the will of that caucus. And what happened when he did that? What happened when he do that, Mr. Acting Speaker?

He got the knock on the door at 3 a.m., and a shadowy figure–who may have looked something like Eugene Kostyra–yanked him out of the race, pulled him out of the leadership race. Not only, of course, because of the east-side, west-side comments by the minister, but, of course, because they were worried because there was a horse in that race who was running faster than anybody believed he would be running, and that, of course, was the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

The member for Thompson had put the fear of electoral victory into all of the members of the NDP caucus and Cabinet, except for two–except for two who had decided to stand by him. And so the combination of the member for Minto's decision to come forward and to speak the heart and the will of what probably is the majority of the NDP caucus–but, of course, they won't speak on behalf of their constituents–the combination of that and the marked speed which with the NDP member for Thompson, his campaign was gathering caused them to send some dark and shadowy figure. We haven't been able to determine who it was.

We have our suspicions or some likely suspects in the NDP hierarchy, but somebody knocked on the door and told Mr.–the Minister for Justice to get out of the race. And, ultimately, that resulted, I suspect, in a

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2309 chill that went through the caucus, a chill that went through the caucus that nobody else could speak about moving this line from the west side to the east side, because they saw what happened to the member for Minto (Mr. Swan). The warning had been sent. There had been a shot across the bow in terms of what happens when you speak out against a decision in the NDP Cabinet. And yet I know that when the members opposite go and speak to their constituents, that they know full well the will of their constituents.

Their constituents are saying, well, if you have one route that is $1.7 billion more than the other route, and the other route–the eastern route– is shorter, safer, more environmentally friendly–well, it doesn't make any sense. And that's why the member for Minto came out, because he knew. He's not an unintelligent fellow. We have our debates here, but I certainly respect his intellect. And he knew full well. He knew full well what was going on, that it was the wrong decision.

But for some reas on, for some ideological reason, because something has been cooked up somewhere in terms of why they're going to ensure that they are going to have to go on the west side, everybody else has been scared into silence. Everybody else has been scared into silence. Now, I understand–and I see I'm getting my second warning, Mr. Acting Speaker. I'm drawing to my second conclusion on this particular bill and I'm not sure if I should truly wrap up or hope that I might get another extension after this.

But I do want to say to the members opposite, to the Minister for Conservation, the Government House Leader (Mr. Blaikie), that he knows full well in his electoral career that he is elected to represent the people who sent him here and who formerly sent him to Ottawa. He is elected to represent their interests. And to come into this Legislature and simply say, I'm going to follow whatever the Premier (Mr. Selinger) says; my top priority is going to be to save my salary; I'm not going to speak out about bipole, I'm simply going to fall into step.

I don't believe in his own heart he believes that that is the democratic thing to do. I don't believe that he believes that that is what his constituents want him to do. * (15:20) So I would encourage him to use the great weather we're going to have, to use the four-day weekend we're going to have to go to his constituents and listen to them. And, when he's listened to them, then come back into this Legislature and do what I know what is in his heart. Do the right thing. Don't just protect your salaries. Don't put the hydro line on the wrong side of the province.

Represent those good people who've been so loyal to you for so long. They've been loyal to you. It's time that you be loyal to them, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): And I, too, believe that Bill 31, that was proposed by the government just a couple of short weeks ago, is all about protecting ministers' salaries. It's got nothing to do with much else. It does deal, of course, with amending some of the tax statutes that we have in the budget. And it does implement some of the budget recommendations, and what was–what has occurred in the budget.

But, by and large, the first item in Bill 31 happened to be amending the balanced budget legislation once again and, again, protecting salaries of members of the ministry, all the ministers in this government, Mr. Acting Speaker. Not only did we–by passing this bill, not only will we be increasing the cost to government–of government, but we'll also–witnessed, just before the session started, the Premier adding another minister to his–to the portfolios.

And what that has done is it increased costs to the gove rnment and also increased costs to taxpayers because now we're–obviously, there's less money to go around, and the deficit goes up as a result. The NDP campaigned on balanced budgets in 1999. We've heard in the 1999 election, that Gary Doer acknowledged that the balanced budget legislation was a good idea and one that the party would keep. His quote was: We've said all along that we're not going to change the things they got right, said Gary Doer. That's what he said.

And what we've witnessed over the last few years is three changes to balanced budget legislation. And why have we seen those changes? We've seen those changes because of the failure of this government to manage the finances of this province. Without those changes, they would be in contravention of that law. And ministerial salaries, initially, when the balanced budget legislation was passed, ministerial salaries were to be cut down to a dollar. They didn't like that. They knew that–the government didn't like that.

They knew that what would happen in each of those three years after legislation was changed, that they would have had to taken–have taken pay cuts. They didn't get it right, so

2310 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 they wanted to ensure that they, themselves, would not take a penalty. Secondly, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, the NDP campaigned on balanced budgets in 2007. As late as 2007, that–they campaigned promising to balance the budgets as a priority during that 2007 election. When they referred to spending promises made by other parties, Gary Doer said: They're all going to be running deficits if they keep their election promises; God forbid. That was the quote in the Brandon Sun on May the 11th, 2007. What's changed since then, Mr. Acting Speaker?

What's changed is that they've run the finance of–the finances of this province into the ground. They can't control their spending habits. They've spent money foolishly, needlessly, and the biggest increase in this year's budget was actually for debt repayment costs– the cost of interest on that debt. And that's what they've done to the finances of this province. Over the next four years, we–they project an increase in debt of $2 billion–more than $2 billion added to the provincial debt. Our provincial debt is projected to go to almost $24 billion within the next four years. And it's no secret.

There's going to be increases in interest rates across the country. There's going to be increases in interest rates for government. A 1 percent increase in interest rates for government will translate into a $240-million increase in costs to gove rnment. Just a 1 percent increase will do that. Two percent will be $480 million. And the numbers that is–that are projected in this year's budget, for the next four years, will double, perhaps even triple, with increases in interest rates.

At a time when we were doing well economically across this country, including in Manitoba, during that time we would–we should have been putting more money into debt repayment. That's what all households were doing. That's what responsible Manitobans were doing. Canadians were doing that all across the co untry, but what we were doing in Manitoba, contrary to what other provinces were doing is we were increasing our debt at a time when there were good economic times, when the revenues to the province were increasing. What we were doing in Manitoba is spending every nickel and then some.

I recall that over–I've been elected since 2002, and I've witnessed eight budgets at this point, and every time the NDP brought forward a budget in this House, they were always out. It's–they would bring in a budget of seven or eight billion dollars and they would always exceed the spending–every year since 2002, almost a billion dollars of increased spending because they couldn't control their spending habits.

Now, admittedly, some of that overspending would have been necessary, given the fact that sometimes there were fires in the province, more fires than what was budgeted for–more in that in the budgets, but the reality is, how could you overspend by more than a billion dollars in eight budgets from what you budgeted? That–what that tells me, Mr.

Acting Speaker, is that when–obviously, when the next budget comes around, when the 2011-2012 budget rolls out just prior to the next election, the NDP will again underestimate their spending just to ensure that when they go to the polls that they're not criticized for spending. And budgets are just budgets. They're not actuals. The reality is is they're projecting next year a $448-million deficit for next year's budget. All they have to do, with a stroke of a pen, is come forward with a budget showing a $400-million deficit or a $300-million deficit.

Budgets are not necessarily reality, and they'll try to spin that during the next election, next year, as being a success story, that they've actually controlle d their spending, that they've actually increased their revenues, that they've actually increased services. The reality is is we won't find out until the following year after that budget is presented about whether they were accurate or not. And I would suggest to you, Mr.

Acting Speaker, that it's–that they will, during the next election, run on a–either a balanced budget or one that decreases the deficit from what they've projected this year, claiming success in Manitoba, clai ming success with the economy of this province an d they will–and they'll again be proven wrong after the following election the following year. The projected budget shortfalls over the next four years total almost $1.5 billion; $1.5 billion of money that really is unnecessary to be spent in this province. Our economy is still growing. That budget is–the projected deficits are unnecessary.

The increases to our debt are unnecessary, and certainly much more could have been done, particularly in the last eight, nine years, ten years since they've been in power and since 1999, much more could have been done to trim spending during that period of time, getting more for every tax dollar that comes into government. Much more could have been done to

May 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2311 control the debt by paying down the debt–and that's another matter, Mr. Acting Speaker. All we hear from members opposite is that they paid down the debt. The reality is, they pay–at certain times during the last 10 years, they paid $105 million toward the debt, but they, at the same time as paying it down, they increased the debt by another $500 million. Last year, they–we forced them in–during the session to increase the debt repayment. The reality is, debt went up.

So you can, on the one hand, pay $10 million toward the debt and on the other hand, borrow more money. And then try to get away with spinning to Manitobans and spinning to Manitobans that they paid down the debt. Well, arguably, yes, they paid down the debt. At the same time, the debt increased. So what really happened? There was no payment on the debt whatsoever, Mr.

Acting Speaker. * (15:30) The–so debt is increased and more than $2 billion will be added to the debt, be piled onto our total debt of the province in the next four years, and that total debt of the province almost–will be almost $24 billion within the next four years. The–I note in 2007 Gary Doer made it a priority to balance budgets. At least that's what he said. Then we had a leadership change, and Gary Doer left, and the old NDP government stepped forward.

And I hearken back to the years of–when the dark days of NDP rule–dark, dark days of NDP rule under Howard Pawley, and how he got turfed out of the government very, very quickly. And why did he get turfed out of government? Because he was out of control spending. He had a Finance minister who couldn't balance his chequebook–Vic Schroeder– never mind run the finances of this province. And now he's at Manitoba Hydro, running Manitoba Hydro into the ground. What he did was almost bankrupt the province during the Howard Pawley years in this province.

And the Finance minister was right there with him trying to fudge the books. Vic Schroeder fudging the books, as he was told he was doing by the Auditor General in the province, and almost bankrupted the province. Now that he's with Manitoba Hydro, he's probably going to bankrupt Manitoba Hydro. And I note that–in fact, I know Vic Schroeder a little because I practised law in Beausejour and so did he. And at the time it was very well known he couldn't even balance his personal chequebook, and when he became Finance minister it really surprised everyone.

And I note that after th at–that even the NDP MLA from that area was turfed out of government with Howard Pawley–Clarence Baker–because of all the problems that resulted in the finances of this province. I also note that, even though Gary Doer was touting balanced budget legislation and, 1999, ran on it in the election, touting balanced budget legislation as good legislation in 2007–during the election in 2007, I note that even though he was doing that that– and they committed to abide by balanced budget legislation.

All at the same time, between elections, when those promises were made all the time during– between those two elections, in 2003 and 2004 budget the government of the day, this NDP government, ran a $614-million deficit, but they claimed it was a $13-million surplus, Mr. Acting Speaker. And that's–those are the words of the Auditor General at the time. So, even though Gary Doer was campaigning in '07 on balanced budget legislation and claiming to have balanced the budget each and every year, the Auditor Ge neral in 2003-2004, in fact, disagreed and said there was a $614-million deficit.

And I recall, when I was Finance critic at the time and I was questioning today's Premier (Mr. Selinger), who was the Finance minister at the time, we spent quite a bit of time in Estimates on–with regard to that and all he would say the entire–all of the answers to all of the questions I posed to him was that we had a $13-million surplus. We had a $13-million surplus. That's all he would say in spite of the fact that the Auditor General called him on it and indicated to Manitobans that there was a $614-million deficit. Bill 31 guts the balanced budget law and again is another broken NDP promise.

It includes changes to the balanced budget legislation which was amended in 2008. It also was amended in 2009 just to suit the finances of the province and how the NDP were running the finances of this province. Every time they got into trouble, instead of controlling their spending, instead of getting value for money that was being–that was coming into government because of–under taxation and so on, in spite of getting value for their money, they would not control their spending. They would continue to make changes to the balanced budget legislation–2008,

2312 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 19, 2010 2009–just to suit their spending habits. And, of course, because they had a majority, we voted against each and every one of those budgets. We voted against them because of the fact that we weren't getting value for our money. We voted against them for all kinds of reasons. We voted against them for the fact that they didn't increase the numbers of police officers on the streets the way they should of increased them. We voted against budgets because they were running deficits. We voted against the budgets because they increased the debt of this province.

There's many, many, many reasons why we voted against those budgets. Of course, there's always some good in every budget and we acknowledge that, but the reality is that overall this government was taking this province in the wrong financial direction. And as a result of going in the wrong financial direction, what we see is dramatically increased debt. With–and with dramatically increased interest rates as we anticipate, probably within the next two or three years, we're going to see massive, massive deficits. And, as I said before, Mr.

Acting Speaker, next year, I suspect the NDP will come in with a balanced budget or maybe one that has a much smaller deficit, but the reality is is that Manitobans should remember every budget they've had since 1999 has always been overspent. The deficit has always been higher than they projected and we're paying for it here in the province of Manitoba, and while–and we'll be paying for it for years and years to come, including our grandchildren as well. These are deficits of choice, Mr. Acting Speaker. They're not deficits of neces sity like they try to paint them. They're deficits of choice.

They could have looked at every line in the budget–budgets they presented. They could have looked at every line of spending and cut a lot of places, including out-of-province travel, including travel budgets that we have continuously not been provided information with in spite of FIPPA requests. There's lots of ways they can deal with oversp ending, but they chose not to do that. They chose instead just to continue, to continue their old spending habits, and Manitobans, of course, are the loser in that respect. There are ways, as well, to trim from the budgets, to reduce waste.

One of which comes to mind is the decision by the NDP to remove nitrogen from waste water here in the city of Winnipeg. Instead of listening to scientists that have been saying all along that, in fact, even removing nitrogen from waste water may hurt Lake Winnipeg, instead of listening to those scientists, they instead intend to add hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to public spending here in the province of Manitoba. Another one that comes to mind is enhanced drivers' licences and the tens of millions of dollars that have been spent doing that, and nobody seems to be using them.

The reality is is that passports are much easier to obtain now. I know when passports were being mandatorily required by the United States, at least initially, there were many lineups to get passports and long waiting–wait times, and that's probably what drove them to deal with enhanced drivers' licences. However, the reality is is the federal government took care of the problem. They dealt with it appropriately and now passport issuances are coming much quicker and within a reasonable period of time. One way they could decrease spending, too, Mr.

Acting Speaker, and perhaps Vic Schroeder should be listening to this one: Don't run the Bipole III line on the west side of Lake Winnipeg. We could save $1.75 billion–$1.75 billion. It's a lot of money. And I know, Vic Schroeder, he likes to spend the money, especially if it isn't his. An Honourable Member: No common sense. Mr. Hawranik: He has absolutely no common sense. You're absolutely correct. And as I said before, he couldn't even balance his own chequebook, never mind a hundred and seven– $1.75 billion. Total waste of money, in my view, running it on the west side of Lake Winn ipeg.

It's farther by far compared to the east-side line. There are more trees, many more trees in the boreal forest to cut down going on the west side. There's more line loss for– and we could–running it down the east side, we could shut down another coal plant in the United States generating electricity, but, no, this NDP government isn't listening. * (15:40) Obviously, Ed Schreyer was listening. He came out front and centre. Ed Schreyer, the former premier of this province, NDP premier in this province, he came out front and centre. He wasn't being political about it. He said the east-side option is the route to go.

That came from the lips of Edward Schr

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-4-48
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 4th hansardpdf 48.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7587e16d7cf0e95acc50bee791f2e9a47fd09cae

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