Manitoba Committee Hansard — 6 July 2013 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 6, 40th Legislature, 2nd Session)

40-2-sed6

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Ms. Melanie Wight Constituency of Burrows Vol. LXV No. 6 - 10 a.m., Saturday, July 6, 2013 ISSN 1708-6698

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

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

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

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

303 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Saturday, July 6, 2013 TIME – 10 a.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Melanie Wight (Burrows) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview); Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia) at 4:06 p.m. ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Chomiak, Hon. Ms. Oswald, Hon. Mr. Struthers Messrs. Allum, Eichler, Ewasko, Gaudreau, Saran, Schuler, Mrs. Stefanson, Ms. Wight Substitutions: Mr. Graydon for Mrs. Stefanson at 1:49 p.m. Mr. Smook for Mr. Schuler at 1:49 p.m. Mrs.

Driedger for Mr. Ewasko at 1:49 p.m. Mrs. Mitchelson for Mr. Eichler at 3:08 p.m. Mr. Dewar for Hon. Mr. Chomiak at 3:36 p.m. Hon. Ms. Howard for Hon. Ms. Oswald at 3:36 p.m. Mr. Wiebe for Mr. Saran at 3:51 p.m. Hon. Ms. Melnick for Mr. Gaudreau at 3:51 p.m. Hon. Mr. Robinson for Mr. Allum at 4:05 p.m. APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights Mr. Cliff Graydon, MLA for Emerson PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Ms. Beck y Cianflone, Altona and District Chamber of Commerce Mr. Garth Steek, private citizen Mr. Chris Dsovza, private citizen Mr. Derek Rolstone, private citizen Mr. Joe Whiten, private citizen Mr.

Romel Dhalla, private citizen Mr. Allan Ciekiewicz, private citizen Mr. Feraz Ahamed, private citizen Ms. Elizabeth Carlyle, private citizen Ms. Angela Brown, private citizen Mr. Kevin Shumilak, private citizen Mr. Tim McAllister, private citizen Mr. Dan Lanyon, private citizen Ms. Selena Bieber, private citizen Mr. John Ryan, private citizen Mr. Anthony Augustine, Manitoba Federation of Non-Profit Organizations Ms. Muriel Koscielny, private citizen Mr. Doug Chorney, Keystone Agricultural Producers Mr. Bill Heather, private citizen Mr. Keith Fulford, private citizen Ms. Elda Enns, private citizen Ms.

Dorothy Wise, private citizen Mr. David Angus, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce Mr. Ken Kornel, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Clayton Rumley, private citizen Rebekah Swistun-Craig, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 20 –The Manitoba Building and Renewal Funding and Fiscal Management Act (Various Acts Amended) * * * Madam Chairperson: All right. Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for coming to the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development. Please come to order. I'm going to do my best to speak loud enough for you to all hear me, so hopefully that'll be OK.

You seem very far away to me, but I–so I hope you can hear. The meeting's been called to consider Bill 20, The Manitoba Building and Renewal Funding and Fiscal Management Act. As per agreement of the House, dated June 20th, we have 58 people scheduled to speak on Bill 20 today, and you have the list of those presenters before you and it is also posted at the entrance of the room. Members may notice that because of the unique nature of how these meetings have been organized, we have four distinct groups of presenters today. I'd like to take a brief moment to explain these distinctions.

Presenters who confirm their attendance are those with whom we have been able to verify their attendance for this meeting. Presenters called twice at previous meetings will be called a third time

304 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 today and then dropped from the list. Presenters who did not confirm their attendance are those with whom we have not been able to verify their attendance for this meeting. Presenters who registered after June 20th, 2013, and confirmed their attendance do not fall under the terms of the June 20th agreement, meaning that the committee will only call their names twice before dropping them from the list. Fortunately, there will not be a test on this.

On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we do have out -of- town presenters in attendance. I don't know if they're marked on your sheet, but they did get marked–one got marked on ours with an asterisk on the list. And, with this consideration in mind, I propose that for each group we call the out -of-town presenters in that group first.

Is that agreed as an appropriate order of calling presenters? [Agreed] I would also like to remind members of the committee that, in accordance with the agreement mentioned before, the committee also may, by leave, decide to hear from presenters in addition to those scheduled for today's meeting. Okay. Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. For the information of all presenters: While written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies.

If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff. As well, I would like to inform presenters that in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. A t nine minutes, I will try to remember to sort of just put up my finger and let you know that there's one minute left for you to kind of wind it up. So, if you could just take a peek at me when you feel like you're getting close to that time, I'll let you know.

Also, in accordance with the rules agreed to in the House for the meetings–hearings from presenters on Bill 20, if a presenter of the first, third or fourth group is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. A written submission on Bill 20 from Mr. Clayton Rumley has been received and distributed to committee members.

Does the committee agree to have this document appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] * (10:10) Now speaking in committee, prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name so that Hansard will know who's speaking at that moment.

That's the signal for them to turn the mi cs on and off, so that's why we're doing that. Thank you so much for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations. I would like to inform the members of the committee that one presenter, Beck y Cianflone, is not checked as an out -of-town on the list, but she is an out -of-town presenter. Also, Anthony Augustine was by mistake left out from the list.

There is leave of the committee to add him at the end of the first group of presenters? [Agreed] Also, if I do pronounce your name wrong, please, please correct me because we will use your name a number of times throughout it, so don't feel shy. And I will now call on Becky Cianflone. Do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Ms. Beck y Cianflone (Altona and District Chamber of Commerce): I do not. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Thank you. Please go ahead. Ms.

Cianflone: My name is Beck y Cianflone, and I'm here as executive director of the Altona and District Chamber of Comme rce representing the interests of our 170 chamber members – 170 businesses ranging from small home -based craftspeople to large manufacturers exporting product throughout North America. One hundred and seventy businesses owned, operated and managed by honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizens who want to make a difference and see our communities, region and province prosper.

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 305 Bill 20 proposes increasing the PST in the province from 7 per cent to 8 per cent, resulting in a revenue increase to the provinci al government of $277 million annually. The most troubling part of the government's decision to increase the PST is the fact that they are also changing the current balanced budget legislation which had stipulated that a referendum of Manitobans be held be fore increasing the PST.

At the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce 82nd annual general meeting held May 3rd to 5th, 2013, at the Elkhorn Resort and Conference Centre, a resolution was passed unanimously by the chambers in regards to the government's recent decision to increase the PST.

The resolution passed by members is as follows: That the Premier of Manitoba respect the Province's current balanced budget legislation and the right for the people of Manitoba to have a voice in the decision on whether or not to increase the PST by 1 per cent by holding a public and binding referendum in which all citizens can either approve or disapprove of this increased tax. In addition, chamber members also raised concerns with how this proposed tax increase will make our already uncompetitive tax framework even more unattractive.

With our proximity to the US, Altona businesses already have to battle the effects of cross-border shopping. Our businesses are feeling abandoned–nay, rather attacked –by the provincial government's efforts to seemingly put them out of business. When you add the increased PST along with our higher personal income tax rates, higher corporate income tax rate, and we remain one of the only provinces in Canada that continues to have a payroll tax, it cle arly shows that we are establishing an uncompetitive tax framework with other provinces.

According to recent analysis by the Fraser Institute, the PST hike that the provincial government is proposing will also result in a reduction in jobs and income grow th. Here's why: The provincial sales tax applies not only to items bought at the register but also to the cost of doing business. That includes capital goods, machinery, equipment and new technologies, materials, energy and other goods or services that our Altona and area entrepreneurs purchase and use to produce what they sell to customers.

The higher cost of capital goods is by far the most detrimental feature of the PST since investments in machinery, equipment and technology are the foundation of a st ronger and more productive economy. A higher PST rate will further increase the cost of doing business, leaving entrepreneurs with less money to operate, expand, innovate, hire people and pay higher wages. Partly due to the PST, Manitoba had Canada's second highest overall tax rate on new investment in 2012 at 26.3 per cent. For perspective, the comparable rate was 16.2 per cent in Alberta and 17.9 per cent in Ontario.

In a world where provinces compete for mobile investment dollars, increasing the PS T will make it even more expensive to invest and do business in Manitoba. By deterring investment, Manitoba families ultimately lose, because less investment means reduced job creation and income growth. The government's decision to increase the PST raises a number of other questions. How will the $277 million received as a result of the increase be invested? What is the plan to provide a solution for the significant municipal infrastructure deficit?

How will challenges for the business community, surrounding an already uncompetitive tax framework be addressed? What is the potential impact of the proposed increase on consumers and businesses? The reality is the government has yet to articulate and answer to any of these questions. In fact, these answers should have been provided to Manitobans before the legislation was ever introduced. The chamber stands firm in its opposition to the Province's decision to increase the PST. The blatant disregard for proper process around changing the legislation is un acceptable.

We believe in holding broad discussion around the issue of the tax increase and are calling on the government to abide by the law and take it to a referendum. The Province must not only let citizens have their say but also take a step back to provide some answers. The chambers believes that a referendum provides many benefits, as it provides clarity of purpose, transparency of investments, greater accountability in the reporting of results and shows respect for the hard-working taxpayers of Manitoba.

If your government truly believes that increasing the PST is in the best interest of Manitoba and will create a strong, competitive economy, then you

306 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 should be prepared, willing and enthusiastic to engage Manitobans and take this proposal to the people. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for presenting. We'll move to questions of the committee. Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much, Ms. Cianflone, and thanks for coming to speak with us here today. I want t o start by acknowledging the good work that chambers locally do. I'm sure yours is no different than mine in my hometown of Dauphin.

They're a very positive contributor to our local economy, and I appreciate the work that you do. The–we are targeting infr astructure with this $277-million revenue item. The 1 cent on the dollar is going directly into infrastructure. If we don't do that, what would your advice be as to where we would get the money to build that infrastructure that I think is pretty necessary for businesses in your chamber in order to be successful? Ms.

Cianflone: Well, I believe that there needs to be broad-based consultation, so I think we need to engage all of the stakeholders that are involved –you know, construction industry, you know, rura l Manitobans, farmers, all of those who are involved. There is no doubt that there's an infrastructure problem; we all know that. But we believe that with stakeholder engagement and consultation we can talk about what the –where the deficits are, where the issues lie, and we can also talk about the revenue model to, you know, to come up with the money to deal with those issues. Mrs.

Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Thank you very much, Ms. Cianflone, for your presentation today, and one of the things that you touched on is –I think it's that ripple -down effect that this will have on consumers as well. And you talked about the increase in the PST and the costs on things like in machinery, equipment, technology and how that will have a ripple- down effect to consumers .

So it's not just a 1 per cent increase; it's going to be a lot more than that to consumers. * (10:20) But I think the other thing is you touched on the fact that the NDP is not going to, you know, abide by the existing laws, which is to go to the peopl e in the way of a referendum. Why do you think that is and what do you think that they're afraid of? Ms.

Cianflone: Well, speaking on behalf of my chamber, I think there is a sense that there's been a lot of wasteful spending on the part of this government, and I think that there's a lot of internal mechanisms that can be used to cut back on spending and to redirect money into the infrastructure process. As I mentioned previously, I think that it needs to be broad-based consultation talking about the deficits in infrastructure and talking about the revenue model. You know, Manitobans across the province have great ideas for how these things can be funded, how we can address these issues. Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I think what you pointed out is important in terms of the PST being on inputs for businesses, so, in fact, you have got a multiplier effect and that it's much larger than 1 per cent. You know, you mentioned that we have a 26 per cent, approximately, tax on business investment; 8 per cent of that 26 per cent, I presume, is the PST. Do you know what the other components are? Ms. Cianflone: Sorry. Unfortunately, I don't have that data in front of me. Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Thank you, Ms. Cianflone, for coming and for the work that you do to represent your community.

It's a fabulous community. I've had a chance to work with a number of people from there, and they're lovely. You made mention in your presentation about cross-border shopping, and I wondered, or I assume, of course, that your chambers of commerce have tracked a little bit what has happened in business as a result of the federal Conservative government's decision to change that personal exemption on duty going across the border. I may stand to be corrected; I don't remember a bunch of consultation on that. It kind of came out of the blue.

I wonder two things: (1) if your chamber is tracking any measurable effect as a result of that increased amount that people are allowed to spend in 48 hours and beyond in t he US, and second, if you had an opportunity to speak at a standing committee on that subject or to submit written materials to any committee on that, and I wondered about your perspective and the perspective of the chamber on that front.

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 307 Ms. Cianflone: The Canadian Chamber has certainly come out, you know, with some recommendations around that legislation that came out federally. We don't–I don't have specific numbers on it, but I know that the Canadian Chamber is looking very closely at those numbers. I can also say that the Altona Chamber partnered with a number of border chambers across the country in coming out with press releases against that legislation. And we've also repeatedly called on the federal government to look at the federal tariff rates on imports for our retailers.

So there's a number of initiatives –that's just one example. But we're certainly very involved in what's happening federally, as well. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. And our time for questions has expired. And thanks for coming out. Ms. Cianflone: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: We will now return to the top of our list and call on Mr. Garth Steek. Do you have any materials with you, Mr. Steek? Mr. Garth Steek (Private Citizen): Madam Chair, I'm ADHD. I have trouble r eading and writing, so you'll have to suffer with me verbally here today. Madam Chairperson: I'm sure that will be very good.

Please proceed. Mr. Steek: Thank you. Madam Chair, elected members of the Legislature. I'm an average citizen. I'm not a particu larly bright guy, not exceptionally well-educated, but when the ubiquitous hand of government starts to crush my shoulder, I wake up. Let me be very clear, direct and unambiguous. You have every right to increase this tax and bring it on. You do not have a right to abrogate process. You do not have a right not to realize a referendum here – profoundly wrong. I'm a guy who's grandfather –both grandfathers– fought in the First World War. My dad fought in the Second World War.

They fought for democracy, the right to retain the opportunity to vote. You're unilaterally taking that away. It's profoundly wrong. Let me tell you an interesting little story. I have two sons, 28 and 32. Three years ago, they bought a small business here. They wanted to be entrepreneurs. They'd be here today, but they can't because they work seven days a week, 10 hours a day. I'm not going to give you the usual jazz that if this goes through they're leaving the province; that's not the case. But here's what's happened.

Since this came to the fore, six, seven weeks ago, they operate a very small operation, but it has a broad appeal across this entire city; people of every social and economic stripe come there. So the boys, like most people in their latter 20s and early 30s, have no i nterest in politics; however, it's the only topic of conversation. So here's the really interesting thing that's happened. During the span of that month, over a thousand people have come through, and they just asked two simple questions. Do you support the tax increase? Big surprise. Eighty -two per cent, no. Would you re -elect this government?

Big surprise. Seventy-two per cent, no. But here's the surprise: The surprise is that somehow this government, which was formerly the government of Doer and more latterly of Selinger, has managed to give us a galvanizing issue. There's a lot of highly intelligent people around this table. This mistake is profound. I'm not going to speak to the tax implications and the effect on business, but I will tell you, is y ou have no idea of the true sentiment of this community. A thousand people came through, and here's the other surprise: These are young guys.

They've got their names and they've got their email addresses. Five hundred people want to work in the election. I guess you could be pleased about that. Many of you around this table probably went to the University of Winnipeg. The motto at the University of Winnipeg is Lux et Veritas Floreant, and the translation is straightforward: Light and truth flourishes. You've heard this repetitively, I'm sure, already: This move not to have a referendum is condescending, it's arrogant, it's petty, it's vexatious, it's mean spirited. You've heard it all, so let’s put that aside. What I don't fathom –I heard Mr.

Struthers refer red to as the honourable minister. What is honourable about what's happening here? I would argue: nothing. I hear that we can't have a referendum because it's cost prohibitive. It's a 15- or 16- billion-dollar budget. Have the courage of your convictions to go to the population. If you win it, wonderful –we accept it. If you lose it, it's the democratic process. But have the courage of your convictions to do that. You won't, and what a sham we have here today. First hot day in June –or July, and so we're sitti ng

308 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 around a conference t able and we've already got a 1 per cent tax increase through. What are we doing here? You know, I was away for the last couple of weeks in Boston. Went through the John Kennedy school of administration and the library. I'm old enough to remember when Kennedy came into power that Robert Frost delivered the speech. Many of you sitting around this table will remember the Robert Frost poem, The Road Not Taken, and Frost, at that event, simply said: you know, two roads diverged in the woods, and I, I took the road less taken.

And that has made the difference. I believe that the road taken by this government was the easy road. In fact, you know, just a bunch of clowns out there, nobody's going to notice, ram it through, and we're two years out from an election. I think you're profoundly wrong. I didn't believe there was an issue that could galvanize the public like this. I have never been involved in a federal election. I've never been involved in a provincial election. But you've galvanized me, my family and a wide range of associates. * (10:30) I'm 63. I want to go to the lake today. I don't know how many summers I've got out there.

I came in to speak to this because, as I said to my sons, if you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing. I don't know anybody around this table, really. I would have made this same presentation were Dr. Gerrard's party in power or Mr. Pallister's party in power. This is not about the NDP, but this is about an abrogation of responsibility in process . It's unforgivable. I won't tell you I'm disillusioned. I'm not –I'm not. As I said, at 63, you've galvanized me and a myriad of people throughout the city and this province. What has happened here is shameful. You can give me all the excuses in the world .

You could have had a referendum and, you know what, what's the price of democracy? It's priceless. And let me to ask you one last question: Were you sitting in the opposition bench when this was happening, what would your reaction be? Startling. I will tell you, in conclusion, that you should be pleased my sons didn't come. They sent the second-stringer. They're far more articulate, far more intelligent than I am. These young people and the people of every stripe that are coming through their little bu siness are not going to back off. It's not a threat by any means.

I can't tell you you're going to lose the next election, but I can promise you this: you have galvanized people in this province to work like never before. I will be disappointed if there ar e no questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Steek, for coming to present. And questions from the committee? Honourable Mr. Struthers. Mr. Struthers : Thank you very much, Garth, for coming in and speaking with us today. I want to assure you that was not the presentation of a second-stringer. You were very clear, and you were very concise, and I appreciate the advice that you've given us. Mrs.

Stefanson: Thank you very much, Mr. Steek, for your very impassioned presentation this morning and from a very personal perspective, and thank you for sharing that with us. My question for you is, why do you think that the NDP has not called and did not call a referendum on this? What do you think that they're afraid of? Mr. Steek: Madam C hair, I've never taken a poll, and, as I've said to you at the outset, I'm not that bright a guy, but I have a little bit of intuition. I'm not sure I'd want to be quarterbacking this event.

However, I think that had there had been some outward consultation at the outset, without just slamming this down our throats, you might have been able to win it. I dare say, you must have conversations around the caucus that would be pretty fascinating. You know, when you see the chaos in the Senate over spending, you see the messes with the two mayors in Montréal and Toronto–people want open, transparent, accountable government. We don't expect you to be flawless; none of us is. But we do expect integrity. And I go back to this thing. It's about honour –doing the honour able thing.

Why do we call you the honourable, if you're not going to be honourable? Mr. Gerrard: Yes, Garth, thank you for coming, and I've got a lot of respect for you and for the work you did as a city councillor. And what I think is happening is that there is some people who are seeing the referendum as not a real vote, because it's not a provincial election or a municipal or a federal election. But, to my mind, it is just an important part –just as important part of our

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 309 democracy as the other votes. Y es, and that there's really a profound feeling out there that this should never, ever have been taken away. It is– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Steek. Mr. Steek: Mr. Gerrard, the fascinating thing about this is it's ensconced in legislation. If it wasn’t important, why the blazes would it be there? Why the blazes would you be running over it if it didn't matter? I go back to this thing.

Regardless of whether you're in opposition or when you're in government and you go home at night and talk to your wife and kids and–say, if I was on the other side of the floor, what would my response be? Get some honest response from your constituents. You know what, a lot of you think you're shoo-ins in the next election. That means from every stripe and party. It's like city council. Everybody thinks they're going to be re -elected. Guess what? Some people aren't going to be re -elected over this; maybe the government, I don't know that.

But I will tell you this, regardless of anybody's political stripe, if you came out and you said: We made a mistake. We made a mistake. And you know what? We're not going ahead with this until we have a referendum. You know what the people of Manitoba would say? Yeah, you had to eat a little bit of crow, but damn, you've got some integrity and honour. That's all it's about, not about being flawless. And one last thing I'd just like to put on the record, Madam Chair, I'm disappointed nobody asked me where we could have found the savings. God, we're running $600-million deficits every year.

You ever think about holding the line on hiring? You ever think about a rollback? You ever think about the people in the Leg. taking a leadership role and saying: Hey, we'll roll back 5 per cent to show you how serious we are. I don't know, I don't think any of it's rocket science. Madam Chair: Thank you, Mr. Steek. Mr. Ron Schuler ( St. Paul): Thank you very much for coming in this morning, Garth, and I have a feeling the reason why the boys didn't come in this morning is because they're running the business right now.

And, as a former retailer from The Forks, I did have opportunity to call you, I think, twice and complain about something that was going on, and I always appreciated the fact that you responded. And you know what this gig is all about. You know what, I just want to pick up on one thing of many that I think were just incredibly hard-hitting and poignant, and that is, what would the NDP doing right now about the PST if it was the Conservatives bringing in and imposing it like what they're doing, imposing it on the poor?

And we've heard it over and over again; there's no litmus tes t when you go to the cash register and you say, you know, I'm struggling, I'm under the poverty line and I can barely make ends meet. And then the individual at the cash register says, oh, absolutely right, you don't have to pay PST because you're just–you're struggling. It is an incredibly hard tax for those who are struggling because you have to buy things, or maybe you don't insure your apartment, maybe you don't insure your house because of the added PST, maybe you don't buy the necessities you want t hat now PST has been applied to.

I appreciate that comment very much, what if the tables were turned. And I can tell you it would be quite a show here today if the tables had been turned. I actually really appreciate that. Floor comment: I thi nk it's going to be an incredible– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Steek. Mr. Steek : –show for the next two years. And I think there's a certain irony that the party with strong social conscience is lambasting those that can least afford this 1 per cent. I mean, you know what, I'll struggle through the 1 per cent one way or the other, trust me. But a lot of your constituents are going to have trouble.

And you're going to have to look yourselves in the mirror come the election and explain to them why you did it. And don't give me the stuff about the $277 million into infrastructure. There are other avenues of money, we all know that, like maybe getting the expenditures under control. If my boys ran the business, Madam Chair, and I ran a business running huge deficits every year, guess what, you could have 10 per cent PST, but I couldn't coll ect it because we wouldn't be there. Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Steek. The time for questions has expired and thank you for coming.

I'm just going to let folks in the audience know, because I forgot to mention this at the beginning, just to remind everybody who are observing the committee meeting, that we –in the committee you

310 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 can't applaud or comment from the audience, so you have to kind of clap inside. Okay? And I would also like to inform the members of the committee that one presenter of the last group, Doug Chorney, is also an out-of-town presenter. A written submission on Bill 20 by Rebekah Swistun-Craig has just been received, and staff is distributing that to the committee members. Does the committee agree to have this document appear in the Hansard's transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Thank you so much.

All right, we will return to our list, and our next presenter is Lynda Berard. Is L ynda here? If not, she will drop to the bottom of the list, and our next presenter is Mr. David Meunier. No? All right. * (10:40) And our next presenter is Mr. Bill Franck. Oh, I'm sorry. And both of those two people who are not here will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Chrissy Hamilton. And she will also be dropped to the bottom of the list. Chris Dsovbor–Dsovbolza. Mr. Chris Dsovza (Private Citizen): Dsovza. Madam Chairperson: Dsovbulla. Mr. Dsovza: It sounds like tequila.

Madam Chairperson: Oh, thank you for your – thank you. Really appreciate the help, because– Mr. Dsovza: No problem. Madam Chairperson: Do you have any materials to distribute? Mr. Dsovza: No, I don't, Madam Speaker. Madam Chairperson: Okay, great. Please go ahead and present. Mr. Dsovza: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me. As you know, my name is Chris Dsovza. I live in the north end, and I was one of the people that voted for Mr. Selinger. It disappoints me to be here today, because I want to take you back to the Magnus centre, which is now the River Point Centre. It's still not open eight years later.

I come from Pakistan, okay. My family worked– my dad worked very hard to bring us here for democracy. I saw Bhutto get hanged. I saw people killed. I saw people burnt. But, when I first came to Canada, friendly Manitoba, it was, wow. So why do protests –why are we having a surge of protest? Well, it's ignited by dissatisfaction with social systems. When people believe that local government and the economy they serve, they may needs–there is little desire to protest if their needs are met. There's no desire –very little. People work within the existing order and the law.

However, when people feel that the systems are corrupt and unjust and are rigid, often an event will trigger a movement to change the unjust to just. And this is what I see. I am having flashbacks of the riots that I saw first -hand. We see it in Egypt. We saw it in Greece. There is words out there that this is what's happening to Manitoba. It is not about the money. It is about more than the money. There's over 12,000 men and women that gave their lives for this country, so we could have freedoms and democracy. What is that price today?–1 per cent.

In 2006–or '05, I'm not sure which–it was around there the University of Winnipeg had put out a report that there is 135,000 people at risk for homelessness; there's 7,600 hidden homelessness; 1,915 short -term crisis sheltered; and 350 living on the streets. In my addictions, I was one of those people. I am currently one of those 135,000 people. I just had to pull out my RRSPs because it is hard. Between the City, the Province–one's taking from one pocket, and one's taking from the other pocket. I recognize we need all these things, but we need to find that balance.

Saskatchewan has run 10 years consecutive balanced budgets. I'm not here t o blame; I'm just here to point out the facts. And then to add insult to injuries, I work in the – with people with poverty, addictions, crime, to do my best as a citizen, okay. It's my duty. That's what I took an oath for when I became a citizen of Canada . I do my best. I know all about addictions and I see a lot of similarities. I'm sorry to say that, and that's troubling for me. We've increased the VLTs , more than 10,000 VLTs. There's brand new machines in the lounges.

The casinos have –you've spent millions and millions on renovations. You've opened liquor kiosks. That's the world I see. On the streets I hear that people are now going to start bootlegging and– oh, booster, sorry, and, if you don't know what that means, that's shoplifting, because they have to survive. It's like we're being forced to do things we don't want to do. And, as it was said earlier, you know what? We all make mistakes. But we can correct them when they're wrong. You have the opportunity. It says on your website that we face chall enges and we have

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 311 opportunities. I don't normally beg, but I'm begging you: Use this opportunity to make a wrong right. The stats on the VLTs are alarming. At $1.25, in one week a person spends $189; in a month, they spend $819; in a year, they spend $9,828. Who do you think goes to those machines on a majority's base? The waiting lists –I have said this for years–in chemical withdrawal unit, if you're high on crack, you do not get treatment. You have to go to Main Street Project.

If you've been to Main Str eet Project, you will know that the human–the Humane Society has got much better facilities. The fact that the River Point Centre is opening in 2014 is what I've been told. We had WRHA build a brand new facility on Main Street. Really? You have 135,000 people waiting, and I don't know what the exact numbers are now, but they are not going down, they are going up. Addictions is going up, crime is going up, poverty is going up. We all have to work together. I don't care what stripe it is, if it's orange, blue, red or green. We all got to come together. That's another thing that's there.

Let's work together. This is not about them or you. It's about the people, the people that are dying. So far, I've gone to over 36 funerals from suicides, homicides. These are personal people that I knew because the waiting list –there's even a waiting list to get into jail. There's a waiting list to get into treatment. There's six beds for VLTs. A friend of mine that I was working with, he had to wait and while he was waiting he got beat up really bad because he couldn't stop. So when I say there's similarities, just stop and look what you're doing.

Stop and listen to what the people are saying, because if it doesn't stop, I don't know. I just don't know. Thank you. Madam Chai rperson: Thank you very much for presenting. Questions from the committee? Mr. Struthers : Well, thank you very much for coming and presenting to us today. First of all, I think we all hear your point in terms of more co -operation within this building, a nd I do want to say, to the credit of the Conservatives and the Liberals and us, there are very much times when we do work together in this building.

You don't see it here in this committee because we actually disagree on the issue that's before us, but we do– there are times when we do come together and work together. So I do want to assure you of that. I do –I paid particular attention to the –your narrative about the poor and the working poor in Manitoba. Our government has taken on a number of items that I think will give some support to people living in poverty. Every year we've increased the minimum wage to help the working poor. We have increased the basic personal exemption. We did bump up RentAid in this most recent budget.

We've provided some exempt ions for baby supplies and safety clothes and those sorts of things. Now, you can always argue degree over that and suggest that maybe we should go further. Is there any–in your view, is there anything else we can do that should be–we should be doing to help people who live in poverty in Manitoba? * (10:50) Mr. Dsovza: Well, we had the opportunity of taking a tour in Point Douglas many years ago–something you don't want to hear, but you're going to hear it. The non-profits that you funnel money to, there' s a problem there–a huge problem.

I don't want to name the organizations out of respect, but I encourage you to start looking at the books because it's not reaching the people. Okay? There is over $20 million spent in Point Douglas. What do we have to show for it? We have a new facility that was open where there was $8 million spent, but there's very few people working. We don't have jobs. What do our –what do we have? We have a pawn shop; we have bars; we have non- profits; and we have money marts to choose from. We don't have the same as St. James and I lived in St. James for many, many years. At 16, I got a job and went to school. Okay?

Those luxuries are not there. We have way too many non-profits. The social enterprise that's open there –I'm sorry, bu t if you ask the residents that live there, it's a joke, because the people that don't work, live there, don't have a job. The people that don't live there have a job and it's the high-paying jobs. It's not that we can't do the jobs. We're not being allowed to be given that opportunity and it's very disheartening. So I heard the same comments from my MLA when I wanted to voice my concerns, and he told me exactly what you said–or actually not him, but it was his staff member.

He didn't even reply to my ema il. But yet, too, when it came for voting, he came to my door three times, and he promised and he said, I will work with you. Words are words. And when I work

312 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 with people who are in addictions, I just don't –it's about talk less; do more. It's about don't t ell me; show me. Because that's how we form belief. That's how we form trust. That's how we form faith. And I get it. Trust is gotten and we lose some, little by little. But I appeal to all of you on this side –there's 37 of you–and I commend the Honourable Jennifer Howard for acknowledging it's going to hurt and affect us.

So, I put that challenge out to every one of you, and for the people that have come from other countries, remember what we had to live through and know what we came to and that is being taken away. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Ewasko, very briefly. Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): Thank you, Mr. Dsovza, for coming and sharing your story. You mention the people in this region with the boosting and so with that, crime is going to go up as well. And we talked–you talked about the waiting lists not only for treatment but also for our jails.

Can you comment on some of the work that you're doing–and I guess, obviously, briefly. What's the message you're giving to those people, because I'm sure it's the same message that I'm giving to my two boys? Is that –you know what? The government is going above the law, around the law. This is still no reason to go out and break the law yourselves, even if it's as little as th e bike helmet laws now, right? So these are the messages that we have to bring to our kids and then, hopefully in the future, our grandkids. What message are you taking to your– to the people that you work with? Mr.

Dsovza: In life, we always have hope, and it's the hope that I try, but sometimes I have to put money out of my pocket to make that hope look real. Because if they don't have the tangibles, I can't stop them. I don't encourage them, but I reinforce in them not to break the law. But when you are a t the breaking point–in fact, my journey, as I said–I didn't want to really live in Point Douglas, but that's where I attempted suicide on the bridge back in 2000 and I didn't have to do that since then. But I almost feel hopeless again, helpless, and I ha ve to tell them the truth.

I don't have all the answers and I can only pray. And that's what we do, is we pray. Madam Chairperson: Thank you so much and thank you for coming down and for the work you're doing. We're quite a bit past –the question period ha s expired so just to apologize to MLAs on both sides, we do have five minutes for questions so sometimes I can't get to everyone. And thank you again, so much, for coming. Our next presenter is Ms. McGauley. Tatiana McGauley? No? Okay. We will move–she wi ll drop to the bottom of the list and we will move on to Derek Rolstone. Do you have any materials to present? Mr.

Derek Rolstone (Private Citizen): I do not. Madam Chairperson: Okay, thank you. Please go ahead. Mr. Rolstone: Thank you to the committee. Thank you to the staff for fitting me in. I was out of the country. I'm a private citizen. I'm a resident of River Heights, Dr. Gerrard's constituency. This is the first time I've spoken to a committee like this. I'm not an eloquent speaker so I apologize in advance and I will try to keep my language as parliamentary as possible. I'm sad that I had to come here today to speak to this group.

I moved back to Manitoba four years ago with my young family and things just kind of seem to be getting worse. And th is is really, for me, the kind of straw that broke the camel's back. This seems like ramming this through is unethical, illegal, undemocratic and unaccountable. So, full disclosure, I worked as a chief of staff in the BC government of Premier Gordon Campbell. We did things a little differently there and I wanted to talk about them for a minute. We actually passed legislation before enacting the budget there. It just seems it's a little bit different here and I'm not clear why.

This government has been around for 14 years. It seems to be tired. Maybe that was the best idea they had, was to raise taxes, and I would think with all the people that they've added to the payroll that someone would, you know, with all the yes -men and sycophants and lackeys that work for the government, I would think that someone would have the courage to put up their hand and say, no, this is a bad idea. But I guess no one has or if they have, they've been muffled. This government seems to have not a revenue problem but a spendi ng problem. This whole PST raise was poorly communicated, poorly framed.

The minister talked about it being dedicated to infrastructure. If that was the case, then do that, but it doesn't seem like it is. And, usually, at least in my experience, when you wanted to bring something out like this, you'd get some validators, you'd get some people to come out in favour of it and it seems like

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 313 the best group that's come forward to talk in favour of this is the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. And I'm a bi t surprised that that's the best you can do. I mean, God bless them, they're consistent. I know that when the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives comes out with a statement, I know–I don't even have to think too much about it; I know I'll just think th e opposite. It's like that old Seinfeld episode where George Costanza just does the opposite and then he's successful.

That's what this group is like, so I'm surprised they're in favour of it. I mean, it's a regressive tax; it hurts low -income earners. Y ou guys have heard this; I don't need to talk about it again. But it just seems like, you know, from what I see in the media, it's just amateur hour. You know, the recession is over, right? We don't need to run deficits, although I'm happy that the new Finance Minister understands, I think, the difference between deficit and debt, unlike the last Finance Minister. We don't need to have some kind of Keynesian economics of priming the pump.

We've got some good things going on here in this province and, news flash, there was no flood this year. So, I know the last few deficits have been blamed on the flood and maybe, I hate to say it, I think maybe there's people in the government that kind of hoped there was a flood this year, so that they would have something to blame the PST increase on. That seems to be the playbook–blame everything on the flood. So, if you'll indulge me just for a minute, I want to just change gears slightly and talk about the land transfer tax. I didn't know about this tax when I moved here four years ago.

I showed up at my lawyer's office, I thought I owed him $800; I owed him $6,700. This was brought in, in 1987, by the NDP government as a revenue- neutral item, so you can't blame this one on Gary Filmon. * (11:00) I know that's the strategy, but you can't on this one. The rates have not been indexed since 1987. In 1987 the average price of a house was $80,000. I don't know if people have noticed in this committee, but prices have gone up a bit. A $300,000 house now is a land transfe r tax of $3,750. In Alberta it's $115; in Saskatchewan it's $900.

This is another example of the government putting Manitobans at a disadvantage. If I moved here right now into the house I live in, it would be $9,200, almost $10,000 of land transfer tax, a nd for what? It just goes into the black hole of government. This government continues to penalize people for investing in the community. At best, they're delaying people's mortgage until the time it takes for them to pay off their whole mortgage, at best . At worst, they're standing in the way of home ownership, especially for first-time homeowners. Do a Google search. Look up Manitoba land transfer tax and tax grab.

There's 73,000 entries. I work as a human resource director. We're just in the process of transferring, not an executive, but a manager, a maintenance manager, to Ontario, to Mississauga. He had some concerns about the cost of housing. We looked at the difference in taxes. I mean, the Manitoba government thinks you're rich if you make over $67,000 a year. They think you're rich if you live in a house that's worth over $200,000, which lots of people do. So we did, we ran the numbers. His taxes are $12,000 less in Ontario.

You don't need a calculator to figure out that that's a thousand dollars a month less in taxes. That goes a long way to paying off a mortgage. I–maybe this government doesn't care about being re -elected. They have misread the public mood. Most people at this table would remember when the last NDP government fell in 1988. And what were the reasons for that? MTS scandal and Autopac. This is a hundred times worse than that, and people here will recall that the NDP was taken to the woodshed for the next four elections. And maybe if not for some shenanigans in the Interlake, it would have been even longer.

Councillor Steek said that he can't tell if you'll win or lose the next election. I'll say it: you're going to lose. You'll win in Burrows; you'll win in Thompson, but not in Kirkfield, not in Southdale, not in Fort Rouge. You know, since I moved here the taxes keep going up, and it doesn't matter if it's federal or municipal. And I know a school division isn't exactly related to this, but mine just went up 7 per cent – 7 per cent. The school division has secret meetings.

I don't mind the deputy –or, sorry –I don't mind the secretary-treasurer making over a hundred thousand dollars for Winnipeg School Division No. 1, but I'm not sure why the assistant deputy secretary -treasurer needs to make over a hundred thousand dollars. So if you're looking for places to cut, that might be one. In closing, I just feel that we need to call a referendum as required by law, and I just don't understand why we couldn't have followed the legislative process on this issue.

314 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Rolstone, for making your presentation. Questions? Mr. Struthers: Thank you very much, Mr. Rolstone, for coming in and speaking with us. I was concerned with one of the statements that you did make, and that was about, kind of writing off t he flood that you say did not occur this year. I remember being in the – Conservation Minister at the time that the BC government was dealing with the pine beetle infestation.

And I remember Gordon Campbell making a lot of sense, talking about the things the y could do to prevent that because they knew it was going to come at them down the road. It was too bad Calgary didn't do that and prevent, maybe, what happened to them recently. It's too bad Minot and Fargo didn't do that. We have a long history in this province of understanding that there's going to be more floods, that we're at the wrong end of a great big watershed that drains our way every year. We can't have people left unprotected. We need to invest money into flood preparation. I hope you understand that.

The question is: Where do we get the money? And I'm going to assume that you think that we should prepare for the next flood, even though there wasn't much of one this year. Where–what's your advice to me on where we get the billions of dollars that's necessary to do that? Mr. Rolstone: That's a good question. I appreciate it. And I worked as the chief of staff in the minister –for the minister of forests, so I know a little bit about the pine beetle. What did we do in BC? We cut costs, right? We pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps. We didn't–we had hiring freezes. We didn't increase pay.

We didn't increase the number of government people on the payroll by 3,500. We didn't have –you know, BC Hydro doesn't have a 170 people working in the PR and HR departments, so if you're looking for places to cut, start there, right? This is not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. We spend too much money, okay? Just like my wife spends too much on her VISA sometimes, right? We spend too much money and we can't continue to do that. Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much for coming today, Derek. I'm sure there's other things you would've liked to do, perhaps, like cut the grass or something else at home.

I want to touch on something the previous speaker said, and you've touched on it too. The previous speaker actually stood in front of us and he said, I'm begging, basically, the party of social justice to not put a tax on the people that it's going to hurt the most. And I think we all appreciate that, you know, those that are earning $100,000 or even–you mentioned the very wealthy people in Manitoba, those earning $67,000. I mean, those it impacts differently.

But the poor who are struggling, those who evidently the party of social justice is supposed to represent, that those are going to be affected even more dramatically with this PST increase. And you touched on it. Can you just expand a little bit on that? Mr. Rolstone: I mean, I just –you know, a sales tax is a regressive tax. I know that they –you know, we already pay 46 per cent, you know, income tax on that over $67,000, as you correctly mentioned. I guess that's not an area where taxes can increase. So they just slap a 1 per cent on to– you know, it hurts everyone equally.

I mean, I think this government – you know, maybe this government isn't out of touch with the people, maybe they're completely in touch with the people, because I think after 14 years they're tired of governing and I think the people are tired of them governing too. So maybe they are aligned, and there's two more years, so. Mr. Gerrard: Yes. Thank you very much for your presentation. You have a fairly unique point of view having been in BC and worked very close with Gordon Campbell and now being here. In BC there's been, I think, two refere ndums; one constitutional and one on the HST.

Maybe you can give us your perspective on why it's important to have a referendum? Mr. Rolstone: I thought combining the PST and the GST is actually a good idea. I think that's actually the right way to go. Lots of businesses are in favour of it, and I thought the BC Liberal government did the right thing in bringing it forward. But, God bless them, they actually listened to the people and they went forward and had a referendum and they lost, and guess what? The y still got re -elected. So they took their lumps–I think Councillor Steek was saying earlier–and moved forward.

So, absolutely we should have a referendum. Let the people decide. It's already in the legislation. I mean, I just don't understand why the curr ent government thinks that they can just consistently and continually break the law and not face any ramifications of that. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for coming to present.

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 315 Mr. Rolstone: Oh, thank you. I appreciate it. Madam Chairperson: Our next presenter is Mary Godwin, private citizen. Is Mary here? If not, Mary Godwin will go to the–drop to the bottom of the list. Our next presenter, Joe Whiten, private citizen. Do you have any materials, sir? Mr. Joe Whiten (Private Citizen): No. Madam Chairperson: All right. Please go ahead and present. Mr. Whiten: Okay. I'm just a–I'm a private citizen. I am sort of in business for myself because I'm a commission salesperson.

This is where the PST hurts me because the product I sell is a high -end product. Everybody needs it. These windows that keep you warm in here, everybody needs them. I sell windows. This PST really hurts because people say, wow, I got to pay 8 per cent now –I got to pay 8 per cent now, we're going to have to put that on next year's budget. Well, Mr. Struthers, I don't get it.

I mean, I sent you an email after the last budget when you increased taxes a gazillion times on everything that we weren't taxed on before and asked you–well, I asked Mr.–Premier Selinger, but he said don't bother me with that, send it to Stan Struthers. So I did, and I got a form letter from you telling me exactly how it was going to help me. You didn't answer any of the questions I sent to you. You probably didn't even see the email. All you did is send som e form letter saying this is the –doesn't–none of those things help me.

Now, you're hitting me with another tax and you say it's going to help me. * (11:10) Up to a year and a half ago –I'm a single parent, raising two kids. Up to a year and a half ago, I struggled to pay my rent every month. I had hydro to pay. I had phone bill to pay, I –all those things. I had my kids in school, I had–trying to give them an education and also trying to give them some activities, sports. My son was in hockey. My daughter w as in dance. All those things cost me money. I have no pension because of that. That's where my money went.

We are the highest taxed province, in Manitoba, and you sit there and you get millions and millions of dollars, more than any other province in Ca nada, except for maybe Québec, in transfer payments. We don't have a big population here, but you seem to be able to spend millions and–I remember during the election. No, we're not going to raise taxes, but we're going to give you a million dollars, we're going to give you a million dollars, we're going to give you a hundred million dollars. When do you think that that money was going to run out? You have no solution for it.

You have an education in–you have a degree in education. Mr. Selinger has a degr ee in economics, which blows me away, because basic economics is, keep the taxes low, keep the people working; more people work, you pay more taxes. That's how the economy is supposed to work. That's how you–that, I mean, my budget, I've got to stay on a budget. This month I only have so much money for food, so much money for this, so I can't do like you do and say, hey, Manitoba Hydro, here, 'hoff' over another hundred million dollars. We're poor. You've got to learn how to stop the bleeding.

Somewhere along the line, somebody's got to say, whoa. And now, you're breaking the law. First it was the Jockey Club. You took all their money away. Why? Because–I don't know if you're –Bon Jon–Jon Bon Jovi went on a tour. You know what their tour was called? Because We Can. That's the way you guys feel because you have a huge majority: Because We Can. That's why we're doing it. I think the Jockey Club's taking you to court. Aren't you going to court against them, Mr. Struthers? That feels good, doesn't it. You had to give them back their money, too, didn't you? Yes, you did. I read it. So you know what?

Why don't you stop taking it from us? Why don't you cut your staff? Why don't you cut back 5 per cent? Lower –you have the high– we have the–you have more Cabinet minis ters than you've ever had. Why? Because We Can. Stop this Because We Can. Think about the people. I don't know what you're going to do in two years. You're definitely not going to be in power. And when people send you an email and ask you questions, do you ever get a chance to read them or is it they just go to your secretary?

Because I know that that was just a form letter, because I had somebody else send you an email, too, and they got the sa me letter I got. None of my questions were answered, so I sent you another email. I never got a reply. Is that the way you treat people? But when you want to get elected, like the other presenter said, you come knocking at my door, saying we need your help. Well, BS. We need your help. We need you to rescind this. Quit breaking the frigging law. I went through a yellow light the other day and I got a ticket because they told me I'm breaking the

316 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 law. I have to pay for that now. Do you have to pay for breaking the law? No. No, we'll just change it. I mean, I just don't understand how you can sit there, and, I mean, Mr. Selinger doesn't even have the –to come to these meetings. He's somewhere else. Yes, well, he should be here. This is where –this is important to Manitobans. And I'm just –I'm at my wits' end because I don't know where to turn right now. I'd like to build a deck onto my house. But I've got to pay 8 per cent PST on that.

That's going to cost me another two, three hundred dollars if I put a big deck on. But I can't afford that. Not only–not just the taxes, I can't afford to build the deck. So I can't go to my cottage because I don't have a cottage. So I think you've got to think about the lower class people that live in this province and say, you know, maybe this isn't a good idea. Maybe if we lower some of our taxes, we can get more people in the workforce and then we can get more –then you get more taxes. Isn't that a novel idea? That's pretty much all I've got to say.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for coming to present. Questions from the committee? Mr. Struthers : Yes, thanks for coming in, Mr. Whiten. I want you to know that when I read your email I wanted to get across the point that the money that we're raising, the $277 million, would be going towards infrastructure. When we talk to businesses, I think they understand that we can't let our infrastructure crumble.

We have to keep investing in that so that we can build a stronger economy and put more people to work so–in your words, and I agree with you –then you have more people being productive and contributing and paying their taxes. So I want to know if you see a role for infrastructure and building infrastructure in Manitoba and how we would go about paying for that. I do want to say, too, your good windows not just keep places hot; they keep places cool and I appreciate that today too. Mr. Whiten: Well, if –I mean, if you cut back on some of your spending.

Don't give a hundred million dollars to everybody that squawks at you. You built a new hospital addition to the Grace Hospital which cost you millions of dollars. Nobody at the Grace Hospital knows what that's going to be used for. It's money that's there. You built a huge facility for midwives to deliver births. How many births is it built for and how many have used it? I mean, those are wastes of dollars that could be spent somewhere else. You ha ve the staff in the Manitoba government–it's bigger than it's ever been. You've got more people working for the Manitoba government than anywhere else.

I'm sorry; cut some of the staff. Unfortunately, they won't get jobs paying the kind of money you pay them, but maybe you've got to cut back there a little bit. I mean, in my business, where I work, the company that I work for, I mean, like I said, I'm a commission salesperson, so I've got to survive on what I make. If the business isn't there, we have to cut staff. We're at the lowest point–overall the company has the lowest number of employees we've ever had. Business is picking up, but now we get hit with a slowdown because people don't want to pay the taxes.

I had a whole bunch of people come in before July 1st to pay their bill so they don't have to pay the tax. I mean, it's just –it's criminal, which is exactly what it is. If you learn how to budget, I mean, don't you live under a budget for yourself, you and your family? What happens when you go over the budget? Somebody has to stop, right? Think about that. That's what your government's got to do. Stop spending on every little thing that you think it's needed.

Make sure it's needed, and explain why–get explanations why it –I don't know why you need that big, big hospital there you built for home birth–for midwives. It's supposed to hold so many births. How many births have you had in that hospital? Do you know that? Can you answer that, Mr. Struthers? Did you hear the question? I know your eyes have ju st sort of glazed over. How many births have there been in that hospital? You don't know, do you. Okay, you've quit listening to me. So, to cut back. Use a budget. Follow it. Live by it. Then we can all –then you don't have to raise the taxes.

Might even lower our –we get the lowest –on our income tax–we get the lowest deduction in Canada. We move over one province and you get $14,000. Here we get what, eight, nine? Something like that? I mean, it's ludicrous. They should be in the same boat we're in. Appare ntly, Mr. Doer told us that our hydro was Alberta's gas. Hmm, I don't think so. Not when Hydro's swimming in a world of debt and you guys just keep taking money from it. I'm done. Sorry. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Dr. Gerrard, just briefly, please. Mr.

Gerrard : Thank you for coming here and presenting and talking with such passion and conviction.

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 317 Madam Chairperson: Sorry. Mr. Whiten, I just couldn't hear Dr. Gerrard. I'm sorry. Did you ask a question? I'm sorry; it wasn't picking up too well. Go ahead, Mr. Whiten. Mr. Whiten: Is that it? Well, Mr. Struthers, thanks for not listening to the last half of my– Madam Chairperson: I apologize. I couldn't hear Dr. Gerrard there, so, but thank you so much for coming. And our next presenter is Romel Dhall a. And do you have any written materials, Mr. Dhalla? Mr. Romel Dhalla (Private Citizen): I do. Madam Chairperson: And the staff will help distribute those.

And if you would like to begin when you're ready. There is water for the presenters there, just so that folks know. Mr. Dhalla: I could use some coffee, that's for sure. Just before I begin, a lot of friends around the table. I'm glad many of you were able to attend my wedding. It's been two weeks of exhaustive celebration, so I'm, like, completely deliriously tired right now. Hopefully my presentation makes some sense. * (11:20) Good morning, Honourable Minister, Madam Chair, and distinguished committee members.

I'm grateful for having an opportunity to voice my opinions on Bill 20 and I applaud each and every one of you for your commitment to the process. In the best interests of everyone's time, I intend to be brief and to the point. Please also note that these views are mine alone and are not representative of any other interest, corporate or otherwise. I urge this committee to recommend the defeat of Bill 20. While the spirit of the bill to improve Manitoba's infrastructure is well intended, the means by which it aims to achieve its objectives are, in my humble opinion, misguided.

I think it is fair to s ay that politicians are allowed to change their minds to reflect what they think is the best course of action when circumstances also change. The problem, however, is that too often these changes are more suited to strengthening future electoral political outcomes rather than genuinely addressing the needs of the public. This affects all political stripes, and so it is important to respectfully remind our political officials that government works for the people and not the other way around.

Based on my ow n personal ideological perspective, and with all due respect to those that carry a different ideological view, collective government-based solutions to fixing problems is typically followed by a larger, less -effective, more expensive government and mountai nous debt. A by-product of this approach is the lack of incentive and opportunity to engage entrepreneurial and private sector solutions to solving the public's concerns, thus creating real economic benefit, tax revenues and sustainable public services.

I think it is fair to say that since coming to power, the government's approach to carrying out its duties to the public have resulted in significant expansion of government and historic debt levels, particularly when taking into consideration growth in Crown corporate debt and equalization payments.

Thus, it's important to recognize that the government has room to reasonably cut back on some services, work a little harder at controlling costs, including costs of employee and salary –employee salary and benefits, improving the corporate governance of the many institutions and boards under its auspices via the election of directors with credibility and suitable skill rather than through political patronage, and to spin off operations that make more sense being controlled by the private sector, like liquor sales, casinos, energy distribution, health care and football.

Doing all these things, which in tandem are no easy task, may eliminate the need to increase taxes while providing the government with the means t o address the province's infrastructure deficit. Bill 20 also espouses some of –some highly undesirable and truly unfair principles by breaking long-standing rules to suit ideological and highly speculative economic views that will undoubtedly leave Manito ba further behind competitively as a place to invest, live, work and play, and leave every Manitoban with even more debt.

If the government truly believes it is doing the right thing, then it should put Bill 20 before the public and let us decide as we are supposed to. I believe in the public's ability to inform itself and to vote for what it feels the government must do for them, and so should you. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of my remarks. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for making a presentation. Mr. Struthers : Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Dhalla, and I'll begin by congratulating you on your wedding–approaching 15 years myself, I highly

318 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 recommend it, and I'll be taking that Hansard and sending it to my wife, Michelle. I want to say that I thought your presentation was thoughtful, to the point. I was particularly interested in the line where you talked about the spirit of the bill to improve Manitoba's infrastructure. I think there were other parts of your presentation may be more accurate than that to some of the members opposite, but the –I would be very interested to know, different people have come to us with their ideas of what that infrastructure should be.

We've said, clearly, schools and hospitals and highways and roads and daycares. What's your advice to this government in terms of what that critical infrastructure is? Mr. Dhalla: I don't have advice for the government on that aspect. I think that's not anywhere close to my expertise. I have a general view that I 've decided to share with you, but when it comes to the specific details, we hire you to hammer those things out. In this case, I think that, as I mentioned, the general direction to achieve the aims of your government where this bill is concerned, are misguided.

And I hope I've offered some solutions as to maybe correcting some of that. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for c oming here and taking time out on a Saturday, and congratulations also on your recent wedding. Want to –you've got a lot of experience doing business in Manitoba, and quite successfully. And just give us a–you know, a general perspective of the people that you talk to and what their perception is going to be of the impact of increasing the PST? Mr. Dhalla: I'll give you a quick

summary. And I'm involved with a lot of different organizations, Crown corporations, as well. And the view is that the entrepreneurial spirit of Manitoba has been killed. There is very little in terms of venture capital private investment available to grease the wheels of innovation and creative entrepreneurial output. And, you know, Crocus was a mistake for reasons I mentioned before –a horribly designed corporate governance structure that was designed on political patronage, and this practice has to end.

It's horrible that we allow such massive institutions to be run by people who are genuinely incompetent when it comes to understanding the sophisticated nature of those organizations. And I hope your government is going to take some steps in that direction. But also, you know, just my read of the people I do business with personally –you know, no one's seeing any great boon. Of course, economic times are troubled around the world and I do have to give the government credit for not leading us into a further black hole. You avoided that, so kudos.

But, generally speaking, I think the problem that we have in Manitoba is that we've r eally killed off the potential for Manitobans to succeed at the ground level, at the seed capital stage, because there's no money here and nobody wants to put money into Manitoba. Sorry for taking so long. Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you very much, Mr. Dhalla , for being here. And again, congratulations on your wedding as well. I did just want to ask you–it was a very, very good presentation today. I want to take this time to thank you for taking time out of your schedule, for being here on a Saturday in a summer.

And my question for you is –you sort of touched on this, that you would like to either see –and I'll just–I just want you to confirm this –you'd like to either see this bill voted down or not to –or the bill to be pulled, or that the Province goes to the people in the way of referendum. Is that correct? And do you want to expand on that? Mr. Dhalla: I think from an ethical point of view, changing the rules out of–I would say it's more out of convenience–to impact, I guess, the attacks at a certain time that it might be needed, according to your calculations. I mean, I understand that.

I don't agree with it though. I think that there–that you have moral imperative to follow the rules. The rules have been set in place and they should not be changed, they should be followed. Madam Chairperson: Thank you so much. Our time for questions has expired. Thank you very much for presenting. I did want to just mention to the committee, one other person, Muriel Koscielny, was scheduled to present last night but she could not come.

Is there leave of the committee to add her at the end of the first group of presenters? [Agreed] And our next presenter is Allan Ciekiew–I've got to get better at this–Ciekiewicz. Names are my worse thing, I apologize–Ciekiewicz. And do you have–you

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 319 have materials? Thank you so much. And whenever you're ready, Mr. Ciekiewicz. Mr. Allan Ciekiewicz (Private Citizen): Oh, I don't have to wait for them to distribute the material? * (11:30) Madam Chairperson: And just while we're waiting, I'll just let folks know, the presenters, that several chairpersons in this Assembly have ruled that it's not our normal practice to allow presenters to ask questions to the members of the committee. This has happened on both sides of the House, and so I know that it's not because either side doesn't have the answer.

It's just because to do that we would need more time, I guess. Thank you so much. If you would like to go ahead. Mr. Ciekiewicz: Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, I have Mr. Chairman on there; I couldn't find out who was going to be the Chairperson today, and so good morning to you and to all those in attendance. In order to justify my comments related to the matter before us , I will make use of some of my personal, actual, direct or indirect personal experiences with some of the current ministers of the NDP government.

My straightforward, blunt presentation is one of respect for government, and in no way is meant to be disrespectful to any individual. And I've got three, here. I've been involved with a lot of things, and I've picked out three that I could write quickly. Premier Selinger: On September 18th, 2011, Premier Selinger was quoted in a newspaper that if he, the gove rnment, was re -elected, that he would eliminate the school tax for seniors, a move that the NDP government projected a saving of $35 million a year.

It was a straightforward, simple statement with no conditions such as senior income levels, no time schedules attached. I wrote on May 3rd, 2012 later, to Premier Selinger and asked him: When it came time for me, a senior, to pay my taxes, do I just ignore the portion set aside for school taxes or pay the school tax and get a refund from the government? Mr. Sel inger's response focused on past and future amounts that have increased and will increase the Education Property Tax Credit, but did not correspond to his simple promise to eliminate school taxes for seniors if he was elected. Subsequent to Mr.

Selinger' s letter, I received another letter from the assistant director of Taxation Analysis and a phone call from a special assistant to the Finance Minister. Neither of those responses responded directly to my expectation of Mr. Selinger. Also, if the promise was to yield a government saving of $35 million a year, why wouldn't it be implemented immediately after Mr. Selinger was re-elected, as the promise apparently implies a win-win situation for all seniors and the government? However, the promise appears to have been nothing more than a ruse.

In fact, it appears Premier Selinger bought votes based on an empty promise. The second one I have involvement with is Finance Minister Struthers, but it goes back a few years. A few years ago, when Mr. Struthers was a minister of Manitoba Conservation, I made a February 25th, 2009, request of Minister Struthers to allow me, if I so desired, to be given my right to make a late appeal to an operating licence for the Selkirk 'therminay' –thermal generating station.

The late appeal request, if I so desired to appeal, was precipitated by the deliberate actions of the director of Licensing for Manitoba Conservation, who avoided sending me a timely announcement that the licence was issued in April of 2008. Minister Struthers' s response to me was, there was no licence issued, and therefore the appeal process didn't exist. I'm not sure why or what Mr. Struthers was thinking when he made that statement, but it was false and it still is false.

Due to this false statement, I submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman department, a department that was given false information by Manitoba Conservation regarding the particulars of that matter, information that should have been verified but wasn't. This led me to submit a September 14th, 2012 , complaint against the Ombudsman department to Honourable Daryl Reid, Speaker of the Manitoba Legislature–Legislative Assembly. In a January 14th, 2013, addition to that September letter to Mr. Reid, I requested of Mr.

Reid that the Legislative Assembl y Management Commission review the matter, as it appeared The Ombudsman Act had been violated in two instances. After five months, I have not received a response from Speaker Reid. If Mr. Struthers had taken the time, unless the action was deliberate or due to incompetence of his staff, to obtain accurate information, the solution to my request of Mr. Struthers could have been addressed in a couple of weeks and no one else

320 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 would have had to be involved. Can we trust Mr. Struthers? Three in volves Energy M inister Chomiak and Manitoba Hydro, actually. Minister Chomiak's verbal outburst, rant, during the first week in June 2013 regarding a comment made by an individual related to Manitoba Hydro's future plans that could put Manitoba in financial ruin, left mu ch to be desired. Mr. Chomiak's comment that we will run out of power by 2022 was nothing more than a scare tactic.

Hopefully, Minister Chomiak is cognizant of the fact that Manitoba Hydro's existence, first and foremost, is for Manitobans and not to ensure exports to USA. Manitoba Hydro's 20- year program, projections, targets leave much to be desired, and that is probably more scary than Minister Chomiak's rant. Hydro's recent incessant television commercials, coupled with a

section of Hydro's–of the Winnipeg Free Press section–of a

section of the Winnipeg Free Press and Manitoba Hydro's monthly energy matters pamphlet should leave a bad taste in the mouth of every Manitoban. It is strange how Manitoba Hydro always mentions the virtues of export revenues to help reduce our rates, But when I write a letter to CEO Thomson of Manitoba Hydro asking him a simple question, asking, how much more our rates would be without export revenues, the response to that question and all the others that I asked Mr. Thomson was: the questions are of a technical nature. It's not on paper, but give me a break here.

The government's declaration that a needs -for- and-alternative-to hearing review will be held, but stipulates that Bipole III cannot be part of such a review, should make any prudent and cautious person ask, why hold such an incomplete review? Can Minister Chomiak be trusted to make Manitoba Hydro decisions that are in the best interest of Manitobans? So that's a little bit of all my experiences over the past, I guess , 12 years. And conclusion for this, the answer to the questions: Can we trust the above-mentioned men to do the right thing, is a definite no.

Obviously, I'm opposed to the government's actions that violate

section 10,

part 1 of the balanced budget act. A nd then there are all the unacceptable increases in taxes that were not supposed to happen. Even though, all along it has been my expectation to be given my right to take

part in a referendum to voice my objection to the 1 per cent increase in the provinci al sales tax, I probably always knew, based on my experiences related to the unacceptable behaviour of just the above -mentioned ministers, that my right would be taken from me. That is a shame or maybe it's a sham. This government cannot be trusted, and by violating the law they have perpetrated an injustice against all Manitobans, whether or not any Manitobans agree with their actions related to Bill 20.

Therefore, and since the government can do as it pleases with respect to a Manitoba statute, and if I or someone else had the authority, and not to be facetious, I would do as I please too. The balanced budget act, I would do as I please to the balanced budget act. That being, immediately add

section 10.1

part 1 to the act which states as follows: If the government in power does not comply with

section 10.1 of the balanced budget act, then all the ministers of the government are to be fired immediately and not allowed to take

part in the next election, and such an addition should be retroactive to June 28th, 2013. Copies of my letters and responses to my letters that were mentioned in this presentation are available if necessary for the perusal of the members of the standing committee hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation. The re's more, but my 10 minutes, I think, has just expired. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for coming down to present. Mr. Struthers : Thank you very much, Mr. Cherkowski–Mr.–you'd think a guy from Dauphin would get that name right –Ciekiewicz.

Thanks f or coming and advising us today and making your presentation. I do want to just briefly address your first point in terms of the –our commitment to eliminate the school tax for seniors. As part of Budget 2013 we did outline the –our actions on that over the next couple of years.

It'll be fully phased in, in budget year 2015, partially in 2014, and this year we're taking to make sure that we put the mechanics in place to make sure seniors like yourself, who have built this province and have paid a lot of taxes over the years, will get the benefit of that. * (11:40) Is there–the–everything we do, though, needs to be paid for. We haven't tied that to the hike in the PST, but if we don't raise the PST to pay for infrastructure, we won't be able to afford to do other things that government has committed to. Are you okay–I get your point, in terms of the legalities and all of that.

Are you okay with money being raised to

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 321 go to infrastructure so that we can afford things like seniors' tax credits and other benefits for Manitobans? [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Mr. Ciekiewicz. Mr. Ciekiewicz: I'm sorry. Not in the manner that you people are doing it. Like, my main purpose for coming here is you people took my right. I want it back, I want to vote and then you can decide where you can get the money. Whether it's going to be this side or whether it's going to be this side, it doesn't matter to me. I just want my right back. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Mr.

Schuler: Yes, thank you very much and great to see you at committee. We've corresponded quite a bit over the years on all kinds of different issues. I understand you're a retired teacher now, is that correct? And do you–you probably would have went into schools and talked about democracy; that's one of the things you probably would've talked to the students about, try to educate young minds on what's good for a country.

And would you say that the way that the –this government has conducted itself in putting forward a budget and then changing the rules by which they can then get the PST by taking away a referendum, would you say that this would be an example of honesty and integrity? Is this the way that a political party should be handling democracy? Mr. Ciekiewicz: Terrible example. Wow. I'd hate to be a teacher and say, hey, we're going to do this tomorrow, and the n come to class the next day and say, too bad, we got a flat tire, we're not doing this. I'm going to leave my car.

But we're just not going to do it, no matter what you say, I can't do it. Just doesn't make sense what they've done, to me. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for coming and talking here and presenting your point of view so well, you know. I mean, I think we're hearing time and time again from people like yourself that there is something just fundamentally wrong with not having the right to vote and this being taken away from us. Mr. Schuler: I want to go back again.

We're trying to teach a generation of young people to get engaged in the process, and if there's one thing that we learnt from the last election, where we had an incredibly low voter turnout amongst young people –in fact, the Premier, Premier Selinger, said that he was going to address it.

Do you think that what the NDP has done, in stripping away the referendum, the right for people to vote on this, even though it's in law, the way they've conducted themselves, do you think this is one of the ways that Premier Selinger thought he would, perhaps, drive up youth participation rates in the next election? [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Mr. Ciekiewicz. Mr. Ciekiewicz: Sorry, again. Definitely not, sir. No. It's probably to turn off people, I would think, more than anything else; just get thoroughly put off. Mr. Struthers : I'm very glad that Mr.

Schuler has opened the door to go back and talk about education. I appreciate your work as a teacher, a retired teacher. Recently, Mr. Pallister, Brian Pallister, has come out and has said that they would cut $550 million across the board out of the provincial government. That's a 1 per cent decrease in every department, including Education. We, this year, increased by about $27 million, 2.3 per cent, the amount of money going into public schools in Manitoba. What Mr. Pallister is proposing would be tens of millions of dollars of cuts in education. It would hearken back to the days of the '90s when Mr.

Pallister was part of the Gary Filmon Cabinet that reduced funding to education every year, laid off nearly 700 teachers, who are, as Mr. Schuler has pointed out, shape and mould young minds. Mr. Ciekiewicz, should we go back to the days of th ose kinds of deep cuts to education that Mr. Pallister has put a news release out saying he would do? Mr. Ciekiewicz: I remembered this time. I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but you just –you usurp, I think, why I'm here.

You just want them to get u p on a platform and say what you think isn't right by the other side of the House, or with–by the Conservatives or whatever. I can't answer that. To write up something like this for me takes a real long time because I do all my own research. I go all over and I research stuff. So for me to answer that, I would have to have everything in front of me and then I would have to write something about it. So, I'm sorry, sir, I can't respond to that. Even if those ND–even if the Conservatives have–had asked me that, like, I could not answer that.

You know, I'm just not capable of doing it at this point in time, sorry.

322 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ciekiewicz for coming out today. Greatly appreciated. I'm just going to explain to both sides again. I know it's a little bit difficult with the questions –we have five minutes for questions, so I do just take them in order. I try to get to everyone, sometimes I can't, on both sides. People on both sides have been left out, so we're doing everything we can to make sure it's fair. Thank you so much for coming, again, today. And we're on Mr. Feraz Ahamed. Good. Can't get through all the people there.

And do you have materials–yes–to present? Mr. Feraz Ahamed (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. Madam Chairperson: Thank you so much, that– Floor Comment: Is it okay if I sit down? Madam Chairperson: Pardon me? Mr. Ahamed: Is it okay if I sit down? Madam Chairperson: Oh, yes, you can sit down. If we–can he not? He's just –it's just because of the microphone, so he's going to affect the mic for you, okay? It's just so the mic will work for you. They'll just get that fixed up. Is that okay? I may have been wrong. I have been before, so– but please, you're seated and if you want to go ahead, that would be great.

Thank you so much. Mr. Ahamed: I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Greetings, everyone. Thanks for the opportunity to speak at this committee on The Manitoba Building and Renewal Funding and Fiscal Management Act. My name is Feraz Ahamed and I have lived in Manitoba for the past 31 years. I'm here as a community member and do not hold membership or allegiance to any political party. The Manitoba Building and Re newal Funding and Fiscal Management Act increased the PST cost to taxpayers by 1 per cent on the first of July, 2013, and awarded a potential $278-million revenue increase to the NDP government.

My contention is this act and the past actions of the Manitoba government puts the future of Manitoba and Manitobans at risk, and that the provincial government should not be given a single additional cent. There is enough money to achieve what is required for Manitobans, with some resources left over. We just need proper fiscal management of our resources. The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act exists for a reason. The act belongs to Manitobans and it is Manitoba's public fiscal firewall, and that firewall has been breached by this government.

The balanced budget –breached; fiscal management–breached; taxpayers accountability – breached. Under the current leadership, this Manitoba government is drowning in incompetence and putting the rest of 'mani' –and pulling the rest of Manitobans down with them. The Conservative and Liberal parties of Manitoba also hold some responsibility because they are on the taxpayers funded payroll and the lack of alternative and leadership is also part of the reason why we are sitting here today.

Government service issues and challenges: the quality of government-run services has degraded to a point where some services exist to serve itself more than to fulfill the purpose for which they exist. Those entrusted to manage our resources for the greater good hav e lost oversight and sense of purpose for why they exist, and they are using the resources for their own good.

Some members of our community, especially the business community, have greater and privileged access to services and are given large tax breaks o r tax exemptions at the expense of other members of our community who could least afford to pay taxes. * (11:50) I have an example here where I sent a letter to Manitoba Public Insurance asking them for the plates for company's acronyms. This I did in February of 2011. Manitoba Public Insurance said I have reviewed your proposal with my director and, regrettably, Manitoba insurance is unable to participate or provide funding for your event-fundraising idea.

Basically, I was going to use it to raise funds for before–fundraising for places like harvest and various non- profit organizations in Manitoba. Basically, seven months later, they were doing exactly the same thing they wouldn't do for me and for my fundraising idea for the Jets, then the Bombers and then for–but I see that they were doing it for the firefighters, which is honourable. But I think saying that you're not able to do it for on the one hand for me and then doing it for people – well I guess if my name was Mark Chipman or maybe Sam Katz or something, maybe I may –might have get it done.

But it's not, so it wasn't done.

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 323 I have some areas of concern. Basically that was my concern, was access to public services and also where some people are giving privileges beyond ordinary citizens. I have some areas of concern, our social welfare system, we have had enough published lately about that and I don't want to say anything more. Infrastructure and transportation, with such bad roads, can't –Canadians do not drive to Manitoba, they drive through Manitoba. Education, school board sent –spent significant money to feed themselves while some students go hungry in the classroom.

I think you guys should look into how much they're actually spending on feeding themselves. How can students read or think logically on an empty stomach? A lot of intellectual potential and opportunity is being wasted in our schools and we need to refocus on the reason why the education system exists, not on that it exists. I did some volunteer work with some students. This is after -school volunteer work. There are some kids who come in there with the supersize Big Gulp, that's their sustenance for the day. And I'm going to guarantee you, this is no joke, okay? You guys need to look into that.

Education, Manitoba spends more per student than all provinces except Alberta. We have better student-teacher ratios and higher paid teachers than half of all provinces. Despite the high allocation of resource allocation or PISA, results have been in decline and is ranked near the bottom of Canada's provinces. Our education system and school boards are pulling our children down to the lowest common intellectual denominator.

You guys should release the PISA results, by the way, so we, like, we could see what's going and we can actually mak e decisions on our own whether we need to educate our students in Manitoba or send them to other provinces like you guys could afford. Health care, lack of fiscal and service quality controls make health -care funding a cash cow for many people who provide health-care services, especially some doctors and nurses. Our recent health–one recent healthy senior taxpayer, this is a guy who is 60, over 60 years old, he's worked for all his life, never had an issue, never asked the government for anything.

He was healthy until a few weeks ago. He is unable to walk and he's in significant, yet to be diagnosed, pain at home. He refuses to go to the emergency ward because he describes it as torture. Now this is a guy when he really needs our help, he is not able to get our help and he describes this lot as torture. I could go on here about all the areas concern, but I would need 10 days, not 10 minutes. How am I doing for time? Madam Chairperson: You have about three and half minutes, three minutes and 10 seconds, I think. Mr. Ahamed: Okay, well I have a lot here to do, but I guess I'll keep going as far as I could.

Challenges going forward in the next 15 to 20 years–moving forward beyond the next election cycle the demographic picture is somewhat bleak. Our Manitoba First Nation population is the largest in Canada, our senior population in Canada is set to double the current amount by 2030 to reach 23 per cent of our population, combined, our First Nations and senior community members would be about 50 per cent of Manitoba population by the year 2030.

They pay least or no taxes, and that will put a significant strain on other taxpayers and on our services, especially social housing and social welfare services, health -care services, child and family services and our judicial and penal systems. Manitoba debt: Federal government debt per Manitoban is $32,000. Provincial government debt per Manitoban is $30,000. Average consumer debt is $26,000. This is an amount the Bank of Canada says is the biggest domestic risk to Canada. So, basically, each Manitoban owes about $62,000 in public debt.

With an additional $22 billion in hydro debt, that takes us over $80,000 per person in Manitoba. And remember that the Bank of Canada and federal minister says that $26,000 is the biggest domestic risk to Canada, and our governments are taking us into debt multiple times that amount. Those amounts do not include other debt obl igations on unfunded liabilities, so the amounts per Manitoban could be much larger. We have reached the point of backward potential. The fact that provincial government exists in its current form is a liability.

The government has lost its sense of purpos e and any money spent going forward is for self- benefit with absolutely no benefit to the public. To put things in perspective, in 2011, Portugal's debt was $24,000 per person; Spain, 27; France 37; Greece, 40; Italy, 42; Manitobans, 62. Our debt is higher than all of those European countries that are currently experience social –experiencing social and economic challenges. With this stand–would this

324 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development allow similar consequences for Manitoba? We have a human rights facility at The Forks and we have a human wrong facility as this Legislative Building. Let's change that wrong into right. Okay, so that's the negative stuff. On the plus side, we have the potential to turn things around with positive and st rategic changes, going forward. A quote from Louis Armstrong: It ain't the world that's so bad, but what we are doing to it. If we truly put aside our selfishness, what a wonderful world.

So I have some suggestions here. I'll just go by point form–point by point form. I wouldn't describe the details of it. First, Manitoba is sunny for most of the year. We have the most friendly and generous people in all of Canada and possibly the world. Get rid of Spirited Energy, please. We need to get rid of that brand and replace it with what we truly represent. Sunny, friendly and generous Manitoba. Second suggestion: Get rid of the school boards, the regional health authorities and especially, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority.

Those overgrown and cash- cow bur eaucracies have overstayed and outlived their welcome. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ahamed. You did a great job of getting so much in there, and we'll just go to questions now. Mr. Struthers : Yes, I noticed the rest of your presentation has to do wi th suggestions and ways to improve, so I want to ask the committee if they would be okay with including the rest of your submission as–so it can be included in Hansard for all of us to be able to read, coming out of this session.

Madam Chairperson: We have the leave of the committee? [Agreed] Greetings Everyone, Thanks for the opportunity to speak to your committee on The Manitoba Building and Renewal Funding and Fiscal Management Act. My name is Feraz Ahamed and I have lived in Manitoba for the past 31 years. I am here as a community member, and do not hold membership or allegiance to any political party. The Manitoba Building and Renewal Funding and Fiscal Management Act increased the PST cost to tax payers by 1% on 01 July 2013, and awarded a potential $278 million revenue increase to the NDP Government.

My contention is this act, and the past actions of the Manitoba Government, puts the future of Manitoba and Manitobans at risk, and that the Provincial Government should not be given a single additional cent. The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act exist for a reason. The act belongs to Manitobans, and it is Manitoba's Public Fiscal Firewall, and that firewall has been breached by this Manitoba Government. 1. The Balanced Budget – breached 2. Fiscal Management – breached 3.

Taxpayer Accountability – breached Under the current leadership, this Manitoba Government is drowning in incompetence and pulling the rest of Manitobans down with them. The Conservative and Liberal parties of Manitoba also hold some responsibility because they are on the Tax Payer funded payroll, and their lack of alternative and leadership is also part of the reason we are all here today. Government Services – Issues/Challenges The quality of Government run services has degraded to the point where some services exist to serve itself, more than to fulfill the purpose for which they exist.

Those entrusted to manage our resources for the greater good, have lost oversight and a sense of purpose for why they exis t, and are using the resources for their own good. Some members of our community, especially the Business community, have greater and privilege access to services, and are given large tax breaks or tax exemptions at the expense of other members of our community who could least afford to pay taxes. These are some areas of concern Social Welfare System – enough has been published, no need to say more.

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 325 Infrastructure and Transportation – With such bad roads, Canadians do not drive to Manitoba, they drive through Manitoba. Education – School Boards – spend significant money to feed themselves while some students go hungry in the classroom. How can students read or think logically on an empty stomach? A lot of intellect, potential, and opportunity is being w asted in our schools, and we need to refocus on the reason WHY our education system exist, not on THAT it exist.

Education – Manitoba spends more per student than all Provinces except Alberta, We have better student-teacher ratio and higher paid teachers than 1/2 of all provinces. Despite that high resource allocation, our PISA (… a Global Programme for International Student Assessment) results have been in decline and is ranked near the bottom of Canada's provinces. Our Educational system and School Boards are pulling our children down to the lowest common intellectual denominator.

Health Care – Lack of fiscal and service quality controls makes Health Care funding a Cash Cow for many people who provide health care services, especially some Doctors and Nurs es. One recently healthy Senior tax payer (…healthy until a few weeks ago), is unable to walk, is in significant yet to be diagnosed pain at home, and refused to go to what he describes as "torture" in the emergency ward. I could go on here about other are as of concern, but will need 10 days, not 10 minutes.

Challenges Going Forward in Next 15-20 Years Moving forward beyond the next election cycle, the demographic picture is somewhat bleak. Our Manitoba's First Nations population is the largest in Canada (…currently about 17% and growing), and our Senior population in Canada is set to almost double the cur rent amount by 2030 to reach 23% of our population. Combined, our First Nations and Senior community members would be about 50% of Manitoba's population by 2030. They pay least or no taxes, and that would put a strain on other tax payers and on our services. e.g.

Social Housing and Social Welfare Services Health Care Services Child and Family Services Judicial and Penal Systems Manitoba's Debt Federal Government debt per Manitoban … is about $32,000 Provincial G overnment debt per Manitoban … is $30,000 Average consumer debt is $26,000, an amount T he Bank of Canada says is the 'biggest domestic risk' to Canada. So each Manitoban owes about $62,000 in public debt, with an additional 22Billion in H ydro's debt, it would take us over $80,000 per person in Manitoba.

Remember The Bank of Canada and F ederal Finance Minister says $26,000 is the ' biggest domestic risk' to Canada, and the same Governments are taking us into debt by multiples of that amount. Those amounts do not include other debt obligations and unfunded liabilities, so the amounts per Manitoban could be much larger. We have reached the point of backward potential. The fact that the Provincial Government exist in its current form is a liability. The Government has lost its sense of purpose, and any money spent going forward is for self benefit, with absolutely no benefit to the public.

To put things in perspective, in 2011, Portugal's debt was $24,000 per person, Spain $27,000, France $37,000, Greece $40,000 and Italy $42,000. Our debt is higher than all of those European Countries that are currently experiencing Social and Economic challenges. Would this standing committee on Social And Economic Development allow similar consequences for Manitobans? We have a Human Right facility at the forks, and a Human wrong facility at this legislative building. Let's change that wrong into rights.

On the Plus Side We have the potential to turn things around with positive and strategic changes going forward. A quote from Louis Armstrong …"it aint the world that's so bad but what we are doing to it. If we truly put aside our selfishness what a wonderful world."

326 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 Here are some suggestions 1. First suggestion, Manitoba is sunny for most of the year, and we have the most friendly and generous people in all of Canada and possibly all of the World. Get rid of the "Spirited Energy" brand and replace it with what we truly represent …"Sunny, Friendly and Generous Manitoba" 2. Second suggestion, get rid of the School Boards and The Regional Health Authorities, especially the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. These overgrown and expensive Cash Cow bureaucracies have overstayed and outlived their welcome.

With the savin gs, we can afford to remove the household education tax from all Manitoba households, not just for those with owners over 65 years old. Business education tax should remain, but Businesses along with Parents, Community Members, Educators, and Politicians, should also have a representative seat at the table, for input into the content and administration of our education programs. 3. Third suggestion, we live in an interactive world.

We need to change schools into stimulating places, where classrooms are magn ets for creative and eager minds, where teachers are changed from orators, controllers, and babysitters – to – facilitators, monitors, and coaches. 4. Fourth suggestion, Manitoba Hydro – no need to build costly Dams, we have working Solar cars and Solar planes, how about Solar electric power? Another quote …."Manitoba has an abundance of Solar energy.

One per cent of this energy would be equal to almost 200 times the annual output of all the hydroelectric dams in our province." Source: Manitoba Hydro http://www.hydro.mb.ca/your_home/Solar_water_heating/ So why not consider a hybrid Hydro/Solar solution? Manitoba Hydro will provide both the existing Hydro Electric power, and new Farmed and Residential Solar power installations. Manitoba Hydro will facilitate the setup, maintenance, and administration cost, and customers will purchase the power from Manitoba Hydro (same as existing Hydro Electric service).

Solar benefits outweigh costs, and most costs are offset by direct or indirect benefit. Benefits: No transportation cost, or similar costs associated with setup and operations of a Hydro Dam (Remote Infrastructure, Transportation, Property owners, stakeholders, First Nations, Environmentalists, etc). No environmental tear/wear or ecological impact and Bi-pole dilemma. Perpetual and free energy in Sunny Manitoba, no worries about water levels, lack of rain, or drought. Clouds, maybe, but we have Hydro Electricity power as backup.

Dual Solar/Hydro power source is beneficial for mitigating negative effects of disasters, interruptions, and power outages. Improving technology – Cost of Solar implementations has been reducing over time, and reliability and efficiency increasing over time. Savings from economies of scale from high volume purchase (if Manitoba Hydr o assumes setup, maintenance, and administration cost). Clean and renewable source of energy, and no greenhouse gas emissions. Innovation and Job creation (for setup, maintenance, and administration) … German Solar industry employs over 65,000 people.

Excess Solar power can be stored locally, or distributed back to the grid for the general public usage. Flexible – Ideal for urban or rural applications, without expensive transportation cost. Solar electricity cost will be less than the additional cost to bui ld the Dams. In Germany, the cost increase was about 12 Euros per month for an average household. However, that cost would be offset by putting excess Solar power back on the Electricity grid. Biggest Benefit … Incremental Savings vs Incremental Cost. For every dollar Hydro borrows to build a Dam, the loan interest cost increases.

Also, the entire $22 billion must be spent before a unit of electricity can be generated. For every dollar Hydro borrows to build a Solar installation, the loan interest cost incr eases.

July 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 327 However, each installation is built in increment of about $15,000, and will result in immediate returns to Hydro in fees and excess energy returned to the grid. This will significantly offset and reduce loan interest cost for each $15,000 investment. Cost: Large Solar setup cost (this will be mitigated if done by Hydro – may be less than setup of Hydro Dam and transmission lines, and negotiations with stakeholders).

However, given environmental awareness, the increased demand from propensity to adopt Solar applications and expected economies of scale means less cost for all. Depreciation/Replacement cost – Solar panels and Inverters depreciate over time (may last 15 -25 years), but most panels and some components have 25 year warranties. Need Sunlight to generate power, but that can be mitigated by storing excess power during the day for reuse at night or on cloudy days, or use Hydro generated electric power when Solar electric power generation is low.

Components occupy large space with relatively low efficiency per square ft, but that can be mitigated by integrating the components into existing surfaces (e.g. Solar panel roof/windows). Not maintenance free, but provides jobs for cleaning and maintenance, and that is good for the economy. 5. Fifth sugge stion, cleanup lakes and waterways and destroy/burn high algae concentrations. When algae dies, the decomposition process removes oxygen from the lake. It creates dead zones that are inhabitable for fish and other species that require oxygen to live. 6.

Sixth suggestion, we need to streamline our Health Care System.

a) Services for healthy people – e.g. annual checkups. These patients are healthy, and are not mixed in waiting rooms with unhealthy people, and do not need a regular Doctor. In highly populate d areas, we build mega centres where services are only provided to healthy people for annual diagnostics and checkups. Somewhat like a manufacturing assembly line strategy.

b) Services for patients with emergencies and undiagnosed health issues. These will be fast tracked because treatable issues may become serious or fatal with longer elapsed wait times.

c) Services for patients with diagnosed short term health issues.

d) Services for patients with diagnosed long term acute health issues.

e) Services for patients with normal Life issues e.g. Pregnancy, Births. 7. Seventh suggestion, in general, cut back on current and future Government Employee perks, we can no longer afford luxurious compensations. Any benefit granted going forward must be matched by benefit to tax payers (e.g. higher productivity or removal of another benefit). e.g. Remove Hydro nine -day work cycle, we tax payers can no longer afford to pay for such luxuries. 8. Eight and last suggestion, Fair Taxation. Anyone submitting an expense to Gov ernment must pay all tax portions (if any) of that expense.

Government should not be the recipient and payee of a tax expense, because that means no tax is actually paid. That cost is actually borne by people and entities that do pay taxes, and is an unfai r burden on them. This may also reduce expense claim abuses. e.g. If a Premier of Manitoba or a President of Red River College submits a $1.13 expense for a package of chewing gum, and tax is $0.13, they can only claim the non -tax $1.0 portion of the expense. e.g. Politicians and Government Employees should pay the 8% tax portion of any publicly funded Insurance Benefits.

I trust that as stewards of our limited resources, that this committee, other Politicians, and The Manitoba Government will work on reducing the expense side, and strive for a more positive environment for all Manitobans, and be an example and model for all Canadian leaders, and possibly all leaders of our world. Finally, to Manitoba Conservatives and Liberals … do not be complacent and assume we will vote for you. With hard work, you have an opportunity here to deliver for Manitobans, don't waste it! Mr. Struthers: Okay, and I want to thank you, Mr. Ahamed, for coming and speaking with us here today.

I enjoyed listening to your present ation. I noted that you understand that we need to invest in our infrastructure to grow our economy, and I appreciate that.

328 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 6, 2013 I particularly was struck by what you had to say about health care. The example that you gave and, I think, the importance that you put on an accessible health-care system and, you know, the role that the government has to make sure that that stays there, I want to point out that Brian Pallister has publicly stated that his –if he was to become Premier, he would institute a different framework. It would be a two-tier system of health care, a private, for -profit health care.

What would your advice be to us about adopting a two- tier system of health care, based on the amount of money that you make for profit and private? Mr. Ahamed: Well, like I said, I've documented it here. I think there's enough money to go around. There's no need to do something like that. I think what we need to do is look at how –what we spend, how we spend and how we structure things. And there's ways in which you– we could focus on where we need the resources most and streamline the services so that there's no duplication of effort. So I'll give you an example: I have to go to the doctor.

In the past, I would go to one visit. Currently, sometimes it's three or fou r visits, and they restrict me sometimes to five minutes. That's unrealistic. The framework in which we do our health care today is not economically viable.

There's a lot of waste; there's a lot of overhead; and there's a lack of actually providing service to people when–if and when they need it. * (12:00) And I have some suggestions here that I already documented in point six, and if you want to have a look at that, maybe if you guys want to meet with me at a later date to discuss whatever else I have here, I'd be willing to meet with you guys to discuss it and maybe present some other ideas that I have. But I'm sorry that I didn't have enough time. I guess I –I'm a little bit nervous, so –and it took me longer than I actually should have.

Madam Chairperson : Thank you. You didn't appear nervous at all. Ms. Oswald: Madam Chair, I was just going to request that it go into Hansard as Mr. Struthers said, so that's all good. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you very much. You've clearly put a lot of effort and a lot of thought and have some creative ideas here for the committee. Perhaps you could tell us a little bit more about your–the business you're involved with, the profession and the implications for the changes here. Mr. Ahamed: I'm not into business. I just–I work for a company.

I'm just an IT guy, actually, probably supported a lot of you guys in my past life or my past history–work life, that is. But I'm –my concern is about community issues. I do a lot of volunteer work, and I see things happening in all communities that, through my volunteer work, that there is definitely a need for more services in all communities. There's a lack of commitment by –we're spending a lot of money in services, but when you look at what is delivered after spending all that money, there's significant–a disparity in terms of how much we are spending versus how much we are actually achieving on the ground.

So I think we need to do things like spend less on telling us what we have to do and more on actually doing stuff. We need less conductors and more communications –less communications people and spin doctors spreading false and deceptive words. What we need is actually boots on the ground that's actually doing it. For example, we don't need people telling us we need infrastructure upgrades. We need less people to tell us that we need infrastructure upgrades and more people actually doing the infrastructure upgrades. It's just –there's a disparity here and something needs to be done about that.

We need less administrative work–workers, and more people actually on the ground doing the work. Madam Chairperson: Thank you so much for coming, and our time for questions has expired. And I do need to apologize to the committee. I should have asked leave before I allowed Mr. Ahamed to sit down at the table, so I apologize to you here for that. Our next

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-2-sed6
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 2nd hansardpdf sed6.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	886edb8fa0af0a3eb506bbbb21fbb173c2d80b73

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