Manitoba Hansard — 12 June 2013 (Sitting 57, 40th Legislature, 2nd Session)

40-2-57

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Daryl Reid Speaker Vol. LXV No. 57 - 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 12, 2013 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

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

2269 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 12, 2013 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfec tly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen. Good afternoon, everyone. Please be seated.

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Mr. Ron Schuler ( St. Paul ): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for St. Paul, on a matter of privilege. Mr. Schuler: I rise on a matter of privilege, and, in accordance with our rules, this matter of privilege will be followed by a motion. Mr. Speaker, I beg the patience of this House. It's the first time I have actually done a matter of privilege, so I will try and do it accordance with all the rules of this House. I understand Legislative Assembly rule book,

section 34, says, matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken in consideration immediately. I understand that. Beauchesne,

section 114(1), says, precedent of a question of privilege is over all business of the House. And I understand it as well. I also understand that there are two conditions that must be satisfied in order for the matter raised to be ruled as a prima facie case of privilege: the first one being, again according to Beauchesne,

section 115, a question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity, and I will make the case that that is in fact what I am doing; No. 2, whether there is sufficient evidence provided to establish a prima facie case of privilege, and, Mr. Speaker, I intend to provide that information as well. So back to the first condition, Mr.

Speaker, this rises out of q uestion period from yesterday, and as question period, the official Hansard, the record, doesn't come out until session recesses for the day, this is actually the first opportunity that I have had to raise this issue. And I would like to reference the House to question period yesterday, and it had to do with a question I asked titled "Tax Increases : Impact on Mining Industry." It was the second set of questions from yesterday, and I quote from Hansard: "The University of Calgary, School of Public Policy paper states," and I go on and ask my question.

The answer then back from the minister responsible for energy and mining indicates back, and I quote: "Because it sounds a lot like the Tea Party rhetoric," referencing the item that I was quoting from in this Legislature. And, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has to be done is that I have to prove in No. 2–so first of all, on the first case, this is obviously the first opportunity I've had to raise this issue as Hansard just came out –the official Hansard just came out afterwards. And No. 2, I want to make the case that the privilege, not just of myself but of all members of this House, has been breached.

And, Mr. Speaker, we bring information into this House, and we understand that question period at time can be partisan, that it can get sharp at times. We understand that we, as individuals, often re fer to each other in different ways, and I certainly have been referred to in, perhaps, less flattering ways than I'd like to be, and I understand that's part of it.

But part of our job is to bring forward information that makes the case, and what we try t o do in question period is either encourage the government to change where they're going or to present information that perhaps they would reflect on, and we ask for answers back on the information. The document that was referenced and referred to as, and I quote, "Tea Party rhetoric," is actually a document that came from –and I want to be very clear–it comes from the School of Public Policy under the University of Calgary, and it was written by Duanjie Chen and Jack Mintz. And I want to make the case today, Mr.

Speaker, that not just is this document worthy of this Legislature, in fact, we have some of the most pre-eminent individuals that were working on this. And Jack Mintz, for this House, is a fellow in

2270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 residence at the CD Howe Institute and also hol ds the Palmer Chair in Public Policy, University of Calgary. He was the president and CEO of the CD Howe Institute from 1999 to 2006. In fact, Jack Mintz is widely published in the field of public economics. He was touted in a 2004 United Kingdom magazine publication as one of the world's most influential tax experts.

He serves as an associate editor of International Tax and Public Finance and the Canadian Tax Journal and as a research fellow at the CESifo, Munich, Germany, and the Centre for Business Taxat ion institute, Oxford University. He is a regular contributor to Canadian Business and the National Post and has frequently published articles in other media. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think we have to make any further case that this document is worthy of this Legislature, and that all members of this Legislative Assembly were inappropriately attacked by one minister, a member of the Crown, a member who represents Her Majesty in this Legislature as one of her ministers, to get up and to attack a pre -eminent individual like this and a pre -eminent school, an institution of higher learning. And, at this point in time, Mr.

Speaker, though, I am going to make the case that the University of Calgary is actually a pre-eminent university, seeing as the Minister responsible for Energy actually trashed this university. I will make that case later. But it's about every university. We should be able, as members of this Legislature, come into this Chamber and present documents. And I understand that we, as individuals, be a ttacked, but not that universities that– institutions of higher learning be attacked by ministers of the Crown. That is a new low for this Chamber.

That is actually shameful that the Minister responsible for Energy would have done something like that. It's an attack on every university in this country. It's an attack on every academic. They have a right to produce papers, and we have a right to present them in this House, and they have a right to be treated in a honourable and respectful fashion, Mr. Speaker. The minister went on not just to attack the paper, but he also went on to attack the University of Calgary. And, Mr.

Speaker, you know, we certainly have rivalries with different cities, and we happen to think we have a far better football club than they do in Calgary. We understand those kinds of things. But when it comes to academics, we appreciate that there are papers written, that there are documents that are presented by various institutions, and not just by universities but by either institutions that we should, as legislators, at least hold in respect, even if we don't hold each other in the greatest respect. Perhaps, Mr.

Speaker, we should leave third parties and the trashing of third parties out of this. * (13:40) In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to this House that the University of Calgary is a pre-eminent academic institution in this nation. And I'd like to point out for this House, with the indulgence of members, a few of those individuals who've had the opportunity to graduate from the University of Calgary.

Now, obviously, we would rather they had –would have graduated from the University of Manitoba or University of Winnipeg, but we respect the fact that they came– [interjection]–university of–Brandon University and university of the north. Of course we would have liked them to have rather have graduated from them, but we respect the fact that they went to university and they have gotten skills that are important for the debate of this Legislative Chamber. I'd like to point out to this House one Ray Martin attended the University of Calgary in order to earn his master's degree.

Martin, a teacher by profession, was first selected to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in the 1982 provincial election as one member of two -member Alberta New Democratic Party caucus. He became leader of the Alberta NDP in 1984. Martin led the party to a high watermark winning 16 seats in the 1986 provincial election, making him Leader of the Opposition in the Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, I don't be lieve that attacking him and his institution where he graduated from, as a Tea Party surrogate, as a Tea Party rhetoric, is appropriate, and it isn't appropriate for the minister to have done so–the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). In fact, another individual, Dr. Melanee Thomas, bachelor of arts, 2003, led the University of Lethbridge Students' Union as president, 2002.

Originally from the Granum area, graduated from the University of Lethbridge in 2003 with a degree in political science, went on to achieve her master of arts in political science with a specialization in Canadian politics from the University of Calgary in 2006. She also has direct political election experience as a candidate for the NDP in the Lethbridge riding during the 2004 federal e lection campaign. And, Mr. Speaker, I think it is unworthy

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2271 for members of this Chamber, for individuals who represent the Crown, who are the Queen's representatives as a minister, to actually say, to individuals like that, because it sounds like a lot like the Tea Party rhetoric. That is unfortunate. In fact, I'd like to quote from someone well known to this Chamber, Gary Mar, the son and grandson of entrepreneurs. Mar spent his early years working in his family's restaurants and other businesses. His parents supported his education, and Mar graduated with a bachelor of commerce, finance, at the University of Calgary.

And at age of 31, Mar was elected to the Alberta Legislature in the 1993 general election. And, again, he deserved better than– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. I have been listening to the honourable member for St. Paul for several minutes with respect to his matter of privilege, and I'm asking him out of the greatest respect if he could move to the prima facie case and not deal wi th other matters perhaps not relating to the prima facie case, because I'm having difficulty understanding whether or not he's about to arrive at that point.

And I'm going to cut him some slack here in hoping that he'll get to that momentarily. Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I know that I've already made the case for point No. 1, and on point No. 2 I am getting there. I am making the case that an attack on an institution that has produced individuals of high standing, and that is the point that I'm going to make, that there is a prima facie case. And as I said, I ask the patience of this Legislature.

I will get to the point, but I think it's important to point out to this Legislature that attacking the public institute at the University of Calgary by attacking documents that we present in this House and by disparaging them by calling them down the way the minister did is a direct attack on our privileges here in the Legislature. I'd like to go back to the rules, Mr.

Speaker, and indicate to this Legislature that I believe that it was a breach of privilege and that it makes it impossible or even more difficult to carry out parliamentary duties when members of the Crown attack pre -eminent studies, when they go after documents that are presented and basically disparage them. These are documents which are supposed to be of help to this Chamber. They're supposed to help with the debate in this Chamber.

They're supposed to be there to encourage the government to look at other individuals, to lo ok at other ways of dealing with issues. [interjection] And I see the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) heckling. Perhaps he would like to wait his turn.

But that's the case I am trying to make, that the University of Calgary, first of all, is a pre -eminent university, that the paper produced was produced by one of the greatest public policy individuals on taxation and that, No. 3, the individuals being produced by the University of Calgary are such that to call the University of Calgary a pre -eminent university is worthy of that title and that the minister trash-talking that university is a breach of our privileges. And that's what I'm trying to get at. In fact, with the indulgence of this House, I would like to just list a few more individuals.

I'm trying to make the case that this is, in fact, the breach that has been done. The University of Calgary has produced Olympians, Rhodes Scholars, individuals who work for the Supreme Court. The list goes on and on, and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to this House that I think the minister was wrong in what he did; it was a breach of the privileges of every MLA. We understand, again, that we, as individuals, sometimes are spoken to differently between us, but to go after professionals and those who produce documents and to disparage them by referring to them as Tea Party rhetoric is unworthy.

Thus, I move, seconded by the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen), THAT the Manitoba Legislature direct the m ember for Kildonan, the Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines, to apologize for his role in this serious incident. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the matter of privilege. Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the matter of privilege. I believe, when you've had a chance to look at this and consult the procedural authorities, you will see that this is a dispute over the facts.

When I look at the Hansard that the member opposite has cited, it is clear to me that the references to Tea Party rhetoric and Tea Party attitude are references to members opposite, not references to an institution.

2272 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 And I appreciate, if somebody s aid that I had a Tea Party attitude, I wouldn't feel very good about that, but I don't think there's anything unparliamentary about that language. It is an ideological movement that some of us in this Chamber may feel more affinity for than others. And so I think, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that – take your guidance on this, but when I look at this, I think that member opposite does not have a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker: On the matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for St. Paul (Mr.

Schuler), I would like to inform the House that the –it appears, by the comments that are made by the honourable member for St. Paul and the advice to the Chair, that this appears to be a –very clearly a dispute or a difference of the facts. Past Manitoba Speakers have ruled on several similar occasions that a dispute between two members as to allegations of facts does not constitute a breach of privilege.

In fact, in O'Brien and Bosc, second edition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2009, on page 145, it indicates: If the question of privilege involves a disagreement between two or more members as to facts, the Speaker typically rules that such a dispute does not prevent a member from fulfilling their parliamentary functions, nor does it –nor does such a disagreement breach the collective privileges of the House. End of quote.

In that case, members –Speakers usually rule as to the facts –or the Speaker usually rules typically that such disputes does not prevent members from filling their obligations in this Legislature or in other legislatures or parliaments and nor does it –did the disagreement breach the collective privileges of the House, as I've indicated. Beauchesne's, in addition, also, in citation 31(1), advises that a dispute arising between two me mbers as to the allegations of facts does not constitute the conditions of parliamentary privilege.

Joseph Maingot, on page 230–223 of the second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, states, in quote: A dispute between two members about questions of facts said in a debate does not constitute a valid question of privilege because it is a matter of debate. End of quote. I would, therefore, respectfully rule that the honourable member for St. Paul does not have a matter of privilege in this case that he has raised here this afternoon. * (13:50) Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Official Opposition House Leader): With respect, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the ruling. Mr.

Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please signify by saying aye. Some Honourable Members: Aye. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it. Mr. Goertzen: On division. Mr. Speaker: On division. Then the ruling is – [interjection] Yes. * * * Mr. Speaker: Now proceed with– ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills. No introduction of bills? PETITIONS Municipal Amalgamations–Reversal Mr.

Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents. The provincial government did not consult with or notify the affected municipalities of this decision prior to the Throne Speech announcement on November 19th, 2012, and has further i mposed unrealistic deadlines. If the provincial government imposes amalgamations, local democratic representation will

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2273 be drastically limited while not providing any real improvements in cost savings. Local governments are further concerned that amalgamation will fail to address the serious issues currently facing municipalities, including an absence of reliable infrastructure funding and timely flood compensation. Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary i n nature and led by the municipalities themselves.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate. And, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by B. Lee, V. Campbell, S. Wang and many other Manitobans. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to have been received by the House. Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mrs.

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

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. And this is signed by R. Olsen, J. Waito, C. Farrer and many others, Mr. Speaker. Municipal Amalgamations–Reversal Mr. Cliff Cullen (Spruce Woods): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents.

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

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

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

(5) Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and led by the municipalities themselves. We p etition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate. This petition is signed by M. Tweed, G. Fidler and R. Fidler and many other fine Manitobans, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And these are the reasons for this petition:

(1) The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents.

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

2274 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013

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

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

(5) Munici palities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and led by the municipalities themselves. We petition the legislatey –the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate. And, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by A. Glover, D. Glover, D. Glover and many, many other Manitobans. Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): Mr.

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

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition's signed by D. Strong, M. Kenney and R. Lavallee and many, many more fine Manitobans. Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

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

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

If the pro vincial government imposes amalgamations, local democratic representation will be drastically limited while not providing any real improvements in cost savings. Local governments are further concerned that amalgamation will fail to address the serious iss ues currently facing municipalities, including an absence of reliable infrastructure funding and timely flood compensation.

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2275 Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and lead–and led by the municipalities themselves. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate. This petition is signed by D. Brown, C. Brown, E. Koss and many, many more Manitobans. * (14:00) Mr.

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

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

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments t he respect they deserve and reserve his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate. And this petition is signed by C. Foster, J. McCurry, M. Picton and many, many more fine Manitobans. Highway 217 Bridge Repair Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And these are the reasons for this petition: The bridge over the Red River on Highway 217 outside of St.

Jean Baptiste was built in 1947 and provides a vital link for economic opportunities and community development on both sides of the river. The Department of Infrastructure and Transportation closed the bridge after spending significant sums of money and time on rehabilitation efforts in the summer of 2012. Individuals require numerous trips across the river each day to access schools, businesses and health-care facilities. The bridge closure causes daily undue hardship and inconvenience for residents due to time requirements and higher transportation costs.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation to repair or replace the existing bridge as soon as possible to allow communities on both sides of the river to return to regular activities. And this petition is signed by J. Ayotte, L. Sabourin, A. VanRyckeghem -Reeks and many, many more fine Manitobans. Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Good afternoon. I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

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

2276 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 To urge the provincial government not to raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition is submitted on behalf of M. Bird, R. Olsen, C. Marzolf and many other fine Manitobans. Hydro Capital Development–NFAT Review Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur- Virden): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And these are the reasons for this petition:

(1) Manitoba Hydro was mandated by the provincial government to commence a $21- billion capital development plan to service uncertain electricity export markets.

(2) In the last five years, competition from alternative energy sources is decreasing the price and demand for Manitoba's hydroelectricity and causing the financial viability of this capital plan to be questioned.

(3) The $21- billion capital plan requires Manitoba Hydro to increase domestic electricity rates by up to 4 per cent annually for the next 20 years and possibly more if export opportunities fail to materialize. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge that the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro create a complete and transparent needs-for-and-alternatives-to review of Manitoba Hydro's total capital development plan to ensure the financial viability of Manitoba Hydro. And this petition is signed by M. Roach, M. Medvedev, E. Kaasgaard and many, many other fine Manitobans, Mr.

Speaker. Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election. Through Bill 20, the provincial gove rnment wants to increase retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum. An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to deter mine when major tax increases are necessary.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. And this petition is signed by C. Plysiazniuk, K. Philipchuk, K. Holyk and many, many other fine Manitobans. Mr. Ca meron Friesen (Morden -Winkler): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

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

(4) Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. And this petition is signed by R. Wolfe, B. Fehr and D. Wolfe and many, many others. Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

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

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2277 An increase in the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. And this petition is signed by C. Walby, S. Mikawos, V. Walby and many, many other fine Manitobans. The Jewish Foundation of Manitoba Act Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And the background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The foundation was originally established by

an act of the Legislature in 1964. It is a public foundation which manages a growing endowment fund that exceeds $80 million. Since its inception, the foundation has distributed more than $30 million in grants and scholarships in the local community and across Canada.

(2) The foundation provides opportuniti es to realize philanthropic objectives of Manitobans in strengthening and supporting the Jewish and general communities of Manitoba.

(3) Gifts to the foundation sustain and enhance a myriad of programs, services and charitable agencies across the provinc e and ensure a strong and viable future for all Manitobans.

(4) Under the current act, subject to the donors' trusts and conditions and the disbursement requirements under the Income Tax Act, Canada, for registered charities, donations are to be held in perpetuity for the purpose of earning income to be used for the foundation's purposes.

(5) While traditional investment vehicles and their returns have served charitable institutions well in the past, the realities of a new economic and financial climate require alternative investment and disbursement strategies to be employed to meet the ongoing needs and obligations of the foundation. Specifically, where income generated by the foundation's capital assets is insufficient to meet its distribution policy, investment strategies, including capital encroachment along with other sophisticated investment methods, must be available. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: That The Jewish Foundation of Manitoba Act be amended to (

a) require the board of the foundation to establish a distribution policy and (

b) give the foundation sufficient authority to carry out that policy, allowing the foundation to encroach on capital as needed and subject to the donors' trusts and conditions. This petition is signed by M. Cowan and S. Croft. * (14:10) Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today family members of the honourable Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines (Mr. Chomiak), his spouse, Debbie Chomiak, along with his mother -in-law and sister-in-law from Prince Edward Island, Jackie and Dana O'Brien.

And also in the public gallery we have with us today, from the Winnipeg Art Gallery, Debra Fehr, Lila Goodspeed and Richard Yaffe, who are the guests of the honourable member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino). And also in the public gallery we have with us today, from Artbeat Studio, Lucille, Nigel, Ernie and Ethan Bart, who are the guests of the honourable member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer). And we have –they have in the gallery as well, from École Guyot school, 46 grade 6 students under the direction of Michelle Paradis.

This group is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Advanced Education and Literacy (Ms. Selby). That includes all the guests, I believe, that are here this afternoon. On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome each of you here today. And I have some news prior to–with the indulgence of the members of the House, one of our pages, Connor Boyd, won the two gold medals in the 800 and 1,500 metres at the Provincial Tr ack and

2278 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 Field Championships last week. On behalf of all honourable members, I'd like to congratulate Connor on his accomplishments. ORAL QUESTIONS Bill 47 Vote Tax Mr. Brian Pallister (Leader of the Official Opposition): Way to go, Connor, and thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, it's ironic, in a way, that a Premier who loves Back to the Future, the movie, is actually trying to play games with time with legislation in this session. Retroactive bills seem to be in plentiful status this session.

So we have a budget bill that applies retroactivity back to January 1st of last year for unearned benefits that will be paid to the NDP in the form of what we call a vote tax, Mr. Speaker, which means, of course, that retroactively New Democratic members will not have to fundraise. Now, with all the good things that the Premier could be doing, with all the things that the Premier could be doing for the people of Manitoba, what is his first concern? Himself –himself and his political party, putting himself in front of Manitobans and Manitobans at the back. Now, Mr.

Speaker, would the Premier, who, last two budgets, has cut $1,600 per year from the households of Manitobans, why would he give a $7,000-per-NDP-MLA raise , for doing nothing, to his colleagues and himself? Why would he do it? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): And we on this side of the House are very proud that we banned corporate and union donations in Manitoba and that we made sure that democracy in Manitoba is available to everybody and without fear or favour, Mr. Speaker.

The member office–the member opposite has frequently used the number $1,600 per Manitoban, which, at 1 per cent of the PST, would require somebody to expend $160,000 a year, Mr. Speaker. And that is a bit rich for most Manitobans. Mr. Spe aker, an independent commissioner blazed new ground in Manitoba by suggesting that when it comes to how we manage democracy in this province, it should be a level playing field without special favours being made available to corporations and unions. Ministerial Immunity Mr. Pallister: Well, the Premier might have forgotten last year's budget already, but Manitobans haven't, Mr.

Speaker; $1,600 per household–$1,600 less. The Premier might like to go back in time because he prefers the past in many ways to the present. I understand that. But he went too far in Bill 47 when he decided to give retroactive immunity to himself and his colleagues for wrongdoing. Now, he could have gone back in time and paid some flood claims. He could have gone back, even better, 13 years ago and made some investments in flood prevention works, but he chose to do neither of those things.

Instead–oh, he could have negotiated in good faith, too, with flood victims, with the people at Assiniboia Downs, but he didn't choose to do any of those things. He chose to say, I'm above the law. He chose to say, I'm more important than Manitobans. He chose to say that on July 1st, he's going to impose an illegal tax. Now, would the Premier admit that the purpose of this legislation is to shield himself from accountability? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is intended to protect Manitoba citizens who pay taxes from frivolous and unnecessary lawsuits. And I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, the member's eligible. The member for Fort Whyte received a $16,107 and 53 per cent public -taxpayer-dollar rebate in the last election, one of the highest of all the members who ran for the Conservative Party . The next highest rebate on the list was 15 thousand– oh, no, $17,449.34 for the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson), closely followed by the public rebate of $15,996.67 for the member from St. Paul. Those are just some of the examples of public taxpayers' dollars received by the members opposite. Tax Increase NDP Election Promise Mr.

Brian Pallister (Leader of the Official Opposition): Well, if the Premier's proposing to eliminate rebates to political parties for running election campaigns, he should get at it and put the bill on the floor of the House. We're ready to work for our [inaudible] We're ready to raise money. The Premier could have gone back in time and started to work on fighting his spending addiction before it created a $1,600 loss for every household in

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2279 this province. He could have got his spending under control, but he didn't. He could have gone back and taken back the promise he made to Manitobans that he wouldn't jack up their taxes, but he didn't do that either. He could have gone back and tried to restore some of the integrity he's lost as a consequence of his willingness to break his promises, but he didn't do that either.

Instead, he tore up the taxpayer protection act, he took away the right of Manitobans to vote and he said, ful l speed ahead, I can spend $1,600 better than any Manitoban can spend it in their home, and that's disrespectful to Manitobans. Will the Premier simply admit that he genuinely believes that he's more qualified to spend $1,600 than the people in Manitoba' s households who worked for it, saved it and earned it? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I know why the member never likes to look at the record in Manitoba, because when he was in office every Manitoba family, every average Manitoba family of f our at $60,000 income paid $2,400 more in taxes every single year –2,400 more dollars in taxes when the member was a key member of the Cabinet of the Filmon government area. That was their approach to taxation. Every small business paid 9 per cent; now they pay zero. Every corporation paid 17 per cent; now they pay 11.

Education support levy, worth about $180 million, imposed by the members opposite, removed by this government off all homeowners in Manitoba. And, Mr. Speaker, on the Property Tax Credit, they started at $325 and reduced it to $250. We've increased it to $700. Manitobans are better off today than they were when he was in office, and they will be better off tomorrow– Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Charleswood has the floor. PST Increase Request to Withdraw Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, back to the future. How can we believe anything this Premier has to say?

He has absolutely no credibility. Mr. Speaker, six organizations released an open letter to Manitoba 's NDP Premier today calling on him to reverse his decision to raise the PST. They all say that it is going to hurt jobs, businesses and taxpayers. We know that the member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady) doesn't care about taxpayers, but will this Premier listen to the concerns of these organizations who represent thousands and thousands of Manitobans? Will he listen to them and their request in the letter? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, this from the member that refused to listen to the Canadian Cancer Society about making drugs available for cancer victims for free outside of a– that's the attitude. This is the member that refused to listen to nurses when she fired a thousand of them when she was an adviser to the Minister of Health. Mr. Spe aker, organizations have the right –they have the right–to come down, uniquely in Manitoba, to present on second reading of a bill.

The only people holding them back from being able to come and present at the Legislature are the members opposite, who keep r efusing to listen to Bill 20 representations. They've held it up every day in this Legislature. We've put it on the docket every day. We're willing to move forward on it. They want to stall it. It's them that doesn't want to listen to Manitobans. * (14:20) Impact on Manitobans Mrs. Driedger: And that answer from a government that lied to Manitobans in the last election. That is despicable. Mr.

Speaker, the groups that sent the letter point out some very, very serious concerns that this government seems to be ignoring. Many families are already finding it hard to make ends meet; many are finding it hard to save for retirement, and that PST increase is going to hurt jobs. So I'd like to ask this Premier: Why is his slush fund so much more important to him than regular Manitoba taxpayers? Can he answer that? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, in the middle of a recession, all the members opposite wanted to slash spending in the government.

The new leader comes in, first thing he wants to do, slash spending indiscriminately all across the government, lay off nurses, lay off teachers. The only ones that want to go back to the '90s are the former members of the Filmon government. They think it was one of the best governments in the history of Manitoba. They want to return us to an era when they laid off nurses, when they fired teacher s, when they shut down the

2280 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 child welfare system. They want to return to an era where it was slow growth; nothing was being built. Tonight the new stadium opens up, Mr. Speaker. They opposed it–they opposed it. It created hundreds of jobs for Manitobans –hundreds of jobs. It will provide economic stimulus to the province. They will show up to the game and pretend they support the stadium when they voted against it. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The clock's ticking, folks, on question period. We're wasting precious time. I'm asking for your co-operation and keep the level down a little bit.

The honourable member for Charleswood has the floor. Meeting Request Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just tell this Premier that he has absolutely no credibility. Mr. Speaker, the groups reminded this Premier that he is breaking his promise to not raise the PST and that he is breaking the law by not first having a referendum. These groups have offered to sit down with this government and to help them look for ways to save money and not raise the PST.

So I'd like to ask the Premier: Will he accept this gracious offer from these groups, or does he intend to remain stubborn, obstinate and disrespectful of Manitoba taxpayers? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, this government would be happy to receive any constructive suggestions on how to improve the way we deliver services in government. We look for that all the time. The door is always open to any constructive suggestion. They can contact us any way they wish. But, Mr. Speaker, coming from the legislative assistant that fired a thousand nurses, that is unbelievably rich.

This is the same person that, along with the leader, wants to return to the '90s and indiscriminately cut budgets all across Manitoba. They don't want to build hydro. They didn't want to build the stadium. They didn't want to build the MTS Centre. They didn't want to build the hospital in Brandon. They don't want to build the Women's Hospital. They didn't want to build Red River Community College. They don't want to build schools. They don't want to build roads. They want to do nothing. They want to take us into the past. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Thank you. The honourable member for Emerson has the floor.

PST Increase Referendum Request Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): In 18 days the NDP are going to raise the PST without listening to the people of the province of Manitoba. Yesterday six organizations representing thousands of law-abiding Manitobans sent a letter to the Premier urging him to reverse his decision on the PST. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier today obey the law and call a referendum? Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance ): And this is also the group across the way, the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Pallister) who got–tried to get in the middle of building the floodway around Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker.

You know, they're not in flavour – favour of building anything. And, what we have done, very clearly, is we've put in place a measure, a 1 -cent-on-the-dollar increase to the PST, which is di rectly fund the infrastructure that this province needs. It will directly fund the infrastructure, the hospitals, the schools, the daycares that Manitoba families depend on. And, Mr. Speaker, to say nothing about the kind of stimulus that that will provide for our economy, our Manitoba economy, providing jobs and long-term infrastructure that needs to –that really needs to be done in this– Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The minister's time has expired. Mr. Graydon: Well, Mr. Speaker, Michael Kowalson owns two Subway restaurants in the city of Winnipeg employing up to 60 people. His business will be affected. More PST means higher costs. Will the NDP hire –while the NDP hire , Mr. Speaker, 192 communicators and fund their own political party with the vote tax, Mr. Speaker, will the Premier obey the law and call a referendum? Mr. Struthers : Well, Mr. Speaker, there are many challenges facing the–our Manitoba economy; this government is seized of taking on those challenges.

We know that the federal government is proposing that we match money for an infrastructure program that's coming forward. We intend to do that.

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2281 We've told Manitobans exactly how we're going to raise the revenue for that, Mr. Speaker. On the other h and, Mr. Speaker, what we reject completely is the –is what the member for Fort Whyte has put forward and that is a 1 per cent, indiscriminate, across -the-board cut to things like schools and hospitals and daycares. They get up in this House every day and t hey feign interest in our economy and then they put forward measures that would hurt our economy. Mr. Graydon: Mr.

Speaker, Jerry Lakusta owns Vain Hair and Body Studio on a –and in 18 days the NDP are going to raise his costs without listening to him or other Manitobans. We know that the NDP government lied to Manitobans about raising the PST. However, I'm sure the Premier has more integrity than that and that he supports the democratic rights of Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier show respect for Manitobans today and obey the law and call a referendum? Mr. Struthers: Well, Mr.

Speaker, this government and our Cabinet ministers will stand behind the tax credits that we have put in place, not just in this most recent budget but right back to 1999 w hen we formed government, $2.9 billion worth of tax credits, whether they be on the personal side or the property side. The member opposite mentions a small business, Mr. Speaker. We are still the only province that has a tax-free small business zone. Whe n we took government it was 8 per cent; we review–we reduced that to zero per cent. That's a real benefit for the same person that that member for Emerson now claims to represent.

We'll stand behind small business any day. Mining Industry Ranking Government Targets Mr. Ron Schuler ( St. Paul ): Mr. Speaker, i n a recent survey 96 mining jurisdictions were ranked worldwide. Manitoba dropped from first place in 2006-2007 to 21st place in 2012- 2013, with a University of Calgary report citing Manitoba's tax policy as one of the factors of this drop. Can the NDP Minister of Energy tell this House: How does he intend to reverse this declining trend? Hon.

Dave Chomiak (Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines ): I welcome the opportunity of talking about some of the successes we have in Manitoba. The largest mine in Manitoba history is under construction, three quarters of a billion dollars in Lalor mine, Mr. Speaker. In addition, the president of Vale Inco recently said that Manitoba is the best place to do business, and that's the reason why they want to keep the smelter open and expand the mine, Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba. Thirdly, the member is so inaccurate with respect to taxes, Mr.

Speaker, that Manitoba is one the most competitive jurisdictions and he's frankly, like in many cases, he is wrong. He is wrong in his facts. He is wrong in his statements. * (14:30) Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, in another survey Manitoba is ranked 31st out of 96 jurisdictions, down from sixth last year, in t he category of taxation regime. The University of Calgary study states, and I quote: "Manitoba mining is the most heavily taxed among all provinces. The provincial sales tax is again largely responsible for this".

Will the minister now set targets to whe re Manitoba should be in future surveys, and how does he plan on achieving that goal? Mr. Chomiak : One of the problems with the member's research, Mr. Speaker, when you're preoccupied by Tea Party rhetoric, when you have a Tea Party mind that's only intere sted in only taxes, you know, social conservatism, cutting back government, getting rid of social programs, privatizing health care –when you have that framework, you don't look at the facts. Today Calgary has introduced a new tax. Alberta has introduced a new tax, Bill 22, on mining companies.

Maybe the member should take a look at the new tax that has been introduced today in Alberta and look at our budget papers that show we're the most competitive jurisdiction in the West, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for St. Paul has the floor. Mr. Schuler: And the wacky, wacky world of the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). Manitoba has fallen to 21st place worldwide, and the NDP taxation is identified as a leading cause for that decline. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious question.

2282 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 Will the NDP Minister of Energy set a target of where he would like Manitoba to be ranked, and how does he intend to achieve this target? Will he set a target, how is he going to get there, and when are we going to be there? Mr. Chomiak : That very liberal institution, the Fraser Institute, which is –which the member opposite is using, also ranked Manitoba as the No. 1 jurisdiction in the world for oil mining and petroleum. But I just– you know, I asked the member –I know the member is narrow -minded.

I know he has trouble dealing with some of these factual issues. I don't know how much time he's spent at university, Mr. Speaker, but I do know that today Alberta's introduced a bill that's going to put a tax on mining companies for consultation. The member ought to review that and pay a little bit more attention to what's going on. And I will take the word of Rolls-Royce any day when they said Manitoba's the best place in the world to do business. That's why they came here, Mr . Speaker. Legal Proceedings Government Position Mr. Cliff Cullen (Spruce Woods): Mr.

Speaker, we have determined that there are at least three ministers on the NDP side involved on the Assiniboia Downs file, and we've determined that all three ministers are implicated in court action. And we know there's two ministers that are involved in conflict of interest allegations. Yesterday the Minister responsible for Lotteries said the legal proceedings before the courts were frivolous, Mr. Speaker. I would like clarification from the minister: Does the minister really believe the proceedings in front of the court right now are frivolous? Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, the courts have been –the courts have actually been very clear in what we can do on this side of the House. They've given us the authority to move forward with exactly what we said we would do in the budget, and we've done that through BITSA. We've implemented that just as we said we would do it. We have the authority to do that. Mr. Speaker, we believe that the money that is spent on horse racing and horse gambling should be redirected from that enterprise into health care in this province. That's where we stand. We've been clear with that all along.

I'm just surprised t hat members opposite want the state to run horse racing in Manitoba. Mr. Cullen : I would suggest to the minister that Manitobans would argue having two ministers of the Crown in conflict of interest allegations is not frivolous. I would also suggest that M anitobans would say a $350-million lawsuit is not frivolous. Mr. Speaker, if the minister really believes these cases are frivolous, why did the NDP have 12 lawyers in court on Monday? Mr. Struthers : I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that Manitobans would support moving $5 million from horse racing in Manitoba to health care in Manitoba.

That's what I believe Manitobans expect us to do. It is our hope and it's our plan that horse racing in Manitoba would continue and that it would continue on sustainable grounds rather than relying on nearly a 90 per cent subsidy, which was–is what it relies on now, Mr. Speaker. We want the –we want horse racing–we want the Manitoba Jockey Club to work with a private partner to make sure that that happens. We are very pleas ed that one has come forward– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's time has expired. The honourable member for Spruce Woods, with a final supplementary. Mr. Cullen : Mr.

Speaker, this is a pretty typical David-versus-Goliath story. We h ave 12 lawyers acting on behalf of the NDP, one lawyer representing Assiniboia Downs. I can understand how the minister might be upset, because in this case David won and the NDP took it on the chin. Now, clearly, the NDP's 12 lawyers didn't get the job done. So will the minister be seeking additional help at the next hearing? Mr. Struthers: Mr.

Speaker, we'll be seeking to do exactly what the courts have said we can do, and that is move forward with moving $5 million from the Manitoba Jockey Club into health care; that's exactly what we have the authority to do. Mr. Speaker, we are very hopeful that the private sector partner, the partner that's stepped forward,

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2283 namely the Peguis First Nation, will be able to work with the Manitoba Jockey Club to ensur e that there's a sustainable–long-term horse racing in Manitoba. We're still at the table. We have reduced the money that we've given to the Jockey Club; it's not eliminated. We're willing to do our part. It's time the Jockey Club was willing to do its part to make sure that they're sustainable over the future, Mr. Speaker. Applied Behaviour Analysis Treatment Access to Treatment Mr.

Dennis Smook (La Verendrye) : Yesterday in the House, in response to a question I posed about access to autism treatments, specifically ABA therapy, the minister said, and I quote: This year, in this budget, we provided funding for two additional autism outreach workers. The problem is these workers do not provide ABA therapy to children with autism, as the minister well knows. Will the minister admit she attempted to mislead the House and all Manitobans yesterday? Hon.

Jennifer Howard (Minister of Family Services and Labour): I cer tainly would welcome the member opposite to join me in Estimates, whenever we get there, and we can talk more about these issues. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Offic ial Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think there needs to be some clarification. I think the minister is confused. She's in charge of the agenda. If she wants to call Estimates, call it – afternoon. Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order. Ms. Howard: On the same point of order. I–we have had Estimates. We'll continue to have Estimates on other days. There have been days – every day I communicate to the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the Liberal Party what is on the agenda this afternoon out of courtesy. There is no obligation upon me to do that; I do that out of courtesy to them. And in the past, when I have let them know that Supply would be on the agenda in the afternoon, we have been treated to an afternoon of bell ringing, Mr. Speaker.

So I have very little confidence, frankly, unfortunately, that we would get there. But I don't want to bore the whole Chamber with the machinations of the House. So we will have plenty of time, certainly, to get to Estimates, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to that when we get there. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Official Opposition House Leader, I didn't hear that there was a breach of the rules in any of the advice that he was providing to the House with respect to the point of order. So, therefore, I must respect fully rule that there is no point of order. * * * Mr.

Speaker: Now, where were we in questions? The honourable minister, I think, had to respond to the question. Ms. Howard: Certainly, what I wanted to say to the member opposite is we will have more time together in Supply to more fulsomely discuss this issue. * (14:40) But I do want to say clearly, I did not in any way yesterday suggest that there's only one kind of treatment available to children with autism. And I think there are many, many parents –there are about 725 families, my understanding, who are dealing with this issue in Manitoba. Many, many of those families choose other treatments for their children.

Many, many of those families have asked us to provide increased resources for that other ki nd of treatment, and it is that kind of treatment that is being rolled out in rural Manitoba. And it's valuable to the families who are accessing it. Mr. Smook : Yesterday, in response to a question posed by my colleague the member from Riding Mountain about access to ABA services, the Minister of Family Services said, and I quote: There's a challenge in recruiting technicians. The facts tell a different story. The St.

Amant Centre has four ABA consultants lined up and ready and willing to begin working with families today. Again, I give the minister another opportunity. Will she admit that she misled the House and all Manitobans yesterday?

2284 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 Ms. Howard: It has been my understanding that across Canada there has been a challenge in recruiting these technicians. There's often a challenge because they come from overseas, so sometimes there can be challenges, with the immigration system, getting here. That is what I was speaking to, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I was providing the best information that I was aware of in the House, and I look forward to having further discussion upon this when we get to Committee of Supply. Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for La Verendrye, on a final supplementary. Mr.

Smook : Yesterday my colleague the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) asked the minister if she would consider not taking the vote tax to allow one of her constituents to have the needed service she deserves. The minister did not answer that question. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister outlined that children are supported in the ABA program to a tune of $70,000 per child. Will the minister do the right thing and commit to redirecting the NDP vote tax to A BA services for children with autism and not line their own pockets? Ms.

Howard: Certainly, our support for the ABA program is among the highest in the country, Mr. Speaker. It is a program that is important to the families that access it, and we continue to work with clinicians and educators and those families to make sure that we're getting those services to the kids who most need it and to the kids who most benefit it. What I hoped I was clear in my answers yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was saying that we wo uld not take the approach advocated by the Leader of the Opposition and reduce our funding to that program as a subsequent of his commitment to across-the-board cuts to all programs.

I hope that's now clear for the member opposite. Legislative Session Emergency Session Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the government will fail to get its budget passed by the end of this normal end of the session, I think, for the first time in the history of this government. The government has had 31 days on–including Fridays, on which it could have called Estimates, but has failed to call Estimates on 26 of those days. A major reason for the government's having to call an emergency session, expected next week, is the failure of this government to organize matters well before the House.

I ask the Premier to accept some of the culpability, to show respect for the Legislature and to start putting a priority on calling Estimates and getting the budget passed. Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): We are committed to being here to deal with the bills and the Estimates, issues of Supply, issues of legislation. We're very interested in remaining here to do that, and I look forward to working with the member to get all of this important legislation and resources in the budget moved forward, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Gerrard: Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the Premier said in terms of the emergency session that he was putting a priority on all of his bills. Quite frankly, this quote is misleading Manitobans to understand that the impendin g emergency session, after this Thursday, will continue as if it were just a regular session. The rules of the Legislature are clear that calling outside–the House outside of the sessional calendar is for emergency or extraordinary circumstances to deal with emergency measures. When will the Premier tell Manitobans just exactly which bills he considers emergency bills to be completed in the emergency session?

Mr. Selinger: I thank the member for River Heights, the Leader of the Liberal Party, for the question. As he knows, our House leader made an offer to do Estimates as well as bills at the same time to have a dual -track approach to allow more work to get done in the House. That offer was rejected by members opposite. That is unfortunate. More work could be done. There's many eager people on this side of the House that want to move forward on these things, both on the budget side and on the bill side. All the bills we consider to be important, and the budget we consider to be important, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, you know, we have had quite a number of days–you know, it's on the order of 31 days that there could have been called Estimates, and it was not until yesterday that a plan was presented at the very last minute in the session with a hurry-up, trying to complete the budget by the end of June.

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2285 The Premier, you know, is mistaken, because at least for the Liberal Party, there was no plan presented before this. Clearly, this government has been rather disorganized, has not put a prior ity on Estimates. I ask the Premier to be honest about this, acknowledge that we're going to be in an emergency session and tell us what emergency measures he's going to be dealing with. Mr. Selinger: Many times there's been an offer to have both bills as well as Estimates move concurrently through the Legislature to offer everybody a chance to participate in the process.

That offer's been rejected many times. We continue to make our –that offer available as we speak. We could do that today, Mr. Speaker, if they wanted to do a dual -track approach where we have both Estimates and bills at the same time. We're prepared to do extra time. The letter offers Saturday sittings. We've offered opportunities to meet in the evenings. We're very eager to carry on the work of the Legislature, both on the budget side and on the bill side. Investors Group Field Opening Mr. Dave Gaudreau (St. Norbert): Mr.

Speaker, last night I was out canvassing in my area, and it's quite clear that things are going really well in Manitoba. People are really happy about all the stuff that's going on, all the building. So many families last night actually told me about this exciting new event that's going to be going on tonight. And I was wondering if the Minister of Sport could tell us about the grand opening of the best stadium in Canada. And, go, Bombers. Hon. Eric Robinson (Minister responsible for Sport): While I'm on my feet, allow me to join with you and also the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating Connor.

Connor, we're very proud of your– Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question, I believe that this government has been a leader and has demonstrated its leadership in building the MTS Centre. Many people thought it wouldn't be done. And then, now, the Investors Group Field, where tonight the Winnipeg Blue Bombers will be hosting the Toronto Argonauts. And, you know, many times in this Chamber, as I sit back in my place in this Chamber, I hear about all the great things and being compared to the province of Saskatchewan.

I hope that the other side of the House hasn't turned their allegiance to the Saskatchewan Roughriders, but over here on this side, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all Manitobans we are indeed very Blue Bomber proud. Lake Manitoba Outlet Construction Timeline Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): Mr. Speaker, the additional outlet for Lake Manitoba was announced with a timeline of 2016 for start- up and with a completion expected in 2021. I ask the Premier: Why is it going to take seven years to construct the outlet? Hon.

Eric Robinson (Acting Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation ): On behalf of the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation (Mr. Ashton), I will just respond in this way, Mr. Speaker, that the people that specialize in the work that the member has mentioned is ongoing–there's a lot of work that has to be done with respect to

section 35 considerations as called for by the Supreme Court of Canada, which includes a dialogue with the First Nation of Dauphin River. That has to be done, including the environmental work that has to be done up to and leading. I believe that we have done some substantial work on the damages of the 2011 flood, and I'll gladly respond to the progress that this government has made with respect to establishing partnerships with the First Nations and the national government. Mr. Briese: Mr.

Speaker, the ranchers, farmers, First Nations and property owners cannot survive the emotional and financial strain of another M anitoba flood–Lake Manitoba flood on the same level as 2011. Yet this NDP government is telling them they have to face that risk for another seven years. * (14:50) Mr. Speaker, is the promised outlet just another empty promise soon to be a broken promise by this NDP government? Mr. Robinson: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, we're in this together as Manitobans. There are things that we are trying to correct.

Three–two t housand people out of their homes for a period of two years is really unacceptable, and I don't think any member in this Chamber would disagree with that.

2286 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 We are making efforts in working with Lake St. Martin, Little Saskatchewan, Pinaymootang and Dauphin River in trying to rebuild their lives with the devastation of the 2011 flood, as we are doing with the farmers and the other folks that have been impacted by the flood of 2011. And the work will continue, and the Province is doing what it can in partnership with those people that I mention, including the federal government, in ensuring that the corrective measures are taken. Legislative Session Committee Presentations Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr.

Speaker, the offer that the Government House Leader has made, not to us but to Manitobans, is to have Manitobans, still hundreds of them, be forced to come through the night for committee is not a respectful way to treat Manitobans. Of course, we rejected that offer because we would never want to have to force Manitobans to sit through the night after they weren't allowed to have a referendum. Why won't the Government House Leader stand up and apologize to Manitobans for still trying to force them through the night at committee, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the offer that we have made to extend the evenings that we won't sit past midnight, to hold committees on Saturday so people who work during the days and people who work in the evenings woul d be able to come to committee, I believe that that is an offer worthy of consideration. I–if the member opposite is interested in revisiting the rules of the House, I'm open to that discussion. Not once, Mr. Speaker, since he's become House leader has he asked me to revisit the rules of the House, to sit down and have a discussion and look at the rules under which the committees operate.

We know that in Manitoba it's very unique where you have a committee where any Manitoban can come and present. That's a unique system in Manitoba. If we're going to change that system, I think we need a full discussion about the rules of the House before we do that. Mr. Goertzen: I don't know if the minister is living in a cave or she doesn't read the newspapers, Mr. Speaker. We asked them to come back early. We asked them to come back in February. We asked them to come back in March. We couldn't get the government out of bed, they were too busy sleeping. They didn't want to come to work here, Mr. Speaker.

And then we said, well, let's change how committees are done. I've asked dozens of questions asking that committees be done in a respectful way, Mr. Speaker. They've refused to do it. We're going to fight for Manitobans. We're going to fight on behalf of Manitobans. Why don't they join us and treat Manitobans respectfully? Ms. Howard: Well, Mr. Speaker, I invite my honourable friend to table one letter that he wrote me in February, one letter that he wrote me in March, one letter that he wrote me in April asking for the House to come back, asking for a revision of the rules of the House.

It will be hard for him to table those letters because they would've been written in invisible ink. So we can take –talk about the rules of the House. I am open to doing that. In some jurisdictions there is a rule in their Legislature that they do not allow, for example, for parties to challenge over and over again the ruling of a Speaker because it's seen as holding the Speaker in contempt. That is the rule in some juris dictions. I welcome a discussion about that kind of rule in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a member's statement. Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Rights Act–Passage Mr. Brian Pallister (Leader of the Official Opposition): Yes, please, sir. I just wanted to say congratulations to the House of Commons on this occasion for the passage yesterday of S -2, the bill, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act.

For too many years Aboriginal women in particular have suffered, as a consequence of being caught between no laws under the Indian Act and no laws at the provincial level in respect of property rights, and this is over. The United Nations called on our country over 30 years ago to act on this issue, and on June 11th, 2013, they did.

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2287 Manitoba leads the country in the percentage of its people who are Aboriginal, and Aboriginal women, in particular, will be very, very, very pleased to see the advancement of this piece of legislation. I was pleased some years ago to have the support of many First Nations women across the country to advance my private member's bill, C -289, back in 2006, and it, in some small way, may have contributed to the furtherance of this issue. I give the credit entirely to Aboriginal women across this country who have fought so hard for so long to see this come to be.

The consultative process that was undertaken over the last number of years and preceding it, in fact, was extensive. For some, it will never be enough. I accept that that is probably true, but the reality is it has gone on long enough. And I'm tremendously pleased to see the bill allow First Nations to draft their own property rights, their own matrimonial property rules. I think that that is respectful and the right way to do it. Many have already done so. Others will be able –other communities may choose to use the default rules that will come into play thereafter.

And part of that, I think, is the reality for many First Nations communities that they don't have the resources, necessarily, to commit to these things or they have other priorities that are more urgent. But the reality is these concerns have been raised by us in this House in the unanimous motion that we passed and spoke for. I was honoured to speak to the House of Commons committee, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on this bill during its process, and I can tell all members of this House that that motion was very important in advancing this important piece of legislation forward.

All of us deserve to be very proud of our unanimous expressions of support for Aboriginal women. I want to thank, in particular, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Robinson), and the minister in charge of Aboriginal affairs for Manitoba, for his assistance in terms of the bill itself, for his assistance going forward. I think that that is to be commended, and I thank him very much for that.

And I thank all members, again, and believe that this is a genuine reason to celebrate the effectiveness of working together and the effectiveness of advancing in common cause the issues that are so important to Manitobans, in particular, Manitoba First Nations women. Thank you. Winnipeg Art Gallery Centennial Anniversary Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): I rise to recognize an iconic cultural institution, the Winnipeg Art Gallery, and recognize its 100th anniversary year. Founded in 1912, the WAG, or Winnipeg Art Gallery, is Canada's oldest public gallery and one of the largest.

After occupying various premises, the unique limestone structure opened in 1971, and it's located just down the street from the Legislature. This distinct building is a prominent and breathtaking Manitoba landmark. The Winnipeg Art Gallery has long been a leader in nurturing and showcasing the visual arts. Through exhibits, programs and special events, the Winnipeg Art Gallery plays a vital role in our community, inspiring, educating, enlightening a nd entertaining visitors of all ages and from all over.

The gallery regularly hosts international touring exhibits and rotates its vast collection of 22,500 pieces, benefiting all Manitobans and visitors. Remarkably, the gallery is home to the largest collection of contemporary Inuit art in the world. It is renowned for preserving the precious Inuit culture for the entire world to enjoy and appreciate. The current 100 Masters: Only in Canada exhibition brings together 50 Canadian and 50 European and American works spanning the last centuries –six centuries. It features pieces from 30 galleries, representing more than 500 years of art.

Included in the exhibition are major art works. Congratulations and thank you to everyone at the Winnipeg Art Gallery on this 100th anniversary. The Manitoba government is proud to support your efforts. Your work has enriched audiences for an amazing 100 years, and we look forward to the next 100. Thank you. * (15:00) HOPE Students Kenya Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): Mr. Spea ker, two grade 10 students from Neepawa are dedicating their summer to something important –helping other people.

Brooke de Koning and Halle her –Hayhurst are travelling to Kenya from July 19th to August the 8th, to help with humanitarian efforts and cultura l activities while learning leadership and life skills. This work involves constructing a new school, including the physical labour and the construction of

2288 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 the building itself. They will also spend time helping mothers in the area make jewellery to sell, as well as planting trees in the community. The opportunity came through the HOPE program at the Neepawa Area Collegiate, a program that promotes both global and local understandings of issues and philanthropy. The program has also been raising money for a community water well in Kenya, and the girls made the decision that they wanted to see one of these wells in action in Kenya. The girls have to raise about $6,000 each to take

part in the trip. So far, they have had a yard sale in the community, they are selling 50 -50 tickets and have put themselves for hire for odd jobs around town. While $6,000 seems like a big goal, the girls are well on their way. While Kenya is a long way from Neepawa, it is inspiring to think that two grade 10 students can have such an impact on a country that is so far away. Youth in this province, and particularly Halle and Brooke, are able to see that things need to be changed in other countries and that things like education are important in all countries.

Projects like this help to create education opportunities, not only here at home, but in countries far away. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Halle and Brooke in their work in the community, and I wish them well on their trip to Kenya in what is sure to be an adventure and the learning experience of a lifetime. Thank you. Artbeat Studio Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the Winnipeg core is a community full of creative and innovative residents that care about one another. Artbeat Studio perfectly exemplifies this point.

This urban arts centre provides accessible arts programming for the citizens of the North Portage and Central Park areas who receive mental health services. This socially progressive organization strengthens the community by promoting dialogue and creative endeavours. It also provides healing services and supports a unique communal cultural fabric. Mr. Speaker, I've had the pleasure of visiting Artbeat Studios and I'm always impressed by the compassionate and collaborative atmosphere.

This is due in no small part to the vision and dedication of its founder, Nigel Bart, and his mother, Lucille Bart, who serves as executive director. I'm very pleased that they are here with us today, as is Ernie Bart and Ethan Bart, a hard-working grade 1 student who also happens to be Nigel's son. The–in 2005, they established Artbeat Studio with the goal of enabling consumers of mental health services to engage in artistic expression that promotes recovery, empowerment and community. Having referred numerous citizens to Artbeat's unique services since becoming an MLA, Mr.

Speaker, I can personally attest that they have more than achieved this ambitious target. Artbeat's core program is a six-month period that accommodates nine artistic applicants at a time for intense access to a wide range of artistic forms and supportive healing. Additionally, Artbeat Studio also runs Studio Central, which is developed by Ernie Bart, and it serves Manitoba Housing residents in a volunteer-run artistic setting. Suffice to say, Mr. Speaker, that the artists' lives are often greatly improved through their studio experiences.

Notably, the display at the recently opened Mental Health Crisis Response Centre boasts artwork by Artbeat Studio alumni and Studio Central. I'm so proud to be part of a government that supports this vital organization. Mr. Speaker, urban residents are, indeed, fortunate to have Artbeat Studio serving the needs of the community. I am deeply moved by the work that they do and ask that all members present here today applaud their life-changing efforts. Thank you so much. Health Care–Northern Manitoba Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, I rise to speak of my concern for the state of health care in northe rn Manitoba. Today's Free Press has focused attention on the death of Laura Tssessaze in Lac Brochet. Her death is tragic, particularly when the evidence available to date provides credible information which suggests Laura's death was preventable. I want to first extend my condolences to the friends and family of Laura Tssessaze. Clearly, the reasons for Laura's death need to be investigated, the reasons for her death determined and measures implemented as fast as possible to ensure similar circumstances never happen again in Manitoba.

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2289 But the problems with health in northern Manitoba are much broader. Children in northern Manitoba have a much higher mortality rate than children in southern Manitoba. Children in northern Manitoba have much higher rates of dental disease, much higher rates of diabetes, much higher rates of suicides, much higher rates of accidents needing hospitalization than children in southern Manitoba.

The present government has been in power for 13 years and nine months, yet sadly there's been little change in the health care outcomes in northern Manitoba as well as the inquest into the death of Laura Tssessaze, which is badly needed. There also needs to be a full inquiry into the health and health-care delivery in northern Manitoba, to determine why so many health outcomes are so much worse in northern Manitoba than in the rest of our province and to make substantive recommen - dations to improve the current situation. Mr. Speaker: Grievances. Seeing no grievances– ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon.

Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, given the interest in Estimates expressed by members opposite today, would you please canvass the House to see if there's leave that the Committee of Supply meet this afternoon in room 255 to deal with the consideration of Estimates for the Department of Finance, and in room 254 to deal with consideration of Estimates for the Department of Health, while in the Chamber the House sits to deal with bills. Further, would you ask if there's leave that while considering these matters there be no quorum calls? Mr.

Speaker: Is there leave of the House to consider Estimates in committee rooms 254 and 255, while concurrently the House sits to give consideration to bills? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: I hear a no. Leave has been denied. Ms. Howard: Well, given that there is no interest in moving to Estimates today, Mr. Speaker, we will call bills, with bill–starting with Bill 8, follow ed by Bill 10, followed by Bill 16, followed by Bill 15, followed by Bill 17, followed by Bill 20, followed by Bill 33, followed by Bill 18. Mr.

Speaker: So we'll now call bills in the following order, starting with Bill 8, Bill 10, Bill 16, Bill 15, Bill 17, Bill 20, Bill 33 and Bill 18–starting with Bill 8, The Provincial Court Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon West. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 8–The Provincial Court Amendment Act Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 8, The Provincial Court Amendment Act, and it amends The Provincial Court Act to facilitate the use of electronic documents in the court, Mr. Speaker, is the main intent of this particular bill.

And I must say it's an interesting little piece of legislation but, as such, really I have to ask, what took so long? Electronic documents have been around for years and this has been a shortcoming in the court system for ages. And the requests have been coming forth fro m plaintiffs and the legal organizations to say let's move to electronic documents and just now we're starting to talk about this bill, about moving forward–it. And, basically, the bill enables the court to move to electronic documents, but it does not set out how this will, indeed, happen or the time or certainly any costs entailed.

And we know this government's record in terms of electronic documents is not good in terms of cost structure. We know they have severe cost overruns in other areas when they h ave looked into electronic documents and tried to do something like that, which is strange, Mr. Speaker, because the rest of the world seems to do it fairly effectively. You know, the electronic world has existed for a number of years, Mr. Speaker. In fac t, I can think back to when I attended Brandon University and that was quite a long time ago, I must say.

We used punch cards; there were typewriters that you actually punched holes in the cards and this was long before the time of hanging chads, before that –those two words came into the lexicon. So punch cards in order to control the computers and manage the programming, so certainly that was a while ago, and even at that time we did have rudimentary messaging between terminals. * (15:10)

2290 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 So, you know, the –this world has existed for a while, Mr. Speaker. Course, at that time, electronic media was mainly worked through–working through tapes and that was the backup type of system, long streaming tape that was used in order to back up all the records so that you could take them all off -site and make sure that they were protected. And I'm sure that that is something that this bill needs to look at, is the protection of those records and the protection of the individuals. I can look back, Mr.

Speaker, to a business that I was involved in, and, at that time, that was some 30 years ago when we first started looking at computers that would connect all of these particular outlying branches, and we had them all connected together through telecommunications, something that happens daily now. But at that time, I had a 16-kilobit hard drive in this box that was the size of a refrigerator. The hard drive was about 18 inches across–fabulous little device. Of course, it cost about $50,000 for this refrigerator -sized box, which was a lot in those days.

But that was the type of thing that we put in place in order to manage our electronic records. And that was something that was over 30 years ago, and they were secure, they were accessible, they were viable. And now just today, we are starting to talk about electronic records in the justice system, in the provincial courts. So isn't that something? Well, we're just moving so fast here, it's really hard to comprehend the –how slow this government does move, Mr. Speaker. In fact, there was a time– you know, I've worked with computers a good deal, Mr.

Speaker, and in various aspects of my careers, but I do remember working for the Royal Bank at one time downtown here. And I worked a little bit with –we didn't call them IT–the IT department at that time, because we still had typewriters around–but there –[interjection] I am old, you're right. But this particular department had a personal computer running–I think it had about, you know, 650k of RAM. It was not very fast. And it ran Windows 3. But on Windows 3, there was a new piece of software, and I remember talking to the individual that installed this software. It was called Windows 1 –Windows 1.

And I said, well, what does it do? Well, I'm really not sure. It has a nice clock, though. We can put the clock on the screen. And that's about all he was able to figure out. So, you know, the times have moved along, as we've seen, Mr. Speaker, and, indeed, you can still find a clock on Windows. It's a little different now. Doesn't take up the whole screen anymore. But those things have all moved along. We have found a purpose for Windows now. We found electronic devices that we all have with us that have a variety of it or some other operating system that enable us to all connect.

And, indeed, we all have electronic records that travel with us, and we can access some records in other places, and secure data is the critical part of all this. And I want to go back to some of that data that I had in one of those businesses about 15 years ago. We had great security in our data, Mr. Sp eaker, and we tested it time and again to make sure that it could not be infiltrated and make sure it would not be attacked by any viruses, would not be attacked by any outside agencies.

And that's something that will be critical for these court records, s o people have reliability that we can ensure that any records we put in here are indeed verbatim, are indeed records that we can trust, are indeed the signature –the electronic signature can be trusted that it came from the right person. But as little–or as long as 15 years ago, I should say, we were audited by Canada Revenue Agency. They came in to look at our records, and, usually, when CRA came in, they would ask to see your paper files, and they would go through file after file after file, looking for particular documents.

But this time they were in the future, and they came in and said, we want a copy of your general ledger, because we know that you have an electronic database. We know that you have all your records in electronic form, and we are now able to take a copy of your general ledger in electronic form, and we can take it back to our offices, as opposed to spending time in your offices here and taking up your time. We can take it back to the CRA offices in Winnipeg, and we'll go through it there and we'll run it through a filter system. Well, that's all very well and good, Mr.

Speaker, but I'm sure you know that computer systems don't always talk together, and I think that will be one of the challenges in this particular act here, is how you get computer systems to talk together in a viable form. So it took me quite a while and quite a bit of money, I must say, in order to extract that general ledger in a form that the CRA could read. And so we did that finally, after much time and much money and burnt it onto a CD and gave it to the CRA

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2291 representative, and he took it away. And we didn't hear for quite a while. In fact, a couple of months – took a couple of months before they called back and they said, we found a problem. At that time, our business, you know, had several million dollars in sales, but they said we found a cheque for $100 million and then a reversal. Well, it just so happened that one of our keypunch operators was very fast on the forms–a little few–too many zeros in there.

She was punching away entering the cheques and cancelling them, and she added a couple of zeros, so –because we'd certainly never written a cheque for a hundred million dollars. But that did fall out in their data mining in there, and they said this is outside th e parameters of what we might find 'acceptal'. It was outside of our parameters of 'acksectability' as well, Mr. Speaker, but–and, certainly, that was just an error.

So, interesting things that show up when you're data mining, but this particular act is in teresting in that regard, and I guess the security is one of the critical issues here that we do need to make sure happens. And so it's very important that the public of Manitoba understands that their records will be secure. You know, and sometimes ther e is a considerable cost involved in making sure that those things are secure, but we can look to other organizations and see how they have done it.

And I think this is a challenge to all government agencies on how it can possibly be done, because we have medical records that I'm sure someone will speak about today, that, you know, we've been working on trying to get reliable medical records for years and we have not been able to get that in an affordable form; in a form that can be accessible; in a form that the public can rely on; in a form that the medical doctors and nurses can rely on. And certain the money that has been poured into that type of thing is rather large, Mr.

Speaker, so I do have a concern about the type of money that's going to be put into this type of thing, but we can look to the commercial organizations. And if you have ever bought anything online–and I'm sure many members of this House have gone on their computers and found something online that they might want to purchase and they 've gone through the process of doing so, and you choose your province and your shipping and put your address in, credit card or other methods of payment, and it all works. And, eventually, usually very quickly, whatever you ordered online shows up at your door.

So they figured out a way, Mr. Speaker –in a profitable way, to manage electronic forms and electronic records and electronic access, and it works in a viable way. And I do have a concern with the way that gov –this government has spent money and plans to spend money, that this will not be an affordable way to have these records secure. So we can look –and if you– Mr. Speaker, if you do go back, maybe, to one of those online stores that you purchased something on, when you go back and you look at something else, they would say, welcome back, because they know you were there.

They know who you are and they know that your records are secure and they know that –what you bought last time, and they might even recommend something for you. So, in the commerci al workplace, those types of things exist. They are viable, they are affordable and they're put in place, and they are profitable for these companies. I'm not saying that this type of a thing needs to be profitable for the government, but I'm saying that t here are ways to manage and control electronic records so that we don't blow the entire budget of the government on this and reinvent the wheel, because these things do exist.

Now, this is a little bit different. Electronic records in the justice system a nd people have to be – have to have a great deal of comfort that their records are reliable, that they are accurate, that they are correct and they are–correctly represent what they plan in terms of an affidavit or a declaration or a statement, it is indeed what they did and what they said and that the signature, of course, has to be acceptable in an electronic form. So we do have to have a level of trust in this. I'm sure we can do that.

We do it in the rest of the world so surely we can do it here without reinventing the entire wheel, and I do hope that the government does not intend to program this in its entirety because I'm sure there are people that you can –well, not sure. I know there are many people out there, Mr. Speaker, that have a great deal experience in this type of a world, and they would be more than willing, I'm sure, to show the government–probably for a fee, but how it could be done.

And that type of thing would be much more accessible and much more reliable perhaps than something that we might program in the back room here, because we can't always attract the best programmers but they do exist worldwide. And, you know, I –that is one thing that we do have a bit of

2292 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 concern about as well in terms of where are you going to store this type of information. There's lots of talk now about cloud computing. * (15:20) We did see recently that MPI was going to have a data centre and they did –went out to tender with that particular data centre, and then they cancelled that tender and they awarded it to a particular organization that has their data centre not in Manitoba, but in other provinces and, in fact, in states in the United States. So we lost a data centre here.

We've lost some other data centres, as well, but this type of information that we're talking about saving here and storing and making sure is accessible does take up a great deal of space. If you think back to that 16 kilobit drive that I spoke about that was some 18 inches across, doesn't store a lot of data. You can now buy a 2-terabit drive for as little as $150, and that you can take with you, Mr. Speaker. So that storage is fairly inexpensive. That has come down dramatically, but this is a serious amount of data that we're talking about here.

There's a lot of data storage here, and it needs to be accessible in real time and it needs to be available probably 24- 7 is what most people would expect. And, you know, there was –in the early years of data mining and storage, there was a grocery store in the United States that decided that they were going to store data of what their customers were buying. So they issued client cards like many of you have in your wallets now. And I know we all have too many of these particular cards that identify us as a valuable client of that particular store, but this was one of the first ones of those.

So you got this client card, and you went through the till at the end with your groceries, they scanned your card, and they scanned all the bar codes on the bottom of the groceries. This was a fairly new thing, too, the bar codes and the scanners. And they started to store that data, and they thought, you know what, we'll store this data, and we'll see what people are buying. A nd maybe it will help us with our purchasing. Maybe it will help us with having specials. Well, the difficulty was, Mr.

Speaker, this was a particularly successful grocery store, and after two weeks those servers were full; they were actual –absolutely stuffed with the data of two weeks of data from purchases from customers, and this was far more successful than this company had ever anticipated. So it –they pulled the plug on that program –said, we can't do it right now; we've got to go buy more storage. And at that time storage was quite expensive, and you had a series of computers all hooked up together because they were doing it themselves.

And that tends –that's why these processes like this get expensive, because you start with the process, and you think, well, we'll do it ourselves and we put a few things in place and then you find out that you're overwhelmed. And customers are not necessarily patient; they want immediate responses. And you've told them that this is an important thing and they might get some benefit from it, so they want to use it. So two weeks in this company found that all their data storage was overwhelmed.

They had to go buy more computers; they had to hire more people to run the operation; and this was not what they had budgeted for. So I guess there is a fear there, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the government doing these things that they make sure that we need to know how this is all planned out and that we can indeed afford to do these types of things. But in this regard there's a question of can we afford not to do it, because there is an expectation out there in the public that you will have access to your documents.

And the court system here –we've told that we've been told time and again –is behind in some of these things, and this is an area that we would like to see them, I'm sure, move ahead in. But there may be the expectations of the public are far above what we're able to provide for them, because I think when you look at something like this the public starts to think, hmm, electronic documents are now going to be accessible in the court system. Okay. That's fine. So they should be able to accept all of our electronic documents, and I should be able to send them in.

But then that is –you know, that adds a level of complexity to this, because those documents need to be compatible with what the court system is using. They may be on other platforms. They may be in other formats. They may not look like the court system wants them to look. So I guess there is a problem there in t he terms of what the court system wants them to look that –like, and there will be some specifications, I'm sure. But the public has an expectation that they will be able to do some of this through their lawyer themselves quickly, as they can do now in the online world.

Not only that, but I think when we talk about electronic documents we will have an explanation not only that the documents for entry into the court system are accessible and

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2293 deliverable electronically, but we will also have an expectation tha t the documents coming out of the court system will be accessible electronically. And I think that is the biggest expectation here, Mr. Speaker, that the public expects that court documents will now be accessible electronically, and why shouldn't they be? I mean, I went looking for some court documents as recently as last year, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say, I was shocked and appalled when they told me the cost per page that it would be to photocopy and produce those documents for me.

And it was going to be in–not just in hundreds of dollars, but in the thousands of dollars for that to happen. And I said, well can't I just access it online? Can't I go look at –don't you have an electronic copy of this? Can I come into the library and read it online? No– no, we don't provide that. And I was shocked that that was not available, and I think most Manitobans are shocked that it is not available, and, indeed, may not be made available through this particular act, because that is an expectation.

When you go on now and you do a literature search–very few people actually go to the libraries anymore to pull out the hardcopy of the periodicals that have the particular literature that you're looking for. Most people now do an online literature search, and if your liter ature is not published there, then it probably doesn't get read unless you know that there may be a particular –a publication, a particular

section of nature that you were looking for, for instance, in terms of that periodical, that you could go to and look that up. Most of those things are available online for a cost, Mr. Speaker. No doubt, for a cost. And that may be something that we need to look at here. If I need to look at a particular document that – well, let's say, some of the hearings we've been having for Phoenix Sinclair. If I wanted to look at what was happening during the day, should I not be able to go online and read what happened that day? I think that is an expectation that Manitobans have going forward.

Should I be–should I have to pay for that? Well, probably, because if I want to look at a refereed article, I probably–I have to pay–well, in fact, there's usually a couple ways I can pay it. I can pay to rent it, and usually that's a much lower cost. It might be as little as $3.50 or a dol lar, or something of that nature. And it usually gives me a window a time where I can read that periodical, see if there's something that I need in it. I can't copy it, I can't print it, but I can read it. So that's the rental part of the periodical side. And that may be something that we need to look at here, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, and then there is the side of, I want to actually purchase this periodical or this document and I want to be able to produce a hardcopy. And that, Mr. Speaker, is often more; sometimes $35, sometimes you have to buy a subscription, and those are all detailed online. So, again, those are things that the government needs to look at, and that puts them into the realm, Mr. Speaker, of online purchasing.

And we talked about online shopping–that's the same type of idea, that you need to be able to go in and create a record for how you're paying for this, whether it be through credit card or through some online service. Obviously, you can't issue a cheque online. You can transfer money easily online, but that's probably not something that the government is going to look at.

So those types of things are something that the government all has to look at, as how –if they have this type of an environment and they're going to allow this and they are going to charge people for it, how are they going to work through that charging process? How are they going to take payment for this type of thing, it–if that is an area that they're looking at?

And I do recommend that they look at something of that nature, because I can understand if I am in the court system–and I've been fortunate not to have to do that–but if I'm in the process of filing affidavits or looking for the court records, if I am intimately involved in that as a lawyer, as a defendan t or a plaintiff, I might not have to pay for those documents. But, if I am an outside agent that is not directly involved in that, I may have to pay for that. And that is, again, something that the government is going to have to able to discern.

If you have a lawyer or if you are a lawyer, what is your access to these documents? Is it a different type of access than the general public has, or is it the same type of access, Mr. Speaker? Because I think that something like this could go a long way to creat ing more open government and a more open perception of government, because, as we know, perception is often reality. And access to the courts in Canada and in Manitoba is something that we do need to change in how accessible it is. * (15:30)

2294 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 12, 2013 We have to –I think the more that people understand those types of things, the more they're able to access them, the more they're able to read them, the more education they receive. And that is a type of training–a type that is just invaluable, Mr. Speaker. If you go t hrough and you read court documents, eventually you will learn something.

And I know they're–from my perspective, not being a lawyer, I've had to learn a lot of terminology, and I'm still learning the terminology and I use it erroneously sometimes but trying to find the right words for the right thing, and sometimes those words don't mean a lot to the general public, but they do to the legal profession. Just like any other professions, they have particular words that are used in their environment and it is something that the public may or may not understand. But, if you had access to these documents, it would help with that education.

We have, you know, classes coming here to watch us in what we do here and sometimes they're shocked by what they see here, but it is an education in the parliamentary system that they are seeing. And when I've spoken to them–I know I've spoken to you about this, Mr. Speaker–I often say, when they come to watch question period, that, you know, some of them may be in drama in th eir particular school and I've said, what they –what you've seen in question period is theatre. It is much like you do in drama class or in your theatre.

Some of it is posing, some of it is acting, some of it is over the top at times, but it is theatre and we do act differently in question period than we do the rest of the day, as we see here today, you know. And at the end of that question period I say often we do speak very civilly in the back of the Chamber here to government members or vice versa, where we're trying to deal with an issue of a constituent. So those are all part of the education process for our parliamentary system, Mr.

Speaker, their exposure to it, and I think that –excuse me–the electronic documentation would go a long ways to helping to educate the Manitoba public about our legal system, not to say that we're going to create people that are maybe lay -lawyers or whatever, that are going to defend themselves by themselves. We don’t necessarily want to create that, but you always do hear an d see of people wanting to do that, you know.

But I think it would give them an education into the process of the legal system so that, when they are talking to their lawyer, that when they are engaged in the legal system, they will have an idea of what th ey're getting into, and electronic documentation–I do believe in accessibility –is a critical part of that. While this document here, the legislation does enable the courts to move ahead on the electronic side, I do wonder on the cost side and I do wonder on the availability of it, if it is indeed enough. It's a start, Mr.

Speaker, and, as I said, one of the big questions was, well, really, what took so long? Because we've had this in other areas for years and years and years, and now we're just starting t o move that way in this process. And then it becomes a question of which is the correct legal document. Is it the paper document? It is the electronic document. I believe the answer I did get from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan) was that, if there was e ver a dispute, that it would be the paper document.

But then that begs the question of when do we make the next step, that the electronic document does become the true viable source, the only and one only source of a final, you know, arbitration of which document is correct and who can change that document, because if you go to some of the online encyclopedias, they are not necessarily accurate. And they are open texts, where you can go in and you can start an encyclopedia entry and anybody else can edit it, and I don't know if you've ever read some those, but sometimes they are quite erroneous because anyone can come and edit it.

And that is the concern that some Manitobans will have, I'm sure, is in the security of this system. They want to make sure tha t these documents are secure, that not anyone –just anyone can go in and hack into the system and edit it. So there is a question of certainly the security on that side, Mr. Speaker. Are you going to have limited access to these systems? Do you have to pa y for access? Do you have to buy a dedicated line or, indeed, do you have to travel to a particular court office in order to access this? So the more limitations you put on it, Mr.

Speaker, the less usable it is but, of course, then the more secure. So opening it up to access is, I think, a 'critibal' – critical aspect of this particular act, Mr. Speaker, that would be useful to Manitobans. But, again, the more open you are, the more security concerns you have. And, when you're talking about legal documents , when you're talking about health documents, the public does have a need to know that those documents are secure, that they are accurate. They must be accessible, yes, but there should be a limit on who and how can access that.

June 12, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2295 So all those things are very critical issues that we need to deal with in this particular act, and I'm sure the government is going to give them some thought as we move forward, Mr. Speaker. And we will probably hear more about this as we move along. So I think with that –I know t hat I have other colleagues that have other views on this particular act and one just waiting to go here, Mr. Speaker. So I will sit down and allow other members to speak to this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, I rise–I gather the government has nobody else who's interested in speaking on this bill. It is clearly important to be able to move increasingly to the use of electronic records, but it's critical that we do this in a way that is affordable, make sure that our system works, ensures things like privacy and security.

And, as a result, when one looks at this bill, certainly the overall direction to move to accepting electronic records is a good one, but it would have been better in this bill to have a few more details, a larger framework, as it were, provided so that we would have some better guarantees or assurances in a number of areas. In

section –for example, many of the sections, starting with 26(3): The court may create, sign, collect, receive, store, tr ansfer, reproduce, 'distribuse', publish or otherwise deal with electronic documents in according with the regulations. Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the areas which is not clear that it will be in the regulations, and not established as part of the framework here, is the issue of privacy, where privacy is needed. And, certainly, one would have expected that there would, from the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Swan), have been some framework which talks about the issue of privacy and ensures that there are standard s related to privacy. Obviously, some documents should be widely available when needed, but other doctor –documents, privileged communications or individual communi - cations, that there needs to be a standard set for privacy and what sort of guarantees that there will be where documents are private, that they will remain private. So I would recommend that the minister have a look at this area and make sure that there is an appropriate framework.

And I would suggest it would be smart to have that framework a t least alluded to in this legislation. There have been examples of people sending emails and getting the lettering of–or the numbers on the emails wrong and it going to the wrong person. You know, there can be a variety of reasons why documents which sho uld be private are not kept private. And, clearly, this is something which there should be an overall statement for. This is particularly true when documents electronically are much more easy to copy and to widely distribute than documents which are on paper.

And that is both a good thing, because it means that whatever is put electronically has the potential to be more widely available, but it's also potentially a bad thing in terms of if you have documents which are designed to be private, it's much more easily that they can be spread. * (15:40) Second, when we're talking about electronic documents, again, it's much easier to have those documents altered electronically. And there needs to be assurances when we are dealing with documents that what is th e original how can we be assured that the document hasn't been altered electronically.

And I think, again, this needs to be something which is dealt with in the framework of the documents. And it deals with one of the matters that was alluded to not very long ago, and that was the matter of right no

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-2-57
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 2nd hansardpdf 57.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9aced6a8ec7c8286253e0dcdcd2775ddf953adc1

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