Manitoba Hansard — 20 May 2010 (Sitting 49B, 39th Legislature, 4th Session)

39-4-49b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LXII No. 49B - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, May 20, 2010 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

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

2351 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, May 20, 2010 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Multiple Myeloma Treatments Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition: Health Canada has approved the use of Revlimid for patients with multiple myeloma, a rare, progressive and fatal blood cancer. Revlimid is a vital new treatment that must be accessible to all patients in Manitoba for this life-threatening cancer of the blood cells.

Multiple myeloma is treatable, and new, innovative therapies like Revlimid can extend survival and enhance quality of life for the estimated 2,100 Canadians diagnosed annually. The provinces of Ontario, Québec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta have already listed this drug on their respective pharmacare formularies. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: That the provincial government consider immediately providing Revlimid as a choice to patients with multiple myeloma and their health-care providers in Manitoba through public funding. And this is signed by J. Van Helden, M.

Van Helden, H. Van Helden and many, many others, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Mount Agassiz Ski Area Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And these are the reasons for this petition: For several decades, the Mount Agassiz ski area, home to the highest vertical between Thunder Bay and the Rocky Mountains, was a popular skiing and snowboarding destination for Manitobans and visitors alike.

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

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

Levandoski and many, many other fine Manitobans. COMMITTEE REPORTS Standing Committee on Public Accounts Fifth Report Mr. Gregory Dewar (Vice-Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Public Accounts presents the–

2352 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Public Accounts presents the following as its Fifth Report.

Meetings Your Committee met on the following occasions: • April 29, 2009 • May 13, 2009 • May 19, 2010 Matters under Consideration • Auditor General's Report – Audit of the Province's Management of Contaminated Sites and Landfills dated October 2007 • Auditor General's Report – Special Audit: Rural Municipality of La Broquerie dated March 2008 Committee Membership Committee membership for the April 29, 2009 meeting: • Mr. BOROTSIK • Ms. BRAUN • Mr. DERKACH (Chairperson) • Ms. HOWARD (Vice-Chairperson) • Mr. JHA • Mr. LAMOUREUX • Mr. MARTINDALE • Mr. MAGUIRE • Ms. SELBY • Hon. Mr. SELINGER • Mrs.

STEFANSON Committee membership for the May 13, 2009 meeting: • Mr. BOROTSIK • Ms. BRAUN • Mr. DERKACH (Chairperson) • Mr. DEWAR • Ms. HOWARD (Vice-Chairperson) • Mr. JHA • Mr. LAMOUREUX • Mr. MAGUIRE • Ms. SELBY • Hon. Mr. SELINGER • Mrs. STEFANSON Committee membership for the May 19, 2010 meeting: • Ms. BRAUN • Mr. DERKACH (Chairperson) • Mr. DEWAR (Vice-Chairperson) • Mrs. DRIEDGER • Mr. GRAYDON • Mr. JENNISSEN • Mr. LAMOUREUX • Mr. MARTINDALE • Mr. NEVAKSHONOFF • Mr. STEFANSON • Hon. Ms.

WOWCHUK Officials Speaking on Record Officials speaking on the record at the April 29, 2009 meeting: • Carol Bellringer, Auditor General • Jack Buckwold, Director of Special Audits • Hon. Mr. ASHTON • Linda McFadyen, Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Officials speaking on the record at the May 13, 2009 meeting: • Carol Bellringer, Auditor General • Hon. Mr. STRUTHERS • Mr. Donald Cook, Deputy Minister of Conservation Officials speaking on the record at the May 19, 2010 meeting: • Carol Bellringer, Auditor General • Hon. Mr. BLAIKIE • Mr. Fred Meier, Acting Deputy Minister of Conservation • Hon. Ms.

WOWCHUK • Mr. Hugh Eliasson, Deputy Minister of Finance • Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX • Ms. Linda McFadyen, Deputy Minister of Local Government Reports Considered and Passed Your Committee considered and passed the following report as presented: • Auditor General's Report – Audit of the Province's Management of Contaminated Sites and Landfills dated October 2007 Reports Considered but not Passed Your Committee considered the following report but did not pass it: • Auditor General's Report – Special Audit: Rural Municipality of La Broquerie dated March 2008

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2353 Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Forest Fire Update Hon. Bill Blaikie (Minister of Conservation): I have a ministerial statement to make. I rise today to provide a second update for the House on the current status of the forest fire situation in Manitoba. To date, there have been 136 fires resulting in over 4,000 burned hectares. The significant fire near Berens River has burned approximately 3,500 hectares.

We've been advised that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, in co-operation with the Manitoba Association of Native Firefighters, have evacuated 56 people from Berens Rive r as a precaution due to health concerns from smoke. Additionally, the First Nation's school has closed on a temporary basis. We are closely assessing the situation and monitoring weather conditions, and I have been in touch with Chief Kemp of Berens River to discuss the situation.

Manitoba Conservation is deploying the following resources to the fire: a water bomber group consisting of two bombers and one Bird Dog aircraft, a single-engine air tanker group, four helicopters, one incident management team and approximately 80 firefighters. Cooler temperatures in northern Manitoba have alleviated the general threat, although dry spring conditions continue to exist and are ongoing reasons for concern. In southern Manitoba, high winds and above-normal temperatures will be a concern for the next few days. However, rain is forecasted for Saturday throughout much of southern Manitoba.

I know all Manitobans recognize the important work of those on the front line fighting these fires and are concerned about those communities that are affected. We will continue to update the Legislature on this matter as necessary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): And I would like to thank the minister for that update on the situation at Berens River here as well. In today's update from the ministerial statement, there's another three fires, I believe, burning overnight, from the statement that he made yesterday, in Manitoba.

We, too, have great concern for the people, the 56, for sure, that have been evacuated out of Berens River and who are in danger of smoke inhalement. And to be able to move them expeditiously is a credit to the firefighters and the other emergency personnel that are on site, who I want to give credit to, as we did yesterday, for their e fforts in regards to making sure that all of these types of situations are–that they minimalize any kind of a catastrophe that could happen.

I want to say that, as well, that, you know, I've farmed long enough, as the minister may well know, that even though he's pred icting cooler temperatures and forecasts of Saturday of rain, that you best not count on it until it actually comes.

And so I think we need to continue to be prepared in our firefighting efforts, as I'm sure that th e department is, in regards to making sure that the personnel are required and on site in other areas fighting the other fires that are available in–or that are presently going on in Manitoba as well, although I know that of those 136, there are a number of those that were put out earlier, as I mentioned yesterday. And so we need to look at the actual amount that are being–presently burning today, as well, and make sure that we have enough resources for that. Thank you. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, I ask leave to speak to the minister's statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. * (13:40) Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend, on behalf of our caucus, the concern over the–to the people of Berens River and to the chief of council. I know that their community has been working very hard to improve things, as I was visiting in Berens River in February, and there are many very dedicated people here, and it's difficult for a community when forest fire threatens like this and people have to be evacuated.

Certainly we hope that this will be short-lived and that the fire can be brought under control quickly and–but, nevertheless, given the conditions, we need to be vigilant. And I would also like to extend a special thanks to all the firefighters and emergency workers who are putting in the efforts to try and end this fire and

2354 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 make sure that there are not other fires developing or becoming larger. Thank you. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today, we have Sara Thurlbeck and her family, who are the guests of the honourable member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today. ORAL QUESTIONS Health-Care Services Laboratory Misdiagnosis Settlement Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr.

Speaker, Manitobans rely on diagnostic tests and services to ensure that they and their families receive an accurate diagnosis regarding their health. In March of this year, the Premier approved, through an Order-in-Council, a $95,000 settlement to a former Manitoban who was told by a provincially run lab that she had hepatitis C when, in fact, she did not have hepatitis C. Can the Premier tell Manitobans whether he sought an assurance from his Minister of Health (Ms.

Oswald) that before he gave the settlement, that all the problems that led up to this misdiagnosis were taken care of so that no other Manitoban would have to suffer a misdiagnosis like what happened in this case? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good to see you back. There is continuous review that goes on with respect to Diagnostic Serv ices Manitoba on any of these events occur. The settlement was agreed to mutually by all parties.

But we ensure, through the health-care system, that if an event like this occurs that there are corrective measures, and they continue to monitor to ensure these events don't occur in the future. Mr. Goertzen: Mr.

Speaker, in her statement of claim from being misdiagnosed with hepatitis C and losing her career as a result, the claimant indicated that the provincial laboratory was negligent from the misdiagnosis because of, among other things: failing to follow proper protocols for collecting, labelling and testing blood; failing to have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure the results were properly reported; failing to ensure there was proper training at this provincially run lab. Mr.

Speaker, rather than dispute these very, very serious allegations, the Premier and his government decided to sign off on a settlement essentially saying that they agreed with those allegations. Will the Premier tell us whether or not he agreed to pay $95,000 because these failings were in fact true? Mr. Selinger: Again, Mr. Speaker, nobody should overinterpret what the member has said in terms of what was acknowledged or not. There was a mutual agreement arrived at to the satisfaction of the person that felt they had a grievance with the way they were treated.

It is important that governments act fairly in these matters and ensure that people are treated properly. It's also important that we do continuous review and continuous reviews have been done in terms of investigations of these types of matters to ensure that these kinds of errors do no t occur in the future, and that is what has been done here and that is what will be done in the future on any other events. And there will be prevention done too, in terms of the kinds of reviews that are done to ensure that testing is done in an appropriate way with valid results. Mr.

Goertzen: Last March, the Premier agreed to pay $95,000 as a result of someone being told they had hepatitis C, which in fact they did not, as a result of a test coming from a provincially run lab. She indicated that the protocols were not followed, that the safeguards were not in place and that there was improper training at this provincially run lab. Instead of disputing any of these claims by the individual who brought it forward, the Premier decided to pay $95,000.

There could only be two logical explanations about why $95,000 were paid out: either because they were true, which is certainly possible, or he simply didn't want this to go to court and have a public display about what is going on at some of the provincial laboratories. Which is it? Was it because there–it's true or he didn't want it to become a public inquiry through a court? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, it is very appropriate to do a settlement when there is a grievance that somebody has and it had resulted in a loss of income. Without getting into the specifics of the case, what is

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2355 important to note is that there was mutual agreement on this settlement. Within the last year, there has been a review done. An external review committee took a look at Diagnostic Services Manitoba. They identified opportunities for improvements, specifically in human resources, quality assurance and critical incident reporting and investigations, which we have enshrined in legislation. We have enshrined it in legislation, so there's a learning culture within the health-care system.

When a critical incident occurs, it is investigated and le ssons are drawn from that on how to improve service delivery to prevent these kinds of errors having negative impacts on Manitobans that use the service. That has been done here. It will be done on a continuous basis. And this is the kind of culture we're trying to inculcate within our health-care system, not the hide-it-under-the-carpet approach that the members opposite used to use. We have disclosure now. We have legislation to protect people. And, Mr.

Speaker, we also have whistle-blower legislation if there are any other practices [inaudible] Health-Care Services Laboratory Misdiagnosis Settlement Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): A lawsuit was filed against this government's provincial lab for negligence because a patient was wrongly diagnosed with hepatitis C. This Minister of Health and the Premier agreed to quietly settle out of court. Obviously, they agreed that there was negligence. Can the Minister of Heal th tell us: What did she do to ensure that the problems which led to this misdiagnosis were fully investigated? Hon.

Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): And, again, we need to ensure that there are facts on the record. There was a disc ussion about a case that occurred, where there was a misdiagnosis. This was very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, and conversations went on and there was an agreement to a settlement for that. This does not presuppose that there was no review about potential errors that occurred. In fact, it's why we did enshrining legislation, the compulsory review of critical incidents, not just in our labs, but across our health-care system.

The blame-and-shame mentality of the 1990s that led to errors being swept under the rug is being changed so that we have openness and the discussion of errors and an opportunity to improve. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, considering this minister covered up the truth about Brian Sinclair, she has no credibility with her comments. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Let's have a little decorum here, please. Mrs. Driedger: The claimant made some very, very serious allegations about the provincial lab.

She said that protocols weren't properly followed, that safeguards were not in place and that training was not taking place. So I'd like to ask the Minister of Health to tell us: Did she settle for $95,000 because in fact the failings were in fact true? Ms. Oswald: Mr. Speaker, there was a conversation that went on with an individual who had an inappropriate test result provided to her. There was a conversation that went on about the circumstances that resulted from that result–from that test result. And there was a settlement that was made. But, Mr.

Speaker, let's be absolutely clear that Diagnostic Services Manitoba has many protocols in place for continuous improvement, for review of the nature of the training that goes on, for review of turnaround test time, for re view of accuracy. That's best practice. We're not sweeping errors under the rug. In fact, we're learning from them. That's this culture. We remember what happened with the pediatric cardiac inquest, and when those baby deaths were swept under the rug. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think that a misdiagnosis of hepatitis C is an inappropriate test result.

This government figured it was better to settle out of court and out of the public spotlight to keep this thing quiet, so they quietly paid the claimant $95,000. So, can the Minister of Health tell us: Is this just one more way that the NDP government covers up some of the horrible things that are happening in their health-care system? Ms. Oswald: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would remind the member Diagnostic Services Manitoba, Cadham lab, here in Manitoba, participate in national, international lab proficiency standards. They're fully accredited institutions. * (13:50)

2356 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 And, yes, there are thousands upon thousands upon hundreds of thousands of tests that happen every day. Errors, I re gret, Mr. Speaker, may occasionally occur. When the member opposite and her attitude [inaudible] to deny that a mistake will ever happen, that's when we can never learn, and we saw that with the baby deaths. On this side of the House we believe in a culture of investigating critical incidents, in speaking about them in an open way so that we can learn and go forward. Every patient safety advocate in the land would support that, why doesn't she? Mr.

Speaker: The honourable member for Charleswood, on a new question. Mrs. Driedger: Manitoba labs seem to have their hands full these days. Whistle-blower allegations of financial abuse, unsafe wo rkloads, unsafe patient care, government stonew alling about travel and restaurant expenses for bureaucrats, and now a lawsuit for negligence because of a wrong diagnosis of hepatitis C. So, can the Minister of Health tell us why she whitewashed the whistle-blower's concerns and attacked his credibility when she knew that mistakes were happening in her labs? Ms. Oswald: Well, on the contrary, Mr.

Speaker, when the allegations were brought forward by the complainant, we immediately called for an external review. That external review did provide some recommendations, all of which we accept. The recommendations, including providing more support or pathologists in Brandon, improving critical incident investigation processes, optimizing workloads, working with staff to improve relationships and working with the pathologists and our partners at Manitoba Health and Doctors Manitoba on remuneration issues.

We worked through with the external reviewers, which included a pathologist from outside of the province to come to the bottom of these allegations, many of which were unfounded, but we're going to work on those recommendations and continue to go forward. Mrs. Driedger: I would remind the minister when that whistle-blower came forward, he was harassed, bullied and told to stay quiet. Mr. Speaker, the whistle-blower alleged that there were unsafe workloads in the labs leading to unsafe patient care. The Minister of Health knew about this long before the whistle-blower came forward, but she did nothing.

Between '07 and '09, $1.4 million was spent on overtime for lab technologists, which speaks to the workloads. That's a red flag right there. Knowing all of this, instead of all of her excuses, why doesn't she do something to make our labs safer? Ms. Oswald: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, I'll say to the member that within days of receiving the allegations from the complainant, we struck the external review. There are hundreds of thousands of tests that occur in our labs every year, the ma jority of which are done, you know, very competently and swiftly. When errors do occur we need to review why those errors occurred.

Did they occur because of issues of human resources? Did they occur because of issues with technology? That's why that continued review goes on. And I'll say to the member that on the issue of this particular review, there's a very well-respected community doctor, Dr. Sharon Macdonald, whom the member opposite has had nary a pleasant word to say about, and an external pathologist that the complainant himself said was the paragon of pathologists in our nation. Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the longer the Minister of Health is in the job, the worse her credibility gets.

She called her health-care system stellar just hours after Brian Sinclair died; then she covered up the truth about his death. She is stonewalling right now– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Let's have a little decorum, please. Mrs. Driedger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then she is stonewalling right now on FIPPA requests for restaurant and travel expenses of her bureaucrats. Now we find out that she paid off a plaintiff to keep a case of negligence out of the public eye.

So, I'd like to ask this Minister of Health and this NDP government: How far are they prepared to go to manipulate information to keep things quiet? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the– this is the government that brought– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Selinger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the government that brought in the legislation and the concept of critical incident reviews so that all of

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2357 these kinds of events, when they occur, are properly looked at for the lessons that can be drawn from them to improve the delivery of health care. This is the government that brought in whistle-blower legislation so that people could bring forward complaints with protection of anonymity, and we're still waiting for the whistle-blower legislation from the members opposite. They've never actually produced it. This is the minister that was responsible for initiating this external review and, then, followed up on the recommendations.

The members opposite still play the shame and blame game. We look for an approach that improves the culture of learning and effective results for patients in Manitoba, and that's what we are committed to doing. Social Assistance Overpayments Mrs. Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): And in 2008, the Minister of Family Services promised to implement the Auditor General's recommendations to curb social assistance overpayments. Despite that promise, Mr. Speaker, overpayments climbed from 4.5 million in 2008 to 5.5 million in 2009. Can the minister explain why? Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Family Services and Consumer Affairs): My recall that the position of the opposition on overpayments is just to forgive them, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what argument the member is taking now. Mrs. Mitchelson: And this week the minister confirmed that the average monthly number of social assistance cases has gone up by more than 2,000 per month, or nearly 7 percent. With the number of soci al assistance cases on the rise in Manitoba, what is the minister doing to ensure that recipients are not receiving payments that they are not entitled to? Mr.

Mackintosh: Well, contrary to what the opposition–what they have put forward, Mr. Speaker, it is not our view, actually, to forgive people for their overpayments. And I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) wants us to do that, but there has to be a better accounting than that. Mr. Speaker, I'm–I can inform the House that, in fact, the welfare rolls in Manitoba over the last 10 years are actually down about 6 percent, and we certainly know, though, that there has been some increases to the welfare rolls across this country.

But it's my duty to report to the House that in Manitoba the increase in the welfare ro lls is the lowest west of Québec. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, have I–have you recognized me? Have I been recognized?– [interjection] Yes? Thank you. And documents we received under FIPPA indicate, in April of 2009, four individual reviews revealed an overpayment totalling $227,697, almost a quarter of a million dollars, Mr. Speaker. That's for four cases. That's nearly $57,000 in overpayments per case.

How can this minister explain that one person or one family received $57,000 in social assistance payments while he's cutting support to autistic families? Mr. Mackintosh: So one day, they say, forgive the overpayments and, then, yesterday we heard in this House–and I don't know if they know how silly they look–they stood up here on a new initiative for intensive services for autism, said it was a cut. So I don't know if they know just how silly that sounds and how that looks. Mr. Speaker, services for autistic children have increased, actually, 520 pe rcent since 2002 when we began the ABA program.

When it comes to overpayments, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has looked at it, and has recognized the new efforts that have been put in. In fact, we've added investigator s to ensure that there's accountability. And when it comes to EIA or welfare in this province, Mr. Speaker, rewarding work is helping people get off welfare and into work. Crown Land Purchases (Bissett) Municipal Request for Consultation Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr.

Speaker, the community of Bissett is a northern community and, as such, in order for the community to grow–in order for that community to grow it is required that Crown land be available for purchase. Building lots owned by the Province are available, but cannot be purchased because the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation will not respond to letters and requests from the Bissett community council. * (14:00)

2358 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 So I ask the minister: Why has not–why has he not responded to council's requests? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, there is a process in place for Crown lands. We have the Crown Lands agency. The member will know that, unlike a number of years ago, when there were very few controls in place, we do have a process that's in place. And, in fact, I would indicate to the member we've been following that process, making sure that all the steps are taken. I think Manitobans would expect that.

It doesn't matter whether it's coming from a community or from an individual, we want to make sure that the integrity of our Crown lands disposition is put in place, Mr. Speaker. And if there are any undue delays, I certainly encourage the member to contact us. There is a process. All departments are consulted and that would be no different in this particular case, and the member knows that. Mr.

Hawranik: The San Gold mine in Bissett is experiencing a critical shortage of mine workers, and part of the reason for that shortage is due to the fact that even though building lots in Bissett are available for purchase, mine workers can't buy them because the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation has been dragging his feet on this issue for four years. That's quite a process. What a process. So I ask the Minister: Why has he not acted on the requests and demands of Bissett community council? What does he have against Bissett, Mr. Speaker? Mr.

Ashton: You know, the member knows that there is–there are very clear guidelines in terms of Crown lands. The member knows that. You know, Mr. Speaker, I just love Conservatives when they get up and have a new-found interest in northern Manitoba, because– well, I'm wondering if maybe it's because their leader isn't here today, because in the last election, he said he was going to cut highways funding in northern Manitoba. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mentioning the presence or absence of members are against the rule. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that last comment. Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There goes the Lady Byng award. Mr. Speaker: Did you withdraw that–order. I asked the honourable member– [interjection]–to withdraw the last comment. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, and I do want to stress again that there's a process for– Mr. Speaker: Order. I've asked the honourable minister to withdraw that last comment, please. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I did mention–I did withdraw it. Mr. Speaker: Okay. Let's continue. Mr. Ashton: I want to stress again there's process in terms of any Crown lands, Mr. Speaker.

And the member may want to add whatever rhetoric he wants to it, but if he's concerned about any specifics, the Crown Lands agency consults with all departments of government. He knows that there's processes in place, and we're more than open in looking at any of those situations. I know, Mr. Speaker, that, again, in parts of the province, particularly the mining industry, we are seeing some encouraging developments. We're seeing it in Snow Lake as well. We're seeing it throughout the province, and we're prepared to work with those mining communities on any and all of those matters. But, indeed, Mr.

Speaker, again, there is a process and the member knows that, and I'm more than happy to look at the details of it if there are any specific concerns he has. Mr. Hawranik: Bissett community council is completely frustrated with this minister. There have been land sale applications to the minister dating back to 2006 and no action has been taken by this minister. And I table the most recent letter written to the minister by the Bissett community council, dated April 1st, 2010, the latest one to which again the minister has not bothered even to reply. Let me quote from the letter.

Here's the letter: "It is with complete frustration that we are once again writing to you in respect of the same land issues in Bissett that have seen no progress made in any way, shape or form for as long as we have been expressing our concerns . . . on land sale applications dating back to 2006." So I ask the minister: Why has he ignored Bissett? Does he want that Bissett gold mine to close or not?

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2359 Mr. Ashton: The member knows that we've gone through a process, Mr. Speaker, with the situation we saw at Hecla a number of years ago, where we saw what the members opposite did with the kind of policies they had for Crown land placements in the 1990s. We have adopted the recommendations in the report that came in place, in terms of not only Hecla but Crown land across the province. And I–that member may want to have political interference in the acquisition and–of Crown land, Mr. Speaker.

We have a process which protects the interests of Manitobans, and we don't follow through in the kind of politically oriented kind of approach they followed in the '90s. We want to make sure the public interest is protected, and we will do that through proper approach in terms of Crown lands, Mr. Speaker. Livestock Industry Economic Impact of BSE Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the minister hasn't learned anything. He's doing worse than what they did in the 1990s. Mr. Speaker, today marks the seventh year anniversary of the discovery of BSE in Canada [interjection] It's fine.

This was the beginning of the end for many family farms in Manitoba. The former minister of Agriculture led producers to believe that BSE– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Madam or Mr. Speaker–we're having a little bit of difficulty. Well, after a couple of false starts we'll get this going. Today marks the seventh anniversary of the discovery of BSE in Canada. This was the beginning of the end of the family farms in Manitoba.

The former minister of Agriculture led producers to believe that BSE would lead to a short-lived glitch in income and that the situation that–for producers would be back to normal in short order. Mr. Speaker, can the current Minister of Agriculture tell livestock producers affected by BSE when they can expect profitability to return? Hon. Stan Struthers (Min ister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): The sooner the better, Mr. Speaker.

We, of course, want profitability not just in the livestock sector but across the board when it comes to agriculture because we know agriculture is a very key sector in our whole provincial economy. We meet with the–we meet w ith cattle producers. We talk about a whole number of projects, the number of programs, many, many, Mr. Speaker, very much related to the–you know, to the finding of that one cow in Alberta that got us into this whole mess. So, I'd be really interested to know, too, some of the–some options from my friend from Emerson to help. I'm open to his advice. Mr.

Graydon: Well, it's nice to have that invitation. Unfortunately, he hasn't taken any advice up till today. Let's remind the minister of the facts. Agriculture Canada recently reported that the cattle farms will lose an average of $5,195 in 2010. The economic recovery has yet to happen seven years after BSE hit. This NDP government misrepresented the severity and the longevity of the BSE crisis. Rather than take advice, they bumbled and stumbled along with poorly thought-out solutions and plans that didn't work.

The livestock business is truly a family venture, and expertise is passed from one generation to another, but we permanently lost a lot of producers. Mr. Speaker, the former minister was an abject failure. Is the current minist er confident that he can restore Manitoba's cattle industry to it's pre-BSE strength? Mr. Struthers: Well, one of the angles to this whole thing is something that we learned a little bit from talking with cattle producers and that was that a slaughter capacity in this province would be a very key part of any kind of recovery plan, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, you know, members opposite want to know how it's going. Well, you know, we've got some capacity in places like McCreary now. We've got capacity in Carman. We've got capacity at Blumenort. We've had some growth. The only time it, kind of, didn't go forward was when members opposite ran a sword through it. * (14:10) So, Mr. Speaker, they can talk a good– [interjection] yeah, they're touchy about this, I know. They can talk a good game– Mr. Speaker: Order.

2360 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 Mr. Graydon: This government mishandled the BSE crisis comes as no surprise. After all, their federal leader couldn't tell the difference between BSE and SARS. The numbers tell the story of NDP mismanagement of agriculture. We had 10,585 beef producers in 2003; we have 8,500 in 2009. The NDP bungled the Ranchers Choice plant in Dauphin causing losses to producers and missed slaughtered opportunities.

In Manitoba, realized net income this year is projected to be 233 million, a decline of 57 percent from 2009, yet the 2009 budget chopped more than 5 million out of AgriInvest program. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture, today, apologize to the beef producers of Manitoba, and when will he commit to do better than his predecessor? Mr. Struthers: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think, in one of his more honest moments, the member for Emerson would have to admit that we had a hell of a–a hell– Some Honourable Members: Heck of a, heck of a. Mr.

Struthers: Heck of a–we had a heck of a Agriculture Minister in my predecessor in this province, who had the courage to go to bat for the Manitoba cattle producer on the slaughter question over and over and over again, only to see members opposite, at these same meetings, wandering around telling ranchers not to put money into it and not to sign up their cattle for the beef slaughter plant in Dauphin. Mr. Speaker, lots of hot air in here, but nothing out on the landscape, describes exactly your position on slaughter capacity in this province. You should do better.

Waste-Water Treatment Facilities (Winnipeg) Nitrogen Removal Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the City of Winnipeg approved a contract with Veolia Canada to upgrade two of the City of Winnipeg's water-sewage treatment facilities. In the report it's noted that, because the Province is requiring nitrogen to be removed, the project's capital costs are $350 million more than with no nitrogen removal. And annual operating costs are $9 million per year more, for an extra $180 million over 20 years.

The City of Winnipeg has requested the Province to abandon the unnecessary requirement to remove nitrogen. Will the Premier now agree that the nitrogen removal is not required and that the $530 million can be saved? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the question.

The Clean Environment Commission is taking a third look at it, but in their first two looks they indicated that these numbers were inaccurate because ammonia was the central question–ammonia and phosphates–and that the proper technology to ensure the ammonia was properly treated would lead towards a biological nutrient removal solution. They also indicated, and we have always indicated, we're prepared to put our one-third up for this.

There has been over a billion dollars–there's been over a billion dollars of payments that we've made to the City of Winnipeg since we entered into the Provincial-Municipal Tax Sharing Agreement over the last 30 years. So, we have put abundant resources available to the City of Winnipeg. We are prepared to commit more. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, the City is making their own choices on how they wish to proceed on this, but we, clearly, want to have a solution that provides clean sewage treatment and healthy lakes in Manitoba. Mr. Gerrard: Mr.

Speaker, the City wants to remove phosphorus and ammonia, but not nitrogen, which is what the experts are saying, but this Premier is still being indecisive. Here we've got a contract approved yesterday, and because of the Premier's being indecisive, one of the major details of that contract can't be finalized. The Premier and his government have been in opposition to the majority of scientific and public opinion in the City of Winnipeg for some time. He's not listening to experts.

I asked the Premier: Why is he and his government going to make the City of Winnipeg residents pay an extra half a billion dollars in unnecessary costs? Mr. Speaker, the Premier needs to be careful or his fortress Winnipeg may crumble under this burden. Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, we do take advice from experts, and they are part of the Clean Environment Commission, and they do their due diligence on

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2361 these questions, and we have followed their advice in the past. We will follow their advice in the future. There is a variety of opinions with respect to how to treat waste water. All the jurisdictions to the west of us have proceeded with biological nutrient removal–including Brandon, Manitoba–as the preferred technology to address phosphates, ammonia and nitrogen, where required, and this technology has generated less sludge going into landfills.

The Clean Environment Commission report also indicates where BNR or biological nutrient removal technology is used in other jurisdictions, it saves on the cost of chemicals. It sa ves on operating costs, in other words, Mr. Speaker. So we will again carefully consider the advice we get from the Clean Environment Commission. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, back in the 2007 election, three years ago, I campaigned then on saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by only removing phosphorus and not having to remove nitrogen.

Since then, there's been abundant scientific evidence presented which has supported that removing only phosphorus and not nitrogen will protect the health of Lake Winnipeg and will save us hundreds of millions of dollars. I ask the Premier: Will he do the right thing for the city of Winnipeg residents and the lake and stop this massive and pointless spending? Will the Premier get off the fence and give taxpayers a final decision? If the Premier can't make up his mind, will he call a referendum on this issue and let the people decide? Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, if th e member can show me how a referendum will resolve a scientific dispute, we'll consider it, but it hasn't worked so far on other issues that have been out there. Peter Leavitt, who's an expert in these matters, has said the costs to upgrade the waste-water treatment plants of the city of Winnipeg are largely fixed by the unavoidable need to meet federal regulation concerning the release of ammonia. The vast majority of costs for urban wastewater upgrades are for detoxifying NH 3 and removing phosphates, not for removing nitrogen. The Clean Environment Commission is very sensitive to this matter.

It's a body of people that do careful deliberations on thes e issues. They want to ensure the health of Lake Winnipeg. They want to ensure that wastewater treatment is done properly. We are prepared to make our one-third investment in this, in addition to the billion we've transferred over the last 30 years to the City of Winnipeg, and we want to ensure that any solution that we support is one that's durable for the benefit of all Manitobans. CentrePort Canada Asia-Pacific Trade Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure today to rise in the House during question period.

I would like to note, however, that Chicken Little, Fox Mulder and the Winnipeg Comedy Festival were not consulted in the research of this question, leaving behind the fearmongering conspiracy theories and comic relief displayed by members opposite. Rather I'd like to ask a question of substance in relationship to the Manitoba's economic future. As we all know, China is an important trading partner for Manitoba with two-way trade between Manitoba and China nearly doubling over the past five years. If members opposite would provide the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation with peace–[interjection] No.

Would the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation please inform the House about an important agreement that would build on this relationship and further enhance the province's strategic position along the Asia-Pacific Gateway, if members opposite would provide him the silence to do so. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation): Well, Mr. Speaker, members opposite may not be interested, but this week we saw historic agreement between the Cuntan border zone in Chongqing, China, which is part of the global reach of CentrePort.

We met recently with the Indian minister of national infrastructure. We have significant contacts with Russia. We're investing in CentrePort Way. We're upgrading Highway 75, Highway 1, Highway 16. This government is working on putting Manitoba on the global stage with CentrePort, and I'd invite members opposite to get out of their myopia when it comes to what's happening. Stop heckling our members. This is one of the most important things of the next generation in Manitoba. Why don't we all support CentrePort, which is the future of this province, Mr. Speaker?

2362 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 Premarin Manufacturing Plant (Brandon) Employee Layoffs Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Well, Mr. Speaker, it's been announced that the manufacturer of Premarin has laid off about 25 employees at their Brandon plant and is closing down contracts for 38 PMU farmers in this province, leaving only 22 Manitoba producers in this once extremely viable agricultural industry. * (14:20) Mr.

Speaker, while this isn't the first cutback faced by this industry, I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what discussions he's had, if any, with this company and the affected ranchers who've had their livelihood shut down. Hon. Stan Struthers (Min ister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Well, Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting. I think he should talk to his leader who, the other day, in this House, declared the recession was over, and then he gets up and asks a question now. He gets up–actually, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

McFadyen) denied there ever was a recession in the first place, and then his member gets up and starts to talk about the job losses in the southwest part of Manitoba predominantly having to do in the PMU industry. I think they should get their stories straight over there to begin with, and I think I'll take the advice of the member for Arthur-Virden and that is that there is challenges out there that are facing the farm community–unlike what others in his party have said–and I think we do need to work together with industry to make sure that Manitoba producers gain the benefits of the work that they do. Mr.

Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Sara Thurlbeck Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): Mr. Speaker, Sara Thurlbeck is a young woman in my community with an altruistic spirit worthy of recognition. Sara was recently honoured with a student citizenship award through the Manitoba School Boards Association, and I would like to acknowledge her today for the outstanding work she has done to earn such a prestigious award. Sara's steadfast belief in the necessity of giving back to those in need began in 2008 when she embarked on a mission trip to Peru.

The experience opened her eyes to the tremendous food, financial and medical need in developing countries, but also to how people are capable of inspiring change through their stories, talents and faith and through commitment to one another. Equipped with a sense of duty to give back, Sara returned home and immersed herself in effe cting change in her own community. She actively volunteers in her school and church, leading youth projects and events.

Most recently, Sara held a fundraiser concert at Westwood Collegiate to raise money for her upcoming trip to Kenya where she will volunteer with Me to We, a charity that builds schools, works with local communities living in poverty, and encourages volunteers to learn about pressing global issues. Through her efforts, S a r a w a s a b l e t o r a i s e more than $1,300, which will go a long way in covering the cost of her trip.

On top of her volunteer work Sara has excelled in school, completing the International Baccalaureate diploma program and was nominated for the Gerrie Hammond Memorial Award of Promise and placed in the Mayor's Leaders of Tomorrow Speech scholarship. Sara has an inherent understanding that we are all members of one global community and has devoted herself to the betterment of humankind. I am humbled by her dedication and drive, and I wish her all the best in her future endeavours. Congratulations on the positive impacts you've created, Sara. Mr.

Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member, I'd like to ask the co-operation of all honourable members. This is the coming long weekend and we have the Western Canada Youth Parliament will be using our facilities, Manitoba's turn to host the other provinces. So I'm asking members to empty the contents of their desk before leaving today and I encourage members to use the blue bins here in the Chamber to recycle their Hansards and copies of bills. Any other material you have to recycle should be placed in the larger blue bins in the two message rooms, and I thank all honourable members for your co-operation.

Emergency Medical Services Week Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): It is hard to overstate the importance of emergency medical services. Often the work of a paramedic means a life is saved or serious complications are avoided. Our paramedics, air ambulance staff and dispatchers are highly skilled and dedicated individuals, yet, sadly, their work often goes unnoticed, which is why I want

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2363 to take this opportunity, during EMS week, to recognize EMS providers in Manitoba. All of our paramedics and emergency medical service providers undergo extensive training in order to offer the highest quality of care. They are well qualified and able to respond at a moment's notice, providing reassurance that any time emergency care is needed, EMS personnel will be there to help. Though the work is often challenging and unpredictable, our paramedics and other EMS staff are constantly rising to the occasion, and, for that, we are truly thankful. Mr.

Rob Altemeyer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair Paramedics also contribute to health care in Manitoba through awareness and training for others. Many paramedics provide first-aid training to parents, babysitters and other interested individuals, which helps to prevent situations where emergency services are needed. Prov iding good health care and ensuring safety means responding to emergencies but also helping to prevent them. The benefits of Emergency Medical Services are boundless and the lifesaving work of our EMS personnel touches the lives of Manitobans everyday.

Even if we have not directly required the assistance of a paramedic, every person is better off for having well-trained and dedicated Emergency Medical Service that is ready to respond. EMS Week is a reminder of the lifesaving work that EMS personnel carry out each and every day. While they deserve to be recognized all year round, we want to take this opportunity to thank all paramedics and other EMS staff for their outstanding service in this province. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. Sisters of the Holy Rock Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Mr.

Acting Speaker, I rise today to tell the Assembly of a very special event which occurred in the community of Ashern this past weekend. The singing troupe Sisters of the Holy Rock came to town to perform a benefit concert for the Lakeshore Handi-Van. Handi-Van organizations receive some capital and operational funding from the provincial government, but additional fundraising is required at the local level. I would like to acknowledge all volunteers for their efforts in this regard and would like to recognize Mrs. Ruth Goertzen in particular for her efforts in organizing this event.

Sisters of the Holy Rock are a non-profit interdenominational singing group which formed in 1993 under the direction of the Reverend Mother Carole Stone, who was inspired by the movie Sister Act, starring actress Whoopi Goldberg. The sisters consist of about 80 members that perform roughly 30 concerts a year. To date, they've done over 600 shows, having entertained in excess of 300,000 people. Over this period, they've raised $2.8 million for charity and have gone even further in that they've given away some 250,000 of their honoraria to needy individuals. Mr.

Speaker, you should be aware that two of your own Legislative Chamber staff, Mr. and Mrs. Ray and Barbara Gislason, are Sisters of the Holy Rock. The unique style of the troupe, mixing a wide variety of songs with a touch of vaudeville-style humour, is what gives the Sisters their successful appeal. From the classic song "Hallelujah" to Jackson Browne, from ABBA to Willie Nelson, truly, it was shown that their range and potential are unlimited. On behalf of the people of Ashern and the Lakeshore Handi-Van, I want to thank the Sisters of the Holy Rock for their appearance. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.

Decor Cabinets Green Program Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Each one of us has an impact on the environment, particularly the business community. Community Led Emissions Reduction program is a way to encourage industries to reduce their environmental impact. This year, the first ever Green Award was presented to Morden's Deco r Cabinets. Even though Decor Cabinets has taken

part in a range of environmentally friendly initiatives, they have recently increased their gr een output through the creation of GreenCor. GreenCor is a committee of nine employees who are responsible for coming up with new ways that will allow Decor to reduce its environmental footprint. The following are some of the ways that Decor Cabinets have increased their green productivity: replacing paper cups for reusable cups, which has eliminated approximately 1,000 paper cups a day since January; printing on both sides of the paper when possible, which has saved about 500 pages a week; making sawdust avai lable for animal bedding

2364 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 and sending plant's solid wood scraps to Pembina Valley Containers to be used for heating pucks.

The company has also created policies to recycle approximately 80 percent of the cardboard that comes through the plant; set up recycling stations for batteries, aluminium, paper and plastic throughout the plant and offices; replace high wattage lighting with more efficient bulbs and fixtures; reuse reclaimed solvents in the amount of 120 to 205 litre barrels a year; and implement a no-idle program for long-haul trucks; auction obsolete or defective products to staff; and start a company composting program.

The GreenCor committee is interested in expanding their environmentally friendly program and hopes that other industries will share ideas with one another. It is expected that there will be more Green Awards handed out in the near future to other companies who share the same green principles. Mr. Acting Speaker, I'm delighted that Decor Cabinets has taken it upon themselves to start a green program in their plant, and I commend them for the work that they have done in reducing their environmental footprint. Thank you. * (14:30) École St. Avila Home and School Association Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr.

Acting Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the École St. Avila Home and School Association on receiving the Manitoba Parent Council Recognition Award last month. This immersion kindergarten to grade 6 Fort Richmond area school beat out strong competition from schools all across the province. Few people in the Fort Richmond area are surprised about the win of the award as the École St. Avila School Association has gone to great lengths to enrich its grass-roots community and improve its school in recent years.

The association has operated a successful milk program and helped develop the school's nutrition policy in an effort to ensure École St. Avila's students grow up healthy and strong. The association also initiated a before and after school day-care project which has grown to serve 60 students and is now operated by the Pembina Trails School Division. Their proudest achievement, by far, remains an extensive landscaping project called Down the Drain which will include a rain garden bioretention system for storm water runoff on the grounds of École St. Avila and the adjoining Richmond Kings Community Centre. Mr.

Speaker in the Chair This creative solution will set an ecological model for the handling of storm water runoff on a small urban site. It has garnered a great deal of national attention, including that of Canadian environmental icon, David Suzuki. Construction of the Down the Drain project will begin on June 1st. This province is proud to be one of the main funders behind Down–the Down the Drain project. Mr. Speaker, the benefits of hard work and creative vision of the St. Avila Home and School Association will be felt throughout the community for decades.

The parents, the staff and the children deserve a special congratulations for winning the Manitoba Parent Council Recognition Award. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. GRIEVANCES Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Carman, on a grievance? Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): On a grievance. Mr. Speaker: On a grievance. Mr. Pedersen: Today, May 20th, marks the seventh anniversary of the discovery of BSE in a beef cow in northern Alberta. For those of us who were involved in the industry–certainly remember that day, and it's very vivid as to the announcement that came out of Alberta and the fall-out that began from that.

And those of us who were in the industry can really, truly appreciate that, and I realize that others who were not involved just don't realize the significance of this. And this year, being the seventh anniversary of this announcement, it's significant because, at the time, while most of us knew about BSE–we had seen it in Britain and in Europe–we had never thought it would show up here in Canada, and seven years is significant, because at the time we were told by the experts of the day that in seven years the disease would disappear, everything would go away from BSE, and we would be back on track again.

And while we've certain ly seen–history has certainly proven that that has been very wrong and is

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2365 just–we're probably deeper into this problem than we ever have been in seven years. I think that May 20th, 2003, marks the end of an era, and I believe that this era was somewhat–some 30 years in the making, beca use this era leading up to 2003 took advantage of Manitoba's abundant forage production, our geographical position, our high-quality genetics in our–from our beef cattle herds.

When I started in this business in the mid-'70s, we had five packing plants in Winnipeg that regularly drove into my yard every Monday morning to buy cattle, and it was during the '80s, during the NDP administration, those five packers left town and moved to Alberta. During this era, I sold cattle from Québec to Alberta. I sold cattle in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois. We had free trade and, yes, we did have some glitches in trade from time to time, but we really had free trade in the cattle business. And the spinoff to our local economy just can't be compared.

The local economy, the Manitoba economy as a whole, gained immensely from this thriving cattle business that we had–that we used to have–here in Manitoba. And the difference was most times, not always, but most times we sold cattle at a profit, and since 2003, profit has been all but taken away from the beef cattle industry. But I believe that–but May 20, 2003, ushered in a new era. It's an era that 's been filled with trade restrictions, downsizing, financial distress. Canadian consumers certainly stepped up to the plate.

If you would remember after this–after May 20, 2003, and despite the news media playing this scene from a downer Holstein cow in Britain over and over and over again on our news, as BSE made the news constantly, the Canadian consumer stepped up to the plate, and we actually increased consumption of Canadian beef during that immediate period after May 20, 2003. But I think this new era still has yet to be defined because I'd like to think that we will come back in this business. But there are some definite directions in which this new era will be defined.

We've had markets closed, and they've been closed because of political pressures, both in United States and the Asian markets. The–Europe continues to use politics to close markets. No science involved in most of these trade disputes–no science involved. We've seen this from this government over and over again, how they use politics, and not science, to make decisions. We've seen cattle production and the official figures. Our cattle production is down 20 percent in Manitoba, and I think that that's underestimating it. I believe that the cattle production in Manitoba is down much more than 20 percent.

And the statistics also show that there's 2,085 fewer family farms with cat tle, livestock, on their premises and I–this is truly to the detriment. If you are involved at all in the rural communities right now, you see how this has affected our rural communities, be it in the business within our communities, with our schools, because people have had to leave their farms. They've had to move elsewhere to find employment, and it's been very hard on our rural economies. Now the governments in Canada have responded in various ways.

The curr ent federal Agriculture Minister has aggressively pursued opening world markets to Canadian beef. And I know that from talking to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. They tell me that Minister Ritz has done an outstanding job in opening markets throughout the world, and it's been to his credit that he has taken upon himself to do this. Provincially, there's certainly been a mixed response. Basically, Ontario's written off their cattle industry. We used to sell a lot of cattle into Ontario, and there's only a fraction of them going in there now.

Québec always does have its own agenda when it comes to agriculture and many other things. Saskatchewan and Alberta have aggressively consolidated to keep their business there–to keep the beef business thriving in–within their provinces. And that's certainly a different perspective from what Manitoba has done. This province–this government has just paid lip-service to the beef industry, panning to them, saying, yes, business is bad, isn't it too bad? But they really have not taken a proactive stance. Instead, what we've seen is they've introduced more regulations.

Their answer to everything is more regulations, more taxes, more costs to farm families. And our farm families and our communities have suffered because of this. The spinoff is gone, right now, from the cattle industry. And I can tell you from personal experience that spinoff within the community is huge, and it's gone now because of the decline in the cattle business. But what's really missing here in

2366 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 Manitoba–what really is missing is that the government has not sat down with the industry and looked at developing a long-range plan. Yes, we're in short-term difficulties within the cattle industry that's not necessarily Manitoba-made, but there's never been an acceptance by this government to sit down and develop a strategy to keep the cattle business here in Manitoba, to use our natural advantages, such as forage production, our geographical position, et cetera. They've never done that, and they have no intention of doing that.

And what we're looking at is to keep the cattle industry here for the next five, 10 and 20 years. Let's play this era out. Where will we be in this era? Not just shrugging your shoulders and saying, well, it's too bad; it was here and it's gone now. * (14:40) So seven years today, and for those who have been involved in the cattle business, it's been a long and difficult struggle. And myself, and many of my fellow producers, know all about that struggle, and it's been–it has been a real struggle, and there's no end in sight.

But it's not too late to start that consultation, to have that vision for Manitoba, and I urge this government that we really do need a vision here in Manitoba. And, if your vision is to get rid of the cattle business, then say so, so that, then, the cattle producers in this province know where this government stands. But don't pay any more lip-service. We've had far too much of that. We can still define this new era in a positive way, but it will take a proactive stance from all parties involved, from cattle producers to government.

Seven years: It's not too late to become involved in defining this new era for the betterment of all Manitobans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Lakeside, on a grievance? Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Okay. On a grievance. Mr. Eichler: I do want to put a few things on the record in regards to the BSE crisis's seventh anniversary since May 20th, 2003. Well, I remember that day very clearly.

It was on the campaign trail when I got the news in regards to a cow that was found in Alberta in regards to this sector that was going to put a hold on the cattle industry, as we know it today and seven years later. And I just want to recap some of the things that has happened. I know back in September of 2003, we called the House back along with the government, and I remember very clearly the Liberals were the ones that came in during that debate and argued about where they were going to sit.

And I was very disappointed to hear with a crowd full of cowboys and ranchers and farm families in this House, and you're arguing about where they were going to sit. I was really embarrassed, Mr. Speaker. I can also tell you that at that time, the government came forward and talked what they were going to do in their plan. That plan never became a reality. We know that the BSE crisis that happened back in May of 2003 has had an effect on our industry like we've never seen before. From some 10,000 producers, there's just a little over 8,000 producers today.

We have a loss this year, predicted loss of about $5,000 per farm family within the province of Manitoba. I'm very concerned about where this government is leading us and the advice that's being given to those cattle producers that are so important to the overall economy of this province. I know that the minister of the time and I know that the current minister said that the minister did one heck of a job. Well, I can tell you that she didn't. In fact, I can talk about a couple of those things.

And we talked about Ranchers Choice, a $4.5-million investment, of which they went and bought equipment before they're actually ready. They started hiring staff to do blueprints before they were even ready. They didn't have the business plan in place before they were even r eady. A backward-thinking program that caused a number of producers within this province to lose not only their livelihood as a result of this mismanagement of the government–in fact, I was one of those investors that invested in Ranchers Choice. I put my hard-earned money on the table. I was very disappointed this project didn't move forward.

So what did we do? We turned around and we sold that processing equipment for some $18,000–the price of a used pickup today–instead of $4.5 million and had a Ranchers Choice processing plant right here in the province of Manitoba that would still be

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2367 running today with the proper management, with the proper business plan and w ith the right leadership. I know we would have seen it happen. In fact, I'll go back to what we talked about on our party, on our side, back when BSE had broke out. We brought forward a five-point recovery plan. I want to put it on the record again to mark the anniversary. We had our five-point plan. One was, first of all, to invest $40 million to increase slaughter capacity to meet, at minimum, the additional 500 head per day shortfall that currently exists in Manitoba.

All cattle over 30 months be required to be tested for BSE; cattle under 30 month be random tested, depending on market demand. Right now in Manitoba, there's a need to be slaughtering at least a minimum of another 500 head per day. That's not happening. Yes, we invest–we've seen the government invest in another plant here in Winnipeg, another plant in Carman, but what we have not seen is increase in those small abattoirs, the backbone of this province, small business which makes what it is today. And that's what we should have done. It's very easy to sit back and say, yes, that's what we should've done.

We were right at the time and the government was wrong in their initiative putting all their apples into one basket. As a result of that, we have not seen the increase in slaughter capacity that we needed to see. And as a result of that, our farmers and ranchers are suffering. And I want to go back to what happened the following year in 2004. We saw another setback, and we saw loans being paid out to producers of some $50,000 per farmer which they had to pay back. That was not part of the plan.

Part of the plan that we brought forward was to also create a $2-million, fully funded feasibility study and business plan which would be, those interested investors would have access to $2 million to study and fund studies, business plans, that would be better positioned to attract potential investors, and they–we were–we're going to follow those similar to what was happening in the other industries across Canada, and we saw the federal government step forward with a number of those initiatives, and we never saw any money come into the province of Manitoba as a result of that.

The third thing that we wanted to do was provide $10 million in forgivable loans to existing or small, new plants and allow them to move forward with the necessary upgrades to meet federal-inspected standards, thereby allowing Manitoba beef to be exported to other provinces. That's significant, Mr. Speaker, because what we have now is basically three plants that are doing the bulk of our processing, or we can get them outside the province. Unfortunately, if we would have had our plan brought forward and accepted by this government, we'd have close to 20 or 25 plants within the province of Manitoba.

We'd meet those 500-head-per-day requirement that we need, and we wouldn't be exporting those jobs throughout the province into other provinces. And that brings me to my fourth point that I wanted to make in regards to this–I'll come back to this in just a minute–and that was another $20 million to provide immediate cash advance to producers to allow them to choose to sell their cattle when they want to be processed and then they'd pay that money back through that program.

So it gave them the opportunity, at that time, to access those markets when they were ready and pay that money back once they sold those cattle. So it was a very interesting program and I'm sorry that the government did not pick up on it. But I want to come back to the point I talked about in regards to the money that was being brought forward on Ranchers Choice, on the $4.5 million.

When we look back at that–in fact, one of my constituents was the president of that association on the last legs of it, and I can tell you he put his heart and soul into it and nobody believed in that plant more than he did, and I can tell you from meeting with him and talking with him, how unfortunate it was that when you see some body put that much time and energy into it and we see a boondoggle being sold for some $18,000, it's an embarrassment not only for the minister at the time but for all Manitobans to see $4.5 million flushed down the toilet and nothing to show for it yet today.

Also, I want to talk about where we're at today and where we should be positioning ourself. That was then; this is now. We talk about different things and different things than what we shoulda, woulda, coulda done, but let's talk about the New West Partnership. We're left out again; we’re left out again. If we truck our cattle down the highway, who are they going to proc ess them with? They're going to truck those cattle to those that they look after. Manitoba's not part of that plan. Alberta,

2368 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 Saskatchewan and British Columbia are part of that plan. Now, as a businessperson, you're going to look after yourself first. We're third, fourth. Where are we? I can tell you where we are. We're No. 4 and they're not going to be processing our cattle. We don't have the facilities here. So, again, we're going to be left out in the dark because of this government's inaction, not to be able to have the vision to move forward on that initiative. Unfortunately, we go back to the cattle producers that I talked about that went from some eight–10,000 down to 8,000.

The producers are wondering, where is the government? Where is this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Struthers) going to take the leadership and show them what they're going to be doing in the next generation, the next year, the next five y ears? What is the long-term plan? I know, because I invested very heavily–and I know the member from Emerson also was one of those investors–into bringing the best purebred stock into this province. We have no idea what this has done to the purebred business.

I know I've been out of it for a number of years and I've been retired out of the livestock business, but I can tell you the member from Emerson's doing one heck of a fine job in promoting his breed, his livestock. It's a purebred business, but the rest of us have no way of measuring the loss overall for the quality of cattle. We have the best cattle. We hung our head high. We're very proud.

We still got the best producers that are in the province, in Canada, and I'm afraid we're going to lose those. * (14:50) Without the right leadership, without the technology that we have for those producers, the purebred producers that are breeding the bulls and the heifers that are so important to the overall benefit of all Manitobans–is so important that we make sure that we keep those. Also, just in closing, I know my time's just about up. I have so much more to grieve for and very little time, but I can maybe roll it into something a little bit later on. But also, just in closing, Mr.

Speaker, I want to encourage the minister to take this advice. Take this advice very seriously. We are committed to helping the industry listen to those cattle producers, listen to the agriculture producers, the Keystone Ag producers. And we need to know that Manitoba cattle producers and Keystone Ag producers are heard. They don't want to listen to us, that's fine. But listen to those people that on the ground, each and every day to make sure that this sector, in fact, does stay alive, not like it's done for the last seven years. It's gone backwards, and we want to see it move forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Emerson, on a grievance? Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): On a grievance, Mr. Speaker. It gives me no pleasure to rise today on a grievance in this House, and the grievance would be on BSE. It's the seventh anniversary of BSE, Mr. Speaker, and I have a lot of personal experiences with BSE. Some of those were the immediate losses that we had in our industry, and I'll just give you a kind of a thumbnail overview of what that was. I'm in the purebred business; I was in 2003. My main market was the United States.

We sold at an average of 30, 35 bulls, and that year, when BSE hit, we sold three bulls. Now, I don't need to explain to you the economic loss that I had, and I don't expect you to feel sorry for me. However, I do expect you to feel sorry for the producers of the province that had the same losses and experienced the same losses. My colleague from Carman would have felt that same loss in his feedlot, only ten times worse. And the other feedlots, the feeding industry in Manitoba, took a terrible, terrible hit in 2003; 2004 was the second anniversary of BSE, Mr.

Speaker, and we celebrated that on the steps of the Legislature. I was a part of that celebration. It was my cow and calf on the steps of the Legislature that day, and it was not a good day. It wasn't a day to be proud of that we came to town with cattle. We've taken cattle to town many, many times, and we were very proud to be there with them. That particular day was a sad day. It was a sad day because we hadn't moved forward in the industry, not one bit. We'd seen meetings.

There had been meetings throughout the province, and it was meetings that were called by the Department of Agriculture asking for ways that we could possibly find solutions to the terrible crisis that we were in. At the same time the Minister of Agriculture was saying, this is a short-lived crisis. We're got to try

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2369 and get through this together, but perhaps we can find some solutions. So in one particular meeting that I remember distinctly was a meeting in St. Claude, Manitoba, and that particular day there was 700 people in attendance, Mr. Speaker. A nd for the first half an hour or so that we heard many testimonials from different individuals that were losing their farms; these were the young producers of our province.

They were just in the busi ness; perhaps they'd just bought the cows the year before, and they couldn't, they didn't have the necessary deep pockets to continue. They were too highly leveraged, and the testimonials were terrible that night. So the minister wasn't in attendance that night, but her deputy was there. And, Mr. Speaker, she'd wanted some solutions to the issue that we were being faced, the crisis. And so I went to the mike and I said to the minister, keep all of your handouts. Keep them all, all of the subsidies that you're talking about. Build us a slaughter plant in the province of Manitoba.

Give us cattle producers a bill for that and give us a receipt for what you were going to give us in handouts. Put that towards the bill that we will take over for that slaughte r plant, and let's address this issue head on. Unfortunately, that never took place. The minister didn't pay any attention to us, and so then she stumbled and bumbled along, and I've said that earlier today. We tried a number of different things and, all of a sudden, there was an individual that says, we're going to build a packing plant. And so then the minister decided, maybe we can try and get on to this.

But then she got into it and meddled with it. The Province didn't bother putting their money in, and they had to go back to the securities and by this time, producers weren't in a position. They had no faith in the government at that point to do business, and rightly so. They had no reason to have faith in them, because this has now carried on past any time that it should've taken. Mr.

Rob Altemeyer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair The feeding industry in the province–the feeding industry was struggling when BSE hit, and the reason that it was struggling was under the Pawley government that we lost the slaughter capacity in this province. At that time we slaughtered 681,000 head of cattle, that year that we lost the slaughter industry, and today we don't slaughter 20,000 head. That is a terrible, terrible consequence of mismanagement at that time by the Pawley government.

Now, they can suggest that my colleagues may have been opposed to the slaughter plant that was supposed to be coming back in the BSE days–it never did come–but the fact was the mismanagement had taken place much, much before that and it was continuing at the same time. And so, Mr. Acting Speaker, the feeding industry then, that was struggling–it was in its infancy, it was just barely getting on its feet–was just smashed. It was smashed, and you have to keep in mind why we should have a feeding province here, why we should have that industry. The Crow benefit that was there for the grain industry had been removed.

So that gave us the opportunity then to have a feeding industry here, and we were on a level playing field with all of the feedlots that were concentrated in Ontario and Québec. We were now on a level playing field. But instead of realizing the potential that we had, they ignored that potential, and the feeding industry then dwindled and dwindled and dwindled, and it's difficult today to say that we have any feeding industry in this province. Our cattle are shipped out, and when those cattle are shipped out that means our grain is shipped out.

That means that our jobs are shipped out, and so it's little wonder that our young people move to Saskatchewan and Alberta, because they are moving ahead. They have some–well, you have to take a look at the western agreement. There is a perfect example–perfect example–of what you do to do business in today's world. You have to get to a certain size in today's world to be economical, and the western provinces Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C.–and we should be part of that. We've always been classified as a western province, but today we're not. We're left out of this loop.

We're left out because we had one of our–one of the leader contenders who quit–he was a quitter–but at any rate, he said, I will go to Ottawa with my cap in my hand and I'll get all the money I can from Ottawa. I will go begging. Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C. don't want beggars. They want people that want to do business. They want people with some foresight to move ahead. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, the feeding industry moved out of our province. It moved out for a couple of reasons, the mismanagement of the current government and it moved out because of the mismanagement of the Pawley government.

The purebred industry. We have a reputation in Manitoba because of the ROP program that was in place for many, many years. We have the reputation

2370 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 of having some of the best breeding stock in the world. We have people th at come here because our stock is healthy, safe, clean and the best genetics that you can get in the world. And Mr. Acting Speaker, just to show that that does happen–just to show that it does happen–I'm exporting myself, exporting 35 females to Russia this year in the purebred Charolais business. So we are looking for our own markets and we're doing that, not with the provincial government's help at all. We should be out there promoting what we have in this province.

We should be saying, we have some of the best Angus breeders. We've got some of the best Charolais breeders and some of the best Hereford breeders in the In terlake, and wherever the member from the Interlake is, should be out there promoting that. But instead he sits around playing with his BlackBerry and doing some other odd jobs around home, I guess. In 1979, in the first election of the MCPA, we made recommendation. We made recommendations to the Pawley government and what they needed to do to keep that slaughter in dustry here.

It never did happen. * (15:00) We have lost so many producers in the industry today. And, as you know, there are farm teams in hockey. You've got the peewees and the–going on and on until you got the farm team. You got the Brandon Wheat Kings and then you get to the NHL where you got the Maple Leafs. Today we have nothing. We have nothing left but the NHL. And the expertise passes from one generation to the next and unfortunately, in this province, the expertise of farming–you wouldn't understand that, the member from Riel wouldn't understand that at all.

She doesn't understand agriculture and she doesn't care about agriculture. She only cares about herself. However, on the other hand, we need that expertise to pass from one generation to the next and that–we've lost that generation. So it gives me not great pleasure to stand today. I could grieve for many hours on this subject, but thank you for the opportunity to grieve for the last 10 minutes. Thank you. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Altemeyer): Seeing no further grievances, we'll move to orders of the day. Are there any further grievances? Seeing none, orders of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 31–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2010 Hon. Bill Blaikie (Government House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, I'll resist the temptation to grieve the loss of more time to debate the Bill 31, but we now have the time to debate Bill 31, and the House will now proceed to the consideration–further consideration of second reading of Bill 31. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Altemeyer): We'll now resume debate, second reading of Bill 31 standing in the name of the honourable member for Pembina, who has 21 minutes remaining.

Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Well, I guess I'm somewhat of the same mindset as the member for Emerson (Mr. Graydon) was, that it doesn't–I don't– first of all, I got to clear my throat and that's what I need to start off with. It chokes us up to speak on these bills here. But anyway, just the fact that this bill does come forward in the way that it does and the shape that it does under Bill 31, known as The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act. It's really a bill. It's an attempt to–for the members opposite, especially the Cabinet ministers to protect their own salaries.

Really, they should be taking– according to the legislation, they should be taking a hit of 40 percent, but they're changing the legislation to suit their own needs. And so the Cabinet ministers are certainly silent on this, but I would think that the backbenchers would get up because what the Cabinet ministers have done for the backbenchers is they have frozen their salaries. And so you would think that they would be getting up and speaking against Bill 31 and indicating that this is not quite fair.

But, again, as I said yesterday, we've had no responses at all from any of the NDP members regarding Bill 31 and the information that is outlined in Bill 31. Again, the fact that they want to try to maintain their own salaries and yet they're asking other people in the province to just ma intain where they are at, and the Cabinet ministers don't want to take a decline or a reduction in their salaries and so, consequently, they're bringing forth Bill 31. Added to that, it's interesting how they change legislation to suit their

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2371 own needs. And as indicated yesterday, with the whole fiasco of the radar that we had previously–the judge and, of course, the ruling that came out regarding that–a lot of people in the province would have said, well, why don't you just change the laws so that I, in fact, can get my dollars back or that I would be treated fairly. But, no, that was not the direction that the government saw to go. So here, again, is an attempt for the government of the day to try it and try–and they will change the rules in order to meet their own needs.

And so that's why we are opposed to this legislation. We believe that the gutting of the balanced budget act is wrong. And I happened to be here in '95 when the new act came in, and I agree with the fact that we need to spend within our means, and the government of the day has decided to go a different direction. And just as I indicated yesterday–but, again, to recap some of the facts of the dollars that were spent. And right now we have moved from the year 1999 to the year 2010, where we had–in '99, we had a $6-billion budget and today we have an $11-billion budget.

We have a tremendous increase in dollars coming into the province and, yet, though, if we look back and we look back to the years 2007-2008, the NDP overspent their budget by $264 million and we have to remember that they had added revenues. In 2008-2009, they overspent their budget by $321 million and, again, as I indicated, they had revenues that had surpassed the year before; 2009-2010, again they overspent by how much? By $421 million. And in three years, the NDP overspent their budgets by a billion dollars.

Now, the revenues increased and, yet, their expenditures increased dramatically and they overspent the dollars that they had coming in. Now that's no different than, Mr. Acting Speaker, you or myself overspending on our credit cards or in our own home finances. We can only do that so long and the banker comes along and says, sorry, no more. We are slowly becomi ng the Greece of the north. This province is heading in that direction. I've said this time and time again that in the–you make some of the worst decisions in the best of times, and that's what's taking place. You're now–where has some of this money gone?

And I know that the government of the day would be very interested in hearing this again, and I'm sure that they're aware of it and it must bother them when they hear that. But some of the wasteful spending that has taken place in the past years, and one is, of course , the one coming up with the–and taking place, the Manitoba Hydro bipole line moving to the west side of the province, an added expenditure, huge, huge dollars going in there. Making the City of Winnipeg remove nitrogen from its waste water instead of focussing on removing phosphorus, $350 million.

I hear one of the members chirping from the other side and I assure you that as soon as I am done speaking that you will have the opportunity to go and refute and to put comments on the record which show that maybe I am wrong, but I would encourage–I believe it's one of the ministers who's doing some chirping there who's–by the way, she's the one who's trying to protect her own salary so I can understand why she's probably chirping. On the other hand, I doubt if she will be getting up and making comments and putting them on the record. I don't think she would get up and put comments on the record.

In fact, I think they have been muzzled across the way. Then let's move on to some of the other mismanaged and wasteful spending. The fact that they forced the unwanted, enhanced driver's licences on Manitobans to a cost of $14 million. Another one, it took place this morning. We don't have a problem with the Blue Bombers getting a new stadium. It's the way it's funded. [interjection] No, no, just the way it's funded. No, no, I'm a Blue Bomber fan.

I enjoy going to the games and I know that you like to twist and turn and just gerrymander all kinds of different comments, but the point being it's the way it's funded. That is the issue. Private sector should be out there. The government of the day–by the way, doesn't have the funds to fund Tabor Home, a personal care home in my area. They say, well, we're out of money. Now I do need to expand on that a little. I just found out in the last several days that where I've been asking questions of the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald), who has repeatedly said that, yes, we do need a new personal care home.

It's important that you get one. It's old. It needs to be replaced, and so she has been lobbying but, however, it appears now it's the Minister of Finance (Ms. Wowchuk) who's digging in her heels, and saying, well, no, I don't think we should do that. I think the Blue Bomber stadium is more important. I think that's where the dollars should go. So, you know, that's the feeling that we get and those are the comments that are out there. So I think it's important that we recognize it's a priority. This government has its priorities in the wrong place, and

2372 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 so another example I can give is the fact that the schools within our area–and we had a postponement of the high school. And I've said this time and time and time again that if it were a private school or if it were private industry, you would never allow the kind of crowding to take place that we see taking place in Garden Valley School Division. * (15:10) When the students don't have access to washrooms, I mean, that's not acceptable and yet, though, this government appears and seems to think that that's okay. Now, they say, sure, we will build a school.

But how long? How long down the road? And they've had ample opportunity to make some of these decisions, but have they done it? The answer is, no, they have not done it. And so, now, they go ahead and they postpone the school for another year. Just added to that. Workplace health and safety would never allow the kind of crowding that we saw. In the high school we had four classes in the hallways. They would never allow that and yet, somehow, when government does it, it appears to be okay. What do they do? They just close a blind eye and they just say, well, I know nothing and I see nothing.

I hear nothing–reminds me of Schultz. That was a movie–or a show that was on. An Honourable Member: Hogan's Heroes. Mr. Dyck: Yeah, Hogan's Heroes . Right. I see nothing. I hear nothing. That's sort of what we are starting to hear from this government, that they're closing their eyes to situations within certain areas, certain areas that they deem not to be a priority, and they're overlooking that and just allowing it to take place. And yet, though, an individual, a private individual doing that would be closed down, shut down so quickly.

And I give examples of that within our own area of industry who, when, the moment that they don't quite reach the code, this government just shuts them down and, added to that, puts a fine on them because all they need to collect some more money. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I really feel strongly that the Bill 31 is out, here. It's not a necessary bill. We need to continue to have balanced budget legislation within this province, and yet, though, the reason that this bill came forward is because the mess that this government has gotten itself into.

And, as I indicated, it's not because the funds have dried up or that they decreased ov er the past 10 years. The funds have increased. The problem is that the expending–the expenditures, rather–have increased more rapidly than the revenues. And so, today, we are at 23-plus billion dollar debt in the province of Manitoba. This is a debt that we are passing on to the next generation, to our children, to our grandchildren, and somebody is going to have to pay this.

And at the end of the day–and I've said–made this comment in this House before–we know that the NDP leader, when he was the premier of Ontario, Bob Rae, tried exactly that, and at the end of the day he said, you cannot spend your way to prosperity. It does not work. He did try that. It did not work. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am appalled by the fact that we would have a government that would come forward–and, back in 2008, in fact, they made some of the changes that they were–that they thought they needed in order to be able to bring the legislation back in sync with where they were going.

And may I remind the government of the day, as well, that their previous leader, Gary Doer, indicated, first of all, in 1999–and he made this comment, he says, we've said all along that we're not going to change the things that they got right–referring to the Conservatives–and with that, he said one of the election commitments that he made was that they would keep balanced budget legislation and they would lower taxes. Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, here we are today again, we are debating the fact they're wanting to gut balanced budget legislation.

Moving further on, the NDP campaign on balanced budgets, in 2007–and what did the then-leader, the premier of the province say? Gary Doer placed balanced budget as a priority in 2007. When referring to spending promises made by other parties, he stated: They're all going to be running deficits if they keep their election promises, God forbid. That was the then. So I guess we have a dramatic change in direction with the new Premier that we have today. Just moving on, in 2008, the now-Premier said ministers would take a penalty if they failed to balance the budget under the new rules. This was in 2008.

How soon we forget, how soon. Memory seems to be slipping. So if you don't–and then–and to add to that, if you don't do that–which is balance the budget–you will take a penalty, as prescribed in legislation. This is in Hansard, May the 1st of 2008. This is a quote

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2373 from the–today's Premier (Mr. Selinger) of the Province of Manitoba. So, why are we here debating Bill 31? It's because they have overspent. Well, the answer–the question is why. And maybe this is the opportunity for members opposite to get up, after I sit down, and I'm sure that our next member who is speaking would give that opportunity and would allow the individual to get up and speak–members opposite get up to speak and put their comments on the record. An Honourable Member: Dictatorship. Mr.

Dyck: Well, okay, and someone has mentioned here it's a dictatorship. I called it that they were muzzled, but maybe it’s the dictatorship that's taken place here. So–no, we would love to have their opinions and to give us the reasons why they really feel that it is this important. Okay, further, Mr. Ac ting Speaking, I just wanted to make a few other comments regarding some of the wasteful spending that has taken place and that is taking place in this province.

And as I did before, I alluded to the fact that Bipole III, which is a huge issue–the City of Winnipeg, the removal of the nitrogen, another huge issue–a lot of dollars that are being used, and what we see and feel–and again, there's no scientific proof to back that up. And then, the unwanted, enhanced driver's licence. And, as I indicated, these dollars–and of course, I have failed to mention the other fact, that within the budget that was tabled–I guess, what, two months ago approximately–that the highest increase in expenditure is the interest charges within the Province of Manitoba.

And so the government of the day is looking at huge costs. And I believe it's around $400 million that are going to be added to the costs that we have to pay out. And when I look at our Tabor Home or our personal care home, our assisted living within the area, or I look at the schools that we have–how many schools could we build within this province? How many personal care homes could we build within this province as a result of the interest dollars that we are paying and putting out there every, every year in the–to financial institutions? And it's not the right way to go.

And one other area that I have not talked about, and as time is going on, within the province–and we see the growth taking place within my region, it’s the huge infrastructure deficit that we see out there. Now, we have growth. We have growth that is unprecedented within the province of Manitoba. We are one of the fastest growing regions in rural Manitoba, and yet, though, the infrastructure dollars are lagging far behind. It was, I believe, last week that I asked a question on Highway 32. And I was surprised, and yet I wasn't surprised, at the answer that I got from the minister.

But at the end of the day and then the following day, I thought maybe I had not heard correctly, so I went and read on Hansard and I thought, you know, I've got a six-year-old grandson who could have given an answer like that. It had nothing to do with the question that was out there. It was a very simple question of the four-laning of Highway 32, which is a provincial responsibility. Now, the government does have responsibilities, not only in the city of Winnipeg, but in rural Manitoba as well, and especially, I would say, areas where growth, the real growth, is taking place.

And I'm not saying that other areas should not get some dollars, but certainly we need to backfill. We need to support those areas that are growing. And I represent one of those areas. And if you will look at the new map that has come out by Elections Manitoba regarding the redistribution, the geographic area that I will be representing next time, it now is just a very compact area known as Morden-Winkler. And in fact, we had to go out and lobby that we want to actually go down to the U.S. border, but that could not take place because, again, of the volume of people that we have in the area.

So, the infrastructure dollars that we need out there, and as I've indicated the growth that has taken place, we need some of those dollars put into this area. And again, it’s a matter of the mismanagement of the dollars of this government here. And so, as a result of the mismanagement that has taken place, we are now debating Bill 31 because they cannot live within their means, because we have balanced budget legislation that's in place today. So, consequently, we need to change the rules in order to accommodate the overexpenditures that have taken place.

And so, in order to be able to accommodate that, we change the legislation to suit our fancy. * (15:20) And that is what we are objecting to. We feel that there was no need to go in that direction, again, because of the increased revenues that we've had in the last 10 years, from $6 billion all the way to $11 billion, substantial, substantial increases in

2374 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 dollars. And yet, though, what has this government done? They have spent every penny, plus more. And with that, of course, as I indicated, they have put us further and further and deep er and deeper into debt which will, ultimately, have to be paid for by our children, by our grandchildren and their children. This is not something that's just going to go away, because it takes huge revenues to pay back those kinds of dollars. I know that members opposite have said that these are dollars that are used to fund and to build and, then, that's right.

And some of the building that is taking place, it needs to be done. Again, I would go back and I would say it's priority. It's priority spending. You need to prio ritize the dollars that you have, and you need to spend them wisely. It's a very important–that you do that. And so, again, as I indicated and I have said several times, you make some of your worst decisions during the best of times. That's what we see has taken place here. Now, in order to live within the legislation they change it, rather than be in violation of their legislation that they had.

They're now going to change it to accommodate and to meet their own needs. And so with that, Mr. Ac ting Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to put a few words on the record. Thank you. Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Acting Speaker, and it gives me almost grievance pains to stand and speak to this budget and to speak to Bill 31, and some of it, well, you've probably heard before, yesterday, and some you'll hear again today, some of the reasons that we wouldn't be able to support such type of legislation.

But, first, I would like to touch on a couple of the things that my colleague from Pembina has indicated. And it is true that the area that he represents and a good po rtion of the area that I represent–the boundary is an imaginary line and the development that has taken place in that area is unprecedented. The–and it's done it. It's–this expansion has done this in spite of the policies of the NDP government–in spite of, not with their blessings. They've done nothing for the infrastructure in that area.

They collect a huge amount of money in gas tax that's supposed to go to roads, and I would suggest that only a portion of that goes there. The payroll tax, I'm not sure where that goes, but it doesn't seem to find its way back into the constituency of Pembina, doesn't find its way back into the constituency of Emerson, doesn't find its way back into the constituency of Carman. The constituency of Steinbach that has a huge, huge payroll and puts a lot of money into the coffers of this province, and the tax money doesn't seem to find its way back. It–I'm not sure why it doesn't.

Oh–in fact, I am sure why it doesn't. It goes into projects like the west side hydro line that wants to waste $1.7 billion. There's a pretty good example of unnecessary waste. And, Mr. Acting Speaker, it's not because Hydro said we want to go down the west side, not at all. It's because the minister said we want to go down the west side. There's no other logical reason, and that's not a logical reason, by far, but that's the reason that Hydro has been directed to go down the west side. For 20 years, they said, we'll go down the east side.

They did an environmental study on the east side that says it's fine to go there. But, no, the First Minister says, we're going down the west side. We want to do another environmental study. We want to go through another UNESCO park. We want to go through a number of Aboriginal lands, the same number on the west side as there is on the east side. We want to go through mo re miles of boreal forest. We want to waste more money–waste more money– and then come to the prime agricultural lands and disrupt the people that farm that land. And I would say to you, Mr.

Acting Speaker, that there will be huge, huge amounts of opposition, not just from us on this side of the House. Absolutely not. There will be some reasoning from this side of the House, to try and put reason on the table and get the members on the opposite to understand their folly. But the true opposition will come from the people that live on the west side. The true opposition will come from the people in Winnipeg, the people in Winnipeg that have to bear the cost, the exorbitant costs of this line. And they will do that in rate increases: 2.5, 2.9, 5 percent increases at a time.

But the people in Winnipeg do understand that they're being taxed, and they're being taxed for folly. There's no science that says they have to go there. There's no reason that they have go th ere on the west side. Not at all. So the opposition will come, and it will be a groundswell. I'm surprised that the Premier (Mr. Selinger) of this province and the Minister of Hydro haven't changed their mind. I'm surprised, with the reason that has been put forward from this side of the House, reasonable discussions about the proper

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2375 alternative that Hydro knew which was the best place to go. And I think they probably will change their minds. They just don't know how to do it in a delicate fashion that they can save face. However, I'll give you an example. There is one member on the other side, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Blaikie). Now, there's an individual with a large degree of common sense. He came from the big House to the little House, and he got to clean up a mess that his colleague had created with waste-water management in the province. And I recall a comment that the member made.

He said, I can't tell you if there's any science involved in this at all, but, he said, I can tell you it's going to be very difficult to change their minds. Well, I give him credit. I give him credit for having common sense, and looking for some common ground that the population of this province, the ratepayers of this province, that they could not afford what was being suggested. He found the common ground that all people in the province can work with. We, on this side of the House, we want to protect the sensitive areas in the province. We want to protect our environment.

Rural Manitobans know that they want to pass on the land that they have. They want to pass it on in a better condition than they received it. And this minister found a way to do that, and he found a way to do that economically. The former minister had some difficulty. And I'd almost compare him to a fish, and I don't say that lightly. You see, you have to understand why a fish gets caught in a gillnet. The fish will come through the water slowly and comes to an obstacle, but it can't back up. A fish can't back up. And that's the minister–the former minister couldn't back up.

The current minister has found a way to compromise. He didn't really have to back up, but he compromised. He was able to turn to the side. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I can see–I can foresee, and in my crystal ball tells me that the Minister of Hydro and the Premier of the province are going to have to find a way to compromise, because the people in this province will not allow–they will not allow that line to come down the west side and waste $1.7 billion. Agriculture will not allow that. Municipalities are passing resolutions now: you will not come down through our municipality. So you can exercise your power.

You can use the muscles that you have. Flex your muscles. Go bully those municipalities. Go bully those municipalities. Go bully those people that are by the Parkland. Go bully them and see how far you get. * (15:30) And then tell the people in the city of Winnipeg, your rates are going up. And you can try and blame it on those people out there that you have to expropriate from, but the people in the city aren't going to buy that. We're going to help them not to buy that. We're going to help them because you wouldn't listen to reason in here; then you'll listen to reason out there.

And it's unfortunate, it's really unfortunate because I know the member from Elmwood–I know that member will look for a reasonable alternative. He is a person with some common sense. And I hope that he can convince some of his backbenchers, who would like to get re-elected, to support him when he talks to the Minister of Hydro and when he talks to the Premier of the province and say, look, look at the folly of your decisions. Look what you're doing to the province of Manitoba. What are you doing? You're going to raise the hydro rates.

The hydro in the province of Manitoba is the oil of Sa skatchewan and the potash of Saskatchewan and the uranium of Saskatchewan. It's the oil of Alberta; it's the cattle industry of Alberta, the slaughter industry of Alberta. Hydro is that to us. That's a natural advantage we've got. And you want to waste it? I can't believe that you want to waste it. You see, we would have a slaughter industry in this province. We would have a slaughter industry in this province if it hadn't been wasted by the Pawley government. Nothing has been learned by these–by this NDP government since the Pawley government.

When one of the ministers–and that was an agricultural minister that said a deficit is healthy. So, as I look across the room today, they've got to be the healthiest people in the world. It's not healthy to have this type of deficit. It's not healthy at all. Our grandchildren will be very fortunate if they can afford to pay for this debt that we have today. And you want to add another 1.75 by going down the west side of the province. That's a shame. That's a shame to saddle not this generation, not the next generation, but the third generation with this debt going forward.

There has to be some rationale on that side that will open their eyes to the fact that you can't live beyond your

2376 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 2010 means forever. You can't borrow your way out of debt. In 1999–and I hate to go back to the '90s today for some reason, but the NDP government campaigned on balanced budgets. They took a page out of the Tories' book and said, yes, you guys did the right thing; you did the right thing with balanced budgets and we're going to do the same thing today. In 1999, they campaigned on that and Gary Doer was successful.

And he ca mpaigned on that more than once–2003, 2007–and he said, if we deviate from that and if we can't balance that budget, we're prepared to pay the price. We should be prepared to pay the price, and I will face the people and I will let them make me pay the price. Well, unfortunately, Mr. Doer was offered a position that was difficult to turn down, and he's seen that the deficit was rising in the province. He was unable to convince his Cabinet members to stay within their budgets. He was finding it more and more difficult to work with them.

He's seen that they were on the wrong track, and when he was offered the job that he has today and his true colours came out, he became a Conservative and he took this position because he knew that the ship was sinking. He knew the ship was sinking. He tried to turn that ship around. He tried to get his ministers to understand the folly in the way they were thinking and that they hadn't paid down the debt over the many years that they were in power and have been in power. They hadn't paid the debt down at all. They just continued to borrow and borrow and borrow. So, rather than suffer that embarrassment, Mr.

Acting Speaker, and I know it was with a heavy heart that he left, but he did have a smile on his face. He had a smile on his face because he knew that he was leaving at a time that was going to make him look very good, and he knew how bad the party–how bad a shape the party was in. And he also was smart enough to understand that there was a recession. Now we know a year ago there was no recession in Manitoba. Over a year ago that was not–we were recession proof. We were recession proof; we were going to float through this and the next thing we heard, was no, no, no. Flat is the new high.

Oh, well, okay, so now we understood on this side that there was an opportunity that we could get frosted a little bit, just on the edges. But, no, now we have companies leaving the province. And because of some of the policies they've got, we're going to have more and more people leave the province. We have the payroll tax that they haven't been able to turn back. We have a number of rules and regulations they've put in place. One of them was put in place by the now-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Struthers).

He put in place some regulations, and he put a moratorium on an industry that was generating more cash, more cash than Manitoba Hydro. He put a moratorium on it. He killed that industry in the province of Manitoba. He drove it into the ground. Not only the hog industry did he do that to, he did that to the research and development. He did that to all of the people that work in there, the genetics people. We had the finest genetics in–hog industry in the world, and the research into that stopped dead.

The research into how feed additives could be put in to control some of the phosphates that would pass through that hog–that stopped. We chased feed mills out of this province, and I think I mentioned earlier in the House today about the Crow rate. Now, I know a lot of the members on that side have no idea what the Crow rate is, but I'm sure that the member from Elmwood has an idea, and I'm certainly sure that–oh, we've got one in the back that's got to–do you have to go to the bathroom? You had your hand up. And then, of course, we have the member of Dauphin.

He has an idea what the Crow rate is, and he doesn't know how to back up either. At any rate, Mr. Acting Speaker, that Crow rate gave the province of Manitoba an opportunity to be a feeding province. We're the farthest from any port in Manitoba. So that means that the producers that grow the grain in the province of Manitoba are forced with higher costs to market their grain. But doesn't it make sense, Mr. Acting Speaker, that we could have a sustainable agriculture here, that we could have a hog that eats the grain, that produces your bacon and then your hams that you want, and your bacon for your eggs.

Produces the grain and the by-product, of course, is a natural fertilizer. We wouldn't have to be applying commercial fertilizer. That puts a–takes a big, big environmental footprint off the land in Manitoba. Would have gave them an opportunity to meet the Kyoto target that they had set for this province without hurting anybody, and it would have been productive for this province. It would have put more tax dollars into the coffers but instead, no, we're going to shut it down.

May 20, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2377 We're going to put a moratorium on. We're going to kill that industry, and that's effectively what has taken place today. And there doesn't seem to be any relief in sight, none–no relief in sight. The reason that it was talked about, the reason that they brought in the moratorium, and often I heard from the members opposite, you don't care about the lake. Let me tell you, we care about the lake more than anyone else does. And we can get in that argument if you want. But at the same time, putting the moratorium on hasn't taken one barn out of operation.

It didn't take one barn out of operation. Everything is exactly the same today as it was two years ago. The only thing is the by-product of the indus try, the research and development, those high-paying jobs have left this province and gone some place where they are going to be appreciated. The technology that was being developed in this province has moved out of the province. We don't need it; nobody can afford it. No one can afford to expand beca

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-4-49b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 4th hansardpdf 49b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a9057cc1b5a72503f1eefd6c560113caefd78d0e

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