Manitoba Hansard — 19 April 2010 (Sitting 30, 39th Legislature, 4th Session)

39-4-30

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. 30 - 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 19, 2010 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

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

953 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, April 19, 2010 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee t o f r a m e s u c h l a w s a s may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom, know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 23–The Public Schools Amendment Act Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Entrepreneurship, Training and Trade (Mr. Bjornson), that Bill 23, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les écoles publiques, be now read a first time. Motion presented. Ms. Allan: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends The Public Schools Act. It clarifies administrative procedures and scope of the act in cer tain areas. These changes were made in consultation with our education stakeholders and these changes will clarify roles and responsibilities and streamline administrative procedures. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] PETITIONS PTH 15–Twinning Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for this petition: In 2004, the Province of Manitoba made a public commitment to the people of Springfield to twin PTH 15 and the floodway bridge on PTH 15, but then in 2006, the twinning was cancelled. Injuries resulting from collisions on PTH 15 continue to rise and have doubled from 2007 to 2008. In August 2008, the Minister of Transportation stated that preliminary analysis of the current and future traffic demands indicate that local twinning will be required.

The current plan to replace the floodway bridge on PTH 15 does not include twinning and therefore does not fulfil the current nor future traffic demands cited by the Minister of Transportation. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Transportation consider the immediate twinning of the PTH 15 floodway bridge for the safety of the citizens of Manitoba. Signed by R. Harley, D. Leys, A. Sedo and many, many other Manitobans. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.

Ophthalmology Services–Swan River Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition: The Swan Valley region has a high population of seniors and a very high incidence of diabetes. Every year, hundreds of patients from the Swan Valley region must travel to distant communities for cataract surgery and additional pre-operative and post-operative appointments.

These patients, many of whom are sent as far away as Saskatchewan, need to travel with an escort who must take time off work to drive the patient to his or her appointments without any compensation. Patients who cannot endure this expense and hardship are unable to have the necessary treatment. The community has located an ophthalmologist who would like to practise in Swan River. The local Lions Club has provided funds for the necessary

954 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 equipment, and the Swan River Valley hospital has space to accommodate this service. The Minister of Health has told the Town of Swan River that it has in sufficient infrastructure and patient volumes to sup port a cataract surgery program; however, residents of the region strongly disagree. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Minister of Health to consider rethinking her refusal to allow an ophthalmologist to practise in Swan River and to consider working with the community to provide this service without further delay.

This is signed by G. Livingstone, Z. Reich, H. Ellingson and many, many others, Mr. Speaker. Education Funding Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And these are the reasons for this petition: Historically, the Province of Manitoba has received funding for educati on by the assessment of property that generates taxes. This unfair tax is only applied to selected property owners in certain areas and confines, including but not limited to commercial property owners.

Property-based school tax is becoming an ever-increasing burden without acknowledging the commercial property owner's income or the owner's ability to pay. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth consider removing the education funding from school tax or property levies from all property in Manitoba, including commercial property.

To request that the Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth consider finding a more equitable method of funding education, such as general revenue, following the constitutional funding of education by the Province of Manitoba. And this petition is signed by F. Eugel, W. Palmer and S. Gair and many, many fine Manitobans. Medical Clinic in Weston and Brooklands Area Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: Walk-in medical clinics provide a valuable health-care service.

The closure of the Westbrook Medical Clinic has left both Weston and Brooklands without a community-based medical clinic. We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: To urge the provincial government to consider how important it is to have a medical clinic located in the Weston-Brooklands area. Mr. Speaker, this is signed by D. Lévêque, D. Dorge and C. Salangsang and many, many other fine Manitobans. Thank you. Mount Agassiz Ski Area Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

These are the reasons for this petition: For several decades, the Mount Agassiz Ski area, home to the highest vertical between Thunder Bay and the Rocky Mountains, was a popular skiing and snowboarding destiny for–destination for Manitobans and visitors alike. The operators–operations of Mount Agassiz Ski area were very important to the local economy, not only creating jobs, but also generating sales of goods and services in area businesses. In addition, a thriving rural economy generates tax revenues that help pay for core provincial government services a nd infrastructure which benefits all Manitobans.

Although the ski facility closed in 2000, there remains strong interest in seeing it reopened, and Parks Canada is committed to conducting a feasibility study with respect to the Agassiz site and future opportunities in the area. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the appropriate ministers of the provincial government to consider outlining to Parks

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 955 Canada the importance that a viable recreation facility in the Mount Aga ssiz area would play in the local and provincial economies. * (13:40) 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. And this petition is signed by J. Hofer, J. Hofer, P. Wollmann and many, many other fine Manitobans. Booth College–Name Change Mr. Doug Marti ndale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: The Salvation Army operates educational facilities in 108 countries. The Salvation Army William and Catherine Booth College, the college situated in Winnipeg, is the only degree-granting college amongst all of them.

The objective of this petition is to clarify the nature of the college to those students around the world who are or who contemplate studying at a facility operated by the Salvation Army, since the term "college" can mean high school to some people, technical college or university to others. The insertion of the word "university" in the name of the college would be as an adjective, implying teaching at the university level. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: That the name of the college be changed to The Salvation Army William and Catherine Booth University College.

And that The College's Act of Incorporation be amended accordingly. Signed by D. Burke, President of Booth College. Bipole III Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background of this petition is as follows: Manitoba Hydro has been forced by the NDP government to construct its next high-voltage direct transmission line, Bipole III, down the west side of Manitoba, a decision for which the NDP government has not been able to provide any logical justification.

Since this will cost Manitoba ratepayers at least $640 million more than an east-side route, and given that the Province of Manitoba is facing its largest deficit on record, the burden of this extra cost could not come at a worse time. Between 2002 and 2009 electricity rates increased by 16 percent, and Manitoba Hydro has filed a request for further rate increases totalling 6 percent over the next two years. A western Bipole III route will invariable lead to more rate increases.

In addition to being cheaper, an east-side route would be hundreds of kilometres shorter and would be more reliable than a west-side route. West-side residents have not been adequately consulted and have identified serious concerns with the proposed line. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to consider proceeding with the cheaper, shorter and more logical east-side route, subject to necessary regulatory approvals, to save ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars during these challenging economic times. And this petition is signed by D. Stocks, D.

Sherwood and R. Vaillant and many, many other fine Manitobans. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background to this petition is as follows: Manitoba Hydro has been forced by the NDP government to construct its next high-voltage direct transmission line, Bipole III, down the west side of Manitoba, a decision for which the NDP government has not been able to provide any logical justification.

Since it will–this will cost Manitoba ratepayers at least $640 million more than an east-side route, and given that the Province of Manitoba is facing the largest deficit on record, the burden of this extra cost could not come at a worse time.

956 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 Between 2002 and 2009 electricity rates increased by 16 percent, and Manitoba Hydro has filed a request to further rate increases totalling 6 percent over the next two years. A western Bipole III route will invariably lead to more rate increases. In addition to being cheaper, an east-side route would be hundreds of kilometres shorter and would be more reliable than a west-side route. West-side residents have not been able–have not been adequately consulted and have identified serious concerns with the proposed line.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to consider proceeding with the cheaper, shorter and more logical east-side route, subject to necessary regulatory approvals, to save ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars during these challenging economic times. And this petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by B. Marshall, B. Bauereiss, K. Nerbas and many, many more Manitobans. Education Funding Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

And the background of this petition is as follows: Historically, the Province of Manitoba has received funding for educati on by the assessment of property that generates taxes. This unfair tax is only applied to selected property owners in certain areas and confines. Property-based school tax is becoming an ever-increasing burden without acknowledging the owner's income or owner's ability to pay. Provincial sales tax was instituted for the purpose of funding education. However, monies that is generated by this tax are being placed in general revenue.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth consider removing education funding by school tax or education levies from all property in Manitoba. To request that the Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth consider finding a more equitable method of funding education, such as general revenue, following the constitutional funding of education by the Province of Manitoba. This petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by B. Savage, D. Wickstrom and B. Stevenson and many, many other concerned Manitobans. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon.

Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the Supplementary Information for the De partment of Finance Expenditure Estimates for 2009–for '10-11, as well as the Supplementary Information for Manitoba Employee Pensions and Other Costs, 2009-2010. And, Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to table a response to a written question. Hon. Andrew Swan (Min ister of Justice and Attorney General): I'm pleased to table the Manitoba Justice Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, the 2010-2011 Departmental Expenditure Estimates. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today, we have the participants of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba's Third Annual Teachers' Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. And also in the public gallery we have with us, we have honourable Madeleine Meilleur, the Ontario Minister of Community and Social Services and Minister responsible for Francophone Affairs, who is the guest of the honourable First Minister. And also in the public gallery we have from Collège Jeanne-Sauvé, we have 101 grade 9 students under the direction of Mr.

Cameron Johnson. This school is located in th e constituen cy of the honourable Minister for Health. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today.

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 957 ORAL QUESTIONS Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): It is springtime in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, and that means that it's time for the NDP government to roll out its annual list of excuses as to why it failed once again to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets. I want to ask the Premier if he can end the suspense today and advise the House and all Manitobans if he could share with us this year's list of excuses as to why they missed their targets once again. Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I have to acknowledge that there was a 0.2 megatonne increase in greenhouse gas emissions, less than 1 percent in Manitoba. It's also the case that Manitoba produces 3 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the country when we have 3.8 percent of the population. We start from a low base. We make no excuses. We have a good plan to go forward on greenhouse gas emissions, and in my next question, I'll indicate why the things we're doing the member opposes which would help us even go further. Mr. McFadyen: Mr.

Speaker, this is the jurisdiction in Canada that's going up when the rest of the country is going down, and so his minister of environment said that he wants to carry on the momentum when he was last asked about it. Well, the momentum is all in the wrong direction here in Manitoba. And I want to ask the Premier whether he regrets the fact that as he was jetting off to Copenhagen in December, his then–his environment minister said that the Government of Canada, Mr. Speaker, going into those talks, had a cloud hanging over it because of its position on greenhouse gases.

Will the Premier today acknowledge that the only party and the only jurisdiction with a cloud hanging over it is NDP Manitoba as the Conservatives in Ottawa make progress on greenhouse gas emissions? Mr. Selinger: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is true that our greenhouse gases in the reference here went up 0.2 megatonnes, less than 1 percent. It's also true that one of the best natural defences against global warming and a huge storehouse of carbon dioxide is the east-side boreal forest, and the members want to rip it up.

We want to protect it; the members want to rip it up. * (13:50) It's also true that the members opposite are opposed–are opposed to our– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Let's have some order, please. Order. Let's have some decorum here. The honourable First Minister has the floor. Mr. Selinger: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker, and if the members opposite would stop being obstructionists, we could even make further progress. Another example is on our energy efficiency programs.

The member–the Leader of the Opposition is quoted in '07, March 16th, in our most well-circulated newspaper as saying he'd like us to focus on selling power. He doesn’t want us to focus on helping Manitobans grow–go green and reduce their consumption of energy. He's opposed to energy efficiency. He's opposed to protecting the boreal forest. And I'll tell you some other things– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, I'd like him to table the

article that he's referring to, because those words never left my mouth. Once again, he's putting false information on the record in this House. Will he table that document? And just as importantly, Mr. Speaker, as we look at the way his spin was reported on the 12th of December, 2009–the Free Press reported: As the Premier flies to Copenhagen today to attend the international Climate Change Conference, Manitoba is on track to meet ambitious greenhouse gas emission targets it set last year, the government contends. Mr.

Speaker, will he today apologize for misleading the Free Press , for misleading Manitobans, and also, will he table the phony letter that's he got in his hand right now? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, I–my quote was from our local newspaper, not a letter. The member got that wrong. It is true that he opposes everything we've tried to do to protect the boreal forest. He's not denying that.

958 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 That is a huge storehouse of carbon dioxide in this province. It has been valued by the International Institute for Sustainable Development as having a carbon value of between two and three-quarters billion, and up to $17 billion of value for the peatlands that are protecting carbon dioxide there. The member wants to rip it up. He wants to plough through it. He doesn't want to support energy efficiency programs.

He's not–he's sceptical about the wind power projects we're putting in place in Manitoba, and he was very critical of what we did in removing logging in provincial parks. When it comes to protecting the environment and reducing carbon emissions in this province, the member's been opposed to everything we do. He knows it, and Manitobans know it. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Opposition, on a new question. Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, on a new question. Everything he said in that response was false, Mr. Speaker.

It's hard to have a debate when you have a Premier who comes into the House putting false information on the record and who won't even table the documents that he claims to be referring to. Well, Mr. Speaker, Stats Canada's numbers have come out. And if he doesn't–if Manitobans can't believe their own NDP leader, they can believe what Stats Canada is saying. What Stats Canada is saying is this: national numbers are going down. The federal Conservative numbers are going down; they're moving in the right direction. The Manitoba NDP numbers are going up; they're going in the wrong direction. Mr.

Speaker, never mind all the falsehoods he's putting on the record. Will he just apologize for not keeping his promise on greenhouse gases? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, we have a very aggressive go-forward program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is true that they went up less than 1 percent, 0.2 megatonnes. We acknowledge that. That only encouraged us and incensed us to redouble our efforts to find the proper way forward on this. The members opposite– the member opposite says that it's false that I claim he opposes protecting the boreal forest on the east side.

If he's reversed his policy on the east side, of having it protected as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, please get up and declare that today. He's claiming that my comments are false. I'd like to know if he's flip-flopped on protecting the boreal forest on the east side. Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, I strongly favour cutting 50 kilometres less forest by running down the east side of Manitoba. I don't know what it is about his lack of enthusiasm for west-side trees versus east-side trees, but one thing I know for sure is we're going to save 50 kilometres of them, and we're going to do it for the sake of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, I want to ask the Premier if he has any intention whatsoever of keeping the promise that was legislated–not just one of the empty promises, like hallway medicine, that they made in a campaign. This is a legislated commitment. Is he going to keep his word? Is he going to follow the rules that they brought in last year, Mr. Speaker, or is he going to change the rules, break the rules, and make a mockery of every commitment he's ever made? Mr. Selinger: M r .

S p e a k e r , w e i n t e n d t o m o v e forward with greenhouse gas reductions in this province, which is why when we came back into office, we did something that hadn't been done when the members opposite were in office. We put an energy effi ciency program in place for residential home-owners. There was nothing like that before. We've gone from No. 10 on energy efficiency to No. 1. We have a commitment to protecting the boreal forest. The members until today, at least, were opposed to that. Now their position is not clear.

We believe the east side of Lake Winnipeg is one of the most pristine, intact, boreal forests in the world, and it should be protected. The member wants–the member always tries to reduce the boreal forest to trees. He's the equivalent of Margaret Thatcher: there is no society; there is only trees. There is actually an intact boreal forest on the east side, which is a huge, carbon storage warehouse, and he's opposed to it and every Manitoban knows it. Mr. Speaker: Order.

When members are making reference to other members in this House, it's to be by constituencies that they hold or ministers by portfolios and not by any other use of any other name. So I caution the honourable members to pick and choose your words very carefully. The

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 959 honourable Leader of the Official Opposition has the floor. Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, the–it's Global Forest Watch that said that the west-side line is wrong; it endangers more intact boreal forest than the east-side line. The facts are the fact s around this, Mr. Speaker, and we're going to cut 50 kilometres fewer trees, protect the environment and do the right thing for Manitoba Hydro. And the fact is, Mr.

Speaker, that as they were going off to Copenhagen in December, it was reported in the newspaper that they were going off to hobnob with the likes of President Barack Obama and Prince Charles. They're going to–it was an opportunity for networking and bilateral meetings. Other than hobnobbing with celebrities and networking in Copenhagen, Mr. Speaker, what tangible progress has he made, will he make, toward reducing greenhouse gases, because the record is that they've got it all wrong; greenhouses gases are going up even as they hobnob with Prince Charles and Barack Obama? Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, on the first point that he raised. The Farlinger report was very clear. A west-side route would traverse approximately 500 kilometres of forest. An east-side route would traverse 800 kilometres of forest from Henday to Winnipeg River. The forest areas of the west side are much more intensely developed than on the east side, with roads, rail lines, geotechnical survey lines and transmissions lines, as well as forestry and mining operations. The member just doesn't get it on the east side. It's an intact, pristine boreal forest. It has the ability to be a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

It has unique Aboriginal cultures there. This is an asset that will–should be protected for future generations. The members opposite oppose it. They do not recognize that it is a carbon sink. Their position on greenhouse gas emissions is completely cynical and negative. Ours is positive and forward-looking. Manitoba Hydro Bipole III Environmental Impact Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy continues. Not only is Manitoba incapable of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, this NDP government is continuing on its wrong-headed decision for a west-side bipole transmission line.

The line loss on the west-side line is a minimum of 40 megawatts of continu ous, clean, hydro-electric power. This is enough clean energy to shut down a dirty coal-fired plant in Minnesota or Wisconsin. The minister would rather burn dirty coal than use clean hydro-electric power. Can the minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro please tell us how this is good for the environment? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Min ister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, I'll put our record besides theirs on who is putting what [inaudible] on record beside your record.

When it comes to the reduction of use of coal in this province, it is this government that reduced the amount of coal that is being burnt in this province. * (14:00) Mr. Speaker, we were able to shut down Selkirk. That has made a difference to the amount of greenhouse gas in this province. We've made changes at Brandon; the member opposite should be appreciative of that. Mr. Speaker, this government has moved forward with greening the economy with the reduction of energies and the reduction of use of coal in this province. Mr. Borotsik: Well, Mr. Speaker, did the minister not just hear the last set of questions?

Their greenhouse gas emissions are going up, not going down. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Hydro recently announced they will be developing 138 megawatts of clean wind energy, yet is prepared–this government is prepared to waste 40 megawatts of clean hydro energy for nothing more than arrogance. The hypocrisy continues. Manitoba Hydro's–continues to support Power Smart energy programs, yet is fully prepared to waste 40 megawatts of clean hydro energy with their foolish decision with a west-side Bipole III. It's obvious this NDP government would rather burn dirty coal than save clean energy.

Can the minister please tell us how wasting clean energy is good for the environment? Ms. Wowchuk: You know, I think the member opposite has absolutely no respect for the people that live on the east side of the province. He knows–he knows, Mr. Speaker, that there were many meetings. There was consultations, over 80 meetings talking to

960 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 the people on the east side of the province. It is the people of the east side of the province that recognize the value of a boreal forest. It is the people on the east side of the province that recognize the amount of carbon that can be absorbed in that forest. The members opposite would rather tear up that boreal forest, ruin the chances of getting a UNESCO site in Canada and in Manitoba just for the sake of an argument that one side of the line is longer than the other. The boreal forest is a very important part of– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Borotsik: Mr.

Speaker, what hypocritical rhetoric. She–this minister has no respect for the people on the west side of the province of Manitoba and no respect for agriculture on the west side of the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, let me understand: 40 megawatts of clean energy versus dirty coal. It has been confirmed that this NDP government has an appalling record on greenhouse gas emissions. It's been confirmed that this NDP government is prepared to waste 40 megawatts of clean hydro energy.

It's also been confirmed that this NDP government does not care about the environment, but is concerned only with misguided NDP ideology. Why is the minister so consumed with wasting 40 megawatts of clean energy at the expense of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which you've promised to do, which you've failed to do. Why do you want to waste 40 megawatts of clean energy? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, it's clear what the members opposite want to do and what they would do. And our environmentalists around the world should look at what they would want to do, Mr.

Speaker, because what they wa nt to do is rip up the boreal forest that is recognized as–around the world– as the one unique spot that's left in a world–in the world–as a–in complete context, a very important boreal forest. Mr. Speaker, the members opposite can talk about all kinds of things. They say we haven't done our work, Mr. Speaker. I would refer the member opposite to the Farlinger report, which I have just given him a copy of, where it is clearly indicated that there will be more forest cut on the east side of the province than the west side of the province.

Manitoba Hydro Bipole III Woodland Caribou Impact Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, this NDP government's poor track record on the environment also extends to wildlife management. The Premier (Mr. Selinger), as former minister of Hydro, and the Conservation Minister are jeopardizing our woodland caribou by forcing Manitoba Hydro to build a Bipole III transmission line down the west side of Lake Winnipeg. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table a map from Manitoba's conservation and recovery strategy for boreal woodland caribou.

It shows that an east-side bipole line could go through one caribou range, but it–if it were built on the west-side line it could go through between two and up to five caribou ranges. Why does the Minister of Conservation agree with his Premier's directive, which targets woodland caribou and their habitat? Will he recommend Bipole III be redirected to the east side to maximize the protection of our woodland caribou, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Bill Blaikie (Minister of Conservation): The honourable member acts as if there's no woodland caribou on the east side of Lake Winnipeg.

Perhaps I should show him a map of where the woodland caribou are on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. And the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we have people working in consultation with First Nations, with environmentalists– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. We need to be able to–order. We need to be able to hear the questions and the answers, and we have a lot of guests here today, so let's maintain a little decorum, please. The honourable minister has the floor. Mr. Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was–just last week I was at a meeting having to do with the preservation of woodland caribou, and I don't remember anyone there advocating that the Bipole III be moved from the west side to the east side. And I think it's regrettable that the honourable member and his party want to politicize the preservation of woodland caribou in this way by making an issue having to do with the location of the bipole when they don't have any other good reason for their position. They're desperate now.

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 961 Mr. Maguire: Well, Mr. Speaker, I got the information from his own Premier's letter that he wrote to Manitoba Hydro in the fall of '07 where it was his own Premier that says that the woodland caribou could be threatened. But, Mr. Speaker, I just gave him the map that shows that there are five disturbed areas if he builds it down the west side versus one on the east side. So I'd just like to jog the minister's memory.

Our boreal woodland caribou are listed as threatened under the federal government's species of act–the risk act and the Province's Endangered Species Act. These caribou migrate in small solitary groups and survive in the least disturbed regions of our boreal habitat. Mr. Speaker, why is the minister so entrenched in going against his department's own studies on caribou habitat by forcing the Bipole III line through the maximum area of caribou habitat instead of the minimum?

Does he not know that his government's poor decisions could lead to further loss of woodland caribou in Manitoba or does he just–this just another decision of his government's environmental policy that is not backed by science? Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a party here that signed forest agreements in those areas and that took no account of woodland caribou at the time. I'm glad to see that they 've been converted to the interest of the woodland caribou.

The fact of the matter is is that the Bipole III–the final route has not been selected and woodland caribou–the final route down the west side– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, I see that–I'm glad to see that the member has got together with the member from Minto. In 2007, the Premier (Mr. Selinger), then the minister of Hydro wrote a directive to his old friend, Manitoba Hydro chair, Mr. Vic Schroeder, telling Manitoba Hydro not to build Bipole III down the east side of Lake Winnipeg.

As I pointed out, his Premier's reasoning for the west-side line and the impact on woodland caribou is bogus logic at best. Mr. Speaker, why does this Minister of Conservation want to denigrate his own department's mandate by putting our boreal woodland caribou in jeopardy by supporting his Premier's ill-conceived idea of running Bipole III through the maximum amount of boreal woodland caribou migration grounds with a west-side line? Mr. Blaikie: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the west side has been identified as the best side to put the bipole down with respect to woodland caribou and the honourable member is not taking it–those studies into account because he doesn't want to, because his position is fixed. And, you know, his position is like that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) who says there's no difference between trees on the west side and trees on the east side. Well there is, Mr. Speaker . The trees on the east side are part of a pristine, undisturbed forest. The Leader of the Opposition doesn't get that. Maybe he should think about it a little more.

Manitoba Hydro Bipole III Environmental Impact Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, this government is putting a road through the east-side boreal forest. Mr. Speaker, property owners and agriculture producers in and around the Little Saskatchewan River Valley have expressed their extreme frustration with the Bipole III route selection along the west side of the province.

In a letter to the Minnedosa Tribune, Charles Tavernor said, and I quote: It seems inconceivable that a province that we are told that has relatively limited tourist opportunities and infrastructure would consider taking a much longer route for such high impact transmission lines through some of its most scenic areas in addition to going through more productive agriculture land. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister responsible for Tourism how she can support her government's decision to build the longer western route that results in more trees being cut and has a greater impact on Manitoba's tourism assets? * (14:10) Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Min ister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): I want the member opposite to recognize what we're doing, and I hope that she will come on board to realize that that boreal forest will be there forever, Mr. Speaker.

That boreal forest will be there if it gets designation as a UNESCO site to–and I'm sure that it will–to bring many, many tourists to Manitoba, many tourists into the region so that people can see what an intact boreal forest is like, and it will have a huge impact on tourism in this province.

962 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 Mrs. Rowat: As I said earlier, they're building a road through the east-side boreal forest, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tavernor is quoted as saying: It baffles and angers me that one minute we are being encouraged, rightly, to understand the importance of the balance between farming and wildlife and the importance of the environment, conservation and tourism, and then the next minute we see a proposal that appe ars to have scant regard for any of these considerations. End quote. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Tourism (Ms.

Marcelino), and she hopefully will rise to answer this: Is she satisfied with her government's failed response to valid concerns raised by residents on the west side of the province, which includes cutting 50 kilometres more forest than on the west side? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, all residents of this province are important, and that's why there has been the extensive consultation that there has been. We are in the third–Hydro is in the third round of consultations. Those have been completed.

There will be–the final route will be selected very soon; then there will be further discussions with the people on the west side of the province. But, Mr. Speaker, I can't believe the member opposite has so little respect for the people on the east side of the province who are suffering because of no winter roads. People on the east side want a road, just like she has, to go home every day or every weekend, and she is against having the people on the east side of the province having access, road access, so that they can have some of the conveniences that she has. Mrs.

Rowat: The people on the east side do deserve a road, but they also have to believe that this government is contradicting itself when it's talking about a boreal forest that is pristine and a road going through it. Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Tourism seems to be on a gag order, I will ask another minister a similar question. The Rural Municipality of Minto, which is located in the west-side route for the Bipole III transmission line, opposes the construction of the transmission line and is urging the Manitoba government and Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, to rethink this proposal.

On February 9th, 2010, the R.M. of Minto passed a resolution opposing the proposed Bipole III, route A, along the west side of Lake Manitoba, and I will table that resolution, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister for municipal affairs why he is failing to listen to municipal and community leaders who have clearly declared their opposition to a west-side transmission line. Ms. Wowchuk: We know– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I can’t hear a thing. Order.

The honourable member for Minnedosa just asked a question, and please give her the courtesy to be able to hear the answer because you can't hear a thing here. If there's a breach of a rule, you would expect me to make a ruling on it, and I need to be able to hear every word that is spoken. So I'm asking co-operation once again, please. The honourable minister has the floor. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of where we should build this line has been one of lots of discussion.

There have been three rounds of consultation, but the members opposite are bound and determined to stop this line because they do not believe we need a line for reliability of supply or that we need a line to get power to our export customers. We know the members opposite would put at risk $20 billion of sales over 20 years rather than make a decision on the line. Mr.

Speaker, we've made a decision on the line and we have consulted with the people on the east side of the province and we have–and the west side of the province, and we have made a commitment to build a road for the people on the east side of the province, and we will have a hydro line for– Mr. Speaker: Order. Manitoba Hydro Bipole III Environmental Impact Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): In this week where–when many will celebrate Earth Day, we have a west-side directive from this Premier that will result in three different negative environmental impacts.

One is that more coal will be burned as clean energy is wasted; two is that more forest will be cut on the west side of the province, much of which is important as a carbon sink and a protector of the environment; and No. 3, more herds of woodland caribou will be disrupted on the west-side route than on the east side.

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 963 Mr. Speaker, how can this NDP Premier claim to be concerned about the environment when the facts so manifestly are not on his side? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): I actually appreciate getting the question because the members opposite just don't read the Farlinger report. The Farlinger report was very clear. The west side of Manitoba is already more developed with rail lines, with hydro lines, with mining, with forestry activity.

The east side is a pristine boreal forest, a rare and unique opportunity to perfect–to protect an environment in which not only are there woodland caribou, in which not only are there Aborig inal communities that have protected their culture. One of which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the Hollow Water First Nation, is represented in the Smithsonian museum in Washington, D.C., as one of the unique First Nations which has put its core values in writing hundreds of years ago.

So we have unique cultures, we have unique, intact, pristine boreal forests that the members want to rip up and put our hydro export revenues at risk, up to $20 billion. They want to take the reputation of Manitoba Hydro electricity and make it dirty, lower the price and put the prosperity of Manitobans at risk. Bad idea, Mr. Minister. Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, it is–it's very clear, when you read the Farlinger report, that the concerns are raised by Global Forest Watch about the stretch of forest through the north of Manitoba.

He knows very well, because I know that he understands the issue of boreal forest, that the forest we’re talking about runs from Alaska to Québec. It is east, it is north, it is west of the lakes in Winnipeg, and their line is going to cut through as much forest–more forest than the east-side route. This is a decision between two options, and he had the option of doing maximum damage, the option of doing minimal damage. He chose the option of maximum damage to the forest, to woodland caribou. He's going to increase the amount of coal that's being burned.

I want to ask the Premier why it is that he's allowing these sorts of decisions to be driven not by the facts, Mr. Speaker, but by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an American organization that's done a lot of fundraising and who he seems to be very, very intimidated by. Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the Farlinger report was very clear. It says as follows: The west side presents the best option for woodland caribou in Manitoba. It would not need to fragment additional caribou ranges and would leave a large, contiguous block of caribou habitat on the east side of Lake Winnipeg.

Widening an existing transmission line corridor would reduce impacts relative to building a new corridor. The report is very clear. The member ignores that because that doesn't support his views. The member ignores every fact that does not support his views. The entire planet recognizes that boreal forests, particularly southe rn boreal forests in large, unspoiled pieces, should be protected for the future of all humanity. We have an opportunity to do that here.

We have an opportunity to do that in co-operation with the government of Ontario, in co-operation with the First Nations people there, in co-operation with all the environmentally concerned citizens of the planet, and the member would flush that down the toilet along with $20 billion of revenues just so he can be politically correct from a right-wing perspective. Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, if he was concerned about his reputation with American special interest groups, then this decision might make some sense.

But the reality is that this decision is wrong for woodland caribou, it's wrong for the forest, it's wrong for clean energy. And the American group that he's been referring to is on the record as being opposed to any and all forms of hydro development. They're against dams, they 're against power lines, but, interestingly, their former lawyer has spoken very glowingly about so-called clean coal.

This is the American group that's damaging the reputation of Manitoba Hydro south of the border. * (14:20) I want to ask this Premier, since he doesn't have any facts on his side, is he the Premier for the NRDC or is he a Premier for Manitobans? Mr. Selinger: You know what, Mr. Speaker? We ran on this issue in 2007 and got a mandate to proceed to protect the east side and that makes–that verifies who we represent, and who we represent are Manitobans that want to develop our clean energy resources. They want to develop them to share them with customers to reduce greenhouse gases.

They also want to protect the east-side boreal forest. They like the idea of having a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The member wants to put these interests against each other. We can have both. We can have a UNESCO World Heritage Site and protect the boreal forest. We can develop our clean energy resources. We can reduce our risk in doing that, and we can do

964 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 that in a sensible way that'll allow Manitoba to be a clean energy storehouse fo r the world and a boreal forest storehouse for the world. The member always sees things in black-and- white terms. We look for solutions that advance the interests of all Manitobans. He looks for solutions that pit Manitobans against each other. Mr. Monkey Wrench is at it again. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. When the Speaker is standing, all members should be seated and the Speaker should be heard in silence. I'm up here to deal with an issue.

All members in this Hous e are honourable members and their titles or their constituency or the portfolio or title they hold. The honourable First Minister, I ask you to withdraw that last comment you made. Mr. Selinger: I unequivocally withdraw the comment, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member. So we will now proceed with question period. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I've been calling on the government for many years to get its act in order and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But, as a recen t report shows, the NDP are failing miserably at reducing emissions in Manitoba. Our Minister of Conservation (Mr. Blaikie) was even quoted this weekend as saying that meeting the government's legislated goals is going to be a real challenge, and, Mr. Speaker, we know why it's going to be a real challenge for this government, because the government has run our province into the ground financially, and now they don't have the money needed to fund the programs and the infrastructure needed to protect the environment and ultimately the future of our children and our grandchildren. Mr.

Speaker, can the Premier tell me if he's going to meet his former leader's goals or if he's going to try and arrange a free pass for himself by changing the law on greenhouse gas emissions targets? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): I think the member opposite knows full well that what we are doing is moving us forward on the climate change file. We have brought in the first biodiesel mandate in the country, Mr. Speaker. That was brought in this fall. We have moved Manitoba Hydro's energy efficiency programs from No. 10 to No. 1. Need I mention that we're protecting the boreal forest? I think we've gone over that.

We have brought in an ethanol mandate, which is using non-food-grade corn to produce ethanol in Manitoba to reduce greenhouse gases, and we are looking at–we have brought in two major wind power projects, and we are proceeding with Wuskwatim, which is a new, clean, hydro-electric project and we are then moving on to Keeyask and Conawapa to provide more clean energy to our customers in Minnesota, Wisconsin and in provinces to the east and west of us as they show interest moving forward. Mr. Speaker, we have an aggressive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We fully acknowledge that it went up 0.2 megatonnes in the reference year 2007-2008. We acknowledge that that's a less than 1 percent increase and that'll only allow us to– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, when the Premier got into trouble when he was Finance Minister on the Crocus Investment Fund, the first thing he did was to change the law. It didn't work. When the Premier got into trouble managing the Province's finances, he changed the balanced budget legislation to change the definition of a deficit.

Well, it didn't work, and now he's bringing in more legislation because his first failed, and now the Premier is in trouble because greenhouse gas emissions are going up, not down. I ask the Premier: Will he today commit to meeting the targets that are legislated instead of just changing the law on the greenhouse gas emissions targets? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to moving forward on our greenhouse gas emission program and we have put legislation in place to make us accountable for that, and we will look for additional ways to do that.

We have produced about 3 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in this country when we are about 3.8 percent of the population. Ninety-eight percent of our energy in Manitoba is hydro-electric energy. We shut the coal plant in Selkirk several years ago. We have wound down the coal plaque in– coal plant in Brandon as a backup resource to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 965 We are doing a variety of things that will allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the residential sector for energy efficiency, in the commercial sector, in the institutional sector. We are working in the agricultural sector. We are looking– working with all of our partners in the community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And I must add, Mr. Speaker, all of these initiatives that we have budgeted for, the member opposite, as have all the colleagues on the other side of the House, not surprisingly, have voted against every one of those initiatives.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, what we have found out is that NDP talk is cheap. At the end of the day–and that's what we need to look at, Mr. Speaker–at the end of the day, Manitoba's greenhouse emissions are at a record high. That means, you can say whatever you like; the bottom line is you are failing in addressing a very important issue that Manitobans expect to see better.

In fact, back in April 11th, 2008, NDP Doer said, and I quote from his press release: "Our action today demonstrates we are standing by our 2012 Kyoto commitment with legislative tools." What garbage today, Mr. Speaker. Today we don't even have a Premier that's prepared to stand by the current legislation that mandates a legislative tool to ensure that we abide by the Kyoto agreement. This Premier needs to make the commitment, and will he make that commitment today? Talk is cheap.

Will he say that he will stand by what Gary Doer and the NDP preach when it comes to try to get a vote, as opposed to action once they're in office, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad the member asks us what actions we have taken because I neglected to mention that we also have methane gas capture initiatives going on in this province. I announced a major initiative in Brandon. We are also working to reduce methane gas in Winnipeg. We have done that in addition to reducing– taking coal lines off plant.

We have done that in addition to bringing in the first biodiesel mandate in the country. We have done that by increasing our ranking on energy efficiency from No. 10 to No. 1, and we have done that by continuing to build clean, green, greenhouse gas-free electricity. And we are also protecting the boreal forest. Members opposite have opposed us on all of these initiatives, and now they want to get indignant about the fact that we went up by less than 1 percent. We're moving in the right direction in our overall plan.

All these initiatives demonstrate that, and the hypocrisy of the members opposite is more than obvious in the way they vote. Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Collège Jeanne-Sauvé 20 Year Anniversary Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pr oudly share with members that Collège Jeanne-Sauvé, a French immersion high school in the Seine Rive r constituency, celebrates 20 years of teaching some of our brightest young minds.

Depuis 1990, le Collège Jeanne-Sauvé, qui accueille les élèves provenant des excellentes écoles primaires d'immersion française de la Division scolaire Louis-Riel, a été un symbole de la vigueur de notre système scolaire p ublic. Il offre une grande variété de programmes de formation générale à la population étudiante d'environ 600 élèves. Les cours de théâtre, de musique et de technologie complètent le programme d'études de base, et grâce au programme d'espagnol, un certain nombre de diplômés peuvent communiquer avec aisance en trois langues.

À n'importe quel moment, jusqu'à 75 élèves à la fois ont l'occasion d'assumer des rôles de premier plan dans l'école, grâce au système solide du conseil étudiant. Après les heures de classe, les élèves peuvent appartenir au club d'improvisation divertissant ou se diriger au gymnase où les équipes dynamiques de volley-ball et de basket-ball s'entraînent et compétitionnent. Translation Fed by the wonderful French immersion primary schools of the Louis Riel School Division, CJS has, since 1990, been a symbol for the strength of our public school system.

The student population of almost 600 is offered a richly diverse academic program. Theatre, music and technology courses supplement the strong core curriculum, and thanks to the Spanish program, a number of students graduate with fluency in three languages. The school's robust student co uncil system affords as many as 75 students at any given time, the

966 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 opportunity to take leadership roles in the school. After class, students can join in the fun of the improv club, or head to the gym where the powerhouse volleyball and basketball teams practise and compete. * (14:30) English And yet, much of the school's strength lies in what happens outside the halls and beyond the grounds. CJS is deeply engaged in the immediate community and the world around it. For the past six years the school has been a member of the UNESCO Associated Schools Program network.

Many cultural exchanges have been conducted, sending students to learn across Canada, and as far away as Spain. Food drives support Winnipeg Harvest, and the student-led 30 Hour Famine raises funds annually for World Vision. The Canadian Cancer Society as well as Koats for Kids benefit re gularly from the work of young philanthropists at the school.

Comme vous pourriez vous le rappeler, en 2007, un projet quadriennal ayant pour but de recueillir des fonds et fournir du soutien à un village au Sénégal a abouti à l'enpoi d'une poignée des élèves en Afrique pour travailler sur les projets communautaires pendant un mois. Récemment, l'école a animé une froid d'une journée sur la santé et le mieux-être intitulée Sauvé en Santé à l'intention des élèves ainsi que du personnel. Il est aussi à noter que ces cérémonies de remise des diplômes organisées pour les élèves du Collège Jeanne-Sauvé sont les meilleures auxquelles j'aie eu le privilège d'assister.

Translation As members may recall, in 2007, a four-year long project to raise funds and provide support for a village in Senegal culminated in a handful of students working on community projects in Africa for a month. Recently the school put on Sauvé en Santé, a one-day health and wellness fair in which more than 50 workshops offere d a variety of events and activities for students and staff alike. It must also be said that the graduation ceremonies conducted for the students of CJS are the finest I have had the privilege to attend. English Mr.

Speaker, for 20 years our community has been enriched by the students and staff at Collège Jeanne-Sauvé, and I want to offer my heartfelt congratulations as they celebrate this important anniversary. Manitoba Youth Five-Pin Bowling Team Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, it's an honour to rise today in the House to recognize and congratulate the Manitoba Youth Five Pin Bowling Team, who successfully brought home the first-place title at the Canadian Youth Challenge Five Pin Bowling Championship held in Edmonton, Alberta. This group is located in Minnedosa.

From March 25th to 28th, our elite young bowlers battled it out in a 10-game, round-robin tournament, finishing in third place. After beating the fourth- and second-place te ams, the Manitoba youth found themselves in a final game against the hometown–home team, Team Alberta, who beat– who they beat, six to two, to win the tournament. This was a milestone year for young Manitoban bowlers, as it is the first time ever that Team Manitoba has won the national championship.

Congratulation to Cassandra Danchuk, Alyssa Babynchuk, Elizabeth Quint, Jessie Leyte from Winnipeg, Bryce McFarlane from Carman, Brandon Mansell from Minnedosa, and coaches Jim Anderson and Marilyn McMullan, each from Winnipeg. On behalf of all members, I would like to wish these young people continued success in their bowling careers and thank them for representing Manitoba so competitively at the national level. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ALS Cornflower Gala Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): Mr. Speaker, on March 20th I attended the first annual ALS Cornflower Gala put on by the ALS Society of Manitoba.

It was a wonderful evening of fine dining, lively entertainment and, most importantly, fundraising in support of those living with a very serious and debilitating disease. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that is fatal. It is estimated that this disease currently affects approximately 200 Manitobans and has claimed the lives of many, many more. The gala event was held at the Western Canada Aviation Museum and boasted an attendance of over 150 people. Guests were treated to the music of Neil Keep and, as part of the event, three auctions were

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 967 held, traditional silent and live auctions, and an auction of hope. Some of the grand prizes included airline tickets from WestJet, season ticket s to the Bombers, passes to the Skysuite booth at the Goldeyes' stadium and an hour co-hosting a radio program at QX104. With prizes appealing–as appeal ing as these, it was no wonder that the auctions were so successful. The evening grossed almost $19,000, a remarkable feat considering it was an inaugural gala, and a figure that ensures that this event will continue for years to come.

All money raised will be directed at support services for people living with ALS in Manitoba, including providing medical equipment and educational services, assisting clients with tapping into proper medical supports and an invaluable and unique facility that is near to my heart, Brummitt-Feasby House, a place of care where people with ALS can realize their full potential and live in dignity. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all those who came out for the gala in support of the ALS Society. Your presence speaks volumes and your generosity will touch many lives.

Thank you also to the event's organizers, particularly Brian Campbell, Diana Rasmussen and the dedicated board members and volunteers on the organizing committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Carolyn Darbyshire Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, last week we celebrated at the Manitoba Legislative Assembly the achievements of our province's Olympians. Today, I am extraordinarily pleased to rise and offer our congratulations to another of our Olympians, Carolyn Darbyshire, who was unable to attend the ceremonies on Tuesday, April the 13th.

Growing up in Portage la Prairie, Carolyn Darbyshire was inspired by the sport of curling which, through her skill and tenacity, earned a silver medal at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics alongside teammates skip Cheryl Bernard from Grand Prairie, Alberta, third Susan O'Connor from Calgary and lead Cori Bartell from Lanigan, Saskatchewan. Even though Carolyn now resides and works in Alberta, seasoned curlers can easily identify her home province thanks to her distinctive Manitoba tuck-delivery style.

In addition to her silver medal, Carolyn has won two Alberta provincial championships in 2007 and 2009, and a Manitoba provincial championship in 1985, playing second for her mother, Merline Darbyshire. Never forgetting her roots, after winning the silver medal, Carolyn paid tribute to her hometown by proudly proclaiming that she hailed from Portage la Prairie, Manitoba during her post-game CTV interview. Mr. Speaker, all resident s of Portage la Prairie are immensely proud of Carolyn's accomplishments and are so pleased that Carolyn will be coming home and taking

part in the world's largest social scheduled for May 15th in Portage la Prairie, as part of Manitoba's 140th anniversary Homecoming 2010 celebrations. Carolyn will be signing autographs at the same time as enjoying rye bread, kielbasa and cheese cubes. I would like to extend, on behalf of all members of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, our most sincere congratulations to Carolyn and her teammates for making all of us in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, and indeed all of Canada, proud at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Vaisakhi Festival Mr.

Mohinder Saran (The Maples): I rise before the House today to recognize Vaisakhi, one of the most important holidays of the Sikh calendar. Vaisakhi marks the festival which celebrates the founding of the Sikh community known as the Khalsa, the order of initiated Sikhs, in 1699. It is celebrated annually on April 14th. The Sikh community in Winnipeg celebrates Vaisakhi together with the Sikhs throughout the world. On Sunday, I was privileged to be present, along with the Premier (Mr. Selinger), at a service at Singh Sabha Gurdwar. I also attended a celebration at Kalgidhar Gurd wara.

It was a time of great festivity and joy and it brought the community together to celebrate its culture and to commemorate the birth of Khalsa. Mr. Speaker, one of the key elements of Khalsa is the idea of social equality. At the ceremony, where Khalsa was born on Vaisakhi day in 1699, each individual was given a new surname to replace their old names which had distinguished them by caste. With this distinctive identity, Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave all Sikhs the opportunity to live lives of courage, sacrifice and soci al equality, teaching them to dedicate their lives to th e service of others and to

968 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 the pursuit of justice for people of all faiths. In this way, he worked to give ordinary citizens the courage to achieve great things and to work for the improvement of all society. The ideals of respect, equality, social justice and service to others that is celebrated on Vaisakhi are principles we can all strive on. It is these ideals that we celebrate here in Manitoba and it is these ideals upon which strong communities are formed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on House business. House Business Hon. Bill Blaikie (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could please canvass the House to see if there's agreement, as I expect there will be, because there've been discussions, to set aside the Estimates of Family Services and Consumer Affairs in the Chamber, with the understanding that Executive Council will be considered and that after the Estimates for Executive Council are completed, Family Services and Consumer Affairs will resume in the Chamber. And at the same time, Mr.

Speaker, I think you would also find that there would be leave to have the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) have up to two staff in the Chamber for the duration of the Executive Council Estimates. Mr. Speaker: Okay, first of all, is there leave to set aside the Estimates of Family Services, Consumer Affairs in the Chamber with the understanding that Executive Council will be considered and that after the Estimates for Executive Council are completed, Family Services and Consumer Affairs will resume in the Chamber? Is there an agreement? Is there leave? [Agreed] Okay, so there's agreement.

And also, is there agreement for staff from the Leader of the Official Opposition–staff to come into the Chamber for Estimates? [Agreed] Okay, there's agreement on both. * * * Mr. Speaker: Okay, so now I will call the Estimates. Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, at this time it gives me great pleasure to indicate that we will now call the Estimates and the House would–the members would divide into the three places in which Estimates are being considered. Mr.

Speaker: Okay, we will continue with the Estimates and the Estimate sequence will be: in the Chamber will be Executive Council; Room 255 will be Health; and Room 254 will be Water Stewardship. The respective Chairs please go to those committees. The House will now resolve into Committee of Supply. Madam Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) WATER STEWARDSHIP * (14:50) Mr. Chairperson (Mohinder Saran): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Water Stewardship. As has been previously agreed, questioning for the department will proceed in a global manner. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Chairman, we were just on well-water advisories the other day, and I just wa nted to ask a few more questions of the minister in that area. I was talking about the priority list and how things are put on the priority list.

And I noticed that the 72-plus advisories on communities and regions using private wells and others, that Glenboro has a– the Glenboro Health Centre is on an advisory. And I just wondered if the minister could walk me through how they determine what the priorities are for these issues, even though it's a, you know, a more recent one. I agree with moving it forward. Hon. Christine Melnic k (Minister of Water Stewardship): If I could just ask for clarification. Are you talking about how BWAs are priorized as to action? Is that what your question is? Mr. Maguire: Yes. Thanks. Ms.

Melnick: When an issue is raised about drinking water, in whatever community it might be, it is, in fact, up to the water supply owner to take the action. Now, the Office of Drinking Water will monitor, will

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 969 do testing, will recommend what the resolve would be. So we work with the community, however the community is defined, to make sure that they understand what needs to be done. We help monitor them, monitor with them the drinking water to find out if the issues are still outstanding, if the issues have been resolved, partially resolved, and what has to be done to resolve those issues. So we don't say, this one's more important than that one. We work with communities whenever an issue is raised. Mr. Maguire: Well, I thank the minister for that.

I'm not sure that I'm clear–you know, I would go back to–the town of Medora, as an example, in my constituency, was issued a water advisory, boil-water advisory, on October 6th, 2000. The town doesn't issue that, I don't think. It's–is it–am I not correct in that the department would be the ones that would issue the boil-water advisory? Ms. Melnick: Correct. The Office of Drinking Water would issue the boiled water advisory. They would recommend to the town what had to be done, and that's where the responsibility would lie. Mr.

Maguire: Absolutely, and I know that they need to work with municipalities and the department then to correct their problem. And so how–obviously the department doesn't start at the oldest one that's there. So I'm wondering– I mean I would recommend even over these other communities that Glenboro Health Centre, if it's a health centre, could take a priority. And I know that perhaps they need to take an initiative, but in something like this would the Department of Health get involved or Healthy Living with the Minister of Water Stewardship in regards to trying to solve something for a health centre? * (15:00) Ms.

Melnick: We are continually working with Health through the medical officer of health. They are the ones who actually issue the boiled water advisories. There are also public health inspectors who–in local communities. So I just want to be clear again that the Department of Water Stewardship, through the Office of Drinking Water, doesn't 'priorize' which boiled water advisory would be dealt with ahead of another. We work with all communities on all boiled water advisories. However, that community is–would be quantified.

In the case of the Glenboro Health Centre, it would be the Glenboro Health Centre that we would be working with. In the case of Medora, as you have also mentioned today, it would be Medora. We don't tell them how to make things happen; we tell them what has to happen, and we work with them to make sure that the water is completely safe before an advisory would be lifted. We also let them know what has to happen while the boiled water advisory is in place.

For example, if all water is to be boiled before consumed, we would let people know by going door-to-door or in the case of the Glenboro Health Centre, let the folks who are distributing water know that. If it is a case where even boiling the water won't help and water cannot be–water is not potable and cannot be ingested but may be used for bathing, we would let people know about that. If there's further concerns, we would also let people know that water simply can't be used, and then we would work with the community to provide an alternate water source.

So each individual c oncern is dealt with individually, is dealt with in the time frame that the community wants to or is able to respond to the concerns, and the Office of Drinking Water monitors it. Mr. Maguire: I know that there is a growing list here and I'm wondering if the minister can indicate the priorities in the department in regards to this over other areas. I know–is it only up to her department to identify these along with, as she said, the Health Department, the inspectors there, and does her department have recommendations that have been put in place to remedy some of these circumstances?

I do know that the community of Medora is– which is really the Rural Municipality of Brenda because there's no community board as such–may be part and parcel of the water system that's coming into the town of Melita if it gets extended to–further to the other communities in the area, depending on some of the hookups and that sort of thing. And I'm wondering if she can provide me with a time frame as to, one, how the system is working now in the community of Melita? They were bringing water in from the Broomhill area.

A year ago there was some difficulties there, and there was some new wells drilled to enhance the original wells that were there. If she could give me an update on just how that system is working for the town of Melita, and whether it's still the–whether it's still their idea, I guess–excuse me–or their objective,

970 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 rather, to continue to move that water once it's treated now in the community of Melita on out to Medora. Ms. Melnick: I think the member is particularly concerned with the situation in Medora, so perhaps I'll provide an update to that situation. That might be helpful. Funding was approved for the construction of a pipeline from the Melita water treatment plant to serve the community of Medora with treated water. Manitoba Water Services Board is currently working on this project.

The tender is out for the pipeline on this project and construction will likely take place later this spring. Once the construction is complete and testing has been conducted to confirm that an acceptable quality of water is being received at Medora, a recommendation will be made to rescind the boiled water advisory. In addition to serving the community of Medora, the rural pipeline will serve some rural residents along the way and the community of Napinka.

Manitoba Water Services Board, which resides in MIT, has made presentations to the town of Waskada and the Waskada Rural Water Co-op public water systems, to connect to the pipeline as well. But this is not finalized yet and connection to those communities will not take place right away. Mr. Maguire: And so, therefore, Mr. Chairman and the minister, the connections between Napinka– Melita, Napinka onto Medora would allow for some of the rural farm hookups as well? Ms. Melnick: Sorry, that would be determined at the local level there.

There is a possibility, but, again, I just want to stress that, while the Office of Drinking Water receives concerns about drinking water, it is up to the individual community–however that community is defined–who owns the water to take the action. Mr. Maguire: I thank the minister for that. I just wanted to–just to comment, the other day I was asking–spent a considerable amount of time, looking at drainage licences issues and that sort of thing. And I should have asked the minister at the time, I guess, because I kn ow she was referring from some sheets which turned out to be a letter.

If she'd have just advised me that the letter that I had written seeking that information–that she'd put it on my desk after I came in here for Estimates and before she did–was on my desk, we could have saved a little time the other day. I've got–you know, it just showed up when I got back there at 5 o'clock. It was on my desk. So, appreciate that, but the timing was a little strange, and, in my estimation, we took up some time in Estimates that I could have very well used in other areas. So, I just wanted to leave that with you.

The timing was just a–I guess, to make the best use of our time here, it could have been delivered to me maybe in the morning or something like that–suggests that, another time. And I know that in regards to drainage licences and that sort of thing, we'll get into some other questions on that later. But my colleague from Ste. Rose is here as well, and we know that there are concerns still around the area of the freshwater fisheries and fishing in Lake Dauphin and some areas in–to be dealt with in that area. And, so, I'm going to turn it over to him for a few questions at this point. * (15:10) Mr.

Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): And I just want to touch on a few of the issues surrounding the Lake Dauphin fishery and, I guess, some on the Lake Winnipeg commercial fishery, too. I actually stopped at one of the trucks–the one on Ste. Rose, at the grotto–on Saturday and had a conversation with your fish biologist that was handing out the fish there. We'd like an update on how much fish you're anticipating handing out this year. I guess that would be my first question. Ms. Melnick: Yes, we have had frozen fish available for individuals this year who would ordinarily be fishing at this time.

They would be First Nations people. We did not want to bring hardship on people who were traditionally fishing at this time. We also wanted to encourage people to continue to come down and have the sort of social atmosphere that has traditionally been around the tributaries at this time, and we welcome people coming down. We have had two orders of fish, totalling 14,000 pounds. We believe that–because there has been a very good response by First Nations people and Métis people–that we have a third order on the way for tomorrow.

I'd like to thank all the individuals who have chosen to respect the closure, who are coming to get the fish which they are well entitled to, and for carrying on with the sort of social activity that I understand is going around there.

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 971 It might be important to note, at this point in time, we believe that the spawn may, in fact, be over by Wednesday. Last year, 3,000 pounds of fish were fished. This year we're down to 500 pounds which, I think, is very positive. This, compared to 1999 when the Tories issued the press release of the closure and did nothing to enforce it, that saw, I believe, some 12,000 pounds taken. So we're down from a '99 high of 12,000 pounds to a record low, at this point in time, of 500 pounds.

So I think that speaks well, not only of the closure and–but more so the recognition of the people to understand the importance of a closure during the spring spawn. And I know the member from Ste. Rose is on record last year in the House. He was very concerned that there should be a complete closure. There are some people who believe there should be a total and complete closure of all the tributaries, and then there are others who believe that there shouldn't be a closure at all. And we go with the science, and I'd like to thank the department for the very good science they've provided. We go with the science.

We respect the professionals, and we have determined that there is a balance to be struck. We closed one more tributary this year than had been cl osed last year because the science told us we had to be a little more protective this year. I also want to say, in re gards to the class year of 1999, where there was no en forcement, even though a closure was announced, and 12,000 pounds were taken, that's one of our weakest class years, and so I think we don't want to repeat that. We want to move forward in a co-operative fashion. We met with the First Nations leadership before we announced the closure.

We let them know the closure was being announced, and we thank them very much for their co-operation. Mr. Briese: I would remind the minister that probably all the fish from '99 are probably gone by now anyhow, so I'm more interested in what's happening today than something that happened a decade ago. I'm wondering what the budget is on the fish– and, by the way, one of your comments was that you think the spawn may be over by Wednesday, and I was told when I was up in that area on Saturday that there are spawn fish already returning to the lake. So I think that's a pretty good call.

When the weather's this mild the fish are really moving, and it is going to be over very quick this year. But I would like to know how much was spent on the frozen fish last year, and I would like to know how much is anticipated to be spent this year, and I would like to know where that fish is coming from. Ms. Melnick: Well, we know, in '99, 12,000 pounds were gone during the spawns, so. When we look at the fi sh that–the frozen fish that are being handed out–it's whitefish, mainly from Lake Winnipeg–through FFMC, so far this year $48,000 have been spent.

We do, as I mentioned, have another order coming up tomorrow–I'm sorry, it's walleye–unopened pallets will go back to the FFMC, open pallets will go to the Indian and Métis Friendship Centre in Dauphin for distribution throughout the community. Mr. Briese: One of the comments I made in question period the other day–and I know this is true because I asked the other day: why do you have fish biologists handing out the fish?

Why not somebody at $10 or $12 an hour, because I'm sure when the fish are on the–are heading out to spawn that's probably one of the times the biologist should certainly be watching what's going on with the spawning fish. And I know the fish enhancement council has spent a considerable amount of money up there on some fish ladders and some different structures and they had to hire somebody outside at additional money to do the job that the biologists probably should be doing, but they're out handing out frozen fish. * (15:20) Ms. Melnick: Well, we know the member is against the handing out of frozen fish.

We've explained many times why we do this. We don't want the local people to suffer hardship. The people who are working with handing out the fish are local Water Stewardship staff. There are people who have various qualifications. One of the things that the biologists are doing are speaking to the First Nations and Métis people about issues and concerns they have. They're learning more about traditional knowledge–[interjection] They're learning more about the traditional knowledge.

They're speaking with the people and developing a much better and closer relationship, which I think, as we move through a major shift,

972 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 which is a closure, complete closure during the spring spawn. I want to thank the former ministers of Conservation who did a lot of good work around this issue before I had the privilege to work on it, and the current Minister of Conservation (Mr. Blaikie), as well, who is a great colleague and a good team member on this as well. I also would like to let the committee know that we have, last year, on the request of West Region Tribal Council, hired a fellow on their recommendation, who is First Nations.

They wanted to have a First Nations person on board who was there while we were gathering the data and compiling the data and analyzing it. His name is Robert Chartrand and he is there as well, handing out the fish and talking to his people. And there's a lot of learning going on. There's a lot of better understanding going on and I think that bodes well for the future. Mr. Briese: How many Métis harvester cards have been issued? Ms. Melnick: I think the member might want to go to the MMF since they are, in fact, the issuing body. Mr. Briese: Mr. Chair, one more question on the–on that area.

I know that–and I think it was about a year ago, there was $104,000 out of the fish enhancement fund, which is a portion of the licences that was used for–to develop a one-year creel count census. I wonder if the minister can share with us what those counts are showing because I know there's a regular count goes on in the summer by department staff in certain areas of the lake, and those are the numbers we most often see on different ages of fish, but I would like to know if there's any figures compiled out of those creel count–out of the creel count census. Ms.

Melnick: The–I believe the initiative that the member's talking to–speaking about was through the FEF which is–I'd like to thank the Fisheries Enhancement Fund proposal committee. They do a tremendous job and I know they get many more proposals than they have funding to provide with. I was very pleased that we were–that we let the FEF group know that we had held their funding at the $850,000, which we had raised it to over the last few years. The creel count census that the member is referring began mid-May of last year, 2009. It ended a couple of weeks ago at the end of March.

So there's current analysis being undertaken on the data that was received, and there will be a report on that late in the summer of 2010. Mr. Briese: And will you share that with us at the time? Ms. Melnick: I believe that information will be made public. Mr. Briese: Thank you. According to the Lake Winnipeg commercial fishers, there was–there were a number of outstanding issues there. A year ago–I believe it was a year ago, in Estimates, you mentioned that you were going to set up a task force looking at the quota issues out in the Lake Winnipeg fishery. Has that been done?

And could you update us a little on that. Ms. Melnick: That task has, in fact, been undertaken. It is still under way. We did have a hiatus from the task force as the fishers asked that it be halted for a little while because they wanted to take the time to have more discussion about quota within them–between themselves around the Lake Winnipeg fishers' quota. I do believe that that task force should be reporting probably mid-summer, early fall of 2010. Mr. Briese: Were any charges laid for the over-quota fishing in 2009 and, if so, have those charges gone to court? Ms.

Melnick: Charges are actually laid by NROs who, of course, are part of the Department of Conservation. So, perhaps, those questions would better be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Blaikie). Mr. Briese: At the same time in Estimates last year, the minister had indicated she was in the process of establishing a resource management board. What's happening in that regard? Ms. Melnick: There has been good progress in that area. It is a–an exciting project. However, it's one that we want to make sure we take the time to get right.

It's the first time that the fishers of Lake Winnipeg will be meetin g year-round with the department, with scientists, and that their voices will be heard around the table year-round. And I think that's very important and I'd like to thank all the

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 973 fishers who have attended the meetings and who have been a part of this for all their efforts. There is a lot of community development to be done in terms of community meetings. The fishers wanted to have their own representation, and we agreed to their own legal representation and we agreed to that. So the lawyer for the fishers has gone around to communities for local community meetings. She's continuing to go for local community meetings.

There are general meetings that are also organized, where the latest draft of the agreement is reviewed and there are questions raised. There's discussion had. So while it may seem like it's taking a bit of time to finally come to conclusion, I think it's important, when we're putting together a document as important as this, that we make sure that everyone feels comfortable, everyone has their say.

And we take into account, not only traditional knowledge, such as I referred to earlier in the discussion around Dauphin Lake, but also scientific knowledge in that everyone is understanding who is around the table, why and what everyone has to offer. Mr. Briese: Mr. Chair, so the resource management board isn't in place yet? You're still working on it. Is that what I am to take from your remarks? Ms. Melnick: There hasn't been a final agreement signed. There are still community meetings going on. Mr.

Briese: There are a number of Manitobans, fishermen, that are wanting to capture new off-quota markets with fish that are not sold through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, such as mullet and carp. They think it will enhance the–their economic opportunities, and I know they've met with the minister. I believe they've met with the minister. But what's happening with those discussions? * (15:30) Ms. Melnick: The–I believe you're referring to export dealer licences which are awarded by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, which, of course, is a federal Crown.

And I did write to–having met with a number of the fishers several months ago, several months ago wrote to the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans, Minister Shea, in Ottawa to encourage her to encourage the FFMC to meet with the fishers to respond to their needs. We do want a healthy fishery, a sustainable fishery and we also want our fishers to make the best livelihood that they can off the fisheries throughout Manitoba.

I understand that the individual, Robert Gaudry, who had held an export dealer's licence for the last few years running, I believe, on carp and mullet was, in fact, awarded an EDL for the current season. And I also have met with FFMC on a number of occasions, and have tried to encourage them–and they're very open to working with the fishers. And I've met with the fishers and encouraged them to continue working with the FFMC. So there are some difficult situations. I cannot direct the FFMC.

I cannot direct the fishers but, certainly, we're involved in the way that we hope will help bring the parties together and have a sustainable successful fishery in Manitoba. Mr. Briese: Just one more question on the fishing issues: Is there any change to the regulations for sport fishers this year, and is there any change on the cost of the licences? Ms. Melnick: There is no change in the sport fishing regulations or the cost of licence. Mr. Briese: Mr. Chair, I'm going to switch to a couple of drainage questions, now, if–with your permission.

Firstly, I would like to know what the real drain maintenance budget is in this province, because it seems to be a very hard figure to get a hold of. Ms. Melnick: The drainage budget resides in MIT, so perhaps your question would be better directed to the minister of MIT. Mr. Briese: I guess that's why it's so hard to get a hold of, Mr. Chairman. The–correct me if I'm wrong on this, then. The conservation districts fall under this minister, I presume? Ms. Melnick: You're talking about are the conservation districts under Water Stewardship? Mr. Briese: Yes. Ms. Melnick: Yes, we are. Mr. Briese: Okay.

We'll just refer to the ones that are–the conservation districts that are responsible for the water management or the water resources in their area. What's the budget–and there are four of them, three of them being in my constituency. What's the

974 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 budget that's put out to the four conservation districts to–for drain maintenance? Ms. Melnick: The four CDs that I think the member is referring to are Cooks Creek, Whitemud , Alonsa and Turtle. Within the 5.6 million total budget for CDs, 1.3 million goes to those four collectively. In addition, we have 600,000 that goes towards those four CDs, as well, that deal with drainage as a capital investment initiative. Mr.

Briese: I just want to make a point that I truly believe in and I may have to eat it sometime in the future, but I do believe that we have most of the drainage we need in the area. Our problem, and our problem has been for several years, the lack of maintenance on that drainage. And it's been for several decades, really. It's not several years; it's several decades. There's two major drains in the Turtle River Conservation District just south of McCreary–one is only about a mile south of McCreary–that have so much sedimentation in them that–one is the Turtle drain.

The Turtle drain is keeping the water table artificially high, and there's a quite a chunk of good farmland in there that is–the water table has got so high they can hardly farm it. On the Wilson drain, I saw one point on the Wilson drain where the bottom of the drain was actually higher than the fields on either side of it. So it doesn't make for much of a drain when those kind of conditions occur.

And I think with what happens when land, good agricultural land, can't be cropped–and we saw a lot of it in the Interlake last year and the year before, and the Westlake region on the other side of the lake–because of wet conditions * (15:40) We have one department of government paying out for flooded acres that can't be cropped and taking that risk every year where I think if there was some increase to the drainage maintenance budget, you could get rid of that risk for a number of years and not take that chance.

So in the years when we have a dry year like this year's starting out to be, it would make sense to put a little more money into drain maintenance, rather than take the risk every year from here on and paying out, out of another department of government. Ms. Melnick: Well, there's a couple of areas that the member's touched on. First, I'll say the four CDs are responsible for setting the priorities in their areas. We don't tell them what they need to do, in this case, maintenance-wise.

So if the member is concerned about the Turtle drain and the Wilson , which are two that he talked about, he might want to have some discussion with those local CDs. I believe those are both within the Turtle conservation district. When we talk about drainage, I know that our funding has increased substantially since 1999 and this year we held our funding level. And this would be in contrast to the 1990s, when the Conservatives slashed the former Environment and Natural Resources budget, including a 43 percent to Water Resources. So, in tough times, we have not done that.

In 2000, the former Conservative minister Jack Penner admitted that the budget cuts left the current government with inadequate resources to address the provincial drainage system. And I just to want to quote him here. This is from CBC radio, July 11th 2000. Quote: The Department of Conservation was one of the departments that has had significant amounts of money cut from their budgets, and they have not had the resources to keep up with the clean outs and maintenance of those drains. So, the member's right. This is a long-standing issue, greatly contributed to by his colleagues before him.

And, again, we've increased the amount of drainage funding, we have increased the number of water resource officers in Manitoba from three, I believe, to a total staff of–well, water resource officers have gone from zero to 24. And offices have gone from three to 13. We are recognizing that we're in a relatively unprecedented–a wet period. We had to go back to 1826 to find water levels such as experienced during last year's spring flood and that water hung on for quite a while. That, having been said, we are working on drainage throughout the province.

It is a big job and there is interdepartmental work that is being done. Again, to stress to the member, if he is concerned about particular drains that are maintained by the conservation districts, it's best to go to them to talk about their priorizing process. It's something that we don't get involved with within the provincial government, but he might have a good discussion with those folks. Mr. Briese: Mr. Chairman, I would remind the minister, I have already talked to the conservation districts and it's the funding that comes from the

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 975 Province that is–it may have went up slightly, but it hasn't went up enough. I'm told that the–to do a proper job on the Turtle drain would cost about $240,000. And every year that goes by without some of that maintenance being done, it gets worse. And, you can harp about the bad, old Filmon years for as long as you want. We're 11 years, or almost 11 years, into your government, and we're not seeing maintenance done on these drains yet. [interjection] I understand that. It doesn't make it– Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Ms.

Melnick: Would you like a response or you– When we talk about drainage, again, the budget was cut by 43 percent to Water Resources in the '90s and we know there's a–in high-water periods there is a lot of drainage that is necessary and that we're working on. Three years ago, we raised the budget for drainage for the four CDs by almost 50 percent. We went–we added on to the one point three million six hundred thousand. Now that may not be a lot of money to the member from Ste. Rose, but for us it was a reasonable increase, again, that we've maintained this year.

We recognize the important of drainage throughout the province. And again, he needs to go and talk to the CDs about their priorizing and how they work this into their program. If there's a process that he can involve himself in, that may be very positive for the two drains that he's concerned about. But I think the conservation districts do a lot of very, very good work and they have a lot of responsibilities that they take very seriously, and I want to thank them for the decisions that they make. They're not all easy decisions. There's some pretty tough decisions out there.

Sometimes there's opposition MLAs wanting them to do things differently, and they may respond; they may not. But our funding was increased several fold since 1999, and in the tough budget year, where it was cut by 43 percent by members opposite in the 1990s, we have maintained it. Mr. Briese: I would mention to the minister that I do talk to the conservation districts.

And I would also just remind her that, when you talk about 1.3 or 1.9 million dollars to these conservation districts–the Whitemud Conservation District, the one that I live in, is responsible for about 1,100 kilometres of provincial drain to maintain and keep in good shape plus some 13 or 14 hundred crossings on those–that–on those drains. And the amount of funding that is going to them–and you can keep telling me about the mean old '90s–but the amount of money that is going to them has not kept up with the costs–the increa sing costs on replacing those crossings.

And at the present time it's about a 1 percent replacement in the budget right now, and none of those crossings last a hundred years. So we're falling further and further and further behind, and I would encourage the minister to look at that with a little more–pay a little more attention to that whole issue. Ms. Melnick: Well, we–in addition to increasing and maintaining the funding–and thanks for the permission to refer to the 1990s, I'll take you up on that one–the Province supports the CD through the assistance of new staff that we've hired.

I believe we have a complement of nine–is it nine in Rhonda's area?–a complement of nine staff to assist the conservation districts. This can be in the planning stages, the implementation stages, working with the watersheds, the water–the watershed–integrated watershed management plans that so many of them have embraced and are working very hard on. Our funding has gone up by over 100 percent. It's 107 percent.

Again, that may not seem a lot to the member, but when you talk about the fact that we've doubled the number of conservation districts so that almost all of the heavily-populated areas in Manitoba are now covered by CDs, who are really rolling up their sleeves and getting some very good work done. Again, if he would like to involve himself in the decision-making process at the CD level, I'm sure they'd be interested in hearing what he has to say. And, again, I'd like to thank them for all the good work they do. Mr.

Maguire: I'd just like to put a couple of comments on the record here, and I appreciate that the minister feels that there was some heavy cutbacks in periods of time previous. I'd just like to go back–in the defence of the former member from Emerson–I'd just like to say, as well, that this government has never felt anything like the cuts that took place in the '90s from the federal level of government, and her own former premier indicated that that was $253 million in that same year that she's referring to. So we need no t be self-righteous about

976 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 who's got money and who doesn't, because we know this government doesn't know how to spend the money they do have in regards to priorities in relation to a number of areas, particularly in some of the ones that we were raising in question period today. * (15:50) I'm not saying that they don't, in regards to some of the water issues, but I wanted to say that this government has offloaded a number of issues on some of the rural municipalities in relation to CDs' work and costing.

And so I'd just like to ask her if she could provide me with a total number of dollars available to the conservation districts in Manitoba through her department. Ms. Melnick: Well, the priorities this year, health, education, justice, infrastructure, family services–we know the member from Carman told us they are not priorities of the opposition, and that appears to be so. On the question of funding for the conservation districts, I have–from 1999, there was a total of 3.5 million. I'm just going to, sort of, round up.

This year we have–right–okay–when we talk about base funding for conservation districts, when we look at 1999 to 2000, it was 2.5 million, now it's 5.6 million. So that's an increase of over 100 percent. It's 107 percent. That does not include the critical infrastructure initiatives that we were just talking about. It's now gone up, from 1999 to 2000, from 1 million to 3.6 million. The Watershed Planning Grant, which is 25,000 for each–okay.

In 1999, we provided a million for critical infrastructure initiative; in '01-02, 500,000; in '03-04, 315,000; 2008 to 2009 fiscal year to the current fiscal year, it's $600,000 ea ch year. So that’s a total of 3.5 million from 1999 to the end of this fiscal year, meaning 2011. We've provided $600,000 for the start up for the integrated watershed management plans, and the watershed plan implementation also receives a grant, and we've provided a total of 175,000. So, if we go grand totals from 1999 to the end of this coming fiscal year–2011–54,155,000.

Now, I should also say that conservation districts can apply for the Water Stewardship Fund. They can also apply for the FEF grants. I know there have been several successful applications. So that would take us, at least, I'd say, well–if we can get the number, I'll get it for you. And I think the number is coming my way across the table right now. An average external funding, secured by CDs, is a million dollars a year. So, when we look at funding increases, it has been substantial. Cumulatively, it has been substantial. True, the number of CDs has doubled.

And, again, I want to thank the CDs that have formed and the municipalities that have joined. And I think we just keep moving in this very positive direction. Mr. Maguire: I'd just like to ask the minister if she thinks that the funding that she has provided is equivalent to what the demands are of the conservation districts' needs–what they've asked for, in relation to the plans that her department demanded that they put forward in land-use planning, similar to what was asked of the local municipalities in Manitoba.

Which, when I was Environment critic back in the early 2000s, indicated that we needed to have planning districts in place or planning programs in place, land-use planning in some of the rural municipalities in Manitoba. And that plan has been asked for by the conservation districts, by the minister. And they have–they diligently put forth a number of solid plans and I know a number of them felt very much taken aback by the fact that their plans were shelved for a few years.

And I wonder if the minister can just indicate to me where those plans are at today, and does she have them from all 18 districts in Manitoba? And is there– is it anywhere close to the needs in funding for the good projects that those conservation districts wish to do? Ms. Melnick: When we talk about funding, the base funding formula is: 75 percent provincial, 25 percent rural municipality, and it's a partnership that is very important and one that we value greatly. Now, is there enough funding to do everything that every conservation district wants to do?

There isn't, so I have encouraged the conservation districts to look at the plan in Ontario. Under the Mike Harris government, Tory government in Ontario, funding for conservation districts was wiped out in its entirety in the days that people want to forget in Ontario. So what the conservation districts did is they went out and they found independent funding, and they now have independent funding. I don't believe they rely on funding from the provincial government. I'm not at all suggesting that provincially. I'm

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 977 suggesting that conservation districts remain in the partnership that we have but that they seek funding from wherever there may be. There may be foundations particularly interested in the areas that they're working in. There may be–and I know we've seen the integrated watershed plans, conservation districts working together for the first time based on the flow of the waters through their CDs. So the plans that have started, I’ll–I can just read a list through here.

Plans that were started in 2006: Arrow-Oak River, Birdta il-Assiniboine River, Icelandic River-Washow Bay Creek, La Salle River, Little Sask River, the Seine River, the Shell River. In 2008: East Duck, Netley-Grassmere. Two plans for the Pembina River, Pembina River 1 and 2, were started in '08, West Souris River. Plans started in '09: Alonsa, central Assiniboine River, Swan Lake, Willow Creek. Plans that are having their MOUs signed now and are planned to start in 2010: There's two for Dauphin Lake, Dauphin Lake 1, Dauphin Lake 2, Fisher River, West Interlake, Whitemud River and Rat River.

So there's an awful lot of work going on. Approximately 30 watersheds across the province will have completed, be in the process or will be starting integrated watershed management planning in 30 watersheds across municipal Manitoba. And we are very, very please d that they've stepped forward again. When an integrated watershed plan is started, they receive from us, in addition to their base funding, a $25,000 grant which to date I believe has seen a watershed planning grant, $600,000 cumulatively, and watershed implementation grants, $175,000 cumulatively from the Province alone. Mr.

Maguire: Thanks, Madam Minister, so all of the conservation districts now are–are you able to keep up with 75 percent on your end for their budgetary need? Ms. Melnick: Is the question do we provide 75 percent of base funding? Is that your question? Mr. Maguire: Yes. Ms. Melnick: Yes, that is the funding model. Mr. Maguire: But my question, Madam Minister is, are you meeting that 75 percent level, and if so, what is the amount? * (16:00) Ms. Melnick: The 5.6 million that I've quoted is 75 percent. The municipalities cumulatively are providing 17 million.

The whole purpose of an integrated watershed management plan is to make sure that there is the best use of every dollar that is spent and again encourage–I do encourage the CDs to find other sources of funding. If they find other sources of funding, it doesn't mean that our 75 percent will be less. It means that they will have more money to use collectively on a watershed basis to do the sort of work that we know needs to be done. Mr. Maguire: And so they're free to move forward with projects on their own? Or how do they get authorization from the minister to proceed with that even if they find private funding?

Ms. Melnick: Every year the conservation district

section of the Department of Water Stewardship receives planning documents for the coming year. For all CDs sometimes there's a bit of discussion about what's been put forward, and, again, the expertise that's provided by the department in watershed planning, in all sorts of areas, is made available to them free of cost. We don't charge them per hour or charge them for travel time, et cetera. So, yes, they do receive the funding and there is a plan that is approved by the department and then the plan is implemented. Mr. Maguire: Do all projects have to be in the initial plan that the CDs put forward? Ms.

Melnick: If the member is asking does what a CD do in any fiscal year have to be incorporated into the plan for that year, yes. I believe that the department would be open, if there was a particular project that arose, a special need that arose, that there would be good communication between the CDs and the department. If there needed to be a change to the plan, the department would be open to that and it could be worked on. Mr. Maguire: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the CDs have many solid plans across Manitoba. I know that they are looking at their own needs in their local areas.

They certainly have a creative handle on their needs in their local areas, but I wonder–well, two things: I wonder if the minister can inform me as to when–the conservation districts each have a chairman in the province, and they meet regularly. I wonder if she can indicate to me when she last met with them.

978 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 2010 Ms. Melnick: The Manitoba Conservation Districts Association is the overarching body of the conservation districts in the province of Manitoba and I meet with them whenever they request a meeting. It could be two or three times a year. It could be once a year. It could be more, depending on when they'd like to meet. I do go to the MCDA. They have a gathering–I believe it's early December, usually around the 6th of December, and whenever we're not sitting I go out for the couple of days that I can and meet with CDs individually.

Also, at AMM, there's opportunity to meet with R.M.s and I do go out for that as well, whether they're in Winnipeg or Brandon. We generally have at least one full day of meetings. A lot of the individuals who are representing the R.M.s also sit on the CDs so there's lots of opportunity to discuss CD issues at that time. And, of course, I have, from time to time, met with individual CDs. And when there's an opening of a CD it's a grand occasion and we go out and have a celebration to welcome them into the conservation district world family of Manitoba.

And so there's lots of opportunity to meet with CDs, to meet with MCDA, to meet with members through AMM, and so there's good communication that flows. Mr. Maguire: When did the minister last meet with the CDs in Manitoba? Ms. Melnick: At AMM, we had several good meetings that, the date would've been–I don't have the date before me. It was the last AMM. I don't have the specific date before me. Mr. Maguire: Mr. Chairman, is the minister referring then to the AMM meeting in Brandon back in November? Ms. Melnick: Yes, I just don’t have the specific date in front of me. Mr.

Maguire: I understand that and I understand that the, you know, the MCDAs, conservation districts of Manitoba, have their–have an annual meeting in December every year, as well, and can the minister–I know she indicated if–subject to us sitting in the Legislature, did she meet with them at their AGM last December? Ms. Melnick: We were, in fact, sitting so the deputy did in fact go out and I thank him for that. I also wanted to mention that the deputy minister of Water Stewardship is the chair of the Conservation District's Commission. Mr. Maguire: I very much appreciate the attendance.

I know that the conservation districts do as well, because it gives them a great opportunity to ask questions, in this case, of the deputy, and bring it back to the minister for sure–and staff–and so I appreciate that. I just wanted to know if the minister, then, had met with the CDs the year before that, as well, in '08. Was there an opportunity there? Ms. Melnick: Yes. I did go the year before, and also the MCDA came to my office here in the Leg. on their request and we met then as well. Again, I don't have the dates in front of me. Mr. Maguire: Yes. Thank you.

Just a word of caution to the minister, I kn ow that she has liaisoned with the conservation districts in Manitoba, but I would caution her not to get mixed up with the conservation districts with the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. I know many people are on the conservation districts because municipalities appoint people to the conservation districts as part of the structure, and so, ther efore, she's right. Many members of AMM who are co uncillors or reeves are members of local conservation districts.

But, when she's discussing issues at AMM's annual meeting with those people, it is the association of Manitoba municipal business, and, while you may have informal discussions with them, those are not–I caution to say–that those ar e not meetings with the conservation district people, that I would caution her to talk as if they were. And so that is a concern. I know of all of the conservation districts in Manitoba. They access to the minister as well. I know that they have concerns about the funding model that's there. They have many requests for upgrades.

There's–whether it's tree lines, drainage, holding back water, you know, a plethora of zero-till conservation efforts that have been put in place over the years through conservation districts that have done much good work. And the realignment of conservation districts, I believe, was a good program that was done a few years ago in–and the conservation districts tell me that they are satisfied, for the most part, at least, with the new boundaries that have been put in place in many of these cases.

April 19, 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 979 And so I think that the hesitation is just that there is so much that needs to be done in some of those areas–some areas–that it's always a concern as to how you find the funding for the host of issues that are there. I wonder if the minister can just provide me with a quick update on the conservation districts' program framework for the future document that came out years ago, and if she can provide us with any update on the work being done on the conservation districts' program through that–through those framework discussions. * (16:10) Ms.

Melnick: Yes, I just wanted to let the member know that, when I'm at an AMM meeting, if someone is identifying themselves as being on a conservation district and raising an issue from that perspective, I will listen to what the person has to say. I'm not going to challenge whether or not they're officially there on behalf of the CD. I think that there can be lots of discussions that happen at many times, so I'd rather encourage peop le to come forward than not, to have them feel comfortable in whatever scenario we're working in. I think that the member is talking about the Framework for the Future.

It is up on the Web site. We have had a very good team working on this, the AMM and the Manitoba Conservation Districts Association, as well as the Department of Water Stewardship. It is talking about the going forward in the conservation districts' framework, the new framework which hadn't been reviewed for I think about 40 years. So there was a lot of very good discussion had not only by the AMM reps but by the individual CDs themselves and sometimes by individuals who had concerns.

There are three issues that we're working out: a fair and equitable and transparent provincial funding formula for the CD programs; a new appointment policy for the CD districts' program; and a realignment of conservation districts formed on municipal boundaries to two–to true watersheds. So there are some challenges there. It's a new way of thinking about managing water on a watershed basis, rather than on a municipal basis. And I know there's been challenges here. And, again, I want to thank the CDs for meeting this head-on, and, you know, for the first time, some CDs are working together.

Other CDs are working on three different plans, depe nding on the watersheds that reside within their geographic areas. So there is a lot of work to be done. It's not going to happen overnight, but we'll keep moving forward in partnership here. Mr. Maguire: I thank the minister for that update. She mentioned that part of it was to find a fair and–a fair funding formula for the CDs, yet she's just announced to me that there's–the funding formula is 75-25. Are they looking at changing that funding formula for the conservation districts in Manitoba? Ms. Melnick: The funding formula would be 75-25.

The discussion is the distribution of funding between CDs. If you have a very heavily populated CD and a very small-populated CD, we want to make sure that the work that needs to get done gets done. So that's where the discussion is. Mr. Maguire: Well, my colleague's quite right in indicating that the funding formula is not based on population in municipalities, and so that may be a change in the funding formula that the minister is looking at. Can she expand on that? Ms.

Melnick: MCDA and AMM, in discussion with Water Stewardship, have agreed that as we move forward in funding, that funding will remain constant, that there will be for any additional funding that will come forward, there will be a look at the population, a look at the area, the geographic area, and they'll look at the assessed value, and this will be weighted to determine how future growth will happen within the CD program. So, again, this has been worked on by MCDA, by AMM, Water Stewardship. It's not

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-4-30
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 4th hansardpdf 30.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cc5a5f4a555e1ca2a971fe162dd2a41c77bd9f91

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