LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, everyone. Please be seated.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Bill 47–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2013
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Ms. Howard), that Bill 47, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, be now read a first time.
This bill implements the measures announced in the 2013 Manitoba budget–[interjection] I'm on the wrong one, okay.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance.
Mr. Struthers: I move, seconded by the member for–the Minister of Family Services, that Bill 47, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, be now read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Struthers: Bill 47, this bill, implements the measures announced in the 2013 Manitoba budget and makes other amendments to tax and financial legislation.
This bill implements a balanced approach that focuses on what matters most to Manitobans. Along with enhancements for taxpayers, notably to certain tax credits, some modest and fair revenue increases are included to help maintain front-line services.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of adopting the motion will please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: Opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Official Opposition House Leader): Could you summon the members for a recorded vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order, please. The question before the House is first reading of Bill 47, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2013.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allan, Allum, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Caldwell, Chief, Chomiak, Crothers, Dewar, Gaudreau, Howard, Irvin‑Ross, Jha, Kostyshyn, Mackintosh, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Pettersen, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Wiebe, Wight.
Nays
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Maguire, Mitchelson, Pallister, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Smook, Stefanson, Wishart.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 32, Nays 19.
Mr. Speaker: Declare the motion carried.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Any further introduction of bills? Seeing none, we'll move on with–
Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislature.
And this is–these are the reasons for this petition:
The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.
Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.
An increase in the PST is excessive taxation that will hurt Manitoba families.
Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.
And this petition is signed by M. Nault, C. Neirinck, M. Tobin and many, many other fine Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to have been received by the House.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
And these are the reasons for this petition:
The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.
Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.
An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.
Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.
And, Mr. Speaker, this is signed by A. Wiebe, A. Falk, S. Giesbrecht and many other Manitobans.
Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
And these are the reasons for the petition:
The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.
Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.
An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.
Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.
And this petition's signed by P. Reimer, A. Goerzen and T. Hyde and many, many more fine Manitobans.
Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for the petition:
(1) The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.
(2) Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.
(3) An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.
(4) Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.
This petition is signed by C. Dumoulin, E. Gray and B. Lowry and many, many more fine Manitobans, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Riding Mountain): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
And these are the reasons for this petition:
The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.
Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to–the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.
An increase to the PST is excessively–is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.
Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.
This petition's signed by L. Murray, L. Tremblay, C. Brown and many, many other Manitobans, Mr. Speaker.
Municipal Amalgamations–Reversal
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Midland): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents.
* (13:50)
The provincial government did not consult with or notify the affected municipalities of this decision prior to the Throne Speech announcement on November 19th, 2012, and has further imposed unrealistic deadlines.
If the provincial government imposes amalgamations, local democratic representation will be drastically limited while not providing any real improvements in cost savings.
Local governments are further concerned that amalgamation will fail to address the serious issues currently facing municipalities, including an absence of reliable infrastructure funding and timely flood compensation.
Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and led by the municipalities themselves.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate.
And this petition is signed by T. Bartels, G. Huhtale, M. Shworsky and many other fine Manitobans.
Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum
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:
(1) The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.
(2) Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.
(3) An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.
(4) Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.
And this petition is signed by C. Pappel, J. Weiss and A. Skinner and many, many more fine Manitobans.
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.
Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.
An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.
Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.
And this is signed by J. Saxby, C. Cowles, D. Timmerman and many others, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cliff Cullen (Spruce Woods): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.
Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.
An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.
Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.
This petition is signed by D. Cruickshank, G. Lussier, K. Campbell and many other fine Manitobans.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.
Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.
An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.
Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government not to raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.
Submitted on behalf of J. Daneluk, P. Fox, V. Tubin and many other fine Manitobans.
Municipal Amalgamations–Reversal
Mr. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents.
The provincial government did not consult with or notify the affected municipalities of this decision prior to the Throne Speech announcement on November 19th, 2012, and has further imposed unrealistic deadlines.
If the provincial government imposes amalgamations, local democratic representation will be drastically limited while not providing any real improvements in cost savings.
Local governments are further concerned that amalgamation will fail to address the serious issues currently facing municipalities, including an absence of reliable infrastructure funding and timely flood compensation.
Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and led by the municipalities themselves.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate.
This petition is signed by K. Makasoff, D. Lanktree and B. Lanktree and many more fine Manitobans.
Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum
Mr. Ron Schuler (St. Paul): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
And these are the reasons for this petition:
(1) The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.
(2) Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.
(3) An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.
(4) Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine what major tax increases are necessary.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.
And this is signed by T. Bisschop, R.K. Enns, V. White and many, many other Manitobans.
Hydro Capital Development–NFAT Review
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
And these are the reasons for this petition:
(1) Manitoba Hydro was mandated by the provincial government to commence a $21-billion capital development plan to service uncertain electricity export markets.
(2) In the last five years, competition from alternative energy sources is decreasing the price and demand for Manitoba's hydroelectricity and causing the financial viability of this capital plan to be questioned.
(3) The $21-billion capital plan requires Manitoba Hydro to increase domestic electricity rates by up to 4 per cent annually for the next 20 years and possibly more if export opportunities fail to materialize.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge that the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro create a complete and transparent Needs For and Alternatives To review of Manitoba Hydro's total capital development plan to ensure the financial viability of Manitoba Hydro.
And, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by I. Hiebert, J. Hiebert, M. Goertzen and many, many others.
Municipal Amalgamations–Reversal
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
And the background for this petition is as follows:
(1) The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipalities with fewer than a thousand constituents.
(2) The provincial government did not consult with or notify the affected municipalities of this decision prior to the Throne Speech announcement of November 19th, 2012, and has further imposed unrealistic deadlines.
(3) The provincial government–if the provincial government imposes amalgamations, local democratic representation will be drastically limited while not providing any real improvements in cost savings.
(4) Local governments are further concerned that amalgamation will fail to address the serious issues currently facing municipalities, including an absence of reliable infrastructure funding and timely flood compensation.
(5) Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and led by the municipalities themselves.
* (14:00)
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than a thousand constituents to amalgamate.
And this petition is signed by H. Huberdeau, A. Cole and K. Huberdeau and many, many others, Mr. Speaker.
Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum
Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.
Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.
An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.
Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum.
This petition is signed by D. Parthenay, D. Parthenay, A. Pinette and many, many other fine Manitobans.
Hon. Erin Selby (Minister of Advanced Education and Literacy): I am pleased to table the Manitoba Adult Literacy Strategy and Adult Learning Centres in Manitoba 2011-2012 Annual Reports.
Mr. Speaker: Also, I have a report to table.
In accordance with the section 42 of The Ombudsman Act and subsection 26(1) of The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act, I am pleased to table the annual report of the Manitoba Ombudsman for the year ended December 31st, 2012.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I have a number of guests.
I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today seven Girl Guides under the direction of Stacie MacVicar. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Crothers).
Also in the public gallery, we have from Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre, Wichewin program, 15 visitors under the direction of Diedre Garson. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Children and Youth Opportunities (Mr. Chief).
And also in the public gallery, we have with us today participants from the Manitoba Motorcycle Ride for Dad, who are the guests of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Gaudreau).
Also in the public gallery, from the Beausejour & District Chamber of Commerce, Kerryleegh Hildebrandtt, past president, and from the Beausejour Brokenhead Development Corporation, Anna Wolonciej, marketing–marking director, who are the guests of the honourable member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Ewasko).
And also in the public gallery, we have today from Red River College Language Training Centre 18 students under the direction of Ms. Flo Robinson. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism (Ms. Marcelino).
On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon.
Government Response
Mr. Brian Pallister (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, today marks the second anniversary of a tragic flood, the beginning of a flood, at least, which affected real people and continues to, in a real way.
At the time and prior to it, the Premier made enormous promises when the cameras were on, but as the waters began to back away, so did he. And the government's one hundred per cent commitment to flood victims has deteriorated to the point where hundreds of people are so tired of waiting for help that many of them are ready to give up. And certainly, all of them are very fearful of their future and that of their families.
Now, these flood victims took the hit for their downstream neighbours. But yet, when they were driven to protest, the Emergency Measures Minister said, quote, they didn't even have the decency to accept responsibility for what they did.
So I've got to ask the Premier: Does he have the responsibility? Is he willing to accept the responsibility for what he did?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): The 2011 flood was an unprecedented event in Manitoba, and the response that was mounted by the government was an unprecedented response. Eight hundred and fifty million dollars of compensation has gone out, and the Manitoba government put in place programs that were not supported by the opposition nor the government in Ottawa, programs for emergency flood protection around Lake Manitoba for both farmers and producers, as well as cottagers for the first time in the history of the province, provinces for a pasture flooding assistance program, programs in place for a greenfield assistance program, programs in place for a spring blizzard livestock mortalities program. And the Shoal lakes received special funding as well, Mr. Speaker, as well as an excess moisture stimulus program, and, of course, the Dauphin River fisherpersons also received support.
This was a hundred per cent support paid by the provincial government, opposed by the members opposite in our budgets, opposed then and opposed today.
Compensation Claim Settlements
Mr. Pallister: All of us are–certainly here–used to the Premier trying to grab credit, and certainly we're used to him placing blame on other levels of government and on the opposition. What I object to, what our party objects to, is when he places blame on flood victims. Mr. Speaker, that goes too far.
Now, we have sworn affidavits which state that the Manitoba Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), in July of 2011 at a meeting with flood victims, committed the Province to a multi-year compensation program, yet no money flowed in 2012, and certainly many 2011 claims remain unpaid.
Now, these are real people, real families, and they're fighting for economic survival, and the government goes out to a meeting, makes false promises that restore some hope, then walks away, leaves victims with nothing and points the finger later at other levels of government. This party has gone thousands of miles to meet with flood victims; that government has made thousands of excuses as to how not to meet the expectations of flood victims.
Will the MLA for St. Boniface keep his word to flood victims, or should they just give up hope?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, there's only one government that said the following: At the end of the day, individuals who decide to locate their property in a flood-prone area on a flood plain have to take responsibility. And that was the government that the members of the opposition were a member of, including the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fort Whyte.
In contrast, our approach was to mount a series of programs that went beyond the normal disaster financial assistance guidelines provided by the federal government. We went well beyond that, and we are funding 50 per cent of the total cost of the 2011 flood, well beyond the 90-10 formula put in place by the federal government.
We also put in place an appeal mechanism, an independent appeal commissioner that could hear without fear or favour anybody's concerns if they felt inadequately compensated. That individual was a producer, a farmer. That individual was a mayor, and that individual has operated free from interference by any level of government or any–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister's time has expired.
Mr. Pallister: Plain and simple, Mr. Speaker, it's reprehensible conduct. It's inexcusable, and the government should do better for the people that it's placed in harm's way.
The government's quick to grab credit, but what has been the flood of the century for victims has become the excuse of the century for the government, and it's the shame of the century for that political organization. They deliberately flooded Manitoba families, then they made promises to help, then they broke their word on those promises. And now the Premier makes excuses, places blame and tries to gain political advantage as a consequence of his own misconduct. It's time for him to be a real leader.
We all know there are only two reasons why this Premier made the announcement yesterday that he did about an impending channel construction: (1) to divert attention away from his neglect of the needs of flood victims, and (2) to make a phony case for the PST hike that he wants as a slush fund for his political organization.
Will he do the right thing and deal with the claims of the people who he has victimized by his mishandling of this flood?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition shows up in Marquette, Manitoba, he attacks the Minister of Finance, who went to the meeting, he attacks other people that were not in the room, he comes back to the Legislature and he votes against additional support for people that were affected by the flood. He's a big man when he's outside of the building. He's a small man in the building when it comes to putting money on the table to support people.
The members opposite voted against $1.2 billion of flood compensation. We paid for it and we put $250 million on the table to ensure it never happens again, and they will vote against that too.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Point of Order
Mr. Pallister: Just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
* (14:10)
Mr. Speaker: I want to caution the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition to ensure that when we're raising matters under points of order during question period, I would like to encourage, in fact, all members of the House when they're raising at this time to make sure that they reference a breach of the rules that may have occurred that I might have missed.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a point of order?
Mr. Pallister: On a question, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: On a question.
Mr. Pallister: Mr. Speaker, I had some experience dealing with people of all shapes and sizes, but I've never met a liar like the Premier.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. We're wasting valuable question period time, folks. Order, please.
I clearly heard the Leader of the Official Opposition place an unparliamentary word on the record in reference to another member of this Chamber. We are, indeed, all honourable members, and I'm asking the Leader of the Official Opposition to please withdraw that word.
Mr. Pallister: I withdraw the word.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable Leader, Official Opposition.
Now, response to the question, if–no question? So–[interjection] Hold on one sec here. One sec here.
Had you posed a question? I want to clarify this before–
An Honourable Member: No, I didn't pose it as a question. I withdrew the word.
Mr. Speaker: You withdrew the word so that there is no question that was posed, so therefore is no need for a response.
Move on with the next question.
Compensation Claim Settlements
Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): Mr. Speaker, this week is an anniversary, but unlike most anniversaries, there is no celebrating. It's the second anniversary of the man-made, intentional inundation of farms, ranchlands, homes, cottages and First Nations around Lake Manitoba. Two years ago, the flood waters rolled in and changed people's lives forever.
The member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) rushed out pre-election and made a promise. He said he and his NDP government would put in place a comprehensive, multi-year compensation program.
I ask the member for Dauphin: Where is that program?
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister responsible for Emergency Measures): Mr. Speaker, I think we're increasingly seeing the erratic approach of members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, when it comes to flooding. I mean, let's not forget, by the way, that we should expect better from a leader that was the former minister responsible for Emergency Measures. Now, I know he quit as minister of Emergency Measures before the '97 flood, and he quit provincial politics during the '97 flood to run federally to pursue his own ambitions.
But, Mr. Speaker, just as following the '97 flood, after the 2011 flood we put in place some of the most comprehensive programs in terms of assistance: $840 million to put assistance in the hands of flood victims.
But what we're really proud of is we're also working to protect those flood victims. We made that announcement yesterday: $250 million to protect them.
What did the Leader of the Opposition do today? He dismissed it. Again, erratic comments from a person–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The minister's time is expired.
Mr. Briese: Mr. Speaker, on June the 1st, 2011, the member for Dauphin stood in front of a crowded hall in Langruth and said: We are working on a multi‑year compensation package. It is going to be comprehensive. If it is two years down the road and nothing is happening, I want to know.
I ask the member for Dauphin to tell Jonas and Lydia Johnson, who are in the gallery today: Where is the promised multi-year, comprehensive program he promised two years ago?
Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Speaker, in terms of erratic behaviour, the Leader of the Opposition went to Marquette; when he was talking to flood victims, he joked about flooding the city of Winnipeg. That's not funny, and it's also not the way we deal with things.
We are there for all Manitobans. That's why I was very proud yesterday to join with the Premier (Mr. Selinger), who announced $250 million of commitment to make the outlet from Lake St. Martin permanent, to build another outlet from Lake Manitoba.
And I want to tell you what one of the reeves in the hardest affected areas said. He said, with the announcement here today, it reinstated the confidence that Lake Manitoba once again be a safe lake to live around. That's coming from a reeve that represented one of the most hard-hit areas.
We're listening to the flood victims; they are ignoring them, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Briese: Ranchland and hay land continue to be unproductive two years later. No program in 2012, no program in 2013. No disaster financial assistance, no ag stability, no crop insurance coverage on bare, flooded hay and pasture land.
The member from Dauphin can blame the feds. The fact remains that he and his NDP government gave their word and they broke it.
Will the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) keep his commitment to Jonas and Lydia Johnson and put a multi-year comprehensive compensation package in place, or is this just another broken promise in his ever-growing list of broken promises to people like Jonas and Lydia Johnson?
Mr. Ashton: It just amazes me. You know, there was a minister of Agriculture says we only pay once in terms of flood assistance. It's Gerry Ritz, the federal Minister of Agriculture. And we don't take no for an answer. That's why our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Kostyshyn) has been making it very clear, Mr. Speaker, we expect the federal government to be partnering with us for those flood victims.
But, Mr. Speaker, again, if we're talking about erratic behaviour from members opposite, you know, their view of fighting floods is they stand in the Portage Diversion to block the operation of the Portage Diversion for 12 hours. Our view is we follow up with a report–126 recommendations to protect flood victims. We put in place $250 million because of our budget.
The real question, Mr. Speaker, is: We voted for it. Why did members opposite, who talk about flood victims, vote against hope for flood victims in the budget?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: I'm going to caution the House again. I'm asking for the co-operation of all honourable members.
We have a lot of guests with us here today. I think, quite fortunately perhaps in this case, there's not students here today, because I'm not sure they would want to listen to or witness what's going on.
So I'm asking for the co-operation of all honourable members. Please conduct ourselves with some dignity.
Compensation Claim Settlements
Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, Ethel Larkin is an 82-year-old grandmother who's still running the family farm with the help of family members. The flood of 2011 completely covered their property, and they had to evacuate both themselves and their cattle herds. When they returned, damage to pastures was extension–extensive, and the pastures were useless.
Mr. Speaker, compensation promised was multi‑year. Where are the programs for 2012 and 2013?
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister responsible for Emergency Measures): Well, Mr. Speaker, again, I want to stress that we put in place the most comprehensive response to flooding that we've seen. It reflected the fact there was historic flooding, $840 million of assistance and, in fact, if you total the amount we spent on fighting the flood, $1.2 billion. And I want to stress that what we've also done, we haven't forgotten Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin in the response.
We put in place two flood reports. We accepted every single one of the recommendations, so I want to stress again, we yesterday announced $250 million that will ensure the people in Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin have better protection in the future. We put in place a budget that made tough decisions and ensured the money'd be there to back it up.
The question again is: How come that member, who talks about flood victims, votes against everything we've done to do–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.
Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Larkin and her family are survivors and they have, with the help of neighbours, managed to keep things going on their farm. It has not been easy. Feed supplies are short, fence lines are damaged, pastures destroyed. Some help was available initially, but it appears all promised multi-year programs have disappeared with the water.
Mr. Speaker, did the minister's multi-year commitment disappear with the Lake Manitoba flood waters?
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, again, you can't get much more of a multi-year commitment than saying that we are going to make a top priority protecting Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin with an outlet, and I will put on the record that we built an emergency outlet in a matter of months. That outlet was looked at in 1978, not constructed. This government, working with some of the best engineering expertise and people around the lake, put in place an emergency outlet. We're going to make it permanent.
We're also going to build the additional outlet out of Lake Manitoba that everyone around the lake has been saying needs to be done. It's fine for the member opposite to get up and raise questions in the House, but what he is talking about, he's ignoring the fact that we are acting on a multi-year basis. We're making sure that job No. 1 is to protect people in and around Lake Manitoba–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.
Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I do hope this lady lives long enough to see their action.
Water quality from Lake Manitoba is not good. Salinity issues make it only marginally potable water. When flood water disappeared, salt stayed behind. Damage from this is multi-year in nature. Mr. Speaker, no programs have come forward despite repeated promises. It would seem this is just another of a long list of broken promises.
Mr. Speaker, will this government live up to its promises with more than just words?
* (14:20)
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, $1.2 billion that was spent either in fighting the flood or in terms of compensation assistance during the flood of 2011‑2012. I want to indicate that at least half of that is non-recoverable from the federal government. There are, in fact, nine stand-alone provincial programs.
And I want to remind the member again–and I know it's difficult for members opposite to actually accept the fact that once in a while they might want to call their federal cousins–but it was Gerry Ritz who said, we only pay once, we don't do multi-year, Mr. Speaker. Our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Kostyshyn) and we have said, we're not taking that no for an answer. We'll continue to pressure the federal government to come to the table and join with us to be there for Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin.
Compensation Claim Settlements
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Well, Mr. Speaker, two years after the 2011 flood, Fred Neil, a 69-year-old dairy farmer, continues to suffer by the unwillingness of this NDP government to honour their commitment.
Mr. Neil has still not been compensated as a result of the Souris River 2011 flooding, Mr. Speaker, that leaves his dairy farm near bankruptcy despite support from neighbours, dairy producers and veterinarians. This government has failed Mr. Neil's calls for needed support.
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier and his minister in charge of this disaster commit to honour Mr. Neil's needs of over $350,000 in outstanding claims today?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we did have the opportunity to meet with this individual. He was directed to us by the member, and we did work with–to see what was possible to assist this individual. And I believe, along with the dairy producers of Manitoba, there were additional resources made available to this individual.
Mr. Maguire: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's been two years, and on April the 4th, I sent a letter to the Premier clarifying the procedures this government needed to follow under their disaster financial assistance arrangement–documents designed to support dairy flood victims, specifically outlining chapter 5, section 5.4.7.
And I table these documents to refresh the Premier's mind, Mr. Speaker. He'll note that the required veterinarian authorization is substantiated.
Why does this government continue not to meet Mr. Neil's pleas for help as the only dairy farmer in Manitoba's history of this magnitude to be devastated by such a disaster? Will the NDP commit today to helping him?
Mr. Selinger: As the member for Arthur-Virden knows, we're not at liberty to discuss the specifics. But I can assure him that after this was drawn to our attention, it was given consideration by both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Kostyshyn) and his officials, myself. And we thank the member for Arthur-Virden for bringing this matter forward. I do understand additional support was provided to that individual. Unfortunately, we don't disclose these matters in the Legislature, but I do thank the member for bringing it forward. If there's any additional items that he wishes to bring forward, he can do that.
And he should also know that an independent commissioner was put in place to deal with any appeals. That independent commissioner is himself a producer, very aware of the challenges the producers have. And that independent commissioner can act without fear or favour with request to any additional compensation required.
Mr. Maguire: Well, I'm not ashamed to make it public, Mr. Speaker. This farmer is still out 80 per cent of the claims that are still outstanding with this government.
It's clear that this government hasn't even filed a claim with the federal government for Mr. Neil's compensation needs for the quota he has had to sell off, Mr. Speaker, $270,000 he's had to sell off of his own inventory just to survive.
Will they commit today to help Mr. Neil stave off bankruptcy forced on him by the flood of 2011?
Mr. Selinger: Again, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the member's diligence on this. He has pursued this particular individual's circumstances with diligence. I acknowledge that.
We did have the opportunity to meet with that individual. We did listen to his concerns. I know the Minister of Agriculture and the senior officials in the Agriculture Department, along with the dairy producers association, the Dairy Farmers of Manitoba, did all work together to ensure this person could have and retain a viable business in Manitoba.
Compensation Claim Settlements
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): On the anniversary of the man-made flood of Lake Manitoba two years ago, this NDP government has broken their word and commitments to the victims of the flood. There are seven class action lawsuits pending against this government, all dealing with the flood of 2011 this NDP flooded on.
I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers): Will he stand up with–to the people today and the people in the gallery and right this wrong and flow the compensation that he promised two years ago, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister responsible for Emergency Measures): Well, I want to repeat again for the member opposite that we have put in place $840 million in terms of assistance in compensation, Mr. Speaker, nine stand-alone provincial programs that goes above and beyond the disaster financial assistance program. We've seen unprecedented coverage, including, for example, seasonal residences, which have never been covered before.
And in addition to that, not only did we provide that kind of assistance, during the flood we put in place unprecedented action, an emergency outlet from Lake St. Martin, Mr. Speaker, that drained the level of that lake by 3 feet and drained the lake level in Lake Manitoba by 2.2 feet. That brought the lake back within normal regulatory levels.
So we not only provided assistance, we fought the flood, and with the support, Mr. Speaker, of many people around the lake, we made a difference for the people in there, and we'll continue to make a difference–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, we're asking the minister to focus on the question. We're talking about compensation. So I'm going to give him another chance.
We have asked this government time and time again to fulfill the commitments and promises made by the Minister of Finance in 2011. The government cannot fool the public.
The people here in the gallery today want to know what was promised to them, when it was going to be delivered by this Minister of Finance–asked him to honour those commitments. Will they do that today, yes or no?
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, we faced unprecedented flooding in 2011-2012. It's probably in the range of one-in-350 to one-in-400-year flooding.
And what we did, Mr. Speaker, and I–you know, I've met with many people in and around the lake, and I can tell you what they said. They said it was important to be there in terms of assistance, and we listened to them. We put in place historic commitment in terms of assistance. We–they also said, not to forget us on the mitigation side. So during the flood, we worked and we got in place, in months, an emergency outlet.
And I'm–I'll repeat again for members opposite, and particularly for the Leader of the Opposition, who dismissed this earlier, because I briefed every one of the reeves and chiefs from around Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin yesterday on the $250-million initiative. And every single one of them said, that's what we want; we want a commitment.
That's the difference, Mr. Speaker. This government's acting. They can talk all–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, lives and families have been torn apart because of this government's lies.
The programs that were promised were supposed to be fair and quick. Over 500 outstanding clams–claims exist and hundreds of dissatisfied claims still remain two years after the NDP promised otherwise. These victims are sick and tired of the lies of this government.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the member from Dauphin, and the other six members of his caucus, to apologize to the folks up in the gallery. They want their compensation. They want it today. Will you please do the right thing and honour this–commitments you made to these folks? It's time for action.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, we put in place unprecedented programming, more than nine stand‑alone provincial programs, in addition to the disaster financial assistance program. In addition to–much of the assistance fell on the agriculture side. We not only did that, in addition to the $840 million that flowed, we put in place an appeal process. And I would encourage anyone that has ongoing concerns to go through that appeal process.
But not only that, Mr. Speaker, unlike members opposite, we also got to work in dealing with the flood itself. And they can think that somebody pressed the button somewhere and all that water appeared out of nowhere. I know they still believe that the moon landing was filmed in a back lot in Hollywood.
But the reality was it was a real flood and we had real action, a real outlet, and we'll have real mitigation in the future, Mr. Speaker. That's what you do for flood victims–real differences.
Hearing Attendance
Mr. Cliff Cullen (Spruce Woods): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) broke his promise to flood victims in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Finance has also completely mishandled the horse racing file. His backroom politics may lead to the demise of both the thoroughbred industry and the standardbred industry here in Manitoba.
The minister has been found guilty of withholding funds under The Pari-Mutuel Levy Act. As a result of his negligence on the file, he finds himself front and centre at a $350-million lawsuit–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that members have the responsibility under our rules to bring factual information to this House. I do not believe the Minister of Finance has been found guilty of anything, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Official Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Clearly, the member opposite hasn't read the ruling. It was clear, Mr. Speaker, within the ruling that the judge indicated that the minister, while he had the right to change the law, he wasn't able to take the action that he did before the law was changed.
* (14:30)
I know this is a sensitive issue for the government and for the Government House Leader. They certainly have the right to be concerned and upset with the government and with the minister in terms of what he did, but they don't have the right to their own set of facts and they don't have the right to change what the judge said, and the judge said that the minister broke the law, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, I thank all honourable members of the House for their advice on this point of order. I did not hear that there was a breach of the rule, as that would be my responsibility then to make a decision and then enforce the rules of this House.
And since I didn't hear a breach of the rules, I must respectfully rule that there is, indeed, no point of order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now, the honourable member for Spruce Woods, I believe, was in the middle of asking a question.
Mr. Cullen: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) is also facing very serious conflict of interest allegations.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance: Will be–will the Minister of Finance be attending the hearing tomorrow to address the issue of conflict of interest?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and, indeed, government has the responsibility to allocate resources to the greatest priorities of Manitobans. And in the case of Manitobans, they've told us that they want us to invest in health care, they want us to invest in education, they want us to invest in roads and flood protection for all Manitobans, and that's what was done in this budget.
And I know there's been a dispute on the facts, Mr. Speaker, but there's no disputing the following fact: what was written in the budget. And what was written in the budget was the following: We will reduce public subsidies to horse racing and direct resources to priority services through legislative changes to The Pari-Mutuel Levy Act and the Manitoba Jockey Club VLT site-holder agreement.
That's what was committed to in the budget. That's what has been acted upon today in the bill that has been tabled in front of the Legislature.
Mr. Cullen: I know the government's having a hard time reading the entire report here, but page 22, it clearly says–Judge Dewar said the minister must act in accordance with the law as it now stands; in my respectful opinion, he has not done that. That sounds like guilty to me, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this Premier and this minister are facing a $350-million lawsuit as a result of their inaction on this file. The minister is facing very serious conflict of interest allegations.
I'm asking the minister: He can hide today, but is he going to be there tomorrow morning to answer those questions?
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): You know, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to put some facts on the record, something members opposite have not done in terms of Assiniboine downs.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, Assiniboine downs receives funding from two sources, the parimutuel levy–which is essentially a rebate on the parimutuel levy that's collected–also from the VLT agreement. What we announced in the budget is that we would be reducing that amount. We said we'd proceed through the normal mechanisms. That bill was introduced today. There's nothing untoward about that.
I want to remind members opposite, the other thing they haven't put on the record is that actually 90 per cent of the revenue for Assiniboine downs currently comes from that–those two sources. They will still have VLT revenue just like every other site holder in the province. They will still have the parimutuel levy, Mr. Speaker, although we will also be supporting the harness racing industry.
The end result is that we're following the law–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.
Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr. Speaker, it appears the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) is in the NDP witness control program.
Mr. Speaker, this is all about the integrity of the Minister of Finance and this government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the bullying tactics of this government are really driving business out of the province. People are tired of it and they're starting to fight back, hence the $350-million lawsuit, hence the conflict of interest allegations against the Minister of Finance.
Will the Minister of Finance come clean with Manitobans? Will he be at the hearing tomorrow to defend these allegations?
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, we're not going to engage in a discussion about conspiracy theories or frivolous accusations. The reality is as follows: We have a responsibility to the people of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, to determine what is the best way to deal with the proceeds of 148 VLTs at Assiniboine downs and the parimutuel levy.
And I want to stress again, Mr. Speaker, we're not eliminating the entire amount–the entire subsidy going to Assiniboine downs. In fact, they will continue to have access to the VLTs in exactly the same formula that every other site holder in the province–our commercial site holders have. They'll still have access to the parimutuel levy.
We're doing it through legislation that was introduced today. The members opposite can vote against that, Mr. Speaker. That's the normal process. We're following all our parliamentary procedures, and we're doing the right thing by transferring $5 million from horse racing into public purposes such as–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.
Compensation Claim Settlements
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, there was a time when an NDP government might have been concerned about the people in our society who are most vulnerable, the poor, the disabled and those who are disadvantaged by circumstances like unexpected natural or artificial floods. Today's NDP has turned its backs on those who are most vulnerable.
I ask the Premier: Will he reconsider the decision that he's taken to withhold critically needed compensation from individuals who have been tragically affected by the flood of 2011?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Lake Manitoba compensation program went well beyond the guidelines that were supported by the federal government and a hundred per cent of that incremental cost was paid for by the taxpayers of Manitoba. That program had an unprecedented degree of generosity and, also, an independent appeal commissioner was put in place if any specific circumstances of an individual were not properly addressed by the compensation program and that commissioner has the ability to add additional support in the case if he believes it has merit. The program is a hundred per cent paid by the government of Manitoba over and above the federal guidelines. They have decided not to participate in that. We have done more than any other province in the history of this country with respect to disaster financial assistance because the events in Manitoba were unprecedented in 2011.
And now we're moving ahead rapidly with a program for long-term mitigation. We offered a billion dollars of support to the people in the Red River Valley and around Winnipeg. We are now offering support to the people in the Assiniboine valley, up through Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. We think they should be treated at least as well as the people in the Red River Valley and Winnipeg, and that's what will be done, Mr. Speaker.
North End Treatment Plant Upgrades
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the flood caused problems for people, but it also put a huge amount of phosphorus into Lake Winnipeg, and according to Vicki Burns, Lake Winnipeg Foundation, you know, one of the major problems in addition with–Lake Winnipeg has a large amount of phosphorus coming in from the sewage of the city of Winnipeg.
The NDP's 2012 Throne Speech mentioned Winnipeg's North End treatment plant and removing phosphorus from some of Winnipeg's sewage, and their 2013 budget mentioned upgrading Winnipeg's waste water treatment. But since then, Mr. Speaker, there's been only silence from the NDP.
I ask the Premier: By what date will the critically needed upgrades to the North End treatment plant to remove phosphorus be completed?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Very important question. Saving Lake Winnipeg is first and foremost about reducing phosphorus levels going into that lake, and there are point-specific sources of phosphorus, such as the city of Winnipeg, and there are non-point-specific sources of phosphorus, such as in rural Manitoba and some of the municipalities, and there are also sources of phosphorus from outside of our jurisdiction, and we are taking action in all of those areas.
With respect to Lake Winnipeg, they have been required to use the best technology available to reduce phosphorus levels; it's known as biological nutrient removal. Our officials are working closely with theirs to ensure that is brought forward not just in the North End plant but also the South End plant and in the West End plant where it's already been fully implemented. Mr. Speaker, the specific date is one that the City is asking for additional time on.
We will ensure that that program is brought forward in a timely way, phosphorus levels are reduced so that the fisheries and tourism and people that live around Lake Winnipeg can have a good quality lake for the future. That's something we're acting on. The member knows it and, of course, when it comes to Vicki Burns from the Lake Winnipeg Foundation–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The First Minister's time has expired.
Sewage Treatment
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, too many of this Premier's projects with the City of Winnipeg are stuck: CentrePort, rapid transit and sewage treatment. The Premier couldn't even give us a specific date by which this would be–the North End plant would be completed.
As well as the North End plant, there is a problem because of the present combined sewage system. Summer is fast upon us. It's vital that the Premier act immediately, as Lake Winnipeg is being overrun by toxic algae and has been named the most threatened lake in the world.
I ask the Premier: When will the combined sewers be converted to separate dedicated sewers to stop the overflow of Winnipeg sewage into our–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
* (14:40)
Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): The issue of combined sewers is a very important one, and it's one that requires very significant levels of capital. The city has a long-term plan to separate those sewers in the old area of the city of Winnipeg where they exist. All new subdivisions are built with separate sewers so that as the city continues to expand that the phosphorus footprint of the city is reduced, and they have a program to separate the sewers in the old parts of the city of Winnipeg.
And as, of course, members opposite need to know, we have doubled the amount of money that we provide to the City of Winnipeg. Just this year alone the increase in capital to the City for projects just like this went up 12 and a half per cent, and the operating budget went up 8 and a half per cent, unprecedented levels of support from the Province of Manitoba to the City of Winnipeg.
We asked them to use it for priorities such as protecting Lake Winnipeg through having cleaner emissions into the Red River, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Before recognizing the honourable member for the Interlake, I want to make certain that the microphone system was indeed working. Did we catch all of the response to the question? [interjection] We're fine? Okay.
Flooding Infrastructure
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, a previous government built the Red River Floodway to protect Winnipeg, and now this government has committed to build the channels needed to protect rural Manitobans who live around lakes Manitoba and St. Martin. Never have I been prouder to be a member of the NDP.
However, the federal Tories have been lacking on this file, the low point being when Gerry Ritz said Manitoba farmers want to be compensated twice for the same flood, saying no to AgriRecovery.
The question is: Will the federal Conservative government finally stand with the people of Manitoba when it comes to funding programs and infrastructure critical to so many rural Manitobans?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Boy, I'm going to have to check what was on the menu today for lunch, maybe make sure we don't repeat that again.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable leader–Official Opposition House Leader, I should say, on a point of order.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Official Opposition House Leader): It's a good thing I skipped lunch, Mr. Speaker, but I would say, I'll quote the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, O'Brien and Bosc, chapter 13, a ruling by the Speaker Milliken, the Speaker who said the House has adopted the rules of order, decorum governing the conduct of members towards each other and towards the institution as a whole. Members should show respect for one another and for the institution.
I can't believe, Mr. Speaker, that on the anniversary of an occurrence in Manitoba that affected so many Manitobans that the reflection on this institution that the member for Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff) would bring forward to try to deflect and to dodge responsibility that his Premier (Mr. Selinger) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) took responsibility before–during an election and before the–or during the flood.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, they made a commitment to Manitobans. Many of those affected Manitobans are here with us in the gallery today. They haven't been able to get their lives back together, and the reflection–the reflection on this House by the member for Interlake, who told flood victims it could have been worse, who told people in the diversion that they would never get compensation if they didn't get out, is clearly a breach of the reflection of this House. He should be ashamed. He should be going to his Premier and demanding compensation, not trying to deflect blame.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): On the same point of order.
I think it is in our rules–it's certainly in the agreement that was signed by the House leaders–that members of the government side have the right to put a question during question period. And they may not agree with that question, and that is their right. I don't agree with every question that they ask, but I stand by their right to pose those questions, Mr. Speaker.
And the member for Interlake also has the right to pose that question, and if in posing his question he is going to point out that the federal government has said to flood victims that you only get compensated once under the federal scheme, if he is going to point that out in that–in his question and stand for his constituents which are suffering from the flood and have not seen the kind of federal assistance that they were promised, that is his right to stand in this House and do that.
We can disagree with each other in this House, but we should not–and I am, frankly, alarmed at the attitude from the Opposition House Leader that he would get up and question the member of any–the right of any member in this House to stand and put a question on behalf of his constituents. That, Mr. Speaker, shows an alarming lack of respect for democracy. And then to stand and cite a rule about reflecting on the quality of the House–on the House reflecting to people the integrity of the House not 20 minutes after the leader of his party had to withdraw a statement because it was unparliamentary, that is the height of hypocrisy.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, on this–on the same point of order.
I mean, it is important to respect the opportunity for everybody to ask questions. At the same time, I think that this House has to recognize that today we have in the gallery a number of people who are hurting really badly as a result of the flood of 2011 and who are doing everything they can to try and get their lives back in order but have not been able to receive the sort of help that they were promised or expected.
And while it may be fair for one party to point at another party at the federal level, at the same time, this government cannot stand back, because they did make promises. And if they promised, and a program that was 40-60, there is no reason they couldn't start by giving their 40 per cent.
There is options which this government could have and should have used, including reconsidering some of the people today who have been tragically affected, and I believe that it's important that this House, in any ruling the Speaker makes, takes into consideration the circumstances of people in the gallery today. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: I think I've heard sufficient advice on this point of order.
An Honourable Member: I've good advice for you, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Is the Leader of the Official Opposition reflecting on the Chair?
An Honourable Member: No, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
I appreciate the advice of all honourable members have provided to me on the point of order raised by the Official Opposition House Leader.
I'm starting to see an increasing amount of use of points of orders during question period to debate ongoing issues before the Assembly, quite often for matters that are currently before question period. I don't think that's the appropriate place for engaging in this type of debate. There are many other opportunities, including grievances, speeches on various bills before the Assembly, questions in question period, that would allow members the opportunity to ask their questions specific to the matters that are of concern to them.
So I'd like to–on the point of order raised by the Official Opposition House Leader, I–while I appreciate his reference to a particular rule in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it appears to me to be a dispute over the facts that are occurring here in the Assembly during question period today, so I therefore must respectfully rule that there is no point of order.
Mr. Goertzen: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the ruling.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to sustaining the ruling of the Chair, signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Goertzen: A recorded vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order. Order, please. The one hour allowed for the ringing of the division bells has expired. I'm instructing that the bells be turned off, and we'll now proceed to the vote.
The question before the House is: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allan, Allum, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Caldwell, Chief, Chomiak, Crothers, Dewar, Gaudreau, Howard, Irvin‑Ross, Jha, Kostyshyn, Mackintosh, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Wiebe, Wight.
Nays
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Maguire, Mitchelson, Pallister, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Smook, Stefanson, Wishart.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 32, Nays 19.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has accordingly been sustained.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: We will now resume question period, and I believe I had recognized the honourable Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation to respond to the question.
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister responsible for Emergency Measures): And to the member's question I perhaps would read the headline from the Manitoba Co-operator from May 16th, which stated that the government says, no new compensation for old flood. The federal government is saying no to paying the same flood twice, but the Province is continuing to seek a solution.
And perhaps, Mr. Speaker–and I say this to members opposite, because we've actually been attempting to work in partnership with the federal government, both on flood compensation issues and mitigation–why don't we all join together and perhaps take a joint approach with the federal government, because we're going to need them? Whether it's providing multi-year assistance, whether it's helping fund the mitigation we need, why don't we come together?
And I thank the member for the Interlake for asking the question, because why don't we join together to work as Manitobans to get the federal government–
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.
Apology Request
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): We certainly saw a display here put on this afternoon by the member from Interlake, and we have people that's been impacted by this flood, and the attitude of this member is just totally unacceptable.
I ask the minister from St. Boniface whether or not he'll apologize for the member from Interlake.
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister responsible for Emergency Measures): Yes, you know, Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you one thing about the member for the Interlake. From day one, when it's come to the flood, he's advocated for his constituents. He advocated for flood assistance. He pulled together meetings with reeves and chiefs that he represented month after month, week after week, day after day.
And this member may stand up and attempt to grandstand, but the member for the Interlake has been working with our government. And I was never more proud yesterday, and I joined with the member for the Interlake and I joined with our Premier (Mr. Selinger) to announce that we're putting $250 million into action for Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, this is totally disrespectful. I cannot believe what this government–its attitude, the way they're treating the flood victims, the very people that lost their livelihood. The minister gets up and has the audacity to put that on the record and say the member who said, it could've been worse. This is total disrespect.
Stand up and apologize once and for all. That's disrespectful, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I take no lessons on respect from members opposite, and I think their conduct in this question period speaks volumes.
Because, Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to get up and grandstand, if he wants to personalize it with the member for the Interlake, I'll tell him one thing, that during the unprecedented flood we pulled together as Manitobans, and when it came to Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin, unprecedented compensation assistance. We put in place an emergency outlet that drained the lakes and brought them back within–below flood stage.
And I want to say to the member opposite, I'll stand with the member for the Interlake any day. He's been advocating for his constituents, supported by his constituents, and he's [inaudible] member of this Legislature.
Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.
If it wasn't the lunch, perhaps it was something in the air, but I'm going to have to have the air tested, I guess, to make sure that there wasn't something affecting the members here today. But I appreciate the co-operation of all honourable members, and if we can proceed with the business of the House that would be much appreciated.
Beausejour Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Beausejour and District Chamber of Commerce. This anniversary is not only an accomplishment for Beausejour, but a tribute to the work that chambers of commerce do across this province in their efforts to bring business together through mutual respect and co-operation, something that this NDP government fails to do.
For 75 years, the Beausejour and District Chamber of Commerce has provided strong economic and community leadership, founded in 1938 by a team of dedicated business leaders who were keen to invest in the future of business in Beausejour. The district chamber of commerce has since grown in numbers and strength. Today it encompasses individuals and organizations from all across Beausejour and the surrounding areas.
For years, hard-working members and volunteers of the district chamber of commerce in Beausejour dedicated themselves to marketing commerce in the area, providing training for businesses and opportunities for networking, spearheading town beautification efforts, submitting articles of interest to the local newspapers and lobbying for major civic changes in the district. The chamber has also helped countless major community events and worked with the Beausejour Brokenhead Development Corporation to expand their outreach.
Over the past 75 years, the Beausejour district and chamber of commerce has achieved numerous successes. They were instrumental in the achievement of the Highway 44 twinning, the establishment of the industrial park and assisted in the establishment of the Beausejour Toastmasters Club, among other successes.
Achieving 75 years of operation is a milestone that is no small feat, and through hard work, determination and the dedication of the members, it is the fervent hope that the Beausejour and District Chamber of Commerce will continue to thrive throughout the next 75 years.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to publicly congratulate the Beausejour and District Chamber of Commerce for its long dedication towards promoting commerce, teamwork and community development in Beausejour. I wish them continued success for the next 75 years.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Girl Guides 157th Unit
Ms. Deanne Crothers (St. James): Today I would like to recognize some very special visitors to the Legislative Building. Members of the Girl Guides 157th unit were in the gallery today watching the session, and what a day to attend, I tell you.
Girl Guides of Canada is a great organization that invites girls across Canada to challenge themselves, find their voices, meet new friends, develop a wide range of skills and make a difference in the world. Through Girl Guides, girls aged 5 through 17 can participate in a variety of programs that help them develop practical skills and learn to work as a team. They also learn the importance of respecting others and of serving the community. Over 70,000 girls and young women are currently involved in the Girl Guides program across the country under the leadership of more than 18,000 volunteers.
This winter, I got a chance to spend some time with these intelligent, inquisitive girls. They invited me to come and speak to them as part of their Beyond You program badge. To earn the badge the girls had to invite a community leader to a meeting and ask questions to learn about their role in the community. I was honoured to be invited and genuinely enjoyed answering questions for these bright young ladies. While they had the chance to ask me some questions, I took the opportunity to ask them about their lives, their accomplishments and their hopes for the future. I would not be surprised if each of the members of unit 157 indeed reaches all of their goals.
Organizations such as Girl Guides do great work in helping young people learn to discover interests, develop skills and appreciate the value of community involvement. I would also like to express my appreciation for the guidance that the group's leadership team provides. The commitment and dedication of these volunteers to the program and to the girls themselves is what makes this organization successful. The enjoyment that they get from working with the girls was clear at the meeting I attended and was reflected in the demeanour of the girls of unit 157, who are engaged, comfortable and enthusiastic.
Mr. Speaker, I would like all–I would like to ask all honourable members to join me in welcoming this group of Manitoba's future leaders, Girl Guides unit 157, and their leadership team, who were here with us today.
Thank you.
* (16:00)
EMS Awareness Week–Paramedics
Mr. Cameron Friesen (Morden-Winkler): Mr. Speaker, this week is Emergency Medical Services Awareness Week in Manitoba, and it's my privilege to highlight the work of paramedics in the province of Manitoba.
In our communities, every day, paramedics are ready to respond at the scene of an accident at the workplace or in the home. Paramedics with the Winnipeg fire and paramedic service, and those working in every other corner of the province, are highly trained and compassionate professionals who respond to the calls, get to the location, assess the situation, and provide critical, often life-saving care.
Paramedics face challenges in this province. Too often, they work double shifts or get diverted to respond to EMS needs in communities away from home. Paramedics continue to wait too long to off‑load patients at ERs across the province. At this time, there are now 17 emergency health-care facilities who are experiencing closures or suspension of services.
But, in spite of these challenges, we are pleased to see paramedics taking on increased responsibility working in new and innovative ways. The Paramedic Association of Manitoba has often led the way and led the discussion, talking about the issues and finding solutions to the challenges in emergency medical services.
That's why in 2011 the PC Party expressed a commitment to expand the scope of care administered by paramedics and provide more full‑time ambulances for Winnipeg and Manitoba. We talked about preventing workplace injuries by introducing new equipment like powerlift stretchers to address concerns. We know that the ability of Manitobans to receive care as quickly as possible makes a difference for Manitobans, increases their survival rate, and increases their recovery rate.
Mr. Speaker, paramedics are providing the care, ensuring that patients get to emergency rooms in a prompt and timely manner, and I ask all members of this Chamber to join me in thanking and commending the work that makes paramedics a lifeline for Manitobans. Day in and day out, we are grateful for their dedication and commitment.
Manitoba Motorcycle Ride for Dad
Mr. Dave Gaudreau (St. Norbert): The story of the Ride for Dad is bittersweet. It brings together two things I care about: riding a motorcycle on the open road and supporting the fight against prostate cancer.
Charlie Pester was an educator from Kingston. By the time he had by–diagnosed with prostate cancer, it was already too late. He wanted his story to encourage others to seek necessary screenings and treatment.
In Canada, one in eight men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, the second leading cause of cancer death in men. The sad fact that over 1.2 million Canadian men have prostate cancer and the vast majority of them don't know it yet. Annually, this cancer ends the lives of 4,300 Canadian men. That is 12 men daily.
Across Canada, thousands come together every year to host local rides to garner donations, turn a hobby into activism. Motorcycle enthusiasts ride their bikes to raise funds, all of which goes towards awareness campaigns and research.
A record high 1,002 riders took place–took part in Winnipeg's fifth annual ride last weekend. First organized over a decade ago in Ottawa, 30 cities across the country host rides, and plans are under way for more. Over 100,000 people have been involved in Canadian rides, raising a whopping $9 million in the fight against prostate cancer.
I have ridden my bike to support this effort and was honoured to receive a cheque on behalf of Manitobans. This heartfelt gift to CancerCare, Manitobans, will help save lives and improve the conditions of current patients.
In Manitoba, our survival rate for cancer has increased nearly 10 per cent since the 1990s. Our Cancer Patient Journey initiative will make cancer times in the–cancer wait times in the country the shortest at two months or less, cover 100 per cent of the cost of cancer-care drugs for patients at home, and offer new supports for rural cancer patients. The plan, which includes all recommendations from the Canadian Cancer Society, commits $19.5 million to the fight for cancer.
I cannot thank the Ride for Dad organizers, participants and donors enough for their selfless compassion and care. You are looking out for every Manitoban man and supporting the greatest struggle against cancer. Ride on.
Festival of Colours
Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to live in a multicultural province like Manitoba. With more than 150 countries represented in our province, and more than 140 languages spoken, we are able to share many unique cultural traditions with one another.
This spring, Hindus across the world gather to celebrate Holi, the festival of colours. Holi is the time to say goodbye to winter and to celebrate the coming of spring. The festival also traditionally commemorates good harvests and fertile land, as well as the triumph of the good over evil.
Earlier this year, over a thousand people gathered together at the Ellice Avenue temple and on St. Anne's temple, Dr. Raj Pandey Hindu Centre, to celebrate Holi. The festivities included dancing, singing and, of course, throwing the coloured powders on one another. I know that, even though it is seen as a festival of Hindus, it is more of an all‑inclusive community event, and people from all faiths come across to celebrate the colourful festival. As I have stated many times, most Hindus believe in the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, meaning the world is a large family.
Mr. Speaker, the Hindu Society of Manitoba, through its activities of temples and cultural centres, has been able to raise the profile of the community living in Manitoba, helping to integrate them into the multicultural mosaic of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Captain Narendra Mathur, the president of the Hindu Society of Manitoba; chairperson of the Ellice Temple, Mona Goomansingh; and chairperson of Dr. Raj Pandey Hindu Centre, Kirit Thakrar, for their continued leadership and their dedication to the Hindu community. The Holi festival was a great success, and many people who attended were able to join together to celebrate their cultural traditions and in colour.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for the Lakeside, with a grievance.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do want to speak today on a grievance in regard to the anniversary of two years ago when we had a flood in the province of Manitoba, and I want to reiterate what we were talking about in question period in regards to what the Minister of Finance committed back on June the 1st of 2011.
And it was very clear what he said, and I want to put it on the record once again. I know we have done this time and time again, but what the minister said, he said: We are working on a multi-year compensation package, a multi-year comprehensive compensation package. If two years down the road and nothing is happening, I want to know about that. I do not want to underscore. This is a compensation package that we have said very clearly is going to be ready to come out very quickly. We're going to get cheques flowing as fast as we can and it's going to be comprehensive for farmers, ranchers, homeowners, cottagers, and businesses.
Again–again then, July the 13th, the same year, he went out and said the same thing all over again. And then, November the 16th, just a few months later, he again assured all Manitobans that it would be a multi-year program.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we know very clearly that the Province drafts the details when it comes to flood details. Whenever a compensation package is rolled out, the minister knew very well–very well–what he was doing. Obviously, if he didn't want to admit to what he was doing, then go to the federal government and say: I misspoke. Then he should have had the courage and the wisdom to say: I overstated. I misrepresented what I was going to say. Or, if he did truly mean what he said, why has he not–why is he not honouring those words that he put on the record that we will repeat over and over to this minister?
And I can tell you those people here that lost their livelihoods, time over time will be reminded of what has happened, what they have went through. A lot of those folks that were here today have missed meals. There's not a member opposite, not a member on this side that missed a meal, not a member on either side of the House that has lost everything that they have. And I can tell you, I've been in their homes; I've cried at the kitchen table with them. I've been with them; I've held their hands. I've seen what it's done to families. It's devastating. And I know–I know that those folks just want what the minister said he was going to do, was be fair, be quick, and have a multi-year program.
And I know that's what they want. And they said: Well, you can appeal. If you don't like what you got, you can appeal. Well, guess what? Nothing times nothing is still nothing. At the end of the day, whenever they make their appeals, and they follow the rules from the government the way they were set down and set out by this Province, and I don't know of one appeal–one appeal–I'd like the member opposite to get up and say: There was five, there was 10, there was a hundred that appealed and they were successful. I can tell you I do not know of one–I know of one that spent almost $3,500–$3,500 of their own money to appeal. And what happened? They said no; they cannot recommend changes to the guidelines.
* (16:10)
So the First Minister should reel in the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), should make him own up to those commitments. I know that's what those family members that were here today expected from this minister, and whenever–whenever you say multi-year, that's not just one year.
And, yes, they're trying to spin this as all the feds' fault. The feds don't offer multi-year programs; they didn't make the commitment. Members opposite made the commitment. I'll tell you, I just cannot believe they–you know, I would jump on a plane, I would ride a bus, I would do whatever I had to do, I would go down to Ottawa and I'd say, if that's really what he wanted to do, what can we do to make a multi-year program? But if not, then suck up, pay the people what he promised he was going to do.
Year 2012 was just as bad as what it was in 2011 for those folks. Many of those cattle producers and a number of cattle that have left this province as a result of not having a multi-year program, will haunt all of us. Everyone in this province is going to haunt us and there's nothing we can do to change that except, now, own up to what this government said they were going to do–do what they said they were going to do.
And I know that he went on and also made some other commitments that I also want to put on the record, and that was in regards to the crop insurance. There was no crop insurance available because they weren't qualified. They had no crop in order to focus their last year's results on, so, as a result of that, they didn't qualify for crop insurance. Again, another double whammy.
Mr. Speaker, 2013 comes along–guess what, they're not going to qualify again, and this is just not right. It's unfair, it's unjust, and I ask every member on that side of the House to do the right thing. Sit down–sit down with the Minister of Finance, don't take my word for it, go out and talk to your constituents. I'll take you on a ride–and I know the minister is more than happy to go for a ride, because he went with me on a program up through the Shoal lakes, and I give the minister full credit; that was a great program that came out. Didn't do all the things that we all would like it to have done, but what he did, he did keep his word. He kept his word to those folks along the Shoal Lake–I give the minister credit.
I'm asking him now to do the same thing, be honourable, be responsible for the comments that he put on the record, because it's imperative for the livelihoods–not only for the folks that are around Lake Manitoba, it's important for us in this House.
What we're going to see is a backlash. We're going to see what really is going to happen. Whenever you lose revenue in a province, somewhere down the road–somewhere down the road what's going to happen, we're going to have to pick up the slack, we're going to have to import our beef, which we didn't have to do. We're going to have to bring in vegetables that we never had to do. We're going to see other programs whenever–of compensation in order to try and get it built back up, and that's not what they wanted. They want what was promised to them at the time and repeated over and over and over again.
They made a choice. They had the opportunity to follow the guidelines which would have been fine–that would have been fine. The federal government would have paid their share, without a doubt, but they made a decision. They made a decision to do multi-year and, whatever that result is, it's responsible for the government to do the right thing.
And I’m going to ask the Minister of Finance: Will he honour that commitment, once and for all, for each of those flood victims? And let's just not play politics–and I know the minister from Thompson–member from Thompson got up after–this afternoon and said, well, you know, it's the feds' fault. But, you know what, they didn't make the commitment; this government made the commitment. Let's do the right thing.
If you want to go and negotiate with the federal government, we'll go with them–we'll go with them. But what we want is this Minister of Finance and every member on that side of the House to do the right thing, and that's to own up to their commitments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Any further grievances? Seeing no further grievances, we'll move into–
(Continued)
Mr. Speaker: And I want to start first, before I recognize the honourable Government House Leader.
This morning, at the conclusion of private members' resolution, while the debate ended at 12 noon, I neglected to put on the record that I had–I believe I had recognized the honourable Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines (Mr. Chomiak), and the–I should have reflected in the record that he would have 10 minutes remaining when the matter was again before the House. So I just want to add that and indicate that for the record and for the information of members here this afternoon.
We'll now proceed under orders of the day.
Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Would you resume debate on Bill 20, please.
Mr. Speaker: We'll now resume debate on Bill 20, the Manitoba building and–before I get to the Bill 20, I'll recognize the honourable Official Opposition House Leader.
House Business
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, on House business, nothing else, Mr. Speaker.
In accordance with rule 31(9), I'd like to announce that the private members' resolution that will be considered next Thursday is the resolution on support for Manitoba Hydro Power Smart program, brought forward by the honourable member for Brandon West (Mr. Helwer).
Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that in accordance with rule 31(9), that the private members' resolution that will be considered next Thursday is the resolution on support for Manitoba Hydro Power Smart program, brought forward by the honourable member for Brandon West.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now, we'll proceed with resumption of debate on Bill 20, The Manitoba Building and Renewal Funding and Fiscal Management Act (Various Acts Amended), and the amendment thereto, standing in the name of the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Wishart), I believe, who has 12 minutes remaining.
Bill 20–The
Manitoba Building and Renewal Funding and Fiscal Management Act
(Various Acts Amended)
Mr. Speaker: What's the will of the House? Is there leave for the bill to remain standing–the amendment?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. So we'll now proceed with the next debate.
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I rise today in my place to ask the government to take a sober second thought and consider supporting the hoist motion that is on our agenda–on the agenda of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and to indicate to them that there are some very positive results and outcomes that could happen as a result if we unanimously stood up and supported this hoist motion that gives Manitobans and the government six months to consult with Manitobans that they so rudely ignored before they brought the budget in.
Mr. Speaker, the budget consultations were a sham. This wasn't an issue that was raised by the government in those budget consultations. This wasn't an issue that anyone recommended, the increase in the PST from 7 per cent to 8 per cent. So this was just–caught everyone off guard when the budget was introduced, and we know that today there is legislation in place that requires a referendum for any increase in the provincial sales tax, and I know the government would argue that they've brought in a piece of legislation to change that. They want to gut the balanced budget legislation and not require a referendum before a major tax–taxes are increased.
Well, Mr. Speaker, until the law is changed the law is the law, and government cannot act above the law and this Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) cannot act above the law and decide and dictate from on high that he is going to make changes. The legislation must be changed before the increase in the PST is implemented.
So, Mr. Speaker, holding the legislation for six months, giving Manitobans the opportunity to speak through referendum would be the kind of option that all Manitobans deserve and it should be required for the government to try to justify. Obviously, they have some concern that Manitobans aren't going to agree with the direction they're going. Otherwise, they would hold a referendum and they would go out and sell their budget and their change in policy, but they're not prepared to do that.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government and members on the government side, who I'm sure have heard as I have from their constituents that this is the wrong way to go. Manitobans are asking for this government to try to get their expenditures under control.
Mr. Speaker, we've seen an unprecedented increase in taxation from this NDP government over the last two years. When you look at the expansion of the PST last year which raised $188 million–I believe it was for the government–and then on top of that an increase in the PST to 8 per cent.
* (16:20)
Mr. Speaker, it's not hard to figure out when you got a half-a-billion-dollar increase in taxation in just over a year that Manitobans are the ones that are the losers in all of this. They're going to lose those hard‑earned tax dollars that they make that they were counting on to provide the support for their families, in some instances just to put food on the table and in other instances some of the supports that they require for their children. It might be that tuition so that their daughter or son could go to university. It might be those dance lessons or those soccer–participation in a–on a soccer team or playing hockey at the local community club. All of those things are options and choices that families make when they set their budgets for the year.
And, Mr. Speaker, now we've seen in one short year a family of four is going to have $1,600 less as a result of the half-a-billion-dollar increase in taxation that's been foisted upon them by this NDP government, and that's unacceptable and that's what people are telling us. I've been out door to door in River East constituency and I've heard from my constituents that they are appalled that we would be moving in this direction.
Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are taxed to the max, and this government doesn't seem to understand that Manitobans deserve a government that listens. They deserve a government that acts in a democratic fashion, not in a dictatorship way, but in a democratic fashion to allow them to have a say. They felt that they would have a say and they thought they were somewhat protected from government with a heavy hand coming down from on high and say, we know best for you how to spend your hard-earned tax dollars. We'll take those dollars and we'll spend them the way we see fit.
Well, Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are smarter than that. They believe that they should have the opportunity to make those choices and those decisions, and we see time and time again some of our youngest and our brightest looking at opportunities elsewhere. Looking at opportunities elsewhere to live, to work and to raise their families, and that's not what any of us should be striving for in this Legislature. All of us should be striving to try to ensure that we're creating the economic environment right here in our province for our children and for our grandchildren to stay right here and work, and it's not government that creates the jobs; it's the investment in the private sector that creates the jobs and the wealth in a province. And we know for a fact that we have become more and more of a have-not province as a result of the policies of this government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we know that we have–on a daily basis we see this government saying that the federal government isn't giving them enough. Well, what isn't enough? We get almost 40 per cent of the budget that we spend in Manitoba from the federal government, and yet we hear time and time again in answers to questions that it's the federal government's fault. They want to go cap in hand again like a welfare province and ask the federal government for more.
How much more do they need to try to get to run a government? They need to be looking internally to see where they can ensure that Manitobans have the benefit of the hard work and the labour that they do on a daily basis, on a weekly basis and on a monthly basis, and they want to be able to stay here, to work here, to raise their families here and to have that opportunity for their children and their grandchildren to be here.
Mr. Speaker, we're seeing a Province on a very slippery slope that's moving downhill, and it's not good enough. And so I'm just asking if this government would again reconsider the direction that they're heading, give Manitobans an opportunity to talk about the changes that they're making in this budget to vote in a referendum, a referendum that they have the democratic right to presently, but it's being stripped away from them with Bill 20.
Mr. Speaker, it's not fair to Manitobans; it's not right for Manitobans; and we should respect our voters and our taxpayers more than what the way they're being respected today by an NDP government.
So, Mr. Speaker, again, with those comments, I would hope that all members of this House would stand up unanimously and support Manitoba taxpayers, wait for six months, and give them the opportunity to speak through a referendum like they have today under law.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): I'm pleased today to rise to speak to the hoist motion on Bill 20, and an interesting motion it is. It gives the opportunity to the government to step back and take a look at what they're doing to Manitoba and to Manitobans. When I first started researching hoist motions and what they meant and what they did, it was hard to find some information on them, and most of the time, when you–if you typed in hoist motion into Internet Explorer or Google or something of that nature, you got elevation, things that were elevated, and we certainly didn't see that today. I don't think the discussion from across the floor was elevated in the Chamber today. I think it was very degrading to the government to see the way that they went today in responding to the flood victims and quite disappointing on their approach.
And, you know, it just goes to show that as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) that say earlier on that Manitobans need–they need to be protected from this government. And, indeed they do need to be protected, Mr. Speaker, and that is something that Manitobans believed they had. They believed that had protection from governments that run amok with tax increases. They believed that they had the right to vote on those tax increases, and it is very disappointing to see a lack of democracy from this government across the floor, and it's very disappointing to see the route that this government is taking.
I think that, you know, many Manitobans–I heard–I hear from a lot of them around Manitoba, and I'm sure many do here as well, that they were concerned when the NDP first got elected because they tend to be a socialist government, and that was part of their mandate. And, well, there's a lot of concern about socialist governments in the world and, indeed, in Manitoba. And, you know, for some things that they did, well, people could kind of live with it because they had no choice unless they wanted to move out of here. So they lived with it. Businesses tried to keep their head down, to not be noticed, so that they wouldn't see any onerous legislation come in, and things went along–I wouldn't say well, but they went along. And we learned to live within our means because the government was always taking more of our money.
And then we got to what we saw this last couple years with this particular government, and what I've been told by people is that this is the socialist government that Manitoba–Manitobans feared. They really feared this type of a government coming in that would take so much of their income that–you know, what are they going to do? I mean, you're cutting your own costs as an individual because the government takes more and more. And then the government says: We’re going to take away your democratic right to vote on these tax increases that Manitobans believed they were protected with. And now we're seeing democracy disappear in Manitoba, and now we're seeing court cases that are springing up time and again for this government's actions. And Manitobans don't like to see that. They want to see a stable government, and we're not getting that in Manitoba right now, Mr. Speaker.
You know, we see in some of the recent legislation that has been passed that any wrong that might be perceived, it's just going to be written off, and that really didn't happen. Well, that's just not the way that democratic governments work, Mr. Speaker. That's the way the governments work in Third World countries where they have dictatorships, and that is the type of thing we're seeing here right now. We see a government that has lied time again to Manitobans, and they are just extending that and taking away our right to democracy. And it's very disappointing to watch from this side of the floor where we see Manitobans' rights disappearing day after day. We see new legislation that is brought in that takes away more rights again of Manitobans that might bring a court case, and if a court case is still in action when this particular legislation is passed, that it's irrelevant because the particular legislation says that, indeed, this minister did no wrong anymore, because you can't say he did wrong. You can't take him to court anymore.
* (16:30)
So, you know, it's very disappointing to see a government not owning up to its own actions and that is something quite sad to see in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. And I–and we did see–certainly not an elevation of discussion in here today. It's very disappointing to see the reactions and the questions from the government when we had people in the gallery that were here to try to listen to the government fulfill their province's promises that were made during the flood of 2011, the promises that the government was going to be there for those people that were victimized and those people that lost their livelihood.
We heard all those promises, we saw all those promises, we saw the government in what I've been calling their newly rented gum boots out on the dikes promising to Manitobans that they were going to be there for them. And then that hasn't happened, Mr. Speaker.
I mean, even one of my–one of the people in Brandon that was–in Brandon it wasn't a flood, it was a high-water event and, you know, they were told to move out–to evacuate their premises for this high-water event and there was information on government websites on that–their particular high‑water event would be covered under government DFO. You know, that they would be able to apply for disaster financial assistance.
Well, I, you know, I sat down with those people and they said, look, let's go to this website. This is where I found it, this is–it shows it right here that I can–gee, Mr. Speaker, it's not there anymore, that information disappeared, it doesn't say the same thing that it did just a few days ago. Isn't that strange? Now I'm not eligible for any flood compensation.
So already the rules were changing early on in the flood when people were still being victimized by that disaster and the government was changing the rules then. So I suppose we had an expectation that, indeed, they wouldn't live up to their promises, and that's indeed what we're seeing here.
So we're giving them an opportunity here to go back and rethink their legislation and rethink the way that they're doing this and allow Manitobans to vote again as they did–they do currently have that right to vote on tax increases. And Manitobans have it, they believe they have it and they do indeed.
And the government, as I've said before, if the Finance Minister truly believes in his heart, we all presume it's there, if he truly believes that he believes this tax increase is necessary, he should be able to go out and he should be able to convince Manitobans that it is necessary. And, if you're able to convince Manitobans, then you should be able to have a vote and they should vote in favour of the tax increase. But they're not going to give Manitobans the benefit of that doubt because they don't believe that they can actually sell it to Manitobans.
You know, we look at the estimates of where things–they have the plan for it to go next year and it's very interesting that it was sold as a flood budget.
You know, it was to protect Manitobans from the flood of 2013 because this was going to be another flood of the century, the millennia, the–well, pick a number, whatever number they were going to come up with.
And we heard the daily flood fear reports here. And–but then when you look in the budget it's a pretty small amount that's set aside for disasters in this current budget. And, if the government anticipated there was going to be a flood, wouldn't you think in the budget that they would set a substantial amount aside to deal with that flood?
So it's as if, Mr. Speaker, they already knew months ago that this flood was not coming because they didn't put it in the budget. They put the fear into Manitobans that it might be, and then, when that threat went by, well, okay, it's no longer a flood budget; it must be something else. What else can we blame? A recession, we're having a recession still is what we heard. And, well, no, the rest of the world is kind of recovering. Gee, so it's not the recession. It must be the federal government's fault and everybody but their own fault, trying to distract people from the rights and freedoms that they are taking away from Manitobans.
And it is very disappointing to watch the degradation of those rights and freedoms, Mr. Speaker. Those are things that we truly believe that we have in Manitoba and indeed we do. We have those rights to vote, and that right to vote on tax increases has existed for a number of years, has protected Manitobans from a lot of government excesses. Not all government excesses, as we've seen. But, you know, the big ones like this tax increase. And now this government is threatening to take that protection away and take that right away from Manitobans.
So we're moving away from democracy, Mr. Speaker, disappointing to watch as a Manitoban because I truly believe that Manitoba has some of the greatest opportunities of any province, and we are not taking advantage of those opportunities with this government where this government is ignoring them.
The mining industry is disappearing from Manitoba. We hear about rules changing again in the mining industry, going places where they're wanted. We have other industries and companies that have the same thing. They are going to places where they are wanted as opposed to places where taxes are constantly increased, and the democratic rights of their staff are taken away. So very disappointing to watch, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the government will take a step back and look at this hoist motion and take the time that it takes to go speak to Manitobans and truly understand what Manitobans believe and what Manitobans deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to stand today and represent Manitobans in commenting on this motion to hoist Bill 20.
And, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the government to give that some consideration and to support the motion to hoist this bill. What I hope would happen is that the NDP government might take some time and come to their senses about what they're doing to Manitoban–to Manitobans and how it is going to actually hurt people, businesses, and many in this province.
But, before I make some comments on that, Mr. Speaker, I have to indicate that I am very, very disillusioned and discouraged by what I saw and the behaviour of this NDP government in this House today. Normally, when we have people that are in the gallery and are here with some serious challenges for the kind of things we heard in here today, I think it's showing such a great amount of lack of respect for people, for victims. When you've got grown men that are crying in the hallway because they don't know where their lives are going to be going, and then we watch the behaviour here. I just think that is the ultimate, ultimate show of disrespect for people.
But not only is there disrespect for the flood victims, as we heard today, there is an incredible amount of disrespect being shown to taxpayers in this province, and it's been something that has been building over a number of years. Bringing up the PST this year is just sort of the, you know, the ultimate and what is–has become a tipping point for people in this province.
But, certainly, what we are hearing out there, and it is a phenomenal movement that is starting to be seen out there where people are sitting around in coffee shops and they're talking about the PST. The more people that are hearing about this, the more people are enraged. But not only are they enraged about the PST being hiked to 8 per cent, what they're also enraged about is the fact that the government has chosen to do this by not following the current legislation that is on place and taking this to a referendum. I think people are seeing that as an affront to democracy, and right now there is current legislation in place that demands that a referendum be held when the PST is hiked up.
And that is a little bit different from what happened last year when the government expanded PST services. The legislation does not apply. The taxpayer protection legislation does not apply to expansion of PST, but it certainly applies to raising the PST. And that is the specific act that this government is now choosing to ignore and ignoring the fact that they should be having a referendum on it. So what they're going to do instead is they're going to jack up the PST to 8 per cent and make it the highest in western Canada.
* (16:40)
We have heard from numerous businesses now, from numerous people that are living in poverty. We are hearing from students that are now worried about what this is going to do, and this is beginning to become more obvious to more people that a hike in PST to 8 per cent is going to hurt families. It's going to hurt businesses. We've already heard of businesses that are shutting down. There are four women's businesses that have already shut down because they just can't make a go of it in this province. We heard from other businesses that are now talking about what this increase in the PST is going to do because it is going to take away any amount of competitiveness that we might have had; it will be gone because we are going to have the highest PST in western Canada.
We heard from a woman business owner who said that she's not sure she's going to be able to hire any students this summer because she's not sure what this is going to do to her bottom line because people will stop coming in to spend. And we've already seen that. In the last three years in Manitoba, according to the government's own third-quarter financial statements, spending has been going down. And the retail industry out there has warned this Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) and this Premier (Mr. Selinger) that, in fact, the pace of retail sales growth has slowed to below the national average for the first time in many years.
The government doesn't seem to be paying attention at all these warning flags that are out there. The inflation rate has grown two years in a row, and one of the causes of that is because of the expansion of the PST in the last budget. All of that is starting to take root, and now it is starting to show itself where the inflation rate now is some of the highest in the country, and this government is choosing to ignore that. They're not paying attention.
People are stopping spending, and to be below the national average for the first time in years is a warning flag, a warning sign to this government, that they really do need to have a second look at what they are doing by bringing in the PST because this is going to dramatically affect what is going to happen in this province. So, on top of that, besides increasing the PST to 8 per cent, the government is still going to run a half-a-billion-dollar deficit on top of that.
So this government is having, it appears, a lot of difficulty reining in their spending, and so what they're going to do, rather than doing some heavy lifting of their own, they're making the public do the heavy lifting. They're making the businesses, the family, the people that are going to have to make decisions as to what they can afford, whether it's going to be bread or milk or rent or programs for their kids or a holiday this summer. That is going to be who is affected by this.
The numbers have been crunched, Mr. Speaker, and, indeed, it will come to at least $1,600 a year when you factor in the PST expansion from last year, the PST increase this year, and then you take all of the fees that have been brought in in the last two years. If the NDP would choose to do their mathematics, do their numbers, which we know they struggle with, they would see that, indeed, $1,600 is the number that is going to affect families.
And, you know, we've heard from some colleagues over the last few weeks, how it's going to affect some seniors as well, seniors who have been doing some number crunching and are finding that it is going to make things very, very difficult for them, especially those that are on a fixed income and don't have very much money to begin with.
But the government doesn't seem to want to listen, and it's certainly becoming a trend with this government in a number of different ways, and we're starting to see more and more examples of where this government doesn't seem to care what the people are saying. They couldn't be bothered to come to a rally and listen to 500 people that stood in front of this building and demanded that this government revisit this issue.
That's why the hoist motion is before us right now. Thousands of people are signing petitions. We've got a couple hundred people coming to committee. We have got phone calls and emails and letters, and I'm sure the government is getting those same pieces of correspondence as well. But they don't seem to want to listen.
This is going to hurt Manitoba families, and people are trying to get the government's attention to tell them that. We have seen this government in the last election go out and lie to Manitobans. They promised no tax hikes, and yet that's exactly what they've turned around and done. We saw, in the last two budgets, the biggest tax hikes we've seen now in 26 years in this province, and, if the government is so naïve as to think that that is not going to hurt Manitobans, then indeed they are naïve.
They are now in the process of wanting to tear up the taxpayer protection act. Well, heaven forbid, Mr. Speaker, once that is done, that just is going to open all the doors for this government to do whatever they want to Manitobans and raise whatever taxes they want because there's nothing holding them back. The taxpayer protection act is there to protect taxpayers from governments like this that don't know when to stop spending money, and instead of doing the heavy lifting themselves, they're turning to the people that are out there. The ordinary, hard-working people in this province and they're going to stick it to them and force them to keep feeding their spending addiction here.
And this spending addiction now is going to cost Manitobans half a billion dollars a year. It's half a billion dollars that shouldn't be in the hands of this government; it should be staying in the hands of ordinary people. People that could choose maybe to send their child to college or to send their child to a French language program in the summer or buy a toy for a kid where that may be very far from reality in some families. They're not even going to have those choices to make because this government is taking every bit of money out of the pockets and purses of Manitoba families, and that's not–that money shouldn't be going to the government.
And last year, you know, they're trying to sell everybody on the fact that they need the money for critical infrastructure. Well, if infrastructure spending was so critical to this government, why did they siphon off $320 million last hear from the infrastructure budget? Where did that money go? We've tried in Estimates to get the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers) to tell us where $320 million went. He won't tell us. I have to believe that if infrastructure spending was indeed that important to this government they would have spent that money last year in infrastructure, but they siphoned it away. It has disappeared and they won't tell us where it went, and now we also find out they won't tell us where this PST increase is going to go.
We've asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Struthers), provide us with a list. Where are you going to spend that money? It becomes very disconcerting when we hear the chief of staff for the NDP going out during their big Kumbaya weekend and indicating that this is the start of the election.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if that's the start of their next election, they should be upfront, and the Minister of Finance says that Bill 20 is accountable, it's open, it's transparent, and yet he will not give us the list of where he intends to spend that 1 per cent extra in PST.
Well, we know darn well where it is likely going to end up and that is with the chief of staff for the Premier (Mr. Selinger) saying that we've got an election now started. We know darn well that money is going to go into a pre‑election NDP slush fund, and that's exactly what is going to happen.
The minister says, well, trust us we'll tell you after we spend it. Well, I'm afraid that with this Minister of Finance we have lost all confidence in him. The House has lost confidence in him. He has, in fact Mr. Speaker, broken the law. He's prepared to break another law on July 1st. He's now facing conflict of interest charges. Everything keeps mounting, so when he tells us wait until after we spend the money we'll tell you where we spend the money just trust us.
Well, we don't trust him. That's the problem, and why he has so much trouble telling us in an upfront way where that extra money is going to go makes us even more concerned.
* (16:50)
So, Mr. Speaker, it is time for a tax revolt in this province. Taxpayers deserve to be treated with more respect. Flood victims deserve to be treated with more respect. Retired teachers deserve to be treated with more respect. Children in the child and family services area need to be treated with more respect, and we could go on and on. This government really has lost respect. They've turned into a dictatorship. They're ignoring the law. There's no democracy here anymore, and it is very, very disconcerting to see what is happening here.
And I would encourage this government to support the hoist motion, step back and have a look at what they're doing to this province, because this shouldn't be about what's in their best interest. And so far everything they're doing is all about partisan politics; it's not about what's in the best interest of Manitoba voters.
So I would urge this government: Step back; wait six months. Have some time to think about this, and hoist this motion that is before us today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on the amendment? Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Shall the amendment–shall the House adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of adopting the amendment, please signify by saying aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to adopting the amendment, please signify by saying nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the Nays have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Official Opposition House Leader): Recorded vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order, please. The question before the House, the amendment to Bill 20.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Briese, Cullen, Driedger, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Maguire, Mitchelson, Pallister, Pedersen, Rowat, Schuler, Smook, Stefanson, Wishart.
Nays
Allan, Allum, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Blady, Braun, Caldwell, Chief, Chomiak, Crothers, Dewar, Gaudreau, Howard, Irvin‑Ross, Jha, Kostyshyn, Mackintosh, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Rondeau, Saran, Selby, Selinger, Struthers, Swan, Wiebe, Wight.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 19, Nays 32.
Mr. Speaker: Declare the amendment accordingly defeated.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now, the hour being past 5 p.m., when this matter is again before the House, the debate will remain open.
The hour being past 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday. I hope everyone has a good weekend.
CORRIGENDUM
On May 23, 2013, page 1661, second column, second paragraph, should have read:
This is a proposed new governing statute for the profession of land surveying. The current governing statute is outdated and dates back to 1881. The bill is based on recent models in Manitoba legislation regarding professional bodies. The bill continues the self-governance of the land surveyor profession and provides a modern model for the operation in the Association of Manitoba Land Surveyors.