LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Mr. Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.
Good morning, everyone. Please be seated.
Mr. Speaker: Are we ready to proceed with Bill 204? [Agreed]
Bill 204–The Results-Based Budgeting Act
Mr. Speaker: Under second readings of public bills, we'll call Bill 204, The Results-Based Budgeting Act.
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I move, seconded by the member for Emerson (Mr. Graydon), that Bill 204, The Results-Based Budgeting Act; Loi sur la budgétisation axée sur les résultats, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Stefanson: I am pleased to rise today and say a few words on this bill.
I brought this bill forward many times in the Legislature because I believe strongly that it's a very important aspect of what we do as legislators in this province, Mr. Speaker, and it's certainly something that I believe holds the government to account and ensures that any kind of a government program that is brought forward in Manitoba is actually doing what it should be doing, and that is helping people in Manitoba who need, want and deserve services of this government that we know that taxpayers pay a lot of money for, and even more so under this NDP government.
And one thing–the difference between the NDP and ourselves is that the NDP likes to talk about how much money that they put into programs. You'll often see in their multiple press releases that they send out, Mr. Speaker, that they talk about the–how much money that they're putting into these programs rather than talking about the results that they're getting from those programs, and the reason that they don't want to talk about the results is because perhaps they're not getting the results that they should be getting for Manitoba citizens.
And I would say that–to members opposite that if really–if they're not concerned about–or if they're so proud of all of the government programs that they brought forward, they shouldn't be afraid of actually doing a review of them to see and ensure that those programs are doing what they should be doing for Manitobans. [interjection] And there seems to be a heated debate going on back and forth here, Mr. Speaker. And I know that this is a very passionate topic for members in this House and, of course, that's why we're here debating it.
And I look forward to members opposite getting up and speaking on this, in particular the member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell) who seems to be quite passionate about this issue. So I look forward to the member–hearing from the member for Brandon East because, really, he shouldn't have a problem with supporting this piece of legislation. This legislation, if the review is done of all the government programs, should show–and if they're really working and doing what they should be doing for Manitobans, it should show that there are good, positive results coming from these programs here in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker.
But the point is that it's–we need to ensure for the taxpayers of this province, indeed, for the citizens of this province and for those that need and–that need the services by this–of this government, Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure that those services and those programs are working for those that need it. And if they're not, we need to look at ways to either review those programs or perhaps come up with a better way of delivering those programs for those people that need them.
So this, again, is a review of those programs. I don't believe that members opposite should have any problem with this, Mr. Speaker, if they believe in true accountability and transparency when it comes to government, which we know, of course, that they don't.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we do know–and I'm going to digress a little bit here because we need to find ways of understanding why this government doesn't want to be accountable for their actions. They don't want this kind of transparent process here in Manitoba for the citizens in Manitoba, and it's because we know that members opposite, each and every one of them, decided to go out in the last election and promised Manitobans that they wouldn't raise taxes, and we know that they did. We know that they have broken their word to Manitobans on many, many occasions.
In fact, the Premier (Mr. Selinger) said in a release back in 2010 and '11, public accounts shows that the Premier's five-year economic plan is on track to return the budget to balance by 2014 while protecting jobs and services without raising taxes. Of course, that is what the Premier said at the time. That was his annual five-year economic plan at the time. We know that that annual economic plan has changed several times since then, Mr. Speaker, but that was what his annual five-year economic plan said at the time. He made that promise, that commitment, to Manitobans.
And I will remind members opposite that that commitment was made on September 2nd, 2011, just before the October 4th, 2011, election. And members opposite went out and said, oh, well, the reason that we had to raise all these taxes, the reason we had to do this was because of flooding. Well, we know that the flooding took place in the spring of 2011. They should have taken that into consideration before they made these commitments prior to the election. But, in fact, they just made these commitments already knowing about the flooding–that the flooding had taken place in Manitoba. They should have forecasted the costs associated with that. [interjection] And again, Mr. Speaker, I hear members opposite are quite passionate about this, and I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
But the fact of the matter is they were fully aware of the flood of 2011 before–which was the spring of 2011, Mr. Speaker–before they went out on September 2nd and made that commitment.
In fact, the Premier went on to say, our plan is a five-year plan to ensure we have future prosperity without any tax increase, and we'll deliver on that. We're ahead of schedule right now. So even just prior to the election, that was on September 12th in a CJOB leader's debate in 2011. This was after the flooding had taken place, Mr. Speaker, this was just prior to the October 4th, 2011, election; it was nothing more than a desperate attempt for this government to get elected.
* (10:10)
So we know that this government will do whatever they want in order to get elected. In fact, the Premier when was–when he was challenged about the fact that he would be likely raising taxes, Mr. Speaker, he said it was ridiculous, these were ridiculous ideas that we're going to raise the sales tax. That's total nonsense, said the Premier, everybody knows that. The Premier said that on September 23rd, 2011, just mere weeks and days prior to the October 4th election in 2011.
So that does prove, Mr. Speaker, that it was nothing more than a desperate attempt by members opposite to avoid transparency, to avoid accountability when it comes to the programs that they have brought forward to Manitobans. And we know that they will do whatever it takes to ensure that they get elected in election regardless of the kinds of nonsense and the lies that they spew to Manitobans and I think it's rather unfortunate.
And I encourage all members of this House, and in particular members opposite, to get up and if they're not going to support this today, tell us why, tell Manitobans why they are so afraid of being transparent and accountable for the programs that they deliver here in Manitoba.
I look forward to hearing that from them today, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Ms. Melanie Wight (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, well, it's an honour to be up again to speak. I feel like I–I did speak to this before, but I get to speak to it again and I'm really grateful because I get another opportunity to talk about how incredible the economy is in Manitoba and how fortunate we are in this province with what is going on in our world and in our economy. So I'm pretty excited about that.
The Manitoba economy, of course, is growing all the time and that may not seem like such a big statement but it didn't happen under the opposition party. When they were in power, there was no growth, there was a lack of any building, there was a lot of mothballing going on. But one thing we didn't see is the growing of our economy and the building opportunities for our young people that we see now, Mr. Speaker, in the province of Manitoba.
So having a daughter who's 17 and a niece who's 16, who are currently living with me, I'm excited that there's a good chance they could actually stay in our province because there's just so many opportunities going on and I'm very grateful for that.
When you hear members opposite talk, I'm not sure what province they're talking about. It's certainly not Manitoba. They're very against Manitoba in everything they say and we've seen that actually in things that have come up, where you would have an opportunity to support to Manitoba, and I'm not sure if there was a time once where they actually stood up and did support Manitoba.
An Honourable Member: They sat down for the immigration.
Ms. Wight: They sat down for–certainly, for the immigration. They sat down for the veterans offices. They sat down for–
An Honourable Member: Canada Post.
Ms. Wight: Yes, sat down for Canada Post. There's just an endless array of things in which they were not willing to fight for the province.
But I'm going to talk about all the great things that are going on in this budget. So in Budget 2014, Mr. Speaker, we saw an excellent five-year plan presented for our province and it is a $5.5-billion plan to build a stronger Manitoba. And that plan invests in, as we know, roads, highways, bridges, flood protection. And the Conference Board of Canada has said about that investment that it is going to boost our economy by $6.3 billion.
I'm not sure who would prefer to see a reduction in our economy that has been promised by the opposition of $550 million, at least, at least, out of the economy in a year. So what that is going to do to our economy, Mr. Speaker, will be a tremendous drop. But we saw that before in the '90s. It's a failed policy. It's a failed policy then, it's a failed policy now, and nothing has changed there in what they're suggesting.
So this plan of $5.5 billion to build a stronger Manitoba is also going to create over 58,000 jobs, boost exports by $5.4 billion, create 2,100 housing starts and boost retail sales by $1.4 billion, Mr. Speaker. So it's pretty exciting, to say the least.
You also hear members opposite often speaking as if this wasn't a good place for business to be, and I'm mystified by that because it is opposite to all of the facts that are actually out there, because Winnipeg, as a great example, is the most competitive city in the entire midwest of North America in which someone could come and do business, the most competitive for the fifth year in a row–for the fifth year in a row. I'm sorry, but you never hear those kinds of statements coming out of members opposite, acknowledging the incredible work that is being done in this province and the fabulous growth in our businesses. And that isn't happening by accident, Mr. Speaker, that we're the most competitive. It's happening because we have the most competitive costs. We have the most competitive hydro. We have just so many areas in which we are at the front end.
And we also have, through this whole period of global recession that began in 2008–and we're still recovering; the world is still recovering. But Manitoba–Manitoba–has maintained an unemployment rate, Mr. Speaker, in the 5 percentile range. It's incredible. It is truly, as Maclean's called it, a Manitoba miracle. And that has not changed. It continues to be an incredible story because, through all that time, we didn't cut education; we didn't health care; we didn't cut the most vulnerable people in our society, as happened in the past. Instead, we realized that we needed to continue to ensure our youth get educated. We've seen graduation rates move up tremendously over the years that we have been in government, and I think those are just major, major accomplishments.
The other day I was reading in the paper, and I think the headline, Mr. Speaker, was something like, I don't know, ecstatic over exports. I don't know. Is that right? Does anybody remember that? Ecstatic over exports, I think. And it was Export Development Canada saying that Manitoba again led the nation in export growth in 2013–am I right? [interjection] Thank you–with an increase, 10.7 per cent, and will lead the nation again in 2014 with an increase of 10 per cent.
So where the doomsday speeches come from, I'm just mystified. I was shocked to hear the member from Tuxedo mentioning that–suggesting that lies were being spewed on our side of the House. I'm sorry, but I've seldom heard an honest word coming from that side. I'm not sure where you pull your numbers from, some sort of, I don't know–I don't know–the air–the air, for sure. But if you actually looked at the real facts and the statistics that we have available to us, you would see that Manitoba is doing, quite honestly, better than it probably has for, I don't know, decades, decades and decades–maybe ever–maybe ever. Certainly you'd have to go back a long way to reach anything even close to what we're doing now.
So I'm very grateful that we did, in fact, make the decision to reject those kinds of short-sighted cuts that have been advocated by the Leader of the Opposition, because they hurt families and they hurt our economy, and we want to ensure that people in Manitoba continue to work, because there's nothing worse, Mr. Speaker, than people out of jobs.
And so job training, of course, is one of our major goals. We have set a goal of expanding Manitoba's workforce by 75,000 people–awesome–the focus on skilled trades. And I think there might be an announcement going on right as we speak almost about that incredible new skill training coming. I don't want to give it away in my speech, but I'm pretty sure there's an announcement coming today that's pretty exciting, more about people and apprentices and people getting trained to do this incredible amount of work that's coming.
* (10:20)
So, Mr. Speaker, we have also improved the $5,000 apprenticeship tax credit. We've created a new $1,000 bonus for employers who take on apprentices for the first time. We are offering a $1,000 bursary for apprentices finishing their final year, and we are expanding partnerships with the Northern Sector Council to create more on-the-jobs training.
I–there's a whole bunch of other things. We're making high school students more aware of the trades, including matching them with employers. We're opening the Manitoba Jobs and Skills Development Centre at 111 Lombard Avenue to provide employers and job seekers a one-stop shop for employment services. Actually, there's just an endless list of incredible things that we are doing to ensure that our youth stay in Manitoba, have great jobs and our businesses have the people they need in order to be able to keep doing the great work that they're doing here in Manitoba, and we know that that was one of the problems was there's so much growth here that they can't match it with enough skilled people. So there's a great announcement coming. Maybe we'll hear about that later today.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today to put a few words on the record in Bill 204. I'm getting the years and the bills mixed up–The Results-Based Budgeting Act, brought forward by the member from Tuxedo.
You know, what we see in this province, and we see it over and over again, and I've remarked about it quite often is, whenever we raise a question in this House about almost any subject, the answer comes back, well, we put another $40 million into that. Yes, did you get any results? Well, we haven't studied the results, but we put another $7 million into something else. Well, that's supposed to correct it. We'll just dump the money in. We don't look for results.
And what this bill is suggesting is that we have a results-based economy with some measurable outcomes. Like, throwing the money out there doesn't necessarily give you a return. Anyone that has spent their life in private business of any sort knows that you got to be monitoring the return you get for the dollars you put out there.
Over the years, the two budgets of 2012 and 2013, we saw half a billion dollars in new taxes go onto Manitobans. They talk about cuts here and cuts there, but not only did they–they went out and hit Manitobans for another half a billion dollars in those two budgets. And that was after the Premier (Mr. Selinger) said their five-year economic plan was on track to return the budget to balance by 2014.
It seems to me this is 2014. He said they would do that while protecting jobs and services without raising taxes. That certainly sounded like a fairly strong statement but it was a statement. It had–it was an election–it was a campaign statement. It was something that he had no intention of paying any attention to. He confirmed that policy just 10 days after that, and he said our plan is a five-year plan to ensure that we have future prosperity without any tax increases and we'll deliver on that.
Obviously, he didn't. As soon as they won the election and put forward their first budget, they raised taxes willy-nilly and actually put another–within the two years, put another half a billion dollars onto Manitoba taxpayers. When he was asked about specific tax increases, like the PST, he said it was a ridiculous idea. Total nonsense. Everybody knows that. Then he went ahead and did it, and then every member of his caucus went door to door and made the same promise.
They've made some infrastructure promises that's with this last budget, and they're promises. They're not–there's no action taken. It's simply a promise we're going to do this. Well, we've seen what they do with promises; they break them. The last four years, the promised infrastructure spending was underspent by $1.9 billion. Think of the infrastructure that $1.9 billion would have paid for if it had have been spent the way it was budgeted and promised. But that didn't happen.
They promised balanced budgets. Back in '99, the–one of their main election platforms was balanced budget going forward. It took them a few years, and that–it's always debatable how many years it took to absolutely gut the balanced budget legislation so that they didn't have to balance budgets.
And, Mr. Speaker, that balanced budget legislation–I mentioned it the other day–had a requirement in it that $120 million would be put into debt reduction, $120 million per year into debt reduction. Now, that $120 million per year in debt reduction, and I think it was based on about a 20-year timeline, would've reduced the debt quite considerably. And any of the interest that was being spent on that debt would be there and available now to supply services to Manitobans.
Another part of the balanced budget legislation was a requirement for a fairly substantial amount of money going into the fiscal reserve, which is another thing that over the last few years has pretty near been gutted by this NDP government–very, very little left in the rainy day fund at a time, for most of those years, when the rainy day fund should've been growing. Instead, there's hardly anything left. And the excuses given, one of the main excuses, has been the flood. If they had have been putting the money into the fiscal reserve fund, that's what it's designed for, is those once-in-a-lifetime-type situations.
The–even there, they make some pretty wild claims. They claim the flood costs were $1.2 billion, and that's probably fairly close. But they don't put forward the federal government's commitment to those costs. They just claim that Manitoba was–had a $1.2-billion cost. So that makes it look worse. They've got to raise these taxes so they can cover that kind of thing. We've had floods in Manitoba. It's a fact of life in Manitoba; we have floods. And I don't remember anywhere having, prior to now, where they had to raise the PST to cover the costs of a flood.
You know, they continue to put extra costs on, and one that's always near and dear to my heart, because of the municipal background I have, is the extra sales tax that went onto municipalities. That's putting a tax on a organization that uses tax money for themselves to operate, so you're putting a tax on tax and the municipalities. On the insurance alone, outside the city of Winnipeg, that costs municipalities in this province $800,000. And the City of Winnipeg very recently said, over a year, on the extra 1 per cent increase in sales tax, it'll cost us $31.4 million. That's money that those municipalities could use. They claim they're helping municipalities. Well, they're not helping them much if they're sucking more money out of their pockets. They jacked up fees on almost everything, and it doesn't seem to be ending. Even this year, quite a bit smaller, but there were some increases on–in this year's budget, too.
You know, we've seen record school tax increases, and I was a farmer for years, and there's some controversy right now about the cap put on education tax on farmland. And I've had the feedback from the other side of the House that they've raised it to 80 per cent rebate, and they talk as if that's something magnificent. But when–back when there was no rebate and I was paying 100 per cent of those school taxes on my farmland, I was probably paying less than I'm paying, under 20 per cent right now.
* (10:30)
And they always talk about our government had never reduced school tax on farmland. I would remind them that it was the Conservative government of the '90s that took the education support levy off farmland, not the NDP.
I know there are many members here that want to speak to this bill, so, with those few words, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Mineral Resources): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak into this debate because it provides me with an opportunity of correcting the outlandish and bordering on repetitious nitpicking errors by members opposite. The former member for Concordia used to say that you get nitpicked to death in this House.
And I want to just give you a classic example of Tory responses and Tory dealing with the budget. Mr. Speaker, we put in 10 specific measures in this budget to reduce expenditures; every single one the members either voted against or spoke against. Reducing civil service by 370 without layoffs, more than halfway to our goal; they opposed it. Instead, they're going to do what I think what Mr. Hudak wants to do in Ontario and cut $100,000. We merged the Liquor and Lotteries Corporation to save money and save costs; they opposed it and voted against it. We cutted the number of retail–regional health authorities from 13 to five; they opposed it. We amalgamated 48 municipalities into 23; they opposed it. We partnered with the private sector to modernize the Property Registry; they opposed it. We reduced the budget in nine departments; they criticized it. We extended corporate spending caps to all RHAs; they voted against it. We limited core government growth to 2 per cent; they criticized it. We capped administrative spending by local school divisions; they 'boted' against it. We created a new Lean Council to give us advice on how to deliver excellent services; they criticized it. What a bunch of feeble nitpickers we have on the other side of the House. It's unbelievable.
They talk about capital budgets as if they think they could manage those great capitalist and those great business geniuses as the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) talks about, Mr. Speaker. They can't even manage their own opposition, never mind the House. We put together 11 measures to reduce the budget; they spoke against every single one. It's the classic nitpicking party, that's what we see from the other side.
Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of budget. You know, recently we heard so much about Saskatchewan. I love Saskatchewan. I worked–I lived in Saskatchewan and my wife got her–my wife did her residency in Saskatchewan, so I have a familiarity with Saskatchewan. Yesterday's headline in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, highest rate in the country, inflation, Saskatchewan. Wait a minute, I thought members opposite were saying almost every day in this House that we had the highest rate of inflation. Oh my gosh, did Saskatchewan do a PST increase? Oh. Why do they have the highest rate of inflation? Those members stand up every day and make the wrong, inaccurate, foolish accusations about our economy including that we have the highest rate in Canada. Go read the Star Phoenix.
Let me talk about budgeting, Mr. Speaker. We already quarterly report for Crown corporations, we already quarterly report government expenditures. They think–I love members opposite because they say, if you'd only–they go up to those coffee shops and, you know, hang on to their belts and say, oh, if you only run government like a business or like my farm, it would be just fine. Well, if we ran it like members opposite ran it, we'd run people out of Manitoba like we ran the nurses and the doctors and the youth out of Manitoba. And at that time they said, the last one to leave Manitoba, turn out the lights. And there'll be no lights if you don't expand hydro.
But let me tell you an example today, right now, in about an hour or so, of what's going on and what members opposite don't understand. Let me tell you about something that wouldn't fit into the member for Tuxedo's (Mrs. Stefanson) much vaunted budget accountability act. We're announcing, Mr. Speaker, a project with Israel Hebrew University and the University of Manitoba–a project that deals with FAS–[interjection] well, the member for Morris (Mr. Martin) doesn't care about FASD, but members on this side of the House do care about FASD, we do care about funding it, we don't take the attitude you die or you don't pay taxes. That's what the members opposite talk about.
We're announcing an FASD project. It wouldn't even fit within member's framework because we have to cost it out. Now, how do you cost it out, Mr. Speaker? How do you cost out the PACT program that members opposite, who talk so big now, wouldn't put in place when they were in office 11 years? I begged in this House for nine years to put in place a PACT program, and members opposite didn't put it in place.
One of the first things we put in place was a PACT program. I begged them to do it. They didn't. A hundred schizophrenics off the streets, how do you account for that? How do you put that in balanced budget legislation? How do you account for the life of a schizophrenic who has to live on the street and now gets care 24 hours a day? How do you account for that in your balanced budget bill? How do you account for the FASD project that's going on now that costs us $1 million? Do you put that in your budget? Where do you put that? Where do you put that?
The Taxpayers Federation will go out and do a protest about money spent. They don't talk about the people that actually get the programs. They don't talk about the mental health patients. They don't talk about the FASD prevention. All they talk about is their taxes so they can write them off as the large corporations do.
Where–you know, the member from Morris likes to talk a lot about, you know, Taxpayers Federation who–I wonder where they get their funding from? CFIB, Mr. Speaker, I wonder where they get their funding from? Have they ever run a program? Have they ever dealt with something like doing research on FASD? Have they ever gone and–[interjection] That announcement's coming up. Members opposite would have us not do that study, a leading study that's going to be reproduced and studied in France and studied in Australia. How do you account for that in this silly legislation put forward by the member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson)?
How do you account for people's lives? This isn't a business. This is government. This is helping people, Mr. Speaker. It's not standing back and just letting the marketplace dictate everything. This is how government works. It doesn't work like–some of you pretend you're business people. I know that. Some of you probably were born into some wealth. Some of us were, some of us weren't, and you like to talk about business sense. Well, business sense means looking after people. The No. 1 thing that a business has to do is look after people, ensure proper conditions for your citizens, and slashing half a billion dollars out of the budget doesn't help the people of Manitoba.
Increasing tuition rates–what's just happened in Saskatchewan? Okay, let's talk about–the University of Saskatchewan is $43 million in debt and they just fired their president. Their president just resigned from the University of Saskatchewan–$43 million in debt. Have members opposite stood up and talked about that? Have they talked about that, Mr. Speaker? I don't think so.
You know, it's extraordinary that members opposite, even though they had experience with government, are so ill-equipped to understand how government works and what's important for the future. What's important for the future is our kids having jobs, is our parents having a place to go, a place to live, bringing in skilled workers, training workers, allowing people hope, not this nitpicking, we're going to attack everything, Mr. Speaker, we're going to cut and slash, and somehow out of that cutting and slashing is going to come some kind of benefits.
You know, recently, the announcement of Canadian Tire expansion, the announcement of the expansion of a hemp facility, Mr. Speaker–[interjection] You know, they don't–the expansion in the aerospace industry, the expansion of the FASD program, the expansion of apprenticeship and training that's going to happen today in Manitoba is all partnerships that the government does with private industry and with people in this province to provide a future and to provide hope. Members opposite would nitpick and close the door on every one of those opportunities. Members opposite would close the door on hope.
And even something as simple–it wasn't simple to do–but even something as important as merging the Liquor & Lotteries Corporation to save money, to provide for more business opportunities–let me emphasize–more business opportunities outside of Winnipeg–[interjection] Well, the member should stand up and tell me, Mr. Speaker, what his constituents think about the opportunities for expanded service in communities that don't have access to facilities.
But I digress, Mr. Speaker. They voted against it. They voted against it. Now, they can't–you can't lie about your voting. It's there on the record forever. And every one of these 11 measures that we have taken to improve the budget, members opposite have either criticized or voted against. So what are you in favour of? What are you in favour of? The only thing, by conclusion, they're in favour of is to follow the mistakes of the past, which was cutting, firing and stopping programs in order to, quote, balance the budget, when, in fact–for example, pension liabilities. Did members do anything about pension liabilities? They talk about being good managers and they let pension liabilities rise. We're, for the first time in history, providing and paying for pension liabilities. That is a liability. That is an expense. If you're proper managers, you would have talked about that. You would welcome that. Instead, you voted against it. You actually voted against paying off liabilities.
Thank you.
* (10:40)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand today and speak to this well-crafted Bill 204 that's been brought forward by our member from Tuxedo. Unfortunately, the members opposite don't understand business and it's quite clear, after listening to the member for Kildonan doing his rant. And I guess what I'd like to point out, some of the little things that he has done in the past that has wasted a lot of money, and money that could have been put forward to deal with a lot of the issues that were promised to be dealt with back in 1999. And I asked many, many people as I travelled throughout my communities and other communities: Do you feel that the health-care system is in better shape today than it was in 1999? Have we had an end to hallway medicine?
And the answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The answer is clear, that the NDP have failed. They have failed in many, many different ways. And in the biggest way that they failed was when their integrity went down the drain in 2011 when they went door to door saying we will not raise taxes. We will not raise the PST. We will balance the budget by 2014. None of those are truths. They lied door to door in–on every one of these very, very important issues, which affects not just us today, and not just our children, but our grandchildren.
So we can talk about the things that the member from Kildonan was so passionate about, but we can also talk about the record that they have left, and we'll just name a couple of them now: the PST hike; the $13-million boondoggle that he engineered while he was the minister of MPI on enhanced driver's licences that didn't work, the misprinted and a number of other things, Mr. Speaker; the vehicle registration increase to $35, the biggest increase that we've seen in the province; 8 per cent increase in hydro; the vote tax that him and his colleagues are so proud to take because they had to take it. They can't go back to the doors and face the people that they lied to.
The hallway medicine hasn't been taken care of. Is–health care is worse. The longer the NDP are in control, health care gets worse. What he didn't talk about is the face the reality that they have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and it puts at risk all the Manitobans' front-line services. And we've brought that forward many times, and that's why we vote against the budgets that they don't address the issues that are very near and dear to the hearts of Manitobans. They inherited a balanced budget and a sustainable spending from the last PC government that was led by Gary Filmon, one of the greatest leaders in Manitoba's history. The NDP has turned a surplus in '98-99 into a deficit of over $350 million a day.
What they've also done is they've tried to blame the deficit on natural disasters, as if only when they got elected did we have natural disasters in the province of Manitoba. Well, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we've had natural disasters here long before the NDP, and we'll have them again after the NDP, but they have been dealt with in the past before them in a very fiscal management area, in a very fiscal management way, and today they haven't been. They haven't addressed these issues whatsoever, and they blame–they blame it on a global recession, but at the time that the global recession was supposed to be happening, everything was cool in Manitoba. That's what the Leader of the NDP said. At the time he stood up and said, no, no, we're fine in Manitoba. We're just going to roll ahead.
So, these are–the facts remain that they inherited a surplus, they turned it into a deficit and they steered Manitoba towards a fiscal cliff. And we're still heading in that direction at a high speed, at a rate that Manitobans aren't going to be able to deal with, and over the last 12 years, Manitoba has seen a record level of revenue income, revenues that are over a billion–$1.2 billion since the budget of 2000. Revenues from other taxes, like the PST, have climbed 70 per cent in 12 years. That's what they've done to Manitoba. What have we got to show for it? Nothing. It's just spend money with no results. They don't know whether things have worked or if they haven't worked, they just know they need more money and they raise the taxes, keep raising the taxes, while the businesses in Manitoba can't do that. They can't keep raising their rates because they're out of business. No one has money. The people are leaving Manitoba in hordes; 4,500 just recently have left Manitoba again, and the reason that they left was for lower taxes and jobs, good jobs. We don't have that in Manitoba.
So, Mr. Speaker, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) can rant all he wants, but he can't talk about his record of what he has done to make Manitoba a better place to live.
Mr. Clarence Pettersen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I'm honoured to give a few words on this bill, against this bill.
I'm hearing the member from Emerson talk about the great Gary Filmon years and–give a hand. But, you know, we have to realize that there's two ways of leadership. One is leadership of government that's for the people and by the people, and the other leadership, which the opposition want to talk about, is running it like a business.
And how successful were they running it like a business? Let's remember, when Mr. Filmon was premier he said, we're going to balance the budget. So what did he do to balance the budget? He sold MTS. Okay? Sold, you know–[interjection] Filmon Fridays, we remember that. What else did he do to balance the budget? He laid off, what, 500 teachers. He laid off nurses. It was slash and burn. It was a time when Manitobans didn't know if they were going to have a job. It was a time in–people were not proud to be Manitobans. It was a time when they were looking for the love train, and they knew that the love train was the NDP. There was a time they were looking for leadership, and the leadership was the Leader of the NDP. He balanced 10 budgets in a row–10 budgets in a row. He also had to make a very tough decision based on the people of Manitoba, based on the people along the Assiniboine and the Red rivers. He based a decision on, we have to protect these people from the flood. We have to do something for the people of Manitoba.
So, yes, there was a flood in 2011. Yes, we put a 1 per cent increase, and we will not apologize for that. We did it for the people of Manitoba. We stood up for the people of Manitoba. We said we care–we said we care. We're not going to balance the budget by laying off teachers. We're not going to balance the budget by laying off nurses. We're not going to balance the budget by selling Hydro. We made a decision, and not a corporate decision, a government decision–a government decision–based on the people of Manitoba that what's good for Manitoba, and that is a strong economy.
There was a recession, and Maclean's magazine said the province that handled the recession better than anyone was Manitoba. People moved to our province because of the opportunities that we have with hydro and mining. People are looking at Manitoba because, you know what, if you live in the States, you're not covered for any flooding. Or if you lived in Alberta, they haven't done any flood mitigation for the next one. Manitoba is prepared because of the strong leadership led by the Premier (Mr. Selinger) of Manitoba. Manitoba is where we are because of the Premier of Manitoba. It takes true leadership and, mark my words, it takes true leadership to make tough decisions. It does not take leadership to pack your bags when the going gets tough and leave and go on like the Leader of the Opposition.
I'm, you know, I'm amazed that they stand here. They stand here in all gall and say–and how they can say this without frowning or looking down at their feet, to say the good times were the Filmon government. Ask–you've asked the people for four elections in the row, what do you think of the Filmon government, and what have they said? Thumbs down.
* (10:50)
They want the New Democratic Party. They want a party that shows leadership, makes tough decisions. [interjection] We did not lie–we did not lie. We made a decision, a government decision. We made a government decision for the people of Manitoba, and they are proud that we made that decision.
We did not tell the people of Manitoba–we did not tell the people of Manitoba that we would sell or not sell MTS–[interjection] Now, that is a lie; that is a boldface lie when they stood up and said, we will not sell MTS. And what gets me is the member from Emerson says his phone doesn't work. Well, you know what, let–you know, you sold to MTS; no wonder it doesn't work. Now I guess you could ask one of the board members, who is Mr. Filmon, to give you–ask Mr. Filmon to give you a special discount or whatever, but, I mean, that is reality.
The reality of the whole situation in this discussion on this bill, it takes a lot of guts; it takes a lot of courage; it takes tenacity to be a leader. And I look at our leader and I look at our Premier, and he has made tough decisions and will continue to make the tough decisions. I don't know about the opposition. I don't know. Is he going to leave for opportunities, you know, in the big show in Ottawa? I don't know. I mean, some members already left. I'm saying–and mark my word, Mr. Speaker, mark my word–is that the government of Manitoba will make decisions for the betterment of the people of Manitoba. We will make sure–we'll make sure that they are protected from floods, protected from fires, are protected from any natural disaster. We are there for them. We are not–
An Honourable Member: Protect them from Tories.
Mr. Pettersen: Yes, yes, we'll protect them from Tories. Thank you. Thank you.
We'll make darned sure, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Manitoba are well represented. Like I say, when you look west in Saskatchewan and Alberta,
they have strong resource economies. They've made decisions, easy-to-make decisions, but when I go visit my daughter in Alberta, I wonder what's going to happen. What's going to happen if there's another flood? They've done nothing, no flood mitigation at all, and I look over here and I think they would've done nothing. They would've done nothing about flood mitigation, and I look, thank God, thank God, as God is my witness, that the NDP–the NDP have taken upon themselves to protect the people of Manitoba, to protect the people of Manitoba and make decisions based on the betterment and moving forward in Manitoba.
So thanks for giving me these words. I just wanted to give a quiet little discussion on this, so I thank everybody for applauding, and I also want to say–well, I've still got a few more minutes; I can keep going–[interjection] Yes, another broken promise. No, no, I am going again. I have to say–okay, I'm going to step down because I just–I can't say any more.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The members seem quite into the debate this morning, but I'm going to ask for the co-operation of all honourable members. Please keep the level down a little bit.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: We have guests with us here in the gallery again this morning and we welcome them here, and I'd like to introduce to members of the House, seated in our public gallery from Isaac Newton School, we have 70 grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Jake Wolfe, and this group is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Children and Youth Opportunities (Mr. Chief).
On behalf of all members, we welcome you here this morning.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now, the honourable member for St. Norbert.
Mr. Dave Gaudreau (St. Norbert): It's great to stand and speak today on this Results-Based Budgeting Act. I think that we've seen the results of what budgeting can do in their time when, you know, nurses left the province, were fired, laid off, when jobs were lost, 33,000 people fled the province. That's the results-based budgeting on their end of the spectrum. You know, you only have to look at what they did when they were in government.
But you know what? Let's talk about results–let's talk about results. The result was that when, in 1997, in January, when flood preparations were under way, because everybody knows that flood preparations start long before; if you ask the Minister of Emergency Measures now, he'll tell you that flood preparations start long before–so, in January, flood preparations are happening, and, oh, what did their leader do? He quits, because he saw the writing on the wall. He saw it was going to be a tough year. He saw that it was going to come down and he would have to deal with such a disaster.
So–but he didn't just quit the whole thing at that point. He quit then, but then he stuck around and, you know, he did his little federal thing, and he was looking for the run and he collected his MLA paycheque while he did his little federal run. And then, on April 28th, right in the middle of the flood–Fargo had fallen on April 17th, burning–buildings burning–April 28th, right in the middle of the flood, what does the leader–oh, sorry, I don't want to use the word leader–what does the member of the opposition do? He quits. That's the leadership. That's what we're faced with in Manitoba if that man ever gets to be the Premier. He quits in the middle of a flood. April 28th, the city is inundated with water, and the Leader of the Opposition walks away. And I want to put leader in quotes, Mr. Speaker. Let's put leader in quotes.
We know the results. That's the result. So what does he do? He runs, he loses. So then after that he decides–he walks away from that, then he decides he's going to run again. So he runs, he goes to Ottawa for a couple of terms, but then what does he do? He quits, and he runs away from that. And then when we come to his record, we talk, we–whenever we mention the name Filmon in this House, he cheers and he roars and he claps and he says, Filmon was the best Premier ever. Well, you know what? Filmon was actually investigated during the Monnin inquiry for being one of the biggest vote-rigging scandals ever. Unfortunately, Judge Monnin said two years had gone by and the statute of limitations had not come in, so they couldn't charge him. That's what happened, Mr. Speaker. They couldn't charge him.
Now, you know, the Leader of the Opposition would like to say that he was part–not–wasn't part of that, as a Cabinet minister he had no idea what was going on. So he's either clueless or he's lying. I don't know which one it is, but he's obviously not telling what's going on. And he's saying that he wasn't part of the Monnin inquiry, but he is–he was, Mr. Speaker. He was here when the whole thing unfolded and when it happened.
You know, they want to talk about results-based budgeting. In 1995, a family of four paid $2,839 in property taxes, third highest in the country. That was underneath them. In 1996, $2,416, second highest in the country. So we saw where it was going underneath them; it was going up. In 1997, they paid $2,575, once again, second highest in the country. Results-based budgeting underneath them, Mr. Speaker.
In 2014, underneath our government, that same family of four pays $2,265, $310 less than they paid 17 years ago. That's result-based budgeting, Mr. Speaker. That's the result we want to see. Families here are paying less now under our tax regime than they are–than they were underneath their tax regime.
So they have no credibility when it comes to talking about results-based budgeting, Mr. Speaker. They want to talk about results? The results were that their leader ran away, and he keeps doing it; he runs every time something gets tough. When the going gets tough, you know what we do? We hunker down and we do good things for Manitoba. The Leader of the Opposition ran away. The member–the minister for emergencies and MIT, he has been here the whole time and he's–when times get tough, he stands up and he does what's right for Manitoba.
Our Premier (Mr. Selinger), when the time gets tough–times get tough, he stands up and does what's right for Manitoba. When the 2008 crash hit, our Premier did not run away from Manitoba. He stood here as a Finance minister, 10 balanced budgets in a row, and he stepped up to the plate and he became Premier of this province. And he took on a tough role, and he kept our economy plugging, in fact, the best economy in the country. Even though the members opposite don't want to talk about it, it's the best economy in the country and the leading exports in the country, the No. 1, double-digit exports, Mr. Speaker.
But, you know, that's results-based, which they don't like to talk about because the results on our side of the House, they're fantastic. The results on their side of the House were people were paying more and the Leader of the Opposition was running away. You know, those big, long legs are good for something.
* (11:00)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
When this matter's again before the House, the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Gaudreau) will have four minutes remaining.
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 11 a.m., it's time for private members' resolutions, and the resolution we have–[interjection]
House Business
Mr. Speaker: Honourable Government House Leader, on House business?
Hon. Andrew Swan (Government House Leader): On House business, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to rule 31(8), I'm announcing that the private member's resolution to be considered next Tuesday will be one put forward by the honourable member for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau). The title of the resolution is 10th Anniversary of Same-Sex Marriage in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that, pursuant to rule 31(8), that the private member's resolution that will be considered next Tuesday will be the one brought forward by the honourable member for Assiniboia, and the title of the resolution is the 10th Anniversary of Same-Sex Marriage in Manitoba.
Res. 20–70th Anniversary of D-Day
Mr. Speaker: Now, private member's resolution time, and the resolution we have under consideration this morning is entitled 70th Anniversary of D-Day, sponsored by the honourable member for St. James.
Ms. Deanne Crothers (St. James): I move, seconded by the MLA for Flin Flon,
WHEREAS June 6th, 2014, marks the 70th anniversary of D-Day; and
WHEREAS D-Day was the largest seaborne invasion in history and an important turning point in the Second World War, ultimately leading to the liberation of Europe by Allied forces; and
WHEREAS Canadian forces were given a major role in the D-Day mission with more than 14,000 Canadian soldiers landing on the shores of Normandy, 10,000 members of the Royal Canadian Navy at sea and 15 Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons controlling the skies above; and
WHEREAS three Manitoba units took part in the invasion, the Fort Garry Horse, the Royal Winnipeg Rifles who were in the vanguard and landed on Juno Beach, and the 402 City of Winnipeg Squadron who flew Spitfires as overhead cover; and
WHEREAS the bravery and resolve displayed by Canadian forces on D-Day helped shape our national consciousness and defined Canada's prominence on the world stage; and
WHEREAS victory in the Normandy campaign came at a terrible cost with 1,074 Canadian casualties, 359 of whom gave their lives; and
WHEREAS it is important to honour the sacrifice, selflessness and valour of our men and women who fought against tyranny and oppression on that significant day and throughout the Second World War.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to recognize the importance of June 6th, 2014, as the 70th anniversary of D-Day in order to honour the bravery of our veterans and acknowledge the pivotal role these events played in our country's history.
Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Crothers), seconded by the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Pettersen),
WHEREAS June 6th, 2014, marks the 70th anniversary of D-Day; and
WHEREAS D-Day was the–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.
The resolution is in order.
Ms. Crothers: I would just like to start by thanking the members of the Legislative Assembly that joined me in appreciating our military folks last evening. It was a very nice event and I think that they did feel quite appreciated.
I had the opportunity before that event began to chat with three World War II veterans who generously shared some of their experiences with the Premier (Mr. Selinger) and I. It was Lieutenant Colonel Bill McGowan, Trooper Stan Butterworth and Rifleman John Stoyko, and it was really fascinating for me just to hear some of their first-hand experiences during the war, and amazing how clear their memories were. It seemed that each time one of them told a story it would trigger another story in someone else, and the details that they had–that they were recalling. And one of the gentlemen talked about that just a cloud of thick dust from walking behind the tanks as they marched ahead. And another recalled, as an 18-year-old, landing and seeing, you know, dead animals strewn around the countryside where–that he was travelling through and seeing army vehicles that had been destroyed with their passengers dead laying on the ground around them. And I'm pretty sure, as an 18-year-old, it would have been incredibly shocking and debilitating to see something like that, and then to just carry on because that's the job that you were expected to do.
One of the other gentlemen talked about German snipers that would hide in the trees, and as the Allied forces marched forward they would have some of their comrades picked off and would all have to drop to the ground and have a small group of men, you know, go out to try and find the sniper. And the only way to get him out of the tree was to kill him.
So these experiences that they were generously sharing just really seemed to feed off of one another, and the stories that were coming out were incredible, and most of them joined when they were 18. I think that those kinds of memories are–we're losing those memories, because, as time passes and we lose our veterans, those opportunities to hear those stories become increasingly rare.
And in terms of the significance of D-Day, I mean, it's immense. June 6th, 2014, this year will mark the 70th anniversary of D-Day. It was the greatest seaborne invasion in history and an important turning point in the Second World War, and Canada played a significant role. We had more than 14,000 Canadian soldiers that landed on Juno Beach, 10,000 members of the Royal Canadian Navy provided support from the sea and 15 Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons controlled the skies. And the Normandy campaign came, of course, with a great cost to human life. There were 1,074 Canadian casualties, 359 of whom lost their life. And, honestly, I'm kind of shocked that it wasn't more than that, as much as that was.
Manitoba in particular had significant involvement. There were three Manitoba units that took part in this mission: the Fort Garry Horse, the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, who were on the front line landing in–on Juno Beach, and the 402 City of Winnipeg Squadron who flew Spitfires as overhead cover.
And, you know, several months ago I had an opportunity to meet one of those World War II vets that landed on D-Day, and his name was Lieutenant Colonel William Little. He actually was a sergeant recruiter for the Fort Garry Horse, and he's from Selkirk originally. Now he lives in Ottawa. But he recruited 28 young men from Selkirk who he led on D-Day for the Normandy invasion and he was an incredibly charming man. We met him in a restaurant. We had arranged to meet him in a restaurant, and I think he was there for maybe five or 10 minutes before we arrived and I–he had charmed everybody in that restaurant. There was a young couple that were expecting a baby in a few days and they got up to leave when we were partway through our meal and came over, and it was like they were long-lost relatives or something. He was just an incredibly gentle and kind fellow.
But he was willing, again, to share. I always feel a little uncomfortable asking some of these veterans to share. I'm eager to learn and eager to know what their experiences were but I understand that these are challenging memories to discuss and not all of them want to discuss them. But he was very kind and willing to explain what the nuts and bolts of it looked like from his perspective as he was aboard one of the landing craft, which was his job that day with these 28 young men.
And he recounted how seasick they all were because, of course, you know, they're riding over in these convoys and he said that they were–the ship was just, you know, the–everybody was just up and slamming down into the water, and the men were seasick. And, of course, I can't even imagine the apprehension that these young people would be going through as they were about to face, you know, death. And he–you could almost–I felt like I was there when he was talking about it. But it just goes to show how hardy our men and women in the military really are. He actually managed to bring back all of those men. I think that's a miracle, but they all returned. I think he's outlived them all. He was in his 90s. But I am so appreciative of the time that I had to talk with him and hear his stories.
And I think that that's really the point of this resolution, is to make sure that we're still talking about these stories, you know. My father was not in the war. He was too young, but I certainly grew up in a household where this was a period in history that was alive and well even though my father wasn't part of the–he wasn't a part of the military or didn't go to war, but it's so important for us to continue sharing those stories.
And the gentleman that I started talking about who had gone back to Normandy to visit for previous D-Day anniversaries said that even there, the villages that were liberated by Canadian Forces, and particular Manitoban forces, that they tend to go back and visit those villages again, are still so appreciative and they run–the children run up and hug them. They're so thankful. So I think the memories from those that were liberated are very clearly shared with the other generations that have come behind.
* (11:10)
And it's important for us to remember what our role was liberating these folks. I know as a child, I had a bus driver who was as old as the hills, I thought, at eight or nine, and I'm sure he was in his 70s or maybe his 60s. And he always seemed quite grumpy, but he was kind-hearted, and I didn't know very much about him. He was a friend of the family, distantly. But he died several years ago, and to my amazement, I discovered that he had actually been a part of the air force, and his name was Ernie Davidson, and I discovered that he was a radio operator and a tail gunner and a member of a crew that flew a B-24 Liberator bomber in the RCAF, and discovered a couple of incredible stories that he and his crew had been a part of.
They were responsible for doing anti-sub patrol and escorting convoys. Their crew took on a pack of–I'm probably going to mispronounce this–Heinkel air squadron, and they took out two of them on their own. It was just them on their own. They took out two of them and they drove off the remainder, and they saved the convoy, which arrived safely in port. But–and another thing that they did shortly after was they bombed–sunk two German subs in five minutes, which I found–all on their own–astonishing. They didn't have any help. They were just out there, spotted them, and decided to take the risk and they sunk them. And one of his co-flyers was a Manitoban.
And I just think how there are so many of stories like this that we're not aware of, people that live amongst us, although we have fewer and fewer every year. But the opportunity to talk about these stories and to make sure that we don't forget to really engage with the–our remaining veterans is very important, and I look forward to heading to Normandy soon myself to attend some of these ceremonies with many of the veterans that are going to be going over.
Particularly, it'll be important for me because I will be with people that were actually there and help me have a better understanding of what they went through.
So, anyway, I encourage everyone to support this resolution, and I thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): I'm pleased to rise to speak to the resolution, the 70th Anniversary of D-Day, and I do believe it is important for the government to recognize events such as this. D-Day was an important historical event in our past and important part that Canadian troops did take part in, of course, and the member talked about those various organizations.
I–when I read the resolution, I think it lays it out fairly well. I think it would be good to be reflected that it is important that all members of the Legislative Assembly should recognize the importance of D-Day, and that may be something that could have been added there, but I think it's probably a little late at this stage.
Because when we look at events in wars that the Canadian military has been involved in, there are, indeed, a great number, Mr. Speaker, and they are all very important events. D-Day in particular was one, but you also have to look back to Ypres, Vimy Ridge, the Battle of the Atlantic, Kapyong was an important event in 2PPCLI, the Medak Pocket in the former Yugoslavia, and, recently, as we've seen in Afghanistan, our military distinguished themselves in Kabul, in Kandahar and, indeed, the forward operating bases that we don't know the names of because at this time, they may not have one, or they may be still shrouded in secrecy to make sure that the troops had been protected. So there's many events in our military past that need to be recognized, and D-Day is indeed an important part of that.
I do have with me, Mr. Speaker, a book written by–or edited by Mr. Gordon Bell, who recognized that a lot of the history books that were written were written by the generals and their staff. And what he did is he went around and he collected stories from the soldiers. And he put them together in this edition. It's called We Went Where They Sent Us… and Did as We Were Told–and then, in the brackets–Most of the Time. So when you read the stories, they are, indeed, very emotional. In particular, there are memories of D-Day from Edwin Woolard [phonetic], who was 18 years old when he joined the Royal Navy in 1942. He talks about the events leading up to it. And, as I'm sure you know, many of these events are difficult for our veterans to speak of. They saw things that I don't think we can even imagine and, certainly, D-Day was no exception.
Some of the things he talked about are difficult to read, even when you look at the black-and-white print. But we know that it was a tremendously chaotic time there; obviously, a killing zone, as such. And we, both sides, lost a lot of lives in that area. And indeed, one of it says–one of his quotes, it says, it was a well-prepared killing ground with the defences that were set up there. But, obviously, was successful eventually.
And when I look at other stories in this book, it does have something that I know about directly. My father-in-law has a story in here of when he was in the war. And he was–didn't talk much about his war experiences. And he was a very humble man. But one of the first ships he was on was part of a convoy and was torpedoed. And they lost–I think they only lost two people from that ship, but there were somewhere around, I think he says, 1,800 people that were rescued and moved onto other ships. And the ship that he was rescued by was listing and a couple of decks were under water itself.
So hazardous events, Mr. Speaker, and all of them do, indeed, need recognition. And I think it's important for us to recognize D-Day as an event on a regular basis, and this particular resolution speaks of the 70th anniversary. And you can pick many anniversaries. Obviously, that's an important one. I'm sure the 75th will be, and I'm sure the 80th will be and the 85th, obviously, the 100th, as we get there.
But while it's very important to recognize these anniversaries for the veterans that are still alive, and their families, we also have to recognize, as I said, that there are many events that the Canadian–
Audio system failure
Mr. Speaker: Okay, we're coming through now.
I regret to interrupt the honourable member for Brandon West (Mr. Helwer), and we will definitely add some time on to make sure–five minutes onto his time, yes, to make sure that he has the full time allocated to him, I should say. I know he may prefer more, but we'll give him what he's allocated.
* (11:20)
Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll try to pick up where I left off.
I think I was speaking about how important these events were–the remembrance of these events–in our military history, and for all Manitobans and Canadians. That they–it is important to remember D‑Day and the particularly–particular importance it had to many of the veterans that still are alive in Manitoba and in various parts of Canada, although they are becoming, obviously, quite elderly as we go along here. But their memories are often very sharp and the events that they may be able to share for–share with us, or are willing to share with us, are things that obviously they experienced directly. And as I said, we have little ability to really imagine what they saw there and the horrors that surrounded them, but, yet, they were, eventually, victorious. And I'm sure that they had many emotions as they saw close friends fall to enemy fire and the loses that we incurred there, Mr. Speaker.
But it is also, as I said, very important to remember the other victories that we had that made Canada a nation. And as we remember those that have fallen, Mr. Speaker, obviously, on Remembrance Day, what I find as I speak to young students, even more now, is that it's come closer to home. Remembrance Day used to be something that we thought about for World War I and World War II veterans, perhaps grandparents, perhaps parents. And young people, I found, were being–becoming somewhat disengaged from the whole discussion of what Remembrance Day was about.
But, as our military has become engaged in conflict yet again–as we see with how they distinguish themselves in Afghanistan, and now we have children whose parents have been off in Afghanistan, some of them tragically lost, of course, and, you know, friends of those individuals that went off to Afghanistan and distinguished themselves–Remembrance Day has taken on a new importance, I think, with the youth in Canada, and the public, generally, because they know an individual that may have served in the military, or still serves in the military, and they may know an individual that is no longer with us.
So, indeed, Remembrance Day and days of recognition such of this resolution recommends, are ever more important to the Canadian public, so that we recognize and, not celebrate, but, understand what our military went through, and what many of them are still going through, Mr. Speaker, as they try to deal with many of the things that they've seen, that we cannot even imagine.
I have many friends that have been in military, Mr. Speaker, and have been in conflicts, and many of them are reluctant to speak of what they've seen, not just because it may bring up some bad memories for them, obviously, but also that they don't want to expose those of us that stayed in Canada to some of the things–some of the horrors that they've seen. I think they continue to protect Canadians in that way.
But, in many times, Mr. Speaker, they do need to speak about their experiences, and a recognition such as this may give people an opportunity to speak about their experiences. Again, and the history is important.
So when I looked at this book edited by Gordon Bell, I think it's quite a neat book, for I recommend members take a look at it if you can. I'm not sure if it's in our library. But the stories of the individuals, of soldiers, many of them not very long, a paragraph or two, give a different view of the war than what you might hear or read about in the normal history book. And much more, of course, first person, the experiences that they saw. They are not, by any means, professional writers, but, just write about what they observed and what they saw. And, I think it's–I recommend to you, Mr. Speaker.
So with that, I know there are many others that want to speak to this resolution. And I think it's an important one for us to look at. It would be nice if the Legislative Assembly were more apart of recognizing this day as well, other than just the provincial government, but those are things that we won't deal with at this point.
So thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Clarence Pettersen (Flin Flon): Yes, I just want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to talk in this–on this bill. And I fully support recognizing important dates like June 6th, D‑Day, in our provincial Legislature and throughout the province.
History is important to us because when we look at the past, we learn how to move in the future. And when you look to D-Day, it was a day that was proud for Canadians and Americans, British, anybody that was involved in D-Day. It was a proud moment.
But I want to give you a little background on how D-Day actually came about. And when the Germans, under Adolf Hitler, wanted to take over the world under the Third Reich, they were thinking about exactly that, basically, trying to take over the Western Front, Russia, and taking over Britain, whatever.
So when we were fighting the Germans, it was getting pretty desperate, and then, of course, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour and brought the Americans in and we started the move to capture Europe back from the Germans, which they had a mighty army with some of the most, I guess you could say, up-to-date weapons at the time. We took over North Africa and then we invaded Italy. Stalin wanted another front. He was having trouble, of course, on the Western Front with the Germans, taking thousands and thousands of losses, and so persuaded Churchill and Eisenhower, of course, to have a beachhead on–in France, and that's how D‑Day came about, was to put pressure on the Germans from all different directions. And it was a lot of men that were sacrificed because, believe me, it wasn't just landing on the beach. These beaches were well protected. The Germans knew ahead of time they were coming. The Germans also had special weapons there for them to receive them, and so it wasn't an easy cakewalk by any means.
And when you look in some of the old National Film Board Canadian reels, as a teacher I used to show them to my kids, and it's just amazing. And I think the member from Brandon West brought it up, there's many books written by the generals and, you know, historians, but it–once you read some books that have personal stories, a page or two, it talks about the fear that the individuals had, the, you know, unexpected–unexpectedness when they landed on the beach, where they're supposed to go. You know, everybody was trained what to do and all this, but when bullets are flying over your head, you know, the game changes. And I know from my dad, he was in the navy–and one of the reasons he was in the navy is because my grandpa said World War I, the war to end all wars, was hell, and you don't want to be stuck in the trenches.
So there's a man from Saskatchewan, a farmer, deciding to join the navy. And he joined the navy and, you know, unfortunately, he really wanted to get over to England, but he was involved in going partway with a convoys from Halifax. And some of the stories–and like the member from Brandon West said, a lot of the times these men don't want to talk about these stories because what they had seen, and there was times when ships would be torpedoed and they couldn't stop sometimes to pick up the survivors because they would put their own ship at risk. And it was a time when war–and I think like Winston Churchill said, war was hell, and my dad said that it was like that. I mean, you–it was the worst moment. You always had a pain in your gut. It was from worry; it was from fear; it was from, could you be next? And they lived through that, day in and day night–day and night.
And I know the people that went to D-Day on Juno Beach, they had that same, same feel in their stomach. And when you look at pictures, sometimes the landing craft didn't get as close to the beach as they should, some of them drowned before, you know, just as they got off the boat; some were shot soon as they got off the boat; some didn't know where they were supposed to go, there was confusion. Like I say, the Germans were well prepared. They had machine gun nests, they had everything, all their–these men, basically, you know, did the job that they were asked to do under many sacrifices, either through death or injury or whatever. So I have the utmost respect for our veterans, and any time that we can recognize our veterans, like last night, or recognize our veterans on D-Day or Remembrance Day, is important.
* (11:30)
And I think–and I also want to say, being a teacher–the member from Brandon West also made a reference that the kids, I think, are treating it even more seriously than when we were kids, and I don't know why that is. But I don't know if–sending troops to Afghanistan, younger soldiers coming in and, you know, being in battle. But I know at our school, at Hapnot high school, the kids put on Remembrance Day. It used to be the teachers that put it on and, you know, the kids would do different things there. The kids put it on and it means that much more. They're looking. And nobody likes war and, you know, the state of the world as it is in today, some people might even argue that are we any safer than we were, you know, 10 years ago or whatever.
Well, you know what? That's, you know, that's something you have to think about. That's what governments have to make decisions on and, like I say, I sure don't want to see our kids having to go to war. I know some of the kids that I taught volunteered and went to Afghanistan, but I was always worried, worried that they wouldn't come back, or if they came back they'd be injured or whatever.
But it's very important that we recognize the soldiers that put their life on the line for what we stand for, and I think everybody in this House realize the great job that our soldiers have done. I think our government has to give them, our soldiers, every opportunity, the best equipment. I want to see them going in well prepared to make the decisions that they're asked to do.
And on June 6, the day–D-Day that that happened there, like I say, there was lots of preparation. There was lots of planning, and yet there were so many people that sacrificed their lives for us. And, like I say, it's always a special moment when we talk about different battles that happened in the past, whether it was World War I or World War II, Korea, Afghanistan, wherever we send our soldiers we just have to make sure that we support them and make sure that they have the best equipment whatever–wherever they're sending.
So thanks for letting me add a few words to this. Thank you.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I do want to put a few things on the record in regards to June 6th, 1944, the anniversary of D-Day. I can tell you, as an MLA it gives me a lot of pride to talk about the veterans and what they've accomplished and done for not only Canada, but United States and, of course, the world, and the world that we all live in and work and play in.
And I know my father was in the navy at that time, and a number of his brothers and sisters were as well and they took that responsibility very, very seriously. Like the member from Flin Flon said, it's not a topic that my family, in particular, don't like to talk about. It's very, very difficult. I cannot imagine what they may or may not have gone through and the impact that it had on them. We know that, as free Canadians, to be able to stand in this House and other parts of the world to express our views, and it would not been if it would not been for some of the sacrifices made by those men and women.
Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to celebrate this 70th anniversary of D-Day, I know that–I know I have a service on Sunday with my local legion where we'll be laying a wreath at that event, and I can tell you that our legion in my area, the–number of them have had to close through financial hardship.
My legion in my area has about 800 members now, maybe just a little over, of which I would say there's probably only about 50 or 60 active members. The rest come and go because of not only the age of the legionnaires that are members of that, but Stony Mountain recently was the recent casualty that merged in with Stonewall. They have since sold the property off, used that resource to help fund the legion in Stonewall. The first casualty was Teulon, my hometown. We do have another legion in Woodlands area who is also struggling to make ends meet
But I can tell you that every time I meet with our legionnaires and our veterans, it gives me a great sense of pride to be able to visit with them, to be able to listen to what they have to say and what we can learn from their experiences, as we think and remember about what they have done and what they have sacrificed.
So I know that every member of this House has a passion. We know that there's many other things to celebrate and this is a one step that we'd move forward towards so those there–those that are coming forward in celebrations of whatever event may be coming forward.
So I know that we, along with all members of this House, want to be able to remember–I'm not going to repeat what has already been put in regards to those Canadians that served and those that have lost their lives, but I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker, every member of this House has every right to be so proud of our veterans and others that have made the ultimate sacrifice to fight and keep our country what it is today–one of the strongest nations in the world, and we're so proud of what we are able to remember from those that served in that area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Melanie Wight (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a few words on the record, really just to express my gratitude to those particularly involved in D-Day but to all of those who, over the last many years, have fought for our freedom in our world.
As a kid, I can remember my dad speaking about the war. As I've mentioned before, he tried to get overseas; he didn't make it because of different health concerns, but he was in the air force and trained others. I had another relative who was a pilot and he was–had been going to a Bible school prior to the war and so he had left that to become a pilot and when he became a pilot just before he was about to head out on the–overseas, he decided he would go and buzz the Bible school. Well, you weren't allowed to be buzzing them with your airplanes, and they didn't know it was him and they reported that plane and he did not go over. And his entire regiment was wiped out in that–in the battles that came and none of them returned. So, in that case, you know, someone came back. Many did not come back.
And I was–not long ago actually in Jerusalem at the Holocaust museum and my dad had spoken a lot about the Holocaust when we were kids and I'd read a lot of books about it and there's something about it that, you know, he just wanted to make sure that we didn't forget that. And when you go to that museum, if you didn't–I mean, you already felt a tremendous amount of gratitude, but when you saw, you know, just again there, the horrors that were being inflicted on people by the Nazi regime, you just couldn't help but just feel an overwhelming gratitude. And you could really imagine, you know, what it must've been like when they arrived to set people free, to liberate, you know, people as they came across Europe.
And so I just want to say how much, how thankful we are, how thankful I am personally, how thankful I know all Canadians are and also for those who have been, as I said, in Afghanistan and the absolutely life-changing experience that war is and I pray that we would support our troops in this country. Thank you.
* (11:40)
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk to this important resolution. As an anniversary–the 70th anniversary of D-Day, it's very important that we recognize this anniversary. D-Day, June the 6th, 1944, was the turning point in the Second World War. Up to that point, the German forces had been able to maintain the centre of Europe, essentially, as Fortress Europe. After D-Day, there was steady progression of the Allied forces until Germany surrendered in 1945. The activities and the success on D-Day were greatly helped by the earlier raid on Dieppe, in which Canadians played a really important part. And, of course, Canadians played a major role, together with forces from the United Kingdom, the Americans, other Allied forces, in the success of D-Day.
For me, the Second World War is important personally as my father served for most of the war in the Allied forces. He was not in the D-Day invasion, but he served in North Africa, in Italy and in the Middle East. And for my mother, the war years were very difficult ones, being separated and uncertain whether my father would return alive. Fortunately, he did. The sacrifices made by so many during the Second World War, at the time of D-Day and indeed throughout the war, are a very important reason for us to pass this resolution to remember D-Day 70 years ago.
But I want to spend a moment talking about another aspect of the Second World War, which has been less talked about. Though the war marked a very fierce conflict between the Allied and the Axis forces, there were those on opposite sides who were–had been friends before the war, and there were those on opposite sides who worked together for peaceful purposes and to make contributions together after the war.
My father is an example because he had travelled in Germany in 1938 before the war and very much enjoyed his time there, except, of course, for the looming conflict. And after the war, when he was in England in Birmingham, working at the children's hospital there, he worked together with two others, one of whom was Horst Bickel, who was a biochemist. And Horst Bickel had been a German U-boat commander. And though they had been on opposite sides of the war, my father and Horst Bickel and Evelyn Hickmans worked together to find and produce a diet which was allowed for the treatment of children with phenylketonuria. And it was probably, you know, one of the first major collaborations between people who had been fighting one another such a short time before. And it was significant in that it marked a turning point for children with phenylketonuria. And today, we now identify, through newborn screening, all children with phenylketonuria and put them on the diet that was found so many years ago shortly after the Second World War.
I think it's important that even as we talk and remember about the conflicts, even as we talk and we remember about the sacrifices, we need to make sure that we are not stigmatizing everybody who was on the opposite side, that there were occasions when people had worked together and to achieve very significant things after the war, who had been fighting during the war so ferociously against one another. And I think that that is something that in the human spirit, in the way that we are able to move on from a tremendous conflict and figure out how to work together.
The Marshall Plan in Germany helped to revive Germany. And now we see many countries, including Germany, Canada and the United States, working together to try and secure a peaceful and positive future for the Ukraine. And so I think it's really important that we remember the difficulties, the tragedies, the sacrifices, but we also think about what has come from this and where we are now and how we can continue to build a future which is a future of much more global security and much more global peace and hope and opportunities for countries like Ukraine. Thank you.
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I want to thank the member for St. James (Ms. Crothers) for introducing this resolution and to all members of this House who have spoken so eloquently this morning.
This is an opportunity to remember that it was ordinary Manitobans who left their farms, who left their small towns or urban neighbourhoods like mine, who landed on Juno Beach that morning 70 years ago, or supported those landing, to be in the long and bloody process of liberating Europe. And not only were they ordinary Manitobans, they were young. Most were under 25 years of age, some were as young as 18 or 19 and some, depending on the stories they told recruiters, were even younger.
I had an opportunity to visit Juno Beach in June of 2009, shortly after the 65th anniversary commemorations. I was there as Trade Minister as we pursued greater relationships with Basse-Normandie, or Lower Normandy, which is where Juno Beach is located.
And the day I visited I was certainly struck by the beauty and the tranquility of Juno Beach. There's no great cliffs or relief; there's sand dunes. It actually looks a lot like Grand Beach, which I know many members have had the chance to visit. The day I was there, there were children playing down the beach, there were people parasailing. It was a beautiful summer day, but it was only if you looked down the other way you could see the enemy fortifications that have been left there in commemoration of what happened.
And really I think the most striking part of those events is that when young Canadians who landed on Juno Beach that day were killed or wounded or lived, it was really a matter of complete chance. In the world that we live in we tend to think that our success or even our survival is based on our hard work or our skill or our perseverance.
It's pretty humbling to think that young men's lives were forever changed not by their size or their skill or by the family they came from or their home town, but, as the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Pettersen) said, whether their landing craft happened to make it to the right place or whether the machine gun, the enemy machine gun in front of them, continued to fire or jammed. And that's something I think is very difficult for all of us to fully comprehend.
Many of these young men came from the West End of Winnipeg. It's striking when Remembrance Day rolls around to attend services at churches like St. Matthew's Anglican Church or my family's church, First Lutheran Church, and hear the list of names of young men who sacrificed. The social pressures on young people to enlist and be part of the army or navy or air force must have been great.
My friend's father, Vic, was a young Canadian who in 1944 parachuted into Normandy as part of that invasion. His war ended right there as he was seriously injured, losing a leg, and I still remember Vic pounding his wooden leg on the floor to get those of us to be quiet down in the basement.
But as others have shared, it wasn't always easy and it's–still isn't easy to get veterans to talk and to relate their stories of what happened in that terrible and bloody time.
Of course, we know many others who returned home didn't have any physical injuries, but they were affected all the same. There was little insight and even less sympathy for those who suffered psychological trauma from the war and I wish I could say this was no longer the case but it remains the case today.
So, Mr. Speaker, we commend the bravery and the ultimate success of Canadian soldiers who were part of D-Day 70 years ago. Let us never forget their sacrifice, but also let us never forget that when nations go to war it's the young men and women who pay the biggest price. We shall remember them.
Mr. Speaker: Is any further debate on the resolution?
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the resolution? [Agreed]
Mr. Swan: Mr. Speaker, could we have you acknowledge that this resolution has been passed by–unanimously by members of the Legislature?
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to let the record show that this resolution has passed unanimously? [Agreed]
Now, honourable Government House Leader?
* (11:50)
Hon. Andrew Swan (Government House Leader): Would it be the will of the House to call it 12 o'clock?
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 12 noon? [Agreed]
The hour being 12 noon, this House is recessed and stands recessed until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.