LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, November 3, 2022


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Madam Speaker: Good afternoon, everybody. Please be seated.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Madam Speaker: Intro­duction of bills?

Committee Reports

Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development


Ninth Report

Mr. Dennis Smook (Chairperson): I wish to present the ninth report of the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment.

Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Your Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment–

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense.

Your Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development presents the following as its Ninth Report.

Meetings

Your Committee met on November 2, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Building.

Matters under Consideration

·         Bill (No. 40)  The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amendments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking Act / Loi édictant la Loi sur les registres des clients dans le secteur de l'hébergement et modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille et la Loi sur l'exploitation sexuelle d'enfants et la traite de personnes

·         Bill (No. 43) – The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act / Loi sur la communication de renseignements pour la protection contre la violence de la part d'un partenaire intime

·         Bill (No. 46) – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act / Loi modifiant le Code de la route

Committee Membership

·         Ms. Marcelino

·         Mr. Michaleski

·         Hon. Mr. Piwniuk

·         Mr. Smook (Chairperson)

·         Hon. Ms. Squires

·         Mr. Wiebe

Your Committee elected Mr. Michaleski as the Vice‑Chairperson.

Non-Committee Members Speaking on Record

·         Ms. Lamoureux

Public Presentations

Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 43) – The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act / Loi sur la communication de renseignements pour la protection contre la violence de la part d'un partenaire intime:

Debra Danco, Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc.

Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 46) – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act / Loi modifiant le Code de la route:

Roland Boille, RB Telecom Solutions

Written Submissions

Your Committee received the following three written submissions on Bill (No. 40) – The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amendments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking Act / Loi édictant la Loi sur les registres des clients dans le secteur de l'hébergement et modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille et la Loi sur l'exploitation sexuelle d'enfants et la traite de personnes:

Lianna McDonald, Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc.

Hunter Doubt, Expedia Group

Emmett O'Keefe, Booking.com

Bills Considered and Reported

·         Bill (No. 40)  The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amendments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking Act / Loi édictant la Loi sur les registres des clients dans le secteur de l'hébergement et modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille et la Loi sur l'exploitation sexuelle d'enfants et la traite de personnes

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill with the following three amendments:

THAT Schedule A to the Bill (The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act) be amended by renumbering Clause 5 as Clause 5(1) and adding the following as Clause 5(2):

More than one person admitted to occupy lodging

5(2) If more than one customer is admitted to occupy the same lodging, the registry keeper must enter the information for only one customer.

THAT Schedule A to the Bill (The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act) be amended by replacing Clause 7 with the following:

Customer to provide identification

7 A customer must provide the prescribed identi­fication in the following manner:

(a) in the case of a hotel, to the registry keeper, at the time the customer is admitted to occupy a lodging or at another prescribed time;

(b) in the case of an online accommodation platform, to the registry keeper or to the person prescribed to be acting on behalf of the registry keeper, at the time the customer is admitted to occupy a lodging or at another prescribed time;

(c) in the case of any other registry keeper, to the registry keeper, at the time the customer accesses the services provided by the registry keeper or at another prescribed time.

THAT Schedule A to the Bill (The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act) be amended in Clause 20(1) by replacing the proposed clause 20(1)(g) with the following:

(g) respecting the collection, use, disclosure and retention of information and records obtained under this Act;

(g.1) prescribing the persons who may act on behalf of a registry keeper and the duties of such persons;

·         Bill (No. 43) – The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act / Loi sur la communication de renseignements pour la protection contre la violence de la part d'un partenaire intime

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

·         Bill (No. 46) – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act / Loi modifiant le Code de la route

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

Mr. Smook: I move, seconded by the hon­our­able member for Dauphin (Mr. Michaleski), that the report of the com­mit­tee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Standing Committee on Legis­lative Affairs


Fourth Report

Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Chairperson):

Madam Speaker, I wish to present the fourth report of the Standing Com­mit­tee on Legis­lative Affairs.

Deputy Clerk: Your Standing Com­mit­tee on Legislative Affairs–

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense.

Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Fourth Report.

Meetings

Your Committee met on November 2, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building.

Matters under Consideration

·         Bill (No. 225) – The Non-Disclosure Agreements Act / Loi sur les accords de confidentialité

Committee Membership

·         Hon. Ms. Gordon

·         Mr. Micklefield

·         Ms. Naylor

·         Mr. Redhead

·         Hon. Mr. Wharton

·         Mr. Wowchuk

Your Committee elected Mr. Micklefield as the Chairperson.

Your Committee elected Mr. Wowchuk as the Vice‑Chairperson.

Substitutions received during committee proceedings:

·         Hon. Mr. Goertzen for Hon. Mr. Wharton

Non-Committee Members Speaking on Record

·         Mr. Lamont

Public Presentations

Your Committee heard the following 18 presentations on Bill (No. 225) – The Non-Disclosure Agreements Act / Loi sur les accords de confidentialité:

Shannon Hancock, Private Citizen

Julie Roginsky, Lift Our Voices

Marcel Williamson, Private Citizen

Karen Koslowsky-Jones, Private Citizen

Julie MacFarlane, Can't Buy My Silence

Sherri Thomson, Private Citizen

Jan Wong, Private Citizen

Pam Gordon, Private Citizen

Susan MacRae, Private Citizen

Kelly Donovan, Private Citizen

Jennifer Schulz, Private Citizen

Laura Fougere, Private Citizen

Aalya Ahmad, Private Citizen

Bridget Lontok, Private Citizen

Barbara Captijn, Private Citizen

Heidi Rimke, Private Citizen

Candide Allen, Private Citizen

Douglas Kuny, Private Citizen

Written Submissions

Your Committee received the following written submission on Bill (No. 225) – The Non-Disclosure Agreements Act / Loi sur les accords de confidentialité:

Grant Driedger, Manitoba Law Reform Commission

Bills Considered and Reported

·         Bill (No. 225) – The Non-Disclosure Agreements Act / Loi sur les accords de confidentialité

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

Mr. Micklefield: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon­our­able member for Kildonan-River East (Mrs. Cox), that the report of the com­mit­tee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Tabling of Reports

Hon. Alan Lagimodiere (Minister of Indigenous Reconciliation and Northern Relations): Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to table the Path to Recon­ciliation Act Annual Progress Report 2021-22 for the De­part­ment of Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations.

Hon. Cliff Cullen (Acting Gov­ern­ment House Leader): I am pleased to table the sequence for the con­sid­era­tion of de­part­mental Estimates in the Com­mit­tee of Supply.

Madam Speaker: And in accordance with section 32(1) of The Elections Act, and sub­sec­tion 107(1) of The Election Financing Act, I am tabling the Annual Report for Elections Manitoba for the fiscal year ending December 31st, 2021, including a report on modifica­tions to the voting process for the Fort Whyte by-election.

Ministerial Statements

Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister–and I would indicate that the required 90 minutes notice prior to routine proceedings was provided in accord­ance with rule 26(2).

      Would the honourable minister please proceed with her statement.

Remembrance Day

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): Madam Speaker, I rise today to recog­nize Remembrance Day Awareness Week, a time when Manitobans remember and honour the heroes who served our country.

      Across our province, Manitobans will take part in ceremonies to remember those who have died in mili­tary conflicts in the First and Second World Wars, in Korea and to the present day.

      At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the armistice was signed between the allies and Germany for the cessation of hostilities in the western front in 1918.

      Every year on November 11th, Canadians pause in a moment of silence to honour and remember those who have served and continue to serve Canada during times of war, conflict and peace. We remember the more than 2.3 million Canadians who have served through­out our nation's history and the more than 118,000 who made the ultimate sacrifice.

      Jack Winter Quelch, of Birtle, Manitoba, was in the trenches at Passchendaele. In a letter to his mother he wrote, and I quote: I thought I had seen a few thou­sand guns while I have been in France but have never seen the mass of guns there are in this place and the incessant bombardment. The country is a big jelly pot of wet mud and water, shaking, or rather quivering,  under the fire of the guns. I have seen a few hundred dead, too, but this is the worst. It's an ungodly hole. From the front line to three miles back there is hell. I think I will leave it at that. They are lying all over, shell holes full of water and corpses. End quote.

      Madam Speaker, today we remember Jack and all those who fought for our country.

      Madam Speaker, the Centennial Flame on Memorial Boulevard has been lit to mark the begin­ning of Remembrance Day activities throughout Manitoba. It was also lit in recognition of a ceremony with the Royal Canadian Legion that presented the first poppy of the 2022 Poppy Campaign to the Lieutenant­ Governor of Manitoba.

The flame serves as a physical reminder of the lasting impacts of war and conflict, and how our vet­er­ans have helped shape our province, country and world for the better.

The Poppy Blanket is again on display at the Grand Staircase of the Legislative Assembly. Created by Sheilah Lee Restall, who joins us in the Speaker's Gallery today, with the assistance of hundreds of volun­teers, the Poppy Blanket consists of over 8,000 hand­made poppies; in over 26 metres in length, and has over 2,000 dedicated ribbons. It has featured during the anthems at the Winnipeg Jets game, The Joint Veterans Association Remembrance Day cere­mony at the Winnipeg Convention Centre and is disp­layed each year at the Manitoba Legislature.

      Madam Speaker, I encourage all Manitobans to wear a poppy, take a moment to reflect this week and to observe the moment of silence at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.

      Let us remember those who fought, those who died and those who were injured. Let us all also remem­ber those who carried the scars and memories of war throughout their lives. And, finally, let us remember those who have worked for peace, today and throughout our country's history. Lest we forget.

      Madam Speaker, I am honoured to acknowl­edge and welcome the Joint Veterans Association, who join us in the gallery today. The Joint Veterans Association also serves as the organizing committee for the Remembrance Day Service at the Convention Centre each year, and Mr. Armand Lavallee has served as chair for 30 years.

On behalf of all Manitobans, I want to thank you and the entire Joint Veterans Association for your service.

      Thank you.

Madam Speaker: The hon­our­able First Minister.

Mrs. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I seek leave for a moment of silence after all statements have concluded.

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, I want to begin by ex­pressing our profound thanks for the service of the veterans who join us today. You are among those who have delivered us our freedoms and as we gather here as parliamentarians, we only do so within the context of a demo­cracy that you helped to ensure continues to this day. So, thank you for your service.

I also want to thank the artist behind the beautiful Poppy Blanket that we can now witness along the Grand Staircase. I had the op­por­tun­ity to study it today, along with some guests who are joining us in the gallery.

      And I also want to say that this past year, our family lost a good friend who was a notable war veteran. And thinking of him and his relatives today reminds me that the sacrifices of those who have served over the years includes those who laid down their lives to protect our liberty. It includes those who survived the theatres of war and peacekeeping operations, but it also includes the families left be­hind, tragically in many cases.

* (13:40)

November 11th is Remembrance Day, and we know it across this great country for the im­por­tant tri­butes that we pay to those who have served. Across Manitoba, I know that each of us will return to our own con­stit­uencies and find ways to honour those that we hold in such high esteem.

We know that the red poppies being worn by Manitobans across this province–again, I see many of them in the Chamber today, and I want to thank our colleague from Brandon East for also furnishing us with some of those poppy pins. And so, we encourage Manitobans from all walks of life to wear a poppy, to reflect on the sig­ni­fi­cance of doing so and to find a respectful way to honour it after Remembrance Day, either laying it on a wreath or finding a place to safe­guard it safely, as we do safeguard the memories of those who came before us.

I also want to acknowl­edge that Indigenous Veterans Day will come on November 8th, and in the Indigenous com­mu­nity in Canada, where Canadian First Nations people are allowed to serve in both the Canadian Armed Forces as well as the United States military, we honour our warriors. That's why at every powwow we let the veterans go before us. We shake their hands and say thank you for your service and we stand at attention for the Flag Song and we dance hard for the veterans song. And so, I encourage all Indigenous youth to practise and continue those tradi­tions, to honour our warriors.

      At this time I would like to also encourage Canadians to use this Remembrance Day as an op­por­tun­ity to reflect on how we must treat our veterans bet­ter here in these lands when they come home. Far too many veterans con­front issues like PTSD, home­less­ness, poverty and other forms of trauma. It's my belief that if you pick up a gun or a helmet or a stretcher to serve this country, then this country owes you at the very least to treat you with respect for the rest of your time here on Earth. So I call on all of us Canadians to demand better treatment for our heroes.

      This coming week, I know that we will have an op­por­tun­ity to reflect also on the importance of those who are undergoing training operations overseas right now in theatres close to the Ukraine. And so we send our best to everyone who will be away from their families this Remembrance Day. Words cannot do justice to the debt that is owed, but here today and on Remembrance Day, we say thank you for your service.

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): I seek leave to speak to the minister's statement.

Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to respond to the min­is­terial statement? [Agreed]

Mr. Lamont: As we approach Remembrance Day this year, we do so once again with the spectre of war in Europe. I've mentioned many times in this House that I had grandfathers, great-uncles, an aunt and uncle who served in the First and Second World War.

      On November 11, 1918, my father's father, J.S. Lamont, was with Canadian troops during the liberation of Mons, Belgium. My great-uncle, Frank Bastin, who I knew as a child, fought at the Somme, Vimy, before being shot in a trench and left for dead and stripped of his gear in the last months of the war. Since his chances of survival were next to nothing, a telegram was sent home telling his family he was dead. They were surprised and overjoyed to learn six weeks later that he was alive.

      My mother's father, Robert Barrett, served in the RAF in the First World War and happened to be the right age to serve in the Second, as well, in the royal engineers. His brother, Alfred, was killed at Vimy, fighting for Canada, and his body was never found, though his name is on the Vimy memorial.

      Another brother, Gilbert, crashed many times in RAF training in the First World War and never re­covered from his PTSD.

      My great-uncle, Jack Clarke, who was born in Armagh, Northern Ireland, was known as one of the town's troublemakers and was shot down by a German plane on a training flight on the 9th of May, 1941. He was awarded a prize for his bravery because he crawled back into the burning wreckage of the plane to pull his instructor free.

He wrote in his account, he said: When I awaken­ed, I was in a narrow bed, my arm in a plaster, resting on a pillow. There were curtains around the bed and some noise I made attracted Davy's attention–Davy being his instructor–in the bed beyond. How are you feeling, Clarke? Drunk as a lord, sir, and I was–he was because they were both on morphine. He seemed quite cheerful, even lively. His wife and parents were with him. I fell asleep again. When I awakened, the bed next to me was empty.

      When the effects of the anesthetic wore off, as it did very soon, I suffered what was told–what I was told was secondary shock but I am quite convinced it was my first attack of depression. I had not thought Davy might die. Serious injury, yes, but he had been so cheerful and alert and the sight of the empty bed, I think, started the depression. I didn't need to be told he had died.

      Jack was told he was a hero, but it hurt because Davy's family and fiancé couldn't forgive him and he couldn't forgive himself for saving Davy–for not being able to save Davy either.

       In his later years, he wrote: all the miserable hap­penings around the medal devalued it in my mind for years but now, in my old age, I have a mild sense of pride in that I was the only pupil pilot to have been shot down and then decorated.

      At the end of the First World War, in the nego­tiations at Versailles, John Maynard Keynes quit and wrote the consequences of the peace, in which he warned that the punitive measures, acting almost out of a sense of revenge, could mean another war in 20 years. And his prediction came true.

      After the Second World War, there was a sharply different response: a commit­ment to rebuilding and peace and forgiveness. A Marshall Plan of forgiveness and invest­ment, and this, too, is an act of remem­brance that honours what our forebearers fought for­–for peace, for democracy, to live free as we choose. These ideals have sometimes failed us, but they are always ideals worth striving for.

      We will pray for a just and swift end to the war in Ukraine. And this November 11th, we will remember and honour the dead. Lest we forget.

      Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave for a moment of silence? [Agreed]

      Please stand.

A moment of silence was observed.

Introduction of Guests

Madam Speaker: It seems timely right now for me to intro­duce the guests that have already been re­ferenced before we move on to the next min­is­terial statement.

      But I would like to draw your attention to all hon­our­able members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today Sheilah Lee Restall, the creator of the Poppy Blanket, which is now on display at the Grand Staircase of the Manitoba Legis­lative Building.

      And also in the public gallery, we have with us today members of the Joint Veterans Association, in­cluding co-chairs Armand Lavallee and Peter Correia.

      On behalf of all hon­our­able members here, we welcome all of you to the Legis­lative Assembly.

      And I think I'll intro­duce the students to you now, too, because they're going to be leaving soon.

      We have seated in the public gallery, from Collège Jeanne-Sauvé, 28 grade 9 students under the direction of Dominic Courcelles, and this group is lo­cated in the con­stit­uency of the hon­our­able member for Riel (Ms. Squires).

      On behalf of all of us here, we also welcome you to the Manitoba Legislature.

* * *

Madam Speaker: Further min­is­terial statements?

      The honourable Minister of Health–and I would indicate that the required 90 minutes notice prior to routine proceedings was provided in accordance with rule 26(2).

      Would the honourable minister please proceed with her statement.

Lung Cancer Awareness Month

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in the Chamber today to proclaim the month of November as Lung Cancer Awareness Month. Lung cancer affects approximately 30,000 Canadians every year and will claim the lives of 21,000 more. While the number of people diag­nosed with lung cancer has decreased steadily since 1990, there is still more work to be done.

      A quarter of all cancer deaths will be from lung and bronchus cancers. And smoking, I'm told, Madam Speaker, is responsible for about 30 per cent of all cancer deaths and is known to cause or increase one's risk of developing lung cancer.

      Our government is proud to support the first Manitoba health-related social impact bond, Quit Smoking with Your Manitoba Pharmacist. This initia­tive is supporting thousands of people over a three-year period to become non-smokers.

* (13:50)

      Manitobans over the age of 18 are eligible for assistance and can approach partici­pating local phar­macies for an initial assessment. They will also re­ceive follow-up counselling sessions and up to $100 worth of prescribed medi­cations, and nicotine re­place­ment therapies will be offered over a one-year period to support individuals in their journey to quit.

      Lung Cancer Canada is also a resource for lung can­cer edu­ca­tion, patient support, research and advo­cacy and invites everyone to raise awareness and show support for those diagnosed with lung cancer by joining the Hope Army.

      The Hope Army is a group of lung cancer patients and supporters who will fight this deadly disease by raising awareness through their joint voices and ac­tions. Our gov­ern­ment remains committed to work­ing with stake­holders in the health system to increase awareness of lung cancer.

      Madam Speaker, early detection is key in the fight against cancer. It is im­por­tant that people with family histories of cancer, those who smoke or have other high-risk factors regularly screen for all cancers.

      This November, I encourage Manitobans to sup­port cancer research, get active and avoid activities that increase your risk of lung cancer.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): Lung Cancer Awareness Month is a time to have important con­versations about lung cancer, it is–as it is the leading cause of cancer deaths. More efforts are needed to raise awareness of the causes and preventions of lung cancer. This could go a long way in reducing the number of patients or people at risk of the illness altogether.

      While cigarette smoking is far–by far the most common cause of lung cancer, radon is the No. 1 cause of lung cancer among non-smoking people and generally the second cause of lung cancer.

      Now, radon is one of the most deadliest naturally occurring health risks present in our world today. It is a radioactive gas and is mainly present in indoor environments, which includes homes, schools and workplaces.

      However, the level of radon in one place as well as the duration of a person's stay in that environment determines if they become at risk of lung cancer or not.

      In contrast, radon present in outdoor spaces raises little concern because of–air dilutes the gas to non-threatening levels. Consequently, it is important to en­sure proper ventilation and tests for radon in indoor spaces. Radon detection technology ranges from an alpha track detector operated by professionals to radon home test kits that anyone can purchase.

      Last month, I had the pleasure of meeting Pam Warkentin from Canadian Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists, as well as Adam Anderson from the Manitoba Lung Association. I thank them and all others for their work to increase awareness about radon and their efforts to reduce the risk of lung cancer in Manitoba.

      Therefore, at this time I encourage everyone pre­sent and all Manitobans to support Lung Cancer Awareness Month by going to takeactiononradon.ca to learn more about how they can reduce the risk of lung cancer for themselves and those around them.

      Thank you so much, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I ask for leave to speak to the minister's statement.

Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to respond to the min­is­terial statement? [Agreed]

Mr. Gerrard: Madam Speaker, there's need for ur­gent action to create better awareness of lung cancer and for better measures and efforts to screen for and detect lung cancer early.

      I've had far too many calls within–from individ­uals and families where there's been lung cancer be­cause the cancer was detected too late. There have been significant improvements in lung cancer treat­ment in the last decade and more are coming. But there is a critical need to detect lung cancer early where the chances of successful treatment are much greater.

      There are two well-established major risk factors for lung cancer: smoking and radon exposure. In parts of Manitoba where there are very high proportions of homes with high radon levels, it is as likely that the lung cancer would be caused by radon as by smoking. We are not doing nearly enough–a good enough job of screening the smokers who have lung cancer. We need to do better.

      All homes in Manitoba need to be tested for radon levels. One quarter of homes have high radon levels, and there is nowhere–way to check unless you test. There is nowhere near an adequate public health effort to test Manitoba homes, starting in areas with highest risk levels.

      The Province should ensure that there are digital radon monitors in every library in the province so that people can easily access them to test the radon level in their home.

      In order for testing and mitigation to be effective, the Manitoba government needs to subsidize the miti­ga­tion for those on low and middle incomes, and to make the costs of mitigation tax deductible for those on higher incomes.

      It is not acceptable that both NDP and PC gov­ern­ments over many years have done so little to help detect and mitigate high radon levels in homes when this is such a significant contributor to lung cancer in our province.

      Thank you. Merci. Miigwech.

Members' Statements

Community Safety Initiatives

Mr. Obby Khan (Fort Whyte): We know that many Manitobans are deeply concerned about crime. People are worried. People are scared to go downtown. People want to see im­prove­ments and people have had enough

      I was very proud to see our Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) announce today $3 million to the Winnipeg Police Service, RCMP and other police agencies to create an integrated violent offender ap­prehension unit and strengthen intensive bail and probation services for serious violent offenders. These are concrete steps our gov­ern­ment is taking to make our com­mu­nities safer.

      Our government will continue to take strong action to combat crime and violence at its root causes across our province, while supporting vulnerable Manitobans.

      Just this week, we also announced that we are increasing our annual funding rates to shelters, transi­tional housing and homeless outreach mentors to $15.1 million from $6.1 million. This will be an increase of $9 million.

      Along with that, our gov­ern­ment also announced another $3.6 million to an already committed $5‑million initial investment to the Downtown Com­munity Safe­ty Partnership, a collaborative community initia­tive aimed at creating a safer, more inviting downtown Winnipeg for businesses and residences.

      However, many Manitobans have expressed that crime is rising not only in downtown Winnipeg, but across the entire city and province.

      I was very happy to learn that a couple in my constituency of Fort Whyte are doing more than just talking about it; they are taking action. I would like to recognize Brendan Bain and his wife Dayna Palsson, who are here today in our viewing gallery, for spear­heading and going out of their way to organize commu­­nity safety meetings at the Linden Woods Community Centre. This has become a monthly occurrence in which meetings are a safe space for community to come together, have discussion, share stories and make action plans on what we can do to make our com­mu­nity safer.

      This is a monthly meeting; I encourage everyone to attend. We are planning a larger safety forum to engage more of the com­mu­nity, along with the Winnipeg police and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Goertzen).

      I ask that we stand today and recog­nize Brendan and Dayna for their hard work.

SABE Peace Walkers

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Osborne Village, like many com­munities across Manitoba, has seen more issues with addictions, crime and homelessness. That's why I was moved when I heard this story from a constituent.

      Not too long ago, a retired woman who lives by herself in the village went out for a night at the sym­phony. And I guess the orchestra was in fine form because they played a number of encores.

      But what this meant is that the senior had to take a later bus home and got off at the corner of River and Osborne much closer to midnight than she'd expected. She was feeling a little uneasy about being out at this time of night by herself, when she was approached by a few young Indigenous people.

      Now, she smiled when they walked up to her because she recognized their blue and yellow vests–they were SABE Peace Walkers. That night, they gave the woman a walk home and ensured she got into her condo safely.

* (14:00)

      The SABE Peace Walkers, with the support of the Osborne Village BIZ, have been running a 17-week pilot foot patrol since August to bring safety, support and services to our community. They've been able to de-escalate situations in the neighbourhood. They've been able to respond to mental health crises with a compassionate approach that, quite frankly, frees up first responder and police resources to respond to other calls. They do this while reminding us to think of our relatives on the street as part of our com­mu­nity.

      The woman who they gave a safe walk home to came to our recent town hall where we introduced SABE to local residents, and she said: I thought they were only there for people in distress. I didn't know they were there for people like me.

      Another woman said: if all of us seniors find out we can come out at night again, then you are going to be very, very busy.

      I would ask for leave to continue another 15 seconds to conclude my statement.

Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to conclude his statement? [Agreed]

Mr. Kinew: This SABE Peace Walkers pilot program is being funded by Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries, so I urge them to extend it.

      And to the SABE Peace Walkers, I say, miigwech. Thank you for making our community safer by walking among us with calmness, com­passion and love for your fellow Manitobans.

Community Safety Initiatives

Ms. Janice Morley-Lecomte (Seine River): Residents in Winnipeg are worried about rising crime rates, and I want to assure them our government is taking the steps that are necessary to improve public safety and support for vulnerable Manitobans.

      This week our government announced they will partner with the downtown community safety patrol to help free up police officers and instead use com­munity safety partners to respond to a multitude of calls. This will free up officers to respond to incidents around the city.

      In addition, the new Scrap Metal Act was a great bill passed earlier this year, which has already seen a decline in auto-part theft. I know that our caucus is working diligently to increase safety in the heart of our communities.

      The Manitoba government just increased its an­nual funding rates to shelters, transitional housing ser­vices and homeless outreach mentors to $15.1 million from $6.1 million, a great step that will allow shelters to offer more services to people experiencing home­lessness.

      We have acted to improve mental health and ad­diction services, which in turn make our com­munities safer for everyone. The new department of mental health, wellness and recovery was also established as its own department to further our commitment to supporting Manitobans.

      From listening to constituents in Seine River, I know that public safety is top of mind. We know we need to have resources for people with addictions. We are seeing continuous investments in mental health resources, and we are listening to law enforcement about what tools they need to do their jobs.

      As the MLA for Seine River, I will continue to do my part to advocate and ensure our communities can be safer places for Manitobans to live while ad­dres­sing many of the reasons that crimes are committed in the first place.

Madison Supportive Housing Facility

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): The Madison building in Wolseley was purchased in April 2011 by Siloam Mission to become a supportive housing facility for those who are at risk of becoming homeless.

      Having a comfortable and affordable living space is a crucial part of people's mental health and well-being. At the Madison, 85 residents live in private units with shared kitchen, bathroom and recreational areas. The space is designed for intentional com­mu­nity building, with on-site staff and volunteers to help support and engage residents, many of whom live with cognitive or physical disabilities and struggle with mental help.

      Some residents have lived at the Madison for many years and hope to age in place. Siloam Mission is working hard to raise the funds to upgrade heat and air conditioning and increase accessibility for those using mobility aids.

      The Wolseley constituency has lost affordable hous­ing over the past few years with closures of sever­al rooming houses. Increasingly our parks, riverbanks, vacant lots, bus shelters and parking lots have become home to those with no housing.

      Amid these challenges, Siloam Mission's Madison building is an oasis of calm and community for many people who were at risk of homelessness or have transi­tioned from shelters or on the street.

      It serves as a beautiful example of the kind of wraparound supports that the NDP housing strategy hopes to implement in the years ahead. The Madison's programming includes good nutrition, community build­­ing and support for personal goals such as so­briety or participating in cultural programming. But each person's goals are based on their individual healing journey.

      Residents help with community clean‑up every spring. Some volunteer in our com­mu­nity. And every­one actively participates in caring for the building, gardening, snow removal and cleanup responsibilities for their common spaces.

      Madison residents are my neighbours, and I ap­pre­ciate their presence on my street and in my com­mu­nity, and I'm happy to welcome them to the Legislature today. Please join me in recognizing resi­dents Ernest and James, as well as program manager Brenda Lavallee.

Neurodiversity

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, Madam Speaker, I speak this morning–or, this afternoon, on the subject of neurodiversity. Everyone has a unique brain.

      The concept of neurodiversity was developed to change the approach that we have to conditions like ADHD, autism, dyspraxia and to learning disabilities including dyslexia, 'dyscalcula,' dysgraphia, audit­ory or language processing disorders and non­­-verbal learn­ing disabilities.

      Instead of seeing ADHD, attention deficit hyper­activity disorder, as a deficit, we should learn that in­dividuals with ADHD have brains which work dif­ferently–that they are part of the spectrum of neuro­diversity. Individuals with ADHD may have trouble with time management, but they often show high levels of passion, drive and creative thinking, and can be superior performers in jobs or positions for which they are well suited.

      Individuals with autism may have less empathy and do less well socially, but they may be excellent in computer software development.

      Instead of neurodivergent people being ridiculed, discriminated against, stigmatized or bullied, their strengths need to be recognized and celebrated.

      Let me give you an example: Don Barnard, status Ojibwa, raised Métis, who has autism–Asperger's type with a high IQ–dyslexia, 'dyscalcula' and, because of past traumas, PTSD. He recently produced, together with Yolandi [phonetic] Papini-Pollock, a film–Unusual in Every Way–which was shown earlier this year at the international Jewish festival.

      Because of his neurodiversity, he has suffered much from being misunderstood, been stigmatized and bullied. It's time that our society helped people like Don to thrive instead of him being held back and tormented because he's different.

      This Sunday, I am holding a forum on neuro­diversity. If you are interested in attending, please call my office for more details, and you are welcome.

      Thank you.

Oral Questions

Wait Time for Surgical Procedures
Cost for Out-of-Country Care

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, people in Manitoba are waiting longer than ever for the surgeries that they need.

      In January of this year, the gov­ern­ment an­nounced that, as part of their highway medicine plan, that they'd get 300 surgeries done. And yet, as we approach the end of the year, we learn through FIPPA docu­ments that only 60 surgeries have been com­pleted. I'll table these docu­ments for the Premier to review.

      Why is the gov­ern­ment failing to get people the surgeries that they need?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): We recog­nize after the worldwide pandemic that there were sig­ni­fi­cant challenges, that we needed to set up a surgical and diag­nos­tic task force in the province of Manitoba to help address some of the challenges that came out of COVID.

      We know that they are making good headway, Madam Speaker, but we also recog­nize that there is more work to be done.

      I want to take this op­por­tun­ity to thank all of those people on the task force who are working diligently on behalf of Manitobans to ensure that they get better health care closer to home more expeditiously.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question.

Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, people in Manitoba are waiting longer than ever to get the surgeries that they need, and now we know how few of them are actually receiving them: 60. That's one fifth of what the gov­ern­ment had announced earlier this year.

      Further to that, the Premier refuses to tell us just how much each of these out-of-country surgeries are costing our health-care system. That's a concern, be­cause experts tell us that these surgeries could cost up to three times what it would cost to provide these surgeries right here at home in Manitoba.

* (14:10)

      We now know how many of these surgeries have been performed. We know that the government will have signed off on a total amount for these surgeries. The question remaining for the Premier to answer today is: Just how much are each of these surgeries being delivered in America costing Manitobans?

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, the im­por­tant thing here is that those individuals are getting the surgical procedures that they need.

      But I will remind the member opposite we recog­nize that there's challenges in this area. That's why we set up a surgical and diag­nos­tic task force, and they are making sig­ni­fi­cant headway.

      In fact, cataract backlog was reported to be 1,200 cases in February, and has been reduced to 116 cases in August. So far in 2022, we have com­pleted more cases than in the last two years for cardiac surgery, cataract surgery, CT scans, ultrasounds and other areas, Madam Speaker.

      We want to thank the task force for the in­cred­ible work that they continue to do to ensure that Manitobans get the surgical and diag­nos­tic procedures that they need, when they need them.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary.

Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, Manitobans are waiting longer than ever for the surgeries that they need. That's why these account­ability questions are im­por­tant.

      We know that the government is falling short of its own an­nounce­ment by the tune of 80 per cent. We also know that the Premier continues to duck the ques­tion of just how much each of these out-of-country surgeries are costing the Manitoba health-care system.

      We should know how much more each of these sur­geries could cost so that we can understand how much more we're paying American companies rather than paying Manitoba surgeons these–fees to deliver surgeries right here in operating rooms in our own province.

      Will the Premier simply tell the House the answer that she knows: How much are each of these surgeries costing Manitobans?

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, what we on this side of the House care about is ensuring that Manitobans get those surgical procedures. It shouldn't matter where they're getting them. We would love to have them getting those here.

      The fact of the matter is, under the previous NDP gov­ern­ment, they took an ideological approach when it comes to delivering health-care services in our pro­vince. I will tell you, Madam Speaker, on behalf of all of our gov­ern­ment, we will not take an ideological approach.

      We will ensure that Manitobans get the surgeries that they need, when they need them.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.

Manitoba Hydro and Public Utilities Board
Request Not to Pass Bill 36

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, this is your daily reminder that the PCs and the Liberals voted against our hydro-rate freeze. That's the choice that they made, and it's cost­ing you money.

      It's getting harder and harder for Manitobans to make ends meet. We know that gas prices are going up, grocery prices are going up and now, because of the way that the PCs and the Liberals voted, your hydro bill will be going up, as well.

      Of course, there's still time, Madam Speaker. That's the good news. Bill 36 hasn't passed. It pro­bably won't pass until later this evening. There's still time for the PCs to abandon it.

      Will they simply, in the name of helping Manitobans through this cost-of-living crisis, abandon their plans to pass Bill 36 today?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): Well, Madam Speaker, the member for St. James (Mr. Sala) said, and I quote, hydro rates should continue to be set through an in­de­pen­dent process managed by the Public Utilities Board.

      Now the Leader of the Op­posi­tion is getting up and saying no, that shouldn't be the case, Madam Speaker. What he is saying is that he should be able to set the rates of Manitoba Hydro.

      We say no. We say we're going to leave it to the Public Utilities Board. That's where it should be made, Madam Speaker. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

      Reminder to members that we have some guests in the gallery and out of respect for the guests in the gallery, I'm going to ask everybody to show respect for each other here on the floor and not heckle and listen to the questions and answers.

      The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Opposition, on a sup­ple­mentary question.

Milk Price Increase
Request Not to Raise

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, it's very clear on this side of the House we think that you should save money on your hydro bill. On the PC side of the House, they want to raise your hydro bills by 5 per cent yet again.

      The good news is there's still time. The PCs can join us and vote down Bill 36 tonight.

      The price of milk will also be going up again. That's because the Premier is set to sign off on the third increase to the price of milk this year. This is a staple, Madam Speaker. This is some­thing that fam­ilies–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –rely on.

      They're denying that families need milk now in the question period, Madam Speaker? Certainly, this deny-deny-outcry approach that they're taking wears thin.

      My question is simple. It is this: Will the Premier listen and not sign off on a third consecutive increase to the price of milk?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): Well, caucus meetings with the members opposite must be very interesting, because the member for St. James (Mr. Sala) also said citizens alike need to know that rates are being set in a fair and in­de­pen­dent process through the Public Utilities Board, Madam Speaker.

      We agree with the member for St. James, Madam Speaker. We disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. We believe that rates should be set through an in­de­pen­dent process. That's with–that's what's happening right now through the Public Utilities Board.

      Bill 36 actually enhances the in­de­pen­dence of the Public Utilities Board. I would think that members oppo­site should be voting in favour of that this after­noon. I hope they will reconsider. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

      The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion, on a final sup­ple­mentary.

Manitoba Hydro and Public Utilities Board
Request Not to Pass Bill 36

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, the choice you have in the next election is this: save money on your hydro bills with the NDP, save money on the price of groceries with the NDP or pay more, more, more with the PCs.

      We know that, in addition to legislating a 5 per cent hydro rate hike, that Bill 36 will also gut the Public Utilities Board's ability to stop future PC rate hikes.

      Is the Premier going to stand with the member for St. James and vote against Bill 36? [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): Well, what the real question is, Madam Speaker, is will the Leader of the Op­posi­tion stand with his member for St. James when he says that there's–that citizens alike need to know the rates are being set in a fair and in­de­pen­dent process? Hydro rates should continue to be set through an in­de­pen­dent process managed by the Public Utilities Board.

      We agree with the member for St. James. The question is, does the Leader of the Op­posi­tion also?

Labour Dispute in Ontario
Use of Notwithstanding Clause

MLA Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Workers' rights are under attack in Canada. We need every member of this House to clearly say the Ford gov­ern­ment's use of the notwithstanding clause to attack workers' rights is wrong. That's what it means to stand up for workers and workers' rights.

      Will this Labour Minister have the courage to stand up today and do this?

Hon. Reg Helwer (Minister of Labour, Consumer Protection and Government Services): Well, I've made it clear in this House before, Madam Speaker, and certainly this case, we are not the employer in this case. We do not employ teachers in Ontario. That is their role.

* (14:20)

      In Manitoba, collective bargaining has been work­­ing. We continue to find that the unions negotiate with the employers in our situation, and they find a solution and they agree on that solution and they ratify it. And that is how collective bargaining works in Manitoba, mister­–Madam Speaker.

      Ontario's–as far as I know, I believe the member opposite knows–is a different province.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a supplementary question.

MLA Lindsey: Every member of this House should stand today in their place and clearly say what the Ford gov­ern­ment is attempting to do is wrong.

      The right to association, the right to strike are fun­da­mental rights. These rights are being attacked and undermined. That's absolutely wrong. Any labour minis­ter worth their salt should be able to stand up and say that that's wrong.

      Will this so-called Minister of Labour say the Ford gov­ern­ment's attack on workers' rights is wrong? [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Helwer: Well, I know the member opposite might live in two provinces, but I thought it was Manitoba and Saskatchewan. But apparently, now, he's also in Ontario, and wants to be an MPP.

      In Manitoba, we negotiate with the unions that we are respon­si­ble for. The employers negotiate with the unions.

      Collective bargaining has been working in Manitoba, Madam Speaker, and we'll continue with that process.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a final supplementary.

MLA Lindsey: On this side of the House, we stand with workers who are fighting for good wages and good jobs.

      We know this gov­ern­ment attacked workers in Manitoba with wages under bill 28. They attacked workers' rights with bill 16. But you know what? Workers stood up, standing united–like workers do–and fought back against these bad bills.

      So, will this so-called Minister of Labour be clear and tell the House if he thinks what Doug Ford is doing in Ontario is wrong?

Mr. Helwer: Well, apparently, the member opposite is offended that our Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) has enabled and made a minister of Labour in our gov­ern­ment. And we're proud of that, Madam Speaker.

      We have been working with various labour groups in Manitoba. The unions have been negotiating with their employers, with the Manitoba gov­ern­ment. And we're finding that–as the member opposite knows, I'm sure–that collective bargaining is very healthy in Manitoba, Madam Speaker.

      And we'll continue down–to follow that process.

Review of Prov­incial Parks in Manitoba
Timeline for Release of Report

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the PCs' plan for parks is contracting out and priva­tiza­tion.

      A Texas company has been paid $1 million by Manitobans for park reservations. The PCs were de­vising a scheme to sell off parkland, and then they start­ed contracting out core services. It's all part of the plan which the minister has had in his hands for six months.

      When will the minister release the park review?

Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Environment, Climate and Parks): Certainly, our gov­ern­ment is proud of our record with our parks–unlike members opposite, Madam Speaker, that spent 17 years in power doing absolutely nothing.

      Actually, Madam Speaker, cutting–cutting ab­so­lute­ly every­thing in parks, except for the grass.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on a supplementary question.

Ms. Naylor: Madam Speaker, the minister has had the parks review for at least six months. I will table a FIPPA that shows that the gov­ern­ment received the review at least at the begin­ning of May, and it's now November.

      This gov­ern­ment's agenda is contracting out and priva­tiza­tion. They've already sent $1 million to Texas for parks reservations.

      So, what else is the minister going to contract out, and why won't he just release the parks review to Manitobans?

Mr. Wharton: I certainly ap­pre­ciate a question on parks reservations, Madam Speaker.

      We know that, again, for 17 years, the NDP did nothing with the reservation system in our parks, Madam Speaker. Year over year, Manitoba families would sit on the phone, sit on their computers for hours on end. As a matter of fact, after four or five hours, they'd drop off and they'd have to go back to the begin­ning again.

      We're not going back to the dark days of park reservations under the NDP. We'll get it right. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: You all know how sensitive I am about heckling when there are students in the House. I'm going to tell you, I'm extra sensitive when there are veterans in the House.

      And I'm going to ask for everybody's co‑opera­tion, please. We talk about freedoms and, while we have freedom of speech here, it does come with some respon­si­bilities for enhancing demo­cracy–that it be respectful and civil debate.

      The honourable member for Wolseley, on a final supplementary.

Ms. Naylor: Brian Pallister and the PCs gave direc­tion to sell prov­incial parkland. This is directly from the gov­ern­ment's own briefing notes.

      Since that time, they've chipped away at our parks, contracting out to a Texas company, selling off a campsite at St. Ambroise. And now, for at least six months, the minister has kept hidden his long‑term plans for the future of our parks.

      I ask the minister: What is he hiding? And if he isn't hiding anything, why won't he simply release the parks review?

Mr. Wharton: First of all, I would like to thank and, again, con­gratu­late the Métis owner of the–or, not the owner, Madam Speaker, actually, the operator–of the St. Ambroise park.

      This fellow and his family–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wharton: –are making true invest­ments in that park–a prov­incial-owned park, Madam Speaker; our parks are not for sale. And we know that this individ­ual and his family are making more invest­ments in St. Ambroise after the 2011 flood.

      They ignored it, Madam Speaker; this individual is getting it done and supporting Manitoba parks.

Post-Secondary Education
Funding and Tuition Costs

Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): The PC gov­ern­ment should end their attack on post-secondary students in Manitoba.

      Since taking office in 2016, the PC gov­ern­ment has cut from–post-secondary funding by nearly 18 per cent. At the same time, students are paying average tuition of over 16 per cent more. And on top of that, they kicked off inter­national students from their prov­incial health-care plan. With–all of this together have had a detrimental effect on students' lives.

      So will the minister commit to stop cutting fund­ing and stop hiking tuition and actually listen to stu­dents, and will he do so today?

Hon. Jon Reyes (Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Immigration): Madam Speaker, as out­lined in the Auditor General's report, our gov­ern­­ment is improving our account­ability system for post-secondary in­sti­tutions as part of the action plan in Manitoba's Skills, Talent and Knowledge Strategy.

      This will ensure that our $1-billion invest­ment in post-secondary edu­ca­tion is achieving the intended results, and that post-secondary edu­ca­tion is aligned with gov­ern­ment priorities.

      We are taking action, Madam Speaker.

* (14:30)

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Vital, on a supplementary question.

Mr. Moses: Madam Speaker, there are Canadian Federation of Students members here with us in the gallery. They're here because they're concerned about the cuts the PC gov­ern­ment have imposed on funding to post-secondary in­sti­tutions. They're here because they're concerned about how tuition hikes will make it harder for students to obtain a post-secondary edu­ca­tion.

      It's clear the minister hasn't listened to their con­cerns, and he continues the cuts to funding and the hikes to tuition. Thankfully, it's not too late, Madam Speaker.

      Will the minister stop ignoring students and com­mit to stop cutting funding and stop hiking tuition today?

Mr. Reyes: Average tuition in Manitoba is around $5,000, with a prov­incial con­tri­bu­tion of 39.2 per cent to PCI revenue. If we compare our numbers with British Columbia, the NDP gov­ern­ment of BC contributes only 32.4 per cent to post-secondary in­sti­tutions' revenue, 6.6 'ercert' less than Manitoba, while the average tuition is almost 20 per cent higher in BC as compared to Manitoba.

      Our gov­ern­ment is commit to investing more in post-secondary edu­ca­tion while keeping tuition one of the lowest in western Canada.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Vital, on a final supplementary.

Mr. Moses: If the minister truly listened to students, he'd know that his cuts and his hikes to tuition are hurting Manitoban students.

      The minister wants to talk numbers. He should know that post-secondary funding was cut by 17.8 per cent. If he wants to talk about tuition, that rose over 16.3 per cent. These trends are hurting stu­dents who are already struggling with the rising cost of living.

      The minister should commit to stop hiking tuition and stop cutting funding for post-secondary. He has a chance to do so today. Will he do it? Yes or no?

Mr. Reyes: Madam Speaker, the intro­duction of the Post-Secondary Account­ability Framework is con­sistent with the calls from the Office of the Auditor General's 2020 report on the Oversight of Post-Secondary In­sti­tutions for publicly funded uni­ver­sities and colleges. Recom­men­dations include de­velop­ing a modern framework with defined per­form­ance benchmarks and stronger reporting 'requirents'.

      The NDP neglected account­ability for years while also banning the quality of edu­ca­tion delivered at our post-secondary in­sti­tutions. We are still cleaning up the mess they left behind. We are taking action and getting things done, Madam Speaker.

Island Lake First Nations
Mental Health Services

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Yesterday, our colleague, the member for Keewatinook (Mr. Bushie) stood alongside Indigenous leadership and Red Sucker Lake First Nation citizens as Chief Knott declared a state of emergency after two suicides and 17 attempted suicides in the last many weeks.

      The com­mu­nity is mourning the deaths of a 30‑year-old man and a 16-year-old boy. Many other young people are among those who have attempted suicide. Urgent action must be taken to address the dire states–state of mental health among First Nations youth and its citizens.

      Can the minister outline what action she is pre­sently taking to help the residents of Red Sucker Lake First Nation?

Hon. Sarah Guillemard (Minister of Mental Health and Community Wellness): I would like to offer my con­dol­ences to the entire com­mu­nity. Any time there is a loss within your com­mu­nity, it is tragic. But certainly, when you're facing the loss through suicide, that adds to the trauma.

      Our de­part­ment has reached out to the health-care providers in the northern region, and we know that Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre has reached out to current and former clients within the com­mu­nity and are going to be one the ground shortly to offer supports.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a supplementary question.

Ms. Fontaine: Leaders from Island Lake First Nations are calling on the prov­incial and federal gov­ern­ments to provide equal access to health care.

      Leaders have said that the state of mental health of their more than 15,000 citizens is presently very dire, Madam Speaker. They're calling for the province to build a local hospital, an addictions treatment centre and land-based mental health supports.

      Will the minister step up and commit to taking ac­tion to help Island Lake First Nation's citizens today?

Mrs. Guillemard: Our de­part­ment has worked on a five-year road map that includes invest­ments in the north­ern regions.

      We have already imple­mented telepsychiatry ser­vices, which allow anybody, anywhere in Manitoba, to access psychiatry services in their own com­mu­nities and come up with care plans. We will continue to invest in those services and supports for those areas.

      We agree with the chiefs that the federal gov­ern­ment does need to be at the table and does need to be helping provinces in addressing the northern and remote area needs and–especially of those in the Indigenous com­mu­nities.

Madam Speaker: The hon­our­able member for St. Johns, on a final sup­ple­mentary.

Ms. Fontaine: Suicide is the leading cause of death among Indigenous youth here in Canada. That alone should urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to act and to act today. Without urgent action, Island Lake First Nations are worried that the suicide crisis is only going to grow exponentially.

      Rather than fighting over who will pay for health-care services, the minister should step up and take ac­tion to help Island Lake First Nations residents.

      Will she do so today?

Mrs. Guillemard: We have taken action, not just today but for the last six years. And we are enhancing the connectivity of northern regions to the broadband, which the NDP ignored for 17 years. And I will tell you, Madam Speaker, that we take this situation very seriously.

      We will work with our partners in the federal gov­ern­ment to find solutions and to offer supports. And I know that the com­mu­nities have asked for a number of invest­ments from the federal gov­ern­ment to in­crease recreational services, and we will be at the table to have those discussions.

      Thank you.

Non-Disclosure Agreements
Request to Prohibit Use

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Last night's pre­senters for our Bill 225 to reform the abuse of non-disclosure agree­ments was five hours of riveting testimony from brave people who've been abused and silenced and finally able to speak openly their stories of outrageous and disgusting abuse, protected by NDAs or threats of NDAs. Every single presenter de­serves to be heard, praised for what they've done and protected from any further retribution.

       One of those stories we heard was of of Marcel Williamson, an Indigenous IT pro­fes­sional who works in Winnipeg, who documented his years of racist abuse and even physical assaults that the WRHA and Shared Health knew about and failed to address, and have tried to buy his silence with an NDA.

      Will the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) and Health Minister launch an in­vesti­gation to see what went so terribly wrong with Mr. Williamson's case and, until our bill passes, set a policy prohibiting the use of NDAs across gov­ern­ment imme­diately?

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): I was one of the members that sat at the table last night for the five hours of com­mit­tee around the non-disclosure agree­ment. And the stories were heart-wrenching, Madam Speaker. And I just want to express my sup­port to the individuals that came forward with their stories yesterday.

      And I am disappointed in the member for St. Boniface, that he has chosen to politicize some­one's personal story and–here in the Chamber today.

      Madam Speaker, we are going to continue to sup­port individuals who have ex­per­ienced the–so many of the stories that we heard last night, and move the non-disclosure agree­ment bill forward.

Madam Speaker: The hon­our­able member for St. Boniface, on a sup­ple­mentary question.

Request for Reform Legislation

Mr. Lamont: Well, it would be impossible for any­one to hear yesterday's testimony and not be moved by the 'braviery' of the people speaking out, because many times we heard people were punished for re­porting. And we heard the reason they reported was because they wanted to make sure that what happened to them never happened to anyone else.

      Jan Wong, the former journalist with The Globe and Mail, said her first guest for her famous column, Lunch with Jan Wong, 25 years ago, was Peter Nygård. She asked him about sexual harassment charges. He threatened to sue, and she could not inter­view the affected women because they'd all been forced to sign NDAs, which silenced them for life. Imagine if they had not been silenced and we'd been able to act 25 years ago.

      Will the Premier work with us to ensure the pas­sage of an NDA reform bill before the year is out?

* (14:40)

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I also want to thank all of those who bravely came to committer–com­mit­tee, either per­sonally or virtually, last night to share their stories–often heart-wrenching, as the member opposite indicates.

      As I mentioned last night and I've mentioned in this House before, the issue is currently being re­viewed by the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion. They'll be putting out a con­sul­ta­tion paper in the next weeks. Testimony from last night will be considered by the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion, but they also welcome other testimony through the con­sul­ta­tion process, and they've committed to report back early next year on this very im­por­tant issue.

      I thank the member opposite for his advocacy on the issue.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights, on a final supplementary.

COVID‑19 Pandemic
Home-Care Services

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, adequate home care is a critical issue today.

      The gov­ern­ment cut back sub­stan­tially on home-care hours and patients seen in 2020, at a time when home care was needed more than ever to keep seniors in safer home environments during COVID. I table materials from Prairie Mountain Health to confirm this. Indeed, some individuals receiving home care had to go into personal-care homes, where they were at higher risk.

      Why did the Premier and her gov­ern­ment fail to put a priority on home care during the COVID pan­demic, at a time when more was needed, not less?

Hon. Scott Johnston (Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care): I ap­pre­ciate the question from the member for River Heights. I know how passionate he is on this parti­cular issue, and I can assure you that the gov­ern­ment is also very passionate on finding solu­tions to be able to deal with the challenges that we have with home care.

      I've indicated a number of times to this House that the seniors strategy is certainly well under way. We've consulted with stake­holders. We've consulted with Manitobans to find the best way to address this issue. And we will continue.

      And I look forward to bringing the seniors strategy forward.

Integrated Violent Offender Apprehension Unit
Com­mu­nity Safety Announcement

Mrs. Cathy Cox (Kildonan-River East): Madam Speaker, the increase in violent crime is a concern to citizens, not only in Winnipeg but across the province.

      Many acts of violence are being committed by re­peat and prolific offenders who are well-known to law en­force­ment.

      Can the Minister of Justice please explain how our gov­ern­ment is keeping com­mu­nities and Manitobans safe by taking the bad guys off the street?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I want to thank my friend and colleague for that question and her advocacy.

      I was pleased to be joined by the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) this morning, who made a very im­por­tant an­nounce­ment about an integrated warrant violent suppression unit that will ensure that those who have outstanding warrants–the worst of the worst, often gang members–that there'll be a dedi­cated unit–an integrated unit that will go after those with those outstanding warrants.

      The Brandon police are a part of this. The Winnipeg police were there. The RCMP were there. The First Nations policing service were there. All very, very dedi­cated to ensuring that we get those who have these warrants off of the street.

      And that's the difference, Madam Speaker, be­tween us and the members opposite. We defend the police, they defund them.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Order.

      I'm going to have to call–[interjection]–I'm going to call the members to order.

Manitoba Hydro and Public Utilities Board
Request to Withdraw Bill 36

Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): Madam Speaker, Manitobans in every corner of this province have stood up in op­posi­tion to Bill 36, and yet the minister and this gov­ern­ment are still planning on moving forward with this terrible piece of legis­lation–legis­lation which is focused on one goal and one goal alone, and that is jacking up hydro rates as quickly as possible.

      Presenters at com­mit­tee and so many Manitobans have warned of the harms this bill presents, and by this point it should be abundantly clear to this gov­ern­ment that Manitobans do not want this bill to pass.

      Will the minister take this op­por­tun­ity to re­con­sider his misguided approach and withdraw Bill 36?

Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro): Madam Speaker, this is your daily reminder that the NDP have completely flip-flopped on Bill 36.

      After falsely alleging for months and months that the bill would inter­fere with the PUB and its mandate, this member kept saying–and this is his own quote–hydro rates should continue to be set through an in­de­pen­dent process–managed by the PUB, he should have added. But that was yesterday, because they went out this week and said, we changed our minds, we want to directly inter­fere with the PUB.

      Madam Speaker, there is no credibility in that member's question or his rationale.

Madam Speaker: The hon­our­able member for St. James, on a sup­ple­mentary question.

Mr. Sala: Manitobans know the truth. They know that on that side of the House, they stand for dismantling the PUB and jacking up rates. And on this side of the House, we stand for protecting the PUB and keeping rates as affordable as possible.

      Manitobans are facing an affordability 'crise'. Rates should be frozen, not increased by 5 per cent at the Cabinet table. The financial targets and repay­ment schedule the–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sala: –gov­ern­ment is setting with Bill 36 aren't justified, and it will result in massive year-after-year rate hikes.

      They're eroding Manitoba's energy advantage. They're going to hurt our competitiveness. They're go­ing to cause job loss, and they're going to hurt consumers.

      Will the minister do the right thing and use this final op­por­tun­ity to withdraw Bill 36?

Mr. Friesen: Madam Speaker, Webster's defines a flip-flop as changing from one policy to virtually its exact opposite. It's a flip-flop. It's a U-turn. It's a 180. It's a change of direction.

      They said for months and months, erroneously, that Bill 36 would take away the right of the PUB to decide. And now, while they try to shout me down, one thing becomes apparent to Manitobans, and that is they want to set hydro rates at the NDP caucus table.

      And we say no to that.

Madam Speaker: The hon­our­able member for St. James, on a final sup­ple­mentary.

Economic Review of Bipole III and Keeyask
Imple­men­ta­tion of Recommendations

Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): The minister is push­ing for higher rates for hydro, and at the same time he's hiding his plans for priva­tiza­tion. This gov­ern­ment has already sold off pieces of Hydro. They have a report that calls for pieces of Hydro to be chopped off and sold.

      Where's the account­ability, Madam Speaker? When will the minister provide his gov­ern­ment's action plan for the Wall report, and will they reject its plans for priva­tiza­tion?

Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro): Here's another one for the mem­ber for St. James' high­light reel.

      He says: there's one thing you touched on, which is that we know the rates are being set in a fair and in­de­pen­dent process; member of St. James, October 11th.

      However, what we didn't know, is that he was planning to go out with his premier–or, his op­posi­tion leader, oh my goodness, who will never be premier. And the op­posi­tion leader, what it is, they issued a press release, they retracted a press release and then they reissued a press release. And all it said is that the NDP want to inter­fere with Hydro.

      And we say no to the NDP inter­ference with Hydro.

Madam Speaker: Due to the noise in the room, I did not hear the last 30 seconds of what the minister was answering. However, I am going to make a decision that the time for oral questions has expired anyway, and I hope Hansard, at least, was able to pick that up.

      But, again, very disappointing to see that my requests from earlier have not–well, I guess they've fallen on deaf ears for a part of the day. But time for oral questions has expired, and I will go to petitions.

Petitions

Hydro Rates

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legis­lative Assembly.

      The back­ground to this petition is as follows:

      (1) Since the Progressive Conservative Party took office, the prov­incial gov­ern­ment has inter­fered in the activities of Manitoba Hydro and has attempted to under­mine the Public Utilities Board's, PUB, role in the hydro rate-setting process.

      (2) The prov­incial gov­ern­ment has raised Manitoba Hydro bills by hundreds of dollars since 2016.

* (14:50)

      (3) The prov­incial gov­ern­ment is now ushering in changes to Manitoba Hydro rate setting and the PUB through Bill 36, The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment and Public Utilities Board Amend­ment Act.

      (4) The PUB is the one thing standing in the way of the prov­incial gov­ern­ment and unchecked hydro rate increases.

      (5) The PUB's in­de­pen­dent rate-setting process has worked for many years by balancing the ability of consumers to pay and the financial health of Manitoba Hydro.

      (6) Bill 36 strips the PUB of its rate-setting powers and hands it over to Cabinet, reducing trans­par­ency and oversight.

      (7) Bill 36 guarantees that Manitobans will pay more for hydro.

      (8) In the first fiscal year after its imple­men­ta­tion, Bill 36 will increase rates by 5 per cent during a period of high inflation that has made the average Manitoba's cost of living significantly higher.

      (9) A hydro rate increase would amplify the fin­an­cial pressure Manitoban families are facing and would undoubtedly increase the number of people who have dif­fi­cul­ty paying their hydro bills.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to respect the PUB's in­de­pen­dent rate-setting process, and to not increase the financial pressures Manitobans are cur­rent­ly facing and withdraw Bill 36.

      This petition has been signed by Lorraine Kaczor, Debby Spraggs, Danny Guillas and many other Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.

Louise Bridge

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legis­lative Assembly.

      The back­ground of this petition is as follows:

      (1) Over 25,000 vehicles per day cross the Louise Bridge, which has served as a vital link for vehicular traffic between northeast Winnipeg and the downtown for the last 110 years.

      (2) The current structure will undoubtedly be declared unsafe in a few years as it has deteriorated extensively, becoming functionally obsolete, subject to more frequent unplanned repairs and cannot be widened to accommodate the future traffic capacity.

      (3) As far back as 2008, the City of Winnipeg, has studied where the new re­place­ment bridge should be situated.

      (4) After including the bridge re­place­ment in the City's five-year capital budget forecast in 2009, the new bridge became a short-term construction priority in the City's trans­por­tation master plan of 2011.

      (5) City capital and budget plans identified re­place­ment of the Louise Bridge on a site just east of the bridge and expropriated homes there on the south side of Nairn Avenue in anticipation of a 2015 start.

      (6) In 2014, the new City admin­is­tra­tion did not make use of available federal infrastructure funds.

      (7) The new Louise Bridge Com­mit­tee began its campaign to demand a new bridge and its surveys confirmed the residents wanted a new bridge beside the current bridge, with the old bridge kept open for local traffic.

      (8) The NDP prov­incial gov­ern­ment signalled its firm commit­ment to partner with the City on replacing the Louise Bridge in its 2015 Throne Speech. Unfor­tunately, prov­incial infrastructure initiatives, such as the new Louise bridge, came to a halt with the election of the Progressive Conservative gov­ern­ment in 2016.

      (9) More recently, the City tethered the Louise Bridge replacement issue to its new trans­por­tation master plan and eastern corridor project. Its recom­men­dations have now identified the location of the new Louise bridge to be placed just to the west of the current bridge, not to the east as originally proposed.

      (10) The City expropriation process has begun. The $6.35‑million street upgrade of Nairn Avenue from Watt Street to the 111‑year-old bridge is complete.

      (11) The new Premier has a duty to direct the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to provide financial assist­ance to the City so it can complete this long overdue vital link to northeast Winnipeg and Transcona.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      (1) To urge the new Premier to financially assist the City of Winnipeg on building this three-lane bridge in each direction to maintain this vital link between northeast Winnipeg, Transcona and the downtown.

      (2) To–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Maloway: –urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to recom­mend that the City of Winnipeg keep the old bridge fully open to traffic while the new bridge is under con­struction.

      (3) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to consider the feasibility of keeping the old Louise Bridge open for active trans­por­tation in the future.

      And this petition is signed by many, many Manitobans.

Health-Care Coverage

Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

      The background for this petition is as follows:

      (1) Health care is a basic human right and a fundamental part of responsible public health. Many people in Manitoba are not covered by provincial health care: migrant workers with work permits of less than one year, international students–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Moses: –and those undocumented residents who have lost their status for a variety of reasons.

      (2) Racialized people and communities are dis­proportionately affected by the pandemic, mainly due to the social and economic conditions which leave them vulnerable while performing essential work in a variety of industries in Manitoba.

      (3) Without adequate health-care coverage, if they are ill, many of the uninsured will avoid seeking health care due to fear of being charged for the care, and some will fear possible detention and deportation if their immigration status is reported to the authorities.

      (4) According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, denying essential health care to un­documented, irregular migrants is a violation of their rights.

      (5) Jurisdictions across Canada and the world have adopted access-without-fear policies to prevent sharing personal health information or immigration status with immigration authorities and to give un­insured residents the confidence to access health care.

      (6) The pandemic has clearly identified the need for everyone in Manitoba to have access to health care to protect the health and safety of all who live in the province.

      We petition the Manitoba Legislative Assembly as follows:

      To urge the provincial government to imme­diate­ly provide comprehensive and free health-care cover­age to all residents of Manitoba, regardless of immi­gration status, including refugee claimants, migrant workers, international students, dependant chil­dren of temporary residents and undocumented residents.

      (2) To urge the minister of Health and seniors care to undertake a multilingual communication campaign to provide information on expanded coverage to all affected residents.

      (3) To urge the minister of Health and seniors care to inform all health-care institutions and providers of expanded coverage for those without health insurance and the details on how necessary policy and protocol changes will be implemented.

      (4) To urge the minister of Health and seniors care to create and enforce strict confidentiality policies and provide staff with training to protect the safety of residents with precarious immigration statuses and ensure they can access health care without jeo­pard­izing their ability to remain in Canada.

      This petition has been signed by many Manitobans.

Hydro Rates

Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): I wish to present the following petition to the Legis­lative Assembly.

      The back­ground to this petition is as follows:

      (1) Since the Progressive Conservative Party took office, the prov­incial gov­ern­ment has inter­fered in the activities of Manitoba Hydro and has attempted to under­mine the Public Utilities Board's role in the hydro rate-setting process.

      (2) The prov­incial gov­ern­ment has raised Manitobans' Hydro bills by hundreds of dollars since 2016.

      (3) The prov­incial gov­ern­ment is now ushering in changes to Manitoba Hydro rate setting and the PUB through Bill 36, The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment and Public Utilities Board Amend­ment Act.

      (4) The PUB is the one thing standing in the way of the prov­incial gov­ern­ment and unchecked hydro rate increases.

      (5) The PUB's in­de­pen­dent rate-setting process has worked for many years by balancing the ability of consumers to pay and the financial health of Manitoba Hydro.

      (6) Bill 36 strips the PUB of its rate-setting powers and hands it over to Cabinet, reducing trans­par­ency and oversight.

      (7) Bill 36 guarantees that Manitobans will pay more for hydro.

      (8) In the first fiscal year after its imple­men­ta­tion, Bill 36 will increase rates by 5 per cent during a period of high inflation that has made the average Manitoban's cost of living significantly higher.

      (9) A hydro rate increase would amplify the fin­an­cial pressure Manitoban families are facing and would undoubtedly increase the number of people who have dif­fi­cul­ty paying their hydro bills.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to respect the PUB's in­de­pen­dent rate-setting process, and to not in­crease the financial pressures Manitobans are cur­rent­ly facing and withdraw Bill 36.

      This petition has been signed by Warren Rawnka [phonetic], Randy Novak and Monika Tardiff.

      Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Any further petitions? If not, grievances?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(Continued)

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a number of leave requests that I'm  going to put before the House. I don't believe that they'll come as a surprise to anybody, after consul­ta­tion.

* (15:00)

      Could you please canvass the House for leave to allow for con­sid­era­tion at concurrence and third read­ing this afternoon of the following three bills, despite the fact that they were reported from the com­mit­tee today and are not yet on the Order Paper: Bill 40, The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amend­ments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Ex­ploit­ation and Human Trafficking Act; Bill 43, The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act; Bill 46, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act.

      Second, could you please canvass the House for leave to not see the clock until the questions have been put on concurrence and third reading motions for Bill 40, 43 and 46?

      Third, could you please canvass the House for leave to rescind the decision of the House made on October 25th, 2022, on the motion for concurrence and third reading of Bill 237, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment Act (Poppy Number Plates). For clarity, the result of this agree­ment would be that the debate on the bill would remain open at con­currence and third reading.

Madam Speaker: And I will break those up into three votes here–or, leave requests.

      Is there leave to allow for con­sid­era­tion at con­currence and third reading this afternoon of the fol­low­ing three bills, despite the fact that they're–that they were reported from com­mit­tee today and are not yet on the Order Paper: Bill 40, The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amend­ments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Exploit­ation and Human Trafficking Act; Bill 43, The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act; and Bill 46, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act.

      Is there leave? [Agreed]

      Is there leave to not see the clock until the ques­tions have been put on the concurrence and third read­ing motions for bills 40, 43 and 46?

      Is there leave? [Agreed]

      And is there leave to rescind the decision of the House made on October 25th, 2022, on the motion for concurrence and third reading of Bill 237, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment Act (Poppy Number Plates). For clarity, the result of this agree­ment would be that debate on the bill could remain open at con­currence and third reading.

      Is there leave? [Agreed]

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I have a leave request.

      Could you please canvass the House for leave to allow me to move without notice, and for the House to consider today, a report stage amend­ment–two report stage amend­ments on Bill 43, Disclosure To Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to allow the member for Tyndall Park to move without notice, and for the House to consider today, two report stage amend­ments on Bill 43, The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act.

      Is there leave? [Agreed]

Mr. Goertzen: Could you please call report stage amend­ments on Bill 43, followed by concurrence and third reading and votes on Bill 40, 43 and 46?

Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the House will consider the following this afternoon: the report stage amend­ments on Bill 43, and then con­cur­rence and third reading of bills 40, 43 and 46.

Report Stage amend­ments

Bill 43–The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act

Madam Speaker: So, I will therefore start by calling report stage amend­ments of Bill 43, The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I move, seconded by the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard),

THAT Bill 43 be amended in Clause 1(1) by adding the following after clause (a) of the proposed definition "intimate partner violence":

      (a.1) abuse through electronic communications, including social media, text messaging, instant messaging, websites or e-mail;

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the hon­our-able member for Tyndall Park (Ms. Lamoureux), seconded by the hon­our­able member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard),

THAT Bill 43 be amended in Clause 1(1) by adding the–

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense.

      The report stage amend­ment is in order. Debate can proceed.

Ms. Lamoureux: Just a few words based off a pre­sen­ta­tion from last night at com­mit­tee. Abuse through electronic com­muni­cations should be added as a form of intimate partner violence because we have learned how tech­no­lo­gy can facilitate abuse and can be used as a form of control or to provoke fear as a way to stalk and to harass people.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Any other members wishing to speak on that?

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Families): We had a pre­sen­ta­tion at com­mit­tee last night from Canadian Centre for Child Pro­tec­tion which we know, of course, does amazing work in this field pro­tec­ting children each and every day, not just here in Manitoba, but around the world.

      And they were very sup­port­ive of two of the bills that we'll be debating here this afternoon, both Bill 40 and Bill 43.

      Spe­cific­ally to Bill 43, they had mentioned that, of course, with the world of tech­no­lo­gy rapidly evolving and changing on a regular basis, they had certainly thought that an expanded definition, or the inclusion of that definition in the legis­lation, would be effective. And, of course, that is what the member for Tyndall Park is also asking for.

      I have been advised by our–my de­part­ment after con­sul­ta­tion with Legis­lative Counsel that yes, indeed, these items can be addressed but would be better ap­pro­priate in the regula­tions. And let me explain why.

      That–currently as drafted, the definition of inti­mate partner violence is very broad and applicable regardless of the method, the mode or the means of violence. And it is in­ten­tionally written as such to be very broad and all-encompassing.

      And with further defining that in regula­tion, just to ease the facilitation of additions in future years, given that we know that intimate partner violence–there could be potentially other forms of abuse that are not yet conceived of to be drafted in the legis­lation. And it would make for the ease in which we could amend regula­tion in the future.

      So, I will be addressing all those en­hance­ments, but certainly, we'll be doing it in regula­tion.

      I'm also very pleased to be inviting the Canadian Centre for Child Pro­tec­tion to the working group who will be sitting around the table, in addition with many, many other stake­holders and partners in the province of Manitoba, as we are drafting those regula­tions.

Madam Speaker: Are there any further members wishing to speak on debate?

      If not, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is the first amend­ment moved by the hon­our­able member for Tyndall Park. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt–on Bill 43.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amend­ment?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: I hear a no.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the amend­ment, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): On division, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: On division.

* * *

Madam Speaker: I will now call on the honourable member for Tyndall Park (Ms. Lamoureux) to present the second amend­ment to Bill 43.

Ms. Lamoureux: I move, seconded by the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard),

THAT Bill 43 be amended in Clause 1(1) by adding the following after clause (g) of the proposed definition "intimate partner violence":

      (g.1) spiritual abuse, including the use of spiritual or religious beliefs to hurt, control, ridicule or scare a person–any person, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the hon­our­able member for Tyndall Park, seconded by the hon­our­able member for River Heights,

THAT Bill 43 be amended–

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense.

Ms. Lamoureux: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the op­por­tun­ity to bring forward this amend­ment. And  again, I'll keep my remarks short, as I would like to see the legis­lation passed here very quickly this afternoon.

      I've had the op­por­tun­ity in the past to work with women here in Manitoba who have ex­per­ienced sig­ni­fi­cant spiritual abuse. And I believe it should be added as a form of intimate partner violence because using spiritual or religious beliefs to hurt, control, ridicule or scare any person into doing some­thing or not doing some­thing is, in fact, a form of abuse.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Squires: Of course, our gov­ern­ment is also con­cerned about the spiritual abuse of any individual in the province of Manitoba, and certainly do consider it a form of intimate partner violence.

      And as I had mentioned earlier, in con­sul­ta­tion with many of our stake­holders, we will be expanding that and really detailing out the various forms and modes of abuse in regula­tion.

* (15:10)

Madam Speaker: Are there any further members wish­ing to speak on debate?

      If not, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is the second amend­ment moved by the hon­our­able mem­ber for Tyndall Park to Bill 43.

      All those in favour of–or, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amend­ment?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the amend­ment, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Concurrence and Third Readings

Bill 40–The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amendments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking Act

Madam Speaker: Moving, then, to concurrence and third reading of Bill 40, The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amend­ments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Exploit­ation and Human Trafficking Act.

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Families): I move, seconded by the Minister of Com­mu­nity Wellness–Mental Health and Com­mu­nity Wellness (Mrs. Guillemard), that Bill 40, The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amend­ments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Commit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment, be con­curred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. Squires: It was wonderful to be able to see this bill move forward because we know that this bill will provide pro­tec­tion to children through­out the province.

      Unfor­tunately, and sadly, we know that there are over 400 children in the visible–that are visibly being sexually exploited here in Manitoba. And that is just a small glimpse of what we know to be in the visible sex trade and that many, many, many more children are exploited on a daily basis in online platforms and in other means that are not captured in the statistics that I just cited.

      And this is a very urgent, urgent matter, and I want to thank everybody who has consulted with on this–drafting of this legis­lation, everybody who has spoken in favour of it and who has agreed with our gov­ern­ment that we need to end child sexual ex­ploit­ation here in the province.

      And I look forward to this bill being passed today.

MLA Malaya Marcelino (Notre Dame): It's my pleasure to rise today in support of this bill and to see it one step closer to getting passed. And it was also my pleasure and honour to be present yesterday at com­mit­tee to see those processes go through there and to hear back from presenters–well, actually, in that case, it was written submissions–to try to improve this bill.

      Certainly, on this side of the House, we will do what we can to always support the gov­ern­ment in these types of issues, especially trying to eradicate human sex trafficking and child sexual ex­ploit­ation. This is some­thing that we are proud to do, and we will do our best efforts to do this in a non-partisan way, as quickly as possible, in an effort to–and do what we can in this province to eradicate this terrible scourge.

      You know, I just wanted to remind the minister and the de­part­ment about the seriousness of this issue, especially as it relates to systemic issues of poverty and the high rate of Indigenous girls and women under 35 years old that this affects, and that poverty and this type of intersection with our Indigenous girls and women–this is the focus group that we would like the de­part­ment and the minister to pay attention to–this–and as we move forward with this bill.

      Thank you for the time.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I'm happy to rise and just put a few words on record to Bill 40, The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amend­ments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Ex­ploit­ation and Human Trafficking Act.

      Madam Speaker, I believe that this is a very posi­tive piece of legis­lation that everyone here in the House has been able to non-partisanly come together on. I believe that it's putting more eyes on the ground, more feet on the ground. It reminds me of the saying, how it takes a village, and I believe this legis­lation creates more op­por­tun­ities through­out the province of Manitoba where we can watch out for one another.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is there any further debate on this bill?

      If not, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 40.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]

Bill 43–The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act

Madam Speaker: I will now call Bill 43, The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act, for concurrence and third reading.

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Families): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Trans­por­tation and Infra­structure (Mr. Piwniuk), that Bill 43, The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment, be concurred in and now read a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. Squires: It is with pride that I stand today to intro­duce the third reading of this bill. It has been an in­cred­ible journey from the inception of bringing Clare's Law here to Manitoba today, where we are seeing Bill 43–I hope and I anticipate–seeing it be­come law.

      And I really do want to take a moment to thank everybody, whether they were in the De­part­ment of Justice, the de­part­ment of Status of Women and the Gender-Based Violence Com­mit­tee of Cabinet, to–who have come together in such a meaningful way over the last many, many months to develop what we are calling the next gen­era­tion of Clare's Law.

      We also had the benefit of looking at what other juris­dic­tions have done with the imple­men­ta­tion of similar legis­lation in Canada and abroad, and be able to incorporate some best practices from those juris­dic­tions, as well as learn from some of those mistakes, so that we are intending to initiate a Clare's Law in Manitoba that will be ac­ces­si­ble to everybody in a variety of ways and means.

      It is the first of its kind, with an expanded scope in allowing for other individuals to come forward. For example, if you're concerned about your child's partner–adult child's partner, you can access for dis­closure.

      And we are also ensuring that the person who is making application for infor­ma­tion, that they would be entitled to choose a designated individual who would also be able to receive that infor­ma­tion. We know in other juris­dic­tions that applicants would be the recipient of infor­ma­tion that they had asked for through disclosure, only to have to keep that in secret and not be able to share what they found with anyone else and to talk to another loved one or family member about what they have learned.

      And we know that that is not a trauma-informed approach, and this way, our individuals who are com­ing forward can have a loved one present when they hear the infor­ma­tion and they can also discuss it with that individual that they have chosen to be their designate, who will also be restricted to con­fi­dential­ity to ensure and safeguard the con­fi­dentiality of the subject of the disclosure.

      And so, I just really want to thank also the work­ing group that has come together and we look forward to spending many, many more hours around that work­ing table; hearing from our partners and our stake­­holder groups and all–and de­part­ment officials on how we can ensure that the regula­tions that support this bill are going to be meeting all of its intended targets.

      So, with that, Madam Speaker, I think this will make a big difference in the lives of many individuals in the province of Manitoba, and it is a great honour for me to be the gov­ern­ment's repre­sen­tative here today, bringing this bill forward to help survivors of intimate partner violence.

* (15:20)

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MLA Malaya Marcelino (Notre Dame): Again, similar to Bill 40, this–on side of the House, we are also very much in favour of Bill 43, The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act, com­monly known as Clare's Law.

      This is an im­por­tant bill, and it will be receiving royal assent today and we're very happy that we're going to be having these extra types of pro­tec­tions in place for folks that are suffering from intimate partner violence.

      At this time, I'd also still like to mention that, in addition to passing legis­lation, the Families Depart­ment and this minister have budgets at their disposal to also support and to continue to enhance that support to vic­tims of intimate partner violence and their families.

      I'd like to remind them that it's–this–it–im­por­tant intersections of new­comers, of Indigenous women, of women living in northern and rural regions, and when this–and when these groups intersect, that there is more, you know, potential for intimate partner violence.

      So, to have those supports in place for these types of com­mu­nities is really, really im­por­tant in addition to legis­lation like Bill 43.

      And with that, thank you for the time.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I'm very honoured to be able to rise for a third reading here to talk about Bill 43.

      It's a piece of legis­lation, Clare's Law, that I am very passionate about and I think that the minister has learned that I have grown to really, really–I want to see this legis­lation here in Manitoba. It's overdue. We need it. We needed it yesterday, Madam Speaker.

      Just a little bit about the bill itself. Currently, Clare's Law is practised in Saskatchewan and in Alberta, and every province does it a little bit dif­fer­ent­ly, whether that be the intake of applicants and how applicant–or, who can actually apply for the program. And a few points that I really ap­pre­ciate that Manitoba spe­cific­ally added to the legis­lation is the right to tell.

      So, for example–if a police officer, for example, sees someone who they–maybe a red flag has gone up and they feel that this person may benefit from know­ing a little bit about Clare's Law, the police officer can actually put Clare's Law, the concept, the idea of this legis­lation, on the radar of the person who may benefit from it, Madam Speaker.

      I also really ap­pre­ciate that it includes family vio­lence. So if, for example, a partner physic­ally abuses or throws or does any sort of–form of harm towards a child, this can be constituted under Clare's Law as family violence. And it includes the threat of harming and killing animals and damaging property, as well.

      I think it's really im­por­tant that we know people, when they get heated and they choose violence in any context–it's scary to see someone pick up a glass and throw it across the room and have it shatter on the wall. Imagine being in the room for that, Madam Speaker. And again, Clare's Law is making it so people who are fearful of this can come forward with legis­lation.

      Madam Speaker, the purpose of Bill 43 is to have a process for individuals who feel that they might be at risk of intimate partner violence. It's to ensure that the process has a safety plan for these individuals who come forward, a risk assessment for them and referrals and supports for different services.

      I spoke about this a little bit at second reading here in the House, but I know I've had the opportunity to work with women who need to come up with escape plans from their own homes. How do they get from their bedroom past the living room or the kitchen out the front door and safely into a new facility or home or base without their partner harming them? It's very real. It happens every day here in Manitoba, and Clare's Law is a positive step towards equipping people with the resources that they need.

      Madam Speaker, I do think that–I had the op­por­tun­ity to bring forward a couple of amend­ments, one being spiritual abuse and one being abuse that hap­pens through electronic com­muni­cations. And I want to express that I ap­pre­ciate how I was given leave in the House to bring forward those amend­ments.

      And I take the minister at face value and I am posi­tive and confident that she is, in fact, going to be working with the working group on this legis­lation to incorporate and ensure that those, for example, who are being spiritually abused–if a person is being for­ced to, whether it's practise a spirituality or, in some cases, some partners of others will say, if you don't do this, you are sinning in God's eye. That's just an example, Madam Speaker.

      We need to make sure that spiritual abuse is, in fact, added to this legis­lation in some context, whether it be through an amend­ment or not, Madam Speaker, and the same idea when we heard from a presenter last night at com­mit­tee.

      Electronic com­muni­cation is becoming a more and more dangerous plat­form. We know what–the social media platforms. We know there's text mes­saging; there's emails; there's instant messaging. And every single day we hear it from students in school, from cyberbullying to partners, where people are copy­ing and pasting images, Madam Speaker.

      It's pretty terrifying, and we need to make sure that this is being considered in Clare's Law. And again, it's a positive step that Manitoba could be taking a lead on.

      So I really want to thank the minister for intro­ducing this legis­lation. I'm very honoured to be able to be a part of it being passed here in the Manitoba Legislature.

      Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is there any further debate on this bill?

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Just very briefly, a couple of points.

      The first is I want to compliment my colleague, the MLA for Tyndall Park, for the work that she has done. People here in the Chamber may not know that the MLA for Tyndall Park had put a lot of work into producing a bill on Clare's Law, and if the Minister of Families (Ms. Squires) had not brought this forward, she might have presented a similar bill. So I just want to acknowl­edge all the work that the MLA for Tyndall Park has put into this.

      I also want to thank the Minister for Families and the Status of Women for bringing this forward. Addressing intimate partner violence is really critical in our society today.

      My sister-in-law in Saskatoon spent many years addressing issues of intimate partner violence, so I–whenever we get together, I have heard lots and lots on this subject and the need to address it better.

      I'm pleased that this is moving forward and I want to thank the minister and thank the MLA for Tyndall Park.

Madam Speaker: Is there any further debate on this bill?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: If not, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 43.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Carried–agreed? [Agreed]

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 46–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: I will now call concurrence and third reading of Bill 46, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act.

Hon. Doyle Piwniuk (Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon­our­able Minister for Families, that Bill 46, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act, be reported from the standing com­mit­tee of the Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment and concurred in and be read for the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the hon­our­able Minister of Trans­por­tation and Infra­structure (Mr. Piwniuk), seconded by the hon­our­able Minister of Families (Ms. Squires), that Bill 46, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment, be con­curred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

Mr. Piwniuk: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today for the third reading of Bill 46, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act. This bill will make Manitoba's roads safer by creating a new offense under The Highway Traffic Act to prohibit driving on closed highways.

      Generally, Manitoba drivers know that they are–should not be driving on closed roads. However, we saw last winter or during the spring flooding events, Madam Speaker, that some drivers continue to make dangerous decisions to ignore signs and in­ten­tionally drive around barricades.

      The RCMP approached our gov­ern­ment early this spring asking for stronger en­force­ment tools to dis­courage this behaviour, and Bill 46 delivers this by making it clear that driving on closed roads is illegal and that the offenders can face a sig­ni­fi­cant fine re­flecting the seriousness of the offense, Madam Speaker.

      I was pleased to hear, during this debate at second reading, that all parties are sup­port­ive of the im­port­ance of this legis­lation which delivers our own com­­­mit­­ment to improving road safety for all Manitobans, Madam Speaker.

* (15:30)

      I look forward for a speedy passing of this bill with the intent that have the regula­tions needed to proclaim the bill completed by early 2023, before–hopefully, before we have spring–if we–before the spring. Hopefully, we won't have floods next year. This will make sure that we are in the position to start enforcing new offences as soon as possible, Madam Speaker.

      And, like I said, this is, basically–when it comes to this bill, Madam Speaker, it is really going to be the RCMP. They are the ones that make the decisions to close highways during bad weather con­di­tions, and they are also the ones that will deter­mine when people–when it's–essential services can go and onto the highway for essential service.

      And there's just times where–the storms are all different, and if a storm is so bad that even emergency vehicles should not be on the road, this is the discretion of the RCMP, Madam Speaker, or city police.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to speak at third reading on Bill 46, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act.

      We are, as the minister rightly indicated, in sup­port of this bill. And, in fact, safety on our roadways and our highways has been a clear focus of our caucus through­out this session. So, it's fitting that this would be one of the bills that we bring–or, that we support and that is passed here this afternoon.

      As you know, Madam Speaker, our caucus has been focused on safety on our highways in a number of ways; not least of which, of course, bringing forward concerns about Highway 6 and about snow clearing and about safety going north. Highway 6, we heard from members today talking about Highway 60, talking about Highway 10 and, of course, we've brought that forward in question period in a number of forum.

      The minister will also remember that, of course, we brought forward concerns about Highway 210, Highway 12 in Estimates, and the concerns that we had with regards to safety at that intersection, but also on Highway 210 itself.

      The minister will, I'm sure, have been listening intently every time I brought forward a petition with regards to the Perimeter Highway, talking about the concerns that folks have there about closures and how that will actually make things less safe for those who are accessing roads off of the Perimeter Highway.

      Just this morning, as I mentioned, a bill was brought forward by the member for Flin Flon (MLA Lindsey). A bill which I thought should have had unanimous support from this Chamber, to say that we understand the impacts that this minister's neglect of our highways have–has had with regards to the number of people working and the amount of equip­ment that's available to clear our highways; and that some standards should be set and that should be enforced and should be guaranteed to the people of Manitoba.

      Again, some­thing that, you know, our caucus has brought forward many times, should have been sup­ported by this gov­ern­ment and yet, it wasn't.

      You know, so, this has been a focus of our caucus over and over again, day after day, we've brought these issues forward to the minister.

      What has been their focus; what has been the gov­ern­ment's focus? Well, first it was, of course, you know, as I said, cuts to snow clearing, cuts to the bud­get, underspending in the Infra­structure de­part­ment in general.

      And the concerns that we're hearing directly from those on the front lines who are trying to clear our highways; saying there's not enough equip­ment, there's not enough staff. The minister now says, well, we've got a plan. We're going to–we're going to hire people. Well, his cuts have created the problems that we're talking about. It's his gov­ern­ment's austerity measures that have caused the issues that we have brought forward day after day in this session.

      We know that this gov­ern­ment has been on the defence with regards to the minister's overreach when it comes to changing decisions at the minister's table to say that the people of Brandon should be less safe when it comes to a dev­elop­ment that is going into south of Brandon.

      That's been the minister's focus; he's been focused on making things less safe on our roadways and on our highways.

      And, now, they may have seen the light. That may be why they are finally bringing Bill 46. And as we said, we are in support and willing to move this through more quickly. But it remains a duty, a special obligation, of all of us, I believe, to focus on highway safety as we move forward.

      And I believe we have a special obligation not just because we're looking out for the people of Manitoba, but because we lost a colleague, Madam Speaker. And it is so im­por­tant for us to not just use the example that, you know, of what happened to our colleague, but that the stories that came out of that tragedy, the stories that are still available on the website brought forward by residents in Thompson who have said, just share your stories about close calls, about accidents, about tragedies that you know of on Highway 6.

      And we heard earlier one of the members oppo­site heckling, saying, you know, that we're using Danielle's memory in a political way or that we're, you know, invoking her name just to take a shot at the gov­ern­ment. I don't believe that that's the case. I believe that we have that special obligation; every single member here, to honour her memory by making sure that highway safety is a No. 1 concern.

      So this bill does go a step in the right direction with regards to that endeavour. We know that Manitoba roads become unsafe, you know, parti­cularly in winter. And we've been talking about winter coming for a while now; at least I have. But we know that for our northern friends right now, winter's here. The roads are treacherous today and we need to ensure that the steps are taken.

      And as I mentioned in my second reading speech on Bill 46, you know, we listen to our northern caucus because they have the ex­per­ience. They're driving that every single day.

      And when I asked the member for Flin Flon (MLA Lindsey), I asked the member for The Pas-Kameesak (Ms. Lathlin), when I asked other mem­­­bers in our northern caucus, they say, you know, what do you do when a highway's closed? When–you know, how do you get that infor­ma­tion? How's that com­municated to you from Manitoba infra­structure and trans­por­tation, or how is that communicated to you, from the RCMP or from law en­force­ment?

      And they said, there is no com­muni­cation. There's no–those highways are just not closed. People travel on them, they use their best judgment. They're often­times unsafe and yet people are forced to travel on them because they know that they can't wait for a plow that may never come or may be days and days late.

      So, the–you know, this may be applicable in many situations, this bill, but we know that there are many situations where, unfor­tunately, this bill doesn't go far enough ensuring that folks have the infor­ma­tion that they need, that our highways are ultimately safe and that we're doing every­thing that we can to ensure that snow is cleared, that highways are safe and that, if there is a closure, that that infor­ma­tion is com­muni­cated properly.

      The minister will also know that at com­mit­tee yesterday, we heard directly from a tele­commu­nica­tions worker, someone who has ex­per­ience on the front lines out in Manitoba, you know, doing his job to make sure that people are connected even in emer­gency times. And, you know, I ap­pre­ciated the pre­sen­ta­tion because it gave us a sense of what it's really like when a highway's closed but we're relying on people to get out there and do their jobs to make sure that people, in his case, that people are connected and they have cellular service.

      You know, I didn't know much about the tech­no­lo­gy and was impressed by his description of exactly how those towers are kept functional, even in emer­gency situations, even when power is cut. And it really does take those people who are out on the roads and on the highways to keep us going.

      And there are a number of others that may be in similar situations–Manitoba Hydro workers and others who are not spe­cific­ally exempted in this bill, but who are expected to be out on the roadways and highways doing their job to make sure that Manitobans are connected and that we have power and that we have com­muni­cations.

      I thought we were bringing forward what would be a friendly amend­ment for the minister, but he shot it down and he said no. He said that, ultimately, it's going to be up to law en­force­ment, who I think have come forward to us and asked for some clarity, given some exemptions, so that they can understand who is authorized to be on the roads and who very clearly isn't so they can give that direction to those folks who are out this winter and doing that work.

      So, I was very disappointed that that amend­ment didn't go forward. And also quite disappointed, Madam Speaker, that we didn't get more clarity with regards to the vicarious respon­si­bility that companies would face if they instruct or direct one of their employees to break the rules. We know that this bill does include some provisions that give some direction that employees can–you know, would not be on the hook, it would be the employer. However, we're concerned about the amounts that have been levied here.

* (15:40)

      And more parti­cularly, Madam Speaker, we are concerned that for those in­de­pen­dent contractors who aren't directly employed by a company but maybe, you know, may still be operating or working, you know, to further their directives, that–would they also be liable? That extends to gig workers, that extends to those who are delivering and who are doing ride­sharing and other ride delivery activities. So, there's a big concern there.

      And I don't feel that we've gotten the clear an­swer. You know, the minister has said, well, we'll get that in regula­tion. But we'll be watching this very close­ly to see exactly how this is imple­mented out in the field.

      At the end of the day, Madam Speaker, as I said, an absolute focus of our caucus remains that our high­ways are safe. That is the first step in ensuring that our province is connected, that our com­mu­nities are con­nected to one another, that trade can continue and can be enhanced. Lots riding on this.

      And, you know, while we know we can see some harsh con­di­tions in Manitoba–snow, ice, flooding this spring–we know that, you know, Manitobans, they still expect a safe roadway and a safe highway when they're travelling.

      We want to make sure that we, as legis­lators, we honour our colleague's memory by making sure that these invest­ments actually impact the people who are using our roadways every day. So as a caucus, and I hope all members of this Chamber, will continue to do that.

      I believe that Bill 46 can be a step in the right direc­tion, but as I said, we will be watching this very closely and looking at ways that we can enhance this going forward in the future.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I rise to support this bill.

      As Liberals, we want to make sure that our high­ways are safe and that people are safe to drive on it. Our only concern is that for a bill like this to be effective, it is very im­por­tant that when a road is not closed, that there not be a sign: road closed up.

      We had an ex­per­ience not very long ago on Waverley where there was a road closed sign, and on the block, you could see from one end to the other and the road was open. And people went around the sign and down the road. And there were multiple people doing this.

      And if you have a situation where people can see that there isn't a block on the road, there isn't a pro­blem, then you're going to have people not following the law. So it becomes really, really im­por­tant that if a road is closed, that not only is it clearly marked, but that when the road is opened, that the sign is removed and so people don't get the impression that there will be occasionally signs up on roads which are not really closed.

      I think it is very im­por­tant that when we have road closed signs, that people pay attention to them. We don't want, as has been talked about already, accidents occurring because people are travelling on a road which is closed because of severe weather, or a road which is closed because there was a bridge out–be­cause I heard recently of an occasion where individ­uals went past a road closed sign and didn't see where the bridge was out and went down into the creek or river below. Fortunately, they weren't hurt, but that's the sort of accident which could very easily be fatal and we don't want that happening.

      Clearly, we need to be using the road closed sign in ap­pro­priate ways, and there is danger on that road when there is construction or some other event hap­pen­ing which it's not passable.

      But this is an im­por­tant bill. We support this bill because we think that this will help provide a very strong message to people not to go on roads which are closed.

Madam Speaker: Is there any further debate on this bill?

      Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 46.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

      I declare the motion carried.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, could you please canvass the House to see if it's the will of the members to call it 4 p.m.

Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 4 p.m.? [Agreed]

      The time being 4 p.m., in accordance with rule 2, we will now proceed to conclude the busi­ness of Supply.

      The House will now resolve into Com­mit­tee of Supply to conclude the con­sid­era­tion of de­part­mental Estimates.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair.

Committee of Supply

Chamber

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): Will the Com­mit­tee of Supply please come to order.

      For the infor­ma­tion of all members, our rule 2(1) provides in part that where all required actions for the busi­ness of Supply in the Com­mit­tee of Supply have not been completed 60 minutes prior to the usual ad­journment hour on the last Thursday sitting prior to the Remembrance Day week, the provisions outlined in rule 2(24) are to apply.

      Therefore, the hour being 4 p.m. I will now put the questions, without debate or amend­ment, on all remaining reso­lu­tions before this section of the Commit­tee of Supply.

      Accordingly, I will call in sequence the remaining reso­lu­tions for Legis­lative Assembly; Agri­cul­ture; Munici­pal Relations; Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment; Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services; Employee Pensions and Other Costs; Public Service Com­mis­sion.

Legislative Assembly

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): This section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply will now consider the Estimates of the De­part­ment of Legis­lative Assembly.

      I will now call reso­lu­tion 1.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $11,162,000 for Legis­lative Assembly, Other Assembly Expenditures, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Resolution 1.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $7,375,000 for Legis­lative Assembly, Office of the Auditor General, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 1.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,350,000 for Legis­lative Assembly, Office of the Ombudsman, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 1.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,574,000 for Legis­lative Assembly, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 1.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,799,000 for Legis­lative Assembly, Office of the Advocate for Children and Youth, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      This concludes the con­sid­era­tion of departmental Estimates in the Com­mit­tee of Supply–no, it doesn't. It doesn't do that. Wrong page. Sorry, everybody.

      This completes the Estimates of the de­part­ment of the Legis­lative Assembly.

Agriculture

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): The next set of Estimates to be considered by this section of the  Com­mit­tee of Supply is for the De­part­ment of Agricul­ture.

      Reso­lu­tion 3.1–I will now call reso­lu­tion 3.1.

      Reso­lu­tion 3.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $18,166,000 for Agri­cul­ture, Cor­por­ate Services and Innovation, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 3.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $132,026,000 for Agri­cul­ture, Risk Manage­ment, Credit and Income Support Programs, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 3.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $19,436,000 for Agri­cul­ture, Industry Advancement, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 3.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $13,606,000 for Agri­cul­ture, Agri­cul­ture Production and Resilience, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 3.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $426,000 for Agri­cul­ture, Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 3.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $247,430,000 for Agri­cul­ture, Loans and Guarantees Programs, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      This completes the Estimates for the De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture.

Municipal Relations

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): The next set of Estimates to be considered by this section of the  Com­mit­tee of Supply is for the De­part­ment of Munici­pal Relations.

      Those of you watching from home, we have more reso­lu­tions coming.

      I will now call resolution 13.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $7,323,000 for Munici­pal Relations, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Resolution 13.2: RESOLVED that there be grant­ed to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $12,753,000 for Munici­pal Relations, Com­mu­nity Planning and Development, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Resolution 13.3: RESOLVED that there be grant­ed to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $12,098,000 for Munici­pal Relations, Munici­pal Assessment and Advisory Services, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Resolution 13.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $348,239,000 for Munici­pal Relations, Financial Assistance, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Resolution 13.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,725,000 for Munici­pal Relations, Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Resolution 13.6: RESOLVED that there be grant­ed to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $81,288,000 for Munici­pal Relations, Loans and Guarantees Programs, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      This completes the Estimates for the De­part­ment of Munici­pal Relations.

Natural Resources and Northern Development

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): The next set of Estimates to be considered by this section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply is for the De­part­ment of Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment.

      I will now call resolution 25.1, for those who have been waiting: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,829,000 for Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment, Finance and Shared Services, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Resolution 25.2: RESOLVED that there be grant­ed to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $31,861,000 for Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment, Stewardship and Resource Development, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Resolution 25.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $28,474,000 for Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment, Resource Manage­ment and Protection, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Resolution 25.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $49,325,000 for Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment, Manitoba Wildfire Service, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

* (16:00)

      Resolution 25.5: RESOLVED that there be grant­ed to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,275,000 for Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment–I'm just going to correct the record there–RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,277,000 for Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment, Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 25.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $70,781,000 for Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment, Other Reporting Entities Capital Invest­ment, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      This completes the Estimates for the De­part­ment of Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment.

Labour, Consumer pro­tec­tion and Government Services

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): The next set of Estimates to be considered by this section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply is for the De­part­ment of Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services.

      I will now call reso­lu­tion 8.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,663,000 for Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services, Cor­por­ate Admin­is­tra­tion and Planning, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 8.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $262,261,000 for Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services, Capital Programs, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 8.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $43,014,000 for Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services, Digital and Tech­no­lo­gy Solutions, for the fis­cal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 8.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $8,412,000 for Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services, Procurement and Supply Chain, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 8.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $22,400,000 for Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services, Public Safety Com­muni­cation Services, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 8.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $16,840,000 for Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services, Consumer Pro­tec­tion, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 8.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $20,745,000 for Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services, Labour, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 8.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $56,200,000 for Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services, Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 8.9: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $47,633,000 for Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services, Other Reporting Entities Capital Investment, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

Mr. Chairperson: This completes the Estimates for the De­part­ment of Labour, Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services.

Employee Pensions and Other Costs

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): The next set of Estimates to be considered by this Com­mit­tee of Supply is for the de­part­ment of Employee Pensions and Other Costs.

      I will now call Reso­lu­tion 6.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $32,178,000 for Employee Pensions and Other Costs, Employee Pensions and Other Costs, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      This completes the Estimates for the de­part­ment of Employee Pensions and Other Costs.

Manitoba Public Service Commission

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): The next set of Estimates to be considered by this section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply is for the de­part­ment of Public Service Com­mis­sion, and this is the last one.

      I will now call Reso­lu­tion 17.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $26,283,000 for Public Service Com­mis­sion, Public Service Com­mis­sion, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      This concludes our con­sid­era­tion of de­part­mental Estimates and the Com­mit­tee of Supply for this session.

      I would like to thank the staff, ministers, critics and all hon­our­able members for their work and dedi­cation during this process.

      Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Committee Report

Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Com­mit­tee of Supply has considered and adopted certain reso­lu­tions.

      I move, seconded by the hon­our­able member for Seine River (Ms. Morley-Lecomte), that the report of the com­mit­tee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: We will now move into the Main Supply procedure. The House will now resolve into Com­mit­tee of Supply to consider the concurrence motion.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair.

* (16:10)

Committee of Supply

Concurrence Motion

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): Will the Com­mit­tee of Supply please come to order.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): I move that the Com­mit­tee of Supply concur in all Supply reso­lu­tions relating to the Estimates of expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023, which had been adopted at this session, whether by a section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply or by the full com­mit­tee.

Motion presented.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is in order.

      As the hour is past 4 p.m., there is no debate on this motion.

      Shall the motion pass?

Some Honourable Members: Pass.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly passed.

      This concludes the busi­ness before us.

      Com­mit­tee rise. Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Committee Report

Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Chairperson): Hello, Madam Speaker. The Com­mit­tee of Supply has adopt­ed a motion regarding concurrence in supply.

      I move, seconded by the hon­our­able member for McPhillips (Mr. Martin), that the report of the com­mit­tee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Concurrence Motion

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Families (Ms. Squires), that this House concur in the report of the Com­mit­tee of Supply respecting concurrence and all supply reso­lu­tions relating to the Estimates of expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Motion agreed to.

Supply Motion

Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agri­cul­ture (Mr. Johnson), that there be granted to His Majesty for the Public Service of the Province, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, out of the Consolidated Fund, the sum of $15,298,010,000, as set out in part A, Operating Expenditure; and $939,237,000, as set out in part B, Capital Invest­ment; and $425,718,000, as set out in part C, Loans and Guarantees; and $1,742,198,000, as set out in part D, Capital Invest­ment, by Other Reporting Entities of the Estimates.

Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Bills

Bill 47–The Appropriation Act, 2022

Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister for Seniors, that Bill 47, The Ap­pro­priation Act, 2022, be now read a first time and be ordered for second read­ing imme­diately.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, sec­onded by the hon­our­able Minister of Agri­cul­ture (Mr. Johnson)–no, sorry; senior's. Let me start again.

      It has been moved by the hon­our­able Minister of Finance, seconded by the hon­our­able Minister for Seniors, that Bill 47, The Ap­pro­priation Act, 2022, be now read a first time and be ordered for second read­ing imme­diately.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]

Second Readings

Bill 47–The Appropriation Act, 2022

Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister for Families, that Bill 47, The Ap­pro­priation Act, 2022, be now read a second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole.

Motion presented.

* (16:20)

Madam Speaker: Just as a reminder, the hon­our­able minister, official op­posi­tion critic and the three in­de­pen­dent Liberals can speak in debate for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. Friesen: This bill is intended to provide ex­penditure author­ity for the amounts that we just read into the record and that are shown in the Estimates of expenditure for the year 2022-2023.

      The amounts, as already has been referred to but I will repeat here for posterity and for Hansard: as we mentioned, $15,298,010,000 in part A, our Operating Expenditures. In part B, which is our capital estimates, $939,237,000, as listed–are listed by de­part­ment in the schedule of the bill. Part C refers to the total amount of Loans and Guarantees being set forth, and that amount is $425,718,000, listed by de­part­ment in the schedule of the bill.

      And the last part I will refer to is what we call part D, the Other Reporting Entities Capital Invest­ment author­ity. That amount, $1,742,198,000, also listed by de­part­ment in the sched­­ule to the bill.

      I will further elaborate on the contents of the bill  in Com­mit­tee of the Whole. Suffice it to say, though, that the total sums that we just referenced for The Appro­priation Act in 2022 are going to help Manitobans' key budget commit­ments including strength­ening of health care; including a $110-million amount to reduce the backlog created by COVID‑19 as well as measures to make life more affordable like the new Resi­den­tial Renters Tax Credit that will go to 35,000 more Manitobans than ever received the bene­fit before; building the economy through measures like the Skills, Talent and Knowledge Strategy; and, of course, our very sig­ni­fi­cant efforts to attract immi­grants to the province of Manitoba.

      Those efforts continue with a new and improved and expanded MPNP program, the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program. We are investing in our com­mu­nities with invest­ments to make child care more affordable and ac­ces­si­ble. We're protecting our environ­ment and, of course, much, much more in these amounts.

      But, Madam Speaker, I will leave it there and allow others to put their comments on the record.

Madam Speaker: Do members wish to ask questions on the bill?

Questions

Madam Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any member in the following sequence: first question by the official op­posi­tion critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recog­nized op­posi­tion parties; subsequent questions asked by each in­de­pen­dent member and remaining questions asked by any op­posi­tion members. No question or answer shall ex­ceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Mark Wasyliw (Fort Garry): Recent reports from economists have projected that Manitoba will be in a surplus for 2022-2023 budget year.

      I'm wondering if the minister can confirm his own min­is­try projections are bearing that out, and what's the esti­mated surplus Manitoba will have in next year's budget?

Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): First, I would say it's the first time in a long time that any NDP critic has indicated any kind of enthusiasm or interest in a path that would lead to balance. Why do you want that path? Because it stabilizes the invest­ments that we make in places like seniors and edu­ca­tion and families and infra­structure.

      However, the member knows we just released our first-quarter results and we'll be releasing our forecast results in December, and until then, it would not be ap­pro­priate to be suggesting what our position might be in‑year.

Mr. Wasyliw: Will the minister confirm that Manitoba prov­incial reve­nues are up much higher than the budget projected?

Mr. Friesen: The member knows that there are many things that we are navigating on behalf of Manitobans as their gov­ern­ment at this time.

      It includes the most sig­ni­fi­cant Ukraine resettle­ment effort of any province. I can report to this House that right now, Manitoba's efforts to resettle Ukrainians fleeing the conflict in Ukraine are amount­ing to 14 per cent of all Canadian arrivals. The federal gov­ern­ment called our arrival program to help re­fu­gees settle the gold standard.

      That is just one of the challenges; affordability, navigating with low labour rates. These are all the challenges that our gov­ern­ment is facing, investing in, to help Manitobans.

Mr. Wasyliw: Well, will the minister confirm that Manitoba finances are better than pre-pandemic levels due to underestimations of the–Manitoba's own-source revenue and revenue from Crown cor­por­ations?

Mr. Friesen: Madam Speaker, every single senior gov­­ern­ment in Canada, the Bank of Canada, the United States gov­ern­ment, made estimates about their revenue and expenditure levels prior to the pandemic, and every one of those gov­ern­ments has had to face the impacts of the pandemic, and coming out of the pandemic, all those challenges that are emerging now.

      The member has no crystal ball. He pretends to now. He only has the ability to use hindsight. We're planning carefully; we are managing demands and we're making good invest­ments for Manitobans.

Mr. Wasyliw: We know that higher inflation results in higher revenue for prov­incial gov­ern­ments. As we know, that goods are getting more expensive for Manitobans, but that also means the Province is col­lecting more revenue from PST.

      Can the minister confirm that the Province is, in fact, raising more money from PST, and how much more money is he projecting to be raising through PST for Manitobans?

Mr. Friesen: Yes. Like the member says, you know, even just this afternoon, the federal Finance Minister gave a full economic statement. She acknowl­edged in that statement that there has been an upside to reve­nues received by the federal gov­ern­ment.

      Clearly, I have said publicly, and our gov­ern­ment has said, that we have seen already the evidence that we believe that, for a while, reve­nues will continue to be above budget, but that there are storm clouds ahead on the horizon. The senior–or, the federal minister said as much today.

      It's very im­por­tant that we continue to have good fiscal manage­ment to be able to manage not just now, but as it looks like the economy is continuing to lose steam.

Mr. Wasyliw: Now, we also know that some em­ployers have been raising wages as a result of their in­ability to either keep or retain staff, and that would mean higher incomes for some workers. We also know that cor­por­ate profits are way up, in some in­dustries to windfall levels.

      How much more money is Manitoba projected to raise through cor­por­ate and personal income tax?

Mr. Friesen: We will be happy to be provi­ding Manitobans and this critic for Finance with that up­date in the forecast that will come out at the–at pro­bably the middle or the end of December. That is the ap­pro­priate time at which gov­ern­ments make those updates.

      In the meantime, though, that member should be very, very clear that while reve­nues may seem to be rising in the near term, we know that there are pres­sures that Minister Freeland pointed out only hours ago in Ottawa that are into 2023, into the first, second and third quarter.

      We will continue to manage, make good invest­ments in Manitobans, and help along the way as we carefully assess the financial situation.

Madam Speaker: Is the member for St. Boniface standing to ask a question?

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Yes, thank you. I wasn't just stretching my back, Madam Speaker.

      Yes, I was just–I–if–I was wondering–hoping the minister could expand a little bit more on that, because I know that there is some–like, everyone is projecting a recession–in my opinion, it's being engineered by the central bank, which is unfor­tunate.

      But the question is, here, what is going to be the impact, because the gov­ern­ment has been doing all sorts of unfunded tax cuts, which is to say, we've been borrowing to cut reve­nues.

      So, what is going to happen–what–are there any projections on what's going to happen in revenue if there's a collapse in the real estate market in Manitoba?

Mr. Friesen: It's difficult to expound on much in the very limited time allotted to us in these exchanges, but I will say to that member that today, the federal minis­ter pointed to the view that the Canadian economy will undergo what they are calling today a mild recession.

      I would remind members in this House that there has been no recession yet articulated or identified on the near horizon for Manitoba, so we'll continue to monitor as we go forward.

Mr. Wasyliw: Now, we also know that federal trans­fers are up, as well.

      I'm wondering if the minister can tell this Chamber how much additional federal transfers Manitoba is re­ceiving this year than was expected?

* (16:30)

Mr. Friesen: Federal transfers were just reported to this Legislature a matter of weeks ago in the Public Accounts. It gives that member an excellent op­por­tun­ity to identify the amount he is looking for.

      As he knows, though, under the leadership of my Premier (Mrs. Stefanson), who is now the chair of the council of federation, our province continues to lead the way when it comes to setting the table with Ottawa for them to be a fuller partner in the delivery of health care.

      One-offs will not do. The provinces and the ter­ritories need the consistency of a fully committed federal gov­ern­ment on the Canada Health Transfer.

Mr. Wasyliw: Just picking up on the minister's last comment, there was a CIHI report that was released recently that showed Manitoba was under the Canadian average for spending per person in health care.

      So, I'm wondering: How does the minister go to the federal gov­ern­ment asking for more money when we're not spending the money that we have here in Manitoba on health care?

Mr. Friesen: It's very interesting to see what makes the difference when you look into that study by CIHI. Every other juris­dic­tion in Canada has a greater amount of health care delivered through the private part of it. You have your public system; you have private partners.

      The NDP had some private partners, too, but they froze that ability to be able to flex and allow the health system to deliver on both sides of the margin. That ideological decision hampered Manitoba.

      Right now, we are committed to one thing and one thing only, and that is getting the care that Manitobans need sooner rather than later, closer to home.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): In the–talking about federal transfers–I'm aware that the federal gov­ern­ment has provided money for home care over a number of years.

      And I wonder if the minister could tell us what extent there was home-care dollars and spread over how many years, and do that dollars continue this year and next year?

Mr. Friesen: The member knows from tradition that on a day like this, we are wrapping up and concluding hours and hours of Com­mit­tee of Supply, where that member had every op­por­tun­ity to ask these questions in detail.

      I have 30 seconds allotted to me. What I can tell him is that our gov­ern­ment is making sig­ni­fi­cant in­vest­ments in home care in order to help Manitobans.

Mr. Wasyliw: According to the Canadian Federation of In­de­pen­dent Busi­ness, com­mercial rebate cheques from this gov­ern­ment haven't been filtering down from landlords to small busi­nesses. This gov­ern­ment is aware of the problem. They've done nothing to fix it.

      I'm wondering if the minister can explain why he's abandoning small busi­nesses?

Mr. Friesen: The member has alleged a problem. He has never substantiated it. I have asked him to deliver me any evidence of a retail lease in which a retail client believes that their landlord is not passing on that edu­ca­tion property tax rebate.

      I even ascertained from my own con­stit­uency of­fice in a meeting with my landlord one week ago–he showed me exactly–on my net lease–exactly where the edu­ca­tion property tax goes back to the gov­ern­ment of Manitoba for the payment of that lease.

Mr. Lamont: I–just a question about transfer pay­ments and health payments in parti­cular.

      I know that the gov­ern­ment has talked about going back to 35 or 50 per cent. As far as I've been able to find, the last time it was 50-50 per cent in–was before our reorganization of transfers in about 1976, and it's been between 25 and 18 per cent pretty much every single year for the last 45 years.

      So one of the things that could change would be if we could actually–if the gov­ern­ment actually ap­peal­ed for equity, we could see an instant increase without the federal gov­ern­ment actually having to increase at all. We'd actually see a better, more justified–or, funds would essentially be flowing to where it's needed.

      I was just wondering if that was–

Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Friesen: I don't believe the minister–or the mem­ber–had a chance to finish his statement, but he was talking about equity in delivery of health care, which we believe very strongly in. I hope the member wasn't trying to make the claim that, somehow, the feds have done enough.

      We know, through every in­de­pen­dent study and body for the last 10 years who has continued to in­dicate that the federal gov­ern­ment has more fiscal capacity than the provinces and territories to address health care, and we know that the federal gov­ern­ment has been losing both enthusiasm and steam when it comes to funding health care. They prefer one-offs.

      We want the consistency and we want the federal gov­ern­ment to be a full partner in the delivery of health care which Manitobans need and deserve.

Mr. Wasyliw: The minister says that he wants some proof that the com­mercial busi­nesses are not getting their share of the rebate cheques from landlords. The proof comes from the Canadian Federation of Indepen­dent Busi­ness, and I'm wondering why the min­is­ter continues to ignore their concerns and ac­tually called them liars, saying that it's not happening.

      They're saying it's happening. The question is, why isn't the minister responding?

Mr. Friesen: Very proud of the work that the Canadian Federation of In­de­pen­dent Busi­ness does in Canada.

      I've had a chance to meet with them, both in the Manitoba stage and the national stage. I was on the phone with their president, Dan Kelly, just a week ago, where I congratulated him on joining our new tax working group on tax affordability and tax fairness and tax modernization. At no point in time did the president indicate to me that he has a concern. Neither has their regional director communicated to me at any time that there's a concern that this member is raising in principle.

      We are proud to be making record edu­ca­tion prop­erty tax returns to families, farm families and com­­mercial enterprises.

Mr. Wasyliw: Forty per cent of Manitobans are rent­ers; it's almost 600,000 people, and this gov­ern­ment has raised their taxes two years in a row, planned to raise it for a third, and many rental are households with no children, meaning they didn't get any afford­ability cheques. Not only are they not receiving help from this cost-of-living crisis, this gov­ern­ment's ac­tively raising their taxes.

      Why is the minister making life less affordable for Manitoba renters?

Mr. Friesen: What the member is trying very care­fully to skirt around is that we have the most sig­ni­fi­cant form of affordability payment to Manitobans in the form of the edu­ca­tion property tax rebate, sending 37.5 per cent of those cheques back to Manitobans.

      But there was more. In fall, cheques to every fam­ily with children under 18, to address those needs in those households as prices rise, and to every senior with a family income of less than $40,000.

      While that member says he could do it better, we know that Manitobans are ap­pre­cia­tive of the work that our gov­ern­ment is doing to stand with them when it comes to affordability.

Mr. Gerrard: I'm just following up on the question that the MLA for St. Boniface asked.

      The issue of equity is im­por­tant because, under the Stephen Harper gov­ern­ment, the–they moved to make it inequitable–the transfers. They gave Alberta a billion-dollar windfall at the expense of taking money away from Manitoba and all the other provinces.

      If equity was restored and fairness, then Manitoba would get more money. Is the minister in support of equity that will give Manitoba more money?

Mr. Friesen: I think that that member should take note of the fact that even today, as Minister Freeland gave her update from Ottawa; as expected, no changes to the parameters of the major federal transfer pro­grams, no changes to the Canada Health Transfer an­nounced in the fiscal update–economic update today.

      I would encourage that member to contact Ottawa, talk to his federal cousins, and remind him–re­mind them of the principle that he is raising here today.

      We know that Manitoba needs its fair share when it comes to health care so that we can provide to Manitobans the level of health care they need, when and where they need it.

Madam Speaker: The time for–this question period is over.

Debate

Madam Speaker: Are there any members wishing to debate the bill?

Mr. Mark Wasyliw (Fort Garry): This gov­ern­ment has never balanced a budget, not once.

      The one year–the one year–that there was a tech­nical balanced budget was with the help of the federal gov­ern­ment, who provided $1 billion in extra transfer payments that the Province had never received before. The deficit was $1 billion, so they simply transferred the money from Trudeau over to the balance sheet. They have never once done it on their own, with their own source reve­nues. That's their legacy. That's the legacy of this gov­ern­ment.

      Since then, they have borrowed money, and a lot of it. At the same time, they've cut edu­ca­tion funding. At the same time, we now spend less than the average Canadian on health care per person.

      They've allowed our infra­structure to crumble. They continue to underspend infra­structure dollars to the point where now we have the highest infra­structure deficit in Manitoba's history.

* (16:40)

      Child poverty is back on the rise in Manitoba. And, of course, we are living in a cost-of-living crisis in Manitoba, which this gov­ern­ment has stuck their head in the sand and pretended not to notice.

      We've seen small busi­nesses having to shut down left and right. Our high streets and our downtowns in our major towns and cities are gutted. They didn't bounce back after opening despite the economy re­bounding. And we haven't seen a raft of new busi­nesses because, quite frankly, they haven't been sup­ported by this gov­ern­ment.

      Homeless crisis like we've never seen before, and people now forced to live in bus shelters. This gov­ern­ment sold off social housing. We have a drug epi­demic that's overwhelmed our com­mu­nities, and a gov­ernment with absolutely no plan and no response. They continue to ignore experts who advocate for harm-reduction strategies. And despite what they have done, nothing's worked. And they've tried nothing, so they are full out of ideas.

      Manitoba used to pride itself on being a major centre where you could actually own your own home. Well, that's starting to disappear too. Since this gov­ern­ment took office, there are less Manitobans who are able to afford a house today than they did in 2016, and that number continues to fall. And what that means is that this government has mismanaged our economy so badly that Manitobans can less and less afford to actually own their own home.

      In the first time in a gen­era­tion, in over 20 years–we haven't seen this since the Filmon gov­ern­ment–more Manitobans are leaving the province than coming to it. They are literally voting with their feet. Young people no longer see a future in this province.

      Tuition is skyrocketing; 16 per cent in the last few years. That's an advantage Manitoba used to have. That was an advantage where people would come to  our province, inter­national students and other Canadian students, because our tuition was cheap. And we're losing that advantage.

      And, of course, this gov­ern­ment's absolute fixa­tion with priva­tizing Hydro. They are now forcing rate hikes of five per cent, year over year, while they've attempted to priva­tize 'subsiduaries.'

      They have raised the cost of milk during a cost-of-living crisis–not once, not twice, but three times.

      They have been chasing professors out of the pro­vince, and those professors have research grant money that is leaving with them. Cutting-edge research that used to happen in Manitoba is now going to Saskatchewan and Alberta and BC. And not only are they taking some of their talent and their innovations, they're taking their best students with them, because the students are following where the action is, where the innovation is, because right now it's not happening in Manitoba.

      And as a parent with children who are uni­ver­sity age, that concerns me. I don't want my children grow­ing up in a province where the economy is stagnant, where we're not doing cutting-edge research, where our busi­nesses aren't innovating, where this gov­ern­ment just believes in malaise and stagnation.

      So, who is benefitting from this gov­ern­ment? Well, it's long cliché in politics that the PC Party has been described as a coalition of privileged interests. It's the party of millionaires, for millionaires. And every decision they make in this budget is with the express blessing of their campaign donors. They don't do anything without their campaign donors' approval. And they put the interests of their wealthy friends over Manitobans every single day they come into this House. Absolutely shameful.

      So, let's use just but a few examples. We have the affordability cheques. Again, money they didn't have. They borrowed $89 million, which will end up turning into hundreds of million dollars once interest is factored in.

      Did they help renters? No. They actually raised their taxes three years in a row and plan to do it more. They've actually made their lives less affordable.

      Did they help students? No. They raised their costs on tuition.

      Did they help low-income people who lived alone? No, they didn't. Somehow, they didn't deserve assist­ance.

      Did they help low-income families without chil­dren? No, they didn't. Apparently, they're also not deserving of support.

      Who did they help? They did help those families with children, but also the highest tax-bracketed in­dividuals. They sent out cheques to people who fall into the highest tax bracket. They're not big cheques, but those small cheques would make a difference to low-income Manitobans, and they use–those cheques could be bigger if the help actually went to the people who needed it.

      So, other Manitobans have to struggle. Other Manitobans have to bear the costs of this cost-of-living crisis while this gov­ern­ment ends up handing out cheques to the highest tax bracket.

      We also have the edu­ca­tion to property tax rebate. We know that over $40 million of that money is going to com­mercial landlords, railroad companies, Toronto megacorps, oil barons and some of the richest billion­aires in the world. Again, none of these people asked for it. This money is going to leave Manitoba. It's not even staying here. It's not going to create one single job. And it won't help those that need the most help in Manitoba.

      And, of course, you know, let's compare: this gov­ern­ment prides itself on having the second-lowest minimum wage in the country. And even after they were forced–and they were forced to increase the min­imum wage. It would–became politically embarr­ass­ing and humiliating for them–

An Honourable Member: Guilted into it.

Mr. Wasyliw: Yes, absolutely guilted into it.

      And they not only were seen as callous, but to the point of cruelty. So, their guilt got them to raise it up to $15 an hour, some­thing we've been talking about for six years, which is no longer adequate anymore. And even with that change, we're still going to be the second lowest minimum wage in Canada, which will not allow Manitobans to live with dignity and prop­erly with a living wage.

      But this gov­ern­ment's made it clear they just don't care, right? These people don't donate to their party. They're nobody to them. That's how you get attention of this gov­ern­ment. You have to cut a big cheque to the leadership campaign.

      So, we've heard recently that this gov­ern­ment is flushed with money. Inflation's actually been pretty good for this gov­ern­ment. The–when the prices of goods go up, that's not great for Manitobans when you go to the grocery store and you're paying more for various items. Well, you're paying more PST, too, so we know that this gov­ern­ment is getting a PST windfall.

      We know that some employers are forced to pay employees more money in order to keep them, and that means higher income taxes. We know grocery stores and other companies that are receiving wind­falls from inflation are going to pay more cor­por­ate tax.

      We know the federal gov­ern­ment is sending way more money than they have in the past to this gov­ern­ment. All in all, this gov­ern­ment is flush with money and they have more money now than they have ever had in their six years.

      And are they using that money to rebuild health care? No, they're not. Are they using that money to rebuild the edu­ca­tion system? No, they're not. Are they using that money to make life more affordable? No, they are not.

      This province needs is a new gov­ern­ment, and we're here to help.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): I'd like to re­spond, in parti­cular because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen) wanted to–asked for some clarity around the question of equity when it comes to health-care funding.

      And look, there's the difference between, I guess, what you would call equality and equity, or equality and out­comes but, fun­da­mentally–one of the fun­da­mental things that's changed in our health-care fund­ing at the federal level is that it used to be that other con­sid­era­tions were taken–there were more com­pli­cated calculations taken into con­sid­era­tion when it came to the Canadian Health Transfer, that it was equitable. That they actually–they didn't just do it on a strict per capita basis.

      In 2014, that changed. It changed because, in 2007, as part of an omnibus bill under the Conservatives, there was a section in there that said–it was a really radical change–it said: We're no longer going to calculate based on need. We're no longer going to take into con­sid­era­tion things like distance and other things, or the fact that some provinces, because they are, as you'd say, have-not, or because Manitoba, which is historically and miserably and unfortunately and tragically, the family and child poverty capital of Canada, where we have some of the deepest poverty in Canada, which has a direct impact on health, which–and as a result of systemic racism, of sys­temic–and–but we've enforced poverty over decades.

* (16:50)

      So, one of the things that we have is we have equity in transfers. And this something that used to exist up until 2014, and then it changed. And I will just read what the impact of it was, because there was an article in The Globe and Mail which said–in 2014, which talked about how this broke our health-care system. It basically meant that in a single year, Alberta had a windfall of a billion dollars and every other pro­vince lost.

      Manitoba lost about $31 million a year; Ontario was around 200, 300 million; Quebec was around $200 million; BC was a couple hundred million. All of these losses. So, if we were to actually switch back to an equitable Canadian health-care trancing–trans­fer, CHT, tomorrow, you'd see an instant im­prove­ment in health-care funding in nine out of 10 pro­vinces.

      And Alberta, which is frankly swimming in cash right now–they managed to spend over–they dedi­cated over–they have a windfall so great from the colossal increases in the price of oil that they were able to pay off some­thing like 13 or 14 billion dollars of debt. They were just able to cut a cheque because they used that to reduce their debt rather than–again, rather than investing in health care or investing in individuals.

      But it's also important when we're talking about the history of this, because people talk about it: Well, you know, it used to be 50 per cent. Well, it was–the last time it was 50 per cent, I was seven years old. It has been nowhere near 50 per cent, as a 50-50 split between the federal and the prov­incial gov­ern­ment. And if people want to argue that it should got to 50‑50, that's fine. But let's not pretend that it has been–that it went from–that it's been declining 50-50, or that it's been declining even in the last seven years. Because–[interjection] Sorry?

Mr. Lamont: Well, I'm–I–look–the members–the mi­nis­ter across the way is asking me to put it on the record.

      Look, all you have to do–these statistics are avail­able up on prov­incial websites. They're available. And, in fact, this gov­ern­ment's own docu­ments–when I look at the Public Accounts, it says, the fact is, is that we've got less and less. We have less and less of our own source revenue and a greater and greater reliance on federal reve­nues, which is to say that this gov­ern­ment has been spending less and either using more federal reve­nues or it's been using federal reve­nues to offset tax cuts, which it has been doing.

      But there was a cap. The other thing about it for Manitoba; Manitoba was essentially singled out by the Harper gov­ern­ment. There was a point when they just simply said, we're going to go from 6 per cent to 3 per cent a year. There was no con­sul­ta­tion, no–there had been–health care had been–transfers had been going up for 6 per cent a year. It was changed to 3 per cent uni­laterally by the Harper gov­ern­ment. And I recall at the time that the Minister of Finance–the federal Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty–said, well, if you have a problem with it, just raise taxes. So, if you're going to find that there's a shortfall, just raise taxes.

      So, for six years straight, there was a cap on the transfers to Manitoba. So I, believe it or not, I have some sympathy for the NDP, because it meant that that gov­ern­ment had a choice–was being forced into a choice between cuts or austerity or borrowing. These were the choices.

      And it was–and after the global financial crisis of 2008, the federal gov­ern­ment at the time did less than any federal gov­ern­ment prior to that in helping out the economy and helping out provinces. We recog­nized that the federal gov­ern­ment has greater capacity. But it doesn't make sense to us to say, well, we're just go­ing to add more and more, more funding to a province like Alberta, or have-provinces like BC or Ontario, where there are–where there's a huge financial base, where there's a huge resource base and to say, but we're going to leave Manitoba out of it.

      That's why we're saying we need to have equity in transfer payments. And it's also the case that the Canadian health-care transfer is not the only way we pay for health and edu­ca­tion and social services. We should also have equity in the social transfer. But what's happened over the years is that that's been–disappeared. We wrote a letter–I wrote a letter to the Minister of Health, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Finance and I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking for all these things. And I wrote a letter to every premier–and every letter.

      And–because this is–it's frankly–it's really unfor­tunate, because this gov­ern­ment and the premiers of Canada have been buying ads in newspapers to mis­lead Canadians and say, well, it's been declining. It has not been. The federal share in Manitoba has not been declining. It's been going up because, for the first three years of this gov­ern­ment, this gov­ern­ment either cut or froze. Those are the actual funds.

      If you look at the actuals, not what they–because there was always this bait and switch. And they always talk about–well, this is what's in the budget, so we're going to talk about what's in the budget, but we're not going to talk about what we actually spent, but if you actually look at what was spent from 2016 to 2019 in total health care in Manitoba, there were cuts and freezes–cuts and freezes–while there was inflation.

      We know that people were leaving the system, and it is truly unfor­tunate. It is truly unfor­tunate be­cause if we want to have–this is the most im­por­tant issue for Manitobans, its the most im­por­tant issue for Canadians and people deserve to know the truth about what's actually happening.

      If we're going to have an honest debate about it, let's have an honest debate about it. But if it–the last time that there was a 50-50 split was in 1976, and it was changed after that because a whole bunch of tax points were shifted to the EPF, which is the finance program–the new transfer system. Basically, the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, it dropped, but only because the federal gov­ern­ment said, okay, we're going to take our tax points, and we're not going to collect them any­more; we're going to give that to the provinces. So, it wasn't an actual drop–it wasn't a cut in funding, it was a change in the way it was measured. So, we need to be honest about this.

      And look, I believe in public healthier–public health care saved members–saved the lives of mem­bers of my family. And I was talking with Gail Asper the other day, and I'm not–because my dad happened to go to school with Izzy Asper.

      Izzy Asper grew up poor in Minnedosa. And in the early 1980s, he had a choice. He had to have quadruple-bypass surgery, and he didn't go anywhere else. He didn't buy his way. He didn't go to the Mayo Clinic, he didn't go to New York, he didn't go any­where else. He stayed and waited on the wait-list because he knew that that's the way it had to work. That's what he thought was fair.

      And so, this whole idea that we have two–that it's okay to have two tiers of care is not okay. We have enough resources in this country to be able to support everyone–everyone–but only if we're going to be equit­able about it, not if we're just going to treat every­body as if they're exactly the same, because that doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense. Some people have more needs.

      And if we actually make sure that we're doing that, it's not only more just, it's more efficient. It means we're not spending too much money, and send­ing too much money to Alberta, which is already flush with it. That's–and that's where we're coming from.

      So, I hope that this is some­thing that will be taken more seriously, because the issue of equity–the issue of equity in health-care transfers, in social transfers, from the federal gov­ern­ment should be one of the major issues that we're all talking about, not just cranking up, not just saying, well, we need to go up to 25 or 35 per cent, where it has not been since 1976. We need to have–we need to be honest about what's happening too.

      So, with that being said, I will yield the rest of my time.

      Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the hon­our­able Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen), seconded by the hon­our­able Minister of Families (Ms. Squires), that Bill 47, The Ap­pro­priation Act, 2022, be now read a second time and be referred to the Com­mit­tee of the Whole.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]

      The House will now resolve into Com­mit­tee of the Whole to consider and report on Bill 47, The Appro­priation Act, 2022, for concurrence and third reading.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

Bill 47–The Appropriation Act, 2022

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): The Commit­tee of the Whole will come to order to con­sider Bill 47, The Ap­pro­priation Act, 2022.

      During the con­sid­era­tion of this bill, the enacting clause and title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order.

      Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clause 4–pass; clause 5–pass; clause 6–pass; clause 7–pass; clause 8–pass; clause 9–pass; schedule–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.

* (17:00)

      That concludes the busi­ness before us. Com­mit­tee rise.

      Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Committee Report

Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Chairperson): The Commit­tee of the Whole has considered the follow­ing: Bill 47, The Ap­pro­priation Act, 2022, and reports the same without amend­ment.

      I move, seconded by the hon­our­able member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Khan), that the report of the com­mit­tee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Concurrence and Third Readings

(Continued)

Bill 47–The Appropriation Act, 2022

Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister for Justice, that Bill 47, The Ap­pro­priation Act, 2022, as amended and reported from the Com­mit­tee of the Whole–[interjection]

      Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Goertzen), that Bill 47, The Ap­pro­priation Act, 2022, as reported from the Commit­tee of the Whole, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Madam Speaker: Just a reminder that the hon­our­able minister, official op­posi­tion critic and the three in­de­pen­dent Liberals can speak and debate for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. Friesen:

Madam Speaker, we are pleased to bring the ap­pro­priation act for this year, an ap­pro­pria­tion act that reflects our gov­ern­ment's commit­ment to do more for Manitobans to help them on affordability when prices are going up dramatically, a bill that makes progress on tax credits and helps busi­nesses and individuals, a bill that strengthens health care, in­cluding $110‑million invest­ment to reduce the back­logs, a bill that makes life more affordable for renters by making 35,000 more renters eligible for a tax cre­dit, a bill that has raised the edu­ca­tion property tax credit rebates to people while we fully fund, at re­cord amounts, edu­ca­tion in this province, and so much more.

      Madam Speaker, we are creating child-care spaces, we are building schools and hospitals, and we are making invest­ments in com­mu­nities, and we are pleased to commend this bill at third reading for con­sid­era­tion.

Madam Speaker: Are there any further members wishing to speak in debate?

      If not, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is the Main Supply motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt–[interjection]–oh.

      Oh, the question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 47.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]

      The time being after 4 p.m., we will now proceed with concurrence and third reading motions, without further debate or amend­ment, on the following designated bills: 13, 14, 22, 24 and 36. The House will not adjourn until all applicable questions have been put and royal assent has been granted.

      In accordance with our rules, all matters of privi­lege and points of order are deferred until after these actions have been concluded. The bills will be called in the order they appear on the Order Paper.

Bill 13–The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: So, I will now call concurrence and third reading of Bill 13, The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen), that Bill 13, The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act, be concurred in and be now–sorry, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment, be con­curred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the hon­our­able Minister of Justice, seconded by the hon­our­able Minister of Finance, that Bill 13, The Social Services Appeal Board Amend­ment Act, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Develop­ment, be 'concurnid' and be now read for a third time and passed.

Mr. Goertzen: Of course, this bill has been before the House for now several months. The minister took ques­tions on it at second reading of the bill, it went to com­mit­tee and–where there was an op­por­tun­ity for Manitobans or others to make pre­sen­ta­tions on the bill, which of course also had extended remarks at second reading.

      So I won't add much further onto that other than, of course, that it is designed to ensure that proceedings are fair, but that there still is a process by which they happen in a way that is efficient, Madam Speaker, ensuring that an appeal may be heard by a single mem­ber of a board so that is a determination that there is a fair process, but that there is not an un­neces­sary delay in process which, of course, we know for these type of appeals that when there is a delay, that itself can cause in a hardship.

      An appeal may also be heard in writing or by tele­phone or other electronic means, and that is in accord or similar to a lot of things that have happened in the last little while–not just because of the pandemic and how we've learned to–how we can do things different­ly, but a lot of that was happening even before; it's just been accelerated.

      So the minister's comments have been put to this bill at second reading, at second reading question and answers and within committee, and I look forward, after these many months, to see this bill finally pass in the House.

Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): This was a bill that we delayed because we heard loud and clear at com­mit­tee that people didn't want to support this bill, that they had concerns with appeals not being heard by a panel of three.

      This now takes away that mechanism. It could be heard by one person and, if it's deemed to be 'vexitious,' that it could just be dismissed. So, lots of, you know, issues with this bill.

      And the purpose, really, of the Social Services Appeal Board is to give a fair, impartial and informal appeal process of decisions related to a variety of so­cial services and programs. This takes away that right.

      Basically, what they're saying is what we decide–one person decides–is the be-all and end-all. They're not allowed to take it any further. They're just–that's the last stop for them, which is unfair. They're silencing Manitobans. Manitobans deserve to have their appeals heard by more than one person.

      And there's no definition on what vexatious is–or, you know, so someone can decide on their own that, you know what, this is not some­thing that we should be hearing, and not hear them at all. The proposed changes in the bill will allow written appeals to be heard by a single board, rather than three members, and give the board the ability dismiss appeals that are considered frivolous or vexatious.

      Well, Madam Speaker, one person is deciding this. If I'm cut off EIA, which we know a lot of people have been thanks to this gov­ern­ment, lot of people have lost their disability benefits, they've lost their shel­ter benefits, which has resulted in a lot of people being homeless in this province. They–if somebody deems that 'vexitious' or frivolous, then they don't even get to be heard. And one person is deciding this.

* (17:10)

      This is unfair. And, you know, the minister heard loud and clear. There wasn't one person that came to com­­mit­tee that was in favour of this bill.

      So, you know, these–again, this PC gov­ern­ment likes to just silence people and do whatever they want and don't want to hear people's voices.

      These changes are certainly con­cern­ing to us, and that's why we held it over, because we don't think that people's voices should be silenced here in Manitoba. We think that they should be heard, not by just one person. And we even heard from former members who sat on the Social Services Appeal Board that said it was a bad idea for them to take away that panel of three to just one person. That's put a lot of pressure onto one person, as well.

      And, you know, this gov­ern­ment isn't putting their, you know, concerns forward. They didn't hear their concerns when they said, I've sat on this board; I've heard concerns that have come forward; never once have I heard any one of them being 'vexitious' or frivolous.

      And they couldn't even define, actually–they couldn't even give us any examples. When the mem­ber from Burrows and I went to the briefing, we asked for some examples of what frivolous or 'vexioucist'–'vexitious' would be. And they couldn't even give us an example of what that would be. So, you know, when one person is deciding that, that's unfair.

      Many applicants to these programs are vul­ner­able Manitobans who may find the bureaucracy of gov­ern­ment difficult to navigate. Certainly, someone who–and I've worked with a lot of students who were adults that–in an adult edu­ca­tion program–that, you know, didn't have the ability to read, didn't have the ability to advocate for them­selves.

      And now this has been taken away from them. This gov­ern­ment is essentially saying that they don't matter. If they can't read the text, if they can't bring someone in to advocate for them, and one member can just say, you know, submit a written, you know, or tele­phone–we know a lot of people don't have tele­phones, either. There's a ton of homeless people in this province because of this gov­ern­ment. And many of these folks have to sit in a shelter and wait for a phone call, often, even just to get on EIA. I've heard many examples of that.

      So, an appeal board of laypersons allows the eligi­bi­lity decisions of the gov­ern­ment to be given a sober second look, and that's being taken away as well. So, one person can decide, you know what, we're not send­­ing it anywhere; we're dismissing it; it's not some­thing we want to hear. And, you know, you–you're not getting EIA benefits; you're not getting shelter bene­fits; you don't qualify.

      And I think about those folks who took CERB, you know, that were on EIA. They were cut off. They weren't even allowed to go in front of the Social Services Appeal Board. They were just told, you know what, you–once that's paid back, then you can have your EIA back. Well, $6 being taken from some­one's EIA benefits when they're only getting $87 a month to eat is a lot of money.

      And, you know, someone might go in front of the appeal board for that. And this appeal person can say, well, you know, that's, you know, fair. You're giving $6 back. But that could be a whole day of meals or two days of meals. And that could be–that could mean someone, you know, maybe loses their hydro because they're having to pay a hydro bill and that $6 was go­ing towards that. They're not able to do that anymore.

      And, you know, the Stefason [phonetic] gov­ern­ment is watering down these provisions. And we are concerned that allowing the board to dismiss certain appeals is removing the op­por­tun­ity for the voices of Manitobans to be heard without a legitimate reason.

      These provisions can be open to abuse, and there's been no evidence provided by the gov­ern­ment the ap­peal board hears 'vexitious' appeals. Rather, it looks like this is another attempt by this gov­ern­ment to try and take away the rights of Manitobans, especially vul­ner­able Manitobans who seek to redress for deci­sions that might be legally and functionally mistaken.

      Gov­ern­ment bureaucracy can be cumbersome to navigate, and we all know that. I know working, like I said, with adult edu­ca­tion folks and, you know, them trying to advocate for them­selves and 'navicate'–navi­gate this system is difficult. And they're making it even more difficult. They're putting more barriers in place for folks to actually get their concerns heard.

      The legislating is–the legis­lation is extending the board's time to make a decision, but procedural dead­lines for applications for appeals are not further ex­tend­ed. That's unfair, Madam Speaker, and we asked about that in the briefing too, and we–actually, we asked for that to be amended so that it would be equal time allotted for someone to make the appeal, to put their–put it in writing or whatever it was.

      But, again, you know, they haven't amended it in here. They extended the time for their folks to make a decision, but not for the folks who wish to put in some­­thing in writing or come before the board. We think that it's reasonable to give applications–appli­cants more time.

      And it isn't the first time that this PC gov­ern­ment has made regressive change to the appeal board. In fact, in 2018, they stripped the ability of the board to make decisions based on a person's Charter rights.

      And the function of the Social Services Appeal Board, they're actually appointed by Cabinet to give a fair, impartial and informal appeal process of deci­sions relating to a variety of social services and pro­grams. And these programs include EIA, adoption agency licensing, child-care quali­fi­ca­tion, certifica­tion, 55 PLUS, Rent Assist, Manitoba Prenatal Benefit, resi­den­tial-care licensing, employability as­sist­­ance for persons with dis­abil­ities program, com­mu­nity living dis­ability program.

      So these are a lot of programs that this Social Services Appeal Board are going to be able to dismiss. So, if I want to, let's say, appeal a decision because I want to open a daycare and they decide that I can't open a daycare–and we know that there's a lot of peo­ple that are waiting for daycare spots–there's a long list of people–this gov­ern­ment can say, no, we're not going to hear it. We've decided that you're not going to be certified.

      In 2017, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that the Social Services Appeal Board does have this juris­dic­tion obligation to consider Charter rights. None­theless, the PC gov­ern­ment went ahead and moved the board's ability–hear these cases.

      We will not be standing in support of this. We listened to the people at com­mit­tee, and it's too bad that the PC gov­ern­ment isn't listening and that they're wanting to silence Manitobans. Shame on them.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I rise this afternoon to speak to third reading of Bill 13–the Social Services Appeal Board.

      Madam Speaker, I suspect that everyone in this House has the same goal here in Manitoba, of wanting to ensure that anyone who's bringing forward in a case–or, in this case, an appeal, has a fair and a just op­­por­­tun­ity to do such. And there are just too many unanswered questions still with this legis­lation.

      And my colleague referred–from Point Douglas–referred to the bill briefing that we had, and it is very accurate. We were asking questions and, unfor­tunate­ly, we were not receiving clarity on the questions in which we were asking. And we can reflect at second reading here in the House, and we asked–many of us here in this House asked questions of this gov­ern­ment on the legis­lation and, again, they were not able to answer our questions.

      And some of the concerns were around cases being rushed or dismissed, even up until the night be­fore. Madam Speaker, people put in a lot of effort into their cases and into their appeals. They put in time. They mentally prepare them­selves, as well. And knowing that their case–their appeal could be dis­missed or dropped or postponed the night before they're actually about to make the appeal–this isn't fair, and Manitoba can do a whole lot better than that.

      There are concerns around the bills being dili­gent­ly brought forward, concerns around terminol­ogy. Again, my colleague spoke a lot to this around already, but terms, including vexatious and complex–we asked time and time again for the gov­ern­ment to define what does vexatious mean.

      So a case can be thrown out, essentially; appeal can be thrown out if it is considered vexatious, yet we are not being told what the term vexatious actually encompasses. And I think, in order to be able to support legis­lation such as this, we need to be able to understand what those terms mean, what they include.

      A big part of this legis­lation is ensuring that there are mechanisms in place to safeguard against per­ceived biases and discrimination. And I don't think that there is anyone who is in­ten­tionally doing this, but we all have our biases and unknowingly so, Madam Speaker, and I think that's why it's really im­por­tant that we have 'mechagnisms' in place that when people are bringing forward cases and appeals, that those who are, in fact, judging these cases and appeals do not have biases towards them.

* (17:20)

      And again, these questions, which are really, really im­por­tant, were not able to be addressed–were not addressed in the debate of the legis­lation. So, we can't support it moving forward at this point, Madam Speaker.

      Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 13.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: I hear no.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Acting Op­posi­tion House Leader): On division.

Madam Speaker: On division.

Bill 14–The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: I will now call concurrence and third reading of Bill 14, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment, Highway Traffic Amend­ment and Manitoba Public Insurance Cor­por­ation Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Trans­por­tation, that Bill 14, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment, Highway Traffic Amend­ment and Manitoba Public Insurance Cor­por­ation Amend­ment Act, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

      Thank you.

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: I'll be relatively brief. I've put exten­sive comments on the record at second reading, fairly lengthy comments with a detailed description of the bill, and then returned to com­mit­tee, as I often do, with answers on questions as they might arise from the critic and others during the question and answer period, second reading.

      There were no presenters, I don't believe, at com­mit­tee on the bill, so nothing to reflect on on that as there weren't any presented.

      But I'll just be very, very brief, then, in terms of the very high level of the contents of the bill with that in mind.

      So, this bill will discontinue the student sticker pro­gram, which is a stream­lining method that's deem­ed not to be necessary anymore. It'll clarify MPI's auth­or­ity to issue temporary licences while a photo card is being produced and mailed. I think that that's, you know, clarifying, perhaps, practice.

Mr. Andrew Micklefield, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

      It will clarify the acceptable use of antique vehicles, as there's been some confusion there. It will prohibit the use of regulated vehicles with foreign drivers' licences; so, would prohibit new residents from driving heavy vehicles or buses with an inter­nation­al driver's licence not issued in Canada or the United States before they obtain a Manitoba licence. And we know from the Humboldt tragedy and some of the MELT require­ments coming across Canada what that is related to.

      There is a regula­tion here for deregulating the re­bates and surcharges for fleets. The amend­ments remove the fleet busi­ness rules, will author­ize MPI to publish the busi­ness rules and the fleet rebate sur­charges in its online rate guide.

      There are provisions for vehicle-for-hire insur­ance, enabling MPI to issue blanket certificates to trans­­por­tation network companies. We've had a dis­cussion with the critic about this, and I know the MPI is continually engaged with those who are involved in the taxicab industry and the ride-share industry.

      Permitting electronic docu­ments–this is in line with a lot of other, sort of, bills that have been coming in, certainly past–after the pandemic it's been ac­celerated to allow for the issuance of electronic docu­ments. So, that requires technology changes at MPI.

      So, I know we've talked about–sometimes about being able to have electronic driver's licence, which is available in most provinces, and I think virtually every state in the United States. That would be dependent upon tech­no­lo­gy changes which would be forth­coming but probably not forthcoming in a very–it won't be imme­diate that those changes will happen.

      So, with that, Mr.–the Deputy Speaker, recom­mend this to the bill, of course–or, to the House. The bill has–will have various proclamation dates, and different portions of the bill might be proclaimed at different times as the result of a variety of different issues in terms of timing. But it will continue to modernize MPI.

      Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Members, calm your­selves.

Mr. Mintu Sandhu (The Maples): It is my honour to rise in the House today to put a few words regarding Bill 14, which makes changes to The Drivers and Vehicles Act, The Highway Traffic Act as well as Manitoba insurance cor­por­ation act.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have–through the com­mit­tee and during the quest–second reading questions, where our parti­cular concern is is the blanket in­sur­ance for ride-sharing companies. Why is it a concern is, recently, a couple years back, PUB directed MPI to raise vehicle-for-hire insurance by 20 per cent each year for ride-sharing companies. So, two years–three–two years happened, now this is going to be the third year that their insurance is going up by 20 per cent.

      Why is it that their insurance is going up? Because there's more accidents happening in their own group. So, taxis–taxi companies have their own groups, and ride-sharing companies have their own group where if there's–an accident happens in that insurance group at fault, the insurance–their insurance goes up. So, our regular general ratepayers, Manitobans, will not be affected with this.

      So, what happened with this bill, with the blanket insurance now is, for example, ride-sharing com­panies, if they have a customer in the car, that's when their blanket insurance kicked in. And otherwise, it's just regular insurance, regular–your insurance, my in­sur­ance. Even though you are doing busi­ness as a com­­mercial vehicle, but your insurance is–you're using the private insurance. So, any accident happens between those period of time will be onto our regular, general insurance rates going up.

      So that's–that was the big, main concern.

      I know there's good things in the bill, but those good things will not be imple­mented quickly because during the question period, minister said there's only part of the bill will be imple­mented right away, and the remaining parts will be imple­mented when Project Nova will be imple­mented.

      So that means–so, the bill came to this House only one reason. Putting some good stuff in there and all the sudden then you put a blanket insurance in there to benefit out-of-country multi-billion-dollar com­panies. So, this is the main concern here.

      So, for example, there's about 700 cars are regis­ter­ed with the–one of the ride-sharing companies. And each insurance for those companies is around $2,000 for the four vans to use 24 hours at the ride sharing. To cut that, just to give them a blanket insurance, now they will be only using half time that insurance. And the remaining half time, they will be using a private insurance.

      For instance, if you were to call a ride-sharing com­pany standing like to–from the Legislature Building and you are, let's say, standing by Uni­ver­sity of Manitoba, on the way to coming here to pick some­one up, you had an accident and you are at fault; that insurance now goes into a private insurance, so–which means our insurance will go up.

      I raised this issue with the minister, that insurance will definitely–a hundred and ten per cent–will de­finite­ly go up. This is a thing that–it's going to happen.

* (17:30)

      Is this to give benefit to only certain companies and to give–otherwise, what I seen in the bill, as I said, there's so many good things, but they will not be im­plemented right away, which is going to be happening only after Project Nova is imple­mented.

      So, with this few comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not a good bill. I think, Minister, reconsider this bill, especially this part where blanket insurance is.

      And thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, we've had a careful look through this bill, and we've come to some­thing of a different conclusion than the NDP have done.

      The change that's been made in terms of ride-sharing companies, that which is personal insurance, right? If a car has an accident, if it's me or anybody else, right, your insurance will go up, and that will hold true for those with personal insurance. It doesn't affect the person who is a good driver and has no accidents.

      And so, the part which is the personal insurance, it will vary by the individual driver and whether they're a good driver or not what their insurance is, just like everybody else.

      For the blanket coverage, this, first of all, will have to go through the PUB, right? And there will be, you know, taxi companies and others who will make repre­sen­tation. But for MPI, it will assign a risk for that blanket in coverage depending on what the num­ber of accidents are, and that blanket coverage may be different, right, for different groups.

      And this may–you know, it may be when they go through the PUB that they could decide to do some­thing slightly different. I'm not sure. But I think that, you know, in our view, PUB is a pretty good system, right? They look very carefully at what's happening and make good decisions, which is why we continue to have the PUB after many, many years.

      And, you know, we know that the government doesn't always want the PUB. We were surprised that the NDP decided that they want to inter­fere in PUB decisions as we've seen on Hydro, right? But, be that as it may, you know, what's happening on Hydro is different from this, and I think that we can probably agree that the PUB has a pretty critical look, right, and a pretty fair look at what's going on.

      So, we've looked at that and we're not convinced, right, that it's going to have an adverse effect on regu­lar drivers in Manitoba. Right?

      Now, we've looked at other areas of this bill, and one of the areas which, to me, was of parti­cular in­ter­est–that this bill looks at the liability coverage, right, and basically says that no matter whether you're in province or out of province, that you have to have a basic liability of $500,000. That's $450,000 which would be claims arising out of loss of or damage to property and $50,000 over claims arising out of bodily injury or death. That's the basic liability that every­body is going to have.

      And at the moment, in some instances, par­ticu­larly if you're covered by non-MPI insurance on out‑of‑province vehicle, you may only have $200,000 liability. And the problem with that is, if a Manitoba driver in a Manitoba insurance car has–gets into an accident and there is a liability claim against the other car, right, because they were at fault, then you may only be able to collect $200,000 when your real–you know, when the real damage was $500,000.

      So, I think it's actually a pretty good deal to move everybody up to the $500,000 level and say that you can't sneak in with a–insurance from some other pro­vince which is less.

      So, that will happen, aside from what happens with the–you know, the infor­ma­tion tech­no­lo­gy, the Nova plan and so on. We're, like the NDP, very con­cerned about the overruns, which have been horren­dous in this project. In the long run, it will be help­ful, but we sure wish that they had managed this con­tract better and overseen it better so it didn't have this enormous overrun.

      So, Madam–Mr. Speaker–Mr. Deputy Speaker, we're actually in support of this legis­lation after having had a careful look, and that is, you know, our decision, and that we put forward. And we look for­ward to it becoming law.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other speakers?

      Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 14, The  Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment, Highway Traffic Amend­ment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amend­ment Act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear a no.  

Voice Vote

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Ayes have it.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Acting Op­posi­tion House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, on division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On division.

Bill 22–The Environment Amendment Act
(Pesticide Restrictions)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 22, The Environment Amend­ment Act (Pesticide Restrictions).

Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Environment, Climate and Parks): I move, seconded by the Minister of Families (Ms. Squires), that Bill 22, The  Environ­ment Amend­ment Act (Pesticide Restrictions), reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Agriculture and Food, be concurred in and now read for a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Wharton: It's my pleasure as Minister of Environ­ment, Climate and Parks to stand once again for the third reading of Bill 22, The Environ­ment Amend­ment Act.

      Bill 22 will amend The Environ­ment Act to allow Manitobans to use Health Canada-approved cosmetic pesticides on their lawns, while at the same time en­hancing pro­tec­tion for children and pets.

      The bill responds to what we've heard from Manitobans: that the current legis­lation is not work­ing. We heard that products currently available to Manitobans are not effective and must be applied multiple times, which risks our environ­ment and can be expensive for munici­palities and households. Manitobans want the option to be able to use products approved through Health Canada's robust scientific approval process.

      Our gov­ern­ment is committed to science-based decisions following Health Canada guide­lines.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, Health Canada conducts re­views to strict health and safety standards and has deemed these pesticides to be low risk when used correctly. All pesticides must go through this review before they can be sold in Manitoba.

      Health Canada regulator re-evaluates pesticides and will open on a special review if new research shows that the risk level may have changed.

* (17:40)

      Out of an abundance of caution, pesticides will remain restricted at schools, child-care centres and hospitals. In addition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the bill will allow–or add new restrictions to pesticide use at munici­pal playgrounds, picnic areas, dog parks and prov­incial parks, putting more pro­tec­tion in place than any other prairie province.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, our prairie neighbours have no ban on cosmetic pesticides and do not protect sen­si­tive areas. In direct response to what we heard from Manitobans, I am pleased to present Bill 22 to the House for third reading.

      Thank you. Merci. Miigwech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any speakers wish­ing to speak to this bill?

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): I'd like to start debate with tabling a letter that I'm going to read into the record. This letter was received by our Hon­our­able Jeff Wharton and Hon­our­able Audrey Gordon. It was sent to them on–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I'm–yes, I'm obligated to just advise members to refer to other members of the House by their portfolio or con­stit­uency.

Ms. Naylor: Thank you for that correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I made the mistake of just reading the letter. It is addressed to the Minister of Environ­ment, Climate and Parks and the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon).

      Dear ministers, regarding Bill 22, the environ­ment amendedment act, pesticide restrictions. We are writing to urge that current restrictions on non-essential uses of pesticides in Manitoba be maintain­ed. We request that the provisions of Bill 22 that would allow for the use of the more toxic herbicides on lawns be withdrawn.

      The current ban represents sound science-based public policy with im­por­tant health and environ­ment­al goals. In­de­pen­dent, peer-reviewed evidence has identified serious health risks associated with human exposure to chemical pesticides. Detailed reviews of health studies have been conducted by the Ontario College of Family Physicians in 2012 and the Prince Edward Island public health office in 2015, among others.

      This body of research indicates that pesticide health risks include harmful impacts affecting adults–in brackets–diabetes, cancer, neurological disorders, as well as adverse reproductive neurological dev­elop­ment and respiratory out­comes that are parti­cularly sig­ni­fi­cant for children.

      In addition, lawn care chemicals run off into water­ways, adding to stress on aquatic organisms. Pesticides are linked to illnesses in domestic animals, and they pose a threat to essential pollinators.

      We understand that some munici­palities and lawn care service providers in Manitoba are eager to regain access to currently prohibited herbicides, but we believe the gov­ern­ment has not struck the right bal­ance with Bill 22. Protecting human health is a higher priority than ac­com­mo­dating an aesthetic preference for weed-free lawns. There are safe and affordable methods by which attractive lawns and green spaces can be maintained without resorting to chemicals that harm children's health.

      Please amend Bill 22 so that families can live in healthy neighbourhoods where they and their children are not exposed to avoidable pesticide health risks.

      Thank you for your con­sid­era­tion of these concerns.

      Yours truly, Anne Lindsey, Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Manitoba coalition, on behalf of the following or­gani­zations: Manitoba College of Family Physicians; Manitoba Lung Association; Manitoba Nurses for Health and the Environ­ment; the Winnipeg Humane Society; the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environ­ment; the Coalition to Save Lake Winnipeg; Corydon Osborne Residents for a Healthy Com­mu­nity; Fireweed Food Co‑op; Kairos Christian life com­mu­nity; Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition; Organic Food Council of Manitoba; people for the pro­tec­tion of the Willow Island coastal wet­lands; South Osborne Residents' Group; Urban Ecology Winnipeg; Canadian Environ­mental Law Association; ecojustice network; Manitoba Public Health Asso­cia­tion; Manitoba Health Coalition; Learning Dis­abil­ities Association of Manitoba; Butterfly Project of Dunnottar and area; Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Manitoba chapter; Corydon Osborne Greenway Butterfly Way; Environ­mental Health Association of Manitoba; Green Action Centre; Manitoba Eco-Network; Mixedwood Forest Society; Outdoor Urban Recreational Spaces-Winnipeg; Social Planning Council of Winnipeg; Sustain­able South Osborne Com­mu­nity Co‑op; Winnipeg Trails Association; David Suzuki Foundation; and Prevent Cancer Now.

      So I–it was im­por­tant to put that on the record. I know that the minister heard directly from a number of those organi­zations and speakers on com­mit­tee, but I'm not sure that others in this Chamber had the op­por­tun­ity, so I wanted to share that.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, Minister Wharton was ap­point­ed Minister of Environ­ment, Climate and Parks at the first of this year, several months after Brian Pallister resigned and vacated the Legislature. Regardless, even from Costa Rica, the former premier can be confident that he left behind several ministers that are more than willing to implement his plans.

      Six years after Brian Pallister's con­sul­ta­tion on pesticide restrictions–a con­sul­ta­tion that has been cri­ti­qued for its lack of reach and lack of under­stand­ing to parti­ci­pants–six years later, this minister intro­duced Bill 22 to roll back the restrictions on cosmetic pesti­cides. It's beyond disappointing that someone who has  been tasked with the respon­si­bility of pro­tecting Manitoba's water, habitats and air has brought  in, as his first and only bill as Minister of Environment, Climate and Parks, a bill that modifies The Environment Act to allow a broader use of cosmetic pesti­cides in munici­palities, near hospitals, schools, home daycares and in munici­pal parks. What a legacy.

      This bill risks harm to the environ­ment, but it also harms human health. I'll reiterate what I've said in the past: the World Health Organi­zation calls these speci­fic chemicals probable carcinogens; the Canadian Cancer Society warns that people shouldn't be in areas where these products are sprayed, for up to 48 hours.

       Earlier this year, just before Bill 22 was intro­duced, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that Canada's pesticide regulator must justify its decision to dismiss public health concerns about glyphosate after reapproving the controversial pesticide for use. Glyphosate is primarily used in agri­cul­ture, but it is one of the ingredients used in some cosmetic lawn-care products. The minister knows this. He knows that his assertion that these products are deemed safe by federal regulators is oversimplifying a much more com­plex con­ver­sa­tion. Manitobans deserve more care and serious thought when it comes to decisions that affect our health and the health of our children and pets.

      The minister continues to perpetrate a myth in this House, which is his assertion that pesticides are ap­proved by Health Canada, so they're safe. If only that were true. Instead, this is a commonly held myth and one that it's time to leave behind.

      The reality is that approval from Health Canada does not mean a pesticide is safe–that language is never used. The decision is instead based on accept­able risk, and the framework is premised on risk man­age­­ment options with legal and practical con­sid­era­tions taken into account. The framework and review process has, at times, undermined health concerns.

      Many cities across Canada have already banned the cosmetic use of pesticides. Every province east of Winnipeg, and many cities in British Columbia, have had these restrictions for years. I think we can all agree that Vancouver has some beautiful parks and gardens, and at the same time they are protecting bio­diversity and public health. In some places, cosmetic pesticide restrictions have been in place for over 20 years.

      And now, as we grapple with health and eco­logical crises, eliminating un­neces­sary exposure to toxic chemicals is more im­por­tant than ever. Clear best practices exist to protect people and the environ­ment from pesticides. A cosmetic pesticide ban is that best practice.

      Children must be safe walking to school and play­ing in neighbourhood yards and city parks, bees and birds must be protected from further extinctions and biodiversity in general must be protected in order to prevent the collapse of ecological and food systems. People must be free to open their windows without worrying about toxic chemicals drifting in from a neighbour's sprayed lawn.

      With those remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ap­pre­ciate you giving me the op­por­tun­ity to speak again on the record on this issue. And with that appeal to this–I will appeal to this House to vote down Bill 22, to vote for best practices in pesticide regula­tion and to not amend The Environ­ment Act.

      Thank you.

* (17:50)

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise in op­posi­tion to this legis­lation. Let us look at some of the things about this legis­lation.

      In 2015, the Manitoba medical officer of health stead–simply stated, if pesticides are not needed, they should not be used. Pregnant women and children should always be priority popu­la­tions for avoiding risks, regardless of the nature and magnitude of that risk. Whether they live in rural Manitoba or urban cen­tres, their exposure to pesticide should be min­imized.

      Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we brought in a num­ber of report stage amend­ments to try and limit the exposure, but one by one, this gov­ern­ment turned them down. This gov­ern­ment even turned down an amend­ment to not use these cosmetic pesticides on the Legis­lative Precinct.

      I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the gov­ern­ment should put up a big sign that this lawn–the Legis­lative lawn–has had cosmetic pesticides sprayed on it. People should be warned and they should have the choice to avoid coming here, parti­cularly with their children and parti­cularly when they're pregnant.

      There is substantive evidence that pesticides con­tri­bute to the dev­elop­ment of chronic diseases, in­cluding cancers. And while the con­di­tions may be multifactorial, there is good reason to really eliminate readily pre­ven­table contributors to ill health.

      Now, they're connected to–cosmetic pesticides–to cancer, to birth defects, to reproductive dys­func­tion, to autism, to behavioural disorders, to auto­immune disorders, to diabetes, to Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.

      And while the evidence in each of these cases may not be, in a sense, the result of a randomized clinical trial–because we don't want to be exposing humans to cosmetic pesticides in any sort of trial–the tests do not address low-dose or cumulative effects. There is not adequate testing done on endocrine dis­ruption, which is an im­por­tant mechanism of action–potential mechanism of action–and pesticides are not tested in combination.

      So, much of the medical literature which has been quoted and brought forward by groups like the College of Family Physicians has not been adequately assessed by this gov­ern­ment. They have been, in my view, delinquent in looking at the adverse impacts of cosmetic pesticides.

      It's to be noted that the PMRA does not use the word safe in its decisions. They don't claim that cos­metic pesticides are safe. People should know this. They say whether the risks could be acceptable. Now, acceptable risks depends on who you are and what you consider risks. But certainly, the risks of cosmetic pesti­cides, when added up, are potentially quite sig­ni­fi­cant.

      It's to be remembered that the insecticide chlorpyrifos, which was approved in Canada in 1969, but the evidence that this had serious and harmful effects on children's neurological dev­elop­ment finally accumulated to the point where it was banned in 2021. So, it was used for 50 years. Surely, it should have been better tested before it was into the system. And part of the problem we're dealing with is that many of the chemicals were brought in before the sort of testing that we would do today was applied.

      And it's to be remembered that Health Canada itself advises it's good practice to reduce or eliminate any unnecessary exposure to chemicals–to pesticides. So, they don't get a clear bill of health, these cosmetic pesticides, by any standard. And other juris­dic­tions–the European Union, in their 2020 biodiversity strat­egy, 'incrues' proposals for legally binding targets to reduce pesticide use and risk by 50 per cent by 2030.

      And we have to recog­nize that, already, pesticides which affect insects have changed the ecology of North America: 76 per cent of flying insects have dis­appeared in the last 27 years; 40 per cent of insect species are currently believed to be threatened with extinction and the bird species which are–catch in­sects in flight are going downhill in popu­la­tion. And a number of them are considered now threatened or endangered, including a species, as common as it used to be, as the barn swallow.

      Insects may be little things, but they have a big im­pact. And when cosmetic pesticides change the whole ecosystem of North America, we need to be con­cerned. We need to be concerned about the impact on insects, because insects are im­por­tant for pol­linating plants; there are many which are beneficial. Pesticides don't pick and choose.  

      Remember, a chickadee alone can feed approxi­mately six to nine thousand larvae and insects to one clutch of five baby birds. That's a lot of impact on insects, and we should probably be relying a little more on birds and a little less on cosmetic pesticides.

      We may be the only juris­dic­tion anywhere in the world to go backwards after having passed this pesti­cide–cosmetic pesticide ban previously. There is a number of years now of ex­per­ience. The arguments go back and forth but, in fact, there is data which suggest that the re­place­ments are actually pretty effective at controlling weeds and herbicides in spite of some of the comments that have been made.

      On one of the synthetic pesticides, it indeed is stated: toxic to small wild animals, birds, aquatic organisms and non-target terrestrial plants, toxic to broad­leaf terrestrial plants. Now, that's not without very sig­ni­fi­cant impact on our ecosystem.

      There are many who grow healthy foods without pesticides. And that's a direction which the European Union is heading, and we should not go backwards.

      Remember that in the case of Dewayne "Lee" Johnson v. the Monsanto company that the lawyers showed that Monsanto knew that 'glyphophosphate' can cause cancer, and that's why there was a sig­ni­fi­cant award.

      There are many organi­zations, and the MLA for Wolseley has named many–they include the Manitoba College of Family Physicians, the Manitoba Health Coalition, the Manitoba Lung Association, the Manitoba Public Health Association, the Winnipeg Humane Society and many others.

      Most studies on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia show positive associations with pesticides. We need to be more careful. Child­hood cancers are up 27 per cent since 1975, and that could be because of pesticides. We need to be careful.

      We should not pass this legis­lation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 22, The Environment Amend­ment Act (Pesticide Restrictions).

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear a no.

* (18:00)

Voice Vote

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, Ayes have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): Recorded vote, please, Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.

* (19:00)

      Order, please.

      The hour allotted for the ringing of the bells has expired. I would like to ask the staff to close the doors and turn off the bells.

      The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 22, The Environ­ment Amendment Act. 

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Yeas

Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Goertzen, Guenter, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Khan, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Michaleski, Morley‑Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Schuler, Smith (Lagimodière), Smook, Squires, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart.

Nays

Altomare, Asagwara, Brar, Bushie, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Lamont, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino, Moses, Naylor, Redhead, Sala, Sandhu, Smith (Point Douglas), Wasyliw, Wiebe.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Clerk Assistant (Ms. Katerina Tefft): Yeas 29, Nays 21.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion is accord­ingly passed.

Bill 24–The Real Property Valuation Board and Related Amendments Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 24, The Real Property Valuation Board and Related Amend­ments Act.

Hon. Reg Helwer (Minister of Labour, Consumer Protection and Government Services): I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment (Mr. Nesbitt), that Bill 24, The Real Property Valuation Board and Related Amendments Act, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Helwer: I'm pleased to rise to speak to third reading of this bill.

      This bill will amalgamate the land value functions of the Land Value Appraisal Com­mis­sion, the Surface Rights Board and the assessment appeal function of the Munici­pal Board.

      And that is it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There's been lots of fearmongering across the way from all entities over there trying to scare Manitobans, as they often do, but this is all that this piece of legis­lation does.

      Currently, several boards in Manitoba provide similar roles and functions related to land valuation and land value disputes.

Madam Speaker in the Chair

      The real property valuation board act will create a single window for stake­holders seeking reso­lu­tion of land value disputes. This action will improve board services to Manitobans and create a simplified, fair, trans­par­ent and stream­lined process for the public to interact with gov­ern­ment on matters related to land value.

      And that is the content of the bill, Madam Speaker. I know the members opposite will try to scare Manitobans, as they have time and time again, but it has no relation to what happens under the land. This is only the land value.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): You know, I really did think that the gov­ern­ment might see the error of its ways, you know. And, you know, it's not too late, because they could certainly vote to defeat this bill and they could see the light that's been shown to them by munici­palities across this province who have said, loud and clear, that they don't want to see more taking-back of power from local author­ities and local voices and taking it to the hands of this prov­incial govern­ment.

      We've seen this over and over and over again, and, you know, we gave them the op­por­tun­ity to rethink bill 37. In fact, when it first came to this Legislature, it was this team on this side of the House that stopped that bill in its tracks and made the gov­ern­ment go back to the drawing board, go back to AMM, go back to their–to the munici­palities across this province and get some feedback and try to get it right.

      We thought maybe that would be the end of it, but no. This gov­ern­ment pushed ahead and pushed for­ward on bringing back what then became bill 37.

      Now we're in the midst of the imple­men­ta­tion of bill 37, and it's these kind of bills that we're going to continually see that take away power from those local voices.

      Now, we just had a munici­pal election, and folks were elected across our province to local boards in munici­palities. I've taken the op­por­tun­ity to thank those folks because I think it's im­por­tant to do that. They are the folks on the front lines–the closest to the ratepayers, as they like to say–those folks who are taking the viewpoints of their con­stit­uents and bring­ing them forward.

      But their hands are being in­creasingly tied by this prov­incial gov­ern­ment who says no; you don't get to make the decision. In fact, we'll give it to, in this case, the Munici­pal Board, and we'll allow them to make the decisions.

      And we know that the Munici­pal Board is already overwhelmed with the number of cases that are coming forward–coming forward from developers who are asking for them to take a look at it, coming forward from munici­palities who are saying, take this and relook at this and make a decision outside of what council had decided.

      This is a problem, Madam Speaker, that I think we need to very closely monitor, and we certainly will be doing that as an official op­posi­tion.

      Case in point, Madam Speaker: we're just learn­ing that there was a dev­elop­ment here in Winnipeg that went through council, was approved at the council level, you know, went through the regular demo­cratic process. Again, we just had a munici­pal election, and yet it was the Munici­pal Board, the unelected Municipal Board, who made a decision contrary to what council had already decided.

* (19:10)

      You know, I think Winnipeggers and Manitobans in general would be very concerned if they knew that they didn't have the same op­por­tun­ity to have an in­fluence or an impact on what dev­elop­ment is going to happen in their parti­cular munici­pality.

      And I know what we've heard from not only coun­cillors here in the city of Winnipeg who are concerned about this, but, as I said, munici­palities across the province could have not been more clear over the last year and a half, two years, that this gov­ern­ment has pushed ahead on bill 37.

      Time after time at AMM meetings and conven­tions and just meeting with local munici­palities, we've heard loud and clear that they don't want the Province and especially unelected boards stepping on their decision‑making abilities. They've also told us very clearly that they under­stand that this extra level of bureaucracy is simply going to slow the process down. They–you know, it's amazing that a party of cutting red tape is all of a sudden, you know, making more red tape, making more bureaucracy, another layer of bureaucracy in the munici­pal planning world.

      You know, we've heard from members who sit on the Munici­pal Board who have said that they are already overwhelmed. They're seeing more cases than ever, and these are more complex cases; cases that require a lot of work.

      Now, you know, these aren't, you know, full-time, you know, pro­fes­sional folks; these are folks who are certainly pro­fes­sionals but not necessarily on the Munici­pal Board. And so, their time is valuable, and it's in­creasingly being tied up by decision making that should be happening at the local level with the input of local officials.

      You know, there was, at one point in this gov­ern­ment, a clear vision; it was the wrong vision, mind you, of–from Brian Pallister. But, you know, he was ready to cut bureaucracy and cut red tape. Well, now his ministers and this gov­ern­ment are–seem to be the ones who want to bring more steps and more levels of bureaucracy in.

      We remain concerned that the changes that are being proposed with Bill 24 won't solve the problems of the overburdening of the Munici­pal Board. We under­stand that the real property valuation board, you know, in its role taking over from these other matters, will just simply be another step that folks need to take.

      And they're as concerned about resourcing that par­ti­cular board as well. So, again, we're creating more boards to do this–you know, this increased amount of work. There's no new resources for these boards, and we know that this is going to be a problem.

      At the end of the day, Madam Speaker, we spend a lot of time on this side of the House listening to our local partners and under­standing how we can work with munici­palities, how we can engage them and how we can work as–in true part­ner­ships with those munici­palities.

      That is–should be a starting point for any prov­incial gov­ern­ment, and yet this gov­ern­ment decided its first–its most im­por­tant priority in this case was to bring forward a bill that takes away local choice, takes away that local demo­cratic input and hurts, I think, all munici­palities.

      We've heard it loud and clear. We'll continue to push back every single time this gov­ern­ment tinkers around the edges when it comes to the impacts of bill 37. Bill 24 is a very specific example of that, and we know that it needs to be opposed. We will be voting against this legis­lation today.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, we have some sig­ni­fi­cant concerns about this legis­lation, which is being moved by the gov­ern­ment and which–the biggest concern that we have relates to getting rid of the Surface Rights Board. The minister says, in his naiveté, that this is just about the value of the land. When it comes to surface rights, it's about much more than just the value of the land.

      The surface rights were set up initially to be able to decide on situations where you were–had a land­owner, usually a farmer, and below ground you had a source of oil. And the person who had the mineral rights had the right to go on the land, to drill down; if they found oil, to pump that oil up and to make money out of it.

      And the situation, when we're dealing with this kind of surface rights issue, which is more than just about the value of the land. For example, in some oil wells, when there is not just oil coming up, but sour gas, which has impact on health. We have the impact on the land, and it has proved, in talking with people in southwestern Manitoba, where they're dealing with 'surfin'–surface rights, more complicated than people have thought initially.

      Not just an issue of the value of the land, but there needs to be, on such a surface rights board, repre­sen­tation, not just from those who own mineral rights, but those who are landowners, so you can have a fair and just discussion and you can have a fair and just reso­lu­tion.

      Now, the situation in Manitoba is changing. There is the largest mineral rights exploration going on, may­be in the history of the province, in southeastern Manitoba. A large land area has been allocated the rights for getting silica sand.

      And the silica sand, as with oil, what happens is that the person who wants to mine the silica sand puts down a well and uses a mechanism which essentially pushes water down and brings up to the surface sand and water, sucks this to the surface; and then, after it's been exposed to some air a little bit, the water gets pump­ed down the well, and you have, then, the well being closed over.

      And the problems here are a number. One is that well is going down into the groundwater. It's dis­turb­ing the groundwater, mixing up the sand and the water, and, more than that, the concern is that there is a layer which contains rock which can be oxidized, and that that can result in pollution of the ground­water.

      And that groundwater in southeastern Manitoba is some of the best groundwater anywhere in the world. In fact, there's a fellow who sells water, bottled water, from there as the best water in the world, and it's known that it's of extremely high quality.

      So, as opposed to somebody running a truck over the land and putting an oil well down–and there's a lot of ex­per­ience with putting oil wells down and maybe concerns with things like fracking and things like that–but when you get to a situation of the sand mine wells, you're not talking just, you know, one well here and another one over there and–what you're talking about is whole groups of wells being put down. And you're talking about sand coming up, and the sand may be associated with dust particles, and there is con­­cern about health effects of some of those–what's in those dust particles.

      And so, whereas if you put a road in on the surface you can take up that road after the oil has been ex­tracted, when you're talking about pollution of the ground­water, once it's polluted, is very, very difficult to get it back to the pristine quality that it was before.

* (19:20)

      Some people say it's going to take decades. Some people say it'll take hundreds of years. And we don't know the answer when you were dealing with these aquifers and the depth that the aquifers are at.

      So there is, rightfully so, a concern from many munici­palities and many landowners about what's go­ing to happen because of the, you know, what are projected to be hundreds or thousands of these wells going down, depending on how far it goes, and maybe tens of thousands of them in southeastern Manitoba.

      And people, when we're talking about surface rights, it is more complicated than what the–this bill anti­cipates for the real property board.

      And so, our view is that the gov­ern­ment should have kept the Surface Rights Board and the issue of surface rights out of this. They should have had a surface rights board which had the proper repre­sen­tation, both of landowners and of people who are involved in mineral or sand extraction, so that we could have a fair balance and a fair view of the situation.

      Now, the situation with the surface rights and the sand mines has become complicated because the local gov­ern­ment has now taken away some of the decision‑making power from the munici­palities and given it to the Munici­pal Board. And just in the last couple of weeks we've had hearings from the Municipal Board, which is looking and are con­sid­ering the possi­bility of overriding the local decision.

      And so, here we have a munici­pal board which probably does not have much in the way of ex­per­ience of dealing with silica sand and silica sand mines under these con­di­tions. In fact, to some extent, this is a novel way of extracting silica from a mine, and we don't know the long-term con­se­quences.

      So, while we have concerns about taking rights away from local munici­pal level, our major concern is that by putting the Surface Rights Board and the surface rights decision in with the Real Property Valuation Board that there can be some real problems in the decision making. And if we're not careful, we can have pollution of groundwater, which we don't want and long-term, very untoward effects.

      So, for those reasons, Madam Speaker, we are going to vote against this bill. We see it fraught with pro­blems because of what it's trying to do and we have not had an adequate explanation, right, from the minis­ter, of why on earth he wants to include the Surface Rights Board and surface rights decisions about surface rights, not only about oil wells but about sand mines included in this bill. It should not have been.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 24, The Real Property Valuation Board and Related Amend­ments Act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): On division, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: On division.

Bill 36–The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: I will now call concurrence and third reading of Bill 36, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment and Public Utilities Board Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister respon­si­ble for Manitoba Hydro): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister for Economic Dev­elop­ment, Invest­ment and Trade, that Bill 36, The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment and Public Utilities Board Amend­ment Act, as amended and re­port­ed from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Friesen: Madam Speaker, Manitoba Hydro matters. It matters for Manitobans who have for years relied on the low rates that the gen­era­tion of clean hydroelectricity have produced for Manitobans as an advantage.

      It matters for busi­nesses who may move here or stay here because of that lower competitive rate. You may not know that Manitoba Hydro boasts the second lowest hydro rate in all of North America, second only to Quebec.

      Manitoba Hydro matters because, at a time in the world when people are in­creasingly moving towards the examination of more sus­tain­able and renewable and green tech­no­lo­gies, we are well positioned on that landscape to be able to boast this clean and green hydro as some of the best tech­no­lo­gy in the world.

      But the NDP know their sad legacy on this file, and that is that this NDP party overspent and bungled planned expansion of Hydro's assets: Keeyask, a dam that went billions of dollars over cost; Bipole III, a trans­mis­sion line that went billions of dollars over cost and 1,000 kilometres around the province, while they hid the cost overruns from Manitobans, while they circumvented the very processes that had been put in place to measure the needs for and alternatives to such large megaproject. The result of which, they said, would not matter because their former minister said–and some of them sat around the table at the time–Manitoba's oil, they said it doesn't matter be­cause the US companies and the US contracts will pay for every­thing. Manitobans wouldn't pay a single cent, penny, for that hydro.

      And now the gig is up, and now the verdict is in, and now we know that the cost of these assets, four and five billion dollars over their planned budget, and an expert report on Keeyask and bipole shows the poor decision making, shows the attempts to evade ac­count­ability and shows what could have been done instead to plan a better, brighter future for Hydro.

      It puts us in this place where the debt of Hydro now sits tripled at $24 billion. It puts us now at a place where we understand that the cost of those bad deci­sions are borne by Manitoba customers and not by US contracts.

      And what would the NDP say more than any­thing? Forget about it. Don't talk about it. There's nothing to see here. This problem is self-correcting.

      But it's not, Madam Speaker. And action needs to be taken. And that is the basis and the foundation for Bill 36. It won't just be all okay. Action is needed–action needed to protect the low-rate advantage that Manitoba Hydro customers have come to enjoy.

      Those members will never say it. You will never hear them ever utter anything about CPI. But right now, we know that in Manitoba, the consumer price index sits at 8 per cent. And if, today, the Public Utilities Board were presiding on a rate application by Hydro, they may be saying 6, 7, 8 per cent energy increase rates but for the provision of this bill that says there's a ceiling. There's an upper limit. Rates cannot go above this amount.

      It acts as a governor. It acts as a speed limit. It keeps those rates down which would otherwise be higher. Why? Because of N-D-C bad decision–NDP bad decision making, Madam Speaker.

      But the bill goes further. The bill says that never in the future again will there be a time when Manitobans' advantage in hydro is threatened by a gov­ern­­­ment that doesn't take better decisions. The PUB gets new powers to preside over any large infra­structure projects for gen­era­tion or trans­mis­sion.

      And, Madam Speaker, that's a pro­tec­tion to all of us. Because maybe that next dam will be built, but maybe it will be postponed, or maybe a better way will be found to provide power, and maybe a better exam­in­a­tion of alternatives, of wind and solar and others. And maybe a better examination of the potentiality for Efficiency Manitoba to make the difference.

* (19:30)

      But those con­sid­era­tions were shut out by the pre­vious gov­ern­ment who boldly went ahead, promised Manitoba things, made promises they could not keep, and we all now have the impact of that.

      However, over time, Madam Speaker, that low-rate advantage and that ability for the PUB to do its own work also presides, or also is founded on another foundation, and that is Hydro needs to get more stable over time–not all of a sudden, not in a shocking way–but over time, benchmarks for Hydro to hit to become more stable. We have the worst debt-equity ratio in all of Canada for any energy generator, producer, trans­mitter.

      Madam Speaker, we've got a problem at Hydro. This bill would fix it. In brief, it provides, as I said, oversight. It changes the regula­tory process to make it broader and better. Also, in this bill, and not–hasn't been subject to much debate, that ability for the PUB in future to come back and present its budget means that if PUB says–you know, for too long, we have gone outside of the PUB to get the expertise we needed.

      If the PUB says that the expertise is needed within their shop, then our gov­ern­ment is going to support that ability for the PUB to grow, get that expertise within, install it within the regulator and use it and have that continuity, have that in­sti­tutional know­ledge. We haven't talked about–a lot about that.

      This bill also says, though, a three-year rate ap­plication is just better than a one-year. All other juris­dic­tions are going to a three-year rate application. Why? It gives rate certainty for resi­den­tial ratepayers. It gives rate certainty for busi­nesses. It puts us in line with other provinces.

      As I said, the PUB contains and maintains its role to set the rates. There was an irritant in a previous iteration of this bill, and the NDP didn't like it. And they said that there was this ability in that bill 34 for the gov­ern­ment to set hydro rates. Well, it didn't. It had placeholded an amount to allow the Province to get to that place where the PUB would do a three-year rate application.

      But in this instance, there is no such provision in this bill. There is no such provision because Hydro has an interim rate set by the PUB that can be extended for two years. There is no activity for the gov­ern­ment, for the Cabinet, for the caucus to set rates in this bill.

      Manitoba Hydro has challenges, as I said. Manitobans may not know that 40 cents of revenue on every dollar collected by Hydro now goes for debt repayment. That's not okay. It's not a–sus­tain­able. It means there are invest­ments that Hydro would make, but it cannot because it is extended and it can't make those good invest­ments.

      Madam Speaker, to sum up, under Bill 36, the PUB remains strong. Under Bill 36, Manitoba's rates remain lower than they otherwise would have been during a time of hyperinflation. And under the PUB, over time, Manitoba Hydro gets back to a place of stability.

      The NDP have tried every­thing to distort and to tell in their own words a story of Bill 36 that does not stand up to scrutiny. No wonder the Winnipeg Free Press said about them that this, their actions on Bill 36, are the worst kind of politics, designed to mislead Manitobans and foment fear in order to drive op­posi­tion to the bill when they actually knew the facts.

      It has been disgraceful to watch day after day, this op­posi­tion party get up. If they want to disagree with us on policy, they should do so every day. But they don't get the luxury of their own facts. And tonight, nothing would please Manitobans more for them to stand up and say that we blew it.

      But what's the best evidence of the NDP party actually totally getting it wrong? They spent months saying that the fun­da­mental premise was that there was going to be the in­de­pen­dence of the PUB until this week. When they stood up in a press release and fired out a press release that said they will inter­fere with the PUB.

      They brought a brand new policy this week. It puts the Leader of the Op­posi­tion at odds with his own critic for Hydro, and it says we changed our minds: we will inter­fere with the PUB, we will set the rate ourselves at the NDP caucus table.

      It is outrageous. It is a U-turn. It is an about-face. It is a one-eighty. It is a change of directions and every Manitoban can see it.

      Manitoba–Manitobans know we will continue to protect ratepayers, Manitoba Hydro and the PUB, while they continue to try to mislead Manitobans.

Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): Well, tonight, after working at this for several years and many failed attempts to pass bills 44 and 35, it seems that this gov­ern­ment is finally set to pass legis­lation that will dis­empower the PUB and will raise–make for big hydro rate increases on Manitobans.

      This is not some­thing to be celebrated, Madam Speaker. We are in the midst of an affordability crisis, and I know that I'm not alone in hearing about this from con­stit­uents in my com­mu­nity. I know all mem­bers in this House hear from their con­stit­uents about their concerns about the financial challenges they're facing right now. And this is especially true for sen­iors and people on fixed incomes.

      And, again, I know that everyone in this House hears from their con­stit­uents, and so that's why it's so shocking to me to see this gov­ern­ment bring this bill forward. It genuinely is hard for me to believe that this Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) and every single member of this PC caucus continue to stand behind this bill.

      The people in this province would be right to think that right now, in this economic environ­ment we're in, that their gov­ern­ment would be focused on keep­ing hydro rates as low as possible, that they'd be focused on ensuring the most affordable access to energy that we can possibly muster and that, if this gov­ern­ment was bringing forward legis­lation focused on hydro rates, that that legis­lation would be focused, again, on a hydro rate freeze or keeping those rates as low as possible.

      But instead, we're seeing some­thing very dif­fer­ent, Madam Speaker. We see a gov­ern­ment that's focus­ed on gutting rate-setting author­ity of the PUB so they can advance huge rate increases at the Cabinet table.

      It's no exaggeration to say that I'm shocked that every single member of this PC Party continues to stand behind this bill. And the only conclusion I can come to is that members of this party–everyone other than, perhaps, the minister respon­si­ble for this bill–hasn't read the bill or don't know what's in it. That's the only explanation I can come to because it's clear that this bill is going to harm Manitobans.

      So, I ask every single member of this PC caucus here tonight to consider–and I'm going to try to break the fourth wall here with everyone that's staring down at their phones on the other side of the aisle. Do you really know what you're voting for here tonight? Do you really have any under­standing of what it is you're supporting here tonight with your vote?

      Do you recog­nize that this bill will force Hydro to raise $7 billion by 2040, all to come out of the wallets of Manitobans and all on the basis of a wacky formula that your gov­ern­ment invented that is without pre­ce­dent in all of the world?

      Do you recog­nize that this bill will completely disempower–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Order.

      I'm just going to ask the member to make his com­ments in third person and avoid using the word you and your because that just inflames the situation here, and I would just ask the member's co‑operation.

Mr. Sala: Do members of this PC caucus understand that this bill will completely disempower the Public Utilities Board and hand all hydro rate-setting power to Cabinet for the first time since 1913 in the history of the Public Utilities Board?

      Do they understand that it will trigger crushing year-after-year 5 per cent increases in the middle of an affordability crisis that will be applied on families, seniors, people on fixed incomes and all of the small busi­nesses in their ridings? And that it will lead to job loss and disinvestment from this province, as was clear­ly stated by the members of the Manitoba Industrial Power Users Group, who presented to com­mit­­tee recently, who spelled out clearly how this bill is going to damage our economy in this province.

* (19:40)

      I would like to know if the members opposite under­stand that and if they have a real under­standing of how this bill is going to impact their con­stit­uents, who they're going to have to face after they vote in support of this bill tonight. I'd like them all to ask them­selves what their con­stit­uents would say to them to know what they're supporting here. This bill will have a disastrous effect on the affordability of life in Manitoba, and it will have a disastrous effect on our economy.

      We heard over and over again about this at com­mit­tee on this bill. Folks who tuned in will know that we had near unanimous op­posi­tion to this bill at com­mit­tee. We heard over and over again from a huge coal­i­tion of Manitobans, environmentalists, right down to the–again, the biggest industrial power users in this province, that this bill needs to be scrapped, that this bill is going to have a hugely negative impact on the affordability of life in this province and on our prov­incial economy.

      I asked the members 'oppit' to consider what it means when a bill goes to com­mit­tee and every single pre­senter that comes to that com­mit­tee is unanimously in op­posi­tion to a bill. What does that mean? It should mean some­thing to them, Madam Speaker. And I think it's going to mean some­thing to all of them during the next election. I think they're going to hear about this going for.

      There's another huge concern with this bill that I want to make sure I mention before this bill's vote tonight. And that's that this bill opens the door wide open to priva­tiza­tion. It ends Hydro's monopoly on the retail sale of energy in Manitoba. Manitobans know how im­por­tant Hydro is to this province and the future of this province, and they want to ensure that all as­pects of Manitoba Hydro remain public. We have an immeasurably large advantage over other provinces in this country in that we own our gen­era­tion system, we own our dis­tri­bu­tion system, we own our trans­mis­sion system.

      Opening the door to the private sale of electricity has enormous implications for the future of Hydro, but the PCs have failed to answer the question as to why they're doing this. They have not clearly answered that question.

      And that should have every single Manitoban very concerned because these changes will create huge profit-making op­por­tun­ities for private busi­ness in this province. And we know that the PCs cannot be trusted with this kind of power because we know if they get any op­por­tun­ity to priva­tize any aspect of Hydro they will take advantage of it.

      All aspects of Hydro must remain public, and should this bill be allowed to pass tonight we will be watching this gov­ern­ment each and every day to stop them from using this provision to advance their goals of advancing– of furthering priva­tiza­tion at Hydro.

      Before closing my remarks here tonight, I would like to say thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to thank all those folks, all those Manitobans, that stood up against Bill 36, that stood up against its previous two incarnations, all those folks that fought so hard over the last several years to stop this legis­lation from passing. The amount of time that those folks invested in fighting back against this bill as citizens is nothing short of inspiring, Madam Speaker, to see citizens stand up, educate them­selves about this bill and fight back and let this gov­ern­ment know that it should not pass.

      I want to say a thank-you to the Consumers Coalition of Manitoba, to the CCPA, to the Manitoba Eco-Network, to the Social Planning Council, to IBEW 2034, to SEED Winnipeg, to Harvest Manitoba and the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg for helping in the fight against this bill.

      I'd also like to single out the Protect the PUB Coalition, who did an in­cred­ible job educating Manitobans about the impacts of this bill so they could prepare them­selves to come to com­mit­tee and make a case as to why this bill should be scrapped.

      And I'd also like to thank every single person who made time to come out to the Bill 36 com­mit­tee to express their concerns. Thank you to every Manitoban who stood up to tell this gov­ern­ment where this bill should be– go–where this bill should be sent–to the trash can.

      I know I speak for all of us here in op­posi­tion when I say thank you. It's been an honour to work in part­ner­ship with com­mu­nity to fight against this bill, and our fight for an in­de­pen­dent PUB and affordable hydro rates doesn't end tonight.

      I ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to offer some final words on this bill before the vote.

      Thank you.

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): This is a truly terrible bill.

      That's not just our opinion. That was the opinion of virtually every presenter. Presenter after presenter after presenter didn't just say this needs to be changed, it needs to be altered or it needs to be improved. They said it needs to be withdrawn. And it was across the board. It was across the board.

      This is a terrible, terrible bill. It's going to be damaging to Hydro, damaging to the PUB, and it's going to be damaging to the economy.

      It wasn't just environmentalists; it wasn't just con­sumers. The largest industrial consumers in Manitoba said that these hikes are going to drive people out of Manitoba. They said it's already happening; it hasn't just started.

      And, frankly, this isn't a bill that should ever have come forward because it takes–we are going to be making a decision tonight that we shouldn't be mak­ing. It's up to the PUB. It's not up to anybody in this Chamber to say what hydro prices are going to be; not the op­posi­tion, which is why we opposed their amend­ment, and surely not the gov­ern­ment.

      The inter­ference with Hydro has been relentless and it has put the finances of this province at risk. And I want to say that when I hear the NDP and the PCs on this it's like they're–it's like a dark mirror between the two of them, because they keep saying–they keep blaming each other for doing exactly the same things.

      In 2003, Gary Doer wanted to do the same thing. He wanted to strip the Public Utilities Board of its power. He complained about the cost and duration of hearings of the PUB, which is what this bill does. He said there were problems with the regula­tory bodies like the Clean Environ­ment Com­mis­sion taking too long. And, at the time, Hydro had not raised resi­den­tial or com­mercial rates for more than six years, and the PUB ordered–issued an order to reduce rates be­cause the PUB thought that that was the ap­pro­priate thing to do.

      Those–and Doer said, I thought that decision was wrong. Hydro's having one of the worst years in 10 years. The PUB makes him go through a very expensive process just so they can order them to lower rates that are already among the lowest in North America. The same story we hear all the time.

      But there's a reason why they're the lowest in North America: they're supposed to be. That's what it's supposed to be. We're not supposed to be going out of our way to make profit. The whole point of having a public monopoly on power is to make it as cheap as possible for the benefit of everyone. It's as close as it can be to a public service, and that's some­thing that nobody seems to understand.

      I've been to northern com­mu­nities where they're des­per­ate because the power bills they have to pay, because all the electrical heat–all the heat is electrical. So, we have isolated First Nations. They don't have roads. They don't have–like, Island Lakes–they've got–they have a hydro line but they don't have roads, they don't have rail. And so, unbelievable amounts of money is flowing out of impoverished First Nations com­mu­nities into Hydro's pockets. And this is going to make it worse.

      And the other thing is, look, this gov­ern­ment wants to blame the NDP for lots of stuff, but they don't actually want to fix anything they did, and they want to keep doing lots of the same things. They want to complain about bipole.

      Look, it was a political decision, but there are a couple of things–I'm going to say some­thing that's just factual: If bipole were not built, Manitoba would be at enormous risk. That was the finding of an in­de­pen­dent consulting study which said, look, if you don't build this and there's a storm that knocks out the one trans­mis­sion line, Manitoba could lose a third of its GDP and we could have blackouts and brownouts in Winnipeg for weeks or months.

      So, imagine that there's a storm in January or February, and there are blackouts or brownouts in Manitoba, and we lose a third of our GDP because the PC gov­ern­ment wanted to cancel bipole, even though it was partly built.

      But–and the other thing is, the PUB made a re­com­­men­d­ation on this. The PUB actually said, you know what? Because the gov­ern­ment forced Hydro to do this, and it was a political decision, the gov­ern­ment should compensate them. There was an order in 2018 that the PUB said, look, stop taking money from Hydro for a while.

      Because that's the other dirty secret of all of this. The reason Hydro's in so much trouble, and the reason Hydro's debt is so high, is because it's been forced to take on that debt. In the last decade, of the $10 billion that's been added to that debt, $4 billion of that flowed right to the gov­ern­ment of Manitoba–$4 billion was taken from a Crown cor­por­ation that was in debt every single year and taking on more debt.

      So, we'd been borrowing from Hydro. We've been putting it all on Hydro's credit card. So, the reason Hydro's debt is so dangerously high, and that if it were to default we'd all be in big trouble because the gov­ern­ment of Manitoba doesn't have $24 billion on hand.

* (19:50)

      This is the danger that it was–and I have to say that because the Manitoba gov­ern­ment takes water rentals for no good reason, it has a debt-guarantee fee for no good reason and it has a capital tax. So, what happens? The bigger your cost overruns, the more taxes they pay. So it's a big benefit, No. 1.

      So, there's perverse incentives that actually en­cour­age massive overbuilding and over–and excess debt, because the more Hydro goes into debt, the bigger the debt fee that Manitoba gets to collect for doing nothing–nothing. Because it's not guaranteeing that fee. That money isn't going into any sort of fund that's going to help pay it off. It's not insurance.

      It's absolutely reckless. We've had two decades of gov­ern­ments playing reckless games with Hydro. And  Hydro does have a problem, and it's called the Manitoba gov­ern­ment. And it doesn't matter–it hasn't mattered whether it's NDP or PC.

      There's been no difference in what these two parties are offering because both think it's their job to politicize Hydro and to fix prices here when it should be left to the PUB. And to act as if they're a saviour when each of these parties has taken $2 billion out of Hydro just in the last two years just to pay for the gov­ern­ment of Manitoba when Hydro was in debt.

      The answer to Hydro's problem's a strong and in­de­pen­dent PUB, and for this gov­ern­ment to let it–to stop taking from it, to take–to listen to the PUB and stop taking water rentals and stop taking the debt-guarantee fee. And that way–if that actually happened, Hydro wouldn't have to cut and we wouldn't have to see rake–rate hikes the way we have. That's what the PUB asked for. That's what the solution is.

      Because both parties have put Hydro at risk, and the only way to put Hydro back is to stop plundering it. And that's what we'll do.

      Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 36, The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): A recorded vote, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.

* (20:50)

      The one hour provided for the ringing of the division bells has expired. I'm therefore directing that the division bells be turned off and the House proceed to the vote.

      The question before the House is concurrence and  third reading of Bill 36, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment and Public Utilities Board Amend­ment Act.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Yeas

Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Eichler, Ewasko, Friesen, Goertzen, Guenter, Guillemard, Helwer, Johnson, Johnston, Khan, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley‑Lecomte, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Schuler, Smith (Lagimodière), Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart.

Nays

Altomare, Asagwara, Brar, Bushie, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Lamont, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino, Moses, Naylor, Redhead, Sala, Sandhu, Smith (Point Douglas), Wasyliw, Wiebe.

Clerk Assistant (Mr. Tim Abbott): Yeas 29, Nays 21.

Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly passed.

Introduction of Guests

Madam Speaker: Before we proceed to royal assent, I would like to draw members' attention to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have a very special guest with us tonight.

      Monique Fontaine, formerly Monique Grenier, is our former journals clerk and com­mit­tee clerk, and she stopped by tonight to say hello and watch the end of the session with her former colleagues.

      On behalf of all hon­our­able members, Monique, we welcome you here back to the Assembly and hope you are enjoying your retirement.

      And I understand the Acting Administrator's in the building, so we will now prepare for royal assent.

* (21:00)

Royal Assent

Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr. Cam Steel): Her Honour the Acting Administrator.

Her Honour Diana M. Cameron, Acting Administrator of the Province of Manitoba, having entered the House and being seated on the throne, Madam Speaker addressed Her Honour the Acting Administrator in the following words:

Madam Speaker: Your Honour:

      The Legislative Assembly of Manitoba asks Your Honour to accept the following bill:

Clerk Assistant (Ms. Vanessa Gregg):

Bill 47 – The Appropriation Act, 2022; Loi de 2022 portant affectation de crédits

Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): In His Majesty's name, the Acting Administrator of the Province of Manitoba thanks the Legis­lative Assembly and assents to this bill.

Madam Speaker: Your Honour:

      At this sitting, the Legislative Assembly has passed certain bills that I ask Your Honour to give assent to.

Clerk Assistant (Ms. Vanessa Gregg):

Bill 13 – The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Commission d'appel des services sociaux

Bill 14 – The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les conducteurs et les véhicules, le Code de la route et la Loi sur la Société d'assurance publique du Manitoba

Bill 22 – The Environment Amendment Act (Pesticide Restrictions); Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement (restrictions applicables aux pesticides)

Bill 24 – The Real Property Valuation Board and Related Amendments Act; Loi sur la Commission de–sorry, restart. The Real Property Valuation Board and Related Amend­ments Act; Loi sur la Commission de l'évaluation des biens réels et modifications connexes

Bill 36 – The Manitoba Hydro Amendment and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro-Manitoba et la Loi sur la Régie des services publics

Bill 40 – The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amendments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking Act; Loi édictant la Loi sur les registres des clients dans le secteur de l'hébergement et modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille et la Loi sur l'exploitation sexuelle d'enfants et la traite de personnes

Bill 43 – The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act; Loi sur la communication de renseignements pour la protection contre la violence de la part d'un partenaire intime

Bill 45 – The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2022; Loi d'exécution du budget de 2022 et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité

Bill 46 – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route

Bill 208 – The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants

Bill 233 – The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ingénieurs et les géoscientifiques

Bill 240 – The Jewish Heritage Month Act; Loi sur le Mois du patrimoine juif

Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): In His Majesty's name, the Acting Administrator of the Province of Manitoba assents to these bills.

Her Honour was then pleased to retire.

God Save the King was sung.

O Canada was sung.

Madam Speaker: The hour being past 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 15th or at the call of the Speaker.


 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, November 3, 2022

CONTENTS


Vol. 81b

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Committee Reports

Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development

Ninth Report

Smook  3671

Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs

Fourth Report

Micklefield  3672

Tabling of Reports

Lagimodiere  3673

Cullen  3673

Driedger 3673

Ministerial Statements

Remembrance Day

Stefanson  3673

Kinew   3674

Lamont 3675

Lung Cancer Awareness Month

Gordon  3676

Moses 3677

Gerrard  3677

Members' Statements

Community Safety Initiatives

Khan  3677

SABE Peace Walkers

Kinew   3678

Community Safety Initiatives

Morley-Lecomte  3679

Madison Supportive Housing Facility

Naylor 3679

Neurodiversity

Gerrard  3679

Oral Questions

Wait Time for Surgical Procedures

Kinew   3680

Stefanson  3680

Manitoba Hydro and Public Utilities Board

Kinew   3681

Stefanson  3681

Milk Price Increase

Kinew   3681

Stefanson  3682

Manitoba Hydro and Public Utilities Board

Kinew   3682

Stefanson  3682

Labour Dispute in Ontario

Lindsey  3682

Helwer 3682

Review of Provincial Parks in Manitoba

Naylor 3683

Wharton  3683

Post-Secondary Education

Moses 3684

Reyes 3684

Island Lake First Nations

Fontaine  3685

Guillemard  3685

Non-Disclosure Agreements

Lamont 3685

Gordon  3686

Goertzen  3686

COVID‑19 Pandemic

Gerrard  3686

Johnston  3686

Integrated Violent Offender Apprehension Unit

Cox  3687

Goertzen  3687

Manitoba Hydro and Public Utilities Board

Sala  3687

Friesen  3687

Economic Review of Bipole III and Keeyask

Sala  3688

Friesen  3688

Petitions

Hydro Rates

Kinew   3688

Louise Bridge

Maloway  3689

Health-Care Coverage

Moses 3689

Hydro Rates

Sala  3690

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(Continued)

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Report Stage amendments

Bill 43–The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act

Lamoureux  3691

Squires 3692

Concurrence and Third Readings

Bill 40–The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amendments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking Act

Squires 3693

Marcelino  3694

Lamoureux  3694

Bill 43–The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act

Squires 3694

Marcelino  3695

Lamoureux  3695

Gerrard  3696

Bill 46–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act

Piwniuk  3696

Wiebe  3697

Gerrard  3699

Committee of Supply

Chamber

Legislative Assembly  3700

Agriculture  3701

Municipal Relations 3701

Natural Resources and Northern Development 3701

Labour, Consumer Protection and Government Services 3702

Employee Pensions and Other Costs 3703

Manitoba Public Service Commission  3703

Committee Report

Micklefield  3703

Committee of Supply

Concurrence Motion  3703

Committee Report

Micklefield  3703

Concurrence Motion

Goertzen  3704

Supply Motion

Friesen  3704

Introduction of Bills

Bill 47–The Appropriation Act, 2022

Friesen  3704

Second Readings

Bill 47–The Appropriation Act, 2022

Friesen  3704

Questions

Wasyliw   3705

Friesen  3705

Lamont 3706

Gerrard  3706

Debate

Wasyliw   3708

Lamont 3710

Committee of the Whole

Bill 47–The Appropriation Act, 2022

Committee Report

Micklefield  3712

Concurrence and Third Readings

(Continued)

Bill 47–The Appropriation Act, 2022

Friesen  3712

Bill 13–The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act

Goertzen  3713

B. Smith  3713

Lamoureux  3715

Bill 14–The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act

Goertzen  3716

Sandhu  3717

Gerrard  3718

Bill 22–The Environment Amendment Act (Pesticide Restrictions)

Wharton  3719

Naylor 3719

Gerrard  3721

Bill 24–The Real Property Valuation Board and Related Amendments Act

Helwer 3723

Wiebe  3723

Gerrard  3725

Bill 36–The Manitoba Hydro Amendment and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act

Friesen  3726

Sala  3728

Lamont 3730

Royal Assent

Bill 47 – The Appropriation Act, 2022  3732

Bill 13 – The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act 3732

Bill 14 – The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment, Highway Traffic Amendment and Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act 3732

Bill 22 – The Environment Amendment Act (Pesticide Restrictions) 3732

Bill 24 – The Real Property Valuation Board and Related Amendments Act 3732

Bill 36 – The Manitoba Hydro Amendment and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act 3733

Bill 40 – The Hospitality Sector Customer Registry Act and Amendments to The Child and Family Services Act and The Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking Act 3733

Bill 43 – The Disclosure to Protect Against Intimate Partner Violence Act 3733

Bill 45 – The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2022  3733

Bill 46 – The Highway Traffic Amendment Act 3733

Bill 208 – The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act 3733

Bill 233 – The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act 3733

Bill 240 – The Jewish Heritage Month Act 3733