LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, March 14, 2024


The House met at 10 a.m.

The Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.

      We acknowledge we are gathered on Treaty 1 territory and that Manitoba is located on the treaty territories and ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg, Anishininewuk, Dakota Oyate, Denesuline and Nehethowuk nations. We acknowledge Manitoba is located on the Homeland of the Red River Métis. We acknowledge northern Manitoba includes lands that were and are the ancestral lands of the Inuit. We respect the spirit and intent of treaties and treaty making and remain committed to working in partner­ship with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people in the spirit of truth, reconciliation and collaboration.

      Please be seated.

      House busi­ness–orders of the day, private members' busi­ness.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' busi­ness

House Business

Mr. Derek Johnson (Official Opposition House Leader): Pursuant to rule 34(8), I am announcing that the private member's reso­lu­tion to be considered on the next Thursday of private members' busi­ness will be one put forward by the hon­our­able member for Portage la Prairie (MLA Bereza). Title of the reso­lu­tion is Calling on the Prov­incial Gov­ern­ment to Remove the Federal Carbon Tax on Agri­cul­ture.

      Also on House busi­ness, if we could call Bill 203, please.

The Speaker: It has been announced by the hon­our­able Op­posi­tion House Leader that, pursuant to rule 34(8), he is announcing that the private member's reso­lu­tion to be considered on the next Thursday of private members' busi­ness will be the one put forward by the honourable member for Portage la Prairie. The title of the reso­lu­tion is Calling on the Prov­incial Gov­ern­ment to Remove the Federal Carbon Tax on Agri­cul­ture.

* * *

Second Readings–Public Bills

Bill 203–The Occupiers' Liability Amendment Act

The Speaker: Further, it's been announced that we will now do second reading, Bill 203, The Occupiers' Liability Amend­ment Act.

Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Thank you and good morning, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      I move, seconded by the hon­our­able member for Interlake-Gimli (Mr. Johnson), that Bill 203, The Occupiers' Liability Amend­ment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Thank you.

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: Good morning, colleagues. Thank you very much and good morning, everyone.

      This parti­cular bill has been before the Legislature before as a gov­ern­ment bill last fall, so some members who were in the Chamber prior to the election might recall it, might have some memory of it. For many of the new members, of course they won't have a recollection of it, so I'll just give a brief description and move on to the question period.

      So, generally in Manitoba, we have what's called a limitation period that's governed under The Limitations Act. And what that essentially says is that causes of action, parti­cularly when it comes to civil matters, must be launched in a general way within two years of the occurrence of the issue or knowledge of the issue for the person who is bringing the suit.

      That general two-year limitation period has been extended to most causes. There were some changes when I was occupying the role of minister of Justice, there were some changes when previous ministers were occupying that role to ensure that there was more consistency, so that those who are looking to launch a civil case in parti­cular would know how long they have to launch that case.

      So that's the general rule when it comes to the limitation period. There are some exceptions, of course, but there's also exceptions on notification. One in parti­cular is under The Munici­pal Act, where when an individual is involved in what we'd often call a slip and fall related to snow and ice and, of course, in Manitoba that's no infrequent thing, where an individual might slip and fall and damage a hip or leg or any other sort of injury because of the snow and ice, they can also be under that two-year limitation period.

      But if they slip and fall on a munici­pal property or munici­pal sidewalk or a munici­pal infra­structure, then they have to give notice to that munici­pal body. I believe in Manitoba it's within 10 days or so. It's different across every juris­dic­tion in Canada. But where there is consistency is that in every juris­dic­tion in Canada essentially, if you have that slip and fall on a munici­pal property, you have a limited period of time to notify the munici­pality that you've been injured.

      And I don't know all of the sort of back­ground and rationale why munici­palities put that in place, or the gov­ern­ment, of course, prov­incial gov­ern­ment, put in place under The Munici­pal Act. My guess is that there was a few different reasons. Certainly one of those reasons–thank you–certainly one of those reasons would have been to ensure that whatever the cause of that slip and fall was, it could be addressed, it could be fixed to protect others who might also then be on that sidewalk or on that munici­pal property. So that makes a lot of sense.

      Of course, the other reason might be that if you weren't aware of the slip and fall for two years until the limitation was about to expire and somebody launched a case, then whatever collection of evidence, videos or those sort of things which are more common these days, probably wouldn't be available.

      So munici­palities are–already have that in place, where the person who is looking to launch a case has to provide notice to the munici­pality and then they still have those two years to actually launch the case.

      But on private property, that's not the case. There isn't the notification period in Manitoba. There is in other provinces, but there isn't in our province. Excuse me, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      So this parti­cular piece of legis­lation would put in a notification period. It's not as strict as The Munici­pal Act for munici­palities, but it provides that within 60 days of an individual who's suffered a slip and fall because of snow and ice on a private property, they would have to notify the occupier that this has hap­pened, which would allow, then, that property to take some measures to fix the issue or to maybe be more diligent in terms of snow removal or ice removal, which would protect others who are also accessing that property.

* (10:10)

      So I really see this as an issue of safety and ensuring that individuals in Manitoba who might be subject to these sort of injuries, that they can be pre­vented. But it doesn't, then, prohibit somebody from launching that case within two years.

      Just as a way of back­ground, because it's often, you know, the question is often asked what are sort of the elements of a case when somebody brings this forward. And my friend from Fort Garry or others might have more infor­ma­tion, certainly more ex­per­ience on this, but I'm speaking to those who often do these cases.

      You need to, first, be able to prove that the occupier was aware of the potential risks. So if you're the individual who has suffered a slip and fall, you would have to prove that the individual, who was the occupier of the property on which you suffered your injury, they–that they were aware of that potential risk.

      You'd have to prove that they neglected to take the ap­pro­priate measures to address that risk. And of course, there's all sorts of case law on what would constitute neglect in that case. And then, of course, prove that the person was injured as a result of that parti­cular slip and fall.

      There's also a duty on the individual who has been injured to ensure that they were taking care of their own sort of well-being, that they weren't intoxicated or other sort of–any–some­thing else that they would have put them­selves into harm or would have been somehow respon­si­ble for the injury.

      So I believe that this is, you know, a relatively straight­for­ward change. It makes sense in terms of provi­ding pro­tec­tion for individuals who might otherwise become victims, and then gives op­por­tun­ity for the occupiers of the property to make the changes by provi­ding that notice.

      It doesn't prohibit an individual from bringing the case. They still have the two years to actually bring the case, to formulate their case. And I know sometimes that takes time.

      It provides a little bit more consistency between munici­pal properties and private properties so it doesn't have that stark distinction.

      So I would hope, in this parti­cular case–I know we're early in the spring session, so there are several months yet before this bill would need to pass. We would still have 'til the fall. I–what I would ask the gov­ern­ment to do is to have some con­sul­ta­tion with others in the industry who might be doing snow removal or occupiers or others who are in the legal field, to just get some infor­ma­tion about it, to see what their perspective is. I think they'll find some support within those various sectors. And then look to move this before the end of session. I don't see this, obviously, as a political bill. It's more of a function sort of bill and probably more of an oversight that it–maybe it hasn't been done in the past.

      Again, it appeared before the Legislature last fall, and there was an op­por­tun­ity to pass it. But I recog­nize it was intro­duced pretty late in that last session, so I don't ascribe any blame to any parti­cular political party. There was a relatively short runway. This is a much longer runway, so I hope that there's an op­por­tun­ity to pass it this parti­cular session.

      Thank you very much, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 10 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the sponsoring member by any member in the following sequence: first question to be asked by a member from another party; this is to be followed by a rotation between the parties; each independent member may ask one question. And no question or answer may exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Mark Wasyliw (Fort Garry): I wonder if the member from Steinbach could explain that when he was the sponsoring MLA for this original bill on May 23, 2023, it was intro­duced but never brought to second reading. And that's a curious fact given that he was also the House leader at that time.

      So I'm wondering if the member can explain why his own gov­ern­ment didn't priorize this bill and why this–his own gov­ern­ment didn't make–take steps to actually pass this bill.

Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I thank my friend for that very non-partisan question.

      I was the gov­ern­ment House leader, I had con­ver­sa­tions with the now current Gov­ern­ment House Leader (MLA Fontaine), because we had a very short window about which bills they'd be willing to con­sider. And this wasn't one of them at the time.

Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Thank you to the member for Steinbach for bringing forward this im­por­tant piece of legis­lation.

      Can you explain the benefits of this legis­lation for us?

Mr. Goertzen: I thank my friend from Brandon West, who has a long and distinguished career in safety for individuals in Manitoba and beyond. And I think this bill is really about safety.

      Providing a notice to an occupier where there's been a slip and fall will allow the occupier to make corrections, perhaps, to their property, if necessary, and ensure that other Manitobans or others who are on that property don't suffer the same injury or a similar type of injury.

Mr. Wasyliw: My friend from Steinbach talks about preventing–this is a safety bill, but, you know, right now is the freeze and thaw period of our weather. Things are melting and at night they freeze and you have icy sidewalks; 60 days from now there won't be any snow or ice at all.

      How does this prevent injury and danger, given our weather?

Mr. Goertzen: Well, my friend has become a weatherman now, and he knows that there won't be any snow or ice in 60 days, and I certainly hope that that's true. But given Manitoba weather, one never knows.

      How it would prevent–I take his question seriously, though, and I think he posed it in a serious way. How it would prevent injury is by–but now there is no notice that's provided to the occupier, potentially for two years, when there's an injury on snow or on ice. By providing that notice, it allows the occupier then to make a change, maybe to ensure that there's better snow removal or ice removal, so that others would be safe.

      Now, in the middle of summer, of course, where hope we won't have any ice, but I suspect that winter will come again at some point in the future.

Mr. Balcaen: Again, I appreciate this information for not only us here in the House but all Manitobans that are watching at this time, understanding this bill.

      So my question for the member from Steinbach is: Why are you bringing forward this legislation?

Mr. Goertzen: I thank the member for that very good question. Is a–previously mentioned, I think it would provide greater safety for Manitobans by allowing occupiers to get earlier notice of challenges or issues, maybe, around their property. They could then address those issues and ensure that they are safe, if there need to be things that need to be addressed.

      I believe other provinces have already gone in this direction. And I think, in a very non-partisan and across-the-aisle way, we should be able to do this here in the province of Manitoba as well.

Mr. Wasyliw: Again, my friend from Steinbach talks about this being a safety measure. And I'm wondering why he would place the onus on the victims of some property owners' negligence to be the ones that are protecting private property.

      And what does he see the role of the property owner if–maintaining and actually keeping their prop­erty safe?

Mr. Goertzen: My friend will know, as he practises law currently–might even be doing so this afternoon, I don't know–but he'll know that there already exists an onus on occupiers to ensure that their properties are maintained to a certain standard. Some of that is, you know, legislated. Others, parts of that, is done through common law. But he already knows there exists a standard.

      This doesn't present any further onus, other than to provide notice to an individual that there has been a slip and fall, to allow there to be addressed. That's a pretty low bar, in terms of notice or in terms of liability, and that is already done under The Municipal Act. So he knows that for the majority of slips and falls under municipal property, that already happens.

Mr. Wasyliw: The notice provision in this act has been set at 60 days. I'm wondering if the member can explain why he picked 60 days, not 120, not 180.

      What was so magical about 60 and what's the policy reason behind?

Mr. Goertzen: I mean, it's certainly not magical. You do have to pick a day at some point and land on an actual bar in any of these sort of situations. This is similar to, I think, to what Ontario has. It's a longer period than is provided in–under The Municipal Act, I believe, for reporting for slip and falls on municipal property.

      So my friend, if he has, through his experience or other sug­ges­tions, if he believes it should be shorter or longer, I would be happy to sit down with him at  any time that he has time to discuss what that limitation should be.

* (10:20)

Ms. Jodie Byram (Agassiz): Thank you to the member from Steinbach for bringing this im­por­tant bill forward. This recognizes public safety and the–protecting the rights of Manitobans.

      Can you share with us, has this been done in other provinces, in other juris­dic­tions?

Mr. Goertzen: I want to thank my friend for her question. It has been done in other juris­dic­tions; the one, I think, that was most recently done, in Ontario. I understand that the Premier (Mr. Kinew) has a new, strong bond and friendship with the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford; I saw on Instagram. So I'm sure that he'll be able to reach across to his new best friend, Doug Ford, and explain, or talk about why this has worked well in Ontario and why it should be done in Manitoba.

Mr. Wasyliw: I wonder if the member can tell us who he consulted prior to bringing this bill forward today; if he spoke to consumer advocates or plaintiff lawyers, or medical com­mu­nity, or any seniors groups or groups that advocate for people with dis­abil­ities? I'm wondering if he could tell us who he actually spoke to.

Mr. Goertzen: There were a number of different con­sul­ta­tions that were held. Of course, you'll know that  some of the con­sul­ta­tions or back­ground work would've been done through, at that time, the De­part­ment of Justice, of course, because it was a gov­ern­ment bill.

      At one point, more recently, I've spoken to the heavy equip­ment and aggregate trucking association who believes that this would be an im­por­tant bill for safety.

Ms. Byram: Can you, member from Steinbach, share with us how this will enhance the safety for Manitobans?

Mr. Goertzen: Again, I thank my friend for that im­por­tant question. I know the members on this side of  the House, I can hear, in the theme of the ques­tion, they're very concerned about the safety of Manitobans.

      Again, if an individual who is owning a property doesn't have any sort of notice for two years that there have been issues on their property with ice or with snow, they don't really have the op­por­tun­ity, then, to address that parti­cular issue, which might leave others in jeopardy or in liberty of having the same sort of accidents.

      So this provides the op­por­tun­ity, then, for them to able to address it, while not taking away the op­por­tun­ity for litigation within the limitation period.

Mr. Wasyliw: I'm wondering if the member can tell us how this bill helps protect the rights of victims, who are the victims of negligent property owners?

Mr. Goertzen: Well, it certainly doesn't diminish their rights. My friend will know that the limitation period for filing a claim is two years. He might have ex­per­ience with that. That doesn't change. The lim­itation period for filing a claim would remain at two years.

      The only thing that this does is it puts a relatively small onus, in terms of notification that there's been a slip and fall, and that notification within 60 days. Again, if he has a sug­ges­tion in terms of a different timeline that he would think would be im­por­tant, I'd be happy to sit down with him at any time that he's actually available in the Legislature.

The Speaker: The time for questions has expired.

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

Mr. Mark Wasyliw (Fort Garry): The theme that my friend from Steinbach was trying to get across today was that somehow this is about public safety. With the greatest of respect, that is a completely dis­ingen­uous. This bill is not about public safety. In fact, it is about protecting the property interests of large landholding companies. And it has more to do with that than any regard or concern for Manitobans.

      And the timing of this legis­lation is very interesting because we are in the spring melt season. And just to, like, high­light how ridiculous my friend's submissions were to this Chamber, was that he would have us believe that the victim of negligence from a  property owner is–now has the respon­si­bility to protect other people from that property owner's negli­gence.

      Apparently, the property owner doesn't have any respon­si­bility to look after their property, maintain it properly and to monitor it so it doesn't actually become a hazard for people. Apparently, that's on the victims of that negligence to actually go out and police these circumstances.

      And, of course, there is a big problem, because if they don't get to it by the 60-day-notice mark, they are now barred from suing that negligent property owner. So this is very much a blame-the-victim-type bill.

      And what makes it even more ridiculous, and what is even more problematic, is the timelines on this. So apparently, you have 60 days to provide notice on the very spurious claim that somehow you will now tell the property owner to do the proper and respon­si­ble thing and to manage their property properly.

      Well, okay, it is now March 14. The snow is melting and then freezing at night. It is a treacherous walk to the Legislature in the morning. It's ice all over the place. And of course, you could slip and fall. Well, if you have 60 days to give notice, 60 days from now, there will not be any ice or snow anywhere in Manitoba. That is a very safe thing to say. And notifying the landlord at that point would do nothing to provide any sort of safety to anybody. The damage is done.

      But it does have a very different purpose. And when we talk about, you know, who is respon­si­ble here, who should bear the burden, we know that it has to be on the private property holder. They have a property. They're making money off of that property. They're inviting the public onto their property in order to make that money. They have a duty to maintain that property.

      So when they make a busi­ness decision, and these are choices. This isn't some act of God, these are choices made by companies to not properly pay for maintenance, not have the proper training for staff or have it adequately resourced so that their properties are maintained in a respon­si­ble and reasonable way so that these incidents don't occur.

      And the whole point of a civil lawsuit is to discipline a wayward private busi­ness owner who isn't putting the money in, who isn't taking the respon­si­bility seriously, who isn't resourcing these buildings properly and maintaining them properly so these accidents don't happen. And so the only recourse that a private citizen has is then to turn around and take that negligent property owner to court.

      And when they take that negligent property owner to court, some measure of justice happens because they now have to compensate for the harm that they in­ten­tionally caused. And it's in­ten­tional because of their negligence. It is in­ten­tional because they are allo­cating resources and making busi­ness decisions that caused this to occur.

      So what this legis­lation does is give them a huge leg-up. And it's very curious, because I'm wondering who's asking for this. Who believes that this is going to be in the public interest? We know that 'vany' vul­ner­able people, may–be it seniors, be it people with dis­abil­ities, are exceptionally prone to these type of incidents.

      And what this bill does is it actually prevents them from seeking justice. It actually hinders their access to justice. It creates a barrier that didn't exist before that they now have to get over.

      Most people don't know that you have 60 days to file a lawsuit. So somebody gets injured from an incident like this, they make take 60 days to heal. Nobody's thinking, well, I got to get a lawyer at this point.

      The other problem with this is if you have a long-term injury, it may not even show up 'til after 60 days. And of course, you didn't realize how bad things were. And some injuries, like concussions and other sort of strains and–in long-term illnesses may not appear for many months later.

      And what this bill will do will basically shut the door from those people getting justice. It will prevent them from being able to go and do some­thing about it. And it is not in the long-term interest of large property owners either, because if there is no account­ability, if  there is a way for them to basically ignore their respon­si­bilities to the larger com­mu­nity, what finan­cial incentive do they have to maintain their busi­nesses properly, to supervise and monitor those busi­nesses properly and actually maintain them in a responsible way?

* (10:30)

      They don't, because they know nobody is going to know about the 60-day period, that they're going to get away from having any sort of accountability because of the 60-day period, and they will never have to really worry about putting the money in to make sure their properties meet the standards that they require.

      Now, this was very much a pattern from the previous failed PC government. They spent the last seven years trying to diminish the rights of Manitobans. In fact, we heard a little bit. In 2021, they brought in The Limitations Act that said, normally you have two years to file a lawsuit against someone, although there is a caveat there: there's a maximum cap of 15 years.

      And we argued, at that time, that that was unfair. That if you had somebody who, say, became ill because of industrial pollution or some type of environ­­mental factors like that, those type of injuries may not show up until decades later, and you would be barred by The Limitations Act.

      So again, there was no cry or hue for this. Nobody was calling out that we needed to give Manitobans less rights in the court, less access to the courts. But that's what the previous government delivered.

      They delivered bill 26 in 2021 too. I don't know if anyone remembers this in the Chamber. This is where the previous government actually capped human rights awards. You can only get $25,000 in damages for a human rights violation by a private company.

      Who does that? Who limits the remedies for human rights? Who says that, you know, you can violate somebody's rights in Manitoba, but it'll only cost you $25,000? But that's what the previous gov­ernment did.

      And, of course, bill 27 also came out in 2021, and that made it illegal for administrative bodies to hear constitutional questions. So you have a problem in front of a Manitoba provincial administrative board and your rights have been violated, you are not allowed in Manitoba now to seek remedy in that administrative panel. You have to go to the Court of King's Bench to get redress.

      And, of course, that raises costs and that makes it more expensive. And the more expensive and com­plicated you make things, the less people actually have access to justice.

      Now, we heard from my friend that they picked this sort of 60-day period out of the air. There is no policy reason, no rationale. It's just some figment of someone's imagination. There's no reason why it has to be that low.

      So what I've heard is concerning. I don't think this member has made the case that this bill is remotely in the public interest. Saying that it will somehow improve safety is disingenuous at best; it absolutely won't.

      And what it does is it removes the rights of Manitobans. It does not–it restricts what Manitobans can do and their access to judgment and justice.

      So with those brief comments, I will thank everyone.

      Thank you.

The Speaker: Are there no–the honourable minister for climate and–honourable Minister for Environment and Climate Change. Sorry.

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Environment and Climate Change): Good morning, everyone.

      This bill brought forward by the opposition PCs is further evidence of what Manitobans know to be true and why Manitobans voted them so resoundingly out of office, and that's that the Manitoba's Progressive Conservatives are not at all progressive.

      They are out of touch with everyday Manitobans. They are unconcerned with and do not represent the best interests of everyday Manitobans. And they cannot be trusted to make the rules and the laws that serve the best interests of average Manitobans. This bill put forward by the member from Steinbach, the former interim leader of their party, proves this, Honourable Speaker.

      Simply put, this bill aims to make it harder for injured Manitobans to find justice and hold those responsible accountable.

      Why would they do this, Hon­our­able Speaker? Whose interests does this bill really serve? This bill doesn't help Manitobans injured due to no fault of their own. This bill doesn't help respon­si­ble property owners: landlords, contractors or busi­nesses that act reasonably in keeping their property safe and free from risks.

      This bill aims to help and shield irresponsible, maybe even reckless or negligent actors, and makes it harder for injured parties to be made whole. I know that Manitobans would agree that this is not a good bill, and that no one acting in the best interests of the average Manitoban would support it.

      The law in Manitoba provides that occupiers of a premises–again, property owners, landlords, con­tractors, busi­nesses–owe a duty of care to Manitobans, such that they have to take all reasonable steps to ensure that Manitobans will be safe while on their premises. Slipping, tripping or falling on a premises does not automatically entitle Manitobans to bring a claim against that occupier. The occupier must have acted unreasonably.

      Usually, that means not addressing some­thing that they knew, or ought to have known, would be unsafe. Those occupiers who act unreasonably, who neglect to resolve hazards that lead to innocent parties being injured, deserve to be held accountable–I think we could all agree. Why would we want to restrict that access to justice for the average Manitoban?

      Hon­our­able Speaker, as someone who has had the great privilege of studying and practising law here in Manitoba, I am all too familiar with the theme of access to justice. And when we talk about access to justice, Hon­our­able Speaker, which is, again, a major concern in the legal com­mu­nity and should be a major concern in this House for us as legis­lators, what we're really talking about is the lack of access to justice that the average person has. And this is a reality. Every­body knows this.

      A common and really sad and con­cern­ing joke amongst lawyers–and I heard this often when I was practising law–is that today not even lawyers can afford lawyers. The justice system is in­creasingly complex, 'increasicly' technical, in­creasingly adver­sarial and, therefore, in­creasingly and exponentially expensive. You either have to be amongst the wealthy to afford legal services or you really have to be ex­per­iencing almost abject poverty to be able to qualify for legal aid services.

      There are many strong voices in the legal com­mu­nity and the social justice com­mu­nity that are working to make progress here in Manitoba on improving access to justice. And I am so proud of those advocates and that work. It's im­por­tant work. And we in this House should aim to improve access to justice in Manitoba, in the interest of justice, in the interest of fairness and in the interest of equality.

      Unfor­tunately, Hon­our­able Speaker, in bringing forward this bill, the op­posi­tion, the failed PC gov­ern­ment, seeks to only make it harder for Manitobans to access that justice and be compensated for injuries that are no fault of their own.

      My learned friend from Steinbach knows this. He knows this reality. He knows the issues of access to justice. He has studied law, and he understands exactly what this bill would do and what it's aimed to do. It further burdens injured Manitobans, people who are already suffering. It would restrict their access to justice and it would protect guilty parties.

      On this side of the House, we care about the health and safety of Manitobans above all else. We are  the party of health care. We are the party of workers. We are the party of the average Manitoban, Manitobans who deserve to be safe, who deserve to be free from risk, free from un­neces­sary, foreseeable, preventable injuries. That's what a claim would result in.

      And if, heaven forbidding, Hon­our­able Speaker, a Manitoban is injured and if they can scrape together the money to hire a lawyer or if they can somehow figure out how to navigate small claims court, which is in­creasingly hard to do without a lawyer–I myself have been hired to represent paying clients in small claims court, some­thing that's designed to improve access to justice–if those injured Manitobans can somehow figure out a way to access the courts, they should not have ad­di­tional barriers in their way, barriers designed only to protect a guilty party.

* (10:40)

      And that's what this bill does, Hon­our­able Speaker. The op­posi­tion will argue that this bill includes an exception provision, but I would argue that that provision is entirely too vague and wide open to inter­pre­ta­tion. The exception to the rule is where the injured party, quote, has reasonable excuse, and the defendants are not prejudiced by the lack of notice.

      What is a reasonable excuse? We don't know. That decision would be left up to the judge of the day to decide.

      And we can also foresee that this prejudice argument would be open to defendants and that the bar for prejudice is not exceedingly high. Prejudice simply means that, in some way, your legal rights have been impacted. Well, Hon­our­able Speaker, this bill itself causes prejudice, not to the bad actor, the negligent, reckless party that caused the injury. This bill itself will cause prejudice to the innocent, injured party.

      Placing a time-limited need to provide notice to the occupier could easily prejudice an injured party and, in fact, would dis­propor­tion­ately prejudice those that are already the most marginalized and vul­ner­able in our province: those with limited resources, those without access or under­standing of the legal process.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, injured parties deserve access to justice. And those who ignore what they know to be safety risks present on their property deserve to be held accountable. That's why we believe, on this side of the House, and that's what they seek to make harder on that side of the House.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, the op­posi­tion has a history, a proven track record, of not acting in the best interests of Manitobans. We saw this from their health-care cuts, their cuts to our edu­ca­tion system and the utter decimation of my de­part­ment, the De­part­ment of Environ­ment and Climate Change, which has been left really decimated, understaffed and unable to do the im­por­tant work of protecting the environ­ment here in Manitoba.

      But it's a new day in Manitoba. And thankfully, Manitobans have elected a new gov­ern­ment, one that puts the health and safety of Manitobans above all else. We've elected a gov­ern­ment and an Attorney General that is already hard at work to improve access to justice in our province. We've elected a gov­ern­ment that will protect the vul­ner­able and the privileged alike, some­thing we didn't see for seven years under the previous gov­ern­ment.

      We've elected a gov­ern­ment that will always put the best interests of everyday Manitobans at the forefront of what we do and how we legis­late. This bill, Hon­our­able Speaker, must not be supported by this Chamber, and Manitobans should question the in­ten­tions of anyone that would support this bill designed to impede access to justice.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I just wanted to begin this morning by complimenting our–my colleagues who have spoken so far. I'm just con­sistently impressed with the work that they do to take seriously all the legis­lation that comes forward and to put such thoughtful words on the record.

      And, you know, it's pretty awesome to have two lawyers, practising lawyers that can come forward and give their ex­per­ience. And I think that's unique and not some­thing we've had for a very long time, in this Legislature, actual practising lawyers that can speak to specific issues that they see with legis­lation that comes forward.

      And this legis­lation is certainly legis­lation that would impact their world, would impact their sphere of expertise. And so it's im­por­tant for us to listen very carefully to their words and to parti­cularly high­light, I think, the words that both members brought forward about access to justice being one of the most im­por­tant elements that we need to consider when con­sid­ering legis­lation like this.

      It's been on my mind, lately, Hon­our­able Speaker, simply because my–not necessarily the access to justice, but spe­cific­ally the issues brought forward in this bill with regards to personal injury.

      My father‑in-law just–was just about to get ready to go on a trip, was very excited. He was getting on a plane the next day. We had a couple snowstorms here in the province a little while ago, and he decides–he's all excited–well, I'm just going to make sure I get my driveway nice and clean before I jump on the plane and I head off out of here and enjoy some R and R.

      And wouldn't you know it, gets out there with the snow blower, hits a patch of ice, falls and breaks his hip–shatters his hip–and ends up in hospital. And so, we've been spending time with him. He's on the mend. He's getting the care that he needs and thanks to all the medical staff at Concordia, at St. Boniface, who've been so great to help him out.

      But, it just–it really put a fine point this morning, when we're talking about a bill that impacts people like him, who may have had a slip and fall but not on their own property; in this case, on a third party, on a private property. And what occurred to me was just that the impact, sort of the imme­diate impact, of having an injury like this. It just throws your life into chaos. It throws your–all your plans and all of your ex­pect­a­tions about what you're going to be doing totally into chaos.

      And so, you know, the first thing we think about is, obviously, is getting the care that the individual needs, as a family, coming together and supporting them. And I got to say that, you know, again, that wouldn't have been applicable in this case, but it was not even, you know, anywhere on our minds about, sort of a fault or liability or any sort of legal sort of exercise.

      What we're thinking about first is getting this person the care that they need and then ensuring that we understand what the longer-term implications are. In the case of my father-in-law, he's had other medical issues. And so we know that we need to get him better, we need to get his hip healed up, but we don't actually know what the longer-term implications are going to be.

      So the reason why I mention this is, again, just under­standing, kind of, how this can impact some­body who might have had a slip and fall and isn't thinking imme­diately about what lawyer to call. I don't think that's where most Manitobans' mind goes. But under­standing that if there are going to be longer-term implications, that they want to make sure that they're getting the compensation to ensure that they can heal and they can get better.

      And so, where we're talking about a specific time­frame, this comes into play and, you know, the bill that's before the Legislature has a timeline of 60 days. The member opposite himself concedes that 60 days is an arbitrary number, a number that I'm not sure where it came from. I know that the legis­lation that was brought forward in Ontario certainly is at the 60‑day mark, and so they may have done con­sul­ta­tions.

      I know that the minister opposite, or the member opposite who was a minister when he brought this forward the first time, spe­cific­ally said he did not consult with the medical com­mu­nity. He didn't consult with the legal profession to get back­ground on this. So I do think that there is certainly some work that needs to be done, and I'm very excited to take this back and to go and to reach out to those folks in the medical profession to understand what does 60 days look like in terms of healing.

      Again, my father-in-law: a hip, a shattered hip. At 60–at the 60-day mark, is that when we can under­stand what the long-term implications are or do we need to look at some­thing longer than that?

      So I think the member opposite has said he's not stuck on 60 days, that he's willing to look at amend­ments or different timeframes. So I think that's the place that we want to start with this legis­lation. I think that's a good way to look at it.

      But I think it's all about the con­sul­ta­tion piece that, I think, is very, very im­por­tant because we're looking out for the individual. We're not looking out for, you know, it's for one group over the other. We're looking out for those who have the least ability to understand the implications of a slip and fall.

      But the member opposite does mention that he has consulted with one group and that is with industry, and so, you know, that's an im­por­tant group to consult with. I know that our Minister of Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services (MLA Naylor) has taken the time to do that work, has talked with the stake­holders, has met with them, has understood their concerns.

      And the member opposite may have heard just a few times about this economic horse, that our side of the House has been working so hard to make sure is in good shape, so that we can pull that social cart, so that we can do the good work in health care and edu­ca­tion and so many other de­part­ments.

* (10:50)

      He's heard all about that horse, but he also knows that the horse was underfed under the previous gov­ern­ment, that it was missing a shoe and, you know, it had lost its way. It was wandering aimlessly across the province of Manitoba.

      We're doing every­thing we can to support small busi­ness, to support medium-size busi­ness, to support the economy, to build and grow the economy. And so we want to work with those who have done that work here in the province. And that's why our minister has met with the–with stake­holders. But we want to consider all elements and we want to consider all stake­holders when it comes to im­por­tant legis­lation like this.

      You know, it surprises me that the member opposite is concerned about insurance premiums, about what it costs for busi­nesses to operate in Manitoba. I know other juris­dic­tions have made these moves and made these changes. And so I ask him–and I hope that he's done this work–to give us a juris­dic­tional scan, the idea of what exactly–insurance premiums have gone down in a place like Ontario. I think two years now they've had this legis­lation. He can give us some analysis that shows the insurance premiums have lowered and given busi­nesses that op­por­tun­ity to grow.

      We want that kind of op­por­tun­ity here in Manitoba, so that's what we're doing. We want to make sure that we're working with munici­palities, that we're listening to them, in a way that the previous gov­ern­ment never did. Of course, we know when they came to the table in the past, they said freeze, cut, disrespect every single year for almost eight years under the previous gov­ern­ment.

      So there was lots of areas that we're now–we're cleaning up the mess. We're trying to get us back on the right track. And if the member brings forward legis­lation–again, I don't think he's answered the question why, as Gov­ern­ment House Leader, he wouldn't bring this forward. He wouldn't actually get this passed when he was in gov­ern­ment. He knows at the tail end, the dying days of the Stefanson gov­ern­ment, it was dark days through­out the province, but there was op­por­tun­ities for us to work together.

      In fact, as legis­lators, we said–we put down our swords in many cases. We got good legis­lation passed that was, you know, maybe, you might argue, wasn't exactly groundbreaking legis­lation, but it was legis­lation we could all agree on. And so if there was an op­por­tun­ity to amend this legis­lation, to bring the op­posi­tion at that time in and to give more infor­ma­tion, we certainly would have been excited to do that.

      But again, the member opposite didn't prioritize that. And nor should he have. I think he should have been very concerned about his seat and his colleagues' seats and about the future of their gov­ern­ment and trying to turn things around at the very end as they were off the rails so poorly. And, you know, that's certainly where we were focused.

      But again, good legis­lation is an im­por­tant part of what we can do here. So I'm so glad that we have members on this side who are willing to stand up, to put words on the record, to actually talk about the importance of this for their com­mu­nities and for all Manitobans. And if there's a way that we can do this that brings in all parties, that makes sure that access to justice, that safety for all Manitobans, is the primary focus, then I certainly welcome that work that can be done.

      I ask that the member opposite take the time to provide the Chamber with those ad­di­tional pieces of infor­ma­tion. And let's get to work on keeping Manitobans safe.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

MLA David Pankratz (Waverley): I am happy to put some words on the record for this bill here today. And I'd like to wish everybody in the Chamber a very happy Pi Day today. It is March 14th: 3.141592, Pi. It is a–it's the food as well as the mathematical constant, so it's an exciting day here in the Legislature.

      So I just want to go over, quickly, some of the issues we're speaking about today. So under the amend­ment to The Occupiers' Liability Act, notice of a personal injury claim related to snow or ice on private property must be given within 60 days after that injury occurred. The notice also would have to be given to the occupier of that property or a contractor engaged to remove snow or ice on the property. And the notice would also have to be given to one of them is–notice to everyone who may be subject to the claim.

      And then also, it says here the 60-day notice period does not apply in cases of injuries resulting in  death, or if a court determines that there was a reasonable excuse. So I think that that's an im­por­tant exclusion from this as well.

      You know, it actually–it's–it kind of reminds me of a personal story that I'd like to tell. My great-grandfather was a real pillar in the com­mu­nity. He actually emigrated from Russia in the 1920s from Molotschna, a Mennonite colony, so he faced a fair bit of per­secution in Russia, and they came over.

      He ended up becoming a pastor and he led his com­mu­nity for a number of years. He started a family here in Canada. And I actually–I have a lot of really great memories driving out to see him–they lived in Saskatoon–and the family that we have there. I'd show up. His daughter, my grandmother, would meet us at the door. We'd have–it would smell like roast in the house because she knew we'd been travelling all day, and, you know, root beer floats, the whole thing. We'd sit down, listen to some records, usually blue grass or quack grass bands, together. It was excellent.

      And, ultimately, what I'm trying to sort of portray here is that, you know, this is an individual and im­por­tant person that's–has an im­por­tant history and people that cared about him, and a com­mu­nity that really meant a lot to him. So he spent quite a few–he actually, in fact, now that I think of it, too, he was one of the first–the people who started CMU, the Mennonite uni­ver­sity here in Manitoba, and was chair of that board for quite a number of years. So you can imagine there was a lot of love for this person in the com­mu­nity.

      So, unfor­tunately, there is a sad story here, that relates to this bill, spe­cific­ally. In his 80s, he was walking up some stairs and he slipped and fell down the stairs, and ultimately, he ended up passing away due to this. So, it's sad, it's deeply sad. It was a really trying time for the family and for the com­mu­nity.

      And what I'm saying here is, I want to make sure that when we bring legis­lation forward, here in the Chamber, that we're really thinking about the individuals that it could affect, right? So this 60‑day idea: does this give families enough time? I know there's an exclusion spe­cific­ally for death, and I ap­pre­ciate that. I think that that's really im­por­tant to note here, so I understand. I'm more painting the picture that, you know, you could have a really serious injury that affects you long term but doesn't necessarily–and I've seen this in my ex­per­ience as  a  fire­fighter and paramedic as well. It doesn't necessarily rear its head until later on in your life.

      So if we look at this and we think of my great-grandfather, and then we think of some of the patients that I've had the privilege of treating here, in Winnipeg, as well, with Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service, I am just concerned that it doesn't necessarily protect the people that we really want to be protecting with a bill like this. And maybe causes more barriers for folks like this.

      I actually, now that I'm speaking of it, I recall a time, it was the middle of winter, freezing cold day. It was, actually, it was -40° with the wind chill. So, a fair bit of ice and snow and ground cover that is really difficult to deal with. And I know you can often deal with it a number of different ways. You can use beet juice, in fact. I think my grandmother, the daughter of the great-grandfather who passed a way, taught me that. You can use beet juice to deal with ice, so–else that could be some­thing that owners could possibly use.

      But unfor­tunately, on this day we got a call to a woman's house, she was in her 70s, she was going out to try to clear that snow and she fell. She fell down, she slipped and she was a renter, and she told me that typically, what would happen is people would come and clear the snow for her. But they weren't coming on that day, so she had gone out herself to try to do it.

      So my concern here, again, we get to this call, you know, and a big part of my job that I loved as a fire­fighter was actually connecting with the people that we were treating. So there was a lot of times when we were waiting with the patient. We would package them up, make sure that every­thing was safe and secure before we were going to be taking them to the hospital.

      And, you know, on this occasion, it was freezing cold outside and she said, you know, I'm just not sure how to go forward now with this. And this was even before we had dealt with her injuries, com­pletely, to be honest. So how could she start thinking about perhaps, you know, what some of the reper­cussions of this would be down the line.

      So we eventually got her ready to go to the hospital. And the ambulance came, and she went–I didn't know–this is the problem with my job, I don't necessarily get closure to some of these cases that we deal with. So, about four months later, unfor­tunately, we were called back to this same person. The same woman called 911 again. And–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      When this matter is before the House again, the hon­our­able member for Waverley will have four minutes remaining.

* (11:00)

Resolutions

The Speaker: The hour is now 11 a.m. and time for private members' reso­lu­tions.

      The reso­lu­tion before us this morning is the reso­lu­tion put forward by the member for Riding Mountain.

      Therefore be it resolved that the Legis­lative–

      The hon­our­able member for Riding Mountain.

Res. 4–Protecting Lake Winnipeg from Sewage Pollution

Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): I move, seconded by the MLA for Interlake-Gimli,

THAT the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to expedite the funding and timeline of repairs to the Fort Garry Bridge sewer crossing and further col­lab­o­rate with the City of Winnipeg to develop a com­pre­hen­sive master plan to upgrade and rebuild the city sewer and wastewater infra­structure systems to prevent environ­mental catastrophes and provide for a long-term sus­tain­able future.

The Speaker: It has been announced by hon­our­able member–it has been moved by the hon­our­able member for Riding Mountain, seconded by the hon­our­able member for Interlake-Gimli (Mr. Johnson), that

WHEREAS for more than two weeks in February, 230 million liters of raw sewage spilled unabated from the Fort Garry Bridge sewer interceptor crossing in the City of Winnipeg into the north Red River and Lake Winnipeg; and

WHEREAS the Provincial Government's response to this escalating environmental crisis lacked the necessary urgency, as it failed to promptly and transparently communicate the incident to down­stream communities; and

WHEREAS it was revealed in the media that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change was unaware of the crisis and its severity until she was informed by representatives of Treaty One Nations; and

WHEREAS the discharge of untreated sewage into waterways by municipalities is illegal both in Manitoba and across Canada; and

WHEREAS the City of Winnipeg is undertaking expensive upgrades to renew and modernize its wastewater infrastructure; and

WHEREAS the estimated cost to replace the faulty infrastructure responsible for February's sewage spill is $96 million; and

WHEREAS there is a projected two-year timeline before construction on the replacement infrastructure will commence; and

WHEREAS Manitobans prioritize the protection of their water and Lake Winnipeg from pollution; and

WHEREAS Winnipeg's waterways are Manitoba's waterways, and the Red River, Lake Winnipeg, and the Hudson Bay watershed are vital sources of drinking water, sustenance, and recreation for all Manitobans, including First Nation, Metis, and Inuit communities.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to expedite the funding and timeline for repairs to the Fort Garry Bridge sewer crossing and further col­lab­o­rate with the City of Winnipeg to develop a com­pre­hen­sive master plan to upgrade and rebuild the city sewer and wastewater infra­structure systems to prevent environ­mental catastrophes and provide for a long-term sus­tain­able future.

Mr. Nesbitt: It is certainly my pleasure to get up here this morning and talk about a disastrous spill from–that happened between February 7 and 23 that allowed 228 million litres of raw sewage to flow into the Red River from the Fort Garry Bridge sewer interceptor crossing in the city of Winnipeg into the–and the Red River flowing into Lake Winnipeg.

      Now, this affects certainly the city of Winnipeg, the Red River within the city, but also all the downstream effects. My colleagues on this side of the House, the member for Interlake-Gimli, the member for Red River North (Mr. Wharton) and the member for Selkirk (Mr. Perchotte) have all had con­stit­uents talk to them about this spill and are gravely concerned about the amount of sewage that is in the Red River and ultimately in Lake Winnipeg.

      As I said, this spill began as the result of a pair of pipes failing underneath the Red River. And the per­petual flow of untreated sewage continued until the City of Winnipeg set up a temporary bypass system. However, this was too late. The damage had already been done and the sewage is there and there is no going back to prevent the issue from the begin­ning.

      Now, the Red River plays a vital role in ensuring the health of Manitoba's waterways, flowing over 175 kilometres in this province, from its link with the Pembina River near Emerson all the way to Lake Winnipeg and eventually into Hudson Bay.

      In this House, we must recog­nize this spill does not just affect Winnipeg, but further affects in­cred­ibly im­por­tant com­mu­nities here in Manitoba. Like I said, Lockport, Selkirk and the Interlake. This spill also affects more than 14 First Nation, Inuit and Métis com­mu­nities, including the Brokenhead First Nation and Peguis First Nation who live and rely on or near the Red River or Lake Winnipeg.

      We must also recog­nize that this horrific spill also poses major threats to each of the streams, rivers and other waterways across the province that it meets, including the Nelson River, Pembina River, Roseau River, the Assiniboine River, many others, before ultimately draining into Lake Winnipeg.

      It's imperative that we understand the fact that the prov­incial gov­ern­ment has the obligation to protect our waterways and Lake Winnipeg from pollution–some­thing this NDP gov­ern­ment is failing to do. [interjection]

      Now the member from Transcona is heckling me here. Let me continue and let me tell what didn't happen here in February.

      So, as I said, this spill poses major threats to Indigenous groups, killing fish, changing ecosystems and removing the necessities that the many groups who use Lake Winnipeg–and also preventing them from exercising their treaty rights. Chief Gordon Bluesky of the Brokenhead First Nation said his members fish on Lake Winnipeg. He said no one from the City or Province, I say no one, reached out to him to inform him about the spill, and that he told the minister about the leakage, of which she seemed unaware.

      Daniel Gladu Kanu with the Lake Winnipeg Indigenous Collective said, and I quote, there are multiple times a year, I am reminded from fishers and people from the community just how they've come to distrust the lake, in a way that we never did before.

      We don't need to wait for a crisis like this to be horrified by what we're putting into the rivers. It's happening every single day, she said.

      Now, Manitoba's waterways are certainly home to some of the most beautiful, clean and freshest water in all of North America. It is–and it is imperative that the NDP takes steps to ensure our waters remain  that way. Lake Winnipeg, often referred to as the great lake of the West, holds sig­ni­fi­cant ecological, economic and cultural sig­ni­fi­cance. This vital piece of our province helps support eco­systems inherently valuable to our com­mu­nities and is the world's third largest reservoir, generating hydro­electric power for much of the province.

      To repeat the comments from the stake­holders, Hon­our­able Speaker, we do not need to wait for a crisis like this bill to occur to act. We do not need to wait to be horrified by events such as this to recog­nize that what we are putting into the rivers end up in Lake Winnipeg, and removing the natural advantages that it provides.

      The environ­ment minister said herself, and I quote, Lake Winnipeg is a jewel of our province, and we, certainly, on this side of the House agree with that. Yet the gov­ern­ment is not acting and avoided taking respon­si­bility on this matter by saying that there is no require­ment in the environ­mental act for licensed author­ities to tell affected com­mu­nities there has been a severe incident.

      The NDP must act now to prevent other aging sewer pipes, not just in Winnipeg, but all across Manitoba, from spilling and causing increased pollu­tion into other vital waterways.

      Councillor Russ Wyatt here in Winnipeg recog­nizes this, and he put forward a motion at City Hall calling on the Province to fine the City $4  for every litre spilled, which would add up to $900 million in fines.

      There has to be penalties on the City of Winnipeg that are severe that acts as a deterrent to future spills, said Wyatt, because right now the City of Winnipeg is not taking this seriously.

      On this side of the House, we're not advocating for fines like this, we're advocating for help from the gov­ern­ment for the City to do the necessary repairs to aging infra­structure. And this same sense of account­ability that Russ Wyatt has needs to be seen from the NDP Environ­ment Minister, who is respon­si­ble for the health of Lake Winnipeg and all of our waterways.

      Mr. Hon­our­able Speaker, this gov­ern­ment did not act. This gov­ern­ment did not show urgency. This gov­ern­ment did not promptly, or transparently com­muni­cate the incident to downstream com­mu­nities. Instead of taking these measures, this gov­ern­ment waited as the escalating environ­mental crisis continued and poured millions of litres into the Red River each day, for weeks.

      Marcus Chambers, the deputy mayor of the City of Winnipeg, supports this notion of taking action and I quote, preserving the cleanliness of the Red River is imperative to mitigate the adverse impacts on Lake Winnipeg's health. Adopting a watershed-based approach that integrates science, policy and com­mu­nity involvement can facilitate holistic manage­ment strategies to mitigate pollution and enhance eco-structure resilience.

      During his term in office, he's said he's been appointed to the Red River Basin Com­mis­sion and can attest to all the initiatives underway towards this shared priority. But what did the NDP do? They gave the City $10 million and talking about and strength­ening the environ­mental act. That's not going to fix sewer pipes.

      In 2002, we had the worst sewage spill in Winnipeg history. Under this–the previous NDP gov­ern­ment, where 427 million litres of untreated sewage flowed into the Red River and eventually, Lake Winnipeg. And that originated from a mechanical failure out of the North End Sewage Treatment Plant.

      Fast forward to last month and we see history 'peating itself. The recent spill with 238 million litres was the second largest in history, again, under the NDP gov­ern­ment. This spill is going to pose a detrimental effect to the health of Lake Winnipeg, now, and into the future. And everyone that uses it for recreation and sustenance, Hon­our­able Speaker.

* (11:10)

      I just don't understand why this gov­ern­ment is not listening to experts who are telling them directly that more must be done to prevent increased levels of phosphorus from entering the lake. The problem here is that the NDP gov­ern­ment seems to have the attitude of I'll deal with it when it becomes a problem. That's just not going to work for Lake Winnipeg, Hon­our­able Speaker.

An Honourable Member: Or they'll blame the farmers.

Mr. Nesbitt: Or, as my hon­our­able friend from Portage la Prairie says, they'll bring–blame the farmers. Like, let's blame the hog producers, you know, as they've done in the past.

      With all this evidence that I'm talking about today and that we've seen and heard about for the last couple of months, it's imperative that this Assembly recog­nize the importance of this reso­lu­tion today and take steps to ensure Lake Winnipeg does not become a dead lake.

      We must hold this gov­ern­ment to account for Manitoba citizens today and Manitoba citizens tomorrow. And on this side of the House, we're urging the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to expedite the funding and timeline of repairs to the Fort Garry bridge sewer crossing and further col­lab­o­rate with the City to develop a com­pre­hen­sive master plan to upgrade and rebuild the city's sewer and wastewater infra­structure systems to prevent environ­mental catastrophes like this one in February and provide for a long-term sus­tain­able future.

      This reso­lu­tion speaks to everyone: people who want to use the lake for swimming, people who want to use the lake for boating, our fishermen–our com­mercial fishermen–over 800 com­mercial fishermen here in Manitoba that use those lakes–

An Honourable Member: Tourism.

Mr. Nesbitt: Tourism. I mean, even the thought of coming to these lakes now after people realize about 238 million litres of raw sewage going into a lake. It will make people think twice.

      So I urge the gov­ern­ment to take this issue seriously and provide funding to the City of Winnipeg.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 10 minutes will now be held. Questions may be addressed in the following sequence: the first question may be asked by a member from another party; any subsequent questions must follow a rotation between the parties; each independent member may ask one question. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Environment and Climate Change): In 2015, just prior to the PCs forming gov­ern­ment in 2016, the Manitoba Law Reform Com­mis­sion did a lot of great work. They put  forward a report that brought forward wide-ranging recom­men­dations about changes that would strengthen The Environ­ment Act, that would mod­ernize the act.

      Those recom­men­dations would've pro­vided greater and more meaningful environ­mental pro­tec­tions. Those recom­men­dations included greater public–called for greater public con­sul­ta­tion, greater Indigenous partici­pation and con­sul­ta­tion and also to address cumulative effects.

      So my question is: Why didn't the former PC gov­ern­ment take any steps to strengthen the environ­mental legis­lation here in Manitoba?

Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): I'd like to thank my friend for that question here this morning.

      Our gov­ern­ment was busy helping the City of Winnipeg with their wastewater projects, like the North End Sewage Treatment Plant. We weren't all about carrying a big stick. We were working with the City to upgrade their facilities so that disastrous things wouldn't happen.

      The NDP gov­ern­ment–the previous NDP gov­ern­ment was ordered to upgrade the North End water treatment plant, and it didn't happen. We took action.

Mr. Derek Johnson (Interlake-Gimli): Can the member tell us what impact the sewage spill will have on com­mu­nities that reside near and on the Red River, Lake Winnipeg and all the way down to Hudson Bay, quite frankly. This isn't just a city of Winnipeg issue. And it's not just the com­mu­nities that sustain off of Lake Winnipeg and the downstream tributaries. There's wildlife. There's polar bears. There's beluga whales. There's endangered piping plovers. There's livelihoods and sustenance that rely on this–drinking water. And can the member explain the impact the sewage spill will have on downstream tributaries?

Mr. Nesbitt: I'd like to thank the member from Interlake-Gimli who has first‑hand knowledge of this for his question this morning.

      So, Lake Winnipeg has–had–became the most endangered lake in the world under the previous NDP gov­ern­ment, and this bill certainly isn't going to help it.

      The health and longevity of our beautiful lakes that are used for com­mercial fishing–like I said, 800 com­mercial fishers make use of that lake every year. It's a major contributor to our economy: rec­reation, boating, swimming and, of course, even the leisure activities of laying on the beach at Lake Winnipeg. I think that the effects of this bill are going to be felt long‑term.

The Speaker: The honourable member for–somewhere. River Heights.

MLA Mike Moroz (River Heights): Thank you; yes, it's a surprise to many.

      I want to thank the member for bringing this forward, but I do have a question following up from the minister's question. The word expedite here is in the reso­lu­tion, which we can all agree is probably necessary.

      But what exactly was it that prevented the previous PC gov­ern­ment from, at any point in its seven years in office, from doing exactly what this reso­lu­tion says? Perhaps you can let us know what prevented you from doing so.

Mr. Nesbitt: Our gov­ern­ment was pleased to work with the City of Winnipeg and extend basket funding to the City of Winnipeg to be used for projects that they deem necessary.

      Our gov­ern­ment took action and con­tri­bu­ted $167 million towards a $550-million second phase for the North End water treatment plant, a plant that was ordered in 2003 under the previous NDP gov­ern­ment, but nothing was started until we were elected in 2016.

MLA Schmidt: I want to echo the comments of my colleague–

The Speaker: Sorry. [interjection] Sorry. Order. The op­posi­tion turn to ask a question. My mistake.

Mr. Richard Perchotte (Selkirk): I was a little confused whose turn it was, but I thank you for correcting that.

      In the area of Selkirk, we have a number of residents who are downright angry that this has happened. It's not the first time it's happened. It's happened several times.

      Do we have any sug­ges­tions how to prevent future sewage spills like this from recurring and pol­luting our waterways, killing off our wildlife, killing our fishes, changing our species?

Mr. Nesbitt: I'd like to thank my friend from Selkirk for that question.

      Certainly, accidents are going to happen. I mean, pipes break from time to time. But our infra­structure is getting old. We need the current gov­ern­ment to act and provide money to the City of Winnipeg so they can do a waterline–or sewage line re­place­ment program moving forward.

      We have to take action. Not just here in Winnipeg, but through­out Manitoba, we have aging infra­structure that's going to need to be fixed, and the onus is on the gov­ern­ment to provide the funding necessary to make that happen.

MLA Schmidt: Again, I want to just echo the comments, the thoughtful comments made by my col­league from River Heights, and to thank the member opposite for bringing forward this reso­lu­tion.

      This is a very im­por­tant issue, it's a very im­por­tant debate. I want to acknowl­edge the members opposite that represent Interlake-Gimli and Selkirk, all the impacted com­mu­nities, also the impacted First Nations com­mu­nities that live and rely upon the lake. So thank you for this op­por­tun­ity to ask a question.

      But it is a bit rich, because we know that during, you know, the member opposite talked about that they worked with the City of Winnipeg to make invest­ments. We know that one of their ministers, during their time in gov­ern­ment, actually directed the City of Winnipeg to divert some of that money that was intended for the North End plant to other projects.

      So I would like to ask the member opposite how did that diversion of those–

The Speaker: The time has expired.

Mr. Nesbitt: I thank the hon­our­able minister for that question.

      Certainly, we trusted our munici­pal partners to deal with funds as they wanted. The North End treatment plant was certainly a priority for our gov­ern­ment. And I know it's a priority for the City of Winnipeg.

      I don't think the North End water treatment plant would have handled the 238 millions of raw–litres of raw sewage that came into the Red River at this point.

      So I think the purpose of this reso­lu­tion is not necessarily to point fingers, it's to say they're in gov­ern­ment, the City needs money, infra­structure needs replaced.

Mr. Johnson: I was hoping the member can maybe explain to members opposite why he brought this reso­lu­tion forward and the urgency behind it.

* (11:20)

      And maybe in his comments he could also talk about the $167 million that the previous PC gov­ern­ment has committed to the North End Water Pollution Control Centre and how they have not done their share since they've been put into gov­ern­ment. They've done nothing–hopefully, they will follow up with at least the inflationary pressures. And we've sent them $167 million.

      So thank you. 

Mr. Nesbitt: Thank you, again, to the member from Interlake-Gimli. Again, I think what concerns me here is that $10 million was given to the City of Winnipeg after this bill; $10 million is just going to be a drop in the bucket. I think there has to be some serious con­sid­era­tion to how they're going to fund major projects here in the city.

      And I–on this side of the House, we'd like to hear that plan, and maybe that plan will come out in the April 2nd budget, I'm not sure, but it's imperative for the City of Winnipeg to know what they can count on from the current gov­ern­ment in terms of repairs to the sewer system, money for the repairs. We did our part with the North End Sewage Treatment Plant, and I hope they will continue to follow what we did.

MLA Moroz: I think my favourite part of this reso­lu­tion is the bit where it says, shall col­lab­o­rate with the City of Winnipeg, given that the well-known relation­ship between previous premier Pallister and the City of Winnipeg, I'm assuming that it's only been the pilgrimage across the aisle that's caused the sudden desire for that kind of col­lab­o­ration.

      So I have to ask, then, why did it–or why did the former PC gov­ern­ment let wastewater infra­structure collapse under your watch, when this is the priority?

Mr. Nesbitt: Well, Hon­our­able Speaker, I think that's pretty rich coming from that member when they've–only gave the City $10 million. Like I said, we've supported the North End Water Treatment Plant, $167 million, basket funding to the City of Winnipeg. We worked 'collaborty' with the City of Winnipeg. I know our ministers worked hard with the admin­is­tra­tion there to get things done here in the city. We had great repre­sen­tation here in the city that knew the value of the wastewater systems in Winnipeg, and, again, I just urge this gov­ern­ment to continue the good work that our gov­ern­ment did.

The Speaker: The time for questions has ended.

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

MLA Mike Moyes (Riel): I'm pleased to rise today to speak about this im­por­tant issue of water. I'm an environmentalist and someone that cares deeply about ensuring that we as people and as Manitobans are living in a good way and in a sus­tain­able way.

      Moreover–excuse me–the recent wastewater spill into the Red River after the two City of Winnipeg wastewater pipes broke, took place on the border of my con­stit­uency of Riel. This was a deeply unfor­tunate incident, I think all members could agree on that.

      To put the issue concisely, our gov­ern­ment knows water is life. Water is our most precious resource. We need it for drinking water, irrigation of agri­cul­ture, it powers much of our energy through Manitoba Hydro. It is a key part of our province's identity with having over 100,000 lakes and the city of Winnipeg being at the junction of the Red River and the Assiniboine River, where it's been the natural meeting place for Indigenous people for time immemorial.

      Our NDP gov­ern­ment takes this sacred respon­si­bility very seriously. It takes the pro­tec­tion of the environ­ment seriously and the pro­tec­tion of our waterways is a top priority. This is why when the spill occurred, I was very proud of the steps our gov­ern­ment's response–or the steps that our gov­ern­ment took in response.

      We imme­diately started collaborating with the City of Winnipeg to mitigate the problem and have it remedied. We've also committed those $10 million which the members opposite have described as not enough, but it is a great start. It's some­thing that we are working with the City on, and will continue to col­lab­o­rate with.

      The Minister of the Environ­ment and Climate Change is also strengthening our ability to protect those lakes and rivers that we so deeply care about, by amending legis­lation which is going to allow inter­ventions when–that's going to allow interventions to occur sooner, and also to address those issues as they come up, or–similarly to those recent sewage spills.

      This is what a respon­si­ble gov­ern­ment does. Our MLAs, our ministers and the Premier (Mr. Kinew) is actively working with the different levels of gov­ern­ment and stake­holders to address these issues. Now, let's compare this. We've been in gov­ern­ment for five months–great. Let's compare this with the past seven and a half years of the failed PC gov­ern­ment.

      For much of that time, we had a PC premier that wouldn't even meet with Winnipeg's mayor–the largest city in our province–wouldn't col­lab­o­rate, wouldn't meet, wouldn't sit down, wouldn't discuss anything. This failed PC gov­ern­ment did not want to listen, col­lab­o­rate, with other levels of gov­ern­ment, be it the federal, be it stake­holders, be it Indigenous leadership.

      They also froze funding for much of that time. It took an election for them to unfreeze the munici­pal funding, which directly leads to the infra­structure deficit that we see today. So I look forward to col­laborating with the City of Winnipeg, with the other stake­holders, with com­mu­nities downriver, with the federal gov­ern­ment, to make sure that we are miti­gating these issues and working in a co‑operative fashion. Our gov­ern­ment is a listening gov­ern­ment, a col­lab­o­rative gov­ern­ment, an open gov­ern­ment.

      The fact of the matter is that the PCs have always dragged their heels on the environ­ment. How else can you explain that during a time when Lake Winnipeg's phosphorous concentration was rising, the PCs were directing the City of Winnipeg to redirect millions and millions of dollars away from the North End treatment plant, but instead to put it towards other projects.

      Now, there's further things that we can talk about for the PC track record. They–we have a greenhouse gas level that was at an all-time high. It's continued to grow faster under the PC gov­ern­ment. We have COemissions that increased by 10 per cent since 2016.

      We have the PCs wasting money on lawsuits instead of actually getting down to addressing our environ­mental issues. There was cuts to energy pro­grams when we so des­per­ately need more energy, clean energy. Cuts like Manitoba Hydro's solar rebate program, which was over­whelmingly suc­cess­ful, both in terms of resi­den­tial and the agri­cul­tural com­mu­nity.

      There was cuts to the annual funding for environ­mental organi­zations: the Green Action Centre, Climate Change Connection, and the Manitoba Eco-Network. So this false sense of outrage is a little bit ripe to hear after seven and a half years of this failed gov­ern­ment. And thank goodness that they're on the opposite end of this Chamber.

      Furthermore, they rolled back environ­mental pro­tec­tions on pesticides, which when you want to talk about water, those are the things that go directly into the water. It was an NDP gov­ern­ment that brought those pro­tec­tions in in the first place, but instead these PC–the failed PC gov­ern­ment rolled those back, rescinded that legis­lation.

      They also rolled back building code, which is absolutely outrageous. Some­thing that I heard time and time again on the doorstep about how it doesn't make sense that, with climate change and the environ­mental issues that we're facing, that we're actually going backwards. Instead of making our houses more efficient, let's go back to level 1. We were already at level 2 and 3; let's go backwards.

      But that's what the PC gov­ern­ment is. When the PCs are in power, they want to take us back to the 1950s. They want to have efficiency that is lacking. They don't care about the folks on–the average Manitoban. They don't want to see environ­mental pro­tec­tions.

      Now, while I ap­pre­ciate and would welcome this environ­ment and climate change discussion–and spe­cific­ally in this case regarding water–being a non-partisan issue, I really–it doesn't appear that this is anything more than just false outrage and looking to try to grab a hold of the–some­thing that was in the media.

* (11:30)

      Now, I would comfort Manitobans, however, in knowing that they do have a Premier (Mr. Kinew), a Minister of Environ­ment and Climate Change (MLA Schmidt) and a gov­ern­ment that cares deeply about Manitoba's environ­ment and about our water­ways.

      We are always going to protect Manitoba, and we're always going to protect Manitoba's waterways, and we are going to ensure that we do better, although the bar is fairly low with that failed PC gov­ern­ment.

      Thank you very much, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Mr. Derek Johnson (Interlake-Gimli): Now, the members opposite, they seem to dismiss that 228 million litres of untreated waste water flew–flowed right into the river.

      Now, I'm not sure if they're aware, if their geography is off, but that flows right into Lake Winnipeg and, once again, going to be repeating what the NDP gov­ern­ment did in 2003, where Lake Winnipeg–2013, sorry–where Lake Winnipeg became the most endangered lake in the world.

      So in 2002, when a failure happened at the North End water treatment plant–so this is the second largest flow into our natural waterways. The largest was actually, coincidentally or not, under an N-T-P–NDP gov­ern­ment; 427 million litres of untreated raw sewage flowed right into the rivers and into Lake Winnipeg in 2002. This is just history repeating itself.

      Now, the members opposite, they were apparently unware, according to Chief Bluesky, that this was even going. Front page of the papers, they're still unaware.

      Now, this leak was reported to Manitoba Environ­ment, Climate and Parks. It was reported the same day. Yet this gov­ern­ment was still unaware. Or if they were aware, they chose to do nothing. I don't know which one's worse. Either they've chose to do nothing or just completely unaware. Either one is unaccept­able to the people that live downstream where this effluent runs.

      Now, again, on February 7th, another spill. It was again reported that very same day to the minister, and again the minister was either unaware, didn't listen to her staff or just chose to do nothing. And if that is–that is quite scary, Hon­our­able Speaker, if that's the case.

      Now, these failed sewage pipes, I have nothing against 1970, but these failed sewage pipes were built in 1970. Just–I was built in 1970 as well, Hon­our­able Speaker. That's what I was getting to. So these sewage pipes are failing, and they are taking the sewage from–now here's just a list of some of the neighbourhoods that flow into the river here in the last little bit.

      So St. Norbert, Fort Richmond, Richmond West, Waverley West, Bridgwater, Linden Woods, Linden Ridge, Whyte Ridge, Waverley Heights and, of course, the Uni­ver­sity of Manitoba. So all this sewer from these combined neighbourhoods are flowing into the Red River.

      Now, the city of Winnipeg has thousands of kilometres of combined sewer, and their goal is to have 85 per cent of it switched out from combined sewer and eliminated by 2045. Hon­our­able Speaker, this is unacceptable; 2045 and still having combined sewers.

      And I guess those who are unaware of what combined sewers are is that it takes the rainwater and the effluent from the houses and mixes them together. And if there is a huge rainfall, it takes the effluent and washes it into the river with the rainwater.

      So this is an invest­ment that is billions, billions of dollars with a B, Hon­our­able Speaker, that needs to be invested in, and this gov­ern­ment has no plan. We'll wait and see on April 2 if there's a plan to help the City of Winnipeg with combined sewers, as this gov­ern­ment was in talks with the City at that point.

      So let's talk a little bit about the North End Water Pollution Control Centre, Hon­our­able Speaker. That handles 95 million litres per day of sewer and serves over 404,000 people.

      This gov­ern­ment–just our share–was $167 million towards improving that facility. The inflationary pres­sures that are on that project have been unanswered by this NDP gov­ern­ment–zero increase towards that project.

      So the North End Water Pollution Control Centre, Hon­our­able Speaker, is 65.6 years average age. So that feels a little bit like retirement age to me. That project needs to get going, needs to get rebuilt. And just with the age of the system–some of the sewer pipes in the city of Winnipeg are 140 years old. So this government has done nothing to help the City of Winnipeg, and as a matter of fact, has refused to extend the support to the North End Water Pollution Control Centre.

      So Winnipeg, as we well know–it's docu­mented, published, written upon–Winnipeg is the largest nutrient load to Lake Winnipeg. Just the North End Water Pollution Control Centre puts in 7 per cent of the nutrient load on Lake Winnipeg out of the whole entire watershed of the Red River basin, and that is unacceptable.

      We have put money forward for the North End Water Pollution Control Centre, and all of the members opposite sit on their hands and don't help with the cost escalations and inflationary pressures of that project. And probably, it'll stall and not happen again. And history will repeat itself.

      Now, I talked a little bit in one of my questions, my preambles, about the com­mu­nities that live along the lake. This is about sustenance. Our members that are in this Chamber that represent con­stit­uents from up there should be appalled at their own gov­ern­ment. They should be appalled. Their drinking water comes from this source. Their drinking water, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      There's polar bears, beluga whales, there's even rare birds like the piping plover that rely on this water to–for their sustenance. It's not just sustenance of com­mu­nities, First Nations, it's 'sustemence'–sus­tenance of wildlife as well, Honourable Speaker.

      Now, there's about 23,000 people that live along the lake in 30 different com­mu­nities, but I guess members opposite don't seem to care about them. There's thousands from Winnipeg that own recrea­tional properties, as well, along there, where they get their water as well from the lake.

      There's many First Nation com­mu­nities with a popu­la­tion of, I don't know, roughly 14,000, as well, that–like, this affects more than just Winnipeg, Selkirk. The Red River, Lake Winnipeg goes all the way downstream to Hudson Bay, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      Now, this will not only threaten the ecological balance of the Red River, but also Lake Winnipeg. What are we going to do for our–I think I mentioned here the other day–what's the NDP's tourism slogan going to be, you know? Bring your kids and grandkids to swim at our E. coli-infested beaches? We have a lot of tourism in this province, and it is dependent on our pristine waters.

      We have well over 100,000 lakes, Hon­our­able Speaker. Sorry, Minnesota, with your meagre 10,000 lakes that you have on your licence plate, but we have over 100,000 lakes. And when the NDP was in government last time, they suc­cess­fully made it the most endangered lake in the world in 2013.

      Now, I'd be remiss if I didn't speak about the com­mercial fishers that earn their living on this lake. Between the fisheries, whether it's com­mercial, and angling, that's $700 million that's put into our economy between commercial fishers and recrea­tional fishing. This is the livelihood of a lot of com­mercial fishers and the sustenance for a lot of our people that live along the lake that live off the lake and the rivers.

* (11:40)

      So I have so much more to talk about here. Just quickly, there's a Canada-Manitoba memorandum of under­standing that was signed in 2021 respecting Lake Winnipeg and the Lake Winnipeg basin.

      Bill Buckels is a com­mercial fisherman that has written on this topic many, many times. He's been vocal on Facebook and other social media and these are one of the elders in our com­mu­nity that need to be listened to, need to be consulted with. And not that there's any consulting that needs to take place–stop the sewer from flowing into our rivers and lakes.

      So, on behalf of Interlake-Gimli con­stit­uents and our members who represent northern com­mu­nities that are silent on this, I implore–I implore–this NDP gov­ern­ment to come to the plate and help the City of Winnipeg prevent future spills, like this one, that we–the current gov­ern­ment needs to be embar­rassed about.

Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas-Kameesak): It's an absolute honour to be standing here and to be back into the Legis­lative Chamber.

      As the MLA for The Pas-Kameesak, I just want to inform everyone here that Lake Winnipeg is entirely in my con­stit­uency. In fact, The Pas-Kameesak–kameesak is a Cree word meaning big, which means Lake Winnipeg. It's a huge lake. So this profoundly has a huge effect on my con­stit­uents.

      So water is life. It's a sacred resource that we want to protect. Our gov­ern­ment believes in protecting our environ­ment, including our lakes, rivers and waterways. That's why we're assisting the City of Winnipeg with $10 million to improve waste water infrastructure. An NDP gov­ern­ment is taking action by strengthening our ability to protect lakes, rivers for Manitobans.

      Now, I heard the former–I heard the speaker before me talk about caring for com­mu­nities along Lake Winnipeg. I must put on the record that when I became the MLA for The Pas-Kameesak, I inherited seven more com­mu­nities, so I represent all the First Nations in the Interlake area.

      So when I went into their com­mu­nity and intro­duced myself as the MLA, they didn't know what an MLA was, so which meant the former MLA that used to represent them never went to go visit them.

      So that's why they know what an MLA is, they know who we are and I'm there to help them in any provincial issues, policies or any direction they may need. Not the former MLA–he did not do that, did not care about them at all.

      Now, the purpose of this PC reso­lu­tion is to under­mine the work that is being done currently by the Minister of Environ­ment and Climate Change (MLA Schmidt) and distance them­selves from the failed environ­mental policies that they have placed. Protecting Manitoba waterways is an NDP gov­ern­ment's top priority.

      The recent sewage spill in Winnipeg raises concerns about how we can better protect our water. To do this, the Minister of Environ­ment and Climate Change is strengthening our ability to protect lakes, rivers, by amending The Environ­ment Act. New mechanisms in place–will place in place so author­ities can intervene sooner when issues when the recent sewage spill happens.

      Now, the com­mu­nities that I represent around Lake Winnipeg: I've had very informative con­ver­sa­tions with our com­mercial fishermen, in fact, along Lake Winnipeg. I've talked to a former chief, Emery  Stagg, who represented–chief of Dauphin River.

      He was explaining to me that back in the day, com­mercial fishermen was a huge industry for the Indigenous com­mu­nity. And there's a co-op that represents our fishermen. There's a 150 fishermen in that co‑op and half are Indigenous. And from my Indigenous fishermen, I've heard that there has been many, many unfair practices within non-Indigenous fishermen and Indigenous fishermen.

      So the com­mercial fisherman industry is a dying breed because of these unfair practices, and, on top of that, now they have to deal with this sewage spill into Lake Winnipeg that's going to contaminate the fish that we consume and fish that we sell to reach those quotas.

      Just like how Opaskwayak Cree Nation and the town of The Pas was surprised and shocked when the Canadian Kraft Paper revealed that they had released awful, awful chemicals into Saskatchewan River when our fishermen of Opaskwayak Cree Nation co‑op fish there and we eat it. I eat it. Our elders eat it.

      So this whole sewage spill has a domino effect that affects the livelihoods of many families that live along Lake Winnipeg. And I also want to say that, since we're on this topic, I want to let people know that our fishermen–it's like I said, it's a dying breed. Their children, of our fishermen, are thinking it's not–it's not a viable industry anymore because of these unfair practices.

      Imagine if quotas, net sizes, every­thing was equal for all com­mercial fishermen, the industry wouldn't be dying, especially with the Indigenous com­mu­nity. If fishermen in Gimli, top-notch resources for them. They don't have to worry about net sizes, quotas, seasoning–opening seasonings–opening of fishing season and whatnot.

      So I just wanted to say that even our fishermen in Moose Lake–it was quite wonderful seeing children in the boats untangling the nets. It was wonderful seeing the children with the fish and gutting them and filleting them. And so that is why water is such a sacred resource for many First Nations com­mu­nities and other com­mu­nities.

      And that is why I'm standing here today to ensure that it's on record that this situation should not be happening anymore to our waterways and we need to protect them.

      We need to protect our fish stock which help livelihoods, whether it comes to feeding your children at the kitchen table, or reaching those quotas to get some money for livelihood, to have, buy that food for the kitchen table.

      So with that, Speaker, I just want to put a few words on the record and to let people know that Lake Winnipeg is a very im­por­tant resource and it should be protected.

      Ekosi.

Mr. Richard Perchotte (Selkirk): I spent a con­sid­erable amount of time yesterday preparing for this and I'm not going to go off my notes. I think this is very im­por­tant. I'm just looking to speak from the heart.

      This is a situation that impacts my com­mu­nity, not just the com­mu­nity of Selkirk, but all the people that I know in this province. Any amount of sewage entering our waterway is too much. Any amount. We would never permit any environ­mental disaster to happen.

      If anything is preventable, we should be on it. We should be looking forward to stop stuff before it happens. You can't get the sewage back into the plant. After the disaster happens, you can't go back, you can't apologize to the fish or to the families or the people who are going to drink that water and hope it doesn't harm them. You can't go back to the micro-organisms that are polluting our water.

      And it's not just sewage that's hitting the water. There's discarded medi­cations that get dumped down the sewer. There's grease and oils from cooking that get dumped in there. There is tons of different things that are going to change our ecosystem that are allowed to go into the waterways.

      I don't know if anybody here has ever had a flood in their house. When you live in the country, it happens. Power goes out. And when you have sewer systems that are connected to septic fields–I was a recipient one day of getting home on a beautiful Sunday morning after being away and having my basement full of sewage.

      I didn't have to wait to react. You react right away. You cannot have sewage in your house. The fact that we're here today asking for funds blows my mind. This should be done automatically.

* (11:50)

      Prior to taking politics as a career, I would have assumed that gov­ern­ment would be there, hands down, saying, whatever you need, let's solve this problem. Let's make sure this doesn't happen again. Let's make sure that we don't have a drop of sewage in our waterways. Let's make sure that we are the stewards of the future.

      Every day we come in here, we do a land acknowledgment. The families that came before us, the ancestors chose this area. The Red River and the Assiniboine were the lifeline of the people and we're the stewards of that.

      And what did we choose to do? We failed them. I'm not here to point fingers; I'm here to say, as repre­sen­tatives of the people who put us here–the approximately 20,000 that put every member in their con­stit­uents here–they put us here to make things better.

      And we have that duty. We have that duty to move forward. Going back to having a house, walking home and discovering that you have sewage in your house, you would not wait. You have to take imme­diate action, but you don't stop there. You make sure that will never happen again.

      I put in a backup system so that the sewage cannot back up into the house. I put up a generator system to make sure that when the power goes out, that stuff still keeps getting pumped out.

      I made sure that I have a contingency plan. And I test that system over and over, and over on a weekly basis automatically to make sure that we don't have a problem.

      How do we as a gov­ern­ment move forward if we don't address the situations that we face?

      Many years ago, I was invited to take part in a project going down in Las Vegas. They were looking at realigning their storm sewers and their sewer system. Now, my part was a very small part of that. I showed up there to provide them a structure to create and to manufacture the realigning system in.

      But what I learned at that time was how simple it is to realign a system. You divert–you have a backup system that you divert your sewage to, you clean the system and then you run a–essentially, a giant sock with resin through there. Let it cure.

      That type of resin re­place­ment allows that system to live another 50 years. And as my colleague said, the system was designed in 1970. So was he, and I'm very close to that.

      From 1970 'til now, what have we been doing? If we are not looking at our infra­structure and coming up with a plan to move forward to make sure that we don't have these catastrophes, these disasters happen. This is what we are here for.

      We argue back and forth and we have different beliefs, but this cannot be an issue of partisan. We have to look at the future of what we have. We have to make sure that the waterways, our environ­ment, is taken care of.

      As a teenager in Lockport, we used those waterways all the time. We walked along them, we skipped rocks, we went fishing. I remember sitting down there, at 16 years old, waiting for midnight to hit to be the first person out fishing.

      The water was flowing and it was way too fast, but–and the weights we had were not adequate. We really just soaked our strings that day; we didn't catch any fish. But those memories were amazing, and it was because of the Red River.

      The families and the lifeline of the people went there. Some of my closest friends were from the Monkman family. The Monkman family traced their gen­era­tions back to two people who fell in love–an Indigenous com­mu­nity of two people who fell in love–and now they have over a thousand offspring who live and work on our waterways.

      They're fishermen and pillars of the industry. I've been at their places and provided them buildings for their net storage and their boat storage. And they love their way of life. But as my friend from up north has said, that way of life is changing.

      We cannot be allowed to dump sewage in our waterways. I am blown away that we're having this con­ver­sa­tion. I'm blown away that as a gov­ern­ment, they–there wasn't funds imme­diately released to take care of the problem, to have a backup system, to ensure that backup system is tested on a weekly basis, to make sure there is monitoring.

      Today, with the tech­no­lo­gy that we have, the X‑ray equip­ment that we can check and check thick­nesses and materials, we get it. Things wear out. But why do we wait to a point that we have a disaster before we let this happen?

      I–it's crazy that we're here. I don't understand the process until I became elected. I thought, as gov­ern­ment, we worked together to solve issues like this.

      And what I see in this House on a daily basis is yapping and yelling back and forth and a bunch of immaturity, and it's disgusting. If people–the camera would actually catch the childish behaviour in here–unreal. I don't think the people who elected us actually see how poorly we behave. This is terrible.

      We need to work together, put our thoughts forward and say, we got to do some­thing. You know, when it comes to the people, to the environ­ment, to the species that we are here to represent, let's put our best foot forward. Nobody is showing up here today hoping to do a bad job.

      If somebody didn't let the minister know, let's change the process. Let's make sure that they're informed right away. If Chief Bluesky wasn't informed right away, change the process. That's what we're here to govern for. Let's make sure we can move ahead and make some progress and change and put this crap behind us, literally.

      Thank you.

MLA Billie Cross (Seine River): Water is life. First Nations people know that water is life and that water is alive. Where you find water, you will find life.

      We are all born out of water. In our mothers' wombs, we are surrounded by water. Water is sacred. And it's essential for our health, for our lives and for the lives of all living beings.

      Even though United Nations has recog­nized the right of every human being to have access to enough water for personal and domestic uses, many countries, including our own, have still not invested what is needed to achieve this critical goal.

      And I bring that up because, as the member across just said, the member from Selkirk, what have we been doing for so many years where we have not invested in our infra­structure, where we don't care enough about the very thing that sustains our lives?

      As the repre­sen­tative for Seine River, I represent folks in St. Norbert, who were asked recently to minimize their water use to ensure that more spillage wasn't going in than necessary.

      In Manitoba, prov­incially, munici­palities were starved for funding for seven years under this former PC gov­ern­ment, funds necessary to update infra­structure that was aging, including pipes and sewer systems. The list can go on and on: bridges, roadways, et cetera.

      But it's a new day in Manitoba, and our NDP gov­ern­ment is a col­lab­o­rative gov­ern­ment. And we under­­stand the importance of making these critical invest­ments. That is why we're working with munici­palities to assist them in these crucial upgrades.

      Our Minister of Environ­ment has shared that we are provi­ding the City of Winnipeg with $10 million to improve waste water infra­structure.

      There is legis­lation on notice that will hold polluters accountable and require them to notify all affected parties when there is a spill.

      As mentioned, we are that col­lab­o­rative gov­ern­ment, and so our ministers are working with First Nations gov­ern­ments to ensure that this building block of life is protected for future gen­era­tions.

      As an educator, water was some­thing I had to teach about. Students in grade 2 learn about water. They learn about the importance of it, water and the environ­ment.

      In grade 8, students explore a cluster in science called water systems, where they learn that water is essential for life on earth and needs to be managed sustainably.

      If we are not the group or the gov­ern­ment that takes action, if we don't do it now, then when? If not us, then who?

      I think members opposite should also do some internal reflection on why they put off so many im­por­tant funding initiatives so that we can support our critical­–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      When this matter is again before the House, the hon­our­able member will have seven minutes remaining.

      The hour being 12 o'clock, this House is recessed and stands recessed until 1:30 p.m.


 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, March 14, 2024

CONTENTS


Vol. 30a

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' business

Second Readings–Public Bills

Bill 203–The Occupiers' Liability Amendment Act

Goertzen  739

Questions

Wasyliw   741

Goertzen  741

Balcaen  741

Byram   742

Debate

Wasyliw   743

Schmidt 745

Wiebe  746

Pankratz  748

Resolutions

Res. 4–Protecting Lake Winnipeg from Sewage Pollution

Nesbitt 750

Questions

Schmidt 752

Nesbitt 753

Johnson  753

Moroz  753

Perchotte  753

Debate

Moyes 754

Johnson  756

Lathlin  757

Perchotte  759

Cross 760