LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Madam Speaker: Please be seated.
Madam Speaker: Introduction of bills?
Mrs. Colleen Mayer (Chairperson): I wish to present the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Private Bills.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Private Bills–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Madam Speaker: Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on PRIVATE BILLS presents the following as its Fourth Report.
Meetings
Your Committee met on June 1, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building.
Matters under Consideration
· Bill (No. 223) – The Orange Shirt Day Act/Loi sur la Journée du chandail orange
Committee Membership
· Mr. Curry
· Hon. Mr. Eichler
· Ms. Fontaine
· Mr. Helwer
· Mr. Kinew
· Ms. Klassen
· Ms. Lathlin
· Mrs. Mayer
· Mr. Michaleski (Vice-Chairperson)
· Ms. Morley-Lecomte
· Mr. Nesbitt
Your Committee elected Mrs. Mayer as the Chairperson.
Public Presentations
Your Committee heard the following five presentations on Bill (No. 223) – The Orange Shirt Day Act/Loi sur la Journée du chandail orange:
Lindsey Trudeau, Winnipeg School Division
Ted Fontaine, Private Citizen
James Bedford, Manitoba Teacher's Society
Stephanie Scott, National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation
Samantha Flett, Private Citizen
Bill Considered and Reported
· Bill (No. 223) – The Orange Shirt Day Act/Loi sur la Journée du chandail orange
Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.
Mrs. Mayer: I move, seconded by the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Lagimodiere), that the report of the committee be received
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I wish to table the Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund annual report for 2016.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister for Sport, Culture and Heritage, and I would indicate that the required 90 minutes' notice prior to routine proceedings was provided in accordance with our rule 26(2).
Would the honourable minister please proceed with her statement.
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): I rise today to recognize and celebrate United Empire Loyalists Day, which will officially be commemorated on June 12th by the Manitoba branch of the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada.
As you are well aware, in the wake of Britain's loss of the Thirteen Colonies in 1783, approximately 50,000 United Empire Loyalists, committed to the British Crown, became displaced. These proud loyalists resettled in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and profoundly contributed to the development of Canada.
Shortly after Manitoba joined Confederation in 1870, many of the United Empire Loyalist settlers from Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes immigrated to Manitoba. These Loyalists were truly a diverse group, which included English, Dutch, German, French Huguenot, First Nations, Scottish and African Loyalist settlers who established businesses, farms and continued to engage in their professions.
These early entrepreneurs and innovators brought with them many skills and professions. There were shipwrights, cabinetmakers, saddle makers, teachers, lawyers and farmers, and they established businesses and continued to engage in their professions upon arriving in Canada.
Today, we are reminded of the spirit of these early pioneers who, because of their loyalty to the British Crown, sacrificed their lives, homes and professions to migrate to a new land with hopes of building a new life for themselves and their descendants. Their commitment contributed to the development of Canada, and descendants of the United Empire Loyalists continue to contribute to the dynamic and diverse province that Manitoba is today.
It is our privilege to live in a province where we can honour the customs and traditions that our ancestors brought from our homeland. By sharing them with each other, we foster mutual understanding and respect that allows us to transcend differences of race, religion, age or culture.
The United Empire Loyalists' legacy of inclusivity, perseverance and resilience forged a pathway towards multiculturalism. This year, 2017, is the 25th anniversary of the Manitoba's multicultural act and recognizes and promotes the strength of pride, of cultural diversity and the rights of all Manitobans, regardless of their culture, religion or racial background. Madam Speaker, multicultural celebrations contribute to building our province into a distinct multicultural mosaic where we can all honour our customs and traditions and share them with others.
By honouring our past, we inform our future. I encourage all Manitobans to join celebrations to acknowledge the United Empire Loyalists Day in Manitoba on June 12th, 2017, and I ask that all members of the House now join me in welcoming the two chapters of the United Empire Loyalists that are present in the gallery this afternoon.
Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the United Empire Loyalists and their arrival in Manitoba.
These settlers from Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes included people of indigenous, Dutch, English, German, French Huguenots, First Nations and Scottish backgrounds. They established their livelihoods here and contributed to Manitoba's economy, culture and heritage.
Today is an opportunity to remember that not all nations in Canada have been afforded the same rights and protection as these settlers.
We were disappointed to see the government refuse to pass a resolution calling on the federal government to formally recognize indigenous nations and peoples as founding peoples of Canada and to protect and promote their languages, cultures, history, traditions and laws.
It is also an opportunity to honour our ongoing commitment to the path of reconciliation and work being done by advocates and survivors to share and promote their origins.
I rise not only to recognize the contributions that the United Empire Loyalists made to our province, but also to recognize the generosity, sacrifices and teachings of indigenous peoples who were instrumental to the success of Canada's European settlers.
Today, as we consider important legislation recognizing the legacy of residential schools, let us remember that reconciliation requires commitment from all Canadians and a collaborative effort to honour and celebrate our cultural identities.
Thank you.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): I ask for leave to speak in response to the minister's statement.
Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to speak in response to the minister's statement? [Agreed]
Ms. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, next month we commemorate the ancestors of 6 million Canadians, one fifth of our country's population, the Loyalists who fled the colonies during the American War of Independence.
These refugees, who sacrificed their homes and communities over 200 years ago, built the nation we will be celebrating this summer with our 150 years of Confederation.
It's important that we not only remember but share the story of how our nation was built by refugees and immigrants who were welcomed with open arms by our indigenous people.
This morning we heard from many members of this House about residential schools and the scarring acts that have affected generations of indigenous families. The only way to move forward is to recognize our collective past and to move forward in the spirit of reconciliation.
We also cannot forget the spirit in which our indigenous people welcomed us, and we must carry that spirit forward with us today. With anti-refugee rhetoric being spewed by leaders all around the world, we, as Canadians, know that this is not the way.
So today while we remember our ancestors who were driven from their homes by war, we also commemorate our Loyalists.
I'd like to thank those who have come to join us today in the gallery as well.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, and I would indicate that the required 90 minutes' notice prior to routine proceedings was provided, in accordance with rule 26(2).
Would the honourable minster please proceed with her ministerial statement.
Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House again this year to recognize Special Olympics Awareness Week in Manitoba.
It was my honour to present private member's Bill 209 four years ago, which received unanimous support in this House, to proclaim the second week of June each year to be Special Olympics Awareness Week in Manitoba. And even though Special Olympics Awareness Week doesn't begin until June 12th this year, I am proud to recognize this incredible organization on the last day of our legislative session.
It has become a tradition at the Legislature to recognize the week by playing bocce ball with athletes on the Legislative grounds, and I was happy to see many of my colleagues from all parties out there on this beautiful Manitoba day.
I was particularly happy to see some of the Manitoba athletes who served on Team Canada this year at the 2017 Special Olympics World Winter Games in Austria, from March 14th to the 25th. Several of our athletes took home medals in games. Darren Boryskavich and Christine Peters each won one gold and three bronze medals for snowshoeing, and Michael Milani won two silver and three medals for alpine slalom. His coach, Ron Struch, is here with us in the gallery today, and I'd like to tell him and all the Team Canada athletes that we are all so proud of the work they have done representing our country on the world stage.
(13:40)
But all this wouldn't be possible without the staff and volunteers who work tirelessly to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities are given the opportunity to participate in competitive sport. I would like to thank Jennifer Campbell, president and CEO of Special Olympics Manitoba, and Deanne Harrison, the chair of the Special Olympics Manitoba Board of Directors, for all they do to make our society more respectful and inclusive for people with intellectual disabilities.
Madam Speaker, another key to the success of Special Olympics Manitoba is the many volunteers who help fundraise for athletic competitions. I am proud to say that Manitoba's law enforcement community has been raising money for over 25 years with their Law Enforcement Torch Run. The run is open to police, corrections and other law enforcement agencies at all levels of government in Manitoba. Together, these law enforcement professionals have raised millions of dollars for Special Olympics Manitoba.
I was thrilled to join these police and correctional officers in Churchill, Manitoba, last year for the polar bear plunge in Hudson Bay to raise money for Special Olympics Manitoba. This was a great way to support our athletes while connecting with the public safety professionals who put their lives on the line each and every day to keep Manitobans safe.
New plunges are happening all over Manitoba this year, including in Portage la Prairie and Steinbach. The Law Enforcement Torch runners will also be out in full force with regional runs to lead up to the opening ceremonies for the 2017 Provincial Summer Games in s on June 17th.
I know there are many other events planned for Special Olympics Awareness Week, and I encourage all Manitobans to attend these events and get involved in supporting our athletes.
Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members of this House join me in recognizing the hard work of athletes, volunteers and coaches who make Special Olympics possible in Manitoba and I want to thank those who could be with us in the gallery today.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, the second week of June marks Special Olympics Manitoba awareness week, an opportunity for us to recognize and celebrate the athletic accomplishments of Manitobans living with different levels of ability.
For over 30 years, Special Olympics Manitoba has done an outstanding job of providing quality sport and recreation programs. Their programs allow athletes to compete in a variety of sports and show off their passion, skills and athletic talents at a variety of levels.
However, the Special Olympics Summer Games are about so much more than just sport. These games continue to reinforce important values learned through sports like compassion, sportsmanship and respect. The values of Special Olympics Manitoba are perhaps best described by their motto: Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave enough to attempt.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of our NDP caucus, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the dedicated coaches, staff members, volunteers of Special Olympics Manitoba. These games would not be a success without your tireless work and commitment.
And I also like to like wish good luck to all athletes competing in the upcoming Special Olympics Manitoba Provincial Summer Games in Brandon later this month. Thank you for inspiring the future athletes of this province and for being amazing ambassadors for Manitoba.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I ask leave to speak to the minister's statement.
Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to speak to the ministerial statement? [Agreed]
Mr. Gerrard: Today we recognize Special Olympics Awareness Week, the second week in June.
Special Olympics Manitoba has been promoting respect, acceptance, inclusion and human dignity for people with an intellectual disability through sport for over 35 years. We are so proud of all our athletes, of their efforts, their accomplishments, their successes and even just getting out there and trying and learning.
Special Olympics Awareness Week uses the theme, Accept With No Exception, as a message of inclusion, which we believe should be a consistent theme in everything we do every day.
I am also aware of the ongoing focus on overall health of those who compete–for example, attention to foot issues and teeth issues, both of which are often forgotten but need to be remembered.
This afternoon we were joined outside the Legislature to share a lunch and games with members of the board of the Special Olympics and of the staff and the athletes.
I want to thank the board chair, Deanne Harrison; past board chair, Larry Chornoboy; and all the board members; and the president and CEO, Jennifer Campbell, and her staff, for all the work that is done on behalf of those who compete in the Special Olympics.
I also want to thank, on behalf of our Liberal caucus, all the countless volunteers who take part and support, in one way or another, the Special Olympics movement, including our police forces. We also wish the best of luck to all the athletes competing in Brandon this summer to be a part of Team Manitoba at the two–2018 National Summer Games in Nova Scotia.
All the best.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister for Sustainable Development–and I would indicate that the required 90 minutes notice prior to routine proceedings was provided in accordance with rule 26(2).
Would the honourable minister please proceed with her ministerial statement.
Hon. Cathy Cox (Minister of Sustainable Development): I am honoured to rise to recognize World Environment Day, which will be celebrated across the globe on Monday, June the 5th.
World Environment Day is the United Nations' principal day for encouraging awareness and action for the protection of our environment. Started in 1974, World Environment Day is now recognized in over 100 countries.
Each year, there is a theme, and this year's theme is Connecting People to Nature. And each year, there is a different global host country, and this year, Canada has been given this great honour.
To mark the occasion, I would like to offer free seedlings to every MLA in the House today. I hope my colleagues from each side of the House will take the seedlings back to their communities to help celebrate our beautiful, green province.
We have so much to be thankful for in Manitoba, Madam Speaker: more than 4 million hectares of land and water set aside in 90 provincial parks that we are protecting for future generations; the majestic rocks of the Canadian Shield and more than 100,000 lakes across our province; the unique and stunning shifting sand dunes of the Spruce Woods Provincial Park; and the beauty and splendor of the North, including Churchill, which is not only the polar bear capital of the world, but is also a hot spot for watching beluga whales and boasting breathtaking views of the northern lights.
We are also celebrating the environment through the Commuter Challenge, which starts this Sunday. Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending the formal kickoff just earlier today. Every year, this friendly competition invites everyone to find green methods of transportation. Whether it's walking, cycling, taking public transit or carpooling, there are lots of ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to climate change. Not only is it good for the environment, but it's also good for you and your health by being proactive.
I encourage everyone to choose greener, active transportation and celebrate our province's natural beauty in honour of World Environment Day.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): I rise also on behalf of our caucus to acknowledge that World Environment Day is indeed coming up. And I thank the minister for recognizing it.
It is certainly an improvement over what happened on Earth Day, where that event came and went and we didn't hear anything from this government. And I am also–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Altemeyer: –duty bound, Madam Speaker–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Altemeyer: –to invite the minister and her government to reflect on the theme that she mentioned, this year, of connecting up people to nature, and ask themselves what are they doing to actually help that rather than hurt it.
Let's pick just a couple of examples the minister just mentioned, with regards to the amazing protected areas that we have here in Manitoba.
Pemmican Island was scheduled to become another park in Manitoba–provincial park–after years of proper consultation with the local Sapotaweyak Cree Nation and other stakeholders. That was set to happen. Instead, this minister turned the park reserve status over to mineral exploration.
Let's talk about the Commuter Challenge. This is the same government which has just eliminated the guaranteed increase in funding to go along with inflation for transit at the municipal level and for active transportation across the province.
Let's talk about citizens wanting to connect with this government on environmental decision making. The Manitoba Round Table for Sustainable Development hasn't met since this government came to office, and I know because I'm still a member and we're required by law to meet three times a year. I'm still waiting for the agenda for the next meeting.
* (13:50)
I would invite the minister and the government to continue highlighting important days in the world that celebrate the environment because I will be here to set the record straight every time they do. Thank you.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I ask leave to speak to the minister's statement.
Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to speak to the ministerial statement? [Agreed]
Mr. Gerrard: Madam Speaker, June the 5th, World Environment Day, it's an important day for us all to consider how we look after our environment, our–being careful about our air that we breathe, the water that we drink and the land that we walk on our Mother Earth. These are all very critical to having land, a planet, a world in which we can live.
We have many species and we need to be cognizant. We have been talking quite a bit about fish recently in this Chamber, but also wildlife, as the member for Kewatinook (Ms. Klassen) has referred to, our four-legged relations; birds, our feathered friends; and the amazing diversity in the rest of the species world.
It is important to connect people to nature to remember that this diversity is important for our world and important for us to be able to have a world in which we can live.
With climate change, we have problems of increasing floods and increasing fires for which we need to be prepared. And we need to be doing what we can in terms of decreasing greenhouse gases, paying attention to our homes, paying attention to how we move about, our transportation–the Commuter Challenge which is occurring today. It's important that we are aware and recognize, cognizant of the importance changes that are occurring as a result of climate change and have an adequate plan to address this and to deal with the problems that are happening.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage, and I would indicate that the required 90 minutes notice prior to routine proceedings was provided, in accordance with our rule 26(2).
Would the honourable minister please proceed with her statement.
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to highlight one of the many profound religious and cultural traditions that are observed in Manitoba.
On Saturday, as the new crescent moon appeared, devout Muslims in Manitoba and all over the world began reflection on their lives and focusing on spiritual renewal, almsgiving, strengthening community relations, their families and peace and compassion.
Ramadan is the holiest month for Muslims and is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. During Ramadan Muslims refrain from negative thoughts and abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset, concluding each night as a night of gratitude through prayer.
In this month of sacrifice and giving, the Muslim community extends assistance to those experiencing conflict, hunger, poverty and disease through charitable donations called zakāt.
In Manitoba the Muslim community has more than doubled in the last decade. More than 13,000 Muslims in the province come from 48 different cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
I believe the unity, compassion and generosity exhibited by the Muslim community also reflects the values of all Manitobans broadly. Manitobans regularly show a willingness to join together and help their neighbours. Our community spirit is demonstrated in times of crisis and in times of great joy.
I commend the members of the local Muslim community for their dedication to community service and extending opportunities to their multicultural and multi-faith community to share common values. Their commitment is evidence in their–in our many similarities, despite our varied backgrounds.
Manitoba is a vibrant province where many cultures and beliefs intersect. However, we are all united in several fundamental values of generosity, diversity and equality for all.
I wish all Muslims in Manitoba a peaceful and happy Ramadan. Ramadan Mubarak.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, on behalf of our NDP caucus, we'd like to wish Ramadan Mubarak to all of our Muslim relatives who will be fasting for 29 days. This month will be filled with charitable giving, feasts and good work as Muslims around the world commemorate the revelation of the Quran.
The fast throughout Ramadan is meant to bring Muslims and the faithful closer to God, acknowledging–while also acknowledging the suffering of the less fortunate. It's a time for detaching oneself from material things and worldly possessions and focusing on prayer and self-reflection, feeding the hungry and donating to charities. Fasting during Ramadan is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, along with the declaration of faith, prayer, charitable giving and a pilgrimage to Mecca.
Madam Speaker, this month we will be recognizing almost 2 billion people around the world who will be celebrating Ramadan.
Once again, on behalf of our NDP caucus, we want to say Ramadan Mubarak to all of our Muslim relatives.
I would also just like to say and advise the House that there is the third annual Experience Ramadan: Breaking the Fast celebration this June–Saturday, June 10th, at 9 p.m., at the Grand Mosque. Tickets are $25 and actually will be donated to United Way Winnipeg. And I know that many of our caucus members have participated, and it's a really beautiful ceremony to have the privilege to be able to participate.
Miigwech.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): I ask for leave to speak in response to the minister's statement.
Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to respond to the statement? [Agreed]
Ms. Lamoureux: It is with great pleasure that I stand today to talk about Ramadan, a practice that commemorates the first revelation of the Quran.
This year, Ramadan began the evening on May 26th and it will end on June 24th.
Ramadan is a blessed month for Muslims all over the world. It teaches discipline, selflessness and patience through fasting, one of the Five Pillars of Islam.
From dawn until sunset, Muslims refrain from consuming food, drinking liquids, smoking and engaging in sexual relations. However, once the sun goes down, families come together and celebrate over a shared meal. It emphasizes equality before God and before the law.
I would like to send words of support for all of those participating in Ramadan. It is through practices such as this that Canada is the diverse country and learned country that it is.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): Yesterday, members from all sides of this House and TELUS volunteers packed backpacks of school supplies together as part of the Kits for Kids project.
Since the year 2000, TELUS volunteers have distributed over 100,000 such backpacks to young students and have also planted trees, donated food and organized community beautification initiatives. This year, TELUS's Manitoba Community Board announced $1 million of community funding for Manitoba. Across Canada, TELUS has provided over $54 million to 5,000 charities serving 2 million youth.
But this story has a local connection for me too, and yesterday I was joined by Principal Nori Dehn from Springfield Heights elementary in Rossmere, where humble service and active generosity have been prioritized as school values. This is part of a wider initiative to cultivate understanding of Aboriginal teachings and perspective, which are woven through school culture and curriculum with help from colleague, Sherri Black, and support from Theodore Fontaine from Sagkeeng Ojibway First Nation.
These values and the TELUS opportunity were a natural fit, allowing students at Springfield Heights to identify others outside their own school to receive the backpacks. This is a good example of corporate generosity, educators, students and Aboriginal leaders coming together to improve our community.
Madam Speaker, I ask that this House join me in honouring those present with us here in the gallery today: on behalf of TELUS, Todd Krebs, senior account manager for Manitoba; Principal Nori Dehn from Springfield Heights elementary school; and Mr. Theodore Fontaine from Sagkeeng First Nation, former executive director of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.
Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): It's very meaningful that on our last day of sitting before Canada's 150th birthday that we are in the midst of passing The Orange Shirt Day Act, which would recognize and honour residential school survivors, commemorate their resilience and also commit to educating future generations of Manitobans from all backgrounds as to the mistakes that were made but also the stories of inspiration and overcoming long odds on the road to success.
* (14:00)
I want to thank all of my colleagues for their support thus far in bringing this to pass.
I also want to thank Ted Fontaine for his remarkable story of survival on his way to becoming a victor of his experience at the Assiniboia residential school. I think I speak on behalf of all of our colleagues that we will not soon forget the words that you shared in the committee, and that as long as we and those other young people who were here today are alive, your story will be a part of the living memory of this world.
I want to also share that one of those students, a young man named Brandan, from Children of the Earth High School, literally took his shirt off the back–off his own back and offered that as a gift to our Premier (Mr. Pallister). And, though we may not agree on policy matters, I would encourage the Premier, in his deliberations, to remember the residential school survivors and what their story has to teach us about respecting the best interests of all children. And so I offer that with great humility.
I also want to speak to my late father, a residential school survivor from the St. Mary's residential school. Dad, I love you, I forgive you, and I hope that you are proud of the work we are carrying out here today.
And, to my son, I want to say, Bezhigomiigwaan, my father taught me how to pray in our language and in our culture so that I could teach you how to pray in our language and our culture. Continue to pray in our tradition, and may you be free of the emotional baggage that my sisters from Sagkeeng, The Pas, Kewatinook and myself carry with us, because, if you free yourself from that baggage, then it is your generation that will make right the mistakes of the residential‑school era.
Because there is no red race, there is no white race, there is no black race, there is no yellow race; there is only one race, the human race. And may Creator help us all.
Chi miigwech.
Mr. Scott Johnston (St. James): First, I would like to acknowledge the honourable Minister of Justice's (Mrs. Stefanson) steadfast support for Special O in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the positive impact Special Olympics Manitoba In the Schools program has been in my community.
The In the Schools program allows students with intellectual disabilities to train and compete in various sports as part of their school's athletic programming. The sports offered through the in‑schools program go on throughout the year, leading up to a competitive event at each participating school. This excellent program fosters inclusion in our schools by ensuring that all students are able to participate in competitive sports.
Over the past year, I'm proud to say that St. James Collegiate has worked with Special Olympics Manitoba on its own In the Schools program.
Under the leadership of resource teacher Leanne Wall, eight athletes and several students participated in basketball, bocce ball, track and field, and soccer events throughout the year. Each of these athletes participated as proud members of the St. James Collegiate Jimmies, ensuring that the school is inclusive to all students.
Special Olympics Manitoba does so much in our communities to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities are supported and able to live to their true potentials. It also helps educate many Manitobans about how much people with disabilities can offer our society.
Madam Speaker, our St. James Collegiate Jimmies Special O team is here today with us in the gallery, and I would like to say how proud I am of their accomplishments.
Please join me to recognize Principal Lorelei Steffler, Vice‑Principal Darren DeSerranno and all of the teachers and parents for helping these students live up to their true potentials.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. James.
Mr. Johnston: Madam Speaker, I would ask to have our guests' names included in Hansard.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to include those names in Hansard? [Agreed]
St. James Collegiate In the School Program: Darren DeSerranno; Arlene Forsyth; Joanne Hansen; Jonathan Robinson; Lorelei Steffler; Leanne Wall, teacher. Athletes: Jordana Kilgour; Zack Kopp; Kyle Marcotte; Solvieg Meinhardt; Tiara Redhead-Trout; Donald Ryle; Chrissie Thiessen; Shaylynne Zabolotney.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): This past year, 33 students from St. Theresa Point and 32 students from Garden Hill First Nations were involved in the Outside Looking In after‑school dance program. Outside Looking In offers high school accreditation for a dance program which provides the opportunity for indigenous youth to engage in long-term, intensive education through dance. Students learn from top dancers and choreographers for three days each month from September to May, earning credits toward their graduation.
The name Outside Looking In refers to our indigenous youth, who always feel as though they are on the outside of society, looking in. Through the program, students not only improve their self-esteem and confidence, but also benefit from the increased physical activity. Students are expected to show their commitment to the program. The lessons and personal growth achieved through the program shape them into leaders. Time management, accountability, responsibility, dedication and perseverance are only some of the lessons learned. The students had the opportunity to then travel to Toronto with other indigenous youth throughout the country. There, they had a stage performance to show off their talents and abilities at the Sony Centre for the Performing Arts.
This program would've not've been–would not have been possible without the support of school staff members. Staff gave countless after-work hours, providing supervision, encouragement and transportation to the students, helping them to succeed. I thank them.
Outside Looking In is a not–non-profit organization that aids our indigenous youth, and I would like to thank them. To the students: I am awestruck by your dedication. You will all surely serve as amazing role models within your communities, moving forward. Good luck to your future performances and education.
Miigwech.
Mr. Rick Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in the House today to pay tribute to the dedicated volunteers in Swan River who helped build a great Special Olympics program in the Parkland region.
Over the last seven years, the Parkland region of Special Olympics Manitoba has seen huge growth in the number of athletes, as well as coaches and volunteers working to improve the lives of people with intellectual disabilities. The resurgence began with Special Olympics Manitoba staff member Colleen Lowdon-Bula, who approached the principal of Swan Valley Regional Secondary School and asked if anyone would be interested in rejuvenating the Special Olympics program. Dedicated educational assistant June Mosiondz took up the challenge. During her years working at the school, she developed a special connection with students with intellectual disabilities and wanted them to have equal opportunities to live full and satisfying lives. She initiated the Tigers bowling program at Swan Valley regional school, creating great interest in Special Olympics programs throughout Swan River. Since then, Special Olympics Manitoba developed a strong presence in the Swan River community and throughout the wider Parkland region.
The Parkland region now offers Special Olympics programs in floor hockey, five-pin bowling, softball, track and field, swimming and bocce ball–which many of our members got a lesson today from the great athletes–to over 40 athletes in Swan River, Dauphin, Russell and Winnipegosis.
Part of what makes this success possible is the excellent relationship between Special Olympics Parkland association for community living in Swan River. Both have partnered around a common understanding, unique benefits, a competitive sport, ensuring that people with intellectual disabilities can lead healthy and fulfilling lives.
Madam Speaker, I ask that members of this House join me in recognizing the hard work of so many to put Special Olympics on the map in Swan River and throughout the province of Manitoba.
Thank you.
Introduction of Guests
Madam Speaker: I have some guests to introduce to everybody.
We had seated in the public gallery, and I think they may have left already, but we did have 33 grade 4 students under the direction of Mr. Paul Vernaus. And this group was located in the constituency of Point Douglas.
But also in the public gallery we have Dr. Michael MacDonald, who recently completed a two-year research position at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is here as the guest of the member for Kildonan (Mr. Curry).
Also in the public gallery, we have Christina Ruether, who was helping today chaperone Ms. Wainio's high school class on a legislative tour earlier this morning. And she is the guest of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Bindle).
* (14:10)
And, on behalf of all of us, we welcome all of those friends and neighbours to our gallery.
Madam Speaker: We also have two departing pages, and I would just like to tell you a little bit about each of them.
David Nyhoff will be continuing on to grade 12 at Immanuel Christian School next year. He hopes to have another enjoyable year participating in both classes and extracurricular activities while pursuing first-class honours. After high school, he is interested in entering the political or legal field. For the summer he has found a job that satisfies these interests and should be a great experience. David thoroughly appreciated his time here at the Legislature, especially calling votes and getting to know the Clerk, Speaker, Chamber staff, MLAs and their coffee orders. He wishes to thank you all for a wonderful year and hopes to see you around soon.
Also, we have Kaylyn McDonald who will be finishing her grade 11 year at West Kildonan Collegiate. She will finish grade 11 with an average of 95 per cent, with some of her favourite classes being math and history. She plans to one day go on to law school, but is excited to spend her summer working as a lifeguard and swim instructor and preparing for her senior year. She wants to thank everyone for everything they have taught her and for being so welcoming. She will miss coming to this amazing building and learning so much.
And on behalf of all members here, we wish you both the very best as you continue forward in your career strategies.
Government Record
Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): It has been an honour to serve this House as interim leader. I am humbled and so grateful for this opportunity. In my role, and with the help of all my opposition colleagues, we have held the Premier and this government to account. We have stood up for working Manitobans. We have challenged the government's austerity that will cause pain to so many Manitobans.
To the Premier and to those who rise to the mantle of leadership: Do you want a Province that works for the many or just the privileged few?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): I want to congratulate the member on her service. I want to say that I believe that she has done an admirable job with a very onerous challenge, and I think that she deserves our–all of our respect, of course, but also our congratulations for her best efforts.
Madam Speaker, many of the members of this House were, as I was, poor at one time and we, all of us here, have done our best in our lives not to remain poor. I did not get into public life to serve the person I became; I got into public life to serve the person I once was, and people who are poor and vulnerable in our society need our support, and that's the kind of government that we will continue to be.
Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question.
Ms. Marcelino: Thank the Premier for his kind words.
Madam speaking–Madam Speaker, looking around the world, we see a rising tide of women and men who are rejecting the politics of austerity. They are calling for a government that builds for the future: young people who are calling for an affordable education, families who are relying on improvements to services and working people who are calling for respect for the work that they do. But what we see from the Premier is a deeply misguided understanding about the role of government in the lives of working people.
To him and to those who rise to the mantle of leadership: Do you want a Province that respects working people or leaves them behind?
Mr. Pallister: Well, thank you, again, to the member for Logan.
The understanding of the word austerity, Madam Speaker, is enhanced by looking it up in a dictionary where it says, stark and bleak. Stark and bleak was the outlook that many Manitobans had in respect of the future of this province under the previous administration. They saw the highest increase in taxes impacting on themselves and their families. They saw a doubling of our provincial debt, in relatively good times, in just a seven-year period. They saw a decline in our service levels to 10th out of 10 in education, in fighting poverty, and health-care service delivery and in many other categories.
This is an austerity agenda. We saw it in action. Manitobans saw it in action. They voted to get off the road to ruin. They voted to get onto the road to recovery, and after a decade of debt, Madam Speaker, we're going to fix the finances of this province; and after a decade of decay in our services, we're going to repair them; and after a decade of decline in our economic potential, we're going to rebuild our economy. That's our goal. That's our focus.
Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Marcelino: Whether it's our emergency rooms or affordability, we will continue to fight for working people.
This government has had a year and already we see the twilight of the government's blue skies, but we are telling the Premier and those who rise to the mantle of leadership, after the darkness of night comes the rising sun, and it's going to be orange.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Pallister: Madam Speaker, the member is, and I do sincerely dislike criticizing her on what may be her final rejoindre in this great Chamber, but she is sadly confused, for what she is referring to is a sunset, not a sunrise.
And now Manitobans see, as they look up in this beautiful spring day, a blue sky, Madam Speaker, and they see the opportunities that will abound with new jobs, and they see the opportunities that will arrive in abundance as we unfetter the private sector and allow them to create those opportunities, and they see the wonderful opportunities to lower ambulance fees, to shorten wait times, to improve educational outcomes and to uplift Manitobans who deserve the support and partnership of government in a real way by reducing taxes, too.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Privatization Concern
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Madam Speaker, this Premier made a promise in writing to Manitobans during the election campaign that he would keep home care public, but the news that the government is now contracting out home-care services to a private for-profit company is a complete disregard for that promise and a direct threat to the quality of Manitoba's home care.
Private home care is expensive; it doesn't improve patient care and it shuts out marginalized families that need it the most. It creates a two-tier American-style system here in our province where your credit card rather than your health card gets you service.
Will the Premier admit that he broke–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wiebe: –his promise to Manitobans and will he reverse his damaging course?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Madam Speaker, the member opposite chooses to serve ideology first. We choose to serve patients first. The needs of Manitobans are our first concern and no one–no one–did more for two-tier health care in the province of Manitoba than the previous regime. It drove people away to other jurisdictions. They drove them away–well, they didn't drive them away–they had to drive themselves or find a way to get away so they could get tests done, so they could get services that they badly needed, while they endured the longest waits in Canada and growing waits in Canada.
* (14:20)
The difference between us, Madam Speaker, is clear. They want to serve ideology; we'll serve the needs of Manitoba's health-care recipients.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Wiebe: Madam Speaker, this isn't only a massive step towards the total privatization of our home-care system, but it's also a step backwards towards the Filmon era of privatization-mania that we've seen before in this province. We know that the Tories' privatization–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wiebe: –plan failed in the '90s. The for-profit providers were unable to deliver services as efficiently as the public system.
And if he won't listen to me, maybe he'll listen to the former Conservative Health minister who said himself that privatization costs the Province more and leads to worse services for seniors and families.
Will the Premier look to history and admit that private delivery will hurt families in Manitoba?
Mr. Pallister: Well, again, Madam Speaker, a little bit of rhetorical nonsense and ideology on display.
We have the worst system in Canada; it needed changing. The previous government knew that. They commissioned studies and reports. Millions of dollars were spent. Then they didn't listen to the advice; they ran away in fear. They decided that the system, the status quo, was good enough. It's not good enough for us because it's not good enough for Manitobans. [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
The honourable member for Concordia, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Wiebe: Madam Speaker, the reality is that this is an ideological move that comes after this Premier's deep cuts to our health-care system, including shuttering emergency rooms in Winnipeg. He's refusing to tell Manitobans the whole story and he refuses to admit that a privatized core service is what he's driving at here.
Home-care workers are raising the alarm bell and we will stand with them at every turn. This could violate their collective agreement to keep 80 per cent of the city's home-care services public.
Will the Premier admit that his plan to impose private home care will violate the rights of those front-line workers that he pledged to protect?
Mr. Pallister: I recognize, Madam Speaker, that after the orange sets in the sky it's dark for a while, but the member shouldn't try to cultivate, unnecessarily, fear among Manitobans when he and his own government–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Pallister: –utilized private services many, many, many times. Wasn't a question of ideology when they were in government, only a question of ideology and fear when they're in opposition.
They used private services to supply food services, laboratory services, surgical procedures, language-interpreter services, agency nursing, equipment maintenance and home care. Now, he speaks with fear about privatization. When they're in opposition, they're against it; when they were in government, they did it.
We won't do partisan things here, Madam Speaker; we'll do what's best for the province, not the party.
Government Record
Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and also to my colleagues from Lac du Bonnet and St. Paul. I appreciate that very much.
This session, we have seen the Premier (Mr. Pallister) make many changes to the education system that are alarming to teachers, students and to their families. We saw de facto cuts to the K‑to‑12 system's funding. We saw the elimination of the small class size initiative, which was puzzling because every parent that I talked to wants their child to have more one-on-one time with their teacher, and of course, they had to create complicated financial schemes before they would commit to building new schools in Brandon and northwest Winnipeg.
So parents and students would like to know, why won't this Premier commit to building our public school system rather than undermining it?
Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for the question.
During the last 10 years, the previous government was the lowest investor in education infrastructure of any province in Canada. Our government has taken steps to catch up and we are looking at the use of investment tools like public-private partnerships as something that will give Manitobans–Manitoba taxpayers a good return on investment and get the results that we need for Manitoba educations.
Madam Speaker: Order.
The honourable member for Fort Rouge, on a supplementary
Need for Accessibility
Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): This government's record on post‑secondary education is no better. They're planning to raise tuition rates for students of post‑secondaries; they've frozen funding to universities and colleges; they interfered and caused a strike, which affected tens of thousands of students; and, of course, they raised the overall tax burden on students–recent graduates in the province by tens of millions of dollars over the coming years.
So will this Premier commit to actually making post‑secondary education better and more accessible, rather than the current track that he's taking?
Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): This government's been very proud of the enhancements we have been making to Manitoba Scholarship and Bursary Initiative in this province. We took the previous government's program that barely invested $4 million per year in the students of Manitoba, and we have made that $20 million. It is focused on getting access for those that need a little extra help to get into the post‑secondary system here in Manitoba. We're very proud of this program and it will serve Manitobans well.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Rouge, on a final supplementary.
Request for Premier's Participation
Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): So, seeing as how the Premier's in the habit of answering the third questions, I'd like to change things up, here.
Again, a great young student from Children of the Earth High school, Brandan, took the shirt off his back and offered it as a gift to the Premier, and I will, you know, deliver that to the Premier after we're done question period. And, of course, I would invite him to celebrate this coming Orange Shirt Day at a school in Manitoba, perhaps Children of the Earth, where young Brandan attends.
So I'm just wondering if the Premier can commit to celebrating Orange Shirt Day this year with students at a school in Manitoba.
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): I'll continue to celebrate with all students in Manitoba, very sincerely, Madam Speaker, in every respect, in terms of reconciliation, because I believe it's a worthwhile pursuit for all of us. And I thank the member for initiating his bill.
But I will also pursue better marks for all our students, and I know they want to pursue better marks and better results too.
So I encourage the member, in his campaigns, in the present and in future, to remember that we were 10th out of 10 when we came in, and we're not going to be when we leave. We're going to work together to achieve better results for our students, because that's what they deserve. We're going to give better supports for young people entering post‑secondary training, because that's what they deserve. We're about better results here.
The member opposite appears to be defending the status quo. It isn't good enough, Madam Speaker. We're going to improve on it.
Government Position
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): As of today, the Premier missed his legislated deadline to release a comprehensive update on the Province's poverty strategy.
The Premier said that poverty is the No. 1 issue facing the province, and yet he has refused to release a strategy to combat it, a year after he's been elected. On top of that, he froze the minimum wage for a year and then raised it by three nickels. The Premier's ER closures and social service cuts will impact Manitoba's poorest families, and, without a long‑term strategy to eradicate poverty, their situation will only worsen.
Will the Premier listen to Manitobans and get to work on a poverty‑reduction strategy immediately?
Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): I'd like to say, we look at–well, we learn from the history. We know what the histories was in terms of the previous administration, where you see the amount of children that are living in poverty increased under the previous administration, as well as the amount of people overall in terms of Manitoba.
What the legislation clearly does stay is that we need to review this. Our government is committed to that. We committed to that in our budget papers and that's exactly what we'll do in 2017.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a supplementary question.
Funding Cut to Women's Centre
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Well, the minister could learn from our history. We actually got our reports done and actually tabled them in this House.
* (14:30)
The community of Point Douglas are–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order. Order.
Ms. Fontaine: –reeling after this Premier (Mr. Pallister) cut $120,000 from the North Point Douglas Women's Centre. This centre, one of only two in Point Douglas, is a core front‑line service that provides protection, education, child care and counselling to the most vulnerable women in Manitoba.
The Premier's ruthless and callous cuts is a direct attack on the people of Point Douglas and threatens the health and safety of women. And the Premier couldn't even face the community last week when they invited him to do so, and when I invited him.
Will the Premier stop this attack and immediately–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): We know that the honourable member was a senior advisor in the administration under the NDP government and we didn't see results, and that's what counts for Manitobans.
What we've done–as of–as we've done in terms of poverty reduction, we consulted with the ALL Aboard Committee. We want to align with the federal government. The federal government is having a poverty reduction strategy that will happen this year.
We want to make sure we're aligned with the federal government and that's exactly what this government will do.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a final supplementary.
Abortifacient Funding Coverage
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): The last question was about the $120,000-cut to the North Point Douglas woman's centre. Will they reinstate it?
As well, on top of that, Madam Speaker, the abortion pill is a game changer, giving women and girls full control over their reproductive life, health and access to education, career and family life that they choose. This minister couldn't even get up and answer any of the questions, save for the last question, and the minister still hasn't even said the word abortion in this House. This is his last opportunity to get on the right side of history.
Will the Minister of Health tell Manitoba women today that he will fully cover the abortion pill? [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): Thank you very much for the question.
This government is about repairing the services that are part of that, whether it be in Point Douglas, whether it be in St. James, whether it be up north. We've taken dramatic steps in terms of helping low-income individuals in terms of–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Fielding: –reducing the basic personal exemption for 2,100 people; increasing things like Rent Assist, where 5,000 more people will be supported–low income and vulnerable Manitobans–under our Rent Assist program as opposed to the previous government's.
We've taken dramatic steps in terms of investments in housing, which is going to make a difference for Manitobans and that's a part of our commitment to repair the services that were lost under the NDP administration.
Changes to Affordability Act
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): I am having a hard time keeping up with how many Health ministers they have over there because the real one never gets up.
Madam Speaker, buried deep, deep, deep into BITSA–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Allum: –legislation, the government repealed its commitment to keeping utility rates low for Manitobans. The affordability act made government accountable for keeping home heating, car insurance and hydro rates the most affordable in Canada, and yet it was repealed deeply in the BITSA legislation.
So I ask the minister: Why is he frittering away Manitoba's affordability advantage and why is he doing it by stealth?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Having to keep up with Health ministers, Madam Speaker, the member talks about that. The previous administration went through Health ministers like socks. Basically, they led rebellions. They quit in the middle of their terms. They threw up their hands and gave up on their own teammates. They had been totally so dismayed–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Pallister: –over the lack of progress achieved by the previous government they actually staged a– [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Pallister: –short rebellion to take out their own colleague for St. Boniface.
Health ministers this way and that way. The member doesn't know about Health ministers. He should know about Health ministers, he's been partnered with dozens of them over there.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Order.
The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Allum: We're inclined to ask how often the Premier changes his socks.
Former member for Seine River was the Health minister for eight years, which is a Canadian record. In this short session we've had three Health ministers stand up to answer questions on health.
Now back to the question, Madam Speaker.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Allum: This government continues–
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Allum: –to privilege the elites in this province against the people of Manitoba and the affordability act is proof positive of that.
So I ask the Premier: Will he stop trying to please his friends in the Manitoba Club and start governing on behalf of the people of Manitoba? [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Pallister: Madam Speaker, I am really honoured to be working with a group of people who want to work hard for all the people of Manitoba.
And I'm proud to have friends. I even have friends that are union bosses, but I don't let them run the government of Manitoba the way the NDP did for 17 years. I don't do that and this government won't do it, Madam Speaker.
The member speaks about his concerns for low‑income people out of one side of his mouth, but was part of a government that jacked up taxes disproportionately on low-income people. They raised the taxes on benefits for people at work, on their beer and wine, on their car. Fees and taxes went up on everything, but it wasn't enough for them and their addiction to spend more and more money that was taken from hard-working families and seniors. They decided they'd jack up the PST too, and they promised they wouldn't raise any of these taxes.
Now, this is not the record of caring the member now attempts to depict; this is the very opposite. This is an uncaring record and a record that led to the greatest increases in poverty in Manitoba history.
Now we're cleaning up the mess they left us. They should get on board and help clean it up since they created it.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Allum: One thing, Madam Speaker, one thing this year has proven is this is a government without a plan.
I mean, let's face it: Does the Infrastructure Minister have an infrastructure plan?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Allum: Does the Minister of Growth have a job plan?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Allum: Does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen) have an investment plan?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Allum: Does the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) have a crime-prevention plan?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Allum: Does the Minister of Health have a patient-care plan?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Allum: Does the Minister of Families (Mr. Fielding) have a child-care plan?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Allum: Does the Minister of Sustainable Development (Mrs. Cox) have a climate-change plan?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Allum: Does the minister of indigenous affairs have a reconciliation plan?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Allum: Does the Minister of Education have an affordable education plan?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Allum: So, Madam Speaker, while the Premier is on vacation, lying on the beach in Costa Rica, will he–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
I would just urge members that, in order to show respect for this institution and to–in order to show respect for democracy, I think that we should be having higher expectations of ourselves in this Chamber. I don't think all the drama of yelling in here is actually going to enhance the democracy in Manitoba, and I would just urge members to give that some thought.
I know it's our final day, and I would just urge that we do show some respect to the institution here and what we're all here for without overdramatizing what is happening on the floor of the Chamber. So I really would respect everybody if they would, indeed, show that kind of respect for this system.
Thank you.
Mr. Pallister: So one has to look at the record of the previous administration and ask those same questions the member so fervently asked a moment ago.
When we have the worst child poverty in Canada, did the previous administration actually have a plan after 17 years?
Some Honourable Members: No.
* (14:40)
Mr. Pallister: No.
When we have the longest waits for emergency care of any Canadians in our health-care system, did the previous administration have a plan to address that?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Pallister: No.
When we had the worst educational outcomes for our students in our schools in Canada, did they have a plan to help educate our children?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Pallister: And in so many other categories, Madam Speaker, the absence of a plan is a plan to fail. We have a plan to succeed.
Development Inquiry
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): Recently, a person in the North was irreversibly damaged due to a stroke. We had recently learned a great many things from the Heart and Stroke Foundation. We were taught to act fast, because the quicker you act, the more of the person you are able to save.
This new government also promised on their campaign trail that, if elected, they would look at bringing in a dedicated stroke unit.
Will the Minister of Health please explain what the signs of a stroke are? And will he brief us on the government's actions to date in establishing a dedicated stroke unit?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): The acronym is FAST. One is for face. If your face is sloping, then you should test your arms, that you can lift them up. If your speech is not going well or is being slurred, then that is a sign that it's time to call an ambulance. Those are the four signs and the four acronyms for the heart attack and stroke–stroke.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kewatinook, on a supplementary question.
Patient Transportation Case
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): And I would also like an answer–that was a great answer–for the– [interjection]
I requested that the minister look into the matter of the indigenous man who was presumed drunk and kicked off a Greyhound bus. Even the RCMP declared him as not intoxicated. Greyhound themselves later declared he was not intoxicated.
This medical patient was left on his own devices to walk from Grand Rapids to Thompson, a distance of over 350 kilometres.
Will the minister brief us on the government's actions to date in regards to this individual's unjust treatment?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity, like many members and Manitobans did, to hear the story, and I think that all Manitobans, our hearts went out to the individual. I don't think anybody believes that that is how somebody should be treated.
But I understand that the company that was involved has also reached out and apologized. I leave it to them to, of course, review their own 'pologies.
But, certainly, all Manitobans, including myself as the Health Minister, and I think all members of this House, would regret the way the member–or the individual was treated, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kewatinook, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Klassen: There are many northern medical patients who now feel abandoned by this government. Some now don't trust the companies that are charged with transporting patients to the medical facilities here in Winnipeg. Surely this minister can acknowledge that fact.
I do need to know what this minister and his department are doing so that patients are cared for by all parties involved in patient care.
Mr. Goertzen: Well, Madam Speaker, I think it's a little bit far to go to suggest that. There was a regrettable incident. That's been acknowledged by the company and Manitobans. But it might be a little bit far to suggest that the company no longer deserves the trust of Manitobans. They've acknowledged that there was an error. They're taking steps to address it, and I think that's the appropriate action.
Session Review
Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): Madam Speaker, I can tell you that on this side of the House we are very proud of this government's work during this session.
We're on the road to recovery; and after a decade of debt, we are fixing the finances; and after a decade of decay, we are repairing the services; and after a decade of decline, we are rebuilding the economy.
We remain committed to our goal of making Manitoba the most improved province in Canada.
As we move Manitoba towards this goal, can the Minister of Finance please highlight some of the items accomplished during this session?
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for the question.
Our government is proud of its legislative agenda on behalf of all Manitobans as we proceed Budget 2017 that reflects the advice that we received from Manitobans. We are reducing the deficit. We are reducing taxes on low-income Manitobans. We are reducing red tape. We are investing in front-line services.
Bill 21, our balanced budget legislation, brings accountability to government. We have bill–introduced Bill 28, ensuring the long-term sustainability of the services that Manitobans rely on. Our budget implementation and tax statutes amendment act brings measures to keep the education amount, even as the liberal government, federally, is eliminating that provision.
Madam Speaker, Manitoba is on the road to recovery. We look forward to the passage of bills this afternoon. Our legislative agenda has been robust and reflects that fact that we are standing up for all Manitobans.
Government Email and Cell Use
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): As we wish the Premier bon voyage and all the best for his next sojourn in Costa Rica, I want to send him off with the kind of little game that we know he likes.
When the Premier's in Costa Rica, as he is for two months every year, will he: (a) use private cell phones and private email accounts for government business, (b) admit he was wrong and use only government cell phones and government email for government business, or (c) just not do any government business at all. [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order. Order.
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, Madam Speaker, I enjoy this opportunity to respond to the member's desperate entreaties yet again, a singularly personal attack similar to the one he launched on his own colleague from St. Boniface.
The type of approach he has brought here not being adopted by a significant majority of his colleagues, I think, is good. I think what we've seen in this session of the Legislature is an attempt by the new members of this Chamber to influence those who–of us who once engaged in the types of politics the member depicts on a daily basis here–depart from it, improve the demeanour and improve the quality of debate in this place, and I encourage the member to do the same. He's capable of much better, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Swan: You know, Madam Speaker, the second question was going to be what the Premier does when he's asked about his improper use of emails and phones for government businesses.
The choices were: (a) respond with humility and acknowledge his mistake, or (b) duck and run, lash out with personal attacks and blame others. He pretty clearly answered that with his response just now.
Will the Premier just confirm that he'll use only his government phone and his government email accounts when conducting government business?
Mr. Pallister: What I'll confirm for the member is that we'll out-teamwork the previous government, that we will out-result the previous government and that we'll stay focused on the issues that matter to Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Swan: Well, Madam Speaker, this Premier loves games, and there's no game he loves more than ducking and running when he's asked questions in this Chamber, in Estimates or even by the media in the hallway when they ask him to explain his contradictory and sometimes downright bizarre answers.
Even his Saskatchewan colleague, Brad Wall, could not only negotiate a health-care accord with the federal government, Premier Wall could actually admit he was wrong and give a clear answer about using government email and phones for government business.
The thing is it isn't a game. It's not a game and Manitobans really want to know: Why can't this Premier even answer a simple–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: –question? [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
* (14:50)
Mr. Pallister: Well, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the topic the member raises. I would suggest to him that he understand that Manitobans have priority issues they care about deeply that they would like to see us focus on.
In all the hours of Estimates and all the times he's had occasion in the House to ask questions of me, he's chosen to ask questions like the ones he's asked today about cellphones and memes and tweets and 'blurps', but he hasn't asked questions of me about health care or improving infrastructure, social services, reducing crime. He hasn't asked these questions of me. He has chosen to ignore the major issues, throughout this entire session, that Manitobans care deeply about.
I and my colleagues aren't ignoring those questions, Madam Speaker. We're not ignoring the questions that Manitobans are asking. How can we make a better health-care system? We're focused on that. How can we make a better education system? How can we serve the people who need our help? Those are the questions we're interested in addressing.
The member can continue to focus on his issues; we'll focus on those which matter most to Manitobans.
Financial Inquiry
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, it was reported in the press today that the Premier looked like maybe he needs a bit of a holiday.
So I would ask him: Will he actually commit to spending some of his holiday dollars in the province of Manitoba this year, rather than just in Costa Rica?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Madam Speaker, I thank the member very much for the question, and I appreciate that the members opposite are having trouble adjusting to the opposition side.
I appreciate the fact–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Pallister: –that the member for Minto (Mr. Swan) has trouble doing research, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that fact, but I also would encourage the members opposite not to rely so much on the daily paper or certain preferred columnists for their research, not as much as the columnist relies on them for his research.
And I'd encourage all of us here to do the best we can to enjoy the province of Manitoba this summer, to enjoy the many attributes to this beautiful place, to enjoy time at fairs and festivals, to enjoy time with family and friends, and to come back refreshed, eat a Snickers bar, have fun and come back ready to work for the people of Manitoba, putting them forefront.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order. Order. I have a statement for the House–oh, the time for oral questions has expired.
Madam Speaker: I have a statement for the House.
As the House is expected to adjourn later today for the summer and also as significant renovations to enhance accessibility will begin here in our Chamber very soon, I would encourage all honourable members to prepare for this by removing the contents of their desks as soon as they're able to.
I would further encourage members to recycle as much of the material as possible. The blue bins here in the Chamber are designated for recycling of Hansard only. Any other material you would like to recycle may be placed in the larger recycling containers in the message rooms located just outside the Chamber.
Thank you very much and we'd all appreciate your co‑operation in this matter.
Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
The background to this petition is as follows:
(1) The taxi industry in Winnipeg provides an important service to all Manitobans.
(2) The taxi industry is regulated to ensure there are both the provision of taxi service and a fair and affordable fare structure.
(3) Regulations have been put in place that has made Winnipeg a leader in protecting the safety of taxi drivers through the installation of shields and cameras.
(4) The regulated taxi system also has significant measures in place to protect passengers, including a stringent complaint system.
(5) The provincial government has moved to bring in legislation through Bill 30 that will transfer jurisdiction to the City of Winnipeg in order to bring in so-called ride-sharing services like Uber.
(6) There were no consultations with the taxi industry prior to the introduction of this bill.
(7) The introduction of this bill jeopardizes safety, taxi service, and also puts consumers at risk, as well as the livelihood of hundreds of Manitobans, many of whom have invested their life savings into the industry.
(8) The proposed legislation also puts the regulated framework at risk and could lead to issues such as what has been seen in other jurisdictions, including differential pricing, not providing service to some areas of the city, and significant risks in terms of taxi driver and passenger safety.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to withdraw its plans to deregulate the taxi industry, including withdrawing Bill 30.
Signed by many, many Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: In accordance with our rule 133(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
(1) Manitobans recognize that everyone deserves quality, accessible health care.
(2) The people of northern Manitoba face unique challenges when accessing health care, including inclement weather, remote communities and seasonal roads.
(3) The provincial government has already unwisely cancelled northern health investments, including clinics in The Pas and Thompson.
(4) Furthermore, the provincial government has taken a course that will discourage doctors from practising in the North, namely, their decision to cut a grant program designed to bring more doctors to rural Manitoba.
(5) The provincial government has also substantially cut investments in roads and highways, which will make it more difficult for northerners to access health care.
(6) The provincial government's austerity approach is now threatening to cut funding for essential programs such as the Northern Patient Transportation Program, which was designed to help some of the most 'vulneratle' people in the province.
(7) The provincial government has recently announced it would cancel the airfare subsidy for patient escorts who fly to Winnipeg for medical treatment, which will be devastating for patients with mobility issues, dementia, or who are elderly and need assistance getting to the city.
(8) The challenges that northerners face will only be overcome if the provincial government respects, improves and adequately funds quality programs that were designed to help northerners, such as the Northern Patient Transportation Program.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to recognize the absolute necessity of maintaining and improving the Northern Patient Transportation Program by continuing to respect Northern Patient Transfer agreements and funding these services in accordance with the needs of northern Manitobans.
This petition has been signed by many, many Manitobans. Thank you.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to the petition is as follows:
(1) The taxi industry in Winnipeg provides an important service to all Manitobans.
(2) The taxi industry is regulated to ensure that there are both the provision of taxi service and a fair and affordable fare structure.
(3) Regulations have been put in place that has made Winnipeg a leader in protecting the safety of taxi drivers through the installation of shields and cameras.
(4) The regulated taxi system also has significant measures in place to protect passengers, including a stringent complaint system.
(5) The provincial government has moved to bring in legislation through Bill 30 that will transfer jurisdiction to the City of Winnipeg in order to bring in so-called ride-sharing services like Uber.
* (15:00)
(6) There were no consultations with the taxi industry prior to the introduction of this bill.
(7) [interjection] 7–
An Honourable Member: Why are you yelling?
Mr. Maloway: It's noisy in here, and I–you won't hear me if I don't.
The introduction to the–of this bill jeopardizes safety, taxi service, and also puts consumers at risk, as well as the livelihoods of hundreds of Manitobans, many of whom have invested their life savings into the industry.
(8) The proposed legislation also puts the regulated framework at risk and could lead to issues such as what has been seen in other jurisdictions, including differential pricing, not providing service to some areas of the city, and significant risks in terms of taxi driver and passenger safety.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to withdraw its plans to deregulate the taxi industry, including withdrawing Bill 30.
And this petition is signed by many, many Manitobans.
Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
(1) The taxi industry in Winnipeg provides an important service to all Manitobans.
(2) The taxi industry is regulated to ensure there are both the provision of taxi service and a fair and affordable fare structure.
(3) Regulations have been put in place that has made Winnipeg a leader in protecting the safety of taxi drivers through the installation of shields and cameras.
(4) The regulated taxi system also has significant measures in place to protect passengers, including a stringent complaint system.
(5) The provincial government has moved to bring in legislation through Bill 30 that will transfer jurisdiction to the City of Winnipeg in order to bring in so-called ride-sharing services like Uber.
(6) There were no consultations with the taxi industry prior to the introduction of this bill.
(7) The introduction of this bill jeopardizes safety, taxi service and also puts consumers at risk, as well as the livelihood of hundreds of Manitobans, many of whom have invested their life savings into the industry.
(8) The proposed legislation also puts the regulated framework at risk and could lead to issues such as what has been seen in other jurisdictions, including differential pricing, not providing service to some areas of the city, and significant risks in terms of taxi driver and passenger safety.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to withdraw its plans to deregulate the taxi industry, including withdrawing Bill 30.
This petition was signed by many Manitobans.
Thank you.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
(1) Manitobans recognize that everyone deserves quality accessible health care.
The people of northern Manitoba face unique challenges when accessing health care, including inclement weather, remote communities and seasonal roads.
And that was point No. 2.
(3) The provincial government has already unwisely cancelled northern health investments, including clinics in The Pas and Thompson.
(4) Furthermore, the provincial government has taken a course that will discourage doctors from practising in the North, namely, their decision to cut program designed to bring more doctors to rural Manitoba.
(5) The provincial government has already substantially cut investments in roads and highways, which will make it more difficult for northerners to access health care.
(6) The provincial government's austerity approach is now threatening to cut funding for essential programs such as the Northern Patient Transportation Program, which was designed to help some of the most vulnerable people in the province.
(7) The provincial government has recently announced it would cancel the airfare subsidy for patient escorts who fly to Winnipeg for medical treatment, which will be devastating for patients with mobility issues, dementia, or who are elderly and need assistance getting to the city.
(8) The challenges that northerners face will only be overcome if the provincial government respects, improves and adequately funds quality programs that were designed to help northerners such as the Northern Patient Transportation Program.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to recognize the absolute necessity of maintaining and improving the Northern Patient Transportation Program by continuing to respect Northern Patient Transfer agreements and funding these services in accordance with the needs of northern Manitobans.
And this petition has been signed by many, many northern Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: Any further petitions?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I rise on a matter of urgent public importance, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights, on a matter of urgent public importance.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the MLA for Burrows, that under rule 38(1) the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the need for urgent attention to the health of the Metis people in Manitoba and the need for measures which keep the Metis people healthy and the urgent need for the government to act to support the Manitoba Metis Federation and the Metis people in their efforts to keep their people healthy.
Madam Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member for River Heights, I should remind all members that under rule 38(2) the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from other recognized parties in the House are allowed not more than 10 minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately.
As stated in Beauchesne's citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not of the subject matter of the motion. In their remarks members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer.
Mr. Gerrard: I start my remarks today with an acknowledgement that we are on Treaty 1 territory and on the homeland of the Metis nation.
This morning I asked the MLA for Fort Rouge if those who attended day schools would be included in the recognition of Orange Shirt Day this September and the Septembers to come. The MLA for Fort Rouge said yes, and I thank him.
This is very important because many Metis were sent to day schools in a fashion that was analogous to the residential school system and suffered similar abuses and experiences, and the Metis people have often felt left out when it comes to be recognized. It is time to recognize the abuses and the problems that the Metis people have suffered and the health-care issues which are present today.
Today, in this matter of urgent public importance, I bring it forward because it is vital to take not only symbolic measures to bring the process of reconciliation forward, but also to take measures to address real health-care issues, some of which are a residue of the residential and daycare–day schools of the past. It is in this context of today and in the context of this being the last day of this sitting before the summer break that this matter is one of urgent public importance.
Addressing health-care concerns is an outstanding issue which I suggest is of critical importance for us to address today. It is urgent because it is the last day we will be sitting this spring and the government has yet to act in an adequate fashion to address this very serious issue.
* (15:10)
A report from 2010 done by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy in collaboration with the Manitoba Metis Federation showed the stark reality that Metis are 21 per cent more likely to die before the age of 75 compared to the rest of Manitobans, and that Metis people suffer from a higher burden of chronic disease. Metis have ischaemic heart-disease rates which are 40 per cent higher; arthritis which is 22 per cent higher diabetes, 34 per cent higher; and diabetes lower-limb amputation at rates 49 per cent higher than other Manitobans.
Madam Speaker, starting in 2011 the Manitoba Metis Federation received funding from the provincial government to address inequities in the health of Metis people in Manitoba, and to a–start to address the health needs of Metis in our province and to address prevention as well as treatment.
As shown in a comprehensive evaluation of this program, in 2013, there were positive developments in many areas, including in the development of knowledge networks, of wellness workshops, of partnerships in numerous research studies and the development of community-wellness programs, and in a focus to address brain and mental health issues in a culturally appropriate manner. Indeed, the report detailed 73 outcome measures where progress was being achieved. As one example from the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy Report, the diabetes lower‑limb amputation was strikingly high in Metis people; a partnership was developed such that an RHA developed a pilot foot-care program for Metis people.
In 2016, the operation of the Manitoba Metis Federation program continued from April 1st to December 2016, as there were no indications that the contract was ending. This, in fact, was similar to earlier years, when contracts were not signed until September or October. In this period, the MMF carried the departmental expenses, including rent, salaries, programming operation expenditures, with the knowledge of provincial officials, just as they had done in 2014 and 2015. Attempts to set up a meeting with the provincial government were not successful until a meeting was finally secured November 29, 2016, when the MMF was told that funding was terminated retroactive to April 1, 2016.
In spite of the vital importance of Metis health to Manitoba, there has been no attempt to date for the current government to have talks with the MMF to restart this important work to improve Metis health in Manitoba. It is the fact that we are on the last day of the session at–that no effort has been made to restart this program or to initiate a new program that makes this of urgent public importance today. It is vital that there not be a missing gap in the health programing for Metis people in Manitoba. A modest investment has the capability improving–of improving the health of Metis people and of reducing provincial health-care usage by Metis people and reducing overall provincial health costs.
Metis people are estimated to represent about 120,000 Manitobans. It is important that these Manitobans are not left out of the health-care planning and prevention of sickness, giving the growing awareness that cultural perspectives can be important in reducing the incidence of diseases like diabetes, as has been shown for the Pima people, in Arizona, and by Dr. Jon McGavock for First Nations people, in Manitoba.
Metis have been recognized in the Canadian constitution as one of the three Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and it is essential that they be included in approaches which can prevent sickness and keep people healthy. And the MMF are critically well‑positioned to build programing for this perspective.
Preventing one person from getting diabetes can save a lot of provincial health-care dollars. With a program like the MMF health program, it has the potential to prevent many, many people from getting chronic diseases like diabetes and ischemic heart disease and arthritis. This program, or replacement, is urgently needed, and the fact that such a program has not been announced is justification for having this matter raised in a full debate today, on this matter of urgent public importance.
It is to be noted that because there has not yet been sufficient attention paid to Metis health, the result is that Metis people have more physician visits, more hospitalizations, more cardiac catheterizations, more coronary artery bypass graft surgery, more knee replacement surgeries and more use of home care and personal-care homes than many other demographic of Manitobans. This occurs in spite of, or perhaps because of, a lower quality of primary care for Metis people. Addressing these issues has the potential to keep Metis people healthier and also to reduce health-care use and health-care costs. This should be at the very front of the government's agenda, instead of being relegated to the backburner or being off the table, as the current government is doing.
This disregard for Metis health is bad public policy. It is bad for the Metis people, and it is bad for Manitoba. For all these reasons and because addressing Metis health needs has to be a part of the overall process of reconciliation with Aboriginal people in Canada, it is a matter of urgent public importance which deserves a full debate today.
Thank you. Merci. Miigwech.
Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): It's not–no–it is no small matter to consider what may be a matter of urgent public importance. Under our rules and practices, the subject matter requiring urgent consideration must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention. There must also be no other reasonable opportunity to raise this matter. And so, in light of those two qualifiers, the member's so-called MUPI fails to meet the criteria required.
I do want to make some comments on this. I'm not saying that the issue is unimportant. I'm not saying that the issue is not one that is of concern, but it's certainly not a matter of urgent public importance.
And the member referenced changes in health-funding policy reaching back to last November, yet we have heard nothing. This is not the first opportunity that this could have been raised, and yet, for months, we've been meeting here and have heard no call of urgency from this member on this matter. We have heard nothing during question period. Even today, these–the questions raised by the member's caucus, admittedly, not the member himself, I don't believe, had any questions today, but they were not pertinent to this issue.
If this was urgent, surely he would have spoken to his own caucus. Surely they would have said this is a matter which deserves us to set aside other legitimate things because this one thing is a matter of urgent public importance, and that's not what they did. They didn't talk about it during the Estimates process. They haven't talked about it all session. They haven't raised private members' statements about it. They haven't grieved on it, and we all know every member has that opportunity.
And so, these are all examples of why, procedurally, this does not meet the matter-of‑urgent-public-importance threshold. But that is just my perspective, Madam Speaker. We might do well to consider the views of former Speakers who have had to deal with matters of urgent public importance, and the tomes are not small when it comes to researching these kinds of things, and I will not pretend to have researched them exhaustively. But I would like to reference a few Speakers' rulings.
On March the 8th of 2016, Speaker Reid noted the following, and I quote: Under our rules and practices, the subject matter requiring urgent consideration must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention. There must also be no other reasonable opportunities to raise the matter.
And again, it's this issue of no other reasonable opportunities, I think, that has been missed.
Speaker Reid, on February–or for–excuse me–February 29th, 2016, said something similar. I'd like to quote Speaker Reid: Although the subject matter is one that some Manitobans could be concerned with, I do not believe that the public interest will suffer if the issue is not debated today. I would also note that there are other opportunities available to raise concerns regarding this issue such as asking questions in oral question period, making members' statements or raising a grievance. End quote.
And it's Speaker Reid's wisdom on that point that I would draw out this afternoon. I would echo that we have had no questions in oral question period; we have had no members' statements; we have had no grievances, and so I would point back to Speaker Reid's ruling and say this does not meet the MUPI threshold.
Let's look at another ruling by Speaker Reid, this one from March the 8th as well. He says: Our rule 36(5)(d) states that a motion to bring forward a matter of urgent public importance shall not anticipate a matter that has previously been appointed for consideration by the House.
Now, certainly, our Health Minister is committed to the health of all Manitobans. This is not a new or surprising or unexpected twist. We know that all Manitobans deserve the attention of this government, and I don't think anyone in this House. Now, certainly, our Health Minister is committed to the health of all Manitobans. This is not a new or surprising or unexpected twist. We know that all Manitobans deserve the attention of this government, and I don't think anyone in this House would question that the Health Minister undertakes to secure the health of all Manitobans.
And so this is not some new development, some surprise thing. This is not such a situation. But that's not all, Madam Speaker. If I may, I would like to reference a fourth Speaker's ruling, this one from Speaker Hickes back in 2011–more specifically, June 14. And I quote: Although this is an issue, some members may have concern about, I do not believe the public interest will be harmed if the business of the House is not set aside to debate the motion today. End quote.
So we see this pattern emerging from previous speakers' rulings that there are certain criteria, certain thresholds, certain things which must be met in order for a MUPI to be a MUPI. We have heard, perhaps, the introduction to a resolution this afternoon, or possible a grievance, but certainly it's not a matter of urgent public importance.
We do need to respect this rule because the rule is a good one. The matter of urgent public importance–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Micklefield: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The matter of public–urgent public importance provision is not to be trifled with. It's an important rule. But I think that to say that this is that would be a misinterpretation of previous speakers' rulings, of the intent of the MUPI provision and even of the issue–important as it is–that has been raised today.
I could say more, but I think I would like to leave it there for now, Madam Speaker. We await your judgment, and I hope that my comments have brought some context to the matter raised by the member this afternoon.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): I won't belabour the point just other than to say that we support the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) in his MUPI. It's very important to discuss these issues. In fact, they are pressing and, in fact, they–it's been pointed out that this is the last day of the session. We're not back in session until October, so I think that the public interest would be served by having this debate.
Our NDP team is committed to repairing and healing the intergenerational trauma of residential schools, the '60s scoop and the ongoing efforts of Hydro development. We're committed to a new relationship. On that basis, I think it's important that we have this debate.
Madam Speaker: I thank honourable members for their advice to the Chair on whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) should be debated today. I would note that notice of this matter required by rule 38(1) was provided.
Under our rules and practices, the subject matter requiring urgent–pardon me, under our rules and practices, the subject matter requiring urgent consideration must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention. There must also be no other reasonable opportunities to raise the matter.
I do not doubt that this matter is one that is of serious concern to all members of the House, as I believe the health of the Metis people in Manitoba is a concern of all members to this Legislature.
However, I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward and I was not persuaded that the ordinary business of the House should be set aside to deal with this issue today. I would note that there are other avenues for members to raise this issue, including questions in question period as well as raising the item as a member's statement.
Therefore, with the greatest of respect, I rule the motion out of order as matter of urgent public importance.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Assiniboia, on a grievance.
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): Before I make my comments, I'd like to inform the clerks that I have four documents which I'd like to table immediately.
Madam Speaker, I–well, my grievance–I have a grievance on behalf of clothing, the history of clothing, with what the member from Southdale is wearing as a jacket today.
Having said that, I have a more serious grievance, and this is related to committees. I support, Madam Speaker, what you've been saying about the Chamber, but I understand that it's progressed a great deal since this time even two years ago. However, I think attention needs to be given to committees and the conduct of our members at committees, particularly when dealing with the public.
Madam Speaker, today the President of the Unites States of America pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord. This is a very serious issue, one that I have anticipated and have referred to in the documents that you have before you.
Madam Speaker, we've inherited a very difficult situation as government. The Premier's (Mr. Pallister) done a very good job, as has his Cabinet, and I know the members from Elmwood, Rossmere, River Heights, and Steinbach have worked hard to improve the rules around committee, but I ask if you could review the material I've tabled and–with an eye to see if this is how committees should act, if there is consistency in Chair rulings and if the public was, indeed, adequately provided an opportunity to speak. I encourage a reflection on practices from one committee to another and one speaker to another.
This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue out of respect for Parliament, the public and democracy, as you have so many times eloquently said.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): As previously agreed this morning, I would like to call for concurrence and third reading, Bill 223, The Orange Shirt Day Act, after which we would like to proceed in–excuse me while I just flip to the right page–to concurrence and third readings of specified bills as outlined on pages 6 through 8 of the–today's Order Paper. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the House will now consider concurrence and third reading of Bill 222, The Orange Shirt Day–pardon me–223, The Orange Shirt Day Act, which will then be followed by concurrence and third reading of the specified bills.
Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): I move, seconded by the member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine), that Bill 223, The Orange Shirt Day Act; Loi sur la Journée du chandail orange, reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Kinew: Bill 223 would make September 30th the Orange Shirt Day in Manitoba, a day to honour residential school survivors, to commemorate their experiences, but also to share the stories of resilience and hope that they have to offer.
There is a particularly important educational dimension to this as it is many educators and teachers who have popularized Orange Shirt Day and they will use it as an opportunity to teach children from all backgrounds about an important part of Canadian history towards the end of building a strong and free multicultural pluralistic society.
* (15:30)
I want to acknowledge the dispensation of those members of the House who've allowed this to reach third reading today and also to thank the many great presenters at committee that we heard from, including residential school survivor Ted Fontaine, who spoke very powerfully, as well as young Ms. Flett, a student who was very emotional and yet very courageous in sharing some words as well.
I just want to close by saying that this is not merely a bill for indigenous people or indigenous children; this is a bill for all children in our society, that we might, as government officials, seek to serve all children better by learning from some of the mistakes of the past, and that we also gift future generations of Manitoba children with a true and full understanding of what has happened here, both in terms of the negative experiences that many felt in residential schools, but also the hopeful stories embodied by survivors such as Ted Fontaine.
And as we approach our 'condred'–our country's 150th birthday, I think that it is just so important for us to commit to renewing these understandings of our shared identity as Canadians and also to carry forward towards asking how we might make our great nation even better.
So, with those words, I would just like to thank you again, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): I just am truly honoured to be part of the Legislative Assembly that has brought forth this bill. I want to thank the member for Fort Rouge for putting it to testament, putting it in the records forever, that we will now commemorate this day, and I'm proud to take part in such a wonderful experience that we–I was proud to take part in such a wonderful experience. It was the most heart-wrenching experience this past committee that we had this afternoon.
I want to thank all the people that spoke regarding this bill, and I appreciate them for bringing their stories to light, and in the spirit of truth and reconciliation, I am honoured to be here today.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 223, The Orange Shirt Day Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I'd like to see if there's leave of the House to have the vote recorded as unanimous.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to have the vote recorded as unanimous? [Agreed]
Madam Speaker: As has been announced, we will now move into concurrence and third reading of the specified bills: bills 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29. And I would indicate that the House will not adjourn until all applicable questions have been put and royal assent has been granted.
If there are any concurrence and third reading motions that have not yet been moved, the bill sponsor will move the motion without any debate.
Madam Speaker: I will now call the question on the concurrence and third reading of Bill 9.
For further clarification, based on the new rules, I would indicate that there is some opportunity for debate. On this day, the minister, critics and each independent member may speak for a maximum of 10 minutes each per government bill moved for concurrence and third reading. And we are therefore under the new rules so that will allow some further debate this afternoon.
Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): I'll move, seconded by the Minister of Infrastructure (Mr. Pedersen), that Bill 9, the 'adovcate' for children and youth act reported–be reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and now read a third time and passed.
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Families (Mr. Fielding), seconded by the honourable Minister of Infrastructure, that Bill 9, The Advocate for Children and Youth Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. Fielding: I will be making some very brief comments on this.
First of all, I do want to thank everyone that took part in all the readings, I guess if you will, and the public consultation–or the public hearings that's a part of it. The advocate for children youth, I believe, will have unanimous support, which I think is a very good thing.
Our government's very proud of the fact that through the legislative piece that we've introduced the protecting children act, and now the advocate for children youth. There were 13 other recommendations to the Phoenix Sinclair inquiry were a part of it. There is some very important aspects to this in terms of openness and transparency.
We created a stand-alone legislation independent officer for the advocate for children youth. We know it expands the mandate well beyond just the Child and Family Service areas, but will support vulnerable children, youth and entering–youth and youth adults, the justice system, health, education and disability sectors.
Bill 9, obviously, looks about creating new powers to review and investigate serious injuries and death, and these elements really, I think, will enhance the openness and transparency the child welfare system. It's something that I think has been supported–is supported, in fact, by the previous children's advocate, the new Children's Advocate. It's something that was modelled after the BC model, and we're happy, as a government, that we can introduce some legislation in terms of the child welfare system that will provide some openness and transparency.
It's my hope that this legislation will help the child welfare system in and itself improve itself by shining an eye on any issues that are part of it. It's something that I think is an important step in terms of our development, in terms of this important area, Madam Speaker.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I'm pleased to put a couple of words on the record in respect of Bill 9, The Advocate for Children and Youth Act.
So I do want to congratulate the minister.
We had some good discussions at the standing committee, presentations from individuals that have a stake in this. Of course, we all have a stake in the welfare of Manitoba children.
I want to put on the record that I think that it is a good thing that we have a new stand-alone in that we have 'extanded'–expanded the mandate for the Children's Advocate. And to that end I just want to say congratulations to our new Children's Advocate, Daphne Penrose, who I'm sure, like I said, we had the opportunity to hear from directly, who seems to be a very committed and knowledgeable individual and has assured the committee and this House that she takes her responsibilities very, very seriously.
* (15:40)
She has–her office–her and her office and her staff have a big job ahead of them with this expanded mandate, and it's right that we expanded the mandate to include justice and health and education, because we know that there are a variety of children and youth that utilizes those services that also need advocacy so that we ensure the best possible outcomes and also opportunities for Manitoba children. So, certainly, it's the right thing to do. It's one of the reasons why I had presented our private member's bill on The Children's Advocate Act earlier last–this past fall.
I also want to say, and I want to encourage the minister, that with this expanded mandate, it certainly will require additional dollars to be able to execute the duties of this expanded mandate for the Child Advocate and all of her phenomenal staff, so I hope that–you know, it's one thing to get a bill through, but certainly it's another thing to have government actually support this very, very important work, and so I, you know, I want to put it on the record that I hope the minister will put additional dollars into this office so that they can continue to do that good work.
And however the Children's Advocate office sees those dollars needed, if it's new positions or–I'm not sure what that looks like right now and I'm not entirely sure if they exactly know exactly what they're going to need, as well, with this new expanded mandate, but certainly, you know, I would encourage the minister to sit down with the office and to sit and have really good, thorough discussions on what the office needs to be able to execute these duties and then commit to the resources so that, you know, really, the spirit and the intent of Bill 9, you know, is seen through and it's actually put into practice, because I know, and we've said it, all of us who have stood up in this House to talk about Manitoba children, all recognize that we all have a responsibility to Manitoba children. And I know that and I have to believe that we all want the best and that we will put forward our best effort to serving Manitoba children to ensure that children don't fall through those cracks.
And, you know, it reminds me, and I know that I've mentioned her a couple of times, but it does remind me, and I think it's important to bring it up again, even just the case of Fonassa Bruyere, and I know I've spoken about Fonassa several times here, but Fonassa was from my reserve, Sagkeeng First Nation, and who went missing in August of 2007. She was 17 years old and she was found murdered three weeks later. But Fonassa actually wasn't a part of, she wasn't a ward of CFS, so she was kind of being–she literally was an example of falling through the cracks.
And so I hope that legislation like this, with the expanded mandate, and certainly with the resources that the minister, I'm hoping and suggesting strongly, would commit to, will help children like Fonassa not fall through the cracks and not be put at–in vulnerable positions where, in fact, they lose their lives. So, of course, that's the most extreme, as is the death of Phoenix Sinclair, but certainly every day in the province there are children and youth that need that advocacy.
So, again, I just want to say, congratulations. I'm glad that the minister, you know, utilized the bill that we had put through, save for, again, the truth and reconciliation act, which he took out, which I'm not sure–which today of all days I would encourage the minister to consider putting back at some point, that the spirit of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and everything that we heard today in committee, everything that my colleague from Fort Rouge is attempting to do in Bill 223, that it is that spirit and that recognition of, really, our history, you know, in respect of the residential school system and the legacy of it, that they will consider to put it back into this bill and live and honour that spirit of the TRC.
You know, I just want to say, again, that I think that everybody in the House recognizes the importance of this. I think that everybody in the House, and certainly on our side, we do recognize the importance of taking the recommendations from the commission of inquiry into the death of Phoenix Sinclair. I think that that's one way–this bill is one way, and expanding that mandate of the Children's Advocate is one way of honouring little Phoenix's life and hopefully a positive legacy that comes out of something that was just so horrific and so tragic.
And, again, I think that it's important that we put resources behind this bill so that we don't have any, any more, cases like Phoenix Sinclair. I know that none of us would want to have that on our watch as legislatures in this–legislators in this House.
So, again, I would just encourage the minister to put the dollars forward that are needed by the office to be able to execute this bill in a thorough way, in a wholesome manner, for the betterment of our children here in Manitoba.
Miigwech.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): I also want to congratulate the minister on bringing forward this bill. The new advocate, Daphne Penrose, seems passionate and spoke very well about the role she undertook. She knows what the right thing to do is and I trust in that. Also, I'm very happy that she had publicly stated that she will be looking to fill the indigenous children's advocate role as soon as she could.
We need to market the Office of the Children's Advocate better, and I need the government to help with that. As more people across Manitoba need to know what this office does, so that we can get that number going the–in–into the opposite direction.
More children need to know what–that the office exists in the first place and that is–that it is an office of trust. Trust does not exist currently within the CFS system. We much–we must acknowledge that and begin our work from there. And so I just want to finish with that.
Miigwech, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 9, The Advocate for Children and Youth Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
I declare the motion carried.
Madam Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 11, The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act (Staff Qualifications and Training).
Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): I'd like to move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act be reported from the legislative committee on legislative affairs, be concurred in and now read for a third time and passed.
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Families, seconded by the honourable Minister of Education, that Bill 11, The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act (Staff Qualifications and Training), reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. Fielding: I have some brief comments about this bill as well. Very happy that we're able to pass to third reading The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act (Staff Qualifications and Training) before the committees as well as before the House here.
As minister responsible for early learning and child care, I'm particularly pleased for the opportunity to create this legislation that's before us as well. The bill may–really makes changes respecting the child care education program, the approved committee, CCEPAC, as it's commonly referred to, which is currently established under Manitoba Education and Training. CCEPAC also provides essential supports for the Province since 1980.
Bill 11 supports efforts to reduce red tape by eliminating duplication. CCEPAC also, and a second time, it eliminates a redundant committee that's a part of it and puts them together. The overlapping responsibilities will be assigned to a newly established committee under the Department of Families. And this, in my opinion, Madam Speaker, will really assure that the Province will continue to receive advice on academic programs and competence from working and licensed early learning child care area. In my opinion, the act really sets a stage to ensure that qualifications of staff in licensed facilities continue to be in a 'evence'-based basis in terms of enhancement for provision of high‑quality early learning and child-care services in Manitoba.
* (15:50)
The bill is supported by, I think–well, the bill is supported by my colleague, the Minister of Education, as well as key stakeholders and, I believe, probably has the support of opposition members, as well. So I think it's a positive thing, very much support that. We are an exciting time in terms of child care in the province. There is commitments from the federal government for–to make substantial investments. We are excited and encouraged to work with the federal government with this agreement, the framework that will come out, and having a bilateral agreement later on established. We think that will work with a balanced plan in terms of creating some high-quality child care for all Manitobans.
So, with that, thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I'm pleased to put a couple words on the record in respect of Bill 11, The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act. Again, I'll congratulate the Minister of Families for getting Bill 11 to this House.
Of course, we support improving the process of ensuring high standards of staff qualifications in child care. We know that child care plays such a huge, huge and critical role in the lives of Manitoba families going to work or going to school and, actually, play such a huge role in respect of the Manitoba economy because, if we didn't have, you know, qualified, excellent child-care centres and child care–early child-care workers, certainly people wouldn't be able to go to work–or, not everybody would be able to go to work. Or not everybody would be able to go to school.
So it's obviously something that our NDP government was extremely committed to and invested in as well. And so, you know, I want to just put it on the record that we understand and certainly value early childhood educators because they are a fundamental player in the Manitoba economy. And, as have I–as I've shared with the House, when I was going to university and working, of course I had daycare for my two sons and I wouldn't be able to be where I am today if it wasn't the ability to have safe and affordable and reliable daycare for my two sons.
And I actually just saw–I guess it was at second reading when we were speaking to this bill, and I had actually mentioned Carter daycare, which is where my two sons went, and it–actually, it was only the following week later that I actually saw some of the child-care workers that worked at Carter daycare. So I actually had the opportunity to tell them that I had officially spoken and honoured and acknowledged them in this House. And it gave me the opportunity to just say miigwech to them for giving me that sense of peace and confidence to leave my two boys there while I went to school or while I went to work.
So, certainly, you know, the NDP are in full support and commitment to child care and early‑child-care educators. We fundamentally respect and value their expertise and, again, they are a part of our–they're a essential part of our child care.
And I do just want to reflect on their expertise in the sense that they do really receive specialized, unique and important training to be able to work with, you know, little babies and toddlers and all of that. And I think that that's a testament to their commitment to working with our children in Manitoba, going through that training to be able to do the phenomenal work that they do do with two-year-olds and three-year-olds having temper tantrums all day.
So, you know, certainly the NDP support that. They deserve our commitment, they deserve our respect, they deserve our support and they deserve to have a government that values them and fundamentally understands the importance that they play and supports their training and supports, you know, the facilities or investing in the facilities for them to be able to execute their jobs that they went to school and that they did training for.
So, you know, I hope that the new committee that Bill 11 establishes will function well and will continue to hear the expert advice provided by early childhood educators. They are the experts and certainly they deserve a place at the table to hear and to let their voices, their concerns, and their recommendations be heard by the minister.
And certainly we–we would never want to see regulations relaxed in a way that compromises the children in child care. I think it's important that regulations are maintained to ensure the safety of Manitoba children and, you know, it reminds me of a little girl from my community, Sagkeeng First Nation, that actually died in a fire in a child care centre, and the devastation that that did for the family and actually for the community of Sagkeeng. So that child care centre wasn't in Sagkeeng, but it actually led to the development of a child care centre being established in Sagkeeng First Nation.
So, certainly we want to ensure that regulations are stringent and that they keep Manitoba children safe, and I think it should be noted here in the House, you know, that regulations are not red tape when it comes to our children. They literally keep our children safe and no parent would want to go to work or would want to go to school and know that there are regulations–or there are a lack of regulations that are keeping their precious babies safe.
And, like I said, I can't stress enough the confidence that I had in Carter Day Care for my boys. I knew–you know, I mean everything that they did in that daycare, I knew and I had confidence that my two boys were safe.
So you know, I think it's important to–you know, that we understand that regulations are not red tape. Regulations are there–they're actually based out of, and they develop out of the expertise of early childhood educators and parents that understand the–what we need to be able to keep children safe.
So you know, I guess–you know, my hope is that, you know, the minister will continue to consult with outside experts and important voices like the Manitoba child care coalition and the Manitoba Child Care Association, rather than taking on an ideological approach in respect of our children and child care and early childhood educators.
Our government, as I said, our NDP government was committed to high-quality, affordable child care that supports families, strengthens our community, our economy, and gives children a strong start. Since 1999 the NDP created 14,000 licensed child-care spaces. Also, under the NDP government, we built 100 new child-care facilities, and then as well, under the NDP government, we improved wages and training for early childhood educators. And I would suggest to the House that that is fundamentally an indication of our support to child care for Manitoba's families but also to early childhood educators themselves, recognizing the fundamental role that they play.
We–Manitoba has–again, thanks to our NDP government–the lowest child-care fees outside of Quebec. And I think that that's also important to note and I hope that the minister will commit to those low fees for child care because as child-care centres and early childhood educators are a part of–a fundamental component and a fundamental part of the economy, so are those fees. They are all kind of interwoven with one another to be able to have a robust economy in Manitoba.
* (16:00)
We started implementing a five‑year early‑learning-and-child‑care plan to create 5,000 more funded child‑care spaces. We were committed to investing $25 million to build at least 20 new or expanded child‑care centres in schools and $2.8 million per year to build child‑care centres outside of schools.
Those are substantial investments that, quite honestly, we haven't seen from this government yet. And, you know, if–I mean, it's fine to be able to establish, you know, a new standards or a new committee, but it's certainly something different to have this government actually invest substantial dollars into child care.
So I'm not sure, again, you know, we don't know what the plan is. We don't–we've seen, you know, little fragments of whatever this plan is, but it certainly does not in any way, shape or form compare to the $25 million that we were going to invest, recognizing the importance of child care and early childhood educators.
So I hope that the minister starts to–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): I'd like to thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. Ensuring safe places and high standards of care through proper qualification and training for our children to stay at while Manitobans go to work is a fantastic endeavour, and we all know that there's still more to be done.
And as a closing comment, the Liberals support this bill.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 11, The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act (Staff Qualifications and Training).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]
Madam Speaker: We will now go to concurrence and third reading of Bill 13, The Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act.
Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): On behalf of the Minister of Health, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Education, that Bill 13, The Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Micklefield: It's a privilege to offer a few comments on Bill 13, the regulated health professions amendment.
The original Regulated Health Professions Act became law in 2009. The law is intended to ensure all health professions are governed by consistent and uniform regulations with a focus on patient safety and accountability. The current legislation and regulation specific to each regulated health profession will be repealed as each profession is brought under the new umbrella legislative framework of the RHPA. These professions will be regulated under the RHPA in the specific regulations of the particular profession.
A designation as a self‑governing health profession requires that the governing body regulate its members in the public interest at all times. This is a significant responsibility–[interjection]
Thank you. I'm not sure where I was, so I'll just keep reading, keep speaking here.
Designation as a self‑governing health profession requires that the governing body regulate its members in the public interest at all times. This is a significant responsibility that is delegated by government to the colleges of self‑regulating professions which carry out this responsibility on behalf of government.
In seven of 10 provinces, government or an agency of government is responsible for regulating paramedics. In Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, paramedics are self-regulating. Nova Scotia is currently transitioning to self-regulation.
This bill amends the RHPA to allow health profession regulation to incorporate by reference standards of practice created by the college itself without having to amend the regulation. Key standards remain.
The provision is similar to what already occurs in The Social Work Profession Act. The Paramedic Association of Manitoba, which represents the professional interests of paramedics in Manitoba, submitted an application for the designation of paramedics as a regulated health profession under section 156 of RHPA. The former minister referred the application to the Health Professions Advisory Council for its investigation and advice on whether paramedics should be regulated under the RHPA. Of course, this legislation stems from those discussions.
I think I'll leave it there, Madam Speaker, in the interest of time. Thank you for your attention.
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): An honour to rise in the House to speak to Bill 13, and–to The Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act.
I will note for the record I found it quite strange–and in the time that I've been here, anyway, it seems somewhat odd that the Minister of Health hasn't put words on record yet. And rather it was the Government House Leader who begun debate this afternoon.
Just wanted to put a few words on the record just to say that our NDP caucus certainly supports open and transparent self-regulation on the part of professional bodies. We know there are a number of professional bodies in this province, and we appreciate the work that they do to not only regulate, train and work with their members to make sure that they're providing excellent public services to Manitobans, but also the work that they did in coming forward to committee, bringing forward their concerns with regard to this amendment, and we certainly heard from them loud and clear.
Of note that evening–I would note, Madam Speaker–was the words of doctors in Manitoba, who had some significant concerns with this legislation who wanted to put on the record their views with regards to ways that this particular legislation could potentially not serve their members, and ultimately, not serve the public as it is intended, and they wanted to put on the record some concerns that they had with this particular legislation.
They recognized the need to ensure that the public has all the information with regards to its members, and I do appreciate that within the legislation there is wording around some of the caveats on which that information could be withheld. And I note that the doctors certainly had some concerns with how broad the bill was, but we understand the balance there between making sure that the public is aware of the activities of health professions–health professionals, but also protecting their confidentiality and their own security.
We know that it's important for professional bodies ultimately to be accountable not only to their members, but also to the public, and we feel that this legislation is part of that solution. And we also support published, identifiable information that could have an impact on patient care be made available.
And I'd also like to note, Madam Speaker, that when we did have committee there was an opportunity for nurses to come forward to speak about the good work that their membership does, to speak to how much of this information is already provided by their professional body and how they work very hard day-in and day-out to make sure that their members are accountable to the public and to the nurses themselves.
You know this is a great example of, you know, front-line workers having an impact in our province, not only day to day in the work that they do, but also in being accountable to their professional bodies, and then to the public. And I know that they had some issues with this bill, so it is that–I think it's important that the government right–respect that and appreciate that concern that they have.
* (16:10)
We are concerned any time front-line workers are not being listened to and so again, this is an opportunity, I think, for the government to step up, to understand their concerns, and potentially look at this legislation in the future and making sure that it is working as intended. And we will certainly keep our own diligence in that regard to make sure that this regulation is functioning as it should.
So, with those few words, Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank the government for bringing this forward and move on with this bill.
Thank you.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, just a few comments on Bill 13 in the third reading.
One of the goals of our legislation needs to be to protect the public.
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
And another one is, in fact, to make sure that we are also dealing fairly and protecting health-care professionals from being targeted, because, in fact, one of the things which is important for all of us to recognize is that members of the health-care professionals–professions, whether they be doctors or nurses or any of many other professions, are not free from illnesses or diseases or brain-health conditions, and that it is important that we have circumstances where people who are members of the health professions can work and do their job optimally but at the same time the members of the public are protected.
And there are many ways in which we do this–regulations which cover the practice of physicians and nurses and others in health-care facilities to prevent infection transmission and so on. But one of the things that we also do need to do is have an approach which will work when you have, for example, a member of a health profession who has a brain-health condition, and that brain-health condition might be that the individual has had experience with depression or with addictions or with other brain-health conditions. And so we need to make sure that these health professions–professionals are being–practising and being supported in a way that they can do their job effectively and yet are not stigmatized.
Indeed, interestingly enough, sometimes a member of a health profession who has had a problem, for example, with depression, has recovered from that problem, can actually be much more understanding and empathetic in dealing with individuals who have similar or sometimes other conditions. And that understanding of a condition and the empathy can be very important in delivering the optimum level of health care. And so it's important that we have circumstances where individuals can be supported and enabled to deliver services to the public and yet the public be protected at the same time.
And this is one of the important roles that colleges have, and–in setting and monitoring what is happening with professionals in setting rules for professionals and in–sometimes in setting approaches that will enable a professional to continue practising, knowing that there are other professionals who are working as part of a group who can cover when an individual is struggling for whatever reason.
And so this bill really is about setting the stage to do this appropriately and handle different professions, different colleges in slightly different ways so that each of the colleges can set their standards of the support for health professionals in ways that are appropriate for that profession and so that there can be public information which is also appropriate to the circumstance.
And it is for this reason that we believe that this is a reasonable bill, and we will support it because we believe it is important to protect the public and enable the public to get the best possible service and yet, at the same time, provide an environment in which the health professionals can do the very best that they can and can contribute to the health and well-being of all our citizens.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is the–is concurrence and third reading of Bill 13, the regulated health professional amendment act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We'll go on to Bill 16, The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act.
And we'll have the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson).
Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Indigenous and Municipal Relations (Ms. Clarke), that Bill 16, The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les enquêtes médico-légales, reported from the Standing Committee on Justice, be concurred in and now read for a third time and passed–pass–passed.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Stefanson: I want to just put a few words on the record in third reading with respect to Bill 16.
I'd like to reiterate that this government recognizes the value that inquests serve in bringing to light the circumstances surrounding certain deaths and providing recommendations to prevent similar deaths in the future. This bill continues the current law by giving the Chief Medical Examiner complete discretion to call an inquest whenever he or she is of the opinion that this would be in the public interest.
The main change brought about by this bill is to provide for mandatory inquests for all deaths of persons in involuntary provincial care, except where the Chief Medical Examiner is satisfied that the death is due to natural causes and was not preventable, or there was no meaningful connection between the death and the nature or quality of supervision or care provided to the deceased.
This change was a–in response to several comments by judges that not all mandatory inquests were a good use of resources. Giving the Chief Medical Examiner the option not to call an inquest in limited situations will ensure that the resources necessary to conduct an inquest are used for matters that warrant this level of public scrutiny.
The bill also provides, Mr. Deputy Speaker, clarity on the purpose of an inquest, the powers of the judge conducting the inquest and the role of counsel at the inquest. The bill makes clear that inquests are nonadversarial proceedings and the judge is given wide discretion as to how to conduct the inquest in a fair and expeditious manner. This will allow inquest judges to use some of the processes that inquiry commissioners have employed, such as convening expert panels or reviewing relevant reports.
So, with these few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the passage of the bill and to listening to the comments from other members of the Chamber.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): You know, it truly is a measure of what we are as a society by the way that we treat those that have the very least. And I'm sorry to say I have to rise today and say that Bill 16 actually takes away protections for those who do have the very least in our society. And I think that's a shame.
We've had a lot of discussion on the bill. We had a committee hearing at which we heard from some very knowledgeable witnesses. And I don't think that Bill 16 is the right way for us to move because it is going to make it more difficult for families, for citizens, for government to understand what's gone wrong when someone dies in a number of different situations.
* (16:20)
And let me say, as I did on second reading, that it's not unreasonable for this minister to want to make changes to the way that fatality inquiries or inquests work in Manitoba. I don't think anybody can criticize that. I think it's fair to say that, in many cases, inquests have taken too long to go ahead, and in some cases inquests have taken everyone down a road that, maybe, has not been helpful or productive.
But we learned at committee from Mr. Shefman, one of the people who came to present that in fact, the Manitoba Law Reform Commission already had been conducting a review of how inquests work in Manitoba. And I think it would have been wiser for the minister to wait for that work to be done, to hear what the Manitoba Law Reform Commission had to say and then move forward, perhaps, with some amendments, some changes–some improvements, frankly, that might be more well-reasoned than what we're seeing in Bill 16.
Inquests are important. They actually go back hundreds of years in the common law. The purpose of an inquiry, originally, was to simply find out the reasons why someone died. In some cases, that is the purpose of an inquest. But that purpose has really evolved over the past many years, and the job of the judge who conducts the fatality inquiry is really to find out beyond just why the person died. Are there things that could be done? Whether it's a law, whether it's a regulation, whether it's a policy; is there something that could be done to make it less likely that someone will die in the same circumstances in future? And it is a very, very important part of the way that our system operates.
The judge who writes the inquest report has the ability to make wide-ranging recommendations. The judge who conducts the inquest has the ability to hear form witnesses, they can review medical records, they can review operational records–they can be the fact finder. They can hear from witnesses–some of whom may be keen to testify, some of whom may be less keen to testify in front of a judge and try to come up with answers.
And Bill 16 doesn't do anything to make the justice system more effective. What it will do is, it will reduce the number of inquests. And most of the reduction of the number of inquests will be cases where someone has died in custody. They've died in a provincial jail or they've died in a federal jail–which, in Manitoba, means Stony Mountain penitentiary.
Two thousand and sixteen was probably the worst year that anyone can remember for deaths in those institutions. We know that at least seven–there might be more, actually–but at least seven people died in provincial jails. We know several people died last year at Stony Mountain Institution, and unfortunately we've heard just recently that there have been more deaths in that institution.
And you know, we may be angry at people that are in jails. We may be scared of them. We can even, perhaps, agree that there's some people that should certainly be there. But spending time in a provincial institution or a federal institution should not be a death sentence, and what this bill will do, is it will give far more discretion to the chief medical examiner–who's not independent, who's an employee within the Justice Department–to decide whether or not a death should go on to have an inquest. And that is not a good thing.
I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the Minister of Justice gets the inquest report–I read every single one, I hope this minister does. I truly do. And most all of the situations where an inquest report is called are tragic and are sad situations. And in virtually all inquests there are ideas that come forward from judges of how we can do things better. And having less opportunity for those cases to be considered by a judge for an independent review and a public outcome is not good for justice, it's not good for the safety of people in our institutions, and it's not good for safety generally.
And there were a number of comments that were made by Mr. Shefman, who presented at committee; a number of comments by Mr. Hutton, who presented at committee on behalf of the John Howard Society; and even Peter Markesteyn–Dr. Peter Markesteyn, who used to be the chief medical examiner in Manitoba–they all had concerns about this bill.
And let me in the short time that I have, speak about those. Number one is that it will give the discretion to not call an inquest if the chief medical examiner is of the view that there'll be no changes to provincial law or provincial policies. This will effectively give the chief medical examiner the ability not to call an inquest at a death that happens at Stony Mountain Institution, even though the person may very well be a Manitoban, and most certainly are Canadian.
And the minister in the questions and answers, seemed to suggest there was a federal inquest process. There is no federal inquest process. There is an investigation that will happen at Stony Mountain when there's a death in custody, but that is an internal, private investigation. It's not a public procedure. Families don't necessarily have the chance to understand what's going on, and as Mr. Hutton expressed very well at the course of the committee, many times it's Manitoba Corrections that learns from an inquest that happens from a death at Stony Mountain Institution to up their standards and make things safer for inmates as well.
The second concern is that this will provide that there is discretion not to call an inquest if there's another process, and I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when there's a death in a provincial jail, there is an investigation. Each and every time there is an investigation, and there is a report that goes to the minister. But that investigation does not hear from families; that investigation is not made available to families or to communities or to organizations or to the public. It is a private, private process that's being run within the Department of Justice, and it does not take the place of an inquest and giving people the ability to understand what has actually happened.
And the third major concern is that the Attorney General will no longer have any residual ability to call an inquest at the present time. Even if the Chief Medical Examiner determines that it's not necessary, the Attorney General of Manitoba has the ability to call an inquest, and that is being taken away for reasons that I really cannot understand.
And what Mr. Shefman had put forward at the committee hearing was something similar to what they do in Ontario, which provides that if a family who's lost someone, they have the ability to at least have the Chief Medical Examiner review that decision to see whether, in fact, there are appropriate grounds to have an inquest.
And, in all those concerns, we had actually brought forward amendments, some ideas to try and strengthen the law, to try and take away some of the bluntest tools that are contained in Bill 16, and, unfortunately, these report stage amendments were never called, even though, of course, the bill went through second reading back on April 5th of this year, more than seven weeks ago, there was no opportunity to debate those amendments. They were all voted down two nights ago by the Progressive Conservative majority. And I think that's wrong, and I think there are things we could have done to make things better, to blunt this instrument and to give more protection to people.
I want to finish with something I did talk about at second reading. Maybe the most troubling inquest report I ever read involved two young women, two young indigenous women who committed suicide within weeks of each other at the Manitoba Youth Centre. It was upsetting for the other youth at the centre. It was upsetting for every single staff member who works at the Manitoba Youth Centre, and it was upsetting for communities. I think it was upsetting for all Manitobans.
And Judge John Guy, a very respected member of the court, wrote an inquest report which did not blame the employees, which, in fact, did not come up with any particular operational changes because the evidence was that the workers had done everything possible, but the fact was that these children were so traumatized from their life experiences that they both chose to take their own lives. And we use that report to still improve services provided to young people, to improve staffing, to improve the way that things are done.
And, happily, because the number of youth in custody were declining, we were able to close some units at the Agassiz correctional centre and move more capacity into the Manitoba Youth Centre. Even though there weren't more youth there, there were now more services, and that's the kind of situation I fear is not going to result in an inquest and we're not going to have that advantage.
So, for those reasons, we'll be voting against Bill 16. The minister could do much better, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Having looked carefully at this bill and having had the presentations that we had at committee, our concerns from the Liberal caucus are that this is not a good bill. We see that there are significant problems in the potential to decrease inquests and not have inquests called when they should be.
* (16:30)
And I put this in the context of what we now look at in terms of reasons for people dying, and I will start with the story of David Fifi. David Fifi was a worker for Comstock Inco mine and in the fall of 2008, November 6th, he had been working at a site where there were very high concentrations of gasses like sulphur dioxide, chlorine, carbon monoxide. He went home after a particularly rough day with numerous instances where the levels of gases were over the top and above and beyond acceptable range and he was not feeling well, and, interestingly enough, most of the other workers on that–as part of that crew were also feeling unwell. So he went home and at 5 o'clock in the morning he called his wife, who, I believe, was in Winnipeg, to tell her that he was not feeling at all well. Managed to get him to the hospital in Gimli, to the emergency room, but he died, passed away at 8 o'clock. When the autopsy was done, it was said that it was a heart attack and that this was from natural causes and therefore there didn't need to be any further investigation.
Well, now, let me talk for a moment about firefighters and how we have evolved in terms of our understanding of firefighters. A firefighter who had a brain cancer, up until not all that many years ago, would probably have been considered to die from natural causes, i.e., a brain cancer. But we recognize now, No. 1, that brain cancer is a result of the exposures in many circumstances that the firefighter will have had on their job. And we recognize this in the way that we approach compensation through the Workers Compensation Board, and we recognize this in this Legislature in legislation, and we recognize that where the risk of a firefighter getting a condition like a brain cancer is greater than twice the rate at which other members of society get such a brain cancer, that this is to be considered a result of the conditions of the occupation and that is to be recognized.
One of the big and important results of doing this has been that there has been much better awareness and understanding of the exposures that firefighters are subject to and better safety mechanisms so that the firefighters are protected from the exposures which would lead to brain cancer, not completely, but the safety mechanisms have improved.
In the case of a heart attack or it might be a pneumonia, but it is very likely, in my view, that the heart attack that David Fifi had was the result of the cumulative exposure and stress of that exposure that he had to these 'toxis' gases, which had been going on for some time.
Indeed, we know from reports, in June of that year–that would be five months before–that the exposure to the toxic gases was at a very high level and that such a high level that it is was emphasized in a report of that date that people would need to be very, very careful and ensure that the respirators that were used were fully able to cover the problem.
Now, we have evidence from witness testimonies that the respirators were not fully able to cover this problem, that the gases went right through the respirators, and we have evidence from many who were sick and we have evidence from David Fifi and two others who died that there was a real problem in this workplace.
And I bring this up because it's really important in this context to–when you consider that somebody may have been said to have died of natural causes. But in fact, we have to be very, very careful because not too long ago, we would have labelled a firefighter of dying from natural causes rather than from an occupational exposure. And I believe that in the circumstances in which prisoners are held in institutions, that there can be stresses and circumstances which, indeed, would be such that they could die from what could be labelled natural causes, but there could be circumstances around that death that it would be very, very important to understand.
We could have an individual, for example–and there was an individual, I understand, who died the last couple of years in one of our institutions who had epilepsy, who had seizures–seizures–well, that's a natural cause. That's a condition that that individual had.
But, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that you need to look at why that individual died from seizures. Did–was that individual able to get the medication? Was there access to the treatment? Was there access, in that environment, to things which would prevent seizures which were–seem to be related, in my understanding, to the death of that individual?
So I would suggest to the minister that, if she were wise, she would withdraw this legislation right now and take it off the table and come back with a better legislation after–as the member for Minto (Mr. Swan) has said, there is a review going on.
So we will be voting against this because we don't believe it is good legislation, and we believe that we can and we should be doing better, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is the concurrence and third reading of Bill 16, The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
The question before the House is the concurrence and third reading of Bill 16, The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Cox, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Reyes, Schuler, Smith, Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Fontaine, Gerrard, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Swan, Wiebe.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 36, Nays 14.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* (17:40)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will now go on to Bill 17–for the third concurrence and third reading of Bill 17, The Court Security Amendment Act.
Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Health, that Bill 17, The Court Security Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la sécurité dans les tribunaux, reported from the Standing Committee on Justice, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Stefanson: We've already had the opportunity to speak to this bill on other readings, and so we look forward to the passage of this bill through the House.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): It's a pleasure to put some comments on the record about Bill 17.
In large measure we support measures to make those involved in our criminal justice system safer, and we believe that improved security in our courthouses is–unfortunately, necessary–but it is necessary nonetheless.
And I just want to put a few comments on the record of something that I expect is going to be an issue for this minister and for this government very soon.
Bill 17, will officially define prohibited items as alcohol, cannabis, controlled substances as defined in The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and (d) any item used to ingest a substance referred to in clause (b) or (c). In the main, perfectly reasonable and perfectly acceptable. But as I tried to explain to the minister in my debate on second reading, as I tried to explain at the committee hearing and by way of an amendment that I brought, there are Manitobans who now–and more Manitobans in future–who will be using these products–cannabis in the very least and controlled substances–as medicine.
And what I think the minister needs to understand as we move ahead–even later today, dealing with Bill 25–that as you move ahead to the legalization of marijuana, which is being brought forward by the federal government, we are going to have to make reasonable accommodations for people who use these products as medicine, and it's not always the stereotypical user. And I think all of us in this House–some of us are yet to be educated into learning more about this.
Court is not a very comfortable place to be. Imagine a sexual assault victim who suffers post‑traumatic stress disorder who may actually be prescribed by her doctor a cannabis product to try and deal with her anxiety. We may have law enforcement officers, RCMP officers, police officers, who may be retired from their force who have to come back for a historical trial and we know that there are law enforcement officers, retired military personnel who use cannabis products as well for their own psychological or their own physical well-being. And that is not a reason to vote against this bill, let me make that clear. But it is one of the things that I'm asking the Minister of Justice to deal with so by the time we get around to next July, which is when the federal government has indicated their intention to legalize cannabis in Canada we have these reasonable accommodations in place, because if we don't, what will happen–someone will attend with their medicine at the courthouse, it will be taken away, and there will be a complaint to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.
I ask the minister and the government to carefully think this over. We certainly have time and if they have reasonable proposals and reasonable measures, we will obviously be quite prepared to agree to those.
So, with that caveat, we are quite prepared to pass on Bill 17.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): I'd like to thank the minister for bringing forward Bill 17, The Court Security Amendment Act.
Our Liberal caucus will be supporting this bill because it enhances safety and sheds clarity on the description of weapons here in our province.
Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 17, The Court Security Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We'll go on to next bill. We'll be going to Bill 18, The Legislative Security Act, for the third reading and–concurrence and third reading.
Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Health, that Bill 18, The Legislative Security Act; Loi sur la sécurité de la Cité législative, reported from the Standing Committee on Justice, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Stefanson: Again, we've had the opportunities to put several words on the record with other readings on this bill, and we look forward to the speedy passage of this piece of legislation to ensure the safety of all Manitobans who come and visit the beautiful building that we're so lucky to have the privilege to work in.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): It was actually one of the founders of the United States of America who must be spinning in his grave with events across the border–it was Benjamin Franklin who said those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. And, although there are certain provisions of Bill 18 that are certainly worthwhile and positive, overall there were great concerns with Bill 18, which is going to change very radically the way that Manitobans have enjoyed access to the Legislative Building and this Legislative grounds for nearly a century, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
And I know the minister today talks about having had a chance to debate this. For reasons that I can only surmise, there has been virtually no opportunity to debate this bill. This was a bill that was never called once before the deadline for the second reading, and we were limited to a speech from the minister, a speech from the critic and a speech from independent members. And then off it went to committee. It came back and now, of course, two nights ago there were amendments that were brought forward to try to blunt some of the effect of this bill. Again, never called by the government. We had to vote on them without any ability to debate or any ability to discuss the reason for those amendments.
And here we are today, now, well after 5 p.m.; bill never called once for debate until these new guidelines have kicked in. And, again, I'm limited to a 10-minute speech. None of my other colleagues can speak to this. The independent members are limited to 10-minute speeches. And I think we have to wonder why that would be the case. [interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Swan: And let's go back to the history of where this came from. This comes from the mandate letter that the Premier (Mr. Pallister) gave to the Minister of Justice. A mandate letter which, of course, said nothing about actually improving safety and security for the people of the province of Manitoba.
The letter contains the following item, and I quote: Transfer authority for the use of the Manitoba Legislature and grounds from Manitoba Infrastructure and Trade to the non-partisan Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
Now, at first glance, that might sound okay. Speaker–whoever sits in that Chair, whoever that may be, is non-partisan and have responsibilities within the Legislative Assembly. And the Speaker is elected by MLAs to carry out a number of functions regarding the operation of the Assembly. But I would say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the direction to take control of the people of Manitoba's Legislative Building away from the people, away from a government department and a responsible minister, runs contrary to the way thing–we have done things in Manitoba for a century.
* (17:50)
This building and these grounds have been a place that Manitobans have chosen to gather, sometimes to rally, sometimes to protest, oftentimes to let their voices be heard. And sometimes it may be for or against the provincial government of the day. Sometimes it may be dealing with a federal issue. Sometimes it may be dealing with an issue that we as provincial legislature–legislators may think have nothing to do with what we do in here, but it's a very, very important place for people and it always has been.
Every June, for example, this weekend, there will be thousands of people gathering on the grounds for the Pride Parade. There's a reason why the Pride Parade begins and ends at the Manitoba Legislature: because the Pride Parade, which is having its 30th anniversary this year, recognized early on that this building actually was the place where decisions could be made to make things more fair for Manitobans. And over the past 30 years, that has been the result.
Sometimes it may be protesting against a government's decision, and that happens whichever party may happen to be in office. No Manitoban agrees with every cause that's promoted in the Legislature, but I would submit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at least–likely, every Manitoban has cared at least about–at least one of the issues raised at some event at this Legislature.
And provincial governments in Manitoba of all stripes have always been very, very reluctant to stop people's ability to rally, to protest, even when it's been uncomfortable for the government of the day. And there's some reasons for that, and that is because if someone is denied entry to the building, they're removed from the building, they're denied the ability to appear on the grounds, they're denied the ability to pitch a tent on the grounds, there is a political response. And if a Manitoban or a group of Manitobans are denied access to this building, to these grounds, right now, members of the opposition, perhaps even members of the governing party, have the right to ask questions and ask the Minister for Infrastructure why that is and raise it in question period, raise it as a grievance, raise it in Estimates.
If it's the Speaker who then has that responsibility, what am I as a legislator supposed to do if somebody has an issue? If I stand up and I say to the Speaker, why was this group of people removed from the Legislature, and told they're not able to be on the grounds, I'm likely going to get thrown out of this Chamber for criticizing the Speaker. And that's not the way this should be. It needs to–this is a political building, and there needs to be some accountability by government if they choose–if there's a choice made to limit people's ability to be in this building.
And you know–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Swan: –we've already seen sharp limits placed by the federal government, by the Harper government, on the rights of ordinary Canadians to protest and to speak out. And Bill C-51 was passed by the Harper government, and it's of course as yet untouched by the Trudeau government–puts restrictions on the ability of Canadians to exercise their right to speak out.
And the mandate which has been given by this Premier (Mr. Pallister) to this minister actually goes hand in hand with what's contained in Bill C-51 to prevent people from having the ability to have the kind of access they've enjoyed to this Legislature for, as I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, almost 100 years.
And why is this a priority for the new government? Why is this more important than any measures to reduce crime or any measures to reduce public safety? Well, we've got some ideas. We've got some ideas on that, because I expect we're going to see hundreds, if not thousands, of students come down to this Legislature to protest much higher tuition that this government is choosing to impose on Manitoba students.
We see, just today–just today–my colleague from Concordia asked questions about this government's plan–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: –to privatize home care. And we only need to go back 20 years to find a time when thousands of Manitobans came down to this very building to issue their opposition to the Progressive Conservative government of the day's choice–their choice–to privatize home care.
And, you know, there is some real history, and perhaps it's unfinished business for this Premier. We found, of course, back in the archives, back in 1996, there was a group that wanted to come down and protest poverty and make issues become known. And that was actually in May of 1996, almost exactly 21 years ago. And organizers of a women's anti-poverty protest said the Filmon government was refusing them use of the provincial Legislative grounds for their event. And the group had hoped to set up what they described as a peaceful tent village on the west side of the Manitoba Legislative Building for three days, and that was to coincide with a national women's poverty march by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Canadian Labour Congress.
But the Government Services minister of the day, who now happens to occupy the Premier's chair today, was outraged by this. He said the Legislative grounds were a business site and not a campground. In his usual folksy way, he encouraged anyone contemplating setting up a tent to choose one of the province's many qualified campgrounds, where they'd be safer and more accountable.
Well, denying people their opportunity to come to a public space–an important, historic, public space–to let their views be known still seems to be something on this Premier's radar. And maybe he's still angry about the fact that his attempts to kick out an anti‑poverty group–an anti‑poverty women's group–who wanted to camp on the Legislative grounds became a political issue and, eventually, the government had to relent and had to be reasonable.
And I can tell you, as Justice Minister, it wasn't always comfortable to have protests at the Legislature. It wasn't always comfortable. Democracy is not always smooth and comfortable and quiet. [interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. Order.
Mr. Swan: And I hear members of the Progressive Conservative party laughing about the fact that I'm saying that democracy is not always quiet and easy and smooth; that sometimes democracy requires letting people express themselves, letting people use this building and these grounds–as long as they are not posing a harm to themselves or to anybody else–to express their views. [interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: And I do–I do have concerns that Bill 18, despite some positive measures in this bill, whether it's required by legislation is another story, but the many positives are outweighed by the fact that this appears to be a long‑standing piece of unfinished business by this Premier that's going to stop people from enjoying their right–their democratic right, their long‑standing right–to rally, to protest and let their voices be known.
And you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's just wrong.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Again, I'd like to thank the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) for bringing forward Bill 18, The Legislative Security Act.
Our caucus will be supporting this bill, which provides security officers here at the Leg. more authority, ensuring that not only–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Ms. Lamoureux: –do they feel welcomed, that not only will Manitobans feel welcomed here at the Leg., but they'll feel safer, too.
I do think that it's important to reinforce the point, though, that everyone here in the province will always be welcomed here at the Leg. and as long as it is a peaceful act, whether they're protesting or lobbying, if they are being peaceful, if they are not causing harm or danger to anyone else, they will always be welcomed here.
Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is the concurrence and third reading of Bill 18, The Legislative Security Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
* (18:00)
The question before the House is Bill 18, The Legislative Security Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Cox, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Klassen, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Lamoureux, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Reyes, Schuler, Smith, Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Fontaine, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Selinger, Swan, Wiebe.
* (19:00)
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 39, Nays 10.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we go to the next bill, I would like to give–have leave from the House to introduce a guest here tonight in the gallery.
Is that agreed? [Agreed]
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Okay. I want to–we have–the guest–the member of Fort Richmond's husband in the gallery tonight, Arnaud Guillemard. And I want to wish you–both of you a happy 20th anniversary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Okay, now we'll proceed. Order. Now we'll proceed with order–Bill 19, The Efficiency Manitoba Act.
The honourable member for Crown Services.
Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Crown Services): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Sustainable Development (Mrs. Cox), that Bill 19, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was moved by the Minister of Crown Services, seconded by the Minister of Sustainable Development, that Bill 19, The Efficiency Manitoba Act, report from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, and be concurred in and be now read for the third time and passed.
Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, this bill fulfills the commitment made in the 2016 Speech from the Throne to, and I quote, "introduce legislation creating a stand-alone energy efficiency agency to help households and businesses reduce their energy needs, saving Manitobans money now and into the future." Unquote.
The bill will provide the authority to establish a stand-alone, demand-side management–or DSM–Crown corporation to deliver energy efficiency initiatives. The creation of a new DSM framework for our province is consistent with the PUB's recommendations to strengthen DSM efforts and to divest Manitoba Hydro of its responsibilities for DSM.
These recommendations emerged from the needs for an alternatives to–or NFAT–review of Manitoba Hydro's preferred development plan. The purpose of the corporation is to aggressively pursue energy savings that will reduce the impact of future rate increases on Manitoba ratepayers, defer costly new generation, contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases within Manitoba and foster private sector involvement in the delivery of programs and services.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
The following is a brief overview of the new DSM Crown corporation framework facilitated through the bill. The Crown corporation will be managed by a board of directors appointed by government. The legislation will establish 15-year energy savings targets. The new corporation will prepare plans that demonstrate how it will meet energy saving targets and at what cost. The plans will be reviewed by the Public Utilities Board and approved by the government of Manitoba.
The corporation will be required to engage a standing advisory committee to ensure stakeholder input into the plans. Ongoing third-party evaluations will measure the effectiveness of DSM activities and the ability of the corporation to meet long-term targets. And Manitoba Hydro will be required to fund the approved plans.
The focus of the bill is on electricity and natural gas, but it contains provisions that allow for expansion into water and transportation DSM if desired in the future. The creation of a new, mission-driven corporation with a sole purpose of delivering energy-saving cost effectively will be in a better position to tap the large savings potential in the province and reduce the need for investment in costly new generation and transmission and distribution systems.
With legislated, long-term savings targets and independent evaluation and reporting framework, the corporation will be driven towards a performance-orientated approach and a culture that can deliver more value to Manitobans as we invest in clean growth opportunities.
This bill will enable a purpose-driven DSM corporation that will help Manitoba reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and enable our households and businesses to adapt to the effects of climate change while continuing to grow and thrive.
Mr. Speaker, Efficiency Manitoba will deliver better value for Manitobans as we work to become Canada's clean, green leader.
Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): We–I will speak against this bill. This bill is a creation that is supposed to establish one more Crown corporation. And from my point of view, the simplistic answer would have been, it's empire building on the part of the minister. He wants a new CEO and a new board of directors, whereas the demand-side management of Manitoba Hydro with the Power Smart division was working out well in the first place. There's nothing wrong with that division.
And, of course, the usual finger pointing from the minister is that there's a report; they didn't do anything about it. And when a report is commissioned by any government, it does not have to be followed every time, verbatim or in total. It's not–it's supposed to guide. That's why they call them recommendations. And governments exercise judgment.
And as far as I'm concerned, this Efficiency Manitoba does not cut it. It does not cut the needs for any other Crown corporation. There's none. It's working out well. And there's 100 employees or so who are working at the Power Smart division that now this minister is saying, you be careful with what you say. Don't say anything about it because your jobs might also be in danger.
Right now, I read that 95 per cent or 96 per cent of those who were offered job cuts in Manitoba Hydro took severance, took their severance packages. And it's the–when you instill fear in an organization, there's a palpable demoralization that occurs within the organization.
And if the minister does not believe that, I'll point to him the ones who have quit, those who have taken the severance package for the simple reason that now they have precarious job positions. And it's–it does not work well for any Crown corporation to have that sword of Damocles hanging over their head.
* (19:10)
What should be recommended would be to improve efficiencies as they call it, but within the framework of Manitoba Hydro which is a billion-dollar corporation.
And, if this is an attempt on the part of the minister to procure the privatization of that side of Manitoba Hydro, slowly doing what he was mandated to do, I don't think so. Efficiency Manitoba does not show–or this bill does not show that there is a need for it.
The money that will be coming from Manitoba Hydro to finance this agency–or this Crown corporation will be taken from where? It will be taken from–I don't know. It does not say in the bill. And the personnel–who will be transferred from Manitoba Hydro to Efficiency Manitoba? Where are they coming from? Your lineup of friends?
I worry about those types of approaches.
And it's amazing how sometimes, you know, I fear for the demoralization of the civil service every time. My wife worked for the civil service–outstanding civil servant. She's still in hospital now. But she worked hard and most of those who were working with her work hard for their money. And for us to take the rug from under them is–can I say stupid?–does not bode well for the morale of our civil service.
It does not make sense and we will vote against this.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): It is my duty to put forth a balanced voice of the public. The Liberals of Manitoba only agree to legislation and resolutions that are in the best interests of Manitobans. This is not the case for Bill 19.
I'd like to quote my colleague, the honourable member for Assiniboia (Mr. Fletcher): In the election, we were not–we did not campaign on a new Crown corporation. We campaigned on a better economy, a stronger Manitoba, a stronger–this bill does not do that.
The–that member even called upon his team to be open to comments, reflection, and consultation and not once one of his team step up.
During the second meeting, there were Manitobans in the audience who wanted to speak to this bill. The member for Assiniboia and both of us opposition critics respectfully asked for these voices to be heard, and we were all denied by the government.
Thus, Manitoban voices were silenced. How undemocratic.
I saw again, for the Progressive Conservatives, party stripe comes before good legislation and that is shameful. I always hear that word from the government side of the House–shame. Well, shame on this minister for being so undemocratic.
The Manitoba Liberals will not support this bill.
And on behalf of the taxpayers, not the ratepayers, I ask again: Minister, please retract this bill until our Province's credit rating has a chance to recover.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 19, The Efficiency Manitoba Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 19, The Efficiency Manitoba Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith, Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Swan, Wiebe.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 36, Nays 16.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Madam Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 20, The Crown Corporations Governance and Accountability Act.
Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Crown Services): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen), that The Crown Corporations Governance and Accountability Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Crown Services, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance, that Bill 20, The Crown Corporations Governance and Accountability Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. Schuler: During the election of 2016 our government committed to changing the way Crown corporations do business, including specific steps to improve transparency and accountability. An integral aspect of this commitment was to assess the current governance framework relating to Crown corporations and to implement the necessary reforms so as to enhance the outcome-based performance of Crown corporations. Included in this legislation are new reporting requirements that will closely monitor the performance and outcomes of Crown corporations, fulfilling this commitment.
* (20:20)
Madam Speaker, this new legislation is aimed at furthering our government's commitment of separating and clearly defining the respective roles of government and the boards of directors of major–Manitoba's major Crown corporations. The legislation will establish a clear governance model to ensure boards are accountable for governing and overseeing the management of the corporation within the perimeters provided by government. Our government is committed to making Manitoba the most improved province, and we'll do that by eliminating overlap and duplication within government and finding efficiencies and savings.
Madam Speaker, an important aspect of the new legislation is the abolishment of the Crown Corporations Council, which will bring a net saving to government and remove duplication. Crown corporations play a vital role in the Manitoba economy, and Manitobans trust that our government will undertake this stewardship role seriously. That's why this new legislation will clearly define the lines of communication between the Crown corporations and government.
This legislation will also increase the transparency of the stewardship role by introducing ministerial directives to ensure that standards and compliance are met between Crown corporations and the reporting standards of the new legislation. Maintaining the status quo would leave Crown corporations vulnerable to interference, which can unduly influence the work of a board.
I know The Crown Corporations Governance and Accountability Act will strengthen the oversight of these organizations while respecting the responsibility of their boards and management to govern their work on behalf of all Manitobans.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): I want to begin just by acknowledging the wedding anniversary from my friend from Fort Richmond. For those of us who have forgotten more anniversaries than I care to admit, I want to say this is unbelievable and fantastic and–he was just there–but anyway, on behalf of the NDP caucus, happy anniversary.
Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that we won't be supporting this bill. If your interest, if your objective, if your aim, if your goal is for openness, if it's for transparency, if it's for accountability, then the thing to do was to stay with the Crown Corporations Council that was already in place, that was already at arm's-length, that was already composed of independent members and whose primary role was to oversee good governance for all of our Crown corporations. This bill quite clearly takes all of those things away. Instead of having non-partisan appointees who are responsible for the oversight and accountability of Crown corporations, it's replaced merely with a secretariat.
The bill also allows the minister to run and direct affairs of Crown corporations in a way that would never happen under the existing legislation.
Madam Speaker, you've heard of many Batman villains that are out there. There's the Joker, there's the Riddler. This legislation creates a new character: it's called the Meddler, and we oppose this bill.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): Government accountability is a cornerstone of democratic societies. We have not seen such from this new government. It's completely ironic that this government enacts this type of legislation for its Crown corporation when they don't even govern or–responsibly or act accountably in their own actions.
As public entities, Crown corps. have a duty to act in the best interests of the public. The activities of Crown corporations must remain within the view of the public and continue to have proper oversight. Ensuring that Crown corporations are meeting their goals and responsibilities reduces waste and increases efficiency.
Manitobans deserve the best from the Crown corporations that serve them. They also deserve this from their government.
To act in the best interests of our people, our Crown corps. must have the same flexibility to meet the changing demands of our people and the market. Working toward this end, Crown corps. need the autonomy to make decisions in a fast and productive manner.
Madam Speaker, for a Crown corp. to act in the best interest of all Manitobans, some separations from the government must be allowed, and it is in the best interests of all Manitobans that while the government is not being accountable to the public, that our Crown corps must stay accountable. This enables protection from this–for themselves from this government.
We're not here to politicize the Crown corporations. The Liberals trust the hardworking Manitoban professionals that work for these organizations. The Liberals support accountability, even if it's only for the Crown corps. at this point in time.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 20, The Crown Corporations Governance and Accountability Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
Order, please. Order.
The question before the House is third reading–concurrence and third reading of Bill 20, The Crown Corporations Governance and Accountability Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Klassen, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Lamoureux, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith, Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Kinew, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Swan, Wiebe.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 41, Nays 13.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Madam Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 21, The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act.
* (21:30)
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Eichler), that Bill 21, The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act; Loi sur la responsabilité financière et la protection des contribuables, be–amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture, that Bill 21, The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. Friesen: Madam Speaker, Manitobans have the right to expect that their government will be accountable with the money, with the finances that are entrusted to them. Manitobans have the right to expect that the government will do what it says it is going to do. The intent of this legislation is to make the government accountable for the money that it spends.
I'm under the understanding that I have unlimited time.
Madam Speaker, to be brief, this legislation provides a clear framework for accountability fiscally, including deficit reduction, enforcing ministerial salaries, accountability. It restores the right to vote on major tax increases. Our government has set a target of achieving balance in eight years. We are pursuing measures that will responsibly address the unsustainable trajectory of spending increases under the NDP. This new legislation takes those critical steps towards this target, including reinforcing that ministerial accountability.
The NDP came to office on a pledge to maintain the balanced budget legislation. Unfortunately, for taxpayers, every time a fiscal challenge arose, the NDP changed the rules instead of meeting the challenge. Can't balance a budget every year? That's all right, how about balancing a budget over four years? Can't balance on core operations? That's okay, roll in the Crowns. Can't raise the PST without a referendum? That's okay. Just ignore it. Can't–don't want to accept a ministerial salary after not making your fiscal target? That's all right. Just rewrite the rules and bend the rules.
Manitobans elected us to fix the finances, not to fix the game.
Bill 21 ensures consistent, progressive consequences if a government fails to respect taxpayers by piling on more debt. We're telling Manitobans that under our government, they have a right through a referendum to be respected. The journey back to balance begins with Bill 21. It is the road map for Manitobans as we proceed on the road to recovery.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): Appreciated my friend from Elmwood giving me speaking advice, which I have followed chapter and verse, Madam Speaker. And I note that members of the House are–were encouraging the Finance Minister to be brief. They didn't quite work, but–I've tried to be brief myself.
It goes without saying that we stand in stiff opposition to this legislation, as well. We know, in the first instance, that this–the whole notion of fiscal responsibility, taxpayer protection, and all those nice words that the Conservatives use about this kind of legislation has really been about one thing and one thing only, and that's to create a front to provide the 12 and half Cabinet ministers with a huge raise at the expense of the people of Manitoba.
We don't find it particularly responsible to make cuts to health care and to education, to deregulate the environment, to deregulate health and safety standards, to eliminate the Department of Education, to wage war on union organizations, to impose wage restraint on workers without being at the bargaining table. So in every possible context, Madam Speaker, this is not responsible, it's not balanced and it's not the way a responsible govern governs on behalf of all the people of Manitoba.
Secondly, about the–what's not encouraging about this bill is this pretence toward a referendum. And we know for 'shertain' that this is a non-binding referendum. And the truth of the matter is, the member from Emerson may be not too clear on that particular point, but if he wants to read the legislation, it says right there, non-binding.
And so when we ask the Finance Minister, well, what would be the rules of this non-binding legislation, who will draft the question? No answers. We–when we asked him what the percentage would be, is it 60-40, 70-30, to take the advice of the people of Manitoba–no answers. When we asked him how much it would cost to take this to the people of Manitoba–again, no answers.
But the real answer came from the courts of this country. When the Premier (Mr. Pallister) of Manitoba took the last referendum question to the courts, they excused him in the blink of an eye. They told him not to come back. That's the one piece of advice he actually took, because he didn't appeal it, because he knew that this kind of referendum legislation was a phony pretence and had no basis in law and had no basis in actually dealing with the real questions of public policy in this province.
Madam Speaker, for us, governing is about balance, but it's not about a race toward a balanced budget at the expense of the programs and services that the people of Manitoba rely on, day in and day out.
We won't be voting for this legislation. It's time for the MLAs on the government side to start exercising their sovereignty like the member from Assiniboia did for a–momentarily, before he backed off and did something else–exercise their sovereignty. Don't vote for this legislation. A balanced government that serves the people of Manitoba, that's what we're about.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, Manitoba Liberals believe in fiscal responsibility, but we see too many problems with Bill 21 the way that it is written to support it as being the best approach to achieve fiscal responsibility. We will vote against this bill.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 21, The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
Order.
The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 21, The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith, Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Saran, Swan, Wiebe.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 38, Nays 14.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* (22:40)
Madam Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 22, The Regulatory Accountability Act and Amendments to The Statutes and Regulations Act.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister for Families, that Bill 22, The Regulatory Accountability Act and Amendments to The Statutes and Regulations Act; Loi sur la responsabilisation en matière de réglementation et modifiant la Loi sur les textes législatifs et réglementaires, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Friesen: Madam Speaker, over the last 17 years, Manitoba has been a laggard on red tape accountability. We received an F by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business under the NDP. The status quo created by the previous government has led to excessive and unnecessary legislation, and red tape has restricted economic growth and development. We want to ensure that our regulatory system is transparent, effective and efficient. This legislation is designed to establish accountability on government and significantly improve economic conditions while maintaining safety and protective standards for all Manitobans.
The first step of accountability, No. 1, is to create a benchmark to evaluate our efforts to reduce red tape. We know that, No. 2, the bill will require government to establish and maintain a comprehensive inventory of the number of regulations that are existing; No. 3, Manitobans will have an opportunity to review and comment on proposed regulations that contain regulatory requirements; No. 4, the provincial government will be required to notify the public of proposed regulations and provide 45 days for them to comment; No. 5, Manitoba is leading the way and would be the first province to regulate a two-for-one rule for this legislation; No. 6, regulatory requirements would be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they are as effective and efficient as possible; and, No. 7, every three years after regulation, with new requirements coming into force, departments would have to report to the Legislature on the implementation of these renewed requirements to make sure that they are working.
Madam Speaker, we intend to be the most improved province by 2020, and Bill 22 is an important step along the way for businesses, for non-profits, for families, for municipalities and other levels of government interfacing with government. We need a transparent, effective and efficient regulatory system. We want to energize our economy. We want to unleash our potential. We want to move Manitoba ahead on the road to recovery.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): I'm not sure how to start this particular speech. I'm dazzled by the new attire of the Premier (Mr. Pallister). You can put him in different clothes, but he's the same old guy, I'm afraid. I'm sorry. Sorry, Madam Speaker, as you know, you have to speak truth to power, and this is one of those times where truth to power really means something. And, I'm not sure that that works for him, but nevertheless appreciate him changing things up. Yes, I'm not commenting on my own attire, that's for sure.
I do want to say that we just had a piece of legislation that we voted on that was, to say the least, phony, and now we're dealing with another gimmicky piece of legislation taken right out of the Trump textbook. And if it's taken out of the Trump textbook, that tells you all you need to know about this particular piece of legislation. It's, needless to say, arbitrary: two for one, three for one, four for one–there's no rhyme nor reason to the way in which this bill goes after regulation.
It's heavily bureaucratic. Look at how long it took the Finance Minister to talk about the endless series of rules associated with red tape reduction. This is heavily, heavily bureaucratic in the way it operates, and as a result, it's a colossal waste of time. Instead of working on having our public servants working on developing policy, working on improving services, working on improving programs, what they're going to be doing is out counting regulations. I don't think that's a good use of time for anyone.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Allum: Now they're starting to use my material too, Madam Speaker.
So it's–in that sense, it's a colossal waste of time; it doesn't improve anything about the public service itself, about the programs and services that Manitobans rely on.
We would like them to get on with the job of governing for the people of Manitoba all the time, instead of wasting time here in the Legislature tonight.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, Manitoba Liberals are believers in having simpler, cost-effective regulatory system. We supported this legislation at second reading–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gerrard: –because we believe that the principle of reducing red tape is a good one. We also see the importance of measuring the extent of red tape and of monitoring results.
However, there is a much better way, and it's written about by a fellow who worked with President Obama in the United States, and his name is Cass Sunstein and he writes about–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order. Order
Mr. Gerrard: –in a book which is called Simpler: The Future of Government. You know, logical. We need to go in this direction of making government simpler and of reducing red tape, but there is a far better way of doing it, incorporating effective cost-benefit analysis. Being smart about reducing red tape is more than just about exchanging two for one.
Liberals will vote against this bill because it is not good enough.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 22, The Regulatory Accountability Act and Amendments to The Statutes and Regulations Act.
* (22:50)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): I request a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
* (23:50)
Order.
The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 22, The Regulatory Accountability Act and Amendments to The Statutes and Regulations Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith, Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Swan, Wiebe.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 38, Nays 16.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Madam Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 25, The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended).
Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Eichler), that Bill 25, The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended); Loi sur la réduction des méfaits du cannabis (modification de diverses dispositions législatives), reported from the Standing Committee on Justice, and subsequently amended, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Because some of us can take a hint when certain notes are left at our desk, I will–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Honourable Minister of Justice.
Mrs. Stefanson: As I was saying, we look forward to the passage of this bill. Thank you.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I don't think I'll be as brief as the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson).
Of course, the federal government is changing the way that cannabis is going to be treated in Canada, and we appreciate this is a major change which does have major provincial issues. And I think it is important that I do put comments on the record, because this is an important bill, but even more than that, there is a lot more work that the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) and the government is going to have to do prior to July 1st of next year, and I think it’s important to put on the record what New Democrats think should happen on this important issue.
However, individual members may feel about this issue–and I think it's fair to say there can be a difference of opinion for members, maybe even within parties–the fact is, it's coming.
The second thing is that there are positives, I think everyone can agree upon, and the hope is that legalizing cannabis in Canada is going to knock a hole in organized crime. We hope it's going to take away profits going to those who don't care about our communities, who hurt our communities. We hope it'll result in lower costs for the justice system, and I truly hope that that will be a benefit for Manitoba and other provinces.
The negative side is that it will be another legal intoxicant and there are definitely issues that need to be addressed, some of which addressed by this bill, some of them not. The challenge, of course, is that the actual impact, the level of impairment of using cannabis is not something fully understood. And that's not the fault of the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson). That is the reality, though. That is the hand that she's been dealt by the federal government, and we want to make sure that, moving forward, we move forward in the right direction.
The minister, I think, has been on the side of wrapping herself in safety and security, which is a very important part of it, and there are some very, very good parts of Bill 25. There is a much bigger picture, and I'm hoping–I'm hoping–that we'll move towards a more complete package as we get closer to next summer.
My New Democratic colleagues believe in a number of major principles. First of all is that medical cannabis–cannabis that is needed for people for their physical health, their psychological health–must be accessible. And that means not just being able to obtain it but being able to use it appropriately in a way that doesn't create a danger for anybody else or impairment for anybody else.
The present system, I think the Minister of Justice and I can agree, has not been effective. Medical marijuana, for the past number of years in Canada, has actually made it difficult for those who need it to have access to the product, and has actually put it into the hands of people who do not need it, who plan to resell it for their own profit.
And we learned a lot–we've learned a lot so far in this bill, from Manitobans who do–who tell us that they do require medical cannabis, many of whom have been prescribed that drug by their physician and who have told us, outside of the House but also in committee, how important those products are. And they've told me they are greatly disappointed in the lack of government's consultation. But, in speaking with those individuals, they are hopeful that the minister has heard what I've had to say in this House, but, way more importantly, what they had to say at committee and what I understand they've also been telling the minister or her staff in a series of meetings.
And I said this a couple of times: I think it's important not to stereotype those people who require medical cannabis. And I know some members of the House may have their own view of who uses medical cannabis. The fact is, it’s far different from what those members believe.
Who says that they are helped by medical cannabis? People who suffer from epilepsy and similar conditions tell us that it helps to manage their seizures and the seizures of their children. We know that people who are undergoing chemotherapy for cancer treatment often use cannabis to try and fight the nausea, so they continue to eat, they continue to have energy and continue to do better. We also know that there are many people, including some of the strongest people, in our view, law enforcement, veterans, who use cannabis and have found cannabis to be helpful for them in alleviating conditions like PTSD and anxiety. And maybe that's not what people expect, but that is the reality. And I do believe, as the stigma of cannabis goes away, there will be more people that will be asking their doctors about the possibility of that relief, and more doctors who will be considering all of the evidence. And I think there'll be more Manitobans will be using those products.
* (00:00)
And I just want to make sure that the minister has heard the voice of those people who tell us that they need to have access. And, you know, there are letters that were written in. There was a letter–I don't have time, frankly, to read much of it. It's from a woman who lives, actually, out in suburban St. James who supplied a letter that was actually tendered as per the Hansard, from the committee. She tells us that she tried using a cannabis product. She went from having 150 seizures a month down to just 12. And she has concerns with Bill 25, about the lack of consultation, but even someone like this says it's very clear, she wants the bill to go ahead. She just wants the minister to continue moving forward to make sure that she and people like her have the ability to use this product when they need it.
There's some other important changes, important issues that we think are necessary. The bill doesn't speak at all about what the sale of this product is going to look like in Manitoba. We believe the retail sale for recreational use, it must be convenient for Manitobans if we're truly going to take organized crime out of the picture, yet, we believe it must be controlled. And that's a balance, and I don't want to pretend that's an easy balance for the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) and this government to take on, but it has to be there.
We believe that any way that this product is sold has to prevent the sale to minors; that has to be very clear. There must be social responsibility. There is a duty to educate, to let people know that there are concerns in terms of impairment for driving, for machinery, and other issues for young people who may be 18, but who may have greater risks of using the product.
And we know there will be additional cost, and I know the minister's spoken about that with her federal counterparts. There will be some additional cost for enforcement, and we believe that having a public system of distribution and sale is a way to meet all of these requirements and make sure that the product is available, yet also properly managed and properly controlled.
The bill doesn't speak to that; I'm very hopeful the minister is listening, and we will hear in the months to come a real plan for the best way that we can move ahead.
The third part of this is that we believe there is a role for private industry, and I did applaud when I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Eichler) was the seconder, because, without a hint of irony, this will be another agricultural product in the province of Manitoba, and there is the ability for those growing cannabis to sell their product and make a profit and add value to Manitoba. And we think that's a good thing. Manitobans are very adept at producing a bunch of other agricultural products, and I look forward to working with the Minister of Agriculture for ways that we can make sure those producers are properly regulated, so when they create the product, the potency and the quality of it are going to be appropriate because that's good for Manitoba in the face of legalization.
There are some other issues in terms of the use. There will be a demand that will come for people to be able to use products other than in their own home. Of course, we control the sale of alcohol; we also have things called bars and cafés and curling clubs and arenas and stadiums where we allow alcohol to be sold in a regulated way. I think there's going to be demand as has been seen in states like Colorado and Washington, and we believe that that can happen as long as there's proper regulation, proper inspection and, of course, caution to make sure that those under 18 don't have access to those facilities and those products, and individuals who do not wish to be affected by those products are protected. I mean, there's no such thing as second-hand alcohol, but, in this case, if someone is smoking marijuana, cannabis, there is a second-hand impact, and we need to be mature about that, but also make sure that we move in the right direction.
The other biggest piece, I suppose, is protecting against impairment, and I agree entirely with the minister that–making sure that people are safe on our roads and our highways. The challenges that no government–and this is not a reflection on this minister or any other government–no government has actually done the work they should have done to determine what the safe amount of impairment is. And frankly, if I'd commissioned that study, I know my former critic, the member for Steinbach, would have been on his feet screaming about us spending that money.
The fact is that we know that the THC in cannabis can have an impact; we don't know exactly what that is. We now have a situation when we know alcohol can be measured now through roadside testing and blood testing. We're not there yet in terms of cannabis, although we hope we will be. Right now, the test could remain as it is. If someone appears to be impaired, and we have more and more officers that know what they're doing and what to look for, that may be the case. We just want to make sure that the desire for safety doesn't catch up a number of people who aren't impaired, who may have a trace of THC in their system, to make sure they don't have consequences, such as losing their licence.
So there's much work to do. I hope the minister will listen. We are prepared to have this bill go ahead, keeping in mind there is much more work to be done. This is coming, and let's make sure we work together to make this the best possible situation for Manitoba.
Thank you.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): It's good to rise and speak to The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act.
Madam Speaker, this government has shown poor leadership with respect to the legalization of marijuana. Last session, the minister refused to talk about it in Estimates and argued that it wasn't yet relevant, and now it becomes more and more apparent that this government is refusing to be open-minded.
Madam Speaker, it is very evident that this government continues to let people down because they refuse to listen. Allow me to share two examples.
Firstly, during committee, there were several amendments brought forward. They were completely reasonable amendments that really focused on the accessibility of legalized marijuana. However, they were voted against.
Madam Speaker, the reason there is prescribed marijuana is because it is medically advised, and by this government prohibiting it from being in schools, vehicles and government buildings, the fact that it wouldn't be accessible kind of defeats the purpose of legalizing it.
The second example that demonstrates this government's refusal to listen are when presenters take the time to come to committee. These brave presenters explained why it is critical to have medical marijuana accessible. They shared with us personal stories that displayed strength and true vulnerability. It was an inspiring committee. And I believe this government would be doing our province a disservice by not doing their due diligence preparing the bill before passing it here tonight.
Our caucus will not be supporting Bill 25.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 25, The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
I declare the motion carried.
Madam Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 26, The Election Financing Amendment Act.
Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen), that Bill 26, The Election Financing Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le financement des élections, reported from the Standing Committee on Justice, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I think much has been said about this bill already in other various stages through the process, and we don't have any more to add at this stage. I do understand that members opposite have their own opinion on this matter, but we look forward to this passing through the Legislature.
Thank you.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Well, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) talks about all the chances to debate this bill, and there hasn't been any real chance to debate this bill at all.
This was one of the eight bills that this government brought in the very last day they could introduce–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: –legislation and move for a vote–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: I know it's a tough day for the members opposite, but it's a lot tougher day for Manitobans every day living under this government. And, of course, this bill, not only was it brought in on the last day before the deadline, it was one of the other bills, the other bill besides Bill 18 that was actually never called for second reading. So I was entitled as the critic to speak for 10 minutes; none of my colleagues were entitled to put a single word on the record. And here it is again–
* (00:10)
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: –this government–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: This government refused to call this bill for third reading, and here we are now, having 10 minutes to talk about this bill, without any of my colleagues having the opportunity to put a single word on the record. And you know what it's all about? It's about a lack of priorities by this Justice Minister.
And I put on the record at second reading some of the problems this minister is failing to deal with. And we can talk all day about the way that crime is going up, and I know she'll look at the disclaimer in the crime stats and say, well, no, no, there might be one less car theft here or one less assault here. Middle of July, she might be out at the lake, but in middle of July, the crime stats are going to come in and we're going to see this minister, under her watch, is going to have probably the largest increase in crime in this province in decades. And she always says she won't take lessons from me; maybe she should take lessons from an Attorney General who reduced violent crime in this province by 39 per cent over five years. We'll see–we'll see what lessons this minister should be learning.
We tried to understand–
An Honourable Member: Taxpayers' pockets.
Mr. Swan: Well, I'm glad to hear that the member for growth is going to want to talk about taxpayers' pockets, 'cause we'll talk about tax credits that are going to go along with this bill.
The question, of course, is: Why would this government freeze everybody else, except people who can give large amounts of money to political parties? This is a government, of course–[interjection]–this is a government that froze the minimum wage last year–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: –a government–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Swan: –a government that now wants to give three nickels to minimum wage workers. This is a government, of course, who is going to force through legislation later tonight which is going to freeze wages for civil servants without even having the decency or the courage to sit down and negotiate with civil servants. This is a government which, of course, is freezing money, freezing investments in universities and colleges, while at the same time allowing tuition to rise above the rate of inflation. And, of course, this is also a government which has frozen funding to municipalities, and they're going to make them do more with less, which the mayor of Winnipeg, of course, just said the other day is going to cause a lot pain.
So who gained? Who gains? Who's not frozen? Well, wealthy donors, who now, of course, will not be trammelled by only being able to give $3,000 per year to political parties, that's going to be increased 66 per cent, to $5,000 a year.
Who asked for this? Well, it certainly wasn't anything that this–that the PCs promised in their election campaign. It certainly wasn't anything that Elections Manitoba had called for, and I know other times the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) has wrapped herself in comments of the Chief Electoral Officer not in this case. [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: Who actually called for this? Well, I don't really have a clue, because it wasn't even contained in the mandate letter. The mandate letter, which of course told the Minister of Justice to do a bunch of things, none of which have anything to do with making our communities safer–wasn't in there either.
And the fascinating part, of course, is that just the other day, we sat there as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen), sounding like a Baptist preacher in a revival tent, told us how terrible tax credits were. And he went on at length about how terrible those tax credits were. And what is going hand-in-hand with giving the richest Manitobans the ability to give–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: –$5,000 per year? More tax credits for people who are able to give that kind of money. No tax breaks for anybody else. No more money for anybody else. But tax credits–$333 a year–for everybody who can give that extra $1,000 a year, from a Finance Minister who tells us he hates tax credits.
So here we are with a bill which has some good features, but has the unfortunate feature of clearly pinpointing exactly what this Progressive Conservative party and this government is all about. It's all about ruling for those at the very top, making decisions for people at the very top, and they're just proving it now because they hope by their decisions to support those with the most, that they will get more money in their coffers and they will leave everybody else behind. That is abundantly clear from this government, and that's why my colleagues and I will be voting against Bill 26.
And again, who's going to be the most likely to contribute? Well, I'm expecting it's going to be everybody who is very, very excited about the fact that no longer will someone have to show that a P3–a public-private partnership–is actually good for the taxpayers of Manitoba. I'm sure that they are going to be lined up to give money to this Progressive Conservative Party, a party led by someone who always wants to talk about smart shopping, who's actually going to–
An Honourable Member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Swan: –yes, and this smart shopper and his ministers are going to take away the requirement for governments to move ahead and the ability of the public to know when a public-private partnership is good for the province or bad for the province and potentially costing Manitobans billions of additional dollars.
But, you know, it'll all be good–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Swan: –they'll make the rounds at the Manitoba Club, the single malt scotch will be pouring and they'll be collecting the big cheques from all those donors who are going to make out like bandits if they don't protect the public purse–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order. Order. I'm having a lot of trouble hearing the member in debate, and I would ask for members to allow the member, as they would like if they were speaking, to be heard. And I certainly, as the Speaker, need to be able to hear what he's saying so that I can ensure that the words he's using are, in fact, acceptable in the Chamber. So I would ask everybody to please bring the level of sound down in the room–appreciate that.
Mr. Swan: Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
I know it's sometimes difficult to be heard, so maybe I'll just have to speak just a little bit louder for the rest of my time.
Who else do we expect is going to be quite prepared to give now more than $3,000? Well, all kinds of folks. Maybe they're business owners, happy that they don't have to pay their workers a living wage. [interjection] Yes, as the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) says, it probably won't be chiropractors after today's announcement, but that's another story.
But the biggest point is this. I hope that we went to committee–when we went to committee, I hope we were going to hear from some of these put-upon Manitobans, some of these put-upon Manitobans who were going to tell us tearfully how their ability to be heard and their ability to have any influence–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: –was not going to be possible if they couldn't give more than $3,000 a year. And I went to committee very excited to hear what these Manitobans were going to say. But the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson) and her party couldn't find any Manitobans who actually came down to committee to actually suggest that this was necessary or warranted or a good thing.
So I finish off as I began: who actually asked for this to happen? Wasn't a campaign promise, wasn't something the Chief Electoral Officer said, wasn't anything that was talked about before the election, wasn't anything that any Manitoban that we've heard from says is necessary–it's something the Progressive Conservative Party has decided is going to give them the advantage, and that's the only reason why it appears in this bill.
And, you know, the sad part is that they were so embarrassed about this that they decided–[interjection] Well, you know, the member for Crown Services, I know he's having a long, long day and probably needs a nap. The member for Crown Services, maybe he can tell us why the government was scared to call this bill–introduce until the very last day before the deadline, why this government was scared to call this bill and debate it in this House in second reading until after the deadline had passed, why this government was scared to call this bill for third reading before the deadline has passed. The reason is because they are scared to hear not just what I have to say but what my colleagues have to say and what other Manitobans have to say. They don't want to consult. They don't want to listen. They're just going to clank their single malt scotch and go about their merry way and collect the big cheques from the people who think they're going to get an advantage, and we're here tonight at a very late hour to say, that's not right, that's not acceptable. And, as New Democrats, we stand against that. And I'm proud of that, Madam Speaker.
* (00:20)
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Madam Speaker, when this bill, The Election Financing Amendment Act, was first introduced in the House, we were curious about it. It included some new ideas and it appeared to have been well thought out, so we supported it in going to committee. At committee stage, we learned through thoughtful debate and many presenters who voiced their deep concerns that this bill is bad legislation.
I don't need to reiterate what the member from Minto just finished explaining, but the biggest concern is raising the annual contribution limits from $3,000 to $5,000. It is very self-serving. During committee, the presenters made it very obvious that this was simply a bill for this government in attempt to solidify their voter base. It wasn't created in the best interests of Manitoba. So we will not be supporting the bill.
Madam Speaker, on a lighter note, this is my last opportunity to speak in the House before the House rises for the summer, so I wanted to wish everyone a great summer, have a lot of fun adventures, relax a little bit, and I'll miss you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 26, The Election Financing Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I'd like to request a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
* (01:20)
Order, please.
The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 26, The Election Financing Amendment Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith, Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Swan, Wiebe.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 37, Nays 16.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Madam Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 28, The Public Services Sustainability Act.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister for Education and Training, that Bill 28, The Public Services Sustainability Act; Loi sur la viabilité des services publics, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Friesen: Madam Speaker, this new government, I inherited quite a mess left behind after a decade of decay and decline.
Madam Speaker, it was a legacy of a billion‑dollar deficit, a legacy of a $23.1-billion net debt; debt service charges that are growing that exceed, now, $900 million each year. Those service charges don't allow the government to make those more extensive investments in front-line services. Instead, they have to go for increasing debt service charges.
Bill 28 defines specific limits for maximum compensation increases during a four-year sustainability period for core government departments in the broader public sector. Under this legislation, employees remain entitled to their performance-based increases within established pay wage in accordance with the collective agreement or terms of employment. It is important to understand what this bill does not do, and it is important to understand what this bill does do.
Some would say that it doesn't go far enough; some would say it would go too far. We believe that this is a moderate, balanced and a sustainable approach. It does not remove the right to strike. It does not remove the role of the mediator. It allows for the normal incremental increases to salary that would come as a result of seniority in the role.
Madam Speaker, a significant expenditure of the Manitoba government is the public sector compensation. We have said, all hands on deck, we have led by example. This government has not taken its cost-of-living increase; instead, it has led by example and has declined to take that. We note that the opposition members have stood with us in doing so. This government reduced the number of Cabinet ministers from 18 to 12. We have sought to eliminate senior civil servants across the landscape of government.
Now, all of these things must be done, but we need all hands on deck. We take the view that labour must be part of this equation. We have appreciated the dialogue that we have had with labour leaders. We have not agreed on everything, but we have found points of agreement, and we believe that this will be a significant, albeit necessary measure, for us to go down on the road to recovery in Manitoba. So, because of that, we believe that this bill should be supported, and we look forward to the passage of this bill here this evening.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Normally, people stand up here and say it gives them great pleasure to stand up and say a few words. In this case, it does not bring me any pleasure whatsoever to be still standing here at 1:30 in the morning, trying to convince this government that they're on the wrong path; trying to convince this government to quit attacking working people in this province, to try and convince this government to actually start listening, to try and convince this government that consultation means listening. It means acting on what you've heard.
* (01:30)
They have not listened. They have not consulted. There was any number of people, came out to committee and told this government why this bill is wrong. They didn't listen. They didn't listen to one word. Oh, wait–I stand corrected, Madam Speaker. They listened to their business friends and only to their business friends, not to the working people of this province. I don't know why they hate working people. I really don't. Working people built this province and continue to build this province, yet they attack them. No increase for minimum wage workers for a year and a half. Oh, now, who shall we attack next? Let's pick on unionized workers. Let's make sure they can't have a raise. Let's make sure their life doesn't get any better. Let's only make sure our friends' life gets better.
Madam Speaker, that's so sad. And it's sad that time after time we've rose, we've spoke on this bill, any number of other people have spoke on this bill, and they just plain refuse to listen.
Madam Speaker, we cannot tell you hard enough and strong enough how wrong this bill is, but we will keep fighting for working people in this province as long as we have breath to breathe.
Thank you.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, we had many presenters at committee stage on this bill, and what we heard time and time again was that the government was completely inadequate in the way they went about consulting and talking with people on this bill. Many community leaders, including union leaders, were not consulted. There was no ability of the government to enter into any serious dialogue, in spite of the fact that many came forward with ideas, were ready to talk about how the government could save money. But, in fact, the government was not ready to enter into serious discussions or to listen to people who had good ideas.
Indeed, people who tried to work with this government in good faith found their questions went unanswered and their proposals were ignored. One presenter said we took the lead in preventing–in presenting realistic fiscal forecasts and sensible models for returning to balance without compromising public services or making life more expensive for everyday families. But instead of starting a meaningful process of consultation with public sector unions, government refused to discuss our proposals or to share information about the government's fiscal objectives or target timelines.
Just a few further examples.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gerrard: We heard: Bill 28 will seriously affect the ability–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gerrard: –of our province to retain and recruit physicians. They reminded us that the Conservative government in the 1990s took a similar type of unilateral action. The result was an exodus of physicians from Manitoba. The number of physicians decreased by nearly 6 per cent in the few years after the unilateral action.
We have also heard from teachers who are now contemplating leading–leaving Manitoba. It's not good.
Bill 28 has been called unfair, misguided, repressive, heavy-handed, oppressive, unnecessary and unconstitutional. It's been called a bill which shows the blatant disrespect of this government for nurses. It's been called a bill which was a betrayal of promises and commitments made by this government, and in particular by the Premier (Mr. Pallister). It's been called a bill which shows a blatant lack of understanding for the importance of equity and equitable representation when making decisions. And it's been called a bill which offends the collective bargaining rights of public employees, and it will likely be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of our land.
The government was told, do not pass Bill 28. The government was told, do not move the house just to tighten the clothesline, but that is what this government is doing. Liberals believe there is a better way to tighten a clothesline. We reject this bill.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 28, The Public Services Sustainability Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
* (02:30)
Order, please.
The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 28, The Public Services Sustainability Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith, Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Selinger, Swan, Wiebe.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 37, Nays 15.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Madam Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 29, The Health Sector Bargaining Unit Review Act.
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen), that Bill 29–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Goertzen: –The Health Sector Bargaining Unit Review Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
* (02:40)
Mr. Goertzen: This bill is about improving patient care. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And I did want to start this speech, as it is, and I believe and I guess I hope, one of the very last of this very long evening, by thanking our amazing clerks and staff of the Legislature. At all times you keep us on track, but certainly on a night like this, we need even more guidance, and we also know that you are also pushing yourselves to your own limits, so thank you very much for that work that you do. I want to thank our amazing pages, who are putting in work this evening. Again, the work that you do always is exemplary and on a night like this where you've been asked to go the extra mile, it's very much appreciated. And I also wanted to thank the staff members who are not here with us in the Chamber, but are at the various offices throughout the building and our caucus offices, and have been supporting us in the work that we do, and I wanted to give them some applause as well, because the work that they're doing is amazing.
So, Madam Speaker, what we've heard this evening is a range of emotions and sentiments that have been shared by my colleagues in the speeches that they've given to the bills. We've heard, certainly, anger; we've heard disappointment; we've heard frustration and we've heard some sadness. But I think this sums up perfectly how Manitobans are feeling about a government that they feel has betrayed them at every turn, that said one thing in an election campaign and is doing something completely different once given the chance to govern; a government that talks about transparency and then won't come clean with Manitobans about their plans; a government that says it's consulting, that it's listening to Manitobans. And then it won't listen to the very front-line workers who have come forward and tried to work with this government to make the health-care system and this bill that we're debating today better.
This government was elected on a promise to protect our front-line services, and this bill represents another failure of this government to keep that promise.
Health-care workers were ready to work with this government. They said it privately to the minister, they said it publicly in the media, and they certainly said it when we had committee hearings on Bill 29. Instead what they got is the bill that is before us. What they got and what we hear over and over again, is that this bill is heavy-handed and that it is unnecessary.
Workers came to this minister, came to this government with reasonable proposals. They came in good faith, and now they've been rejected and its been rejected, their suggestions, in favour of this sledgehammer that we have in front of us, which is Bill 29.
At committee we heard not only from labour leaders but also the front-line workers who are worried about their futures. We were told by nurses, we were told by support staff, we were told by the aides, the technicians, we were told by the engineers that this bill would bring significant disruption to our health-care system. And we heard from them how the bargaining system as it stands right now works pretty good. We heard from them how they bargain centrally, how they have common language across the agreements, how in fact they've worked diligently to create identical language where possible across those agreements to make sure that it was as clear and as streamlined as possible.
They talked about how the big issues, the issues that the government likes to focus on, are already negotiated at a central table. They talked about this, about only minor regional or site-specific issues are the ones that are being negotiated by collective bargaining units in the areas. And what we heard time and time again, loud and clear, was that labour was committed at every stage of this process, to coming up with a solution that met the government's goals, but also listened to the membership of the unions and listened to the front-line workers who were delivering those services. And who better to find that solution than those workers who are in the trenches every day, who are doing that work? We want to listen to them.
So, we heard at committee there was a reasonable recommendation, a reasonable solution that was put forward, again, first in those private discussions with the minister, and then afterwards we heard about them at the committee table. I know the minister certainly heard the presentations, but did he listen to what the workers were saying? Did he listen when presenter after presenter, labour leaders from across our health-care system asked that this legislation at the very least be paused so that labour could continue the work with government to develop a better solution? Apparently not, because here we are under the cover of darkness, here in the–at the midnight hour, past the midnight hour, and this government is using heavy-handed legislation rather than listening to workers.
The proposal that was on the table, well, certainly sounded reasonable to the committee that I sat on. It talked about how it would actually meet the government's targets. It would actually exceed them in some cases when taken across the board. What they asked for was bargaining councils, Madam Speaker, bargaining councils that could be established to preserve the workers' democratic right to choose their representation while operating as a counterpoint to the employer councils that are named in this bill. This process would have–to implement this would have been more–would have been implemented more quickly, it would have been cheaper for the government and it would have significantly reduced the amount of disruption that workers would have faced. This has been used before. It's being used in provinces like B.C., which this government holds up as an example in many cases, Nova Scotia. Every single union came forward and said that they agreed with proposal, and yet here we stand where it was dismissed out of hand and we have no representation of that in this bill.
We also heard compelling arguments from Maintenance and Trades Union, whose workers do specific work, they're unique in our health-care field and they stood with other labour unions to say that they wanted special recognition, and yet their simple and logical request was ignored by this government.
The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is that health-care workers are worried. They want to get back to the work of providing good patient care and providing the essential services that Manitobans count on. I personally have a few health-care workers in my own family. They are worried. I know the member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino) talked about how civil servants across the province are worried. They're feeling the pressure from this government to do more with less and then they're not being respected and they're not being listened to. It's wrong and it's wrong because it's not going to provide the services that Manitobans count on. It's no way to build our province.
But it is clear, it's a hundred per cent crystal clear that this government is more interested in political fights than providing fair wages, than bargaining fairly at the bargaining table and then listening to workers. Disruption, distraction, uncertainty, that's what this bill leaves in its wake. Fixing a problem that didn't exist. Labour peace for over 15 years in this province. That's most assuredly gone.
And I have to say it is a clever political tactic. It really is. If you're ideologically motivated it's a great idea to have unions fighting amongst each other to figure out who's going to represent who. But that's not what we're here for. That's not what workers are here for. They're here to provide good-quality patient care to provide those services to Manitobans that this Premier promised he would protect. And the problem is is that's taken away and that's disrupted and distracted with this bill. Patient care will suffer.
* (02:50)
Madam Speaker, I stand here at, well, ten to three in the morning with my colleagues. We stand strong in opposition of this bill, in opposition of this government's disregard for the front-line workers–
An Honourable Member: Disrespect.
Mr. Wiebe: And disrespect for the work that they do. We will stand at every opportunity against legislation that does not listen to those workers.
Madam Speaker, we oppose this bill.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, let me start by thanking our new Sergeant-at-Arms.
I want to add that I hope that what you've seen in the last couple of days isn't scaring you away.
I want to echo some of the earlier comments of thank you to the Clerk and our legislative staff, and extend that to all the staff who are so important in running–from the Members' Allowances to the Hansard staff and to the people who provide security. We are all very appreciative of your efforts.
Thank you as well to the pages.
I want to thank the other House leaders. It has taken a while sometime to get agreements on some things. I hope we are very close after the meetings that we've been having since midnight and that we are going to be able to succeed in reaching an agreement that will enable us to have criteria that we can all agree on in terms of advertising using public funds, criteria that will be solid enough that will take us forward for some time.
When it comes to this bill, I have a few words. I think it is important that when it comes to health care that you are building–that we are building on what is excellent and that we are not throwing out the good things with–when we make changes. I am particularly concerned, as I have stated, of things like the excellence that has been built up at the Misericordia hospital, the excellence in terms of urgent care and cost-efficient short waiting times and many other things that stand out, that when we have something like this that is a jewel in our health-care system that is working very well the last thing we want is to break it up and destroy it and so send a message that if you want to build something really good we're just going to break it down. I think that is a horrible message to send, and I caution the government.
When it comes to this particular bill, I think that we should be still the same, building on what is there and what is working and what is good in this system. We have many different unions and many different bargaining units. I think it is fair that the government has pointed out, and rightly so, that we have too many bargaining units in health care. This is pointed out to me by others that this is not the optimum way for things to work.
But clearly the best way to address this, and particularly what we heard time and time again at the committee meeting, is not the way the government is going. It is the way of using union bargaining councils, an efficient and effective way that builds on what is there now, rather than trying to break it up and make everybody have to make a lot of changes internally.
So our recommendation and our belief here is that the government, in this bill, although the principle of reducing bargaining councils is a good one, that the mechanism that the government has chosen in this bill is the wrong one. So we would not support it.
I will close by wishing everybody, after this session, a productive time over the summer. Be sure, as well as attending to the needs of constituents, to get some time with your friends and families, and I look forward to seeing everybody back when we convene again in the fall.
Thank you. Merci. Miigwech.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 29, The Health Sector Bargaining Unit Review Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): I request a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
* (03:10)
Order, please. The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 29, The Health Sector Bargaining Unit Review Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith, Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Selinger, Swan, Wiebe.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 38, Nays 15.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Madam Speaker: I am advised that Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor is about to arrive to give royal assent to the bills.
* (03:20)
Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr. Ray Gislason): Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor.
Her Honour Janice C. Filmon, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Manitoba, having entered the House and being seated on the throne, Madam Speaker addressed Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor in the following words:
Madam Speaker: Your Honour:
The Legislative Assembly of Manitoba asks Your Honour to accept the following Bill:
Clerk Assistant (Mr. Claude Michaud):
Bill 38 – The Interim Appropriation Act, 2017 (2); Loi de 2017 portant affectation anticipée de crédits (2)
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): In Her Majesty's name, the Lieutenant Governor thanks the Legislative Assembly and assents to this bill.
Madam Speaker: Your Honour:
At this sitting the Legislative Assembly has passed certain bills that I ask Your Honour to give assent to.
Clerk Assistant (Mr. Claude Michaud):
Bill 2 – The Securities Amendment Act (Reciprocal Enforcement); Loi modifiant la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières (exécution réciproque)
Bill 3 – The Pooled Registered Pension Plans (Manitoba) Act; Loi du Manitoba sur les régimes de pension agréés collectifs
Bill 4 – The Provincial Court Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour provinciale
Bill 5 – The City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment, Planning Amendment and Real Property Amendment Act (Conforming to Construction Standards Through Agreements); Loi modifiant la Charte de la ville de Winnipeg, la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la Loi sur les biens réels (ententes de conformité en matière de normes de construction)
Bill 6 – The Manitoba East Side Road Authority Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur la Commission manitobaine d'aménagement de la route située du côté est
Bill 7 – The New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Various Acts Amended); Loi sur la mise en oeuvre de l'Accord commercial du nouveau partenariat de l'Ouest (modification de diverses dispositions législatives)
Bill 9 – The Advocate for Children and Youth Act; Loi sur le protecteur des enfants et des jeunes
Bill 10 – The Manitoba Institute of Trades and Technology Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Manitoba Institute of Trades and Technology
Bill 11 – The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act (Staff Qualifications and Training); Loi modifiant la Loi sur la garde d'enfants (compétences et formation du personnel)
Bill 12 – The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants
Bill 13 – The Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées
Bill 14 – The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Transportation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les interventions médicales d'urgence et le transport pour personnes sur civière
Bill 15 – The Department of Justice Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le ministère de la Justice
Bill 16 – The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les enquêtes médico-légales
Bill 17 – The Court Security Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la sécurité dans les tribunaux
Bill 18 – The Legislative Security Act; Loi sur la sécurité de la Cité législative
Bill 19 – The Efficiency Manitoba Act; Loi sur la Société pour l'efficacité énergétique au Manitoba
Bill 20 – The Crown Corporations Governance and Accountability Act; Loi sur la gouvernance et l'obligation redditionnelle des corporations de la Couronne
Bill 21 – The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act; Loi sur la responsabilité financière et la protection des contribuables
Bill 22 – The Regulatory Accountability Act and Amendments to The Statutes and Regulations Act; Loi sur la responsabilisation en matière de réglementation et modifiant la Loi sur les textes législatifs et réglementaires
Bill 25 – The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended); Loi sur la réduction des méfaits du cannabis (modification de diverses dispositions législatives)
Bill 26 – The Election Financing Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le financement des élections
Bill 28 – The Public Services Sustainability Act; Loi sur la viabilité des services publics
Bill 29 – The Health Sector Bargaining Unit Review Act; Loi sur la restructuration des unités de négociation dans le secteur de la santé
Bill 32 – The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2017; Loi corrective de 2017
Bill 33 – The Minimum Wage Indexation Act (Employment Standards Code Amended); Loi sur l'indexation du salaire minimum (modification du Code des normes d'emploi)
Bill 201 – The Service and Therapy Animal Day Act; Loi sur la Journée des animaux d'assistance et de zoothérapie
Bill 214 – The Missing Persons Amendment Act (Silver Alert); Loi modifiant la Loi sur les personnes disparues (alerte silver)
Bill 221 – The Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Honouring and Awareness Day Act; Loi sur la Journée d'hommage et de sensibilisation aux femmes et aux filles autochtones disparues et assassinées
Bill 223 – The Orange Shirt Day Act; Loi sur la Journée du chandail orange
Clerk: In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour assents to these bills.
Her Honour was then pleased to retire.
God Save the Queen was sung.
O Canada was sung.
* (03:30)
Madam Speaker: The hour being after 5 p.m., this House is adjourned–way after 5 p.m.–this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until Wednesday, October 4 at 1:30 p.m.
At this time I would just remind everybody to please make sure you've emptied your desks.
Also I want to wish everybody a wonderful summer. It is supposed to be 30–33 degrees tomorrow, so enjoy your time with family, friends and catching up with your constituents. Have a great summer.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, June 1, 2017
CONTENTS
Standing Committee on Private Bills
Special Olympics Awareness Week
Parkland Region of Special Olympics Manitoba
Manitoba's Affordability Advantage
Northern Patient Transfer Program
Northern Patient Transfer Program
Matter of Urgent Public Importance
Concurrence and Third Readings
Bill 223–The Orange Shirt Day Act
Bill 9–The Advocate for Children and Youth Act
Bill 11–The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act (Staff Qualifications and Training)
Bill 13–The Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act
Bill 16–The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act
Bill 17–The Court Security Amendment Act
Bill 18–The Legislative Security Act
Bill 19–The Efficiency Manitoba Act
Bill 20–The Crown Corporations Governance and Accountability Act
Bill 21–The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act
Bill 22–The Regulatory Accountability Act and Amendments to The Statutes and Regulations Act
Bill 25–The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended)
Bill 26–The Election Financing Amendment Act
Bill 28–The Public Services Sustainability Act
Bill 29–The Health Sector Bargaining Unit Review Act
Bill 38 – The Interim Appropriation Act,
2017 (2)
Bill 2 – The Securities Amendment Act (Reciprocal Enforcement)
Bill 3 – The Pooled Registered Pension Plans (Manitoba) Act
Bill 4 – The Provincial Court Amendment Act
Bill 6 – The Manitoba East Side Road
Authority Repeal Act
Bill 7 – The New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Various Acts Amended)
Bill 9 – The Advocate for Children and Youth Act
Bill 10 – The Manitoba Institute of Trades and Technology Amendment Act
Bill 11 – The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act (Staff Qualifications and Training)
Bill 12 – The Teachers' Pensions
Amendment
Act
Bill 13 – The Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act
Bill 14 – The Emergency Medical Response
and Stretcher Transportation Amendment Act
Bill 15 – The Department of Justice
Amendment Act
Bill
16 – The Fatality Inquiries Amendment
Act
Bill 17 – The Court Security Amendment Act
Bill 18 – The Legislative Security Act
Bill 19 – The Efficiency Manitoba Act
Bill 20 – The Crown Corporations Governance and Accountability Act
Bill
21 – The Fiscal Responsibility and
Taxpayer Protection Act
Bill
22 – The Regulatory Accountability Act
and Amendments to The Statutes and
Regulations Act
Bill 25 – The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act (Various Acts Amended)
Bill
26 – The Election Financing Amendment
Act
Bill
28 – The Public Services Sustainability
Act
Bill 29 – The Health Sector Bargaining Unit Review Act
Bill 32 – The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2017
Bill 33 – The Minimum Wage Indexation Act (Employment Standards Code Amended)
Bill
201 – The Service and Therapy Animal
Day Act
Bill
214 – The Missing Persons Amendment
Act (Silver Alert)
Bill
221 – The Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Honouring and
Awareness
Day Act