LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, March 13, 2025


The House met at 10 a.m.

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

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

      Please be seated.

      Private members' busi­ness–

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Acting Official Op­posi­tion House Leader): Well, good morning, Hon­our­able Speaker. Would you please call for second reading of Bill 224, The Budget Bill Public Accountability Act.

The Speaker: It has been announced that we will now do second reading of Bill 224, the budget bill account-ability act–[interjection]

Second Readings–Public Bills

Bill 224–The Budget Bill Public Accountability Act

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): I move, seconded by the member for Roblin (Mrs. Cook), that Bill 224, The Budget Bill Public Accountability Act, be now read for a second time.

The Speaker: It has been moved by the hon­our­able member for Midland, seconded by the hon­our­able member for Roblin, that Bill 224, The Budget Bill Public Accountability Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Mrs. Stone: I am pleased today to speak on my very first bill that I've intro­duced as a Manitoba legislature, and this is a bill that I am quite passionate about, because for years and years, we've seen politicians in­creasingly avoid public 'scrutinty' and public account-ability. We've seen politicians hide from the public. We've seen politicians control the media and sneakily hide information from the public, including in complex legis­lation, only to discover after the fact that there are negative impacts on the public.

      And as a taxpayer, this really frustrated me, and when I ran for elected office, I committed to my con­stit­uents that I would be trans­par­ent and accountable and ensure that the gov­ern­ment, and as legislatures, that we would continue accountability and strengthen accountability to the public and to Manitobans that we are there to represent.

      And, you know, we often ponder, as elected officials, why public trust in gov­ern­ments erodes more and more as time goes on. Public scrutiny is impor­tant, it's a key part of demo­cracy and freedom of thought and expression and it keeps politicians accountable to who they represent. And, here in Manitoba, that is Manitobans and Manitoba tax-payers.

      So I am bringing this bill forward to advance the public's ability to scrutinize the gov­ern­ment and also to advance trans­par­ency and accountability of taxpayers' dollars. You know, so I will say, you know, obviously this bill is related to budget bills, and what we have seen over the years–and, you know, no party is innocent from stretching BITSA and putting in minor amend­ments that don't necessarily have to do with budget imple­men­ta­tion or budget matters them­selves.

      But what we certainly saw last year was BITSA being exploited and major stand‑alone pieces of legis­lation being stapled onto the back of BITSA that had absolutely nothing to do with financial matters. And we're here today to say that that was wrong, and we're here today to try to correct that in the future, not just for the current gov­ern­ment but for future gov­ern­ments as well.

      Unfor­tunately, as I've mentioned, we have seen BITSA bills get stretched far beyond their original intent over the years. And, most recently, as I mentioned, in the past year, the NDP rammed through major pieces of legis­lation without any public say, without any public 'scrutinty.' Of course, I'm talking about the $24‑billion omnibus bill that was passed in the fall; this increased taxes on Manitobans, it increased taxpayer dollars to political parties, it is where the NDP undemocratically pushed through major stand‑alone pieces of legis­lation on labour, seniors, election financing, things that had nothing to do with budget imple­men­ta­tion matters.

      But in addition to the actual budget and taxation changes, these changes that the NDP rammed through, they didn't have anything to do with the budget. So that's where this bill comes in, is to not only ensure that the public has say on matters that are included in  BITSA, but that there is the public 'scrutinty' of financial matters them­selves.

      Now, we're not talking about some­thing ground-breaking, we already do this for other bills here in Manitoba. But yet the bill that actually deals with taxpayers' dollars and impacts their bottom line is not subject to the same scrutiny that other bills are.

      Now, as I had said, these were not minor changes that were included in the previous BITSA bill, and that's why this bill is so im­por­tant today. With this bill coming forward, there would be no reason for a gov­ern­ment to try to hide infor­ma­tion from the public through BITSA because it is going through public com­mit­tee.

      Now, I will say, you know, we're not asking for a lot here. In the spirit of trans­par­ency and account-ability, we're asking for a minimum of 10 hours to allow the public to come to the Legislature and make repre­sen­tations as to what matters to them for what is in budget bills.

      So this is where this bill comes in; it is about trans­par­ency and accountability to Manitobans on all budget bills and budget matters. It ensures trans­par­ency and accountability to Manitobans on their hard‑earned dollars by following the process that is set out for every other bill here in Manitoba.

      One of the most im­por­tant and key bills that we have, the largest bills, the bills dealing with taxpayer dollars, are–is not subject to the same scrutiny that other bills are, and this is really critical for the public to be aware and informed of how their dollars, their hard-earned working dollars, are being used by the gov­ern­ment. Gov­ern­ment does need to be accountable to how they spend Manitobans' hard-earned money, and they need to be trans­par­ent in the ways that they are doing it.

* (10:10)

      It is simply wrong that gov­ern­ment can increase taxes without giving the public an op­por­tun­ity to respond at com­mit­tee. It's wrong that stand-alone, major pieces of legis­lation can just be tacked on to the back of a budget bill just because there is a loophole that allows them to do it, just because one word might be included in a budget docu­ment, that then they can then put that into a budget imple­men­ta­tion bill. This was exploited last year by the current NDP gov­ern­ment when they did ram through major legis­lative changes without Manitobans having a say.

      So this bill is intended to strike a little bit of balance in the spirit of trans­par­ency and account-ability. It's intended to ensure that gov­ern­ment can still move forward with their agenda and enact the changes that are announced in their budget while still allowing the public to be able to come through and make public repre­sen­ta­tions at com­mit­tee to the legis­lators, to be able to have their voice and have their say to the people who they elect. But it–and it allows that public 'scrutinty' by ensuring that public com­mit­tee does happen.

      If budget bills go to com­mit­tee, like I am suggesting through this bill, then there's no reason why the NDP–or any other gov­ern­ment, for that matter–can add non-budget items into BITSA. There would be no reason for this; thus, they'd be unable to hide potentially controversial legis­lation from the public like what we saw earlier this year.

      And as I said, although this has been done for years and years, and I'm sure that is what the members opposite are going to say, the non-budget items that are being added to BITSA are getting bigger and bigger and less and less related to the budget itself. Also, they're getting more and more controversial.

      The NDP, when they added these major pieces of legislation onto BITSA last year, came under a sig­ni­fi­cant amount of fire from stake­holders across the province. So I'm going to read just a couple quotes from stake­holders.

      After this happened, the CFIB said, quote, by–in a public post: By intro­ducing these changes through BITSA, the gov­ern­ment appears to be explicitly ignoring public feedback on these bills, as BITSA's not required to go before com­mit­tee. This lack of trans­par­ency has left busi­ness owners feeling shut out of critical con­ver­sa­tions about policies that directly affect their operations.

      The chambers, the employer council, Winnipeg instruction, Merit, CFIB also wrote an open letter to the Minister of Labour (MLA Marcelino) with their frustration of the lack of trans­par­ency that happened with BITSA last year. Quote: We are writing to express our concerns regarding the recent passage of sig­ni­fi­cant pieces of labour legis­lation which have been proclaimed in force with little or no meaningful con­sul­ta­tion with the busi­ness com­mu­nity.

      This is exactly what this bill is aiming to avoid. This is not how legis­lation or laws should be made. The public deserves better from its legislatures.

      This is why I am bringing this bill forward. The intent is to help avoid surprises to the public and to key stake­holders who may want to comment on a specific section of a budget bill that impacts their busi­ness, their families or their daily lives.

      As I mentioned earlier in my comments, we are not asking for a lot here: a minimum of 10 hours in the spirit of trans­par­ency and public accountability for the public to come to the people they elect and have their voices heard. If the NDP gov­ern­ment truly has nothing to hide, especially as we come into their next budget next week, then there is no reason–if they have nothing to hide–there is no reason why they should not support and pass this bill.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

  Questions

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

      The floor is now open for questions.

MLA Jelynn

Dela Cruz

 (Radisson): Well, the member for Midland and myself can agree on one thing for sure when she says that Manitoba has ex­per­ienced years and years of a gov­ern­ment mismanaging their finances and pushing key issues under the rug to avoid being presented at com­mit­tee.

      Manitoba had seven and a half years of their failed PC gov­ern­ment, and that's why they voted them out, because the first people to hide some­thing in a BITSA bill included the one and only Brian Pallister. And what did he choose to hide? Legislating away at the rights of Indigenous children.

      And so, when it comes to moral grounding, does the member for Midland  feel that legislating away the rights of Indigenous children–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      Order, please. Order, please. Order, please.

      Members will quit hollering back and forth across the Chamber.

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): Hon­our­able Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks and to answer the member for Radisson's question, this is why we're bringing this bill forward: to ensure that the public does have their say on budget matters.

      What we saw last year, the NDP taking major pieces of legis­lation–so yes, you know, this has been done in the past, where the loophole has been used and things have been added to BITSA; minor amend­ments. But this was exploited by this NDP gov­ern­ment six months ago with major pieces of legis­lation attached to BITSA.

      So this is why we are bringing this bill forward to ensure that the public has accountability and their say. And these are areas where I would think–

The Speaker: Member's time is expired.

Mr. Josh Guenter (Borderland): I thank my colleague, the member for Midland, for her hard work on this im­por­tant legis­lation, as well as for her valued con­tri­bu­tions to this House as the Finance critic.

      Can the member for Midland  talk a little bit more about the importance of this bill? Why is this bill so needed today?

Mrs. Stone: I thank my colleague for Borderland for the question.

And, you know, this bill is needed because of the public trust and public scrutiny that this NDP avoided through their $24‑billion omnibus bill last year, attaching major, major pieces of legislation onto the back because they knew that those bills would be controversial for the public, and they wanted to avoid that.

      They didn't want to have to sit in front of the busi­ness com­mu­nity that disagreed with some of their changes, so they tacked it onto BITSA which doesn't go to public com­mit­tee unless this bill is passed. And that's how it was rammed through. And stake­holders have come out and they've expressed their sincere disagreement and disappointed with this NDP gov­ern­ment for doing that.

      This bill–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

MLA Dela Cruz: Here in Manitoba we have one of the most lively, trans­par­ent demo­cracies possible. We have a process where citizens can go to com­mit­tee, not once; they can go to their MLAs again in between. There's a whole drawn-out process that allows citizens of Manitoba to partici­pate.

      And what happened, this recent BITSA bill? A lot of the things that we legis­lated into that BITSA bill were prevented from going to com­mit­tee by members opposite, which was the whole reason we put it in there.

      And so why do members opposite suddenly think that accountability and public input is im­por­tant?

Mrs. Stone: Well, there's one part of the member's comments that I do agree with: that we do have pro­cesses that are trans­par­ent here in Manitoba for all other bills, except for the largest bill that deals with taxpayer dollars.

      How is it that budget bills do not get the same im­por­tant scrutiny that other bills that come forward here in Manitoba have?

      This is where this bill, that should be passed in the spirit of trans­par­ency and accountability, closes that loophole to ensure that the public has a say on how their taxpayer dollars are being spent and how budget items are being imple­mented. But it also avoids major pieces of standalone legis­lation being tacked onto the back to avoid–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): I, too, would like to thank the member from Midland for bringing forward this very im­por­tant bill which will ensure that this gov­ern­ment and future gov­ern­ments have to take the BITSA bill to com­mit­tee.

      Speaking of com­mit­tee, the member mentioned that the com­mit­tee could sit for no less than 10 hours in com­mit­tee. I'm just wondering if it's possible that the com­mit­tee could sit for extra time because I'm sure there will be a lot of stake­holders and citizens that would like to make repre­sen­tations on the budget.

Mrs. Stone: I thank my colleague for that question, and yes, absolutely.

* (10:20)

      We put in the bill a minimum of 10 hours with consent from the com­mit­tee; we can always sit longer, you know, if the NDP decides that they only want to sit for 10 hours and there's still public repre­sen­tations to be made, then that's their decision and they will have to respond to the public on that.

      But we put in 10 hours to at least give the public some op­por­tun­ity to respond to budget bills, and I think that that's im­por­tant. It can always sit for longer; that will be deter­mined by com­mit­tee. And I think that this is an im­por­tant bill to come forward to ensure public scrutiny, trans­par­ency and accountability for the public.

      Thank you.

MLA Dela Cruz: Hon­our­able Speaker, on this side of the House, we understand the importance of defending our demo­cracy, which is why we took the 2023 election in­cred­ibly seriously. We were elected with a mandate to fix the mess that they left us, including a $2‑billion deficit.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, the members opposite say that, you know, they want to limit debate on the budget bill to 10 hours. Meanwhile, our gov­ern­ment is here all year-round listening to Manitobans.

      And so I want to ask the member: Why should Manitobans trust members opposite will listen during these 10 hours when their failed PC gov­ern­ment mismanaged the Province's finances after being in power for seven and a half years?

Mrs. Stone: Well, as of right now, the public doesn't get a say on budget bills at public committee. That's where this bill closes that loophole. As I mentioned in my earlier comments, we're putting in a minimum of 10 hours that can certainly be extended to ensure the public their right to say.

      I strongly believe that public scrutiny is im­por­tant when it comes to gov­ern­ment decisions and how Manitobans' hard-earned dollars are being spent and how legis­lation is being imple­mented. This is why we have this process for other bills that come forward to this House, and I truly believe that financial bills deserve that same level of scrutiny.

Ms. Jodie Byram (Agassiz): I also would like to thank our colleague here from Midland in bringing forward this im­por­tant legis­lation.

      As my colleague has mentioned, there was a lot of bills rammed through, or legis­lation rammed through, on the BITSA bill of this NDP gov­ern­ment last year, and spe­cific­ally, some major labour legis­lation.

      I would like to ask the member: What else have the NDP and the Premier (Mr. Kinew) been avoiding in terms of public scrutiny and trans­par­ency? Is there anything else that you feel that they are maybe not being fully trans­par­ent on?

Mrs. Stone: Absolutely. Day in and day out, we see the Premier take media into his office, avoiding anyone else that could possibly listen to what he has to say. He is not being truthful to Manitobans about how taxpayer dollars are being spent–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I would ask the member to please withdraw that comment. Calling other members not truthful is against the rules on parlia­mentary language, so please withdraw and apologize.

Mrs. Stone: I withdraw and I apologize for that comment.

      The point of this bill is to ensure that the public does have the ability to have a say on legis­lation. I'm not really sure why the members seem so against the idea of having the public come and scrutinize their legis­lation.

      And as I've mentioned, this isn't just for the NDP; this is for gov­ern­ments in the future. This is a key part of demo­cracy to allow the public to come into the Manitoba Legislature and have their say on how taxpayer dollars are being spent.

      There is no reason why the NDP should not vote for this bill unless they have some­thing to hide in their upcoming BITSA bill this year.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for mid–sorry, the hon­our­able member for Radisson.

MLA Dela Cruz: Hon­our­able Speaker, the member opposite doesn't seem to understand, so I'll repeat it again.

      When it comes to the BITSA bill very recently, we were elected to implement every piece of legis­lation in there after a demo­cratic com­mit­tee hearing, which they blocked.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I'll ask again: Why do they feel like they have the author­ity to lecture this side of the House, and all of Manitoba, frankly, on financial respon­si­bility?

Mrs. Stone: As we've come to a close in question–the question period of this morning, I'd just like to put a few quotes on the record for the member as to exactly why the public and stake­holders are frustrated with what the NDP did this past year.

      The Winnipeg chamber, the Manitoba chamber, Manitoba Employers Council, Winnipeg Construction Association, Merit Contractors and CFIB in a joint letter to the minister: We're writing to express our concerns regarding the recent passage of sig­ni­fi­cant pieces of labour legis­lation which have been pro­claimed in force, with little or no meaningful con­sul­ta­tion with busi­ness.

      Like I said, the only reason that the NDP would not support this bill that I am bringing forward today, is if they have some­thing to hide from Manitobans again–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      The floor–the time for questions has expired.

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

MLA Robert Loiselle (St. Boniface): En ce Mois de la Francophonie mondiale, je vais m'adresser en français – dans la langue de Molière, ainsi que dans la langue de Louis Riel.

      Et je vais être honnête avec vous, Monsieur l'Honor­able Président, c'est difficile pour moi d'écouter aux propos hypocrites qui viennent de l'autre côté de la Chambre. L'échec du gouvernement progressiste-conservateur envers les Manitobains est apparent. Nous avons réalisé beaucoup de progrès au cours de l'année écoulée, mais il reste encore beaucoup de travail à faire si nous voulons réparer sept années et demie de coupures et de mauvaise gestion – de mauvaise gestion – de la part des conservateurs.

      Il est ironique que les Progressistes-Conservateurs essaient de dire qu'ils écoutent main­tenant les voix des Manitobains alors qu'il y a seulement un an et demi, ils ignoraient – ils ignoraient – absolument les travailleurs de la santé et de l'éducation. Leur bilan est stupéfiant et représente l'ampleur de l'échec qu'ils ont infligé aux Manitobains, comme lorsqu'ils ont dévasté notre système de santé, et ce pendant une pandémie mondiale, obligeant les gens à aller hors de la province pour recevoir des soins ou à vivre sans soins de santé adéquats.

      De 2017 à 2019, les coupures des conservateurs ont laissé les Manitobains dans une situation précoce, avec certains temps d'attente les plus longs du pays. Les conservateurs ont également fermé cinq des six cliniques qui étaient destinées à réduire l'encom­brement dans les urgences.

      Le centre de soins d'urgence à Misericordia Health Centre, qui fournissait un soin médical essentiel pour la santé mentale et les problèmes liés à l'usage des drogues, a été fermé.

      Le centre des femmes âgées et le centre familial de Saint-Boniface ont également été fermés par les membres de l'op­posi­tion, mais nous rouvrirons les centres – le centre des femmes âgées, un service vital pour fournir aux femmes les soins de santé dont elles ont besoin.

      Les conservateurs ont réduit le budget de l'autorité de régulation de la santé de 36 millions de dollars. Ils ont coupé 30 millions de dollars pour financer une nouvelle installation de CancerCare.

      Et c'est époustouflant, même je dirais loufoque, de les entendre ce matin parler d'un amendement ou d'une loi pour responsabiliser ce gouvernement quand ça vient à la transparence de nos budgets, quand ils ont aussi supprimé un programme de 4,2 millions de dollars qui aurait incité les étudiants en médecine à travailler dans des régions rurales. Et la liste continue, monsieur l'hon­or­able président.

      C'est aussi intéressant de voir mes homologues de l'autre côté de la Chambre presque pas à l'écoute de ce que j'ai à dire, et des fois on se demande à quoi pensent les membres de l'autre côté. Quand le membre de Borderland (M. Guenter) pense qu'on devrait joindre les États-Unis ou que le membre de Fort Whyte (M. Khan) dit merci au président américain pour les tarifs –

Translation

In this International Month of La Francophonie, I am going to speak in French: the language of Molière, as well as the language of Louis Riel.

I have to be honest with you, Honourable Speaker: it is difficult to listen to the hypocrisy coming from the  other side of the House. The failure of the PC government to deliver for Manitobans is clear. We have made a lot of progress over the past year, but there is still much work to be done if we are to repair seven and a half years of Conservative cuts and mismanagement.

It is ironic that the Progressive Conservatives are trying to say that they are now listening to Manitobans, when only a year and a half ago, they completely ignored health and education workers. Their record is staggering and illustrates the scale of the failure they have inflicted on Manitobans, such as when they devastated our healthcare system during a global pandemic, forcing people to go out of province for care or to live without adequate health care.

From 2017 to 2019, Conservative cuts left Manitobans in a precarious situation, with some of the longest wait times in the country.

The Conservatives also closed five of the six clinics that were intended to reduce overcrowding in emergency rooms. The Misericordia Health Centre's urgent-care centre, which provided essential medical care for mental health and drug use-related problems, was closed.

The Victoria Hospital Mature Women's Centre and the St. Boniface Hospital Family Medical Centre have also been closed by the opposition, but we will reopen the Mature Women's Centre, an essential service for providing women with the health care they need.

The Conservatives have cut $36 million from the health regulatory authority's budget. They have cut $30 million earmarked to fund a new CancerCare facility.

It is mind-boggling, I would even say crazy, to hear them this morning talking about an amendment or legislation to make this government accountable when it comes to the transparency of our budgets, when they have also cut a $4.2-million program that would have encouraged medical students to work in rural areas. And the list goes on, Honourable Speaker.

It is also interesting to see my counterparts on the other side of the House hardly listening to what I have to say. Sometimes you wonder what members opposite are thinking–when the member for Borderland (Mr. Guenter) thinks we should join the United States, or when the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Khan) says thank you to the American President for the tariffs–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I would remind the member to keep his comments relevant to the bill we're discussing. He's spent a lot of time talking about other things, so please bring it back to the bill we're discussing.

* (10:30)

MLA Loiselle: Merci, l'Honorable Président. Ça fait chaud au cœur de savoir que tous ceux dans la Chambre sont à l'écoute quand je parle en français durant ce Mois de la Francophonie manitobaine.

      Alors, revenant à la loi sur la responsabilité du projet de loi de budget, notre gouvernement est un gouvernement à l'écoute. Les Manitobains nous ont dit qu'ils voulaient un budget qui réduit les coûts pour les familles et répare le système de santé. C'est exactement ce que nous avons fait.

      L'objectif, donc, est que notre gouvernement est un gouvernement qui priorise les Manitobains. Lorsque les Manitobains nous ont élus au gou­vernement, nous avons compromis – nous avons compris que nous avions une responsabilité importante : travailler pour eux et améliorer notre province.

      Depuis, nous avons travaillé dur pour remplir le mandat qu'ils nous ont donné : reconstruire le système de santé, soutenir l'éducation et réduire les coûts.

      Et notre bilan témoigne de cela. En fait, nous avons créé l'une des provinces les plus abordables du pays. Sous la direction de notre ministre des Finances (DLA Sala), notre taux d'inflation est l'un des plus bas au Canada, à une époque où les prix augmentent partout dans le pays.

      Au cours de notre première année et demie au gouvernement, nous avons veillé à introduire plusieurs mesures pour la vie abordable afin de permettre aux Manitobains de réaliser des économies. Cela inclut un rabais de sécurité de 300 dollars qui aide les Manitobains à créer des foyers et des entreprises plus sûrs grâce à l'achat d'équipement de sécurité.

      Donc, Monsieur l'Honorable Président, j'aimerais continuer par dire que notre gouvernement est à l'écoute. Nous nous battons pour les Manitobains et les Manitobaines. Nous faisons preuve de trans­parence. Nous faisons preuve de respect envers les Manitobains et les Manitobaines, et je suis fier de partager avec vous que notre budget 2025 va continuer à prioriser ce que les Manitobains et Manitobaines attendent de ce gouvernement : con­tinuer à prioriser l'éducation, continuer à prioriser les soins de santé, compris – on va continuer à prioriser l'avancement des femmes dans notre belle province.

      Et sur ce, Monsieur l'Honorable Président, j'aimerais remercier la Chambre de m'avoir écouté ce matin.

Translation

It is heartening to know that everyone in the House is listening when I speak in French during this Month of La Francophonie manitobaine.

So, returning to the subject of the Budget Bill Public Accountability Act, our government is a government that listens. Manitobans told us they wanted a budget that reduces costs for families and repairs the healthcare system. That is exactly what we have done.

Our objective is to have a government that puts Manitobans first. When Manitobans elected us to office, we understood that we had an important responsibility: to work for them and to improve our province.

Since then, we have worked hard to fulfil the mandate they gave us: to rebuild the health‑care system, to support education and to reduce costs.

And the record speaks for itself. The fact is, we have created one of the most affordable provinces in the country. Under the leadership of our Finance Minister, our inflation rate is one of the lowest in Canada at a time when prices are rising across the country.

In our first year and a half in office, we have been careful to introduce several affordability measures to  help Manitobans save money. This includes a $300 safety rebate that helps Manitobans create safer homes and businesses through the purchase of safety equipment.

Honourable Speaker, I will continue by saying that our government is listening. We are fighting for Manitobans. We are being transparent. We show respect for Manitobans, and I am proud to share with you that our 2025 budget will continue to prioritize what Manitobans expect from this government: continued prioritization of education, continued prioritization of health care, and–let's not forget–continued prioritization of the advancement of women in our beautiful province.

And with that, Honourable Speaker, I would like to thank the House for listening to me this morning.

Mr. Josh Guenter (Borderland): It's a pleasure to be able to put a few comments on this im­por­tant legis­lation put forward by the member for Midland (Mrs. Stone), and again, I thank her for her work in holding this gov­ern­ment to account and ensuring that we fight for trans­par­ency, for taxpayers and for all Manitobans in this House, because this is the people's House. This place belongs to Manitobans. We're here because Manitobans sent us here.

      And so it's im­por­tant that as we go through the process of legislating, which is why we're here, that we allow Manitobans to see what bills are being passed, and allow them to have–to make public repre­sen­tations and to have their say and express their will as well.

      And I think it's im­por­tant just to high­light for those listening, as well, that the member for Midland (Mrs. Stone)  puts forward this bill in response to a loophole that exists where the budget imple­men­ta­tion and tax statutes act, or the budget essentially, is able to go through this Chamber without having to go through the normal process of com­mit­tee where public can come forward and make comments.

      And that is one feature that exists for all other legis­lation and it's some­thing that we can be proud of as Manitobans. We're one of the few provinces, I think, across the country that has that feature, where Manitobans can register to speak on a certain bill and at com­mit­tee, come forward and make comments on that legis­lation.

      Unfor­tunately, last year, in their very first budget, this NDP gov­ern­ment packed their budget bill full of other pieces of legis­lation in order to avoid scrutiny from the public, in order to avoid having the public come forward and make their repre­sen­tations and to be able to ram it through under the radar.

      And so it's what we call an omnibus bill. And so it's im­por­tant that we close that loophole; that Manitobans have their say, especially on financial matters. It is probably, as the member for Midland said, the most im­por­tant bill that goes through this House every year, and it's–it has to do with taxes and the way we spend the money that–Manitobans' taxpayer dollars.

      So this bill is in­cred­ibly im­por­tant. I'm proud to support it on behalf of the con­stit­uents of Borderland who sent me here, and I think that the require­ment for 10 hours of public scrutiny is im­por­tant and it is a minimum, but it is a start and I think it's very im­por­tant.

      And as I said, you know, last year's BITSA bill, the–that governs the current fiscal year that we are in, was packed full of things that Manitobans just caught us–caught Manitobans blindsided. Things like, well, the NDP feathering their own nest with future subsidies at Manitobans' expense, removing trans­par­ency and accountability for Manitoba Hydro, watering down the powers of the Public Utilities Board. These were all things that were packed into the BITSA bill.

      And other things as well, like the bill–Hydro will no longer be accountable to Manitobans for Hydro's debt, deficits and borrowing plans. That's really sig­ni­fi­cant since Manitoba Hydro, it's well known has a debt that rivals our prov­incial debt. It's a sig­ni­fi­cant burden, and ultimately, Manitobans are respon­si­ble for Manitoba Hydro's debt. If it all goes down, we're going to be the ones–Manitoba taxpayers are the ones left holding the bag, and so manage­ment of Manitoba Hydro is in­cred­ibly im­por­tant and it's im­por­tant that Manitobans have their say. It's a utility that belongs to Manitobans, by the way, and so they ought to be able to have their say.

      And so it's, you know, deeply con­cern­ing that these are all elements that were in this last budget bill. And so, as a result, the member for Midland and our caucus is supporting bringing forward and supporting this important piece of legislation to ensure that Manitobans have their say and that we protect the demo­cratic process.

      You know, demo­cracy isn't some­thing that sits in a jar on a shelf and we take it down every now and then and talk about it and look at it and perhaps admire it. Demo­cracy is about action. It's about allowing people to express their will, and so it's–and so that means allowing them into this place to have their say on im­por­tant pieces of legis­lation and not preventing them from doing that.

      And so, with those few words, I look forward to voting in favour of this bill, and I'm disappointed to hear comments from across the way; it doesn't surprise me. We are running an arbitrary $1.3‑billion deficit this year, and our fiscal house is not in order.

      It's–they are–they were left with a $270‑million surplus and they've now turned that into–well, first they said $800-million deficit, now it's $1.3 billion, and that was before the tariffs. So we're spending like drunken sailors during the good times and now that the bad times are here and there's no fiscal room left, we're in really big trouble.

      So I think a lot of Manitobans lack con­fi­dence in the fiscal leadership of this gov­ern­ment, and it's im­por­tant that they have their say, so I look forward to supporting this legis­lation. I thank the member for Midland for her work, again, on this im­por­tant legis­lation.

      Thank you.

Introduction of Guests

The Speaker: Order, please.

      Before intro­ducing any other members to speak, there's some guests in the gallery that are leaving right away. So I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the public gallery, where we have with us 25 students from Andrew Mynarski school, under the direction of George Bravo. And this group is located in the con­stit­uency of the hon­our­able member for Burrows (Mr. Brar).

      We welcome you here this morning.

* * *

Mr. Logan Oxenham (Kirkfield Park): I'm happy to get up and stand–to talk today about the budget bill accountability act, and from a perspective as a former correctional officer and a worker who worked in the civil service.

* (10:40)

      I stand before you not just as an MLA and former correctional officer, but as someone who's lived the realities of our justice system, both its strengths and its grave shortcomings. Over the years, I wore a duty belt loaded with tangible tools of safety, control–you know, handcuffs, baton, pepper spray, radio. These instruments, as vital as they are for our imme­diate security needs, represent only a part of our story. They are in many ways the physical manifestations of a system designed primarily for containment.

      But, as I have come to understand, true progress in this field stems from addressing a deeper, more complex cause of criminal behaviour through genuine rehabilitation and invest­ments in our com­mu­nity support. I have continuously believed that–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I would once again remind the member to keep his comments relevant to the bill we're discussing here this morning.

Mr. Oxenham: So I've believed that physical tools help us manage these dangerous situations, but real long-lasting change comes from–only comes from when we invest in programs that tackle the root causes: poverty, mental health challenges, substance use, un­em­ploy­ment and a myriad of social con­di­tions that lead individuals down a path of crime.

      The evidence is clear. Our justice mandate in Manitoba is not simply order, but to reduce recid­ivism, foster public safety. And I've witnessed how policy decisions and–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      Once again, I would remind the member to keep his comments relevant to the bill we're discussing here this morning.

Mr. Oxenham: Not long ago, funding for the essential rehabilitative programs was frozen by the previous PC gov­ern­ment in Manitoba. In doing so, they effectively forced com­mu­nity organi­zations, organi­zations that had been the lifeline for countless offenders to crumble under financial strain. It was underfunding in their budget that caused countless offenders to crumble and to lose hope.

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I need to remind all members that the bill we're discussing here this morning deals with how the budget gets imple­mented, not with specific monetary things that may or may not be in the budget. So we need to keep our comments related to how the bill gets imple­mented. That's the whole point of this bill. So it's–try and keep that in mind when you're speaking.

Mr. Oxenham: Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker; I ap­pre­ciate your guidance.

      So we made a priority that we invest in the future of our province by prioritizing edu­ca­tion. Ensuring that we're prioritizing our next gen­era­tion means that we continue to make smart and targeted invest­ments that would enable Manitoba's–Manitobans to live a good life.

      I remember, while working in the correctional facilities, that they were closing the Dauphin jail. And I remember colleagues of mine being very worried and very distraught because a source of income, a source of stability, for a centre that was, you know, seen as a beacon of hope in many cases where people had an op­por­tun­ity to come and find a better path to go on. And not long after, a couple years later, the Agassiz Youth Centre was also closed, which, you know, you think that in a gov­ern­ment's budget–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      Once again, the member has strayed far away from what the bill before us is about. It's about the budget imple­men­ta­tion process. So if he could keep his comments to that, it would be ap­pre­ciated.

Mr. Oxenham: Ap­pre­ciate that guidance again.

      Health-care unions said the 2022 budget would not be able to address lack of staff, with wait times for surgeries skyrocketing. But our gov­ern­ment, we vow to be different than the PCs, and we prioritize the needs of every Manitoban.

      And we are rebuilding Manitoba. That's what we do. And that's why we've been working to rebuild our health care and edu­ca­tion system, to make sure that all Manitobans are em­power­ed to live a good life. The work that we have done over the last year and a half is proof to every Manitoban that we're continuing to make good on our promises to them.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I just want to close my remarks by saying that I have a lot of respect for my colleagues, and one thing that folks working in correctional facilities can count on is our gov­ern­ment to have a strong budget.

      So thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker; ap­pre­ciate the time.

Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): Well, good morning again, Hon­our­able Speaker. I just want to put a few words on the record here in support of Bill 224, the–brought forward by my colleague from Midland.

      My–I guess my question here is, what would a gov­ern­ment have to fear by this bill? This bill isn't out to penalize just the current gov­ern­ment, it would–not penalize, it will affect the gov­ern­ments moving forward. It will ensure all gov­ern­ments moving forward cannot–or they can still put legis­lation into BITSA, but it will be under public scrutiny. So I would almost suggest this should be a bipartisan bill, and I would encourage members from the gov­ern­ment side to speak in favour of this bill.

      I think we can–on this side of the House, we can say that BITSA in the past had a few–had a little bit of legis­lation in it when we were in gov­ern­ment, but last year was a real anomaly with the amount of bills that were included in BITSA last year. And that certainly has never been the in­ten­tion of BITSA. And I think there was a lot of im­por­tant legis­lation that the gov­ern­ment intro­duced last year, and I think, as the member from Midland said, there was a lot of groups that would have liked to have been at com­mit­tee to talk about, especially, some of the labour portions of the bills included in BITSA, and that wasn't possible.

      So in my mind and in this side of the House mind, the Bill 224 is an excellent bill. It will hold the gov­ern­ment of the day to account but it will hold future gov­ern­ments to account. So I would urge members to get behind this bill and that we have the vote on this fairly quickly.

      Thank you very much.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for–the hon­our­able Minister of Environ­ment and Climate Change.

Hon. Mike Moyes (Minister of Environment and Climate Change): You know, I'd like to con­gratu­late the member for Midland (Mrs. Stone) on bringing forward her first bill. So that's always exciting and, you know, a big step, I guess, for all of us as legis­lators. It's always exciting to have that time.

      It's a pleasure to get up and talk about account­ability. But I do find it a little bit dis­ingen­uous, and so I just, for a moment, I wouldn't mind speaking in regards to how we came to Bill 224. And, basically, thinking back to this past year, the members opposite were trying to gum up the system. And so while it's all fine and good to say, you know, Bill 224 is going to improve the accountability of financial matters and that Bill 224 is going to more–help us be more trans­par­ent, I think it's really im­por­tant to realize that this is coming forward because of the in­cred­ible amount of erroneous points of privilege and points of order that took place.

      And so, you know, we can talk about Bill 224 and ways to improve our demo­cracy and we can talk about ways to improve accountability, but I think most Manitobans, and the Manitobans that I've spoken with–and I have spoken with an in­cred­ible amount–I do try to take outreach very seriously and I take my job as a repre­sen­tative of Riel very seriously. I've heard from Manitobans that it was–that it's shameful, that it was shameful that we were ringing the bells for hours on end, that there wasn't actual debate going on but instead we had these erroneous points of privilege, these erroneous points of order day after day, one person after another, so that our democracy couldn't function. And I find that that is–that's troubling.

* (10:50)

      And so it's–it is problematic. I'm always open to improve accountability. I think that that is some­thing that all of us across, you know, across the aisle can agree on; that accountability is paramount.

      I would like to just point out one thing: that we're actually one of the few provinces that still have that, if I'm not mistaken.

An Honourable Member: The only province.

MLA Moyes: We're the only province, so thank you very much. And I'm not suggesting that that's some­thing that we should do away with. I think that public input is in­cred­ibly im­por­tant. Whenever we're discussing different pieces of legis­lation or discussing different priorities, I think it's incredibly important to hear from Manitobans.

      But one of the things that I always say to Manitobans, whether I'm knocking on the door, whether I'm hosting a town hall, whether I'm at a coffee shop; whatever it is, when I'm speaking with con­stit­uents, I always let them know that they don't have to wait for an official process.

      And so while I ap­pre­ciate Bill 224 and I ap­pre­ciate, you know, the trans­par­ency and the account­ability piece, they don't have to wait to talk to MLAs on our side. My door is always open. My phone line is always readily available because I want to hear from Manitobans. I want to hear from my con­stit­uents.

      And so each and every member on this side of the House believes in accountability, and I'm willing to have those tough discussions. I'm will–if somebody disagrees with a position that our gov­ern­ment is taking, I want to hear from them because I do think it's im­por­tant and that's how we improve the legis­lative–our different bills that are coming forward in the legis­lative session.

      And so while Bill 224, you know, we can try to make–we need to have 10 hours of this or we need 10 hours of that or we should do this or that; that's all fine and good but at the end of the day we are all accountable to Manitobans. I'm accountable to the people of Riel and each and every day we are open to hearing their thoughts. We are open to hearing their opinions and I take that job very seriously.

      I would also like to suggest that Manitobans had their say in 2023. They rejected the divisive and spiteful policies of the last gov­ern­ment and they rejected the most hateful campaign in Manitoba history. And so we have a strong mandate. And so, you know, we can talk about–but we're talking about accountability and, ultimately, we are accountable and they were accountable for their policies and that's why they got voted out.

      And that's what demo­cracy is all about. Manitobans had their say. They said, we've had two  terms of a terrible gov­ern­ment that was not listening to Manitobans, that was putting them further and further behind, making life more expensive, absolutely ruining our health‑care system. And so they said, there's the door.

      And so we have a strong mandate. And so, you know, accountability goes–ultimately, elections are the greatest accountability piece. And so while Bill 224 is–you know, we can talk about the–we should do this, but I ultimately think that that's almost getting into the weeds a bit. Like, the ultimate accountability is to our con­stit­uents and so this is im­por­tant things when we talk about demo­cracy.

      And I also do want to just point out that I do find it ironic that, you know, members opposite, especially for–I'm going to point out that the member for Borderland (Mr. Guenter) gets up and talks about demo­cracy and whatnot when, at the same time, the member for Borderland was talking about joining–making Canada the 51st state.

The Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

      I've asked the member to keep his comments relevant to the bill.

MLA Moyes: Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker, for that guidance.

      But I do think that our demo­cracy is critical and so I want to ensure that there isn't any inter­ference in our demo­cracy. And that, you know, that goes for ensuring that there's different mechanisms in place, but ultimately, everyone on this side of the Chamber, everyone in our gov­ern­ment, every single MLA stands up for Manitobans, and we will continue to stand up for Manitobans and stand up for Manitoba jobs, unlike some of what we've heard from other–from members opposite.

      You know, we are an open and trans­par­ent gov­ern­ment. We are constantly doing con­sul­ta­tion. We just actually got through a budget con­sul­ta­tion. I was able to take part with a lot of other members from south Winnipeg and heard directly from Manitobans.

      So while we can talk about these internal processes where someone has to come down to the Legislature and present their views, and that's all fine and good, I'm–you know, I think that that's im­por­tant as well, but I also think that it's im­por­tant for us to take our message and the ability to hear from folks on the road. We need to hear from other people. And so we went into the com­mu­nity. We opened the floor up. The Minister of Finance (MLA Sala) was there. The members of the entire south Winnipeg were there. And we listened. And that's what it's about. We were listening to what Manitobans had to say.

      And I know that there's snickering on the other side about listening, and I know that they think it's funny that, you know, listening to Manitobans, what an idea. You know, they love putting forward a bill, Bill 224, and say we should have more public con­sul­ta­tion. But when we say hey, we're going on a listening tour, they laugh. They're like oh, you're just listening. I don't find that funny. I think that listening to Manitobans is all of our jobs.

      And so I think it's actually quite shameful for members opposite to laugh at that idea. To suggest that listening to Manitobans, that hearing their voice and building it into our legis­lation is laughable. It isn't. That's exactly what we were sent here to do.

      And so while it's–you know, we can get into the minutia of how do we improve our demo­cracy and how do we debate this piece of legis­lation or how do we debate that, I ultimately think bringing Manitobans together is the way forward. And we've heard that loud and clear. We've heard what we need to do. We've heard about rebuilding health care, which is what we're doing. We've heard about making life more affordable, which is what we're doing.

      And we're going to continue to do that good work each and every day, because ultimately, the members on this side of the aisle are here for Manitobans, and we are going to fight day in and day out for each Manitoban and each of their jobs, unlike members opposite.

      And so, with that, I would just like to conclude my remarks and just say: the people of Manitoba can rest assured, we're going to continue to do that good work.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): I'm honoured to stand before you today as a part of a gov­ern­ment that listens. A  gov­ern­ment that understands the challenges Manitobans face and takes real action to address them.

      From the moment we took office, we knew the respon­si­bility we carried. Manitobans entrusted us with a mandate, a strong mandate, to rebuild health care, strengthen edu­ca­tion, lower costs for families and to be accountable, and that's what we're doing.

      C'est un honneur pour moi d'être devant vous aujourd'hui en tant que membre d'un gouvernement à l'écoute, un gouvernement qui comprend les défis auxquels font face les Manitobains et qui prend les mesures concrètes pour les relever.

      Dès l'instant où nous avons pris nos fonctions, nous savions la responsabilité que nous avions. Les Manitobains nous ont confié le mandat : rebâtir les soins de santé, sois à l'écoute, renforcer l'éducation et réduire les coûts pour les familles. Et c'est exactement ce que nous faisons.

Translation

I am honoured to stand before you today as a member of a government that listens, a government that understands the challenges Manitobans face and that takes concrete measures to address them.

From the moment we took office, we knew the responsibility we carried. Manitobans entrusted us with the mandate to rebuild healthcare, to listen, to strengthen education and to lower costs for families. And that is exactly what we are doing.

English

      When discussing a bill that talks about account­ability, it's im­por­tant to realize that we inherited a province weakened by years of reckless spending and  mismanagement. The previous gov­ern­ment left behind a staggering $1.97-billion deficit, the money mismanaged at the expense of everyday Manitobans.

      So when we talk about accountability, who's accountable now? They ignored health-care workers, underfunded our schools and failed to provide relief for families. But we are changing that. We brought in an independent auditor to expose the truth about our province's finances. This is all a part of being accountable. There are many ways we can do it. And we remind that being accountable is that affordability is a top concern for Manitoba.

      We had to take decisive actions to lower costs. We cut the gas tax for–

* (11:00)

The Speaker: Order, please.

      When this matter is again before the House, the hon­our­able minister will have eight minutes remaining.

Resolutions

Res. 4–Prov­incial Gov­ern­ment Job-Destroying Payroll Taxes

The Speaker: The hour is now 11 a.m. and time for private members' reso­lu­tions. The reso­lu­tion before us this morning is the reso­lu­tion on the Prov­incial Govern­ment Job-Destroying Payroll Taxes, brought forward by the hon­our­able member for Midland (Mrs. Stone).

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): I move, seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Piwniuk),

      WHEREAS Manitoba's economy and workers are under threat with increasing costs and taxes imposed by the provincial government on families and businesses; and

      WHEREAS the payroll tax is a tax on jobs and drives business away from Manitoba; and

      WHEREAS the provincial government is responsible for the second highest job-destroying payroll tax in Canada behind only Quebec;

      WHEREAS only three other provinces have maintained a job-destroying payroll tax; and

      WHEREAS Canada, the Territories and six other provinces are all free of the job-destroying payroll tax; and

      WHEREAS Manitoba businesses are struggling under unfair tariffs imposed by the American gov­ernment and require meaningful, permanent relief; and

      WHEREAS the provincial government job-destroying payroll tax makes Manitoba less attractive for new businesses to come to Manitoba and for investors and job creators to grow the economy; and

      WHEREAS under the provincial government the unemployment rate has soared from 4 per cent in 2023 to over 6 per cent now in 2025; and

      WHEREAS during a recession, the Pawley NDP provincial government created the job-destroying NDP payroll tax in 1982; and

      WHEREAS the current provincial government is leading Manitoba into another recession with high unemployment levels; and

      WHEREAS the previous PC provincial govern­ment began to phase out the payroll tax in successive budgets in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, taking many small- and medium-sized businesses off these tax rolls entirely and reducing the cost of the payroll tax for thousands of other Manitoba businesses; and

      WHEREAS the ongoing threat of US tariffs, the current provincial government has only offered a temporary, three-month deferral of the payroll tax to Manitoba businesses; and

      WHEREAS Manitoba needs a competitive busi­ness environment to attract investment to Manitoba and strengthen the local economy in the face of US trade action.

      THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to make the province more attractive to international investors and new busi­nesses by com­pleting the phasing-out of the job-destroying payroll tax permanently, provide real relief for busi­nesses struggling under American tariffs and reversing the prov­incial gov­ern­ment's trend of growing the tax burden on Manitobans.

Motion presented.

The Speaker: A question period of up to 10–sorry, the hon­our­able member for Midland.

Mrs. Stone: Good morning, everyone.

      I bring this reso­lu­tion forward to call on the NDP gov­ern­ment to prove that they are serious about supporting Manitoba small and medium busi­nesses and jobs in a long-term and meaningful way. The most impactful way that they can do this today is by phasing out the job-killing payroll tax for Manitobans.

      The current NDP payroll tax is a regressive, anti-competitive, anti-growth form of taxation that deters increased jobs, it deters increased wages and it deters increased invest­ment here in the province.

      This is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing, especially in today's uncertain economic climate. This reso­lu­tion could not be more im­por­tant and timelier than it is right now as we continue to face busi­ness uncertainty, market volatility and investor concern.

      But first, I do want to recog­nize all of the busi­nesses here in Manitoba and entrepreneurs that are the backbone of our province and our economy. It is you that keeps the economy going, it is you that is the economic horse. And it is you that is provi­ding Manitobans with the jobs that they need. This is exactly why the payroll tax is such a slap in the face to Manitoban busi­nesses that make our province function and give Manitobans the jobs that they need. This is by far the worst, more punitive tax for busi­nesses that we have here in this province.

      This is an issue of competitiveness and supporting our own busi­nesses right here at home. We're talking about home-grown entrepreneurial busi­nesses where many of the individuals live, work and operate their busi­nesses right here in our com­mu­nities in Manitoba.

      The reality is–the reality that busi­nesses are facing is that they can only absorb so much. And the Province cannot tax their way into economic growth. The best way for economic growth is to remove these punitive taxes and let the busi­nesses grow, let the busi­­nesses flourish, and let the busi­nesses hire Manitobans with the jobs that they des­per­ately need.

      With the cost of products increasing and inflation, the payroll tax has become an increasing burden on small busi­nesses. This tax is not indexed to inflation, even as inflation has skyrocketed over the past couple of years, and the reality is is that Manitobans, not just the busi­nesses, but Manitoba employees are paying the burden of this as well.

      I have worked in small busi­ness, I have worked in large busi­ness and I've run my own busi­ness. I have worked in both the agri­cul­ture and manufacturing sectors and I can tell Manitobans and speak in this House that decades of high taxation and anti-busi­ness decisions have left Manitoba's economy weak in comparison to other juris­dic­tions. Not just other juris­dic­tions across the world, Hon­our­able Speaker, but other juris­dic­tions here in Canada.

      If we look across Canada, Manitoba is one of the few provinces left that still has a payroll tax. Saskatchewan and Alberta both do not. Manitoba also has the second highest payroll tax, just aside from Quebec. Manitoba's payroll tax is half of what Ontario's is. Manitoba's payroll tax is double to what Ontario's payroll tax rate is for busi­nesses with renumeration over $2.5 million.

      The past few months, in parti­cular, should be a wake-up call to the Province, that their approach to taxation needs to change. And the reality is this is becoming more and more apparent in the wake of American and Chinese tariffs and this tariff war that Canada is caught in between.

      Echoing Loren Remillard from the Chamber of Commerce's words, this tax weakens Manitoba's proposition. We need to minimize the negatives and grow the positives. The payroll tax is not a positive.

      The NDP asks Manitoba busi­nesses how they can help. And there are things the Province can do to create a stronger, more resilient busi­ness environ­ment. But the support that Manitoba busi­nesses need right now, I'm not sure that the NDP can put their ideology aside to make that happen. This reso­lu­tion is their first test, and we'll see if they support this reso­lu­tion, which would be a true call and a true testament to supporting Manitoba busi­nesses during this very difficult time.

      The former PCs were moving in the right direction, to phase out the payroll tax, moving many, many small busi­nesses off of that threshold. This was unfor­tunately not followed through when this NDP gov­ern­ment was elected. And this was a big mistake, especially in the realities of high inflation, high cost, market volatility, investor concern and tariffs that we are facing from both China and the United States.

* (11:10)

      There are only a couple individuals on the gov­ern­ment benches that have actually worked in busi­ness or run their own busi­ness, so they might not be aware of what a job-killing payroll tax actually is. So let me put it into very, very simple terms for them. The payroll is a tax on the renumeration paid to Manitoba employees. This is a tax on how much Manitobans are being paid. The amount a busi­ness or employer owes depends on the total wages of people.

      Let's just let that sink in. Manitoba is literally taxing wages and people through this payroll tax. But this isn't just a tax on wages and salary. The tax is also placed on benefits, employer-paid gratuities and tips, employer-sponsored life insurance premiums, bonuses and any other additional payments an employer may give an employee.

      This is just absolutely absurd, Hon­our­able Speaker. It is a punishment for employing people. It's a punishment for actually increasing the number of jobs in Manitoba. This is such a regressive, antiquated tax policy that is hurting Manitobans, and it is hurting Manitoba busi­nesses right here in the province, plus this doesn't even include Trudeau's payroll tax increases that happened a couple years ago with CPP, and it was expanded in 2019.

      In addition, payroll taxes must be paid regardless if a busi­ness is making any profits. Not only does this tax then cut into increasing wages for Manitobans, but it also cuts into increasing benefits for their employees, and it is a deterrent for hiring more Manitobans, which does in turn increase costs on consumers in the end.

Busi­nesses, as I've mentioned, can only absorb so much. If the sufficient profit margins aren't there, paying this tax is coming from somewhere else. And ultimately, it's raising the price on consumers, it's reductions in hiring and retention and ultimately lower wages. Every single one of these members' union friends should be sounding the alarm that this tax even exists. This is a tax on paying people, Hon­our­able Speaker. This is a tax on increasing jobs. This is a job-destroying payroll tax.

Mr. Diljeet Brar, Acting Speaker, in the Chair

      There's an inaccurate portrayal that the payroll tax only impacts larger cor­por­ations, but this is blatantly false. Even the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics outlines the percentage of small busi­nesses under 100 people make up almost 98 per cent here in Manitoba. And those highest sectors of busi­nesses are health care and social assist­ance, retail and construction. I would say that those are pretty critical services that we need here in Manitoba.

      So, you know, here's some examples for the members opposite to make it even more clear why this is a job-destroying payroll tax. Say there's a small  medical busi­ness in Transcona, started with seven employees 10 years ago. Their reward to tripling their busi­ness in employing 30 people today is having to pay the payroll tax. Another example, a manufacturing plant in Winnipeg employing under 75 people: payroll tax of $8,000 a week. That's almost half a million dollars a year for 75 people that are manufacturing goods here at home that we then don't need to bring in and import from other countries like the US.

      The Fraser In­sti­tute has also shown payroll taxes have a negative and statistically sig­ni­fi­cant impact on wages. This is punitive cost on busi­nesses. The red tape to administer payroll tax adds burden to the small busi­nesses. We need more job growth here in Manitoba, not less, and it's time that the NDP step up and stop taxing the exact people that are pulling that growing and larger social cart.

      Thank you, hon­our­able Speaker.

Questions

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

Mrs. Rachelle Schott (Kildonan-River East): The failed PC gov­ern­ment had every op­por­tun­ity to make life more affordable for Manitobans but instead they chose to cut programs, freeze wages and make bids for private corn–Crown cor­por­ations.

      My question for the member opposite is: If the PCs are truly concerned about affordability in our province, why did they vote against our $1,500 home­owners affordability tax credit that makes it easier for Manitobans to afford to pay their mortgage or buy their first home?

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): Our PC team voted against that because phasing out the edu­ca­tion prop­erty taxes would have had a much stronger impact on Manitobans keeping their hard-earned dollars in their pockets.

      In addition, the former PC gov­ern­ment increased thresholds on the payroll tax to get more and more small busi­nesses off the payroll tax. But more needs to be done as there's still a sig­ni­fi­cant number of small and medium busi­nesses that employ under 100 people that have to pay this very punitive job-destroying payroll tax.

Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Turtle Mountain): I just–I want to thank my colleague, the member for Midland, for bringing this im­por­tant reso­lu­tion forward here.

      And a question I have is, I was wanting to know who she consulted with and who actually supports this reso­lu­tion?

Mrs. Stone: I thank my colleague for that question.

      Manitoba busi­nesses have been clear that they support the phase-out and the overall elimination of the 'jrob'-destroying payroll tax. I consulted with Canadian Taxpayers Federation, federation for in­de­pen­dent busi­ness and the chambers.

      And I'd just like to read a couple quotes from those stake­holders that have also been put out  there publicly to prove to the members opposite who supports this. The CFIB, in their current budget  submission to the Minister of Finance (MLA Sala), has said: Reducing overall tax 'bursen' is the No. 1 priority for small busi­nesses, and payroll taxes were cited as the most harmful costs to small busi­nesses in Manitoba. That is the quote from the Canadian federation for independent busi­ness in their current budget submission to the current Finance Minister.

Mrs. Schott: The failed PC gov­ern­ment had seven and a half years to make life more affordable for Manitobans, but instead they used their power to raise taxes on most Manitobans while dismantling our health-care system.

      Why did the Pallister-Stefanson gov­ern­ment threaten a health-care premium that would increase the tax burden on Manitobans or else they would face more cuts to valuable health-care services?

Mrs. Stone: You know, deputy–hon­our­able Speaker, it's comical to hear members opposite talk about affordability when over the past two years and entering their second budget, they have made no long-term affordability measures. All we've seen are freezes and delays and deferrals and holidays. There has literally been not a single long-term measure. The only long-term measure they put in was their $1,500 tax 'cre' where Manitobans would have been better off going with the phase-out and the complete elimination of edu­ca­tion property taxes altogether. So it's comical hearing from the members opposite talk about affordability when they have not intro­duced a single long-term or meaningful affordability measure for Manitobans.

      This job-destroying payroll tax, it is that. It is job-destroying. It is limiting busi­nesses from being able to increase wages–

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Member's time has expired.

MLA Jeff Bereza (Portage la Prairie): Thank you so much to the member from Midland for this very im­por­tant reso­lu­tion in looking for ways to save Manitobans more money.

      We are a province that is in a highly competitive market. Are we losing busi­ness because of this payroll tax, not only to other provinces but to other countries as well?

      Thank you.

Mrs. Stone: I thank my colleague for the question.

      And both my colleague and I have worked in the agri-food sector. And we've seen first-hand invest­ment leave this province and going to neighbouring juris­dic­tions, like Saskatchewan and Alberta, as well as to the US. And this is a problem.

      And now we are in a predicament in Manitoba where we need to grow our economy and we're faced with these tariffs. This is going to be a sig­ni­fi­cant challenge for Manitoba because of the poor anti–the poor tax decisions and the anti-busi­ness rhetoric that NDP gov­ern­ments prior created for this province.

      And we saw busi­nesses leave. We've seen invest­ment leave. We've seen–currently Manitoba has dropped to second last in dollars devoted to mining and forestry–critical minerals that we need here in Manitoba.

* (11:20)

      We've seen dev­elop­ment projects being cancelled and not supported by this Premier (Mr. Kinew). Let's remember, this Premier supported the Leap Manifesto and the 30-by-30 plan, which doesn't allow key dev­elop­ment projects to happen in Manitoba.

      Where does he expect this tax base to grow if–

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Member's time is expired.

Mrs. Schott: Affordability got worse under the failed PC gov­ern­ment for northern com­mu­nities after they froze funding for munici­palities and overwhelmed them with more respon­si­bilities. Our gov­ern­ment is bringing prosperity to the North, creating more and better-paying jobs and creating a more competitive economy that can help drive down costs.

      Why do the PCs neglect the needs of northern Manitobans and make life more expensive for them?

Mrs. Stone: The former PC gov­ern­ment was on path to eliminating this job-killing payroll tax. They increased the thresholds that busi­nesses would then have to pay from, like, $1.5 million to $2.5 million, taking many small busi­nesses off of the payroll tax completely.

      This is how you grow jobs in Manitoba. Keeping job-destroying payroll taxes, which is a deterrent to increasing jobs in Manitoba, a deterrent to increasing wages in Manitoba and a deterrent for increasing invest­ment in Manitoba, is not the way to go. These taxes that are supported and, quite frankly, intro­duced by former NDP gov­ern­ments, are exactly why Manitoba is in the position it's in.

      And seven years of the PC gov­ern­ment working to improve made a–

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Member's time is expired.

Mr. Richard Perchotte (Selkirk): As a former busi­ness owner that employed 70 people, paying payroll tax of nearly $200,000 a year, that money could have been directly spent on helping more people come into our company by buying–purchasing equip­ment, creating op­por­tun­ities for different markets.

      My question is: Who is in support of this reso­lu­tion?

Mrs. Stone: I thank the member for his question.

      And, you know, similar to the member, I've worked in manufacturing, you know, industries that in–small busi­nesses that were employing under 100 people and saw the detrimental effects that this payroll tax had on increasing wages, benefits and jobs altogether, while also seeing invest­ment leave this province and this country, as a result of taxation and anti-busi­ness rhetoric.

      So I had already mentioned earlier, CFIB supports to eliminate the job-killing payroll tax. The Manitoba chamber also has put out a statement saying that it continues to advocate for the elimination of the payroll tax, which has been identified by busi­ness leaders as the greatest impediment to economic competitiveness and–

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Member's time is expired.

Mrs. Schott: The failed PC gov­ern­ment turned their backs on renters for seven and a half years as rental costs skyrocketed by cutting the renters tax credit. Our gov­ern­ment is helping renters keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets by increasing the maximum renters tax credit from $525 to $575.

      Can the members opposite tell us: Why did the PC gov­ern­ment raise taxes on renters when they cut the renters tax credit from $700 to $525?

Mrs. Stone: You know, clearly, the members opposite don't have any idea of what the payroll tax is because I haven't actually received a question about what the job-killing payroll tax is.

      So let me remind the members that the job-killing payroll tax is a tax on employees; it's a tax for hiring more Manitobans; it is a tax on competitiveness; it's a tax on economic growth. The very people that are pulling this growing and growing social cart are the people that this NDP wants to continue to tax.

      If they really cared about small busi­nesses here in Manitoba, then they would support this reso­lu­tion; they would follow through with the phase-out of the payroll tax on Manitoba busi­nesses. The timing is now. This is–there is not a more timely–

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Member's time is expired.

Mr. Piwniuk: I just don't want to have–one final question with my colleague here.

      I have a very good friend who's actually in the busi­ness of supplying employees to big companies, and with this reso­lu­tion going forward here, and if it actually happens where they lower the payroll tax, how much would it

benefit a new em­ploy­ment in the–in every sector of this economy?

Mrs. Stone: I thank my colleague for the question.

      And many of us, on this side of the bench, at the very least, have worked in busi­ness. And we've seen the damages that the job-killing payroll tax has on Manitoba's small busi­nesses–98 per cent of Manitoba busi­nesses employ under 100 people. These are home-grown entrepreneurs that work, operate and live in their com­mu­nities where their busi­ness is, and they're trying to employ more Manitobans and give more Manitobans with wage increases and job growth. And this tax is a deterrence to doing that. Let's remember. This is a tax on jobs. This is a tax on employees as much as it is a tax on employers and this is exactly why–

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Member's time has expired.

      Before I recog­nize any other members, we have some guests in the gallery–the time for the question period is expired.

Introduction of Guests

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Before I recog­nize any other members, we have some guests in the gallery. We have seated in the public gallery from Andrew Mynarski School, 25 students under the direction of Mr. George Bravo. This group is located in the con­stit­uency of the hon­our­able member for Burrows (Mr. Brar).

      Thank you.

Debate

MLA David Pankratz (Waverley): Si vous êtes d'accord, avant de commencer aujourd'hui, je tiens à dire que le mois de mars est le Mois de la Francophonie mondiale. C'est un moment im­por­tant pour célébrer la langue française, et pour me part, j'essaie de pratiquer autant que possible. J'encourage mes collèges manitobains et canadiens à surmonter leurs hésitations ou leurs craintes et à essayer eux aussi.

      J'ai aussi été encouragé par mes amis de l'École South Pointe et mon ami, le député de Saint-Boniface (M. Loiselle), à parler français dès que possible. Alors, j'ai pensé essayer aujourd'hui.

Translation

If it is all right with you, before I start today, I would like to mention that March is the International Month of La Francophonie. It is an important time to celebrate the French language. For my part, I try to practice as much as possible. I encourage my fellow Manitobans and Canadians to overcome their hesitations or fears and give it a try too.

 I have also been encouraged by my friends at South Pointe School and my friend, the MLA for St. Boniface, to speak French as often as possible, and I thought I would give it a try today.

English

      So thank you everyone for humouring me there for a moment to speak some French. I just wanted to say that this month is francophone month globally, and it's really im­por­tant that we practise our French and don't feel too nervous about it. Just give it a shot.

      So here we are, hon­our­able Speaker, again. We're back at it with another hyperbolic reso­lu­tion from the op­posi­tion. It does feel a little bit like the PCs left the sort of bad slogan machine on all night, and we got a whole bunch of strange Mad Libs which is like job-killing over and over again. You know, I do this with my kids. We talk about adjectives and descriptive words and how we should maybe work on–working on our vocabulary together.

      And so I'm speaking spe­cific­ally about your reso­lu­tion. So that's the relevance–is it's spe­cific­ally about  the wording of your reso­lu­tion right now. [interjection] Yes.

      So adjectives are very im­por­tant and how you describe things, how you talk about things, your words, and in this bill, it's been–it's quite some­thing to sort through. It's–it once again, sort of pretends to be about strengthening Manitoba's economy but says nothing about the real work that actually goes into building a strong, competitive province.

      I know that there's some limitations within a reso­lu­tion and the member opposite is trying to bring some­thing forward that they're passionate about. So I'm happy to be clear about that and say, you know, I love debates about economic policy. I'm glad that we're having this con­ver­sa­tion today. And, you know, ultimately I would say a thriving economy doesn't necessarily just happen because you yell cut some­thing loudly, right?

      So in a thriving economy, when gov­ern­ments make sort of smart, long-term invest­ments in the things that actually help people and busi­nesses succeed, that's how you get a thriving economy, and it happens when we invest in things like schools so that every kid, no matter where they live, gets a great edu­ca­tion and has skills to drive innovation and growth, you know, and build that economy here at home. It  happens when we build health-care system that doesn't leave people behind or waiting for care, struggling to access mental health supports, and I'm so proud that we've hired an additional 1,255 net-new health-care workers to work on that plan.

* (11:30)

      You know, this reso­lu­tion spe­cific­ally speaks about how we can make sure that we keep people here in Manitoba, and I really ap­pre­ciate that. But what we need to do is we need to make sure that this province is a place where families want to stay, where workers want to build their futures and busi­nesses can depend on educated work force and reliable infra­structure. So when they look at Manitoba, they want to bring people over, and they don't just necessarily see a massive deficit of $2 billion, for example, left by a former gov­ern­ment. And we're working on cleaning that up, one day at a time. So that's what we're focused on, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker.

      And while the op­posi­tion seems to be sort of workshopping new slogans–[interjection] And I can see that they're very worked up by this; I'm getting a lot of talk back and forth, they're very excited about the words that I'm putting on the record here today, I'm obviously getting some support. So I ap­pre­ciate that, it's fantastic. And we can have a con­ver­sa­tion about this after too. I'm happy to talk more about the good work that we're doing, that you seem to be excited about, so ap­pre­ciate that.

      You know, and we're expanding health-care access, like I said, which is directly tied to what we're talking about here. So we're hiring more nurses, more doctors, improving emergency care. And it's spe­cific­ally related to things that are involved with, for example, a health care and edu­ca­tion levy, so a payroll tax, you know? These are the sort of things that bring money in and we're always open, as a gov­ern­ment, to continue having those con­ver­sa­tions.

      You know, we're also investing in edu­ca­tion because that is such a big part of this, and the member from Midland kept bringing this up about making sure that we're doing every­thing we can to bring busi­nesses to Manitoba–

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Order, please. Order, please. Order, please.

      I would like to remind all members that we are debating about payroll taxes, so I would ask the member to bring his comments towards payroll tax debate.

      Thank you.

MLA Pankratz: Absolutely. So spe­cific­ally here in the reso­lu­tion, it's talking about driving busi­ness away from Manitoba, and so I'm talking about what sort of things drive busi­ness away and decisions that are made here in Manitoba.

      And so when you want to cut some­thing like a health-care or edu­ca­tion levy, this is a problem, right? And so we're always open to having that con­ver­sa­tion. Our Minister of Finance (MLA Sala) is con­sistently talking with busi­ness leaders in the com­mu­nity about this tax, how it affects them spe­cific­ally and how that might look going forward.

      Now, this was also some­thing which, hypo­critically, I mean, the members opposite, they brought it forward and applied it every single year they were in gov­ern­ment, right? So how was it job-destroying then? Is it–was that the issue while you were in gov­ern­ment, too, and this would fix it?

      Now again, it seems like we are the ones who have to clean up the mess of the gov­ern­ments who was here before. So we are investing in edu­ca­tion to keep people here in Manitoba. We're talking about tax policy, we're talking about the economy here in Manitoba; it's in­cred­ibly im­por­tant.

      We're also–you know, we're talking about affordability because we know busi­nesses, on top of things like a payroll tax, they need to know that when they come here, their employees are going to be comfortable, that they're going to be able to stay here and that they're going to be able to continue to work and be happy employees because that makes them more productive.

      So things like a new school in Prairie Pointe, for example, which is in­cred­ibly exciting. That's a great one. Things like the un­pre­cedented funding of new fire­fighter and paramedic positions, you know, in Waverley.

      So the key to keep those folks safe, you know, we have new busi­nesses popping up in Waverley all the time and I have great con­ver­sa­tions with them about the many factors; many, many factors that put pressure on them as a busi­ness. And perhaps, one of them might be a levy around health care or edu­ca­tion, and that's a con­ver­sa­tion that I'm willing to have and we'll continue to have that con­ver­sa­tion to see how we can productively move forward.

      And I think that that's the difference here, is that, again, I'm seeing from the other side a lot of slogans and yelling, but there's no real productive dialogue around how we can effectively change things here in Manitoba to move our economy forward. And that's the work that we're doing as leaders here in Manitoba every single day.

      And so, when we were given this mandate in 2023, it was in­cred­ibly im­por­tant. The Premier (Mr. Kinew) said, when people are ready to step up and get help, the gov­ern­ment is going to be there for them. And that is the work that we're endeavouring to do every single day.

      So, you know, under the previous gov­ern­ment, we had ERs cut, which, again, that would be closed and that would spe­cific­ally sort of affect busi­ness, and I've talked to busi­ness owners. When we're speaking about the effects or the decisions that they make based on the climate in a certain province, health care is one of those issues, and that's some­thing that we're working to rebuild. Education is one of those issues spe­cific­ally. The payroll tax, sure, is one of those issues.

      This is a much larger, nuanced conversation that we have to have. And so I ap­pre­ciate that the member for Midland (Mrs. Stone) wanted to bring this forward today. And it's a great con­ver­sa­tion to have.

      But, ultimately, I would say, you know, what happened while they were in gov­ern­ment? They had the opportunity for seven years to cut this tax and they didn't do that.

      So what I would just say to close things off here, you know, this feels a little bit like a trailer and not a movie, this reso­lu­tion, right–it's kind of like the bad action movie that's written badly but has a lot of explosions. So they sort of–they say the same things over and over and over again about job-destroying, job-killing.

      But Manitobans aren't really interested in that spin. Ultimately, they see the difference between a caucus that talks a lot and the team that actually delivers. And while the op­posi­tion keeps trying to rewrite their record, we'll just keep on doing the work for Manitobans because that's what leadership looks like and that's what they elected us to do.

      Thank you, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Turtle Mountain): I have to say, wow, if this is the only strength they have, is to put up a unionized fire­fighter as a speaker–and none of them have any ex­per­ience in any busi­ness oppor­tunities here that they ever had to see what we on this side have.

      I have to say, I want to thank my colleague for–the member for Midland (Mrs. Stone) for bringing this reso­lu­tion up, how im­por­tant it is, especially in this environ­ment. So if this is the strongest speaker that the NDP can bring up here about payroll taxes, how im­por­tant the–how im­por­tant this subject really is–[interjection] It's disgusting how they're clapping for that individual, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker.

      When it comes to payroll taxes, no one on that side has any clue. I don't think any of them actually had a person on a payroll, had to even pay payroll. I actually, over the years, when I first started my busi­ness, and I actually bought the busi­ness, I had to do payroll. I bought a busi­ness that was already existing, I bought the corporation shares and there was, you know, there was debt that came in with the busi­ness.

      But you know what? My focus was–my new partner, busi­ness partner and myself–our focus was to build a busi­ness. That was our focus over the years. The 20 years I was in there we grew that busi­ness. We actually employed–we started with about four employees. By the time we–I sold the busi­ness, we had over 30 employees.

      And the fact is, I remember the early days; I had to worry about if we were going to make payroll because, you know what, every member in that–our–all our employees were actually basically family to us. We wanted to make sure that they were taken care of first. We wanted to make sure they had benefits. We wanted to make sure that they had a good environ­ment to work in.

      But there were some sleepless nights, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, that I had to do in the early days. But we grew that busi­ness. We were suc­cess­ful. We focused on relationship building with our clients. We basically worked–make sure that we were–I put, you know, hours in: 12 hours a day just to build up my busi­ness.

      And, hon­our­able Speaker, when we have a member who comes up from Waverley who speaks here, who doesn't talk about anything about busi­ness, if this is the strongest member they have in the busi­ness com­mu­nity, that's frightening.

      There's–it's a shame that they even clap for this individual, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker. The only person that I know actually has a busi­ness here on that side is the member from Seine River, and I'm surprised that she didn't get up to speak first.

      And the fact is, there was no relevance in the speaking notes from the member from Waverley. And that should be ashamed. And I'm 'hoshe' every busi­ness owner actually listens to what they had to say and that was–it was so im­por­tant that–[interjection]

      You know what, the member from Rossmere–[interjection]

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Order, please.

Mr. Piwniuk: –is actually heckling me. The fact is, she was a lawyer and she couldn't even make it as a lawyer, so now she's actually an MLA. She couldn't be–she said she couldn't even afford to be a lawyer, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, so–that was in her speech.

* (11:40)

      So I just want to continue with this–how im­por­tant this is to a busi­ness'–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Order, please. Order, please. Order, please.

      Please bring it down, my friends. Please bring it down. Let me listen what the member who has the floor has to say.

Mr. Piwniuk: Going back–[interjection] You know, I just don't–I want to have my op­por­tun­ity to speak. We gave your member time. I just want to say, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, I remember when our busi­ness became very suc­cess­ful, and we actually had more than 20 employees. And that was the day that I  had to have the notice from our accountant, saying that you guys now have to pay payroll taxes. That was a big impact because I remember it was–and it was a hit to us for the whole year of over $20,000.

      Every two–every–it seemed like every two years we actually hired a new person in our firm. And that was actually a punishment for actually hiring some­body, a one extra person now, and the fact is, the impact–this was during the Selinger days, and hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, this was the impact to us. And it actually makes busi­nesses basically stay stagnant. Because the fact is, every time you actually earn more, employ more people, they get taxed. And members should know that, you know, most of them are unionized teachers, unionized nurses. That's all they have on their side. Maybe a fire­fighter. And no busi­ness ex­per­ience from that side. They have no clue what payroll taxes are. That's why they couldn't talk about payroll taxes. That's why there's no relevance.

      You know, I got people in the busi­ness com­mu­nity that come to me every day. These are my friends in the busi­ness com­mu­nity. And they're very–they're really concerned about this NDP gov­ern­ment. They're actually chasing away busi­ness. At the time when we're doing these tariffs, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, it is so–[interjection]

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Order, please.

Mr. Piwniuk: –it's so im­por­tant that we–this is im­por­tant topic here. This gives us op­por­tun­ity to make sure that they can be competitive, especially when it comes to–we don't know what's coming at us, when it comes to this President of the United States right now. And our busi­nesses are very worried about that.

      When we stop hiring people, when there's a recession happening, I want to–[interjection] If, you know, the member from Rossmere will have her op­por­tun­ity to stand up, talk about payroll tax. Because I don't know–think she even knows anything about payroll taxes. [interjection] Yes. So–[interjection]

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Order, please.

Mr. Piwniuk: So, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, I just want to continue with my–the importance of this reso­lu­tion. Because it is im­por­tant to the busi­ness com­mu­nity. The people that employ over 80–75 per cent of the employees in this province, they're not on–unionized employees. And when you have teachers who got a tract–a contract, and the fact is, they're almost the second highest paid, with one of the lowest standard of livings here in this province, we are paying–they're looking after their friends. But they're not looking after–they're not looking after the busi­ness com­mu­nity with 75 per cent of the employees that are put–work with small busi­nesses–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Order, please. Order, please.

      I would ask all the members to please show some respect to the Chairs and each other. Please.

Mr. Piwniuk: Yes, I respect you in that Chair, and thank you for giving me the op­por­tun­ity to give a few more words on the record when it comes to the importance of the–our busi­ness com­mu­nity. They're worried right now. And when people start worrying, employees start worrying about their own jobs, they stop towing back on consumer spending.

      Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, 75 per cent of the economy is consumer spending. With over 75 per cent of employees are with–working where private companies. This is con­cern­ing. This is con­cern­ing for the manufacturers, who employ a lot of people in this province. Its concerns with the employees in this province. Because at the end of the day, if we go into a recession, they have less money to spend. They hold back. And the fact is, then this gov­ern­ment will get more and more into debt if they don't look at this–how serious this matter is.

      They can heckle back and forth here, but this is very serious to our province right now. For the uncertainty. I spoke a bit about the tariffs, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, in the House here. When there's uncertainty out there, people are scared. People stop spending. We need this gov­ern­ment to be active; to make sure that they can reduce the payroll taxes because that is the direct–when it comes to–for making sure employees stay in their jobs. Because if all of a sudden there's uncertainty, there's uncertainty across the border, around the world, with China and the US, this is very con­cern­ing to employees.

      And a lot of times, these employees are finding it's harder and harder to make ends meet right now when their house–property–if they're in a house of $400,000. Today, in Winnipeg, it doesn't take much to have a $400,000 house. The average house in Winnipeg is over half a million dollars right now. And they're all going to be slapped with a property tax increase. They've already been slapped with a carbon tax, gas prices and the tax holiday's back–not there anymore. And the fact is they're feeling at the pumps right now, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker.

      The affordability right now is really scary right now. If people start holding back because of the uncertainty, that hurts all of us. And the fact is, this gov­ern­ment, if they keep on spending the way they are, there's not going to be the revenue. They're not focusing on the revenue. They're not focusing on economic dev­elop­ment, and that is very con­cern­ing to me and to all my busi­ness friends out there. They're really concerned.

      And I have a person who actually works for Pinnacle and the fact is, they employ a lot of employees into the–when 'manufaction' is ramped up. And right now, they're not seeing that. They are very scared that a lot of that busi­ness is going south–are going elsewhere, to other provinces.

      When Saskatchewan–I come from the border, Saskatchewan-Manitoba border, I represent. When Saskatchewan doesn't have a payroll tax, they have a lot of have province, it hurts us on the western side. And I've always been a proponent for the western side of Manitoba. I always–I grew up in Russell. I live in Virden. I represent Turtle Mountain. This is very im­por­tant to Western Manitoba, that especially my manufactures who live along the US border. This could change the dynamics of what they do in the future.

      Thank you, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker.

MLA JD Devgan (McPhillips): I have to say, some of the rhetoric this morning has been a little bit disappointing. I think we can have a con­ver­sa­tion about the reso­lu­tion without launching into personal attacks. To the Minister of Edu­ca­tion: you have my utmost admiration for your work prior to politics.

      I think a lot of the things that we were hearing from the other side and some yelling about relevance, well, let's have a con­ver­sa­tion about affordability in Manitoba. The member just spoke about relief at the pumps. It was actually our gov­ern­ment that gave consumers and Manitobans a break at the pump for a full year and on their gas tax and imple­men­ting a permanent 10 per cent reduction. That wasn't some­thing the PC gov­ern­ment even considered doing.

      Now we're talking about the health and edu­ca­tion levy today. It's been in place since 1982. We had the Filmon years, we had Brian Pallister, we had Heather Stefanson. If it was such a deadly, dire, dire levy, they had their chance to remove it.

      And what I found a little bit ironic was I remember sitting here in 2023 during the budget, up in the gallery, and listening to the budget delivery, and of course there was this big commit­ment to, we're going to kill the payroll tax, starting January 2024, knowing full well they weren't going to be on this side of the House anymore. So playing politics with this issue is a little bit dis­ingen­uous.

      And I just want to give a brief shout out to the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. I've had the priv­ilege, prior to politics, of being involved with the Winnipeg chamber, and I really commend the work that Loren Remillard and his team has been doing at the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce in advocating for Winnipeg busi­nesses.

      And of course, Loren was also a part of the trade mission that our Premier (Mr. Kinew) had organized out to Washington, and a lot of that work that we've been doing to bring busi­ness and labour together, parti­cularly at a time right now where we're talking about the threat of tariffs, the Trump tariffs, to our economy. And I think–and Manitobans can rest assured that our gov­ern­ment is taking the necessary steps to Trump-proof our economy, to provide relief and to provide safety to Manitoba busi­nesses. And they're going to see a lot of that in our up-coming budget, as well.

      But some­thing I do recall from my time attending Winnipeg chamber meetings, just to, respectfully, push back at the member of Midland's assertion, that nobody on this side has any ex­per­ience or familiarity with busi­ness. Well, you know, I may not have owned a busi­ness, albeit, but I did work in the busi­ness sector and I do have a fair bit of ap­pre­cia­tion for the work that our small, medium and large enterprises have in Manitoba.

      And it is a little bit ironic, hon­our­able Speaker, and I feel I do have to say this, that you know who else is a small-busi­ness owner? A taxi driver. A taxi owner who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a taxi medallion, but for whatever reason, the Progressive Conservative gov­ern­ment doesn't consider them small-busi­ness owners. And when they kiboshed the taxi board, what happened to the price of their medallion? It plummeted.

* (11:50)

      So imagine you purchase a house, $400,000, and you think, here's an asset, this will grow, this will ap­pre­ciate in value, I will put money into this. Pretty sure this is still relevant. You're going to put money into this, and suddenly–suddenly–gov­ern­ment makes a decision to kill the value of that invest­ment. We wouldn't tolerate that if that happened in any other busi­ness sector, but the fact that we did this with the taxi owners of Manitoba and thought nothing of it, that reeks of hypocrisy.

      So, of course, to all the owners and operators out there: Our gov­ern­ment actually sees you as small-busi­ness owners.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, we've had, I think, a pretty robust con­ver­sa­tion about the health and edu­ca­tion levy here and, of course, all the other work that's going on, on this side of the House, that our gov­ern­ment is under­taking to make life more affordable. But listen, if there's any step that our gov­ern­ment can take to help Manitoba busi­nesses, small and medium enterprises in Manitoba, fare through these very challenging and uncertain times, then our gov­ern­ment will consider that. Our gov­ern­ment is not stuck in any sort of mentality or way of thinking. We're certainly not pitting any two sides of our economy together. We're not pitting labour against busi­ness; we're not pitting busi­ness against labour.

      And that's a little bit of the rhetoric that I heard from the other side, which I think is unfor­tunate, because I think both go hand in hand. And, you know, some­thing that I used to hear quite a bit previously, before being elected, from the busi­ness com­mu­nity and sitting in round tables, was just how disconnected the previous gov­ern­ment had become from the busi­ness com­mu­nity itself.

      So this notion that only members on the other side know what the busi­ness com­mu­nity want, only they can speak to the busi­ness com­mu­nity, I would fully reject that. And I think that, if anything, Manitobans can trust that our gov­ern­ment, whether you're a small-busi­ness owner–and I represent a part of the province that a fair bit of new busi­nesses have done openings, have recently opened shop in Manitoba and made invest­ments, and I have nothing but admiration for these folks because owning a small busi­ness is–it's a lot of work and it's a lot of risk. And members opposite who own busi­nesses too have my admiration. But, again, I don't think it's anything about pitting labour against busi­nesses.

      So, hon­our­able Speaker, with that, I'm going to yield some of my time back to my colleague, the Minister of Trans­por­tation. I know I'm excited to hear about the work they've been doing in their relation­ships with Washington and trying to protect the Manitoban economy.

      Thank you, hon­our­able Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Hon­our­able member for Portage la Prairie.

MLA Jeff Bereza (Portage la Prairie): Thank you–[interjection] Thank you so much for that.

      It's–you know, when I think about these times that we're in right now with the tariffs that we're faced with from both Donald Trump and China, is–when I look at the agri­cul­ture busi­ness and look at the short margins that they have, and I want to tell you about two busi­nesses, unfor­tunately, that I had worked for and left Manitoba because of the payroll tax.

      One of the companies was a company from the UK that decided to locate into Manitoba. Their busi­ness continued to grow, their busi­ness continued to grow up, but they started having to pay a heavy payroll tax. And they said that when they had to pay that payroll tax, that there was no sense of being in busi­ness in Manitoba again. So that great company that was called Fausen [phonetic] became Nutrien and is now located in Alberta because their company was not forced to pay payroll tax at that time.

      Second company–again, when we're dealing with the tariffs like we are currently dealing with right now, it was a US company called Legend Seeds that decided that they wanted to be part of Manitoba because of our soybean-growing area here as well too. Lo and behold was the day that I had to tell a number of our employees that we had to leave because the payroll tax, again, was impeding them from being able to do busi­ness here in Canada.

      That busi­ness is still doing very, very well in the United States, because they couldn't make a dollar in Canada because of the payroll tax. So what we're doing is we're steering potential investors away. And when we look at provinces beside us that are very aggressive in this–in the ag industry–we only have to look as far as Saskatchewan and Alberta, because they have a distinct advantage overtop of us.

      And then on top of that, not only with our payroll tax are we being impeded with here, but a carbon tax that every leadership person in the federal gov­ern­ment and we still continue to charge this at that point. We're a province that is in a highly competitive market, yet we're doing nothing to bring businesses here.

      So at this time, I'd like to listen some more to what we have from the other side, so I will cede the floor to them.

      Thank you.

Hon. Lisa Naylor (Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure): I'm grateful to have a few minutes to put some words on the record today. Because this PMR, it does talk about a lot of topics. I mean, from some of the blowback I'm hearing from the other side today, I think they haven't read it, because it very clearly talks about concerns about tariffs, concerns about affordability. So those are some of the things that I'd like to comment on today.

      Certainly, as my colleague has already refer­enced, you know, this Premier (Mr. Kinew) has made an in­cred­ible effort to build up a really, really strong busi­ness and jobs council in this province. He has incred­ible support from the busi­ness com­mu­nity; I certainly hear that everywhere that I go. And one of the places that I had the op­por­tun­ity to go with the Premier and with members of the busi­nesses job council was as part of the delegation in April 2024 to Washington.

      And, you know, some of what was so im­por­tant about that meeting was the op­por­tun­ity to reinvig­orate Manitoba's US en­gage­ment, relationship and presence, which was critical, even ahead of the election. We spent a lot of time down there, talking about the impacts of whichever party were to be–[interjection]

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Order, please.

MLA Naylor: –and so it was im­por­tant that we were having those con­ver­sa­tions rebuilding relationships that had been critically damaged by the–being ignored by the previous PC gov­ern­ment, simply ignoring the importance of trade, pulling, you know, a trade office out of the US, refusing to really work with our partners.

      And so we were there to do that work. We knew then, and we talked about it at great length, that a second Trump presidency would mean greater unpredictability in our trade relationship and in border security. So I was very pleased to join the Premier (Mr. Kinew) on that trip, along with the Busi­ness and Jobs Council.

      We had the op­por­tun­ity to meet with the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Hydropower Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the national state De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture, Washington Inter­national Trade Association, the Canadian American Busi­ness Council. We also had meetings with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organi­zations, and that was organized, actually, by our friends at United Steelworkers.

      So long before the Trump presidency, we knew there were risks around tariffs, and we knew that this trade relationship was critically im­por­tant. And we took those steps on behalf of busi­ness owners in Manitoba. The importance to continue–I mean even with this focus on buy local that is so critical, we cannot stop working with the busi­ness com­mu­nity  in the US. The busi­ness com­mu­nity is not Donald Trump, right? So he's making a mess of things for the busi­ness com­mu­nity–

The Acting Speaker (Diljeet Brar): Order, please.

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

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


 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, March 13, 2025

CONTENTS


Vol. 26a

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Second Readings–Public Bills

Bill 224–The Budget Bill Public Accountability Act

Stone  619

Questions

Dela Cruz  621

Stone  621

Guenter 621

Nesbitt 622

Byram   622

Debate

Loiselle  623

Guenter 625

Oxenham   627

Nesbitt 628

Moyes 628

Simard  630

Resolutions

Res. 4–Provincial Government Job-Destroying Payroll Taxes

Stone  631

Questions

Schott 633

Stone  633

Piwniuk  633

Bereza  634

Perchotte  634

Debate

Pankratz  635

Piwniuk  637

Devgan  640

Bereza  641

Naylor 641