LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, April 16, 2025


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

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

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

      Please be seated.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Introduction of Bills

Bill 228–The Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act
(Farmer's Identification Number)

Mrs. Carrie Hiebert (Morden-Winkler): I move, seconded by the member for Portage la Prairie (MLA Bereza), that Bill 228, The Retail Sales Tax Amend­ment Act, the farmer identification number, be read now as the first time.

The Speaker: It's been moved by the hon­our­able member for Morden-Winkler, seconded by the hon­our­able member for Portage la Prairie, that Bill 228, The Retail Sales Tax Amend­ment Act (Farmer's Identification Number), be now read a first time.

Mrs. Hiebert: It's an honour for me to rise to present my first bill. Bill 228, the retail sales amend­ment–tax amend­ment act, will reduce the red tape and the paperwork burdened–burden for agri­cul­ture retailers and farmers when claiming retail sales tax exemption for farm busi­ness inputs, products and supplies used in the farming operation.

      The Retail Sales Tax Act is amended to enable a person engaging in farming to obtain a farmer's identification number that will–that can be used in place of a wet or a digital signature by retailers when recording farm purchases.

      A person who provides their farmer identification number is not required to pay taxes on products and services that are exempt when used in farming. The bill reduces require­ment for a signed declaration to once within every two‑year period, respecting the farmer's use of product suppliers and services.

      Thank you.

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

      Com­mit­tee reports? Tabling of reports?

Ministerial Statements

Edu­ca­tion Week

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): Today, I rise to recognize this week, April 14 to 18, as education week in the great province of Manitoba.

      Education week is an opportunity for all Manitobans to reflect on the importance that education plays in all of our lives, and the critical role that educators play in ensuring all children and youth in communities have a sense of belonging and can succeed in reaching their highest potential.

      I would like to acknowledge education profes­sionals and school staff, as well as business and ap­prenticeship partners, who work within and across our provincial education system to prepare young people for careers and many other aspects of their future.

      Every day across Manitoba, teachers, EAs, clinicians, principals and school staff are inspiring students through rich learning experiences and opportunities to develop the tools they need to become active citizens and leaders in our communities.

      A strong and equitable education system prepares all children and youth to be successful and live The Good Life, Mino‑Pimatisiwin, and pursue a well‑balanced life full of hope, belonging, meaning and purpose.

      Our government is committed to ensuring that all students, from all backgrounds and from every corner of our province, have the chance to learn and flourish in school. That begins by making sure they have the food they need to focus on learning.

      This year, for the first time ever, Manitoba stu­dents are benefiting from a universal school nutrition program and access to healthy food in schools. The historic universal nutrition program is leading the way in Canada, and our government is proud to ensure that through Nello's Law, this investment in our children and youth will continue for years to come.

      Manitoba students also need a well‑funded educa­tion system and quality learning environments in which to thrive. This is why our government has increased education invest­ments this year by $67 million, ensuring that Manitoba schools and school divisions have robust and healthy support to hire more teachers, more supports, and ensure smaller class sizes for our kids.

      Our government is so proud to announce as part of Budget 2025 that we are going to build 11 new schools across our province. These new schools will pro­vide our teachers and students with the space they need to teach, learn, grow–and grow as a community.

      Our government believes that all students have the right to learn to read. Reading and writing is the foundation of a student's lifelong learning journey.

      Last week, our government announced that every Manitoba student from kindergarten to grade 4 will be screened for early reading skills to ensure that students who may be experiencing challenges with literacy can receive the support they need to thrive in the classroom and beyond.

      But education week is not just about what is taught in the classroom; it's also about everything and every­one that contributes to the success of our education system. So today, on School Bus Driver Day in Manitoba, I want to recognize the importance of our school bus drivers. Bus drivers have the important responsibility to safely transport our students to and from school, to events and to field trips. Our govern­ment appreciates the work that you do in keeping our students safe and getting them to where they need to be.

      I would also like a take–I would also like to take a moment to celebrate and thank the great folks that work in the Department of Education and Early Child­hood Learning for their passion and their dedication to supporting the education sector here in our province. We have a fantastic and talented and big‑hearted team and I'm so proud to work with each and every one of you.

      So during this education week, I encourage all members in this House and all Manitobans to join me in reflecting on the historic role and enduring in­fluence of education in our province, including the sins of the residential school system, all of the incredible progress that we've made as a province since then, and the work that we have yet to do to, guided always by the principle and the truth that Every Child Matters.

      I honour and celebrate the hard work and dedica­tion of our students, educators, school staff and school bus drivers across all Manitoba, this week and always.

      I'd also like to say a special thank you and a happy edu­ca­tion week to all of the many educators that we have elected into this beautiful House.

      Thank you very much. Merci. Miigwech.

* (13:40)

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): I am pleased to rise today to celebrate education week in Manitoba, occurring from April 14th to the 18th, 2025.

      Education week is an annual celebration that focuses attention on all those who are connected with the education system in helping to shape and nurture the lives of children and youths.

      They include the many teachers, counsellors, bus drivers, support staff, custodians, senior admins, school boards, principals, De­part­ment of Edu­ca­tion, De­part­ment of Edu­ca­tion staff, as well as those in industry, business, child care and apprenticeship that continues so much to the edu­ca­tion–contributes so much to the education of students, their families and our communities.

      All of us have been impacted by the K‑to‑12 education system and the important role that educators play in the lives of not only ourselves but of the young children going through the education system to reach their maximum learning and full potential at each grade level and stage of their development.

      We know that education matters and profoundly impacts individuals, families and communities. At a personal level, a good education encourages one to think critically, develop problem‑solving skills and lifelong learning habits needed in today's increasingly complex digital and technological world.

      On a societal level, a good education promotes econo­­mic stability and greater equality. The trans­formative power of education leads to a more healthier, informed and cohesive communities.

      We are fortunate in Manitoba to have a public education system that remains intact, but Manitobans are witnessing the current NDP government not placing education as a top five priority. They are cutting funding to schools, stealing legislative ideas in education from our former PC gov­ern­ment, and including Liberal members, on–and in addition to stalling in construction of much‑needed new schools through the province.

      It was our former PC government that worked with educators, parents and the community in the announce­ment for the construction of nine new schools. But the NDP put ideology over policy and, as a result, we are now seeing delays with new school construction, including classrooms and daycare spaces. School divisions are voicing increasing concerns of hallway education and overcrowded classrooms throughout many parts of the province, all due to the cuts and flip‑flops made by the current NDP gov­ern­ment. As well as the large edu­ca­tion funding cuts, which is forcing double‑digit tax increases on Manitobans.

      Nevertheless, I am so proud that in this Chamber, on all sides of the House, we have many former teachers who have made invaluable contributions in and out of the classroom for the many students they have taught and mentored. The impact that educators have placed on students is so positive and fulfilling and will remain for generations to come, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      Our PC team, as part of education week in Manitoba, will always appreciate and recognizing the amazing work that education professionals play in the lives of students now and into the future.

      Thank you, Honourable Speaker.

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Hon­our­able Speaker, I ask for leave to respond to the minister's statement.

The Speaker: Does the hon­our­able member for Tyndall Park have leave? [Agreed]

MLA Lamoureux: Education week is a valuable op­por­tunity to recognize the incredible work being done in classrooms across Manitoba.

      From passionate educators to dedicated support staff and, of course, our resilient and curious students: thank you for everything you do to make learning meaningful and inclusive.

      This week is also a reminder of the importance of continuing to improve our education system.

      I was so proud and excited to have Bill 225, which focuses on universal early screening for learning dis­abil­ities, pass through second reading here in the House yesterday, and I am so grateful for the encouraging support that it has received from my colleagues across all party lines. It truly demonstrates how, when it comes to supporting students, we can all work together.

      Honourable Speaker, as we look to the future, we must continue listening. We must listen to those on the front lines, who understand first‑hand what is working and where we can do better to prevent children from falling through the cracks

      Whether it be ensuring early interventions, sup­port­ing mental health or investing in classroom resources, our shared goal is ensuring students are safe and set up to best succeed.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Introduction of Guests

The Speaker: This would be good time to intro­duce some guests we have in the gallery.

      We have seated in the public gallery, from St. John's‑Ravenscourt, 50 grade 9 students under the direction of Heather Ragot. This group is located in the con­stit­uency of the hon­our­able member for Fort Garry (Mr. Wasyliw).

      We welcome you here today.

      Further, I'd like to draw the attention of all hon­our­able members to the public gallery, where we have with us today Daniel McIntyre Collegiate all‑girls class: Harmony Catcheway, Melodee Catcheway, Alex Day, Jordana Eastman, Nevaeha Hood‑Asham, Kaleigh Meekis, Shaydi Roulette, Tamaya Tait, Jade Taylor, Tanis Taylor and Tia Taylor.

      Their teachers are here with us as well, and they are Britney Leost and Danis Machado. And they are guests of the hon­our­able Minister of Families, the hon­our­able member for St. Johns (MLA Fontaine).

      And we welcome you all here today.

Members' Statements

Tammy Mitchell

MLA Shannon Corbett (Transcona): Honourable Speaker, I am so proud to rise today to recognize the incredible career of my former colleague, mentor and friend, Tammy Mitchell.

      For 35 of her 37 years working in education, Tammy has devoted herself to the River East Transcona School Division, supporting students with additional needs. When we think about the definition of a champion, a warrior, a fighter–one that does battle for another's rights or honour–we think of Tammy. She is a fearless leader who advocates for the rights and dignities of others.

      Tammy started out as a classroom teacher and later moved on to running a specialized program for stu­dents with additional needs. From there she became a divisional consultant, the manager of student services and finally has served as the assistant superintendent for student services for the past eight years.

      Beyond her work in our division, Tammy has served on provincial and international boards and committees. She has presented at international con­ferences, sharing her knowledge and helping others to support students. She has been an innovator since day one. Her creative vision has helped schools and educators stretch their thinking in how they can support all students in their building.

      One of her most impactful contributions has been the development and implementation of a framework for service delivery. Through this initiative, Tammy has pushed us all to rethink how we support schools and to think about new and creative ways of sup­porting students instead of following the status quo.

      Tammy is the ultimate servant leader. She empowers others to be their best selves and leads with unwaver­ing integrity and authenticity. She is patient and takes the time to listen to what others are saying and–so that everyone feels heard and valued.

      Even in the toughest conversations, Tammy remains composed and focused, never forgetting the im­portance of advocacy. She uses her strong facilitation skills to find meaningful resolution, never forgetting what matters most: putting the needs of children first. At her very core, this is who Tammy is. She cares about the needs of others. She cares about making schools a place where everyone can learn and achieve their best life, and she cares about making this world a safe and inclusive environment for everyone.

      I ask my colleagues to please rise in celebrating Tammy and her incredible contributions to our province.

School Bus Driver Day

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): I am pleased to rise today to recognize the third Wednesday of April each year as the School Bus Driver Day.

      Many members will know that it was about 10 years ago that I fought–brought forward this bill to appreciate and recognize the important work that school bus drivers play in the educational lives of students throughout our great province.

      Today and every day of the school year, bus–school bus drivers are the unsung heroes often over­looked in education. Similar to other professions, bus drivers serve the front lines of our edu­ca­tion system.

      School bus drivers are dedicated in their work and passion–and are passionate about driving, so much so that students and their families become part of their overall livelihoods and routines. School bus drivers play an integral part in families' weekday routines by saving them time and expense by picking up their child to school at the start of the day and dropping them off at school at the end of the day.

* (13:50)

      In fact, school bus drivers not only provide an in­cred­ible service for our students and com­mu­nities, they take on the huge respon­si­bility of promoting a culture of safety and security for students and their families while supporting their edu­ca­tional successes along the way.

      One of my con­stit­uents is a school bus driver in Beausejour named Jodi Ruta, or Jodi the Bus Driver to the school kids. She is a vocal advocate for seat belt safety and making sure that school buses are even more safe on our many streets, roads and highways.

      And a big shout-out to Gail and Tim, who drove my boys back and forth to school each and every day, as well as Allan, Lorne and Ron, who are retired bus drivers but remain close friends and are all watching from home.

      And, of course, to the Luczek family whose late father Art drove me to school for 13 years. Art was the main reason for me recog­nizing School Bus Driver Day every April.

      To all the school bus drivers in Manitoba, we appre­ciate you and we lift you up. We recog­nize your invaluable con­tri­bu­tions to the public edu­ca­tion and stu­dent safety day in and day out.

      Today, we recog­nize these worthy pro­fes­sionals on School Bus Driver Day.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Lemay Forest

MLA Billie Cross (Seine River): I rise today to recog­­nize a momentous outcome; one that is the result of tireless community-driven advocacy, research and col­laboration. The Lemay Forest, located within my constituency of Seine River, will soon be preserved into a provincial park for Manitobans everywhere to enjoy.

      The Lemay Forest is not simply a parcel of land. It is a living place that is rich in cultural, spiritual and ecological meaning for the residents of St. Norbert. For generations, the Lemay Forest has been a place of ceremony, healing and connection. It's where com­munity members gather for sweat lodge ceremonies. It's where families walk to catch glimpses of the protected pileated woodpecker, and it is where the history of our province lives on.

      The Lemay forest is just steps away from where Manitoba's honorary first premier, Louis Riel, founded his provisional government. It is deeply entwined with the Red River Métis heritage of St. Norbert.

      It is also the final resting place for potentially thou­sands of children, children who lived and died in the nearby Asile Ritchot orphanage and who were buried in graves on the land.

      That land will now be protected and preserved. This outcome was not inevitable. It was the result of five years of advocacy by community members. I want to express my deepest thanks and admiration for their efforts. Their leadership reminds us of what democracy looks like in action: engaged citizens shaping the decisions that affect their communities.

      I would like to specifically name some of the incredible advocates, archaeologists, historians, researchers and firekeepers who worked alongside the Coalition to Save Lemay, and allowed this victory to happen: Cat Gauthier, Louise May, Gerald Tole, Tracey Turner, Shelley Sweeney, Diane Bousquet, Eric Reder, Jaxon Kowaluk and so many more.

      I thank you.

      This is a victory for all Manitobans, and for every­one who believes that sacred spaces deserve protection. It sets an example and sends a message about the prior­ities of our gov­ern­ment; the importance of environ­ment, of heritage, of reconciliation and of listening to all Manitobans.

      Thank you.

Sara and Kate Manness

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): I am pleased to stand in the House and recognize Sara and Kate Manness who have made Canadian History as they, along with their teammates, won gold at the women's world's under‑18 hockey cham­pion­ships earlier this year.

      Canada went undefeated in Finland in six games, and won after a 3‑0 shutout against the United States.

      Sara and Kate are twin sisters from my com­munity of La Salle, who played for Balmoral Hall Blazers and the Manitoba Women's Junior Hockey League prior to joining team Canada.

      To continue on their professional hockey journey, they moved to Ontario in 2023 to play in the U22 Ontario Women's Hockey Association, where their team won the provincial title. Sara, one of the young­est members on the team, was the leading scorer and MVP in 2023. She finished third in the Ontario Women's Hockey League with 43 goals and 100 points, while Kate finished with six goals and 36 points.

      As they enter university this coming fall, they will play for Clarkson Uni­ver­sity in New York. The Manness family have all watched in pride as the girls have competed on a local, national, and now global stage.

      As they are still in Ontario competing in the OWHL, they were unable to attend today. However, I want to con­gratu­late them on their recent gold medal and wish them all their success in the future.

Latinas Manitoba Inc.

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I rise today to honour Latinas Manitoba Inc., a grassroots women-led organi­zation founded by Maria Fernanda Vallejo, a com­mu­nity leader, interpreter and advo­cate whose journey, work and impact has made a difference for immigrant and refugee women here in Manitoba.

      What started as a Facebook group in 2020 has turned into a non-profit organi­zation that supports Winnipeg's Latin-American com­mu­nity through sup­port­ing, uplifting and protecting Latin-American women navigating life here in Manitoba.

      Maria hosts the Com­mu­nity Hour and Latinas Manitoba TV, which airs monthly, covering community stories, local resources and edu­ca­tional topics. They have recently expanded into com­mu­nity radio as well.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, Latinas Manitoba offers free and low-cost programs that assist new­comers with a special focus on em­power­ing women. This has grown into a com­mu­nity-powered movement led by volunteers repre­sen­ting a network of over 2,000 members and almost 7,000 Spanish-speaking immigrants across Manitoba.

      Some of these services include helping people with resumes and interview skills, navigating the medical, legal and financial systems, hosting health and well­ness workshops and helping to raise awareness about intimate partner violence, and provi­ding inter­pre­ta­tion for all of these resources.

      Further, they donate food hampers to families facing food insecurity and their Latinas Closet project has donated hundreds of clothing and personal care items to families in need.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, if you can't tell, they do a little bit of every­thing.

      In closing, Latinas Manitoba incorporation is building a future of em­power­ment. They are creating a com­mu­nity with access to knowledge and amplify­ing the voices of Latin-American women right here in Manitoba. I ask my colleagues to join me here today in recog­nizing the members who have joined us here today in the gallery.

Introduction of Guests

The Speaker: Prior to oral questions, the–another guest in the gallery. I would like to draw the attention of all hon­our­able members to the public gallery, where we have with us today Leslie Munoz from the Federation of Canadian Munici­palities, visiting from Guelph, Ontario, who is the guest of the Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness, the hon­our­able member for Point Douglas (Ms. Smith).

      And on behalf of all hon­our­able members, we welcome you here today.

Oral Questions

Lemay Forest Expropriation
Notification of Property Owner

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): Expropriation is an extra­ordin­ary power that should be used sparingly. Negotiation and con­ver­sa­tion should always be the first option.

      Media has reported that this gov­ern­ment didn't even com­muni­cate with the landowner prior to the Premier's an­nounce­ment that he intended to eventually file the paperwork to expropriate Lemay Forest. They also reported that the minister personally called the pro­testors camped out around the land to give them a heads-up.

      Why is this NDP gov­ern­ment being so dis­propor­tion­ate with their com­muni­cation strategy? Why would you announce to the media before even telling the property owner?

The Speaker: Just a quick reminder that questions should always be directed through the Chair and not directly at a member opposite.

Hon. Wab Kinew (Premier): I want to thank our member for Seine River (MLA Cross) for her tireless advocacy to protect Lemay Forest.

      Your prov­incial gov­ern­ment is taking action to preserve the historic interest and the public interest in the Lemay Forest. And guess what? That means every­one across the province is going to get a brand new, beautiful prov­incial park for us to enjoy together.

* (14:00)

      Again, protecting our history, protecting wildlife, creating a prov­incial park for everyone to enjoy. Sounds good to me. Who in their right mind would possibly oppose that? [interjection] Oh, yes, there we go. That's them right there, the rudderless PC op­posi­tion who, just this week, also opposed Bill 23, better known as anti-SLAPP legis­lation.

      Anti-SLAPP legis­lation is to make sure that people who prey on others in our societies can't use frivolous lawsuits–

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

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

Mr. Ewasko: Each and every day, Hon­our­able Speaker, our Premier stands up and once again puts misinformation on the record, tries to distract from the fact that he is failing as a premier.

      The NDP tendency to resort to expropriation instead of proper negotiation is a long-standing tactic. Farmers and landowners through­out Manitoba remember how the NDP negotiated for land for their multi­billion-dollar Bipole III.

      The MLA for Fort Rouge, this Premier, his mentor, Greg Selinger, drew an arbitrary line on a map and gave landowners two choices: sign a deal now, or have your land taken away.

      The minister confirmed that he had called the protestors; can the Premier tell us when he called the property owner?

Mr. Kinew: We're standing up for our collective interests as Manitobans, and a shared history and a beautiful future with a wonderful new prov­incial park at Lemay Forest.

      The members opposite, though, who are they stand­ing with? They delayed Bill 23. That's anti-SLAPP legis­lation. That is the pro­tec­tions so–that somebody like April Telek, who sued Peter Nygård over the alleged sexual assault, doesn't have a counter­suit launched against her to try and silence her voice. Who would you want to stand with on that side of the equation?

      Seems like most Manitobans think that Peter Nygård is a pretty bad dude, and we should take steps in this Legislature to protect people from his actions.

      Why did the PCs then block Bill 23 that was going to bring in that pro­tec­tion? Please, educate us. Help us understand. Why did you block Bill 23, through you, the Chair?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: Order, please.

      Just saying through you, the Chair, is not the same as going through the Chair, so just to caution the hon­our­able First Minister.

Mr. Ewasko: And this Premier can all educate us because we know that he's got a history and a pro­found knowledge of the word slapping, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      What's most con­cern­ing, Hon­our­able Speaker, on this topic, is the order-in-council, and the Premier recently posted, which I table–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ewasko: We know he, like Donald Trump, loves to be the 'auterian' showman. The Premier even–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ewasko: –demanded the media applaud him earlier this week.

      The order-in-council tells the Minister of Environ­ment and Climate Change (MLA Moyes) basically to ignore the process. We already know the Premier blindsided the developer by refusing to com­muni­cate or negotiate.

      Why would the Premier sign an order-in-council to further deny the op­por­tun­ity of all interested parties to be heard?

Mr. Kinew: We're creating a beautiful new prov­incial park. End of story.

      But it's only the begin­ning of the story to try and understand the bizarre decision-making on that side of the House.

      They're blocking Bill 23. That is to bring pro­tec­tion for people who want to speak out and seek accountability from people who'd done them wrong in the judicial system, and they blocked it. Everyone on that side of the House needs to think very, very carefully when they find them­selves on the side of Peter Nygård. And when you think about Bill 30, that is about the landfill ads that each and every one of them stood behind. They tried to stand firm against the landfill search.

      We stood with you, the people of Manitoba. We searched the landfill, and we're bringing two Manitoba women home to their families.

      Why did they block that bill? What are they doing here each and every day? If you don't have a sub­stantive reason to oppose legis­lation, let it pass.

      And if you can't defend–if they can't defend their actions on Bill 23 and Bill 30, perhaps they should revoke the blockage of those bills so we can get on with serving you, the people of Manitoba.

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Safe Con­sump­tion Site
Location Inquiry

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): I'll remind the Premier that he actually is in the majority, so he has the op­por­tun­ity to take forward any bills he wants. We're not blocking it.

      Yesterday the minister of addictions finally faced–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ewasko: –her con­stit­uents and heard what the com­mu­nity feels about her injection site for illegal drugs.

      The minister continues to mislead the citizens of Point Douglas. She files an application to the federal gov­ern­ment for injection site at 200 Disraeli, but continues to insist no site has been deter­mined. This is quite surprising, con­sid­ering the money, time and effort put into promoting the sites.

      The minister's staff were overheard telling parti­ci­pants that Memorial Park is also on the radar for the NDP for their injection site.

      Will the Premier tell Manitobans where else is he planning for drug injection sites if the 200 Disraeli location isn't it?

Hon. Wab Kinew (Premier): I want to say publicly what I've already said privately to the Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness (Ms. Smith): Great job. Standing up time and time again to listen to people in the com­mu­nity, to listen to your con­stit­uents, to go into a forum organized by other people, that takes courage. But, most im­por­tantly, it's about putting you first and listening to you, the people of Manitoba.

      And, of course, when it comes to listening, of course the PCs have no idea what they're looking at, because they've never encountered anyone who could listen. All that they know about is being told what to do. That's why they went along with the landfill ads. That's why none of them said a peep about the stand-firm billboard here in Manitoba that everyone else in Manitoba, including their candidates who lost in the last election, have now come out of the woodwork to denounce. So everybody knows that it was wrong.

      But why come in here now, after he supposedly said an apology, Hon­our­able Speaker, to delay Bill 30, that would bring in accountability, accountability to prevent terrible attack ads like that in the future.

      So again, while we're listening, we're putting public health–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

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

Safe Supply Program Inquiry

Mr. Ewasko: Hon­our­able Speaker, the only one who continues to come into this Chamber and put divisive rhetoric on the record is this Premier. [interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ewasko: He should try answering a question for a change.

      The minister of addictions revealed what her prior­ities are when she told the com­mu­nity last night that she wanted to make sure people don't have to commit crimes to get the drugs that I, and I quote, need; that they need, Hon­our­able Speaker. That's what she said. That's dangerously close to the failed safe supply programs that we know she and her colleagues want to intro­duce.

      Will the Premier clarify the minister's plan to intro­duce gov­ern­ment-supplied narcotics to Manitobans ac­cessing his injection site, Hon­our­able Speaker?

Mr. Kinew: We're not doing safe supply. What we are looking at is a supervised con­sump­tion site.

      And it's the pinnacle of hypocrisy for the member opposite to talk about division when he comes here on this very issue and tries to divide Manitobans. Because the experts are clear; doctors will tell you one way we can save lives from overdose is by having a supervised con­sump­tion site.

      And yet he and the member for Brandon West (Mr. Balcaen), with some slogans they pulled off of a bumper sticker somewhere, come in here and try to throw shade, not at us, but at the experts in addictions medicine. Good luck with that, just like the 2023 campaign that saw you relegated to the op­posi­tion benches.

      We're going to keep bringing people together. I'm proud to stand behind a minister who listens to you, the people of Manitoba, and we will take our lead from you.

      They, on the other hand–explain why you blocked anti-SLAPP legis­lation. Explain why you blocked legis­lation to prevent landfill ads in the future.

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

Mr. Ewasko: Is this not a second sup­ple­mentary?

The Speaker: All right. My mistake.

      The hon­our­able Leader of the Op­posi­tion, on a final–

Resident Safety Concerns

Mr. Ewasko: I'm just checking with the timekeeper there. That's good. Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      You know, Hon­our­able Speaker, it's unfor­tunate, again, that this Premier stands up, puts misinformation on. We're not blocking anything. This Premier has the author­ity to do whatever legis­lation he wants.

      Residents make it clear that they want treatment spaces and care. The only treatment beds this minister could reference were the PC RAAM clinics, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      Residents last night were shocked that only one NDP MLA could be bothered to show up at central plank for the NDP, and a public injection site. One resident shared that earlier yesterday, their staff had administered multiple doses of naloxone, provided first aid, yet the ambulance didn't arrive for over and hour.

      The minister heard this comment but refused to respond to the resident concerns about safety, whether physical or medical.

      What assurance does the Premier have for resi­dents that he will stop failing to provide emergency services when this minister has committed 24-hours ambulance stationed at the site, Hon­our­able Speaker? And I table those docu­ments for today.

Mr. Kinew: Our minister's doing a great job.

* (14:10)

      You know who the MLA who was–who showed up to listen to the people of Point Douglas? It was their MLA who showed up, some­thing that you'd never see in a PC con­stit­uency. The PC MLAs show up day after day for the barbeques and for the free lunches here at the Legislature, but when there's a real issue in their com­mu­nities, where are they? The office is always closed, the parking lot is always empty.

      So, yes, we're going to stand with people in the com­mu­nity to make streets safer. The streets don't belong to criminals; they belong to us as Manitobans. We're going to stand up against overdoses. We've got a great minister who knows what it's like to be out there, struggling, and we are working together with people with lived ex­per­ience, the experts, law en­force­ment, local leaders, the feds, everybody, to make our com­mu­nities safer.

      What have they got? Absolutely nothing. They turn around and they can't face the facts. They can't even look at the problem for what it is; they want to stick their heads in the sand. Shame on the PCs–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      Order, please. Just for clari­fi­ca­tion, that was the Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion's third question in that round.

Safe Con­sump­tion Site
Site Proposal Inquiry

Mrs. Carrie Hiebert (Morden-Winkler): Last night in an im­por­tant town hall com­mu­nity meeting, we heard from Point Douglas residents who said over­whelmingly that the drug injection site is not what they want in their com­mu­nity.

      The minister told the crowd–the crowded room that the proposed site at 200 Disraeli wasn't set in stone.

      Can the minister tell us what other locations are currently being considered for the drug injection site?

Hon. Bernadette Smith (Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness): Well, what I can tell that member is that we're continuing to listen to Manitobans, some­thing that the previous gov­ern­ment didn't do.

      We're taking a harm reduction approach so that we can get people to the supports that they need. We are working with the police, and, in fact, we had the chief of police there last night, Gene Bowers, and I want to con­gratu­late him on his ap­point­ment.

      We also had Art Stanford [phonetic], who is the deputy chief of police; Scott Halley, who is the deputy chief; commander of downtown district, Helen Peters; commander of North End district, Elton Hall; com­mander of organized crime, dealing with the drug trade, Josh Ewatski; commander of criminal in­vesti­gation unit, Jennifer McKinnon; commander of com­mu­nity relations division, Kevin Riel, super­in­ten­dent–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      The honourable member for Morden-Winkler, on a supplementary question.

Addiction Treatment Services
Request for Additional Investments

Mrs. Carrie Hiebert (Morden-Winkler): Hon­our­able Speaker, I had the privilege to listen to many personal stories from Point Douglas residents last night, including a father who shared his impactful story, how he lost his son to fentanyl poisoning, and how a drug injection site would not have helped his son.

      Is the minister willing to allocate the $6 million in funding set aside for the drug injection site and expand edu­ca­tion, access to RAAM beds and increased recovery and treatment to help save those young lives?

Hon. Bernadette Smith (Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness): So I don't know where that member was yesterday or if she heard our announcement, but, I mean, it was all over the radio, was in the paper, it was in the paper this morning. I'm not sure if they read the paper, but we made an–a really good an­nounce­ment yesterday about Anne Oake recovery centre.

      We're investing–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Smith: You know, and I stood with the Families Minister yesterday, with Scott Oake. We're investing $1.5 million to ensure that women, along with their children, can get the recovery supports that they need.

      That's the kind of gov­ern­ment that we are. We're taking a balanced approach to ensure that folks get the supports that they need, unlike members opposite, who buried their heads in the sand for–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      The honourable member for Morden-Winkler, on a final sup­ple­mentary question.

Mrs. Hiebert: Hon­our­able Speaker, balance is very necessary; $1.5 million for treatment and six–almost $6 million for a drug injection site is not balance.

      Will the minister instead use the funding to open an additional 1,000 beds, which that $6 million would cover, and end the waiting list of people that are waiting for treatment today?

Ms. Smith: What I will say to that member–I don't know if that member was listening to folks last night. There was one mother there that talked about her daughter overdosing last year and talked about the need for a supervised consumption site, the need to save her daughter's life, that there needs to be a balanced approach in terms of supporting to lead someone to get the supports that they need.

      In terms of the PC's record, between 2019 and 2023, the number of people who died in Manitoba from overdoses grew by three times under their watch. We will take no lessons from members opposite. That's not treatment; that's not recovery; that's not saving lives.

      We're taking a different approach; we're meeting people where they're at, and we're working col­lab­o­ratively with–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mental Health Treatment Services
Con­stit­uent Request for Out-of-Province Care

Mrs. Kathleen Cook (Roblin): Today, I want to share the story of a young girl named Anna, whose parents are here with us today. Anna is 14 years old. She's smart, athletic and full of potential. But she's also in crisis.

      For years, she has battled severe mental health chal­­lenges. Her parents have tried every­thing: therapy, medi­cation and even paid for private services when public support wasn't available. But despite their tire­less efforts, Anna's con­di­tions has worsened.

      Just a few weeks ago, her mother found her attempting to take her own life. This family is out of options, and their greatest fear now is that they could lose their daughter. Anna needs to be in a therapeutic program where she will be safe, cared for and sup­ported 24-7. These services just aren't offered here in Manitoba.

      Will the Health Minister hear out Anna's family's request for out-of-province care?

Hon. Uzoma Asagwara (Minister of Health, Seniors and Long-Term Care): Hon­our­able Speaker, I want to say thank you to Anna and her family for sharing her story and their story. It takes a lot of courage, a lot of bravery, to share your ex­per­ience and to reach out for help.

      We are a listening gov­ern­ment; we've been very clear that we are always, and I am always, willing and happy to meet with families and folks who are looking for support. So, of course, very happy to sit down with Anna and her family and hear their story one on one, and see how we can offer support.

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

Mrs. Cook: Anna has now been accepted to the Sunrise Resi­den­tial Treatment Program in Utah that offers the kind of intensive, therapeutic, 24-7 care she urgently needs.

      This is not a choice made lightly by her parents; it's a decision borne out of desperation after years of trying every available option here in Manitoba. Sunrise meets the criteria for out-of-province funding, and other youth across the country, and previously here in Manitoba, have been approved for out-of-province care at this facility.

      This is a family that has done every­thing right. They are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for the support their daughter needs to survive. They submitted a request in a letter to the minister on March 17 and have yet to receive a response.

      What steps is the minister taking to ensure this family receives an answer and the help that Anna needs as soon as possible?

MLA Asagwara: Again, I want to thank Anna and her family for reaching out and seeking assist­ance. We are always very happy and willing to meet directly with families who have concerns.

      As I stated in my previous response, I'm very happy to do that with this family and certainly can make sure that they get a response or have a meeting with myself and the team as early as today.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Roblin, on a final sup­ple­mentary question.

Mrs. Cook: No parent should have to plead with their gov­ern­ment to help save their child's life, but that is exactly what Anna's family is doing today.

      Their story speaks for so many families in this province who are facing similar struggles. Navigating a system that is under strain, waiting months or even years for psychiatric care and feeling helpless as their children fall deeper into crisis.

      These parents have been brave in coming forward, not just for Anna but for every young person in Manitoba who needs more than weekly therapy or medi­cation alone. The care Anna needs just isn't offer­ed here at home. She needs help and she needs that help now.

      I'm very glad to hear that the minister will meet with them, but will they also approve the required funding for her out-of-province care and help save Anna's life?

MLA Asagwara: I think the member opposite under­stands why that's an inappropriate question to pose on the floor of this House. I have made clear that, of course, my door is always open for families, for youth, for folks who are looking for supports in terms of their health experiences.

      I do look forward to meeting with Anna and her family, again, as I said, as early as today, and I say this as someone who worked on the front lines as a mental health provider for many years. I know that there are youth and families who are struggling with these challenges across our province.

      Our gov­ern­ment believes in strengthening those services and doing whatever we can so that no matter where you live, the care that you need is available, and certainly in exceptional circum­stances, our gov­ern­ment is here to listen and to work with all families in need.

* (14:20)

Green Team Program
Funding Inquiry

Mr. Richard Perchotte (Selkirk): Hon­our­able Speaker, the weather is warming. The AMM convention is under way. Grant season is upon us. Soon munici­palities, com­mu­nity groups and not-for-profits will be finding out if they were suc­cess­ful in their applications. Last year, camps and church groups were the target of this minister's cuts.

      Can the minister tell us which groups will be left out this year from Green Team funding?

Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): Thank you very much for that question.

      As we all saw in our last budget, we are committed to investing in com­mu­nities. That includes increases in Green Team, From the Ground Up. It also includes invest­ments that–in munici­palities such as the critic opposite to strengthen their com­mu­nities. And we are proud of the work that the youth do in this province. We are proud to put them to work, and we'll continue to invest in our com­mu­nities because we know together that's how Manitoba grows, together.

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

Mr. Perchotte: Hon­our­able Speaker, in last year's budget, the NDP drastically slashed Green Team funding. Hundreds of applicants were denied vital funding that they need to provide services to their communities. This year's budget is more of the same. Green Team funding still falls $1 million short of previous levels.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, will the minister do the right thing and restore funding to the 2023 levels, or will the com­mu­nity groups need to fill the gallery once again just to be heard?

Mr. Simard: We're investing Manitoba, plain and simple. We are investing in Green Team; we're investing in From the Ground Up; we're investing in Manitoba GRO. All across the province: fire trucks, bridges, roads, schools, all over this province.

      Now, I don't know what AMM they were at yester­day, but people are saying, finally, people are listening. We can sit down with the gov­ern­ment and have a con­ver­sa­tion, a con­ver­sa­tion about what we need, and you're actually doing it.

      That's why we're building schools outside of Winnipeg and in Winnipeg. That's why we're continuing to in­vest in Green Team. We can say, oh, last year–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      The hon­our­able member for Selkirk, on a final sup­ple­mentary question.

Mr. Perchotte: Hon­our­able Speaker, this gov­ern­ment has a habit of renaming previous suc­cess­ful PC programs, then gutting them. Surprisingly, the Green Team has not been–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Perchotte: –voided but, boy, has it been defunded.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, with staggering inflation and economic uncertainty, we are relying on our com­mu­nity groups more than ever, and young Manitobans are relying on the income and job ex­per­ience that the Green Team provides.

      Why is this minister not restoring funding to the '23 levels for the Green Team?

Mr. Simard: You know we're restoring? Integrity in gov­ern­ance. That's what this gov­ern­ment is doing.

      We are investing all over this province. We know that our munici­pal partners know that they finally have a partner who comes to the table. They dig a hole, they throw them a shovel; we throw them a ladder. It's real simple.

      Oh, in a–extra­ordin­ary situation, the PCs finally did some­thing. So can you do it again and again?

      We are very conscious. We are–we work with our partners. We target our invest­ments. We make sure they make a difference for Manitobans. We just don't throw some­thing at the wall and say, please elect us, please elect us. We have a plan.

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Free Trade and Mobility Within Canada
Request for Gov­ern­ment to Support Bill 227

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): Hon­our­able Speaker, today Ontario Premier Doug Ford joined premiers across the country by intro­ducing legis­lation to tear down interprovincial trade barriers. All these provinces and premiers are taking action, but our Premier has been strangely quiet on the subject and has failed to reveal any legis­lation. We are saying time's up and our team is taking action where this Premier has failed.

      Why has this Premier failed to bring forward any meaningful legis­lation to tear down interprovincial trade barriers and embrace labour mobility?

Hon. Wab Kinew (Premier): I want to provide an update to the House.

      We have the Premier of Nunavut in town today to sign on to this deal to build our country, to build Canada, to build the trans­mis­sion lines so we can make more money and create more jobs.

      And guess what the member opposite may not know, either? Doug Ford called me while I was watch­­ing the Jets game on Sunday, and I said, Fordsy [phonetic], guess what? We're going to the cup this year. And he said, I believe it. Come to Queen's Park; we want you to sign on to this deal. I said, sorry, we're doing a nation-building thing in Manitoba instead. I'll be to Queen's Park soon enough so we can knock down barriers, knock down the Trump supporters and build up Canada.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: Order. Order.

Mrs. Stone: Hon­our­able Speaker, this Premier has had months to commit to removing interprovincial trade barriers and bringing forward meaningful legis­lation.

      Yesterday, we intro­duced Bill 227, The Free Trade and Mobility Within Canada Act. This bill is almost identical to legis­lation brought forward in other pro­vinces to tear down these barriers and make Canada a truly open market. Canada stands to gain $200 billion in economic growth for our economy if we embrace complete internal trade. Timing is of the essence; other provinces have already brought forward legis­lation. We will be debating this piece of legis­lation tomorrow morning.

      So will this NDP Premier stand up and support our legis­lation tomorrow?

Hon. Jamie Moses (Minister of Business, Mining, Trade and Job Creation): Hon­our­able Speaker, I love this country and I love the fact that I get to work with busi­ness owners here in Manitoba to support our great and growing economy.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, of course we're going to work with our prov­incial and territorial colleagues, and we've already done sig­ni­fi­cant work. We're a national leader and, in fact, we are encouraging other pro­vinces to take Manitoba's lead.

      But when it comes to growing our economy, we are–instead of thanking Donald Trump for his tariffs, we are fighting back and restoring and building up our economy right here at home. That means investing in places like New Flyer, that are bringing shore an all-Canadian build to their electric busses. That means more jobs in Canada, growing our economy, and that puts–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mrs. Stone: Hon­our­able Speaker, this NDP gov­ern­ment has had months to bring forward meaningful legis­lation to remove interprovincial trade barriers.

      Premier Doug Ford signed an MOU with Nova Scotia and PEI because they had legis­lation like this intact.

      The NDP are failing to act in Manitoba's best interests by failing to bring forward meaningful legis­lation. We are saying that time is up, time is of the essence and we are taking action where this Premier (Mr. Kinew) has clearly failed.

      So I ask this Premier: Will he commit to fast-tracking our free trade bill this spring so Manitoba's–Manitobans, workers and our businesses do not have to wait for the benefit of reaping this benefit from free trade mobility across the country?

Mr. Moses: Well, Hon­our­able Speaker, the barriers that I actually hear about that concern Manitobans, the barriers of the folks put up who would rather thank Donald Trump for his tariffs and those who would endorse him. That's what we're seeing from members opposite.

      Instead, we're going to break down those barriers. And you know–want to know how? By working together with our busi­ness com­mu­nity, by working together with our prov­incial and territorial partners. And that's the work exactly that we're doing every day.

      If members opposite haven't heard, we're growing our economy. We just built a new gold mine–a new gold mine–right here in Manitoba. That puts hundreds of people to work.

      That's how we build our economy. That's how we do it: together.

Manitoba's Research Community
Underfunding Concerns

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Manitoba's research com­mu­nity plays a vital role in every­thing from public health to climate resilience and tech­no­lo­gical innovation. Over the last decade, due to stagnant budgets, our province's brightest scientists are feeling overlooked and underfunded.

      Now we see that the Premier (Mr. Kinew) is inviting American researchers to move here, and while we understand the global challenges in science right now, I'm hoping the Premier will explain why this gov­ern­ment is prioritizing the recruitment of inter­national scientists before restoring stable funding and infra­structure for the world-class researchers already here in Manitoba.

* (14:30)

Hon. Uzoma Asagwara (Minister of Health, Seniors and Long-Term Care): I really love that question, I have to say, from the member for Tyndall Park. Research is foundational to us having a strong health-care infra­structure, innovative op­por­tun­ities to make sure Manitobans have the best health-care out­comes.

      So when it comes to health-care research, certainly our gov­ern­ment recognizes that for seven and a half years under the previous failed PC administration, not only was that not invested in or prioritized, but it was cut in many, many different, creative ways.

      We're taking a different approach. We are standing up some really wonderful research op­por­tun­ities. One of the first things we did, actually, as a gov­ern­ment was create a fellowship chair at the Uni­ver­sity of Manitoba for HIV research, which has been filled and that work is actually being done.

      And we know there's much more to do. We look forward to doing it and making those invest­ments to the benefit of Manitobans.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Tyndall Park, on a supplementary question.

Recruitment of American Researchers
Invest­ments Needed for Long-Term Retention

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Strong research requires infra­structure, grant programs and long-term invest­ment.

      An open letter from Canadian researchers earlier this month made it very clear that while Canada should welcome displaced American scientists, we are not yet ready to fully support them without imme­diate invest­ment. Manitoba scientists have said the same: that without better lab space, more grant op­por­tun­ities and a sus­tain­able funding model, researchers won't stay.

      Can the gov­ern­ment explain what concrete steps they are taking to ensure that we have the capacity to support incoming researchers, while also addressing the present needs of the research pro­fes­sionals already here in Manitoba?

Hon. Uzoma Asagwara (Minister of Health, Seniors and Long-Term Care): Hon­our­able Speaker, our gov­ern­ment understands the importance of this area of research and we work across de­part­ments to do so.

      Our minister of busi­ness, mining, jobs and trades invested–in our first budget, rather–$200,000 into the clinical trial space dedi­cated to research. Our gov­ern­ment in this budget is standing up clinical scientist chair op­por­tun­ities in our province. That's to recruit the best and the brightest internationally to Manitoba for these highly coveted positions.

      We've met with many research-based organi­zations locally to understand their needs, to make sure they have the invest­ment and support of gov­ern­ment and a partner. What I heard from different research organi­zations in Manitoba is that the previous gov­ern­ment wouldn't even sit down and have a con­ver­sa­tion with them.

      We're sitting down. We're having those meetings. We're learning about–

The Speaker: Member's time is expired.

Con­sul­ta­tion with Local Research Community

MLA Lamoureux: Research is col­lab­o­rative and it's local, yet despite the Premier's (Mr. Kinew) an­nounce­ment inviting American scientists to Manitoba, we've heard from several uni­ver­sities and research bodies that they were not consulted ahead of time.

      This echoes the concern raised by over a thousand researchers across Canada in a public letter that calls for greater invest­ment to protect our scientific sovereignty and strengthen our home-grown research capacity.

      Did this gov­ern­ment consult with any of Manitoba's research leaders before launching this initiative?

MLA Asagwara: We've been meeting with these research organi­zations since our gov­ern­ment came into office, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      We've been meeting also with the Canadian Medical Association to learn about research op­por­tun­ities and how to support folks who are coming from the United States who want to research here in Manitoba. We made invest­ments in our very first budget of $200,000 to support folks in the clinical trial space and to support those who are already in Manitoba. And we're going to continue to make those invest­ments.

      We're also looking at the area specific to women's reproductive health and women's health care in general, because we know that across the board, that area of research is underfunded and under-respected. Our gov­ern­ment understands the importance of this area. We're making invest­ments. We're listening to experts. And we're working in part­ner­ship.

Manitoba Municipalities
Call for Bail Reform

MLA JD Devgan (McPhillips): Hon­our­able Speaker, for seven and a half years, the PC gov­ern­ment froze funding to law en­force­ment, lost over 50 WPS officers, cut the bail program to the bone and left more than a quarter of correctional staff positions vacant. The safety of Manitoban families remains a priority for us.

      Can the minister tell the House how Manitoba's leader­ship on bail reform–more about Manitoba's leadership?

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you to the member for McPhillips for that im­por­tant question.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, our Premier recently led all premiers in advocating to the federal gov­ern­ment for meaningful bail reform. Yesterday, I joined with muni­ci­pal leaders from across the province to build on that commit­ment and to amplify the call for imme­diate action on bail reform.

      This, of course, is in sharp contrast to the mem­bers opposite who prioritized cuts and bail en­force­ment and closed jails across our province.

      We took a different approach, one of action and one that the National Police Federation has endorsed. We're going to continue to work with our munici­pal partners, we're going to work across this province to make bail stronger and we're going to work to make sure the federal gov­ern­ment listens–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Release of Repeat Offenders
Call for Bail Reform

Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Well, I'm certainly hoping that the Minister of Justice takes that advice on bail because, just on Monday, Winnipeg Police Service advised that they had made an arrest following another violent stabbing incident aboard a transit bus that occurred on April 2.

      A 21-year-old victim, just trying to get home, was robbed and stabbed, requiring medical aid. So much for the Premier's promise, and I quote: we will end violent crime.

      What Manitobans that I talk to find so upsetting in this most recent string of violence is that the two individuals are charged with robbery, assault with a weapon and fail to comply with con­di­tions of their release order once again.

      When is this minister going to slam the revolving door shut and have the violent criminals that are re-offending sentenced to jail, not bail?

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Hon­our­able Speaker, I believe it would have been helpful for the member opposite to spend time with those munici­pal leaders we were talking about earlier. If he would have spent time with them yester­day, listened to their concerns, he would have heard clearly that they are united with us in calling on the federal gov­ern­ment to take real action on bail reform.

      But we heard more. We heard that they ap­pre­ciated the increased invest­ment that's–we've made to local law en­force­ment and spe­cific­ally on the issue of bail. Meanwhile, the member opposite, what did he say? He said Manitobans didn't need another funding an­nounce­ment today. Well, I beg to differ, and the members of AMM certainly beg to differ.

      We're going to continue to put our words into action and take action on making our province a safer place.

Uni­ver­sal Heights Homeless Encampment
Request for Support Services

Mr. Mark Wasyliw (Fort Garry): The Southwood homeless encampment is across the street from houses in the Uni­ver­sity Heights neighbourhood in Fort Garry. People have to be careful walking their dogs so they don't step on discarded needles. They never know if their lawn mower is going to be in their shed next time they need to use it, and the front street is crowded with discarded–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wasyliw: –shopping carts and debris.

      Police and fire trucks are a regular presence. They've had six fires started just feet away from where their children sleep and I'll table the photos from the residents. It's clear this Premier (Mr. Kinew) is not in a position to house this encampment anytime soon, but the people living in the encampment and those next to the encampment need support.

      Will this Premier commit to provi­ding services like 'crean' drinking water, porta-potties, garbage–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Hon. Bernadette Smith (Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness): What I want to say to those members in encampments is they finally have a government who is listening, that is coming–that is provi­ding housing, unlike members opposite who sold off housing.

      We are working with service delivery organi­zations who are provi­ding wrap-around supports, and I know that those folks have been reaching out to them and that we just cleaned up an encampment just before the weekend, and I want to table the pictures from that encampment–nine folks this weekend.

      And I want to thank service delivery organi­zations, Main Street Project, Sunshine House, who helped those nine individuals get housing, get those wrap-around supports. And we'll continue to do that work on behalf of Manitobans who sent us here to do that.

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      And the time for oral questions has expired.

      Petitions? Grievances?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): On House busi­ness, I would like to table a list of the gov­ern­ment-specified bills for this Second Session of the 43rd Legislature.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able Gov­ern­ment House Leader.

MLA Fontaine: Could you please call second reading of Bill 39, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act (Campaign Financing for School Trustees); followed by Bill 6, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act; fol­lowed by Bill 19, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act (Safe Schools); followed by Bill 11, The Oil and Gas Amend­ment Act; followed by Bill 26, The Vital Statistics Amend­ment Act; followed by Bill 3, The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act; followed by Bill 4, The Planning Amend­ment Act; followed by Bill 21, The Pro­tec­ting Youth in Sports Act; followed by Bill 15, The Real Estate Services Amend­ment Act; followed by Bill 28, the Manitoba Hydro amend­ment; followed by Bill 37, The Manitoba Financial Services Author­ity Act and Amend­ments to Various Other Acts.

* (14:40)

The Speaker: The hon­our­able Gov­ern­ment House Leader has tabled a list of bills that we will be debating at second reading for this afternoon. No. My mistake. The hon­our­able Gov­ern­ment House Leader tabled a list of specified bills and then notified us of the bills that we will be debating this afternoon.

      So the bills that we will be debating are Bill 39, Bill 6, Bill 19, Bill 11, Bill 26, Bill 3, Bill 4, Bill 21, Bill 15, Bill 28 and Bill 37 at second reading.

Second Readings

Bill 39–The Public Schools Amendment Act
(Campaign Financing for School Trustees)

The Speaker: And now we will start with Bill 39, second reading of The Public Schools Amend­ment Act (Campaign Financing for School Trustees).

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Wiebe), that Bill 39, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act (Campaign Financing for School Trustees); Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques (financement des campagnes électorales pour les élections scolaires), be now read a second time and referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

MLA Schmidt: Manitobans care about edu­ca­tion. That's why school trustee elections are so im­por­tant as they give Manitobans a say in the edu­ca­tion of children in their com­mu­nities.

      I want to uplift all of the school trustees in Manitoba and thank them very much for their service and dedi­cation to improving edu­ca­tion.

      As elected officials ourselves, we know that it is not easy to put your name forward on a ballot and to run a suc­cess­ful campaign. Campaign financing is a key factor in many elections, including school board elections.

      That's why it's im­por­tant to have rules that pro­mote fairness and prevent outside inter­ference.

      In Manitoba, school board elections are governed by The Public Schools Act, The Munici­pal Councils and School Boards Elections Act. Currently there is nothing in these acts that sets out rules regarding school board election financing, which leaves them vul­ner­able to outside influence and individual donors having sig­ni­fi­cant impact on our elections.

      In the Speech from the Throne our gov­ern­ment committed to intro­duce legis­lation to protect our elections and demo­cracy from a third party and foreign inter­ference. This bill does exactly that by promoting equity, trans­par­ency and accountability in elections of school board trustees.

      This bill will align Manitoba with other juris­dic­tions by amending The Public Schools Act to esta­blish campaign financing rules for school board trustee candidates.

      There will be clear definitions of campaign expenses and the campaign period, and each candidate will have to register before soliciting or accepting con­tri­bu­tions.

      In addition, Bill 39 makes it so that only indivi­duals who normally reside in Manitoba can make con­tri­bu­tions to a candidate. This change protects our elections from outside actors who don't have any skin in the game.

      Con­tri­bu­tion limits will now be set at a maximum con­tri­bu­tion limit of $1,500. Candidates, however, will be able to contribute up to $7,500 to their own campaign, but will be prohibited from incurring a deficit, limiting the campaign to the funds raised.

      Candidates will also have to report on their con­tri­bu­tions made to their campaigns and on expenses incurred, including reporting the names of those who donate $250 or more. These reports will be posted publicly on the school division website.

      To ensure everyone follows these rules, Bill 39 provides that failing to comply with these campaign financing provisions be considered a prov­incial offence.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, this bill is an im­por­tant step to promote fairness, trans­par­ency and accountability, ensuring that school boards reflect the needs and aspira­tions of the families and com­mu­nities that they serve.

      Thank you. Merci. Miigwech.

Questions

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

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): I'd like to ask the minister: Will third‑party inter­ference be completely eliminated under this new bill?

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): And while I wish that there were some piece of legis­lation, multiple pieces of legis­lation–we do have multiple pieces of legis­lation coming forward in this session–I wish that I could guarantee to Manitobans that there will never again be election inter­ference here in Manitoba.

      Unfor­tunately, I can't provide that guarantee. What we can do, though, is take this im­por­tant step by enacting Bill 39, which will improve trans­par­ency, demo­cracy and help us mitigate and avoid any third-party inter­ference as best we can.

      As a province, we're here to work for Manitobans. We're here to protect demo­cracy, and we're here to protect your freedom.

Mr. Ewasko: So much like cybersecurity, Honourable Speaker, there's little con­fi­dence coming from this minister to Manitobans for any assurity to any kind of safety or fair playing by any rules.

      Can the minister explain to perspective trustee candidates the purpose of the bill and what it means for them?

MLA Schmidt: I will never apologize for being honest and trans­par­ent with Manitobans. That's what you get when you elect the Manitoba NDP. You get straight answers, unlike members opposite, who will sell you any sort of story to try to gain them­selves favour, to try to gain them­selves a seat in this House. That's not what you're going to get from the Manitoba NDP.

      Bill 39 is intended to improve trans­par­ency, to pro­tect our demo­cracy and to protect the freedoms that we hold so dearly here in Manitoba. I con­gratu­late, celebrate and lift up everyone who has ever put their name on a ballot to run for school trustee. It is hard work. It can be thankless work. The member opposite and I know better than probably anyone else about that.

      We think Bill 39 is only going to further improve–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mr. Ewasko: Hon­our­able Speaker, the last question that I had asked was definitely not in a raised tone or meant for any type of controversy. So I'll ask again, because she didn't answer the question: Can the minister explain to prospective trustee candidates the purpose of the bill and what it means for them?

MLA Schmidt: Hon­our­able Speaker, I've been told my whole life that I'm too loud, that I take up too much space. I continue to hear that from the member opposite. I'm going to repeat for him what I told him yesterday, which is to get used to it. If he doesn't like it, he better get used to it.

      So the point of this bill: candidates will be required to register before soliciting or accepting con­tri­bu­tions. They can only take con­tri­bu­tions from individuals that reside in Manitoba, or persons or organi­zations active in Manitoba. It means that there's going to be no third-party donations. It means you have to live here in Manitoba. It means that you have to keep a track of your con­tri­bu­tions.

      We think that what this bill does is even the playing field, and ultimately protects our demo­cracy, protects our freedoms and provides trans­par­ency that Manitobans are looking for. That's what the Manitoba NDP is here to deliver, and that's what the failed PC gov­ern­ment–

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Ewasko: So once again, Hon­our­able Speaker, the Edu­ca­tion Minister–the Edu­ca­tion and Early Child­hood Learning Minister–stands up, puts misinformation on the record. I never did once say in this House any­thing that she had–has accused me of saying, which, again, is nothing new for either the Edu­ca­tion Minister or many members on that side of the bench.

      So it's unfor­tunate, but I will ask her the lob ques­tion because she failed to answer the last question again. So easily: Who was consulted on Bill 39?

* (14:50)

MLA Schmidt: We've consulted with many, many, many Manitobans; we've consulted with Manitobans that partici­pate in–have stood as trustees; we have con­sulted with organi­zations that think a lot about munici­pal and school trustee elections; and, frankly, we've just listened to Manitobans who told us that this is long overdue.

      This is some­thing that Manitobans were asking for from the previous gov­ern­ment. The previous gov­ern­ment failed to act. They do not care about pro­tecting our demo­cracy. In fact, Hon­our­able Speaker, would it shock you to know that one of the leadership candidates for their party thanked Donald Trump and congratulated him for allowing foreign inter­ference in our elections here in Canada?

      That is absolutely shameful–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mr. Ewasko: So, Hon­our­able Speaker, I don't under­stand how the Minister of Edu­ca­tion and Early Childhood Learning (MLA Schmidt) stands up and thinks that she is, I don't know, grandstanding in place of her Premier (Mr. Kinew). Seems to be taking a page out of his showman type of book.

      Asked a simple question. I don't know why the abbreviation–or, the acronym Manitoba School Boards Association, MSBA, is a tough word or group of individuals to even just have come out of your mouth that you've consulted with. I don't know why that's a tough thing.

      That's what I've asked: Who did she consult with on the bill, Bill 39? MSBA–did you consult with MSBA or not, yes or no?

The Speaker: And just a quick reminder that always address your questions through the Chair and not direct­ly to the member opposite.

MLA Schmidt: Again, we've consulted with many, many, many Manitobans. This bill is long overdue, and since the member opposite brings up the MSBA, I am so happy to put some words on the record, congratulating and thanking their outgoing president, Sandy Nemeth. She did an absolutely wonderful job in her role and we know that she'll continue to serve Manitobans in future roles.

      And we also want to thank and con­gratu­late and welcome Alan Campbell, the new president of the M‑S‑B‑C‑A. We have had a wonderful dialogue so far, and I look forward to continuing on this dialogue and working together to improve edu­ca­tion out­comes here in Manitoba; and also, to improving school board elections.

Mr. Ewasko: So just because the minister stands and congratulates Ms. Nemeth on her exit from being the leader of MSBA–and I've had the pleasure of working with Sandy for quite a few years–matter of fact, probably closer to 12, 13 years, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      So the answer that I received from the minister is that no, she did not actually discuss this with MSBA, which is unfor­tunate, because it's the Manitoba School Boards Association.

      So I will ask the minister: Is this going to–has she spoken to candidates–potential candidates, suc­cess­ful or not–about the campaign expense limits? Do they feel that they're too high or too low?

MLA Schmidt: If the member had read the bill, he would know that there's no campaign expense limits.

Mr. Ewasko: So, Hon­our­able Speaker, if the minister would have read her own bill, there are limits on–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ewasko: –the amount of donations that individuals can get, and then as far as how that money then gets transferred after the election to or from the candidate to the school divisions. Can she explain that process without getting upset?

      I'm trying to keep my tone low so that the minister can just answer the question, Hon­our­able Speaker. This is a microphone, not a megaphone. Just answer the question, please.

MLA Schmidt: Again, I will speak in the tone that I find ap­pro­priate. I will take absolutely no lessons from the member opposite at all.

      So again, he better get used to it. I plan on being here for a very, very, very long time, Hon­our­able Speaker, serving with this great Premier and this fabulous team.

      I wonder about his in­ten­tions. As the failed interim leader, he has failed–it's under–it's interesting. He stands up and asks these questions on Edu­ca­tion bills.

      I'd like to put on the record that it's been almost a month since the Edu­ca­tion critic left, ran screaming from this building from this horror show that's hap­pening across the aisle, and they have yet, in a month, have yet to appoint an Edu­ca­tion critic. So, instead, the member opposite stands up and–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      Order. Order.

      I will remind members that when the Speaker stands up and says your time is up, that means don't keep talking. Don't try and scream louder than the Speaker. It means it's time to stop and take your seat.

Mr. Ewasko: I don't personally care how loud the Edu­ca­tion Minister gets because the louder she gets, the more it shows Manitobans that she absolutely should be doing more homework on her own file of Edu­ca­tion and Early Child­hood Learning.

      It's actually not me that's running for the bulk pack of earbuds; it's the Justice Minister, who has the displeasure of sitting next to the minister, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      So again, I mean, it's unfor­tunate that the minister seems to be jealous of Grant Jackson, who I wish well in the upcoming federal election race, Hon­our­able Speaker. [interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ewasko: But I would just like to know, so on–as to the limits, can the minister explain how those finances will get transferred to the different school divisions or districts post-election?

MLA Schmidt: School divisions will work with suc­cess­ful and unsuccessful candidates to do the ap­pro­priate transfer of those con­tri­bu­tions. Look forward to the next question.

The Speaker: No further questions?

      Is the House ready for the question? [interjection] Aha, okay, well let's do that; let's have the debate.

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is now open for debate.

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): The tone that is–has set for this after­noon and evening on bill debate seems to be off to a bit of a rocky start, but, again, this is nothing new for this Edu­ca­tion Minister, unfor­tunately.

      And I think part of it, Hon­our­able Speaker, when we start talking about Bill 39, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act (Campaign Financing for School Trustees), I think it is a little alarming when the Minister of Edu­ca­tion stands in her place and first of all starts shouting about things that are not even pertinent to the bill and starts talking about divisive tactics that her–and she's obviously–well, no. You know what? I'm going to stop myself from saying this, I guess.

      But it's not that this is coming from her, that she's learning this from the Premier (Mr. Kinew). I think the Premier has gone and recruited and put his Cabinet ministers in the front bench that are all similar. And so the other day I was listening and asking questions to the Premier, and the Premier said, you know, you should stand up and ask questions to the Edu­ca­tion Minister.

      So I've asked questions to the Premier; don't get any answers. Asked questions to the–excuse me–asked questions of the Premier on behalf of Manitobans, the concerns of Manitobans. That's our job in this demo­cratic society, this demo­cratic province we have, of Manitoba, to be able to ask questions. That's our job as opposition, which, as the Edu­ca­tion Minister men­tioned, you know, I don't think we will be in op­posi­tion very long to the–to what Manitobans are seeing in this not only the Edu­ca­tion Minister's behaviour, which I think is unbecoming of an Edu­ca­tion and Early Child­hood Learning Minister. But I also say that about the Premier.

      So I know that the Edu­ca­tion Minister tries to think that this is a, you know, a male-female, they-them type of situation, but it's not. The problem is, is that it doesn't matter–and I know that the Justice Minister's just bubbling; he wants to get up and put some words on the record; he'll have the op­por­tun­ity right away. But it's not. It's the fact that everybody in that front bench–and I don't know what's wrong with the Justice Minister. I'm not sure if we might need to call for some help. I mean, are you okay? Okay.

* (15:00)

      So just to know that the tone, the yelling and the shouting, when they should be answering some ques­tions, what they're trying to do, they're trying to deny, they're trying to deflect and they're trying to distract Manitobans from what is actually happening here in Manitoba.

      And so when we start to talk about examples like Bill 39, again, we on this side of the House absolutely believe in free and fair elections which is absolute–is central and very healthy for our demo­cracy right here in Manitoba. The voting public needs to have con­fi­dence that election processes are fair and trans­par­ent, without any third-party inter­ference, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      And so when I asked the question about, will this bill keep third-party inter­ference out of trustee elec­tions, no answer. Matter of fact, what's upsetting is that this minister stands up and, because she feels–I don't know what she's feeling, but–and I can't say one way or another. She's the one who has to be respon­si­ble for her own actions.

      But she has said on more than one occasion that even cybersecurity–so things like student data, which is in–which people, Manitobans trust, students trust, teachers trust, edu­ca­tion staff trust. I mean, you know, we've kicked off Edu­ca­tion Week and we've stated the fact that basically in Edu­ca­tion Week, on how we want to make sure that all those staff and students are kept safe. But the minister has said on more than one occasion that she can't guarantee that.

      So she also says how she not only can't guarantee that, the fact is also that she's telling Manitobans that they're going to have to get used to it, that they're going to have to get used to just realizing that their data is not safe.

      So it brings me to some other infor­ma­tion in addition to Bill 39, Hon­our­able Speaker. What happens in health care? What happens in the child-welfare system? What happens if our–in our housing? What happens with that data? The Edu­ca­tion Minister stood up today and again, in regards to making sure that third-party inter­ference is not there, she couldn't guarantee anything. And she wants to say, well, hey, she's telling it–I don't know if I can say this or not, but she's telling the truth.

      Okay, well that's great. Those are her words. But telling the truth, I don't think that instills con­fi­dence in this gov­ern­ment in–when it comes to anyone's data getting protected, and sure as heck is not under this Edu­ca­tion Minister, which we know had cancelled, single-handedly cancelled, the $50-million project that we, as the Progressive Conservative Party, had put forward to make sure that we had an in-house, within-province system to make sure that you, Manitobans', students' data is safe right here in your own province.

      We know that over time there's been growing and real threats to the demo­cratic process at the federal, prov­incial and munici­pal levels, and evidence is what has happened in the US federal elections and other countries all around our world. And that's why we on this side of the House–once again I read–re-state for the good of not only Manitobans but also this Edu­ca­tion Minister, who continues to put misinformation on the record.

      We believe, on this side of the House, in free and fair election processes and trying to make sure that there are no third-party inter­ference in elections. But it's obvious, by this Edu­ca­tion Minister's answer, that we can't really trust this to happen under this Kinew gov­ern­ment, and for sure not under this Edu­ca­tion Minister.

      We know that school board elections are typically held alongside munici­pal elections across Manitoba every four years. There's a potential and real threat to school boards from third-party inter­ference by indivi­duals, cor­por­ations and/or special interest groups. Not much is in the bill to deter that.

      I asked the minister about different limits, and, of course, instead of answering the question, she turned and tried to throw shade, as the Premier (Mr. Kinew) would say, on our side of the House in regard to what is actually being asked, instead of just answering the question.

      Limiting campaign con­tri­bu­tions to a certain amount will prevent big money from influencing the election results. Yes. Yes, we agree.    

      Now, when you also look at, what does that also mean, we take a look at campaign advertising. You know, is there other parties, unions, arm's-length organi­­za­tions that maybe have con­tri­bu­ted to ad­vertising pamphlets–things along those lines–that are distributed widely in a con­stit­uency, say, when there's maybe a by-election going on, which then influences–potentially influences the voter.

      Well that, to me, Hon­our­able Speaker, is illegal as well.

      So when we start talking about Bill 39 and con­tri­bu­tions and third-party inter­ference, and the Edu­ca­tion Minister, as an Edu­ca­tion minister herself, which we ask the Edu­ca­tion Minister to be in charge of our whole–not only our K‑to‑12 school system, but also our early child­hood learning system, it does not instill con­fi­dence when the minister stands in her place and gives the answers that she's giving, no matter how loud.

      Again, I don't care. I don't care how loud she gets. The only one, as I said earlier, Hon­our­able Speaker, is first of all, when the mics are on, say as much as you want. When the mics are off, I know that the Justice Minister is busy covering up his ears because he has to put up with that all the time.

      So that's great. So currently in Manitoba, there's no legis­lation–and you know what? I don't disagree with the Edu­ca­tion Minister at times as well. I know the Justice Minister has gotten out of hand once in a while in the Chamber as well, with his vocals on the microphone as well.

      But that goes to my previous point on it seems that that's a pattern and that's some of the training ground that the NDP get, whether they're in op­posi­tion or in gov­ern­ment.

      So currently in Manitoba there's no legis­lation governing school board election financing. Two other provinces, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, also do not.

      In the absence of this legis­lation, there's a possi­bility, wide range, of individuals and organi­zations to potentially fund election campaigns of school board candidates as well as provide in-kind goods and services to con­tri­bu­tions. This kind of activity by third parties is perfectly legal within the present legis­lative environ­ment.

      So again, on this side of the House, Hon­our­able Speaker, we look forward to sending this bill to com­mit­tee. We look forward to giving the minister some more time so that she can actually speak to the Manitoba School Boards Association and, again, on behalf of the PC caucus, I wish Ms. Nemeth all the best on her next venture that she's going to be doing, and as to Mr. Campbell, good luck as well. I look forward to working with you again, Alan, on the many things that we're going to be moving forward on.

      Just also to say that in the 2024 NDP Throne Speech, they promised to intro­duce legis­lation to protect our elections and demo­cracy from third-party and foreign inter­ference.

      Great. So we're bringing forward Bill 39. But, again, as the minister said, and no doubt between now and third reading, the minister will fine-tune her answer on the third-party inter­ference. I know the Ag Minister's looking forward to hearing that as well.

      And I know that there's others, Hon­our­able Speaker, that are going to want to put some words on the record, so with that I look forward to passing Bill 39 along and hearing what the public has to say at com­mit­tee and then further debate on third reading on Bill 39.

      Thanks, Hon­our­able Speaker.

* (15:10)

The Speaker: Seeing no further members wishing to debate, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Speaker: Question before the House is second reading of Bill 39, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act (Campaign Financing for School Trustees).

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 6–The Public Schools Amendment Act

The Speaker: Next, we move now to second reading of Bill 6, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act.

      The hon­our­able Minister of Health–no–the Hon­our­able Minister of Edu­ca­tion and Early Child­hood Learning.

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): I move, seconded by the hon­our­able Minister of Labour and Immigration (MLA Marcelino), that Bill 6, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques, now be read a second time and referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

MLA Schmidt:

I'm pleased to put a few words on the record regarding Bill 6.

      So public and in­de­pen­dent schools have a common day to count enrolment, which is then submitted to the Province for public reporting and calculating of operating funding.

      Historically, the enrolment count date was September 30 of each year, which now coincides with the national day of truth and recon­ciliation, also known here in Manitoba as Orange Shirt Day. The enrolment count date of September 30 is referenced in The Public Schools Act as part of the formula used to calculate the amount of special levy each school division must remit to the Division Scolaire Franco-Manitobaine.

      As such, this reference in The Public Schools Act needs to be updated to reflect the new enrolment count date. In con­sul­ta­tion with school divisions, the de­part­ment has chosen to change the count date to the first Wednesday in October.

      The changes will come into force on July 1 of 2025 before the '25-26 school year. Orange Shirt Day is an amazing op­por­tun­ity for Manitobans to learn about recon­ciliation and acknowledge the impacts of the resi­den­tial school system. It honours the survivors and remembers those that were lost.

      This day serves to raise awareness about the pain­ful legacy of resi­den­tial schools and the lasting impact they've had on Indigenous children and families and our com­mu­nities. Orange Shirt Day is im­por­tant because it promotes recon­ciliation and acknowledges the trauma that Indigenous peoples endured and encourages reflec­tion on how to support healing and justice for Indigenous com­mu­nities.

      On December 2023, our gov­ern­ment, under the leadership of our amazing Premier (Mr. Kinew), designated Orange Shirt Day as a prov­incial statutory holiday provi­ding all Manitobans with an im­por­tant op­por­tun­ity to reflect on the deep impact and lasting trauma caused by resi­den­tial schools.

      The De­part­ment of Edu­ca­tion and Early Child­hood Learning has been working hard to further Indigenous edu­ca­tion and is committed to advancing recon­ciliation here in our beautiful province.

      We are working on improving Indigenous language pro­gram­ming op­por­tun­ities. We have added an assist­ant Deputy Minister for Indigenous Excellence, Jackie Connell. You are amazing. And we are work­ing on strengthening Indigenous edu­ca­tion policies in schools and in child-care facilities.

      This change to the enrolment count date is just one small way in which we are working on advancing recon­ciliation here in Manitoba. I look forward to the unanimous support of this Chamber.

      Thank you. Merci. Miigwech.

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed in the standard rotation. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is open for questions.

      Seeing no questions, the floor is open for–the hon­our­able Op­posi­tion–Leader of the Op­posi­tion. The hon­our­able Leader of the Op­posi­tion–asking a question or moving on to debate?

      The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion still in question period.

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): Okay, so I was going to answer that question, Hon­our­able Speaker, but my mic wasn't on. So the question to answer is yes, I'm going on a question.

      So I thank the minister for bringing forward this bill. And she did mention that they had spoken with school divisions.

      Now, when she talks about speaking with school divisions, did the minister consult with the Manitoba association for school admin­is­tra­tions?

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): The de­part­ment did extensive con­sul­ta­tions in regard to this bill.

      There is unanimous support from the sector. There is no controversy here. We look forward to the support of the member opposite and the House in passing this bill.

Mr. Ewasko: Could have just stopped at the answer, Hon­our­able Speaker, because really, you know, on this side of the House, we are in support of this bill. And I just–asking a couple of questions is–in regards to clarity. And so she once again stated that the depart­ment has done extensive con­sul­ta­tion.

      The question I had asked specifically, she either doesn't know or doesn't want to say. So that's okay.

      So I guess, how was the first Wednesday of October chosen for the date for reporting?

MLA Schmidt: During our extensive con­sul­ta­tions with the sector, it was agreed that the first Wednesday in October made the most sense.

Mr. Ewasko: What does she mean by made the most sense?

MLA Schmidt: I so ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to elaborate. It was the date that was reached by consensus, it's close to September 30, it's past September 30; and it gives the sector a couple of days to catch up after celebrating a historic new statutory holiday here in Manitoba, gifted to Manitobans by our in­cred­ible Premier (Mr. Kinew), finally acknowledging Orange Shirt Day as a statutory holiday here in Manitoba, some­thing that Heather Stefanson refused to do.

      On this side of the House, we acknowledge the pains of the past and we commit to never repeating them again, which is why we believe that all Manitobans deserve the time on Orange Shirt Day–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mr. Ewasko: Once again, Hon­our­able Speaker, simple question. Just looking for an answer, not trying to enflame or add any controversy in here. But the minister can't help herself, you know, as far as being divisive. That's okay.

      So here's the question: What is the impact of pushing back the reporting data on calculations or on funding?

MLA Schmidt: Well, the impact, I suppose, is that there will be roughly two more days of enrolment that school divisions will be able to count and report to the de­part­ment. So it should improve accuracy and should also make it, just administratively, more feasible.

Mr. Ewasko: So, once again, Hon­our­able Speaker, we're not quite sure on the–that doesn't give, I don't think, Manitobans comfort. So is she, for certain, that's what the reasoning is, or that's going–what the impact is, or is she just doing hypotheticals? Just asking her to clarify her previous answer.

MLA Schmidt: What doesn't give Manitobans com­fort, I'm sure, is to learn that the op­posi­tion party, the party that is sent here to hold gov­ern­ment to account, had their Edu­ca­tion critic run, resign, quit. He couldn't stand to see what was going on on the other side of the House–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

MLA Schmidt: He couldn't stand behind this interim Leader. He couldn't stand behind the two leadership candidates so he ran away. And I wish him the ab­solute best. I think it was the right choice.

      My question is: Who's next? They haven't–again, a month without a minister of Edu­ca­tion, and the interim Leader stands up in this House and pretends like he is trying to provide comfort to Manitobans–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mr. Ewasko: And again it seems, Hon­our­able Speaker, that both leadership candidates and the former critic of Edu­ca­tion, Grant Jackson, is living rent‑free in this Minister of Edu­ca­tion's head.

      Here's the thing, Hon­our­able Speaker. The fact is, is that the Edu­ca­tion Minister is entitled to her own opinions, but not entitled to her own facts.

      And this is what we see coming from the NDP, is that on the record they go ahead and put misinformation–most of the time it's disinformation, Hon­our­able Speaker–but I don't even know if her last answer–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      The member has used language that's been deter­mined to be non‑parliamentary, so if the member would please withdraw it and apologize, and then we can carry on.

* (15:20)

Mr. Ewasko: I was–I thank you for your advice; I didn't realize that disinformation was not allowed and so I apologize for using that word, and I'll stop using that.

      But on purpose, it seemed–or am I able to say that? On purpose, the Edu­ca­tion Minister continues to put misinformation on the record.

      Is that allowed? I'm looking at the Clerk.

The Speaker: Honourable member's time has expired.

MLA Schmidt: It's disappointing that the member opposite, again, in the absence of any sort of Edu­ca­tion critic on that side, stands in his place and prefers to pontificate and to continue to insult me, to make allegations against me.

      Apparently, I am, you know–I don't meet his standards. And I couldn't be happier; if I was trying to earn his respect, then I would have some serious questions about what I was doing here.

      What I will tell you, Hon­our­able Speaker, is that Bill 6 makes a lot of sense. School divisions are acting for it. We're a listening gov­ern­ment. We're here to listen to you, we're going deliver–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      And just before we move on, I just want to clarify that a member cannot say that a member is knowingly, purposely putting misleading infor­ma­tion on the record. That implies that they know they are lying, and so therefore, that is unparliamentary.

Mr. Ewasko: So I guess, in contrast to what the Edu­ca­tion Minister's putting on the record, I guess I will say that many of the things that have been put on the record–as far as what I may or may not have said, I can honestly say I have not said the things that this minister has said.

      If the minister has not used her own edu­ca­tional back­ground to figure out the fact that I am not only the Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion right now, but I'm also the critic of Edu­ca­tion, con­sid­ering I've got up and spoke to all the bills and every­thing in regards to edu­ca­tion so far.

      But I know, Hon­our­able Speaker–I have a question for the–

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member's time has expired.

MLA Schmidt: The people of Manitoba, please listen to the Leader of the Op­posi­tion. Please, I hope that you are listening and I hope that you're paying attention to the fact that he prefers to stand in this House every day and talk about himself.

      On this side of the House, we are here to write new laws, to make life better in Manitoba. We are here to improve the lives of Manitoba in the edu­ca­tion sector, in the health sector, in the agri­cul­ture sector and in Munici­pal and Northern Relations.

      I'm surprised to hear that the member opposite is the critic. There was no an­nounce­ment, and I wonder what the folks on his team think about that. That–his bench–

Some Honourable Members: We love it.

MLA Schmidt: Oh.

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      The member for Riding Mountain (Mr. Nesbitt) will come to order.

      And I'm having a great deal of trouble under­standing what any of these questions, or any of these answers, have to do with the bill. So I would ask the members to please pay attention to the bill we're talking about.

      No further questions?

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): So I guess what the Edu­ca­tion Minister's waiting for on Bill 6 is a formal an­nounce­ment that–who is the critic on our side of the House.

      See, in the PC team, we don't get hung up on titles and positions and those types of things, Hon­our­able Speaker. We actually just get right to work. And that's the difference between the Progressive Conservative team and the NDP dysfunctional team, is the fact that they just want to do an­nounce­ments without any action.

      So when we continue to talk about Bill 6, I want to put a few words on the record on Bill 6. You know, I ap­pre­ciate the sage advice. The fact is, is that I know that the Minister of Edu­ca­tion got way off topic for a con­sid­erable amount of time, because the Edu­ca­tion Minister, I think, instead of doing her homework on–in her own de­part­ment, I think is too busy trying to worry about personal attacks, divisive language, bring­ing in hate and divisive comments. And it's unfor­tunate because that is unbecoming of an Edu­ca­tion minister.

      So as, you know, sort of, we roll along and we've asked some questions in regards to the impact of pushing back the reporting data on calculations or funding, her answer does not bring any type of certainty to the edu­ca­tion field. I know that for a fact.

      Speaking with many colleagues from all levels within the edu­ca­tion world on, you know, Bill 6 and other bills that this Edu­ca­tion Minister has brought forward, I think if they would have spent more time talking about the fact that–how they were going to cut the edu­ca­tion funding that they did, and fully–fully, Hon­our­able Speaker–go into double‑digit tax increases by this NDP gov­ern­ment on Manitobans, is dis­ingen­uous–disingenuous.

      And I think that they should–the Edu­ca­tion Minister, in the next bill, should start off her comments by apologizing to Manitobans. And she'll jot that down and she'll do some kind of other diatribe in her opening comments on the next bill.

      Actually, Hon­our­able Speaker, I did wanted to give the Edu­ca­tion critic–or the minister credit for the length of time that she spoke on Bill 6 in her opening statement. It was almost four minutes. You know, it was almost as much time as the Premier (Mr. Kinew) spoke on his own budget. So–and actually that was more time than the Edu­ca­tion Minister put forward on a few of her other previous bills. This is a one‑page bill.

      I think, moving forward, it is, you know, a bill that makes some sense. I guess more of the details would–will come out from what some of those stake­holders, those edu­ca­tion partners, have to say to this, whether it is going to be more work or less work for them; how is that going to impact in various formulas.

      Speaking of formulas, Hon­our­able Speaker, we know that the Edu­ca­tion Minister, as I said earlier, cut education funding and basically–I don't know. I guess their terminology on the NDP side is paused, but I think they've actually cut the new funding formula, and I don't know, I think the Edu­ca­tion Minister–this Edu­ca­tion Minister I think put on the record, even though we know that her NDP gov­ern­ment, the Kinew gov­ern­ment, puts edu­ca­tion not even in the top five of the priorities for this gov­ern­ment.

      I think somewhere they said the new funding for­mula for Edu­ca­tion will come online for the school year, I think, of 2027. I'm not sure what they've said. I know that for this coming year, you know, since we're talking about Bill 6 and talking about funding and moving the date for enrolment counts and that, under our gov­ern­ment we were planning on rolling that out. Matter of fact, this coming fall, for the edu­ca­tion funding for this fall, for 2025.

      But, again, what this minister wants to do, we've heard it in various bills that we've seen come forward. We've seen many actions. Or actually, talk about actions but not really any actionable items yet, of them just carrying on or cutting things earlier and then reintroducing them, trying to put them under a–you know, paint them with a bit of an orange tinge and try to call it their own.

      But we know that majority of every­thing that this Edu­ca­tion Minister is bringing forward is from the hard work of our PC gov­ern­ment trying to make life better, a more sus­tain­able and welcoming learning environ­ment for Manitoba students in this great province of ours. And I think that's why parents and guardians are watching this Edu­ca­tion Minister and watching the misbehaviour on the screens. And it's–it is unfor­tunate.

      But those are the emails that I'm getting, Hon­our­able Speaker, from various Manitobans–parents, guard­ians, students, former students–just talking about the fact that we just want, on behalf of Manitobans and those people that I've just listed, they just want some answers from this Edu­ca­tion Minister.

* (15:30)

      So I look forward to seeing Bill 6 go to com­mit­tee. Like I said, it's a one‑page docu­ment. The Edu­ca­tion Minister felt that she should talk about this bill far more than the other bills. That's okay. That's her prerogative. Again, we get a certain amount of time in this demo­cratic process when we bring bills forward.

      So with that, Hon­our­able Speaker, thank you for the op­por­tun­ity to be able to put a few words on the record.

The Speaker: No further speakers? Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 6, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 19–The Public Schools Amendment Act
(Safe Schools)

The Speaker: As previously announced, we will now go to second reading of Bill 19, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act (Safe Schools).

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): Thank you–oh, wow. Losing my voice.

      I move, seconded by the minister of busi­ness, mines, trade and job creation, that Bill 19, The Public–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      In order for someone to second a motion, they have to be sitting in their proper seat.

MLA Schmidt: My apologies.

      I move, seconded by the Minister of Trans­por­tation and Infra­structure (MLA Naylor), that Bill 19, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act (Safe Schools); Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques (milieu scolaire sûr), now be read a second time and referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

MLA Schmidt: Oh, my gosh, it's–as minister, the safety of Manitoba students is my No. 1 priority. That's why we have intro­duced Bill 19, which will amend The Public Schools Act and enshrine in legis­lation requirements for all school division staff and volunteers to complete approved sexual abuse pre­ven­tion programs.

      This legis­lation will also require that all coaches and sport volunteers complete approved sport-focused abuse pre­ven­tion programs. School divisions and districts will also need to ensure training is renewed at least once every four years. Student safety is a top priority for our gov­ern­ment.

      We have heard from folks with lived ex­per­ience, educators, volunteers and coaches that they want their gov­ern­ment to take action and to protect Manitoba children and families, and our gov­ern­ment is delivering on that. We are proud to align this legis­lation with other Canadian provinces and territories who already have statutory safeguards in place for students, staff and com­mu­nity members who are involved in school sport and recreation activities.

      Bill 19 will also require school divisions and districts to develop policies to identify ap­pro­priate and inappropriate interactions between students and staff, on and off school property. This will include sup­port­ive processes for students and their families to report inappropriate con­cern­ing interactions that have taken place.

      This legis­lation will require that these policies are actively communicated and shared with families across our province. In every school across the province principals must inform students and families about these polices at the begin­ning of each school year. This mandatory annual com­muni­cation will ensure that children and families have the resources and sup­port they need if any issues arise.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, this bill complements Bill 21 intro­duced by the hon­our­able Minister of Sport, Culture, Heritage and Tourism (MLA Kennedy) that will strengthen pre­ven­tative training and abuse-reporting processes. Together, these two bills will enhance the protections for Manitoba children and families by creating train­ing, policies and com­muni­cation require­ments for all individual coaching and mentoring–for all individuals, pardon me, coaching and mentoring our children in sport and those who are supporting youth in other volunteer capacities.

      With that, Hon­our­able Speaker, I will conclude my squeaky remarks on this bill. There are many educators and coaches in this Chamber, and we are looking forward to receiving the unanimous support of this House to ensure the safety of all Manitoba children.

      Thank you. Merci. Miigwech.

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed in the standard rotation, and no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): So I will ask the minister: Who has she consulted on Bill 19?

      Thank you.

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): We–the de­part­ment performed extensive con­sul­ta­tions with the Manitoba School Boards Association. We have connected with parents, stake­holders and sports organi­zations, like Sport Manitoba.

      This is an im­por­tant bill, it's an im­por­tant intent, an im­por­tant objective. And so we're going to make sure that we're listening to all Manitobans so that we get it right. There is nothing more im­por­tant and sacred than protecting our students and our children here in Manitoba.

      Our gov­ern­ment takes this extremely seriously, and we look forward to receiving the unanimous sup­port of this House on this im­por­tant bill.

Mr. Ewasko: It's great to hear those words come out of her mouth. Manitoba School Boards Association and, of course, Sport Manitoba, I think, is what she said as well.

      So as we–as she mentioned also Bill 19 and Bill 21, protecting youth in sport, which was intro­duced also in this session. What is the difference between the two bills?

MLA Schmidt: Thank you for that very im­por­tant question.

      As the member opposite will know for his–from his time in gov­ern­ment, you know, here in Manitoba, we've done a lot of great work on protecting youth in the school system. There was a min­is­terial directive back in 2022. Bill 19 enshrines that directive into law within our edu­ca­tion system, and Bill 21 is a com­plementary bill to ensure that we are protecting children no matter where they are practising sport, whether that is in a school setting, whether that's in an extracurricular setting, in a club setting, in a com­mu­nity club setting.

      We have the support and the col­lab­o­ration and co‑operation of Sport Manitoba and other like organi­zations who, like gov­ern­ment, have been doing a lot of great work.

      These bills–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mr. Ewasko: So again, just asking the minister the difference between the two bills. And if both bills are brought forward–again, Public Schools Amend­ment Act (Safe Schools) and the protecting youth in sports, so bills 19 and 21. I'm not looking at the answer of the difference of 21 subtract 19, which is two.

      I'm actually asking, within the bills, what is the difference? And I'm asking, is this going to only create confusion with coaches, teachers or volunteers?

MLA Schmidt: Thank you for the op­por­tun­ity to provide further clari­fi­ca­tion.

      Bill 19 amends The Public Schools Act. We are talking about protecting youth in sport at school, which we can do through instruments like amend­ments to The Public Schools Act.

      That being said, we know that children here in Manitoba practice sport outside of a school setting. They might play soccer with a soccer club. They might do gymnastics at a gymnastics school. And so what the excellent bill, Bill 21, put forward by the hon­our­able Minister of Sport, Culture, Heritage and Tourism (MLA Kennedy) does is ensure that the same pro­tec­tions that we're provi­ding to youth that partici­pate in sport in school receive those same pro­tec­tions and assurances when they are practicing sport outside of a school setting.

      So the two bills are complementary and will serve to protect all students across Manitoba, whether or not they are playing sports in school or outside of a school setting.

Mr. Ewasko: So yes or no: once every four years the school staff, coaches and volunteers must complete the sexual abuse pre­ven­tion and school sport abuse pre­ven­tion programs, as proposed in the legis­lation.

MLA Schmidt: I apologize to the member. I'm not sure I fully understood his question.

      What I think he is asking is whether or not coaches, educators, people working within the school system, will have to renew their training every four years. If that was the question, then the answer is yes.

Mr. Ewasko: Thanks to the minister for that answer. Why not yearly or even every two years?

* (15:40)

MLA Schmidt: At this time, based on the con­sul­ta­tions that we've done within the sector, we believe that four years is ap­pro­priate. However, again, we're a listening gov­ern­ment. We're always here to do better. We will always act in the interests of students and certainly nowhere is that more true when it comes to the safety of students.

      So, happy to speak further with who I've now learned is my new critic, and we can discuss those sug­ges­tions going forward.

      Thank you very much, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Mr. Ewasko: Well, so I'm not sure if–that's great, Hon­our­able Speaker, that that's what it took: just for me to say that, yes, in fact, I'm the Edu­ca­tion critic for the tone to change and the col­lab­o­rations start to come forward.

      And I will be happy in the future, Hon­our­able Speaker, working with this Minister of Edu­ca­tion because I do believe, as I did when I was Edu­ca­tion minister, that there are no trademarks on good ideas. So I look forward to working with the Edu­ca­tion 'minner.'

      What is the penalty, if any, of failing to complete the Manitoba–mandatory course or training, Hon­our­able Speaker?

MLA Schmidt: Well, it is a–it will be a work­place policy, so this will be a–and now it is in–previously, this was simply a policy directive from the de­part­ment to school divisions. This will now be enshrined into law and so it will be a require­ment of–a con­di­tion of em­ploy­ment, and so just like any other con­di­tion of em­ploy­ment, it must be met in order to suc­cess­fully continue on in your em­ploy­ment.

      We know that educators across this province are dedi­cated to this sort of learning. We know that it's been rolled out very suc­cess­fully. We want to thank the Respect Group that we've been working with to deliver and provide this training since 2022. They're doing an excellent job, and we know that educators value very much this training and look forward to renewing their training when it's most ap­pro­priate.

Mr. Ewasko: Hon­our­able Speaker, so does this pertain to chaperones, as well, on school trips?

MLA Schmidt: Yes. This will apply to all folks within the school system that are engaging with youth in sport.

Mr. Ewasko: Okay. So then is there going to be some sort of waiver or some­thing that somebody has to sign or declare that they've either received or not received this training? Is the training going to be mandatory to those individuals that are strictly chaperones?

      So what happens if there's a, you know, field trip–hypothetical, just a field trip, say to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Does the chaperone have to have that mandatory training, as well, or is it just strictly just sports?

MLA Schmidt: Again, the safety of all students across Manitoba is of paramount importance to our gov­ern­ment and to myself as minister.

      Bill 19 is specific towards sport‑focused abuse and pre­ven­tion programs, so this will apply to coaches, volunteers, anyone working within the school system that is delivering sports curriculum or is engaged with students in sport.

      And we know that this bill, combined with Bill 21, will go a long way to protecting students and ensuring that some of the atrocities that we've seen occur here in Manitoba never, ever, ever occur again. That is the in­ten­tion of this bill and that is why we hope and pray that this–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mr. Ewasko: Hon­our­able Speaker, once a complaint is made, how much time is given to review the complaint?

MLA Schmidt: Complaints will be reviewed in a timely and ap­pro­priate manner, again with the focus being on the safety, security and the pro­tec­tion of the student at hand.

Mr. Ewasko: Who reviews the complaint?

MLA Schmidt: There will be a third party that will be reviewing the complaint.

Mr. Ewasko: Third party as in–can the minister elaborate?

MLA Schmidt: Well, I can speak for Bill 21–pardon me–Bill 21, the complementary bill that was put forward by my friend and colleague, the minister of sport, culture, tourism and heritage–I don't think I got that right.

      In Bill 21, that will esta­blish a third-party organi­zation, a disciplinary review panel that will review all complaints and mistreatment of athletes outside of the school system; within the school system, that will be a matter for the administration.

Mr. Ewasko: The question that I asked earlier in regards to the timing of recertification and having to retake the course on the four‑year span. Infor­ma­tion–we know that infor­ma­tion changes very rapidly nowadays, and that type of thing, and so does tech­no­lo­gy, so does methods and tools.

      And so does the minister still feel, even with that, that the four‑year period will suffice to try to cover all those things off, Hon­our­able Speaker?

MLA Schmidt: Again, we are a listening gov­ern­ment. We are going to always ensure the safety of our students is put at the forefront of all of our decision making.

      Since we have rolled out this directive in 2022, it's been delivered in a very effective way. Educators, coaches and school staff, I know are ap­pre­ciative of the learning op­por­tun­ity. And if, in the future, four years is no longer an ap­pro­priate time, then we're–we'll be happy to revisit this bill.

      Thank you.

Mr. Ewasko: When a complaint is made, are police agencies brought in imme­diately to in­vesti­gate serious allegations?

MLA Schmidt: Yes, thank you for that question. Hon­our­able Speaker. Absolutely. Obviously, each situation is going to be different, and it's going to depend on the facts of the case, but absolutely.

      Imme­diately, the school division would be engaged, and then, based on the deter­min­ation of what they know of the allegation, absolutely police would be involved, CFS would be involved. School divisions will involve all the necessary in­sti­tutions to ensure that the student is protected and that the incident is thoroughly investigated and resolved, and that we're always learning.

      The point of this is to always be learning and doing better to protect kids and to ensure that, again, some of the atrocities that we've seen here in Manitoba–

The Speaker: Time has expired.

      Seeing no further questions, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 19, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act–oh, once again, we've got to do some debate. I'm sorry, I apologize.

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

      The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion.

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): And also, Hon­our­able Speaker, the critic of Edu­ca­tion.

Mr. Tyler Blashko, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

      And the way I used to always mention this role is the advocate for edu­ca­tion. Because not every­thing, as we're hearing in the last while, is controversy–controversy–

An Honourable Member: Controversial.

Mr. Ewasko: Controversial, there we go. Tough getting that word out, been doing lots of talking last few days.

      And I'll tell you, Hon­our­able Speaker, if I would've known earlier this week, last week, that just by men­tioning the fact that I am now the edu­ca­tion critic, would've brought the level down a notch on the heated and the divisive wording coming from the Edu­ca­tion Minister, I would've done that as soon as Grant Jackson had left to embark on his next adventure of being an MP for the federal gov­ern­ment–the upcoming federal gov­ern­ment.

* (15:50)

      Now, that being said, Grant is often mentioned here in these Chambers, and really, what I can see happening is a little bit of jealousy over on the NDP benches, because I know that a few of them who had their hearts set on Cabinet min­is­terial positions who have not yet received.

      But I think, from what we've seen this week, there's going to be a bit of a Cabinet shuffle happening. We see the minister–or, not the minister, the Premier (Mr. Kinew) taking on, you know, a lot of the ques­tions that are being directed to his ministers, because I think he's actually losing faith in their capabilities to be able to answer and to remain on either his messaging or some kind of messaging; or they're telling Manitobans, maybe, too much, so then he's putting the seatbelt light on and making sure that they're buckled in tight and not getting up from their chairs to answer any questions.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, so we were talking about Bill 19, the–or hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, I apologize–Bill 19, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act (Safe Schools). So we've got lots to talk about.

      It's nice to hear that we're going to have this cordial relationship, the–with myself and the Edu­ca­tion Minister, because it brings me to the fact that why is respect in schools, respect in sport, mandatory training for teachers and coaches and that, why is that happening? It's because of bringing forward a–directives from the minister of Edu­ca­tion, which I had the pleasure to be at the time, but also carrying on the good work from my predecessors, as well.

      And it came with exactly what I think is going to be happening moving forward: working with the Educa­tion Minister on mutual beneficiary topics to help with our students–the great students in this great province of ours in Manitoba.

      So I'm hoping that that will actually come to fruition, because I know that the MLA for St. Vital, the MLA for St. James and the former member for Transcona and I, and others on our side: the former member for Portage la Prairie, the former member for–or not the former member, the present member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) and even the former member for Morden‑Winkler had worked on things within Edu­ca­tion because it was a col­lab­o­rative approach.

      We are all students of the K‑to‑12 edu­ca­tion system at one time or another in this great province of ours, and I think we bring different perspectives. And not everybody is a teacher, you know, coming into these roles as MLAs, of course, but it's im­por­tant to take those perspectives. But not only the teacher's per­spective; it's also very im­por­tant to reach across the aisle and speak with other members.

      And the other member that I failed to mention who is, you know, still a repre­sen­tative, of course, is the MLA for Tyndall Park, the leader of the Liberal Party right now, too.

      And that came from the fact that there was some very horrific things happening in our province that were unchecked for quite a few years, and so it was our gov­ern­ment that decided to do some­thing about it and start making mandatory courses. Because in some cases, Manitoba–whether it's parents, guardians, volun­teers, students, bystandards–bystanders, they don't quite know, necessarily, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, what to watch out for, what are some of those red flags.

      And so that's why it was very im­por­tant when a lot of these infractions, the major infractions in our province, happened under the Doer and Selinger time, that we took a really good look at the fact of–even though you're not going to be able to prevent ab­solutely every­thing, you have to make sure that you are diligent on trying to put things forward, you know, making sure that you're still trying to fix things, trying to prevent things. As opposed to throwing up your hands and saying, well, you know what, these things are going to happen; we're going to have to learn to live with them.

      That's not the way this should work, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker. We should actually look to other resources, whether its the Canadian Centre for Child Pro­tec­tion, whether it's the Respect Group, with Sheldon Kennedy. I had the pleasure of working with both organi­zations over the last quite a few years on various different things when it comes to child pro­tec­tion, and we, on this side of the House, absolutely believe that Manitoba students deserve to feel safe and respect­ed, not only in school, but within the com­mu­nity.

      And so that's where I go back to the fact that working with the MLA for St. Vital, who's now a minister, working with the MLA for St. James, who is now a minister, working with the former Edu­ca­tion minister and then-critic of the time, the MLA for Transcona, coming together and having those con­ver­sa­tions and just saying, this is what we're going to be doing; do you have any ideas as far as, you know, how can we strengthen the legis­lation and the directives going to schools to–for coaches, parents, guardians, volunteers and the like.

      But you can't just stop there, because you have to then train–as we mentioned today, you know, we spoke about Edu­ca­tion Week. It's not just teachers, coaches, volunteers.

The Speaker in the Chair

      It's edu­ca­tional assistants; it's support staff; it's administration; it's senior admin­is­tra­tion; it's custodians; it's bus drivers. These are all individuals that are see­ing the students on a day-to-day basis. And we have to make sure that they're all–they all have those tools in the tool box to make sure that they're able to see some red flags.

      So respect in schools, respect in sport, you know. I know also that we talk about, you know, another great program that I know that we put as a choice to school divisions, is Commit to Kids.

      And so those three programs, in conjunction with Manitoba School Boards Association, Manitoba Teachers' Society, Manitoba super­in­ten­dents adminis­tration, Canadian Centre for Child Pro­tec­tion, Sport Manitoba, of course, because they have all their sport bodies encompassing within there. It's very im­por­tant that we know what the options are and what we can be taking.

      And so I am a little concerned that the two bills–the minister says that Bill 19 and Bill 21 are not going to be confusing to individuals, but, you know, I guess to try to overprotect kids is, I guess, the best way to go.

      So we're going to see how they both shake out and pass and then just see what the public has to say at various com­mit­tees, spe­cific­ally on Bill 19.

      We do know that the Edu­ca­tion Minister talked about some funding and that, and, you know, when I think about listening to teachers, I think about back when we brought forward the teacher idea fund, and I know that there's some teachers in here, on all sides of the House, remember the teacher idea fund, and some of them are nodding their head.

      It's unfor­tunate, though, that this NDP gov­ern­ment went and cancelled–got rid of–and cut the teacher idea fund. They talk a good game about wanting to listen, and there–they say that they're, you know, that listening gov­ern­ment, but I don't see the action and the proof on that, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      So I think the fact to reinstate the teacher idea fund, I think, would be a really good thing, so if the–when the–you know, I know the Edu­ca­tion Minister is listening attentively on ideas, and because we've got this new working col­lab­o­rative messaging that we've all of a sudden stumbled upon here on this last bill of debate, hopefully she'll take that back to her de­part­ment–actually, take it back to her Finance Minister and the Premier (Mr. Kinew) and say, it's unfor­tunate that you two, the Finance Minister and the Premier, cut the teacher idea fund, but let's reinstate it, because good ideas come from the teachers who are working at the front lines, and I just think that that's a beneficial program.

      I also think the fact of cutting edu­ca­tion this year was a horrendous mistake. I think Manitobans are going to pay dearly for it in the next few months, matter of fact, within the next week or two when the tax bills start rolling out. I don't think that they're going to be very happy. And I'm encouraging all–

* (16:00)

The Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

      The hour being 4 o'clock, I'm now interrupting debate.

      Today is the 14th sitting day after the first reading completion date. All gov­ern­ment bills that had first reading moved within 20 sitting days of the Throne Speech and have been identified by the gov­ern­ment as specified but not selected by the op­posi­tion as designated bills are eligible to have second reading moved today and have the question put.

      For each such bill, the minister can speak for a maximum of 10 minutes, followed by up to a 15-minute question-and-answer period. Critics of recog­nized parties and in­de­pen­dent members may then speak for a maximum of 10 minutes per bill, following which, I will put the question on second reading of the bill.

      If such a bill had previously–if such a bill had been previously called for debate, any remaining actions just identified for each bill will be dealt with before the question will be put.

      The House shall sit until midnight, and points of order and matters of privilege are deferred until all votes have been completed.

      As announced, the list of bills that will follow this process today will be the following: Bill 19, Bill 11, Bill 26, Bill 3, Bill 4, Bill 21, Bill 15, Bill 28, Bill 37.

      Accordingly, I will now call Bill 19, and just for everyone's infor­ma­tion, the hon­our­able Leader of the Op­posi­tion will have 10 minutes remaining to debate the bill.

Mr. Ewasko: Yes, we're into that timing of the various different bills and then–now, a shortened amount of time for opening statements, second reading, of course, com­mit­tee and then–or, not com­mit­tee–question and answer and then the response from the critic or another member.

      So where I was going, Hon­our­able Speaker, was we were talking about here debating, of course, Bill 19, keeping schools and–keeping students safe, and looking at the three different programs that I mentioned. But also, I was going on the fact of the cuts to edu­ca­tion funding.

      The cuts to edu­ca­tion funding, Hon­our­able Speaker, and where I was sort of saying is that within the next few weeks–within the month–Manitobans are going to be receiving their tax bills, and they're going to see the implications of this NDP edu­ca­tion cut, which then, in turn, is going to create and has created more than double-digit tax increases to Manitobans on their houses and properties. And we're also going to see the increase on rental units as well.

      So when we also talk about respect in schools, respect in sport, Canadian Centre for Child Pro­tec­tion, we talk about Commit to Kids as well, these are very im­por­tant programs to bring forward to the schools and give them those options.

      Another in­cred­ible program, which would be nice to see as we are starting to roll out, as the Edu­ca­tion De­part­ment when we were still in gov­ern­ment, was to put some em­pha­sis on Kids in the Know. Because I think there's a lot of situations out there right now, Hon­our­able Speaker, where there are students that are going online and, again, not necessarily seeing the pitfalls and the red flags that are coming up.

Mr. Tyler Blashko, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

      And that's why it's also good that we, when we were in gov­ern­ment, made it very im­por­tant to em­pha­size the fact that it's also im­por­tant to train the bystander, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker.

      So with that, I look forward to Bill 19 moving forward to com­mit­tee, hearing what some com­mit­tee–some com­mu­nity members have to say.

      But before I do, I did want to mention that we–in 2022, we did put forward a quarter of a million dollars to develop and implement that Pathway to Safer Sport program and expand the training require­ments for coaches and staff who work in the K‑to‑12 school system. And I guess, just so that the–I know that the Edu­ca­tion Minister is listening very closely, and so what I'm hoping that they will take back and think about is, then, what are we doing for those students, those kids, those children in the early child­hood learning sector?

      So with that, hon­our­able Speaker–hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, I want to say thank you for giving me the op­por­tun­ity to put a few words on the record, and I look forward to passing this bill to committee, hearing what members of Manitoba com­mit­tee–at com­mit­tee stage has to say in regard to Bill 19, and then look forward to debate on third reading.

      Thanks, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): Is there leave for the House to call the hour as midnight once the question been put on second reading of Bill 37, The Manitoba Financial Services Author­ity Act and Amend­ments to Various Other Acts?

The Deputy Speaker: Is there leave for the House to call the hour as midnight once the question has been put on second reading of Bill 37, The Manitoba Financial Services Author­ity Act and Amend­ments to Various Other Acts?

      Is there leave? [Agreed]

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any further speakers on Bill 19?

      Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 19, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act (Safe Schools).    

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 11–The Oil and Gas Amendment Act

The Deputy Speaker: We will now move on to second reading of Bill 11, The Oil and Gas Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Jamie Moses (Minister of Business, Mining, Trade and Job Creation): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agri­cul­ture (Mr. Kostyshyn), that Bill 11, The Oil and Gas Amend­ment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le pétrole et le gaz naturel, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Moses: I'm pleased to stand up today for bill–second reading of Bill 11, The Oil and Gas Amend­ment Act. Purpose of this bill is to ensure a secure, stable and safe supply of essential fuels for Manitobans.

      Currently, there is no specific require­ment for pip­eline licensees to promptly notify gov­ern­ment of a shutdown. This lack of timely notification impacts contingency planning for both prov­incial and munici­pal gov­ern­ments to optimize pipeline shutdown planning.

      Going forward, this amend­ment is intended to apply in the following scenarios: First, if a pipeline operator finds an anomaly that could impact the safe operation of a pipeline and the pipeline needs to be shut down imme­diately, then the operator must pro­vide notification to the minister within 24 hours of shutdown. The operator will also need to provide additional infor­ma­tion on–or records as requested by the minister.

      And, second, is if a pipeline operator plans an anomaly that could impact safe operation and the pipeline needs to be shut down soon, and if that shutdown interrupts the supply of refined petroleum products in the province, then a shutdown can only proceed by notification and consent of the minister.

      The third is if a pipeline operator finds an anomaly that could impact its safe operation and the pipeline needs to be shut down soon, however, the shutdown will not interrupt supply of refined petroleum products in the province, then the process will remain unchanged.

      In a cross-juris­dic­tional analysis of pipeline notification require­ments, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan currently have notification require­ments in specific circum­stances only, such as natural causes, accidents, issues with infra­structure, et cetera.

* (16:10)

      Manitoba's amend­ments takes a leading and balanced approach by responding to both the needs of industry and protecting the economy, economic security interests of Manitoba's public.

      Further updates to the act include the department being able to put, rescind or vary additional terms or con­di­tions on a permit licence or approval. Also, this additional flexibility will allow the de­part­ment to address and change–address changing industrial and environ­mental concerns for long-standing projects that could not have been reasonably foreseen.

      The director will be granted power to esta­blish pro­grams of inspection for wells, pipelines and other equip­ment used for the production of oil, gas, helium and natural hydrogen. While inspection provisions are present through­out the existing act, these provisions are being added to allow for clear maintenance and inspection controls and scheduling.

      The minister will be able to enter into agree­ments allowing the exploration for and the production of natural hydrogen. This amend­ment addresses incoming industry requests relating to natural hydrogen. The change will allow for requests to be handled in the same way as other gas exploration and production as natural gas and helium.

      In addition, the bill aligns the law with the needs of the industry and operations of gov­ern­ment with the following updates: as the holders of wells, well-holders will now need to enter into agree­ments with the minister before disposing of saltwater in spacing units that include Crown oil and gas rigs. This amendment will granting–would be granting author­ity to the minister to issue saltwater 'dispisal'–disposal permits under the saltwater disposal agree­ment. This will allow for the continued disposal of saltwater even when oil and gas rights have expired.

      Another amend­ment being made is that the person who holds a lease or a private oil or gas rights will have to abandon the well or oil and gas facility in the leased area within 180 days. Currently, there is no require­ment in the act for the well to be abandoned within 180 days after oil or gas lease on private freehold lands. This amend­ment will equalize the treatment for freehold and Crown oil-gas leases.

      I want to end my comments by stating that this bill aligns with multiple economic and environ­mental priorities and ensures oil supply for Manitobans, a safe and secure oil supply. It updates our Oil and Gas Act, and ensures the steady, reliable supply of essential fuels while minimizing the burden on pipe­line operators, taking care to protect our environ­ment through more regular, thorough inspections.

      Thank you, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker.

Questions

The Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed in the standard rotation, and no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Jeff Wharton (Red River North): I'd like to thank the member for bringing this bill forward, The Oil and Gas Amend­ment Act, Bill 11. I do have a number of questions for the minister, starting with–the first question is: Who has the minister consulted with on this parti­cular bill?

Hon. Jamie Moses (Minister of Business, Mining, Trade and Job Creation): I ap­pre­ciate the comment from members opposite, and I think it's very war­ranted to understand the con­sul­ta­tion process for this. Obviously, we consulted with many of the pipeline operators, and I'll just name the largest, Imperial Oil. Had specific con­ver­sa­tions with them regarding this bill.

      And it's im­por­tant for us to understand that this bill is aimed to protect Manitobans, the safe and reliable supply of oil products into our province. That's exactly what this bill aims for. And we have consulted with many people, and I'll hope to and will continue to listen to Manitobans in many facets in many areas to make sure that this bill and all of our bills ensure that we're keeping safe, reliable economic interests and environ­mental interests at the heart of what we do for all Manitobans.

Mr. Wharton: I can ap­pre­ciate the minister, certainly, consulting with Imperial Oil because, really, it's pro­bably an under­standing to most Manitobans listening and watching today that this bill is probably in a response to the fact that Imperial Oil had to shut down their pipeline recently under the NDP watch, knowing full well that it was going to 'crause' chaos for Manitobans and parti­cularly in Winnipeg, where gas was being shut off. So we can ap­pre­ciate why there is going to be more oversight.

      What I want to understand a little further, though, is the minister said he–Imperial Oil and said many, many others, will–I guess, basically, will the de­part­ment be imposing–

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Moses: I, you know, respect the member's ability to bring these to the Chamber and I want to have a very good dialogue with him through­out this question-and-answer period. Respectfully, I didn't hear the question there, so I'd ap­pre­ciate if the member could answer–ask the question again and I'd be very happy to respond and answer.

      But I do want to just say that I'm glad that he had, you know, signalled and mentioned the issue with the shutdown last year. That's exactly why we want to bring this bill forward: to ensure that Manitobans have that safe, reliable supply of oil products into the province.

Mr. Wharton: Ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to finish my question; obviously a very im­por­tant piece of legis­lation.

      The minister's de­part­ment, will they be imposing any additional terms or con­di­tions on developers after the–an issue–the licence has been issued?

Mr. Moses: There's no other con­di­tions that are going to be applied other than this–what's already in the act and what is proposed in this amend­ment. Obviously, this amend­ment speaks to existing pipelines, their operation and spe­cific­ally around if they're asked, in an anomaly, the cause of the shutdown of the pipeline.

      And so we really want to make sure that those oil products can flow into the province with reliability, with stability, with safety as our chief concerns. And so this bill aims to strengthen those, make sure that Manitobans can count on a gov­ern­ment to protect our economy and our environ­ment at the same time.

      This bill does that, strikes a leading approach but also a balanced approach. And so we're happy with this bill, being able to put it forward for all Manitobans.

Mr. Wharton: Minister, just for the record, said that there wouldn't be any additional concerns for licensees going forward or any additional terms or con­di­tions. However, in the explanatory note, the minister or director, and I'll quote, are–or an inspector may impose additional terms or con­di­tions on a permit, licence or approval, or rescind a various term or con­di­tion with previously imposed.

      So I'm not sure. Maybe the minister can explain what the difference is about new con­di­tions–new, older con­di­tions or putting additional con­di­tions on a licence holder.

Mr. Moses: So as I said in my opening comments around this bill and my statement, the changes in the act are not imposing any new restrictions on producers of oil. It is really saying that there are cases when projects–the parameters of the projects–requires more flexibility from the director.

      And so it empowers the director to have that flex­ibility to understand and adjust what the real-world situations that all producers are facing; give them the flexibility that the, quite frankly, industry has been looking for from a director, to be able to respond in real time to some of the changes without having to go back to adjusting legis­lation.

      So we're very comfortable with the approach that we're taking in this bill to both protect Manitobans, the industry and making sure that we're doing so in a very balanced approach.

Mr. Wharton: Again, I ap­pre­ciate the answer from the minister and saying that there wouldn't be any new–really there's nothing new here. However, in the explanatory note, as well, paragraph 2, it talks about natural hydrogen being added and helium.

      So I know I met with the minister's staff. Unfor­tunately, the minister couldn't join me at the time during the bill briefing, so maybe he can explain today exactly where we're going with helium and natural hydrogen.

Mr. Moses: Ap­pre­ciate that–I ap­pre­ciate the question.

      This is a new and emerging industry, and we want to have legis­lation that reflects it. These changes are meant to protect Manitobans, but also to modernize the efforts that we have and we can–industries that we might potentially have here in Manitoba. We've heard from industry: helium and natural hydrogen are two areas that are very new and novel for our province, and we want to have legis­lation that can respond to that.

* (16:20)

      So that's why those two are now included in the act, and will allow industry to continue to grow and explore in those areas, and make sure that we are reflective of the actual realities as going on in the oil and gas sector. So that's why we bring forward these additions to the act, make sure that Manitobans protected in this industry.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister's time has expired.

Mr. Wharton: I thank the minister for that clarity for Manitobans.

      Also, just building on that, we know that the gov­ern­ment, and parti­cularly the minister, talked about and was confirmed in the bill briefing with his staff, about a hydrogen strategy that was coming. It seems like the cart before the horse a little bit when we're talking hydrogen in this bill, when we don't have a strategy for hydrogen and helium going forward.

      So I ask, Minister, today for Manitobans listening: When is that strategy going to be ready?

Mr. Moses: Well, I think it's really im­por­tant for us to both focus spe­cific­ally on what's going on in this bill, which opens up new avenues for helium and natural hydrogen. It also protects Manitobans with a safe and reliable approach to our oil supply through­out Manitoba.

      I ap­pre­ciate the minister's asking–the member oppo­site is asking about strategies, and so I'd like to point to him for our terrific and amazing critical mineral strategy that we released a few months ago, which outlines very extensive approach to doing critical mineral projects in the right way in Manitoba, investing and stream­lining approach with industry, partnering with First Nations and the Manitoba Métis, as well as making sure that we do so with the strongest environ­mental and human rights standards.

      Very proud of that strategy, and we'll continue to do that good work on behalf of all Manitobans.

Mr. Wharton: Certainly we can ap­pre­ciate the duplica­tion of the critical mineral strategy the member–the minister announced because it really is a mirror image of we announced back in 2022-23. So, critical minerals, as we all know, are very im­por­tant to our grain economy going forward. But that's not the question today. What I'd like to know from the minister is, again, will there be new con­di­tions for an environ­mental licence for Alamos Gold?

Mr. Moses: This bill very clearly speaks to pipelines, and so that's the focus of this bill. Obviously, we know, with the incident with Imperial Oil last year, the shutdown of their pipeline, that we wanted to respond in a strong way, in a way that Manitobans can count on, count on a gov­ern­ment that's going to ensure the safe, reliable and environmentally friendly response to ensure that safe supply of oil into the products, so we can move our economy forward and Manitobans can move about in their daily lives. That's what this bill does: leading, national leading, but–yet balanced way. And we'll continue to do that good work for Manitobans.

      So I'm not sure–I'm very proud of the Alamos Gold project, but I'm not sure that that is very relevant to this specific bill, but I'd love if the member has a follow-up question, I'd love to hear it.

Mr. Wharton: I ap­pre­ciate the minister allowing me to just quickly reiterate that we're very proud of the Alamos Gold mine that we started back in 2021, and certainly, we're happy that the NDP agreed with us and actually went up and cut the ribbon that we did, so thank you for that.

      Second of all, what kind of message does this send producers that lease agree­ments that can be nullified simply with a stroke of a pen by either the minister, the director or a staff member?

Mr. Moses: Think the narrative, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, that the member opposite uses is not the–an accurate characterization of the bill.

      The bill allows for–if the member's looking spe­cific­ally on page 5 of the bill, which references abandonment of oil and well facilities, that perhaps that might be the area that the member is looking at: requires 180 days after the lease it disposals or–cancellation. This is where we want to allow the director to actually work with companies and give them that flexibility to, say, if they have a 'particularler'–parti­cular issue that would cause them to not abide by that 180 days, well, they can work with the director and have that ability to continue their work in their project, on the oil project, and do so in a way that makes sense for their project–

The Deputy Speaker: Time has expired.

Debate

The Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further questions, the floor is open for debate.

Mr. Jeff Wharton (Red River North): Again, it's always a privilege to get up and a pleasure to get up on behalf of Manitobans and talk about legis­lation, and certainly today with Bill 11, The Oil and Gas Amend­ment Act.

      As I've mentioned to the minister in just casual discussion, because, unfor­tunately, he wasn't available to have–to provide a briefing directly, but the staff, again, did a wonderful job and were very–acceptance of some of the issues that we heard–concerns that we had for Manitobans, and certainly were–I'm sure they passed them on to the minister.

      Of course, we'll talk more about what some of those concerns were when we look at getting this to com­mit­tee and having a chance for Manitobans to actually step up and issue their concerns, and maybe in some cases their support. But we'll certainly let Manitobans make that decision based on giving them the infor­ma­tion they require to make an informed decision.

      But, you know, today, again, I just had some con­cerns I wanted to get on the record. I know we have a lot of busi­ness to deal with, and I'm looking forward to third reading and getting to com­mit­tee. So what I wanted to do is just ensure that, again, we certainly would be sup­porting legis­lation that protects Manitobans, and I don't believe that anybody wants to see another Imperial Oil incident happen; and I know that industry doesn't, in talking to industry direct myself.

      And certainly they are good 'stewarts' of what they do, and they know they provide, whether it be energy or fuel to Manitobans on a daily basis and how im­por­tant that respon­si­bility is for them, and ensuring that gov­ern­ment has the right tools in place is an im­por­tant act, and certainly we agree with that.

      Some of the concerns is the overarching issues I have with the minister's ability to, you know, essentially halfway through a licence, or could be a month in or six months in, deter­mine that there may be some changes coming to that licence.

      Now, whether that's changes because of pressures environmentally or other areas yet to be deter­mined, we don't know. But I'm concerned about industry being concerned and looking in their rear-view mirror, saying, well, we're going to make hundreds of millions of dollars invest­ments in Manitoba, but we're going to get a licence, and that's great; hopefully, it goes quicker than it has under the former NDP gov­ern­ment.

      I know we were well on our way to getting those licences approved within anywhere from 45 to 60 days, much better than what it was under the current–or the past gov­ern­ment–so, the NDP gov­ern­ment. But I can tell you that industry is–doesn't want to come and invest that kind of money and look in the rear-view mirror and say, uh-oh, the minister's office called, they're looking at putting a new regula­tion in on our current licence that we've been operating for a year and a half. And industry is definitely going to be up in arms.

      So I want to make sure that when we get to com­mit­tee and the minister is there, and there's stake­holders and busi­ness there and industry there making their concerns public to the minister, that the minister has eyes on this parti­cular issue. Because I know I've heard it from folks and busi­ness folks around the province and in the city of Winnipeg, and they're telling us: Be careful, because we need to ensure that we're not only growing our busi­nesses locally here to help grow our economy here in Manitoba, but also not putting too much red tape and too much what-ifs in the back–in the rear-view mirror, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker.

      So those are areas that we're concerned about and that industry is concerned about, and that's why I'm happy to be able to stand up here today during second reading and put those few words on the record, and also look forward to meeting with the minister and their staff in third reading when the public has an op­por­tun­ity also to weigh in on this very im­por­tant legis­lation, Bill 11.

      So with those few words, hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, I ap­pre­ciate the time, and again, it's always a pleasure to get up here on behalf of Manitobans.

      Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 11, The Oil and Gas Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 26–The Vital Statistics Amendment Act

The Deputy Speaker: We will now move on to second reading of Bill 26, The Vital Statistics Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Mintu Sandhu (Minister of Public Service Delivery): I move, seconded by minister of–hon­our­able Minister of Families (MLA Fontaine), that Bill 26, The Vital Statistics Amend­ment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to the com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

* (16:30)

MLA Sandhu: Currently, under The Vital Statistics Act, persons wanting to change their sex designation are required to submit a supporting letter from a health-care pro­fes­sional as part of their application process.

      The Vital Statistics Branch has received a number of requests from the 2SLGBTQIA+ com­mu­nity to remove this require­ment from the act.

      Obtaining a supporting letter from a health-care pro­fes­sional to confirm a change of sex designation that the applicant identifies with can be difficult and may create an obstacle for individuals. This 'precess' also adds un­neces­sary work for health-care pro­fes­sionals who must take care–take time away from patient care to fill out the required docu­ment for the applicant.

      The bill represents gov­ern­ment's commit­ment to support the rights of a gender-diverse person and to advocate for the right of self-expression and identi­fica­tion for all Manitobans.

      It will also align Manitoba with other juris­dic­tions that no longer require a supporting letter from a health-care pro­fes­sional under their respective legis­lation. All other supporting material and alternate docu­men­ta­tion prescribed under the act, including a signed and witnessed statutory declaration and evi­dence of legal name, place of birth and residency, do not change.

      The amend­ment also updates the act with gender-neutral language.

      Thank you, hon­our­able Speaker.

Questions

The Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed in the standard rotation. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Richard Perchotte (Selkirk): I'll keep these questions brief. This is a very im­por­tant bill.

      How would this bill impact transgender and gender-diverse people in Manitoba?

Hon. Mintu Sandhu (Minister of Public Service Delivery): I want to thank the member for that question.

      Again, as I said in my preamble, that, you know what, this is a–reduce the barriers that currently have it on there, where they need–required a health pro­fes­sional's letter saying–supporting docu­ment. This will eliminate that, and it will make it easier for a person who wants to change their sex designation if they're 18 and above.

      Thank you, hon­our­able Speaker.

Mr. Perchotte: Can the member tell us which stake­holders were consulted regarding this bill?

The Speaker in the Chair

MLA Sandhu: As I said in my preamble as well, you know what, the com­mu­nity has been reaching out to the Vital Statistics. And it's not only for currently reaching out to the gov­ern­ment; it has been reaching out to the previous gov­ern­ment as well. And the bill–seven and a half years, they did nothing, and we are taking action.

      We want to make sure we are respecting everyone in Manitoba.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Mr. Perchotte: Were health-care pro­fes­sionals consulted on this bill?

MLA Sandhu: Again, as I said, we are freeing those health-care pro­fes­sionals to do–to look at–you know, to work with the patient. This is where they should be provi­ding those services.

      Again, we are an always-listening gov­ern­ment. It's not only the health-care pro­fes­sional; we listen to all Manitobans. It's not only here in the legis­lation–Legislature that we listen too; we go out into the com­mu­nity and listen to people as well.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Mr. Perchotte: I want to conclude my questions now.

      I just want to thank the minister for bringing this forward and to ask if he has a personal ex­per­ience that he can share with the House, how this can impact people in our com­mu­nity.

MLA Sandhu: As I said earlier, that you know what, this will make it easier for those who want to change their sex designation from where they don't require this health-care pro­fes­sional's letter anymore. This will make it–going to make it easier. Again, as I said, we respect all Manitobans, and this is one of the ways we are making it a little bit easier for those folks who want to change their sex designation.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

The Speaker: No further questions?

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

Mr. Richard Perchotte (Selkirk): Thank you again, Hon­our­able Speaker. I'm very proud to stand up and just get a few words on the record regarding this bill.

      As we've said before in this House, that we are here to represent all Manitobans. And a bill like this coming forward does just that. When we take a look at the com­mu­nities that we need to represent–and the PCs have esta­blished programs in the past and different things in support of our two-spirited and 2SLGBTQIA+ com­mu­nities.

      We have done a number of things, including the Gender Equity Manitoba Secretariat, which is now called the Women and Gender Equity. The PCs invested over $3.2 million in the Rainbow Resource Centre Place of Pride. That was Canada's first 2SLGBTQ+ campus. The PCs also invested $150,000 in 2Spirit Manitoba's Medicine Wolf Healing Place. The previous PC gov­ern­ment supported the Reel Pride Inter­national Film Festival. That's Canada's oldest 2SLGBTQ+ film festival.

      And we need to work towards the future where all Manitobans have a sense of belonging, including two-spirit, transgender, non-binary and gender-diverse people. It'd be very disingenuine of me to stand up here and say that I understand the challenges facing trans­gendered or gender-diverse people. It'd be extremely disingenuous. But what I can do is I can stand here and tell you, as a person of compassion, of under­standing and empathy, I can feel for people who have the strength to come forward and say that they want to claim their identity, their true identity.

      And myself, as a man, I've identified as a man and I've been doing that my entire life. And I didn't have to convince anybody that I was a man. I didn't have to go see a doctor and have the doctor confirm that I was a man. And I think that it is degrading to make any­body do that. You identify how you identify because you know inside yourself that is who you are. You don't need anybody else to confirm what you know, no more than you would need somebody to confirm if you love your children or you believe in your god. This is some­thing that we must do for everybody in our com­mu­nity and stand up for the rights of all people.

      And just on those few words, I want to say thank you very much for the op­por­tun­ity to speak and thank you very much for bringing this bill forward.

The Speaker: No further members wishing to debate?

      Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Speaker: Question before the House is second reading of Bill 26, The Vital Statistics Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 3–The City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment and Planning Amendment Act

The Speaker: We will now move on to second reading of Bill 3, The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): Hon­our­able Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Sport, Culture, Heritage and Tourism (MLA Kennedy), that Bill 3, The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act; Loi modifiant la Charte de la ville de Winnipeg et la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire, be now be read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

* (16:40)

Mr. Simard: Hon­our­able Speaker, Bill 3 will amend The City of Winnipeg Charter and The Planning Act to reduce delays to local zoning amend­ments by esta­blish­ing higher and more reasonable thresholds for items being referred to the Munici­pal Board. Reducing delays to local zoning amend­ments will speed up dev­elop­ment approvals and make it easier for munici­palities to build new housing to address housing shortages.

      Bill 3 amends The City of Winnipeg Charter and The Planning Act by the following: increasing the number of local objectors required to trigger a public appeal of a zoning bylaw to the Munici­pal Board from 25 eligible persons to at least 300 eligible persons for a munici­pality or planning district with a census popu­la­tion of at least 6,000; increasing the number of local objectors required to trigger a public appeal of a zoning bylaw to the Munici­pal Board to the greater of 100 eligible persons or 5 per cent of the census popu­la­tion for a munici­pality or planning district with a census popu­la­tion of less than 6,000; the bill also repeals existing provisions which require the Munici­pal Board to hold a hearing when objections to a zoning bylaw is received from 50 per cent of the total number of owners of property within 100 metres of the affected property.

      There are two reasons why we have brought this bill forward. The first is to enlighten the load of the Munici­pal Board, who has overseen many zoning appeals that overshadow the other services they can offer munici­palities as they grow. Bill 3 removes the restrictions that the previous PC gov­ern­ment put on munici­palities in the first place when they brought in bill 37. The top-down approach jammed the Munici­pal Board and munici­palities who are trying to do their part to build up our province.

      The second reason is about autonomy, a munici­pality's autonomy to build homes for their residents to more economic op­por­tun­ities and to make their own decisions as an autonomous level of gov­ern­ment. We came to this under­standing after countless hours of listening to mayors, reeves and many locally elected officials.

      I am confident that the increase to the threshold for public appeals balances local decision-making autonomy with the value of public partici­pation in the land-use planning process. At the end of the day, munici­palities included in the planning of the Capital Region–oh, yes, and that we want to be a partner as we build Manitoba together. That's why these changes to The City of Winnipeg Charter and The Planning Act will deliver this–will deliver on this idea as we work in col­lab­o­ration with munici­palities to expedite approval timelines and ensure their freedom to land-use planning in their com­mu­nities.

      Thank you.

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed in the standard rotation, and no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Trevor King (Lakeside): Thanks for the op­por­tun­ity to ask some questions on behalf of Manitobans and, of course, munici­palities.

      My first question to the minister is, how does Bill 3 ensure that the voices of Winnipeg and munici­pal residents are adequately heard during zoning bylaw amend­ments, given the increased required number from objections of 25 to 300?

Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): There are a number of pro­cesses that currently exist within munici­pal processes where people can come in and speak on issues affect­ing their com­mu­nity. This raises the threshold in terms of having a public referral in order to slow–to speed up the process for the Munici­pal Board.

Mr. King: The next question to the minister: How will the changes to objection thresholds affect smaller munici­palities or planning districts with the popu­la­tion under 6,000?

Mr. Simard: Smaller munici­palities under 6,000 will either have 100 objectors or 5 per cent, whichever is greater.

Mr. King: Hon­our­able Speaker, to the minister: What measures are in place to ensure trans­par­ency in the decision-making process for zoning bylaws under the amended City of Winnipeg Charter and Planning Act?

Mr. Simard: This bill seeks to change a threshold that the 'transparety' that exists within The Munici­pal Act can–is still there and that the processes that are within these autonomous gov­ern­ments will continue to be in place to ensure the integrity of the process.

Mr. King: Just with the housing dev­elop­ment, I want to ask the minister, how does Bill 3 aim to balance the need for faster housing dev­elop­ment with com­mu­nity concerns?

Mr. Simard: Although residents are able to voice their concerns in front of councils as delegations and present on the issues that affect them, raising the threshold to a number that requires objectors in a higher volume should speed up the process.

Mr. King: I'm wondering if you could clarify how transitional provisions will be applied to zoning by­laws that were already under review before this bill was enacted?

Mr. Simard: Well, we are working with the Munici­pal Board to–and they are continuing to do their reviews and working on those items. And this is a question which basically underscores the value for this amend­ment to make sure that less frivolous appeals are made and progress can continue.

Mr. King: I'm just wondering, why has the minister eliminated the ability of neighbouring property owners within a hundred metres of a proposed dev­elop­ment to request a hearing?

Mr. Simard: The reason for this is to continue on the same answer path which I was sharing earlier, that I–a collective of people need to come forward to be able to voice their concerns in a manner in which is non-frivolous.

      And the more that we can provide op­por­tun­ities for those members who live in that hundred-metre area to be able to voice their concerns in open council, those will continue. But this is about the public referral.

Mr. King: Thank the minister for that answer.

      The City of Winnipeg council passed a reso­lu­tion calling for the number to be set at 150 objectors.

      Just wondering why the minister and the de­part­ment decided to go to 300 objectors to require a hearing instead of the 150 that the City of Winnipeg recom­mended at first.

Mr. Simard: As we worked through the con­sul­ta­tion process and as we dealt with the frustrations that exist in munici­palities and local gov­ern­ments on the speed in which the Munici­pal Board can work through all of these different appeals, the number that we settled on is the number that we settled on.

Mr. King: At one time, a City councillor expressed some concerns about the City allowing larger housing dev­elop­ments up to 48 feet high within a hundred metres of a transit way.

      Since there are transit ways through­out the city, most of the city will be opened up for these dev­elop­ments, even where it's mostly single-family dwellings, changing the character of many neighbourhoods. So Winnipeggers will find it difficult to object or get a hearing if they need to have 300 people sign an objection.

      So how is that respectful to local input? Does the NDP not want to listen to homeowners about new dev­elop­ments in their neighbourhood?

Mr. Simard: Nothing of the sort. We continue to listen to our citizens and as well as local gov­ern­ments are doing that. And when bylaws are set forth by local gov­ern­ance, there is many steps along the way in which local objections can be made.

      This is about the public referral and having a larger threshold to prevent frivolous appeals.

* (16:50)

Mr. King: I'm just wondering, does this minister maybe think that this legis­lation favours the developers over residents?

Mr. Simard: As stated earlier, this legis­lation favours the Munici­pal Board's ability to have a volume of appeals that have been credible and a volume of appeals that will continue respective of the legis­lation.

      These appeals can go forward, these referrals can go forward; we are just seeking a higher threshold.

The Speaker: No further questions?

Debate

The Speaker: Then the floor is open for debate.

Mr. Trevor King (Lakeside): Thanks for the op­por­tun­ity to get up and speak and put some words on record on behalf of not just all Manitobans, but munici­palities and councils through­out the province.

      I want to give a shout-out to the councils and mayors and reeves and the AMM for the great work that they do, and welcome them to Winnipeg the last couple days–having some great deliberations, great breakout sessions. And I had the op­por­tun­ity to get over there and chat with many of the councils that–I had the op­por­tun­ity to work with some of them over the years, and no, it's a great op­por­tun­ity.

      My colleague mentioned earlier today in question period how their door is always open and the lines are always open, but I heard the contrary from certain council members today, that those doors are locked and sealed and they can't get in, and the phone lines are cut, just like many of the munici­pal programs such as the Green Team and the Building Sus­tain­able Commu­nities.

      But having said that, I want to con­gratu­late the munici­palities on the great work that they do for their com­mu­nities.

      So I want to take some time here, seeing as how we don't have much, just to state some of the con­cerns–some of the good things about this legis­lation and some of the concerns with this legis­lation.

      So some of the good things, support–that would support this bill are just the stream­lining of the dev­elop­ment process; raising the threshold for objections, of course, reduces the number of Munici­pal Board hearings, speeding up approvals for zoning changes. We see that for sure. This is some­thing–this legis­lation is some­thing that we can support, because, you know, over a number of years, even the years that I was on council, this is some­thing the councils have been asking for, just to speed up some dev­elop­ment and maybe not–cut some of the red tape.

      Of course, again, though it reduces delays and red tape, developers often face delays due to small number of objections, triggering these hearings which can slow down projects for months or possibly even years. The bill helps ensure that only sig­ni­fi­cant op­posi­tion warrants further review. So, yes, it's definitely–cuts down on some red tape and some huge delays for sure.

      And it helps, of course, as the minister mentioned in his comments, that it supports some economic growth. Faster zoning approvals can attract more invest­­ment and dev­elop­ment in Winnipeg and across Manitoba, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      Another support for this bill would–that it lines–it aligns with larger cities also within Canada. So many larger cities have higher thresholds for triggering hearings, ensuring that only broad public concern leads for a further review. So it brings us in line with many other cities in Canada.

      Some concerns with the bill, Hon­our­able Speaker, and I mentioned many of them in my questions to the minister through­out the question period, was it reduces the public partici­pation for sure. Like, the jump from 25 to 300 objections makes it harder for residents to have their voices heard. And smaller com­mu­nity groups may struggle to reach 300 signatures, reducing their input in im­por­tant zoning decisions. So definitely a concern that I'll raise here today in the House, and possibly at com­mit­tee we'll hear it again from other residents and councils.

      Another concern would be it does favour–I believe it does slightly favour the developers over the residents. Some argue this change tilts the system in favour of developing–developers, making it easier for them to push through projects with less com­mu­nity oversight. So could lead to overdev­elop­ment, poorly planned projects in some areas.

      Another disadvantage for small and rural com­mu­nities is outside of Winnipeg, the require­ment for 100 objections or 5 per cent of the popu­la­tion makes it difficult for smaller towns to challenge zoning changes. So rural areas may feel powerless against large-scale dev­elop­ments.

      Another concern is that it reduces trans­par­ency and accountability. Public hearings allow com­mu­nities to see and question zoning decisions. This bill could mean fewer public discussions. And without as many hearings, more decisions could be made behind closed doors. Little bit of a concern there that I've been hearing.

      Could lead to some more legal challenges out there, too, to delay some. So if people can't voice their concerns through public hearings, they sometimes resort to legal action, which could lead to some costly court battles.

      So, the balance here: supporters say the bill will modernize the zoning process and prevent un­neces­sary delays, encourage growth. And the concerned side argues that it limits public partici­pation, weakens com­mu­nity influence and could lead to unbalanced dev­elop­ment.

      So, Hon­our­able Speaker, those are just some of the main pros and cons, I guess you could say, of this bill. And I'm happy that I got the opportunity to put them on the record.

      Thank you very much.

The Speaker: No further speakers?

      Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 3, The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): On House busi­ness, Hon­our­able Speaker.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able Gov­ern­ment House Leader, on House busi­ness.

MLA Fontaine: Is there leave for a 45-minute recess that would take us to quarter to 6 p.m., with a five-minute bell ringing?

The Speaker: Is there leave for the House to take a 45-minute recess with five-minute bell ringing to call us back? That would take–we'd come back in at 5:45. Is it agreed? [Agreed]

      The House is now recessed.

The House recessed at 4:58 p.m.

____________

The House resumed at 5:45 p.m.

The Speaker: Order, please. We are now back in session.

Bill 4–The Planning Amendment Act

The Speaker: And, as previously announced, we will now move on to second reading of Bill 4, The Planning Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): Hon­our­able Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Sport, Culture, Heritage and Tourism (MLA Kennedy), that Bill 4, The Planning Amend­ment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Simard: Our gov­ern­ment understands that the best way to build com­mu­nities across the province is to bring them in as willing partners committed to working together towards a united vision. This is a significantly different approach from the previous PC  gov­ern­ment's heavy‑handed imple­men­ta­tion to the planning of the Capital Region.

      The PCs failed munici­palities when they took away their decision-making power over their own land use, ignored their concerns with the planning process and damaged relationships with rural Manitobans. Com­mu­nities outside of Winnipeg, if they want it, should be preserved, as they deserve the freedom to maintain who they are: an in­de­pen­dent Manitoba munici­pality.

      Our gov­ern­ment understands this and no one should be forced into amalgamation. That's why we did the work. We sat down with mayors, reeves and local leaders and had a frank con­ver­sa­tion about the ex­per­ience they had to endure with the Capital Planning Region process under the PCs.

      Just by listening, we're already hearing what needs they want us to address: being tough on crime; in­creasing affordable housing, and protecting our water­ways. But, most im­por­tantly, they want their prov­incial repre­sen­tatives to respect the autonomy of munici­palities and their freedom to make decisions for them­selves and their com­mu­nities.

      This bill does just that. It will reset the relation­ship with Manitoba municipalities in the Capital Region. Voluntary member­ship means that munici­palities will have a choice to sit at the table.

      Bill 4 will amend The Planning Act to deliver on our gov­ern­ment's commit­ment to give current member munici­palities of the Capital Planning Region the freedom to choose whether to continue to be part of the planning region.

      Key features of the bill include enabling current member municipalities of the Capital Planning Region to voluntary withdraw–voluntarily withdraw–from the region by passing and seconding–and sending a council reso­lu­tion to the minister. Munici­palities can initiate the steps to withdraw once the bill becomes law by royal assent and then up until the next general munici­pal election in October 2026 when it's held.

      The bill also provides future opportunities for a council to withdraw from member­ship in the Capital Planning Region at the time of the 10-year review of the plan. Bill 4 also enables munici­pal councils that wish to become a new member of the Capital Planning Region to do so at any time by holding a public hearing, passing a council reso­lu­tion and sending it to the minister.

      Finally, Bill 4 extends the deadline by which the Capital Planning Region board must adopt a regional plan bylaw to January 1, 2027, or dates later pre­scribed by the minister by regula­tion.

      A renewed Capital Planning Region board will reset and reshape the relationship going forward with the freedom and choice being its guiding principles. By working together, Capital Region munici­palities, Indigenous partners and the Province can clearly focus on key shared priorities such as trans­por­tation im­prove­ments, water and waste water invest­ments, more affordable housing and safeguarding the health of our waterways for future and current generations.

      Regional planning must be flexible and adaptable to regional as well as local needs. It must address broader shared priorities through co‑ordination and cost sharing where possible.

      Thank you.

* (17:50)

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed in the standard rotation, and no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Trevor King (Lakeside): It–once again, great to get up and ask some questions for munici­palities.

      Question to–the first one to the minister is: How does the bill ensure that munici­palities have sufficient flexibility to join or withdraw from the Capital Region while maintaining regional col­lab­o­ration?

Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): As stated in my opening remarks, munici­palities can join at any time. That seems pretty flexible to me. Also, prior to the date of January 1, 2027.

      So when you think of some­thing like that, it allows munici­palities to make a decision and then act on it. But to make a plan work, you need to work at it, and that's why regions that opt in are committing a 10–to a 10-year process to continue to work this–on this plan with their partners.

Mr. King: In regards to public hearings, can the minis­ter tell me what steps are being taken to ensure that public hearings are accessible and inclusive for all com­mu­nity members when munici­palities decide on their membership in the Capital Region–in the Capital Planning Region–sorry.

Mr. Simard: Excellent question. We're doing it right now in this House. We have debate; we're being–passing it to com­mit­tee. People will be able to come and speak at the public hearing.

      But in addition to that, they will have the op­por­tun­ity to attend munici­pal councils' meetings and ask questions about the benefit of being part of the planning region, or voice their concerns against it.

      So I think that's a win-win for demo­cracy, when you can put something in front of people and say, what do you really think about this? And that's what they did when they elected officials, and then that's what we're doing by giving the power to decide what they want.

Mr. King: Just in regards to regional planning, can the minister tell me how will the bill improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the regional planning processes, parti­cularly in terms of infra­structure and land-use dev­elop­ment?

Mr. Simard: People achieve great things when they work together and when you have a willing partner ready to sit down with you and be a part of some­thing. And that's what the previous iteration of the Capital Planning Region did not have. People were forced to partici­pate, against their wishes possibly. I don't think that set the con­di­tions for any winning planning or any working together, when you're forced to come to the table.

      I think by allowing people to make that choice to say, we are in it; we are in it with our partners; that's how you succeed big things–with big things.

Mr. King: I've been hearing from some munici­palitiesjust some concerns on the contiguous munici­palities.

      What criteria are used to deter­mine which munici­palities are included in a planning region, and how does this impact regional cohesion?

Mr. Simard: Excellent question. And we understand that when the entire region is included and they all work together and everyone is holding hands through the process, that's great.

      But we also understand that each com­mu­nity under­stands their own need, and when–we understand regional planning to some degree already exists; we're just strengthening that. And when we have regions that are willing partners that are bordering the Capital Region to do big things together and to have a shared benefit, I always think that's a winning con­di­tion, and that's the most im­por­tant thing.

      And the attraction of working together to accomplish big economic dev­elop­ment, I think, is always a great thing to see.

Mr. King: In regards to the review process, how frequently will regional planning bylaws be reviewed, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure they remain relevant to evolving com­mu­nity needs?

      Now, he mentioned earlier in an answer that if you opt in, you're in for 10 years. Does that correlate with the review–the bylaw review process?

Mr. Simard: Another great question.

      And what we are–what this is about is about a commit­ment to our regional plan that takes time to develop and actualize. And we're talking about major projects in housing, sewer, transit, road construction, and you just can't do that over one year.

      If we just judged the opposition's performance over 18 months, I don't think it would be very good. So some things take time and we'll just continue to work on realizing a good future for the Capital Region.

Mr. King: Now in regards to the financial obligations here, are there provisions in the bill to address financial obligations for munici­palities that choose to withdraw from the Capital Planning Region?

Mr. Simard: What we're really, really excited about is the financial benefit of willing partners working together to make big things happen. And being able to actualize those things with the strength of–in numbers and the financial benefit that occurs when people work together and put their boots on and their work gloves on to be able to get great things done is really im­por­tant.

      Of course, there always has to be a commit­ment from each munici­pal body to be able to say, we're in this and we're going to be working together to make sure things happen. And those are always worked out with willing partners.

Mr. King: I'm not sure, maybe I didn't make my question clear enough, but there is certain financial obligations to these munici­palities in the metro region that they have to pay as an annual fee to be part of the planning region.

      Now, my question is: What are the financial obligations to those munici­palities now, whether they opt in or opt out?

Mr. Simard: I just redirect the critic to the financial benefit of working together to actualize large projects for the region–large and small.

      And when we work together to be able to actualize a plan that makes sense for everyone and to maximize the benefit of federal dollars or prov­incial dollars, it's always a good thing. And we believe that in the long run, groups that work together to make big projects, as well as small projects real, the financial benefit is extremely high.

Mr. King: Hon­our­able Speaker, I'm going to ask the question one more time and maybe I'll be a little more clear.

      The munici­palities that are involved in the Capital Region at this time have to pay an annual fee per capita to belong to the Capital Planning Region.

      I'm wondering what those financial obligations are now moving forward if the munici­pality opts in or opts out of the region.

      Thank you.

Mr. Simard: We'll continue to–and I'll continue to reiterate my response, and that's what this is all about, is debating this issue, going to com­mit­tee and provi­ding the clarity that people want. They–people want clarity to see whether they're in or they're out, and they were forced to do it prior.

      They are being asked to participate. The details for each individual munici­pality will be very clear before making that decision, and they'll be able to weigh that decision based on the realities that cur­rently exist within their com­mu­nity.

Mr. King: I'll just move on to another question, Hon­our­able Speaker, because I've got a number of them here. Hopefully by com­mit­tee, maybe we can get the answer to that one.

      I was just wondering, Hon­our­able Speaker, who the NDP consulted with before they made this decision to make the metro region optional for the members–member munici­palities.

Mr. Simard: I would ask the member to ask the ques­tion again. I didn't catch the very first part.

Mr. King: Hon­our­able Speaker, my question was: Who did the minister consult with before he made this decision to make the metro regional optional for the member munici­palities?

Mr. Simard: Every single munici­pality that was involved in the Capital Planning Region. We are open door. We heard loud and clear their concerns, and we are working toward alleviating them.

Mr. King: Hon­our­able Speaker, my next question to the minister: Does this mean the end of the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region?

      Munici­palities and councils that change every few years decide to opt out or opt back in. Will that give any stability for busi­ness, homeowners and developers on the rules and regula­tions within the munici­palities?

* (18:00)

Mr. Simard: Absolutely not the end of the Winnipeg Metro Region. What we are doing right here is we're resetting the table and we're coming with a fresh ap­proach that will ensure success of the region rather than forcing it to the table with no willing partners or some unwilling partners. You can't succeed that way. And we'll continue to respect individual munici­palities, autonomous munici­palities, to set the agendas for their com­mu­nities rather than having them set for them.

Mr. King: I'd like to ask the minister: What will be the drinking water regula­tions that the minister is still requiring munici­palities to comply with?

Mr. Simard: Well, we absolutely would have high drinking standards of water. That is not what we're discussing here. What we're discussing is a partici­pation in a planning region and a planning region with the high standards that Manitobans inspect and deserve.

Mr. King: Could the minister tell me, Hon­our­able Speaker, what some of the things are that munici­pal regions can accomplish by working together on infrastructure, economic dev­elop­ment, roads, waste water and water manage­ment?

Mr. Simard: I can think of no better example than the facility of CentrePort, which was a joint venture between the RM of Rosser and the City of Winnipeg, as an example of what regional partners can do. And this was a success because of the willing part­ner­ship between the City and that parti­cular munici­pality as well as the Province that guided them through that process.

      There are op­por­tun­ities across the region, whether it's building high- and low-density buildings, whether it's building roads, whether it's increasing water capacity, whether it's increasing waste water treatment, whether it's contributing to a collective approach to be able to maximize the economic benefit in whichever op­por­tun­ities arise.

Mr. King: Hon­our­able Speaker, I've been hearing from some munici­palities involved in the Capital Region that they feel a little bit with the deadline of being right before an election, a munici­pal election, that they feel kind of it is a challenge whether they should run again, and they're worried about some of the people that will be running because they won't.

      So I'm just wondering if–have you given more thought to the deadline on the opt-in or opt-out, as it certainly–they find it a challenging deadline as to whether they want to decide to run for their com­mu­nity again.

Mr. Simard: I can ap­pre­ciate the question, but what we want to provide to each individual munici­pality is the clarity to make a decision for that current council at this current time to make a decision for their com­mu­nity. They will be able to make that decision with clear eyes and with the intent to com­muni­cate that to whichever voter they want to entice, whether it's one that is for or against the partici­pation in the CPR.

Mr. King: Just a question for the minister: Will he put more money into water manage­ment plans, water pipelines, reservoirs, flood manage­ment and mitigation infra­structure and regional highways to encourage regional dev­elop­ment projects through­out the pro­vince and the Capital Region?

Mr. Simard: Absolutely. We're already doing it. We're doing it across the province. We're doing it across the Capital Region. Just this week, we announced a number of waste water and water projects through the Manitoba Water Services Board, which will continue to do its great work. We fund projects whether they're part of the Capital Region or not. We do it for Brandon, we do it for Swan River and we do it for Melita.

      So that will be con­sistent, that will be steadfast and will continue.

The Speaker: No further questions?

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

Mr. Trevor King (Lakeside): Once again, I'm happy to stand here and put some words on the record for all Manitobans and, again, our hard-working munici­pal councils and the councils in the Capital Region, which I actually have a number of in my own con­stit­uency of Lakeside.

      So I have been definitely talking to a number of these munici­pal officials that have had concerns over this bill and over, of course, the–what caused it all was the Plan20‑50, which was the Capital Region plan.

      So again, I did some research and did some questioning, did some talking with some of those people and came up with some benefits of this bill and I–and some concerns with this bill. So one of the–we'll start with the benefits, of course; the pros and cons here and what we want to see for our municipalities.

      Number one is local autonomy and this is certainly some­thing that gives the munici­palities–they can choose whether to partici­pate in the Capital Region rather than being forced into it. I don't think there's anybody more familiar with the term, forced amalgamation, than the former NDP gov­ern­ment.

      So forced amalgamation is something that the minister used; the term here in his opening remarks. It's certainly not some­thing that we want to see ever again for our munici­palities because that's certainly a term that scares them, especially when the NDP say it. So it gives local gov­ern­ments more control over their own dev­elop­ment priorities.

      Number two on this bill–benefit of it is it, again, reduces bureaucracy and red tape. Munici­palities that don't see value in regional planning won't have to attend meetings or comply with regional policies, and it saves time and resources by eliminating un­neces­sary admin­is­tra­tive burdens. So certainly, back in the red tape de­part­ment, it reduces some of that.

      The bill encourages voluntary col­lab­o­ration. Munici­palities can still partner with neighbouring com­mu­nities when it makes sense for them. A perfect example right now: my area of Lakeside is–the town of Stonewall and the RM of Woodlands is currently working on a regional reverse osmosis water plant to serve both of the com­mu­nities and expand on their water systems. So there's two–one munici­pality is in the Capital Region and one isn't. So we're–you know, regardless of what goes forward here with the Capital Region planning, we hope that all the neighbouring munici­palities can continue to work together like that.

      The terms of regional co‑operation is based on mutual benefit rather than legal require­ments, so it's not two munici­palities being told that they have to work together, they just voluntarily do it.

      Another one is it provides more flexibility for the smaller munici­palities. Rural or smaller munici­palities may not have the same urban dev­elop­ment needs as, say, the city of Winnipeg. It allows them to focus on local concerns, such as agri­cul­ture, small-scale industry and com­mu­nity services.

      This bill, it certainly could lead to some faster decision making in our munici­palities. And that's one thing I enjoyed about munici­pal gov­ern­ment compared to where I am now; it was much faster decision making and much more productive.

      So those are some of the benefits of this bill. Now, I'm going to talk about some of the concerns in the time that I have remaining here. So the–my concerns with this–and these are all reasons for the Capital Region planning.

      So now, with this bill, it'll weaken the regional planning and the co‑ordination. The Capital Planning Region was created to ensure munici­palities work together on land use, infra­structure and growth. Munici­palities withdraw, it could lead to an uncoordinated urban expansion and inefficient land use.

      Another one would be infra­structure and cost-sharing issues. So regional planning helps share the costs of major infra­structure projects, roads, public transit, et cetera. Some munici­palities leave: costs will increase for the ones that remain. Rural munici­palities might struggle to fund major projects on their own, and that's what we see with a lot of these smaller munici­palities; they just don't have the tax base to fund these projects on their own, so they rely on partnering with other munici­palities.

      Another one would be potential for uncontrolled dev­elop­ment and sprawl. Now what that means is, without regional oversight, munici­palities might ap­prove dev­elop­ments that don't align with their broader planning goals. This could lead to urban sprawl, environ­mental concerns and inefficient use of resources.

* (18:10)

      Another one is uncertainty for busi­ness and investors. Regional planning provides stability for busi­nesses and developers. That was another huge advantage of the metropolitan region, was the fact that developers have the infra­structure already there or can connect to it to make things work. So if munici­palities enter, leave the Capital Region, it will–at will, it could create uncertainty about zoning, infra­structure and long-term invest­ment.

      Now, Hon­our­able Speaker, one of the final con­cerns I'm going to talk about here, of course, is the environ­ment and climate concerns with this bill. Regional planning helps manage those climate risks, such as flood mitigation, green space, con­ser­va­tion and emission reductions. So if munici­palities withdraw, environ­mental pro­tec­tions could become weaker in many areas.

      So there you have it. I'm not going to go on too much longer. I don't have much time anyway, but just a summary of those two things. Bill 4 is–really is a trade-off between local control and regional co-operation, and while it gives munici­palities more choice, it also raises concerns about fragmented planning and higher costs for remaining members.

      So, yes, we hope that we can still move forward at some point with the metropolitan plan, and we certainly support munici­palities having their own autonomy and making their own decisions. There's–nobody knows their own com­mu­nities better than the ones that live there and their own elected officials.

      So thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker. We'll be sup­porting this bill, and I ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to get up and put some words on the record.

      Thank you.

The Speaker: Any further speakers?

      Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Speaker: Question before the House is second reading of Bill 4, The Planning Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 21–The Protecting Youth in Sports Act

The Speaker: As previously announced, we will now move on to Bill 21, The Protecting Youth in Sports Act.

Hon. Nellie Kennedy (Minister of Sport, Culture, Heritage and Tourism): I move–sorry.

      I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (MLA Sala), that Bill 21, The Protecting Youth in Sports Act; Loi sur la pro­tec­tion des jeunes sportifs, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

MLA Kennedy: Hon­our­able Speaker, I'm pleased to speak in the House today about Bill 21, The Protecting Youth in Sports Act. We all know how im­por­tant it is to keep kids safe, and our gov­ern­ment is committed to supporting a culture of safety for youth across Manitoba's amateur sport system.

      This bill supports a safer sport environ­ment for young athletes by requiring sports organi­zations to adopt safe sport policies and training, and all coaches will need to complete courses on how to create a safe and positive environ­ment for young athletes.

      Bill 21 is the result of sig­ni­fi­cant col­lab­o­ration with Sport Manitoba as a key leader for safe sport in our province. Sport Manitoba will be instrumental in leading a safe sport environ­ment for the benefit of all young athletes, coaches, parents and other parti­ci­pants.

      This framework is being built to address and ultimately prevent maltreatment in sport. Our gov­ern­ment is committed to supporting a safe and equitable support–sport system, free from racism, where every child knows they have the right to play.

      This bill also supports a broader approach across gov­ern­ment to increase safety for kids in school and in their com­mu­nities.

      With this, I ask my colleagues on all sides of the House to support this bill to strengthen the safety of youth in sport.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed in the standard rotation. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is now open for questions.

      Seeing no questions, is the House ready for–[interjection] Oh, I'm sorry.

MLA Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): How is Bill 21 similar or dissimilar to Bill 19, The Public Schools Amend­ment Act, intro­duced this session?

Hon. Nellie Kennedy (Minister of Sport, Culture, Heritage and Tourism): I thank the member for the question.

      This bill spe­cific­ally, Bill 21, is discussing amateur sport for youth, and this would be a bill that is outside of the school system. So schools have their own sports that occur there; this parti­cular bill would be about sports that occur outside of school time.

      Thank you.

MLA Lagassé: Will this require­ment be only for coaches or does it relate to those involved such as parents who drive kids and athletes from different events? What about chaperones that go on different trips with the kids?

MLA Kennedy: So with regard to this bill, this is going to apply to parents, coaches, anyone who is in contact with the youth. It's aimed at keeping youth safe in sport, and so any type of maltreatment can be reported, and that there's going to be behavioural regula­tions that are set out.

      That would mean that parents, coaches, anyone who's involved within the sporting system, would need to be making sure that they are following these codes of conduct.

      Thank you.

MLA Lagassé: Can the minister explain how, after a complaint is made, how much time is given to review it, and who reviews the complaint?

MLA Kennedy: So with regards to who reviews the complaint, there will be a third-party adjudicator who will be reviewing all complaints that are made. So it will be a third party; it will not be a sporting organi­zation; it will not be Sport Manitoba.

      And I'll have to double-check–I don't know that I have the infor­ma­tion right in front of me, so I can actually get back to the member about the timeline because I don't want to put any misinformation on the record. But it will be a third-party adjudicator that does look at the complaints that come through.

      Thank you.

MLA Lagassé: Okay, with complaints, are police agencies brought in imme­diately to invest serious allegations?

MLA Kennedy: So within this legis­lation, the duty to report, there's nothing in this act that affects an obligation or duty to report behaviour that is pro­hibited under the Criminal Code. So if some­thing comes through, a third party–like, a third-party adjudicator can look into the allegation of maltreatment.

      But that doesn't negate someone actually reporting to police as well. So, of course, that would be en­couraged if it's a very serious incident that, of course, you know, people, whether it be a coach or a parent or otherwise, are encouraged to report to police if a criminal action has taken place.

MLA Lagassé: Can the minister explain if–let's say someone's falsely accused of some­thing. Is there any kind of appeal process, and is that in­de­pen­dent and separate from the disciplinary board or the third party that is assigned to in­vesti­gate these things?

MLA Kennedy: So I'm really sorry. That just totally went–can I ask the member to repeat that? I was focused on one part and I didn't catch the whole thing.

* (18:20)

MLA Lagassé: Yes, I was asking the minister–let's say that there's an allegation that's put out there. Is there any kind of appeal mechanism or process that is in­de­pen­dent or separate of this disciplinary board or third-party investigator?

MLA Kennedy: So this process hasn't actually been deter­mined as of yet. So this is the first step, is putting this legis­lation forward that would protect youth in sport, and a lot of the next steps are things that are going to be deter­mined, including this.

MLA Lagassé: So for my last question, given that Sport Manitoba receives prov­incial funding, why doesn't those affiliated with Sport Manitoba adhere to the gov­ern­ment code of conduct and respectful work policy?

MLA Kennedy: So I don't believe that that's actually the case. Of course, they would be expected to follow code of conduct. There is respectful coaching; there are standards that are there. This is spe­cific­ally to do with maltreatment towards athletes, and this could occur whether it be from a parent, another teammate, it could be from a coach.

      These are things that the third-party adjudicator will look into, and certainly there are policies in place to ensure that people are following a parti­cular code of conduct.

MLA Lagassé: No further questions. I'll just get into my speech.

Debate

The Speaker: If there's no further questions, the floor is now open for debate.

MLA Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): Hon­our­able Speaker, we can all agree sport plays a vital role in the dev­elop­ment and well-being of individuals and com­mu­nities. It's essential that all parti­ci­pants, whether athletes, coaches or parents or volunteers, can engage in sport in a safe and respectful and inclusive environ­ment. To that end, the Red Deer Declaration, signed in May 2019 by all federal and prov­incial territorial ministers responsible for sport, marked a national commitment to eliminate abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport.

      This commitment has been reinforced through the implementation of an updated universal code of conduct now in place across Canada. In May 2022, the former Progressive Conservative gov­ern­ment took further steps to support the vision by investing a quarter of a million in Pathway to Safer Sport program. This initiative was designed to build awareness, provide pre­ven­tion and strategies and resources, and expand access to maltreatment support services for children and youth as well as for coaches, parents and volun­teers who support them.

      Col­lab­o­ration with Sport Manitoba has strengthened the quali­fi­ca­tions of coaches and educators, ensuring a safe and more sup­port­ive environ­ment for all those who partici­pate in sport. These efforts reflect and continued commit­ment to fostering safety, equity and integrity in sport across our province and our country.

      And with these few words on the record, I look forward to this bill moving forward to com­mit­tee.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

The Speaker: If there's no one further in debate, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Speaker: So the question before the House is second reading of Bill 21, The Protecting Youth in Sports Act.

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

      The motion is carried.

Bill 15–The Real Estate Services Amendment Act

The Speaker: We will now move on to Bill 15, the second reading of the Bill 15, The Real Estate Services Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by–[interjection] Thank you.

      I move, seconded by the Minister of Edu­ca­tion, that Bill 15, The Real Estate Services Amend­ment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services immobiliers, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

MLA Sala: Thank you. Thank you so much.

      Well, Hon­our­able Speaker, I'm so delighted to have this op­por­tun­ity to speak to this im­por­tant bill, Bill 15, The Real Estate Services Amend­ment Act.

      This act governs the regula­tion of the real estate brokerage and property manage­ment industries in Manitoba and is administered by the Manitoba Securities Com­mis­sion, which is part of the Manitoba Financial Services Agency.

      The regula­tory framework for these industries was updated when The Real Estate Services Act replaced the former real estate brokers act on January 1, 2022, under the previous gov­ern­ment. Since coming into effect, however, sig­ni­fi­cant deficiencies in that legis­lation have been identified. Let me explain.

      As it stands, the Manitoba Securities Com­mis­sion is seriously impaired in its ability to perform its public interest function. The current legis­lation drafted by the previous gov­ern­ment does not give the Securities Com­mis­sion the power to freeze bank accounts main­tained by a person or a company that is required to be registered under the act but have not registered.

      Let me put it simply. If you're a bad actor in the real estate sector, and therefore you obviously haven't registered your busi­ness under the act with the Securities Com­mis­sion, the gov­ern­ment currently has no power to stop you from behaving badly. This makes no sense and leaves the real estate sector open to fraud and abuse.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, our gov­ern­ment is going to fix the PCs' seriously flawed legis­lation. We're going to give the Securities Com­mis­sion the power to freeze the bank accounts of unregistered actors, actors who by law should be registered, so we can protect Manitobans. It's as simple as that.

      We can't have a financial sector where individuals can flout the law without any real con­se­quence. We can't have a system that encourages bad actors. Manitobans deserve a gov­ern­ment that protects their interests from negligence and creates a system grounded in trans­par­ency and fairness.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I also need to bring your attention, and through you to all Manitobans, to another problem with the PCs' legis­lation that we are going to fix. The current legis­lation does not contain timing parameters indicating how long the com­mis­sion has before commencing prosecution under the act. By not setting a specific time frame for the com­mis­sion to act, the PCs' legis­lation created a regula­tory environ­ment where delays and inaction are not only possible, but likely. Our gov­ern­ment, however, believes all people and busi­nesses should be treated equally under the law, and therefore our amend­ments will impose a two‑year limitation period on prosecutions.

      For the benefit of all members, I should high­light that the two‑year limitation was actually previously in place, but either through an act of omission or negligence, or perhaps worse, it was excluded by the previous gov­ern­ment when they made their legis­lative reforms. Whatever happened, Hon­our­able Speaker, when the PCs were in power, our gov­ern­ment is going to fix that issue and those issues.

      So, in conclusion, I'd like to take the op­por­tun­ity to thank the Manitoba Real Estate Association for their col­lab­o­ration as we bring forward this bill. As I've often stated, we are a listening gov­ern­ment. It's by working with partners like the MREA that we can bring forward strong legis­lation like this bill, legis­lation that protects consumers and treats everyone fairly.

      So, Hon­our­able Speaker, with that, I'm pleased to present this bill for the House's con­sid­era­tion.

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed in the standard rotation. No question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): So this bill seems to be addressing a relatively minor problem, dealing with a few bad actors.

      So I'm curious of how often that this has been a problem within the province of Manitoba, or is this a bigger problem in other provinces with higher popu­la­tion and higher housing?

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister of Finance): Yes, this was identified, again, by our team within the MFSA as a serious concern, as a gap. And, again, the MREA–the real estate association–also agrees that this is a concern, that we have these holes in the current legislation.

* (18:30)

      So this is some­thing we want to make sure we respond to. We do not want to have legis­lation that can permit crime or fraud to be perpetrated. And as a gov­ern­ment, we want to make sure we close loopholes.

      That's what this bill does, is it ensures that we're protecting Manitobans and that we're going to ensure that when Manitobans engage in seeking out real estate services that they know that they're going to be dealing with good actors who are registered and that we have all the require­ments in place to make sure that in those instances where somebody is a bad actor, that we're going to pursue that and ensure that that action is shut down.

Mrs. Stone: Why does this minister feel that this bill is a priority for him to bring forward when there are so many other priorities and challenges facing Manitobans including housing shortages and unaffordable housing? So why this bill right now as opposed to addressing real challenges that impact many, many Manitobans in housing shortages and housing afford­ability?

MLA Sala: Well, I ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to speak to the unbelievable work being done by our minister of housing and addictions who's bringing on new social and affordable housing online. This year, we announced over 600 new units of social and afford­able housing that we committed to with funding. That builds on commit­ments from last year.

      So our gov­ern­ment can, you know, walk and chew gum at the same time. We can respond to the bigger concerns that Manitobans are facing, whether it's a shortage of housing or a health‑care system that was decimated by Conservatives. We can do that while we move forward in closing loopholes that are putting Manitobans at risk.

Mrs. Stone: Yes, so the powers given to the Manitoba Securities Com­mis­sion within this bill are not universally granted by similar legis­lation in other provinces. So if the minister could please explain which provinces they looked at when drafting this bill.

MLA Sala: Yes, I ap­pre­ciate the question. So, again, we're working with partners like the Manitoba Real Estate Association and, of course, the good folks working within the Manitoba Financial Services Agency who identified this as a gap that was left to us by the previous gov­ern­ment–a gap that, again, could en­courage crime, fraud and abuse of a system that's there to protect Manitobans.

      So this will simply ensure, again, that we have the ability to go after bad actors and make sure we shut down those kinds of activities–some­thing that, again, the former gov­ern­ment left an open door to with their failure to ensure that the legis­lation protected Manitobans. We're doing that work of ensuring Manitobans know when they're accessing real estate services that they're going to be able to access real estate services with those who are qualified and that in those instances where they aren't, that we have an agency that can do the work it needs to do to shut that down.

Mrs. Stone: Have these bad actors been a sig­ni­fi­cant problem in Manitoba, and can the minister please provide a couple examples as to where this has taken place?

MLA Sala: Yes, this was of sufficient concern that this was identified as a major hole in the legis­lation–again, a hole that was left to us by the previous gov­ern­ment. Just, you know, not too dissimilar from the $2-billion hole they left us on a deficit side, this is one of many holes that they've left us to have to fill in.

      But that's why we're here. We're here because Manitobans know that this team led, by our Premier (Mr. Kinew), is fixing the things that the former gov­ern­ment left us to fix and that there's no shortage of work to do. This is one of many things that we've needed to respond to.

      And, again, we're doing the work of closing holes that the former gov­ern­ment left in this im­por­tant legis­lation to protect Manitobans from real estate fraud.

Mrs. Stone: It was actually the NDP under Greg Selinger that intro­duced and passed bill 70, The Real Estate Services Act, in 2015, the very same act that this minister now seeks to amend. What other flawed NDP bills will this minister seek to amend in the future?

MLA Sala: Yes, so The Real Estate Services Act replaced the former Real Estate Brokers Act on January 1, 2022. So last I checked, it was the members opposite who were in gov­ern­ment during that time.

      So, again, we're doing the work of cleaning up the mess that the former gov­ern­ment left, not just here but, of course, when it comes to health care, housing, child care, affordability–across the board. We're getting the work done. They left a big hole and a lot of problems for us to solve, but Manitobans can count on us to get the job done.

The Speaker: No further questions?

Debate

The Speaker: Floor is now open for debate.

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to put a few words on the record on Bill 15, The Real Estate Services Amend­ment Act.

      Before going into the specific contents of the bill, I would like to first recog­nize the real estate pro­fes­sionals in our province who contribute to our economy, support buyers and sellers in our market with their market knowledge and that who provide other expertise and services to their clients.

      As we know, real estate pro­fes­sionals are regulated in Manitoba through the Manitoba Securities Com­mis­sion, which does protect investors from scams and frauds that, on occasion, do happen.

      The changes to this bill seem to be pre­domi­nantly focused on the bad actors, as this bill will allow the Securities Commission to freeze the assets of persons who are required to be registered under The Real Estate Brokers Act, but who are not, and who have contravened or about to contravene the act. So this bill  appears to close some potential loopholes that do–that may allow unregistered persons to carry on activities that would have otherwise led to a freezings of assets of a registered party.

      It is–from our side of the House, it is the utmost importance to protect the public interest and current or future investors in this province.

      There have been many changes to The Real Estate Services Act in Manitoba over the past number of years. It was first intro­duced by Ron Lemieux in 2014 and then passed in 2015. Further changes were then made in 2022 by the former PC gov­ern­ment, who intro­­duced a new regula­tory framework for Manitoba's real estate industry that provided consumers with en­hanced pro­tec­tions while also modernizing and stream­lining busi­ness for industry pro­fes­sionals.

      The legis­lation in 2022 did close further loop­holes to enhance public pro­tec­tion, because the 2014 NDP bill that was brought forward by Ron Lemieux was deeply flawed, and the PC gov­ern­ment fixed that during that time. So to enhance public pro­tec­tion, some of those loopholes that were closed included fines for misconduct, requiring written service agree­ments between brokerages and home buyers or sellers prior to provi­ding those services. This ensured all parties were fully informed on what service would be provided and/or carried out. The act also enhanced the ability to take action against persons carrying out unregistered activities.

      This last point is where the piece of legis­lation brought forward by the minister today is expanded on with the intent to close another loophole on persons engaging in unregistered activities by allowing the Securities Com­mis­sion to freeze those assets.

      Now it is im­por­tant, Hon­our­able Speaker, to point out that while this bill closes an apparent loophole, it does nothing to address the housing challenges that Manitobans are facing today, nor will it create growth or create new jobs. Manitobans are facing a worsening housing and affordability crisis on top of cost-of-living challenges and the highest foodflation in the province. This bill does nothing to address housing affordability or access to affordable housing.

      In fact, economists are predicting an economic recession in Canada is inevitable, and Manitobans are fearful they will not be able to even pay their mortgages and some are fearful they will lose their house altogether. This gov­ern­ment has clearly shown over their 18 months that they do not prioritize afford­ability, as was evident with the NDP's most recent budget.

      Now, I do want to be clear, Hon­our­able Speaker, that pro­tec­tion of the public in these regulated industries is absolutely critical; I've made that point earlier in my comments. The point that I'm trying to make right now is that the NDP has yet to bring forward any meaningful legis­lation to support home­owners and address Manitoba's housing shortage and affordable housing challenges.

      So while the NDP is closing a loophole, it only addresses a very small number of bad actors, and this bill does nothing to support the majority of Manitobans who are struggling to pay their mortgages or even purchase a home. This bill does nothing to encourage housing dev­elop­ment, it does nothing to create new jobs in the sector or make it easier for families to find homes that they can afford. At a time when Manitobans do need real action on housing and affordability, this NDP is focused on reworking legis­lation instead of tackling the root causes of the housing crisis.

      Manitobans need real policies right now that will actually expand housing stock and make home owner­ship more affordable. However, this NDP gov­ern­ment has shown that they do not prioritize affordability, and they've shown that with their lack of focus.

      To reiterate, Manitobans are in a cost-of-living crisis, faced with the highest foodflation in the country and are bracing for a possible economic storm.

* (18:40)

      We've also seen this minister increase property taxes on Manitobans to double-digit numbers across the province in every school division in the city of Winnipeg, where Mayor Gillingham has even said that these historic increase–that these are historic increases.

      I've presented these hard facts in the Legislature through question period, and the reality is, is the NDP is increasing edu­ca­tion property taxes on homeowners, cottage owners and com­mercial properties.

      So as we stand here to debate Bill 15 today, Manitobans are currently faced with higher taxes on their homes and properties; Manitobans are faced with an affordability crisis and cost-of-living crisis; and they're concerned they will not be able to afford their mortgages.

      So while the NDP may bring forward legis­lation to close loopholes that address a small number of bad actors, the reality is, is Manitobans are concerned about their ability to pay for their homes and this NDP's continued tax grab on their properties.

      Manitobans need real action on housing and afford­ability, and this minister appears to be distracted. We need policies that expand our housing stock and make home owner­ship more affordable.

      So with those brief comments, Hon­our­able Speaker, thank you for giving me the op­por­tun­ity to put a few words on the record as it relates to Bill 15.

      Thank you.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 15, The Real Estate Services Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 28–The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act

The Speaker: We will now move on to second reading of Bill 28, The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro): I move, seconded by the Minister for Munici­pal and Northern Relations, that Bill 28, The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro-Manitoba, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

MLA Sala: Any day that I get to stand up in this House and talk about Manitoba Hydro is a good day.

      I'm very pleased to have a chance to talk about Bill 28, The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment Act. This is a key piece of legis­lation that helps to implement our Affordable Energy Plan, which I was very honoured to co-develop along with Minister of Edu­ca­tion when she was in her previous role, and that we released late last year.

      For decades, Manitoba's abundance of clean, afford­able energy has given our province a unique advantage. Our clean baseload power has driven our economy and helped build our province. It is our natural advantage.

      However, as we high­lighted in our Affordable Energy Plan, one of the things holding our province back is Hydro's current require­ment to energize requests on a first-come, first-served basis, with no con­sid­era­tion of the potential benefits to Manitobans, whether in terms of job creation or economic diversification or prov­incial revenue gen­era­tion.

      Late last year, we committed to ending this first-come, first-served approach to allocating new energy. As I've toured this province and spoken with busi­ness leaders and Manitobans, I've heard universally that this is the right approach.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, the legis­lation before this House follows through on our commit­ments in the Affordable Energy Plan to end the first-come, first-served approach to allocating industrial loads in Manitoba. The regula­tion-making author­ity in this bill enables flexibility and the timely allocation of energy in alignment with the Province's economic, environ­mental and social priorities.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, Manitoba Hydro continues to see a large volume of requests for energy from large com­mercial and industrial proponents. And as the world electrifies, we need to ensure Manitobans get the best value for our clean baseload power. And that's exactly what this legis­lation is designed to do.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I'm very proud of our Affordable Energy Plan. It includes a historic commit­ment to create 600 new megawatts of new Indigenous-owned wind. It speaks to our commit­ment to geo­thermal energy, to rebuilding and refurbishing Hydro's infra­structure, to strengthening energy codes for homes and buildings and to building EV charging stations.

      I can go on, Hon­our­able Speaker, but, simply put, our Affordable Energy Plan is our gov­ern­ment's blue­print for the next gen­era­tion energy that will build our province. It's a vision for our energy future, a vision which the previous gov­ern­ment sorely lacked when it came to Manitoba Hydro; previous gov­ern­ment that didn't plan, didn't build one single megawatt and allowed Manitoba Hydro to fall behind.

      We're taking a different approach, a better approach. Hon­our­able Speaker, I'm very pleased to present this bill for the House's con­sid­era­tion.

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed in the standard rotation. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is open for questions.

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): This bill–the minister's–in this bill, is giving himself sweeping powers to pick winners and losers when it comes to grid connections.

      So can the minister please explain what kinds of requests for power will be deemed ineligible by Manitoba Hydro and his office under the new changes in this act?

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro): Well, you know, the members opposite, when they were in gov­ern­ment, brought in a moratorium on crypto and energizing crypto operations. The reason they did that was because crypto opera­tions were identified as being low in terms of job density, low in terms of economic potential for Manitoba.

      That's why they used those powers to put a moratorium to stop Manitoba from energizing crypto operations. This is essentially doing this type of similar work which is ensuring that, as we allocate industrial loads as a province and as Hydro, that we're getting the greatest value for Manitobans in doing so, in terms of jobs and economic growth.

Mrs. Stone: How is this minister defining what is an economic priority, and how is he going to avoid not picking winners and losers according to his ideology and what he wants to push to the top of the list?

MLA Sala: Well, we're doing a lot of really im­por­tant work, Hon­our­able Speaker, and my colleague is leading the dev­elop­ment of a new economic dev­elop­ment strategy. Of course, we're building new trade corridors, so there's a lot of really im­por­tant con­sid­era­tions that will go into how we deter­mine how we prioritize those loads.

      But one thing we can say for certain at this point is that we're going to make sure that we get the most for our industrial load allocations in terms of jobs, economic growth potential, and we're going to ensure we solve this issue which was holding us back. Previously, if a proponent came forward and they had a huge energy ask with a very small number of jobs, if they were next in line, we had to serve them first.

      What we're going to make sure is that, going forward, Manitoba gets the very most out of our very valuable clean baseload power for all Manitobans.

Mrs. Stone: Can this minister please explain who is creating the criteria to deter­mine what is a sufficient economic dev­elop­ment project to be prioritized under this act?

MLA Sala: We're a listening gov­ern­ment, and we're going to be listening to a lot of Manitobans as we do this im­por­tant work. And that's very different, Hon­our­able Speaker, than what Manitobans had for seven and a half years under the previous gov­ern­ment.

      You know, one thing I know I, and I'm sure my min­is­terial colleagues hear all the time in meetings, I, oh my God, this is so in­cred­ible that we can actually have a con­ver­sa­tion with somebody from gov­ern­ment. I hear that over and over and over again. The bar was set so low, it's hard to even imagine how hard these guys made it for members of the public or anyone in Manitoba to actually have a con­ver­sa­tion with them about things that mattered.

      We're listening to Manitobans, we're going to en­gage and we're going to make sure we get this right to get the very most out of our clean baseload power here in Manitoba.

Mrs. Stone: So can the minister please explain to the House, if Manitoba Hydro believes that a project should be prioritized, will he–and he disagrees, will they be interfering with Manitoba Hydro's decisions?

MLA Sala: One of the im­por­tant things that we're trying to achieve here, Hon­our­able Speaker, is that we create clear and trans­par­ent guide­lines. And what that means is that this will be visible to proponents who are interested in investing in Manitoba, and they'll be able to see with clarity what those guide­lines look like so that they can come to Manitoba and have con­fi­dence that, when they go to apply for an energy source or apply for an industrial load, that they'll know in advance whether or not they meet those criteria.

      This will be clear. It'll be trans­par­ent. Again, we're going to work with Manitobans to get this right, and we're going to make sure that we do the opposite of what the members across the way did for seven and a half years, which was set Manitoba Hydro back.

      We're moving the province forward, we're going to make sure we grow our economy and we're going to do that with the changes we're going to make in this legis­lation.

* (18:50)

Mrs. Stone: Again I ask this minister: Who is setting the guide­lines? Is it his office and his Cabinet col­leagues, or is it Manitoba Hydro?

MLA Sala: Yes; again, we're going to be working together with Hydro and many other stake­holders to ensure that we get this right. And again, this is about making sure we make the most out of our clean, baseload power.

      Right now, as it stands, there's a first-in, first-out system, where a proponent gets in line–and again, if they've got a huge energy ask, 300 megawatts in two jobs, and the proponent behind them has a 100 megawatt with 200 jobs–a 100 megawatt ask with 200 jobs, we still have to serve that first proponent.

      So what we want to do is ensure that our in­cred­ibly valuable clean energy, which is very costly to produce and very scarce–and, of course we know, in­creasingly valuable in our current energy landscape–that we make the most out of those megawatts to create the greatest number of jobs and the greatest number of–greatest amount of economic growth possible–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mrs. Stone: Hon­our­able Speaker, if a project proponent puts in a proposal and this minister bumps it to the back of the list, what sort of appeal mechanism does that project proponent have under this act?

MLA Sala: Again, we're going to set out to create clear, trans­par­ent guide­lines that will ensure that proponents will understand what it is that we're focused on when it comes to allocating industrial loads.

      Look, this is simply about getting the most for our energy. And for years under the former gov­ern­ment, they took no action in responding to this issue. This is some­thing that we hear from–this basically universally welcome when we speak with proponents, because it makes sense.

      And, again, the members opposite took an action which essentially replicates the core of what we're trying to achieve here with their moratorium on crypto. That's what they did. They did that–again, took that action. I assume it was on the basis of seeing that that wasn't a great allocation of our megawatts.

      We're trying to ensure that we use our energy in the smartest way possible that creates the greatest benefit for Manitobans. This is key–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mrs. Stone: So what I've heard today is that this minister is giving himself sweeping powers to pick and choose winners and losers according to what his beliefs are for economic priority. We've also heard that there is no appeal process if a project proponent gets booted to the bottom of the list.

      So it sounds to me like this minister has every intent to inter­fere with Manitoba Hydro. How is he going to ensure that that doesn't happen, and that project proponents have their voices heard?

MLA Sala: Hon­our­able Speaker, what we've brought forward here today will ensure that we're doing things in a clear and a trans­par­ent manner. And, again, you know, for seven and a half years, the members opposite did absolutely nothing–and I mean that, absolutely nothing when it came to Manitoba Hydro.

      I ask the member who's asking the questions, my critic: Can she speak to a single thing that the former gov­ern­ment did, one positive action, when it came to Hydro or energy? I know she won't have an answer to that, because they didn't take one step forward. They didn't create one megawatt, they had no vision, they took us backwards. The only thing they did was jack up rates. It's a shameful seven-and-a-half-year history.

      We're moving Hydro and we're moving Manitoba forward.

Mrs. Stone: Hon­our­able Speaker, the only one jacking up rates today is this minister with an 11 per cent rate increase over the next three years. He's planning to raise rates by 3.5 per cent every year going forward.

      Can this minister explain what this legis­lation does to protect Manitoba ratepayers?

MLA Sala: Well, to the question, it will ensure that we get the most of our energy to–which will create more profits for Hydro and will ensure that Hydro is better positioned to respond to the needs of Manitoba ratepayers.

      But again, our rate increases are respon­si­ble, and we're doing that while we're actually getting the job done. We're building Manitoba Hydro. Our rate proposal is less than the members opposite charged when they were in power, and you know what they did with those high rates, Hon­our­able Speaker? With all the profits they generated? Absolutely nothing. They didn't build one single megawatt.

      So they raised rates faster on Manitobans while they did nothing; we're bringing forward respon­si­ble rate increases while we get the job done. That's why Manitobans sent us to the Legislature.

Mrs. Stone: Hon­our­able Speaker, we're hearing across the province that economic dev­elop­ment projects and resi­den­tial dev­elop­ments are waiting to be connected to the grid.

      So with this bill in practice, does that mean that resi­den­tial com­mu­nities in southern Manitoban and Westman will be prioritized?

MLA Sala: Resi­den­tial dev­elop­ments and the like will always receive priority, and that will ensure that, again, Manitoba can move forward.

      What we're talking about is industrial load requests for economic dev­elop­ment purposes. This is the kind of thing that, right now, we have a major issue with that the former gov­ern­ment never responded to over seven and a half years.

      And, again, that's because they didn't do anything over seven and a half years when it came to moving Hydro forward. That record is unbelievably shameful, Hon­our­able Speaker. Why? Because they left us in a challenging position. They left us in a position where our gov­ern­ment–and we've taken up this challenge–has needed to move at a very fast pace to ensure that we brought forward a plan to have the energy we need to meet the needs of our busi­nesses and homeowners. They left us behind. They want to talk about economic–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mrs. Stone: Hon­our­able Speaker, I'd like the minister to explain if he already has the directive to ensure pro­jects move forward, then why is this legis­lation needed to begin with?

MLA Sala: One of the challenges we have is we have a long queue of proponents, many of whom, again, have major megawatt requests but have really low job density or economic growth potential attached to it. We want to make sure that we get the most out of our energy. This is not hard to understand, Hon­our­able Speaker, and that's why Manitobans are responding to this very positively when we go out and we have con­ver­sa­tions.

      This is some­thing that seems to be uni­ver­sally sup­ported in our con­ver­sa­tions with stake­holders because they know that it makes sense for us, in this current context, where in an environ­ment where clean energy has never been this valuable, that we work to get the most out of it.

      We are going to move Manitoba ahead. We're going to grow our economy, and we're going to keep doing the good work that we're doing of moving Manitoba forward.

Mrs. Stone: We just heard this minister say that there are those that are waiting for hookups or connections onto the grid. Yet his boss has re­peat­edly flip‑flopped and made major policy an­nounce­ments about Manitoba Hydro on a whim.

      So can this minister please explain to the House where he stands on additional capacity within the Province of Manitoba?

MLA Sala: Happy to. We're going to build 600 new megawatts of wind with First Nations, a first of its kind part­ner­ship. And that's some­thing that this team–and I know folks on this side of the House are in­cred­ibly proud of. It's economic recon­ciliation.

      We're going to create a huge number of jobs through this work, and it's some­thing that we know is im­por­tant to moving the province forward, is working closely with First Nations and the Métis nation in Manitoba to advance our province.

      And that's what Manitobans can count on this gov­ern­­ment to do: to work in col­lab­o­ration, to work in part­ner­ship, to move our province forward.

Mrs. Stone: Many large‑scale industrial projects require natural gas hookups. We know that there's a proposal for $1.3 billion to build a new natural gas plant here in Manitoba that's been brought forward by Manitoba Hydro.

      Does this minister support that project?

MLA Sala: Well, I'll correct the member and say that we have not brought forward a $1.3‑billion natural gas plant. At this point, this dispatchable power is cur­rently agnostic to the type of fuel that it uses. That work is still ongoing.

      We know that the dev­elop­ment of dispatchable power resource is im­por­tant to support the wind that we're moving forward with, as well as ensuring that we have diverse set of energy options as we move forward in an environ­ment where hydrology and climate might start to affect the water that moves through our province. This is about ensuring reliability, it's about ensuring affordability, and, again, those are two things Manitobans can count on us to deliver on.

Mrs. Stone: And I believe the term that the Premier (Mr. Kinew) used was it would be powered by some miracle fuel.

      What I'm curious of is if this minister supports adding additional capacity and diversifying Manitoba's energy needs through natural gas.

MLA Sala: You know, again, the focus of our gov­ern­ment, Hon­our­able Speaker, is to ensure afford­ability and reliability. And that's exactly what our affordable energy plan supports, that's exactly what the 600 megawatts of new energy we've brought for­ward supports, and that's what we're going to do.

      Again, seven and a half years. What did the mem­bers opposite do? They didn't build one single megawatt. They didn't make one invest­ment that we can speak to about enhancing or increasing reliability in Manitoba, and they had no vision about our energy future. They seemed to completely abdicate their respon­si­bilities when it came to ensuring that we had the energy we needed, not just for Manitobans to keep their lights on and their beer cold, but also to make sure that busi­nesses can do the im­por­tant work that they need to do.

* (19:00)

Mrs. Stone: This minister promised to switch 5,000 families over to geothermal, which is really not that many. Can the minister provide an update on how many families have been switched over to geothermal, where these projects are located and how this legis­lation that he's brought forward today will help facilitate or work in tandem with that project?

MLA Sala: I'm proud of the commit­ments our gov­ern­ment has made when it comes to geothermal: again, forward looking, vision, some­thing that we lacked for a very long time in Manitoba. We know here we have a really great op­por­tun­ity when it comes to electrifying heat in our rural and northern com­mu­nities. Geothermal creates sig­ni­fi­cant op­por­tun­ities for home­owners to reduce their costs and for us to save energy, which we can send back to the grid to either sell abroad or make use of here in Manitoba.

      I'm proud to work with Minister Moyes who's doing amazing work with his team at–

The Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

      I would just remind the hon­our­able minister we can't use the member's name. It's either their con­stit­uency name or their min­is­terial title.

MLA Sala: The Minister for Environ­ment and Climate Change. Proud to work alongside him in that im­por­tant work in bringing forward–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      The time for questions has also expired.

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): I ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to rise in the House today to put a few words on the record on Bill 28, The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment Act.

      First and foremost, I do want to put on the record that Manitoba Hydro should be prioritizing grid con­nections to grow our economy, because their mandate is to deliver safe, reliable services at a fair price to its customers. I am, Hon­our­able Speaker, however, very skeptical of this NDP gov­ern­ment bringing forth legis­lation to decide who gets electricity and when.

      This minister and this Premier have con­sistently mismanaged Manitoba Hydro since taking office. Phony rate freezes that didn't save Manitobans sig­ni­fi­cant dollars, while jacking up rates by 11 per cent over the next three years, was a political stunt that Manitobans will be paying for well into the future.

      At the same time, this Premier's regularly on the record flip‑flopping on Manitoba Hydro and creating major policy decisions on a whim, like we saw this week, without costing it out. First, the Premier claims Manitoba Hydro will be net‑zero by 2030, then he flip‑flops and says that's not attainable. Next, he fires Jay Grewal for saying Manitoba needs extra capacity. Then he considers a $1.3-billion gas plant. Next, he says Manitoba needs extra capacity, then says he wants to export more to the US and then flip-flops and then cancels contracts.

      Then, just this week, he actually announced that he's cancelling those US legacy contracts and redirect­ing while building a power line that he has no ability and no plans to pay for, all while the Crown cor­por­ation is $25 billion in debt and needs $31 billion in infra­structure maintenance and capital upgrades.

      This has clearly shown that this minister and this Premier do not have a solid direction for Manitoba Hydro. So I remain very skeptical and concerned when this minister brings forward legis­lation giving himself sweeping capabilities for himself and his Cabinet colleagues on who gets hydro capacity and who does not.

      We all know this NDP gov­ern­ment is against industrial dev­elop­ment, and so this means that major projects that could bring billions to the prov­incial economy could be pushed off the list if they do not ideologically align with this minister and this NDP gov­ern­ment.

      So although the intent of this legis­lation, in principle, could be used to advance economic dev­elop­ment in the province–which I do fully support the principle of it, in advancing economic dev­elop­ment–this legis­lation as written that gives this minister and his col­leagues sweeping powers can be easily exploited by political will, political ideology and favouritism to have–whoever has direct access to this minister.

      Now, with those comments in mind, I do want to speak to the importance of economic dev­elop­ment and some of the challenges that do exist with the current system. Currently, as Manitoba Hydro does operate on a first-come, first-served basis, this could mean that major economic dev­elop­ment projects could be delayed if they are not first in queue.

      Timely hookups is critical to busi­nesses investing sometimes sig­ni­fi­cant dollars in the province through green fields or expansion. Busi­nesses do need cer­tainty, and projects that will benefit Manitoba, and Manitoba's GDP should not be delayed as a result of NDP gov­ern­ment bureaucracy.

      However, this issue goes beyond Hydro's current directive of a first come, first served. The reality is is that Manitoba Hydro is short on energy capacity, and this is one of the reasons why projects are not getting access onto the electricity grid in a timely manner. We heard from the former Hydro CEO, Jay Grewal, when she said in a public speech Hydro would need new sources by 2030, and the most efficient way to do this would be to consider sourcing from private power sources.

      She was then fired by the ideologically rigid NDP gov­ern­ment. Now we're in a situation where delays for power connections to the grid are a regular occurrence across the province, so much so that this NDP gov­ern­ment has flip-flopped again and pulled back on their commit­ment for net-zero by 2030 and con­sid­ering the $1.3‑billion natural gas plant.

      Manitoba Hydro is clearly in a predicament with their debt maintenance costs and future capacity needs, and the NDP has clearly taken energy options off the table. This is not smart busi­ness, not is it smart governing, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      This NDP appears to be ideologically against diversifying our energy market here in Manitoba, despite more efficient, reliable and cost-affordable options that are available. We've seen this in Alberta and Ontario, where they're exploring and making major invest­ments in nuclear energy. But this isn't an even an option that this minister is looking at.

      So this Premier (Mr. Kinew) and this minister talk a big game about energy in­de­pen­dence, but when it comes time to put words into action, they clearly struggle with the imple­men­ta­tion. So they either don't understand Manitoba's high–Manitoba Hydro's energy needs, or they're caught between ideology and reality and are unwilling and incapable to make a decision.

      So as you can see, Hon­our­able Speaker, the issues with connections to the grid that this bill is supposed to address go much deeper than the first-come, first-served system that Manitoba Hydro currently operates under, and there are many additional concerns with this bill and how this minister is giving himself the power to direct Hydro as to what projects the in­de­pen­dent Crown cor­por­ation must prioritize, and he has decided to enshrine that into law.

      So with this–the way that this piece of legis­lation is written, Hon­our­able Speaker, despite the minister's many, many comments regarding in­de­pen­dence of Hydro, it undermines that in­de­pen­dence, and as a result, the minister's own public con­fi­dence in the Hydro board and cor­por­ation leadership.

      So from what we can glean from this legis­lation is the entire need for this bill is a lesson in NDP double takes. This minister is bringing forward legis­lation to pick and choose what new projects are getting power, and which ones are denied without any appeal mechanism for those project proponents. And this is a key gap in this bill, that there is no appeal process.

      If a dev­elop­ment project does not align with this minister's ideologies, and this minister kicks it down the list despite being an im­por­tant economic invest­ment for Manitoba, there is no mechanism to appeal that. This is parti­cularly con­cern­ing as it again gives this minister sweeping powers to pick and choose winners and losers with no recourse for those selected as losers.

      This legis­lation makes the province of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro bad busi­ness partners, mandating that even if Hydro has entered into an agree­ment to provide power and set a reasonable rate, that agree­ment is nullified and walked back.

      As I've mentioned earlier, we've seen this minister and NDP mismanage and inter­fere with Manitoba Hydro in their short 18 months in gov­ern­ment. They've inter­fered with Manitoba Hydro's rate applications, they've passed legis­lation to allow them­selves to set Hydro rates at the Cabinet table, so the fact that this minister is allowing himself and his Cabinet col­leagues to again inter­fere with Manitoba Hydro is again con­cern­ing for Manitoba ratepayers. Let's remind the minister: Manitobans own Manitoba Hydro, not this minister.

      So despite the in­ten­tion of fast-tracking major economic dev­elop­ment projects, which, as I have men­tioned, I do support that in­ten­tion, but in practice this could actually have the opposite effect. So there are clearly a lot of concerns that we have with this legis­lation, Hon­our­able Speaker, that this minister has brought forward.

* (19:10)

      And I know I'm running out of time and only have a couple minutes left here, but I do want to say that there is nothing as it speaks to the specific details of the bill. There's nothing laid out in this legis­lation that defines what a key economic project is that would allow it to be stream­lined or prioritized for grid connection. There is also no clear direction in this bill that outlines what this criteria is or what this criteria will be, which is really the only meaningful way to truly measure whether this bill will have a positive impact or a negative impact on economic dev­elop­ment and job growth. Again, this raises sig­ni­fi­cant concerns in what this minister will do in regula­tion. The devil's in the details when it comes to this piece of legis­lation, which does increase our skepticism of this minister's intent.

      As mentioned in my comments through­out this bill discussion today–and I'll just wrap up here, Honour­able Speaker–there are many, many, many unanswered questions as it relates to this bill in practice. We're skeptical of the NDP picking and choosing winners and losers on their whim or on the minister's mood of the day, and we are concerned with the NDP's continued inter­ference with Manitoba Hydro since they've taken office.

      So giving these sweeping powers to this minister and this NDP gov­ern­ment who do not seem to have a grasp on the energy needs of our province is in­cred­ibly con­cern­ing and should be con­cern­ing for all Manitobans.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

The Speaker: No further members wishing to debate?

      Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Speaker: Question before the House is second reading of Bill 28, The Manitoba Hydro Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 37–The Manitoba Financial Services Authority Act and Amendments to Various Other Acts

The Speaker: We will now move on to second reading of Bill 37, The Manitoba Financial Services Author­ity Act and Amend­ments to Various Other Acts.

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agri­cul­ture (Mr. Kostyshyn), that Bill 37, The Manitoba Financial Services Author­ity Act and Amend­ments to Various Other Acts; Loi sur l'Autorité des services financiers du Manitoba et modifiant diverses autres lois, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been advised of the bill, and I table the message.

The Speaker: It has been moved by the hon­our­able Minister of Finance, seconded by the hon­our­able Minister of Agri­cul­ture, that Bill 37, The Manitoba Financial Services Author­ity Act and Amend­ments to Various Other Acts, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been advised, and the messaged has been tabled.

MLA Sala: Hon­our­able Speaker, again, very pleased to rise today and have an opportunity to speak to this im­por­tant bill, Bill 37, The Manitoba Financial Services Author­ity Act and Amend­ments to Various Other Acts.

      This bill will modernize the regula­tory structure in Manitoba by reconstituting the Manitoba Financial Services Agency, which is currently a special operating agency within the De­part­ment of Finance, to a board-governed statutory cor­por­ation that would formally operate at arm's length from gov­ern­ment.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, Manitobans must contend with a financial services landscape that has never been more complicated or filled with potential risks. Manitobans now have a wide range of financial service providers from which to choose: banks, discount brokers, mutual fund dealers, full service brokers as well as a growing number of fintechs that are provi­ding services online. These providers offer a myriad of products carrying various levels of risk. Unfor­tunately, some of the pro­ducts that are pitched to Manitobans are fraudulent, ranging from romance scams to cryptocurrency frauds.

      In this environ­ment, it's im­por­tant that the financial services regulator be equipped to deal with the chal­lenges of the modern financial services landscape. That's why we're modernizing the structure of the Manitoba financial services author­ity.   

      Hon­our­able Speaker, this legis­lation will bring Manitoba in line with the provinces who've taken the steps we're proposing today many, many years ago. British Columbia made this change in structure in 1996, Ontario in '97, Alberta in 2000, Quebec in 2002, New Brunswick in 2003, Saskatchewan in 2012.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, you have to wonder why the previous PC gov­ern­ment failed to modernize our financial regulator as well. Did the former gov­ern­ment not care about the financial sector? Were they too preoccupied with other affairs? We'll never know, but we're here to fix this issue.

      So I don't know, again, the answer to those ques­tions. Our gov­ern­ment does take financial regula­tion very seriously. We take consumer pro­tec­tion seriously. And that's why we're modernizing the Financial Services Agency and bringing it into the modern world.

      The agency will have statutory respon­si­bility for the administration of six financial statutes, including The Securities Act, The Commodity Futures Act, The Real Estate Services Act, The Mortgage Brokers Act, The Insurance Act and The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

      It will be led by an expert board appointed by Lieutenant Governor-in-Council that would oversee the regula­tion of securities, real estate, insurance and credit union sectors in the province in a way that is stream­lined, con­sistent and efficient.

      As I said, Hon­our­able Speaker, we are bringing the MFSA into the modern world. I'm very pleased to present this bill for the House's con­sid­era­tion.

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed in the standard rotation, and no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): Hon­our­able Speaker, who did the minister consult with in the dev­elop­ment of this legis­lation and this new author­ity?

Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister of Finance): I'm proud–again, proud–to bring this forward knowing that every single other province in Canada has taken this action, and for good reason.

      As I outlined in my opening speech, Manitobans face an in­creasingly complex financial services land­scape. They deserve to have a modern regulator in the MFSA. And that's what we're doing; we're bringing forward modernization here and we're going to ensure that they have the tools they need to protect Manitobans when it comes to financial services.

Mrs. Stone: So as the author­ity is also giving statutory respon­si­bility for The Insurance Act and The Credit Union and Caisse Populaire Act, what has the Credit Union Central and Manitoba credit unions said about this legis­lation?

MLA Sala: We know that our good folks at the Manitoba Financial Services Agency have identified the importance of making this change. We know that this is some­thing that's been done in every other province in the country and for good reason, because this shift–to give it this, again, added degree of in­de­pen­dence–will offer the MFSA the ability to provide the quality services that Manitobans rely on when it comes to this wide swath of different financial ser­vices that they oversee.

      So again, a change that modernizes Manitoba, some­­thing that, again, the members opposite didn't seem interested in doing for seven and a half years that they were in gov­ern­ment. We're bringing it into the modern age.

Mrs. Stone: So the fact that credit unions will now be included under this new author­ity, were they asking for this legis­lation?

MLA Sala: Again, what we know is Manitoba was behind in this area and it was because seven and a half years, the members opposite didn't seem interested in modernizing this act to ensure that Manitobans could be afforded the im­por­tant pro­tec­tions that they needed to be afforded when it came to their financial services.

      This is just simply bringing us into alignment with what's in place in every single other province in the country.

Mrs. Stone: What kinds of admin­is­tra­tive efficiencies will this new financial author­ity generate?

MLA Sala: I can't speak to specific efficiencies, but I can say that we have an in­cred­ible team at the MFSA. I'm very proud. I want to call out Dave Cheop, who's currently running the Manitoba Financial Services Agency, for the amazing work that he does in support of Manitobans. He's an in­cred­ible individual; does really great work on behalf of all of us.

      And again, we know that they're going to do more good work as we bring this agency into the modern age with this change.

Mrs. Stone: How does this bill make this new regulator–new author­ity–more arm's-length from the gov­ern­ment and from the minister's office?

MLA Sala: Well, again, we're simply moving into the same direction that other provinces have gone for the last, I think, 30-some­thing years to create one step removed from gov­ern­ment to ensure that, again, we're giving this MFSA team the tools that they need and the ability to protect Manitobans.

      Again, it's a in­creasingly complicated financial services landscape that Manitobans need to navigate. This will help to modernize the work of the MFSA, help them to be able to do what they need to do to protect Manitobans as they navigate their financial needs.

Mrs. Stone: If the minister can answer how this legis­lation will ensure better pro­tec­tion of the public?

* (19:20)

MLA Sala: Again, we know that Manitobans are facing an in­creasingly complicated financial services landscape: fintechs, for example, offering a variety of services online that have never been offered before.

      As that landscape gets in­creasingly complicated, we need to make sure that we have a Manitoba Financial Services Agency that can meet the moment and respond to these complexities that Manitobans are navigating, to make sure they're protected as they access financial services in our province.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Midland–has no further questions.

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): It is–again, I ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to put a few words on the record tonight, this time on Bill 37, the financial services author­ity act.

      You know, so as we've already heard, this bill establishes a new financial author­ity, replacing the regula­tory and adjudicative functions currently carried out by Manitoba Securities Com­mis­sion.

      And it sets to expand the author­ity's oversight over The Insurance Act and Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, in addition to the existing oversight of The Securities Act, Real Estate Services Act, Mortgage Brokers Act and Commodity Futures Act.

      So in a nutshell, this is an extensive bill, and it essentially serves as a consolidation bill of the regulated financial services sector.

      Under the previous PC gov­ern­ment, quite a bit of consolidation was done of various financial regulators to bring them under a single roof at the Manitoba Securities Com­mis­sion, which did create a sig­ni­fi­cant amount of synergies and share of resources in areas of financial, pensions, securities, regula­tions.

      So Bill 37 does appear to be following that next logical step of consolidation with the imple­men­ta­tion of this act. However, it is a very extensive piece of legis­lation and does require the ap­pro­priate scrutiny.

      So I would be interested, and we do want to hear from stake­holders and the public on what they think about this new financial regulator during com­mit­tee, and the minister needs to better explain how this will better protect Manitobans of the public and the financial sector.

      So it still remains to be seen whether this minister has gotten this bill right and who he's consulted with on these major changes to legis­lation and the regula­tory framework.

      So with that said, Hon­our­able Speaker, there are still quite a few unanswered questions with the bill and its intent. I do look forward to hearing more at com­mit­tee and more from the industries that have been impacted or will be impacted by these changes as the bill moves through the next stages of the legis­lative process. It does seem to be like it's moving in the right direction for consolidation.

      And, as mentioned, with the consolidation that did take place under the previous PC gov­ern­ment, this appears to be just the next logical step.

      But, again, Hon­our­able Speaker, I ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to rise to put a few words on the record as it relates to these changes and to have had the op­por­tun­ity to speak to Bill 37, the financial services amend­­ment act.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

The Speaker: Any further speakers?

      Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 37, The Manitoba Financial Services Author­ity Act and Amend­ments to Various Other Acts.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

      And now, as previously agreed to, once the ques­tion was put on Bill 37, the leave request was to call it midnight. So therefore, it's midnight, and this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.


 

 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, April 16, 2025

CONTENTS


Vol. 43

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Introduction of Bills

Bill 228–The Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act (Farmer's Identification Number)

Hiebert 1343

Ministerial Statements

Education Week

Schmidt 1343

Ewasko  1344

Lamoureux  1345

Members' Statements

Tammy Mitchell

Corbett 1346

School Bus Driver Day

Ewasko  1346

Lemay Forest

Cross 1347

Sara and Kate Manness

Stone  1347

Latinas Manitoba Inc.

Lamoureux  1347

Oral Questions

Lemay Forest Expropriation

Ewasko  1348

Kinew   1348

Safe Consumption Site

Ewasko  1349

Kinew   1350

Safe Consumption Site

Hiebert 1351

Smith  1351

Addiction Treatment Services

Hiebert 1351

Smith  1351

Mental Health Treatment Services

Cook  1352

Asagwara  1352

Green Team Program

Perchotte  1353

Simard  1353

Free Trade and Mobility Within Canada

Stone  1354

Kinew   1354

Moses 1354

Manitoba's Research Community

Lamoureux  1355

Asagwara  1355

Recruitment of American Researchers

Lamoureux  1355

Asagwara  1355

Manitoba Municipalities

Devgan  1356

Wiebe  1356

Release of Repeat Offenders

Balcaen  1356

Wiebe  1357

Universal Heights Homeless Encampment

Wasyliw   1357

Smith  1357

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Second Readings

Bill 39–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Campaign Financing for School Trustees)

Schmidt 1358

Questions

Ewasko  1358

Schmidt 1359

Debate

Ewasko  1361

Bill 6–The Public Schools Amendment Act

Schmidt 1363

Questions

Ewasko  1364

Schmidt 1364

Debate

Ewasko  1366

Bill 19–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Safe Schools)

Schmidt 1367

Questions

Ewasko  1368

Schmidt 1368

Debate

Ewasko  1370

Bill 11–The Oil and Gas Amendment Act

Moses 1373

Questions

Wharton  1374

Moses 1374

Debate

Wharton  1377

Bill 26–The Vital Statistics Amendment Act

Sandhu  1378

Questions

Perchotte  1378

Sandhu  1378

Debate

Perchotte  1379

Bill 3–The City of Winnipeg Charter Amendment and Planning Amendment Act

Simard  1379

Questions

King  1380

Simard  1380

Debate

King  1381

Bill 4–The Planning Amendment Act

Simard  1383

Questions

King  1383

Simard  1384

Debate

King  1386

Bill 21–The Protecting Youth in Sports Act

Kennedy  1388

Questions

Lagassé  1388

Kennedy  1388

Debate

Lagassé  1389

Bill 15–The Real Estate Services Amendment Act

Sala  1390

Questions

Stone  1390

Sala  1391

Debate

Stone  1392

Bill 28–The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act

Sala  1393

Questions

Stone  1394

Sala  1394

Debate

Stone  1397

Bill 37–The Manitoba Financial Services Authority Act and Amendments to Various Other Acts

Sala  1399

Questions

Stone  1400

Sala  1400

Debate

Stone  1401