LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, November 6, 2025

The House met at 10 a.m.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Mr. Derek Johnson (Official Opposition House Leader): On House busi­ness.

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

Mr. Johnson: Could you please canvass the House to see if there's leave to 'expediate' con­sid­era­tion of bills 203 and 226 as follows:

      (1) For the House to imme­diately resolve into Committee of the Whole for clause‑by-clause con­sid­era­tion of bills 203 and 226, with the Chairperson to put all questions necessary to dispose of the bills without debate. The Chairperson is to report back to the House imme­diately upon the com­mit­tee conclud­ing the busi­ness before it.

      (2) Once the report of the com­mit­tee has been received, the House will then imme­diately consider concurrence and third reading of bills 203 and 226, with the following provisions: the speaker–the speaking order for each bill will consist of the sponsor of the bill, one gov­ern­ment member, each in­de­pen­dent member; speaking times will be made up to a maximum of five minutes; the House will not see the clock at–as 11 until the question has been put on both bills.

The Speaker: Is there leave for the House to 'expediate' con­sid­era­tion of bills 203 and 226 as described by the Official Op­posi­tion House Leader?

      Is there leave?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Speaker: I hear a no. Leave has been denied.

Mr. Johnson: Can you please call Bill 222, The Criminal Trespassers Act and Amend­ments to The Occupiers' Liability Act.

Debate on Second Readings–
Public Bills

Bill 222–The Criminal Trespassers Act and Amendments to The Occupiers' Liability Act

The Speaker: Been announced we will now resume debate on Bill 222, The Criminal Trespassers Act and  Amend­ments to The Occupiers' Liability Act, standing in the name of the hon­our­able member for Fort Richmond, who has five minutes remaining.

MLA Jennifer Chen (Fort Richmond): Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker, for giving me another op­por­tun­ity to put some more words on this Bill 222, The Criminal Trespassers Act and Amend­ments to The Occupiers' Liability Act.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, every Manitoban deserves to feel safe in their home, work­place and com­mu­nity. But safety cannot come from reactive or divisive measures. It must come from thoughtful, evidence- based invest­ments in public safety and justice that address both the causes and the con­se­quences of crime, and that is exactly what our government is doing.

      Since taking office, we have made record invest­ments in law en­force­ment and com­mu­nity safety. After years of frozen funding under the previous gov­ern­ment, we increased funding to all munici­pal police services by 28 per cent, the largest increase in Manitoba's history. We also intro­duced a 2 per cent annual escalator

so police forces have stable and predictable funding into the future.

      While the former gov­ern­ment froze police budgets from 2017 onward and cut 55 police–Winnipeg police positions, our government is rebuilding. When law en­force­ment is properly supported, com­mu­nities are safer and more resilient.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, our gov­ern­ment has also reinstated and expanded the electronic ankle monitoring program that was cancelled in 2017. With a $2.9-million invest­ment, this program now helps law en­force­ment monitor offenders and prevent repeat offences. It has been endorsed by police leadership as an effective tool that directly responds to com­mu­nity needs.

      Through our public safety strategy, we have invested $4 million in bail reform, $500,000 for bail supervision. We have provided $2 million for the Manitoba Security Rebate Program to help make security equip­ment more affordable for homeowners and renters. A separate rebate program tailored to small busi­nesses will be launched later this year, which will be helping busi­nesses recover from retail theft and invest in stronger security.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, our gov­ern­ment's approach to public safety is guided by fairness, pre­ven­tion and part­ner­ship. We believe that protecting property and protecting people must go hand in hand, and that laws must be clear, fair and con­sistently applied.

      Manitobans expect leadership that makes them safer through real action, not symbolic legis­lation. They want a gov­ern­ment that invests in police services, supports com­mu­nities and strengthens the justice system.

      That is the path that we are on: building safer, stronger com­mu­nities across Manitoba.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, our commit­ment is clear. We will continue to provide law en­force­ment with the resources they need, ensure our courts are fully staffed and effective and create con­di­tions where Manitobans can feel safe in their homes, workplaces and neighbourhoods. Through pre­ven­tion, accountability and col­lab­o­ration, we are working every day to build a Manitoba where justice is fair, com­mu­nities are secure and every person can feel safe and respected.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Mr. Konrad Narth (Deputy Official Opposition House Leader): Hon­our­able Speaker, could you please canvass the House to see if there's leave to expedite con­sid­era­tion of bills 203 and 226 as follows:

* (10:10)

      (1) For the House to imme­diately resolve into Committee of the Whole for clause-by-clause con­sid­era­tion of bills 203 and 226, with the Chairperson to put all questions necessary to dispose of the bills without debate. The Chairperson is to report back to the House imme­diately upon the com­mit­tee conclud­ing the busi­ness before it; and

      (2) Once the report of the com­mit­tee has been received, the House will then imme­diately consider concurrence and third reading of bills 203 and 226 with the following provisions: the speaking order of each bill will consist of, first, the sponsor of the bill, one gov­ern­ment member and then, third, each in­de­pen­dent member; speaking times will be up to a maximum of five minutes; and the House will not see the clock at 11 a.m. until the question has been put on both bills.

The Speaker: Is there leave for the House to 'expediate' con­sid­era­tion of bills 203 and 226 as described by the op­posi­tion–by the hon­our­able member for La Vérendrye (Mr. Narth)?

      Is there leave?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Speaker: Leave has been denied.

      We will now resume debate.

Hon. Lisa Naylor (Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure): I'm very pleased to stand today to put some words on the record in respect to Bill 222, The Criminal Trespassers Act and Amend­ments to The Occupiers' Liability Act.

      I want to begin by stating that I really think that this is quite redundant and un­neces­sary legis­lation. We have existing laws that already cover trespassing, vandalism and property damage. Manitoba's Petty Trespasses Act and the Criminal Code already provide mechanisms for charges and penal­ties. Courts can already order restitution. And the bill adds no mean­ingful public safety value but just increases the potential for conflict and for legal confusion.

      What we need is real invest­ments in law en­force­ment and our justice system, and this is the way to keep com­mu­nities safe and this is the approach that our gov­ern­ment has been taking under the leadership of our very well-respected Minister of Justice (Mr. Wiebe). Our gov­ern­ment has increased funding to law en­force­ment, including just recently when we  announced $2 million to expand Manitoba's Operational Com­muni­cations Centre to strengthen law en­force­ment's ability to respond to violent crime and critical incidents.

      We know that the previous PC gov­ern­ment froze funding to police in Manitoba from two–2017 onwards and never increased it once during their time in gov­ern­ment. They didn't give the Winnipeg police, the Brandon police or the RCMP the resources they need to do their job, and these actions had con­se­quences for Manitobans, who saw dramatic increases in crime under the former PC gov­ern­ment.

      But after years of frozen funding under the former PC gov­ern­ment, we increased funding by 28 per cent to all munici­pal police forces, which is record funding after the years of austerity that they ex­per­ienced under the former PC gov­ern­ment under the leadership of Heather Stefanson. We also ensured Manitobans will have a 2 per cent escalator going forward so that law en­force­ment agencies have the resources they need into the future. This year's budget has a 30 per cent increase over any previous PC budget.

      But when crime exploded under the former PC gov­ern­ment, they did nothing. In fact, they did the–they did worse than nothing. They scrapped the ankle bracelet monitoring program in 2017 and then they ran billboards and front-page ads paid by taxpayers just before the election. In twenty-eight–for a program that doesn't exist–in 2018, they froze, froze, froze across all parts of gov­ern­ment, but staying on this bill, we'll just say parti­cularly in the area of Justice.

      In 2019, they looked around and decided that munici­pal police forces just didn't need their help. In 2020, an increase to funding for munici­pal law en­force­ment in–sorry–in 2021, nothing. In 2022, when police forces were asking them for the resources they needed after years of frozen funding, still nothing from the members opposite. And in 2023, as they approached the election, they still decided that police officers weren't worth their time.

      What are they bringing forward today? They're bringing forward redundant, un­neces­sary legis­lation that they imagine would somehow strengthen the justice system. But what they have missed all along is the importance of the existing laws, having the staffing in place and the law en­force­ment in place to be able to keep Manitobans safe under the existing legis­lation.     

      So we know what happened in 2023: Manitobans–voters recog­nized that the PCs were soft on crime and they elected a gov­ern­ment that promised to strengthen our justice system while also supporting people to avoid staying out of the justice system. We've taken any number of steps, starting with feeding children–some­thing the members opposite were absolutely against under the previous gov­ern­ment.

      They did not believe in school meal programs. But what we know is that when children are fed, they're able to learn. When children are able to learn, they're more likely to stay in school. When children stay in school, they're less likely to get pulled into the criminal justice system. And so, actions like feeding children will go much further than this type of legis­lation.

      We've done other things, such–and we're actively working to better adjust the needs of folks who struggle with meth addiction. We're actively working to better address the needs of folks that are homeless, taking all kinds of steps in order to make this a healthier, safer society for all Manitobans and at the same time, ensuring that we have the police resources in order to deal with the crime that does occur in society.

      When our gov­ern­ment came in, we brought in historic invest­ments to ensure police officers and RCMP are there for Manitobans when they need them. And that's because we're investing in real solutions to improve public safety. We took long-bladed weapons off of store shelves and away from those who used them to commit violent crimes. Members stood in the way of that–members opposite stood in the way of that. We worked with online retailers so people can't get around the law, some­thing that members opposite are pretty clearly jealous that they didn't think of first when they were in gov­ern­ment.

      We've invested in 36 new Winnipeg police officers, 24 for com­mu­nity policing and 12 for bail en­force­ment. Twelve more hit the streets in November, 12 more arrived in the spring, 12 more this fall for bail en­force­ment. And recently we announced $2 million to expand Manitoba's Operational Com­muni­cations Centre to strengthen law en­force­ment's ability to respond to violent and criminal incidents.

      The Manitoba's Operational Com­muni­cations Centre is the intake and dispatch command centre for  all incoming calls for Manitobans to report an emergency to RCMP.

      The $2 million in additional funding will add six new RCMP officers and 10 pub­lic servant dispatchers to expand the Operational Com­muni­cations Centre and allow 24-7 risk manage­ment operational support for law en­force­ment, allowing the RCMP to better connect with Manitobans and ensure their safety quickly.

      We've had some really positive responses to this. The president of AMM, Kathy Valentino–someone I  respect greatly–had said that the Association of Manitoba Munici­palities welcomes the prov­incial gov­ern­ment's invest­ment to strengthen the RCMP's capacity and help ensure a more effective response to crime across Manitoba. With front-line officers dealing with repeat prolific offenders and expanded responsibilities that extend beyond traditional law enforce­ment, these additional resources are both timely and essential. So certainly our gov­ern­ment appre­ciates that vote of con­fi­dence from the AMM.

      I mean, across the board we've been so lucky, so privileged to have such a good working relationship with the AMM and so much support for a lot of our legis­lation and decisions that we've made as gov­ern­ment, and this is just one example.

      We are getting the work done to protect Manitobans and their property. So, again, I need to underline the redundancy of this proposed legis­lation.

* (10:20)

      You know, part of our public safety strategy has also meant an invest­ment of $4 million for bail reform, some­thing–a five-point plan that's keeping Manitoba safer after years of inaction from the previous PC gov­ern­ment.

      I wish I had a dollar for every time I hear members opposite talk about bail reform when they did nothing for seven and a half years. It's like they just woke up–October 7, was it? October whatever, October 2023–and went, bail reform, there's a good idea; let's put that on our colleagues across the House who have now won gov­ern­ment.

      The last time new Crown bail policies were updated was under an NDP gov­ern­ment. We invested a record $500,000 for data and intelligence sharing, and $500,000 for bail supervision.

      Since we came into gov­ern­ment, we've also invested $2 million in the Manitoba Security Rebate Program, which is helping law en­force­ment arrest criminals and recover property. It's also putting money back in Manitobans' pockets after the previous PC gov­ern­ment left Manitobans on their own. And just a few weeks ago, we announced the opening of the intake for the second security rebate, so I hope any Manitobans watching this that haven't looked at that and applied will take the time to do so.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker. I ap­pre­ciated the op­por­tun­ity to speak against this bill.

Mr. Josh Guenter (Borderland): Hon­our­able Speaker, on House busi­ness.

 

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Borderland, on House busi­ness.

Mr. Guenter: Hon­our­able Speaker, could you please canvass the House to see if there is leave to expedite con­sid­era­tion of bills 203 and 226 as follows:

      (1) For the House to imme­diately resolve into Com­mit­tee of the Whole for clause-by-clause con­sid­era­tion of bills 203 and 226, with the Chairperson to put all questions necessary to dispose of the bills without debate. The Chairperson is to report back to the House imme­diately upon the com­mit­tee con­cluding the busi­ness before it; and

      (2) Once the report of the com­mit­tee has been received, the House will then imme­diately consider concurrence and third reading of bills 203 and 226, with the following provisions: the speaking order for each bill will consist of the sponsor of the bill, one gov­ern­ment member and each in­de­pen­dent member; speaking times will be up to a maximum of five minutes; the House will not see the clock at 11 a.m. until the question has been put on both bills.

The Speaker: Is there leave for the House to 'expediate' con­sid­era­tion of bills 203 and 226, as the  hon­our­able member for Borderland has just de­scribed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Speaker: Leave has been denied.

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): Dear Canadians, google Private Singh. It will take you to a page about soldier Buckam Singh, who fought for Canada during World War I. And this year's Remembrance Day stamp is issued in honour of Sikh soldiers who fought for all of us.

      Thank you, Canada. I'm even more proud to be a Canadian today.

      The bill on the floor is Bill 222. And, first of  all,  I want to say thank you to the member for Interlake-Gimli (Mr. Johnson) for bringing this forward, because this gives us an op­por­tun­ity to talk about this im­por­tant issue that many, many Manitobans are concerned about. It talks about liabil­ity, talks about crime, talks about The Limitations Act and talks about trespassing–the criminal trespassers act. There are many details to it.

      This bill bars a lawsuit against an occupier for injury or death of a person 12 years or older trespassing for the purpose of committing a crime. And this bill extends the time period for filing a claim until after criminal charges against the occupier have been resolved. And this bill also limits the occupiers' duty of care, expanded to apply to any person 12 or older who enters the premises without permission. But the current provision limits this duty of care in specific circum­stances.

      So when I look at this bill, I understand that the member from Interlake-Gimli wants to address this liability issue, and rural crime issue as it says in the bill, by passing this bill. At the same time, when this member was part of a team who had a plenty of op­por­tun­ity to address this issue, they didn't. And the member–I don't know how much he tried in his caucus, in his Cabinet, but they failed to address this issue. But that doesn't mean that this concern is not im­por­tant. Occupiers need to be protected against any unfair penal­ties, and those who commit crimes should be liable for their actions.

      But the problem sounds simple. However, it's not as simple as it sounds. How do we protect occupiers? That's the first question that comes to my mind. So how do we do that? Let's think. Let's work on it. Is it by changing the criminal trespassers act, or is it by amending The Occupiers' Liability Act, or by amend­ing The Limitations Act, or by ensuring the liability or by going deeper and under­standing the root cause of these problems?

      Some of us would suggest we need to invest in social programs. This bill would not be on the floor if there was no crime. This bill would not be on the floor if there were no issues that Manitobans faced regarding liability and crime and trespassing. Some would say, let's invest in edu­ca­tion. Some would say, let's address addiction and mental health. Did the previous gov­ern­ment address these issues? No.

      How do we address crime and criminals? By punishing the criminals to a greater extent? Or by fear and threat? Or by shooting them to death? How? How, my friends? Let's discuss this. Or by addressing their needs? Why do some people go down that path? It's a deep-rooted problem, and we need to understand the problem before we address it. And we need to under­stand the reasons why are we here debating this bill today.

      Sometimes I think that we have to pay for inaction in the past. When we do not take care of the things when we should have taken care of these things, we get to this point where we are today.

      When I say we need to address needs, remember, I am focusing on the needs of those people, not their wants. And many of you might have studied Maslow's needs of hierarchy, that tells a lot about human needs and how it impacts our society.

* (10:30)

      But, basically, it boils down to the policies. Again, gov­ern­ment policies and priorities matter. They do. And gov­ern­ment inaction costs billions later, as I said earlier.

      So talking about gov­ern­ment inaction reminds me about who, any guesses? I repeat, talking about gov­ern­ment inaction reminds me about who, any guesses, my friends? Any guesses?

An Honourable Member: The former failed PC gov­ern­ment.

Mr. Brar: The former failed PC gov­ern­ment. I would say the previous gov­ern­ment. I don't want to call them failed. I won't call them callous. I won't call them ineffective or lazy or misled or misguided or anything like that. Election results 2025 said it all, I don't need to say it.

      I have seen them govern in this building, in this province, in this Chamber. Did they invest in edu­ca­tion–did they invest in edu­ca­tion? Did they invest in health care? Did they invest in justice? Did they invest in public service? They did not.

      The members who are sitting on the opposite benches, they actually didn't care about the issue that they seem to care about today, this morning. And those members who didn't care about that issue, they are suggesting and proposing brilliant–quote, unquote brilliant–ideas to address this issue. I think they missed their op­por­tun­ity.

      Now our team is in power and we are doing so many things to address justice issues, address rural crime and so on in our wonderful province. And people are ap­pre­cia­ting it every single day. And we would continue the great work that we signed up for.

      The only thing that we expect from them is to support us, be a team member and serve Manitobans together.

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): What a tough act to follow. The member for Burrows (Mr. Brar) is a class act and really, I think, did a great job of characterizing what this team and what this gov­ern­ment is all about, and that's one Manitoba. It's about bringing people together. It's about finding our common interests, our common goals, and finding new ways and innovative ways to work together, to support one another to make good things happen.

      And I think that's just such an im­por­tant contrast right now to the members opposite, as characterized in legis­lation like they're bringing forward here today, which is really based out of this idea of division, of stoking fears, of putting erroneous facts on the record. And, really, that's all they've been left with. I mean, you know, during the campaign–during the last election campaign, they tried to use these tactics for political advantage to get re-elected and they were thoroughly shut down and denied that right to govern because of their actions, because of the way that they approached these issues.

      And yet, you know, it could have been an op­por­tun­ity for them to reassess and really understand how Manitobans work together and come together on issues like this, but they're continuing to follow the same old patterns. And I think it's doing them a disservice.

      When we talk about what's the reality in rural Manitoba, we know that under their watch the Crime Severity Index, one of the tools that we use as gov­ern­ment and law en­force­ment uses to direct resources, that Crime Severity Index went up every single year under their watch. And that's a travesty because it really shows that their inaction, their disregard for law en­force­ment, for com­mu­nity–again, for bringing people together–had a real-world detrimental effect.

      The CSI, the Crime Severity Index, goes up every single year under their watch. They continue to freeze law en­force­ment funding. They continue to disregard good ideas that are coming from com­mu­nity. There's no invest­ment. There's no real effort to address crime in rural Manitoba. And then that's the result that we see: our com­mu­nities are less safe.

      Now, under our gov­ern­ment, we have seen, for the first time in a long time, that the CSI has actually improved, but there is more work to do. [interjection] That's right. That's right, there is more work to do. And, of course, if we're just focusing on the solutions, like these kinds of bills that really do not address the real issues, there's a lot to lose for Manitobans as well.

      You know, there's a lot to talk about here, Hon­our­able Speaker. I know my colleagues have done a great job of putting some of that on the record. I'll just reiterate or build off of some of what they've talked about.

      Again, that part­ner­ship with law en­force­ment that  was absent under their gov­ern­ment, we've re-esta­blished those part­ner­ships. We've now given law en­force­ment across the province a 30 per cent in­crease in their funding. So, now, this is after years of flatline, no funding for law en­force­ment.

      In fact, I was there when the premier at the time, Heather Stefanson, made an emergency drive out to Brandon, to AMM, to apologize in front of everybody, hundreds of delegates, to say: I'm sorry, we've been freezing you for years and years and years; we're going to scramble, we're going to come up with some­thing. They had nothing, they had no plan. They hadn't gone to Treasury Board or Cabinet, they had no plan. And she went out there and she begged for forgiveness. [interjection] The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Piwniuk) was there, he remembers that time. I saw her scrambling into the Keystone Centre with her head hanging low because she knew her record and she knew exactly what she had done to those munici­palities.

      So a 30 per cent baseline increase, that's im­por­tant. But, as I said, what we're doing, not only are we building out our infra­structure for law en­force­ment across the province, we're also building out some of the im­por­tant initiatives that law en­force­ment has been asking gov­ern­ment for years, never–they never took action. We're taking action on it.

      That includes, of course, G-S-Is. That includes projects going after violent offenders in Thompson. That includes the RCMP initiatives that 'stirectly' address the concerns that are brought forward in Bill 222. And that includes–we've heard about the comms centre which builds out some of the capacity that we have to deploy some of the im­por­tant infra­structure with law en­force­ment across the province, but we also know that the RCMP has developed more resources.

      And, in fact, we just announced last year that the emergency response team which spe­cific­ally addresses the rural crime and rural situations, 18 new officers. [interjection] And, you know, members opposite, they heckle. They have nothing–they never offered these resources–18 new officers. These are equipped and trained spe­cific­ally to deal with emergency situations in rural com­mu­nities.

      AMM stood with us. AMM supports us. They never supported members opposite because they knew they didn't have a partner in them.

      Now, again, we can go on and on. The ankle bracelet program, it was Heather Stefanson who was–not only was she a terrible premier, she was the first Justice minister under Brian Pallister, and so she was actually sitting in the chair where she made the–took out the Sharpie and made a big black mark through our ankle-monitoring program, our EM program, which at the time was just starting to find that new levels of tech­no­lo­gy that could really start protecting com­mu­nities. We brought that back. Members opposite cut that.

      We brought in the security rebate, money in people's pockets to protect themselves. And what's great about that–this program, not only does it allow people to protect them­selves, but they're now protecting their com­mu­nities and their neighbours. And people want to be part of the solution. They just need a little bit of help from gov­ern­ment, they need a little bit of an affordability bump. And they need to be able to be a part of the solution. [interjection]

      Member opposite thinks this is a joke. He should go talk to some law en­force­ment. They say they'd love this tool because it helps them connect the organized crime element; it helps them connect what's happen­ing in com­mu­nity, and now they have that com­mu­nity part­ner­ship. And this is im­por­tant.

* (10:40)

      So $300 may be not a lot to this guy making six figures, Hon­our­able Speaker. But you know what? This guy should go talk to his con­stit­uents and to law en­force­ment–the hon­our­able member sitting opposite, I should say.

      Now look, there–again, I can go on and on: 55 new officers cut–or 55 officers cut in–under their watch; 36 new officers here in the city of Winnipeg. We're–we have esta­blished a bail unit, right?

      Members opposite talk, talk, talk; they never did a thing about bail. First hundred days, they want to talk about–we brought in the five-point bail plan, $4 million, the intensified supervision, the data shar­ing that, you know, member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) sat at those tables with the federal ministers and said bail is an issue and did nothing. We brought in actual, real dollars to make a difference–the MIVOAU, you know, a tactical unit that goes out and apprehends violent offenders.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I have said a lot about the things that we've done and the im­por­tant work that we're doing to support law en­force­ment. But I–we need to be clear here. And that is is that as tough as we've been as a gov­ern­ment on crime and getting tough on those people who are causing chaos and crime in our com­mu­nities, and we're going to continue to do that, the reality is it's about the root causes of crime. And that's why I'm so proud to be a part of a team that doesn't just have a narrow view, doesn't have a divisive rhetoric-filled, no-solution stance on crime, but really looks at how can we affect–excuse me–the root causes.

      And the member from Springfield–I'm glad he finally showed up to the Chamber, you know–

The Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

      I'd just remind members commenting whether someone's here or not is not allowed by the rules.

Mr. Wiebe: Hey, that's fine, Hon­our­able Speaker. His con­stit­uents know exactly what he's all about. And we're going to see in the next election how things go in Springfield.

      That being said, Hon­our­able Speaker, what it's about is it's about ensuring that we address those root  causes. The work that the Minister of Families (MLA Fontaine) is doing every single day, the work that the Minister for Edu­ca­tion is doing every single day, the work that the Minister for Health, the work that the Minister for Housing, Addictions and Homelessness–I can go around this caucus. This is the focus every single day of this team. Because we know we are not going to get our–make our province better by dividing people, by putting false infor­ma­tion about what the crime stats show or amping people up with right-wing rhetoric straight out of Donald Trump's playbook. We're not going to make our province better by only doing that.

      We're going make sure that if we focus on the root causes, on helping our kids succeed, helping our families succeed and helping all Manitobans succeed, that's how we're going to make our province safer.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.                         

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I'd just remind members that I've given quite a bit of latitude, but every now and again you need to draw it back to the actual piece of legis­lation we're talking about. But I will continue to give some latitude in that.

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): We are here today to debate Bill 222, The Criminal Trespassers Act and Amend­ments to The Occupiers' Liability Act, and it's my pleasure to speak up for a Manitoba that is safe, that's fair and that is governed by common sense.

      And Hon­our­able Speaker, Manitoba is safer today thanks to the passage of Bill 48. We thank the Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness (Ms. Smith) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Wiebe). We thank the Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness and we thank the Minister of Justice for what is real leadership on public safety, which is what we are talking about here today.

      This bill, Bill 222, brought forward by the op­posi­tion–it claims to protect property owners from liability when someone trespasses with criminal intent. On the surface, Hon­our­able Speaker, perhaps that might sound reasonable, but when you look a little bit closer–like most things with the PC caucus, when you look a little bit closer, you see the truth. You see a bill  that is quite sweeping, a bill that is vague, a bill that risks undermining the principles of justice and accountability that Manitobans expect from this Chamber and expect from their laws.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, this is really a blunt instrument for what is a complex issue. This bill would remove the duty of care from anyone 12 years or older who enters a property without permission, regardless of the circum­stances–and circum­stances and context is im­por­tant.

      This bill would delay civil claims until criminal charges are resolved and it would shield property owners from liability unless their actions are found to be grossly dis­propor­tion­ate. That's the language of the bill, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      Now, I don't know about you, but when I hear the words grossly dis­propor­tion­ate, we have to think about, what does that mean? What is the definition–what's the legal definition? What's the legal standard? What will be the legal inter­pre­ta­tion of grossly dis­propor­tion­ate? It is going to be open to a wide berth of inter­pre­ta­tion, Hon­our­able Speaker. That's not clarity, that's confusion.

      Our gov­ern­ment, led by our Minister of Justice, brought forward a real bill that protects people, bill–a bill like Bill 48. Bills that protect not just property owners, but bills that also protect kids, protect our neighbours, protect first respon­ders from unintended harm. That's what Bill 48 is doing today, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      Bill 48 passed yesterday despite the ranting denunciation of the leader opposite in‑between his attacks on the member for Waverley (MLA Pankratz), which were quite also disturbing to witness yesterday. Bill 48 protects people, Hon­our­able Speaker. This bill, Bill 222, that we're here to talk about today, does not do that. Unfor­tunately, it's a one-size-fits-all–a lazy approach, you could argue–an irresponsible approach on an issue that demands nuance. This is an im­por­tant issue; our gov­ern­ment believes this is an im­por­tant issue.

      Our gov­ern­ment has taken action on public safety, but this is an issue that 'demounds'–demands nuance. Public safety and liability–issues as im­por­tant as public safety and liability demand nuance. They demand it.

      We all want–we can all agree, Hon­our­able Speaker, that we want to protect property owners from frivolous lawsuits; certainly, we can all agree. But we also need to protect the public from negligence, from unsafe con­di­tions and from situations where harm could have been prevented. And that's the balance that we need to strike, and that's the balance that we're here to debate about today. I would argue that Bill 222 does not strike this balance.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, our gov­ern­ment is tough on crime, but we're also tough on the causes of crime. And I'm so very proud as the Minister of Justice just mentioned in his words, I also join him in that pride. I'm so proud to be part of a gov­ern­ment that is tough on crime but is also tough on the causes of crime. That is the difference–one of the many differences between our gov­ern­ment and the failed gov­ern­ment of the opposi­tion.

      We don't just talk about public safety, Hon­our­able Speaker, we invest in it. Just recently, we an­nounced $2  million to expand Manitoba's Operational Communi­cations Centre. That is some­thing that is going to deliver real public safety for Manitobans. That's real support for law enforcement on the ground: boots on the ground, radios in hand. These are going to result in faster response times when Manitobans need help. That is the kind of leadership we need when we're talking about public safety, and Bill 222 does not do that.

      We've increased funding to munici­pal police forces across the province, Hon­our­able Speaker. That provides public safety after years of a gov­ern­ment that failed to invest in police forces; it's shameful. We've also supported the RCMP: $3.3 million of an invest­ment to support an emergency response team. That is real leadership on public safety.

      We've backed com­mu­nity safety officers in rural Manitoba, northern Manitoba, right here in the city of Winnipeg, on Winnipeg Transit–we have done this con­sistently. But we know that public safety just doesn't happen by accident; it happens when gov­ern­ments and legis­lation make public safety the priority. Bill 222 fails to strike that balance. It fails to strike the balance and really keep the public safe.

* (10:50)

      So let's compare our record. I just spoke a little bit about the record of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Wiebe). There's much, much more I could talk about. Maybe let's talk about that. Let's talk about some other invest­ments in Budget 2025 that shows that our gov­ern­ment is being tough on crime, addressing the causes of crime and supporting public safety: $11.9 million for the Manitoba First Nations Police Service program and the First Nations safety officer program, that is going to produce public safety here in Manitoba, that is going to protect all Manitobans, not just property owners, but all Manitobans; $5.3-million increase to the fund for the–oh–$5.3-million increase to the fund for the RCMP Emergency Response Team and Operational Com­muni­cation Centre, Hon­our­able Speaker, I just spoke about that, in­cred­ible invest­ments; $5 million–another $5 million to support border security; again, I could go on and on and on.

      Let's compare that to the previous PC gov­ern­ment and their record on public safety. The members opposite want to bring forward Bill 222, they want to pretend like they care about public safety. Let's talk about their record. From 2017 onward, they froze police funding. How does that protect property owners? They had a time in gov­ern­ment. If they really cared about protecting Manitobans and they cared about protecting property owners, why would they freeze police funding year after year after year? Not one year, Hon­our­able Speaker, year after year. Not just the Winnipeg police, not just the Brandon police, not just the RCMP. And what happened, what happened? Manitobans know what happened, crime went up. Com­mu­nities were less safe, officers were stretched thin. This affected all Manitobans.

      I certainly heard it, Hon­our­able Speaker, on the doorstep in 2023. I heard it from person after person after person. I've lived in the beautiful com­mu­nity of Rossmere my entire life. Many people in our beautiful com­mu­nity have called this com­mu­nity their home for their entire lives. And what I've heard on the doorstep in 2023 was that crime had never been higher in our beautiful com­mu­nity of Rossmere. And that is because of the failed record of the PC gov­ern­ment that turned their back on public safety, that turned their back on all Manitobans, certainly turned their back on property owners. They didn't do a thing to make this issue better.

      You can't just be tough on crime if you're soft on funding. That's their record. Manitobans know it.

      Thank goodness Manitobans now have a Premier (Mr. Kinew), a Minister of Justice, a Minister of Housing and Addictions and Homelessness (Ms. Smith), a Minister of Families (MLA Fontaine), a Minister of Health–again, I could go across the board like the Minister of Justice did on the great work that this gov­ern­ment is doing, investing in Manitobans, investing in public safety. That's our record.

      We believe in protecting property owners, Hon­our­able Speaker. That's what Bill 222 talks about, but we also believe in protecting the public. And that means making sure our laws are fair and that they are balanced and that they are based on evidence and not just ideology, and I am concerned about their ideology. This bill tries to solve a complex issue with a political slogan. It doesn't distinguish between a criminal act and a tragic accident, it doesn't consider the rights of victims or the respon­si­bilities of occupiers and it doesn't reflect the values of fairness and accountability that Manitobans expect from their justice system.

      Again, it shows their ideology, Hon­our­able Speaker. The private members' reso­lu­tion that we're going to be debating in just a few short minutes really shows their hand, really shows their hand. And it shows that we can do better. It shows that Manitobans deserve better. Manitobans have better in this gov­ern­ment that is elected today and this gov­ern­ment is doing better. We have a better path forward to suggest.

      Here's what we propose: let's work with law enforce­ment and the justice system to protect property owners from frivolous lawsuits without shielding negligence. We're going to do that with law en­force­ment. Law enforcement stood beside us yesterday when we passed Bill 48. We will continue to work with them, listen to them. We will continue to work with law en­force­ment, within their leadership.

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Hon. Uzoma Asagwara (Minister of Health, Seniors and Long-Term Care): Hon­our­able Speaker, I am grateful for the op­por­tun­ity to put a few words on the record in regards to Bill 222.

      Certainly, I want to thank the member opposite for bringing this forward. You know, these are im­por­tant con­ver­sa­tions for us to have in this House. Talking about public safety and security, the rights of property owners and the concerns that folks rightly have about safety in their com­mu­nities: these are con­ver­sa­tions we should be having on the floor of this House. So I want to thank him for bringing this forward. [interjection]

      What I will say is that the member for La Vérendrye (Mr. Narth) should probably not heckle me as I put words on the record. That member himself has unfor­tunately chosen to engage in be­haviour on social media that amplifies the targeting of people in our com­mu­nities. So I would encourage him to, while I put my remarks on the record, perhaps stay quiet on that side of the House.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, we take very seriously as a gov­ern­ment the rights of Manitobans to be safe in their homes, to be safe in their com­mu­nities. And we also recog­nize that this isn't just the respon­si­bility of the Minister for Justice. The Minister for Justice and the Attorney General of Manitoba (Mr. Wiebe) has worked tirelessly from day one to take very real, very tangible, very pragmatic steps alongside experts in this province to keep Manitobans safer. And I want to say thank you to our Minister of Justice for his leader­ship on this very im­por­tant file for Manitobans.

      It's also im­por­tant to understand, Hon­our­able Speaker, that safety and security and folks being safer in their neighbourhoods is the responsibility of an entire gov­ern­ment, which is why I ap­pre­ciate the Minister of Edu­ca­tion high­lighting the work and the effort in all de­part­ments across gov­ern­ment. It is a housing issue, it is a health issue, it is a jobs issue, it is a families issue, it is a women and gender issue.

      It is an issue that our gov­ern­ment takes with the highest level of seriousness, which is why you see in our gov­ern­ment make invest­ments to address the root causes of violence across our com­mu­nities. It's why we are tough on crime, but yes, of course, we are tough on the causes of crime.

      And Bill 222 certainly, I do believe that there's an element of ideological sort of amplification here. They're trying to cater to a certain rhetoric and narrative to get people riled up without having any real substance in this legis­lation that would fun­da­mentally do the work of protecting Manitobans. And I think that that is actually a bit of a disservice in this legislation. I think we all agree that Manitobans should be safer in their com­mu­nities.

      I think where we differ here is that our gov­ern­ment believes that the work to keep people safer requires part­ner­ship, requires col­lab­o­ration, requires listening to the experts and requires working with the folks who are out in our com­mu­nities day in and day out, keeping people safe. Which is why, under the previous PC gov­ern­ment, including the member who brought this forward, we saw the PCs cut dozens of police officers from our com­mu­nities. We saw them cut health services and social services, all of which contribute to our com­mu­nities being less safe.

      And in contrast you see under our administration invest­ments in nearly 60 new police officers being in our com­mu­nities, millions of dollars invested in health and social services and invest­ments in jobs and training op­por­tun­ities that are seeing people who are struggling, people who would previously have gone without the tools they need to thrive, doing better in  our com­mu­nities–which is why you see the stats that our Minister of Justice has brought forward–improving.

      And we also recog­nize that after seven and a half years of a previous gov­ern­ment that did every­thing they possibly could to make our com­mu­nities less safe, it's taking us time, effort, sustained effort and part­ner­ship to turn those numbers in a better direction. Which is why when I talk to Manitobans, when I sit down and have con­ver­sa­tions with folks in our com­mu­nities–and I represent Union Station, a com­mu­nity where oftentimes cuts to these services like we saw under the PCs–we see the impacts of that really amplified in this parti­cular com­mu­nity.

      You see it when you walk out on Broadway, you see it on Main Street, you see it on Sherbrook and Maryland, you see it on Furby and Langside. The cuts the previous gov­ern­ment made are amplified and very visible in the neighbourhood that I represent and that I love dearly. And so when I sit and I talk to people in my con­stit­uency, and we talk about what does safety and security mean to you, what folks tell me is well, (1) first and foremost, it's a gov­ern­ment that has compassion, it's a gov­ern­ment that listens, it's a gov­ern­ment that actually invests in the com­mu­nities that keep our kids safe, that puts activities and op­por­tun­ities into our neighbourhoods and that works with our partners in law en­force­ment to do what is necessary proactively to keep people safer.

      So, Hon­our­able Speaker, I just want to say that our gov­ern­ment takes this very seriously. We're going to keep doing this work. We recog­nize that this is a con­ver­sa­tion that's very alive for Manitobans and we're going to continue to be a part of it with our partners.

* (11:00)

The Speaker: Order, please.

      When this matter's again before the House, the hon­our­able minister will have five minutes remaining.

Debate on Resolutions

Res. 23–Right to Defend Your Home and Family

The Speaker: The hour being 11 o'clock, we will now move on to private members' reso­lu­tions. The reso­lu­tion before us this morning is reso­lu­tion No. 23, the Right to Defend Your Home and Family, and it's stand­ing in the name of the hon­our­able Minister of Innovation and New Tech­no­lo­gy, who has eight min­utes remaining.

Hon. Mike Moroz (Minister of Innovation and New Technology): I rise again today to continue my comments on the op­posi­tion reso­lu­tion, sponsored by the member from Borderland, with a disappointingly dog-whistle title, the Right to Defend Your Home and Family.

      And I view it that way, Hon­our­able Speaker, for a number of reasons. Firstly, because everyone in this Chamber, regardless of the seat that they occupy, agrees that all Manitobans have a right to feel safe in their homes and that gov­ern­ments have a respon­si­bility to not only ensure that they do, but to see that they are.

      Unfor­tunately, this reso­lu­tion does absolutely nothing to make Manitobans safer. In fact, I would argue it does quite the opposite. Its tone of shoot first, ask questions later, and the arguments of the op­posi­tion members who've been defending it, actually contribute to the amplification of an atmosphere of fear and mistrust in com­mu­nities, that make us all less safe. Stoking fear, telling vul­ner­able people how unsafe they are, how much more dangerous the world has become, is not a recipe for safer com­mu­nities.

      This reso­lu­tion tells Manitobans that the best way to deal with crime is to deal with it yourself–with violence, if you think that's necessary. What Manitobans are actually asking for is more trained officers, faster response times, smarter monitoring and fewer guns and gangs, not a free rein as incentive for con­fronta­tions on front yards and farmyards.

Mrs. Rachelle Schott, Acting Speaker, in the Chair

      What's more, hon­our­able Speaker, this reso­lu­tion isn't even necessary. Canadians have long held the legal right to use reasonable force to defend them­selves, their families and their homes. Now, I know that members opposite today will argue that the current concept of reasonableness, the test of reason­ableness as it's currently laid out, is too restrictive and too complicated and that it prevents individuals from defending them­selves.

      I disagree, and I'm not alone in that disagreement, nor is it limited to members who sit on this side of the Chamber. Com­mu­nity leaders disagree. Law en­force­ment disagrees. The judicial system disagrees.

      In fact, one of the leading proponents of the cur­rent framework is former Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. I know he disagrees because it was his gov­ern­ment who intro­duced it in 2013 in the form of Bill C-26. He made it clear at the time that the bill's in­ten­tion was to modernize and simplify the laws surrounding self-defence, which he had previously described as confusing and outdated–the very thing the member from Borderland says he wants to do with this reso­lu­tion.

      Now, hon­our­able deputy Speaker, I'm pretty confident that my colleagues in the op­posi­tion benches know who Stephen Harper is. In fact, I seem to recall some fairly gushing fanboy photos recently posted by some of them after meeting him at events in both Winnipeg and Saskatoon; great photos, they all look like they're having a wonderful time.

      So, yes, it was that guy, the one you had your photo taken with, who brought into force the current legal framework. He didn't view it as too restrictive. He didn't see it as preventing Canadians from defending them­selves, their homes or their families.

      But now, the op­posi­tion does. What possible motivation would there be for them to break ranks with Mr. Harper? When we debated this reso­lu­tion last week, we tried to get some clarity around that. And we asked a number of questions regarding their time in gov­ern­ment and what they did to make Manitobans safer.

      They didn't really want to talk about that, and I can see why. Their record during their time in office was one of cuts and inaction. Let me give you some examples of their track record. In 2022, crime rose under the PC gov­ern­ment: a 44 per cent increase in attempted murders; a 40 per cent increase in ho­micides; a 39 per cent increase in robberies; an 8 per cent increase in sexual assaults; a 19 per cent increase in breaking and entering and a 13 per cent increase in fraud.

      How did they respond to that? How did they respond to the crisis that was facing Manitobans? Well, certainly not by putting more law en­force­ment officers on the street. In fact, we suffered a net loss of 55 officers in Winnipeg alone. Certainly not by increasing the police budgets for munici­palities; those were frozen.

      The reality, hon­our­able deputy Speaker, is that the op­posi­tion doesn't want to solve crime; certainly didn't as gov­ern­ment. Didn't want to address the root causes of crime. What they want to do is campaign on crime. That's the motivation for this. There's no need for it, no need for the reso­lu­tion. There is clarity around the situation, what people can and can't do. And it's disappointing that the members opposite would take this tactic.

      Not only did they cut funding for munici­palities and for police, they cut funding to com­mu­nity safety programs: $2.6 million, cutting valuable funding for crime pre­ven­tion, Com­mu­nity Corrections and the Family Reso­lu­tion Service.

      Additionally, they refused to support restorative justice, choosing to eliminate the Restorative Reso­lu­tions program, preventing Manitoba offenders from pursuing alternatives that would have allowed them a second chance at success.

      When approached by stake­holders about holding a public safety summit, the former minister of Justice called the idea a get-together with coffee and doughnuts. And here I'm quoting from Hansard, November 28, 2019: Instead of listening to com­mu­nity organi­zations and those struggling to support Manitobans, the previous gov­ern­ment ignored the request to create safe con­sump­tion sites, questioning their effectiveness.

      Our gov­ern­ment believes that every Manitoban deserves to feel safe in their home.

      Thank you.

Mr. Konrad Narth (La Vérendrye): It's an honour to rise in this House today to speak in strong support of this common sense reso­lu­tion brought forward by the strong common sense MLA for Borderland.

      This reso­lu­tion calls on the federal gov­ern­ment to amend the Criminal Code to protect the rights of Manitobans to defend them­selves, their loved ones and their homes.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I don't want to take much time because it's im­por­tant that this reso­lu­tion is passed today unanimously by both sides of this House. But I'd like to get a few words on the record. Over the past year, we have seen an alarming rise in violent crime across Manitoba. Home invasions, assaults and random acts of violence that have left many families shaken and fearful in their very own homes.

* (11:10)

      From the tragic home invasions that left Winnipeg seniors hospitalized, to the recent attack on a couple in Thompson, these incidents have shaken our sense of safety and security.

      And the sad reality, hon­our­able Speaker, is that under the soft-on-crime approach of this NDP gov­ern­ment and their federal Liberal allies, it's the same story over and over again: repeat violent offenders are arrested, released on bail and reoffend without hours or days. Meanwhile, the law-abiding citizens–the victims–are left living in fear. That's not justice; that's not safety, and that is not the Manitoba I believe in.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, Manitobans have a simple, common sense ex­pect­a­tion that when someone breaks into their home in the dead of night, uninvited, unlawfully, they have every right to do what is necessary to protect them­selves and their families.

      This resolution does not call on US-style, shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach. We know that's nonsense, and we won't let the NDP distract Manitobans with that kind of fear mongering. What we're calling for is clarity, fairness and common sense. We're saying that when a criminal decides to break into your home, they assume the risk of what happens next, not the law-abiding homeowner who is simply defending their family.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, this is not an abstract debate for rural Manitobans. In many com­mu­nity–in many of  our com­mu­nities, law en­force­ment response times can be measured not in minutes but in hours. In La Vérendrye, my con­stit­uency, we know that when some­thing happens on a remote farm or rural property, help isn't always seconds away. Manitobans deserve to know that if they're ever faced with that nightmare scenario, someone breaking into their home in the middle of the night, the law will be on their side, not stacked against them.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to talk about a couple examples that I've lived first-hand, and we're seeing it time and time again. We're also getting mixed messages from this Premier (Mr. Kinew), a premier that comments that certain criminals should have no justice system but instead be buried under the prison walls. Also, this Premier mentioned that criminals of his choice should be let out and let the prisons deal with them; whether they be killed within that situation or not, that should be up to the prisoners themselves to decide the justice.

      So we're getting a lot of mixed messages. Then we see the soft-on-crime approach, where criminals are let out the very next day. And we're seeing this not only in downtown, not along Main Street; as we saw this morning in the member for River Heights (MLA Moroz), who spoke just before me, we're seeing it in his com­mu­nity–River Heights, which was once an upscale, safe neighbourhood, we're seeing a rampage of violent crime, vandalism over­night. That's this morning.

      We're seeing the effects of the soft-on-crime approach of this gov­ern­ment. Those people that live in those homes in what used to be a safe neigh­bourhood are scared this morning seeing that there was weapon-wielding members of the com­mu­nity right in their backyards, vandalizing their cars, vandalizing their property, not knowing what could have been if one of those criminals had knocked on the door. People are scared in their own homes.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I'll share with you an example that I've ex­per­ienced myself in rural Manitoba. Just last year, I came upon a neighbouring farmer's stolen vehicle, followed that vehicle while I  was on the phone with the RCMP. The RCMP weren't too interested because they know the system. They know that they arrest, they reoffend, but I  needed to know that this vehicle would be aban­doned so that my friend, the neighbour, would be able to get it back. This is a vehicle that they need to create a living for them­selves and their families.

      I followed this vehicle, not in a violent fashion, thinking that I'd follow to see who was driving the vehicle and, hopefully, during that time that I'd keep an eye on the vehicle and on the criminal, the RCMP would be able to come and intervene. I had my five‑year-old son with me and the vehicle stopped on the highway, and to my surprise the criminal exited the vehicle and came towards mine holding a gun, point­ing a gun right at my vehicle­–

The Acting Speaker (Rachelle Schott): Order.

      I would just like to remind the member we're currently discussing reso­lu­tion 23, entitled Right to Defend Your Home and Family, so if you wouldn't mind just drawing it back to home.

Mr. Narth: That's exactly right; this is proof. When we have criminals that once had been just committing property crime, it escalates. It escalates to the point that now people that are stealing cars, people that are committing property crime, are approaching these properties now weaponized. They're coming with guns and they're threatening people's lives.

      This was an example of mine where I wanted to keep an eye on the vehicle and I was approached with a gun. That's me, the MLA for the com­mu­nity, was approached with a gun. These are people that were in the backyard of my neighbour. That family was shaken because they didn't know who was on the yard stealing their vehicle. It turned out that it was someone with a gun.

      If my neighbour had come out to approach the thief, they would have been presented with the gun. If I was visiting and had my five-year-old son with me visiting the neighbour and had come across the criminal with a gun, I would have been ap­proached with a weapon that could have taken my life or my son's life.

      This is con­cern­ing. Manitobans in that case need to know that they will not be the criminal if they defend their family. If I defend my son, if my neighbour defends his family, they need to know that the police are not coming into their home and arresting them, but they are supporting them for defending their family.

      That's what this reso­lu­tion is about, hon­our­able Speaker. Both sides of the House need to support this common sense call on the federal gov­ern­ment to respect property owners, homeowners and lives of all Canadians, but in Manitoba, especially Manitobans that are in com­mu­nities like River Heights, a safe, upscale neighbourhood that wake up this morning with the reality that weapon-wielding criminals were on their properties, in their front yards, in their backyards, vandalizing their properties, unknowing of what could have happened if one of those com­mu­nity members would have walked outside last night. That's what this reso­lu­tion is about.

      Thank you, hon­our­able Speaker.

Hon. Renée Cable (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Each and every day that I come into this Chamber, I am grateful for the privilege, and I  recog­nize the importance of people like me, a mom, being part of this discourse, being part of this debate, because I don't share the sentiments of the members opposite who are excited to grab a gun and do things that as a Canadian I don't believe is part of who we are.

* (11:20)

      Day after day, they come to this Chamber and encourage Manitobans to be afraid of their neigh­bours, encourage Manitobans to not talk to one another, encourage Manitobans to be further and further apart. Hon­our­able deputy Speaker, I am proud to be in a com­mu­nity where I know my neighbours. I  work hard to know my neighbours. I work hard to be a part of my com­mu­nity and to bring people in and give them a sense of belonging because that's how I know we build safer com­mu­nities. And they're going to heckle and say that I'm soft on crime and 'blah-de-da,' but I'm watching what's happening in the United States of America and this is not what I want for us in Canada. This is not what I want.

      I don't want the same kind of attitude about who has access to what, who we should be afraid of. The dog-whistle nonsense that shows up in this House each and every day has to stop, hon­our­able deputy Speaker. This PMR is nothing but an op­por­tun­ity for the members opposite to stand up and, once again, instill fear in Manitobans, to encourage Manitobans to be afraid of the people that live down the road and to  encourage Manitobans to engage in vigilante behaviour.

      Hon­our­able deputy Speaker, we don't believe in that. We're not on side with that. We've seen what happens with folks like Colten Boushie, we've seen what happens when people decide that they ought to take the law into their own hands. And I can tell you that I will never support a reso­lu­tion like this. This is not who we are and this is simply lip service to be able to get some quick social media shots so they can be in line with their federal cousins who tout out tag lines about being tough on crime while doing nothing about it.

      Hon­our­able deputy Speaker, we know that being tough on crime means investing in our front-line forces. It also means investing in the root causes of crime: poverty, addiction, mental health challenges, housing. This is actually how we deal with the root causes of crime. And it is so frustrating to come in here and hear these very superficial, simple slogans to make it sound like this is an easy thing to achieve.

      Hon­our­able deputy Speaker, I can assure you that every single member on this side of the House understands the complexity of crime, understands the complexity of poverty. And we're working on all fronts to help change the channel. And last year, we actually saw a decrease in severe crimes for the first time. Violent crime, a decrease in Manitoba. And you know what? They don't want to hear that because it makes it pretty hard to go out there and say: be afraid of your neighbours, be afraid of the folks that are having trouble finding shelter, be afraid of the folks who have mental health challenges.

      Because, hon­our­able deputy Speaker, if you follow the path down, if you follow their logic and what we ought to be doing as Manitobans, at the end of the day we're each living on an island alone. And that is not the society that I want to live in at all.

      This PMR, which is completely built on the stand-your-ground mindset, which we know who is dis­proportionately affected by these kinds of laws. It is folks who are struggling. And I have many, many friends and family who–the members opposite cite, you know, rural areas, we have guns–and most of my family actually still lives in rural Manitoba. Many of them have guns. And I can tell you, hon­our­able deputy Speaker, that nobody would consider running to their garage to grab a gun if they saw somebody in their yard.

      And you want to know why? Because they don't think the worst of every human that isn't them. They don't think that every person out there is out to get them. They see neighbours as neighbours. They recog­­­­nize that life happens all around us. And if we come to this life, to this world, every day with the mindset that somebody's out to get me and some­body's here to steal my stuff, imagine how in­cred­ibly miserable that life is, hon­our­able deputy Speaker.

      The irony of these folks coming into this Chamber to talk about being tough on crime while under their watch they fire 55 police officers in Winnipeg–55, hon­our­able deputy Speaker. Those are 55 officers that aren't patrolling the streets, and these are 55 officers that weren't helping victims of crime and 55 officers who weren't helping to serve the public good any longer.

      So we've invested in police officers, not just in Winnipeg but in the city of Brandon. In many rural areas, we have additional supports. And I am so proud of this gov­ern­ment that, again, understands the com­plexities around crime.

      As a parent, I will never ever be in a place where I am going to stand and vote in favour of condoning violence. I just never will. So the member opposite said he can't wait for this reso­lu­tion to pass unanimously–never going to happen.

      Hon­our­able deputy Speaker, I know that it doesn't feel natural to think about the impacts on com­mu­nity or our neighbours or our children when we're just worried about our stuff. But at the end of the day, I  know that our role here in this place is to take care of every Manitoban, and that includes folks that we might not know–they're not friends yet–but we certainly cannot come in this place and support vigilante behaviour that would put com­mu­nity members at risk. I–[interjection]–it's–bless you.

      We can never forget the human cost when we  prioritize property over people. And again, I  under­­stand that the members opposite are very con­cerned about stuff. But I know that the value of this life is to build com­mu­nity, to take care of one another, to leave the world better than we found it, and that really has nothing to do with things.

      And, hon­our­able deputy Speaker, this reso­lu­tion does nothing to speak of preventing crime, at all. It talks about reacting to the potential of some­thing happening, reacting in a way that has the potential of leaving people hurt, injured and, in horrible cases, dead.

      And I know that the folks on this side of the House understand the value of humanity, and we will continue to stand up for the best interests of all Manitobans, and it will not include any proposal that advocates for violence against folks in our com­mu­nities, against our neighbours or against our children.

      Thank you, hon­our­able Speaker.

Mr. Logan Oxenham (Kirkfield Park): It's really great to get a chance to stand up here in the Chamber and talk about im­por­tant things. And I was really concerned to see this reso­lu­tion come across, you know, the Progressive Conservative shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later bill.

* (11:30)

      You know, this PMR really encourages the confronta­tional stand-your-ground attitude that prioritizes violence; relying on individual action instead of law en­force­ment, it undermines community safety. Trained pro­fes­sionals are better equipped to handle any potentially volatile situation.

      Hon­our­able deputy Speaker, I'd like to little–dive into a little bit of historical context on crime surge under the PCs. Under the failed PC gov­ern­ment, Manitoba witnessed a con­sid­erable increase in crime rates. The Crime Severity Index rose 14 per cent. This significantly increases–this sig­ni­fi­cant increase reflects poorly on their ability to maintain public safety during their gov­ern­ance.

An Honourable Member: Speaker.

The Acting Chairperson (Rachelle Schott): Member for Borderland.

Point of Order

Mr. Josh Guenter (Borderland): Speaker, on a point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Rachelle Schott): The member for Borderland, on a point of order.

Mr. Guenter: Speaker, it's frankly nauseating to hear the champagne socialists across the way, in their ivory towers, so disconnected from the realities of Manitobans, going on and on and on.

      You have the member for River Heights (MLA Moroz), spends eight minutes but fails to talk about the crime that happened in his own con­stit­uency just this morning. You have members across the way–a minister talking about their failed record on crime. But they're not talking about the reso­lu­tion, which is about the principle that when you are attacked in your own home, you ought to have the right to defend yourself and your loved ones.

      They're making it very clear that what they would do, which is cowardice–they would comply with the criminals, okay? But it's absolutely unreasonable for them to expect Manitobans to do the same. They ought to speak to the principle of the reso­lu­tion. They need to be relevant.

The Acting Speaker (Rachelle Schott): The Gov­ern­ment House Leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): Once again, we see in–again, we see this day after day, members opposite get up in the Chamber and use procedural tools to waste everybody's time.

      You know, we're debating this reso­lu­tion that the member for Borderland (Mr. Guenter) has brought forward in a very thoughtful, in­ten­tional way. The member opposite may not like what members opposite on this side are saying, but the comments that our members on this side are saying are educated. They are thoughtful, they are based in ex­per­ience. They're based in human rights and they're based in, you know, moving away from what the member for Borderland, in his, like, MAGA baby ideology, is trying to put forward in this Chamber.

      We know that the member for Borderland, during COVID, you know, stood in solidarity with people that were–with truckers and anti‑vaxxers and convoy people. I think he brought them tea and crumpets; I'm not sure. But we know that he is, like, MAGA 2.0 for southern Manitoba here and it upsets him that members here are thoughtful and in­ten­tional with what we bring forward. And the fact that we don't want to see a divided Manitoba; we want a Manitoba that everybody has equal rights, equal op­por­tun­ities and we're doing just that in gov­ern­ment.

      So the member opposite can continue with his MAGA 2.0 all he wants. Nobody listens, nobody cares, nobody likes him. I would just encourage him to just do his job as an MLA here for Manitobans, for all Manitobans.

The Acting Speaker (Rachelle Schott): Anyone else speaking to this point of order?

      Okay. Speakers and presiding officers give a certain amount of latitude for a member to build their argument or point in debate. However, I will ask that all members tie their comments to the reso­lu­tion before us.

* * *

The Acting Speaker (Rachelle Schott): The hon­our­able member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Oxenham) can continue.

Mr. Oxenham: I understand the op­posi­tion doesn't like to hear the words that I am saying right now but it's truth telling and sometimes the truth hurts, you know.

      So I was talking about the Crime Severity Index, how it rose 14 per cent, you know, and this contributes to folks' fears. And these folks on the opposite side try to exploit that con­sistently. Inade­quate policing resources, hon­our­able deputy Speaker, play a role. And during the PCs' administration, there was a net loss of 55 WPS officers.

      And this reduction in law en­force­ment personnel, it directly correlates with rising com­mu­nity insecurity. There is hiring freezes, hon­our­able deputy Speaker. I  was working at the Winnipeg Remand Centre and I  worked in the admissions de­part­ment for almost five years. And in that time, while the PCs were in charge, we saw our admission numbers going up and up. And I continued to see police officers who would come into admissions with somebody and they were very frustrated at the lack of support that they received from the gov­ern­ment at the time. And it was very frustrating because, you know, they need backup and they didn't have that backup.

      The hiring freezes: I know that, you know, in corrections, we faced those hiring freezes and it really affected our ability to do our jobs properly. I mean, they did cut restorative justice pro­gram­ming, things that help people stay out of trouble. Why would you do that? You want your com­mu­nities to be safe; why would you cut things that help people get on a better path? It just doesn't make any sense.

The Speaker in the Chair

      It's misguided resource allocations. You know, the PCs froze funding and the choice reflects a fun­da­mental disregard for com­mu­nity safety needs. It was a failure in budget management con­cern­ing public safety priorities. We talk about the root causes of crime and that's really im­por­tant. We're talking about people here who've ex­per­ienced a lot of trauma in their life. And this PMR does not at all address the underlying issues contributing to crime, such as poverty and mental health.    

      The fact that the former failed PC gov­ern­ment wilfully ignored these factors, it just proves their incompetent under­standing of law en­force­ment and com­mu­nity well-being. So we've seen an es­cal­ation of racially charged incidents. You know, em­power­ing property owners to con­front perceived threats increases the risk of racially motivated violence, especially against minority com­mu­nities, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      Undermining trust in law en­force­ment, Hon­our­able Speaker: You know this reso­lu­tion, it fosters a culture where individuals feel em­power­ed to take law en­force­ment into their own hands, eroding public trust in police forces.

      I'll maybe share an incident, Hon­our­able Speaker, that I ex­per­ienced, and it relates to this private members' reso­lu­tion. I used to live just outside of Winnipeg in a little farmhouse for about 10 years. And it was on an acreage so it didn't have too many neighbours. And in the middle of the night–could have been really early in the morning; it was raining. I remember that–and there was frantic knocking at my door.

      And so, I got up to see what was happening. And I could hear, hello, hello, from outside. So naturally, you don't have a lot of action out in the country. Your back is up. You're like, who's at my back door? Who could this be? And I turned the light on. It was two women. Turns out their car hit the ditch just down the road from my house.

      Now, what if I was someone who absorbed all of this rhetoric: the violent shoot-first-ask-questions-later kind of attitude? I think the result would have been tragic, Hon­our­able Speaker. And thankfully, you know, I had the wherewithal to not have those thoughts and motivations and to help folks. You never know who shows up at your door sometimes. Maybe it's someone who's needing help.

* (11:40)

      You know, it's this con­sistent fear mongering that really, I think, Manitobans can see through. And Manitobans understand, you know, that they have a gov­ern­ment now who is really addressing the root causes of crime and the social determinants of crime, which ultimately impacts our com­mu­nity and makes us all safer. 

      So disregarding, you know, suc­cess­ful crime reduction strategies, Hon­our­able Speaker, we've seen what the PCs do with evidence-backed science and strategy initiatives. In fact, they throw it on the floor and they disregard it, the evidence that's right before their eyes. Our gov­ern­ment has intro­duced crime reduction initiatives that has led to a 5 per cent reduc­tion in violent crime in Winnipeg. That's sig­ni­fi­cant; that should be celebrated. And we should be working as a whole towards that and celebrating those things.

      But no, we have a fear-mongering, lazy, violent-thirsty PC Party that continues to show the failure to continue any effective strategy that would prioritize com­mu­nity safety over punitive measures–you know, again, working in law en­force­ment, working in corrections, working with folks who are in conflict with the law and are at various stages in their journey in life. And it's really im­por­tant that we have the tools–law en­force­ment has the tools–to truly help folks, setting them on the right path, giving them the resources so that they can make informed decisions about how they're going to re-enter society and contribute to society. And that's only fair, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      I'm very grateful to be on this team and to watch the work of our Justice Minister, and I'm really proud to stand here today and celebrate, you know, the wins that we have and also recog­nize that there's a lot of work to do. But I believe, Hon­our­able Speaker, that we're on the right path, and, you know, having laws that encourage people to resort to violence, it's just not good for Manitobans. It's dangerous and, quite frankly, could be racist, and it's too big of a risk for us to take.

      So I ap­pre­ciate your time, Hon­our­able Speaker. Thank you very much.

Point of Order

The Speaker: Just before I recog­nize the next speak­er, I need to clarify that the matter that was raised by the member for Borderland (Mr. Guenter) was not a point of order.

* * *

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for McPhillips.

MLA JD Devgan (McPhillips): Technically, it's their turn.

 

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Riding Mountain.

Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): I'm pleased to rise in the House today in support of this reso­lu­tion that calls upon the gov­ern­ment of Canada to amend the Criminal Code, to strengthen and clarify the rights of Canadians to defend them­selves, their loved ones and their homes from violent intruders.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, over the past two years, Manitobans have watched with growing concern as violent crime has spread across the province. The tragic reality is that many people, especially our seniors and low–those living in rural and northern com­mu­nities, no longer feel safe in their own homes.

      Time and again, we hear about another violent break-in or home invasion. We see the devastating impact it leaves behind: the fear, the trauma, the loss of security. And all too often, we also see that the same individuals respon­si­ble for these crimes were already out on bail, already known to police and already given far too many chances. That is not justice, Hon­our­able Speaker; that is failure.

      It is failure by a federal gov­ern­ment whose soft on crime laws have allowed violent repeat offenders to walk free within hours. And it is a failure by a prov­incial NDP gov­ern­ment that has chosen to follow the same path, one that prioritizes the rights of offenders over the rights of victims.

      The member for Borderland's (Mr. Guenter) reso­lu­tion is rooted in a simple but profound principle: that a person's home is their castle. Every Manitoban, every Canadian should have the unquestioned right to feel safe in their own dwelling.

      The idea that one's home is a place of refuge and safety is as old as civilization itself. In English common law, it was said that a man's home is his castle. That principle recog­nized that within one's home, a person has both the right and the duty to protect those inside from unlawful harm.

      Yet under Canada's current legal framework, that right has been clouded by complexity. Sections 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code set out the con­di­tions under which force may be used in self-defence. But in practice, these provisions are convoluted and difficult to apply, especially in the moment of crisis when an 'intruner' has broken in and a person must make a split-second, life-or-death decision.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, as law–the law as written effectively requires an individual to weigh nine separate legal con­sid­era­tions before acting. These include questions about the proportionality of the response, the imminence of the threat, the history of the relationship between the parties and even whether the act of forced used was in response to a lawful threat.

      Now, Hon­our­able Speaker, in a calm setting–in a courtroom or a classroom–these may be reasonable questions. But in the middle of the night when a criminal kicks in your door, they are completely unrealistic. No person in that situation has the luxury of legal contemplation. They only have seconds to react to protect them­selves and their family. And yet, too often the person who defends their home is the one who ends up facing criminal charges while the true offender, the person who created the danger, walks free.

      That is why this reso­lu­tion is so im­por­tant: it calls for clarity, for balance and for common sense. It calls for a clear recog­nition in law that when someone unlawfully enters or attempts to enter your home and you reasonably believe that you or your family are in danger, you are justified in using reasonable force–including deadly force if necessary–to stop that threat.

      This resolution does not call for reckless action, it does not call for an American-style stand-your-ground law and it does not open the door to vigilantism. What it does is reaffirm that the innocent should never be treated as criminals for defending them­selves against real criminals.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, in many of our rural and remote communities, police response times can be lengthy, not for lack of dedi­cation or professionalism, but simply because of distance. When minutes or even hours stand between a 911 call and help arriving, the reality is clear: sometimes a person must be their own first responder.

      In that moment, they should not have to second guess whether the law will punish them for doing what any reasonable person would do: protect them­selves and those they love.

      The castle law principle places responsibility where it belongs: on the intruder, not the victim. When someone chooses to unlawfully enter another person's home, they accept the risks and con­se­quences that come with that criminal act.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, the member for Borderland has said it well: this reso­lu­tion is about restoring fairness and common sense. It is about ensuring that Manitobans who act reasonably in defence of their own homes are not criminalized for it.

      We have seen too many tragic examples across this country where people who defended them­selves or their property were dragged through the courts, forced to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and have their reputations destroyed. For many, the emo­tional toll–the fear, the anxiety, the loss of peace–lingers long after the event itself.

      That is not the kind of justice system Canadians expect or deserve. Canadian juries, when faced with these cases, have shown that ordinary citizens understand what is fair. Again and again, they have acquitted homeowners who acted in genuine self-defence. That is because Canadians instinctively understand that the right to defend one's home and family is fundamental.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, this reso­lu­tion is a measured and reasonable call for reform. It seeks to simplify and clarify the law, to remove the duty to retreat and to provide immunity from civil or criminal liability for those who act lawfully and in good faith to defend their homes.

* (11:50)

      No one here on this side of the House is advocating violence. No one is suggesting that people take the law into their own hands. What we are saying is that when law‑abiding citizens are faced with imme­diate danger in their own homes, the law should be on their side, not stacked against them.

      This is not a partisan issue. This is about standing with Manitobans who want to feel safe, secure and protected in the place they should feel safest of all–their homes.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the member for Borderland (Mr. Guenter), for bringing forward this thoughtful and timely reso­lu­tion. It reflects the concerns we are hearing from Manitobans every day; from seniors in small towns, from families in our cities, and from farmers and ranchers across rural Manitoba. People are frightened, and they deserve to know that their gov­ern­ment will stand with them.

      I urge every member of this House, regardless of party, to support this common sense reso­lu­tion. Let us send a united message to Ottawa that Manitoba stands with the victims, not with the criminals, that we stand for fairness, safety and justice.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, a home is more than four walls. It is a place of family, of rest, of belonging. It is where Manitobans should always be safe. Let us affirm today that every Manitoban, every Canadian, has the right to feel safe and to be safe in their own home.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

MLA Devgan: Hon­our­able Speaker, before I get into my remarks this morning I just want to–it's a day late and I didn't get the op­por­tun­ity to say this yesterday, but I want to send out my best wishes to the Sikh diaspora here in Manitoba who celebrated the birth date of the founder of the Sikh faith yesterday.

      Gurpurab [Anniversary of], Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

      My heartiest of con­gratu­la­tions to the entire com­mu­nity on behalf of our colleagues on this side of the House.

      And, Hon­our­able Speaker, if you'll indulge me a little bit, I had a chance last night to attend the Sikh Society of Manitoba after session, leaving the Leg. and heading right down there. And I just wanted to celebrate with the com­mu­nity and went to the Sikh Society of Manitoba and it was, of course, a packed house. A lot of folks were there taking time out of their day to celebrate and it was really nice to celebrate with the com­mu­nity, and it was all the more special to be driving on a newly freshly paved Mollard Road–

The Speaker: Order, please. I was willing to give the member some latitude, but he's gone on a little too long now.

MLA Devgan: Hon­our­able Speaker, I ap­pre­ciate your generosity. But, anyway, I just wanted to express that to the Sikh com­mu­nity and just say that it's nice to get out in the com­mu­nity and celebrate these im­por­tant dates.

      But, speaking to the PMR this morning, this is already on the books. We already have this law in Canada. Stephen Harper, as my colleague from River Heights mentioned, is the one who brought this into law here.

      So, hypothetically, as a Manitoban, as a Canadian, if somebody breaks into your home, you can defend yourself with reasonable force. You have that right. To suggest that you don't, to suggest that you have a duty to vacate your premise is complete fallacy. So you have the right to defend your home with reasonable force.

      What we're hearing from the op­posi­tion this morning, though, is that you should be able to use so much force that it may end up costing the life of somebody else. That's actually verbatim what this PMR says–verbatim.

       Despite what the members opposite have been trying to massage their messaging this morning, that is what they're asking for here, and they're implying to Manitobans listening that we don't have such rules, that if you were to have somebody access your property illegally or uninvited, that you would just have to throw up your hands, and they've gone so far this morning to suggest that police don't respond, the police aren't there to make it in time.

      So it's very revealing to hear the PC op­posi­tion talk so negatively about law en­force­ment, and it's a little bit ironic they're talking about arrival times for police when you call 911 and how that's taking some time.

      Well, you know, when you cut police, when you cut 55 police officers from the Winnipeg police force, you're going to have some knock‑on effects down the road. They did that. They're the ones who cut the police, Hon­our­able Speaker. But we already have rules in the book to defend your own property, so I'm not under­standing why the members opposite, why the member for Borderland (Mr. Guenter) felt very whipped up into a frenzy this morning to bring this forward when some­thing like this already exists.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I'll tell you why. It speaks to where conservatism in Canada stands today. It is primarily about whipping people into a frenzy, scaring the daylights out of people: that there's a bogeyman under every bed, that there's a criminal outside your door ready to break in and attack you right now.

      They're ready to just scare Canadians so much. They don't want to actually do the work of passing good legis­lation in this Chamber. They want to now heckle and–I know I'm not allowed to do this, I'll take my lumps here–they could only muster up five members this morning to come defend this PMR. It's a charade.

      They just want to get people angry, they want to get people whipped up. They want to call–they want to use names in this Chamber. But the reality is they don't want to do the work here. For the better part of several weeks, they've been holding up a bill that would actually make streets safer in Manitoba, that would get people who are high on meth off our streets, people who don't know what they're doing, high on drugs, on meth psychosis off our streets.

      They spend the better part of several weeks stalling that bill, making our streets more unsafe. So they don't give a hoot about public safety. They just want to come here and play politics. They want to clip their two-minute speech and scare the bejesus out of grandma. And come in here and do this whole act but not actually do the work of legis­lation.

      So, Hon­our­able Speaker, I think it's im­por­tant for Manitobans to understand that this is not the case–we don't live in a lawless land here. We are a civilized society. We are a civilized society of rules and laws. And the rules and laws of this country dictate that if somebody illegally, uninvited, accesses your property, you have the right to defend yourself within–with reasonable force.

      What they want is what we have in the United States. And when I was reading this PMR, I kept on thinking about Trayvon Martin. And I remember watching that on TV and thinking, man that–like, I  sometimes pull a hood over my head at night and I  could picture myself going to a convenience store, buying candy, having my hands in my pockets and walking home. And if I was in Florida at the time, somebody could have shot me on the sidewalk.

      What this PMR does is it opens a door to a lot of unintended con­se­quences, the type of things that we hear that happen in the United States and say, how could this happen? This is horrible. We shouldn't be trying to actively to create a violent environ­ment.

      But this is what the PMR wants, this is the in­ten­tion of the PMR. This is what the Conservatives want. They want societal decay, they want chaos because it makes their politics a little bit easier. They don't actually want to do the work of improving society.

      You saw it in their campaign in 2023, pitting people against people. Now it's about scaring you, about scaring whose–what you can and can't do when people enter your property. But, like I said, when they had the chance to try to make our streets safer by passing Bill 48, they twiddled their thumbs, stared up into the ceiling and wished for the best.

      All that commotion just to end up going out there and saying, oh we support the bill but we want to do minor tweaks: minor tweaks that, by the way, would have rendered the bill completely useless. But this is what they're about. It's just all politics on the other side.

      This is the defund the police PCs, the ones who cut 55 police officers from the Winnipeg Police Service. This is their record. They're soft on crime; they don't care. They don't care about keeping you safe. They don't care about the well-being of Manitobans. It's all politics about them. They want to get up on a point of order, in a frenzy, get their little clip, but they don't actually want to do the work. That's the reality.

      We are actually doing the work to keep you safe. That bill that passed yesterday, it's a monumental bill for Manitoba–hugely, hugely im­por­tant, that they did every­thing they could to try to prevent. So whatever they go out and tell the media, when the Leader of the Op­posi­tion goes out there and spews fallacy in the media, Manitobans need to know they didn't want that bill to pass. They wanted unsafe streets. They wanted you to be in danger because it helps them politically. That's–

The Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, November 6, 2025

CONTENTS

Vol. 83a

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Debate on Second Readings– Public Bills

Bill 222–The Criminal Trespassers Act and Amendments to The Occupiers' Liability Act

Chen  3435

Naylor 3436

Brar 3438

Wiebe  3440

Schmidt 3442

Asagwara  3444

Debate on Resolutions

Res. 23–Right to Defend Your Home and Family

Moroz  3445

Narth  3446

Cable  3448

Oxenham   3449

Nesbitt 3451

Devgan  3453