LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, March 19, 2026

The House met at 10 a.m.

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

An Honourable Member: Honourable Speaker, point of order.

Point of Order

The Speaker: The honourable member for Waverley, on a point of order.

MLA David Pankratz (Deputy Government House Leader): I want to raise a point of order regarding Bill 233, Municipal Assessment Amendment Act. This bill is in violation of rule 66 and 67(2) of the rules of the Legislature.

      And rule 66 and 67(2) state: Any vote, resolution, address or bill introduced in the House for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost to any purpose whatsoever, or to impose any new or additional charge upon the public revenue or upon the people, or to release or compound any sum of money due to the Crown, or to grant any property of the Crown, or to authorize any loan or any charge upon the credit of His Majesty in right of the Province, shall be recommended to the House by a message from the Lieutenant Governor before it is considered by the House.

      And rule 67(2) states: No member who is not a minister of the Crown shall move any amendment to a bill or to estimates that increases any expenditure or varies a tax or a rate of tax or provides an exemption or increases an exemption from a tax or a proposed tax, but a member who is not a minister of the Crown may move an amendment to a bill that decreases an expenditure or that removes or reduces an exemption from a tax or a proposed tax.

      So, after analyzing this bill following distribution, we understand that this bill varies the tax bill authorized by government by approximately $250,000 in the initial estimates, and could correspondingly increase taxes on residents and businesses for that amount.

      It is not in order for a member who is not a minister of the Crown to move a motion or bill that increases taxes on residents or businesses in our province and, as such, it is out of order and should not be debated or voted on in this Assembly.

The Speaker: Before recognizing any other member to speak on the point of order, I would remind all members to keep their comments very relevant to the point of order.

Mrs. Kathleen Cook (Roblin): I know the NDP is very anxious about any bill that might reduce their ability to tax, but this bill was vetted by Leg. Counsel, who are able and capable and qualified lawyers who  are employed by the non-partisan Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to draft legislation on behalf of all members of this House.

      I have before proposed bills that were deemed to be, quote, money bills, and I was not able to proceed with them. This bill was not flagged by Leg. Counsel as a money bill. As such, I believe there is no point of order.

The Speaker: I thank all members for their comments on this, and I believe we'll be taking it under advisement because, obviously, as Speaker, I need to consult our legal advisers to verify one way or the other.

      So, in conclusion, when I'm taking Bill 233 under advisement, it means we won't be able to speak about it until I come back to the House with a ruling on that.

* * *

The Speaker: So, orders of the day, private members' business.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' business

The Speaker: The honourable opposition House–no, the honourable member for Roblin. [interjection]

      The honourable opposition deputy House leader.

Ms. Jodie Byram (Deputy Official Opposition House Leader): Honourable Speaker, would you please call for second reading of Bill 211, The Budget Bill Public Accountability Act.

Debate on Second Readings–
Public Bills

Bill 211–The Budget Bill Public
Accountability Act

The Speaker: So it has been announced that we will now resume debate on Bill 211, and it presently stands in the name of the honourable Minister for Environment and Climate Change.

      Is there leave for it to remain standing in his name?

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Speaker: Leave has been denied, therefore debate is open. [interjection]

      Order, please.

So the bill is no longer standing in the name of  the honourable Minister for Environment and Climate Change; therefore, the debate is open.

Hon. Glen Simard (Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations): Honourable Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to get up in the House. It was interesting to hear, prior to standing up, that the opposition said that I wasn't ready to speak. They obviously don't know me very well. And, like we said in Turtle Mountain, bring it on.

* (10:10)

      Our government's a listening government. One of  the proudest moments that I had in the time in between sessions was standing with the Minister of Finance (MLA Sala) in Brandon, spent the–quite a bit of time in there meeting with folks from across Westman, from the educational sector, from the business sector, from Chambers of Commerce, from friendship centres, talking about what we can do for Manitobans with this upcoming budget.

      And one of the greatest things that we have is, as a government, is being able to be face-to-face with the constituents and, you know, I can't tell you how many times I've heard, in my own travels across this great province, how many times I've heard, finally, we get to see our government and get to talk to them about the issues that matter to us. Hearing things like, I don't know what the opposition is talking about, but that's not for me.

      You know, we talk a lot about education in here sometimes and it gets me thinking back to when I was–

An Honourable Member: Relevance.

Mr. Simard: –a young student. Well, we're talking about the budget. Education is one of the pillars of our Province where major expenditures are made for the future and well-being of one Manitoba.

      And I think back to when I was a kid and I would, you know, I was in elementary school and I'd get to take out my Crayola box and get to choose how I'm going to colour my page. Unfortunately, where I grew up, I–when I grew up, I didn't have the big 64 colours with the sharpener and things like that. And, you know, when I choose to colour, I make choices that basically colour this province and make things great. Our opposition used to use black, grey and MAGA red. That's their choice to colour this province. And we choose to colour all the colours of the rainbow because we think diversity is beautiful.

      And Bill 211 talks like we're not consulting the public. The diversity of opinions that we hear when we go to places like Gimli, Brandon, the North, we get to hear what's affecting them. I just came back from quite a tour up north talking about, finally, someone showed up with some money for recreation in this province. It seems like we asked for this and you just kind of show up with money, what's going on? It's because we care about people all over this province. We don't ignore them.

      And I can't wait to go to The Pas when they open the rubberized track. I can't wait to go to Flin Flon when they open the pool. I know the MLA for Thompson would be excited to have us all up there when we open up that beautiful pool that we've created and built for them.

      And the more that we work together, the more that we listen, we–more that we show up for people–not just in this Chamber, because sometimes showing up for people means going to their communities.

      I remember going to Deloraine not that long ago, beginning of January, where we're standing on the tarmac of the Deloraine-Winchester Regional Airport–soon to be regional airport–and say, man, I can't believe you're showing up with dollars to boost this regional project.

      And that's what bill 11 says; we're not talking to people, we're not listening to people. I just talk about how projects like this happen. Reeve shows up to my constituency office, says, I'm coming to you because my MLA is MIA. So he takes an hour drive to Brandon to actually meet with someone who can make a difference, tells me about this great project. I said, you know what, I'm going to come down to Deloraine. Put the coffee on, I'll be there early in the morning and then you take me down to the tarmac and show me what this is all about.

      And then we go there and I say, hey, you're coming up for AMM next week or in two weeks, why don't you sit down with the team in MNR and talk about your issues? They come in, presentation, then my department works with the community of Deloraine to get things done.

      And that's how good governance acts. It meets people where they are at. It says, we trust you, government, because we have seen that you've shown up for us.

      The bill that they're proposing here actually reveals how they work; how they work in the shadows, how they send emails after they've been kicked out of office to say, can we get this done? Did this get done? That's how they engage with the public.

      What we do is we take a drive to Gimli and we say, you want a rec centre? You want to have recreational investments? Where I go to the MLA for Lakeside's constituency in Stonewall and Rockwood, play a round of golf with the mayor and talk about the issues. That's what showing up is. That's what consultation is. It's not working in the shadows by emails from Alberta or North Dakota or somewhere from the MAGA sphere. It's showing up to the people and saying, let's have lunch. Let's have lunch in your restaurant, in your community. [interjection]

The Speaker: Order please.

      The honourable Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness (Ms. Smith) and the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (MLA Bereza) can quit hollering back and forth across the Chamber. I'm trying to hear what's being said.

Mr. Simard: I would–[interjection]–thank you. I'd like to thank the Speaker for referencing Portage la Prairie. I love–I went there at the end of January and we had the state of the province, but before I was there I announced $5 million for their fieldhouse in Southport.

      You know, the reeve, Mayor Knox, the CEO of Southport, said, this is a community need, this is what we need. They worked with our department. They say, we need recreational activities for the people in Portage la Prairie. I can guarantee you it wasn't Brian Pallister who brought that up. And when we consult with people, when we talk to the families that are going to benefit from these investments, that's what consultation is.

      And proud to stand with the Minister of Finance (MLA Sala), who went across this province multiple times, online, in person, to hear even from opposition MLAs at these budget consultations about what we need as a province. I can't think of anything better than what we just went through prior to this amazing budget we are going to present to Manitobans. That's going to be our offer to them, not just an offer prior to elections.

French spoken

C'est un investissement dans notre futur : un Manitoba. On représente tout le monde. La diversité de ce – de cette province, et c'est comme les couleurs de ce boîte de Crayola : 64 couleurs.

Translation

It's an investment in our future–one Manitoba. We represent everyone. The diversity of this province is like the colours in a Crayola box: 64 colours.

English

      We just don't grab the black and the brown and colour dark, scary stories and sprinkle in a little MAGA red.

French spoken

      On va investir dans tout le Manitoba. Si tu vis dans le Nord, si tu vis dans les entre‑lacs, à Saint‑Laurent, si vous travaillez dans Piney, si vous travaillez à Notre‑Dame‑de‑Lourdes, si vous travaillez à Saint‑Lazare–

Translation

We're going to invest across Manitoba. Whether you live in the North, in the Interlake region, in St. Laurent, work in Piney, work in Notre Dame de Lourdes, or work in St-Lazare–

English

      –we will come to you, we will visit you. That's what consultation looks like. We will budget with you in mind, not us in mind. That's what they did.

      And we are building a future. Manitoba is the place to be. We are a beacon of hope for communities who have been marginalized by those MAGA wannabes. We are here. We are here to represent you. We are here to show up, whether you are in Brandon East, which will be held by our government for a very long  time, or Spruce Woods, or Turtle Mountain, or Agassiz. We are showing up. We are coming for you because we believe in you. We believe in Manitoba.

French spoken

On croit dans un Manitoba uni. On croit dans un Manitoba qui représente le Nord, le Sud, l'Est, l'Ouest–

Translation

We believe in a united Manitoba. We believe in a Manitoba that represents the North, the south, the east, and the west–

English

      –from Churchill to every other community. We love you. We are showing up for you and you can count on us.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Konrad Narth (La Vérendrye): Thank you for that comical presentation all–that we can always rely on from the member for Brandon East (Mr. Simard).

* (10:20)

      Honourable Speaker, that campaign-driven-style message that was given by the member for Brandon East does not fool any of the hard-working Manitobans. What they're most concerned about is accountability and the lack of accountability by this socialist NDP government. What they're most concerned about is the tax-and-spend policies of the socialist NDP government. And it's getting out of hand; everywhere that we turn, we see how the policies of this socialist NDP government are completely getting out of hand.

      You know, Manitobans are leading the country on two things–on only two things. And, you know, the Premier (Mr. Kinew) shouldn't be proud of them, but he is leading the province on only two things. And he gets up and he stands up and he claims that this is the right thing for Manitobans and Manitoba's in a better place. You know what those two things are that we're leading Canada on? Food inflation and tax inflation.

      And, Honourable Speaker, this bill and bills like 211 are brought forward so that the public, the taxpayer, the people that bear the brunt of the burden, they are listened to.

      So we brought forward a bill telling Manitobans that we know that they expect–and we hear them–that we, if we were in government, we would listen to them through the committee process as the budget bill is brought forward. Instead, we know why the socialist NDP don't want to hear from the public, because they need to ram through as much taxation as humanly possible.

      And the Premier gets up and he says, yes, you know, it's great that we're leading the country in tax inflation and food inflation. We've got property tax rates that are up over 40 per cent in the last two years in communities across our province at the same time that people are finding it less and less affordable to fulfill their daily obligations. And that's concerning for us, Honourable Speaker, and that should be concerning for all Manitobans.

      You know, I'm starting to get really frustrated with the lack of economic understanding of this government. And it's hard for me, for someone that has a finance and economics background, because the basic economic theories, this government isn't abiding by it.

      You know, one of them is the Keynesian economic theory that had come into effect during the Great Depression, and it's one that me, as a fundamental Conservative, free-market supporter, I can agree on some of it. You know, it's basic public finance that we've adopted for now decades since. It's been the guiding economic theory, you know, for the past 80 years now, but–but–I can agree on some of the fundamentals of it. You know, that's like the Laffen [phonetic] curve and the multiplier effect.

      These are things that you don't need to be an economist to understand. These are things that are usually taught in high school and definitely taught in first-year economics in university, so I would hope that the Finance Minister of the government in charge of our Province would have some basic economic understanding, but I don't believe that they do. And, you know, I would hope that some adviser would be telling the Premier a little bit about basic economic theory.

      And when we get the member from Brandon East that stands up and says that he's sprinkling money all over the province, that he would understand who that comes from and that Manitobans aren't fooled. Even the Keynesian theory of economics–which is a government-heavy, spend-type theory of economic and public finance approach–even the Keynesian theory says that government spending is important, but it's an–important in the right places, and we as Manitobans can see that that isn't happening under this government.

      Also, the Laffer curve indicates that cutting government taxation at the 'bost' basic level increases government–or increases economic investment and pays for itself. These are the basic economic theories that got us through the Great Depression and they have been the leading principles that have guided governments across the Western developed world for nearly a hundred years now. This is what has built the world that we are able to enjoy. This is what has built the society and the economy it–that has made Manitoba the great place that we live today.

      Unfortunately, this government doesn't understand it, and because they don't understand it, they are trying to hide the facts from Manitobans. They don't even understand what they're trying to hide. They just have some backroom advisers that are doing it for them.

      And then they get a member like the member from Brandon East to stand up for 10 minutes telling us jokes. [interjection] Honourable Speaker, I hope the people of Manitoba who are concerned about affordability each and every day, concerned that Manitoba is leading the country on two things and two things only, and that's food inflation and tax inflation–I hope those Manitobans find it very concerning that this government finds it comical that they stand up with a minister–during private members' business, they stand a minister–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Narth: –to talk about jokes and how that minister is spending more of your tax dollars in areas that you have absolutely no control over. So, like I say, Honourable Speaker, if this government had a basic understanding of economic principles, they would take the situation–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order, please.

      The honourable Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning (MLA Schmidt) needs to come to order.

Mr. Narth: Honourable Speaker, and it doesn't surprise me that, you know, another member is heckling on a subject that they completely don't understand.

      So what I'm trying to do is–

An Honourable Member: Mansplain.

Mr. Narth: –make them understand that Manitobans are aware–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order, please.

      Honourable Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning needs to come to order.

Mr. Narth: Honourable Speaker, just to clarify, this isn't mansplaining, this is explaining. This is explaining the basic financial theories that we should learn as children. And I would expect the Minister responsible for Education would appreciate that, appreciate educating children on the things that guide society.

      But no, we don't hear anything about that. We don't hear from the Minister of Education how important it is to educate children on the economy, the exact things that Bill 211 speaks to–the exact things that Bill 211 speaks to. [interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Narth: We want accountability for all Manitobans and we refuse to get it by this socialist NDP government. They are more concerned about having a BITSA bill that hides absolutely everything that they don't want Manitobans to know about.

      They think that Manitobans aren't smart enough to realize what's going on. [interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Narth: And, Honourable Speaker, I hear each and every day from–

The Speaker: Order, please. Stop.

      The Honourable Minister of Housing, Addictions and Homelessness (Ms. Smith) needs to come to order.

Mr. Narth: Honourable Speaker, we're hearing from each and every minister on that side of the House that  have no understanding of how the economy actually functions. So, that's great. That's great. We'll continue to hear from those who don't understand the basic theories, don't–have never heard of Keynesian economic theory, have never heard of the Laffen [phonetic] curve, have never heard of the multiplier effect. These are basic economic understandings that this government has no understanding of.

      And honourable–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I would ask the honourable member to keep his comments somewhat relevant to the bill we're talking about.

Mr. Narth: Honourable Speaker, since my time is about to expire, I'll end off by saying, I am listening to Manitobans across our province who are deeply concerned about the economic position that this socialist NDP government has put us into.

      Thank you, Honourable Speaker.

* (10:30)

Hon. Ian Bushie (Minister of Natural Resources and Indigenous Futures): I must–it wonders–it begs the question, do members even know what they want? They talk about accountability, yet they criticize when a minister stands up and talks about accountability. And, meanwhile, if we do not speak about it, they say, hey, you have nothing to say, you're not accountable.

      So here we are, the entire government bench, being able to be prepared to talk about accountability, something members opposite never, ever, ever did.

      And  I–to quote the member opposite from La Vérendrye, who said, if we were in government, we would listen. Well, you're not in government and you're still not listening. So why don't you listen each and every day, no matter what your title may be, no matter where you may be. And that's the difference between us and them, is we're a listening government. We're listening across all of Manitoba to all Manitobans.

      So when we talk about Bill 211, and using the word accountability, that's imperative to us. That's the basis for what we believe in. So, as Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations (Mr. Simard) talked about being able to get out there and talk to Manitobans where they are, and that's a priority for us, to be able to go out to the community, to the restaurant, to the gas station, to the farm field and the back of a truck, to have that conversation of where they are and what those needs are. For us, that's important. And we want to be able to listen to Manitobans across all spectrums, across the entirety of the province, not just tunnel vision, not just in the silo of their constituencies or their little pockets that they want to think that that's their base.

      We want to talk to all Manitobans across the entire province. And we did that. And we continue to do that. We don't just do that at budget time. We don't just do that at election time. We do that each and every day, which is something good government does, a listening government does. And for us to be able to take those conversations and then bring that into what we do, how we spend, how we invest in Manitobans.

      So Bill 211 talks about accountability. For us, that's accountability at its core–being able to say, we're out there talking to Manitobans where they are. We're accountable to Manitobans. And Manitobans will hold us to account. They'll hold us to account each and every day. They'll hold us to account at election time, just like they hold members opposite account at election time.

      And, clearly, clearly, clearly, at the last election, the accountability factor resonated with Manitobans. And that's why they put the PCs to the opposition benches, because they were not accountable to anybody. They were only accountable to themselves and only accountable to their select few that they thought, this is who we have to win over, because that's their base and that's who they only looked after.

      For us to be able to have the conversation across all Manitobans is imperative. And across all constituencies across every corner of the province, we're having those conversations about, what does accountability mean for you? How can we help? How can we invest? And that's truly what accountability is, being able to do that.

      So when members opposite talk about being accountable, so when we go out, we do budget with the best Finance Minister in the country, being able to get out there and have those conversations about accountability, I asked the members opposite, did they do that? When they talk about Bill 211 and accountability, did they do that?

      And when they went out and spoke to constituents, when they went out and spoke to Manitobans, did they tell them, hey, we're going to cut health care, we're going to cut education, we're going to cut social services?

      And is that something that Manitobans agreed with? I doubt it. I highly doubt it. And that's clearly why they got put to the opposition benches, because that's not something that Manitobans wanted, that's not something Manitobans believe in and that's not accountability to Manitobans.

      So for the members opposite to get up and stand and talk about accountability, Honourable Speaker, come on. People do not take them serious, and that's why they put them to the opposition benches. And, to this day, they still do not take them serious. So when they come forward and they talk about things that they're trying to create wedge issues on, being able to say, yes, we're going to do this massive amount of spending but with no plan to spend it, no ability to be able to account for it.

      I mean, they're sitting there in their offices doing their budgets on Etch A Sketch, but what happens when you do that? You shake out those details and there's nothing there. That's really what that–what happens. And there's no accountability in that; to be able to say, we're going to do whatever it takes to get elected, which is what they were attempting to do, and clearly Manitobans see through that. So there was no accountability from them. They said, we're going to do what it takes to get elected, and Manitobans are smarter than that. Manitobans are smarter than them, obviously, because they sent them to the opposition benches.

      So bringing forth Bill 211 to talk about accountability is just ridiculous, because there is no accountability from that side. There's no basis for what they want to be able to get up and talk about, other than to try and create wedge issues to say, this is now, if you give us a chance to be government again, we're going to do this. We're going to be accountable. Well, they're not–they didn't even do that themselves. So everything they bring forward in this Chamber, including Bill 211, is something they never did. It's almost like, do as I say but not as I want to be able to present things to go.

And, Honourable Speaker, Manitobans are smarter than that. Manitobans see through that. And for us as government, Bill 211 talks about accountability, and we're accountable to Manitobans each and every day. And that's what good government does.

      So as the Minister of Municipal and Northern Relations (Mr. Simard) talked about being able to go and see you where you are, that's accountability.

      Being able to see and have Manitobans from all across the province see themselves reflective in us as government, in us as Cabinet ministers, in us as MLAs, is imperative.

      So the diversity of what Manitoba is today is truly reflective in our team on this side because we're out there; we are you.

      When we–and I say that message quite often to folks when we're out there. In coming out of I Love to Read Month, being able to get out and speak to schools, and we talk about accountability in that forum as well, too. Those children already know that. And they already know in that moment, they can say, yes, I see myself in you. I see a future me in you. And that's accountability as well, too.

      So to be able to give back to those citizens, to those young people and talk about accountability with a lot of credibility is imperative. And members opposite can't do that. They can't go and talk about health care, education and funding social services, and talk about accountability with any type of credibility whatsoever because they have zero. They have none.

      And you see it on display each and every day, not only here in the Chamber but just out there in the  province as well, too. So for what they get up and talk about when they talk about accountability, bringing forth budget bill accountability, we live it. We're acting it each and every day, and we're showing Manitobans the accountability that we have to them, which is where that needs to reside. That accountability for us as government is with–was with and is to Manitobans in general. And for us, we do that every day.

      So as we stand up and we go through the proceedings of the House, we go through question periods, we have bill debates, such as Bill 211, and talk about accountability and talk about giving back and supports for communities and hearing and listening to their voices–we do it. We live it. We are doing that right now. We're not here trying to create division like members opposite, which is what they're doing each and every day.

      So they talk about accountability. Being accountable to Manitobans is not trying to create division, which is what they are doing, which–what they stand up and speak to each and every day. So if they want to talk about accountability, in this case budget bill accountability in Bill 211, then let's do that. Let's have the open conversation as to how, if and when you ever form government again and when you were in government, how were you accountable? What did you do? What did you do specifically at election time?

      We could go through the list of their empty promises that they had with no ability to pay for any of those things. No accountability is going to go back to Manitobans. They were just going to say, we're going to do whatever it takes to form government, and trust us. Honourable Speaker, nobody trusted them. Nobody trusted them to be accountable.

      So for them to bring forth Bill 211 and say, now, be accountable; now, let's hold somebody else to account when they themselves do not want to be held to account. They did not have an expectation of being accountable to Manitobans whatsoever.

      In fact, Honourable Speaker, they just said, trust us. Trust behind the scenes what's going on. We're going to invest. You know, if you vote for me, I'll be accountable. Well, no. Let's live it each and every day.

      So for the member for La Vérendrye (Mr. Narth) to stand up and say, if we were government we would listen, why didn't he stand up and say, I'm listening today? Because, clearly, if he was listening today, he would not hear the lack of accountability that Manitobans are hearing from our government. We're accountable each and every day. Members opposite still are not accountable to this day, but yet they'll get up and talk about somebody else being accountable, but not themselves.

      So, for us, when we get out there and with, again, the best Finance Minister in country, being able to get into those conversations at town halls, at the restaurant, at the gas station, at the mall, at the grocery store and engaging with Manitobans, they really need to feel that sense of engagement, that sense of accountability, that sense of, yes, something that I'm telling to you as government is being reflective in what you do, in how you invest. And for me and for us, that's accountability. That's accountability in knowing that those Manitobans can see their voices reflective in us, see their faces reflective in us and see their needs and desires reflective in us.

      And as we go across the entirety of the province, we're investing all over the province in many different ways–something members opposite did not do whatsoever. They had targeted things that they wanted to do to try and hit their base, hit their constituencies, and for us, it's about investing across all of Manitoba. And that's true accountability.

* (10:40)

      So when we talk about sharing information back and forth and being able to disclose and being able to see the reflection of the voice of Manitobans in how we spend as government and how we invest in government–Honourable Speaker, that's true accountability. So for them to bring forward Bill 211 and talk about accountability, they have no leg to stand on. For us as government, we're accountable to Manitobans each and every single day.

      Thank you.

MLA Jeff Bereza (Portage la Prairie): What it looks like from this NDP government across the way is they think this is about two different games: a game of hide-and-seek and a game of tax-and-spend at the people of the province of Manitoba's expense.

      This bill responds to the NDP avoiding their legislation in front of a standing committee of Legislature to hear from the public by attacking–attaching schedules to entire bills to the annual budget 'implemation' and tax statutes act. BITSA and other budget-related bills traditionally do not–do not–go to  standing committee and are only referred to Committee of the Whole with no opportunity for Manitobans to speak.

      How can that be fair to Manitobans? That is nothing more than hiding and it's nothing more than tax and spend. This means that the NDP or any future government can avoid public scrutiny. Why are you avoiding public scrutiny? Why do you not want to hear from the public?

      The NDP, by circumventing the public committee stage, can then guarantee passage of their controversial legislation under the rules that require BITSA to be passed by the end of sitting of the Legislature. This is just wrong, Manitobans. This does not give you an opportunity to speak on this issue.

      The bill ensures that there is absolutely the minimum level of public scrutiny by requiring all budget bills go to public standing committee meeting for a minimum of 10 hours, then provides opportunity for the public and stakeholders to provide further input into the legislative and budgetary process.

      Why did the last two members that stood up not speak of that? The public deserves an opportunity to present and make representation on all legislation, including any measures the NDP choose to paper-clip, to hide behind their budget at the last minute.

The public budget accountability bill will help hold governments and the NDP accountable to Manitobans for spending of taxpayers dollars and all legislative changes undertaken in the budget bill each year. We're seeing the flip-flopping happening right now when it comes to the drug consumption site. We're building it, we're not building it. We're building it, we're not building it. Not enough people, too many people. What is it?

      But we're spending millions of taxpayer dollars because of programs like BITSA that let them hide that. Let them–you know, again, Manitobans, we're spending $2,000 a day on security to watch a brick building, when we could be putting recovery beds and helping people out there, but no.

      We want to put–and then this NDP government wants to talk about the environment in their BITSA budget? There's been a truck running since December 5, not a bit of snow or ice underneath it, that is running 24 hours a day, and they come across and say, we're for the environment. No, they're not. There's a perfect example of that for any of the people that are watching at 366 Henry Ave. I ask you, go and have a look, go and have a look and see what this NDP government is doing for the environment. It's just another way of hiding from the public.

      For too long, the NDP has been unaccountable and tried to hide their legislative agendas in budgetary bills. Once this legislation passes, the public will get  to have their say on the record before any legislative measures can be passed through a budget bill. This will disincentivize to the NDP to append nonbudgetary items. The bill will add a minimum of 10 hours for public consultation. We've heard from other committees as well, too, of why this will not work.

      You know, we talk about things of–have any of these announcements that were talked about today, have they even seen Treasury Board? You know, again, why are you hiding from the public?

      You know, we looked at different things that are being said out there. The feedback, you know, the NDP are raising taxes and ramming through an omnibus bill full of measures they didn't campaign on, from doubling the vote subsidy for the benefit of their own party to hiking property taxes by $148 million, raising hydro rates. You know, again, we're doing this over and over. We have to be accountable to the public.

      What is this NDP government hiding? Why do they not want the public of Manitoba to have an opportunity to speak on this? I don't understand. We've heard it loud and clear. We go to committee meetings. We were there again last night. People oppose and people come for these things. So why? Why is this bill being hidden? Why is it being taken away from Manitobas?

      The first thing that I hear out there is, what's being hidden? What is being hidden in this bill that we don't know about? And, again, it's not fair to Manitobans that we would do anything like that. There are laws that need to be properly and individually introduced so that Manitobans can fully understand the cost to their families and businesses.

      Again, we've seen this when it comes to the raising of the education property tax. We're hearing it day in and day out. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that I would see–never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that we would see double‑digit tax increases to education in my community of Portage la Prairie. I met with the school board in Portage la Prairie and I said, shouldn't we be looking at putting forward to this government again?

      Because, you know what? This is about kids. This is about education. And what have we done in Portage la Prairie for new schools? Nothing. What have they done for portable classrooms? Nothing. They talk about a field house in Portage la Prairie. They're–but–$5 million on a $15‑million project. Where's the rest coming from? Where is it? I ask the minister where that comes from.

      So again, all this stuff that is coming through that we're hearing about regarding this BITSA bill, why are we hiding? Why are you hiding from Manitobans?

      We've seen there's opportunities that everybody should have to be able to speak. They should have their voices heard. When it comes to things like budget and what they're spending, they can't afford. They can't afford any more of these NDP increases.

      They've seen it at the grocery store: 30 per cent increase to ground beef. We talk about everything there from fruit to vegetables to meat. We see people that are scrambling.

      We see retired people out there that are trying to stay in their homes, but they can't, because of these hidden taxes that are coming out, the hide-and-seek that is going on with this NDP government.

* (10:50)

      Why would you hide from the people of Manitoba? They've–they–we're representing people from all across Manitoba, yet you want to hide this bill so people don't have the opportunity to speak about it, be heard about it or be able to voice their opinions on it.

      Why would a government do that when we are supposed to be there to represent all the people, not just some of the people?

      Thank you so much, Honourable Speaker.

MLA Carla Compton (Tuxedo): Today I rise to speak to Bill 211, The Budget Bill Public Accountability Act.

      Let me begin by saying something that every member of this House should agree on: Manitobans expect accountability from their government, they expect transparency in how their tax dollars are spent and they expect their voices to be heard when decisions are made that affect their lives. But Manitobans also expect their government to act. They expect timely decisions when hospitals need staff, when classrooms need support and when families are struggling with the rising costs of living.

      Bill 211 claims to strengthen accountability, but when we look closely at what it actually does, it risks doing the opposite. It risks creating delays, duplication and additional bureaucracy without improving the way Manitoba's–Manitobans' voices are actually heard.

      Honourable Speaker, there are three key problems with this bill: first, it duplicates consultation that is  already happening; second, delays; and third, it adds costs and bureaucracy without delivering better accountability.

      So let me begin with the consultation. Unlike the previous failed PC government, our NDP government is a listening government.

      We believe decisions should be shaped by the people who are affected by them. From the moment we formed government in 2023, we committed to engaging Manitobans directly in the decisions that shape our province. We know that the best policies are not built behind closed doors. They are built through conversations with the people who live and work in our communities every day. And that is why we held the prebudget consultations across Manitoba.

      So again, since our government came into being in 2023, our Finance Minister has worked very, very hard with his team to make sure that he is meeting Manitobans where they are, to hear their input in every budget that has been created. And so just to name a few of the things that they've done in direct consultations, and this has had the Finance Minister himself showing up at these consultations. He has been to Kildonan-River East, McPhillips, Transcona, St. Norbert, Brandon, Dauphin, Gimli. And this is not a fully inclusive list. I know there have perhaps been more.

      But also not only do we just–has our minister–gone to communities to listen to folks and to consult with them, but we've also created accessible–more accessible options as well. So those communities–people could go even if they weren't from that community. But even there have been online, phone-in, virtual town halls. And I know myself, I even helped host one of them. And there have been multiple of those over the years.

      And one of the things I noticed this year at the Winnipeg in-person consultation was the number of people that got up to speak at the microphone also commented how much they appreciate our Finance Minister showing up personally, listening. And they spoke directly to actions that he and his team and our government as a whole have taken, specifically based on the–what they have provided at these consultations, as well as when they've reached out outside of these specific consultation times.

      So I'd just like to lift up and clarify the record that our Finance Minister and his team are doing amazing work in direct consultation with Manitobans, both in the city as well as outside of the city. We take very seriously being accessible to Manitobans and meeting them where they are, because we know their input is utterly essential for us to do good work for them.

      So, yes, thousands of Manitobans have participated and they've spoken about affordability, they've spoken about health care and they've spoken about safety in their communities, and we listened. We also made it easier–well, as I said, for Manitobans to participate. This year, we've even added an online Budget 2026 survey and so this has even allowed people from across the province to share their priorities in another accessible way and convenient way.

      Honourable Speaker, these consultations were not  symbolic. They were meaningful and they helped shape the decisions that we are making in our upcoming Budget 2026, which we're excited to share with everyone next week.

      And, Honourable Speaker, we have taken a similar approach when it comes to public safety. After seven and a half years of cuts and inaction under the previous PC government, Manitobans saw crime rise and many communities felt less safe.

      And our government knew that addressing public safety requires collaboration, and so we brought community leaders, law enforcement, service organizations together for the public safety summit. And at that summit, participants discussed shared priorities, explored ways to address the root 'crause'–causes of crime because making communities safer requires more than slogans; it requires partnership, it requires prevention and it requires support for those who want to turn their lives around. And so these conversations are helping guide the work our government is doing to create safer communities across managed–Manitoba.

      So, Honourable Speaker, these examples demonstrate something important: real accountability. And real accountability happens before the budget is  written. Real accountability means listening to Manitobans before decisions are finalized, and that is exactly the approach that our government has taken.

      Bill 211, however, risks shifting engagement into a single stage of a legislative process. Instead of meaningful dialogue that shapes policy from the beginning, it risks turning consultation into a procedural step after decisions have already been made.

      And that brings me to the second concern with this bill: delays. Budget implementation bills often contain measures that Manitobans rely on immediately. They can include funding that keeps hospitals staffed, classrooms supported and programs running for families who need them.

      When we add rigid procedural requirements to every budget bill, we risk slowing down those investments Manitobans do not want their government tied up–oops, sorry, I missed–they do not want those investments–we risk slowing down those investments. Manitobans do not want their government tied up in unnecessary process when the real problems need real solutions. They want action and they expect our government to deliver it.

      And the third concern with this bill is its cost. Bill 211 would require a minimum of 10 hours of committee hearings for every budget implementation bill. That means additional staffing, logistics and administrative costs–costs that are ultimately paid by Manitoba taxpayers. Accountability is not about adding more process; it is about delivering better results for Manitobans.

Honourable Speaker, it is also important to remember the financial situation our government inherited.

The previous PC government left our province with a deficit of nearly $2 billion: $1.97 billion. And that is exactly why our government brought in an independent audit.

      At the same time, Manitobans saw the consequences of those decisions: ERs closed, fewer supports in classrooms and rising costs for families. Our government is working to repair that damage. Through meaningful consultation and responsible planning, we are building a Budget 2026 shaped by Manitobans' voices: rebuilding health care, lowering costs–

* (11:00)

The Speaker: Order, please.

      When–[interjection] Order, please.

      The hour being 11 o'clock, when this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have one minute remaining.

Debate on Resolutions

Res. 5–Calling on the Provincial Government to Increase the Personal Tax Exemption

The Speaker: So as the order–time is now 11 o'clock, we'll move on to private members' resolutions. The resolution before us this morning, we'll resume debate on resolution No. 5, Calling on the Provincial Government to Increase the Personal Tax Exemption, and in the name of the honourable member for Radisson, who has six minutes remaining.

MLA Jelynn Dela Cruz (Radisson): I'm grateful that we've had roughly a week now since this bill was originally brought up for second reading in this House because it's given the community an opportunity to weigh in.

      I've got an article here from the Brandon Sun, and the headline is: Manitoba can't afford PCs' ideological tax cut. Honourable Speaker, on that side of the House, they are all about ideology. We heard it in the remarks just recently; but the great thing about us in government is that what they think is campaign lingo is how we actually feel. And what we know about this policy and how Manitobans have demonstrated they actually feel about their recommendation to this Legislature is flawed.

      Honourable Speaker, Manitobans know that–and I'll quote from this article, here: By contrast, money spent through government programs has larger economic multipliers because it creates jobs needed to build infrastructure, supports health care and education and is spent by local workers who spend their earnings in their communities.

      Honourable Speaker, we know that members opposite don't care for creating new jobs. They don't care for ensuring that the average Manitoban has employment, and that's why, you know, they move bills like this that are written on the back of a napkin, that are chicken-scratched into legislation and, frankly, aren't very well thought out.

      Further in this article, speaking and amplifying the voice of a Manitoban themselves in the Brandon Sun, I can continue on by saying that this–that they feel that this is radically reducing income tax for most filers through a higher exemption and is a regressive change that would primarily benefit middle- and upper-income earners while doing little for moderate- and lower income Manitobans.

Mr. Tyler Blashko, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

      The lowest 30 per cent of income tax filers and many people below the poverty line would get nothing because they already have enough credits to offset the income tax that they own–owe. Only those earning above the top of the first tax bracket, about $47,000, would see meaningful savings.

      And so maybe this is what they want, because they have a track record, when they were in government, for giving, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars, to people who–for whom this would only feel like a drop in the bucket–[interjection]–honourable Deputy Speaker. They have a track record–and I heard, shame, on the other side when I said that, because it's true.

      Shame on the previous government, because, honourable Deputy Speaker, they gave the biggest rebate in their education tax bribe prior to the last election to out-of-province millionaires and billionaires, one of whom is Galen Weston whose net worth is 8.7 billion US dollars.

      And, amplifying the feelings and the remarks and the expertise of those in community, again, I will continue to read here: It appears that lessons have not been learned from the last time that the basic personal amount was dramatically increased. During their previous time in power, the Manitoba Conservatives raised the exemption from $10,145 to $15,000 in a single fiscal year, one of the largest tax cuts for the upper-income Manitobans in recent history.

      Honourable Deputy Speaker, it's clear as day that members opposite don't care for actual legislation, that they clearly put things together quickly to get a bite for social media and for question period. And, on this side of the House, we're taking real action for affordability, with great news coming next week in our budget.

      But, as for this bill, and as for affordability, honourable Speaker–honourable Deputy Speaker, I want to continue to acknowledge the resolution brought forward by the member opposite, raises the issue of affordability, but when we talk about affordability, when Manitobans talk about affordability, they're usually talking about very real costs that they face every single week.

      Families across the province are looking at their grocery bills, their rent, their fuel costs and wondering how far their paycheque will stretch. Those pressures are real and they are being shaped not only by local factors but by global–but by broader global conditions, including international trade disruptions and tariffs imposed by the United States that affect supply chains and prices across North America.

      And so, honourable Deputy Speaker, once again, this is not real policy. This is, frankly, just politics. This is an opportunity for the opposition to have a good sound bite for social media and an opportunity for them to advocate for their rich friends in the process of doing so. One other positive example of what we've done as Manitoba's government is lower fuel costs upon taking government. We got rid of the carbon tax–of the gas tax that they never did, that they in fact decided to continue to support budget after budget when they had the chance to get rid of it.

      And yes, fuel prices are higher now because of international affairs and the international conflict that we're facing, though here we're about to introduce a budget, Budget 2026, next week, that'll introduce a number of incredible affordability measures that frankly they could never have dreamt up in their wildest dreams, honourable Deputy Speaker. And so I'm grateful to put words on the record today because members opposite can't stand but heckle. I challenge them to put a few–

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

Mr. Josh Guenter (Borderland): Honourable Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise this morning in support of this great bill and frankly I'm surprised that the–somewhat surprised that the NDP wouldn't support it and that they're talking it down.

      Three thousand dollars in tax savings for Manitoba families–that's significant. That's what this PC team is championing today. Tax relief for those most vulnerable, those who are taxed the very hardest at the bottom of our income tax scale, and we believe that they're the ones that need support and we've put forward this measure and this NDP government refuses to support it.

      And I think at a time when we're talking about affordability and as the–my colleague, the member for La Vérendrye (Mr. Narth) said in the previous hour, the tax inflation that Manitobans are experiencing in this province as well as the food inflation, two metrics on which this government is–this NDP government is leading Manitoba in the–across the entire country, food inflation and tax inflation, it's more important now than ever that Manitobans receive tax relief and they're not getting it.

      And so it's clear Manitoba families are struggling to keep up with the cost of living under the–this NDP government. Families are struggling to put food on the table and pay their heating, water and property tax bills and they have less and less after-tax income. This NDP government has actually raised education property taxes by over 20 per cent. They have increased income taxes by removing income tax indexation, which amazingly has actually impacted–they actually took it away entirely, they took away the basic personal amount for those–for professionals like doctors. They removed it in their very first budget entirely, which is a massive disincentive for health professionals and doctors to move to our province at a time when we need them more than ever.

      And, sadly, Manitobans are passing away in our ERs under this ER government, they're not getting the care that they need. Wait times are out of control in our health-care system and this NDP government is disincentivizing health professionals, doctors, nurses, from moving here and being able to provide their expertise within the health-care system by penalizing them through tax measures. So that is just incredibly backwards among other things.

* (11:10)

      So our PC team has put forward this plan to raise the basic personal amount to $30,000, which is substantial. In 2016, when our PC government took office, the basic personal amount sat at around $9,000. In 2023, seven years later, we had raised it to $15,000, substantial tax savings for Manitobans who need it the most.

      That was opposed by this NDP government all along the way, and as I said, they've now removed income tax indexing, which will net them $80-some million in increased income tax revenue this year alone. That's money coming out of the pockets of Manitobans that's going to NDP coffers, that's going to the NDP tax man. But our PC government had a different record. As I said, we raised it from $9,000 to $15,000; we're now proposing it–to raise it from $15,000 to $30,000.

      And so, essentially, what that means is that the first $30,000 that a Manitoban earns, they get to keep. That's free of tax. So that's substantial. And you know, income taxes are actually a disincentive to work, and we need Manitobans out there working, building our economy, generating that wealth, that revenue. They want to be out working. They want to pay down their debt. They want to pay down their mortgages, set money aside for a vacation if they can, raise their children, put their children through school, and all the rest of it.

      So I don't know why this NDP government wouldn't understand that, that hey, it's a fundamental principle. The first $30,000 you earn, that belongs to you. That should be exempt from the NDP tax man. That's money that you get to set aside to pay your bills, to deal with the cost of living, to pay for groceries, heating, and the necessities of life, raising your family and all the rest of it. That first $30,000 you own, that's yours. And yet this NDP government stands up again today, members across the way, and they're opposed to it.

      And because, you know, their fundamental philosophy is that tax revenues is their money, it belongs to them. [interjection] And our philosophy, and that seems to have touched a chord on the other side, but you know, that's regrettable because if that NDP minister who's chirping right now really cared, then why did she vote to raise taxes on Manitobans by over $400 million?

      That member, the member for Southdale (MLA Cable), will have to explain to her constituents why they are paying more than ever for education, property–in property–education and property taxes–why they are paying more in income taxes, and why she opposes, along with her NDP colleagues, raising the basic personal exemption to $30,000, a move that would benefit those who are at the very bottom of the income tax scale, those who are most vulnerable.

      And, frankly, she probably hasn't seen the statistics, nor have her colleagues, but actually there's a substantial number of Manitobans who earn less than $40,000. In fact, the member for Southdale would like to know that raising the tax-free amount Manitoba families can earn to $30,000 will ensure that more than 350,000 Manitobans will not pay any income tax.

      So what I'd like to say to the–for Manitobans living in the constituency of Southdale is, why does your MLA come into this Chamber and oppose this tax measure? Why does your NDP government oppose this tax measure? Why do they oppose real income tax relief for hard-working Manitobans who get up early every morning and go to work, while they come in here and they stall and they delay and they spend your hard-earned money on their pet political projects and their pet political friends, and they come in here and they'll stall a measure like this. They'll oppose a common sense measure like this that would put $3,000 back into the pockets of hard-working Manitobans.

      We want to help more working Manitoba families. We're calling for the basic personal tax exemption to be increased to $30,000 annually, making it the highest in the country.

      Over half a million Manitobans are earning less than $40,000, according to the 2021 census. Think about that–half a million Manitobans. We're a province of one and a half million people; half a million earn less than $40,000 a year. And that's what this tax measure is designed to address.

      This tax measure is designed to–is targeted at those half million Manitobans who earn less than $40,000 a year, to allow them, as I said, to be able to pay for the necessities of life, to pay for their groceries, their home heating, the gas in their car to go to work every morning and everything else.

      And, you know, again, it's unfortunate that the NDP opposed this. Of course, they're led by someone who was private schooled at a really wealthy private school. They're led by someone who's the son of professors. They're led by someone who's the son of professors. That entire caucus has spent their entire working lives at the public trough, feeding at the public trough.

      They don't know what it's like to–[interjection]

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Guenter: –work in the private sector. On my–[interjection]

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Guenter: –way to work this morning, I passed my dad–[interjection]

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Guenter: On my way to work this morning up  Highway 75, I was northbound. I passed my dad southbound.

      He had gotten up, as he usually does, 4,  5 o'clock in the morning. And he had just delivered a load of scrap metal that he had collected. He's 68 years old. He delivered it to General Scrap in Winnipeg.

      That's my upbringing. That's the upbringing of so many on this side. Blue collar, business owners, farmers, people who know the realities of life, and we're standing up for everyday Manitobans because of it.

      Thank you.

Hon. Jamie Moses (Minister of Business, Mining, Trade and Job Creation): It's a pleasure to get the opportunity to rise in the House and speak towards a resolution. I say that genuinely. Not often we get a chance to actually have our voices heard in the Legislative Chamber. There are very few Manitobans throughout all of history that had a chance to put words on the record here in this esteemed Chamber. And so I count myself very fortunate to be among one of the few people who has the chance to put their words on the permanent, official provincial record and speak towards resolutions, bills, question period, debate and the many other opportunities we have and have the privilege as MLAs to raising our voice.

      And so, I want to just show some gratitude to having that opportunity in this Chamber. I want to make sure I use my time wisely to speak towards this private member's resolution today.

      Honourable Speaker, I understand we've had some pretty lively debate from members across the floor. Very–it's very good and I'm pleased to see the passion that people are bringing towards our democracy and the debate that we're having here today.

      Member for Borderland (Mr. Guenter)–I appreciate hearing his story and his background in terms of, you know, growing up and his work effort. And I think it's very important to note that these–this resolution goes towards helping people who are, I  would think, meant to be for low-income folks. And that's what members opposite 'espouge' is the purpose of this resolution.

      However, the reality is that the impact is not exactly as they say. And I think that's often what we hear from members opposite in their bills, their resolutions or their rhetoric, how they debate, that they try to frame things in one lens in terms of the good it might have for all people or the benefit it might have for low-income Canadians, blue-collar workers. But the reality is, is that the impact of their decisions, their choices, their proposals, and this resolution included, is that it disproportionately helps the wealthiest Manitobans. It disproportionately helps people with more income levels.

      And that's exactly what we're seeing with this resolution today. And that's why I don't think what they mean, what they put forward, should be taken seriously by Manitobans. And that's why I don't think this resolution is what we want to be putting forward. Quite frankly, honourable Speaker, you look at the fact that many Manitobans from a variety of income levels are dealing with affordability challenges right now. And we know that they are 'foicing' those affordability challenges when it comes to housing, when it comes to meeting their rent, transportation costs, fuel costs, whether that comes to grocery bills, the daily needs of the average Manitoba.

* (11:20)

      And we understand that as government. We know that things have gotten more challenging over the last five or six years. We know that the rising inflation rates–the soaring inflation rates that we saw under the former failed government made life more challenging when it comes to affordability for all Manitobans. And we as a government are taking real action to a deal with the affordability challenge that members opposite suppose and think that this resolution tackles, but it really doesn't.

      And so we have taken real action to deal with affordability. First, part of our campaign commitment. We said we would remove the gas tax and we delivered on removing the gas tax. That meant one year of lower transportation costs for all Manitobans. Manitobans particularly in rural areas, as the member from Borderland talked about–driving on Highway 75. I agree. Manitobans who drive on the highway each and every day for work, for school, to get across and to live their lives, we wanted to help them with affordability. That's why we gave them a bay–break on their fuel tax.

      And after that, what was the result? Lower fuel tax brought down the inflation rates in our province to the lowest inflation rate in the country; meant that Manitobans had lower grocery costs as well. And lower inflation rate meant that the federal government, the Bank of Canada, could look at and say yes, now it's time to lower interest rates as well.

      Lower interest rates meant that we also could have lower mortgage rates and lower cost of living for Manitobans and for Canadians. And that was part of our job to help make life more affordable.

      And once the one year ended, what do we do? We delivered on a permanent gas tax for Manitobans, 10 per cent lower off. That means delivering on real affordability.

      On top of that, we delivered on a commitment to freeze hydro rates, and we're taking more steps to ensure that we deliver on affordability when it comes to grocery and everyday items for Manitobans.

      That's real action, not this resolution that proposes that some Manitobans will get the greater income tax benefit of this personal tax exemption change that's proposed by members opposite.

      In fact, if you look at the actual numbers, if you are a low-income Manitoban; in fact, if you're an–a  Manitoban who has no income, you're not going to see any benefit from this change.

      If you're making $1,000 annually, two thousand dollars, three, $5,000  annually, you're not going to see any benefit from this change.

If you're making $10,000 annually, if you're in that category of being a low-income Manitoban, you're making $10,000 annually, you'll see no benefit from their proposed change.

      It's only when you start making more money that you'll see more benefit, and that is by definition a regressive tax. It helps people with more income level earn and keep more of their money for taxes. Now, that's a choice that they're making, putting forward a proposal to make a regressive tax change.

      Now, what is the cost of that proposal? This is directly coming from provincial school property tax. This is directly impacted by the choices that we make on how we fund services like education, like health care. And so members opposite ought to be very clear about the choice and the decision they're making to put forward this resolution and this proposal–what they claim is a campaign proposal, even though, you know, we're not in a campaign period yet.

      But we like to understand the choice that they're making, and it's a choice that they're making today is to put forward a resolution that would cost Manitoba government hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, have they outlined where are they are going to get that funding from? Are they going to make the decision to make this tax change uncosted, without doing the math and without doing the homework?

      I heard members opposite earlier today talk about how they maybe have an accounting background or if–a economic background, but yet they've chosen, even though they claim to have that background, to not actually do the math and figuring out how much this is going to cost.

      That is irresponsible governance. That's an irresponsible proposal, to bring forward something that will have a significant financial impact to our government without telling Manitobans, without being transparent about how much it's going to cost. And even if they did somehow come up with a back of the napkin math, scribble down on some piece of paper that they're going to hand to their leader to say in front of the media that this is going to cost maybe a billion dollars–I don't know, they haven't figured it out yet.

      But once they do that–their homework–and figure it out, and they figure it out that it's going to cost maybe a billion dollars, maybe around that ballpark, what are they going to do with that information? Are they going to say, we're going to take a billion dollars out of your health care, Manitobans? Are they going to say, we're going to take a billion dollars out of your education? Are they going to go back to the Brian Pallister playbook of firing nurses? Are they going to go back to the Heather Stefanson playbook of firing teachers? Is that their plan?

      They've got to be very clear about what they're actually talking about in this resolution. It's not just about the fact that they claim they want to reduce the tax burden for some Manitobans. It's, in fact, a choice that they're making, to (a) have a regressive tax measure that gives more money to those folks who make more, to also make a choice to cut services in a real and meaningful, impactful way. And they haven't outlined where they're going to make those decisions and choices.

      Does it mean that potholes along our highways don't get repaired as quickly because they're going to cut from our transportation services? Does it mean that we no longer invest in economic activity that we do at the same level? And so I think these are very clear issues that we have with this resolution, very specific items that members opposite have no clear interest in explaining for Manitobans. Quite frankly, I think it's because this is only a half‑baked plan.

      We've seen this pattern again and again with members opposite, both in their time as opposition now–which they'll stay there for many, many years–but also their time as a former failed government, where they put forward a half-baked plan and didn't explain it, didn't care to know the details of it. There's kind of a–you know, there's a saying, you've got to look before you leap. Well, they are not following that sentiment at all. They're leaping into a terrible idea, and I think they're going to have to live with the consequences. Sadly for them, they're going to have to live with the consequences for many years as they languish on opposition benches.

      But the good thing is that Manitobans, we don't have to worry about living with their poor decision making, poor proposals. The reason? We've got a Manitoba NDP government that has got your back, that is working to deliver real affordability for you each and every day. Grow our economy, support health care, make your life more affordable for all Manitobans.

      Thank you.

Mrs. Colleen Robbins (Spruce Woods): Honourable Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the issue that goes right to the heart of affordability, fairness and economic opportunity in our province. Raising the basic personal tax exemption to $30,000 at a time when Manitobans are facing increasing financial pressure, that is–this is a measure whose time has come.

      Yesterday in the budget in Saskatchewan, they are moving their personal basic exemption up to $65,000. This will be a family of four, will not have to pay taxes up to $65,000. Great idea. Great province, very progressive. And working Manitobans, hard-working people are doing everything right, yet still finding it harder to get ahead.

      So the question before us is simple. Are we doing enough to let Manitobans keep more of their earned money? Raising the personal tack–tax exemption to $30,000 is one of the most direct and meaningful ways we can answer the question with action. The principle behind the proposal is straightforward. Before government collects income tax–sorry–individuals should be able to earn enough to cover their basic cost of living. That's not a radical idea; it's a fair one. When we tax the very first dollars people earn, we are effectively taxing survival: taxing rent, groceries, transportation and basic necessities. We say clearly the first portion of your income belongs to you, to live, to support your family and to build stability. And that matters the most.

* (11:30)

      Let's talk about the–what this means in real terms. For a single individual earning $30,000 or less, this change would mean paying no provincial income tax. Think about that. No provincial tax for the income they rely on to live.

      For families, it means more breathing room in the monthly budget. It could mean the ability to covering cost–rising utility bills, to afford child care, to keep up with mortgage payments or simply to put food on the table without constant stress. These are not luxuries; these are essentials. And for many Manitobans, even a few hundred or a thousand dollars a year makes a real tangible difference.

      This is good economic policy. They spend it right here at home. When Manitobans have more money in  their pockets, they don't send it off to offshore accounts. They shop at local stores. They support small businesses. They invest in the communities.

      That increased spending circulates through our economy, supporting jobs, strengthening business and generating economic activity across the province.

      In other words, this is not just the tax cut; it's an investment in Manitoba's economy. It is a way to stimulate growth from the ground up by empowering the very people who drive our local economies.

      There is also a workforce, they mention, to consider. We often talk in the House about labour shortages, about the need to attract and retain workers, especially in rural and northern communities. Well, affordability plays a major role in that. If we want people to live and work in Manitoba, we must ensure they can afford to do so.

      Raising the personal exemption sends a strong signal that Manitoba is a place where your work is valued, where your earnings go further, where you have a better chance to get ahead. This is particularly important for young people, graduates entering the workforce, apprenticeships, building careers and families deciding where to put down their roots. We want them to choose Manitoba. This policy helps make that case.

      Let's also speak about seniors. Many seniors in our province live on fixed incomes. They work hard their entire lives. They've contributed to our communities, raised families, built this province into what it is today, and now they are facing rising costs with limited ability to increase their income. By raising the personal–

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

      I'll just remind the member that if we're reading off of devices, they just have to be outside of the camera shot.

Mrs. Robbins: Now I know there will be a few questions raised about affordability from–

The Deputy Speaker: Sorry, I have to re-recognize you.

Mrs. Robbins: Okay.

      Now I know there will be questions raised about affordability from a fiscal standpoint: Can we afford to do this? And those are fair questions.

      But we must also ask different questions: Can Manitobans afford for us not to act? What is the cost of inaction? What is the cost when families fall behind? When people cut back on spending? When small businesses struggle because customers simply don't have enough money? When workers leave for jurisdictions where their earnings go further?

      These costs are real. They show up in a slower economic growth, increased demand for social services and greater financial strain across the province. Investing in Manitobans' ability to succeed is not a cost; it's a foundation for long-term prosperity.

      This proposal is also simple and transparent. It doesn't require complex applications or eligibility requirements. It doesn't create new bureaucracy. It applies to everyone. Every Manitoban who earns income benefits; that simply matters. It ensures that support reaches people directly without barriers, without delays and without confusion.

      At the end of the day, it's about values. Do we believe that the people should be able to meet their basic needs before paying income tax? Do we believe that work should be rewarded? Do we believe that government should ease the burden when it–times are tough. I believe Manitoba would answer yes to all of these questions. And I believe as–we, legislatures, should do the same.

      Raising the personal tax exemption $30,000 is practical, responsible and a compassionate step forward. It supports families, it strengthens our economy, it respects the dignity of work and it helps build a Manitoba where opportunity is not out of reach but within grasp for everyone.

      So let us move forward with confidence. Let us take this step to support Manitobans where they need it the most. And let us show that we are prepared to act not just with words but with meaningful policy that makes a real difference in people's lives. If you want, thank you. And I just want to make note that years ago I worked for a year with my job in Saskatchewan. And when I was being transferred to Manitoba, they offered me a raise. And of course, Manitoba is my home province and I had my house here still. And so I said, sure, I'll come back. Well, I got my first paycheque. And I said, I think you guys forgot about my raise. And they said, oh, no, the Manitoba government took your raise.

      So we need to keep our youth here and we need to help them. We need to reward hard-working Canadian–Manitobans.

      Thank you, honour.

Hon. Mike Moyes (Minister of Environment and Climate Change): Always a pleasure to rise and discuss important issues. And today we're discussing affordability and it is definitely on the top. It's on the top of a lot of Manitobans' minds. It's something that we often hear about when we're at the doorstep or, you know, at the hockey rink or at different gatherings. We're hearing people unsure about the future. And what that means is oftentimes that has to do with the geopolitical pressures that have been taking place around our world. Oftentimes it's related to some of the things that they're hearing about with trade, the trade wars, whether that's Trump or whatnot, you know, something that members opposite supported and said they'd like to thank him for. But, you know, that's something.

      Also changes in terms of our climate. You know, this past summer, we went through a really terrible wildfire season and it impacted a lot of Manitobans. We're going through a drought condition and so that's also something that–impacting Manitobans. It impacts our agricultural producers and it's something that we have to deal with. And I'm just really honoured that Manitobans have given us this sacred responsibility to be the steady hand during uncertain times.

      But what we're seeing from members opposite, from the, you know, PC caucus with this resolution is  another back-of-the-napkin approach to a serious issue. Affordability is a serious issue. Making sure that Manitobans are able to have the necessities of life are incredibly important and it's not something that we should make light of.

      But once again, they're not doing the math. I  believe when they announced their–this political ploy, someone asked whether–what's the cost? And they had no answers. They had no answers at all. They hadn't even done the analysis, the homework to see what does this cost, because there's always a cost-benefit analysis. We are all for ensuring that Manitobans have what they need, that we're making sure that Manitobans–that life is more affordable for  Manitobans. I support that fully. I believe that Manitobans need to have a government that is putting affordability at the forefront, and that's exactly what they have.

* (11:40)

      And so it's unfortunate that, you know, in a time of uncertainty, in a time where there's trade wars, where we have Donald Trump that's pushing our economy, that is at a time when we just came through some wildfire seasons–you know, heaven forbid that's something that transpires again–when we're facing drought that impacts our agricultural producers, thank goodness we have a government that is the steady hand on the economy and is there for everyday Manitobans.

      One of the things that–when I'm looking at something like this and whether we're talking about tax measures or other affordability measures, I always want to look at: how does the different demographics play out? And, you know, I'm all for folks that have done really well off in life. That's great; you know, congratulations. I–you know, I appreciate their success, and that's all good. However, oftentimes those folks that make the most aren't in need of further help. They're doing well. That's great–I hope that they continue to have success in whatever different sector that they're in.

      And so that is–that's–you know, that's all fine and good. But in this measure, it doesn't actually target who needs it the most. It doesn't actually go after those people that need the affordability measures the most.

      The person that is making millions of dollars, the person that is successful beyond their wildest dreams, the person that is, you know, taking holidays in faraway places. Maybe they own some fancy cars, maybe they live in a mansion, all of–the whole bit. They are going to get the same measure, the same tax cut as the person that is scraping by: the single mom; the person that is trying to put food on the table for their kids; the person that is just trying to make ends meet; trying to make rent; trying to decide, do we pay for the rent or do we go after–you know, or are we able to put away a little bit of money to have some fun with kids. Like–things like common, everyday things. And that's unfortunate.

      Instead of going after and targeting–instead of targeting the folks that need it the most, they decide that, no, the millionaires should get the same amount. And I don't think that's right. I don't think that Manitobans–I actually don't think that most Manitobans–

An Honourable Member: One Manitoba.

MLA Moyes: I don't think that most Manitobans–and I know the member for Riding Mountain (Mr. Nesbitt) is heckling me now, saying, one Manitoba, and absolutely; that's what one Manitoba is all about, is that we can come together. And those millionaires, those people that are doing the best off, don't need any further help. They're doing just fine, and that's great, and I hope that their success continues.

      So when we looked at the cost analysis of this–and I know, I appreciate the folks that have done this analysis on this–

An Honourable Member: All the accountants over there get in.

MLA Moyes: –and I know the member for La Vérendrye is now heckling because apparently he's an accountant. He has that big accounting background, although he didn't do the homework on this bill. He didn't do the homework on this bill. He had no analysis of this and–but apparently he didn't do the–didn't do his homework, so we're happy that other people did his homework.

The Speaker in the Chair

      And what it is, is that this bill, this–or if this was to move forward as a tax measure, it would blow a $1.1-billion hole in the revenue. And that's something that needs to be thought through, that needs to be analyzed. Because at a time when we are going through various trade wars, when we're facing Trump and his–all the implication that that entails, I'm not sure that that's the time to take $1.1 billion out of health care. I'm not sure that's the time to take $1.1 billion out of education. I'm not sure that that's the time to stop investing in affordability measures that are targeted to the people that are most vulnerable. [interjection]

      Because at some point–and I just heard the member for La Vérendrye say government waste, so I  guess they figure that there's $1.1 billion that can just be found, I guess maybe in health care. I think that's what they were trying to do when they shut down–[interjection]–what they were trying to do when they shut down those three emergency rooms in Winnipeg. And I guess that's what they were trying to do when they were, you know, cutting education over the seven and a half years of their cold, callous government. And I think that that's unfortunate.

      In the analysis, it was also found that the lowest 30 per cent–the lowest 30 per cent of income earners don't actually pay income tax. And so rather than finding ways to how do we target those? How do we target measures to actually help the–those folks that need it the most, they did the opposite. Oh, we'll just open it up so that the millionaire gets the same as the lowest income.

      And in that analysis, when they didn't do their homework, it was found that the top 10 per cent–the top 10 per cent would save $1,322. But the bottom 20 per cent would save, on average, 37 bucks. That's not right. That's not right. And I know that they're saying like, oh, well, everyone should deserve this because one Manitoba. But that's not the case. I don't think any Manitoban out there, whether you–I don't think that–I don't think any Manitoban out there, whether you are a millionaire or someone that is struggling to get by, would agree that the top 10 per cent should get $1,322 while the bottom gets $37.

      So I would recommend that the members opposite go back into the lab, go back into–under the rock that they crawled out of and do some analysis and pull out that abacus and start, you know, maybe counting on their fingers and figuring out what are some actual targeted measures that could help the folks that need it the most, those Manitobans that are struggling. And let's help them. Let's actually take measures that are going to help them rather than helping the millionaires at the same level as those that need it the most.

      Thank you, Honourable Speaker.

Mr. Konrad Narth (La Vérendrye): Thank you, Honourable Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this great resolution which increases the personal tax exemption for Manitobans to $30,000. These are real affordability measures that will make a difference, and it's a resolution. We're calling on the socialist NDP–

The Speaker: Order, please. I need to interrupt the member because he's already spoken to this.

      Anybody else wishing to speak?

      Just for clarification, the member spoke to it last Thursday.

      So the honourable member for McPhillips.

      According to our speaking rotation it is the time for a Tory member to speak–a PC member to speak.

      So the honourable member for Morden-Winkler.

Mrs. Carrie Hiebert (Morden-Winkler): I'm happy to put a few words on the record. It's important for us to stand up for Manitobans. It's important for us to stand up for our community, our people.

      The reason we're here is to represent our constituencies and everybody across Manitoba. Not just our–just where the NDP is just standing up for themselves, we're standing up for every Manitoban here, whatever their income is, especially those that are in low income brackets. I, personally, was a single mom and I had a very low income, and that tax money is the difference between doing things with my kids, being able to put them into hockey, being able to get them a laptop or a little computer that they could do their homework but–on. These are all important things, never mind right now with the way the costs of living has just skyrocketed and there's no–and the NDP is just overtaxing Manitobans.

* (11:50)

      We need to make sure we take care of our loved ones. We need to make sure we take care of those single moms who are struggling every day and have to line up at the food bank. Those are the people that will benefit from this change in tax bracket. It's not rocket science to figure that out. It's very easy to figure that out, that that single mom or that low-income family where the dad works two jobs and has to go to work every day and is trying to make sure that he can make ends meet and put food on the table for his family.

      That is the–that tax bracket, that tax money that stays in their pocket is the difference between them lining up at the food bank or being able to the grow–go to the grocery store and buy food for their families. We need to make sure that we take in account who we're helping here. We're helping families that need it. We are experiencing unbelievable grocery prices right now. Everybody goes to the grocery store and can't believe the little bit that they get for their money. And we need to make sure we stand up and we make–do everything we can to help those families that need that extra tax money in their pockets.

      Currently the NDP is raising taxes, raising taxes on families. They're raising taxes on property. It's already hard for people to purchase properties but now the tax on their homes is so high that they don't even want to buy a home. We need to make sure that we meet the need and we actually take in account to those families that need that money in their bank accounts. It's important for us to advocate for families, for people who need that extra money to live every day and it's selfish for people to stand up here in this House and talk about how this isn't going to help them.

      It's ridiculous. Of course this is going to help families. Families cannot just live off of love and they need money. Let's be like, come on, let's be real here. They need to have a financial tangible dollar to go out and buy milk, not just a 2-cent savings. Let's be real. I  know what it was like to not have money in the bank account to buy milk. We need to make sure we put that money from that tax that that mom, she's a waitress, she's out there every day working hard for that single dollar. She needs to keep that dollar in her bank account. It's important for us to make sure that we do everything we can to–for that family to keep that dollar in their bank account.

      I would encourage everybody in this House to look at how we can make a difference and save families that are struggling right now with affordability to save any dollars we can to help them. This should be all of our goal right now. Over 50 per cent of Manitobans right now are living paycheque to paycheque–over 50 per cent. That's unacceptable. We need to be looking at the families, we need to look at people. You look at seniors who are struggling, that can't even go to the food banks because they don't have a driver's licence. What are we doing for them? This is tangible way for us to make life more affordable for every Manitoban that needs that help in Manitoba.

      Thank you, Honourable Speaker.

MLA JD Devgan (McPhillips): I know I have just a few minutes to put some words on the record and it's as always an honour to rise. I know that we're going to have a vote here in a few minutes so I do want to welcome everyone in the Chamber here today to the Leg. It's wonderful to have you back in the people's building and I'm glad you get to see a little bit of the debates that are taking place this morning.

      I do want to point out that the member for–what's Narth again? Yes, La Vérendrye–got up and there was a little bit of heckling going back and forth that he was talking about how he's got a background in accounting. He can't keep track of the number of times he's spoken to this bill. This is the guy we're going to trust with the finances of our Province?

      That just speaks to the comedy of this resolution. The member for Morden yesterday was speaking to media and she called this resolution aspirational. Aspirational, a $1.1-billion hold to the Manitoba finances is aspirational for the PCs–[interjection]–and that's not even true, either. Aspirational, it's not realistic.

      And the question that I would ask the members opposite is: What are you going to cut to pay for this–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for McPhillips (MLA Devgan) will have eight minutes remaining.

      The hour being–[interjection]–the honourable member will have nine minutes remaining.

Debate on Second Readings–
Public Bills

(Continued)

Bill 232–The Autism Strategy Act

The Speaker: When this–the hour being 11:55, in accordance with rule 24(7), I'm interrupting proceedings to put the question on the deferred division before us. Rule 24(8) states that, where there are multiple deferred divisions scheduled, the vote shall be called so there are not multiple ones.

      So the question before us this morning is the deferred vote on Bill 232, The Autism Strategy Act.

Recorded Vote

The Speaker: All those in the House in favour–ah. Just the recorded vote. Call in the members.

      Question before us is the recorded vote on Bill 232, The Autism Strategy Act.

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Ayes

Balcaen, Bereza, Blashko, Brar, Bushie, Byram, Cable, Compton, Cook, Corbett, Cross, Dela Cruz, Devgan, Ewasko, Guenter, Hiebert, Johnson, Kennedy, Khan, King, Kostyshyn, Lagassé, Lamoureux, Maloway, Marcelino, Moroz, Moses, Moyes, Narth, Nesbitt, Oxenham, Perchotte, Redhead, Robbins, Sala, Sandhu, Schmidt, Schott, Schuler, Simard, Smith, Stone, Wasyliw, Wharton, Wiebe, Wowchuk.

Deputy Clerk (Mr. Tim Abbott): Ayes 46, Nays 0.

The Speaker: The motion is accordingly passed.

* * *

The Speaker: And the hour being past 12 o'clock, this House is recessed and stands recessed until 1:30 this afternoon.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, March 19, 2026

CONTENTS

Vol. 31a

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' business

Debate on Second Readings–Public Bills

Bill 211–The Budget Bill Public Accountability Act

Simard 852

Narth 854

Bushie 856

Bereza 858

Compton 860

Debate on Resolutions

Res. 5–Calling on the Provincial Government to Increase the Personal Tax Exemption

Dela Cruz 861

Guenter 862

Moses 864

Robbins 866

Moyes 868

Narth 869

Hiebert 870

Devgan 870

Debate on Second Readings–Public Bills

(Continued)

Bill 232–The Autism Strategy Act 871