LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Madam Speaker: Please be seated.
Madam Speaker: Introduction of bills? Committee reports?
Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Eichler), I am pleased to table the report of the Manitoba Farm Products Marketing Council: respecting the certification of qualified organizations.
Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister–and the required 90-minutes' notice prior to routine proceedings was provided in accordance with rule 26(2).
Would the honourable First Minister please proceed with his statement?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): I was that which others did not want to be. / I went where others feared to go / and did what others failed to do. / I asked nothing from those who gave nothing, / and reluctantly accepted the thought of eternal loneliness ...should I fail. / I have seen the face of terror; / felt the stinging cold of fear; / and enjoyed the sweet taste of a moment's love. / But most of all, / I have lived times others would say were best forgotten. / At least someday, I will be able to say / that I was proud of what I was …a soldier.
Lest we forget.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Madam Speaker, Remembrance Day gives Canadians the opportunity to reflect on the more than 110,000 Canadians who died in World War I and II and other conflicts, to honour the dedication of the soldiers, sailors and airmen and women who have served and are currently serving in some of the most dangerous places in the world, and to recommit ourselves to the pursuit of peace.
It is an honour to recognize the Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans in the gallery. We never forget that those who have served and do serve are mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, daughters and sons, our neighbours and our friends. They may be among us in uniform or they may be among us in civilian clothing because they have a day job and serve their country on evenings and weekends.
On behalf of our caucus, Madam Speaker, we convey our gratitude and our deepest respect to all those who have served and who continue to serve us.
Thank you.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): Madam Speaker, I ask for leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to respond to the ministerial statement? [Agreed]
Ms. Klassen: It was very fitting that Sergeant Tommy Prince was honoured in our building a few days ago for his service and bravery during the Second World War and the Korean War. The plaque honouring him now hangs in the gallery not far from my office, and it's no secret that many Aboriginal veterans are still struggling to get the recognition they deserve.
War, we must remember, does not only take its toll financially, but in the cost of lives given, given in the service of their country. We must remember all those who lost loved ones in wars and conflicts of past and during our time. Those who continue to serve in our armed forces and peacekeeping efforts around the globe must in turn be honoured for this day with gratitude.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Jon Reyes (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour the crew of Her Majesty's Canadian ship Winnipeg for their dedication defending Canadian values throughout the world.
The ship is assigned to the Maritime Forces Pacific and is stationed at the Canadian Forces maritime port in Esquimalt, BC.
The Winnipeg has been deployed on missions throughout the Pacific and Indian Ocean, specifically on anti-terrorism operations in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea and counter-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia.
The combination of its varied and proven weapon and sensor systems, coupled with a state‑of‑the-art damage-control and machinery-control system, makes Winnipeg one of the most advanced warship designs in the world.
Its latest mission, the Winnipeg took part in Operation REASSURANCE, which was Canada's contribution to NATO assurance measures in central and eastern Europe. These exercises were the largest NATO-led joint exercises in more than 20 years, conducting operations with 102 ships from 20 different NATO navies and visiting 16 countries, including 10 NATO nations.
Last year was the 20th anniversary of the commissioning of the HMCS Winnipeg. I served on the Winnipeg from 1994 to 1999, and I was part of the commissioning crew picking her up from Halifax, through the Panama Canal, and arriving in our home port of Esquimalt, BC.
I was proud to represent Canada all over the world on operational exercises that brought me to countries such as Japan, Korea, Russia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, to name a few. I truly miss the camaraderie, the mess dinners and the moose milk. While I don't miss–what I don't miss is sharing the same sleeping quarters with 20 crew members, I have to admit, but the navy taught me to be resilient and the value of teamwork. I will always have great memories serving on the Winnipeg, whose motto is One with the Strength of Many.
Madam Speaker, the members of this House and I would like to thank the crew of the HMCS Winnipeg, who are here in the gallery today. We thank you for your dedication to our country and for defending our Canadian values, freedoms and our democratic institutions.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): November is recognized as National Home Care and Hospice Month, an opportunity to honour the thousands of front-line workers like nurses, therapists, home-care aides and social workers who serve Manitobans.
Aging and illness can be a difficult time for individuals and their loved ones, but the compassion and care of Manitoba's home-care workers helps them through this process with dignity.
Our NDP team knows that a strong Home Care program helps loved ones remain at home for as long as possible, which is important to Manitoba families.
I'm proud to say that it was a Manitoba NDP government that established the first universal home‑care system in the country over 40 years ago, and we quickly became a model for other provinces. Of course, this would not be possible without the thousands of home-care providers who play an integral role in our health-care system. Their work is about so much more than providing medical care. They also address the emotional, social and spiritual needs of their clients. These truly are the front-line care providers of our province.
Manitoba has been recognized as a leader in universal home care, but to ensure this remains the case, it must continue to be accessible to all Manitobans. This means making sure it remains universal and publicly funded and providing home-care workers with the support that they need and deserve.
Madam Speaker, in honour of the National Home Care & Hospice month, I would like to thank all home-care workers in Manitoba for the compassion and dedication with which they serve their communities.
Our NDP team will continue to fight for accessible home care in Manitoba.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): Good afternoon to the members of the Legislative Assembly, and thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to address the Chamber.
It is my pleasure today to remind all Manitobans about the importance of safe driving–especially my daughter Zane [phonetic] up in the gallery; she's just got her beginner's–especially as the winter season approaches.
Driving in general is a responsibility given to those who demonstrate a safe understanding of our roads, laws and weather climate. Today I would like to remind Manitobans that it is a shared responsibility we have of ourselves and those around us, including pedestrians and all the other types of motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles.
Any action or decision that impairs judgment or affects skills, such as distracted driving or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, can have very serious consequences. We have seen far too many tragedies happen on our roads through poor decision making.
* (13:40)
As the holiday party season starts, I encourage all Manitobans to make responsible choices, and if consuming alcohol, to call a friend, a family member or to use one of the many great services such as Operation Red Nose and arrive safe.
Generally, safe winter driving can be challenging, but it starts with a well-maintained vehicle. And a good rule of thumb is to check fluids, batteries, belts and tire pressure. It is also important to make sure that all lights and reflective gear work and–on your way of transportation.
Living in our beautiful province and driving on the urban and rural roads, winter tires are a great investment as they are constructed of a special rubber compound with deeper thread patterns and are more flexible to improve stopping time on the many surfaces we experience through the season.
Safe driving and commuting is–in any manner includes being attentive to your surroundings–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Some Honourable Members: Leave?
Madam Speaker: Leave has been asked.
Is there leave to allow the member to finish his statement? [Agreed]
Mr. Lagassé: Okay, thank you, thanks.
Safe driving and commuting in any manner includes being attentitve to your surroundings and the many others that use our roadways.
I thank the House for the opportunity and the time to bring this very important subject before you.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): I want to honour my brother, Edwin Wood, and Stephanie Wood who are–join us in the gallery today. Both are educated professionals who have made our community better by returning home with their learnings.
My sister has a bachelor of education degree from Brandon University. She did this as a single parent of three young boys, and many of us know the struggles that entails. She is now a special needs teacher back home. And we all know how underfunded reserve schools are, so the struggles are not only in trying to create productive people, but she does this with very scant resources, akin to that of a Third World country.
Our schools also see many closures due to water and heating issues. But every day that it is open, you will find her diligently there, trying to make a difference in her students' lives.
I cannot list all of my brother's achievements. He is a parole officer back home. He, too, has an excellent work ethic and also continuously faces the struggles of underfunding. He doesn't know what details he can share with me because of my position. I then tried going to his top E.D. in hopes that I could work with her to find solutions. I table her response. But I know it comes from the very top, because his immediate supervisor is my other brother. And he, too, faces the challenges of trying to share with me, but, due to my position, he cannot.
I am trying to ensure all my constituents are no longer neglected as they had been for so long under the previous government.
Honourable members, we do have people like my brother and sister in every reserve up north. We need to listen to them, because they have the drive and determination to change the status quo and truly make a better Manitoba.
Hon. Eileen Clarke (Minister of Indigenous and Municipal Relations): Madam Speaker, this past week our MLAs have been attending and hosting many events to honour our veterans and military personnel. Tomorrow, at the eleventh hour, on the eleventh day of the eleventh month, as a nation, we will pay our highest respects to all who have served and are serving our country.
Today I'm so proud to share my respect for three veterans in my community of Gladstone, my local heroes. Comrades Earl Stewart, Allan McDiarmid and Joe Fraser have had a significant impact on my life. I first got to see them as a child as they carried flags in our local parades and legion events. I had such admiration for how proudly they marched, 'helds' head high and always in perfect step. In time, I got to know them on a more personal basis, and I appreciated their sacrifice to country and commitment to community, especially Gladstone Legion No. 110.
Friends and comrades, locally and far beyond, on numerous occasions, were entertained by their engaging stories and unending humour. These three comrades all retired to the Legion apartments across the street from my home, and I enjoyed watching them cross the street many days to the Legion Club Room for happy hour, or two or three.
The bond between them was far beyond friends and comrades; they were kindred spirits.
As years weakened their physical abilities, their inner strength and pride never wavered. Comrades Earl Stewart and Joe Fraser passed away recently, and comrade Allan McDiarmid resides in Third Crossing Manor.
We have special memories of all our veterans that will–of the veterans that will be missed at our Remembrance Day services and veterans' banquets. Their love, spirit and inspiration live on in their families and friends whose lives were enriched by knowing them and time spent.
They are steadfast pillars of our community. Their strong leadership over the years will ensure our local legion continues to be a hub of community, a place where friends meet, visitors are welcome and the younger generation is taught the value of our veterans' sacrifices to our country.
Blessed be the tie that binds.
Introduction of Guests
Madam Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today 10 crew members from HMCS Winnipeg, including: Lieutenant Michelle Baranowski, Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Sylvain Jaquemot, Petty Officer 2nd Class Ryan Hart, Master Corporal Steve Dugas, Master Seaman Darren Kreuger, Corporal Maire-Claude Therrien, Leading Seaman Frederick Jaskiewicz, Leading Seaman Connor Nijsse, Master Seaman Cody Travis and Leading Seaman Klarck Montemayor, who are the guests of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Reyes).
On behalf of all of us here, we'd like to welcome you to the Manitoba Legislature.
We have seated in the public gallery from Horizons Learning Centre six students under the direction of Nico Van Kats, and this group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer).
On behalf of all honourable members, we'd like to welcome you here today as well.
Government Plan
Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): The Premier has had plenty of opportunities to show Manitoba's–to show Manitobans that he has a vision for the future, but instead he has talked to an ideological agenda that threatens Manitoba jobs and makes life less affordable for families.
He spent time and energy settling old political debts while northern communities suffer and job losses mount. He's shown his allegiances lie with his privileged, wealthy insiders and has ignored everyday Manitobans by freezing the minimum wage, slashing the seniors' tax rebate and threatening to hike rates for hydro and auto insurance.
Madam Speaker, the Premier needs to change course.
Will he commit to setting aside the partisan agenda and start to put Manitoba first?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Manitobans put our political organization first this spring, Madam Speaker, because we put Manitobans first. That's precisely what we've done.
I couldn't be more enthused about the future for Manitoba, Madam Speaker, in the hands of this government. We will fix the finances as we committed to do.
The members opposite said yesterday that words matter; they do matter, and keeping our word matters deeply to us, as opposed to what the previous administration did when it walked, knocked and promised Manitobans it would not raise their taxes and then did.
Madam Speaker, we are trimming the top-heavy bureaucracy that was left to us by the previous administration so we can better protect front-line services and the people who provide them. After a decade of debt, we're committed to fixing the finances of this province and will.
Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question.
Ms. Marcelino: The Premier and his government is keeping that 1 per cent tax hike, and if they're so incensed about it, why don't they repeal it?
* (13:50)
Madam Speaker, New Democrats have an inclusive vision for our province. It is a vision where all workers are paid a fair wage. That is why the minimum wage should be raised. It is a vision where all workers have good jobs and strong protections; that is why regressive anti-labour legislation should be opposed. It is a vision that includes all Manitobans; that's why we have made important investments in the North such as new investments in UCN so our entire province can prosper.
But this vision is threatened by this government's undermining front-line services and not guaranteeing affordability for our families.
Will the Premier change course, set aside the partisan agenda and agree to put Manitoba first?
Mr. Pallister: I thank the member opposite for putting the new NDP position in respect of the PST on the record and calling on us to lower the PST which she and her colleagues raised. I appreciate her support; I appreciate the support of her colleagues.
We'll find the savings. It will take time, however, because of the fact that we are going to turn this canoe very carefully to protect the cargo and the people within it.
You see, Madam Speaker, we were left with a desperate situation in terms of social services, and we are committed after a decade of decay to repairing the services of our province. We have some of the worst poverty in the country, some of the longest wait times for child care, the most children in care for our size, frankly, a justice system that is overburdened right now, and many problems in addition to that like the lowest ratings in education in the country and some of the longest wait times for services of any Canadian hospital.
So it is a momentous challenge. I wouldn't be anywhere else with a better group of people than the people on this side of the House ready to face these challenges together on behalf of Manitobans, and I am particularly proud that we have finally returned the right to a secret ballot to Manitoba's men and women in labour unions.
Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Marcelino: This session has been characterized by unnecessary fights with organized labour and an attack on Manitoba's affordability advantage. Protections for workers have been weakened and the cost of living for Manitobans will undoubtedly rise, but there has been no action on the part of this government to reverse these worrisome trends. Instead, they hide behind reviews that threaten out–threaten our front-line workers and our core services.
Madam Speaker, we know where we stand on this side of the House.
Today, will the Premier commit to an inclusive vision for the province, one that builds our communities through smart investments, or will he continue to go down the path of partisan attack and political division? Will he put Manitobans first?
Mr. Pallister: The colleague opposite and her fellow candidates in the 2011 election put the trust of Manitobans into the dustbin of history when they decided they would say to people right to their face at their doorstep of their home that they would promise not to raise their taxes.
Now, the member opposite claims to have concerns about these people and uses reference to affordability. Let's talk about that for a second. The very homes that the NDP candidates knocked on, the doors they knocked on saw their home insurance premiums rise by not 1 per cent, Madam Speaker, but 8 per cent under the previous administration.
How did that help the affordability of Manitobans? How did putting an 8 per cent additional charge on every working man and woman's benefits–how did that help their affordability at home? How did jacking up hydro rates at a record rate? How about jacking up taxes on beer, wine, cottages, on everything that Manitobans value? Frankly, they paid more because of the NDP.
We will lower taxes, have and will continue to find the savings within government instead of going to the people of Manitoba and eroding their trust as the previous administration was so proficient at doing.
Collective Bargaining Negotiations
Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): The ongoing strike is having serious consequences for the 30,000 students at the University of Manitoba.
The Premier chooses to remain silent about the allegations that he's interfered in the bargaining process. According to UMFA's complaint with the Manitoba Labour Board, the Premier's staff allegedly directed that there'd be a wage freeze, allegedly that there be no–directed that there be no made–mediation and allegedly directed that the Province would not pay for any binding arbitration. The Premier has it in his ability to help us understand the truth of these allegations.
Did the Premier direct his staff to put these restrictions on bargaining in place?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): I want to, again, give my best efforts to the member to help him understand that allegations of unfair labour practice are not uncommon in Manitoba; that, under the previous administration's watch, there were 900 allegations of unfair labour practice; and that basing his preambles and questions in the House on allegations of unfair labour practices is, well, Madam Speaker, unfair.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Rouge on a supplementary question.
Mr. Kinew: I still believe that questions during question period are entirely fair.
Students at both the U of M campuses are worried and confused about what will happen to their studies this semester, and the president of the University of Manitoba has actually warned that the strike is reaching a critical 'junctur'–juncture, rather. It seems to me that, if there was political interference on the part of the Premier or his staff, that withdrawing those measures could help ameliorate the 'situration' and help return students to the classes sooner.
Will the Premier withdraw any of those restrictions that may have been put in place after the university administration had made its final offer?
Mr. Pallister: Let me help the member discern the difference between fair and unwise. Comments about women that are totally inappropriate are unwise. I know that and he knows that. Comments in the middle of a labour strike situation that may jeopardize the ability of the bargaining partners to find success are fair perhaps in his mind, but I would consider them to be incredibly unwise. And so, too, with the bargaining agents, frankly, unless–unless–they wanted him to take sides, Madam Speaker, which he has done already in this place too many times and put the interests of students on the back burner and place the interests of his friends in the faculty at the top of his priority list.
This is wrong; this is misguided; and I consider it both unfair and unwise, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Rouge on a final supplementary.
Mr. Kinew: I'd like to point out that, if you follow the Premier's logic, then if the allegations in the UMFA brief are true, then the actions, which are alleged there, would, in fact, be unwise.
On a related point, yesterday in the House, the Premier 'addempted'–attempted to dismiss that claim in its entirety, but we're just trying to ascertain the facts. We're just trying to find out what's true. The complaint has not been dropped yet and the allegations, if true, well, students deserve to know about them.
So can the Premier confirm if his staff restricted the University of Manitoba's negotiating capacity after an offer was on the table, and will he table the correspondence to prove it?
Mr. Pallister: It is incredible, Madam Speaker, that a question coming from a party controlled by a few top union leaders is so revealing of a total absence of a lack of understanding of collective bargaining principles' fundamentals. It is incredible.
Madam Speaker, the reality of the situation is that the previous administration asked for pauses in wages. The people of Manitoba elected us to put their interests first, and we have been doing so. They elected us to fix the finances of the Province and, as a new government, we took steps to make that clear to all bargaining agents. And we will continue to do that because, unlike the previous administration, when we make a commitment we keep it.
Withdrawal Request
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): This legislative session has been bad news for Manitoba workers. Workers have had their rights eroded and undermined by a government that refuses to hear their voice. Manitoba workers have tried to make their voices heard. Workers and their representatives were united in their opposition to Bill 7, a regressive attack on labour rights in Manitoba.
Will this government today hear the workers' voice and withdraw Bill 7?
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Acting Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade): I thank the member for the question.
* (14:00)
Of course, he is mistaken. Along with the members on this side of the House, we all understand that this has been an important session of the legislature that has–that is going about the work of bringing about good legislative changes, changes including by-election standards, changes including passing the protecting children's act, changes including ending the vote tax, changes including a sexual violence prevention act on campuses.
If this member is trying to suggest that that and other bills are insignificant or not worthy of the time of this Legislature, I disagree, and so do my colleagues.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Lindsey: Workers across the province know this, our party knows this, the Supreme Court of Canada knows this: workplaces are not democracies.
Workplaces are characterized by unequal power relationships. This bill will only make that power imbalance more pronounced. It'll make it harder for workers to organize, and putting more procedural roadblocks in their way will not help working people in this province.
Will this government, today, hear the voice of the workers of Manitoba, and many others, and withdraw Bill 7?
Mr. Friesen: Madam Speaker, let us be clear about what Bill 7 is.
The purpose of the legislation is to secure the right of Manitoban workers to have a right to a secret ballot, the same protection that other Canadian workers are afforded in other jurisdictions. It means modernizing union certification processes. It means bringing Manitoba in line with other provinces. It means removing roadblocks.
This is important work. It is noble work. It is work that Bill 7 accomplishes. And it is work that we are proud to get done on behalf of all workers in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Lindsey: Bill 7 is a transparent attack on workers. This government insists on making it harder to form unions, the one and only mechanism that gives workers a real say in their workplaces. They try to confuse us with their words that don't mean what they think they mean or what they'd like us to think they mean.
We want workplaces to be more democratic, not less. This bill makes workplaces less democratic and merely trying to wrap the words up in something different.
Will this government come to its senses and withdraw Bill 7 today?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Madam Speaker, the issue that members opposite have to grapple with, and they'll have to do it in their own way, is why they feel they should have the right to a secret ballot but deprive Manitoba workers of one.
Why is it that two thirds of Canadian working men and women have the right to a secret ballot, but they stand here in this Chamber and argue that Manitoba workers–[interjection]–that Manitoba workers should not have those same rights?
They'll have to grapple with that with their own conscience, Madam Speaker. I don't have to grapple with this–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Pallister: –observation, no. I don't have to grapple with this observation.
The political organization opposite depends on the support of union bosses, even insofar as in the choosing of its own leadership. And, Madam Speaker, they're kowtowing to the union bosses at the expense of the working men and women in this province
And, Madam Speaker, I'm proud of the fact that we're on this side standing up for the rights of Manitoba's working men and women.
Government Plan
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Six months gone, and still this government has not built one single child-care space or even presented a plan to tackle the wait-list, which has bloated to 15,000 under their watch.
The minister has responded to concrete research with vague or meaningless commitments. Families need a smart plan now, and the experts have shown that real–through real data, that putting all your eggs into the family-home child-care basket is simply not smart.
Will he finally admit that he doesn't have a strong, effective plan for affordable child care and start listening to the experts?
Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): I do appreciate the question.
I can say that we have a robust plan for child care. We've been in office–our government has been in office for 3 per cent of the time. While we look at the members opposite, we know that you left over 14,000 kids, parents, on the wait-list in terms of child care. We know how much red tape there is, orange tape, NDP child-care red tape, in terms of starting home-based child care.
We have a plan. We have a balanced plan what will make a difference for Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a supplementary question.
Ms. Fontaine: I mean, I guess the question really is: Where is this robust and exciting plan that the minister keeps talking about?
Will the minister commit to the growing public child-care system with real investments in new spaces and training for early 'childhed'–childhood educators?
Mr. Fielding: Again, Madam Speaker, thank you for the question.
We have a balanced plan, a plan that's going to consist of things such as home-based child care– [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Fielding: –that's going to consist–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Fielding: It's going to consist of child care in family–in school-based systems. That's something that we didn't see with the previous NDP government.
They talked a good game, yet they didn't get the job done, and that's what they're upset about. They're upset the fact that they didn't get the job done and they didn't have a balanced plan in terms of providing choice for Manitobans. Choice is something that's important in child care.
We wish the NDP would join us in terms of a plan that's going to make a difference for Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Fontaine: I would say to the minister that, you know what, we would probably get on board with this magical plan if we actually knew what the plan is.
A recent poll shows that 75–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
The honourable member for St. Johns.
Ms. Fontaine: Miigwech, Madam Speaker.
So, as I was saying, a recent poll shows that 75 per cent of Manitobans support a system where every child who needs a space gets one.
The minister claims he's listening to Manitobans, so why won't he listen to these families who want affordable child care? Why won't he listen to child‑care experts who say that family-home child care is a mistake?
Will the minister be funding any new public spaces, and, if so, how many? Or will he continue to ignore the advice of Manitobans and experts?
Mr. Fielding: It's always enjoyable hearing the members opposite and what her plans were.
We know what the plans of the NDP government was. It was to take as much money and make it least as affordable for all Manitobans in terms of your PST increase.
We know that in terms of the benefits that people are provided, in terms of the same workers that she talked about yesterday, were taken away, in terms of the benefits, in terms of the taxes.
Join our plan. Make it affordable. Make it a realistic plan for Manitobans.
We know that the NDP government, in terms of a decade of decay, in terms of the services as a part of this, we encourage them–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Fielding: –to join us to make–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Fielding: –it a better Manitoba for [inaudible]
Government Investment
Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas): It has been a difficult time for northern Manitoba since the new government took office. Thousands of jobs have been threatened or lost. Industries have been shuttered. Costs for basic necessities of life have gone up and become harder to secure.
The future of entire communities have been put into question. But in the face of these serious and long-term challenges, the government has offered no real vision.
How will the government change the course of the North and protect northern jobs and our families?
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Acting Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade): Well, Madam Speaker, this government recognizes that there are challenges the North faces right now in respect of developments, both in the last number of months, but also challenges that have been ongoing. And those challenges, this member understands, are challenges that were left unaddressed by the previous government. That's why Manitoba's new government recognizes the need for economic diversification and development in Manitoba's north.
* (14:10)
Now, the NDP were short-sighted when it came to the North. They chose a band-aid approach. We choose an approach that listens to northerners, consults, measures, gets onside with them. And the plans that we make there and the results that we see will speak for themselves.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, on a supplementary question.
Ms. Lathlin: This government has offered no supports to the community of Churchill. We know now they visited the community and brought a lot of political staff to go and visit Churchill's tourist attractions. But the port is still shuttered. The rail line is still closed, and workers are still out of good jobs.
When will this government actually do the work necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the community of Churchill?
Mr. Friesen: I appreciate the question from the member. It gives me a chance to talk about a proud announcement we made in terms of our new tourism development fund, or the recipients. Twenty-nine community organizations from across Manitoba awarded funding to boost rural and northern tourism. I would remind this member that the–there's an increase of more than 50 per cent in this year's funding, and I remind the member that it includes additional grants made to six northern organizations.
This is an exciting development. Will it solve every problem? No. Is it an important step along the way to letting people know that the resources will be there from this new government? Absolutely.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Lathlin: Northern Manitoba needs to be a real priority for this government. Instead of good investments for the north, we hear fear mongering about the province's finances. But this government should not think it can make northerners pay for its commitment to austerity.
Will this government commit to making real investments in our North in education, social services, health, infrastructure, so we can continue to grow all parts of this province?
Mr. Friesen: Madam Speaker, let us understand the context. The previous NDP government led the nation in terms of self-promotional advertising. We say no to that. We say yes to a 96/4 tourism strategy that boosts tourism dollars to make sure that we are promoting all that is good about Manitoba. We are pressing down that internal advertising, and we are pushing that effort into making sure that we are promoting this province in the south, in the north, east and west. This will have dividends for all Manitobans.
Health-Care Funds
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): The government had asked for our support from our caucus to lobby for funds from our federal cousins. We were happy to lobby for Manitobans. We learned that funds can be transferred with or without conditions. For example, health-care funds would be transferred with the condition that are–they are only to be spent on health care. In fact, the federal government does not audit these funds, so the Province has a great deal of discretion as to where these funds are spent.
Honourable First Minister, we were in turn asked for plans to be forwarded from your Cabinet. My question is: When can those be expected in Ottawa to ensure our province captures a healthy allocation of the federal transfers?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Well, Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the question from my colleague across the way. It raises an important issue about the role of the federal government in supporting the health-care needs not only of Manitobans, but Canadians across our great country.
When the agreement on health care was formed many years ago, it was one of the understanding that the federal government would be a fifty-fifty partner, an equal partner in health care. That was always the understanding. There's been an erosion since then to the point now in Manitoba where the federal government provides less than 25 per cent of the funding for health care
Madam Speaker, I think that the member opposite, I hope, during the week that we have away from the Legislature, is able to take that message to Ottawa to become a real partner for Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kewatinook, on a supplementary question.
Provincial Funding
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): Yes, I can do your work as well.
I met a great group of constituents who were from all over Manitoba and, like this government, have lobbied for the very same opportunity, and they presented great plans to the federal Liberals. So our federal Liberals may, in certain circumstances, increase their proportion. This group is the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. They want assurance that the provincial government will not penalize them for this extra support.
The Province needs to continue to fund one third of the projects. How the other two thirds is worked out is none of their business.
Will this government continue to fund municipal projects by 33 per cent?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Well, Madam Speaker, I think, generally what the member is talking about is the role of the responsibility of the federal government to be a real partner for Manitobans and for other provinces, and we've seen many situations where that hasn't been the case. She raises in her question earlier about health care, and we continue to see that that is an issue.
I can assure Manitobans and all members of this House that every dollar that comes from Ottawa designated for health care goes to health care, unlike the allegation of the federal government that they made. And I can tell the member that ministers of Health across the province–or across the country of all different political stripes are very, very concerned that that was the tactic made by the federal government. It was a wrong tactic, and I hope she brings that message to Ottawa.
She can gladly take that work on; we need every voice we can get on that.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kewatinook, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Klassen: Yes, I'll reiterate: I will happily lobby for all Manitobans.
The AMM have spoken with their citizens to determine their priority areas, and they want the very best for their citizens.
This new government has to stop working in the ways of the former government. They need to work logically, and they must listen to their constituents. We are all cash-strapped at this moment, and a dollar spent by someone cash-strapped goes a long way further than a dollar spent by another. The municipalities know what their respective priorities are.
Can this government support our elected municipal leaders to determine their own best course of action?
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for 'kewitanay' for the question.
And, Madam Speaker, it truly is all about listening. And that is why this new government embarked on, arguably, the most extensive prebudget consultation ever conducted in this province, certainly more than the predecessors who conducted prebudget consultations that didn't always lead to a budget.
In this case, Madam Speaker, online submissions, in-person meetings and a online tool that invites people to use the–those tools to design their own budget, all of this designed to receive from Manitobans those messages that government must hear; it, of course, relies on the extent to which government is listening.
Madam Speaker, this government is listening to Manitobans, and we'll proceed on the basis of the advice that is given.
Transparency Commitment
Mr. Alan Lagimodiere (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, our new government was elected on a promise to be transparent and accountable to Manitobans, unlike the former NDP government. Part of this commitment is to provide Manitobans with more insight into our Crown corporations.
This is why I'm glad our Crowns committee will sit–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lagimodiere: –a second time in one month to examine the annual reports of Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries.
Can the Minister of Crown Services tell us more about our commitment to transparency in the Crowns?
Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Crown Services): I'd like to thank the member for Selkirk for that great question.
For the first time in history, Crown corporations committee will meet twice in one month. We are becoming the most improved province in Canada and–with the hard work of committee members from St. Vital, Radisson, St. Norbert, Selkirk, Southdale and Kildonan.
We were elected to fix the finances of Manitoba, and, Madam Speaker, that's exactly what we're going to do.
* (14:20)
Request for Definition
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): The government is causing unnecessary uncertainty all–in homes all across Manitoba because the Premier (Mr. Pallister) fails to define what he means by a front-line worker.
So I just want to ask him very simply today: Will he provide this House, the media up there and the people of Manitoba what the proper definition of what constitutes a front-line worker?
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Acting Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade): This government is committed to building this province better by fixing the finances, repairing our services, rebuilding the economy. That's the work that Manitobans hired us for. That's the mandate that was provided to this government.
And, Madam Speaker, to be clear, the challenge in front of us is great. It is significant. It is a challenge that all Manitobans must face.
The leader of the–the interim Leader of the Opposition just referenced in this same question period session the tax hike that her government brought that all Manitobans must grapple with. It's our fundamental commitment to reduce that. It will take time, but it is work that we will accomplish.
Keeping our word matters. We are all about keeping our word.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Allum: Well, Madam Speaker, we've said it before, we'll say it again: no answers, no plan and no interest in governing on behalf of the people of Manitoba.
Workers in Manitoba are going home every day and yet they're uncertain whether they're on the Premier's chopping block. They're not sure what he means by a front-line worker.
I'm asking him, now, to respect this House, respect the people of 'manitella'–Manitoba and tell us–tell us–what constitutes a front-line worker?
Mr. Friesen: The member in his question clearly referenced the idea of a plan.
I'm pleased to tell him about our plan, a plan that is intending and is accomplishing helping Manitobans to pay less after years and years of paying more for the NDP. Our changes in indexing the basic personal exemption save Manitobans millions of dollars a year already, removes almost 3,000 Manitobans from the tax rolls in this year alone. Indexing tax brackets goes even further.
The member asks about a plan. I am only too pleased to stand in my place and tell this member and the members of this House how proud we are of the plan that this new government of Manitoba is bringing to this province.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Allum: Madam Speaker, is the Finance Minister really proud of the fact that 12,000 full-time jobs have disappeared in this province since he came into office?
You know, we're asking a very basic question because Manitoba families want to know. They want to know if they're going to have a job tomorrow. They want to know if they can pay the mortgage. They want to know if they can send their kids to a post-secondary institution.
So we're asking him now, once and for all–no more evasion, we want a direct answer: What constitutes a front-line worker?
We want to know and we want to know now.
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): I understand the confusion of the member today in respect of the question that he's asked. Madam Speaker, it's clear that the previous administration didn't understand what front-line workers are and they're still puzzled by it.
I'll help them, I hope, Madam Speaker, by explaining that a front-line worker is someone who had an NDP candidate come to their door and promise them that they wouldn't pay more in tax. A front-line worker is someone who ended up, as a result of that disrespectful approach, of paying more for their car, their cottage fees, their beer, their benefits. A front-line worker paid more for their home insurance, their hydro.
And a front-line worker had the ultimate disrespect paid to them, Madam Speaker–and I hope the members will listen carefully to this–when the previous administration decided that in order to raise the PST on all the front-line workers they would go to court and take away their right to vote on it.
That's a front-line worker, Madam Speaker.
Sewage Treatment Plant Update
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): Back in June, we had the curious situation where the headlines in the daily papers were indicating quite clearly that the City of Winnipeg was no longer intending to comply with sewage regulations.
When questions were asked by myself and others in this Chamber whether the minister was going to allow the City to ignore regulations that were in place, she indicated that, no, everything was just fine.
I'm wondering if she might be able to provide an update to the House on the status of the North End Water Pollution Control Centre project at the City of Winnipeg.
Hon. Cathy Cox (Minister of Sustainable Development): Thank you to the member opposite for the question.
You know, water is most important to all of us opposite on this side and to all Manitobans. I've been out, you know, with the Red River basin, out talking to 'habidat' heritage, conservation districts, all sorts of groups and organizations, stakeholders, with regard to water and protecting our water.
Everyone on this side of the House is most concerned about it. We've talked to the City of Winnipeg. I've had no requests for extensions. However, you know, whatever the member opposite has to provide to me I'd actually like to see it. If he has something I'd like to see him table it today.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Altemeyer: I had hoped that on the last day and potentially the last question of this session we might finally get a straight answer from the minister on an environment question. Sadly, it looks like that's not the case. We might be adding this to the list of questions she has absolutely no answer or understanding of.
If she has actually been out in the Red River basin she's probably heard from people that the City of Winnipeg remains the single largest source of nutrient pollution heading into Lake Winnipeg.
Our government initiated the sewage upgrade projects with the City of Winnipeg–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Altemeyer: –with $100 million on the table to continue that good work.
Will she assure this House today, and all Manitobans, the City of Winnipeg sewage projects are going to be completed on time?
Mrs. Cox: Thank you again to the member opposite.
As I said before, water and City of Winnipeg discussions continue with our department. I'd like to thank the member as well. I know that they've never met a target that they ever set for themselves and they're much more interested in media attention than environmental protection.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Altemeyer: This might actually be an easy enough question for the Premier. He has said he likes the easy ones, so let's find out.
Under our government we were requiring the City of Winnipeg to provide progress reports every six months.
If the minister is confident that these projects are proceeding on time with the same pollution standards that we had in place, can she please table for the House the most recent status report she got from the City of Winnipeg?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Again, Madam Speaker, the members opposite, when they had the opportunity in government, never met a standard or a target that they achieved, frankly, when it came to environmental issues. And we will certainly endeavour to protect the future of our province and its environmental assets for the long-term sustainability of our province.
I wanted to say, Madam Speaker, to all members at the end of this, our first session of the 41st Legislative Assembly, that I congratulate them all for their work and you, Madam Speaker, for your work.
I also wanted to say, especially to the record number of new members in the Chamber, how impressed we all are with your work. The three new members of the NDP, two new members of the Liberal caucus, 24 new members of our caucus, who have all engaged over half of the members of this Chamber–and that is a record, apart from the first one, of course–have impressed us all with their dedication to the tasks that they have undertaken.
And we congratulate them all, Madam Speaker, and wish everyone well, and we look forward to seeing everyone in a few short days' time as we recommence our work here.
Madam Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.
* (14:30)
Parking Fees at Manitoba Hospitals
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
And the reason for this–the background to this petition is as follows:
(1) Health care should be accessible for all Manitobans, and the New Democratic Party caucus believes in a health-care system that helps those based on their medical need and not the size of their wallet.
(2) Patients of families who visit hospitals often do not do so by choice.
(3) Patients of families who travel great distances to receive care or visit loved ones incur expenses related to transportation and food costs.
(4) Parking fees at Manitoba hospitals can run up to $17.00 per day and can cause significant financial burden on families already under stress.
Therefore, we petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government to work with hospital foundations to eliminate or reduce parking fees at all Manitoba hospitals.
And this petition is 'figned' by many fine Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: In accordance with our rule 133(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The reasons for this petition are as follows:
Manitobans have benefited greatly from a fair and balanced approach to labour relations that has led to a long period of labour peace in the province.
Under current legislation, if 65 per cent of workers in a workplace vote to join a union by signing a union card, then a union can qualify to become automatically certified as the official bargaining agent for the workers.
These signed union cards are submitted to the Labour Board and an independent review by the Labour Board is held to ensure that the law has been followed.
The provincial threshold to achieve automatic certification of a union is the highest in the country, and at 65 per cent, the democratic will and decision of workers to vote and join the union is absolutely clear.
During the recent provincial election, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party announced, without any consultation, that it was his intention to change this fair and balanced legislation by requiring a second vote conducted on a matter where the democratic will of workers has already been expressed.
This plan opens up the process to potential employer interference and takes the same misguided approach as the federal Conservatives under the Harper government took in Bill C-525, which was nothing more than a solution looking for a problem.
The recent introduction of Bill 7 by the provincial government confirmed this possibility by removing automatic certification and the safeguards in The Labour Relations Act to protect workers from employer intimidation during the certification process.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government maintain the current legislation for union certification which reflects balance and fairness, rather than adopting the intention to make it harder for workers to organize.
This petition is signed by many, many, fine Manitobans.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
The reasons for this petition:
Manitobans have benefited greatly from a fair and balanced approach to labour relations that has led to a long period of labour peace in the province.
Under current legislation, if 65 per cent of workers in a workplace vote to join a union by signing a union card, then a union can qualify to become automatically certified as the official bargaining agent for the workers.
These signed union cards are submitted to the Labour Board and an independent review by the Labour Board is held to ensure that the law has been followed.
Provincial threshold to achieve automatic certification of a union is the highest in the country, at 65 per cent, the democratic will and decision of workers to vote to join the union is absolutely clear.
During the recent provincial election, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party announced, without any consultation, that it was his intention to change this fair and balanced legislation by requiring a second vote conducted on a matter where the democratic will of workers has already been expressed.
This plan opens up the process to potential employer interference and takes the same misguided approach as the federal Conservatives under the Harper administration took in Bill C-525, which was nothing more than a solution looking for a problem.
The recent introduction of Bill 7 by the provincial government confirmed this possibility by removing automatic certification and the safeguards in The Labour Relations Act to protect workers from employer intimidation during the certification process.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the provincial government maintain the current legislation for union certification, which reflects balance and fairness, rather than adopting the intention to make it harder for workers to organize.
And this petition, Madam Speaker, has been signed by so many hard-working Manitobans.
Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
And these are the reasons for this petition:
Manitobans have benefited greatly from a fair and balanced approach to labour relations that has led to a long period of labour peace in the province.
(2) Under current legislation, if 65 per cent of workers in a workplace vote to join a union by signing a union card, then a union can qualify to become automatically certified as the official bargaining agent for the workers.
These signed union cards are submitted to the Labour Board and an independent review by the Labour Board is held to ensure that the law has been followed.
The provincial threshold to achieve automatic certification of a union is the highest in the country, and at 65 per cent, the democratic will and decision of workers to vote and join the union is absolutely clear.
During the recent provincial election, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party announced, without any consultation, that it was his intention to change this fair and balanced legislation by requiring a second vote conducted on a matter where the democratic will of workers has already been expressed.
This plan opens up the process to potential employer interference and takes the same misguided approach as the federal Conservatives under the Harper administration took in Bill C-525, which was nothing more than a solution looking for a problem.
The recent introduction of Bill 7 by the provincial government confirmed this possibility by removing automatic certification–
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. I'm having some difficulty hearing the member reading the petition. If members wish to have conversations, could you please move to the loge? I'd appreciate that.
Mr. Marcelino: The recent introduction of Bill 7 by the provincial government confirmed this possibility by removing automatic certification and the safeguards in The Labour Relations Act to protect workers from employer intimidation during the certification process.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge that the provincial government maintain the current legislation for a union certification which reflects balance and fairness, rather than adopting the intention to make it harder for workers to organize.
This petition is signed by T. McKimm, J. Kane and C. Penny, and other outstanding Manitobans.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
These are the reasons for this petition:
(1) Manitobans have benefited greatly from a fair and balanced approach to labour relations that has led to a long period of labour peace in the province.
(2) Under current legislation, if 65 per cent of workers in a workplace vote to join a union by signing a union card, then a union can qualify to become automatically certified as the official bargaining agent for the workers.
(3) These signed union cards are submitted to the Labour Board and an independent review by the Labour Board is held to ensure that the law has been followed.
(4) The provincial threshold to achieve automatic certification of a union is the highest in the country, and at 65 per cent, the democratic will and decision of workers to vote and join the union is absolutely clear.
* (14:40)
(5) During the recent provincial election, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party announced, without any consultation, that it was his intention to change this fair and balanced legislation by requiring a second vote conducted on a matter where the democratic will of workers has already been expressed.
(6) This plan opens up the process to potential employer interference and takes the same misguided approach as the federal Conservatives under the Harper administration took in Bill C-525, which was nothing more than a solution looking for a problem.
(7) The recent introduction of Bill 7 by the provincial government confirmed this possibility by removing automatic certification and the safeguards in The Labour Relations Act to protect workers from employer intimidation during the certification process.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge that the provincial government maintain the current legislation for union certification, which reflects balance and fairness, rather than adopting the intention to make it harder for workers to organize.
This petition is signed by many, many fine Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: Grievances?
House Business
Madam Speaker: Orders of the day, government business.
Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on House business.
I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations will meet on Wednesday, November 16, 2016, at 1 p.m., to consider the following reports: Annual Report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2014; Annual Report of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2014; Annual Report of Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2015; and Annual Report of Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2016.
Madam Speaker: It has been announced by the honourable Government House Leader that the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations will meet on Wednesday, November 16, 2016, at 1 p.m., to consider the following reports: Annual Report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2014; Annual Report of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2014; Annual Report of Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2015; and Annual Report of Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2016.
* * *
Mr. Micklefield: Madam Speaker, I'd like to canvass the House to request leave to call Bill 14 for concurrence and third reading, with the understanding that debate will last 15 minutes and a voice vote only will commence immediately after.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader has asked for leave to do concurrence and third reading on Bill 14, The Public Sector Compensation Disclosure Amendment Act, with the understanding that debate will only continue for 30 minutes [interjection]–15 minutes followed by a voice vote.
Is there leave? [Agreed]
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: I have heard no. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Micklefield: I would like to call for concurrence and third reading Bill 7, The Labour Relations Amendment Act.
Madam Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 7, The Labour Relations Amendment Act.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that Bill 7, The Labour Relations Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development and subsequently amended, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Friesen: It is my pleasure to rise and to put a few words on the record on Bill 7, The Labour Relations Amendment Act.
Protecting and strengthening democratic rights is the responsibility of every member of the Legislative Assembly, and we know that the secret ballot is the best protection for workers. We know that because in this country workers enjoy these protections in many jurisdictions all over. As a matter of fact, I'd say the majority of Canadians enjoy these rights. Workers in provinces including BC and Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia–six provinces in total have these protections to assure that–to ensure that workers have the right to a secret ballot in respect of any vote to organize in a workplace.
We would, on passing this legislation, become the seventh jurisdiction in Canada to afford these same rights for workers. We were pleased when this bill was introduced. We were pleased to have the debate at second reading. We were pleased to hear from Manitobans who took the time to come here to the Legislature.
We were pleased to also, though, hear from others who did not come to that committee stage but communicated by other means. And we understand that we are standing with many people in this province who want to see these same protections for workers.
We've heard the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Lindsey) say this is different. We've heard him say that democracy counts but not in this case. He–we've heard him say that this is a totally different situation, must be seen completely different than any other procedure, than any other context, than any other construct where a vote would be taken.
We don't agree with that. We know that when we even look at the NDP leadership convention that took place in this province not too long ago, those delegates at convention had the right to a secret ballot.
If I have declined to do so formally in this House, I congratulate Michelle Gawronsky on her re‑election as the president of MGEU. That vote took place only two weeks ago, approximately, in the province of Manitoba. I note that in those proceedings at MGEU everyone who casts a vote for the executive members of MGEU does so by means of a secret ballot.
We have heard NDP MLA after NDP MLA talk about the importance of a secret ballot. And, Madam Speaker, simply what others enjoy, we would restore for Manitobans. I say restore, of course, because we all understand what the backdrop of this legislation is, that we had these protections at one time in the province of Manitoba, and this legislation simply works to restore those protections where they were once afforded to labour, to workers.
It protects workers from employer intimidation. It protects workers from union intimidation. This member stood in his place yesterday, the member for Flin Flon, and he tried to convey that it is only ever the efforts of employers to intimidate, it could only ever be on the part of employers.
We have never suggested that an employer could not try to exert an influence on someone in respect of an effort to organize, because there is a vested interest, and perhaps the employer, acting badly, acting as a bad agent, would attempt to exert a force to intimidate, to coerce–we've never suggested it couldn't take place.
This legislation protects that worker by affording them a private vote. But for that member to suggest that it could never be the case that a labour organization might also apply undue pressure, might exert an influence improperly, is simply unacceptable. If that member states or claims that he has never heard of an instance anecdotally, I would claim he's not listening.
This bill cleans up the process. Madam Speaker, this bill demonstrates to labour, it demonstrates to management, that we are going about the business of improving worker rights with the understanding that workers' rights, like the secret ballot, are not up for negotiation. We are committed to making Manitoba Canada's most improved province, making Manitoba families safer and stronger. We will make sure that this legislation does exactly that.
* (14:50)
Madam Speaker, I know others want to speak, but let me close my comments by saying there wasn't a single amendment brought by members of the opposition at the report stage that this government did not stand in favour of. And so, today, the real question is: What will happen at the end of this business day, in the First Session of the 41st Legislature? Having gotten the agreement of government to pass the member for Flin Flon's amendment that would be attached to this bill, will that member–has that member now conveyed to his colleagues, on that side, that they must support this legislation?
If the member had not believed that the legislation had value, he would not have introduced an amendment. He brought an amendment. That amendment is a signal that he saw value in the exercise, that he saw value in the legislation; he saw value in the language; he saw value in intent; he saw value in execution.
Now the real question for today is not about workers' rights. We've made clear that this bill protects workers' rights. It protects workers from overzealous management, from overzealous labour. The real question for the House today is: will these members, now, take the next step, proceeding from the first step, which they demonstrated when they brought the amendment, today, will they stand in their places, at the end of this business day, and express their support to restore this right to workers in this province to send an unqualified message to workers in this province that we care enough about them to protect them through the means of a secret ballot?
That's the question I have for this opposition today. Let them stand; let them support this bill.
Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): I would have said something else, but then I prefer to be decent about it–
An Honourable Member: Right. Take the high road.
Mr. Marcelino: –take the high road.
Bill 7 is an attack on labour unions–period. It is an attempt on the part of this government to pursue an ideological pathway to attack the labour unions and send a message to their friends that this provincial government of the day is aiming its guns at the unions and how to destroy them.
The basic premise of the existence of a union is that, in the workplace, there is an uneven surface. There is an uneven playing field. It is all skewed in favour of the employer. The employer decides who's hired and who's fired. The employer decides how much is paid or not paid. The employer decides the hours of work. The employer decides what type of work will be done. So there's nothing wrong with that picture if the unions are allowed to organize. There's nothing wrong with that picture if the unions are allowed to do their work.
The unions have always been at the forefront of protecting the workers. It's not a matter of ideology; it is a matter of self-preservation for workers to organize, for workers to put in their check mark on the union card, saying, we need better working conditions, we need better pay, we need better protection. And the way that this bill was concocted–I hope that's parliamentary–a concoction of the minds of those who wish to provoke industrial unrest. Industrial peace, as opposed to industrial unrest, is an ideal wherein the employers and the employees, companies and labour, compromise, negotiate and accommodate each other. This is an attempt to coerce. This is an attempt to persuade unions not to organize in the workplaces where intimidation and heckling is also abundant.
Mrs. Colleen Mayer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair
The amendment that was passed yesterday was meant to include the language of protection from intimidation, fraud, coercion or threat. It was an accommodation on the part of government that the amendment proposed by the member on this side, who happens to be the member from Flin Flon, made sense. It made sense.
The Acting Speaker (Colleen Mayer): Order. Let me remind members when they are speaking in the House that they are to direct their comments to the Speaker, please, and not to members on the floor. Thank you.
Mr. Marcelino: I understand, but some folks could only listen if they are looking at me. And the way that I speak is somewhat different, and the only way that I could get the attention of members opposite and make them open their mouths is by telling them my ideas.
The main message that we have regarding this bill are the following: it undermines the process of union certification; it will lead to a more vulnerable workforce; and it will disrupt close to 20 years of industrial peace. The labour movement is an essential part of the fabric of our province. Manitobans believe in collaboration and the right to a safe and fair work environment.
Workers have the right to be heard. And let's talk about the minimum wage. Why was the minimum wage frozen by this provincial government? It was an attack on the workers per se; there's no two ways about it. Four hundred dollars a year is being taken off the paycheque of workers, and it's amazing how from $3.15 we have risen to $11.50 as of October last year, the $3.15 from way back during those years when I first arrived in Canada. It was something that really boggled the mind that the attack is not merely on the workers; it was more on the families of those poor people, who are making minimum wage, and most of them live in my area.
* (15:00)
Some of them are newly arrived immigrants to Canada, and during the time that we were in committee there were some comments made that because most of those manning the service industries, namely, the Tim Hortons and the McDonald's and the KFC, are newly arrived, those are the members of the immigrant community who are left to fend for themselves with minimum wage. And it's a good thing that, just recently, there were two of those stores that were organized, because it was easier with that certification process. But even then, during the fight for certification, the workers were threatened with closure of their stores, which means that they would lose their livelihood. And, for some of these workers, it was a matter of life and death. It was a matter of survival. It was a matter of not having anything on the table of their family–no food for their family.
And, when the Labour Board finally relented and the workers were allowed to organize, the employers recognized that the work of the union could not be that bad after all, that it was meant to also make them realize that employers have a right to make profits. It was a recognition of that fact, that economic fact, that employers hold the employees to those positions that might require them to work a little bit harder. The union that was able to organize those workers at those two stores were very adamant when they made presentations before the committee. They said–or, at least the representatives said, that the intimidation almost worked. The threats almost worked. And it was a matter of time that those workers would have relented in their organizing drive if it were not for the support of the other unions. And it's amazing how this type of behaviour cannot be avoided.
The economic imbalance between an employer and an employee is very obvious. When I was working as a labour lawyer in the old country, the first thing that occurred to us during negotiations was we were offered the minimum–the minimum–of what they are willing–meaning the management was willing–to give. It was not a happy medium. It is–it was what they were willing to give.
And strikes usually followed whenever there were attempts on the part of the management to introduce replacement workers. We call them scabs. But, in this country, in this province, I have seen it first-hand, that when I first arrived in January of 1980, the first thing that struck me was that replacement workers were normally allowed in, and the replacement workers were even paid more than what the striking workers were being paid. And it was that type of economic power that management holds over the employees that really makes it a little bit more uneven. And the coercion and threats and intimidation, they don't have to be physical. Sometimes, by saying that we will just close this store, or we will close this office, or we will close this company is enough for some of the employees to buckle from under that threat.
It is a burden on the part of governments to make the job of workers a little bit easier. Workers become a little bit more respected when there is a union. Workers are not fired on a whim when there's a union. Workers have somebody to support them when there's a union.
Unions have always attempted to negotiate more benefits and more income for all employees, whether union members or not, and my experience tells me that negotiation and compromise and coming to an understanding that's not 100 per cent of what you wanted, but you get at least some of those that you wanted and you give some of those that you really want to give is part of promoting industrial peace.
And, when we negotiated from way back, we negotiated on the basis of our strength. We had the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union in the Philippines, too, and we had the Philippine transport and government workers' organization and it was the number– the sheer number of members of those organizations that really helped us through those days when the employers and the management were trying their best to break our unions.
And picket lines were also very contentious. It is not pretty to see picket lines in the old country because there's usually a lot of violence that comes from the security people who were hired by management in order to intimidate the striking employees, and there's that issue of the scabs, the replacement workers that they truck into the compound of the employees against–of the employers, and the employees usually try to resist, and some get run over by those vehicles that are used to transport those scabs. And the provocation always was that from seven in the morning 'til late at night employees who were on the picket line were being intimidated by the same replacement workers. At least, in this province, during the last 20 years or so, we haven't seen anything serious.
So, when this bill was presented by this government, this was presented only as a–well, a giveaway by the provincial government to their friends who happen to be the employers. There's nothing wrong with giving away gifts to your friends, but then when there was nobody who was asking for this secret ballot, when there was nobody who was asking that this be done in order to make it really difficult for unions to organize, when there were no consultations made–well, I heard there was one. And this was the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
* (15:10)
And, by the process of cross-examination on the part of the member from Flin Flon, he elicited information that the survey that he says was factual, and the majority of the members of the CFIB were approving of this Bill 7, there were only actually 6.9 per cent of the total membership. And the survey itself that was presented to the committee spoke on its own. It showed how difficult it is for this government to justify this bill. And, when presenters stumbled on the basis of a survey that was made of 6.9 per cent of the membership, and the presenters were well on their way to proving their case uphold–but there were 48 others who made those presentations, the presentation from the public and from members and leadership of unions.
And, even for those who made submissions about–there was an insurance company that made submissions. Those submissions were very eloquent, and, for this government not to listen and not to at least pretend that they are withdrawing this bill, is something that really tells more about the intent of the bill. The bill was intended to provoke labour unions. The bill was intended to pick a fight and a fight that need not happen at this time, in this generation, because we have conducted ourselves, as a people, as very collaborative; we speak to each other. We debate. We talk about issues. We do not force, on each other, our ideas. We try to shine the light of day on everything that's here and now.
And this bill is neither here or there; it was just meant to provoke. And I was just wondering, during those nights when I was trying to find a way to support this bill, that why would the government or the Premier (Mr. Pallister) try to provoke industrial unrest? Then I read on some of those crisis managers. Most crisis managers are only good when there's a crisis. So, if there be none, if there should be any–if there are no crises, then they tend to create one in much the same way that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen) of this province kept on mouthing $25 billion?
An Honourable Member: That was Crown Services.
Mr. Marcelino: Or was that the Crowns Corporations–
An Honourable Member: Crown Services.
Mr. Marcelino: –minister who said $25 billion?
It came–that figure came up during the time that we were in Crown Services corporation committee. It was an opinion expressed by the president, or was it the CEO of Manitoba Hydro? He projected that Manitoba Hydro will owe $25 billion. And now, by keeping on mentioning that figure and repetitively, saying it as if it were a fact, when it was just a mere opinion, shows us that sometimes Goebbels is still alive. He who is the master propagandist of the German Reich, he said: just keep on repeating your lies and people will believe you later on. And 25 billion was a number that was mentioned every time. And now it is becoming contagious. Even the Minister of Finance says the number, even a backbencher mentions the number and it has become a talking point.
And I was just wondering where they got that number. They got that number from the presentation of the Manitoba Hydro president. And it is 25 billion that they kept on repeating, without any proof, without any evidence to support it, without any projection to show it. And they'll keep on repeating it until everybody believes it. And it is almost impossible for anyone to contradict it because they will just keep on repeating it, just like one German propagandist said, keep on telling your lies and they will believe it.
And 25 billion was the number that was 'brooted' about. It was a number that was uttered. And now it is their mantra. A mantra is something that you just kept on saying while you're doing yoga. But here we are not doing yoga. Here we are supposed to have facts.
And the member–
An Honourable Member: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Point of Order
Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): Pardon me. It may not be a point of order.
I'd just like to ask how yoga and the Third Reich are relevant to the discussion this afternoon.
The Acting Speaker (Colleen Mayer): This is not a point of order. Thank you for your comments. It's a dispute over the facts.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Colleen Mayer): The member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino) has the floor.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Colleen Mayer): Order, please.
The–order for Tyndall–the member for Tyndall Park.
Mr. Marcelino: Madam Acting Speaker, I still have four minutes. And this has happened to me before. Every time that I am on the wind-down, the honourable Government House Leader raises a point of order. I understand that he meant it to interrupt my train of thought, and at my age it's easy.
So, when that German propagandist said that, keep on repeating 25 billion and everybody else will follow what you say, when he said, keep on repeating your lies, they will believe you sooner or later.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, on House business.
I wonder if there would be leave to not see the clock to continue debate on concurrence and third reading on Bill 7.
* (15:20)
The Acting Speaker (Colleen Mayer): Is there leave to not see the clock and dispute–despite of the sessional order to continue to debate concurrence of third reading of Bill 7?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Colleen Mayer): Leave has been denied.
Mr. Micklefield: Madam Speaker, the sessional agreement agreed to is clear–[interjection] No.
The Acting Speaker (Colleen Mayer): Debate will continue.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): As elected representatives, we believe that we must uphold the responsibility of ensuring that the voices of our constituents and Manitobans are not only heard but also followed through.
Bill 7 has become a very hot topic here in the Legislature. Our caucus has taken time to think, collaborate and hear out on what Manitobans have to say. We learned a great deal at the committee stage on October 27th, November 1st and November 3rd. Numerous presenters from unions, businesses and private citizens offered enlightening insights on Bill 7. This is why we have committee, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the government does not withdraw Bill 7, the point of committee will have been obsolete.
I say this point because, throughout the three committee meetings, there were a total of 43 presenters. Now, to put this in perspective, Madam Deputy Speaker, the 43 presenters–there were four, and you could argue maybe five–that was indecisive–presenters that were for Bill 7. And there were an outstanding 38 presenters against Bill 7. That's 88 per cent of presenters at committee were opposed to Bill 7.
I should also mention that the government failed to engage at the committee stage. During committee, members of opposition party and the members of our independent Liberal caucus, we participated. We asked questions. We got to know the presenters. The government failed to do this.
As elected representatives of a democratic society, we must listen to what the overwhelming majority of Manitobans have to say on this matter. Manitobans are disappointed because the government has never approached and consulted them about the need of this bill. The member from Flin Flon was adamant–and I admire him for this–in asking each presenter whether they were for or against the bill, if they had been consulted with by the government before the bill was brought into the House. There should be no shock here: No more than two of the 38 presenters were, in fact, consulted prior to the bill being introduced.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the strike happening with UMFA right now is just the start. This government has allowed for this to go on way too long. Students are missing out on their education; they are losing their tuition fees; and the teachers simply are not teaching solely because the government won't take action. You know, my doctor told me personally just the other day that this government–they're–she is so fed up with this government, because–and she's thinking about withdrawing her university students from the University of Manitoba and switching them to the University of Winnipeg if they don't take action.
Many believe that labour relations in the past two years have been harmonious. As such, Bill 7 would be unnecessary. It is a fixing–it is fixing a non-existent problem. Ultimately, Manitobans feel that the government bypassed them, and instead they followed their party's agenda when they authored and introduced the bill before the House.
I can recall back during the election period, and many issues were brought up to the doors. And I'm sure every member in this House can relate to that. I have also received several emails from constituents from Burrows regarding Bill 7, and none of the emails were in favour of Bill 7. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, just to refer back, at these doors, not one of my constituents brought the issue up during the election. It's not prevalent.
Further, Manitobans believe that the automatic certification must remain because unions bring a lot of good things for diverse stakeholders. One of which are employees themselves. They stress that unions empower them through support and protections against coercive practices and bribes on the part of employers. The workplace becomes safer because incidents are likely to be reported. Further, unions allow members to obtain fair wages and benefits. Without unions, Manitoba workers will have difficulty in making ends meet. It is completely understandable that people take comfort and stability. There's nothing wrong in this; we should encourage this.
Madam Speaker, we must also consider that Bill 7 will open the possibility where employees' concerns will be brushed off by supervisors and employers. Students and youth are another avenue. They also find unions advantageous. They graduate with a great financial burden–something that I can personally relate to–on their backs, and to assist in alleviating the burden, they need to find good, stable jobs; however, most students and youth are entering a 'precautious' job market. Some students take years to relieve themselves of such debt because of temporary work, unsafe environments, job stability and a sense of comfort and trust. Without Bill 7, students will have higher opportunity for job security and stable careers, which will contribute to the continuing prosperity of Manitoba. Essentially, Bill 7 could be harmful for the economy.
Madam Speaker–Madam Deputy Speaker, another avenue I would like to discuss is immigration. Recent immigrants have also expressed deep concern and a desire to oppose Bill 7. Imagine you come to a country whose culture is vastly different from your home country. There's a tingling sense of anxiety and fear because of this change. With this change comes immense pressures to find a job in order to settle here in Manitoba. In most cases, immigrants hold their employers in high regard, which they should. It is this circumstance that leads to immigrants being taken advantage of.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if Bill 7 becomes law, immigrants lose a sense of security and their ability to speak out. Bill 7 can also be an effort to gender–an affront to gender and sexually diverse workers. Organized workers have always fought for the protection of the LGBTQ community against discrimination at the workplace. If Bill 7 is passed, the LGBTQ community will be left feeling that the government does not care about their sense from discrimination at work.
As this world continues to populate, we need to have measures set in place for the security and well‑being of people. Manitoba workers have shared their stories on record about how employers go to great lengths and risk a lot to ensure that workers do not unionize. They shared stories–and if time permitted, I would repeat them here–where intimidation was prevalent.
The secret ballot is the same as privatizing and politicizing the vote in the workplace. Bill 7 would also add an additional hurdle for a majority of workers who have put in the thought, weighed the outcomes and decided to seek unionization.
Madam Deputy Speaker, certification votes are not the same as elections. This has been an argument made nearly every day during question period. If this government honestly felt the way that they claim to regarding the secret ballot, they would insist that we use secret ballot approach in passing bills here in the House. Unionization cannot be compared to a provincial election. Unlike candidates who lose on elections, employees who mobilize for unionization but lose on the secret ballot risk retaliation from the employers. There's no possible positive outcome from this.
* (15:30)
Madam Deputy Speaker, we must also follow the lead of the federal government on this issue. We need to work collectively together. The provincial government is following direction of the previous federal administration. This government must realize that there is new federal administration, and they are listening to the voices of Canadian workers by repealing restrictive labour laws. This provincial government should follow this parallel. It must listen to the voices of Manitobans by halting Bill 7.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also like to point out a contradiction. The workers to unionize is of significance importance to them. It is well thought and well considered process. Through Bill 7, however, the government is forcing a secret ballot on workers in order to get unionization.
The government has said numerous times in session that they were given a mandate by Manitobans. The government needs to realize, in this instance, Manitobans have not given them the mandate to pass Bill 7.
In closing, I want to encourage members of this House to vote according to their constituencies and with their conscience, not just because they're a new member or because they're shy or timid and they want to follow party rules–I'm all for that, Madam Deputy Speaker–but a bill like this affects so many Manitobans, and people need to vote in accordance.
We are at a crucial point. Manitobans do not support Bill 7; therefore, supporting Bill 7 would mean ignoring and thus disrespecting our constituents. We as the Liberal Party of Manitoba will not be supporting Bill 7. Thank you.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): I want to, at first, of course, pay tribute to the member for Burrows (Ms. Lamoureux) for such a thoughtful, considered speech to this House on a matter of great public significance. She may be young, Madam Speaker–Madam Deputy Speaker, but she's wise beyond her years; it's clear.
I also want to acknowledge in the gallery today Darren Gibson, campaign co-ordinator for Unifor's political action membership mobilization. I also want to acknowledge Kelly Moist, president of CUPE Manitoba, along with Matt McLean, also from CUPE Manitoba. Thank you for coming and joining us today.
Despite the constant disdain showed by the Premier (Mr. Pallister) toward our union leadership in this province, I want these folks to know that I consider them–well, we consider them friends, colleagues, allies and people who are concerned about social justice in this province. We wish that the Premier of this province would pay them the same respect.
I only want to speak for just a couple of minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I really want to give some time to others to speak. I know our interim leader has a few comments to put on the record, and I know my friend from Flin Flon probably has many words to put on the record.
But I think what we have made fundamentally clear in this debate is that this bill has one goal and one goal only, and that's to discourage union participation, participation in union activities, participation in union membership and a bold attempt to undermine the union movement in this province.
This, the province of the General Strike of 1919, that we should, 97 years later, find ourselves with a government with no department of labour, and then to roll out a bill which has, as its primary goal, to undermine the labour movement in this province, I couldn't be more disappointed in the government if I tried. And yet we continue to lower our expectations for them, because they continue to under deliver on the things that actually matter to Manitoba families.
The Finance Minister tried to be clever today in talking about the amendment that was put on the table yesterday, which the government thought they were clever by agreeing to. The fact that it wasn't in the original bill to begin with was bad enough, but then to continue to play politics with this issue, to continue to engage in this hyper-partisan political activity, day in and day out, is not only tiresome, but it's unproductive and it does no one any good at all.
The best that could be said about the amendment that was agreed to by the House yesterday is that it puts eyeliner on a pig. It tries to make something that's really terrible just a little less terrible.
But make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker–make no mistake–and I'll say this directly through you to the Attorney General (Mrs. Stefanson), who should be standing up for workers in this province instead of sitting idly by watching her Premier make a mockery of the labour movement in this province–I say this through you to all–not only to the Attorney General, but to all members of that Cabinet, all members of this House, that we have asked politely and now we are demanding that this bill be withdrawn right now, today.
Government wants to undermine Manitoba's–Manitobans' constitutional right to join a union–their constitutional right to join a union. Madam Deputy Speaker, I find that unconscionable. I find it impossible to understand such a move, such a tactic, such a strategy. As my friend from Tyndall Park just made clear, it's a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. If anything, the government ought to be getting behind the union movement, working with the men and women of our union organizations to expand and to grow and to allow to flourish labour participation in this province, because that's what's makes for a more fair, more just, more equitable, more inclusive society in Manitoba.
And yet we find a government that's not interested in those things. In fact, they seem directly opposed to them. And we get instead cheap slogans, hyperpartisan political activity and a failure to reflect the interests of working people in this province.
So I'm going to let other people speak right now. I want to thank members of some of the unions in this province for joining us today. I want to thank all those who came out to committee to participate in those. The vast, vast majority–I heard my friend from Burrows say 88 per cent; it seemed a lot higher to me than that because I was actually there, unlike the Premier (Mr. Pallister), unlike the Finance Minister, unlike the Attorney General (Mrs. Stefanson), who don't care about these folks. They don't have the time to show up and to participate and to hear the real truth about what the devastating impact of Bill 7 is.
So I'll say it again, on this side of the House, although there was an amendment put forward yesterday that was approved by this House, we're asking the government–no, Madam Deputy Speaker, we're demanding of this government, withdraw this terrible piece of legislation and withdraw it right now.
Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to add a few words to that of my colleagues and to the scores of presenters at the three committee meetings held to hear Manitobans speak on their strong opposition to Bill 7.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of my colleagues and all the presenters at the three committee meetings held a few weeks ago. Moreover, I would like to express my thanks and admiration to my honourable colleague, well-respected, loved and hard-working member from Flin Flon. His passion for fair labour practices and protection of Manitoba workers are second to none.
Madam Deputy Speaker, early this year in Ottawa, Canadian Press reported that the Liberal government is repealing two contentious union-related bills: C-525 and C-377. The Liberal government had seen the light. They said it was a move to herald a new relationship with organized labour after 10 acrimonious years under the Harper Conservatives. Instead, they introduced Bill C-4–once passed, will restore the Canada Labour Code procedures for the certification and revocation of–certification of bargaining agents that existed before June 16, 2015. That was the date Bill C-525 took effect.
* (15:40)
I wish the Conservative government in Manitoba would also wake up and realize the folly of Bill 7, like the Liberal government realized Bill C-525 and 377 should be amended.
Five weeks after the Conservative government, the Minister of Growth, Enterprise, and Trade (Mr. Cullen) was sworn into office. He tabled Bill 7 which amends the existing Labour Relations Act. The minister considers this bill a high priority that needs to be tabled immediately. After three nights of committee hearings, we found out that, in his haste to get Bill 7 out of his office door, he failed to consult with Manitobans that will be affected by this bill.
Oh, I stand corrected. The minister did consult. We found out, at the committee hearings, only two people–or two organizations, namely, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Manitoba Employers Council, but there were close to 50 presenters. Only two were consulted.
In his haste, he has forgotten or deliberately omitted consulting with Manitoba workers or organizations and individuals who represent the other half of the equation, whose numbers even exceed that of the employers' group represented by the two employers' organizations which were consulted.
This conduct of the minister not consulting, widely and intentionally, is troubling and disheartening. Here we are about to end debating on the bill presented by that minister, a bill that has been developed unilaterally without consulting stakeholders. We object to the disregard shown for the delicate balance between the rights of employers and the rights of workers, which is a cornerstone of harmonious labour relations.
Let's have some context here. Since May this year, Manitoba has lost nearly 12,000 full-time jobs. That's bigger than the population of Winkler, about the size of the population of Portage la Prairie, and double the size of the population of The Pas.
Is Bill 7 such a high-priority bill than, say, bills that will ensure programs that will keep Manitobans working, thus maintain our economic advantage? Or bills that will keep health care responsive and sustainable and preventing it from being a two-tiered system? Or bills that will enshrine safety and well‑being of all Manitobans, including and especially raising the minimum wage and keeping seniors' tax credits intact for those struggling seniors to keep and live in the homes they own and prefer staying in? We believe, on this side of the House, those bills are more important than Bill 7, specifically increasing the minimum wage.
After the three evenings of committee meetings, presenter after presenter have consistently and eloquently indicated many disturbing and concerning provisions of Bill 7. One of the many includes the removal of the possibility of interim certification when there is no dispute about the likelihood of certification for a union organizing with regard to composition of the bargaining unit. The card check‑off system has worked extraordinarily well, with 65 per cent of membership signing cards leading to automatic certification. It has provided for a climate for unions to organize that is fair, that does provide for a clear indication of support for a union in the bargaining unit to be recognized.
Another objectionable feature of Bill 7 is removing that existing provision of 65 per cent check off, that is very high threshold that's over 50 plus one, which is already considered a majority.
This, by the way, has worked very, very well in the past decade, which has contributed largely to the industrial peace we have experienced in this province, including many workers enjoying dignity and better wages as a result. There's no doubt that, working for a unionized company, workers will receive higher wages and better benefits and a pension plan. Everyone has the right to live and retire with dignity.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
We, in this Chamber, have those rights and privileges, what we wish and enjoy ourselves we should wish for others to enjoy as well. The protection from intimidation and coercion we enjoy in this workplace should also be enjoyed by any other member in the community that is in Manitoba, workers in Manitoba.
I think, Madam Speaker, I would like to give my–the unlimited time of speaking to my honourable colleague from Flin Flon. [inaudible]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
I would just like to indicate that the–to the interim Leader of the Official Opposition that she had not given us any indication that she was giving up her unlimited time. So–[interjection] But, just for the rules, the leader of the interim–the interim leader cannot, just like that, give us notice. She would have to do that before she spoke. So she cannot give away her unlimited time.
But is the–is the member concluded, then, with her comments? Okay. And the honourable member for Flin Flon.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): I'm sure everyone is disappointed that I don't get to speak unlimited, but I do want to say a couple of things.
First thing I want to say, Madam Speaker, is I urge the government to withdraw Bill 7. There's no requirement for it. There's no need for it. All it does is get in the way of workers truly expressing their democratic rights. It doesn't matter how they wrap it up and what kind of flowery words they use, it is designed to do exactly what I've just said: interfere with workers expressing their free and democratic right to join a union.
If this government had actually taken the trouble to consult, they'd have heard that. If this government had actually taken the trouble to listen to multiple presenters at committees, they'd have heard that.
The government representatives refused to basically acknowledge the working people that came to committee because the minister refused to ask any questions of them and chose to only ask his friends. He chose to only ask questions of his friends that clearly were–two out of three of them were consulted; he didn't even consult with all his friends. That's kind of a shame in itself, but.
* (15:50)
We asked repeatedly for the government or any of the presenters to present any evidence of union intimidation during an organizing drive. We asked. We asked the management reps if they had any evidence of that. In fact, we asked them to send it to us. Not one case has come forward, not from the government, from repeated requests, not from any of the management representatives that were there, Madam Speaker. All we've heard and all we've seen are the facts that say during an organizing drive the employer has been found guilty of intimidation, coercion, threats and firing on multiple occasions, in different organizing drives throughout the province. And, if you look across the country, you'll see the same evidence.
So what is the purpose of this bill? It's not to right a wrong. You know, this government, they like to pretend they knocked on the doors and talked to all these Manitobans. Well, I, too, knocked on a lot of doors. My brothers and sisters on this side also knocked on a lot of doors, and not one Manitoban that we talked to told us, oh, my heavens, we need to have a secret ballot vote, because the people we talked to understood the process that was already in place where workers already have a secret ballot vote. Madam Speaker, the worst part of our list is not only doesn't this government consult with working people in this province, they have no concept of how an organizing drive works. And yet they feel it's their duty to impose legislation to interfere with the organizing process, and that's just wrong, just plain wrong.
We talk a lot about, well, the only–in fact, one of the speakers at the committee spoke a lot about the only type of democracy that's real is the secret ballot vote, and then when we asked him how he got elected to his position, how his group made their decisions, well, it wasn't by secret ballot vote, was it? No, it was by consensus. And here, Madam Speaker, in the very House of democracy in this province, we don't vote by secret ballots. As has been explained on multiple occasions in this House, at committee hearings and to anyone that will listen, there's different ways of expressing democratic will, depending on the circumstances.
An Honourable Member: Do you think they're being intimidated into voting for Bill 7?
Mr. Lindsey: I don't believe that if all of these members were given the freedom to vote as they understood, that they would always vote exactly the way the government says. But they're whipped, as are we. That's still considered democracy in action, Madam Speaker.
For them to stand up and continue to try and sell democracy as only applicable to working people and only applicable if they get a secret ballot is just wrong. It's wrong in so many different circumstances. Workers that want to become unionized have expressed their desire to become unionized when they sign that card in secret. That is the greatest form of democracy that we've seen because they do it knowing full well if they get found out, not how they voted but just if they voted, they'll be fired, they'll be intimidated, they'll be threatened.
Madam Speaker, that's not right. When workers sign that card in secret, they've freely expressed their democratic will to join a union. This government needs to quit standing in the way of working Manitobans. They refuse to increase the minimum wage. Shame on them. They take money out of seniors' pockets. Shame on them. Now they introduce this bill that's going to make it harder for workers to become unionized. Shame on them.
Madam Speaker, we heard things at committee that led us to believe that some people thought that perhaps it was form of systematic racism taking place with the introduction of this bill because who are the people most likely to be affected by it? It's new Canadians. It's First Nations workers that are entering the workforce that need protection. It's women. It's all the segments of society that need our protection and need our help, and yet those are the very people that this government appears to be against. They're trying to make it impossible for them to have the same rights–the same rights–that the members opposite enjoy in a free and democratic society. They want to limit those people so they cannot have free and democratic will to have a better life.
And that's what's wrong, Madam Speaker. This government talks about building a better Manitoba, but not for everybody, only for their select few friends. That's all they want to have a better Manitoba for. We want a better Manitoba for all Manitobans–all Manitobans–not just some.
My time here is short to speak on this bill–unlimited time. Madam Speaker, again, on behalf of hard-working Manitobans, I am–beg this government to withdraw Bill 7. [interjection]
Well, the member opposite is beaking off about why did we put an amendment out. Madam Speaker, I'll tell you why we put an amendment out: because we knew darn well that this government wasn't going to listen to us. We knew they weren't going to listen to Manitobans, so we're trying to make a bad piece of a legislation at least a little bit better, but it's still wrong; it's still not required; there's still no need for it. Because they think, well, we gave in on this amendment, everybody should give in on their rights? That's not going to happen. We will stand with working Manitobans for their rights for a better life for themselves and for their kids.
Madam Speaker, I don't know how many times I can ask this government to withdraw Bill 7 before they'll actually listen, because they haven't listened so far. They haven't listened to Manitoban so far. They've only listened to their friends, and that's too bad. You know, they talk about consultation. Consultation really only works if you actually listen to the people that are talking to you. They haven't listened to the people. It's another myth. It's another doublespeak word that they use. Consultation to them means, do as we say, which is too bad.
They use the word democracy to mean something that democracy doesn't mean. You know, they've–probably become more emboldened now that their buddy Donald Trump has gotten in in the States, which is bad news for all of us. That's too bad. You know, there's democratic institutions and then there's workplaces, and they are two entirely different things, Madam Speaker. A workplace is not a democratic institution, but, when workers sign a union card, they have expressed their democratic will to join a union. They've done it in secret; they've done it in fear of reprisal. They've put more at stake when they sign that union card than any one of these members opposite when they mark their little X on a ballot to get elected. Nobody threatened them. Nobody said, if you don't vote our way, we'll fire you. Nobody told them when they went to the ballot place that if you don't vote the right way, you'll lose your house. That's what happens when workers try and get organized. That's what happens. That's not democratic action. But, when they sign a union card in secret, that is democratic action. That is democracy. That's real democracy in the real world, not in some make-believe world that these members would like us to believe exists.
Madam Speaker, this bill is a bad bill. This bill has no reason to exist. This bill needs to be withdrawn and it needs to be withdrawn today. This bill is wrong. The government is wrong with this bill. I urge them yet again, withdraw Bill 7 and stand with working people. Stand with Manitobans.
* (16:00)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
The time being 4 p.m., in accordance with item 8(c) of the sessional order adopted on June 21st, 2016, the Speaker must interrupt debate at 4 p.m. today and put the question on the remaining concurrence and third reading motions for bills introduced in the House on or before June 15th with no further debate or amendment to be permitted.
The remaining bill captured by the sessional order provisions is Bill 7, The Labour Relations Amendment Act. The debate is therefore terminated on the concurrence and third reading motion for Bill 7.
The question before the House is, shall the concurrence and third reading motion of Bill 7 as amended at report stage pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, I declare the motion passed.
Recorded Vote
Madam Speaker: The honourable government opposition leader–the honourable Official Opposition House Leader.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): I request a standing vote–recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
The question before the House is the concurrence and third reading motion of Bill 7, The Labour Relations Amendment Act, as amended at report stage.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Clarke, Cox, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Reyes, Schuler, Smith, Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Chief, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Selinger, Swan, Wiebe.
Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Yeas 36, Nays 16.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m.–the honourable Government House Leader.
Mr. Micklefield: Yes, we're preparing for royal assent.
Madam Speaker: So the hour–I'm advised that Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor is about to arrive to grant royal assent to the bills. I am therefore interrupting the proceedings of the House for the royal assent.
* (17:00)
The Acting Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr. Craig Waterman): Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor.
Her Honour Janice C. Filmon, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Manitoba, having entered the House and being seated on the throne, Madam Speaker addressed Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor in the following words:
Madam Speaker: Your Honour:
The Legislative Assembly asks Your Honour to accept the following bills:
Clerk Assistant (Claude Michaud):
Bill 2–The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative
Bill 4–The Elections Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi électorale
Bill 6–The Financial Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques
Bill 7–The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations du travail
Bill 8–The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act; Loi sur la protection des enfants (communication de renseignements)
Bill 9–The Election Financing Amendment Act (Repeal of Annual Allowance); Loi modifiant la Loi sur le financement des élections (suppression de l'allocation annuelle)
Bill 10–The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Repeal and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur l'équilibre budgétaire, la gestion financière et l'obligation de rendre compte aux contribuables et modifications corrélatives
Bill 15–The Sexual Violence Awareness and Prevention Act (Advanced Education Administration Act and Private Vocational Institutions Act Amended); Loi sur la sensibilisation et la prévention en matière de violence à caractère sexuel (modification de la Loi sur l'administration de l'enseignement postsecondaire et de la Loi sur les établissements d'enseignement professionnel privés)
Bill 17, the fatality inquiries amendment act–pardon me–The Fatality Inquiries Amendment and Vital Statistics Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les enquêtes médico-légales et la Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil
Bill 208–The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Day Act; Loi sur la Journée de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada
Bill 209–The Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Act; Loi sur le Mois de la sensibilisation au cancer chez l'enfant
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour assents to these bills.
Her Honour was then pleased to retire.
God Save the Queen was sung.
O Canada was sung.
* (17:10)
Madam Speaker: Prior to the House rising, I would just like to wish everybody a good constituency week break. I'm sure everybody's going to be extremely busy, and I know that many of us will be at Remembrance Day services tomorrow, recognizing who we've honoured all week in this Chamber.
The hour being after 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until November 21st, 2016, or the call of the Speaker.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, November 10, 2016
CONTENTS
National Home Care and Hospice Month
University of Manitoba Contract
Parking Fees at Manitoba Hospitals
Concurrence and Third Readings
Bill 7–The Labour Relations Amendment Act
Bill 2–The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act
Bill 4–The Elections Amendment Act
Bill 7–The Labour Relations Amendment Act
Bill 8–The Protecting Children (Information Sharing) Act
Bill 9–The Election Financing Amendment Act (Repeal of Annual Allowance)
Bill 17–The Fatality Inquiries Amendment and Vital Statistics Amendment Act
Bill 208–The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Day Act
Bill 209–The Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Act