2nd Session - 41st Legislature, Vol. 80b, Nov 7, 2017

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Madam Speaker: Please be seated. Good afternoon, everybody.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Madam Speaker: Introduction of bills?

Committee Reports

Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs

Eleventh Report

Mrs. Sarah Guillemard (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs.

Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs–

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense.

Your Standing Committee on LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS presents the following as its Eleventh Report.

Meetings

Your Committee met on November 6, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building.

Matters under Consideration

· Bill (No. 34) – The Medical Assistance in Dying (Protection for Health Professionals and Others) Act/Loi sur l'aide médicale à mourir (protection des professionnels de la santé et autres)

Committee Membership

· Mr. Allum

· Ms. Fontaine

· Hon. Mr. Goertzen

· Mrs. Guillemard (Chairperson)

· Ms. Klassen

· Mr. Michaleski

· Mr. Nesbitt

· Mr. Piwniuk

· Hon. Ms. Squires

· Mr. Swan

· Mr. Teitsma

Your Committee elected Mr. Nesbitt as the Vice‑Chairperson

Substitutions received during committee proceedings:

· Mr. Isleifson for Mr. Michaleski

Non-Committee Members Speaking on Record

· Mr. Micklefield

Public Presentations

Your Committee heard the following 17 presentations on Bill (No. 34) – The Medical Assistance in Dying (Protection for Health Professionals and Others) Act/Loi sur l'aide médicale à mourir (protection des professionnels de la santé et autres):

Cory Ruf, Dying with Dignity Canada

Larry Worthen, Coalition for Health Care and Conscience

Mark Kristjanson, Private Citizen

Dr. Randy Goossen, Private Citizen

Dr. Alewyn Vorster, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba

Dr. Frank Ewert, Private Citizen

Beverly Rutherford, Private Citizen

Barbara MacKalski, Private Citizen

Kristin Harris, Private Citizen

Mary Shariff, Private Citizen

Albert Chudley, Private Citizen

Anthony Nakazato, Private Citizen

Valerie Wadephul, Private Citizen

Dr. Ann McKenzie, Private Citizen

Patti Fitzmaurice, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Winnipeg – Archdiocese of St. Boniface

Dr. Donald Peters, Private Citizen

Julie Turenne-Maynard, Catholic Health Association of Manitoba

Written Submissions

Your Committee received the following two written submissions on Bill (No. 34) – The Medical Assistance in Dying (Protection for Health Professionals and Others) Act/Loi sur l'aide médicale à mourir (protection des professionnels de la santé et autres):

Jennifer Savoie, Private Citizen

Jayson Barkman, Private Citizen

Bill Considered and Reported

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment

Mrs. Guillemard: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Curry), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Tabling of Reports

Hon. Cathy Cox (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report for the Manitoba Arts Council for the fiscal year 2017-2018.

Ministerial Statements

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister for Sport, Culture and Heritage, and I would indicate that the required 90 minutes notice prior to routine proceedings was provided in accordance with our rule 26(2).

Would the honourable minister please proceed with her statement.

Veterans' Week

Hon. Cathy Cox (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Veterans' Week, a time when Manitobans remember and honour the men and women who so bravely served our country.

Officially, Veterans' Week began on Sunday, and throughout the week Manitobans will take part in various events and ceremonies to remember those who have proudly protected the freedom we enjoy here in Canada.

Madam Speaker, this year Canada is commemorating a pair of 100th anniversaries related to the First World War.

The Battle of Passchendaele, in Belgium, lasted for more than three months and ended with a Canadian victory on November 6th, 1917. Passchendaele was a battle that saw significant casualties on both sides, including 4,000 Canadians.

It is also the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, in France. More than 100,000 Canadians served at Vimy Ridge, and though the battle was a great success, Canada paid a heavy price and, unfortunately, nearly 3,600 Canadians lost their life.

The First World War claimed more than 66,000 Canadian lives at a time when our country's population was only 8 million.

Madam Speaker, I encourage every Manitoban to take the time to honour our veterans, both past and present. And please, drop a donation in a local Legion's poppy box and proudly wear that beautiful flower over your heart.

I encourage everyone to attend a Remembrance Day ceremony. There is definitely no shortage of services happening all across our wonderful province.

And when you attend that Remembrance Day service, be sure to reach out to a veteran and say thank you.

Madam Speaker, in the gallery we have two veterans who joined us here today. And prior to joining the Winnipeg Police Service, Sergeant Robert Duttchen and Constable Aaron Bourque proudly served in the Canadian Forces. I would like to thank them for their service to our country and for protecting us both now and then.

Madam Speaker, let us remember those who fought, those who died and those who were injured. Let us remember those who carried the scars and memories throughout their lives and, finally, let us remember those who have worked for peace today and throughout our country's history.

Thank you. Lest we forget.

Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): As we commemorate Veterans' Week, Manitobans have many reasons to reflect, to be proud and to be thankful. Our province has a strong connection to the Canadian Forces, built upon respect, gratitude and remembrance, and we should all take the time to recognize the contributions and sacrifices made by generations upon generations of veterans.

I expect, Madam Speaker, that each of us will be returning to our own communities for services. I'll be in the West End for a community service with special emphasis on three Victoria Cross awardees who, incredibly, all lived within a few blocks of each other on what is now known as Valour Road.

From the trenches of Vimy Ridge to the shores of Juno Beach, to some of the most dangerous missions in Afghanistan, our Armed Forces have left a legacy that has helped define what we value and what it means to be Canadian.

Those who serve in the Armed Forces are heroes, but they are also human, Madam Speaker. Service in the Armed Forces can mean separation from loved ones, incredible hardship and risk and, ultimately, paying the ultimate sacrifice.

Conflicts for veterans often continue far beyond tours of duty. Many service members return from combat only to struggle with operational stress injuries and PTSD.

Currently, we know there is a mental health crisis for Canadian Forces members. Statistics show that one in 10 veterans from Afghanistan are suffering from mental health issues.

We owe our veterans an immense debt for their sacrifices. It is our duty to provide them with the supports that they require. Investing in accessible front-line services for our veterans is an absolute priority.

This Veterans' Week, as we all remember those who have sacrificed so much for Canada, I urge all members to speak out to address the mental health crisis in the Canadian Forces and for each of us to advocate in front-line services for our veterans.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Madam–or, can I have leave to speak in response to the minister's statement?

Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to respond to the ministerial statement? [Agreed]

Ms. Lamoureux: I'm honoured to rise today to speak to national Veterans' Week.

Madam Speaker, we remember those who served, those who died. We remember those who returned home with the scars of battle in their minds. We remember because of our freedom–in our cases, to participate here in this House. We remember because without them, we may very well not be standing here today.

Madam Speaker, we remember that people gave their lives to fight for a safer future that they would never see. We wear poppies, a blood-red flower that still grows on the former battlefields of France and Belgium to be reminded of the sacrifices made. We attend memorials and lay wreaths every November to remember and to teach all the generations to come that our veterans served and sacrificed for our freedom.

Madam Speaker, we thank those for their service and pledge to always remember. Thank you.

Members' Statements

Youth for Christ

Mr. Alan Lagimodiere (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, when I attended the MMIWG unity ride, it was my privilege to be introduced to another successful community program from the Selkirk constituency.

For over 60 years, Youth with Christ has been a leader in positive youth development. YFC is not a church, but it does work with churches, governments, schools and other youth-serving agencies to support our teenagers.

The YFC mission is to combine healthy relationships with creative programs to help young people make good choices and establish a solid foundation for life. YFC believes every young person needs encouragement to nurture healthy, vibrant-based spirituality; ongoing relationships with caring adults; safe places with structured activities during non-school hours and opportunities to give back through community service.

YFC is a non-profit drop-in centre for teens on Tuesdays and Thursdays, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. YFC also offers a lunch program for approximately 30 disadvantaged students on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays; lunch is provided by Selkirk's Our Daily Bread Soup Kitchen. Throughout the summer, YFC offers canoe trips, camping trips and community block parties. Well over 300 youth between the ages of six to 18 access YFC programs on an annual basis.

Ryan Galashan is the current director of Selkirk youth for–community centre. In his own words, Ryan says he loves his job. He's married to Teresa. They have four children: Levi, Lydia, Evy, Karis. Ryan states that the best part about his job is seeing youth grow into their fullest potential. Ryan and his family are in the gallery today.

It is important for us as legislators to recognize the important role YFC and similar groups perform in helping support and mentor children in our communities. I ask my Legislative Assembly colleagues to please join me in thanking YFC and its current director, Ryan, for making Selkirk and Manitoba a better place for our youth.

* (13:40)

Redevelopment of the Rubin Block

Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): In 2013, I was proud to move my constituency office into the Rubin Block, which for more than a century has served as an iconic landmark at the corner of Morley and Osborne in the south Osborne area.

Designed by the prominent architect Max Blankstein, the Rubin Block was built in 1914 and originally served as the local branch of the Merchant's Bank of Canada. With over 20 apartment units in the upper three floors, the Rubin Block has also provided much needed housing in an ideal location for many generations.

Sadly, the rich history of the Rubin Block has been badly tarnished over the last decade. Since 2006, there have been two major fires and a murder in between. It took more than seven years after the first fire for the building to become fully occupied, and it has remained vacant since the second fire in 2014. In the interim, it has become a colossal waste of housing, a lost opportunity for commercial development, a risk to public safety and an eyesore in the heart of our community.

More recently, things have gone from bad to worse. Very little, if any, work has been undertaken by the owner, forcing the City to board up the building.

Since then, the community has come together to speak with one voice. Over the summer, more than 1,200 people signed a petition demanding that the City take immediate action to have the building restored and reopened. Lately, a committee composed of local residents and business owners, the Rubin Block advocates, has been organized to maintain pressure on both the City and the owner to do everything possible to redevelop the Rubin Block.

Madam Speaker, I commend my community for being proactive, engaged and determined to advocate for positive community development. Our community has spoken. We want the Rubin Block restored and reopened. The time for action is now.

No Stone Left Alone Ceremony

Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): Madam Speaker, yesterday, November 6th, I had the good fortune to be able to attend the fourth annual No Stone Left Alone ceremony in Brandon. There were 742 students from grades 1 through 8 from St. Augustine, École Harrison and Valleyview schools. The students, teachers and volunteers braved the bitter wind on a sunny day to honour the fallen.

No Stone Left Alone started in Edmonton in 2011. Maureen Bianchini-Purvis chose to honour her mother's dying wish to be remembered on Remembrance Day with a poppy. Both of Maureen's parents served in World War II. It took the added vision of a young girl, Maureen's daughter, to notice that many of the gravestones did not have a poppy.

Madam Speaker, today, every Canadian province and territory has a No Stone Left Alone ceremony with over 6,800 students placing over 44,500 poppies in 104 cemeteries.

Maureen's letter to the students said: The simple act of placing a poppy at the headstone of a veteran by a younger generation has a huge impact on our children and their understanding of Remembrance Day. They tell us they experience a powerful outcome of gratitude and benefit from the events. Please take a moment for me and look around at those next to you, and on my behalf, smile, nod, shake hands and give thanks to them for being there. It shows me that you understand the need to have–we have to educate our youth on the service and sacrifices of our veterans, military members and their families who always go beyond the call.

Madam Speaker, as one of our first cold days with a chilling wind, I watched the students place the poppies under the guidance of organizer Ryan Lawson and paused to read the names of the–on the stones, and I was warmed by what I saw: row on row of poppies.

We will remember.

New Small Businesses in Burrows

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): It's a pleasure for me to rise to brag about Burrows.

Madam Speaker, everyone in the House knows how important our small businesses are, and that's why I'm so proud to stand today, tell everyone about six new thriving businesses in Burrows that have all been established within the past year.

The first small business is Sugar Blooms and Cakes, a sister store to another location in Point Douglas. This business masterfully designs unique cakes for special occasions, and they also have an in‑store cafe that provides delicious traditional Filipino breakfasts and lunch.

We also have VC Cuevas Bakery. Madam Speaker, you want to talk about fresh bakery, you have got to try their pandesal with coffee for breakfast. And they're right beside my constituency office, so you can always visit me too.

If you travel down Sheppard Street, you will come across the Punjab Grocery & Convenience Store. This small business carries all sorts of treats from the Punjab, and I know my colleague, the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade (Mr. Pedersen), can attest to the ownership's hospitality because of their other businesses in Carman, Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, we all wear shoes. I think it's fairly say that they're pretty essential. So I would like to recommend Mario's Shoe Repair to everyone. They will make your old and damaged shoes look brand new.

Burrows also has a new law office right on McPhillips called Sharma's law. This office offers their legal expertise on issues of immigration, real estate and family law.

Lastly, a car shop completely remodelled itself into Porky's Auto Palace, which is painted pink, by the way, and brings a lot of character to Burrows. This auto palace prides itself on having a plan for a used quality vehicle for everyone.

So, Madam Speaker, small businesses are thriving in Burrows, and I just wanted to congratulate all the recent businesses on their success and encourage other new businesses and establishments for the investments and risks they take in starting up a small business.

Thank you.

Park West Fibre Optic Co-op

Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): Students in the Park West School Division and residents in many communities and farms in the constituencies of Arthur-Virden and Riding Mountain now have Internet bandwidth comparable to or better than what is available in Brandon and Winnipeg.

After unsuccessfully seeking help from other levels of government, the school division and the municipalities of Hamiota, Prairie View and Yellowhead took matters into their own hands and formed a non-profit co-operative with the goal of bringing fibre-optic-speed Internet to the area.

In May 2016 a contract was awarded to construct a fibre backbone containing 60 strands of fibre-optic cable to all schools in the division, which in turn would allow access to member communities to use as they saw fit.

All Park West schools are now connected. Municipalities are in the process of rolling out the installation of hard-wired and air fibre to businesses and households in towns and rural areas. Several strands of fibre have been leased to Westman Media Cooperative, providing another revenue source.

Speed is the selling point. The new service has bandwidth of up to 1,000 megabits per second, compared to the five to seven megabits available from other providers. This bandwidth opens up a world of possibilities for students, allowing for virtual classrooms and super-fast connectivity when searching the Internet.

For businesses, transferring data happens instantaneously. Residents have no annoying buffering when watching Netflix.

Financially, the project is lucrative to the members of the co-operative. The Park West School Division is saving money each year while receiving world-class connectivity. Municipalities are operating the service as a utility, which will provide a revenue stream in perpetuity.

Madam Speaker, being connected to the world at a high speed is a game changer for rural residents, and I want to congratulate all members of the Park West fibre co-op for their forward thinking.

Thank you.

Introduction of Guests

Madam Speaker: Prior to oral questions, we have some guests.

I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today Michael Sullivan, past president of the Manitoba Dental Association, who is the guest of the honourable First Minister.

And also to my left in the loge we have Doug Martindale, the former MLA for Burrows.

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

Oral Questions

Changes to Health-Care Services

Request to Release KPMG Report

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): I'd say welcome to the guests that we have today both in the loges and in the galleries.

It's been barely a month since the Premier decided that the 40,000 visitors to the Misericordia Urgent Care Centre should travel further and longer to access health care and we're starting to see the consequences of that decision. Visits at the Health Sciences Centre are up over 25 per cent per day.

Now, patients who previously went to the urgent-care centre now have to go to the emergency room. Now that won't shorten wait times and it won't improve outcomes, and we know that the impact will be felt by patients and the quality of care that they receive.

We know that this decision that the Premier made to close the urgent-care centre was not made by the Premier alone. He also relied on the KPMG experts.

Will the Premier admit that his plan for cuts to health care is making things worse for patients in our province and not better?

Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, again, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the member puts false information on the record and needs to further his research.

The fact is this had nothing to do with KPMG. These were recommendations made by a Dr. Peachey. Dr. Peachey was hired by the previous NDP government to make suggestions and recommendations on how we can improve what was a broken system, Madam Speaker, and, unfortunately, the previous government didn't have the courage to implement those.

* (13:50)

I know it's scary for the member. Change is not easy, but the fact remains that we need to make changes if we're going to have a better system and, Madam Speaker, we are.

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

Mr. Kinew: The Premier says that his health-care cuts have, quote, nothing to do with the KPMG report, end quote. We say he should release the KPMG health report so Manitobans can make up their own minds.

The list of cuts continues, you know, the–in addition to the Misericordia Urgent Care Centre being shuttered there's the millions gone from CancerCare's budget, the slashing of physiotherapy and occupational therapy services. That's what this Premier's cuts look like. That's what his idea of health care looks like in our province.

We also have heard this week that staffing ratios are getting worse for patients in chronic-care wards and those who rely on nurses to care for them at the bedside. Now these across-the-board cuts are having real impacts on patient care in our province.

So in addition to reversing the cuts, will the Premier now release the KPMG report on health?

Mr. Pallister: Something that influenced me in my life, Madam Speaker, is the Anishinabe seven teachings, and I'm going to reference those now, because I may mispronounce the words but the meaning is clear to me. Debwewin [truth] means truth. Truth. Speak the truth. Do not deceive yourself or others.

The member speaks of cuts. The member knows that this year's budget for health care is fully $500 million more than it ever was under the NDP. This is not speaking truth, Madam Speaker. The member speaks about wait times in reference to the Concordia issue, but the fact remains that the flow of patients at the Health Sciences Centre is actually better, and the wait times lower than they have been for over two years.

Madam Speaker, this is the truth. This is the truth of the difficult and challenging changes we've made with all hands on deck, apart from the member opposite and his colleagues.

Madam Speaker: Just a caution to members to, as we are posing questions and answering questions, to just be careful with the language that is being used so that we ensure that it is respectful and parliamentary.

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

Mr. Kinew: The word is pronounced debwewin [truth], and when we say that the Premier is cutting health care in the province, cutting the number of nurses, cutting the number of physiotherapists, cutting the ratios that people require at the bedside, when people hear that they say, debwe [he speaks the truth], you're telling the truth.

And so we'll continue standing up for the health care that Manitobans rely on, and we'll continue demanding that this Premier change his reckless course of cuts.

So we know that those cuts to the outpatient occupational therapy and physiotherapy services are going to have a real impact not only on the patients in the immediate term, but it's also going to have a big impact longer term as there is a greater risk for reinjury and rehospitalizations.

Will the Premier release the KPMG health report so that we can see what is influencing his decision‑making process?

Mr. Pallister: What is reckless is the member's complete disregard for the facts, Madam Speaker. What is reckless is the record of the previous administration that stood silently back and did nothing to address the deteriorating quality of care and availability of care in the province of Manitoba to the point where we were recognized across the country as the laggards among all Canadian provinces.

A broken system, broken by he and his colleagues, that he refuses to get to step one of the recovery plan to change, Madam Speaker, and he refuses to accept that there's a problem here. He continues to espouse fear as a solution, but fear is not the solution, courage is. This government has that courage. We will fix what they broke.

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

Concern Regarding Cannabis Legislation

Mental Health and Addiction Services

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): The question was about transparency.

Now, Manitobans are fair-minded people and as they start to think through the implications of the federal government's edict to legalize cannabis sales in our country there's many issues that come to mind.

Now, we know that many workers in the public sector could offer expertise, highly trained staff and could also assist on the enforcement side of cannabis sales when those things are legalized. We also know that there is entrepreneurs in Manitoba who want to pursue new opportunities and look at contributing to our economy.

So these are the sorts of multifaceted and nuanced decisions that need to be taken into account. But, of course, safety should be top of mind when it comes to cannabis, and, in particular, there will be a social cost borne by Manitoba when cannabis is legalized.

With private retail sales, how will the government ensure there's revenue to cover the social costs, in particular, the mental health and addiction services that will be needed?

Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Maybe the member would like to, in his second preamble, explain the inconsistency of voting against pioneering legislation to protect Manitobans that was put in the cannabis act that we brought forward in the past in this House. Maybe he would like to explain in his comments about multifaceted plans, why he has suddenly decided that he's going to adopt a new position for his party they never had in the past, Madam Speaker.

Jack Layton espoused, as did every other NDP leader since, including Jagmeet Singh, that cannabis should be made available to everyone, that it was a really good thing to have.

If he's going to adopt a new position in the interests of protecting Manitobans, he's adopting our position and I thank him for that.

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

Mr. Kinew: Again, the question was what assurances do Manitobans have that, with an exclusively private retail regime coming in for cannabis sales, what assurances do Manitobans have that there will be the necessary resourcing for mental health supports and for addictions?

We know that once cannabis is legalized that there is likely to be a similar experience here as there have been in other jurisdictions. Now, that could lead to increased consumption, also, increased impacts on the roads, but it will put an increased burden on the mental health services that we offer here in the province.

So, again, the question is: What assurances can the Premier provide to the people of Manitoba that the private regime that he is offering for cannabis sales will ensure that there are proper addictions treatment options and mental health supports for people here in Winnipeg and across the province?

Mr. Pallister: We have, actually, Madam Speaker, expressed as a government, and I on behalf of our government, more than arguably any other provincial jurisdiction, our concerns about the rapidity of the introduction of the legalization of cannabis, in particular and specifically, in respect of young people, in respect of brain development for young people, in respect of road safety for users, in respect of the road safety of those who choose not to use cannabis.

We have been on the side of safety and will continue to be on the side of safety.

I would urge the member to seek consistency, though, in his questioning. He was given the opportunity to stand with us in opposition to federal government cuts to health care, including cuts that would impact on mental health services and chose to sit on his hands quietly by and do nothing at that time.

So if he's proposing to now advocate for such services as are needed by Manitobans as a consequence of the federal government's decisions, let him do so by joining with us and calling for restoration of reasonable partnership in terms of health-care funding with Ottawa.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary.

Regulation and Transportation of Cannabis

Mr. Kinew: One of the areas that I didn't hear about in the announcement from the Premier and from his colleagues this morning had to do with the regulation of delivery of cannabis here in the province, and so I would like to know, because it seems to me that, you know, there is the option that private sellers may choose to offer delivery services, perhaps in Winnipeg, perhaps in other places around the province.

But if services like that do come into place, it would call many other safety concerns and, you know, regulatory concerns, in mind, for instance, around identification and verification of age, not to mention the safety of the person transporting the cannabis.

* (14:00)

So, again, if online shopping and home delivery continues to spread and perhaps has an impact on this sector as well, I'd like to know: Can the Premier indicate how his government will regulate the delivery of cannabis in Manitoba?

Mr. Pallister: Well, I think we actually have the best plan put forward thus far among the provinces, Madam Speaker, because it captures the best of both worlds. What it does is it has the government and government agencies doing what they can do best to protect people, to regulate. The Liquor and Gaming Authority will oversee the rules around the various aspects of delivery of the services the member has just alluded to.

But it also allows the private sector to do the things it can do best. The member references age verification, the private sector age verifies for the purchase of ammunition in hunting stores or the purchase of chemical in farm distribution centres. The private sector has extensive experience in making sure age verification and protection services are provided when they provide a service in movie theatres with the purchase of beer.

Madam Speaker, the private sector can offer some real benefits in terms of product availability and service that the public sector is not normally as good at. The public sector has its responsibilities and I know it will fulfill them well. We have the best of both worlds with our plan.

Legalization of Cannabis

Location of Dispensaries

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): The Premier's plan for the legalization of cannabis does not seem to go far enough to address serious safety concerns for families. It seems his preferred delivery model raises concerns regarding the location of cannabis businesses and the compliance of those businesses with important safety measures. Families living in neighbourhoods are looking for assurances the Premier's plan will ensure cannabis dispensaries are appropriately located in appropriate spaces and places.

Can the Premier assure Manitobans that his strategy will keep cannabis dispensaries out of residential neighbourhoods and will there be a limit to the amount of dispensaries?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I'm glad that the member opposite suddenly understands the importance of safety when it comes to the legalization of cannabis.

Of course, we did introduce The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act, and what did members opposite do? They voted against it.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a supplementary question.

Use in Public Space

Ms. Fontaine: We know, from the Premier's cuts to the health-care system, the Premier is more concerned about money than people. Manitobans want to know how cannabis will become part of their lives in a safe and responsible way. Families want to know if the use of cannabis in public spaces like parks and outdoor events will be permitted.

Will the Premier tell this House if cannabis use will be prohibited in public spaces?

Mrs. Stefanson: Again, the member opposite had the opportunity to join with us in support of The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act. We've always put the public health and safety of Manitobans first. I'm glad that she suddenly realizes that safety's an important issue.

I guess I'd just ask the member opposite, why didn't she stand with us at the time and vote in favour of The Cannabis Harm Prevention Act? Why did she choose to go against safety and health of Manitobans?

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a final supplementary.

Addiction Funding Request

Ms. Fontaine: The Premier needs to pay attention to those struggling with addictions. Mental health and addiction advocates are calling on the Premier to implement a plan that includes more long-term beds and greater access to services. Yet, despite a boost in funding from the federal government, the Premier has taken no action to date.

The legalization of cannabis could lead to a rise in the consumption among youth. Will the Premier immediately invest in addictions funding now, before cannabis is legalized?

Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): This government's been taking these issues very seriously and will continue to take them seriously moving forward, but I have to respond, Madam Speaker, to the member's personal attack in respect of my values. She says that I value money more than people. I spent a decade of my life standing up for indigenous women while she was sitting back and doing nothing and, Madam Speaker, I do not take that kind of assertion very kindly, because it is false.

So, while we will continue to stand up for those who are vulnerable and who need our support, I encourage the member to do the same when she is given the opportunity. For example, when people are accused–you know, are in a vulnerable situation or in need of support from her, I would like her to stand up and offer that support rather than betray her trust and principles at the time that her principles are put to the test.

Now, Madam Speaker, I encourage the member to read the request for proposal and recognize that we are taking into consideration, very, very much, the safety of Manitobans, and I would ask her to do the same.

Sale and Distribution of Cannabis Plan

Government Conflict-of-Interest Disclosure

Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Madam Speaker, it was a strange spectacle last week when the Premier decided that he needed to tell his ministers and senior staff something they should have already known, that they're required to declare any real or perceived conflicts–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swan: –any real or perceived conflicts of interest surrounding the growth and sale and distribution of cannabis.

Why did the Premier wait until just days before today's announcement of cannabis, when his Cabinet and senior staff already have had access to details of the plan for weeks, if not months, to tell them to follow the law and declare conflicts?

Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Thank you to the member for the question.

For the same reason that we have included in the request for proposals specific references to prohibitions on lobbying during the process of evaluation: because we want the process to be squeaky clean, because we want to make sure that when we embark on this pioneering exercise in our province, that it is free of undue influence.

The member may recall the Tiger Dams issue. He might like to remember that nondisclosure, which everyone–disclosure rules, which everyone should take for granted, according to him, were not complied with by his colleagues. He might like to recall just a few months ago, when it was revealed by the Auditor General that non‑tendered contracts were being offered by the government on a regular basis, that it was an epidemic. Madam Speaker, he might like to refer to the fact that many, many contracts were offered by the previous government which were never posted on the website and disclosed, as was required.

What he takes for granted, I do not, this government does not. We will make sure that our ethical conduct is above reproach and certainly advances well beyond that of the previous government.

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

Premier's Business Interests

Conflict-of-Interest Disclosure

Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Well, I'm guessing the Premier didn't read that in the $4.1‑million Boston Consulting report that Hydro obtained without a tender under this Premier's direction.

It's hard to know what to make of the Premier's challenges on recognizing conflicts of interest. He criticizes Bill Morneau, yet it turns out they have much, much in common. Both the Premier and Minister Morneau own shares in foreign companies which own property: the Premier in Costa Rica, Minister Morneau in France. Both failed to disclose them. Both disclosed them only once they were caught.

How can Manitobans take this Premier seriously in demanding his ministers and senior staff–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swan: –now follow the law when he himself has failed so miserably?

Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Reminds me, Madam Speaker, of the old line about dogs not hunting. The member continues to float this line of questioning.

He also floated the same line of questioning against his former leader, the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger), who sits now in this House as well. He has questioned the integrity of virtually every member of his own caucus, Madam Speaker, so I shouldn't feel like I would be right to expect I would be excluded from his personal attacks. He continues to launch personal attacks on the integrity of all those around him, yet refuses to understand that he himself needs to accept the responsibility for his own conduct here.

He demeans and belittles others and he demeans and belittles this occupation in the process. He should be ashamed of himself, Madam Speaker. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

The honourable member for Minto, on a final supplementary.

Mr. Swan: Madam Speaker, I'm asking questions of the Premier about his own failure to follow very clear conflict-of-interest laws, and the Premier's excuse, of course, was to lie on state–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swan: The Premier relies on statements that we're unable to verify by the Premier's own choice.

I requested a written opinion from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner about the disclosure of foreign corporations, knowing full well the written opinion would be open to public review. That written opinion is in direct conflict with the story the Premier wants us to believe.

* (14:10)

Will the Premier request a written opinion from the commissioner if the Premier is so certain that he is correct? I think that would be good. Will the Premier do that today?

Mr. Pallister: I've actually already been working with the commissioner to get his ideas in respect of how we can improve the forms which have caused the member so much confusion.

That being–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pallister: –that–the member can't take yes for an answer, Madam Speaker.

The fact is that in spite of the rhetoric and the phony preambles, the false references to statements that weren't made and the allegations, the member has the essence of a concern within his comments and that concern is one I hope we all share, which is how can we get the conflict-of-interest reports to be more understandable, to be more comprehensive. And so I've looked for that germ of wisdom within the member's comments, found it and decided to act upon it.

I hope the member would join with us in looking forward to having a better, more ethical environment here, something he never had the chance to be part of in the 17 years that he served in the previous government.

Northern Manitoba

OmniTRAX Layoffs

Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas): Yesterday, I asked the Minister for Growth, Enterprise and Trade to tell the House how many jobs had been lost at OmniTRAX, how many jobs were lost in The Pas and Thompson. Keeping track of these numbers is the minister's job. The minister couldn't or wouldn't answer my question.

So I'll give the minister another chance. He has had a full day to investigate this issue and to talk to his officials.

Can he now tell the House how many workers has OmniTRAX laid off in the North?

Hon. Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade): Seventeen years that NDP ignored the North, took them for granted and never listened to them. We have done so much more in our 17 months. We've got the Look North Task Force report. We've got the–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pedersen: –the protocol for mining moving ahead.

We are working with the North to create good‑paying jobs throughout the entire North.

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

Ms. Lathlin: Provincial law requires that companies that intend to lay off 50 or more employees to provide the government with 10 weeks notice. According to the CBC, the maintenance crew working on the line from The Pas to Gillam was between 60 and 70 employees. Madam Speaker, I'm no mathematician, but I know that's higher than 50.

It's the minister's job to monitor major job losses in our province.

Has the government received notice from OmniTRAX about how many employees it has laid off and, if so, how many?

Mr. Pedersen: Madam Speaker, 14,600 new jobs, year over year, created in Manitoba.

Now, compare that to the $20 million that the previous government gave to OmniTRAX which disappeared, and now they complain about service in the North.

We continue to work with the people in the North to create good-paying jobs, long-lasting jobs. The North will benefit under our government.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, on a final supplementary.

Ms. Lathlin: The member for Thompson (Mr. Bindle) indicated that a committee of Cabinet would be examining the issue of job losses at the railway on October 24th. Since then the City of Thompson and the people of the North have heard nothing from that member or from this government.

The minister has a responsibility to the people of Manitoba and the North. He needs to provide them with the facts and, if he doesn't know them, to go and find them out.

Will the minister tell this House how many layoffs OmniTRAX has made and intends to make this year?

Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Just actually had a brief discussion, the privilege of a brief discussion with the chief of OCN earlier today, Madam Speaker. We are very interested, as is he, in–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pallister: We are very interested, as is he, as our–as a co-chair of our Look North project with looking for opportunities in the North. We'll seek them, we'll find them together. We'll work together in co-operation.

And the last expression of interest that the NDP had in the North was a trip to The Pas to promise jobs at Hydro if you voted the right way. That's not how First Nations leaders, First Nations communities expect to be treated. That's not how they want to be respected–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pallister: That's disrespectful, Madam Speaker.

That was the approach; that is no longer the approach, Madam Speaker. We'll work collectively, co‑operatively with the people of the North and throughout our province to find success together as partners.

Winnipeg Regional Health Authority

Response to Cuts to Lactation Services

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, recently, a mother approached me about the WRHA's decision to terminate two lactation consultants. She said, in a letter to the WRHA and to the–copied to the Minister of Health and me, that she had only found the care that she and her son needed from specialized lactation consultants at the Health Sciences Centre. I received a response from the WRHA's Réal Cloutier and an email from the chair of the WRHA, criticizing Mr. Cloutier's response for emphasizing cuts over care and wondering, and I quote, if this decision holds water.

Does the minister agree with the chair of the WRHA that his government puts cuts before care for newborn children and their mothers?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Madam Speaker, certainly the member opposite knows a little bit about cuts when it comes to the federal government reducing support here in Manitoba. There continues to be a decline of support from the federal government. We used to have a partner, a 50‑50 partner, many years ago; now we have a 19 per cent partner when it comes to health care from the federal government.

I'm glad that the member opposite is now concerned about funding for health care. I wonder where his concern was a few months ago when we needed his voice.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights, on a supplementary question.

Mr. Gerrard: Yes, Madam Speaker, my concern is about services; his concern is only about cuts.

Madam Speaker, the letter from the chair of the WRHA on the interim president's response to cuts in lactation specialists is twofold. She says the letter, which I table, acknowledges negative impacts and then says, we must promote evidence‑based care, particularly where there's evidence of long‑term benefits and access to that care. The current graph suggests we are not sure ourselves whether the decision was sound and if the new approach is the right one.

The Health Minister also received this email. Are he and the WRHA more concerned with messaging than with making sure that new mothers can breastfeed their newborn children?

Mr. Goertzen: Well, we have lots of concerns, of course, Madam Speaker. One of the great concerns we have is the lack of support from the federal government. There used to be, at a time many years ago, that the federal government was a 50‑50 partner in health. That was always the great compromise when it comes to health care in Manitoba: federal government would set the rules but they would provide 50 per cent of the support to provinces over time, and particularly under the federal Liberal government that 'cline'–has been reduced to the point where the federal Liberal government now only provides 19 per cent support when it comes to health care, yet they still insist on setting 100 per cent of the rules.

I'm glad that the member opposite has found his voice when it comes to support. I only wish he had found it a little bit earlier, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights, on a final supplementary.

Mr. Gerrard: Madam Speaker, the minister only seems to deflect, instead of taking responsibility. At the very highest levels of the WRHA, it's clear there is doubt about the government's plan to break their campaign promises and fire front‑line health‑care workers.

The RHAs were created by the PCs in the '90s to have health care at arm's length from government, but the most powerful people in the WRHA now have no independence and no choice when the Premier (Mr. Pallister) and his Health Minister order them to make cuts, and little freedom to speak the truth.

Will the Premier and his minister listen to the board of the WRHA and reverse this decision to cut lactation specialists, or will the people who have spoken get trimmed for speaking their minds?

Mr. Goertzen: Well, Madam Speaker, there were at least five different conspiracies in that question. I would ask the member to remove himself from the grassy knoll.

What we are doing is ensuring that there is a health‑care system that is sustainable. We are looking at evidence. We are hearing from experts. Dr. Peachey, who was hired by the NDP government, is one of those experts. We've heard from many different experts.

I would encourage the member opposite to also listen to experts. There have been national experts who said that health care isn't sustainable without a true federal partner.

* (14:20)

That is an expert that the member opposite doesn't want to listen to. I would encourage him to listen to the many voices around Canada who said we need the federal government to be a real partner, to make sure that health care is sustainable.

He can stand here in this House and he can defend Ottawa all he wants, but he's elected to defend Manitobans, and he should stand up for Manitobans for a change, Madam Speaker. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Legalization of Cannabis

Regulation and Distribution Plan

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): Madam Speaker, earlier today, our government made an important announcement regarding the retail of legal cannabis. As we work to meet the federal government's arbitrary deadline, our Progressive Conservative government's primary concern is the health and safety of Manitobans.

Any distribution and retail model must minimize criminal involvement and keep cannabis out of the hands of the youth.

Can the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade tell this House how this government will regulate and distribute legal cannabis while protecting the safety of Manitobans?

Hon. Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade): And I thank the member for his question.

We are pursuing a hybrid model. It uses the public sector to regulate and distribute cannabis and the private sector to sell it. This is the best of both worlds. The private sector will do what it does best in providing choice, service and competitive pricing, and the public sector to do what it does best in providing public protection through regulation, oversight and licensing.

The arbitrary deadline set by the federal government is approaching quickly, and any distribution and retail model must eliminate criminal involvement and keep cannabis out of the hands of our youth.

We will continue to consult with Manitobans and the RFP does just that.

Scholarship and Bursary Initiative

Private Sector Funds Raised

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Information we obtained through freedom of information revealed that as of October 1st, halfway through the fiscal year, this government had only raised $1.8 million for scholarships and bursaries–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wiebe: –from the private sector. It's clear that, at this rate, the government's program will not come anywhere close to meeting their own $20-million target.

The minister seemed either unwilling or unable yesterday to answer my question, so I'll give him another opportunity: How much in private donations has this government raised for the Manitoba Scholarship and Bursary Initiative to date?

Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): We are continuing to work with the post-secondary institutions in a co-operative manner on the Manitoba Scholarship and Bursary Initiative.

We have asked them to supply us with additional information. This year is actually the very first time they've been asked to do that. The previous government never thought that was particularly important. So they are supplying us with information as the year goes forward.

But they made–wanted to make the point very clear to us and to others that most of their money comes in in the final quarter of the year and we haven't reached that yet.

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

Mr. Wiebe: The truth is is that this government's increasing tuition at post-secondary institutions. They've clawed back the tuition tax rebates, and now they're even thinking about adding interest to student loans.

They pretend that they're providing more money for students, but the stark reality is that the $20 million that they keep talking about won't be available to students because this government is failing to meet its own targets. And only $1.8 million has been raised, at the end of September. This is the amount that's available to students, and that just doesn't cut it. The minister's math hasn't added up.

How much in private donations has this government raised for the Manitoba Scholarship and Bursary Initiative to date?

Mr. Wishart: And talking about math not adding up: when they were running government, the Manitoba Scholarship and Bursary Initiative was cut one year and frozen for four others. I wouldn't call that substantial support to Manitoba students.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia, on a final supplementary.

Mr. Wiebe: The facts are clear and they speak for themselves. The MSBI has only raised $1.8 million to date, and it's falling well short of this minister's claims, day after day, here in this House.

Students and the institutions that administer the programs are worried because it doesn't look like the government's new program will meet its targets and there is no plan B to make up the shortfall. This means that students will have less supports available to them at a time when tuition is increasing, making post-secondary education less affordable and not more.

Will this minister drop the topping–talking points, put down his script and just answer the question. We're just asking for a number here, Madam Speaker, how much has been raised to date?

Mr. Wishart: As I explained earlier, we are working constructively with the post-secondary institutions, who are the principal people that do raise the money. They certainly have been very clear in assuring us that they're making good progress in this process.

I know during the 17 years that that government was in power that Manitoba's math scores dropped the whole time, but it very clearly came right from the top.

Child-Care Spaces

Government Plan

Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): The Minister of Families has let yet another autumn slide away without any new care–new child-care spaces to alleviate the 10,000-strong waiting list. He failed to meet his election commitment to build 550 new spaces in 2016 and hasn't announced any new spaces for 2018.

The federal government offered $15 million to Manitoba for new child-care spaces six months–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Smith: –ago. We know that the family–the federal Families Minister met with the Manitoba government in June, yet still nothing.

What is happening? This minister insists he has a plan and that it's a good plan, but–

Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): This government is investing over $170 million on child care. That's–that represents a $12-million increase than the–than what the previous government did on any year, the most in Manitoba's history.

We know that the NDP had an ideological approach to child care where they thought the government was the only one that can deliver health–or child-care services.

We will have a balance of processes. We're going to partner with the federal government to create affordable housing as well as child-care spots for all Manitobans.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order. Order.

The honourable member for Point Douglas, on a supplementary question.

Mrs. Smith: Five hundred and fifty new spaces he promised in 2016. We have not seen a single new space. A growing wait-list is all we've seen; it went from 12,000 children waiting to get into daycare to now 17,000.

Why is he ignoring the needs of Manitoba parents?

Mr. Fielding: The comments from the member opposite are completely untrue.

Again, we are investing–I can guarantee you that over $170 million of child-care money is being spent to this day. We as a government have introduced the community where–I have appropriated money for the community capital program in terms of child care. That RFP is closed three days ago and decisions will be made in terms of investments in child care in the near or distant future.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

When the Speaker is standing, members are to pay attention. And I would just like to indicate that using the words completely untrue is not considered a–language that we want to use in this House. So I would just encourage members in the future to keep that in mind.

The time for oral questions has expired.

Petitions

Transit Funding

Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

* (14:30)

The background to this petition is as follows:

Bill 36, the budget implementation and statutes amendment Act, 2017, section 88(8), repeals the portion of The Municipal Taxation and Funding Act, which states, quote, "The municipal grants for a fiscal year must include for each municipality that operates a regular or rapid public transit system a transit operating grant in an amount that is not less than 50 per cent of the annual operating cost of the transit system in excess of its annual operating revenue." End quote.

Second, public transit is critical to Manitoba's economy, to preserving its infrastructure and to reducing the carbon footprint.

Third, eliminating the grant guarantees for municipal transit agencies will be detrimental to transit services and be harmful to provincial objectives of connecting Manitobans to employment, improving aging road infrastructure and addressing climate change.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

To urge the provincial government to withdraw its plan to repeal the annual operating grant for municipal transit agencies and remove section 88(8) of Bill 36, the budget implementation and statutes amendment act, 2017.

Madam Speaker, this petition is signed by many Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: In accordance with our rule, 133(6), when petitions are read, they are deemed to be received by the House.

Taxi Industry Regulation

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The taxi industry in Winnipeg provides an important service to all Manitobans.

(2) The taxi industry is regulated to ensure that there are both the provision of taxi service and a fair and affordable fare structure.

Number–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Maloway: (3) Regulations have been put in place that has made Manitoba a leader in protecting the safety of taxi drivers through the installation of shields and cameras.

Number four–

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Elmwood, to please proceed.

Mr. Maloway: (4) The regulated taxi system also has significant measures in place to protect passengers, 'incruding' a stringent complaint system.

(5) The provincial government has moved to bring in legislation through Bill 30 that will transfer jurisdiction to the City of Winnipeg in order to bring in so-called ride-sharing services like Uber.

(6) There were no consultations with the taxi industry prior to the introduction of this bill.

(7) The introduction of this bill jeopardizes safety, taxi service, and also puts consumers at risk, as well as the livelihood of hundreds of Manitobans, many of whom have invested their life savings into the industry.

(8) The proposed legislation also puts the regulated framework at risk and could lead to issues such as what has been seen in other jurisdictions, including differential pricing, not providing service to some areas of the city, and significant risks in terms of taxi driver and passenger safety.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

To urge the provincial government to withdraw its plans to deregulate the taxi industry, including withdrawing Bill 30.

And this petition, Madam Speaker, is signed by many Manitobans.

Northern Patient Transfer Program

Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) Manitobans recognize that everyone deserves quality accessible health care.

(2) The people of northern Manitoba face unique challenges when accessing health care, including inclement weather, remote communities and seasonal roads.

(3) The provincial government has already unwisely cancelled northern health investments, including clinics in The Pas and Thompson.

(4) Furthermore, the provincial government has taken a course that will discourage doctors from practising in the North, namely, their decision to cut a grant program designed to bring more doctors to rural Manitoba.

(5) The provincial government has also substantially cut investments in roads and highways, which will make it more difficult for northerners to access health care.

(6) The provincial government 'austority' approach is now threatening to cut funding for essential programs such as the Northern Patient Transportation Program, which was designed to help some of the most vulnerable people in the province.

(7) The provincial government has recently announced it would cancel the airfare subsidy for patients–for patient escorts who fly to Winnipeg for medical treatment, which will be devastating for patients who fly to Winnipeg with mobility issues, dementia or who are elderly and need assistance getting to the city.

(8) The challenges that northerners face will only be overcome if the provincial government respects, improves and adequately funds quality programs that were designed to help northerners, such as the Northern Patient Transportation Program.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

To urge the provincial government to recognize the absolute necessity of maintaining and improving the Northern Patient Transportation Program by continuing to respect Northern Patient Transfer agreements and funding these agreements in accordance with the needs of northern Manitobans.

This petition has been signed by many, many Manitobans. Thank you.

Health-Care Investment

Mr. Greg Selinger (St. Boniface): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

And the petition reads as follows, Madam Speaker, with the background:

The Premier has launched an attack on Manitoba's health-care system, imposing reckless cuts to facilities and services, which will have a devastating impact on the health and safety of Manitobans.

The Premier has broken his promise to protect the front-line health-care services families and seniors depend on, as well as to protect the front-line workers who deliver those services.

The Premier is closing three emergency rooms and an urgent-care centre in Winnipeg, forcing families in south and northeastern and western Winnipeg to travel farther for emergency health care.

The Premier has already shuttered the St. Boniface QuickCare clinic and has announced plans to close four more clinics in Winnipeg, meaning families will no longer be able to access health care in their own communities.

The Premier has cancelled $1 billion in health-care capital projects, including a new facility for CancerCare Manitoba, primary-care clinics for St. Vital and The Pas, a consultation clinic for Thompson, a new facility for the Pan Am Clinic, two new personal-care homes and an international centre for palliative care.

The Premier's millions of dollars in budget cuts have forced the WRHA to cut crucial services like occupational therapy and physiotherapy in hospitals, lactation consultants for new mothers, the Mature Women's Centre at Victoria hospital and a home-care program for the chronically ill.

The budget cuts have resulted in the raising of fees for seniors in the long-term-care program and cancelled a program that recruited doctors to work in rural communities.

On top of these cuts, the provincial government has opened the door to privatization by bringing in private home-care companies and expressing interest in private MRI services.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

To urge the provincial government to immediately reverse these cuts which hurt families and seniors' care, weaken health-care services and drive health-care workers out of the province and to instead invest in the provincial health-care system in order to protect and improve patient care.

Signed by Wendy Carrière, Debbie Hassar, Gerald Flood and many, many other Manitobans. Thank you.

Concordia Hospital Emergency Room

Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

The background to this petition is as follows:

The provincial government has announced the closures of three emergency rooms and an urgent-care centre in the city of Winnipeg, and closing down the emergency room at Concordia Hospital.

* (14:40)

(2) The closures come on the heels of the closing of a nearby QuickCare clinic, as well as cancelled plans for ACCESS centres and personal-care homes, such as Park Manor, that would have provided important services for families and seniors in the area.

(3) The closures have left families and seniors in northeast Winnipeg without any point of contact with front-line health-care services and will result in them having to travel 20 minutes or more to St. Boniface Hospital's emergency room for emergency care.

(4) These cuts will place a heavy burden on the many seniors who live in northeast Winnipeg and visit the emergency room frequently, especially for those who are unable to drive or are low-income.

(5) The provincial government failed to consult with families and seniors in northeast Winnipeg regarding the closing of their emergency room or to consult with health officials and health-care workers at Concordia to discuss how this closure would impact patient care in advance of the announcement.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

To urge the provincial government to reverse the decision to close Concordia Hospital's emergency room so that families and seniors in northeast Winnipeg and the surrounding areas have timely access to quality health-care services.

This petition was signed by many Manitobans.

Northern Patient Transfer Program

Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) Manitobans recognize that everyone deserves quality accessible health care.

(2) The people of northern Manitoba face unique challenges when accessing health care, including inclement weather, remote communities and seasonal roads.

(3) The provincial government has already unwisely cancelled northern health investments, including clinics in The Pas and Thompson.

The provincial government has also substantially cut investments in roads and highways which will make it more difficult for northerners to access health care.

(6) The provincial government's austerity approach is now threatening to cut funding for essential programs such as the Northern Patient Transportation Program, which was designed to help some of the most vulnerable people in the province.

(7) The provincial government has recently announced it would create–sorry–recently announced it would cancel the airfare subsidy for patient escorts who fly to Winnipeg for medical treatment, which will be devastating for patients with mobility issues, dementia, or who are elderly and need assistance getting to the city.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

To urge the provincial government to recognize the absolute necessity of maintaining and improving the Northern Patient Transportation Program by continuing to respect Northern Patient Transfer agreements and funding these services in accordance with the needs of northern Manitobans.

And this petition, Madam Speaker, has been signed by many, many northern Manitobans.

Concordia Hospital Emergency Room

Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government has announced the closures of three emergency rooms and an urgent-care centre in the city of Winnipeg, including closing down the emergency room at Concordia Hospital.

(4) These cuts will place a heavy burden on the many seniors who live in northeast Winnipeg and visit the emergency room frequently, especially for those who are unable to drive or are low-income.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

This petition is signed by many, many Manitobans, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

And the background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government has announced the closures of three emergency rooms and an urgent-care centre in the city of Winnipeg, including closing down the emergency room at Concordia Hospital.

(4) These cuts will place a heavy burden on the many seniors who live in northeast Winnipeg and visit the emergency room frequently, especially for those who are unable to drive or who are low‑income.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

And this petition is signed by many Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: Grievances?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(Continued)

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Hon. Cliff Cullen (Government House Leader): Would you call Bill 30 for report stage amendments?

Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the House will consider report stage amendments for Bill 30, The Local Vehicles for Hire Act.

An Honourable Member: On a point of order.

Point of Order

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

Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): Madam Speaker, do these amendments require unanimous consent?

Madam Speaker: No, they do not.

Report Stage Amendments

Bill 30–The Local Vehicles for Hire Act

Madam Speaker: So we will move to report stage amendment on Bill 30, The Local Vehicles for Hire Act.

* (14:50)

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I move, seconded by the member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino),

THAT Bill 30 be amended by adding the following after Clause 3(3):

By‑law must include safety standards

3(4) A vehicle‑for‑hire by‑law must provide mandatory safety standards that include

(a) a requirement for a vehicle for hire to be equipped with

(i) a shield that protects the driver from physical attacks while the driver is seated in the driver's seat,

(ii) a camera that is able to capture the face of each passenger in the vehicle and provide an audio recording of the interior of the vehicle,

(iii) a strobe light on top of the vehicle that can be used to signal an emergency or distress situation to persons outside the vehicle, and

(iv) a panic button that enables the driver to send an electronic emergency or distress signal;

(b) a requirement for a vehicle for hire to undergo a mechanical inspection by an automotive service technician certified under The Apprenticeship and Certification Act at least twice a year;

(i) pass a criminal record check and child abuse registry check, and

(ii) undergo at least 35 hours of training, in a form approved by the applicable municipality, that includes components on

(A) driver and passenger safety,

(B) conflict de-escalation,

(D) disability awareness resource training (DART),

(E) cultural sensitivity, and

(F) English language skills;

(d) a requirement that after completing the requirements under clause (c), a driver must pass a criminal record check and a child abuse registry check every two years;

(e) a requirement that, while operating a vehicle for hire, the driver at all times

(i) hold a valid driver's licence of a prescribed class, and

(ii) display photo identification on the dashboard of the vehicle that allows a passenger in the vehicle to easily determine the name of the driver;

(f) a regulatory mechanism for passengers to make complaints and for those complaints to be investigated; and

(g) any other requirements that the applicable council considers necessary to protect the drivers and passengers of vehicles for hire.

Meaning of criminal record check and child abuse registry check

3(5) The following definitions apply in subsection (4).

"child abuse registry check" means a record about a person from the child abuse registry obtained under The Child and Family Services Act.

"criminal record check" means a record obtained from a law enforcement agency about a person stating whether or not the person has any conviction or has any outstanding charge awaiting court disposition under any federal or provincial enactment.

Regulations

3(6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the class of driver's licence which are required to be held by the driver of a vehicle for hire.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), seconded by the honourable member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino),

THAT Bill 30–The Local Vehicles for Hire Act–be amended by adding the following after Clause 3(3):

By-law must include safety standards

3(4) A vehicle-for-hire by-law must provide mandatory safety standards that include

(a) a requirement for a vehicle for hire to be equipped with

(i) a shield that protects the driver from physical attacks while the driver is seated in the driver's seat,

(ii) a camera that is able to capture the face of each passenger in the vehicle and provide an audio recording of the interior of the vehicle,

(iii) a strobe light on top of the vehicle that can be used to signal an emergency or distress situation to persons outside the vehicle, and

(iv) a panic button that enables the driver to send an electronic emergency or distress signal;

(b) a requirement for a vehicle for hire to undergo a mechanical inspection by an automotive service technician certified under The Apprenticeship and Certification Act at least twice a year;

(i) pass a criminal record check and a child abuse registry check, and

(ii) undergo at least 35 hours of training, in a form approved by the applicable municipality, that includes components on

(A) driver and passenger safety,

(B) conflict de-escalation,

(D) disability awareness resource training (DART),

(E) cultural sensitivity, and

(F) English language skills;

(d) a requirement that after completing the requirements under clause (c), a driver must pass a criminal record check and child abuse registry check every two years;

(e) a requirement that, while operating a vehicle for hire, the driver at all times

(i) hold a valid driver's licence of a prescribed class, and

(ii) display photo identification on the dashboard of the vehicle that allows a passenger in the vehicle to easily determine the name of the driver;

(f) a regulatory mechanism for passengers to make complaints and for those complaints to be investigated; and

(g) any other requirements that the applicable council considers necessary to protect the drivers and passengers of vehicles for hire.

Meaning of criminal record check and child abuse registry check

3(5) The following definitions apply in subsection (4).

"child abuse registry check" means a record about a person from the child abuse registry obtained under The Child and Family Services Act.

Regulations

3(6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the class of driver's licence required to be held by the driver of a vehicle for hire.

The amendment–the report-stage amendment is in order. Debate can proceed.

Mr. Maloway: You know, I can't say I'm pleased about all of this, but, you know, the government brought this bill in rather late, without any consultation whatsoever with the industry as far as I can see. And, in spite of the fact, in despite of the fact, quite the opposite. The Premier (Mr. Pallister) had clearly promised the industry as far back as, you know, before the election. So that's, like, over a year and a half ago at a, you know, Conservative party, evidently, a dinner in one case. And another event–had promised them. In fact, there's even tape recordings out there.

This all came out in the presentations last week where people presented and said, well, you know, you promised me that you wouldn't do this. And there were a lot of witnesses. In fact, there's probably some people in the gallery today who were present when these promises were made. So you can imagine their surprise when all of a sudden, out of the blue with no consultation, comes a plan to offload the entire taxi industry off to the city and–who don't have any experience in this area, and basically rid itself of a system that actually has worked quite well since the 1940s. And when there has been a problem in the industry, the Taxicab Board has taken and responded well in the issue.

And I give you as an example a number of years ago when Mr. Deol was killed, the government of the day mandated shields and strobes and panic buttons. And, as a result, I don't believe a single cab driver has been murdered since that happened.

* (15:00)

And so now, it seems passing strange that a system that has worked well all these years–just out of the blue, the Premier, you know, and his–made his executive decision. I'm sure he didn't consult a single member of his caucus over there and simply said, well, you know, it's one way of helping to balance the budget here. We'll just offload a half-a-million dollars worth of expenditures of the provincial government off to the City who can't even run the City well, and now you expect them to come to grips–in short order we introduced an amendment here to allow an ease-in of the bill, you know, rather than making it March the 1st, or February 28th, and they voted it down.

This government has voted down all five of our bills, one to require insurance to the levels of Autopac, a $5‑billion liability. We made these amendments in committee, all of our eight amendments. We did five of them–brought up five in committee, and they all voted them down. So now we are here as a last ditch effort, I guess, and we are introducing three amendments; one dealing with the safety issues, which have just been read into the Chamber, and two more dealing with compensation issues for the industry.

And the government has decided–I guess they–marijuana issue has just arrived and this was the day. The Premier woke up this morning and said, oh what can do that's a little bit different? Let's try to bury the taxicab changes with all this coverage going on about the marijuana industry.

Because since the new rules took effect a year and a half ago, the government is very consistent in that they find all sorts of different diversions to avoid any debate until the absolute cut-off hour. And the cut-off hour is 4 o'clock today to deal with these amendments. And so it was surprising to me an hour or so ago to learn that, boy, we're going to go and debate these three report stage amendments.

Well, that hasn't happened in the last couple of years. So I was quite pleased, but I knew there had to be a trick to this, right. And, of course, the trick is, well, it's all about marijuana today so nobody's going to notice the cab issue and the report stage amendments.

Now there are–you know–and the fact of the matter is that there are so many reasons why this is wrong, on so many levels. What you are going to do, what the government is doing, is dumping the responsibility off to the municipalities, off to the City of Winnipeg, who don't really know what they're doing on this file and creating an unlevel playing field with Uber who will not have to have any of these requirements that they do now. And he's telling them–bold-faced, he's telling them straight up a year and a half ago, oh, don't worry about us, you know. We will take good care of you, just go out and keep fundraising for our dinners, and you know, we will make sure you get a level playing field. Well they're seeing now what kind of a playing field this government is giving, and they were very unhappy.

There are people in this House that sat listening to those presentations who were profoundly affected by what this bill is going to do to the value of these essentially small businesses, and where–I mean, you're going to have cab licences; cabbies who paid, you know, 400,000 up to 500,000, their cabs are–cannot be sold now, going to be worth nothing.

So that we come to the question of compensation. Well if you're going to run over them, then maybe you should compensate. So I pull out examples from Australia, all–pretty well all of these states in Australia, over the last year and a half, have worked out a compensation scheme and they're not all that great but at least it's some recognition. And the state of Victoria I think was the best where they were allowing for compensation based on, I think it's $2 a ride going forward five years. The compensation was $100,000 for the first cab, and there was a limit I think of maybe three cabs at lesser amounts if you had more than one.

Now this is not going to take care of the whole problem, but at least the Australians are recognizing that there's a problem. This group over here, the supposed defenders of small business, they don't want to understand it, they don't understand it, they won't do it. They won't do it, and look what they did to the people on the presentation list. You know, I been here like 31 years now and we've dug up the information on all of the controversial bills over the years that had presenters, and, you know, we couldn't find a single one that had the number of presenters that were available for this bill that were–where people were left off, people were not heard.

Over 100 people–over 100 people–and the House leader sits here, you know, smiling about this, but the reality is that a House leader, he had the responsibility of making sure they had enough time to present, and when he decided to call the presenters Thursday night and 14 hours Friday night, he could have simply added Saturday and Sunday and Monday but he chose not to. He thought that, well, they're not going to show up on Friday. Well, they sure fooled him, because they showed up in droves on Friday, and they used up all of the time presenting. And there was 102 or more left that did not get a chance to present.

This is the way–this is what happens when you elect 40 members a majority government. If they had only had 31 seats, they would be a lot more careful in how they're presenting themselves. So this is a very poor signal going forward of how this government–on how not to treat people. What are they going to do if they're prepared to do this to the cab industry? What are–what's going to be their next move, in terms of compensation?

Ed Schreyer government in 1972, when Autopac was set up, they set up a compensation fund to all those agents out there, probably none of whom were NDP. They were mainly Conservatives and Liberals, and they set up a compensation for it. If you didn't want to sell Autopac, then we pay you a compensation.

What about the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and US? Those Quebec dairy farmers are being taken care of over 10 years, but dairy farmers in Quebec elect MPs, so they've got some political clout. I guess taxi drivers in Winnipeg don't have that same ability of electing MLAs, although time will tell, you know, in the next election, I would expect.

So, you know, Madam Speaker, I know we have other speakers on this report stage amendment. I have two more after this that we have to discuss as well.

Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Municipal Relations): It gives me great privilege to rise to put some facts on the record. The member from Elmwood mentions a couple of areas in this amendment, and I'd like to certainly add our input on some of the misinformation that was provided to this House.

On safety, Madam Speaker, at present, municipalities are responsible for managing public transit systems, and every several level–every level possible within their municipality. The member opposite consulted with these municipalities. I don't know if he's actually made a call to the municipalities that currently have taxicab industries under a bylaw within their municipalities, and just to name a few: Brandon, Gillam, Neepawa, Portage la Prairie, Selkirk, The Pas, Thompson. I–you know, I question whether the member from Elmwood actually had any consultation or did any consultation on, you know, whether these folks were actually spoken to or had the opportunity to come forward as well.

As well, Madam Speaker, this just is another prime example of the heavy‑handed, top‑down change by the NDP that affects municipalities without consultation and their input. I mean, it's quite clear in the comments from the member from Elmwood, simply states that, you know, this mayor–under the mayor, certainly doesn't seem to know how to run a city. And, quite frankly, I feel it quite the insult to understand that the member opposite obviously–and the NDP position is not supporting municipalities, including the City of Winnipeg, and that's very disturbing, being our largest municipality here in Manitoba.

* (15:10)

Also the vehicle for hire–we talk about accessibility. Vehicle-for-hire business owners and drivers will be subject to applicable sections of the existing customer service standards, Madam Speaker, and forthcoming transportation standards created under the accessibility for Manitoba's act.

Municipalities are best position to determine the safety and customer service needs for the local markets. This legislation, Madam Speaker, will provide municipal governments with the tools to ensure that they enact the bylaws necessary for the needs of Manitobans and Winnipeggers as they go forward.

Just a couple of quotes. I know we have, potentially, another couple of speakers, so I'd like to get a couple of quotes on the record as well. And, Madam Speaker, this is a quote from one of the members opposite. One of the members opposite simply said, and I quote: I think it is fair to say that when the report was commissioned, everybody agreed that the status quo was not working in the interest of Winnipeggers.

Madam Speaker, that was a comment made by the member from Minto. So you know, even the member from Minto understands that, you know, after 75 or 80 years, quite frankly, things have to evolve. And the member from Minto obviously agrees, and I thank him for that.

I also have another quote too: a growing need, Madam Speaker, for an updated study to streamline existing regulations while addressing the needs and concerns of the public. That was the former member from Brandon East under the former NDP government that brought that comment forward. And there seems to be, you know, some kind of a familiarity here. It seems the members opposite want to see a change but were obviously not willing to take that change forward, and we've seen it in other areas when it comes to health and other areas that commissioned reports that the NDP were responsible for, but refused to act on. And we are acting on those reports commissioned by the NDP.

And lastly, on a quote too, as well, we had a quote from the former Liberal leader: Whether people like it or not–and they–in her words, Uber is coming. We need to evolve with the changes that are coming to our industry, Madam Speaker. And you know, that again is showing that even the members opposite, including the Liberal members, obviously understand that this industry is not devoid of change; it needs to evolve. Winnipeggers have asked for it.

The mayor–unfortunately, the member from Elmwood doesn't seem to have enough respect for how the mayor runs the city and, essentially, the council and how they're working through their bylaws and ensuring that the public safety is not at risk during their regular day-to-day processes.

But, you know, in closing off this area of the amendment, I would just like to say that it was the NDP government–again, Madam Speaker, who commissioned this MNP report, which recommended significantly modernizing regulations and streamlining oversight in the industry. The report also said that the process for licensing applications have led to an overly restricted supply and limited choice, and it recommended changes to allow ride-share services like Uber coming into the market.

The current regulatory regime, Madam Speaker, has failed to evolve with the changes and interests of Winnipeggers. We're putting an end to that. We're acting on the NDP-commissioned report of 2015. We will act, not like members opposite.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): A few words on this amendment which deals with safety issues. I mean, it is true that there are changes in taxi and ride-sharing services and that we need to adapt, but it is also true that under the NDP and today under the Conservatives, we have one of the highest violent crime severity indexes in Canada. And we need to be cognizant of that fact in developing an approach which is safe for everybody, right? That is the bottom line, that whether you are providing a taxi service or a ride-sharing service, that the important thing is that we need to be able to assure Winnipeggers that that service is going to be safe.

We know what has happened when there have been taxi drivers who have been subject of violent crimes in the past. The outcry that has resulted, the changes that have been made as a result of the, you know, commissions or inquiries and investigations into the violence committed toward taxi drivers, and the resulting shields, the resulting cameras that are now in place for taxis.

And this amendment deals with making sure that we have a secure and safe environment for companies which are providing, and individuals which are providing, ride-sharing services. And so one of the things which is critical, whether that decision is made here through this amendment or whether that decision is as a result of the rejection of this amendment, if that's what the Conservatives would choose to do, that that decision would have to be then made at the municipal level. But surely we have a responsibility at a provincial level to make sure that there is safety there, that people don't have to be afraid of getting into a taxi or a ride-sharing service, whatever it may be. And, clearly, this is a part of what sadly was omitted from this bill when it was brought in by the Conservatives.

So it is reasonable to have these amendments and to have this opportunity for discussion. I was disappointed that the Conservatives shrugged this off, that they did not seriously look at what safety measures have to be in place and proceeded to sound as if they were, unfortunately, not going to support this amendment.

So I think that's too bad, Madam Speaker, if that is the case. I think that we should move forward to make sure that there is a safe environment for taxis and for ride-sharing services in Winnipeg, acknowledging that we have to make sure that we are paying attention to the unique characteristics of our city and our province when we address and when we put forward proposals like this bill and the amendment that we're dealing with.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker: For everybody's information, I'm following a rotation, here. And I will call the members according to the rotation. And I would ask, are there any government members wishing to speak next as per the rotation? No. Are there any NDP members wishing to speak next as per rotation?

I could then move to the honourable member for The Maples.

Mr. Mohinder Saran (The Maples): I would not say I'm happy to stand and put a few words on that. It's a sad day because, first of all, the government did not have the courtesy to consult the taxi industry. And I'm one of the MLAs who belongs to the community–most of them are in the taxi industry.

And I tried to–I wrote a letter to the Premier (Mr. Pallister) that: let us, we talk about that. I tried to talk to the minister at that time: let us, we talk about that. I tried to the Finance Minister at that time: perhaps we can make money out of that. And they ignored. The simple answer was from the minister at that time; she said, it's going to go through. So how undemocratic is it, when you don't listen the people and you don't listen the elected people from that particular community. That's so sad.

And don't–when they are throwing that minority group under the bus, don't you think, Madam Speaker, democracy's failing? They are not taking care of the people who left their country, came over here for a better life. They work their whole life to build up this equity, but now they want to wash it away. How unreasonable they are. Why they cannot think about that this is their retirement money and how they will survive during their retirement?

* (15:20)

And also, Madam Speaker, I suggest to them: government need money. They can make money out of that. How? Because they can have ongoing price, either a person can buy taxi on ongoing price from the market, or at the same time they can get that money back from the taxi board. So if taxi board–and it will satisfy the supply and demand.

If somebody wants to buy taxi, go to the taxi board. Buy from them, from the market. And that way I would say if you are to, say, sell in a year, a hundred permits from the taxi board, so they will make about $35 million. That's quite a bit of money. They are talking about how much it cost, $750,000 per year, and that's why they are dumping to the City. But they could have make about $30 million, $40 million, something like that.

Why they don't think in those terms? Madam Speaker, I think it's really they don't care about–and another issue is that if they are going to do it anyway, why don't they give them the chance to challenge in the court? Farmers can do it, other industry can do it, they have the right. But because of this minority group, they don't want to give them that right? This is totally unfair and it's giving a message to those people: don't come over here, go to somewhere else, because even you come under Provincial Nominee Program, under business class, and it's approved under business class to come over here, you spend about 300,000-350,000; now they say, now we trap you. You came over here, now we are going to carry you. Go back where you come from. That's what they are going to do. So it's a really, really sad situation.

I hope they can think from the heart, they're using their mind and cunningly–I'm sorry if it's not a proper word–and they are trying to do this to this community. We don't care; your numbers are not enough for us to get elected; you are totally useless for us, therefore we don't care how much money you lose.

And I think there is a conspiracy over here anyway because on the one hand Premier (Mr. Pallister) said no, we are not doing anything, we are just transferring; minister says we are transferring. On the other hand, the mayor is very happy to get them. So I don't know–it's not only going to be Uber, it will be other interested groups who will take a free ride. On one hand, these people spend 450,000-500,000; on the other hand, those people will go get those licences on Europrice. You know they will say no, we did not charge that price, that was on the market price. If that were true, all the government failed–previously NDP, then PC, then NDP, then PC. Why they did not made those licences at that time non-transferable? If they had made those licences non-transferable, person who wants to drive the cab, he could have got that licence. Whenever he decide not to, then the sons could have gone back. But they did not do that. But they did not do that.

But now they're blaming the owners. Oh, they increased their price; that's their fault. It's not their fault. It's government's fault. Whenever they change the licence from one person to the other person, taxi board ask how much it cost to you, and they have to put on the paper. And if they say no it cost only that much, they say no, maybe you are lying. You are not telling the truth and it cost more, you are avoiding the tax. It means these people are enforcing to the taxi owners to write that price down. That proves it's government's responsibility.

Now they are shirking away from that responsibility.

I hope still there is time. Think about the people's lives. How many people, if they go on welfare or they go on Rent Assist, how much money it will cost to the government? They're not going to save any money at all. They will–government will lose. If they think about that business-wise, they are going to lose that amount.

So where is the justice? Where the justice? On one hand, they want to bring people out of welfare, out of–so they can work and so it won't be burden on the government, but on the other hand, they're creating the situation where many families will be–go on welfare or go on Rent Assist. In that way, how much money government will lose?

So I don't know why they are so determined, we are going to do it anyway. They are going to say, well, we don't care about you, where you come from. We don't care about you, although you gave 150, 160; we listen to you but they've gone all–over our heads. So, otherwise–they're telling you are wasting time even on the committee meetings, so–because they are–they have predetermined all this. So, Madam Speaker, I hope these people have their heart, think about the family situations, think about how much it will happen.

I know it's safety–about safety. Other people have talked about that. That's why I did not go directly into that. It's the safety of the people. How many people will get heart attack? How many families' kids will go hungry? What will happen? That's another issue of safety. And these people are really being hurt and really being pushed out of this province, Madam Speaker.

These people came over here about–started to come over here about 40 to 50 years ago and they thought, even this is the kind of environment, like weather, and still they can have a good life over here, and they can have a family over here and their kids can have a good education, and they will be better off than where they lived. When you leave one country to come to other, it's really very hard on you. It have very–it's not that–it doesn't matter how good conditions over here, where you are brought up, that's something you always miss. These people missed because they want to take next generation to be better off, and–but these people put them back where they come from. It's a really sad situation.

I think I will ask the minister to think about that.

Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): Madam Speaker, I'm a Conservative. I believe in freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom from red tape. This bill, unfortunately, has missed the mark. I can't support the amendment because it's a bad bill. The amendment can't fix the unfixable.

Madam Speaker, Conservatives that I know believe in fairness and the power of the marketplace. They understand that people need to benefit from the fruits of their labour. Conservatives also understand that instant change can cause revolution. That's part of being a Conservative–incremental change. Now, with technology, things happen fast, but they don't happen so quickly that you undermine the economic model that has existed for decades, especially when there are people who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars–good people, hard-working people, in many cases people who have come to Canada for a better life. This bill undermines that entire economic model: the model that these people, these good people, have invested in.

* (15:30)

Now, I am all for competition. And I think Uber is a good thing, but not this way, not in the way to destroy people's livelihoods, to destroy their economic model.

How is it, Madam Speaker, that Conservatives from across the country, including the Conservatives in this room, are outraged when the small-business tax is changed federally for doctors and lawyers, but when it happens to new Canadians, the changing in the business model, not a word–not a word. Why? Why is that? And I think it's reasonable to say that the changes proposed here on–from this government are a far greater impact than the terrible changes the federal Liberals were trying to impose. The appropriate thing is for everyone to take a step back, for the bill to be withdrawn and we rethink this.

Red tape, Madam Speaker–sometimes with all the best of intentions, governments and parties make decisions that are not good. Good government and good parties see that, take a step back and re-evaluate. We have a North Star, many of us. When we look up, when we get lost, we look up and we get reoriented. My North Star is Conservative values, 'enshrouned' by common sense–common sense. We have a situation where we are passing–not–well, some of us are passing a law where the rules in Winnipeg will be different than the rules outside of Winnipeg. There's 137 municipalities in Manitoba. So, put another way, there's 137 different regulatory regimes that this government is imposing. That's incredible.

Madam Speaker, when you drive from the airport to, say, Portage la Prairie, you're going through Rosser, Winnipeg, Headingley, Cartier–how many–is that five? Who's regulations are you following? Who's in charge? Who's going to say what is going to happen when there are accidents? Well, I'll tell you what's going to happen. MPI rates are going to go through the roof because out of a coincidence, every time an Uber car or ride-sharing car gets in a car accident, it'll be, well, they're on the commercial licence. And every time they don't, it'll be on their personal licence because it's cheaper.

And, Madam Speaker, think about–now, red tape–now, I–now, we all make jokes about public servants and red tape. But how on earth is this going to be enforced? It's going to be costly to enforce. Who's going to say where a ride stopped or started? Who's going to say, oh, well, you were 400 metres in Rosser when you're at CentrePort, therefore–you know, like, come on.

And, with all due respect, Madam Speaker, to the minister on accessible transportation, you–capital cost for accessible transportation is greater; you have to buy a vehicle. Now we're going to charge accessible people with disabilities more? Or are people not going to make the investments in accessible vehicles?

It's all fine to say Uber will be trained to deal with, well, whatever. They're not going to have the cars or the vehicles to carry people with disabilities. And, in fact, take that another step; they're not going to take the difficult clients that live in neighbourhood Z or the seniors or the people who don't tip well. They're going to take all the low-hanging fruit and leave the rest to the people who have to deal with the red tape and the cost. It's an unfortunate regime here.

Not to mention speaking about policing, Madam Speaker. All these taxicab companies need to do is relocate into Springfield or Headingley or Oak Bluff, and then they're outside the jurisdiction of the city. What–who's going to be policing this? Probably no one. So therefore we have an unenforceable red tape nightmare. Or maybe there will be police, and, as a Conservative, I don't want a police state. I don't want people checking where my taxi ride started and ended.

And if–I would be concerned about: am I insured properly? Manitoba has no-fault insurance. Everyone in the province is insured for personal injury protection. That's why we have the taxi system we have in Manitoba, and that's why Manitoba is different than every other jurisdiction except Quebec. Quebec has also a no-fault system and they–in fact, Manitoba's no-fault system was based on that.

In a no-fault province, what is being proposed cannot work properly. Red tape, costs, bureaucracy, lack of enforcement–if these entrepreneurs and small-business men–economic model's been destroyed. We should be outraged as Conservatives, just as we were outraged when the Liberals tried to destroy the economic model for doctors and lawyers.

Where is the consistency? Let's pull this bill back and start again.

Ms. Flor Marcelino (Logan): Talk of cohesive, persuasive, substantive arguments in support of the amendments brought forth by the member from Elmwood, I have just heard it from the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Fletcher)–

An Honourable Member: I don't support the amendments.

Ms. Marcelino: Oh, you don't?

But the member from Assiniboia gave very substantive situations, even though he doesn't support the amendment. But it is a very well-reasoned argument to bring out the situation that we have before us now.

The member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) gave the amendments that are common sense, and they are practical and they are in–they will be for the benefit of all. Like, who wants to have a driver who has no criminal record check or child–or didn't pass a Child Abuse Registry check? Who would want to ride in a cab with no camera, no shield or–you don't want to be with a driver with–or the driver. For the driver, they don't want to be left for themselves alone, but they need security. They need protection.

* (15:40)

The amendment brought forth by my colleague from Elmwood ensures that this will be taken care of, the safety of the driver, the safety of the riding public.

I had the chance to ride in Uber on three different occasions on two different countries, because I was curious. I was curious how–I'd never been–haven't had the occasion to take an Uber cab. But because we are in this–we are tackling this bill, I thought I'd get an experience on how to ride in Uber, on how it is to be in an Uber vehicle.

Well the driver, for one, is part time, not a full‑time taxi driver. He only–at least, the first one only drives when he's over–he's–after the first full-time job. So the poor guy is so tired and could be hungry and still has to take that additional job just to earn a few dollars. And I ask him, are–am–if something happens in this trip of ours, will I be covered? Will–what kind of insurance do you have? And he couldn't answer me.

Anyway, same thing with the second driver that I was able to–that responded to my call. She, too, was a part-time Uber driver. And obviously she's a mother, because when she came to pick me up, there's even a car seat. And she apologized: I'm sorry, I was in a hurry, I didn't–wasn't able to take out the car seat of my baby. So I understand that. I–but I thought this driver is just doing it for–also for a living, but not as a full-time taxi driver. And of course, there's no camera or nothing to protect her, the driver, from a bad passenger, if there are, nor–the passenger has nothing to rely on to be protected if the driver is not good. Anyway, that was my personal experience.

In attending the committee meetings on several evenings, I became very acutely aware of how much economic contribution the taxi industry has done to our province. Many of them came here because, of course, they wanted a new life for themselves and their families. But they came here with money–those who came through the business nominee program. And what did they do? They bought homes, they bought cars. Of course, they brought the taxi licence, and they sent their children to schools, to universities. And I'm–I was so impressed with several young people–the children of the taxi drivers. Very intelligent young people. One wants to be a doctor. I forget the other two, but–and they are well‑spoken–obviously, these children will be productive citizens of Manitoba, or anywhere in Canada where they decide to settle. And these children were brought by these–by the parents who are drivers, and are supporting them in their studies.

Should there be–should this Bill 30 pass without the assurance that they will get compensation, without the assurance that there will be a level playing field, that there'll be fair competition, the lives of those children of the members of the taxi industry will–there'll be some uncertainty there.

So these people came here from another country to be productive citizens, to contribute to Manitoba. Why are we doing this to them?

I think another–so, Madam Speaker, why will we put people–why are we making it very difficult for people who want to work, people who want to contribute to Manitoba, why should we make it difficult for them to pursue their–to do their job? Why are we putting hardship on them and why are we stressing them to the highest level by bringing this bill forward? I don't know, but I think they have done their part. They–if there needs to be improvement, they're willing to do it. If there needs to be changes, they will comply. They're paying their taxes. They have contributed to the booming economy of Manitoba. Why are they being penalized?

So, Madam Speaker, I wish my colleagues will realize that members of the taxi industry are people who want to work, and they work hard. They don't mind if they miss holidays. They don't mind if they work unholy hours. They don't mind if it's ‑40˚ or in the–especially Manitoba winter. They are faced with some harassment at times, but they continue, because to them they're offering Manitobans service and they value the service.

Besides, Madam Speaker, if Uber will come, so long as there's a fair, level playing field, we just have to consider people who are not–who don't possess the gadgets that will enable them to take Uber. To be able to take Uber, you have to have the app, you have to have the smartphone, you should know how to, of course, use the app, and not all people are able to do that. So what happens if there's no more taxi industry other than Uber to provide service to those people who are not–who don't have the smartphone? We will be–

Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): I rise this afternoon in order to put in a few words that might help persuade the Conservative government to withdraw this bill or at least accept the amendments.

* (15:50)

Number 1, there are some perspectives that could be used historically to show that the taxi business is a small business. It supports families who engage in it by putting food on the table and sending kids through school and not relying on any other employment except the taxi business. When I was running for MLA in 2011, I found that I had over 40 families just in my area of Tyndall Park who rely on this industry, and those 40 families, they are running it 24 hours, and the biggest source of the income would be the fares that they collect from customers.

And the main difficulty that they had was that they had to work sometimes 12 hours driving from the airport to some destinations and then trying to pick up passengers, let's say, from the casinos or from one end of the city to the other.

And it usually is a very, well, gainful employment for most. And the two largest taxicab companies, Unicity and Duffy's, were comfortable with the way the Taxicab Board was putting some kind of order in the industry. And we had taxicab inspectors, and they were the ones who dealt with the complaints, and they were the ones who were self‑policing the ranks of taxis–taxicab operators.

And the safety concerns of most are usually addressed right away, and the customers were quite happy with the way lost and found items were dealt with by the operators. They are an honest bunch of people. They will not take anything that's not theirs. They will work hard for every penny that they earn.

So it is amazing that when Uber was attempting to get in, the government was very adamant about, well, allowing them in–I mean this government–by abdicating their responsibility. It was a way of deflecting responsibility, deflecting accountability and then creating, as the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Fletcher) said, 137 bureaucracies.

And it is a point that's well taken. I think it is a well-thought-out point that should be taken into account when we see the scrambling of municipalities and cities in coping with the downloading of responsibility and accountability by this government to them.

And in the rush on the part of the Conservative government to download expenses to the municipalities by making them responsible for the taxi industry instead of the Province maintaining its own control over it, the playing field suddenly has turned to be a little bit lopsided. It's lopsided in the sense that the safety regulations are not assured by the provincial government. It will be a mix or a mishmash of regulations that may vary from one municipality to the other, and it will lead to more, well, unsafe conditions, even for the drivers,

My main concern is that some of these people who are now currently engaged in the taxicab industry will lose their livelihood. And there was a very emotional presentation during the hearings in committee where the daughter, who was 19, expressed concerns about them going hungry and losing their livelihood. They lost their dad who was a taxi driver and operator, and it was their mom who was hiring the drivers just to continue with the business.

For them it is a business that–well, I heard the Conservative government, this Conservative government say that they are all for the small business. This is not a very fun way of dealing with small businesses. It really is bothersome because of the 40 families or so who live in my area. Some have spoken really strongly about the difficulties that have been imposed by this government on their families. And, if they were not heard because committee was closed down, it's not very kind to close the ears of the members of the committee to the pleading of these families. They were pleading for help, and I think it does not really amaze me that when people are getting hurt, this government seems to not care. And it's the uncaring attitude that gets to me. It is the uncaring attitude that really is abominable, to say the least.

I would have said something else. I would have said something awful. But it's hurting me too, because those are 40 families in Tyndall Park. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I can see that my time is very short, but I did want to rise in the House this afternoon to simply put on the record that we once again have members of the industry who have come down to this Legislature to speak their voice to make sure that their voice is heard here.

And time and time again we've heard from members of the community, members of the industry who have said that health and safety is their No. 1 priority, and that they stand very firmly and shoulder to shoulder with the people in this province who want to see the taxi industry and the ride-sharing industry held to a higher standard.

And so I want to acknowledge that they have once again come to this Legislature. They've put their voice here on the record. They have joined with us in making sure that these issues are brought to the forefront, and they acknowledge that this government is not listening. And it's absolutely unconscionable that this government left 100 presenters on the list and didn't hear from them. This is unprecedented and should be acknowledged as an affront to our democracy and a real–

* (16:00)

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The time being 4 p.m., I am now interrupting debate to put the question on the remaining report stage amendments without further debate or amendment on the following designated bill, Bill 30.

The House will not adjourn until all applicable questions have been put. If there are any applicable report stage amendments that have yet to be moved, the member bringing the report stage amendment forward will move the motion, but with no debate.

I will now call the question on report stage amendment 1 to clause 3(3) of Bill 30.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: I hear a no.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

I declare the motion lost–or, the honourable Government House Leader–the honourable Official Opposition House Leader.

Recorded Vote

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): [interjection] Soon.

Madam Speaker, can you please summon the members for a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.

Order please. The question before the House is the first amendment of Bill 30, related to clause 3(3).

Division

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

Yeas

Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Smith (Point Douglas), Swan, Wiebe.

Nays

Bindle, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Smith (Southdale), Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.

Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Yeas 17, Nays 38.

Madam Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.

* * *

Madam Speaker: We will now move to the second proposed amendment to Bill 30, The Local Vehicles for Hire Act.

* (16:20)

Mr. Maloway: I move, seconded by the member for Logan (Ms. Marcelino),

THAT Bill 30 be amended by replacing Clauses 10(3) to (5) with the following:

Government to establish compensation commission

10(3) The government must

(a) establish a commission to deliberate and advise the government on what compensation should be payable–as a result of this Act–to the holders of licences issued by the Taxicab Board under The Taxicab Act; and

(b) establish terms of reference for the commission which must, at a minimum, include a requirement for the commission to consider the applicability and impact of the following issues in respect of the holders of licences issued by the Taxicab Board under The Taxicab Act:

(i) regulatory taking;

(ii) expropriation;

(iii) loss of profits;

(iv) loss of goodwill.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), seconded by the honourable member for Logan,

THAT Bill 30 be amended by replacing Clauses 10–

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: I will therefore have to read the whole amendment.

THAT Bill 30 be amended by replacing Clauses 10(3) to (5) with the following:

Government to establish compensation commission

10(3) The government must

(i) regulatory tracking,

(ii) expropriation–

Pardon me.

(i) regulatory taking,

(ii) expropriation,

(iii) loss of profits,

(iv) loss of goodwill.

I will now call the question on that report stage amendment to Bill 30, related to clauses 10(3) to (5).

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: I hear a no.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. Fontaine: Madam Speaker, can you–I'd like to request a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.

The question before the House is the second amendment of Bill 30, related to clauses 10(3) to (5).

Division

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

Yeas

Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Smith (Point Douglas), Swan, Wiebe.

Nays

Bindle, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fletcher, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Smith (Southdale), Smook, Squires, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.

Deputy Clerk: Yeas 16, Nays 38.

Madam Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.

* * *

Madam Speaker: We will now move to the third proposed amendment to Bill 30, the local vehicles hire act.

Mr. Maloway: I move, seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger),

THAT Bill 30 be amended by striking out Clauses 10(3) to (5).

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), seconded by the honourable member for St. Boniface,

THAT Bill 30 be amended by striking out Clauses 10(3) to (5).

I will now call the question on the report stage amendment to Bill 30 related to clauses 10(3) to (5).

All those in favour of the–oh–is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. Fontaine: Madam Speaker, can you summon the members for a recorded vote?

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.

Order, please.

The question before the House is the third amendment for Bill 30, seeking to delete clauses 10(3) to (5).

Division

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

Yeas

Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Smith (Point Douglas), Swan, Wiebe.

Nays

Deputy Clerk: Yeas 17, Nays 38.

Madam Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.

The hour being 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.