LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Madam Speaker: Good afternoon, everybody. Please be seated.
Madam Speaker: Introduction of bills? Committee reports? Tabling of reports?
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade, 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 his statement?
Hon. Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade): Global Entrepreneurship Week is being held November 13th through to the 19th. During this week, thousands of events are held across 160 countries, inspiring millions of people to engage in entrepreneurial activities while connecting them to potential collaborators, mentors and investors.
The initiative is supported by dozens of world leaders and a network of more than 15,000 partner organizations, including Canada's host organization, Futurpreneur Canada, being represented in the House today by our very own Joelle Foster.
Global Entrepreneurship Week allows us to recognize entrepreneurs, and their businesses, as they are the backbone of Manitoba's economy. We came into office with a 10-point plan to grow the economy and increase our competitiveness, inspiring Manitoba companies to start here, grow here and flourish in the global marketplace.
To support entrepreneurs in northern Manitoba, the Manitoba government has developed the Look North action plan.
To make it easier for entrepreneurs to launch and grow their businesses, Manitoba launched the Red Tape Reduction Task Force in January last–of this last year. We also introduced red tape reduction legislation that will ensure the Manitoba government realizes measurable gains with respect to red tape reduction, now and into the future.
I know that all members in this Chamber would agree that we owe much of our province's success to the thousands of entrepreneurs that support our economy, our communities and our families. I'd like to recognize two local entrepreneurs who have joined us today: Meghan Zahari from Bronuts, and Marvic Abarra with–from Caked with Love.
Madam Speaker I ask members of the Assembly today to stand and acknowledge these builders of our Manitoba economy.
Thank you.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): During Global Entrepreneurship Week, every year in November thousands of events, speakers and competitions in 160 countries inspire millions of people to engage in entrepreneurial activity while connecting them to potential collaborators, mentors and even investors.
We want to see a climate that encourages business opportunities across Canada and around the world to allow our local businesses to grow.
However, we are deeply troubled by this government's approach to trade and small- and medium-size enterprises. The Premier (Mr. Pallister) proposed a health tax which would have cost Manitoba small- and medium-sized businesses millions of dollars which could have gone towards expanding their businesses and creating real jobs.
Real investments in small business have been made in this province. When our government reduced the small-business tax to zero per cent, the first in the country to do so, it made it easier for entrepreneurs to develop their businesses, instead, we see a government that is raising hydro rates, making it harder for small and medium businesses and threatening our hard-won Manitoba advantage. Building a climate that supports and nurtures entrepreneurs and small businesses requires work and attention, and it appears the government is not properly engaging.
Madam Speaker, this government talks a big game, but the reality is their approach is disadvantaging entrepreneurs, small- and medium‑size enterprises. Manitoba small business deserves a champion that will advance their interests. Unfortunately, the Pallister government has left those interests behind.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I ask for leave to speak in response to the minister's statement.
Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to respond to the statement? [Agreed]
Ms. Lamoureux: Global Entrepreneurship Week is a celebration of the visionaries, futurpreneurs, and job creators who launch start-ups like Caked with Love and Bronuts, that bring ideas to life and drive our economic growth.
This Tuesday, this government released their legalization of cannabis plan, to the excitement of many Manitoban small-business owners
However, contrary to the Premier's (Mr. Pallister) claims that there would be dozens of retail stores, it appears that only four top bidders will be chosen. This will favour large chains, effectively shutting out Manitoba-owned small businesses, while the minister and Premier like to talk about their made-in-Manitoba plans that are written by consultants who live out of the province and also favour large businesses located out of the province.
Madam Speaker, during this Global Entrepreneurship Week, our caucus is urging this government to rethink their request for proposals on cannabis sales and allow Manitoba small businesses a chance at this opportunity.
Thank you.
Mr. Andrew Smith (Southdale): I rise in the Legislature today to recognize excellence in team sports within my community. This fall, the 2017 Mustangs Black peewee football team were crowned the 2017 provincial AA peewee championship.
In order to achieve this goal, it took many hours of hard work and dedication for both players and coaching staff. This team came together in July, and over the course of the season, the team practised 44 times, enduring blinding heat, driving rain, bitter cold and even a snowstorm, Madam Speaker.
It has been said by their coach, Raj Sharma, that the team truly embodied the spirit of coming together, not just by playing as a team, but as a family. For him, it was a great pleasure to work with such a talented group of young athletes, an experience that he will always fondly remember.
The story of their victory is one that was definitely hard-fought, having to face some significant challenges. The Mustangs were able to amass a 6-2 regular season record, which was good enough for third place in the final standings. Once in the playoffs, during the first round the Mustangs had to overcome a game against the Fort Garry Lions squad, which in turn made way for a matchup against St. Vital, one of the two teams to beat the Mustangs Black in the regular season.
It was an emotional battle with many lead changes during the game, but in the end, the Mustangs Black prevailed with a hard-fought victory. This set up champions against the first-place East Side Eagles, the previous 'seanings' reigning champions who were looking to defeat their title. During that game, through hard work and determination, the Mustangs Black came back from an initial deficit and defeated the Eagles, earning them the title of 'provincian' champions in 2017 season.
It's times like this the most rewarded as an MLA. It is such a privilege to recognize such devoted hard work, leadership and determination.
I wish to ask the House to join me in congratulating the Mustangs Black for their [inaudible]
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Southdale.
Mr. Smith: Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask permission to have the names submitted to Hansard.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to have the names put into Hansard? [Agreed]
Mustangs Black Peewee Football Team. Players: Olaolu Ajakiye, Caiden Britten, Nevan Brown, Rowan Evans, Logan Finnbogason, Sepp Friesen, Braden Forscutt, Maxwell Grieman, Riley Lebrun, Kyree Lewis, Yusuf Omar, John Boubard Pfau, Logan Recksiedler, Kai Sharma, Braeden Smith, Reegan Stoesz, Carlos Teklu, Marcus Wahl, Addison Wright, Andrew Zhong. Coaches: Trevor Forscutt, head coach; Brent Evans; Chris Friesen; Randy Grieman; Raj Sharma; Carlisle Wright. Manager: Tammy Grieman.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Earlier this year, I had several conversations with the Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living (Mr. Goertzen) regarding a drug known as ORKAMBI. This is a drug which is being used to treat cystic fibrosis. Internationally, it has shown amazing results. I also had more detailed discussions with members of his department on this drug. The discussions were based on a request for the Manitoba government to fund the cost of this life-saving treatment option.
The concerns expressed at the time by the department were mainly around the cost-effectiveness of the drug. But, as you have no doubt heard by now, the manufacturer, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, has made the unsolicited offer to negotiate a lower price with the Canadian federal and provincial Health ministers.
I urge this government to participate in a meaningful negotiation with this manufacturer so this life-saving drub–drug can be made available to those in this province who require it and meet the criteria. Time is of the essence, as some Manitobans' lives hang in the balance.
I recognize that drugs such as ORKAMBI can be costly, but would encourage the minister to look at the larger picture of costs associated with ongoing treatment for CF sufferers. This includes hospital and emergency room costs, ongoing drug treatment costs and the potential costs of lung transplants, as that may be required. Additionally, there are ongoing costs associated with diabetes treatment, which many CF patients also develop.
* (13:40)
Most importantly, in your review of this treatment I urge you to look at the cost to individuals and their families in pain and suffering, which cannot have a dollar figure attached. How much is a life worth?
This government needs to participate in the negotiation, along with your counterparts, in ensuring that ORKAMBI becomes available to cystic fibrosis patients in Manitoba as soon as possible.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the Morden Thunder boys' soccer team for winning the provincial rural high school soccer championship.
This achievement by this impressive group of young men is truly historic. Their victory makes it the first time in Morden Collegiate history that a soccer team has won the provincial championship.
The Thunder had a perfect season en route to the provincial final. They went undefeated in zone 4 divisional play. That earned them a spot in the provincial championship tournament. From there, their undefeated run continued. They marched through the quarter- and semi-finals and then, on October the 14th, they ended the two-year reign of provincial champions of Steinbach, defeating them 1-0 in the final game.
Mamadou Turay scored the single goal that cemented the victory. Afterwards, four Thunder players were named season all-stars, and Erik Buchsmann was named the most valuable player of the tournament.
A winning team consists of determined and skilled players, but they are also a result of the commitment and guidance of the coach, David Duerksen, and, outside the soccer pitch, from schoolmates, teachers, community members and family.
I also want to take the time to recognize the achievement of Morden Collegiate Thunder girls' soccer team for also winning the zone 4 division and for finishing as provincial finalists.
Madam Speaker, I invite all members to join me as I congratulate the Morden Collegiate Thunder boys' and girls' soccer teams and celebrate their achievements.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): Yesterday, we celebrated Aboriginal Veterans Day. But if we truly never forget, then anytime our veterans come, we should honour their presence. We paid tribute to the selfless sacrifices made by our indigenous veterans. It was such an honour to be able to meet with and shake hands of the many who have given so much for our country. The contributions of indigenous veterans were on display in a beautiful ceremony at the Neeginan centre.
Indigenous veterans have a long and proud history dating back centuries. Our First Nations people rose to the challenge before they will even legally allowed to. In the past, many First Nation veterans were forced to give up their First Nations status to serve, one of many sacrifices they were willing to make to defend our country and values.
Over 12,000 indigenous men and women fought for Canada. The traditional hunting practices employed by indigenous people served them admirably, making them great snipers, scouts and messengers fighting on the front lines. Many know the stories of how we used our own indigenous languages to act as code talkers, disguising valuable intel so that our enemies could not decipher. I am proud that this was immortalized in the movie Windtalkers, which stars my cousin, Adam Beach.
Unfortunately, many indigenous veterans' service was not met with proper respect. One indigenous veteran stated that the Metis served–received the worst treatment of all. While First Nations veterans were sent back to their reserves, the Metis received absolutely nothing.
It is important that we remember to treat our veterans with the respect they deserve and never to forget those we have lost.
I'd also like to give this time to give a shout-out to the–all the indigenous Rangers and cadets out there, and let's stand and applaud and honour our veterans here with us today.
Miigwech.
Mr. Jon Reyes (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, Remembrance Day: we have heard many stories of those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. But let me share with all of you what Remembrance Day means to me.
As a child, I remember lining up to go into the school gym for school Remembrance Day ceremonies. I remember being part of the Remembrance Day service when I served in the Canadian Armed Forces. And now, in my role as Special Envoy for Military Affairs, I attend many events and see many veterans. I'm always, always thanking them and their families for their service.
But, honestly, Madam Speaker, Remembrance Day never really hit me as it did on August of 2007.
I was in Oakville, Ontario, on business, staying at a hotel and, you know, every morning you wake up and at the door is the newspaper. And that's when I noticed two soldiers on the front page and one looked very familiar to me. I fell to my knees and wept all day.
Madam Speaker, this week for him–I weep every time I think of him: Master Corporal Duchesne; age: 34; hometown: Montreal, Quebec; unit: 5th Field Ambulance, 5 Area Support Group, Valcartier, Quebec; deceased August 22, 2007. The incident was a landmine, Afghanistan.
I went to boot camp with Chris, and we kept in touch. I was his translator in boot camp, as at times he struggled with English.
The shock of his passing hit me hard. Once back in Winnipeg, I grabbed my album of my boot camp photos and there we were: two young men, ready to serve the country that we love. Chris had two daughters and a wife when he left us. I could not imagine leaving my wife and two children that soon. And as a veteran myself, I often reflect on the sacrifices of all who fought for freedom, equality and our rights as Canadians.
On behalf of all Manitobans, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to our veterans and active military personnel for your service and sacrifice in the pursuit of peace and defence of democracy. I encourage all Manitobans to learn about the sacrifices and achievements made by those who have served and continue to serve during times of war and peace.
As well, I invite all Manitobans to become involved in remembrance activities and preserve the legacy for future generations. On November 11th join in the great unifying tradition of honouring our military personnel, past and present, by observing the minute of silence, wearing a poppy or showing your support by attending public memorial events.
And to the dozens of veterans joining us today in the gallery, we could never thank you enough. My colleagues in the Legislative Assembly extend to all our sincere appreciating for your service. You are all a source of national pride. Thank you for having defended the core values that defines us as Canadians.
Thank you, Sergeant Tommy Prince; thank you, Wing Commander Billy Barker; and thank you to my friend, Master Corporal Chris Duchesne.
We will remember them.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Introduction of Guests
Madam Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I would like to introduce to you some guests that we have here with us today.
I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Randi Gage, veteran and founder of Aboriginal Veterans Day; Gerry Woodman, president, The Royal Winnipeg Rifles Association; Scott Stroh, master seaman; Eric Grehan, retired major; and Joe Meconse, veteran, Order of Manitoba, who are the guests of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Reyes).
We'd like to welcome you.
Seated in the loge to my left, we have Bonnie Korzeniowski, former member for St. James.
Also in the public gallery today we welcome Dianne Dick, and she is the sister and guest of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Bindle).
And also seated in the public gallery from Westgate Mennonite Collegiate, 36 grade 9 students under the direction of Jeremy Siemens, and this group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer).
And also seated in the public gallery from Oak Bluff Community School we have 22 grade 7 and 8 students under the direction of Paola Vieira, and this group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Martin).
On behalf of all members here, we welcome all of you to the Manitoba Legislature.
Request to Reverse Funding Decisions
Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, I'd like to begin by saying that that was a very powerful moment that we just witnessed, and I want to acknowledge all the veterans who are here in the House today. Randi, Joe, Tommy, the Portuguese soldiers association, all of the veterans, I want to thank you for your service, in addition to the members for Kildonan (Mr. Curry) and for St. Norbert. We really appreciate you. And in particular, to our colleague from St. Norbert, it takes a strong man to be able to shed tears, but you do so in a good way and you honour your comrade. So my heart is with you and thank you for sharing that.
And we know that health care is a very important issue here in Manitoba, and it is one that we have been standing up for all session and asking the Premier and his ministers to reverse the course that they're currently on.
So I'd ask again for him to stop the health-care cuts in Manitoba.
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): This week, all weeks, we honour our veterans, Madam Speaker. We honour them for their courage in facing their fears. Their legacy is our behaviour. We model our respect in the way we respond to challenge. We model our respect for their valour by demonstrating courage ourselves.
They saw greater challenges. They faced those challenges head on. They did not turn. They did not retreat. They did not walk away. We will not either, Madam Speaker, in the face of the challenges that we must face as a government.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Kinew: We know that the Premier's closed three emergency rooms across Winnipeg, has shuttered an urgent-care centre, closed the mature women's health clinic, fired lactation consultants and slashed outpatient physiotherapy and occupational therapy services, and our concern is to stand up for the people of Manitoba who depend on these health-care services.
Now, in particular, I was reading a letter recently from a physiotherapist, and I would table this letter for the benefit of the Premier and the Minister of Health, arguing that scientific evidence shows that the role of rehabilitation in the restoration and function of services provided by physio is very, very important. And she argues that the removal of these services will have significant negative impacts on the individuals who do not have the resources to access privately available services.
So I'd ask the Premier again: Will he reverse his decision to cut outpatient physio and OT services in Manitoba?
Mr. Pallister: It is understandable, Madam Speaker, that the member opposite is afraid, that his party is afraid. And courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is the willingness to act in the face of fear. That is what we celebrate at Remembrance Day. That is how we honour our veterans and we do not honour them by backing away from the fear that is inevitable when we must tackle difficult challenges. This is a difficult challenge. It requires all hands on deck. It requires courage.
The previous–the member references science and research. The previous government knew there was a problem. They knew there was a broken system, but they did not demonstrate the courage to act to fix it, despite the compelling evidence that we were last of all the provinces in so many key services. This lack of willingness to act does not demonstrate compassion for the people who were waiting longer than everyone else across the country, in fear and in pain, for services.
Madam Speaker, they broke the system. We will fix it.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Kinew: On the subject of changing course or backing down, compassion would dictate when people reach out and ask for you to change the direction that their lives, that their suffering may be aggravated by your decisions, a true leader would listen and change course. That is compassion, Madam Speaker.
This physiotherapist, who is an expert in her field with a doctoral degree, argues that her concern, and I quote, is that individuals will suffer by not having their comprehensive medical health needs met as guaranteed by the Canada Health Act.
That is the nature of the impact that these cuts will be bringing onto patients who need these services in Manitoba. We know that there are hundreds of people on the wait-list right now who do not have third-party insurance, and they will be directly impacted.
Will the Premier reverse course and cancel his plan for cuts for physio and occupational outpatient services?
Mr. Pallister: The member speaks of compassion, but fails to demonstrate it in his commitment to courageously act in the face of the fears that are inevitable, Madam Speaker. They are inevitable when one tries to change a system.
The member says it would be worse. Madam Speaker, it could only be worse if we fell further behind ninth. We have the longest waits in Canada. We inherited a system that was broken and Manitobans spoke up in the last election and said they want a government to act, not a government to preach fear, not a government to foment discontent, not a government that will stand up for only one small aspect of the population while ignoring the needs of all the rest.
Madam Speaker, we are standing up for Manitoba–Manitobans to receive better health care, not 10th out of 10, not a broken system, a better system that delivers services compassionately–better care and sooner too.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Public Opportunity to Present at Committee
Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): These cuts are short-sighted. After they take place Manitoba will be the only province that does not offer these types of physio services. That will make Manitoba 10th out of 10. That will make Manitoba last place when it comes to health care.
We also know that this Premier is flouting democratic traditions when it comes to this House. He refused to call committees for some bills where we have received dozens and dozens of letters and emails with respect to the transit cuts. He's also shut down committee for the first time in recent memory, leaving hundreds of people on the list without having an opportunity to speak. Why are we seeing these, you know, flouting of democratic traditions increasing in a Harperesque style under this Premier?
Will the Premier commit to changing these undemocratic ways? Will he ensure that all future committees will be able to hear from all presenters?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, these are Ashtonesque rules, if that's even a word, Madam Speaker. These are the rules that were fine with the NDP when they were in government and we're abiding by them.
The man is trying to suck and blow simultaneously. The fact of the matter is we're abiding by the rules as they wrote them, and so if he had an objection he can raise it with his former leadership contender, I suppose.
But the fact remains the member speaks about 10th. Finally, he speaks about something of which the NDP has expertise. Creating a health-care system where we're last is something they were incredibly good at, Madam Speaker, to the detriment of Manitobans: last in eyes, hips, knees; last in emergency room access; the longest waits in Canada.
Madam Speaker, this is not a system that was working for Manitobans. Where is the compassion for Manitobans who waited 600,000 hours in emergency rooms in the last year the NDP was in power? No demonstration of that when the man says retreat in the face of the need to face the challenges of change.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Kinew: Where was the compassion for students who showed up yesterday to exercise their democratic right to voice their opposition to the tuition hikes that this Premier is bringing in?
I visited with the students who were assembled quietly in the hallway outside the First Minister's office. They were sitting there silently, reading, and yet rather than allowing these people access to their House where we are in the bastion of democracy, rather than allowing that, the Premier oversaw them being kicked out of the Leg.
So the ability of people to protest and to come to the Legislature, for them to be able to exercise their right to free speech in a democracy should be sacrosanct.
And we are wondering, why is the Premier continuing with these undemocratic ways, and will he commit to allowing students to have their say and not be kicked out of the Legislature again?
* (14:00)
Mr. Pallister: The member weakens his credibility and his argument when he puts misinformation on the record, as he has just done, Madam Speaker. But I'll let the facts reveal themselves and his false statements will reveal themselves as well.
Madam Speaker, I have defended and will continue to defend the rights of all Manitobans to express their views. I will defend the rights of free speech. I will continue to do that.
They staged a rebellion, Madam Speaker, a historic rebellion, for the very reason that they couldn't communicate with one another freely, openly and in a co-operative manner. As much as I respect the rights of all protestors to speak their view, I also never forget the people who are not able to be here. There are generations to come who will depend on us to manage our health-care system in such a manner that it is available to them as well, and sustainable health care matters to all of us, and it should matter to the member opposite, though he has yet to reveal that it is a concern.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Kinew: Generations to come will be paying much higher tuition as a result of the actions of this Premier, and it is the next generation of leaders in our province who came into these halls yesterday in an attempt to have their voices heard, and yet they were shut down. They were shut out, they were kicked out and they were only allowed to be re‑admitted after, you know, a very, you know, tenuous negotiation process.
The doors to the Legislative Building should be open. They should be open for people who want to raise their voice against what they perceive as harmful legislation. The ability of committees to hear from the public should not be impeded by a government's refusal to call such a committee, and, again, in general, we stand against the undemocratic direction that this Premier is taking.
Will he commit in the next legislative session to changing his ways?
Mr. Pallister: We just demonstrated our belief in Manitobans' need to be heard and our willingness to listen by conducting a prebudget exercise that's historic in its nature and scope. We heard from over 35,000 Manitobans, over 10,000 of them public servants. We've listened. I've read the individual comments. I read the comments that are made in the committee, and my colleagues here take very seriously the responsibilities we've been given. We value the opinions of the people of Manitoba. We'll continue to be a listening government.
When the member speaks about undemocratic, he must be–he must be–fooling himself in the process of speaking about it or ignoring the performance of the previous NDP government when they took away the right of Manitobans to even vote on a measure they introduced, which was a PST hike, which they absolutely promised they would not invoke. They took away the right of Manitobans to vote, and the member lectures me on preserving democratic rights. I think he speaks facetiously, Madam Speaker.
Impact on Front-Line Services
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Well, Madam Speaker, yes, I will agree with something the Premier said today in question period. Something is broken. What's broken is this Premier's (Mr. Pallister) promise to Manitobans before the last election that he would protect front-line services.
The minister doesn't think that ERs at Concordia, Seven Oaks and Victoria that he's closing and the urgent-care centre at Misericordia he's already closed are front-line services. The minister doesn't think 23 EMS stations that he's cutting are front-line services. The minister doesn't think that physiotherapy and occupational therapy services being gutted are front-line services.
I think we could all save some time today if the minister would just stand in his place and tell us: What is a front-line service?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Well, Madam Speaker, I will apologize to this House. I am two days late in correcting misinformation that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Kinew) put on the record, but there is so much that he puts on it's hard to keep up.
But he did say a couple of days ago that the wait times at the Health Sciences Centre had been going up as a result of the phase 1 changes. I want to report to the–him and to the House that on November 6th the wait time at HSC emergency room was 50 minutes; on November 7th it was 80 minutes; and on November 8th, yesterday, it was 50 minutes–among the lowest they've been in the last two years, Madam Speaker. [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
The honourable member for Minto, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Swan: The minister doesn't think lactation consultants, who used to help new mothers at Health Sciences Centre breastfeed their babies, were delivering front-line services. The minister doesn't think that audiologists at Health Sciences Centre were delivering front-line services and he doesn't think the Mature Women's Centre at Victoria General Hospital was providing front-line services.
Manitobans want to know: In the face of these repeated cuts, what does this minister believe is a front-line service?
Mr. Goertzen: Well, Madam Speaker, it's as though the member for Minto is suffering from 17 years of amnesia. He's completely forgotten the last 17 years. He's completely forgotten how the former government poured billions of dollars into a health-care system that got worse and worse and worse every year. People waited longer; people waited longer in emergency rooms; people waited longer for procedures, and that member, the member for Minto, he sat in Cabinet–while he stayed in Cabinet–and he said nothing about that. Now he wants to stand up and talk about front-line services, talk about services at all. He should've talked about it then.
We're fixing them. I wish he'd stand with us as we better the system, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto, on a final supplementary.
Mr. Swan: Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I will continue to speak out for Manitobans across this province about a Premier that broke his promise–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: –about a Premier that broke his promise to Manitobans before the last election to protect front-line services.
We know that people working in the system are trying to understand how a government that made these promises can ignore them and, even worse, fire them.
The minister doesn't think the 40 nurses at Victoria that are now unemployed were providing front-line services. The minister doesn't think the 14 nurses at Deer Lodge Centre, providing services to veterans, were providing front-line services.
Nurses, technicians, health-care aides and others are concerned about themselves, their co-workers and above all, their patients.
What is a front-line service according to this Minister of Health?
Mr. Goertzen: Well, the member for Minto asked what is a front-line service? A front-line service is getting a real service in a reasonable time. A front-line service is not waiting for 600,000 cumulative hours in an emergency room. A front-line service isn't waiting for months and months and months while you're in pain waiting for a hip replacement or a knee replacement.
That is what the member for Minto defended when he was in government. That's his definition of a front-line service. It'll never be this government's definition of a front-line service, Madam Speaker.
Mature Women's Centre Closure
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): We're seeing an unprecedented attack on Manitoba women and girls' reproductive health. The Pallister government closed the Mature Women's Centre, a world-class facility in menopausal medicine with two highly specialized health-care practitioners who served over 5,000 women just last year.
Dr. Boroditsky stated very publicly that this is an attack on Manitoba women, and I quote: This is a catastrophic blow to the provision of access to innovative health care for the women of Manitoba–clearly, an attack on women's reproductive health.
Will the minister apologize to Manitoba women and immediately full reinstate the mature woman's centre?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): The specialized services from the mature women's health clinic have been moved to the Health Sciences Centre. It's in keeping with the moving of specialized services and putting them into one particular facility so that we can have the proper resources to ensure that those who need care can get care more quickly. The specialized services have moved to the HSC, close to the new Women's Hospital, which will be opening not as quick as we'd like, but relatively shortly, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a supplementary question.
Request to Reinstate Lactation Positions
Ms. Fontaine: Next, the Premier (Mr. Pallister) thought that breastfeeding mothers and their newborn babies would make an ideal cohort for–to cut services from. So he cut two lactation consultants, pushing their vital expertise onto already busy nurses.
* (14:10)
Brett Mann, a mother of two who organized a rally in front of the legislator stated, and I quote: People need to understand that this type of service isn't frivolous. It's not redundant. It's not something you can just roll into the duties of other nurses. It is almost as front-line as you can get–clearly, another attack on women's reproductive health.
Will the minister apologize to Manitoba new mothers and immediately reinstate the two lactation consultant positions?
Mr. Goertzen: Madam Speaker, there were two lactation consultants. The savings from those two individuals are being used to train all of the nurses that are involved in that unit. So, actually, there'll be now dozens of nurses who are trained in those services.
What the member opposite is advocating for is less. She's adding–advocating for us to cut lactation services. I wonder why she would want less services, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a final supplementary.
Access and Availability of Mifegymiso
Ms. Fontaine: Now we see the Premier limiting reproductive choice when his Minister of Health can't even be bothered to answer questions on Mifegymiso or even say the word abortion.
The Premier and his ministers are limiting access to the abortion pill on the one hand and claiming they're fostering reproductive choice on the other. Choice only occurs, Madam Speaker, when women and girls are offered the full range of reproduction options. Now they're inventing new obstacles to access when Health Canada just eased the restrictions–clearly, another attack on women's reproductive health.
Will the minister apologize and commit to fully paying for the abortion pill and ensuring access across Manitoba?
Mr. Goertzen: Madam Speaker, health-care providers follow the practice guidelines which are set out from Health Canada when it comes to prescribing this pill and other pills. They'll continue to follow those guidelines.
We take women's health very seriously. We're happy to be investing in a number of different areas of women's health, not the least of which will be the new Women's Hospital which will be among the best in Canada.
I know that the member opposite wants to stand and try to create fear like the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Kinew). She doesn't do women, men or anybody else in Manitoba any good by taking that line of attack, Madam Speaker.
Home-Care and Mental Health Services
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Things are getting harder in the North. We know the NHRA was forced to find savings, and now it appears that some of those savings are in home-care and mental health services. My constituents are telling me that this government is reducing the number of hours they get for essential home-care services.
Will the Minister for Health acknowledge that his northern health-care cuts are hurting our most vulnerable Manitobans, and ensure that adequate home care is available to all northern Manitobans?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Well, Madam Speaker, I'm not sure which cuts the member is referring to. This government invested $23 million in the Flin Flon General Hospital, the new emergency department redevelopment. And I would say, when the member opposite had the opportunity to actually put his actions behind his words, he decided to vote against that very investment.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Lindsey: Things are getting harder in the North. We know that this government is forecasting the loss of at least 1,500 jobs in northern Manitoba. Losing a job can have a devastating consequence for a person's mental health, especially when they live in a remote–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lindsey: –community.
Will this government commit to expanding on‑site access to mental health services in northern Manitoba towns and First Nation communities?
Mr. Goertzen: Well, Madam Speaker, I guess I admit to being a little bit confused. The member opposite wants to see expansion of facilities. We invested $700,000 in Lynn Lake in the EMS facility, and then the member voted against it. I don't know what he wants.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a final supplementary.
Gasoline Subsidy
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Things are getting harder in the North. We know that the cost of gasoline is going up by 30 per cent–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lindsey: –in Churchill–as much as 50 cents a litre–because this government has refused to take action on the Churchill rail line. The people of Churchill feel that this government isn't listening to them and they're going to need more help getting through the winter.
Will the government help the people of Churchill by listening to their needs and granting them a subsidy on the price of gasoline?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Well, Madam Speaker, this government does listen to people, whether it's prebudget consultations or food subsidies for those in the North who are facing challenging times, as all Manitobans know.
Of course, we'd like to see support from the federal government, but we'd even like to see support from the members opposite. I listed off a series of investments. In fact, since we've come to government we put $27.6 million of investments into health care in the North.
And those things really only have one thing in common. That member who purports to represent his constituents and the North, for whatever reason voted against every one of them, Madam Speaker.
Transplant Recipients in Manitoba
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): My family was at emergency recently and saw a doctor in the hallway. Maybe that's the minister's 50-minute measure.
There has been over a decade of evidence on the forced organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience in China. Winnipeg-based human rights lawyer David Matas and former MP, Honourable David Kilgour, have jointly investigated this issue since 2006. Their updated report published in 2016 concluded that the issue is still ongoing, despite China announcing they stopped using death row prisoners.
Can the minister tell us, to avoid complicity, what can our province do to respond to this issue?
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Well, Madam Speaker, when it comes to any human rights violation, wherever they may occur in any place in the world, I think that what we can do as Canadians, as Canadians have always done, and today we celebrate our veterans here in the House and we'll celebrate them on November 11th.
But they led the way. Canadians should always and will always speak out where they see atrocities in different parts of the world. That is why Canada is seen as a guiding light, a beacon to many countries in the world. That's why people want to come to Canada.
So I would say that all Canadians need to speak out whenever they see human atrocities wherever they occur, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kewatinook, on a supplementary question.
Ms. Klassen: Countries like Israel, Spain and Taiwan have changed their legislation to combat the forced organ harvesting issue. Part of the legislative change is to not pay for insurance for patients' transplant aftercare medical services if they obtain organs from unknowing or unconsented sources like China.
Is our province paying for aftercare medical services for patients who come back from such countries? How can our medical services here in Manitoba educate patients of these issues and advise them of going–advise them against going to places like China for organ transplants?
Mr. Goertzen: Well, Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for raising the issue. I believe that she raises it with all the best intentions.
And, certainly, Canada, regardless of the issue, has often spoken out about issues around the world where there's been concerns about human atrocities and where individual rights and civil liberties have been impeded upon.
Certainly, when it comes to Department of Health, we care greatly about where individuals are involved where there might be issues where–things that wouldn't be done in the way that we would expect in Canada.
As legislators we all have a responsibility. We all have a responsibility to raise issues, to bring light into areas of darkness, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the member raising the question.
* (14:20)
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kewatinook, on a final supplementary.
Ms. Klassen: David Matas and David Kilgour have spent over 10 years investigating the forced organ harvesting issue in China. They have found that Falun Gong practitioners in China were major targets of organ pillaging. Winnipeg has a very active Falun Gong community who contribute to our province.
How can the Manitoba–Province provide support for the Falun Gong's group truth-telling activities and stand in solidarity with this group to raise awareness of the persecution of their counterparts in China?
Mr. Goertzen: Madam Speaker, I certainly know the Falun Gong community is active in Winnipeg. I've had the opportunity to attend some of their information meetings, and I think how Manitobans and–more generally, Winnipeggers specifically, and all Canadians can be of a benefit to any group who is trying to raise awareness about human rights violations around the world.
How they can be involved is how Canada has always been involved: by speaking out, by advocating, by raising issues as the member has done here in the House. That is why Canada is recognized around the world as one of the great leaders when it comes to human and civil rights, Madam Speaker, and I'm sure that Canadians today and Canadians in the future will continue that.
Increased Cattle Numbers
Mr. Rick Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture about the steps being taken by his department and the sector stakeholders to promote profitable and sustainable growth of our province's beef industry.
Hon. Ralph Eichler (Minister of Agriculture): I thank the member from Swan River for that important question.
And I share with this House that, after a steady decline in our beef numbers, our producers were able to raise the number of beef cows in the province by a average of 3 per cent over the previous year. As well, the number of beef replacement heifers rose to over 71,000 head this year. In addition to–the 7,000 cattle producers recorded beef sales over $550 million over 2016.
We are proud to work with our livestock producers and, of course, all our farm families to make Manitoba the most improved province in all of Canada.
Request to Withdraw
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Madam Speaker, tuition costs in Manitoba should be affordable so that post-secondary education can be accessible to all students. Instead, this government plans to raise tuition by over 30 per cent over the next four years while failing to raise crucial scholarship and bursary funds that students need to keep up. On top of that, removing the tax rebate puts students even further away from being able to keep education affordable and support themselves through school and beyond.
Post-secondary education in Manitoba should not be a debt sentence. Will this minister stop Bill 31 and remove it right now?
Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for the question. He knows that we have a very strong ongoing program with the Manitoba Scholarship and Bursary Initiative to help Manitoba students, and we are working constructively with our post-secondary education institutions to make sure that we have a long-term, sustainable program.
This is about making education sustainable now and into the future. They never plan for the future.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Wiebe: Madam Speaker, we're talking about students' futures here today and Manitobans have been absolutely crystal clear on this. The government doesn't have its priorities straight. The government is more concerned about the Premier's (Mr. Pallister) arbitrary austerity targets rather than concerned about keeping tuition affordable, and has been more concerned about that than giving students a good start, a good education and allowing them to graduate and find a job and raise a family here in this province.
This government doesn't seem to care that they're hurting these Manitoba students and that they're hurting families by raising tuition and removing tax rebates.
Will this minister reverse course today on this harmful policy and withdraw Bill 31?
Mr. Wishart: As I said earlier, we have put in place a very robust program through Manitoba scholarships bursary initiative and a bursary program that has improved the program from the $4 million that previously existed under the former government to $20 million under our government.
While they were in power, what did they do with that program? They cut it one year and froze it four others.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia, on a final supplementary. [interjection]
Order.
Mr. Wiebe: The minister refuses to acknowledge that his targets, his own targets are not being met and that his program is falling short of what students need.
Students came to the Legislature yesterday to deliver 4,000 postcards that they collected, signed from students and Manitobans across this province. They're here again today because they won't miss an opportunity to engage in the democratic process, to engage with this government and to have their voices heard.
So I ask one last time: Is this minister listening? Will he listen to students, and will he withdraw Bill 31?
Madam Speaker: Oh. Order, please. Order. Order, please. Order, please.
I'm sure our guests in the gallery are very aware of the rules. There's also to be no photography taken while a member–a person is in our gallery. I'm sure all the members have received the rules when they entered the gallery and there are to be no demonstrations, no props and you have all broken the rules of our Chamber.
Now, that is a very serious offence here. It is not something that we take lightly and it is not, and I'm sure everybody knows, it's–people in the gallery are not allowed to participate in what is happening here on the floor of the Manitoba Legislature. And, assuming you've all read the rules, I'm very disappointed to actually see what just happened today. And I'm sure there will be further clarification given to all the students. And I see the mocking as one is leaving, and I'm not taking that very lightly.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Order.
I take this issue very, very seriously. There can be a security issue to some of this. There can be, you know, a number of other issues. Everybody here knows the rules.
And I'm just going to say I hope there was no encouragement by anybody in this room to encourage the students to do what they just did. Those rules are very clear and everybody here knows what those rules are, and I am very concerned to see that happen and I am really hoping that there was no participation by anybody in this room to encourage those students to do that.
Mr. Wishart: I certainly understand that students feel very frustrated, but they should feel frustrated at the previous government. During the 17 years that they were in power, Manitoba, which had the third highest participation rates in post-secondary education at that time, in 1999, went from third to dead last.
They should be frustrated because the previous government gave them very poor opportunities and very poor results in post-'secondy' education. Now we're dead last and 10 percentage points off the national average.
* (14:30)
Bureau de l'éducation française
Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): I did intend to ask a question in French; however, I'd, you know, like to say in English first: there was no encouragement and I have a deep respect for your role as the Speaker and I have a profound respect for the role of the Chair in our democracy, and it's on that basis that I just want to express, you know, my, you know, deep respect for you and to say that, you know, I don't want to see your Chair disrespected in the future.
Alors, Madame la présidente, mon question est sur la suppression de la poste pour le sous-ministre adjoint dans le Bureau d'éducation française, un poste très important pour la communauté franco-manitobaine.
Alors, je pose ma question au Premier ministre: pourquoi a-t-il supprimé le poste de l'adjoint de le Bureau d'éducation française?
Translation
So, Madam Speaker, my question has to do with the elimination of the assistant deputy minister position in the Bureau de l’éducation française, a position that is very important for the Franco-Manitoban community.
So my question to the Premier is why did he eliminate the assistant deputy minister position in the Bureau de l’éducation française?
Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Madam Speaker, I'll accept the word of the member for Fort Rouge in respect of his statement that he did not encourage those students, but I wonder at the disappearance of the member to his right side instantly upon their evacuation from this Chamber for their conduct. I have to wonder at that, and I will encourage the member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine) to elaborate when given the opportunity as to why it would be that she would run out and meet with the students who were not encouraged at all by her leader.
I also have to say–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Oh, order, please.
I would just point out that there's no points of order to be raised during question period.
The honourable First Minister, to conclude his statement.
Mr. Pallister: Thank you.
However, there is a contradiction here, Madam Speaker, because during an earlier preamble the member falsely presented information to the Chamber in respect of my role in evacuating from the building or ejecting from the building certain students. This is false information. The member put that on the record. In doing so he also reflected on the quality of the work that is done by civil servants in this building who put themselves at risk, who are front-line security personnel who are asked to enforce the rules of this place.
And so, Madam Speaker, if he has such respect for the rules of this place, I'd like him to show the same respect for the people who are put in the position of having to enforce the rules of this place, as well.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question.
Mr. Kinew: Merci beaucoup, Madame la présidente.
Une des règles le plus profond dans notre province est que la langue française est une des langues fondatrices du Manitoba. Alors ça c’est pourquoi la décision du Premier ministre pour supprimer la rôle de le sous-ministre adjoint de le Bureau d’éducation française est si concernant. Et puis la Loi 5 avait pour but d'exiger que la conseil consultatif sera consulté avant toute décision impliquant les Franco-manitobains.
Alors je demande encore au Premier ministre pourquoi est ce qu'il a supprimé la rôle de l'adjoint pour le Bureau d'éducation française.
Translation
Thank you Madam Speaker.
Among the most long-standing rules in our province is that the French language is one of the founding languages of Manitoba. So that is why the Premier’s decision to eliminate the assistant deputy minister position in the Bureau de l’éducation française is such a concern. And also Bill 5 requires that the advisory council be consulted with respect to any decisions having to do with the Franco-Manitoban community.
So I ask the Premier again why he eliminated the assistant deputy minister position in the Bureau de l’éducation française?
Mr. Pallister: I would like to use this opportunity, given that it may be my last opportunity in the Chamber, to say to our veterans, go into the world in peace, have courage, hold on to what is good and return to no one evil for evil, strengthen the faint-hearted, support the weak, help the suffering, honour all people, pursue justice and act with compassion and walk humbly with the Creator.
These veterans are our inspiration, all of us here, and I encourage all members to share and enjoy the celebration of their valour in the coming days. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.
Point of Order
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: On a point of order.
Mr. Gerrard: There has been a very long-standing tradition in this Chamber that members don't refer to the absence of somebody else. There was a reference to the disappearance of one of our MLAs, and it seems to me that that contradicts the long-standing practice that we have had in this Chamber.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker: The member does have a point of order. We are not to be making reference to people's presence or absence in the Chamber.
Madam Speaker: I have a statement for the House.
As the House is expected to adjourn later tonight for our break week, and as the francophone youth parliament will be using the Chamber this weekend, I would encourage all honourable members to remove the contents of their desks today. I would further encourage members to recycle as much of the material as possible. The blue bins here in the Chamber are designated for recycling of Hansard only. Any other material you would like to recycle may be placed in the larger recycling containers in the message rooms located just outside the Chamber.
Thank you.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
Bill 36, the budget implementation and statutes amendment act, 2017, section 88(8)–
Audio system failure
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview.
I understand there might have been a mic problem. So I will recognize him again. The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview.
Mr. Allum: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll start from the top, if that's okay.
I wish to present the following petition–[inaudible]
Madam Speaker: Order, please. It is my understanding that there are only three mics in the front that are currently not working. So if there are other members in the back row that–or the second row that would care to read their petitions, we could do that now and then come back to the front row.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Thank you, Madam–[inaudible]
Madam Speaker: Let's try this again with the honourable member for Flin Flon.
Mr. Lindsey: Thank you, Madam Speaker–[inaudible]
Madam Speaker: No.
Would–the honourable member for Tyndall Park, let's try yours.
Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): I don't need a mic.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Marcelino: Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
And the background to this petition is as follows:
(1) 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.
* (14:40)
[inaudible] to protect the front-line workers who deliver those services.
(3) 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 further for emergency health care.
(4) 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 primary health care in their own communities.
(5) The Premier cancelled $1 billion in health 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 Pan Am Clinic, two new personal-care homes and an international centre for palliative care.
(6) 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, a home-care program for the chronically ill.
(7) The budget cuts have also 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.
(8) 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 government health-care system in order to protect and improve patient care.
This petition was 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.
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.
(3) Regulations have been put in place that has made Winnipeg a leader in protecting the safety of taxi drivers through the installation of shields and cameras–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
The member for Elmwood can continue.
Mr. Maloway: (4) The regulated taxi system also has significant measures in place to protect passengers, including a stringent compliant 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–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: The member can continue.
Mr. Maloway: –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, Madam Speaker, this petition is signed by many, many Manitobans.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): I wish to present–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Order.
It seems that mic perhaps might not be working.
Is there somebody else–okay, let's try the honourable member for Minto.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Thank you, Madam Speaker–[inaudible]
Madam Speaker: No.
Let's try the honourable member for Flin Flon.
Mr. Lindsey: [inaudible]
Madam Speaker: No. I think we're going to have to just wait a minute here 'til we can get this technical glitch figured out.
We'll try the honourable member for Concordia.
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker–[inaudible]
Madam Speaker: No. We'll just wait a minute or two to see if we can–we are going to recess and we will ring the bells for one minute prior to resuming.
The House recessed at 2:49 p.m.
____________
The House resumed at 6:40 p.m.
Madam Speaker: Good evening, everybody. Please be seated.
Madam Speaker: I have a brief statement for the House which I think we'll all need to hear, and then I will recognize the honourable member for River Heights.
I would like to advise the House that, due to technical difficulties, the microphones are not working. To provide a remedy, two microphones have been set up on either side of the House for the use of members who wish to speak in debate. These microphones will not be providing amplification in the House. They are being used to record the proceedings for Hansard. For this reason, it will be very important that background noise is kept to a minimum this evening.
We will be providing chairs, and there are chairs here for members who may wish to move closer to hear the proceedings in case somebody's voices are not loud enough.
As the recess started at 2:49 p.m., we will adjust our time accordingly. The new deadline for consideration of designated bills will be one hour and 11 minutes after the start of our resumption, which will be 7:50 p.m. We will pick up where we left off, but first I will recognize the honourable member for River Heights.
* * *
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights, on a matter of privilege.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Briefly, this needs to be raised at the earliest possible time. I think, as you will see as I go into this issue, that that is the case.
I'm going to quote, briefly, from page 66 in Marleau and Montpetit: "Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a 'breach of privilege' and is punishable by the House."
There are, however, many affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges.
Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action, though not a breach of a specific privilege, which tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties.
Now the reason that I raise this is that in this occasion, we have had planning for this session which is such that we have outstanding on the Order Paper, Estimates for Municipal Relations; Sport, Culture and Heritage; Growth, Enterprise and Trade; Civil Service Commission; Enabling and Other Appropriations; Legislative Assembly and Employee Pensions and Other Costs.
And, although we have got 16 hours and 56 minutes on the Order Paper as for Estimates, there is no way we're going to get an adequate addressing of the Estimates that are remaining. And this is a result of poor management of the time of the Legislature, and I think it's important that this is raised now because the last thing we want is a slippery slope where the proper consideration of the Estimates is not provided before this Legislature. And it will not happen this time around, but this must not happen again, because this is really very bad management of the House.
And I'm not going to go into more details, but I will move, seconded by the MLA for Kewatinook, that this matter be referred on an urgent basis to the Rules Committee of the House to be addressed so that this problem does not arise again.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Merci.
Madam Speaker: On the matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), I would like to inform the House that a matter concerning the methods by which the House proceeds in the conduct of business is a matter of order, not privilege.
Joseph Maingot, in the second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, states on page 14 that allegations of breach of privilege by a member in the House that amount to complaints about procedures and practices in the House are by their very nature matters of order.
He also states on page 223 of the same edition, a breach of the standing orders or a failure to follow an established practice would invoke a point of order rather than a question of privilege.
On this basis, I would therefore rule that the honourable member does not have a prima facie case of privilege.
Mr. Gerrard: Madam Speaker, in terms of disagreeing with the Speaker, I would ask for a recorded vote.
I challenge the ruling.
Madam Speaker: Does the member have support of three members for challenging the ruling?
There is support. A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour–no? The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.
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
Mr. Gerrard: A recorded vote, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
Order.
Shall–the question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Allum, Altemeyer, Bindle, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Fontaine, Friesen, Goertzen, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Lindsey, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Reyes, Schuler, Selinger, Smith (Southdale), Smook, Stefanson, Swan, Teitsma, Wharton, Wiebe, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Fletcher, Gerrard, Klassen, Lamoureux, Saran.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 41, Nays 5.
* (19:00)
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
And 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, including closing down the emergency room at Concordia Hospital.
(2) The closures come on the heels of the closing of a–of 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 who 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.
And this petition is signed by many Manitobans.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
(1) 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."
(2) Public transit is critical to Manitoba's economy, to preserving its infrastructure and to reducing the carbon footprint.
(3) The 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.
This petition is signed by many Manitobans.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): 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.
(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 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, Madam Speaker, is signed by many Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: Are there any further petitions?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): Madam Speaker, on a matter of urgent public importance.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Assiniboia, on a matter of urgent public importance.
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): I move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Saran), that in accordance with rule 38(1), the regularly scheduled business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance; namely, the refusal of the provincial government to reject in the strongest terms the announcement in the federal budget of 2017 to create a national park right on top of the extension of the Thompson nickel belt.
Madam Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member, I should remind all members that under rule 38(2) the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other recognized parties in the House are allowed not more than 10 minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately.
As stated in Beauchesne citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not of the subject matter of the motion. In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer.
* (19:10)
Mr. Fletcher: This is an issue of urgency and of public importance. The Liberal–federal Liberal government announced, in their 2017 budget, plans for a national park. Though we are all supportive of parks, it's very important where the parks are located. The federal government announced–apparently without consulting anyone–First Nations communities, not sure if they consulted the provincial government or not. If they did, the provincial government should have said no. And if they didn't, the provincial government should have said no immediately after the announcement. That has not occurred and, in my new space, this is the only opportunity and the only manner that I have to raise this issue.
Madam Speaker, this Lowlands National Park is right on top of the extension of the Thompson Nickel Belt. The Thompson Nickel Belt is where the jobs and economy and royalties and tax revenue are generated in the third-largest industry in Manitoba, by and large. And that is the nickel mines in Thompson.
Madam Speaker, the resources around Thompson–the currently-discovered ore bodies, or mined ore bodies, are coming to an end of their life. They're being mined out. There needs to be new exploration and new development to be found. The Thompson Nickel Belt is a well-known and defined area. It so happens that where the lowlands is, the nickel belt is just under the Paleozoic limestone. With little effort, this world-class deposit can be exploited. We have the infrastructure, we have the power, the roads, the communities, the workforce.
But, Madam Speaker, mining capital is ruthless. It goes to the easiest location. Although the extension is the–easy from all sorts of perspectives, what kills it is the announcement of a national park. What mining company is going to do any kind of investment with any threat of a national park on the area which they are exploring? National park would exclude the opportunity for mining–even the suggestion of a national park excludes the possibility. Thousands of jobs are being lost, and many thousands more are going to be lost.
That is why it's imperative that this government today, right now, definitively provide assurance to Vale mining and Hudbay and other mining operations that there will not be a national park where the ore is.
Having said that, let's assume for a moment that the announcement was made with good intention. There are other areas in Manitoba that are, perhaps, more valuable. I have long advocated for the preservation of the entire Seal River watershed. This is one of the few watersheds that has been untouched by human development. It's almost entirely in Manitoba, with the exception of a sliver that's in Nunavut. It's 50,000 square kilometers–larger than some European nations, but it's an untouched watershed. Perhaps a focus on protecting that watershed where, at present, there are no mining claims, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. The affected communities are Tadoule Lake and Lac Brochet. Lac Brochet is outside the watershed and the First Nations.
Madam Speaker, why not, instead of arguing with Ottawa on everything, make them a deal. Let's preserve the Seal River Watershed, just not for Manitobans, but for the world, and let's give that as our contribution to the environment. It would also be a huge carbon sink, i.e. carbon being absorbed, and in 200 years what will be more valuable, ore or clean water in an untouched watershed that's larger than most countries in Europe.
This watershed is priceless. I would like it to become a canoe park, in fact, canoeing where there's no motorists. Even kayakers could go, and if you want to go into this canoe park, you can land in Lac Brochet outside the watershed and paddle in, earn your way into paradise.
Madam Speaker, and that brings me to another point. There are many ways to help the environment that do not include taxation. This government is introducing a carbon tax that will affect home heating, gasoline, and every other aspect make life more expensive.
We live in a cold place. The carbon tax the government is introducing is two and a half times even what Ottawa is suggesting–two and a half times. Now, there's some vague language that, oh, it will work out in the long run, but I will put this to the Chamber: In two years, Justin Trudeau will be lobbying to be Secretary General of the United Nations, Andrew Scheer will be Prime Minister, and Manitobans are going to be stuck with a tax two and a half times even of what they were asked, holding the bag for increased spending, and, again, from a party that campaigned on lower taxes. And, if they're going to bring in a tax, a referendum would be required.
Madam Speaker, there are lots of ways to deal with the environment. Talking, negotiating, let's make a deal, but taxation for the sake of taxation, spending for the sake of spending, and ignoring the reality of the environment is not the way to go.
Madam Speaker, thank you very much.
Hon. Cliff Cullen (Government House Leader): Although this may be a very important matter, I don't feel that it's a matter of urgent public importance that needs to be debated tonight. Clearly, I think the member would have other forums and other opportunities to bring this issue forward and, as a result, we do not feel this is a matter of urgent public importance.
Thank you.
* (19:20)
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): While I appreciate that this is an important issue, I would also concur with the Government House Leader that is not a matter of urgent public importance certainly for tonight.
And I would argue, Madam Speaker, that this is not the earliest opportunity that the member could have brought this forward. In fact, the budget was on March 22nd, 2017, and certainly we've been in the House past that. So he had ample opportunity to bring this forward.
And then, just for the record, I do want to correct the next Prime Minister will be Jagmeet Singh. So, clearly, he's wrong. So, miigwech.
Madam Speaker: The member will need leave in order to speak to the MUPI.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Leave to speak briefly to the MUPI.
Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to speak to the MUPI? The urgency of debate. [Agreed]
Mr. Gerrard: I just want to say that there are important issues that the member has raised but that, for example, the various aspects of this proposed national park are not finalized including precisely what the boundaries would be, and maybe boundaries can be alternate–altered from what they were proposed to so that they would not be on top of the nickel deposits, and clearly, there are other aspects, such as not only consultations with indigenous peoples in the area, but in the concept of current national parks being formed, likely, a co‑management plan with indigenous peoples in the area. So there would be much to do before this park proposal is anywhere near final. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable members for their advice to the Chair on the motion proposed by the honourable member for Assiniboia.
The notice required by rule 38(1) was provided. Under our rules of practices, the subject matter requiring urgent consideration must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention. There must also be no other reasonable opportunities to raise the matter.
I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward. Although the subject matter is one that some Manitobans could be concerned with, I do not believe the public interest will suffer if the issue is not debated today.
Time is also very limited today as there is a significant amount of business that needs to be completed before the House rises, including concurrence and third reading of designated bills, completion of the Estimates process and the completion of the business of supply, including the main and capital supply bills and the budget implementation and tax statutes amendment act.
With the greatest of respect, I therefore rule that this motion is out of order as a matter of urgent public importance.
* * *
Madam Speaker: Grievances?
Hon. Cliff Cullen (Government House Leader): I ask you to call concurrence and third readings for the following bills, Bill 34, Bill 35 and Bill 215.
Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the House will now consider concurrence and third reading of the following bills, 34, 35 and 215.
So we will move first to Bill 34, The Medical Assistance in Dying, protection for health professions and others, Act.
Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen), that Bill 34, The Medical Assistance in Dying (Protection for Health Professionals and Others) Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Goertzen: Madam Speaker, this bill has received extensive debate in the House. It received extensive consultation at committee where we heard from many Manitobans. I appreciate the opposition parties agreeing to pass and look forward to passing now.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): I appreciate the chance to speak to Bill 34 tonight. Our NDP caucus does support Bill 34. There's been a lot said about the bill on second reading and also at committee, so I'll keep my comments very short.
We do believe that providing conscience protection to health-care professionals is reasonable. I do appreciate the minister in making certain things clear. I just want to put these on the record very briefly. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba had raised concern that it was uncertain exactly what would be considered aiding in the provision of medical assistance in dying. And the minister quite helpfully confirmed that that very fact simply providing information on how to obtain medical assistance in dying is not in and of itself aiding in the provision. That's helpful.
The other piece is that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba has certain minimum requirements that each doctor must fulfill, whatever their viewpoint on medical assistance in dying. The college requires doctors to provide patients with timely access to resources to provide accurate information about medical assistance in dying and also that physicians continue to provide care unrelated to medical assistance in dying to the patient until that physician's services are no longer required or wanted by the patient or until another suitable physician has assumed responsibility for the patient. The minister confirmed, which I believe is quite helpful, that that requirement by the college and by any other governing body for any other profession, that those provisions are entirely consistent with Bill 34, and so there were not tremendous concerns.
There was one negative thing I do want to add before you proceed to deal with this bill. Yesterday in question period, the Minister for the Status of Women put on record that she somehow found the debate on Bill 34 as a justification to restrict women's access to reproductive health.
I'd like to believe that those comments do not represent the position of this government. I would prefer to believe, Madam Speaker, that the minister misspoke in trying to come up with an answer to a very reasonable and important question posed by my colleague, the member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine), and it would be better, I suppose, in this House, if the Minister of Health would actually take all health questions, but we can't control what the government does.
I just want to put on the record that although our NDP caucus is not–is in support of Bill 34 and we're prepared to have it passed right away, we do not agree with the comments of the Minister for the Status of Women. And if we do have to deal with that, we will take whatever steps are necessary to protect women's reproductive health.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, just a few words on third reading on Bill 34.
The primary requirement of the Supreme Court ruling was that medical assistance in dying would be available to people throughout Manitoba. As we have discussed earlier this week, it is one issue to make sure this is available in Winnipeg; it is a bigger challenge to make sure that this is available equitably throughout the province. In order to make sure that medical assistance in dying is only needed in very select circumstances, it's really important that we have very strong palliative care programs throughout the province and that people are able to know when they are in the stages close to death that they are going to have excellent palliative care in which they will have really good pain coverage, as an example, and that they will have the care which, again, would be equal throughout the province and not just excellent in Winnipeg and less than adequate elsewhere in the province.
This, as I have mentioned in an earlier discussion, will require some significant investments outside of Winnipeg. I was very pleased the other day to have the Minister of Health say that he is a strong supporter of making sure that palliative care is, in fact, accessible and of high quality throughout the province. That's a really important point.
* (19:30)
Next, this bill deals in particular with ensuring that health professionals are not compelled to participate in the medical assisted in dying process, and we support this concept. We believe that there are adequate numbers of people in the specialist medical-assisted-in-dying team who are interested and ready to perform medical assistance in dying throughout the province.
So long as we are able to deliver medical assistance in dying well throughout the province, then I see no problem in being able to ensure that professionals, health professionals, whether physicians, nurses, pharmacists or a variety of other people who may be involved, are not compelled to participate in something that ethically they don't believe is reasonable.
So Manitoba Liberals are in full support of this legislation. We will be watching very closely to make sure not only that this legislation is followed, but that the medical-assisted-in-dying process is available to those who need it and desire it, and fit the legal criteria equitably all over Manitoba.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 34, The Medical Assistance in Dying (Protection for Health Professionals and Others) Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
I declare the motion carried.
Madam Speaker: We will now move to the second bill, as indicated by the Government House Leader (Mr. Cullen), Bill 35, The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act.
Hon. Ralph Eichler (Minister of Agriculture): I move, seconded by the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade (Mr. Pedersen), that Bill 35, The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Food, be concurred in and now be read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member–the honourable Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Eichler: The amendment to the bill was to change the date it comes into force, recognizing the bill was not able to pass before October 31st of 2017, which have coincided with the physical year the Keystone Agricultural Producers, the certified organization under this act.
The bill simplifies the way the organization certified under The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Act is funded. We heard at committee how much overcollection of the check-off used to fund KAP is an issue, with approximately half of the money that KAP collects being an overcollection of over a million dollars a year. These changes will reduce the extreme regulatory burden placed on farmers, purchasers and KAP, and implement a simpler system of funding KAP.
Because of this, my department reached out to farmers. We heard back from them during the survey. We heard from Manitoba farmers want a simpler system that directly pass–that directly funds KAP.
We heard from the National Farmers Union. I have met with, consulted with them. This government respects that farmers want choice and should not be forced into any organization.
I want to thank the opposition for their support of this legislation.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): Before I begin, I want to recognize representatives of Keystone Agricultural Producers in the gallery tonight, thank them for their participation throughout the process. I know the Leader of the Opposition and I had a very good meeting with them quite recently, and we stand in support of the very important issues that we–were raised with us.
I want to say that we don't oppose this bill, given its very narrow–the very narrow elements of it, but we would say, and while we have great respect for the Keystone Agricultural Producers, we also think the farmers need to have a choice when it comes to the certification process. We'll be looking in the future to provide an opportunity so that there is choice for farmers, because we believe that when there is choice, we live in a healthier democracy. There are a plurality of farming voices at the table, and we all benefit as a province by having a diversity of voices that can make for the very best result.
We certainly had a very persuasive and [inaudible] presentation from the National Farmers Union. We heard their voice. We recognized the value that they have in this province. We want to ensure that their voice, and others like it, are heard here in the Legislature–the province of Manitoba.
As I said, we're not opposing this bill, but we do think that there are greater reforms that need to happen when it comes to agricultural organizations in this province, and we'll be looking to put those on the table in the future.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, a few comments on Bill 35, which deals with the funding of our agricultural organizations–or, really, organization. I welcome to the gallery representatives from Keystone Agricultural Producers and want to comment that Keystone Agricultural Producers has done a remarkable job in bringing together farmers from around the province in very diverse areas of farming, building a grassroots organization which has been responsive to farmers all over Manitoba.
So the changes which are being brought forward in this legislation are changes which are designed to make it easier to administer the gathering of the funds for the memberships for the organization.
But they're also designed to make it easier for farmers in that the–there will be much less need for collecting, in some instances, more money from farmers than the membership would require and then having to rebate that back.
So, in the discussions that I have had and that we heard during committee stage, this bill and the changes herein should significantly help the administration of this program. They should dramatically reduce the overcharging of people, which would be well-received among farmers. And so I–we are in full support of this bill and this legislation.
The–there was a representative who presented from the National Farmers Union, and I think what is important is that the government has a process, all right, for assessing funding of organizations, and this process seems to have worked for quite a number of years. In fact, this process was used with–before these modifications under the NDP for many, many years, and I'm not sure why the NDP are now coming forward and wanting changes which they could have actually brought in very easily during the years that they were in government.
But, that being said, I think that it is important to recognize that there are a significant number of farmers who are members of the National Farmers Union, and it's important to recognize them as farmers and their contributions. But, as to the premier agricultural organization at this time in this province, then certainly that organization is the Keystone Agricultural Producers, and I'm pleased that you are here today and that we are moving this bill through to the next stage. And, hopefully, we will not only have it passed, but royal assent sometime later this evening or early tomorrow morning.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 35, The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
* (19:40)
Madam Speaker: We will now move to Bill 215, The Civil Service Amendment Act (Employment Preference for Reservists with Active Service), standing in the name of the honourable member for Assiniboia (Mr. Fletcher), who has four minutes left.
Is there leave for the bill to stand in the name for the honourable member for Assiniboia?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: Leave has been denied.
Debate is open.
Mr. Jon Reyes (St. Norbert): As a former Regular Force member of the Canadian Forces and as a former Canadian Forces reservist, and in honour of Remembrance Day week, what a better way to honour this bill by passing Bill 215.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question–oh–the honourable member for River Heights.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): First of all, I would compliment the member for St. Norbert in bringing this forward. I think it is important that we recognize and perhaps–[interjection]
Okay. Sorry. I'm sorry. The member for Kildonan–[interjection]
This–you know, this bill is an important recognition of the role that our Armed Forces have played, and it is timely that we are dealing with this immediately before Remembrance Day and so that hopefully in passing this and in getting it royal assent sometime later tonight or early tomorrow morning, we will be doing this just in time for Remembrance Day, and that this bill and what is in this bill will be a thank you to people who've served in one way or another, in one capacity or another, within our Armed Forces.
I think it's important also to add that this is a very special recognition. You know, we don't give this to any other group of individuals, and that it is not only a very special recognition and a special opportunity, but, I think, that something that needs to be treated with the care and consideration that this deserves, that those who have participated in our Armed Forces, whether in theatres of war or whether in peacekeeping activities or whether in various other roles.
I had a chance in the last couple of days to talk with individuals who–in the Armed Forces, who were in the area of logistics. They were not normally considered front-line workers, in a sense, but they were absolutely critical because any time that the Armed Forces run out of the necessary goods to the necessary food, the necessary bullets, the necessary vehicles, then there is a big problem if you are in the middle of a theatre of war when that happens.
So they are playing a tremendously important role, and sometimes because of that important role, they are targeted. And I want to raise that up just to emphasize that we are talking about all people who are in our Armed Forces and that it's not just front-line soldiers; it is many, many others who are having an important role making an important contribution.
And so, I–we are in full support of this legislation recognizing that is to a special group of people, and it's a very special bill, and thank the member for bringing it forward.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 215, The Civil Service Amendment Act (Employment Preference for Reservists with Active Service).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Hon. Cliff Cullen (Government House Leader): On House business, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: On House business.
Mr. Cullen: Great. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I do appreciate the member's work on this–on those files.
Madam Speaker, could you please canvass the House for leave to consider all the remaining stages of Bill 40, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, including waiving the provisions of rule 2 so that we would not begin consideration of the designated bills until this bill was concluded.
Madam Speaker, for reference, the remaining stages would be second reading, Committee of the Whole and concurrence and third reading.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to consider all the remaining stages of Bill 40, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, including waiving the provisions of rule 2 so that we would not begin consideration of the designated bills until this bill was concluded?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: Leave has been denied.
Mr. Cullen: Can you canvass the House to see if it's the will of the Chamber to call it 7:50?
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to call it 7:50, so that we could move into designated bills? [Agreed]
Madam Speaker: The time being 7:50, I am now interrupting debate to put the question on the remaining concurrence and third reading motions for designated bills 23, 24, 27, 30 and 31. For each bill, the minister will move the motion. Following that, the minister, critics and each independent member may speak for a maximum of 10 minutes each before I put the question to the House.
The bills will be called in the order they appear on the Order Paper. The House will not adjourn until all applicable questions have been put and royal assent has been granted.
Finally, in accordance with our rules, matters of privilege and points of order will be set aside until all votes are completed.
Madam Speaker: I will now call, then, on the first bill, the–Bill 23, The Fisheries Amendment Act.
Hon. Eileen Clarke (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Relations): Moved by honourable–seconded by Minister Wharton, that Bill 23–[interjection] Okay–Minister of Municipal Relations–[interjection] Okay, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Relations (Mr. Wharton), that Bill 23, The Fisheries Amendment Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and now be read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Ms. Clarke: Bill 23 makes a number of amendments to The Fisheries Act and liberalizes marketing options for fishers to freely sell commercially caught freshwater fish here in Manitoba.
We provided notice to the federal government that Manitoba is withdrawing from the participating in the freshwater fish marketing act. In addition, all references related to the regulatory 'relules' of FMMC in fish marketing are removed. The Province will be creating new processes and regulations for the new marketing environment, processes and regulations that are not bound by past federal 'relules' that essentially dictated that fishers had to sell their harvest to FMMC at the prices set.
Madam Speaker, we're making these changes for our fishers, and our fishers will be those that benefit. We have support from individual fishers, from the Manitoba Metis Federation, from indigenous fisher groups and co-operatives all across the province.
All in all, there will be more opportunities for fishers to sell and market their fish. Bill 23 is a win-win for all fishers. It gives them choice and freedom. It keeps the FMMC option in place. This will improve their incomes and benefit their families and communities. And with this, I look forward to the support of the entire House for our fishers and Bill 23.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): Bill 23 is a travesty, and in the rather unique circumstances that we have here tonight, where the regular sound system is down and we can't really heckle and we're actually forced to listen to each other, I have to tell you that I'm kind of liking the change myself, and it will give me an opportunity to briefly recap the enormous disaster that potentially awaits Manitoba's fishers. But, most importantly, Madam Speaker, I want to bring voice to the fishers themselves, the ones who came here–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
* (19:50)
Mr. Altemeyer: –the ones who came here at their own expense, their own time, sometimes travelling eight hours from Norway House, for instance, to present at the Legislative committee to say in no uncertain terms how devastating this legislation will be on their communities and to have all of their advice and input summarily ignored by this government.
First, a brief recap of how this disaster began. The government, for purely ideological 'reajons', launched its removal from FFMC's monopoly without talking to anybody in advance. They then hired an envoy–a fisheries envoy to go and talk to various fishers, but word leaked out from the envoys themselves that an elected Conservative MLA–unknown which one, but one of them–had told the envoys in advance it didn't really matter what the envoys' report ended up saying. The government had made up its mind and they were going to proceed with Bill 23 unamended, and for this lovely dog‑and‑pony show, which accomplished nothing so far as the government was concerned, because they weren't going to listen; cost taxpayers $150,000, Madam Speaker. The duty to consult clearly has been violated and ignored by this government, and as presenters at committee made very clear, the government is opening itself to a potentially lengthy and costly lawsuit as a result.
There was even a letter sent out by the former minister implying that fishers should not sign multi‑year contracts with FFMC to sell their fish, because FFMC, under this government, was only guaranteed to have a licence for one year, suggesting that the government may well be yanking that licence. There's over 1,200 fishers in Manitoba, commercial fishers. Their families and plant workers are all potentially affected. Now, Madam Speaker, that's just the brief recap of the huge problems with how this government has so unfairly used a–an unfair process to bring this legislation forward, and as I mentioned there could be legal consequences.
But let me begin to give voice to some of the presenters who came down to committee. Let me repeat some of the words from Sam Murdock, from Fisher River Cree Nation. He said, and informed the committee, that, quote: over 80 per cent of fishers in Manitoba selling their fish to FFMC are indigenous. Many of these fishers will be financially ruined should they not be able to sell their catch to FFMC. He also informed the committee that, quote: a study found that losing FFMC would cost their community $600,000 annually. The impact is expected to be even greater in other, more isolated First Nations communities. He also pointed out that due to the flawed process and a lack of consultation used by this government, that, quote: as a result, legal action is currently being explored by his community and there was absolutely no consultation that took place in advance of this legislation being brought forward.
If it helps members put this into perspective, I would invite them to imagine that there are 200 families from Fisher River alone sitting in the gallery of the Legislature right now about to watch their livelihoods be wiped out.
I also now want to give voice to the impassioned and powerful presentation that was made by Mr. Langford Saunders from the Norway House fisherman's co‑op. He said, and I quote: nobody came and talked to us about the announcement that's going to happen. He said, the unemployment that's created in his community of Norway House involves 1,500 people out of a community of 6,000.
And members of the government are, true to form, not listening. They're joking amongst themselves as I share these stories. That is their prerogative. We're all aware of how they view this issue–[Interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Altemeyer: –and of how little regard they have for the people who brought forward a different point of view than what they're used to hearing, by talking amongst themselves.
There are important lessons that Mr. Saunders brought to the committee that–brought to all of us. And I quote here at length, he said: When I look back at 1929, when there was four fish buyers in the Warren Landing, where our fishermen were not even paid dollars–instead, they were being given a piece of paper and say you can take this to the co-op and you–your credit. That's your credit–not knowing how much their fish was being bought for.
An interesting point, Madam Speaker. This government has claimed that it has the support of indigenous fishers, one of whom being the chief of Norway House, Chief Ron Evans. Mr. Saunders pointed out that–and I read his own words, here: Just like I brought 49 fishers with me to speak on their behalf today, we sign a five-year agreement with Freshwater marketing board. One of those 50 members is the chief of Norway House, Chief Ron Evans.
And he closes by saying: So I plead with you. Do you understand where our concerns are? And we're–open the doors for anybody that wants to come and talk to us, and talk to our fisher community.
And, lastly, Madam Speaker, I want to give voice to Mr. Clinton Whiteway, who brought words of advice and wisdom from Matheson Island Marketing Co-op. He points out they have 120 active fishers from Matheson Island, Pine Dock, Princess Harbour, Bloodvein and Fisher River that rely on them. He says, and I quote: Back in the day, our forefathers have told us about the rough times they had when the fish companies were in business. On Matheson Island alone, I believe, there was probably half a dozen companies at one time. They never knew what they would be getting for their catch when they came in off the lake. They never knew if they were going to be able to sell their catch when they came off the lake. Simply put, they were owned by the fish companies. I remember my grandfathers and forefathers speaking that they would be promised 50 cents a pound. Just use that as an example, in the morning. And then, at the end of the day, if you got two cents, well, that was where you had nowhere else to sell it and nowhere else to put it. With the FFMC, the fishers know what they are getting for their catch. Each species that they are bringing in to sell. End quote.
The advantage of a community having a strong reliance upon oral history is that these stories clearly have been passed down from one generation of fishers to the next. These people know full well that the FFMC could have and should have been run better in years past. Nobody at the committee disputed that. It's a federal Crown agency, not under direct control of this province. But by this government unilaterally removing themselves from the FFMC and ignoring the voices of northern fishers by ignoring the impacts of a thousand people, a thousand families sitting in this gallery. That's what's actually happening right now. They are watching this government from afar and taking–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Altemeyer: –and taking note of who is on their side and who isn't. If the government members cannot imagine that that is happening, then they are missing the entire point.
All I can say to the fishers is that you have been mistreated. Your views have been ignored, your rights have undoubtedly been disrespected and potentially legally violated, and for our part, as the NDP, as the official opposition, we stand one hundred thousand per cent on your side.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): Commercial fishing contributes over three–$30 million to our economy, providing jobs and opportunities to many living near Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba. The fishing industry has proven to be a vital industry to many living within our North. While Manitoba's high-quality freshwater fish–with Manitoba's high-quality freshwater fish, this sector of our economy represents a tremendous opportunity for growth.
* (20:00)
Fishing in Manitoba has high potential for both northern and southern commercial fishers, with many companies looking to our province for future investments. This bill has proven divisive amongst the communities in my Kewatinook riding. Most of my northern fishers wish for greater freedom and the greater economic opportunities that will come from not having to be part of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. And most of my southern fishers wish to remain within the safety represented by the corporation. I will be there to help all First Nations fishermen.
By allowing the fishers the option to choose, both groups should be able to make the best choices for them and their families. Many Kewatinook communities have strong ties to the water and to living their lives harvesting fish. The reliance on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has both helped and hindered the economic growth of indigenous-led and -operated fishing operations.
Through this increased freedom, many communities and fishers have expressed interest in creating their own businesses. In fact, international companies have for a long time expressed interest in partnering with my communities in the North, but previously, while under the Freshwater Fish, this was not allowed.
The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corp had tremendous waste from previously undesired fish being thrown away, something–contrast to indigenous belief. However, for a $30 million-per‑year industry to remain viable and healthy and to grow, proper sustainable fishing practices must be ensured. Our people have relied on the open waters of this province for sustenance for centuries, and no one wishes for this valuable commodity to disappear overnight due to overfishing. Hopefully, in utilizing traditional ecological knowledge and practices, we can see a greater incorporation of traditional values into sustainable resource management.
Poor management of fisheries have seen a loss of millions of dollars for Manitoba fisheries, areas such as Lake Winnipegosis have been impacted significantly because of overfishing. For those choosing to remain or choose to leave, we must see implements put in place to protect and conserve fish, especially within our water bodies within Manitoba. Whether or not a fisher or fishery opts in, proper ecological management is needed to sustain such a valuable resource.
Madam Speaker, our fishermen do what they do because of their love for fishing, regardless of whether or not they're being paid, and have stated several times that many do not even make a profit in my own home community. They do it for love.
Manitoba fishers are truly passionate and dedicated to their crafts. We must continue to support our local fishermen and ensure they are able to make a sustainable living off their craft. This act creates opportunities for our fishers while ensuring the protection of the FFMC is available to those who wish to opt out. We believe that this bill is the correct path for fishers within our province.
Miigwech, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I will now call the question. On the concurrence and third reading motion of Bill 23, The Fishers Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
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 Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): Could you please summon the members for a recorded vote?
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
* (21:00)
Order, please.
The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 23, The Fisheries Amendment Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Clarke, Cullen, Curry, Eichler, Ewasko, Fielding, Friesen, Gerrard, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Klassen, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Lamoureux, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Reyes, Schuler, Smith (Southdale), Smook, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Kinew, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Smith (Point Douglas), Swan, Wiebe.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 38, Nays 13.
Madam Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 24, The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson), that Bill 24, The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Friesen: Bill 24 is an initial step toward the accountability goal by amending or appealing acts to reduce red tape on businesses, non-profits, municipalities, private citizens and civil servants. The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act amends or repeals 15 pieces of legislation, reducing red tape that's causing burdens on business, non‑profits, municipalities, private citizens and government officials. It's recommended by civil servants. It helps us to move Manitoba towards a goal of achieving public policy goals without compromising human health and safety, and we look for the support of all members on this bill.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): We not only oppose Bill 24, we in the NDP stand four‑square against it. If it, as my friend from Wolseley says, that Bill 23 is a travesty, then Bill 24 is quite simply an outrage. It is, in the first instance, an abuse of the democratic process, an affront to good public policy and an insult to plain old common sense. It is an abuse of the democratic process, Madam Speaker, because it is an omnibus bill, Harperesque in its intent to mislead and misdirect and misinform. It is an offence to the democratic process because the bill amends 12 disparate acts and repeals three others under the guise of red tape reduction.
But this bill is only indirectly about red tape reduction. In fact, red tape reduction is the mask. Underneath it is that insult to plain old common sense because this bill is primarily about environmental deregulation. It compromises public health standards in relation to water quality standards, and it promotes the privatization of public assets by repealing The Public-Private Partnerships and Accountability Act, which, of course, says very little about the government's commitment to openness and transparency.
* (21:10)
Now, during the public hearings, we can concede that we heard some voices in support of the bill because–or one small part of the bill–because it appealed to their private interests. But many, many more voices opposed this bill because they spoke in the public interest, Madam Speaker.
Today, and over the last few days, we've received letters from other Canadians, and under this government we have not only become the bad child of confederation, but a laughingstock among our fellow Canadians. We need to strengthen environmental regulations. We need to strengthen public health standards. We need to strengthen oversight that sells off our public assets to the private sector without proper oversight and proper accountability.
Well, Madam Speaker, it's too late to withdraw this bill, we're at the eleventh hour now, but I urge everyone of the opposition MLAs to exercise their sovereignty as MLAs, vote against this bill and stand for the people of Manitoba. Do the right thing and do it tonight.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I rise to talk in opposition to Bill 24, and to clarify several issues.
In the Manitoba Liberal Party we support the reduction of red tape and making things simpler for citizens and for businesses to deal with government. There are many ways of doing this–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gerrard: –for example, improved co-ordination between provincial and federal governments.
I recall when I was the federal minister responsible for western economic diversification, it was routinely much easier to get federal and provincial governments working together to help businesses in Alberta than it was to work with the then PC government in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, things have not changed, the current PC government is always ready to criticize the current federal government, but rarely ready to try to work together to solve the issues that citizens and businesses need addressed to improve the lives of all citizens and to help our businesses thrive.
It is important that we're using simplified forms which enable citizens and businesses to provide needed information, but decreasing red tape should not be used as a mechanism for reducing badly needed environmental protections.
This bill sadly is to a considerable extent about the misuse of red tape reduction to reduce environmental protections. This government often says they want to make Manitoba more competitive, but instead of trying to compete on quality, on being the best, they seek to outcompete other jurisdictions on who can have the lowest standards, especially when it comes to the environment.
In this matter the PCs are picking up where the NDP left off despite their posturing on the environment when it came to–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gerrard: –oil exploration in Manitoba. The only jurisdictions under the NDP with weaker regulations and fewer giveaways to oil companies were Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, Arkansas and Saskatchewan. Alberta and Texas are among the jurisdictions that have a higher bar than was set by the Manitoba NDP.
It might be cheaper in the short run to run a ship without radar, without sonar, without lifeboats and without safety equipment but, in the long run, it runs the risk of an accident that's far more costly.
For example, in today's fast-changing world where climate change is giving us less predictability as to what will happen, it is wrong, as Bill 24 does, to reduce the oversight and assessment of drinking water infrastructure and water sources from every five years to every 10 years.
As another example, Bill 24 will remove the requirement to provide a report on ecological reserves every five years. The argument the government has made is that, currently, these reports are often late in being released and that they want to address what they see as a problem, reports being late. This is hardly a way to improve the oversight of ecological reserves, reserves which protect rare and unique species and landscapes. For many unique species and landscapes we should, in fact, have some sort of yearly monitoring.
As the studies at the experimental lakes area have shown, gathering annual data on species provides a critically important window on species and landscape changes as a result of climate change or other factors. The work which I have been personally involved with on a low budget in northern Saskatchewan to monitor bird populations, including bald eagle populations, annually for 50 years, is another example of an important data set. While it's not likely possible for government employees to do much of this work there are people in Manitoba who, given a framework for action, are likely ready and able to keep track of what's happening on the ground.
Surely governments should be able to work in partnership with people and organizations interested in monitoring species populations as occurs, for example, in breeding bird surveys, in the annual Christmas bird counts and other exercises to keep an eye annually on critical habitats in our province.
So this change by this government to decrease environmental monitoring is wrong. It's a continuation of the approach under the NDP, when the NDP lost track of what was happening with moose populations and failed to adequately protect moose populations.
The elimination of the prohibition on winter spreading of livestock manure in legislation is misguided and wrong. Although this may be still present in regulations, regulations can be easily changed and are not sufficient protection against the potential for government, like the present PC government, which is not particularly concerned about the environment, to change it.
Michael Stainton, representing the Lake Winnipeg Foundation, put it well when he said, and I quote: The environmental act, section 40.2, prohibition of winter spreading, currently, the Manitoba environmental act prohibits the spreading of any livestock manure on agricultural fields between November 10th and April 10th. This is widely recognized and well-established best management practice, supported by broad scientific consensus. Arguably, he goes on to say, the ban on winter spreading is the most important pollution prevention that's been put in place to protect Lake Winnipeg over the last two decades. When manure is spread on saturated, frozen or snow-covered ground, phosphorus cannot be incorporated into the soil. On the surface of the soil, this phosphorus is not available to support plant growth and is highly susceptible to runoff in winter storms, in particular during the spring melt. So what the Lake Winnipeg Foundation urges, that Bill 24 be amended so as not to–to not repeal section 40.2 of Manitoba's Environment Act, the ban on winter spreading of all manure should be maintained in legislation, the highest form of protection for Manitoba's water.
When questioned by the minister whether the regulations would not suffice, Michael Stainton replied: A few lines of ink in the legislation are not a high overhead to maintain.
We would also argue that some form of transparency and accountability should be maintained with respect to public-private partnerships. Rather than end accountability, which seems to be a common approach from the present PC government, why not make changes to preserve some level of accountability where 'shup' 'sharp' which–where such partnerships are concerned to ensure, for example, that the long-run costs and benefits of the partnership are known and risks are known and addressed ahead of time? Why is the government so keen to end any accountability?
Madam Speaker, we don't agree with the approach taken by the NDP to demonize the hog industry in our province. Our approach is to ensure that there are good regulations and enforcement to ensure good science-based environmental practice by those in the hog industry in Manitoba and that phosphorus in hog manure is used to help fertilizing crops and is not running off into our watersheds.
There are many good practitioners now, but we need all to be working well. Our environment is a crucially important natural infrastructure for all Manitobans that needs to be protected. At the same time, the hog industry has provided good employment opportunities for many Manitobans and has resulted in the growth of many rural communities in our province. Protection of Lake Winnipeg shouldn't be addressed by abandoning the hog industry or by putting the industry under a moratorium straitjacket, which doesn't allow those in the industry to modernize and develop improved humane and environmental approaches to raising hogs.
We believe that all hog manure, with very few exceptions, should be injected into the land and that we can move the yardsticks to have more of the hog manure in Manitoba injected into the land instead of being spread on top of the land.
We also believe that improved enforcement can help and that much better monitoring is needed. To this end, we congratulate the Lake Winnipeg Foundation in its efforts to better monitor our waterways and encourage the government to support this citizen-led effort to help our environment. Such monitoring can lead to better measures to reduce phosphorus in Lake Winnipeg.
We can and must have conditions where the hog industry is not causing problems for Lake Winnipeg. We also believe 'laction' to help Lake Winnipeg can and should proceed more quickly. There have been far too many delays under both the NDP and PC governments in the removal of phosphorus from the sewage from the city of Winnipeg. The delays have continued and continued when action is needed. Concern for the future of Lake Winnipeg, which suffered severe algal blooms this past summer, should be much greater than it is, and actions should be taken quickly.
* (21:20)
Recent research of Diane Orihel shows that a considerable proportion of the phosphorus in Lake Winnipeg in the summer is phosphorus released from the sediments. A real action plan to address the future of Lake Winnipeg, including the phosphorus in its sediments, is badly needed.
Manitoba Liberals will oppose Bill 24. We believe that elements of this bill misuse the approach of red tape reduction to remove important environmental safeguards. We stand for a strong environment. We also stand for a strong economy.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Merci.
Introduction of Guests
Madam Speaker: Before I call the question, I would like to introduce you to a guest that we have in our gallery. Visiting us tonight is Arnaud Guillemard, and he is the guest of the member for Fort Richmond (Mrs. Guillemard).
* * *
Madam Speaker: I will now call the question on concurrence and third reading of Bill 24, The Red Tape Reduction And Government Efficiency Act.
Are–is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: I hear a no.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour, 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 Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): Could 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 concurrence and third reading of Bill 24, The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Ewasko, Fielding, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith (Southdale), Smook, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Smith (Point Douglas), Swan, Wiebe.
Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Yeas 36, Nays 16.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Madam Speaker: We will now move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 27, The Elections Amendment Act.
Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Crown Services (Mr. Cullen), that Bill 27, The Elections Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi électorale, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Stefanson: This bill represents yet another step in our open government initiative to modernize and improve our electoral system, and we look forward to the speedy passage of this bill this evening.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for–[interjection] Order. The honourable member for–[interjection] Order. Order. The honourable member for St. Johns.
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Our NDP team wholly opposes Bill 27, because, Madam Speaker, it undermines the legitimacy of our democracy by disenfranchising unregistered voters who do not have forms of photo ID. Quite simply, this is voter suppression, plain and simple. After this morning, I suspect Manitoba will become one of the most restrictive jurisdictions in Canada in respect of voter rights for Manitobans. Again, we see another Harper bill being brought forward by the Premier (Mr. Pallister) and his caucus. This bill attacks Manitobans least likely to be enumerated.
We had the opportunity and the privilege to listen to many Manitobans come and present to us at standing committee who reiterated that a lack of access to ID is a critical issue affecting those who are overly represented in the ranks of the working poor, the elderly, those living with a disability, newcomers, students and indigenous peoples, and this bill attacks those very vulnerable people.
We've heard time and time again the minister state that the Chief Electoral Officer wanted this legislation, and I would suggest to you that that's simply not the case, and in fact I think it's important to read into the record again some of the comments of the Chief Electoral Officer, who said at a Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, that, and I quote: We haven't had any complaints or any prosecutions on voter fraud in the history of Manitoba. So that probably provides a level of confidence that voter fraud and voting irregularities are low or nil.
That was just stated on November 25th, 2016. Certainly, nothing has changed in the last year that would require that we have to be looking at and very soon having Bill 27.
And, when the Premier (Mr. Pallister) has been asked repeatedly for proof of voter fraud, he was not able to produce any. So, again, I think that that's indicative of, really, that there is no need for Bill 27. The bottom line is this, Madam Speaker: our team stands with voters, here in Manitoba, and I'm proud to stand with this team as we oppose Bill 27 in respect of what is a–an affront to democracy here in Manitoba.
And quite simply, Madam Speaker, and I said it at standing committee, all of these folks that vote in favour of Bill 27 should be ashamed of themselves.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): I'm glad to stand here at the podium and have this unique experience to be able to speak to Bill 27, The Elections Amendment Act. Historically, great thinkers have said that one measure of justice in any society is the degree to which citizens are permitted to participate in government and in the political process. This is an all-too-familiar debate for me right now.
I believe that we should be encouraging participation, breaking down barriers, doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that our fundamental rights of thought, opinion and expression can be practised in our democratic society through the practice of voting.
Madam Speaker, when any changes are put forward that could potentially affect Manitobans' way of participating in elections, it should be carefully examined. We should aim to be comprehensive and extensive in this process.
Madam Speaker, one of those obstacles in elections in any democracy is developing a list of registered and eligible voters. We need to know who is eligible to vote, and we need to get their accurate information to ensure fairness in elections and our right to vote. The idea of establishing a permanent database of registered voters is good. It ensures we stay up to date with other jurisdictions and the information it provides would help us to determine the health of democracy here in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, the government needs to consider that there are changes that occur in between elections and a lot of changes that will occur between the changing of boundaries. I would like to see a plan developed in dealing with these changes.
My favourite part of the bill is it encourages the opportunity for young people and our youth to get involved in politics. Madam Speaker, I remember being 16 years old and being incredibly eager about politics, and I know that I'm not the only one. The idea of ensuring that 16- and 17-year-olds are on the election list so that when they turn 18 and the elections roll around they're set up to go, it's a great step, and I believe it will get 16- and 17-year-olds involved and thinking about the process a little bit more.
Madam Speaker, I can still remember when I turned 18. I wasn't excited to be legal. Sure, yes, it was cool, but I was more excited to be officially allowed to vote. And I think that that's a big part of this election process, getting young people engaged.
Another advantage, I'm thinking politically here, is how politicians, candidates and parties will all get access to the latest voter lists. From my point of view, there's equality and fairness. Everyone gets access to this information. But, more importantly, this list allows for a wider reach, more awareness and opportunities to get residents of Manitoba involved with the election process.
This bill also changes 75-day elections to 28-day elections. Madam Speaker, having a 75-day campaign, if you're a legitimate campaigner, can be physically and mentally exhausting, although they can have advantages, such as time to rebuild resources and momentum.
A big part of this bill that makes me nervous is the new requirement to present ID when voting. In today's society, there are people who do not have the ID being requested in order to vote with this bill. I feel that this government could improve this by allowing people to take an oath or by using another means to vote.
Madam Speaker, democracy works when voters are engaged. In the last election, 4 per cent of eligible voters could not vote due to administrative issues such as not having proper identification. We should not be putting up more barriers for participation in our democracy and with a 57 per cent turnout.
We have been given–we have given this government time to have a plan to put photos in our health cards so that this would be photo ID. Sadly, the government has made no improvement, so we cannot support the bill. This bill, as it sounds, is not acceptable.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
* (22:30)
Madam Speaker: I will now call the question on concurrence and third reading of Bill 27, The Elections Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
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 Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): Could you please summon the members for a recorded vote.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
Order, please.
* (23:30)
The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 27, The Elections Amendment Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Ewasko, Fielding, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith (Southdale), Smook, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Smith (Point Douglas), Swan, Wiebe.
Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Yeas 36, Nays 16.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Madam Speaker: The House will now consider Bill 30, The Local Vehicles For Hire Act.
Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Municipal Relations): I move, seconded by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Relations (Ms. Clarke), that Bill 30, The Local Vehicles for Hire Act, be–reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and now be read for the third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Wharton: The Province recognizes that the taxi services are an important transportation option and that the existing taxicab industry plays a critical role in the local transportation network. The Province also recognizes that the need to modernize the industry around and–on the outdated rules regulating it. Bill 30 modernizes regulations of the vehicle‑for‑hire industry. Modernization of the industry is needed. The MNP review identified a number of deficiencies in the existing regulatory framework governing taxicabs, a framework that dates back to 1935.
Bill 30 transfers responsibility for the industry to municipalities, the level of government best positioned to oversee this industry. This puts the city of Winnipeg in line with other capital cities across Canada and with a number of municipalities right here in our province, such as Brandon, Selkirk and Portage la Prairie. Our PC government recognizes municipalities are responsible partners and mature levels of government. The City of Winnipeg currently has authority over the Winnipeg police through a police board, Winnipeg Transit and the Winnipeg Fire 'pedemedic'–Paramedic Service.
Suggestions by members opposite that municipal councils are neither capable nor concerned with the safety and well‑being of residents have no rational basis. In fact, the responsibility to maintain the safety of the inhabitants is enshrined in both The City of Winnipeg Charter and in Municipal Act. Under this legislation, all municipalities will have explicit authority to design systems that fit their unique needs. This means municipalities can decide how best to enable a safe, reliable and competitive vehicle-for-hire industry.
The City of Winnipeg currently regulates Handi-Transit services and municipal regulations of the local vehicle-for-hire industry, may complement existing accessibility services. To ensure continuity of service under Bill 30, all valid licences issued by the Taxicab Board for vehicles will be transferred to the city of Winnipeg act when it comes into force.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, maintaining the status quo is not a viable option. I recognize that the change can be hard, particularly in a system that has maintained static for over 80 years. The current system is now working and has produced a very high barrier for those wishing to enter into the industry, thereby limiting supply to a level far below what market can bear. The act has a coming-into-force date of February 28th, 2018, which will allow time for the City of Winnipeg and other municipalities to create their own vehicle-for-hire laws. The province will continue to work with the City of Winnipeg to facilitate a smooth transition for consumers and industry stakeholders.
I also want to close by thanking each and every person that took the time to share their views on the local vehicle for hires act through the over 36 hours in bill committee. I also want to thank the over 10,000 Manitobans that contributed to the Meyers Norris Penny NDP-commissioned report. Madam Speaker, I want to highlight the following groups that participated in the process: 675 owner-operators and drivers in the vehicle-for-hire industry; over 9,000 Manitoba consumers that shared their views; and the following key stakeholders, organizations that provided valuable input: Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, the City of Winnipeg Committee for Safety, Independent Living Resource Centre, the Manitoba Association of Senior Centres, Manitoba Hotel Association, Manitoba league for persons with disabilities, Manitoba Public Insurance, Manitoba Restaurant and Foodservices Association, the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities, southern chiefs and organizations, St. James Assiniboine school division, Tourism Winnipeg, Transportation Options Network for Seniors, Winnipeg Airports Authority and the Winnipeg Police Service.
In total, there were more than 10,000 responses, Madam Speaker, including 500 telephone interviews and 9,215 online surveys that were completed. We are a government that is listening and are proud to act on the advice we receive from key community organizations every day, Winnipeggers and Manitobans.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Regarding Bill 30, The Local Vehicles for Hire Act, I would have to say at the outset that this government's created a big mess with Bill 30.
And we tried at committee to improve the bill with five committee amendments, all of which the government voted against. We proposed three report stage amendments. Once again, the government voted against all three of those. And the amendments which require the City and the municipalities to establish and enforce current taxi board safety requirements–I don't know why they would be against those. Like, having a shield, camera, strobe light, panic button, mechanical inspections, criminal record checks and child abuse registry checks, 35 hours of training–and they opposed. They voted against that amendment.
So they are shovelling this bill off to the city without clear direction as to what the city should be doing with it. So how the Premier (Mr. Pallister) is supposed to make a–make up his promise–or, honour his promise to people–and there were many people who were at the committee who clearly said that they had been guaranteed–matter of fact, one of them has a tape recording of the Premier saying oh, don't worry, you know, the election's coming up, you can vote for us. We're not going to be mean to you, we're going to have a level–treat you in a–with a level playing field. And all of a sudden, that–he is–he's turned around and not fulfilling that promise that he made to them.
* (23:40)
The second area that we dealt with at committee was the amendment to establish a commission regarding compensation, and to–taking into account regulatory taking, which this certainly is. Expropriation, loss of profits, loss of goodwill and, once again, there's compensation regimes in Australia, which is comparable to our situation here. Once again, the government voted the amendment down.
Now, the fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, if you could imagine for a moment that your house, your pension fund, your farm was going to be worth half its value or less than half its value at the stroke of a pen, this bill will drastically reduce the value of all these small businesses by this legislation and they won't even be eligible for compensation. At committee we heard that the cab owners paid upwards of $400,000 to $500,000 for these cab investments, and today they–almost each and every one of them said probably the value is zero, because we could not–we cannot sell them.
Section 10, Madam Speaker, of this legislation is stark proof that this government can foresee a serious decline in the investment values of these affected small businesses and families. And why is that? Because they put that clause in the bill, knowing full well that normal practice would be to leave it out and, you know, if they get sued, they get sued. They put it in knowing full well that that was going to happen to them and they don't want to face any lawsuits.
They–the–this government's immoral attitude towards small business and families is totally different to what happened with the Canada‑US–or, Canada‑European Free trade agreement recently signed, where we saw the government of Canada moving forward on a compensation package to cover losses that will be suffered by the Quebec dairy sector as the result of access Europeans are granted in the CETA deal. Now, if this is good enough for Quebec dairy farmers, why can't we adopt fair practices here? Tell me the difference between the Quebec dairy farmers and the Manitoba taxicab industry, and I'll tell you the difference, if you don't know, that is the Premier knows these taxi companies don't elect MPs to Ottawa the way the Quebec dairy farmers can.
Now, Madam Speaker, also the Premier is–you know, likes to talk about red tape. I remember even when he was here the first time he was involved in his–a lot of red‑tape discussions. We could never find any red‑tape reductions that he ever made then and I predict he won't make any now, but he wants to create 137 municipalities that will have regulatory responsibility for the taxicab industry and that, to me, looks like a tower of regulatory babel. I mean he's going to be exponentially increasing the amount of red tape that he purports to want to drop. Manitoba–the Manitoba taxi industry lacks the political and economic resources to take on companies like Uber that have investors like Goldman Sachs, Google Ventures and other equity–private equity groups–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Maloway: I can't recall any taxi company getting $3.5 billion in cash infusion from Saudi Arabian investors as Uber did. Uber's biggest financial backer is TPG Capital, co‑founded by David Bonderman, one of the wealthiest people on the planet. He's on the Uber board of directors. These tech‑ and venture‑capitalist entrepreneurs are very influential in mayors' offices all over. This provincial government can barely withstand these types of corporate pressures. Can you imagine how 137 municipalities are going to fare? Uber will be the $65‑billion elephant dancing among the 137 chickens. The legislation will result in regulatory chaos–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Maloway: –that optimizes the parasitic business model. Imagine 137 sets of rules governing the taxi industry. This Premier (Mr. Pallister) will become known as Captain Chaos when all these municipalities, individually, one at a time, race to the bottom of rates, benefits and eventually service itself.
Let's take a look at Uber. Brishen Roberts [phonetic] is a professor of law at Temple University Beasley School of Law and he's a former lecturer on law at Harvard Law School. He's an expert in how new technologies are altering the world of work and on labour issues in the platform economy. Writing at The University of Chicago Law Review, he says Uber's business model is actually quite simple. Its smartphone-based app connects drivers offering rides and passengers seeking them. Passengers pay mileage-based fees through credit cards that the company keeps on file, and Uber then takes a percentage of each fare and gives the rest to the drivers. Uber describes this as ride-sharing, but nothing is shared. Uber, he says, is extremely aggressive towards competitors and seems to disregard the law when convenient.
Now, let's look at the ride-sharing business model as a whole. Technology now enables something like giving a friend a ride in your car, monetizing it and externalizing costs like gas, insurance, payroll and on and on so that profits are maximized and expenses are virtually zero. This model naturally disrupts the 1,600 men and women in Winnipeg's taxi industry.
Taxi–each taxicab you see driving around in Winnipeg pays over $10,000 in insurance alone. That's 552 vehicles amounting for $5.6 million in insurance to MPIC. The insurance also pays–the industry pays $3 million more in a wide variety of fees for licences, police records, transfer fees, taxi safety, including business licences. Taxis are also required by our laws not to discriminate among passengers and serve all parts of the city that may not necessarily be profitable.
Now imagine 137 sets of regulations affecting these important considerations. A regulatory framework is needed that ensures competitors are competing with one another fairly and avoiding a situation where one business is paying $10,000 in insurance and other costs, and another business simply a fraction of that.
It's apparent that the province has washed its hands of its regulatory and moral responsibility. These small businesses could potentially be destroyed. I find it rather ironic that a government that prides itself on being for the small businessperson is so quick to throw so many small businesses to the predatory wolves. This is a government of big business by the test of this legislation, rolling out the red carpet for big business to leech the wealth off a newly deregulated industry, and now precarious labour. Precarious work is nonstandard employment that is poorly paid, insecure, unprotected and cannot support a household.
Now, Madam Speaker, I know my time is very short. I'm not going to be able to complete–but I do want to end by saying there were no consultations in the development of this bill.
Madam Speaker: Just a caution–order.
I would just like to urge a caution that, when referring to members in the House, we should be referring to them by their constituency names or their portfolios, and not putting another label on them.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Bill 30 is a terrible bill that is going to hurt over a thousand Manitobans who are connected through our taxicab industry. There are a few major components that are very concerning in this bill.
(1) The fact that there is a clause specifically stating there cannot be further action taken once this bill passes is a breach of rights, and it is a sign that this government knows this is a bad bill and they are still choosing to pass it.
(2) Safety. Madam Speaker, taxicabs have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into ensuring both the drivers and the passengers, when providing rides, are safe. These include shields in which we heard from citizens have protected drivers on more occasions than we can note. These also include strobe lights which, again, they have protected the citizens here in Manitoba. There are also cameras. And, Madam Speaker, I am sure any member in these Chambers can admit that, when having a camera when two strangers are travelling together, is always a safety feature.
The taxi board also ensures the cars are properly kept. That means not only cleaned, but also insured and maintained, both of which are critical in the safety of the drivers and the passengers.
* (23:50)
Madam Speaker, the government has to realize that if this bill passes, all new ride-sharing companies that may come to Manitoba will not have these safety features. I ask sincerely: Would the members of the government want their children, their parents and their loved ones travelling in a vehicle–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Lamoureux: –without the safety precautions?
The third component that just seems as if it should be obvious, but this government clearly doesn't care about, is fairness. Madam Speaker, current taxi drivers have put their lives into these careers. Many of them have moved from other countries. They've sold everything that they own. They've taken risks; they've built lives; they've sent their children to post‑secondary school; they bought houses, all of which is being jeopardized by this government not being diligent.
There are two ways that this government could be fair. This government could (a) provide compensation to taxi drivers. Madam Speaker, this has been done in other jurisdictions, and by this government passing this bill, they are just passing the buck to the city and they're not taking care of our Manitobans. Many of these cab owners spent up to $550,000 within the last few decades. Rates of cabs have gone up and down, they have fluctuated quite a bit, but now with ride-sharing potentially coming, these cabs won't be worth anything. In many cases, theses cabs were supposed to be pensions for people who have been driving them for 30‑plus years. What are they to do now? In 2015, the federal–during the federal election, the Conservative government proposed $4.3 billion in compensation to dairy farmers for the loss of supply management under the Trans‑Pacific Partnership. Without fair compensation to the taxi drivers, this bill is 'reprehendable' and we will not be supporting it.
The other way that this government could even the playing field out is by ensuring that any ride‑sharing company that came to Manitoba would have to meet the same standards. That means they have to do all the safety features that I listed off and, on top of that, they have to get a criminal record check done by the police and background checks.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to speak to Bill 30 one more time, and I strongly suggest that the government dissolve the bill. Thank you.
Mr. Mohinder Saran (The Maples): Thank you, Madam Speaker–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Order.
Mr. Saran: I have spoken, I have–a few times. I don't think it will make any difference but, anyway, I hope to the Premier's (Mr. Pallister) here–I think I cannot say that.
Some more members being–all members offering–being here and I hope they will listen and they will make a right decision instead of throwing the taxi owners under the bus. And I started to–I wanted to talk–start a discusson, and I wrote a letter to Premier and that lot of letter was like that.
I–the honourable Premier, I expect you are aware that the taxi service industry is the bread and butter of many Indo‑Canadians living in Winnipeg and that the owners of taxis feel continuously under threat that either Uber, independent contractor–well, Uber or independent contractors will be allowed to have free permits and thus take over the market or in the same end, some other car service will be given free permits.
The taxi owners have paid and continue to pay significant amount of money to do their work. Taxi permit prices in the market have ranged over the years from $350,000 to $500,000. If the government gives a free ride to Uber or simliar entities, these owners will have lost their whole life savings for nothing.Why hurt the owners of a service that has been very important to all of us?
Transferring authority to the City of Winnipeg will be perceived as allowing Uber through a backdoor. And frankly, it will appear as government discrimination against the Indo‑Canadian community. The mayor has already announced that Uber will come. It now appears both levels of government are ready to attack the hard-working Indo‑Canadian community in Winnipeg by having them pay exorbitant permit prices while other services are offered low or free fees.
I have a suggestion improve this for taxis and the government. I suggest the Province receive revenue from the taxi industry. For example, if hundred more taxis are required, the Province could sell these permits at an ongoing price. If an ongoing price is $350,000, revenue will be $35 million. Then next year, again, evaluate on an ongoing price. Either the taxi driver can buy the permit from market or from the province. In this way, more money will come to Manitoba from foreign countries like India, provided buying a taxi permit is considered under MPNP's business category. At the same time, the province will earn extra revenue and the permit price will be stabilized for drivers.
Another solution without hurting the owners is for the government to buy back permits from owners at ongoing price, then make those permits non-transferrable. I urge you not to give a free ride to Uber or–by transferring authority to the City of Winnipeg. Transferring 30 of taxi permits to the City of Winnipeg will amount to a bad ride for taxi owners and the provincial government.
That letter, Madam Speaker, I wrote to the Premier (Mr. Pallister), and then I tried to have a meeting with the minister at that time. And she said no, it's going through anyway. She did–I think she did not care about that. I tried to make this business–sense of. I thought I will have meeting with the Finance Minister. But he did not give me time to discuss it.
I think we should have–start consultation from some point, because I come from the community and–who majority of them are in the taxi industry. And I thought maybe that we start from elected officials and then perhaps we can have a discussion with the taxi industry. But that didn't happen.
And, on the other hand, putting that clause that you cannot take the government to the court. I think that's discriminatory. Other industry can do it. Farmers can do it. Other industries can do it. Don't take me wrong, I born in a farmer family and I like farmers and I want to help them. But look at–compare that. These guys also are farmer at one time, and they came over here. They sold their land over there, they brought money over there, they bought the taxis. And this government is–through the back door, bring those Uber and now giving free ride to other people.
And this is discriminatory, although we don't want to use this word. But this true. Truth is that they don't care about those people because they are–they're not that many–number of votes and they don't want to get any political benefit out of that. And this is society where we think democracy is working. Only democracy would work if you take care of the minority as well. If you don't take care of the minority as well, democracy will fail, and that's where democracy is failing.
Madam Speaker, I still ask Premier to make sure don't turn back on the taxi drivers and don't turn back on the speakers and make sure you listen and change this course. And talk to the taxi industry. Postpone whatever you are doing on now. And give a chance to those people to survive because they spent so much money–$400,000, $500,000–that will be washed away. That was their old-age pension, you can say. And that will be gone away. And they came over here because they want to have better life, but they will no–be go back where they started.
They wanted to have a better life than–for their–coming generations. But this will take away from them. And how they will survive? What kind of a message we are giving to people? On one hand, we want to bring those people from the other countries over here, and on the other hand, we can–are telling that we don't care about you.
* (00:00)
These people who come from that country, from India, from Punjab province, they're one of the best farmers. They're one of the best transporters. They're one of the best soldiers. Why we cannot take that advantage? Other provinces taking that advantage. BC taking advantage; Ontario taking advantage. But these people, they don't care. They don't care.
They're simply only–and their only mind–I don't know what the kind of deal they with have Uber. Uber can buy so many–also polled too. People can phone. That could be bought too. I don't know politicians. We can be bought as well? What mayor is doing, what Premier doing? What they are doing? So, I think, is that money speaking over here?
I think we must have real think about those people who are losing their–all their savings and those people should be given fair chance, and if those people, Uber or anybody want to buy those taxis, they can buy ongoing price. Why they can go in to get on zero dollars those taxis, but these people have spent $400,000, $500,000. Why? Why the Premier (Mr. Pallister), why this PC government cannot see it? If they want to see it, if they want to be fair–and also those people–some people are in the fundraiser, they told Premier promised them that it will be level playing field, but what kind of level playing field is that. Some people are getting with zero dollar that permit, other people are getting on $500,000 and they are losing that money.
And, you know, these people are saying this laughing matter. They're laughing, but they don't see how many families they're going to hurt, how many people will go on welfare, how many people will go on Rent Assist. That will cost money to back to the government, but they don't care because what the hell that Paki is talking about, we don't care about that Paki, that's what is happening over here, and they're laughing. They're not even serious about that. Sorry about that, for using that word, I know there's an indication in that to the Madam Speaker to you, but I'm really feel this community has been discriminated and this community is hurting and hopefully they will–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
I will now call the question on concurrence and third reading motion of Bill 30, The Local Vehicles for Hire Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
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 Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): A recorded vote, please.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
Order, please.
The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 30, The Local Vehicles for Hire Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Ewasko, Fielding, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith (Southdale), Smook, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Smith (Point Douglas), Swan, Wiebe.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 36, Nays 16.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Madam Speaker: The House will now consider concurrence and third reading of Bill 31, The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act.
Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I move, seconded by the Minister of Crown Services (Mr. Cullen), that Bill 31, the advanced education administration act be reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, be concurred in and now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Wishart: Manitoba's post-secondary education system is a key driver for our economy and provides students the opportunity for advancing their personal and professional goals. Our universities need greater capacity and flexibility to ensure that this system is sustainable and competitive now and in the future.
The existing legislation has constrained funding for the university programs, restricting them from making vital investments on campus to support the excellent education Manitobans expect. This bill introduces a more flexible formula to determine increases to university tuition while still ensuring Manitoba's average tuition is the lowest amongst western provinces.
It also offers red‑tape relief. Amendments will limit the increase in tuition to a rate of no more than 5 per cent plus consumer price index.
Madam Speaker, our government is committed to supporting high-quality post-secondary education for the benefit of all Manitobans. For this reason that–these amendments have been designated as part of a broader strategy. With this strategy, we have also included changes to Manitoba Bursary Program, which provides up to $2,000 in upfront grants to students with fiscal need. Funds are now provided to low‑income indigenous students while they're in school rather than applied to their loans after they have completed their study. I am pleased to note that this change already demonstrated some success. To date, the new Manitoba bursary has reached over a thousand more students in the old program, including doubling the number of indigenous recipients. When combined with the complementary federal program, low-income post‑secondary students in Manitoba can access up to $5,000 each year in non-repayable grants to support their studies.
As part of this post-secondary system, we–post-secondary education strategy, our government has also expanded the Manitoba Scholarship and Bursary Initiative to leverage more private sector funding for student awards than ever before.
Our government values the perspectives of all Manitobans. I am eager to listen to–or, to see this bill passed. Thank you.
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Our NDP caucus stands in opposition–strong opposition–to Bill 31. This bill will have a significant impact on students, and sends a strong message about this government's commitment to post-secondary education, going forward, in this province.
As this government cuts funding to universities and it hikes tuition, it sends a message not only to those students who are thinking about attending post‑secondary education about who should apply and who need not apply, but it also sends a strong message to employers in the private sector looking to this province about the potential calibre of the future workforce of this province.
* (01:10)
We know that tuition is the single biggest barrier to entry for prospective students and has the biggest impact on participation rates from a broad demographic, especially those who are low income. Study after study here in this country and examples from around the world show that affordable and accessible education is a path out of poverty, increases participation in the economy, has lower impacts on–or, helps with the impacts on health and well‑being of a population and is a good investment.
Students in this province have enjoyed some of the lowest tuition rates in Canada, while at the same time benefitting from a robust support program, and they also saw record investments in their post‑secondary institutions.
What a difference an election can make, Madam Speaker. Under this Pallister government, students today are facing a 30 per cent increase in up-front costs, and that's not including ancillary and course fees. That means for a student entering university next year, they could be paying nearly $2,000 more between increases in tuition and loss of supports in their final year of studies.
We held this bill up, Madam Speaker, we held it up to the 11th hour and I'm proud that we saved students some money this year. But how many students and how many future students are looking to get into post‑secondary education and only see barriers and only see increases? How many of them will be held back from enrolling and bettering their future?
The scholarship and bursary program the minister mentioned in his speech, we know, is nowhere close to making up the difference in increased tuition. Funding that's available to students won't cover the costs of the increased tuition and fees and these bursaries and scholarships often are only available in the first year and, of course, only available to some students and not others. It's also been made very clear, Madam Speaker, that the program is well short of meeting its goals, and just because the minister hoped that the private sector would step up and fill the gap created by this government, without a plan and without any kind of support to institutions, we see that that program is falling well short.
We also know, Madam Speaker, that this bill will impact not only students but will have a long‑term impact on our labour market and our economy. Seventy per cent of new jobs require some form of post‑secondary education, and building the economy of the future requires us to train workers for the new economy. Changes made today that decrease access to higher education will set our province back a generation. The removal of the tax–tuition tax rebate also puts up barriers and further jeopardizes our economy. Rather than attracting students from across the country–which we heard personal examples of during committee hearings, Madam Speaker–rather than attracting students from across the–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Wiebe: –country and around the world, we will lose students to other jurisdictions as we lose our affordability advantage.
At the same time, Madam Speaker, that tuition is going up, this government has frozen funding to institutions, effectively cutting that funding available to them. Capital projects are also frozen, with no path forward presented to post‑secondary institutions. So while the costs to students are going up, costs in the form of funding are going down to institutions. This is a clear transfer from the government onto the backs of students, and it's being done for one reason only: to save money to hit arbitrary austerity targets set by this Premier (Mr. Pallister).
We heard–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wiebe: We heard from student after student at committee, Madam Speaker, that they want an affordable education in this province and they see Bill 31 as a clear barrier to that. Students made their voices heard because they're worried. They were worried when this government was elected, but now they know for a fact that this government isn't listening to them, and it's clear to them, as it is to us, that this Premier doesn't care about how he's making life less affordable for students.
So, students are frustrated and they're angry. They've attempted to express themselves here in the Legislature and these students who came to the minister and who wanted their voices heard, as well, simply wanted a seat at the table, Madam Speaker. They wanted to have a voice in this decision. And they weren't granted that. Instead of listening to students, this government takes its voice from outside consultants and won't sit down at the table and listen to students.
Madam Speaker, we know in the NDP caucus that education is an investment, one of the best investments, in fact, that a government can make. This bill is taking our province backwards.
Our NDP caucus stands shoulder to shoulder with students in opposition to Bill 31 and we will be voting against it tonight.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): Throughout our country and our world, we see the positive impacts that education can have on the life of an individual. Education is the pathway for many out of a life of poverty into a better life. It provides a gateway to create a better future for themselves, their family and for their future generations.
For this to be a reality, education must remain accessible and affordable to all. We know that there are long-term benefits toward investments in education. Ensuring education is within the realm of possibility is our duty, especially for those who may not be able to afford higher costs of tuition.
We have heard from many people, many students who are worried about the potential rise in tuition fees for post-secondary students. The pressures and struggles many university students face is well known. Many students commonly need additional supports to reduce their burdens of being a student. Students should be encouraged to focus on their studies without the burden of having to worry about rising tuition rates.
Increased tuition rates represent greater stress, debt and financial insecurity for our students. Manitoba's hard-working university students deserve affordable and high-quality education. Students often need to find employment to make ends meet. By raising tuition rates, the difficulties faced by students who live on their own are only made worse. Investments in education lead to long-term growth and success for Manitoba. Increasing tuition rates 'discentivizes' higher education, stifling the development of our province and its people.
When determining what encourages a student to go to pro-secondary–a post-secondary institute, financial considerations are a major concern. The cost of education is higher for prospective students than institutional quality or institutional reputation. It has been shown that people from lower socio-economic backgrounds find the cost of post-secondary education to be a major hindrance to pursuing university or college studies. Increasing tuition rates can lead to a lower–can lead to lower participation rates in higher education among our most vulnerable populations.
Madam Speaker, excessive tuition increases will only harm the future of our province and our people. We will not support Bill 31.
Mr. Mohinder Saran (The Maples): Thank you, Madam Speaker. [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Saran: I think I would like to speak on the perspective of the–as immigrant.
* (01:20)
And when you leave your country, it's not that easy thing to leave that country and come to the other country because where you have been brought up; you always remember that place and you always miss that place.
Only you come to the other country because you think, I may suffer but my children can have better education, can have better career, and that's important.
Only that can be done if education's affordable, and to keep education affordable I think we should try–once I went to India and one of reporters asked me, if you are appointed a chief minister there–that's equivalent to premier–of this province, what would you do? I said I will free–provide free education. Why you will provide free education? Because people, kids, youth, become skilled and they will be–contribute to the economy. If they don't become skilled, they might become criminal, and that criminal–I could be victim, you could be victim, that's why education is important.
Other part, I think we should think about the foreign students and perhaps we can get some funds from that side and compensate on this side. Because I was talking to the vice‑president of Red River College five, six years back, and she said normally people think they take our–their spots when the foreign students come over here, but that–she said that's not true. We create one extra position with the money we get from the foreign students, and only thing, my main reason why that, how you can take advantage of foreign students–all though I think it looks not that good, but it happens–but how you can take advantage of foreign students? Because Ontario's doing–they reduced this English test up to 5.5 IELTS and we have 6.5, and similarly BC have a lower, Quebec has lower in French. So I think we should think about that, how we can lower that English requirement. Once students come over here, perhaps we can provide extra training in English and then they can be compatible.
So, in that way, we can compensate from one side and also we can provide education to the other side. So I know sometimes we may become sympathetic, why we will charge them more than over here. It happens. All the universities everywhere, they are charging two times, three times the fees to the foreign students, and if other provinces are taking that advantage, why we should not take that advantage? I think maybe we should try to keep education affordable, and on the other hand we should try to make money or make–compensate those funds from the foreign students. I think that's my suggestion. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I will now call the question on the concurrence and third reading motion of Bill 31, The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
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 Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): Recorded vote, please.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
Order.
The question before the House is concurrence and third reading on Bill 31, The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Ewasko, Fielding, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith (Southdale), Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Smith (Point Douglas), Swan, Wiebe.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 34, Nays 16.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Madam Speaker: In accordance with our rule 2, our next item of business is the conclusion of the business of Supply and passage of the budget implementation and tax statutes amendment act.
Our first step in this process is the conclusion of the consideration of departmental Estimates. Following that, we will move on to the main and capital supply process, including the passage of the loan act, the appropriation act and the budget implementation and tax statutes amendment act. Upon conclusion of the business of Supply, the House will be ready for royal assent of bills passed this session.
Consideration of the remaining departmental Estimates will take place in one section of the committee, with the 40 remaining resolutions to be decided without debate. Accordingly, the House will now resolve into one section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in the Chamber.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair.
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
We have before us our consideration for the remaining solutions of–resolutions for the department of Estimates. In accordance with the rule 2, these resolutions will be decided without debate. I will now call resolutions from the following departments in this order: Infrastructure, Municipal Relations; Growth, Enterprise and Trade; Sport, Culture and Heritage; Families; Civil Service Commission; enabling, Other Appropriations; Legislative Assembly; Employee Pensions and Other Costs.
That concludes the business–okay, now we'll go into the resolutions.
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): Resolution 15.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $8,370,000 for Infrastructure, Corporate Services, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 15.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $44,041,000 for Infrastructure, Highways, Transportation and Water Management Programs, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
* (02:30)
Resolution 15.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $182,897,000 for Infrastructure, Infrastructure Works, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 15.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,714,000 for Infrastructure, emergency management for public safety, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 15.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding four hundred and twenty eight million dollars six hundred and sixty–six hundred and seventy seven–oh, sorry, six hundred–okay–RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $428,637,000 for Infrastructure, Costs Related to Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 15.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $589,035,000 for the–for Infrastructure, Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): So we'll go on to Municipal Relations and resolution 13.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,158,000 for Municipal Relations, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 13.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding thirty two million five–fifty thousand dollars–okay, sorry–exceeding $32,050,000 for Municipal Relations, Community Planning and Development, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 13.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $13,844,000 for Municipal Relations, Infrastructure and Municipal Services, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 13.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $361,200,000 for Municipal Relations, Financial Assistance, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): So I'm just going to clarify one thing, is–resolution 15.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,714,000 for Infrastructure, Emergency Management and Public Safety, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): So we'll go on to Growth, Enterprise and Trade is the next one.
Okay, resolution 10.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,594,000 for Growth, Enterprise and Trade, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 10.2: RESOLVED that her–that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $52,533,000 for Growth, Enterprise and Trade, Enterprise, Innovation and Trade, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 10.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $16,210,000 for Growth, Enterprise and Trade, Labour and Regulatory Services, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 10.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding twelve million, two hundred and seventy thousand–okay, $12,270,000–oh, seventeen thousand dollars, okay–$12,217,000 for Growth, Enterprise and Trade, Resource Development, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 10.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,644,000 for Growth, Enterprise and Trade, Costs Related to Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): So the next department we'll look at is Sport, Culture and Heritage.
Resolution 14.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,565,000 for Sport, Culture and Heritage, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 14.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $68,058,000 for Sport, Culture and Heritage, Sport, Culture and Heritage Programs, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 14.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $6,670,000 for Sport, Culture and Heritage, Information Resources, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 14.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $92,000 for Sport, Culture and Heritage, Costs Related to Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 14.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $120,000 for Sport, Culture and Heritage, Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): So next one will be under the Department of Families.
Resolution 9.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $8,462,000 for Families, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 9.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $544,381,000 for Families, Community Service Delivery, for fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
* (02:40)
Resolution 9.3: RESOLVED there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding eight hundred and eighty eight–eight–sorry, eight hundred and eighty eight–$884,153,000–sorry, I'll go read that again–exceeding eight hundred and eighty four thousand one–eight hundred and eighty eight–sorry about this: $884,115,000 for Families, community programs for corporate services–and corporate services, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 9.4: RESOLVED that be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $487,450,000 for Families, Child and Family Services, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 9.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $107,046,000 for Families, Housing, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 9.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,903,000 for Families, Costs Related to Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 9.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum exceeding–not exceeding $219,000 for Families, Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): So we'll go on to Civil Service Commission. Okay.
Resolution 17.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $21,404,000 for Civil Service Commission, Civil Service Commission, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Enabling and Other Appropriations
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): Okay, next one is Resolution 26.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $9,322,000 for Enabling Appropriations, Enabling Vote, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 26.2: RESOLVED there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $31,000,000 for Enabling Appropriations, Internal Service Adjustments, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Twenty six point three: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $17,450,000 for Enabling Appropriations, capital assets minus–oh, sorry, hyphen–Capital Assets-Internal Service Adjustments, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
So, Legislative Assembly's the next one–okay.
Resolution 27.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $51,800,000 for Other Appropriations, Emergency Expenditures, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 27.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $500,000 for Other Appropriations, Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 27.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,500,000 for Other Appropriations, Sustainable Development Innovations Fund, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): Now we're going to go to Legislative Assembly.
Resolution 1.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum exceeding–not exceeding $10,606,000 for Legislative Assembly, Other Assembly Expenditures, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 1.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $7,243,000 for Legislative Assembly, office and other Auditor General–oh, Office of the Auditor General, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 1.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,898,000 for Legislative Assembly, Office of the Ombudsman, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Shall–okay–RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,898,000–oh, sorry, okay, $3,898,000 for Legislative Assembly, for the Office of the Ombudsman, for the fiscal year March 31st, 2018. Shall the resolution pass?
Okay, sorry–for the Legislative Assembly, for the Office of the Ombudsman, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 1.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,644,000 for Legislative Assembly, Office of the Chief electrical–Electoral Officer of the fiscal year–okay, Legislative Assembly, Office of the Chief electrical–Electoral Officer, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution 1.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,211,000 for the Legislative Assembly, Office of the Children's Advocate, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Employee Pensions and Other Costs
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): Employee Pensions and Other Costs is the next one.
Resolution 6.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum exceeding–not exceeding $22,210,000 for Employee Pensions and Other Costs, Employee Pensions and Other Costs, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
That concludes the business for us.
Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered the adoption of certain resolutions. I move–Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered and adopted certain resolutions.
* (02:50)
I move, seconded by the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Martin), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker: The House will now resolve into Committee of Supply.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair.
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
We have before us the–for the consideration for the resolution respecting Capital Supply. The resolution reads as follows:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,259,750,000 for Capital Supply, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Resolution agreed to.
Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered and adopted the Capital Supply resolution.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Bindle), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker: The House will now resolve itself into Committee of Supply.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair.
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Crown Services): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the Committee of Supply concur in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018, which have been adopted at this session, whether by a section of the Committee of Supply or by the full committee.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairperson: That concludes business for–currently before us.
Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a motion regarding concurrence in Supply.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for Fort Richmond (Mrs. Guillemard), that the report of committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Crown Services): I move, seconded by the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade (Mr. Pedersen), that this House concur in the report of the Committee of Supply respecting concurrence in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2018.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister for Growth, Enterprise and Trade, that there be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for capital purposes, the sum of $3,259,750,000 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Friesen: I move, seconded by the Minister for Education, that there be granted to Her Majesty for the Public Service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, out of the Consolidated Fund, the sum of $13,561,136,000, as set out in Part A, Operating Expenditure, and $688,498,000, as set out in Part B, Capital Investments, of the Estimates.
Motion agreed to.
* (03:00)
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister for Sport, Culture, Heritage, that Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2017; Loi de 2017 portant affectation de crédits, be now read a first time and ordered for a second reading immediately.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister for Municipal Relations, that Bill 42, the appropriation act, be now read a second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole. [interjection]
I move, seconded by the Minister for Municipal Relations, that Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2017, be now read a second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister for Indigenous and Northern Relations, that Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2017, be now read a first time and ordered for second reading immediately.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister for Families, that Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2017; Loi d'emprunt de 2017, be now read a second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 36–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance. No?
The question now before the House is second reading of Bill 36, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, be now read a second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? No?
* (03:10)
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of adopting the motion, please say aye.
Some Honourable Members: Aye.
Madam Speaker: Those opposed, please say nay.
An Honourable Member: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Ayes have it.
Recorded Vote
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): A recorded vote, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does the member have support?
A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
The question before the House is second reading of Bill 36, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Ewasko, Fielding, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith (Southdale), Smook, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Smith (Point Douglas), Swan, Wiebe.
Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Yeas 36, Nays 16.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The House will now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider and report on Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2017; and Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2017; and Bill 36, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 for concurrence and third reading.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair.
* (03:20)
Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): The Committee of the Whole will come to order to consider Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2017; Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2017; and Bill 36, the budget implementation to tax statutes amendment act, 2017.
During the consideration of these bills, the enacting clauses and title shall be postponed until all the other clauses have been considered in their proper order. If there is agreement for the–from the committee, I will call clauses in blocks that conform to pages. Is that agreed? [Agreed]
Bill 42–The Appropriation Act, 2017
Mr. Chairperson: Clause 1–pass; clauses 2 through 5–pass; clauses 6 to 7–pass; schedule–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.
Mr. Chairperson: The next bill for our consideration is Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2017.
Clauses 1 and 2–pass; clauses 3 and 4–pass; clauses 5 through 7–pass; schedule–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported.
Mr. Chairperson: The next bill is our consideration is Bill 36, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017.
Shall the minister responsible for the Bill 36 have an opening statement?
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, implements tax, financial and other measures based on our ongoing review of our provincial tax system, our prebudget community consultations with stakeholders and Manitobans, and input from Manitobans and civil servants.
It will help put Manitoba on the road to being the most improved province in family tax relief. It includes both housekeeping measures and measures to reduce red tape, assist with tax enforcement and crack down on illegal tobacco smuggling, as well as provide the government with the flexibility to bring further tax changes in the future in a timely manner to provide tax relief. It will reduce wasteful spending, tax expenditures and contingent liabilities.
The bill eliminates ineffective tax credits while extending or entrenching others that were deemed to have value in building or growing our economy. In addition to the major Budget 2017 measures, it also implements technical tax changes that respond to decisions by the courts, Tax Appeals Commissioner and issues or errors discovered by Manitoba's tax division, legal services, Legislative Council or the Canada Revenue Agency.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister.
Does the 'critit' of the official opposition have an opening statement?
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): Yes, I do.
Typically, the budget implementation bill is a standard operating procedure of this House, but this year, it's a little bit different, I'm afraid to say, because buried deep in the budget implementation bill are measures which should have been announced in the budget, but now we find were buried in the budget implementation bill itself.
This is not a reflection of a government that's open and transparent, but it's, in fact, a reflection of a government that seeks to be secretive and to hide the truth from the people of Manitoba at the very opportunity that they ought to have come clean with the people of Manitoba and with municipal governments about the kind of changes they had in store for them.
Mr. Chair, the NDP, the official opposition, has–takes exception to the budget implementation bill. We're going to be offering amendments to this bill to ensure that municipalities and the people who live in these municipalities are taken care of and that they can rely on the NDP to stand with them at the very time that the government doesn't do.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask leave to speak to the bill at this time.
Mr. Chairperson: Is it agreed to the–does the honourable member for River Heights have leave to speak on this–to make an open statement on this bill? [Agreed]
Go ahead.
Mr. Gerrard: I just want to raise a number of concerns about this bill.
This bill includes a reduction in the funding for transit for municipalities, and this is a significant concern because there's been a long‑standing agreement for matching funding from the Province, and the current Progressive Conservative government has reneged on that and pulled back and put at risk the funding for transit. And the concern for the City of Winnipeg in terms of the support of transit and rapid transit, I think, is real. We've been hearing a lot of concerns about this particular measure, and so I'm here to raise that as–in particular.
I'm also here to raise significant concerns about the elimination of the tuition rebate. We've heard from many, many students that this has been beneficial. In careful analysis, the elimination–or the institution of this was actually associated with a decrease in the migration of youth to other provinces and an increased retention of youth in Manitoba.
There's been, included in this, a reduction in the Research and Development Tax Credit. The government didn't campaign on reducing support for research, and research and development are critical to moving our province forward. There are tax credits for nutrient management, riparian tax credits for improved environmental support for agriculture which are removed in this place. And this is a concern.
There are a number of amendments here to tax legislation which would make changes so that changes could be made in regulation to the Seniors' School Tax Rebate, the Primary Caregiver Tax Credit and the Farmland School Tax Rebate, rather than being–those changes being included in legislation in the future. And we think that this is a sad commentary on a government which would hide these sorts of measures in regulation rather than bringing forward at budget and legislation level.
So thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. We're opposed to this bill because of the changes that it introduced which are detrimental to the future of Manitoba.
Mr. Chairperson: We want to thank the members for their opening statements.
Order. Let's get everybody's attention back to the Committee of Supply, here.
Okay, we'll start with clause by clause.
* (03:30)
Clauses 1 and 2–pass; clauses 3 through 5–pass; clauses 6 through 7–pass; clauses 8 and 9–pass; clauses 10 through 13–pass; clauses 14 through 16–pass; clauses 17 through 19–pass; clause 20–pass; clauses 21 through 23–pass; clauses 24 and 25–pass; clause 26–pass; clause 27–pass; clause 28–pass; clause 29–pass; clauses 30 to 32–pass; clauses 33 and 34–pass; clause 35–pass; clause 36–pass; clauses 37 through 39–pass; clauses 40 through 44–pass; clauses 45 through 49–pass; clauses 50 through 52–pass; clauses 53 and 54–pass; clauses 55 through 57–pass; clauses 58 and 59–pass; clause 60–pass; clause 61–pass; clauses 62 and 63–pass; clauses 64 and 65–pass; clause 66–pass; clauses 67 through 70–pass; clauses 71 through 73–pass; clauses 74 through 76–pass; clause 77–pass; clause 78–pass; clauses 79 through 81–pass; clause 82–pass; clauses 83 through 85–pass.
Shall clause 86 pass?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Chairperson: Clause 86 is defeated. Clause 87–pass.
Shall clause 88 pass?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Allum: Mr. Chair, I have an amendment. I move, seconded by the member for–oh, I move
THAT Clause 88 of the bill be amended
(a) by striking out subclause (3)(a)
(b) by striking out clause 5
(c) by replacing clause 8 with the following:
88(8), section 8 is amended by striking out "Building Manitoba Fund" and substituting "Strategic Municipal Investment Fund" in the section heading (d), striking out clause 9.
Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by the member for Fort-Garry Riverview
THAT Clause 88 of the bill to be amended
(a) by striking out subclause (3)(a)–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Chairperson: Dispense?
The amendment is in order. The floor is open for questions.
Mr. Allum: Mr. Chair, these amendments seek to reverse two of the many great wrongs associated with the Pallister government's budget that's set out in the budget implementation bill.
First, it seeks to restore the traditional 50‑50 formula for funding public transit in Winnipeg and across Manitoba. The government's decision to eliminate this historic funding arrangement will have profound consequences for transit riders because it will almost certainly result in lower service levels and higher fares for transit riders.
The mayor for the City of Winnipeg says this will cause pain, pain for the city who will lose millions of dollars while making life harder for commuters, the workers, for seniors, for students and for our families who rely on transit to get through each and every day. Over 1,500 people signed a petition from Functional Transit calling on the government to withdraw this provision of the bill, and day in and day out, we asked this government to let those voices be heard and send this bill to committee, and the government refused.
Secondly, the amendment also restores fully 1 per cent of the PST to municipalities to build and renew infrastructure. The government's decisions to eliminate this funding arrangement will cost municipalities millions while putting a chill on the Manitoba economy, hindering efforts to renew public infrastructure and will result in countless lost jobs.
Mr. Chair, these two measures should have been announced in the budget, not buried in the budget implementation bill. It's demonstrates that this government is neither open nor transparent. In fact, this government is quickly gaining the reputation as a reckless gang of off-loaders, freeloaders and downloaders.
These amendments seek to relive the pain caused by the Pallister government toward municipalities and all those who live in them and build a better Manitoba for everyone.
Mr. Chairperson: Is there any other speakers for the amendment?
Order. Order. Is there any other speakers for the amendment?
Okay, the–is the committee ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Chairperson: The question before the committee is the following amendment that was mentioned by Fort Garry-Riverview–the member for Fort Garry-Riverview (Mr. Allum).
Shall the amendment pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Chairperson: There was a no.
Voice Vote
Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the amendment, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): I request a recorded vote, please.
Mr. Chairperson: Recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
* (03:40)
The question before the committee is the–order. The question before the committee is the amendment from the honourable member for Fort Garry‑Riverview. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise their hands. [interjection] No? Oh, stand–it says here. I was using the script here.
Order. Order. Go ahead.
A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 16, Nays 35.
Mr. Chairperson: The amendment is accordingly defeated.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Clause 88–pass; clause 89–pass; clause 90–pass; clause 1 of schedule A–pass; clauses 2 and 3 of schedule A–pass; clause 4 of schedule A–pass; clauses 5 through 7 of schedule A–pass; clauses 8 and 9 of schedule A–pass; clause 10 of schedule A–pass; clauses 11 and 12 of schedule A–pass; clauses 13 and 14 of schedule A–pass; clauses 15 and 16 of schedule A–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill as amended be reported.
The concludes the business before us.
Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the following: Bill 42, Appropriation Act of 2017; and Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2017; and Bill 36, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Piwniuk).
Mr. Chairperson: Madam Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2017 and Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2017 and reports the same without amendments.
The Committee of the Whole has considered–also considered Bill 36, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 and reports the same as amended.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for Seine River (Ms. Morley-Lecomte), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister for Crown Services, that Bill 43, The Loan Act, 2017, reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister for Infrastructure, that Bill 42, The Appropriation Act, 2017, reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson), that Bill 36, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, as amended and reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [interjection] Oh. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
* (03:50)
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 Yeas have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): I request a recorded vote, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote having been called, call in the members.
The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 36, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Bindle, Clarke, Cox, Cullen, Curry, Ewasko, Fielding, Friesen, Goertzen, Graydon, Guillemard, Helwer, Isleifson, Johnson, Johnston, Lagassé, Lagimodiere, Martin, Mayer, Michaleski, Micklefield, Morley-Lecomte, Nesbitt, Pallister, Pedersen, Piwniuk, Reyes, Schuler, Smith (Southdale), Smook, Stefanson, Teitsma, Wharton, Wishart, Wowchuk, Yakimoski.
Nays
Allum, Altemeyer, Fontaine, Gerrard, Kinew, Klassen, Lamoureux, Lindsey, Maloway, Marcelino (Logan), Marcelino (Tyndall Park), Saran, Selinger, Smith (Point Douglas), Swan, Wiebe.
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 36, Nays 16.
Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
An Honourable Member: Point of order.
Point of Order
Madam Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition Leader, on a point of order.
Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Before the Lieutenant Governor is called in, I would just like to thank all the staff and the security guards, the clerks, the Sergeant-at-Arms and yourself. It has definitely been an unusual day, to say the least, and there was a lot of extra work above and beyond the normal scope of duty to ensure that this sitting could continue and that the government business and the business of the opposition could be carried out. And so it is with sincere thanks that I extend a very loud and proud miigwech to everyone who made this possible.
This fall sitting has certainly been an interesting one. It was bookended by some interesting days on either end, but the service of everyone at the doors, in the galleries, here on the floor is truly exceptional, and I'd like to include the pages in that, as well.
So thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: Well, I hate to say this, but the member doesn't have a point of order.
Hon. Cliff Cullen (Government House Leader): Well, to the same point of order, Madam Speaker.
And certainly we want to pass on our thoughts for the work that you've done this session. Certainly, it's been a very interesting session. Some unique things have happened over the last number of weeks. But we want to thank you, certainly. The table staff–certainly all the staff of the Chamber for their great work. Certainly, for us as new House leaders it's a learning curve for us, so we look forward to having future positive discussions as we move forward.
So thank you very much.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I rise on the same point of order.
* (04:00)
I want to thank the clerks. I want to thank the staff who have provided such admirable service, including the Hansard staff and all those who are supportive, the security staff. I want to thank the pages who have–particularly to thank you for being here and staying here the whole night and being able to support us, as I think that is very admirable.
It has been a session which has now ended, and we will not–in the not-too-distant future, have a throne speech.
This one began a year ago. It was the really first full time of testing the new rules. I think a word of thanks to the former House leader who was involved in helping set those rules, and to members of the NDP caucus who were involved in developing the rules. There needs to be a little bit of tweaking, I think, as a result of the experience that we've had this year, and I look forward to having a meeting of the Rules Committee to address some of those, but I want to thank all the MLAs for their participation, the government and the opposition and the Liberal and independent members.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have to say that that wasn't a point of order, but I do appreciate the comments, and I'm sure all of the staff in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly appreciated hearing that.
* * *
Madam Speaker: It has been a–certainly a challenging day, and I'm not sure that any Legislature has ever been able to do what was pulled off here today, where we could carry on a session with two floor mics and one mic here. So congratulations to all of you because, by your co-operation too, we were able to make today happen. So thank you, on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, for all your kinds words.
I'm advised that Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor is about to arrive to grant royal assent to the bills, and I am therefore interrupting the proceedings of the House for royal assent.
Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr. Ray Gislason): Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor.
Her Honour, Janice C. Filmon, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Manitoba, having entered the House at and being seated on the throne, Madam Speaker addressed Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor in the following words:
Madam Speaker: Your Honour:
The Legislative Assembly of Manitoba asks Your Honour to accept the following Bills:
Clerk Assistant (Mr. Claude Michaud):
Bill 42 – The Appropriation Act, 2017; Loi de 2017 portant affectation de crédits
Bill 43 – The Loan Act, 2017; Loi d'emprunt de 2017
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): In Her Majesty's name, the Lieutenant Governor thanks the Legislative Assembly, and assents to these bills.
Madam Speaker: Your Honour:
At this sitting, the Legislative Assembly has passed certain Bills that I ask Your Honour to give assent to.
Clerk Assistant (Mr. Claude Michaud):
Bill 23 – The Fisheries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pêche
Bill 24 – The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017; Loi de 2017 sur la réduction du fardeau administratif et l'efficacité du gouvernement
Bill 27 – The Elections Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi électorale
Bill 30 – The Local Vehicles for Hire Act; Loi sur la gestion locale des véhicules avec chauffeur
Bill 31 – The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration de l'enseignement postsecondaire
Bill 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)
Bill 35 – The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le financement d'organismes de producteurs agricoles
Bill 36 – The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017; Loi d'exécution du budget de 2017 et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité
Bill 215 – The Civil Service Amendment Act (Employment Preference for rervists with active service; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la fonction publique (embauche préférentielle des réservistes ayant été en activité de service)
* (04:10)
Clerk: In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour assents to these bills.
Her Honour was then pleased to retire.
God Save the Queen was sung.
O Canada was sung.
Madam Speaker: Before we adjourn, I would just once again remind members, if they have not already done so, to remove the contents of their desks before they leave the Chamber.
The hour being past 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on November 21st, and wish everybody a good break week.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, November 9, 2017
CONTENTS
Mustangs Black Football Team Champions
A. Smith
Morden Thunder Boys and Girls Soccer Teams
Master Corporal Christian Duchesne
Changes to Health-Care Services
Bills Brought Forward During Legislation Session
Changes to Health-Care Services
Women's Reproductive Health Care
Northern Regional Health Authority
Forced Organ Harvesting in China
Assistant Deputy Minister Position
T. Marcelino
Concordia Hospital Emergency Room
Concordia Hospital Emergency Room
Matter of Urgent Public Importance
Concurrence and Third Readings
Bill 34–The Medical Assistance in Dying (Protection for Health Professionals and Others) Act
Bill 35–The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act
Debate on Concurrence and Third Readings–Public Bills
Bill 215–The Civil Service Amendment Act (Employment Preference for Reservists with Active Service)
Concurrence and Third Readings
Bill 23–The Fisheries Amendment Act
Bill 24–The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017
Bill 27–The Elections Amendment Act
Bill 30–The Local Vehicles for Hire Act
Bill 31–The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act
Enabling and Other Appropriations
Employee Pensions and Other Costs
Bill 42–The Appropriation Act, 2017
Bill 42–The Appropriation Act, 2017
Bill 36–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017
Bill 42–The Appropriation Act, 2017
Bill 36–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017
Concurrence and Third Readings
Bill 42–The Appropriation Act, 2017
Bill 36–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017
Bill 42 – The Appropriation Act, 2017
Bill 23 – The Fisheries Amendment Act
Bill 24 – The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017
Bill 27 – The Elections Amendment Act
Bill 30 – The Local Vehicles for Hire Act
Bill 31 – The Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act
Bill 34 – The Medical Assistance in Dying (Protection for Health Professionals and Others) Act
Bill 35 – The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act
Bill 36 – The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017