LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
Madam Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.
Madam Speaker: Please be seated. Good morning, everybody.
Mrs. Sarah Guillemard (Fort Richmond): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by–
Madam Speaker: No.
The honourable Minister for Crown Services.
Hon. Colleen Mayer (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I am seeking leave of the House to move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 230, The Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Awareness Day Act, followed by the resumption of second reading debate on Bill 200, The Planning Amendment Act.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave this morning to go to third reading of Bill 230 and resumption of debate on second reading of Bill 200? Agreed? [Agreed]
Madam Speaker: So, therefore, we will move to concurrence and third reading of Bill 230, The fetal alcohol spectrum disorder awareness day act.
Mrs. Sarah Guillemard (Fort Richmond): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Isleifson), that Bill 230, The Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Awareness Day Act; Loi sur la Journée de sensibilisation à l'ensemble des troubles causés par l'alcoolisation foetale, reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in and now be read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Guillemard: At committee stage, we heard from stakeholders about the importance of education when it comes to the prevention of FASD. We had written submissions from people who lived with FASD who are eager to see more efforts put into awareness and prevention. I would like to share some of those comments that were submitted at committee by stakeholders, because they reveal the intent behind the bill and will be key in the continued movement towards awareness of FASD.
Lisa Morrissea is a mother of three and a speaker for Visions and Voices. Lisa also is an individual with FASD. She states, I quote: The importance of bringing forth awareness on FASD is that it's a community problem, just–not just one person. Females get blamed, but it's the whole community that plays a part. The racism of it has to stop, as well, to think that it's not just indigenous people. People like to think this doesn't exist and that it isn't their problem. FASD across the spectrum is everywhere. It is in the schools, it's in our playgrounds and it's also at work. We may never be able to stop it a hundred per cent, but we can make a difference one person at a time. Other mental disabilities are not preventable, but FASD is one of the few disabilities that is. So that is why it is very important to have awareness.
Russ Hilsher also lives with FASD and is a speaker for Visions and Voices. Here are his words, quote: Alcohol is a big problem in our society. Maybe if we raise more awareness about FASD, we will have more awareness about alcohol as well. I think this bill is important for Manitobans, but FASD should be acknowledged at the federal level too.
Madam Speaker, I believe we all can see the wisdom in these words, and I hope we all can be a part of moving towards healing together and reducing harm. I am wearing a ribbon today for FASD awareness. The outer blue edge is for the addiction awareness. The silver is for brain injury. And the knot in the centre symbolizes the brain or 'umbalical' cord damaged by fetal alcohol exposure.
Madam Speaker, I'd like to acknowledge the guests in the gallery who have joined me today in hopes of celebrating the passage of a bill that recognizes their many years of efforts in research and advocacy of FASD. Geoff Hicks, from the University of Manitoba; Tannis Toothill, guest of Holly Gammon; Teresa Brown, guest of Holly Gammon; and Holly Gammon from Healthy Child Manitoba; Berardino Petrelli, from the University of Manitoba; and Leo McKay, from the University of Manitoba. I look forward to working closely with you and other organizations to help promote the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Awareness Day.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): I want to thank my colleague from Fort Richmond for bringing this bill forward. Bill 230, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Awareness Day Act, dedicates September 9th, which is actually my daughter's birthday, as Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Awareness Day.
This is, you know, something that I think has been a long time coming. It's great that we're going to create awareness around it, but, I think, it needs to go even further than that. And I want to thank those in the gallery today that are here, that have been doing work on the front-lines to support families, doing research into, you know–and education around stopping this from happening.
As I spoke earlier, in my last remarks, I do have a niece that's about 25 that lives with alcohol spectrum disorder. She's had a tough time throughout her life, not only through the education system but also even getting diagnosed with it. So, you know, it's great that we have this day, but we also have to make sure that the resources are in place for families who are having to struggle through this, who are having to struggle to get the supports for, you know, their child that is, unfortunately, born with this.
And there's no cure for it. You know, the child goes and grows up into an adult, and we often see, you know, many of these kids that don't have cause and effect and end up in the justice system. So we need to ensure that there's more supports, not only for those families but also for educators in schools. When my niece entered school, she wasn't diagnosed until she was almost seven. And it was actually the school who advocated for my niece to get extra supports, but those supports are no longer there for a lot of kids.
And, when a kid transitions from early years to middle years, then they have to do another application, an IEP, which is an individual education plan, which sets out what are the plans and goals for this kid. And, often, you know, they're not given the proper supports that they need. And we want all kids to be successful. We want these kids to grow up to be adults and be successful in our world. But, if we don't have the tools in place right from birth for these families to, you know, have the supports and the resources that they need, then we're setting them up.
* (10:10)
So I think we need to go further with this bill and give the tools to the people who are actually doing the work that they need, and give our schools more supports in terms of supporting the kids that need the extra supports in schools so that they can be successful as well.
Liquor & Lotteries, you know, every year, their public awareness, social responsibilities fund is underspent. We need to ensure that those dollars are expended so that everyone knows when they pick up alcohol that there's a chance even just one drink could cause fetal alcohol syndrome. Nobody knows the amount of alcohol that it takes to actually cause, and now, you know, fathers that are intoxicated can also be a cause of this.
So, you know, we now know more today than we did when my niece was born. And so we need to make sure the lotteries are also doing their job in making sure that there's awareness created around this and that there's some responsibility on them, because they're also selling the alcohol to the people who maybe don't even know that they're pregnant or don't know that the father could be intoxicated and actually pass that on to their child.
So it's a great bill. I think it's going to create awareness, but we also need to create education. And education is the key to ensuring that people know that there is a possibility if I pick up a glass of wine or I have one bottle of beer while I am pregnant, that that could cause my child to, you know, have to live with this for the rest of their life.
And, certainly, when I was pregnant–my son is 27 now–my doctor told me, you know, one glass of wine is fine. But, today, you know, we know that that's not true. So we've come a long way in terms of knowing that there's no amount of alcohol that could cause this. It could be one sip; it could be one bottle; it could be six bottles; it could be, you know, the mother; it could be the father; and we also know that this is a lifetime thing that children have to live with and society as well. So we need to be ensuring that we're providing those supports right from when children are born to when they go to school to when they become adults–and also the families. Like, my mother struggled with my niece. She had difficulty–difficulties at school, so sometimes she was kicked out of school because of her behaviour, because she didn't have cause and effect, so she didn't realize that she did this, this was a consequence. So she would be at home, my mom would be at work and she would have to go pick up my niece. And there was no supports for her. There was nothing for her. There were no groups at the time where parents came together and supported one another. When my mom would go to school for–they called them re-integration meetings–there was no one to come with my mom and sit with her and support her and say, like, you know, how do we figure out a way for, you know–Stephanie is my niece's name–to stay in school, be successful and know that, you know, there's places that you can go to, people she can talk to and that there's people there that'll support her within the school?
And schools also need the tools, you know. We have learning support teachers, we have guidance counsellors, but they work with the whole school, and sometimes that's challenging when you have a school of, let's say, 400 students and you're trying your best to support–you know, say you have 50 kids in the school that are living with FASD, it becomes a challenge, because you don't have the resources to properly support the kids. And, if we want them to be successful, we need to ensure that they're fully supported.
We also need more, you know, public campaigns, advertisements, education around FASD. This was a topic of discussion. Probably–I would say, five or six years ago I remember seeing billboards and watching commercials and people talking about it at the dinner table. It's like I said: I was told one bottle of beer or one glass of wine was okay. And, all of a sudden, you know, that shift to no amount of alcohol was okay.
So I think we need to get back to that conversation, and I think one day is great, but we also need to be doing this 365 days a year to ensure that children are not born with fetal alcohol syndrome, that parents know, not only mothers but also fathers know, the risk, and that schools are properly resourced, parents are properly supported and that we're not seeing a–you know, people end up in the justice system or people ending up homeless because the supports aren't there. We need to ensure that they live, you know, as normal life as possible. And the only way we're going to do that is if we provide those supports and we educate and we ensure that, you know, our families, our community, our children are properly given the resources to live a normal life.
When we look at responsible drinking, you know, you don't know when you go out to a bar and you're going home, let's say with your partner, that there's a chance that that could happen. And, you know, also having protection when you're going out drinking and you're coming home and, you know, you're, you don't know if you're going to create a child from that night. So that should also be a part of it too, especially with our young people and making sure that they know about protected sex and that this is a possibility.
Social responsibility fund, and I was talking about that earlier with liquor lotteries. You know, I go to the Liquor Mart; I pick up a case of beer. Nowhere on the beer does it say–or the case that I read–does it say that, you know, you shouldn't be drinking alcohol, that it could affect a child and the child could end up with FASD.
I think there needs to be more education on liquor definitely so that when someone goes in to, you know, buy a case of beer and they're making that choice, and it's a responsible choice I agree, but that they know that there's a chance that if they have sex and they, you know, get impregnated or they impregnate someone that there's a chance that their child could live with FASD for the rest of their lives. This isn't something that, you know, has a cure. And, you know, it's something that could be prevented.
And this day is going to create awareness but we still need to go even further and make sure that the front-line people have the resources that they need, families are supported, and our kids especially that are living with this have every support that they need to live a normal and healthy life.
Miigwech.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I speak this morning in support of this bill. I want to thank the member for Fort Richmond (Mrs. Guillemard) for bringing this forward. I want to thank those who have come in support of this bill this morning. It is an important bill, an important measure, and now we need to make sure that for next year there is, and every year after, there is an important plan and a significant plan for creating awareness about FASD. And so we're looking forward to seeing the plan as it emerges. I hope that the MLA for Fort Richmond will involve the people who are here in supporting in the development of that plan.
I would suggest that there's a number of elements which are important in the plan. I would suggest that one of the things that the MLA for Point Douglas has mentioned, which is that Liquor & Lotteries would have the opportunity to actually put warning labels on alcoholic beverages. That is something that's certainly within the doable for the government, and we should expect that to be part of an awareness plan.
We would expect that the awareness plan not only makes awareness, people aware of what's happening, but also aware of the need for further research, research related to, for example, nutrition and its impact, either preventing or mitigating, research into helping children with FASD and making sure that they have the best possible opportunities in the future.
And also, as part of the plan, should be some ability to look at the impact of, or the effectiveness of, the awareness. I have been at a number of Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries committees, and I have asked them, because they have had awareness campaigns to some extent in the past, whether they were effective. And they had no idea whether they were effective or not. And so there needs to be some measurement of the effectiveness of the plan to see if it is working.
* (10:20)
It turned out that when we were dealing with bringing more attention to the negative effects of cigarette smoking, that actually measuring what worked turned out to be very important in the design of awareness campaigns.
I hope that the member for Fort Richmond (Mrs. Guillemard) will take all this into account as she works with others to develop the awareness plan for the future. Thank you.
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): I hear the member for Radisson (Mr. Teitsma) calling the question before I have a chance to speak on it, and I'm sure he wouldn't want to deny me my opportunity to put a few words on the record in relation to Bill 230.
I want to compliment the member for Fort Richmond in bringing this forward. And, like my friend from River Heights, I certainly want to acknowledge those who are here today, who, I think, spend their time working on this issue and others related to it in order to try to get a better–make a better world and that's the kind of thing that, I think, all of us are engaged in here in the House but also in civil society. And, in fact, 'moch'–most of the effective work happens in civil society outside of what happens inside of this building. And so I always want to compliment those working on the front lines, working very hard to address issues that are extremely complex, extremely difficult and also has an incredible impact on our neighbourhoods and on our communities and on families.
And so I want to compliment, again, the member for Fort Richmond for bringing this forward, but, like all of us on this side of this House, when we get up to speak to these kinds of issues especially on awareness days, we want to be sure that this is not just some kind of fanfare that doesn't lead to direct and immediate action. We know that Liquor & Lotteries devotes 2 per cent of their revenues toward dealing with a concept that we describe as social responsibility, and it's to ensure that whenever your–whenever someone is drinking and whatnot and–that there is that kind of responsibility associated with your activity, and then that that's a public government responsibility in addition to that to ensure that there's effective action associated with the concept of social responsibility. And so, from our side of the House, we get very, very troubled when we learn that while the government is on the side of an awareness day in relation to FASD, and–as I said, we support the bill–that, at the same time, that we get concerned when we learned that the government has left $2 million of the social responsibility fund–
An Honourable Member: Unspent.
Mr. Allum: –at Liquor & Lotteries unspent. Well, how could that be, Madam Speaker? This is typical of what we get from the government, which is to give the perception of action. But, when you actually look at the budget and how those dollars were spent, we find that, in fact, they were unspent. And so that's a concern to this side of the House. And I would suggest, quite strongly, it should be a concern to members in the public gallery today, that they find that a government that's kind of reeling them in with their awareness 'procosal', but, at the same time, when it actually comes to direct and immediate and consequential action, they leave a little bit more than–to be desired. And we find, in fact, $2 million of the social responsibility fund unspent.
To us on this side of the House, we find that incredible. We find it disingenuous that we debate a good bill here today, but there isn't the proper associated resource funding on it. And it has been the action of this government and, I have to say, of Conservative governments in Ottawa and across Canada, that while they budget numbers associated with different issues, most of that money or a good portion of that money, more often than not, is left unspent. So you'll hear the Premier (Mr. Pallister) get up and talk about, oh, we've budgeted this amount of money for something. And, in fact, that money remains unspent and the purpose for which it is intended goes unattended, Madam Speaker.
And I find that really hard to take, and it makes it harder to get behind awareness day bills of this kind, when, in fact, the money that's allotted for this purpose remains unspent and kind of tells you, as we've often said about this government, that they're really not about the investment in building a stronger, safe or more sustainable families and neighbourhoods and communities. They're really about the dollars and cents. And we can ill afford to have a government so fixated on the balance sheet when there are such huge and colossal issues in our society. We can ill afford that kind of action.
And so I would impress upon the member for Fort Richmond (Mrs. Guillemard), as I often do in this House when I'm–get up and speaking, is that backbench MLAs, second row MLAs, row–MLAs who are not part of the Cabinet, do have a responsibility to hold their own government accountable. And so they need to see–they need to see–and ask hard questions when they're in their caucus room, having private meetings to say, well, I'm glad, Premier, that you've fallen behind this FAS day–FASD awareness day, but I'm also concerned when I see, and the New Democrats raised it in the House, that we've underspent the social responsibility budget by $2 million. And that ought to be a concern to all of us in this House.
But it's more than just that, Madam Speaker. We find that Marymound facility, dedicated to assisting teens facing addictions–and I spent a good amount of time, when we were on the other side of the House, down at Marymound; they do incredible, fabulous work–we also note that they have not seen an increase since 2015. Now, they can't effectively do their work if the government won't even increase funding to organizations like Marymound at the rate of inflation, let alone providing the proper resources in order to do their job effectively.
And then we find, Madam Speaker, that–and my friend from River Heights talked about the very important role that research needs to–the research that needs to be undertaken in order to address issues like FASD, we find out that the University of Manitoba's research funding for FASD has decreased from $500,000 in 2015 to $127,000 in 2017, almost $300,000–more than $300,000 cut from the very critical research that is intended to support and highlight FASD awareness day.
So, when you put all of this together, Madam Speaker, we support the bill. We support the intent of the bill. But we cannot support and we cannot tolerate a government where there is words but no action and the action that has been taken cuts the budget, leaving money–budgets–money left unspent. We cannot support that. We will not support that, and so we're calling on the member not to just go and promote what she's done in getting this bill passed in the House, but to hold her Cabinet colleagues and the Premier of this province accountable for doing the kind of real work that needs to be done, in order to address the very issue that she's raised in the House. [interjection] And I'm not sure if I'm being heckled from across the floor or not. We're just trying to make a point here; this is what we do here in the House.
I want to spend my last minute and a half on one other issue, Madam Speaker.
My friend from Flin Flon and member from Minto and myself were at committee, and we heard some great presentations on FASD last week. And, when it came to the end of the night to decide, well, which bill would we be voting on first, the member for Brandon West (Mr. Helwer) said, well, let's do FASD first, and we'll leave the human rights bill 'til last.
Now, he–when recommending that and suggesting that to the Chair, he knew full well that they were going to vote against the expansion of The Human Rights Code here in Manitoba. So we're all onside in doing the FASD bill together. We all vote in favour of it and then turn around not a–two minutes later to vote against a very important bill put forward by the Liberals–and that is no consequence to us–on expanding The Human Rights Code to deal with physical size.
* (10:30)
Now, that was something–I've seen a lot of stuff in this House in my short time here, but that was, I would say, double-dealing on the part of the government. It was disingenuous. It was unfair to the other bill that was there that night. If I'm the member for Fort Richmond (Mrs. Guillemard), I would have been very, very disappointed to see things go down in the way they did.
We support this bill, Madam Speaker, but we have higher standards and we expect more, not only from the government but from members of the government who put forward bills of this kind.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): I rise this morning to talk a little bit about the member from Fort Richmond's Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Awareness Day Act.
People before me have spoken about some of the issues; I guess we have. Just creating an awareness day isn't enough. It's a step along the way. There's probably 15 other awareness days on that same day, which–things get lost in the shuffle. So we've asked the member from Fort Richmond, so what's the plan after the awareness day?
What's the education plan? What's–what are you going to do to raise awareness, not just on that day but every day? Certainly, you know, just doing something here in the city of Winnipeg to say we have an awareness day doesn't really address what takes place in rural Manitoba or northern Manitoba. So, again, we're left wondering, what's the plan from there?
And, like my friend from Fort Garry-Riverview said, you know, it's somewhat disingenuous of this government to say we're going to support an awareness day, while at the same time underspending from liquor, lotteries and cannabis on the very thing that should be being used to educate people about the dangers of alcohol, gambling, cannabis. They put that money in a bank account and leave it sit there.
So we have this awareness day without the backing, without the resources that are required to make it a meaningful thing so that it actually helps address the issue before us. And, certainly, I want to admire the people in the gallery that have come and have put so much effort into getting us this far, to raising awareness and doing everything they can, personally, to raise awareness.
And, really, now we're asking the government to take that next step: to actually fund the education, to actually fund what's going to make people aware; to actually start the education process to make sure that people are aware; to actually fund things such as health care, that, really, we've seen cuts after cuts after cuts.
And, certainly, in some of the northern communities that I represent, we see those cuts which affect people and families, families with FASD that have to come to the city for whatever medical treatment they require. And this government cuts the northern patient transportation subsidy, makes it more difficult for those people to actually get the medical care that they need.
So, you know, we see a government that really likes to have awareness days without doing anything else. We've talked about any number of awareness days in this House at various times–days to recognize this group, that group, some other group–which are all well and good, Madam Speaker, but we need to make sure that there's more than just, oh, look at me, I've passed a bill. I've said–I've done this and now, that's it; we're all done.
We're not all done. That's just the beginning, and we encourage this government–well, I guess we really, as my friend from Fort Garry pointed out–Fort Garry-Riverview–pointed out that, really, the people that bring bills like this forward, private member's bill in the government backbenches, really need to encourage their colleagues in the front benches to take the next step; to do the right thing; to actually step up and support people; to support people with issues such as FASD and other issues to make sure that we don’t just have a day that comes and goes and gets lost in the shuffle with umpteen other days that come and go; to actually make sure that every day becomes FASD awareness day; that there's education in schools; there's education available for parents, there's education available wherever it needs to be available so that people actually become aware, that people know what the harm can be, what the harm is.
Instead of just saying, we've passed a bill and we're done, let's do the next step. Let's actually look at what should take place on that day throughout the province of Manitoba and what should take place every day throughout the province.
While Liquor & Lotteries sits on a sum of money that could really be used and really should be used to address some of the very things that we're talking about here, Madam Speaker, that the education part, the awareness part, to make sure that everybody that needs to know, which, basically, is everybody, what the harm of alcohol ingestion at the time of pregnancy really is so that not just women, but men as well, so that the families really are aware of the issues and understand the risks and the harm that can take place.
But that education, as I've said, Madam Speaker, needs to extend beyond the perimeter of the city of Winnipeg. It really needs to get into the rural communities. It needs to get into the northern communities. The awareness really needs to go everywhere where the problem is, which is everywhere in the province of Manitoba.
So, while we certainly support this Bill 230 and I'm sure we'll see it pass, we want to really hold the government's feet–hold the member from Fort Richmond's feet to the fire to make sure that she is talking to her colleagues, that she is putting pressure on her colleagues to do the right thing, to properly fund education, to properly fund health care, to properly fund the things that are important to Manitobans to make sure that the Crown corporation, Manitoba liquors, lotteries and cannabis actually does what it's supposed to do with its social responsibility fund, which is educate people about the dangers associated with the products that it actually sells. That's why that part is in that Crown corporation's mandate.
But, if every year they underspend that mandate, and if every year this government says, well, good for you; you saved money, it's not always just about saving money, Madam Speaker. It cannot always be just about saving money. Sometimes it actually has to be about people, and that's what's missing with this whole government's mandate, is it's all about dollars and not about people, which is really too bad. In fact, it's shameful because people are what's important, and sometimes, whether this government likes it or not, you actually have to spend the money to get the result that you want, which is cheaper in the long run.
You can't always look at just the short term. We save 5 cents today, it's going to cost us $5 tomorrow. That's not the right answer and that's the way this government continues to look at everything they do with their value-for-money audits, is they're putting just the dollars and cents ahead of the people, the people that desperately need the resources put into the issues. Certainly the people in the gallery today, I'm sure, would encourage the member who brought this act forward to take the next step, and I'm sure they will be talking to her once this passes, that what is the next step? What are you going to get your government to do?
* (10:40)
And that will be the important work that lies ahead, that certainly we listened to presenters on those bills the other night and both bills that were put forward were very important pieces of legislation that would have offered protection for people. And certainly it was good to see 'uninamin'–can't say it, but everyone voting unanimously in favour of passing this bill at committee, but then the shameful behaviour that took place after that is really something that everyone that was at that committee should be ashamed of themselves, that protecting people should be important. Protecting people has to be important, and this bill is one of those two bills. The Human Rights Code Amendment Act clearly was another one that's important. We need to put people ahead of profit.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): One of the most telling impacts of FASD is the particular appearance that a child takes on when afflicted by this syndrome. And one of the researchers at the University of Manitoba who helped out in this research is a very good friend of ours, Dr. Arzu Aptekman. And although she's one of those who would sometimes claim that vitamin A might help in the resolution or at least in the–in helping out this syndrome, it remains to be seen because a lot of research has to be done. And when we say research, it's not just a mandate letter to ask those who are capable of finding out the best ways to put–or at least slow down the progress of this syndrome or this condition.
The problem that I am having is that the research funding for the university has slowed down to almost a trickle from a huge 500,000 to roughly about 100,000 on an annual basis. Those program expenditures would help if it were sustained, if it were given that much focus and if it were given that much importance.
The social responsibility fund that has been with the Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries as part of its social responsibility response as a provider of alcohol and gambling and now cannabis, it's part of how governments try to assuage the feelings of those who are affected. We give them a chance to spend more money on social responsibility, which means that the conscience of government is stricken from time to time, but then they only put money in it, and then–and they budget for it and, at the same time, not spend it.
And it's part of a whole new ball game for those who have concerns about research and the efficacy of research and the importance of research in showing that we are really serious about not just making people aware about this condition as a result of a prenatal drinking or prenatal exposure to alcohol. Alcohol is readily available, and since it is readily available, then it's easier for those who are tempted to use it and it's easier to access for those who have an addiction to it.
And, when we talk about addictions, there's a lot of approaches that we have. But then we have to go beyond what is being said here. It's just an awareness day. We have to make it an awareness day every day so that those that you see involved in the criminal justice system, some of them are afflicted with this syndrome. And it's amazing how the criminal justice system seems to be a little bit more aware of the complications of this condition, that there's that sense that some of the funding should go specifically to rehabilitation of those who are afflicted with this.
And, with that, I would always ask that there are so many awareness days that we are losing track already of those days. And we have awareness months, which to me is an exercise in futility unless we fund and put money where our mouth is.
And, Madam Speaker, thank you very much for allowing this resolution or this bill to be calendared today, and it's an important issue. It's a very important issue–don't get me wrong–except that awareness days are not sufficient to address these issues themselves.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia.
Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): No, sorry, on this one here. Yes.
Madam Speaker: On House business?
Mr. Wiebe: No, sorry, on–
Madam Speaker: Oh.
Mr. Wiebe: On the bill this morning.
Madam Speaker: All right. The honourable member for Concordia.
Mr. Wiebe: I know we've been back and forth with our clerks this morning about a number of issues, so it's hard for me to keep it all straight in my head, so I'm sure it's difficult for everybody.
No, it is my pleasure to rise this morning to speak to this particular bill, and I do–I am excited to put some words on the record because I think it is a morning where we come together and I think all members of the House are putting words on the record. And as I like to say in this place, I think the best speeches that we hear from are speeches that speak from experience or from the heart, and that's what I'm hearing here this morning; that's what I've heard from members on the government side, and that's certainly something that members on all sides of the House can relate to.
I do think that whether or not somebody has an experience in their own life of working with somebody who has fetal alcohol syndrome or knows somebody in their family–certainly, every one of us has a constituent that is touched in some way by this issue–and that is why it is so very important for us to continue this conversation, to continue to talk as legislators about this. And certainly we recognize that an opportunity like this, a bill such as this gives us that opportunity, gives us another opportunity in our lives here to, you know, as legislators, to bring attention to this issue, but also for everyday Manitobans who should be more and more aware of the issue.
* (10:50)
We know that it is–that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a lifelong physical condition and we do know that it occurs, as I said, in all cultures, in all levels of society and across all of our constituencies, and we certainly have experience with that. We understand, on all sides of the House, I think, the importance of bringing awareness and attention to the public about the risks of prenatal exposure to alcohol, and that is why, of course, that we support this bill passing here this morning.
We know that public campaigns, advertisements, education are fundamental to ensuring Manitobas and all Canadians know more about the repercussions and dangers of drinking while pregnant. These campaigns do help to discourage consuming alcohol while pregnant, driving under the influence and encourage responsible drinking, and all of these are important in informing and making sure that folks know what they should and shouldn't be doing–a responsible way, as I said, Madam Speaker, to consume alcohol.
We know that Liquor & Lotteries are the main source of revenue for the province. Government should be ensuring proper investments are made to help keep Manitobans safe. Therefore, it is also the government's duty, then, to use those funds to encourage that social–responsible drinking and to make sure that the message is spread as widely as possible.
We know that it's required by law that the Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries Corporation allocate 2 per cent of its net income for social responsibility. We know that this fund is used to assist with addictions treatment, with research and those are all very, very important endeavours.
We are concerned, though, that, you know, this money isn't being fully spent. And I know members of our caucus have raised this issue and are concerned about this here in the House. And it really speaks to the ability of us as legislators to not only just talk the talk, but as a government, then, to walk the walk, ensuring that the supports are there for important initiatives. And that's, certainly, as I said, something that I heard very clearly this morning.
But what I also heard–and I think, again, this is important to emphasize, is that I heard, you know, encouragement from members on this side of the House saying, you know, this could be just the first step. And we're not saying that, you know, there's not important work that could be done.
And this is maybe part of the conversation that spurs members opposite to encourage their Premier (Mr. Pallister) and their ministers in government to increase funding to make sure that it's adequate and that this is something that's–gets the proper funding and proper research in–going forward.
As the member responsible for–what we call critic for Education here in the House, it is, you know, especially disheartening to see that annual spending on the University of Manitoba's FASD research decreased from $500,000, in 2015, to $127,000, in 2017. And that is a concern, because it's this kind of research, I think, that will–that, you know, sets Manitoba apart.
Of course, we are faced with a larger challenge here in this province, with–when it comes to FASD, but that just gives us more of an opportunity to be leaders in the world, to make sure that the research is done and that that research helps, you know, go a long way.
And I know that that work has already been done, so it's important that we continue to invest in a full way in making sure that our researchers are at the forefront here in this–in Canada and throughout the world.
As I said, Madam Speaker, I think everybody has personal experiences. I, you know, have a friend, a family friend who, you know, she was affected by FASD. We grew up together, went to the same schools. She lives in–well, just outside of my constituency, but, certainly, in my neighbourhood, and her children go to our–to my children's school. So I get to see her on a regular basis.
And she's had, you know, ups and downs throughout her life, but, certainly, somebody who has really flourished. And, as I said, she has children of her own, and she does really well in raising them and they're great kids.
She has been somebody that I've always looked to, that, you know, when you've given the proper supports–and I do believe that she had those supports growing up. Again, I think there was, certainly, ups and downs in her life's journey. But getting to know her, as I said, when we were younger, she lived in the neighbourhood then–you know, and getting to know her family and the supports that were there for her was encouraging.
And it's encouraging to know that with proper supports, with proper, you know, education of those around, that folks can live fulfilling lives, can be contributing members of the–of society and can be, really, you know, in–an inspiration to others.
And I know that she's done work since then in bringing awareness about FASD to others, and I think that is, again, what we're talking about here today–every opportunity that we can to bring that attention to that issue. But, again, to back it up with real investments and real important investments, I think that can be a key step in the right direction.
So it is my pleasure to be here this morning to be able to put on–a few words on the record. I know that, as I said, many others have spent–you know, given their time to also express their support for this and to support us moving forward in a way that I think all Manitobans would expect us to move forward on an issue such as this, and that is in a bipartisan way–not ever conceding our role as Her Majesty's loyal opposition to put some points on the record, to move the needle, maybe we can put it that way, in terms of pushing the government to do more with regards to this.
But I think as–you know, as independent–or as members, sorry–not independent members, but backbench MLAs, I guess, you could say. This is one way that I know that people can have an impact in this place. This is a way that we can stand together. And as an opposition we can–again, criticize when it's necessary and push the needle, but also stand in lockstep with an important issue such as this, show our support for coming together as legislators to make sure that everybody is aware of FASD and, hopefully, that brings more private attention, more private investment and really just moves things forward more clearly.
So as I see my time is running very short, we stand in support of this bill. September 9th, I guess, would be the date going forward. And so we all look forward to coming together in this House next September 9th to recognize this day, hopefully, to be able to put some words on the record at that point to make sure that all members are aware of this and continue to be and, again, to support those great folks in the community who are doing the work, making sure that they are supported in absolutely every way they can. That is, I think, what all of us need to do as legislators going forward, not just the recognition of this particular day, but going forward in all ways that we possibly can to be supportive of the community that supports those who are affected by FASD.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is there any further debate on this bill?
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 230, The Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Awareness Day Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Hon. Colleen Mayer (Deputy Government House Leader): I ask for leave to see it 11 o'clock.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to call it 11 o'clock? [Agreed]
Madam Speaker: The hour being 11 a.m. and time for private members' resolutions, the resolution before us this morning is the resolution on relaxation of federal immigration rules for the seniors live‑in‑family caregivers, brought forward by the honourable member for The Maples.
Mr. Mohinder Saran (The Maples): I move,
WHEREAS senior citizens prefer hiring those who they can trust to help them meet their constant needs for help to manage their everyday household chores; and
WHEREAS senior citizens put utmost emphasis on privacy, trust and receiving appropriate emotional support from their caregivers; and
WHEREAS senior citizens perceive relatives on work permits from their countries of origin as the ones most compassionate to their mobility and emotional needs; and
WHEREAS since the caregiver’s work permit depends on the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) process, senior citizens suffer considerable difficulty obtaining trustworthy caregivers with whom they can feel comfortable to share emotional issues and receive appropriate mental healing support; and
WHEREAS family stream caregivers will also contribute towards the reduction of Provincial Government healthcare spending.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to advocate that the Federal Minister of Immigration undertake measures to: (a) eliminate the LMIA requirement for live-in-family caregivers for seniors; (b) extend caregivers' residency duration up to the death of the incumbent seniors or until the caregiver receives permanent residency status; and (c) allow immediate family members or willing relatives of seniors to jointly pay the salaries of caregivers in the case of financial incapacity.
Motion presented.
* (11:00)
Mr. Saran: Madam Speaker, I rise in the Chamber today to urge this House to speak up to the federal government for the health of our senior population. As our population ages, individuals still strive for and need independence in their own homes. This does not mean they should be isolated and alone there. Isolation has been associated with cognitive decline, depression, increased the rates of infection and even mortality.
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
Our senior citizens can keep a level of independence if they have live-in support for daily living and household chores, such as grocery shopping, light cleaning, cooking and other activities. For many seniors the people they trust to live in and support them with the daily functions at home, they feel most comfortable to get emotional support from are their own family members. It makes sense to have family members as care providers for an aging population. Family stream caregivers will contribute to the reduction of health-care spending by the government.
But what if those trusted family caregivers are in another country? The caregiver's work permit currently depends on the Labour Market Impact Assessment called LMIA, which does not include a permit to be a live-in care provider and there is a requirement of income from the senior member to qualify for LMIA, this makes it very difficult to bring a live-in caregiver into Canada.
Therefore, I move that there should a relaxtion of federal immigration ruled for seniors' live-in family caregivers. Whereas the senior citizens need constant help to manage their everyday chores and whereas they prefer hiring those who they can trust, and whereas they put utmost emphasis on privacy, trust and appropriate emotional support by caregivers, whereas they put–whereas they treat relatives to a work permit from their countries of origin and ones most compassionate to their mobility and emotional needs, and whereas since the caregiver's work permit depends on the labour market immigration–information assessment process, seniors suffer considerable difficulty to get caregivers they trust, feel comfortable with to share emotional issues and receive appropriate emotional support from and whereas family stream caregivers will also contribute to the reduction of health-care spending by the government, I request the–this House, to pass this resolution and lobby the federal government to include family care providers in the LMIA exemption list.
The LMIA requirement should be eliminated for seniors who invite their trustworthy relatives on a work permit as live-in caregivers–care providers. There should be flexibility for the sponsoring person to qualify, whether it be the senior herself or himself, or another relative. In compassion for our senior citizens to give them better physical and emotional support while maintaining their independent living, as well as to reduce unwanted spending in the health‑care system, I urge this government and this House to lobby the federal government to eliminate the LMIA for seniors wanting family-stream care. No matter our age, we all should try for health and independence.
Our senior population is asking for the physical presence of loved ones and their lives and to help with this. Let us help our seniors–our senior population.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A question period up to 10 minutes will be held and questions may be addressed in the following sequence: The first question to be asked by the member from another party; any subsequent questions must follow a rotation between parties; each independent member may ask one question; and no questions or answers shall exceed 45 seconds.
Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Rossmere): And I thank the member for raising this issue this morning. The Labour Market Impact Assessment requirement is currently the existing process the federal government has to ensure compliance with employment standards.
Does the member agree that this oversight is important to ensure vulnerable workers are not taken advantage of?
Mr. Mohinder Saran (The Maples): I thank the member for Rossmere and I think it is important. It doesn't matter if a person has come from the overseas or has come from over here, it should not be a subject to be taken advantage of.
So it does not matter whether a person is from Canada or a person from overseas; that could happen, but we have to be vigilant. There are social workers who can help in those matters and those social workers–always there can be those workers that come over here they can be given a permission slip. If they have problems, they can always report to the social worker or the immigration department.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): My question for the member for The Maples (Mr. Saran) is: What requirements would you recommend for those wanting to immigrate to Canada through LMIA?
Mr. Saran: I thank the member from Burrows, and I think it's very important that LMIA requirement is removed because it’s very difficult for seniors to go through all that process and then bring their loved one over here whom they can trust.
So I think that's important. I think that should be taken care of. And also there is other problem. That problem is that sometimes, to qualify for the–to bring them in and seniors may not have that kind of a capacity economically, so maybe–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Mr. Andrew Smith (Southdale): I just would like to ask the member for The Maples, since this resolution is calling on the federal government to take an action, has he taken the time to consult with anyone from the federal government?
Mr. Saran: I thank the member for asking this question. Actually, I wrote a letter to the federal minister and I sent that letter to all the immigrant MPs or MLAs so they can also push for it.
I also talked to the member for Parliament, Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, and I am continuously pushing for it. And I got an answer back from the minister, although it's not exactly what I want, but we have to push for it so that we can–this can be done.
Mr. Blair Yakimoski (Transcona): I'd like to ask the member: It is the 20th anniversary of the Provincial Nominee Program here in Manitoba, and it stands as a model for how labour and economic market needs can be addressed.
So I'd like to ask the member: What does he think of the changes we made to the PNP program that have gotten rid of the backlog of over 5,100 applicants. It’s been cleared. Would you like to talk about what our government has done to improve it over the last while?
* (11:10)
Mr. Saran: Although I think this is a different issue, I don't think that has–[interjection]–that much–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Saran: –impact on what are we discussing today. To eliminate a backlog, I think it had been made a little difficult when people are waiting for so many years. And I think if immigrant MLAs are properly consulted–and we can give better direction, but normally, immigrant MLAs are being ignored. But I hope, if really the member wanted to make improvements–and I'm willing to sit with the minister and discuss how that can be improved.
Mr. Micklefield: Again, do want to thank the member for raising this issue this morning.
Renewing Manitoba's Provincial Nominee Program has actually facilitated the inclusion of skilled immigrant workers as an integral part in the development of our labour market and Manitoba's economy as a whole. I'm wondering if the member could comment on those moves by the Provincial Nominee Program to welcome people to assist in the very areas that he describes, and why is that not far enough? How does he feel about that, and why is it not enough for him, if I understand correctly?
Mr. Saran: There are–thank you very much. There is a points system, and under the points system, the–those people may not qualify or–if they don't qualify, even they have to wait two years, three years, and some people, even–for some people, even, it's taken about four years to come over here because we have a limited quota, only 5,000 or maybe 5,600 now. And that way, those people are waiting for a long time, and they've applied–they put EOI–under EOI for one year; then they have to renew it; then they have to renew it. And then may have–they may have a turn or may not have a turn.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up. [interjection]
Order.
Mr. Smith: Again, I thank the member for introducing the resolution. I just wonder why he had a focus on the federal issue, which something that this Legislative Assembly has no control over. Rather, I would wonder why he did not focus on the excellent work that the MPNP has done so far in this province in bringing highly skilled workers to the province and, of course, benefiting both Manitobans and immigrant workers.
Mr. Saran: I thank the member for asking this question.
No, I focused on that last time we passed the resolution that our quota should be increased, and at that time, only 4,800 were allowed. And then my resolution was unanimously passed. Then the quota was increased to 5,000. And, therefore, I'm always working on both sides. Also, always I'm working–suggesting the minister and assisting the department how those things can be improved.
But this is–particular issue is an emotional issue for the seniors who generally don't have that kind of say to bring their loved ones whom they can trust.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): I want to thank the member for The Maples (Mr. Saran) for bringing this forward.
We, of course, have been very concerned about health care and the health of seniors generally. I'm wondering what–if the member could share his thoughts on what actions the Manitoba government can take separate from lobbying the federal government to actually improve the health care that's available to our treasured senior citizens.
Mr. Saran: Well, I think it's emotional, so seniors can be attached emotionally with their loved ones, and only they can have–get attached with the loved ones, possibly to increase their–to support their mental health. It's very important that this government ask the federal government to pass this kind of–make this kind of policy and so that seniors can be better protected emotionally.
Thank you.
Mr. Yakimoski: So the federal government, we know, has now closed the Live-In Caregiver Program for this sort of situation.
So why cannot new applicants simply apply through the regular work permit to assist here, and is it impacted by the labour market impact assessment on that? Would you care to speak on that for a little bit?
Mr. Saran: As I told previously, this is very difficult for the seniors sometimes because them–they're in retirement mode. They don't have that much–that kind of capacity to bring those workers over here. And so I think it's also–it's very important that the requirement will be removed, or their sons, their daughters, they're allowed to sponsor those workers, and in that way, that will be on the same level.
But, normally, that's not the case in this situation. Seniors don't have enough income.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No other–further questions?
Time for question period has expired.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is open. Any speakers?
Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Rossmere): I do want to sincerely thank the member opposite for this intriguing resolution. Certainly, there's much–many issues here that I don’t hesitate to agree with the difficulties that are raised in these kind of situations.
I obviously have not yet had the privilege of being a senior citizen, though I'm working on that every day, but I have been a young man with grandparents in another country and grandparents who, as they got older and eventually passed away, their health fails towards the end of their lives.
And for my grandfather, who was a wonderful man, his end came quite suddenly, but for–and from my–one of my grandmothers, her end as well was rather quick, but there was one grandmother whose decline was slow and not always easy or pleasant.
And so, I suppose, in a kind of backwards sense, I have empathy for this situation, because I was unable to be with my own grandmother during those times. We were separated by an ocean, and I think those days were even before email, and so we had updates from relatives and medical staff. And I certainly recognize that people who are in those situations are not in an easy situation.
I also want to fast-forward 20 years or so to today, and acknowledge that these are very live issues. This is not an academic issue. This is not a pretend issue. This is a legitimate issue, and it's an issue that touches seniors, and that's something that I know there are many and ongoing discussions about.
I know that our government has taken advantage of various in-home options so the people don't have to go to care homes as quickly as, perhaps, in previous years, they might have. I think that's a good thing. I think it's always a good thing when we can keep people at home, and it's amazing.
And I think the member would agree with me on this. It's amazing that, with comparatively little help, people can be kept going in their own familiar environment with their own familiar things–maybe a pet, maybe just people–and I think that is something that all of us here would want to encourage.
It can be–oh, it can be traumatic for anybody to move and have to re-orient their life, and I'm sure that for elderly people, possibly with health and even mental health challenges, that those transitions are all the more difficult. So we should take these things into account as we consider these issues.
And I guess I'm arguing that wherever possible, we should find creative ways to keep people aging in place, as they say, longer, closer to loved ones and accessing help, as we are able, in ways that are safe and sustainable.
* (11:20)
So, on these points, I think there's broad agreement. The how is where it can get tricky. Another thing that the member touches is the issue of immigration. And in Canada, it seems that many discussions touch the issue of immigration, because at some point whether people came here personally as immigrants, as did I when I was 11 years old–December 28th, 1989–I'll never forget seeing snow and realizing, wow, there's a lot of snow here–but many people come older, and many families come. And, you know, if it wasn't you that came personally, then perhaps your parents or grandparents or great grandparents. But it has been said, and I think it's quite right, that with exception to our indigenous people, whom I have a growing affection for, we are all immigrants. Or we are all the children of immigrants. And so it is those initial generations that seem to have, arguably, perhaps a more difficult time adapting because they have let go of one culture and chosen to embrace another. And I think that is a brave thing that needs to be acknowledged as not easy. And I know, certainly, my own family did not always have an easy time adapting.
Now, people told us that in Canada they speak English. And sometimes I would beg to differ, that the Canadian English and British English are two different things. But, of course, there are subtle differences and there are large differences. And for us, language was a very minor–not really worth mentioning, though I have just mentioned it–difference. But there were other differences that were not as easy to adjust to. I can't imagine what it must be like for somebody whose language–and even their written script–is completely different. So I recognize there are complexities here.
I think we also have to recognize we've–I've mentioned seniors, I've mentioned immigrants–how these two worlds collide. And I think that families do need to take these things seriously. And I would certainly welcome discussions about the rules. How do the rules need to be improved? How should the rules be reviewed? How should the criteria, perhaps, be considered? And should there be considerations for aging seniors, possibly with no family?
Of course, this is not a small question. I don't know how many people this would affect. I think that's something that would be worth looking at. I don't know the implications of that effect. Would these people potentially be–become landed immigrants? Would they have to return to their home country? I am pro-immigration. As an immigrant myself, I benefited from coming to this country and I am very blessed by the newcomers and immigrants that I've worked with professionally. And many of them have become friends. And some of them even work in this building. And I just want to acknowledge those dear people who came here and faced a new culture and have settled here.
But I think whenever we change–make adjustments to rules on these kinds of things–that's not something that you do quickly. That's not something that you do in a sort of rushed manner. We do want to get it right. We don't want, in helping some, to end up creating more problems for others. And I think of the caregivers themselves who need to know what it is they're coming to. And they need to know if they will have the opportunity to count their days towards a permanent residency or, if that's not going to be an option, then I think we would need to say so first of all. I think that labour market assessments–or impact assessments are a wise thing. There are caregivers in Winnipeg and in Manitoba right now who are eager to find work doing the very kinds of things that this member rightly points out need to be done.
So I think we should be wise that we wouldn't take employment from those who are capable, who are trained, whose English perhaps is at the standard that it should be at, and probably their training as well is at a Canadian standard with Canadian jargon and language. I'm not just speaking about the ability to speak English, I'm talking about the insider speak that resides within any discipline.
And so there are people in our country, in our city, in our province, with that knowledge. I would want to know for sure that there's a need for more of those before we would open the door indiscriminately and welcome anybody to do that job. I would want to make sure that there was a definite shortage of those kinds of skills in our country.
So the member raises, rightly, many important issues. I think the heart behind this resolution is to be commended. And I think that our immigrants have many challenges. We should discuss them fully and not rush ahead without thinking it all through.
Thank you, Mr.–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Mr. Andrew Smith (Southdale): I do appreciate the opportunity to put some words on the record with respect to this 'rejolution' put forth by the member from The Maples. Again, I do want to extend my thanks to the member from The Maples for putting this forward and I know it's always good to have a healthy discussion on issues surrounding immigration, especially in a province like Manitoba where it–we could argue that immigration is the foundation of our great province, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I know, like the member from Rossmere had mentioned that his grandparents were immigrants, and, of course, so were mine. Mine immigrated to Canada from Ukraine just following the Second World War. And, of course, they came to this great country, and, you know, growing up, the only thing I ever heard from them was, you know, God bless Canada, this is a country of opportunity. And, you know, they came from a what was a war-torn country to the land of opportunity, and we're very proud farmers here in this Manitoba. My whole side of the family from my mother's side, the maternal side, is all in the farming background.
And, you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that that's one of the many waves of immigration has come to this province and this country in a whole. And, looking forward, we always appreciate good debates to perhaps improve and make it more effective to both the new Canadians and the Canadians who have been here for more than one or two, maybe three generations.
The one thing I do want to touch on, and I know that the member had answered the question earlier, but I just do want to reiterate my question or my–I guess maybe highlight somewhat of a concern with the Labour Market Impact Assessment requirement. I think that's–we have to be careful not to eliminate requirements like that when we're dealing with something as important as caregivers in this country or in this province specifically. We want to make sure that we are bringing people here that are in good standing and can care for those of us who are more vulnerable. I mean, I myself am not a senior, yet, but at some point, you know, God willing, that'll be the case. [interjection] And, yes, but you know, it is interesting to–it's interesting to see that, you know, if we do change the assessment requirements, I'm afraid that some of the vulnerable in our society might be susceptible to exploitation and who knows what else, right? So we do want to make sure that we 'parove' and protect the integrity of our immigration system that has served this country and this province so very well over the last 151 years in this country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do want to speak to the fact that this resolution is calling on the federal government to take action. And I know that that's, you know, perhaps a noble cause, but I would suggest also too that with the member from The Maples that we could focus on some of the issues that are more in line with what our provincial government and a provincial Legislative Assembly can do.
I know the Manitoba nominee program, we've discussed that a few times already this morning, and I think it's a wonderful program that is bringing qualified immigrant workers to this province and making this a much better place for all of us. I know it benefits Canadians who have been here multiple generations and those who are new Canadians, and it's great to see everyone coming together working for a common cause.
* (11:30)
And I think that the MPNP has hit the nail on the head with respect to bringing in qualified people to come and fill the labour market needs that we have in our province and, of course, contributing in so many other ways, whether it's socially, bringing their culture. And we see Folklorama every year, and a wonderful celebration of all the cultures in this province. I know just this past weekend, the member from Maples, I believe he was there as well, as a number of members from our–from the Assembly here, were at–Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage (Mrs. Cox) as well–came to Diwali, and we know we saw, I would argue, anywhere between four to six thousand people probably came through those doors that night, and it's just wonderful to see such a vibrant celebration. And, again, it was–actually, the room was fairly diverse. We're starting to notice people from other cultural backgrounds attending Diwali, and, you know, it's nice to see that Manitobans can share in a common–or certainly appreciate and celebrate each other's cultural–culture and religious beliefs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the caregiver issue–I know that there's a number of–well, right now there's a Primary Caregiver Tax Credit in the province of Manitoba, and believe that that tax credit provides a refundable credit up to $1,400 a year to people who act as primary caregivers for spouses, relatives, neighbours, friends who live at home here in Manitoba.
So I know that there is also–there are programs and incentives here for folks who are caregivers in the province, and I think that's probably one of the most important roles or one–a very important role, for sure, is to look after the elderly and certainly help them. I mean, everybody here can appreciate that. We either will be seniors or have, you know, parents and grandparents in our lives who we want to make sure that they're being looked after by folks who have their best interests at heart and, certainly, have the qualifications that we need to be able to do that and perform that important task. I, myself, have had two–well, one grandfather who was in care all the time, and I know how much work that was. His wife, my grandmother, couldn't look after him herself, so it took a whole family to help out with that. So, again–and that includes some medical intervention in addition to the family support system. So I think it's very important to recognize that this is not something that just anybody can do. So, again, you want to make sure that people who are coming to look after our seniors are–even if they're our family members, with best intentions, of course, may not be quite qualified to do so.
So, again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that's perhaps something we should discuss further in this resolution, and perhaps the member from Maples can maybe elaborate a little bit further on how we might get around potential pitfalls in the resolution, such as the labour market impact assessment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Provincial Nominee Program, actually, when we formed government–I mean, it's always been a program that I've had a great deal of respect for, and I think a lot of Manitobans had–there were some issues when we came to office with it, and we've since fixed it. In fact, we have reduced the 5,100-person backlog on that program itself. So now that people looking to come to Canada, come to Manitoba specifically, can get processed quicker and know their answer right up front. I mean, sometimes, unfortunately, people do get declined, and there may be a number of reasons for that, but the very least, they know up front and they know that this is the case and they know which areas they might have to work on or perhaps accommodate to get a successful application through.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I really do think that Manitoba is headed in the right direction with respect to our policies on immigration. I can't speak for the federal government, be honestly–but I do appreciate the fact that overall and that the history of our country has shown that immigration has provided and supplied a great deal of value to our country. Not only has it improved us culturally, but it has provided strong economic benefits. I'd say that at the benefit of all Canadians, regardless of their cultural background. I know our indigenous community, our–some of the more traditional immigrant waves back in the 1800s, the more recent ones in the 20th century, and, of course, in the 21st century here we see a lot of people immigrating from parts of Asia, southeast Asia and then parts of that Pacific Rim. And, you know, it's just amazing to see people come together here and, in fact, work together to build this country even further.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we see a lot of people come to this country with credible credentials. They come very educated: engineers, doctors–we have labour types, all kinds of folks that come with tremendous skills that it's great to see them be able to fill those labour market needs here in the province. And they come to Manitoba full of energy and knowing very well that this is a place where they can create opportunities for not only them but their children and grandchildren.
And I think that's an important thing, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A lot of the new Canadian groups are very family oriented, and it's good to see that, that they come over and their incredible emphasis on education for their children and the success of their children becomes paramount in their lives. And I think that's something that is really, at heart, a Canadian value that is only strengthened by some of these new Canadian groups coming to the province here.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do, again, appreciate where the member for Maples is coming from on this, and I understand that he wants to make sure that, you know, caregiver–it's easier to find caregivers for new Canadian families, but I think we also have to be very cautious to ensure that if we're making any recommendations to the federal government.
And especially if the federal government does adhere to those recommendations, we make sure that these recommendations are solid and that if–there's no potential pitfalls. And again, one of them would be the labour market impact assessment. I would just caution that that could very well be a problem when it comes to getting qualified folks to look after our seniors.
Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Ms. Flor Marcelino (Logan): I want to thank my colleague for bringing this private member's resolution. It has affected me personally. I thank him for bringing it out, although it's a little too late for my case.
This resolution does not remove any pre‑qualifications. This resolution would follow all the rules and requirements by the federal government. It's only for–in terms of qualifications of workers, it's only the elimination of the Labour Market Impact Assessment fee and the onerous process that comes with it.
It's so onerous that it’s non-refundable. If, for some reason, the bureaucrat who's evaluating the application does not like, you know, where you came from, your background, you're gone. You're done, because you will be disapproved and you lose your $1,000 application fee.
It happened to me. I wanted a caregiver for my mother. She was a very private person, very shy. She would only want someone whom she knows. And I found a caregiver who is well-known to her, a very hard-working woman, and I applied for this LMIA, which was originated–or work done by the federal Conservative government.
I had all of the requirements done, but in the end, it was disapproved. And my mother doesn't want anyone else but that woman–young woman. So she was left at home most of the time. I was busy working here, and there's–and my husband was also busy with his work in the community, so she was left on her own.
There's food in the house, but she didn't like eating all by herself. And it didn't turn out good, being by herself and not eating, so she got sick and eventually passed away.
* (11:40)
Had there only been someone approved under this process, I firmly believe she would still be around. So this process is unfair. It does not recognize that seniors want someone whom they can trust. The seniors want someone whom they can relate to and it has to be taken into consideration, and it's just not anyone who fits the bill, so to speak. But the relationship has to be there, the trust and the privacy that seniors are entitled to.
So, Madam–Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank my colleague from The Maples, and I wish the federal government and even the provincial government will take into consideration that seniors' needs should be listened to. Thank you.
Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): I want to thank the member for Logan for the passion that she just exhibited there. It shows the importance of talking about immigration here at a provincial level. I also want to thank the member for The Maples (Mr. Saran) for bringing forward this resolution as I believe his intentions are good with it.
Canada's great diversity is due in large to our immigration. People immigrate to Canada for a wide arrange of reasons and through many different paths: travel visas; multiple entry visas; as a student; under the provincial nominee program; family class sponsorship; express entry; and very arguably the most common way is through the LMIA, Labour Market Impact Assessment work visa, which is what the member from The Maples has brought forward in his resolution. The Live-in Caregiver Program, as one of the most important immigration programs in Canada, we know that it has been extremely successful and every year thousands of people immigrate to Canada under the program.
I think it's important too that we take a moment to give proper recognition to our caregivers here in the province and the rest of the country. The love, care and emotional support that is demonstrated is irreplaceable and all the hard work and dedication has helped our community and our economy in immense ways, so a big thank you to all caregivers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member talks about how senior citizens prefer to hire family members and those they feel they can trust to help fulfill their needs and manage household chores. This makes sense. That being said, I understand the reality that no program is perfect and every program can always use tuning, and the concerns raised by my colleague are very sensible and I sympathize with them.
Now with the LMIA there are many rules to consider. For example, those who are looking for hire foreign workers have had to pay up to $1,000 in order to get their labour impact assessment. Another thing that must be considered is the advertising requirement the LMIA requires employers to undertake reasonable efforts in advertising. LMIA can also be a lengthy process but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is why our federal government has undertaken a great effort to remove some of these obstacles to make the process easier for our seniors.
On March 22nd, 2017, the federal Minister of Immigration announced that Budget 2017 involved funding that has the effect of removing the $1,000 LMIA fee to hire foreign caregivers. This would be specific to caregivers who provide care for persons with high medical needs and for middle-class families with less than $150,000 of an annual income and in the need of child care.
As for permanent residency of live-in caregivers, the federal government has worked towards reducing 80 per cent of the backlog. This means that after working for two years, live-in caregivers can apply and receive permanent residency status immediately. This eliminates huge gaps of time and distance separating live-in caregivers and their families overseas, and it means that live-in caregivers and their families can further contribute to the economic growth of our province and our country as a whole.
Ultimately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there has been tremendous progress in the past couple of years but we know that more can be done. Moving forward, I think that if we want to contribute to LMIA, the best thing we could be doing at a provincial level is making sure that those who immigrate to Canada through LMIA are not taken for granted. We should focus more on labour standards and creating harmonious workplaces, as well as health care, and ensuring that all residents of Manitoba and all of Canada are never fearful that they will receive the health care that they need.
Thank you.
Mr. Blair Yakimoski (Transcona): I'd thank–like to thank the member from The Maples for bringing this resolution forward.
We know in our country that immigration has strengthened our country. My grandparents came to this country, Andrew Yakimowski and Eva Kokoski, in the second wave of Ukrainian immigration. And they came here. And we know that immigration helps grow our economy and add to our rich diversity here of our country. And specifically here in Manitoba.
It's really important. I liked–enjoyed the words or–just–the member from Logan and what she had to say regarding her mother. Seniors–we need to take care of our seniors. I'm unlike the–we had the member from Rossmere and from Southdale who referenced that they're becoming seniors. I've never–I too am–but I've never had a senior–my mother or my father, where they've been in a situation where I've had to provide constant care. We might be getting to that level where we may–I may have to–and then–in the future, find a way to do that. And I know my sisters and I will have to work very hard. And it will require quite the commitment to help my mother in the future or perhaps my mother-in-law or any other family members that may require it.
When I was at church this past weekend, I was talking to a friend of mine, John. John's wife passed away last year, and he requires home care on a regular basis. And I would like to really acknowledge the home-care workers that work and take care of our seniors here do so with compassion. They come to me and they tell me how important their job is. And I ask them–I–it's a tough job, going from taking care of different people. And they like to have consistent care with their clients–their friends as they like to call them. I asked John, I said, how is it? Are you comfortable? Absolutely, he said. She comes, she bathes me–or he bathes me–there's a rotating thing.
It's very important that we have proper care for the seniors. I know there's a lot of people–privacy is important for the seniors. And some of them, it's very closely held. They don't want to give out–they don't want to be, shall we say, emotionally exposed or anything like that with a caregiver. But I want to acknowledge the great work that some of the home-care people do in taking care of our seniors.
When it comes to what has been referred to within this resolution, it talks about the relaxation–the relaxation or the elimination of the LMIA, the labour market assessment. And I know that could really–the eliminate–could complicate issues further in other careers. I have a few friends that work for the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program. One of them–congratulations to the new deputy mayor, a friend of mine, Markus Chambers. We've had discussions. And as a few others have had discussion, they said some of the direction that we've had–that we've done over the past while in eliminating the backlog, they've been very impressed. We've allowed them to do their jobs of streamlining or getting the qualified people into jobs that are required.
But some of the–if we were to relax the LMIA, it could complicate things for careers where we don't require immigration or people from outside of Canada. Specifically, we train, educate a great many nurses, educators, teachers. We don't require those skills as much. And we wouldn't want to relax it because we're hiring people within here; we're training them and they're very competent to work.
I do know that within the Provincial Nominee Program that we do have, we've actually expanded in the last little while and we've got a couple programs–the International Student Entrepreneur Pathway and the Graduate Internship Pathway.
* (11:50)
I, last year, was able to attend the International College of Manitoba–it's a part of the University of Manitoba–and spoke with Darcy Rollins there, who runs the school there. And I spoke to, during the graduation, many of the students and some of their parents who actually came for their graduation there and asked them: Your son or daughter has come here to be educated. Do you hope that they get a good education here from the University of Manitoba and then go back to wherever it might be? It might be Bahrain, in some cases–where else were they from? Some of them were from the Philippines or Singapore. And the parents and the students were all the same. They all wanted to stay in this country. They all wanted to adopt this country as part of their own and use the training that they've gotten here and be part of our–contribute to this new country.
The parents were saying no, I don't want my daughter coming home. I want her to stay here in this beautiful, wonderful new country. So our government is working to expand things and make sure that we have more immigration here.
One of the things that–I encourage the member from The Maples to continue to reach out to the federal colleagues to talk about this. I know I myself have reached out to federal colleagues because a friend of mine, when it comes to immigration, a friend of mine, Nick Krawetz–Nick Krawetz has put forth a petition because he would like that Canada adopt some, when we're talking with the federal politicians–Andrew Scheer and the Prime Minister, about adopting visa-free travel from Ukraine to Canada. We know that the European Union has already allowed visa-free travel from Ukraine. Ukraine standards for passports involve biometrics and they’ve really upgraded their standards. We do know that it is a burden for businesses and for people to come on–for tourists, for–without the visa. It impairs it; it slows it down.
By expanding the visa-free travel to Ukraine, we're hoping to get more business investment here in Canada. There are quite a few people that I know in Transcona. We've got a lot of new immigration. I see people from Russia, from Israel, Ukraine, the Philippines, from Africa that are all coming here. But specifically with Ukraine, if we can work towards having a visa-free travel from Ukraine, I think that would put us more in line and allow–facilitate better relations now that we've signed the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. It would help foster business between the two countries.
Within that, I just wanted to mention that we know that, you know, business and tourism travel, it is central to creating economic growth and job creation on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr. Deputy Speaker, 125 years of Ukrainian immigration to our country is a testament to what Canada and Ukraine can achieve together, so we're going to work together with the federal government and I encourage the member from The Maples to continue to work together with the federal government to make sure that we can get the people here from the different countries for different things.
One last thing I want to mention. Obviously, we've heard about it a few times about the Provincial Nominee Program BL and how well we're doing with that program, how we are decreasing wait times on that program, how the backlog created by the previous government has been reduced.
The member from Burrows made it her personal mission, camping outside of the minister's office and wanting to talk to him, and he listened. We listen. We want to make things better. We want to make things better for all Manitobans, for all Canadians, new Canadians. You know, we want to work with different businesses to get people here but, again, I do have a concern with the member's resolution in terms of the slippery slope. If you allow the LMIA to be relaxed for one set of careers, perhaps other careers would want the same thing, so that's really my concern.
I thank you for the time to be able to speak on this, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Infrastructure): Well, Mr. Acting–Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as always, a honour to stand up in this magnificent Chamber and be able to debate important issues, and the member across the way brings up a very important issue and I know many members want to have the opportunity to speak to this.
We know that, as a political party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba is actually the immigration party of Manitoba. We are the party that has always been there and that's supported immigration.
In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Wishart), who was the minister of Immigration for more than two years and did a magnificent job. He helped to get rid of a backlog that had become so onerous under the previous government that it was rendering the project ineffective. And, to the member for Portage la Prairie, we thank him for the work that he did.
Current member, the Minister responsible for Immigration, the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen), continues in that tradition and is ensuring that we have a Provincial Nominee Program that continues for many, many years to come. In fact, the PNP as it's known, Provincial Nominee Program, was negotiated under Premier Gary Filmon and the negotiations actually started with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. And there was a change, then, in government and the negotiations continued with the Chrétien administration and they came up with what was to be a very much a benchmark in Canada. It was used for other provinces after that. It is a very solid, good program, and what it does, it allows the Province to identify individuals that are necessary for the economy here in Manitoba.
And one of those amazing benefits–and I look across the way at the member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino) and I know he has a great passion. We have the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Reyes) who got up the other day and gave just the most amazing private member's statement about his father having come some 40 years ago, and–
An Honourable Member: It was moving.
Mr. Schuler: It was very moving and I was very moved by that. Imagine that a son gets to get up in the Legislative Chamber and thank his father for having the courage to come here, leave everything behind and start all over again and establish a life, establish a family–come here, leave everything behind, and look how that turned out.
And I would like to say to the member for Tyndall Park what a blessing the Filipino community has been on this city, this province and this nation. They have been a real big blessing and we thank the Filipino community for that.
In fact, I heard the other day, I believe it to be true, but that there are no Filipinos on welfare. That was said at a banquet the other day. They work hard, love family, serve their God, participate in activities. They're always–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
When the matter is before the House, the honourable Minister for Infrastructure has seven minutes remaining.
The hour being 12 p.m., the House is recessed and stands recessed until 1:30 p.m.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
CONTENTS