LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Friday, October 28, 2022


The House met at 10 a.m.

Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): It is my duty to inform the House that the Speaker is unavoidably absent. Therefore, in accordance with the statutes, I would ask the Deputy Speaker to please take the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Andrew Micklefield): 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.

      We acknowl­edge we are gathered on Treaty 1 territory and that Manitoba is located on the treaty territories and ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg, Anishininewuk, Dakota Oyate, Denesuline and Wehethowuk nations. We acknowl­edge Manitoba is located on the Homeland of the Red River Métis. We acknowl­edge northern Manitoba includes lands that were and are the ancestral lands of the Inuit. We respect the spirit and intent of treaties and treaty making and remain committed to working in part­ner­ship with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people in the spirit of truth, recon­ciliation and col­lab­o­ration.

      Please be seated. Good morning, everybody. Happy Friday.

      Routine proceedings–is the hon­our­able member for Transcona (Mr. Altomare) standing to be recog­nized, or just standing to–before he sits? Okay. Just–I just wanted to check.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Intro­duction of bills? Com­mit­tee reports? We don't have any. Tabling of reports? Min­is­terial statements?

      All right, members' statements.

Members' Statements

Rich and Therese Houston

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to recog­nize two Southdale con­stit­uency members from Windsor Park. Rich and Therese Houston are two pillars in our com­mu­nity and have joined us in the gallery today.

For 15 years, the Houstons could be found at Vincent Massey Park preparing and setting off fire­work displays watched by the entire neighbourhood every single Canada Day. The COVID‑19 pandemic almost put an end to their decade-and-a-half-long streak, but this year Rich and Therese continued making a spectacle in the sky with their fireworks, much to the pleasure of the entire community. I was honoured, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to help them put on a great show.

Their good deeds don't end at fireworks. Rich and Therese are also very active with Winnipeg Harvest and their Tins for the Bin program. Out of the good­ness of their heart and compassion for others, they have provided loads of food for the homeless and the less fortunate during the holiday season.

Rich and Therese can also be seen volunteering at Windsor Park community centre at youth sporting events and at the annual winter carnival.

Many people remarked how wonderful it was to see them in person. I can tell you they radiated vibrant energy. Whether it be fireworks, organizing food drives or just volunteering at a baseball game, you can be sure the Houstons will be there with a smile and a determination to make Windsor Park the best it can be.

      Rich and Therese Houston, on behalf of the entire Southdale constituency and the Manitoba Legislature, we thank you for all that you do.

Robert A. Steen Community Centre

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): Forty years ago, two groups of Wolseley citizens were brought together by a common goal, to increase opportunities for community building, recreation and child care in their neighbourhood. They spent 10 years dreaming and planning for the development of the Robert A. Steen Community Centre at 980 Palmerston Ave., which opened on October 24th, 1992, 30 years ago.

The two groups, the Laura Secord sports and recreation association and the Laura Secord home and school parent-teacher association, accomplished many things in a short span of time, including se­curing community club status and creating a com­munity club facility with a gym, office, canteen and meeting rooms; establishing a child-care facility; installing a wading pool; building a community plaza for events, with shaded outdoor seating; securing a street closure and safe passageway between the school field and the community club; replanting the Wolseley Elm; achieving heritage status for Laura Secord School, saving it from being torn down; building the first play structure on Laura Secord School grounds; and the development of the Nellie McClung Park at the corner of Wolseley Avenue and Lenore Street.

Three decades later, new community members continue to enjoy the centre, take on leadership roles coaching or serving on the board and continue to carry out the vision of those first committee members. R.A. Steen now has a catchment area that extends all the way east through west Broadway and downtown to Main Street.

The centre continues to house the Laura Secord child-care program and now one of the Gordon Bell off‑campus classrooms.

From the beloved annual winter carnival to the twice-weekly farmers' market, summer camps, recrea­tional programs for all ages and craft shows featuring local makers, the centre remains an integral part of the Wolseley constituency.

      Please join me in congratulating my guests in the gallery on the 30th anniversary of Robert A. Steen Community Centre.

Events Commemorating Air Schools in Manitoba

Mr. Brad Michaleski (Dauphin): This August, I was honoured to attend commemoration ceremonies that told the stories of air schools which operated during World War II in my constituency of Dauphin. Their chairperson, Al Gray, spearheaded a series of events and the erection of several memorials to recognize the contributions of the No. 10 Service Flying Training School and the No. 7 Bombing and Gunnery School, as well as the over 9,000 airmen that trained at our air schools from 1941 to 1945.

* (10:10)

A commemorative service and memorial dedica­tion was held on August 27th at Riverside Cemetery in the veterans' section, honouring 49 Commonwealth airmen who died while in service to their countries, and 15 of them who were laid to rest in Dauphin.

A ceremony later that same day was held at the Lt. Col. William G. Barker V.C. Airport south of Dauphin. Two monuments were unveiled at the air­port, giving the history of the Commonwealth Air Training Plan and listing the 29 airmen killed in ser­vice at Dauphin's Service Flight Training School, and the 20 airmen who were killed at the bomber and gunning–gunnery school near Paulson. Together, these two schools trained 9,000 out of 131,000 airmen trained as part of the entire project, which was a significant and notable World War II effort.

      This formal memorial was attended by notable high–or, special guests including representatives from the British High Commission. A low-level flyover was provided courtesy of the Commonwealth Air Training Plan Museum in Brandon, which featured the Harvard, Tiger Moth and Cornell aircraft.

      I express my gratitude here today to Al Gray and all the committee's work and who contributed sig­nifi­cantly to our local economy, the Canada's war effort–

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

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.

Mr. Michaleski: And ultimately to the Allied victory of World War II.

      Thank you.

Elder Charlie Bittern

Mr. Ian Bushie (Keewatinook): I rise today to share a few words about Elder Charlie Bittern.

      Charlie is a resi­den­tial school survivor. In his life, he's a thriver, a role model, and is truly a respected elder that shares his gifts, knowledge and life experi­ences in the hopes that Indigenous people can proceed along a path of health, healing and prosperity in the true spirit of truth and recon­ciliation.

      Born and raised in Berens River, at the age of seven, Charlie attended day school at the Berens River United Church school. When he was nine years old, he was diagnosed with polio. His family was told by doctors that he was going to be confined to either braces or a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

      Doctors were shocked that Charlie then made a full recovery, and he soon found that he was gifted with the ability to run. At the age of 15, Charlie was moved to the Birtle resi­den­tial school. While there are many painful memories that Charlie has shared during his time there, a few of Charlie's lived experiences stay with me the most.

      To quote Charlie, quote: If you were doing some­thing wrong, you were whipped. You weren't strap­ped, you were whipped. There's a difference. End quote.

Charlie was gifted with the ability to run, and that ability was exploited by the admin­is­tra­tion of the resi­den­tial school. Because of Charlie's speed and endur­ance, he was used by the principal to chase down run­away students who were then forced to return to the school.

      One of Charlie's experiences at resi­den­tial school has been shared in his docu­men­tary, Bimibatoo-Win: Where I Ran. In there, Charlie shares a day he was disciplined for horseplay on a trip with the school principal in 1967. Charlie was thrown out of the car in a snowstorm and forced to run in front of the car along the highway–forced to run from around seven in the evening until two or three in the morning.

      Charlie battled a snow blizzard and howling winds along the highway. It was only when Charlie finally collapsed and the principal struck him with the car was Charlie finally allowed to stop. His leg bleeding, he was finally allowed back into the car. It was only then that Charlie realized that his run in the blizzard along the highway lasted 80 kilometres in the dead of night.

      In closing, I encourage all members to watch the Charlie Bittern docu­men­tary, Bimibatoo-Win: Where I Ran.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm honoured to have Charlie and his family and his com­mu­nity leadership of Berens River First Nation join us here today. While there is so much more I wish to share about Charlie's life, my time here is short, so I will end with this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Member's time has–

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.

Mr. Bushie: Miigwech to all survivors of resi­den­tial school as I stand here in my traditional clothing, in a place we were never meant to stand. I acknowl­edge and honour your perseverance, your deter­min­ation and your will, for it is because of your strength of spirit that our legacy of Anishinaabe people will continue for gen­era­tions to come.

      Miigwech, Charlie, for allowing me the op­por­tun­ity to share some of your life ex­per­ience.

      Miigwech.

Bruce Chegus

Hon. Scott Johnston (Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care): Today I rise to recog­nize the accom­plish­ments of an individual who has greatly improved the lives of the students in the St. James-Assiniboia School Division.

      As a school trustee since 1988, Bruce Chegus con­­­tri­bu­ted 34 years to the school division, making him one of the longest serving trustees in the division and in the province of Manitoba.

      Bruce believes that in order to ensure quality edu­ca­tion, the school division must support literacy initiatives and numeracy en­hance­ments, parti­cularly in early years. Bruce is most proud of the school division's innovative learning pro­gram­ming, parti­cularly the remote learning, which he played an active role in initiating.

      The St. James‑Assiniboia School Division was the first to initiate remote learning to ensure students could continue their edu­ca­tion. This program facil­itated education for all students, including athletes playing out of province and students with disabilities.

      It's no surprise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Bruce earned the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012. Bruce has many–Bruce has had many respon­si­bilities, including acting as the chair of the school board for eight years, as well as numer­ous com­mit­tee respon­si­bilities. It was my honour to serve the school board with Bruce Chegus.

      I would like to direct your attention to the gallery, where Mr. Chegus has joined us today with his wife, Patricia, as well as his sister, Rhonda, and brother‑in-law, Clive.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask that we rise to recog­nize and thank Mr. Bruce Chegus for his service to his com­mu­nity, as well as the province of Manitoba.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I wish to draw attention to all members to the galleries where we have with us today Joel Fingard and Regine–I hope I'm saying this right–Genido from the Robert A. Steen Com­mu­nity Centre, and Myrna Phillips, who was the former MLA for Wolseley and the Speaker of the House. These are the guests for the hon­our­able member for Wolseley (Ms. Naylor).

      On behalf of all hon­our­able members, we wel­come you here today. And if you could just identify yourselves so we know who we're talking about. Welcome here.

      I also want to acknowl­edge we have seated in the public gallery from the Katimavik student group, nine students under the direction of Shea Melekna. Welcome to the Manitoba Legislature. Is that you guys up there? Well, welcome. Hope you have a great time this morning.

Oral Questions

Snow Clearing and Road Maintenance
Sale of Heavy Equipment

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the shrinking num­ber of PCs standing for re-election know that they've done a terrible job when it comes to potholes and when it comes to snow clearing and highway maintenance.

      New data show us just how terrible the situation has become. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: Since 2016, under their watch, they've sold off more than 300 pieces of heavy equip­ment. That heavy equip­ment is supposed to clear the roads. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: It's supposed to help us maintain and repair and build roads right across this province. So, when we have a year of record potholes, as we've seen under this PC gov­ern­ment, we know it's their cuts and sales of heavy equip­ment that is to blame.

      Will the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) stop selling off our heavy equip­ment?

Hon. Cliff Cullen (Deputy Premier): Certainly, we are delivering for Manitobans and we're delivering on infra­structure for Manitobans.

      We have got a three-year budget for highways alone of over $500 million in each of the next three years, way more than anything the NDP ever com­mitted to infra­structure here in Manitoba.

      Madam–Mr. Deputy Speaker, record invest­ments in terms of equip­ment going into infra­structure here in Manitoba, as well. We have committed to a three-year funding agree­ment that gives certainty for companies that want to bid on projects.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, under the NDP, it was dif­ferent. It was rain, rain, rain and then parade on election year. We are doing things different here, and our gov­ern­ment is delivering services for Manitobans.

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

Mr. Kinew: Well, I think the minister hit a pothole on the way in to the Legislature this morning, and the facts must have fallen out of his vehicle. Because the truth of the matter is–[interjection]

* (10:20)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –when they took office, there were more than 2,200 pieces of heavy equip­ment in the prov­incial inventory. But these docu­ments, which I'll table for the minister to review as he drives over potholes on the way home, show that this year there are barely 1,900 pieces of heavy equip­ment left.

      They're selling every­thing off. They've already sold off 300 pieces of heavy equip­ment.

      How many more pieces of heavy equip­ment–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –are they going to sell off, and just how bad are our roads and highways going to get under their watch?

Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, record in­vest­­ments when it comes to maintenance on our roads, record invest­ment when it comes to capital infra­structure–I know–I don't know what the member opposite is trying to measure.

      Like, if he gets out and about across Manitoba, he will see heavy equip­ment operating–a lot different equip­ment than we ever had before, Mr. Deputy Speaker; newer, modern, bigger equip­ment, which–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cullen: –is more efficient than ever before.

      Those are the kinds of invest­ments that Manitobans are asking us to make. Those are the invest­ments we're making on behalf of Manitobans, and we're getting things done.

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

Mr. Kinew: I've been to Neepawa, Pinawa, Boissevain, Deloraine, and just like the Johnny Cash song, everywhere I go, man, people are complaining about the potholes and the lack of snow clearing under this PC–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –gov­ern­ment. Now, I've tabled the docu­ments that show–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –the reason for this lack of attention to our roads and highways. They are–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –selling off the heavy equip­ment. They sold off 300–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –pieces of heavy equip­ment to date. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Gov­ern­ment benches, calm down.

      The hon­our­able Deputy Premier–I'll give you a few more seconds, the hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion.

Mr. Kinew: The only place that the gov­ern­ment is doing anything is in the form of press release, because anyone driving on the roads sees that they are in a rough, rough shape.

      When will they stop selling off heavy equip­ment and finally invest in our highways and roads?

Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our gov­ern­ment is committed to infra­structure in Manitoba. If the member gets out and drives on our roads, he will see many miles of new roads, new pavement, new bridges, new culverts.

      We're making invest­ments–record invest­ments–over the next three years alone: $500 million of each of the next three years for infra­structure for roads alone, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      It's some­thing the industry has asked for; it's some­­thing we're delivering, and we're delivering these on behalf of Manitobans.

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

Health-Care System
Gov­ern­ment Record

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): It must be an election year if the minister got a road paved in Carberry, but everywhere else in Manitoba, people are complaining about the terrible con­di­tion of our roads, highways. There are so many potholes.

      The other thing that we are hearing time and time again–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –from Manitobans is the des­per­ate state of our health-care system. We know that the wait times continue to increase, and according to front-line emergency room doctors, things are worse than they were a year ago, when this Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) took office.

      It's a record of failure. It's a crisis in the health-care system. That's a fact.

      When will this Cabinet stop cutting health care in Manitoba?

Hon. Cliff Cullen (Deputy Premier): Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we've seen this from the NDP for decades now. They come in and they repeat the same fictitious lines over and over again, hoping that Manitobans would believe what they said.

      The reality is Manitobans are not buying the rhetoric. The fact of the matter is our gov­ern­ment has delivered record-high invest­ments, close to $7 billion. That's a billion dollars more than the NDP ever put into health care, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those are the facts.

      We are making record invest­ments on behalf of Manitobans and we're getting things done on behalf of Manitobans when it comes to health care.

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

Mr. Kinew: Well, I have the facts right here in my hand, which were actually compiled by this minister's gov­ern­ment. So he can quarrel with me all that he likes, but he's actually just throwing shade at his own gov­ern­ment.

      What the facts in hand reveal is at the Grace emer­gency de­part­ment, at the St. Boniface emergency de­part­ment and at the Health Sciences Centre emer­gency de­part­ment, wait times continue to go up month after month after month.

      The data published today–yesterday were longer than the data we saw earlier in the summer. And, of course, the summer was earlier than what we saw in the spring. Wait times in emergency rooms continue to go up.

      I'll share–I'll table the docu­ments with the minis­ter in the hopes that he finally answers the question: When will the PCs stop cutting health care?

Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, here we go again.

      The reality is record invest­ments in health care, the tune of $7 billion.

      And we want to talk about doctors in Manitoba. Guess what happened under the NDP? We were–in 2001, per capita, Manitoba was the fourth in the coun­try when it came to per capita–doctors per capita.

      What happened? In 2016, eight; we dropped to No. 8 in the country when it came to doctors per capita. That's the legacy the NDP left. That's the legacy that we're trying to fix.

      That's why we're making capital invest­ments, investing in human resources, and we're making historic invest­ments in health care in Manitoba. That's what Manitobans have asked us to do. That's what we're delivering on behalf of Manitobans.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able Official Opposi­tion Leader, on a final sup­ple­mentary.

Mr. Kinew: I find it surprising that the minister would say that in this Chamber, because he comes from a health region that saw un­pre­cedented closures of emergency de­part­ments and hospitals all summer long.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: Everyone in Prairie Mountain has been–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –reaching out to us time and time again, saying that this gov­ern­ment is making an absolute mess of our health-care system. No one believes the Progressive Conservatives when it comes to health care because this simple fact is true: health care has never been this bad in Manitoba. And their cuts are a direct contributing factor.

      We know that folks are looking for im­prove­ments to health care, but the first thing that needs to happen is that the PCs need to stop with their cuts.

      Will they finally do so today?

Mr. Cullen: Mr. Deputy Speaker, record invest­ments in health care, $1 billion more than ever the NDP ever put into health care.

      What is the record, though, when it comes to closing emergency rooms under the NDP? Let's talk about them. Let's name them: Emerson, Pembina, MacGregor, St. Claude, Gladstone, Vita, Erickson, Rossburn, Wawanesa, Birtle, Rivers, Baldur, McCreary, Winnipegosis, Whitemouth, Teulon. That is the NDP legacy.

      Manitobans cannot–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cullen: –trust the NDP when it comes to health care.

      This gov­ern­ment is delivering health care for Manitobans. They don't want any more NDP rhetoric.

Gov­ern­ment Trans­par­ency and Accountability
Premier's Email Account

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Time and time again, we've laid out the case that this Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) seems to think that there's one set of rules for her and her PC caucus and one set for the rest of Manitobans.

      We've learned that the Premier is using a secret email address. Manitobans know when gov­ern­ment officials com­muni­cate on gov­ern­ment busi­ness, there should be trans­par­ency and account­ability. But, Deputy Speaker, that's not what we're seeing from the Premier and her PC caucus.

      Will the Premier tell this House why she thinks she doesn't have to follow the same rules as everybody else?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, certainly, the op­posi­tion knows a lot about secrets. If the member opposite wants to talk about secrets, she could just turn over to the member who's speaking from her left and ask about all the secrets that he has, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      However, I would ask the member opposite to perhaps leave the grassy knoll. And perhaps she wants to apologize to the member from Fort Whyte, who she brought false infor­ma­tion to this House several weeks ago.

* (10:30)

Ms. Fontaine: Deputy Speaker, we've shown that the Premier forgot she sold–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms. Fontaine: –$31 million in real estate, because who forgets $31 million?

      Now we learn that she's using a–gov­ern­ment money to operate a secret email address. The only reason the Premier is doing that is to avoid account­ability and trans­par­ency. That's just like Brian Pallister, who did the same thing when he was off in Costa Rica.

      I will table the docu­ments for the House.

      Why does the Premier think that she can use a secret email address when no other person working in gov­ern­ment is allowed to do the same thing?

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the NDP is a house of secrets. There are so many secrets that are hidden within that caucus, it's hard to reveal them all at once, but I'm sure more will be revealed as we get closer to an election day.

      However, I would say this, Mr. Deputy Speaker: this parti­cular member has a reputation–[interjection]–has a reputation of bringing false al­lega­tions to this House that are proven false. This is a great op­por­tun­ity for her to stand up and apologize to the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Khan).

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

Ms. Fontaine: Well, Deputy Speaker, we know that the Premier doesn't like to work on weekends and we know she forgets things like $31 million in real estate. And now we know–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms. Fontaine: –the Premier has a secret email address set up to duck account­ability from Manitobans. That's not leadership, Deputy Speaker, and that's not what Manitobans want to see. This practice should stop imme­diately.

      So, will the Premier get up in the House today, apologize to Manitobans for using a secret email, start doing her job and get rid of the secret email today?

Mr. Goertzen: Of course, while the Premier was out listening to Manitobans all summer, the Leader of the Op­posi­tion was like Johnny Cash and was touring everywhere other than in Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He had book signing tours all over the place, was having white champagne, I'm sure, and ensuring that he could meet with a lot of people who had a lot of high incomes.

      But I would say to him on this, while he was touring over the last few weeks on the tour of broken dreams from NDP leaders across western Canada, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he should have been in Manitoba listening to those concerns from Manitobans.

      But again, this is an op­por­tun­ity for the member to stand up and apologize for the false accusations that she made against the member for Fort Whyte. Please stand up, do the hon­our­able thing and apologize to that member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The minister's–[interjection]

      Order. Order, op­posi­tion members.

Increase in Project Nova Costs
Impact on Manitobans

Mr. Mintu Sandhu (The Maples): Manitobans deserve good online services from Manitoba Public Insurance. Project Nova was meant to upgrade MPI's online services within a couple of years, at the cost of $82 million. Then the project grew to $128 million. Now it has ballooned to $300 million. We are worried that all Manitobans will be on the hook for these project overruns.

      Can the minister tell us how much money taxpayers, not just the ratepayers, will have to pay for Project Nova?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation): Mr. Deputy Speaker, while the NDP were trying to raid MPI when they were in gov­ern­ment and take that money and transfer that money to things that had nothing to do with vehicle insurance, they should have been investing in tech­no­lo­gy.

      Instead, they left a computer system languish for more than 20 years, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It's now an early 1990s tech­no­lo­gy. Kids were operating on Atari gaming systems at a time when the NDP had old tech­no­lo­gy. If it was up to them, they'd still be operating on Commodore 64s in MPI.

      Yes, we have to update the tech­no­lo­gy because the NDP did nothing with it.

Mr. Sandhu: We knew the former premier, Brian Pallister, interfered in MPI to help his friends. His inter­ference delayed the launch of Project Nova, which now costs more than double. Ratepayers will be on the hook for these overruns. But it's not–unclear how much the taxpayers will have to pay for Project Nova.

      Can the minister tell us, the House, how much money that taxpayers will have to pay for the Project Nova cost overrun?

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the last time that the MPI tech­no­lo­gy was upgraded, Miami Vice was the No. 1 hit TV series in North America and people were using Rubik's Cubes as a new gaming device.

      I know that the member opposite would languish that again if they were ever in gov­ern­ment, doesn't want to have new tech­no­lo­gy.

      It wasn't updated for more than three decades, which is probably how long it will take for the NDP to get back in gov­ern­ment with questions like that.

Mr. Sandhu: Project Nova is meant to be–only cost $82 million. Then it grew to $128 million. Now it's skyrocketed to over $300 million.

      To make matters worse, the project will take twice as long to complete. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sandhu: Manitobans are on the hook for these cost overruns. It is just not clear how much that rate­payers and taxpayers will have to pay.

      Can the minister tell us, the House, how much Project Nova will cost Manitoba ratepayers and the taxpayers?

Mr. Goertzen: The last time the tech­no­lo­gy at MPI was updated, the K-car was, I think, the No. 1 selling vehicle in North America, kids were busy on their Nintendo playing Mario Kart and Phil Collins was the top-selling artist in North America.

      I know the member opposite wants to live in the '80s–I actually enjoyed the '80s–but I would ask him to come with us into this new time. We're going to have new tech­no­lo­gy at MPI. If he wants to go back to the '80s, that was the land of confusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Safe Con­sump­tion Site
Request for Facility

Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): It's clear more than ever that Manitobans need a safe con­sump­tion site.

      Harm reduction advocates are saying that the people are not overdosing because they're using too much; they're overdosing because of a toxic drug supply. A safe con­sump­tion site would help people ensure the drugs that they are using are safe. It would save lives, Deputy Speaker.

      Will the minister do the right thing and commit to opening a safe con­sump­tion site today?

Hon. Sarah Guillemard (Minister of Mental Health and Community Wellness): I just want to point out that, you know, the members opposite feel that they have all the answers in this field, but they're only sticking to one parti­cular tool in a huge tool box.

      And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are investing in evidence-based systems of care. And we will continue to respond to the needs of Manitobans.

      I know why the members opposite are a little bit nervous in terms of how they're approaching this situation. A well-known journalist actually com­ment­ed on their own leader's plan, that the NDP addictions piece is not the worth the paper it's written on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas, on a supplementary question.

Mrs. Smith: I was at Siloam Mission last week. They are concerned about the folks of Manitoba. They want a safe con­sump­tion site. Main Street Project are concerns–concerned about Manitobans. They want a safe con­sump­tion site.

      They can't even keep up with how many people are dying of overdoses, and this minister's talking about, they're doing every­thing they can to support Manitobans and keep them alive? Why are Manitobans dying in this province? Why does this minister–why doesn't she go and visit other safe con­sump­tion sites in other provinces and listen to how they're doing it and saving lives? Manitobans deserve that.

* (10:40)

      Will the minister open a safe con­sump­tion site and do the right thing and help save lives in Manitoba?

Mrs. Guillemard: This article goes on to comment on the Leader of the Op­posi­tion's plan, to say that this report that he released on an im­por­tant issue like the drug addiction–is usually a good idea to source your materials, which he did not. Otherwise, your paper comes across looking like an incomplete middle-school report that would probably get a failing grade from the most generous social studies teacher.

      There's nothing new or original in the paper or plan. It's largely a cut-and-paste job from the existing literature any grade 6 student could find online.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Point Douglas, on a final sup­ple­mentary.

Mrs. Smith: The PCs refuse to listen.

      Fact: Manitobans are overdosing due to the toxic drug supply. Fact: Safe con­sump­tion sites would help people, whether their–to identify whether their drugs are safe to use. Fact: Safe con­sump­tion sites save lives. Fact: Every other 'proveh' in western Canada has one but this province.

      It's time for the PCs to listen to the experts, get on board and open a safe con­sump­tion site. Do the right thing and help save Manitoban lives.

Mrs. Guillemard: Including in this article, which I will table today, the author goes on to say, if ad­dictions are a crisis today because of a lack of gov­ern­ment spending to eliminate poverty and reduce the number of children in care, it's an extra­ordin­ary damming legacy for the NDP.

      Not only did the former gov­ern­ment create a structural deficit during good economic times and double the size of prov­incial debt, all that spending on anti-poverty measures, social housing and child wel­fare apparently didn't yield very promising results.

      If the Leader of the Op­posi­tion–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Guillemard: –is right in his assessment, the real story–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Guillemard: –is the failed policies of his own party.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

      I just want to encourage members not to heckle their own members.

Carbon Savings Account
Carbon Pricing Target

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): Earlier this year, we revealed the gov­ern­ment's own emission modelling. It showed that the PC's tiny measures on climate won't have a meaningful impact to reduce greenhouse gasses. And, in fact, emissions still will be going up.

      Now this gov­ern­ment is backing away from even the meagre goals it has put in place. Reporting on the so-called carbon savings account is nowhere to be seen. This measure expires at the end of the year.

      Will the minister be renewing it, and will a carbon price be part of this measure going forward?

Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Environment, Climate and Parks): An–certainly ap­pre­ciate the question–the recycled question from the member from Wolseley.

      And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we know we've had this discussion before. We're working with the federal gov­ern­ment. We know, under the leadership of our Premier (Mrs. Stefanson), who continues to work with the federal gov­ern­ment and the Prime Minister as well, we're ensuring that we're getting this correct for Manitobans.

      And we'll continue to do the right thing for Manitobans.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Wolseley, on a sup­ple­mentary.

Ms. Naylor: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Manitobans have been so disappointed by the PC's approach to climate change.

      The Conservatives don't take respon­si­bility to re­duce emissions. They backed away from reporting on Efficiency Manitoba. They aren't reporting on their own meagre carbon savings account. And the latter expires at the end of this year.

      So, I simply ask the minister again: Will he be renewing his measure, or will–and will a carbon price be part of his approach going forward?

Mr. Wharton: Again, I'll just remind the member that between 2018 and 2020, our gov­ern­ment reduced emission by 1.3 megatons, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      These numbers directly 'refrect' the host of emissions reductions actions of policies under­taken by this gov­ern­ment, not by the former NDP gov­ern­ment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on a final supplementary.

Ms. Naylor: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the PCs are simply carrying on Brian Pallister's misguided approach. The gov­ern­ment's own modelling shows emissions are projected to keep climbing in Manitoba, and on even the smallest measures they have not been reported–reporting. We're more than two years behind, now, on any reporting in this area.

      The gov­ern­ment's so-called carbon savings account ends this year, so I ask the minister: Has this gov­ern­ment missed even its own meagre goals, and will a carbon price be part of their approach going forward?

Mr. Wharton: Our government continues to take action for Manitobans, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      Just to name a few, we're helping Manitobans by investing in green projects and initiatives through the Con­ser­va­tion and Climate Fund, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are helping Manitobans by expanding our water­shed districts to now include 109 munici­palities across this province. And we're also helping Manitobans through efficiency trucking program by provi­ding rebates to applicants who update their machinery to make it more environmentally friendly, just to name a few.

      We've done more in six years than the NDP did in 17 years, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Physician and Nurse Shortage
Recruitment and Retention Programs

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): We know there are shortages of doctors and nurses in Manitoba, with both quitting, saying they have no support.

      I table pages form Manitoba Health's annual report that shows over two fiscal years, from 2020 to 2022, the physician recruitment and retention program saw a cut of nearly $1 million, from $24 million to $23 million. At the same time, expenditures for out-of-province physicians have increased by $4 million, primarily to–due to case load volume.

      Can the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) explain why, when doctors are quitting and leaving the province, this gov­ern­ment actually reduced spending on keep­ing them in Manitoba?

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): This morning, I was in the Southdale con­stit­uency getting my flu shot, and I want to thank Salil Prashar, pharmacist manager at the Southdale Walmart, for administering that flu shot. I encourage all members in the Chamber today to get your flu shot to reduce incidence of the flu, and to also get your bivalent COVID vaccine as soon as possible.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, our gov­ern­ment has in­vest­ed $1 billion more than the NDP ever did into health care. We're working with our stake­holder groups, Doctors Manitoba. We're at the front lines. We're talking to physicians and other health-care pro­fes­sionals about–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The minister's time has expired.

      The hon­our­able member for St. Boniface, on a sup­ple­mentary.

Mr. Lamont: Madam Speaker, it's not just a fund for retaining doctors that was cut. We've been getting SOSs from nurses, and we know there's a massive nursing shortage.

      We're told it's everywhere, so why is it that, in Manitoba, nursing recruitment and retention initia­tives, which are supposed to provide grants to nurses for bilingual and French require­ment positions, personal-care-home grants, relocation assist­ance and continuing edu­ca­tion funding, has also been cut? They were cut by $174,000 from $3.27 million in 2020-21 to $3.1 million in 2021-22.

      Why, given the nursing shortage, is the gov­ern­ment cutting attraction and retention programs?

Ms. Gordon: The member for St. Boniface is just wrong.

      We are investing in incentives to ensure our nurses stay here in the province. I look forward to, in the next week or so, bringing forward a very com­pre­hen­sive plan for recruitment, training and retention, not just for our nurses but for a variety of health-care pro­fes­sionals.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the COVID pan­demic, we offered a $6-an-hour premium to staff for all hours worked. We have an ICU recruitment and retention initiative grant, up to $3,000; incentives for full-time em­ploy­ment, up to $2,000; academic allow­ances; and we will be announcing more very soon.

* (10:50)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for St. Boniface, on a final sup­ple­mentary.

Assaults on Residents of Oakview Place
Inquiry into Revoking Licence

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Still on the subject of health care.

      In June this year, it emerged that at least 15 residents of Oakview Place were targeted by staff for abuse. Winnipeg Regional Health Author­ity and Extendicare both admitted that policies and protocols weren't followed because the first whistle‑blower was ignored, and the R-A–WRHA only acted when they were contacted.

      This summer, we stood with family members of residents who'd been targeted. Some only found out that their loved ones had been allegedly assaulted after they died.

      Some staff are facing criminal charges, but where is the account­ability for the company that ignored warnings? If ignoring assaults on 15 residents doesn't get a licence pulled, what will?

Hon. Scott Johnston (Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care): I can assure you the–to the mem­ber that this gov­ern­ment finds those actions as being unacceptable, and that the De­part­ment of Health has certainly gone through the–their in­vesti­gation pro­cess, as well as the police in­vesti­gation that has taken place. And, certainly, further con­sid­era­tions of those actions are being deliberated on.

      And we–the con­sid­era­tions of those licences are cer­tainly some­thing that is continually being de­liberated on.

New Hospital in Neepawa
Gov­ern­ment Announcement

Mr. Rick Wowchuk (Swan River): Manitobans in our rural com­mu­nities feel their health care didn't matter after the NDP shut down the 16–16–emergency rooms and left hundreds of com­mu­nities without urgent and emergency care close to home.

      Can the Minister of Health please tell us what she is doing to rectify this situation created by the previous NDP gov­ern­ment?

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): I thank the member for that question.

      Members in the Chamber will remember when rural health care was absolutely devastated by the NDP. That is why my de­part­ment, through the clinical and pre­ven­tative services plan, has announced a ground­breaking for a new $127-million hospital in Neepawa to strengthen our health care in our rural areas.

      The hospital will be four times the size of the existing site and will nearly double the amount of acute-care beds, to 63. It will also increase the capa­city of surgeries, diagnostics as well as expand the emergency de­part­ment to include more ambulance bays and trauma rooms.

      This–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Minister's time has expired.

Daily Daycare Fees
Request to Decrease

Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the federal gov­ern­ment has committed to $10-a-day child care. Other provinces are taking action by reducing the daily maximum fee that all daycares can charge to make care more affordable.

      Manitoba isn't taking that approach, instead re­quiring that parents apply for subsidy rather than making this automatic and uni­ver­sal. The result is that funds are not being put to use, and families are missing out.

      I ask the minister: Will he change his approach and bring down the maximum fees all daycares charge in Manitoba?

Hon. Wayne Ewasko (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): Well over 107 sets of questions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I finally get a question on early child­hood edu­ca­tion. And we know that Manitoba was already one of the lowest child-care fees across this great country of ours.

      By begin­ning of 2023, we're going to be at that $10-a-day average–daycare. We're going to be three years ahead of schedule, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      It's good news for Manitobans. We're listening to Manitobans and we're getting it done, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sala: Mr. Deputy Speaker, $10 a day should mean a maximum of $10 per day. That's the direction other provinces are moving by reducing the daily maximum that daycares can charge.

      Manitoba is the only province in the entire coun­try that isn't doing this and is instead using a subsidy approach. Families are being left behind as a result and funds meant for families are being left unspent. These benefits need to be uni­ver­sal to ensure everyone sees the benefit.

      Will the minister change approach and bring down the maximum fee for all daycares in Manitoba?

Mr. Ewasko: It gives me great pleasure to stand and put some facts on the record. And some­thing that we are doing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the NDP, under 17 years, did not do. They didn't move an inch.

      We're provi­ding subsidies to over 300 per cent, subsidized spaces. We were at 6,000 subsidized spaces, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We're now at 18,000. We have more work to do. We're going to be doing more work. Stay tuned.

      Far more work in the last year than the NDP did over this last–over their 17 years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for St. James, on a final supplementary.

Mr. Sala: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Manitoba was to have halved its fees this year, and there are only two months left. Every other province is making benefits uni­ver­sal by reducing their daily maximum fees for daycare.

      This ensures pro­gram­ming is ac­ces­si­ble and truly uni­ver­sal. That's not what this gov­ern­ment is doing here in Manitoba. These federal funds should be used to reduce the daily maximum fees for everyone.

      Why is the PC gov­ern­ment failing to ensure all Manitobans receive the benefit from the national agree­ment on child care? [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ewasko: Oh, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm listening today to the member from St. James, and he's flip-flopping like a pickerel on a dock.

      We have increased the threshold for subsidies by 45 per cent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That means, and here–I know math's hard for the NDP, but here we go. So, the average daily fee for parents are going to be $10. The–Minister Gould, the federal minister, ap­plauds Manitoba gov­ern­ment for being a leader in the country in this initiative.

      People of low income are going to be paying $2 a day. The maximum fees are just–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ewasko: –over $20, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We, on this side of the House–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The minister's time has expired.

      The time for questions has expired. Petition–[interjection]–oh.

      Okay, it is the opinion of the clerks that due to the amount of disorder, there should be one final question permitted by the member for Notre Dame. I will allow that; just one question, not in three sections.

Home-Care Services
Care Hours Available

MLA Malaya Marcelino (Notre Dame): Home‑care workers in the Winnipeg region have approached me to report a new schedule‑optimizing tool used to schedule their ap­point­ments. They are very concerned that this is not provi­ding the time necessary to appropriately help their clients. In some cases, the time to drive, provide morning care and provide a bath are being cut from 45 minutes to 20 minutes.

      Morning care can include washing, dressing, provi­ding medi­cation and breakfast, catheter care, changing nitro and pain patches and administering eye drops, changing incontinence products; all of this plus bathing, plus the driving to the client's house in 20 minutes. These home-care workers are rightly concerned.

* (11:00)

      Why is this minister and this gov­ern­ment cutting home care to the bone?

Hon. Scott Johnston (Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care): I ap­pre­ciate the question.

      This gov­ern­ment has certainly indicated that we are going to review our home-care structuring and our home-care system, and we are in the process of doing exactly that. We're getting it done and we will continue to get it done.

      Madam Speaker, our initiative to create the sen­iors strategy to do it was voted against the–by the NDP, so I don't know what support you're giving to seniors.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time for questions has expired.

Petitions

Hearing Aids

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

      The background to this petition is as follows:

      A hearing aid–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gerrard: –is a battery-powered electronic device designed to improve–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gerrard: –an individual's ability to perceive–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I ap­pre­ciate that many of us are morning people. I ap­pre­ciate the energy and enthusiasm. But I need to be able to hear the member for River Heights, and would just request that con­ver­sa­tions either in the loges or perhaps, if they're a little more than a few comments, in the hall­ways. That's just fine.

      But please, if we can keep the volume at an ap­pro­priate level, that'd be great.

Mr. Gerrard: A hearing aid is a battery-powered elec­­tronic device designed to improve an individual's ability to perceive sound. Worn in or behind a person's ear, they make some sounds louder, helping people hear better when it's quiet and when it's noisy.

      People who suffer hearing loss, whether due to aging, illness, employment or accident, not only lose the ability to communicate effectively with friends, family or colleagues, they also can experience un­employ­ment, social isolation and struggles with men­tal health.

      Hearing loss can also impact the safety of an individual with hearing loss, as it affects the ability to hear cars coming, safety alarms, call 911, et cetera.

      A global commission on the site of the research for dementia care and prevention released an updated consensus report in July 2020, identifying 12 key risk factors for dementia and cognitive decline. The strong­est risk factor that was indicated was hearing loss. It was calculated that up to 8 per cent of the total number of dementia cases could potentially be avoided with management of hearing loss.

      Hearing aids are therefore essential to the mental health and well-being of Manitobans, especially to those at significant risk of dementia, Alzheimer's, a disorder of the brain affecting cognition in the ever-growing senior population.

      Audiologists are health-care professionals who help patients decide which kind of hearing aid will work best for them, based on the type of hearing loss, patient's age and ability to manage small devices, lifestyle and ability to afford.

      The cost of hearing aids can be prohibitive to many Manitobans, depending on their income and circumstances. Hearing aids cost an average of $995 to $4,000 per ear, and many professionals say the hearing aids only work at their best for five years.

      Manitoba residents under the age of 18 who require a hearing aid, as prescribed by an oto­laryngologist or audiologist, will receive either an 80 per cent reimbursement from Manitoba Health of a fixed amount for an analog device, up to a maximum of $500 per ear, or 80 per cent of a fixed amount for a digital or analog programmable device, up to a max­imum of $1,800.

      However, this reimbursement is not available to Manitobans who need the device who are over the age of 18, which will result in financial hardship for many young people entering the work­force, stu­dents and families. In addition, seniors representing 14.3 per cent of Manitoba's population are not eligible for reimbursement, despite being the group most likely in need of a hearing aid.

      Most insurance companies only provide a minimal partial cost of a hearing aid, and many Manitobans, especially retired persons, old-age pen­sioners and low-income earners do not have access to health insurance plans.

      The Province of Quebec's hearing devices pro­gram covers all costs related to hearing aids and assist­ive listening devices, including the purchase, repair and replacement.

      Alberta offers subsidies to all seniors 65 and over and low-income adults 18 to 64 once every five years.

      New Brunswick provides coverage for the pur­chase and maintenance not covered by other agencies or private health insurance plans, as well as assistance for those for whom the purchase would cause financial hardship.

      Manitobans over age 18 are only eligible for sup­port for hearing aids if they are receiving Employment and Income Assist­ance, and the reimbursement only provides a maximum of $500 an ear.

      We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the provincial government to consider hearing loss as a medical treatment under Manitoba Health.

      To urge the provincial government to provide income-based coverage for hearing aids to all those who need them, as hearing loss–as hearing has been proven to be essential to Manitobans' cognitive, men­tal and social health and wellbeing.

      Signed by Raya Haaksma, Kim Bjorklund, Alanna Jelley and many, many others.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other petitions?

Louise Bridge

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

      The back­ground to the petition is as follows:

      (1) Over 25,000 vehicles per day cross the Louise Bridge, which has served as a vital link for vehicular traffic between northeast Winnipeg and the downtown for the last 110 years.

      (2) The current structure will undoubtedly be declared unsafe in a few years as it has deteriorated extensively, becoming functionally obsolete, subject to more frequent unplanned repairs and cannot be widened to accommodate future traffic capacity.

      (3) As far back as 2008, the City of Winnipeg has studied where the new re­place­ment bridge should be situated.

      (4) After including the bridge re­place­ment in the City's five-year capital budget forecast in 2009, the new bridge became a short-term construction priority in the City's trans­por­tation master plan of 2011.

      (5) City capital and budget plans identified re­place­ment of the Louise Bridge on a site just east of the bridge and expropriated homes there on the south side of Nairn Avenue in anticipation of a 2015 start. In–

      (6) In 2014, the new City admin­is­tra­tion did not make use of available federal infrastructure funds.

      (7) The new Louise Bridge Com­mit­tee began its campaign to demand a new bridge and its surveys confirmed residents wanted a new bridge beside the current bridge, with the old bridge kept open for local traffic.

      (8) The NDP prov­incial gov­ern­ment signalled its firm commit­ment to partner with the City on replacing the Louise Bridge in its 2015 Throne Speech. Unfor­tunately, prov­incial infrastructure initiatives, such as the new Louise Bridge, came to a halt with the election of the Progressive Conservative gov­ern­ment in 2016.

      (9) More recently, the City tethered the Louise Bridge replacement issue to its new trans­por­tation master plan and eastern corridor project. Its recom­men­dations have now identified the location of the new Louise Bridge to be placed just to the west of the current bridge, not to the east as originally proposed.

      (10) The City expropriation process has begun. The $6.35‑million street upgrade of Nairn Avenue from Watt Street to the 111‑year-old bridge is complete.

      (11) The new Premier has a duty to direct the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to provide financial assist­ance to the City so it can complete this long overdue vital link between northeast Winnipeg and Transcona.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      (1) To urge the new Premier to financially assist the City of Winnipeg on building this three-lane bridge in each direction to maintain this vital link between northeast Winnipeg, Transcona and the downtown.

      (2) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to recom­mend that the City of Winnipeg keep the old bridge fully open to traffic while the new bridge is under con­struction.

      (3) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to consider the feasibility of keeping it open for active trans­por­tation in the future.

      And this petition is signed by many, many Manitobans.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other petitions?

      Seeing none, we move to grievances. Seeing none, we move to orders of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

House Business

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): I'd like to announce that the Standing Commit­tee on Legis­lative Affairs will meet on Wednesday, November 2nd, 2022, at 6 p.m. to con­sider Bill 225, The Non-Disclosure Agree­ments Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been announced by the hon­our­able Gov­ern­ment House Leader that the Standing Com­mit­tee on Legis­lative Affairs will meet on Wednesday, November 2nd, 2022, at 6 p.m. to con­sider Bill 225, The Non-Disclosure Agree­ments Act.

* * *

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Deputy Speaker, could you please resolve into Com­mit­tee of Supply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Certainly. It has been announced by the hon­our­able Gov­ern­ment House Leader that we will now resolve into Com­mit­tee of Supply.

      Call in–Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair.

Committee of Supply

(Concurrent Sections)

Room 254

Natural Resources and Northern Development

* (11:30)

Mr. Chairperson (Dennis Smook): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This sec­tion of the Com­mit­tee of Supply will now resume con­sid­era­tions of the Estimates for the De­part­ment of Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment.

      Questioning for this de­part­ment will continue in a global matter–manner.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Ian Bushie (Keewatinook): Just to kind of con­tinue on where we ended the day yesterday in discussions with the fleet–the water bomber fleet for the fire suppression program. Was mentioned that–I don't have the exact descriptions of the plane, but it's basically 14, I guess, units that were in place.

      And I was just wondering if–I asked about the age of the fleet and the minister had responded it didn't matter what the age was as long as they're well main­tained. But I think for clari­fi­ca­tion, we'd like to know the age of the fleet, please.

Hon. Greg Nesbitt (Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Development): Good morning to the member from Keewatinook.

      Yes, I certainly did endeavour to give you the number of planes we have and the ages of the planes. And, you know, as I said yesterday, aircrafts can be deceptive sometimes in terms of the age and it's all about the maintenance on them.

      So, we have three CL-215 tankers. One was purchased in 1974; it's 48 years old. We have another one that was purchased in 1986; that makes it 36 years old. And we have a third one purchased in 1987, and it's 35 years old.

      We have four of the CL-415 tankers. They're of newer vintage. We have one from 2010 that's 12 years old; 2011, we have two of them, so they're 11 years old. And the last one that was purchased was 2012, and it's 10 years old.

Mr. Bushie: Okay, so that's seven, is that correct? Or it's 14?

Mr. Nesbitt: No, seven is correct. I don't think we said 14 yesterday at all. There is seven of them.

Mr. Bushie: Is there any plans to update the fleet? You'd mentioned 1974, '86, '87, in terms of being the older ones in the fleet. Is there a plan to purchase any upcoming to add to the fleet or replace?

Mr. Nesbitt: Productions on these type of planes stopped in 2015, so there's been no supplier to pur­chase new aircraft at this point. We do have word that de Havilland is going to start production in 2029 in Calgary.

      We're certainly very interested in perhaps re­placing aircraft, adding aircraft, whatever. Like you say, the age of the aircraft dictates you need to replace the fleet at some point.

      We are certainly in discussions with our partners in the other provinces and with the federal gov­ern­ment to see what can be done for procurement of these, and you do have to order these planes much in advance and get your orders in.

      So, discussions are underway. We know that, you know, forest fires–with climate change, there could be more forest fires moving forward and, you know, we want to be prepared. We want to have the best equip­ment available that we can to protect our com­mu­nities from fire.

Mr. Bushie: So, the minister had mentioned about procurement, and I'm just wondering, has that process then begun for a procurement of updating the fleet.

Mr. Nesbitt: Yes. We've certainly had discussions internally about, you know, about acquiring aircraft. We've also–we'll be having discussions with the other provinces and with the feds to deter­mine, you know, how many we need, what we need, what the other pro­vinces are buying and, you know, working out a time frame, a price line, things like that.

      So, discussions are underway. There's been noth­ing–no contracts signed, there's been nothing like that. It's just overall discussions. We're quite interested because, you know, quite honestly, having a plant based in western Canada that can build these type of planes is really good for the prairie provinces.

Mr. Bushie: So the minister mentioned that any poten­tial updating of the fleet or purchasing of ad­di­tional water bombers or re­place­ment of water bomb­ers is time consuming in terms of ordering in advance.

      I'm just wondering, has the minister allocated any budget line item for re­place­ment?

* (11:40)

Mr. Nesbitt: I'd just advise the member, I'm trying to understand how purchase of an airplane works. It's really not like purchasing an automobile, where you walk onto the lot and pick one up.

      Our under­standing is that the first 28 planes that they're going to build in Calgary, starting in 2029, are already allocated to Europe. We're continuing our discussions with the company in–and–internally and with the provinces and the feds on that.

      In the meantime, we're certainly going to main­tain these planes to Transport Canada standards so they can fly and do the job they're intended to do. Last year, we spent $2 million on the avionics. No money will be–you know, the money is going to go into the planes to ensure that they will protect us until we can get another plane.

      Now, you had mentioned about budgeting for a plane. My folks here have told me that, you know, when we place an order for an airplane next year per­haps, we might not get it 'til 2032, or whatever it might be. That amount, then, would appear in the budget of that parti­cular year as capital cost for the entire air­plane, and then be amortized over a certain amount of years.

      I hope that answers the question for the member.

Mr. Bushie: Thank you for that clari­fi­ca­tion, and yes, I agree with the comment from yesterday about whether it's maintained. Obviously, the life expect­ancy gets to be a lot longer if it's maintained properly, and I'm sure in the avionics field it's im­por­tant that every­thing is top-notch every day, no matter–regard­less of the age.

      But the question, I guess, was to ask, and it was somewhat answered, in regards to whether or not there's going to be upgrading of the fleet. Because if we're talking, you know–or for argument's sake, you know, 13, 15 years from now, the 1974 plane is also 13 to 15 years older by that point in time. And just wondering how exactly that would play out in terms of this de­part­ment's financial commit­ment, or if it even is in this de­part­ment, or whether or not it's just maintenance and whatnot that comes out of this depart­ment.

      So the–so that being said, then, I do want to fol­low up on the question from yesterday about the contract, and the contract with Babcock Canada that initially was $14.6 million. And my under­standing, it was then now $18.6 million a year.

      I'm just wondering if the minister can confirm that the $18.6 million a year is the accurate figure for that de­part­ment.

Mr. Nesbitt: So, I'm told in the budget we're looking at here, the budget for expenditures for Babcock is $17.6 million, for the budget that we're talking about here now.

Mr. Bushie: So, in the begin­ning of the contract, was the contract then $14.6 million?

Mr. Nesbitt: Just having some problems here. The minister for Keewatinook is saying $14.6 million. I'd just like to ask him where he got that number from. Is that from previous Estimates? Is that a number that–like, just where did that number, 14.6, came from? I told you in this year's Estimates, it's $17.6 million.

Mr. Bushie: So, the contract initially, in 2017-2018, was at $14.6 million and that was also a 10-year con­tract, and now, the minister has mentioned that now it is $17.6 million a year. And I'm just wondering what the increase is then.

Mr. Nesbitt: Yes, I can explain that. The contract has an inflationary clause in, where there'll be increases each year, like, it's quite normal for contracts where they increase due to inflation.

      This year it's $17.6 million. So, over the past few years, it's gone up by an inflationary number. That contract is based on, you know, a certain standard num­ber of flying hours and things. Anything that we go over that is–would be an ad­di­tional cost, as well, in a heavy fire season.

* (11:50)

Mr. Bushie: Can the minister, then, under­take to pro­vide us with a breakdown of the actual cost per year  of the contract, inflationary discussions aside–$3‑million-a-year increase is pretty sig­ni­fi­cant year over year. I'm just wondering if there is ad­di­tional reasons why those costs are higher.

      And if the minister can then break down from 2017 to 2018 up to today, then, the cost per year. Because it was initially at $14.6 million and now we're at 17.6, so that's $3 million in the course of the last five years increase in value. And I'm just won­der­ing if there's a con­sistent increase.

      And–so, for the value of the tenured contract, are we going to be looking then, 'portentially'–and I mean, we can't predict the future, but in three years from now, are we going to be looking at ad­di­tional costs per year of 6, 7 million dollars or, for example?

Mr. Nesbitt: So, the contract with Babcock started December 1st, 2018. So I'm not sure where the mem­ber is getting the previous numbers.

      So, in the 2018-19 fiscal year, it was just a part year; it was $4.9 million is what we paid in the end. And I'm sure this infor­ma­tion's all available in Public Accounts. In 2019-20, it was $16.8 million. In 2021, it was $17.3 million; '21-22 was $20.8 million. And this year's budget is $17.6 million.

      Now, the anomaly in there, '21-22, it was a busy fire year. The planes flew more hours. That's built into the contract. That's why the price is higher. It wouldn't matter whether it was contracted out or we were flying it ourselves. We'd have higher costs due to a longer or a busier fire season.

Mr. Bushie: Thank you for that clari­fi­ca­tion, Mr. Minister. And Mr. Chair, thank you for the op­por­tun­ity to ask some more questions.

      I have a couple of questions about forestry. The minister, yesterday, had mentioned the First Nations and the MOUs that were signed on First Nations.

      I'm wondering if the minister could provide us with a list of the First Nations that have signed MOUs with regards to forestry.

Mr. Nesbitt: Yes, it was certainly my pleasure to go up North and sign some of those MOUs in person with the First Nations. They were very welcoming, and we had a great reception on those First Nations; they were very hospitable to us. We–they treated us to lunch, formal ceremonies in front of the com­mu­nity and it was a very, very historic occasion to be signing timber-dues sharing agree­ments with First Nations.

      So the–we signed them with–the one time we were up there we signed with Mosakahiken, which is Moose Lake, and Opaskwayak, OCN. We signed in Norway House. We've signed with Chemawawin, and we've signed with Minegozebii [phonetic] and Anishinabe, the Pine Creek First Nation. I'm sure I didn't pronounce that correctly.

      But, you know–so we signed the MOUs and then following up with MOAs. The MOU was a memoran­dum of under­standing; then we followed up with the actual agree­ments that are two-year agree­ments, to start with, as a pilot project. We certainly expect to continue that arrangement. It started back on January 1st, 2022, and will run for the next two years.

      We've certainly–we've offered these–we have offered to sign MOUs with any First Nation in Manitoba that wants to, whether or not they have forestry now or whether they're looking at forestry moving forward. These cheques should be issued later this year or early 2003 for this first year. Of those–they were just signed this summer. We feel this is cer­tainly a show of recon­ciliation, and the First Nations feel the same. It's not just talk; it's action. And I'm very proud that these timber dues are going back for the First Nations to do with what they want. In terms of how they use the money on the First Nation; that's entirely up to them.

Mr. Bushie: So, in regards to the MOUs, and we  wrapped up Estimates in the Indigenous recon­ciliation–with the Indigenous Recon­ciliation Minister and at that time there was still no con­sul­ta­tion strategy or duty to consult with First Nations from his de­part­ment. And I'm just wondering what con­sul­ta­tion strategy or duty-to-consult framework was used in–with these MOUs.

* (12:00)

Mr. Nesbitt: So the previous minister had started these discussions when this de­part­ment was formed in January. And when I was fortunate enough to be named minister, I continued the discussions with chief in council in these com­mu­nities.

      And, you know, we certainly worked with chief in council. There was really no duty to consult be­cause this was–there–it's not a treaty issue. This was doing some­thing that we felt was right in terms of recon­ciliation. Our gov­ern­ment, our Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) has reaffirmed that our gov­ern­ment wants to proceed with recon­ciliation right through gov­ern­ment.

      This is Natural Resources' way of reconciling with our First Nations who do have the land where the harvest is happening. So we certainly had dialogue with the chief in council, numer­ous chats, visits with them with our staff, my own visit with them, phone discussions and, finally, an agree­ment to proceed with the MOU and then, in turn, with the MOAs.

Mr. Bushie: I just want to see if the minister can clarify the comment about there being really no duty to consult. Could you maybe expand on that and how you feel there really was no duty to consult?

Mr. Nesbitt: So, the MOUs for revenue sharing, like I say, they weren't a treaty issue. But revenue sharing was raised a number of times in con­sul­ta­tions that were done. IRNR met with chief in councils, they met with First Nations. We've heard that in discussions in the past. We felt it was the right thing to do.

      So, in the spirit of recon­ciliation, we entered into–I'm saying discussions, you can say con­sul­ta­tions–with chief in council, to hear what they had to say about revenue sharing, throw around numbers, come up with an agree­ment that works for both parties.

      So, it was a col­lab­o­rative discussion, 'discable'–or, col­lab­o­rative con­sul­ta­tion, whatever you might want to call it. But it arrived in agree­ments that the First Nations were very happy with and we were very happy to share reve­nues with them.

Mr. Bushie: So I'm just, again, looking for some clari­fi­ca­tion on some of the response that I'm getting here then.

      So then, the minister feels there's no duty to con­sult if it's not a treaty issue. Is that correct?

Mr. Nesbitt: Well, we certainly realize that there's a duty to consult with our First Nations when it comes to forestry activities, whether it comes to mining activities, things like that. We have a con­sul­ta­tion branch within our de­part­ment that, you know, is busy all the time consulting with First Nations.

      The difference in this is that, you know, revenue sharing was an ac­com­moda­tion. It was some­thing that–an agree­ment we entered into with the First Nations coming out of the con­sul­ta­tions.

      As I said before, we'd heard the fact that First Nations wanted to be in­de­pen­dent. They wanted to have their own revenue. They didn't want to be de­pendent on the federal gov­ern­ment. They wanted funds from the resources on their lands, and our gov­ern­ment has acted to do that.

      And I'm–again, I'm proud to say that these First Nations were ecstatic with these agree­ments and we have many more in the queue here that want to sign these agree­ments with us.

Mr. Bushie: So again, Mr. Chair, I'm not hearing an answer to the question, then.

      So, does the minister feel, then, there is only a duty to consult if it is a treaty issue?

Mr. Nesbitt: Again, I think the member is getting consult and discussions–you know, it's semantics here. We work with First Nations. We look to reset relationships with First Nations in terms of resource sharing.

      You know, we certainly–like I say, we're certainly very proud of what we've done and what we're going to continue to do in working with our partners. And, you know, we certainly–I have a definition here. It says duty to consult where a proposed decision may impact on the exercise of treaty and Aboriginal rights.

* (12:10)

      We've gone above and beyond here in resetting the relationships of these First Nations. So, we dis­cussed with the chief in council, we consulted with the chief in council, we sat around a table, we tossed ideas back and forth, we came up with an MOU that worked for both of us. There was no pressure to sign this MOU.

      We're very pleased to share our reve­nues with First Nations. We think it's the right thing to do. I made the statement, when I was signing these with the chiefs, that this has been a long time coming and it should've happened much sooner. And we feel this is a very im­por­tant part of recon­ciliation.

Mr. Bushie: So, again, for the third time now, I'm still not hearing a simple yes or no answer to a yes or no question.

      If the minister feels that there's no duty to consult or the only respon­si­ble duty to consult is if it involves in treaty and Aboriginal rights, as the minister had quoted there. Because there's also, when it comes time to Indigenous First Nation com­mu­nities, it's also about traditional territory. It's not so much about just, you know, confined to the–and again, I didn't like using the phrase yesterday–the reserve boundary. So it is a matter of enter­taining and encompassing traditional territory that encompasses basically all of Manitoba.

      So, again, does the minister feel, then, there is no duty to consult unless it is a treaty issue?

Mr. Nesbitt: I think to answer the member's question directly, we certainly recog­nize that, you know, we certainly have a duty to consult where a proposed decision may impact on the exercise of treaty and Aboriginal rights. In these cases, we engaged with chief in council based on consultations in the past on revenue sharing and the fact that they wanted to share in the resources from their land.

      We feel that's the right thing to do. It's part of re­con­ciliation. It's an act of recon­ciliation. It's a mean­ing­ful act. And again, like I say, this en­gage­ment, this discussion, this con­ver­sa­tion with chief in council came as a result of con­sul­ta­tions in the past with these First Nations.

Mr. Bushie: Okay, so, maybe I'll go about asking it in a different way, then. So does the minister, then, agree that the forestry activity in fact impacts treaty and Aboriginal rights?

Mr. Nesbitt: Well, certainly, the member's right. You know, we have to consult with First Nations. We do consult with First Nations in terms of forestry activities. You know, because, you know, it may im­pact First Nations, it may not, but it's certainly some­thing that we always–we do always consult with First Nations when it comes to forestry activities, when it comes to signing new licensing agree­ments with our forest products companies.

      Discussions are always ongoing with First Nations when it comes to forestry.

Mr. Bushie: So, again, does the minister, then, agree that forestry activity impacts treaty and Aboriginal rights?

Mr. Nesbitt: To the member's question: we do consult to deter­mine the potential impacts on the exercise of treaty and Aboriginal rights. We want meaningful processes that allow us to hear from com­mu­nities on the potential impacts, mitigation strategies and, where ap­pro­priate, accommodation measures.

Mr. Bushie: So, out of that very eloquent definition that the minister just gave then, again, does he agree, then, that forestry activity impacts treaty and Aboriginal rights, given that definition he just gave?

Mr. Nesbitt: To the member's question: I would ce­rtainly agree that, you know, it can certainly affect treaty rights of First Nations. And that's why we do assessments and consult with First Nations. I mean, that's only proper, you know, talking to the people that are on the land there, that's the im­por­tant thing to do, and consulting with them.

Mr. Bushie: So, I guess we're in agree­ment on that. The minister says that it can, and for the record, he is  saying that it can–forestry activity can affect, 'impract'–and impact treaty and Aboriginal rights. So, by that definition, then, it also falls in the category under duty to consult, because it does, in fact, affect traditional territory and treaty rights and Aboriginal rights.

      So there is, in fact, a duty to consult, then, on forestry activity, given the minister under­standing that it can impact. So, there is an obligated duty to consult based on the definitions given this afternoon by the minister.

      Would you agree?

Mr. Nesbitt: Could I ask the member to just rephrase that question without all the preamble. Could you just single in on the question you want me to answer?

Mr. Bushie: I've singled on it, like, four or five times now. The minister had mentioned that forestry activity can, in fact, impact treaty and Aboriginal rights.

      And so, by the acknowl­edgement that it can, then, does the minister then agree that there is a duty to consult given the definition earlier, that there is a duty to consult when it's a treaty issue?

* (12:20)

Mr. Nesbitt: Well, I'm certainly going to say that we do assessments on every forestry proposal here in Manitoba. We see if there's any potential impacts to treaty and Aboriginal rights, and if there is, we will consult.

Mr. Bushie: So in fact, then, in regards to the MOUs, then, I mean, obviously, I think we're in agree­ment that forestry activity, in your definition, can–com­mu­nities' definitions are it absolutely does impact treaty and Aboriginal rights.

      So was there a duty‑to‑consult protocol followed in regards to these MOUs?

Mr. Nesbitt: I'm sure the member does understand that these MOUs are about the financial aspect of sharing reve­nues. This isn't about cutting down trees. This isn't about doing work on lands. That's all cover­ed by con­sul­ta­tion with–when operating plans are approved for forestry companies in terms of, you know, working on traditional lands. The MOUs basic­ally just signify the gov­ern­ment's recon­ciliation–or, I guess, recog­nition that these fees should be shared with First Nations.

      And, but, you know, con­sul­ta­tions happen all the time in the forestry industry in terms of signing operating plans and agree­ments with–we have Spruce Products in Swan River, we have LP in Swan River, we have CKP in The Pas. Those companies always enter into operating plans. Con­sul­ta­tions are ongoing on these plans on the–it's just constant. They work together, they work with us. We consult, and any issues are ironed out before any licensing is done.

      But the MOUs, again, are over and above any forestry operations. They're sharing gov­ern­ment reve­nues that we've collected back with the First Nations where the timber comes from.

Mr. Bushie: Well, we can go back in Hansard and go over the Q and As back and forth, but I was pretty sure we heard the minister in agree­ment to the fact that forestry activity can impact treaty and Aboriginal rights, so ultimately, there's a definition and a clear indication that there is a duty to consult out of that.

      A little bit of a different question towards forestry is I'm just wondering if the minister can explain or let us know how many trees have and are expected to be planted this year.

Mr. Nesbitt: The–we're attempting to get the infor­ma­tion here on how many trees were proposed to be planted this year, so if the–I'll give the member an op­por­tun­ity to ask me another question if he wants, rather than just sit here with dead air.

Mr. Bushie: Okay, well, I wasn't getting any answers when I was actually asking some legitimate questions earlier on, also, so–but I still want to continue on with the tree–and I mean, we always talk about the tree canopy here in Winnipeg; I mean, I also believe there's the tree canopy across the whole province on a much broader scale.

      So, the number of trees harvested from 2016 to 2020 grew when compared to the four years previous, 2011-2015. And that's in the annual forestry–the forestry annual report. Yet in the same time period, 12 million less trees were planted.

      Can the minister explain why that was the case?

Mr. Nesbitt: So, 'reforestration' is certainly im­por­tant. Im­por­tant for the environ­ment, im­por­tant for the economy moving forward. This year, I'm very proud to say that Natural Resources and Northern Development planted 1.5 million trees this spring across Manitoba, plus any trees planted by industry. We don't have those numbers yet, but we did plant 1.5 million.

Mr. Bushie: Can the minister, then, under­take to find out the exact total from his min­is­try and otherwise?

Mr. Nesbitt: I would love to provide an under­taking to do that to the member, but my under­standing is we won't have the numbers from industry within the required 45 days, and an under­taking has to be pro­vided to the member that we in–under­take to take today.

      So, if that makes sense to you, we can't provide the numbers because they're not going to be available until after 45 days moving forward.

Mr. Bushie: So, can the minister, then, also provide, though, then, over that course of that period the net that–it's quite apparent that it's a net loss in terms of trees in the province, trees planted versus trees 'harvedess', so can the minister, then, under­take, then, to provide us with–through his de­part­ment, not through the industry side of it, the net loss. It–apparently it seems to be just a net loss in terms of trees harvested versus trees planted.

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 12:30 p.m., com­mit­tee rise.

Room 255

Sport, Culture and Heritage

* (11:10)

Mr. Chairperson (Brad Michaleski): Will the Commit­tee of Supply please come to order. This sec­tion of the Com­mit­tee of Supply will now resume con­sid­era­tion of the Estimates for the De­part­ment of Sport, Culture and Heritage.

      Questioning for this de­part­ment will proceed in a global manner.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): I welcome the minister back.

      We were talking about the film industry in Manitoba yesterday. I want to continue on that and I want to share that I had got a chance to visit the Big Sky Studios, which is a huge infra­structure coming up in Manitoba and it's going to create so many jobs in Manitoba.

      I'm just wondering: Can the minister share if there are any plans to start some edu­ca­tion and training courses in Manitoba to prepare Manitobans to get those jobs in that facility or beyond?

Hon. Andrew Smith (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): Well, I ap­pre­ciate the question from the member opposite. It is a–you know, we all know that there is labour challenges in all industries, in­cluding the film industry, and we are–as a gov­ern­ment, we are working with the industry to try and address capacity issues in this space.

* (11:20)

      As you know, like I said earlier, there's capacity issues or workforce capacity issues in every aspect of–in every industry. So, this is not unusual to see in the film sector.

Mr. Brar: Just a follow‑up to know if the minister thinks that we need to develop infra­structure or institutions or new courses in future to prepare Manitobans, especially our next gen­era­tion, to get into em­ploy­ment in the film industry.

Mr. Chairperson: Order.

Mr. Smith: So, our gov­ern­ment and my de­part­ment, we are working with stake­holders in the film industry to address some of the more specific gaps that they are ex­per­iencing, and, of course, in conjunction with the ministers of advanced edu­ca­tion and immigration and EDIT.

      We know that–a number of de­part­ments that this touches, so we are working together with–in gov­ern­ment and, of course, with our stake­holders to address those very specific gaps that they are ex­per­iencing.

Mr. Brar: I have two more quick questions for the minister regarding ethnic sports and libraries, so I would start with the ethnic sports.

      I have met with so many of my con­stit­uents and other Manitobans beyond my con­stit­uency who are new Canadians–new Canadians, I meant to say they are immigrants, basically–especially from Philippines and India, in addition to other parts of the world, and  they love their own sports. For example, Filipino people bring arnis [stickfighting] and sikaran [footfighting] with them. Indian people bring cricket and kabaddi with them.

      So, I just want to know if there are any efforts of the way to promote these ethnic sports in Manitoba?

Mr. Smith: I ap­pre­ciate the question and I know that member opposite has a lot of con­stit­uents that would be interested and I think are very aware of the ACSC Fund, the Arts, Culture and Sport in Com­mu­nity Fund, that we've created. It's a $100-million fund, spread over three years.

      This year alone, it's $34 million for this first in­take, and the large capital component is–has a dead­line of October 31st. So, Halloween–it's the deadline for this in­cred­ible initiative that the Manitoba gov­ern­ment has under­taken.

      We know that, post-COVID, a number of–or dur­ing COVID, rather, a lot of com­mu­nity groups were feeling the pressure, and this–the hope and the idea of this ACSC Fund is–not only is it the right thing to do, we do know that it'll help com­mu­nities not just survive post-COVID, but thrive post-COVID.

      And a lot of new Canadian com­mu­nities, I know, will–I've been in con­ver­sa­tions with a number of com­mu­nities. I know a number of MLAs from all sides of the House. I've been in con­ver­sa­tions with their com­mu­nities about this fund. I think it's a great op­por­tun­ity to put some money into some of the arts, culture and sport sector.

      And, in fact, I think that arts, culture and sport are interrelated, as the member opposite alluded to al­ready. A lot of new Canadians do have sports that they bring from their home countries here, and that is very much a cultural aspect to the sports as well.

      So I encourage all members in the House, and cer­tainly members opposite here, to continue to re­mind your con­stit­uents to apply for the ACSC Fund. And this first intake, like I said, for the large capital, is coming up to a deadline here of October 31st.

      Thank you.

Mr. Brar: I thank the minister for the details.

      I want to ask about the new dev­elop­ments. Our city is growing and there are so many new dev­elop­ments in the city, even beyond the Perimeter also. For example, in–near my constituency, Amber Trails, Amber Gates, Aurora and so on–there are so many new dev­elop­ments, but there are no libraries and sports infra­structure for these people: hard-working Manitobans.

      Is there a plan to invest in such projects for these Manitobans in Manitoba?

Mr. Smith: Again, I just want to point back to the ACSC Fund, because libraries are included in that. And I encourage all com­mu­nity groups around the city that are interested in developing and further develop­ing their com­mu­nities to apply for this.

      So, I know the member opposite's quite aware of the ASCS Fund and so I do encourage him that if he has any con­stit­uents in his area–and certainly, if you get the large capital, munici­palities can apply for it. So, make sure his city councillors in his area that he overlaps with, make sure that they are aware that they can contribute to this im­por­tant–or, apply for this im­por­tant fund.

      As the member opposite has mentioned, of course, we know Winnipeg is growing and there's dif­ferent demo­gra­phics now in the city here, parti­cular over the last 10 years. It's im­por­tant to continue to grow our infra­structure in line with that. That's what the ACSC Fund is there for, and I encourage all mem­bers to make sure their con­stit­uents are aware of it and know how to apply for it.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there any further questions?

      Seeing none, we'll move on to reso­lu­tions.

      Reso­lu­tion four point–14.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $55,719,000 for Sport, Culture and Heritage, Culture and Sport Programs, for the fiscal year ended March 31st, 2023.

      Shall the reso­lu­tion–[interjection]–the hon­our­able Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage.

Mr. Smith: I just–before we went into the–to that portion of the committee, I just want to answer two questions from the member opposite from yesterday we took under ad­vise­ment, and I thought it would be ap­pro­priate to answer them now.

      If I can do that, I've got–give me a few minutes.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave to pause reso­lu­tion portion and return back to the comments question–or, the comments from the minister?

Mr. Brar: I have this minister's salary? [interjection] Okay, sorry.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, so we agree that we have–seek leave to return back to the minister's questions.

      I'll recog­nize now the member for Burrows (Mr. Brar).

Mr. Brar: Yes, I would request the minister to answer the questions under ad­vise­ment.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ap­pre­ciate that and thank you to the committee for allowing this here.

* (11:30)

      So, one of the questions from yesterday was the vacancy rate and the numbers we were not able to give at that time was 2016's vacancy rate. I have that now. The vacancy rate in sport, culture, heritage for 2016 was 21.2 per cent.

      Yes, Manitoba Centennial Centre: we have a list here of capital funding going back from 2016.

      So, from 2016-17, the concert hall electric–electronic acoustic en­hance­ment was a hundred seventy-nine thousand dollars; 2017-2018, the marquee sign, building elevators, the MTC en­trance canopy was five hundred and seven point five thousand dollars; '18-19 was the orchestra pit heating-cooling coils and parking equip­ment, it was four hun­dred and twenty-seven point two thousand dollars; 2018, fire alarm system upgrade, $5,248,000; '19-20, sewer pump and water line re­place­ment was five hundred and sixteen point one thousand dollars.

      In 2020, the carpet re­place­ment in the concert hall foyer, reception areas was $750,000.

      In 2021, the washroom upgrades and the handrail upgrades was four hundred and thirty-nine point nine thousand dollars.

      In 2021, there was a multi-year envelope restora­tion and that's–expected completion is in '23-24 for  twelve million seven hundred and–sorry, $12,278,000. That's the Centennial Concert Hall building envelope restoration, includes–or, is up to–sorry–$12.5 million; so for a total of $20,347,000.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, minister. And is there any further questions?

      Seeing none, I thank the minister for that clari­fi­ca­tion. I thank the com­mit­tee for allowing this com­ments–these further comments of clarity to be added into the record.

      So, we will return now to reso­lu­tion 14.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding 45 million–I'm sorry. I will start again. It must be a Friday.

      Reso­lu­tion 14.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $55,719,000 for Sport, Culture and Heritage, Culture and Sport Programs, for the fiscal year ended March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Fourteen point three, reso­lu­tion–reso­lu­tion 14.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,817,000 for Sport, Culture and Heritage, Infor­ma­tion Resources, for the fiscal year ended March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 14.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $50,000 for Sport, Culture and Heritage, Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ended March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      The last item to be considered for the Estimates of this de­part­ment is item 14.1.(a), the minister's salary, contained in reso­lu­tion 14.1.

      The floor is open for questions.

Mr. Brar: I move that line item 14.1(a) be amended so that the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage's (Mr. Smith) salary be reduced to $21,000.

Motion presented.

Mr. Chairperson: This motion is in order.

      Are there any questions or comments on this motion?

      Seeing none, the call–the question–is the com­mit­tee ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour the motion–sorry–shall the motion pass?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Chairperson: I hear a no.

Voice Vote

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

Mr. Chairperson: All those in–opposed to the motion, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The motion is accordingly defeated.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: We'll move on to reso­lu­tion 14.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $21,857,000 for Sport, Culture and Heritage, Admin­is­tra­tion and Finance, for the fiscal year ended March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      This completes the Estimates of the De­part­ment of Sport, Culture and Heritage.

      The next set of Estimates to be considered for this section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply is for Agri­cul­ture.

      And shall we briefly recess to allow the ministers and the critics the op­por­tun­ity to prepare for the com­mence­ment of the next set of Estimates? [Agreed]

      Com­mit­tee recess.

The committee recessed at 11:37 a.m.

____________

The committee resumed at 11:38 a.m.

Agriculture

Mr. Chairperson (Brad Michaleski): Will the Commit­tee of Supply please come to order. This sec­tion of the Committee of Supply will now consider the Estimates of the De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture.

      Does the hon­our­able minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Agriculture): Yes.

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able Minister of Agricul­ture.

Mr. Johnson: As Minister for the De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture, I am pleased to talk today about how our budget will support the im­por­tant priorities for our gov­ern­ment, including caring for the environ­ment, build­ing a strong economy, provi­ding meaningful em­ploy­ment and respectful and inclusive recon­ciliation.

      I don't see a timer up here, Mr. Chair, but I'll continue along. Usually we see timer; I have to change my view probably on here. But I'll continue on, and maybe you can give me a one-minute wave or some­thing.

      Our agri­cul­ture industry will continue to ex­per­ience our commit­ment to sus­tain­able growth in agri­cul­ture and the agri-processing value chain through innovative programs and services. The '22-23 budget continues progress on key initiatives and pro­gram­ming to foster sus­tain­able growth for agri­cul­ture pro­ducers and pro­ces­sors.

* (11:40)    

      The reorganization of the de­part­ment in January has allowed for a stronger focus on agri­cul­ture and a structure to better engage and achieve client needs and gov­ern­ment objectives.

      Through a modern service delivery model, in part­ner­ship with with Manitoba Agri­cul­ture Services Cor­por­ation, or MASC for short, which I'm sure the critic is well aware of, we will provide a single-point access for rural Manitobans to services provided by MASC and Manitoba Agri­cul­ture; so instead of the one-stop shop.

      And I had the privilege of touring all these through­­out the summer and it was great meeting all of the employees and people that are the face of gov­ern­ment for our producers. They do such a great job and I just want to thank them for all of their hard work in ensuring that our producers and Manitobans have every­thing they need. And they're such a very friendly face that comes and welcomes you, so I just want to say thanks to everybody and all the great hard work that they do on behalf of the industry.

      So, the face-to-face option has been augmented by im­prove­ments in myMASC online portal. It's a new online chat option–[interjection] Oh, bless you, Deputy Chair–and modernized phone systems that allow clients to receive services in French.

      So, that's some­thing that was never done before and now that option's available, so I want to thank all the hard work that's gone into that and that's the first for our province and some­thing to be proud of. Of course, our gov­ern­ment supports all those initiatives. It's been many, many years–well, many years; it's been never since it was offered in French in that manner.

      This initiative approach to service delivery–this innovative approach to service delivery has also resulted in alignment between the de­part­ment and MASC where efficiencies have been gained and the clients' ex­per­ience enhanced. So again, if somebody comes into town and they need to deal with both de­part­ments, they can just stop at the one building.

      And, you know, often they're in town, maybe towing a trailer because they're maybe, you know, bringing an animal to the vet or some­thing or just moving equip­ment, and it's a little awkward to get around sometimes, but this allows them to find a parking stall and then access all the busi­ness that they need in one building.

      So, on the theme of a more focused approach for the de­part­ment, we have a new division which leads our agri­cul­ture production and resilience pro­gram­ming and services. This division will oversee in­itiatives such as environ­mental farm plans, climate change and adaption efforts, sus­tain­able production and dev­elop­ment of the agri-ecosystem.

      So, the division will also manage ongoing invest­ments, such as 1 and a half million dollars towards the Sus­tain­able Agri­cul­ture Incentives Program as well as facilitate research to advance innovation and com­petitive­ness of the sector.

      So a 'priety'–a priority for this research will focus on the impacts of climate change on the Ag sector. But speaking of climate change, the percentage of normal precipitation in 2021 ranged from 30 to 70 per cent, depending on the region of the province.

      I think, in the Interlake region and everybody who lives there can probably attest to, we would question whether it was even 30 per cent. On some of the farms, it was a drought that was not in the memory of a lot of the older producers in the area.

      So, our heart goes out to them. Our grain and vege­tables and forages and pasture yields were re­duced by anywhere from 25 to 60 per cent in 2021. And of course, all livestock sectors ex­per­ienced in­crease in feed costs and shortages that are beyond the imagination.

      So that is the 2021 drought. I will speak to the impacts of excess moisture of 2022 a little bit later. But however, whether it be drought or flood or ex­treme heat, Manitoba has and is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the agri­cul­ture sector. Manitoba has worked closely with Fertilizer Canada and Keystone Agri­cul­ture Producers to deliver extension pro­gram­ming on–for our nutrient stewardship to improve fertilizer use, efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

      Our an­nounce­ments on October 13th saw us signing our memorandum of under­standing with Environ­ment, Climate and Parks, Fertilizer Canada and, of course, Keystone Agri­cul­tural Producers. It has set the stage for the next four years for our agree­ment.

      So, during the drought, producers were chal­lenged to manage their winter feed supplies and, in some cases, downsize their breeding herds. Manitoba utilized a multipronged approach where we used existing and new emergency programs to meet pro­ducers' imme­diate needs to assist with their recovery from the drought.

      So I just want to mention how hard the de­part­ment worked. And the previous minister, we have to take our hats off to him and his team when he was in here, of how robust this pro­gram­ming is. I would argue that it's–will be probably the model that any provinces follow in the future. There's our neighbour­ing provinces showed their support of how robust our program was.

      So, again, thank you to all the many, many hours behind the scenes that went into this program and thank everybody for–the de­part­ment for their hard work and all the consulting that they did as well, through that. It was probably one of the most con­sulted programs to ensure that it–that we got it right, and that's exactly–exactly– what they did.

      Under the Canadian Agri­cul­tural Part­ner­ship, Manitoba provides a busi­ness risk manage­ment support to producers through AgriInsurance, AgriStability, and also AgriInvest.

      AgriInsurance, delivered by MASC, provides in­sur­ance to help manage crop, hay and pasture production losses. Record level payments were made in 2021. AgriInsurance payments were the highest pay­out in the last 20 years–[interjection] One minute left? Okay–in the last 20 years, reaching $575 million for the 2021 crop year.

      A total payment of $53.4 million for forage and related indemnities, including $8.9 million for the Hay Disaster Benefit, provided also an ad­di­tional $44 per ton for coverage for producers for their hay.

      This is the highest payout for forage hay and disaster benefits in Manitoba Agri­cul­ture's history. Agri­cul­ture and Agri-Food Canada forecast higher grain prices, and crop insurance payments will be offset–will offset the impacts of drought in western Canada.

      On farm income, I have so much more good news to say. I will probably have to, I guess, reiterate some of that in my answers.

      And so, thank you for the time to present here.

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able minister's time is up.

      We thank the minister for those questions. We thank–I thank you, for your expression of concern for the Chair, the coughing here.

      And I would advise the minister, too, that you are able to change your view on your computer screen to show your timer, so if that helps. I can continue to still give you a hand signal if that's what you want, but you are able to do that.

      Does the critic from the official op­posi­tion have an opening statement?

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): I would be brief. I want to welcome the minister in his role, and we have a bit of time today to consider the Estimates of Agri­cul­ture.

      We know that agri­cul­ture has been–has seen sig­ni­fi­cant staff reductions since 2016 and the vacancy rate is still very high. I'd like to hear from the minister about the current situation.

* (11:50)

      Agriculture has undergone sig­ni­fi­cant staff reduc­tion and restructuring on its service delivery as well. We've heard from producers their concerns about ac­cess. I have some questions about that as well. We've also noticed an 11 per cent contraction in the loan portfolio; would like to hear more about why that is.

      I have also heard from producers about their con­cerns about unseeded acres this year in Manitoba, especially in the Interlake. I would like to hear more from the minister.

      We also have questions about animal welfare, Crown lands and the reorganization of Peak of the Market.

      So I look forward to our discussion today.

      Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member for that open­ing statement.

      Under Manitoba practice, debate on the minister's salary is the last item considered for the de­part­ment in the Com­mit­tee of Supply. Accordingly, we shall now defer con­sid­era­tion of line item 3.1(a), contained in reso­lu­tion 3.1.

      At this time, we invite the minister's staff–[interjection]–at this time, we'll invite the minister to intro­duce the staff he has in attendance.

Mr. Johnson: Thank you. I was just pushing my mute, unmute, but I also was raising my hand, so thank you for recog­nizing me so quickly.

      Of course, there's myself here; obviously, I don't need to give any intro­ductions for myself. My deputy minister is not here today. She's out doing great work for Manitobans through a FPT deputy ministers meet­ing, and that's very im­por­tant. So, that's the work she's doing today. So, I want to thank her and her staff that are there with us, repre­sen­ting Manitoba and doing a great job at that.

      So, we have here assist­ant deputy minister, Dave [phonetic] Hunt, and, you know, he attended a lot of the tours that I've been on at my time as a minister. So, I want to thank him for all of his efforts that he's put in as well.

      Assist­ant deputy minister, Maurice Bouvier, he's also been on many tours with me, and all the hard work that they do as assist­ant deputy ministers is out­standing.

      Another huge im­por­tant to our team here, we have Jared Munro, and he's the MASC chief executive officer. And I was pleased to tour all of our one-stop-shop buildings for MASC and Manitoba Agri­cul­ture with Jared across this past summer, and so I want to thank him for that. But he's here with us today.

      We also have Ag executive financial officer, Kevin Kroeker. He's the one who will be getting all of our answers on that side, for the ones that are very technical. And, of course, we have MASC chief financial officer, Manon Pascal, and she's been a great addition to the team that's here with us today as well.

      Also included in the room, I do have my special assist­ant, Lisa Dyck. And I guess the official term is chief of staff, I guess, but I think we all know them as SAs, or special assistants. And I also want to thank them for all of their hard work that they do to help us do our day-to-day activities.

      Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you minister, and welcome to all those in attendance.

      According to our rule 77(16), during the con­sid­era­tion of de­part­mental Estimates, questioning for each de­part­ment shall proceed in a global manner, with questions put separately on all reso­lu­tions once the official op­posi­tion critic indicates that questioning has concluded.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Brar: Thank you, Mr. Chair–

An Honourable Member: Mr. Chair, point of order.

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able Minister of Agricul­ture.

Point of Order

Mr. Johnson: Yes, sorry. I'm just not in the room, so I apologize for that–or, I guess I'm not even allowed to say that I'm–sorry, I'm attending virtually.

      Were you going to give an op­por­tun­ity for the critic to intro­duce his staff? Just–I'm–I can't see them on the camera, so–and maybe if there is no staff, maybe you could indicate that, as well, because I think that's only fair if you give me the op­por­tun­ity to intro­duce my staff, you should also allow the critic to intro­duce his staff.

Mr. Chairperson: The member for Burrows, if he chooses to use that time to intro­duce these people, it is his choice. Otherwise, the member for Burrows can go right into questioning.

* * *

Mr. Brar: I thank the minister for intro­ducing his staff and I welcome the staff to this meeting. Those are my previous colleagues when I was working in the de­part­ment. Happy to be with them.

      Can I ask the minister to intro­duce me to his political staff, in addition to the ones he already did?

Mr. Johnson: Sorry, I almost started speaking with the mute button on and that would've been $5 into our Christmas fund jar, so I apologize for that, but I caught myself just in the nick of time.

      Yes, I intro­duced my special assist­ant or what, I guess, the proper term is, chief of staff. I intro­duced her and Lisa Dyck; she's been a huge asset for helping me get my day-to-day work done.

      But, yes, you're right, there are a few other people. We have my executive assist­ant here, Taylor Schule, so that's a great help to the team as well.

      And then we have, I believe the title might be pol­icy analyst–no, I'm getting a shake here–but Mark Stewart. I'm not sure what his actual title is, but those of us in gov­ern­ment side know Mark and he helps us with our day‑to‑day issues, and he's in the room just purely for enter­tain­ment. He's not really part of the team, but he's just here listening, maybe in case there's a riveting question from the critic.

      So I will cede the floor to the critic for that speci­fic riveting question that we're waiting for.

Mr. Brar: Thank the minister for almost intro­ducing the details for your political staff, excluding their exact titles. I would expect the minister to know the titles of their political staff for future. Thanks once again. I would–[interjection]–thanks once again.

      I want to ask the minister: Can the minister provide me with a vacancy rate for the de­part­ment as a whole?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, thank you for that.

      So I have now found out the title of the political staff: it's issues manage­ment specialist. So that's a very, very technical term for the guy that helps us out when we have issues.

* (12:00)

      So now, you spe­cific­ally asked about the vacancy rate as a whole, so I'm assuming that that's the current vacancy rate that the member's talking about. And that would be a total FTE count–I'm just looking at the sheet here. I probably should have waited for a second, but I was so eager to get the title for Mark Stewart out as issues 'managent' specialist, that I didn't quite–I'm not quite on the right page here.

      I think we have a full–when we're at full com­plement, we have 384.5 FTEs, and what is not filled in there–I'm just going through the chart here, number of vacant positions–so maybe I'll ask the member, did he want a percentage or the number of vacant posi­tions? Just to be clear so I answer his question as ap­pro­priate as he's asking.

Mr. Chairperson: Order.

Mr. Brar: I meant to ask the vacancy rate.

Mr. Johnson: So that's vacancy percentage then, I'm assuming, right? Okay, so that is 17.14 per cent va­cancy rate in Manitoba Agri­cul­ture.

      So, some of these positions, as we did–hopefully the member is–remembers that we switched from Agri­cul­ture and Resource Dev­elop­ment in the spring, when–well, spring, early spring, I guess, January–winter–as I became minister. So we're still shuffling. We have now shuffled the positions around and we are working on filling these positions as we speak.

      I do recall numer­ous positions coming across my desk and signing, so if he goes online and is as excited about agri­cul­ture as myself, there might be some positions there that he'd be interested in. I know he used to work in the De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture and he's passionate about it. But there's positions that are coming up daily. So thank you for the interest on that.

      Oh, just hold on here, there's some–okay. So of course, that's–now, MASC is separate, so I'll just fulsomely answer his question, because, you know, to be trans­par­ent, MASC is different numbers than Manitoba Agri­cul­ture.

      So, MASC is–Manitoba agri­cul­ture services cor­por­ation is 7.9 per cent. So the historical vacancy rate in the de­part­ment, so as of 2021, so a year ago, was higher. The member might remember asking this last year in Estimates, so he would have gotten his answer then. But I'll just remind him of the answer; it was–so, in 2021, it was 23.6 per cent.

      So, we're working hard at filling these positions. You can see that we've made sub­stan­tial progress. And then also, in 2020, it was 23.3. So there's been a lot of progress made over the past year. Of course, that has a lot to do with the hard work of the de­part­ment.

      And there are currently 27 competitions in progress, which would reduce–if we're suc­cess­ful in getting all of them, that would almost put that 17.4 per cent in half. So we are–now that we're re­organ­ized as a new de­part­ment, we're very excited to get fully staffed and fill those. So with those 27 competitions, rough math–not exactly, but I don't know, we'd be around, I don't know, 10–but I'll let the member do the math on that one, but we'd be around–almost half of that 17.4 per cent would be filled.

      So we're looking exciting to–we're excited to get those competitions signed, sealed and delivered. And the number here, that would actually reduce us to 18–sorry, 10.85 per cent, if we're suc­cess­ful in filling all 27 of those. So that's great news. The de­part­ment is working hard and filling those.

      I think people can be very proud of what the de­part­ment does and be part of that team. It's a huge team effort here. They work very, very well together, right from our entry-level positions all the way up to the deputy minister's office and I'm so proud of them. I just want to say thank you to all the hard-working staff.

      And I cede the floor.

Mr. Brar: Can I ask the minister to share the numbers for 2016, as he did for 2021 and 2020, which was before the reorganization of the de­part­ment, so that we can compare what the numbers were–numbers–I mean to say vacancy rate in 2016.

Mr. Johnson: Yes, thank you for that and thank you for the question.

      So these are just–and I know my critic will know, but I'll just tell him–so these are going to be fiscal year ends that I'm going to give him the dates for, where the previous ones were not fiscal year end; it was current or equivalent pretty much to this date.

      So, 2015-16, so this–as the member's well aware, but I'll just state it to put it on the record–so this is ending March 31st and starting April 1st, so this is–these numbers will coincide with our budget year. So these are as of March 30th of each year is the numbers that I'm going to relay to the member.

* (12:10)

      So, 2015-16 vacancy rate was 20.19 per cent. So that's–well, I guess I'm not going to comment on when that coincided within the political change or anything like that. I'm sure we can all deduce that. So the number for 2016-17 was 22.86.

      The number for–again, these are fiscal year ends. And feel free, Mr. Chair, if I'm going too fast, just raise your hand, I'll slow down a little bit here.

      So the number 2017-18 is 17.25 per cent. For 2018-19, 24.95 per cent; 2019-2020 was 20.31 per cent.

      So, fiscal year ending 2021–or, budget year 2020-2021–oh, the screen's going blank here on me–okay, I saved it. It's good, it's good.

      So, where was I? I don't want to start over. I think I'm at 2020-2021. So that was 22.68 per cent vacancy rate, and year '21-22 was 16.83.

      So I just want to reiterate to the member that those numbers will be different from the numbers that I gave him earlier because those numbers that I gave him earlier kind of coincided with today.

      So the 17.14 per cent is the most current number that I could get him. So it's not last year's year-end number, it's today's number.

      So today's number is 17.14 per cent. But I'll give him last year's today's number, if that makes sense. So last year, at this time, the vacancy was 23.6.

      So the member needs to keep in mind that it was ARD at the time, Agri­cul­ture and Resource Dev­elop­ment; so there's a–you know, a good percentage of those vacancies, that's the de­part­ment as a whole as a percentage. So those vacancies, at that time, were also inclusive of some of the–those positions as well.

      And that–I'm sure the member's aware that that change happened in January–January 5th–and it took a little while to sort out positions in how the de­part­ment will split up, and I think the work that the de­part­ment did was amazing on how they, you know, divided the de­part­ment into the different areas. And I'm very, very happy with the staff that we are able to keep. Their area of expertise is outstanding and I just want to thank them again for all their hard work.

      And we're working hard, as I mentioned a minute ago. We have some competitions out there. We are at–how many competitions? I could go through and may­be list all the competitions that we have out there, but I'll see, in my short time, I'll keep it quick.

      It's–it is technologist; there's 27 of them. But there's–oh, work–from managers of climate resili­ence, policy specialists–I'm just skipping through the list. There's so many people that we're adding to our team of Agri­cul­ture here that it's–I'm astounded. As well, director of agri­cul­ture, marketing strategist, medical technologist–we actually have two positions that we're hiring for that; director of food safety and inspection.

      Please, though, don't think that this is a complete list. I have the whole list to go through here. Maybe I'll do that in my next answer, if the critic desires.

Mr. Brar: I also want to thank the minister for the infor­ma­tion and I also want to take a moment to thank the hard-working pro­fes­sionals in the Agri­cul­ture de­part­ment, which is now Manitoba Agri­cul­ture and Resource Dev­elop­ment, because the situation is that we are having less and less number of people who are working more and more amounts of work, so they have to work harder and harder every single day. I can't thank them enough to serve our farming com­mu­nity.

      May I know what's the current vacancy rate by the division?

Mr. Johnson: Okay, yes, so we have that. So I'll break it down into categories because I'm pretty sure that's what the member asked.

      So I'll break those–each category down and–so I'll start with Cor­por­ate Services and Innovation. There's a–was the question actually how many positions or percentage? Maybe I should clarify that.

      Sorry, can you just repeat if it was number of posi­tions or percentage again? So far we've been going on percentage. I just want to make sure that–if he's comparing, he wants to probably keep all his data, but I don't want to make that assumption and then waste his time repeating all of this.

      So please, can you clarify if that's number of posi­tions or percentage of vacancy in each de­part­ment?

Mr. Brar: Vacancy rate, I guess, is percentage.

Mr. Johnson: Yes, and thank you for that.

      I just didn't want to waste his time, because I know we're getting late here in the Estimates process. Okay. So I'll start again, though, just to make sure he knows exactly what we're talking about and it's only fair.

      So, Cor­por­ate Services and Innovation: that's a 22.26 per cent vacancy rate. And that consists of execu­tive support, finance, policy and legis­lation, transformation, programs and permits admin­is­tra­tion. So that's the groups (a) through (e) or whatever that are underneath Cor­por­ate Services and Innovation, which is 22.26 per cent.

      Now, a different category, Industry Advancement, and that has subcategories of industry dev­elop­ment, value added, food safety and inspec­tion, animal health and welfare. So those combined are 10.64 per cent; in Industry Advancement, 10.64 per cent vacancy rate.

* (12:20)

      Agri­cul­ture Production and Resilience, which falls under Land Use and Ecosystem Resilience–this is one of the subcategories, sorry–the main category is Agri­cul­ture Production and Resilience. So the subcategory, or one of them, is Land Use and Ecosystem Resilience, and Primary Agri­cul­ture. That is a vacancy of 19.02 per cent.

      So those three categories added together, Manitoba Agri­cul­ture, gives you–and again, these aren't year end, so please don't mistake those with the number that I was giving earlier with the budget year end–these are current numbers, which I assume the member would want, as of a couple days ago–I'll just get the exact date for the member.

      So it's as of September 30th. So it's–as of September 30th, so we will have updated stats, I guess, at the end of this month is when it goes through, but–so these are accurate of September 30th, so for a total vacancy rate of 17.14 per cent.

      So I can go through some of those subcategories–I probably don't have time here–and I can break that down a little bit further if the member wishes. But I'll probably only do that if he asks, I don't want to use up all of his time. So I'll–I think I'll leave it there with a total FTE count of 17.14 per cent vacancy rate.

      But as mentioned, we have 27 competitions that are open right now, and that'll put a sub­stan­tial reduc­tion. Now that every­thing's kind of settled from separating Agri­cul­ture from resource dev­elop­ment, and this'll really, really allow us to build up our team. The whole team's excited about it, as am I and as is our gov­ern­ment. This is a great step forward.

      Agri­cul­ture, as we well know, is the backbone of the province. I know it fluctuates from year to year, what percentage our GDP is of the entire prov­incial GDP, but it's sub­stan­tial. And, you know, it's a known fact when Manitoba producers, farmers have a good year, our province has a good year.

      Those are those years where it allows them to purchase those pieces of equip­ment that they maybe need to upgrade for a few years, but they wait for a good year for–to make that busi­ness decision. It's kind of tough to upgrade in the tough years, and I think we all can understand we've had a few tough years behind us with the drought and also with the excess moisture this spring.

      But anyway, to answer the question directly: 22.26 for Cor­por­ate Services and Innovation. Industry  Advancement is 10.64 per cent. Agri­cul­ture Production and Resilience is 19.02 per cent, for a total of 17.14 per cent.

Mr. Brar: I would like to ask the minister about how many Crown land leases with the gov­ern­ment were terminated in the last year.

Mr. Johnson: Yes, so there's a lot of subcategories in there.

      I would have to ask the member maybe to clarify, like, there's some people that left their–let it go because, you know, of the passing in a family. There's people that let it go for nonpayment. There's all different circum­stances of how a person comes about letting their Ag Crown lands go.

      Some of them lapse, I don't like to use that word, but–so if he can just maybe expand his question so we can get him the accurate data that he's looking for.

      Back to you.

Mr. Brar: I'm trying to know the number of ter­min­ated land–Crown land leases for whatever reasons last year, in total.

Mr. Johnson: So, just so the member's aware, we'll get this answered here right away, but terminated has a different meaning than somebody who's given them up wilfully.

      So, does he want terminated or just ended in general?

      Because terminated is actually a different term than wilfully given up or expired or–so, does he spe­cific­ally want terminated?

      Just so I get him the right answer. I don't want to be, you know, having the staff do a whole bunch of work and then all of a sudden it's not the answer he's working for.

      And I'll give him back the floor in the interest of time.

Mr. Brar: Can I get the infor­ma­tion on both termin­ated and given up wilfully?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, so in the interest of time, there were 11 that were cancelled due to nonpayment. And I'll see if that answers his question because we're very short of time, so if he wants to reiterate what his ques­tion was, but 11 for nonpayment.

      Thank you.

Mr. Brar: Can I know how many young farmers were awarded Crown land leases between 2019 and now?

Mr. Chairperson: Order.

      The hour being 12:30 p.m., com­mit­tee rise.

Chamber

Justice

* (11:10)

Mr. Chairperson (Andrew Micklefield): Will the Com­mit­tee of Supply please come to order. This sec­tion of the Com­mit­tee of Supply will now resume con­sid­era­tion of the Estimates on the De­part­ment of Justice.

      At this time, we invite min­is­terial and op­posi­tion staff to enter the Chamber.

      Would the minister and critic like to intro­duce their staff?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, I have joining me again today the learned Deputy Minister David Wright; the very efficient and effective special assist­ant, Chief of Staff Mardi McNicholl; and the highly respected Maria Campos.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the hon­our­able minister for those intro­ductions.

      Does the official critic wish to intro­duce their staff?

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I have Rylan Ramnarace with me again today.

      Miigwech.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the critic for that intro­duction.

      As previously noted, questioning for this de­part­ment will proceed in a global manner, and the floor is now open for questions.

Ms. Fontaine: I'd like to go back to the job posting for the IIU executive director.

      I did get the job posting, and I notice that–and I'm wondering if the minister can elaborate on some of the con­di­tions of em­ploy­ment. One of the con­di­tions is: must be a member or eligible for member­ship of the Law Society of Manitoba.

      And so, I'm just seeking clari­fi­ca­tion on whether or not that means that the individual–what spe­cific­ally does that mean? Because I would imagine that that would cancel out several folks that would be inter­ested in applying, parti­cularly when we're looking at those within that–the civil service.

      So, I'm just wondering more about that.

* (11:20)

Mr. Goertzen: I think staff are just sort of looking up that reference, but while they do, I want to just answer a couple of questions that the member asked yesterday that we took as notice–can provide some of those answers now.

      So, the hon­our­able member for St. Johns asked me to list all of the technical staff that are currently active. That composes two individuals, both highly respected individuals: Mardi McNicholl, who's the special assist­ant to the minister; and Kristan McCallum, who is the executive assist­ant to the minister.

      There was also a question, I thought, a very good, thoughtful question regarding the John Howard Society and access to the Winnipeg Remand Centre. So, I'm advised by officials that the Remand Centre, up until to two weeks ago, was still being used as an isolation facility, which may have impacted access. However, if there are outstanding issues, we're going to look into it and address those specific circum­stances.

      And then, I believe, there was a question re­garding IIU positions. There are currently 15 FTEs assigned to the IIU, which include one executive dir­ec­tor, one office manager, one director of in­vesti­ga­tions, two team commanders, eight investigators, one infor­ma­tion administrator and one manager. And as of today–which might have been yesterday, but it pro­bably hasn't changed today–there are no vacancies at the IIU.

      And then there was a question regarding public inquests under The Fatalities Inquiries Act. The chief medical examiner must review each in­vesti­gation report and make a decision on an inquest. The chief medical examiner is respon­si­ble for calling inquests in the province of Manitoba. The act provides direction regarding the circum­stances where an inquest may be mandatory or discretionary. Where it is discretionary, the discretion lies solely with the chief medical exam­iner. I think that goes to the question of who's making these decisions.

      The decision to combine matters into one inquest is at the discretion of the chief medical examiner. There are currently 29 active inquests and two are completed, awaiting reports.

Ms. Fontaine: The other piece that I had asked for in respect of the IIU is a breakdown on gender of the–what we now know is 15 FTEs and from that, how many are in–BIPOC.

Mr. Goertzen: So I believe that there's an effort to continue to get that infor­ma­tion. I just wanted to provide as–the infor­ma­tion that I had available today back to the member to not keep her or her staff waiting.

Ms. Fontaine: And then I asked–I started today's session with a question on the con­di­tions of em­ploy­ment, so I don't know if the minister is going to get back to me on that or plans on answering that.

Mr. Goertzen: I hope that I'm under­standing the member's question correctly. I think that she asked what the reference was to–must be a member or eli­gible for member­ship within the Law Society of Manitoba, which essentially means that an individual must have a bachelor of laws of a JD, a juris doctor degree with extensive practice ex­per­ience. So I think, in essence, you must be a lawyer.

Ms. Fontaine: Last spring, the minister passed Bill 30, the police services amend­ment in law inform–en­force­ment review amend­ment act, which the minis­ter brought forward in an attempt to rectify issues at LIRA. At com­mit­tee, we heard from presenters that the bill does not go nearly far enough and won't solve the systemic issues with LIRA.

      Can the minister explain whether he has any plans to intro­duce legis­lation to properly fix issues that have been plaguing LIRA for many, many years?

Mr. Chairperson: If I may, just before I recog­nize the minister, I know some members are having con­ver­sa­tions.

      The–I know some members are having con­ver­sa­tions, and staff also are wanting to hear. So, if we could maybe take con­ver­sa­tions elsewhere like we would in another kind of com­mit­tee room.

Mr. Goertzen: Yes, there were concerns raised with LERA. And I know that there's, you know, concerns that have been around for a long time. I think that, you know, the essence of the structure of LERA is as it existed when the former gov­ern­ment–being the NDP gov­ern­ment–was in power for many years. And there were concerns at that time, too.

      So, yes, there are two different sort of things that I would say that are specific when it comes to changes. One is the im­por­tant, but I recog­nized a relatively minor amend­ment, that came forward with that bill in terms of the filing time and the time frame, but that was raised as a–is an issue and that it was not in line with other juris­dic­tions, and that it should be ex­tended, and so we did that through legis­lation.

      But I also think that, and we've talked about, you know, the issue of codes of conduct as it relates to legis­lation that we've brought forward past, and are going to be working to implement over the next year. And codes of conduct within a law en­force­ment agency, and what–while many might exist, I'm not sure that they're con­sistent, I'm not sure that they are always readily trans­par­ent and if they are necessarily applied 'con­sistentsly.'

      And so, one of the things that we want to do–and, of course, cords of conduct are things that aren't necessarily, you know, criminal in nature; things that are criminal in nature would go to the IIU. And then, you know, between that and LERA, there's an awful lot of things that perhaps could be captured with codes of conduct and that could be better solved and better addressed in that way.

      So, as I stated at the time of the legis­lation, the extension is im­por­tant because it's some­thing that had been asked for, and probably was asked for during the time that the former gov­ern­ment was in place, too. And I'm not sure why they didn't act upon it, but–I mean, member might have more infor­ma­tion on that than I do–but also that I think that the move to codes of conduct within law en­force­ment across the pro­vince will give another avenue, and perhaps a better avenue than just LERA.

      But, having said that, that doesn't mean that we won't continue to look at LERA and other things that might be beneficial, to ensure that where there are legitimate concerns, they are addressed in an ap­pro­priate way and in a trans­par­ent way.

Ms. Fontaine: Can the minister provide us an update on exactly where in the process policing in­sti­tutions are at in developing those codes of conduct?

Mr. Goertzen: Yes, so there's a number of things in terms of the bill that was intro­duced: codes of con­duct, policing standards, that the good folks in–within our de­part­ment are working on.

      I think we'll be seeking some external help on some of those as well, and I think the member might hear more about that in relatively short order.

Ms. Fontaine: So then, nothing has been done up until this point in respect of actually the dev­elop­ment of any codes of conduct–is that true?

Mr. Goertzen: It is not true.

Ms. Fontaine: One of the things about Bill 30 that I raised in the House here was, you know, codes of conduct.

      There was nothing in the bill that discussed what would happen if police officers violated or were in contravention of codes of conduct. And so, you know, I put that on the record. Again, I don't think that that's strong enough when we're looking at police relations, parti­cularly with BIPOC com­mu­nities that often will have a very different ex­per­ience in interactions or coming into contact with various policing in­sti­tutions across the province, and certainly across the country.

      And so how does the minister plan on strength­ening, if it can be strengthened at all, this new kind of move towards codes of conduct, so that those–if–again, if officers are in contravention of these new codes of conduct, then what's–what is the con­se­quences of that?

Mr. Goertzen: I thank the member for the question.

      I wouldn't want to leave, you know, a–I think a wrong impression that there exist no codes of conduct within law en­force­ment right now, but I think the im­portance of it is that it–more–that it be con­sistent, and that there be trans­par­ency around it.

* (11:30)

      And that's the same when it comes to policing standards. It's not that law en­force­ment doesn't have any standards. Of course they do. But there is an im­portance for it to be con­sistent across different law en­force­ment because it is a bit of a–well, patchwork sounds like a negative phrase, but it's not in this situation.

      There's a lot of different kinds of law en­force­ment in the province of Manitoba. They're not all RCMP and they're not all munici­pal forces and they're not all peace officers in terms of status. But the standards need to be trans­par­ent and they need to be con­sistent and that's–we're moving to the same way to the mem­ber's question. Codes of conduct would be some­thing similar. I think there are codes of conduct in many agencies, but there isn't maybe a consistency and per­haps a trans­par­ency that the public rightfully would ask for.

      Now, the member might be asking why was–why weren't the codes of conduct them­selves in legis­lation. One would be, I think, the importance of con­sul­ta­tion; two, would be the importance of flexibility, because codes of conduct probably need to be able to be changed as circum­stances change faster than–as much as I revere this in­sti­tution, it's not always the fastest moving in­sti­tution, like when it–the Legislature.

      And I think the con­sul­ta­tions are im­por­tant, and I take the member's question to heart about the BIPOC com­mu­nity. Certainly, at com­mit­tee we heard some concerns about, you know, maybe not enough con­sul­ta­tion with the BIPOC com­mu­nity. And sometimes it's not just about the nature of the–or the amount of the con­sul­ta­tion, sometimes it's the nature and the qualitative part of that con­sul­ta­tion.

      So I took those to heart and I think the member will, in relatively short order, see some an­nounce­ments on that that indicate we took them to heart.

Ms. Fontaine: Again–and I'm not entirely sure if that answered the question, but again, you know, this move towards having codes of conduct across dif­ferent policing institutions and there being a lack of con­se­quences, I know that there's standards that policing in­sti­tutions–again, whoever it may be–are supposed to adhere to.

      But often, as I said, you know, we–the–that's the whole reason that LERA exists, because the public comes into contact with law en­force­ment and there are many op­por­tun­ities or many examples of members not adhering to those standards.

      And so, you know, we know that LERA almost–I don't know what it was, I can't remember, some­thing like 95 per cent of the cases that come before–and I'm not–know if that's spe­cific­ally the percentage, but it's certainly high. There is never any con­se­quences to Manitobans' complaints against a parti­cular police of­ficer. And so, one could suggest or argue that if there's no con­se­quences attached to codes of conduct, it is mainly just window dressing; it's just the same where there's not really a robust or, you know, con­se­quen­tial public complaints body.

      We heard, again, at com­mit­tee for Bill 7, The Police Services Amend­ment Act, so–enhancing In­de­pen­dent In­vesti­gation Unit operations, which ob­vious­ly was regarding the strengthening of IIU and how Bill 7 didn't go far enough.

      Can the minister explain whether he's had any plans to intro­duce legis­lation to further strengthen the IIU?

      And I've asked questions about, you know, the breakdown of staff or investigators working in–and I'm going to spe­cific­ally talk about investigators. So, talked about one of the things that can strengthen IIU is to have a repre­sen­tative in­vesti­gative body. And so, I know I've asked for the breakdown of–you know, a gendered breakdown and certainly a BIPOC break­down of those investigators.

      But is the minister con­sid­ering any other legisla­tion to further strengthen the IIU?

Mr. Goertzen: I think there was a few questions in that one question, so I want to try to address them.

      Member started off talking about codes of con­duct and a lack of con­se­quences for codes of conduct, and I think, respectfully, she's prejudging the out­come of some­thing that neither she nor I have seen at this point. So, there'll be ap­pro­priate and good con­sul­ta­tion when it comes to standards and codes of conduct, but those should happen first in terms of the con­sul­ta­tion.

      So, respectfully, I don't think the member should judge something that hasn't been done yet, although it's ap­pro­priate to put it on the record her concerns of what might happen, and so she's done that. But I don't know that I would go further in and poison the well on the some­thing that hasn't been completed yet.

      The next question was regarding legis­lation on the IIU, and the member will know that I've indicated and have said in this House before, that when it comes to things like the IIU, it's developed over the years from its inception–talked a bit about the history of that and my own history in this House before I was minis­ter and before I was in gov­ern­ment. Won't repeat that for her, because I'm sure she probably doesn't want to hear it again.

      But it's not–it's–we don't ever reach a point where we go, okay, I think we're in a perfect model now. And so I think there's always looking at ways that things can be bettered or improved, but I wouldn't presume to preview, you know, any legis­lative direction in the future in an Estimates com­mit­tee, and those will be provided in different forms.

Ms. Fontaine: Can the minister explain why ex­penditures for the IIU will increase by $49,000 in 2022-2023 compared to '21–2021-2022, which is apparently page 46 of Estimates.

Mr. Goertzen: I understand from officials it's just the scheduled salary increases.

Ms. Fontaine: Can the minister share how the new executive director for the IIU will be chosen?

      So, who screens all the applicants, who will sit on the hiring board for that and will there be Indigenous, Black or persons of colour sitting in the hiring board in deciding who the new executive director for IIU will be?

Mr. Goertzen: As I indicated yesterday, I believe that AMC, SCO and MKO are involved in the screening process.

Ms. Fontaine: Yes, I remember that the minister said that our prov­incial PTOs were involved, but are they going to be sitting on the actual hiring board, i.e. will they have some decision-making capacity in who the new IIU executive director will be?

Mr. Goertzen: They'll obviously have sig­ni­fi­cant in­fluence. I don't know that I'd want to characterize it sort of beyond that.

Ms. Fontaine: So, again, that doesn't answer who's sitting on the hiring board. Because AMC, MKO and SCO may be part of, apparently, some type of screening process, but of course, we all know that it's the hiring board that makes the final decision or the decision on who's going to be–who will be presented as that parti­cular suc­cess­ful candidate.

* (11:40)

      So who on the hiring board–well, who's going to be on the hiring board? I'm not sure if that can be shared. But certainly, if that can't be shared, how many BIPOC members of that hiring board will be on there?

Mr. Goertzen: I don't think I can add anything to the description that I gave.

      AMC, SCO and MKO will be involved with the process and will obviously have influence.

Ms. Fontaine: On page 39 of the Estimates book, under Correctional Services, Other Expenditures are listed as $24 million.

      Can the minister break out what these expenses are for?

Mr. Goertzen: They're operational costs that would include things like food and medical services and psychological services.

      We can probably provide a breakdown in cate­gories. I'm not sure that we can provide every cheque that's issued from the de­part­ment, but I think there's probably buckets or categories that we can break them into for you.

Ms. Fontaine: I guess–I would imagine–on page 42, Other Expenditures are listed at $13,611.

      Can the minister break down what these expenses are for?

Mr. Goertzen: Sure, we'll figure out the amount into the categories.

      I'm told that the major categories are com­muni­cations, trans­por­tations, minor capital and, you know, then a sundry of other small expenses.

Ms. Fontaine: Can the minister explain what the revenue from the Criminal Property Forfeiture Unit was over the last several years, going back from 2020, '21, '22 and what that spe­cific­ally–what the money was allocated towards?

Mr. Goertzen: Yes, we can provide the member the revenue and, you know, some of the expenditures that they went for. I think it's public infor­ma­tion. Some­times we make it public through press release and other sorts of mechanisms, you know I–it's probably worth pointing out a few of them.

      I know we've provided some funding to Candace House in Winnipeg, just a great organi­zation. The member knows the history with Wilma Derksen and Cliff Derksen, who sadly passed away this past year. Just a wonderful family, and an organi­zation and a legacy to their daughter that they've left there.

      We've seen some money go to the Joy Smith Foundation, who used to sit in this House as a MLA and then, of course, got elected as a federal Member of Parliament, and really made human trafficking her cause, I would say, in a time that many people weren't talking about it, Mr. Chairperson. Of course, the Joy Smith Foundation does just tre­men­dous work com­batting human trafficking in Canada, but there's much more work to do there. But money has been provided to them.

      Member will also know that there's money that goes to to various police forces, you know, through­out–not just in Winnipeg, although sig­ni­fi­cantly in Winnipeg, but in Brandon, in Cornwallis. The Winnipeg Police Service helicopter also received some funding for night vision goggles, I believe.

      We've seen money go to the Canadian Centre for Child Pro­tec­tion, another great Winnipeg organi­zation; great organi­zation that does really difficult, difficult and hard work. But they had the op­por­tun­ity, at our invitation, to make a pre­sen­ta­tion to ministers of justice across Canada a couple of weeks ago.

      And I said this to them after their pre­sen­ta­tion, and I said it to the media, I think after as well: probably the most impactful pre­sen­ta­tion, when I talk about the motion of a pre­sen­ta­tion, and what they're seeing coming out of the pandemic on online ex­ploit­ation. And they do really, really good work, in a very, very difficult environ­ment, so funding has gone to them.

      Worth noting that money has gone to combat catalytic converter theft. And I know the member hasn't had the chance to ask this in question period, though I suspect she will in the next week or two, about the state of catalytic converter thefts, because her colleague from Elmwood has made a very sig­ni­fi­cant issue about this.

      And, at one point–I think before the House rose in June of this year–the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) had sort of hung up the mission im­possible sign and said that it would be impossible to reduce catalytic converter theft in Manitoba, and was really quite critical of the gov­ern­ment.

      And I don't take these things personally because, you know, I just–it's just I don't like to internalize that sort of hurt, but I do know, I mean, he was very, very concerned about catalytic converter theft and didn't think that it could be brought down at all.

      And, in combination with the Winnipeg Police Service, we made a sig­ni­fi­cant bust when it comes to the sale of catalytic converters, and in combination with Winnipeg Crime Stoppers, who brought forward an initiative on VIN engraving and working with RCMP across Manitoba.

      There was really an edu­ca­tion through Manitoba Public Insurance, it was really a collective effort. And we've seen sig­ni­fi­cant reductions in catalytic con­verter theft; I'd say 90 per cent reductions. I'll save some of the details for when the member asks us in question period, because I know this is such an im­por­tant issue to the NDP that they won't let this session go without asking this question.

      But, a 90 per cent reduction in catalytic converter thefts. Now, let's be clear, nobody's hanging up, Mr. Chairperson, the mission accom­plished sign, while the member for Elmwood hung up the mission impossible sign.

Mr. Josh Guenter, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

      We also know that at any given time, the nature of theft is things could change, but it is also im­por­tant even when we recog­nize that. That when im­por­tant and good things happen, we should also celebrate that, because there have been so many individuals who've been spared the victimization of theft off of their vehicle; whether they were leaving a movie theatre, or a house of worship, or whatever it was that they were leaving, which was tre­men­dous frustration for in­dividuals. So, much more work to do there, of course, but that's an example of where the money for the Criminal Property Forfeiture Fund is going.

      I could list off many more examples, but I recog­nize I'm probably running short of time on this parti­cular answer, but I look forward in question period to the member probing more on what's been done on catalytic converter theft in the province of Manitoba.

* (11:50)

Ms. Fontaine: How much of the property that was seized–and again, I'm asking for the 2019–or no, sorry, 2020, 2021, 2021-22–how much–fiscal years–how much of the property seized was donated?

      And then, who decides where this goes?

      And then, were there property that was destroyed, and how much does it cost to have this destroyed?

Mr. Goertzen: So, we'll endeavour to get answers where those answers are available. You know, in terms of donated property–and again, we'll get the speci­fics on how much property's been donated.

      I know of one example that I can think of in Brandon–the Crime Stoppers program in Brandon. I was there visiting the Brandon police and their chief, Wayne Balcaen, who's doing a great job in Brandon. And Crime Stoppers brought out the–a truck that was decaled out with their Crime Stoppers logo and such. And on the back of the window–and it probably was from a couple of years ago–on the back of the window it said that that truck had been donated essentially by criminals who had their truck seized.

      And it was actually a very unique and, I thought, interesting way to advertise this Criminal Property Forfeiture Fund, but then also to act as a deterrent, one would hope, for those who might be looking to com­mit different crimes.

      So that was one example where vehicle was donated. I'm sure there are other examples of equip­ment or other things that were donated.

      And then things that are destroyed, you know, no question, I imagine–not to speculate too much, but I'm sure there are things that are seized that are illegal, or weapons, or those sort of things that need to be destroyed in a way that's ap­pro­priate.

      But really want to high­light the great work done by the Criminal Property Forfeiture folks and their director. And I think that more can be done there. We've talked about money laundering, which often doesn't get the attention it deserves, but the Cullen Com­mis­sion–not to be confused with our esteemed Deputy Premier–but the Cullen Com­mis­sion in British Columbia looked at the whole issue of money laundering.

      And of course, it's different in British Columbia than it is in Manitoba in the way that, you know, auto theft is an example. I remember in the 1990s hearing about auto theft in Winnipeg, which was more joy­riding as opposed to in British Columbia, which was more individuals stealing vehicles and stripping them down and then, you know, selling off the parts or selling off the vehicles. So the crime can be the same, but maybe the rationale and the way it is–it happens is different.

      So money laundering in the province of Manitoba wouldn't look exactly the same as it does in British Columbia, but it wouldn't be insignificant. And we don't know exactly the depth of it, but it's one of the reasons that the Province has looked to hire two ad­di­tional investigators on money laundering to ensure that we're finding out where those funds are, maybe the depth of it.

      Also looking at unexplained wealth, which is some­­thing that the Cullen Com­mis­sion spe­cific­ally referenced, that should be looked at and high­lighted in Manitoba's legis­lation on going after unexplained wealth for individuals because it manifests itself in different ways. When an individual is not declaring any sort of income and in–there's a suspicion of crim­inal activity and they own seven houses, it does cause questions. And the ability to answer those questions is im­por­tant, as well.

      So I really, really have grown to ap­pre­ciate–although I ap­pre­ciated it before–before I was Minister of Justice–but have really grown to ap­pre­ciate the work of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Fund.

Ms. Fontaine: I've intro­duced–I–maybe a couple of times now, certainly one time, I–changes to the Criminal Property Forfeiture that would see those dollars only go to those that are, you know, trying to help address and prevent certain things, like some of the things that the minister had previously mentioned, but certainly organi­zations and com­mu­nity-based organ­i­zations that are working with victims.

      And so–that those property–those Criminal Property Forfeiture dollars wouldn't go to policing in­sti­tutions, which already have a sig­ni­fi­cant budget to be able to get those ad­di­tional things that they–I know some couple years back, they got new vests. I know many, many years ago, they got, when Tasers came on, some of the criminal property forfeiture dollars went towards getting Tasers for the WPS.

      So, why does the De­part­ment of Justice not priori­tize or just stop altogether giving those criminal property forfeiture dollars to different policing in­sti­tutions and just not–rather, just give them to com­mu­nity organi­zations that are spe­cific­ally working with victims, which is what some of those dollars are sup­posed to go for.

Mr. Goertzen: I think, on the one hand, this might be the, you know, the tale of two answers, but I'll start off with the part where I agree with the member opposite, you know, certainly, on issues of victims.

      And the Criminal Property Forfeiture Fund does provide funds to Victim Services in Manitoba, and in other ways to those who are victimized in the pro­vince. And that's very im­por­tant, and that's going to continue in terms of that support. So, we're very much aligned in that thought.

      And then, when she mentions com­mu­nity organi­zations, of course, we've seen com­mu­nity organi­zations like the Bear Clan in Winnipeg and in Brandon, as an example, in the past, that have re­ceived funds from the Criminal Property Forfeiture Fund. I had the op­por­tun­ity to do a walk with the Bear Clan this summer in Winnipeg. I'm really impressed because I think that sometimes people might think of the Bear Clan–well, they might not know exactly what to think of the Bear Clan. Some might think it's some­thing of a–some­thing akin to a law en­force­ment organi­zation. Others might not know exactly what it is, the work they do.

      But what I was really impressed about, it's not just the com­mu­nity connections, and you could tell that people in the com­mu­nity had a real familiarity with people in the Bear Clan, but that they were taking food, as an example, directly to individuals on that day that we were walking–and my chief of staff, Mardi McNicholl, was with us as well. It was a very hot day, and they were bringing water to individuals in the com­mu­nity.

      So, I would agree with the member when she speaks of the need to provide this funding to Victim Services–hundred per cent aligned with that. I agree with her when she says there's an importance to provide this money to com­mu­nity organi­zations like, as an ex­ample–but not the only example–the Bear Clan. I think that's absolutely ap­pro­priate.

      I get a little concerned when the member talks about not provi­ding funds to the police, and she in­dicates that they–the police–have lots of money. I suspect that–I'm not sure if she's suggesting that we defund some of the police. I'm not so sure that law en­force­ment or the com­mu­nities would agree with you that the police are sort of flush with cash, because I know that they have needs as well.

      And I would sort of point back to the issue of catalytic converter theft. So, one of the things that the RCMP in southern–southeastern Manitoba, together with others, you know, recom­mended that they have VIN engravers that could be provided then to auto shops to, for free, engrave the VIN number of the vehicle onto the catalytic converter. And this wouldn't have been the only reasons that catalytic converter thefts have gone down. It might not even be the pri­mary reason, but it might be a reason.

      And the member seems to be indicating that those things aren't really im­por­tant and that we shouldn't be supporting those sort of things, which is con­cern­ing.

      I also know, as an example, some police agencies, I think, have used the funds for licence-plate readers, as an example. Licence-plate readers is–might be con­sidered a luxury for some–I don't know–in the com­mu­nity, or maybe perhaps the member feels this way.

      But the number of individuals who have been found, you know, to be carrying drugs or illegal wea­pons because an automatic licence-plate reader has identified a vehicle that could be pulled over because, like, the plate was expired or for whatever other reason, or maybe it was attached to a warrant, is not insignificant.

      And I know the member opposite has now put on the record that police, perhaps, get too much money already, and that's a concern for me, and happy to have that debate with her in other places or other forums.

* (12:00)

      But I would–can say, and I'll continue to say, that the women and men of law en­force­ment through­out the province of Manitoba do a very difficult job in very stressful environments, and the ability to support them in sometimes small monetary but meaningful ways is im­por­tant, and it's some­thing that this gov­ern­ment will continue to support, even if the member opposite feels that law en­force­ment have too much money and should be getting less money, or there should be less of law en­force­ment.

      Disappointed in the member's comments there, on the back part of that question, but I can assure law en­force­ment we continue to support them and we'll con­tinue to use criminal property funds to support them in the future.

MLA Malaya Marcelino (Notre Dame): Thank you, Minister.

      I just have a few questions regarding The Safer Com­mu­nities and Neighbourhoods Act and the kind of funding and structure that that is. I've been having to use this de­part­ment a lot because of the different kinds of issues that we're having in the con­stit­uency of Notre Dame, and I was just wondering, you know, how well is this de­part­ment funded?

      And, secondly, I just wanted to bring your atten­tion to a Winnipeg Free Press article by Erik Pindera that was published on September 22, 2022, called 'Whack-a-mole' in the danger zone. And, in that article, the Winnipeg fire pre­ven­tion director–or, sorry, he's Scott Wilkinson, the assist­ant fire chief–he was talking about different kinds of prov­incial legis­lation that was really getting in the way of the munici­pal gov­ern­ment in trying to deal with vacant and derelict buildings.

      And I was just wondering if you could please, you know, take a look at that and try to address those prov­incial blockages. They were in The Housing and Renewal Cor­por­ation Act; the Winnipeg charter act, section 190 and 151, subsection 1–(d); and The Munici­pal Act, section 247.1 and 2 and 233.1(1). Again, this is about the passage of munici­pal bylaws that deal with vacant and derelict buildings.

      This is some­thing that I feel that the new city council is going to be really trying to address with a zeal to try to deal with these vacant and derelict buildings, and I just want to bring it to your attention that whatever kind of prov­incial blockages there are in these different kinds of legis­lation, if you 'prease' have your attention on that and work constructively with the City to help us deal with these vacant and derelict buildings, it would be very much ap­pre­ciated.

      But, again, my first question was about how does this Safer Com­mu­nities and Neighbourhoods Act work in real life. Like, how much money is being put into this type of de­part­ment and, you know, can you try to get it to work better with the City of Winnipeg, whether it's fire pre­ven­tion services or with Winnipeg Police Service.

      Thank you.

Mr. Goertzen: I thank my friend for raising these concerns on behalf of not just her com­mu­nity, but certainly, spe­cific­ally her com­mu­nity, and then more broadly the city of Winnipeg.

      A lot of the acts that she referenced–in fact, all the acts she referenced, I think–aren't actually in the Depart­ment of Justice. But I don't want to minimize the question because it's an im­por­tant question. I know that the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) met yesterday Mayor-elect Gillingham and that there's going to be further con­ver­sa­tions between myself and repre­sen­tatives from the City when it comes to these kinds of issues and issues around crime, and I'm sure that there'll be further con­ver­sa­tions between the mayor-elect and the Premier in the future.

      So while the concerns she raises in terms of the acts and whatever inhibitors were raised aren't ac­tually in the De­part­ment of Justice, they are im­por­tant concern, and I ap­pre­ciate her raising that with me. And in my discussions with the City, I'll raise those, as well, for her.

MLA Marcelino: And, just also, I did write a letter to the minister a few weeks back about the Gang Action Interagency Network regarding a request to allow them into prisons and for maybe a request for a small amount of funding to help them do the work to do gang tattoo removal, especially for prisoners who, you know, have tried to indicate they want a new life or are leaving or will soon be leaving prison. I think it's really im­por­tant. We're–been hearing from the com­mu­nity that, you know, having these prominent tattoos on your face, on your hands, on your neck, is really inhibiting people from being able to, you know, leave that life, that gang life.

      And I would request the minister to take a look at that letter that I wrote to you about this tattoo removal program that the Gang Action Interagency Network with Ryan Beardy and Della Steinke is heading up, and request for you to take a look at that and see if you could consider supporting that worthwhile endeavour.

      Thank you.

Mr. Goertzen: You know, it's a very good question. It's a thoughtful question.

      And I remember for years there being concerns about removing tattoos, gang identification. The GAIN program–I think it's the GAIN program that the member's referencing–as the Justice critic many years ago when I was a much younger parliamentarian, I re­mem­ber visiting them in one of their earlier meetings and was very, very impressed by the work that they do.

      So we will take a look at–and I think the member has raised two issues. One is the ac­ces­si­bility into jails. But the other is potential funding for tattoo re­moval.

      And it may be that GAIN, if they're not already applying for funding through the Criminal Property Forfeiture Fund, might very well be eligible through that fund. So we'll take a look at that, because there might be funding availability in that way.

The Acting Chairperson (Josh Guenter): The hon­our­able member for burrow–The Maples, sorry.

Mr. Mintu Sandhu (The Maples): Thanks, minister.

      And I have a question regarding Nova project. And on page 31 of the Estimates book, it said that de­part­ment spent $87,344,000 in 2022-23, and $64,346,000 in 2021-22 on the acquisition of assets for MPI. The explanatory note states that this money was for Cityplace and Project Nova.

      Can the minister break out how much of this money was for Cityplace and how much money was for Project Nova?

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

Mr. Goertzen: Thank you for that enthusiastic welcome, Mr. Chairperson.

      I–it's a little challenging for us to answer that ques­tion, because, as the member knows, I recog­nize that there's one line in the Estimates that it's sort of a placeholder for it.

      MPI usually comes before the Standing Com­mit­tee on Crown Cor­por­ations. I believe that we're going to schedule the MPI Crown cor­por­ation either in December or January, and officials from the–or, from MPI would then be there to answer those questions.

      So I'm not being dismissive of the member's ques­tion, when it comes to issues around Project Nova, which I know he's got a parti­cular interest in–heard them during question period today, but the details around MPI questions would be better placed at the Crown cor­por­ations com­mit­tee, which we'll have with­in a month or two, I believe.

Mr. Sandhu: Maybe, Minister–this is in the Estimates book. That's why we are asking this ques­tion related to Project Nova and to Cityplace, because we really want to know where this money is spent–how much is money spent on Project Nova and also for the Cityplace. And we also want to know where the money is spent at the Cityplace, too.

      So can you please tell us how much money of this was spent on Project Nova?

Mr. Goertzen: Grateful for the member's question.

      Not dismissive of it–is–because it is an im­por­tant question. Lots of questions around Manitoba Public Insurance, other Crown cor­por­ations are valuable ques­tions, they're just questions that are better placed at the Crown cor­por­ations com­mit­tee, which will be held in the next two months, I believe either in December of in January. And Manitoba public official–Manitoba Public Insurance officials will be there and excited to answer your questions.

* (12:10)

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): I'm–I had a question for the minister about–there used to be a gang–there was an anti-gang program, and I under­stand it was cancelled, then it's been set up again, working out of the ER at HSC. Essentially, that if an individual showed up at HSC or the ER and they'd been stabbed or had been–that there was an inter­ven­tion process.

      So I'm just wondering if the minister can explain, you know, why that program would have been can­celled. It was an anti-gang program where people would arrive at HSC and they would have to leave again–or–and then–but I was just wondering where that program was at and if there'd been any–it'd been reinvested in.

Mr. Goertzen: We'll endeavour to get more infor­ma­tion for the member.

      I–you know, I know it's an im­por­tant question. I think sometimes the challenges–and I faced this when I was a critic some years ago for this de­part­ment–is that a lot of the operational aspects of it come from policing agencies, and it's not the de­part­ment neces­sarily creating or dissolving police operations. But I don't want to say to the member that that is what happened, but I'm just saying that most often it is what happens, because we don't operate–we don't do police operations.

      However, we will endeavour to find out, because I think it's an im­por­tant question that he's raised.

Mr. Sandhu: I am giving time to Mr. Lamont 'til 10–sorry, 12:20 p.m. Then put–on the reso­lu­tions.

Mr. Chairperson: Terrific.

      Just on a procedural matter, we are supposed to refer to each other by–as the member for our, what­ever con­stit­uency name. But that is noted, and the hon­our­able member for St. Boniface (St. Boniface) does have the floor 'til 12:20.

Mr. Lamont: Yes, the other question I have, and this is–I recog­nize this is a difficult question and the min­is­ter may have to–I'm hope he can get back to me on–with greater infor­ma­tion.

      It's–we'll–often, we'll hear–I'm just trying to wrap my head around when a Crown has to make a cal­cul­a­tion. And, again, I don't want to be interfering with Crowns but there's–so, as I understand it right now, Crowns will make a calculation on whether–and should have the discretion on whether to proceed with charges, based on whether they think it'll be suc­cess­ful.

      Is there–are there–and I know that they'll have different things they have to balance and I don't want to tinker with that, but the one thing I'm wondering is whether it's possible–my concern about it is that whether the Crown thinks they can win the case or not, depending on whether they're going up against a client who, say, very–has tre­men­dous financial resources, right; so obviously, even Crowns have limited finan­cial resources to deal with.

      So, is it a possi­bility that if you're going up against–I'm just wondering if that's one of the cal­cul­a­tions that Crowns are–may take into con­sid­era­tion and whether that, if that is, that there might be some view to ensuring that that's not the case, simply be­cause, obviously, the law should apply to everybody equally.

Mr. Goertzen: The answer is, no, that's not a con­sid­era­tion.

Mr. Lamont: If he–could the minister–is there a list of, or, of possible things that are taken into con­sid­era­tion, if that's not one of them?

Mr. Goertzen: Yes, there's a policy, sort of a charging standard that involves, you know, things like public interest and, as the member mentioned, the possi­bility of the case being suc­cess­ful. So, we will provide that to the member.

      It does bring up a good point. I think sometimes we don't do a good enough job of explaining that and talking about that and what those standards are, be­cause it is in­de­pen­dent from the Attorney General, but it's based on a series of con­sid­era­tions; not involv­ing cost, but involv­ing things like likelihood of a success, public interest and other things.

      So, we'll provide that to the member.

Mr. Lamont: And just a question around when it comes to, say, in people being interviewed, I know that there are tre­men­dous challenges around child witnesses, issues of abuse [inaudible] and so on.

      I'm wondering what the–and I know there have been steps towards, it was called Snowflake Place, and then now it's–is it Nova House that it's called? I'm forgetting the name.

An Honourable Member: Toba Centre.

Mr. Lamont: Toba Centre, yes.

      So I'm just wondering, one of the thing that was being considered, I understand, was the possi­bility that witnesses would be able to testify remotely in that they–is that envisioned as some­thing that the gov­ern­ment is doing in terms of keeping, sort of, child wit­nesses safe in some of these very difficult cases?

Mr. Goertzen: It's an im­por­tant question he raises, and I'm glad you referenced the Toba Centre. Just, you know, really, really im­por­tant work that they do there.

      But in terms of, you know, child witnesses, they're always different issues, right? I mean, capa­city, the ability to provide evidence, then there's the trauma that can be involved, as the member rightly references. But the decisions in terms of how the trial progresses, is generally one that is the discretion of the judge who is running that parti­cular trial.

      But there are op­por­tun­ities for, I understand, chil­dren to testify from rooms in courthouses across the province, so they're not always having to be in that loca­tion. But, of course, the judge–the trial judge is usually the individual who makes those sort of decisions.

Mr. Lamont: Because I think–well, and I thank the minister for that, because it is, I believe that in Alberta they've done a system where it's actually possible to testify from a remote location. So, essentially, that you would have a place like Toba Centre, the child would go there, so.

      I guess, the last question is, it relates a bit to over­sight, because I know that with the IIU, and again, this is a–it's a question. The IIU, there were a couple years where they weren't making reports. I understand that there are some structural changes that are going to be made, because individuals were being seconded to the IIU sometimes.

      But, if the minister could just talk about–or, how he sees the im­prove­ments to the IIU and im­prove­ment of in­de­pen­dent oversight taking place? Because, I mean, one of the challenges that the IIU–I just think the recom­mended charges in any number of cases against police officers and they haven't gone any­where, which is a–again it's a–again, but then, that was a Crown decision saying they didn't think that they'd be able to succeed.

      But, if the minister could just talk a bit about that challenge around the IIU and making sure that we are actually following through on charges, if they're war­rant­ed, when it comes to–like, everyone–no one has a problem with a good police officer, but we have to admit that not every police officer is a good police officer, so we have to figure out how to deal with that.

      I'm just wondering if the–how you see that play­ing out in terms of im­prove­ments to the IIU.

Mr. Goertzen: Well, it's a good question. The mem­ber knows that the first I in IIU is in­de­pen­dent, and so it does operate in­de­pen­dently.

      Having said that, I mean, I think some of the changes in terms of who can serve on the IIU and having a bit more distance, obviously, from active officers is im­por­tant, to provide con­fi­dence, still recog­nizing that individuals have to have the skills to do in­vesti­gation and receive evidence and process that evidence.

      It's also im­por­tant, of course, we have Indigenous leadership and involvement and we do, with the new creation of a new position. So I think that can help bring con­fi­dence and also, you know, a better under­standing, maybe, of why these proceedings are hap­pening the way they are.

* (12:20)

      There are com­mu­nity liaisons, which are, I think, a good im­prove­ment to the IIU, but I still recog­nize that in any–IIU proceedings are going to always be parti­cularly emotional and complicated and almost always dealing with, you know, tragic circum­stance and almost always with a family who is going to feel, in some way, that a loved one was done harm in a way that they shouldn't have been.

      And the best that we can, we want to have a structure, although we're not running it, but we'll have a structure that gives an under­standing that there was real con­sid­era­tion, fair con­sid­era­tion, and then try to com­muni­cate it as best they can why that decision was made in the way that it was.

      That doesn't mean that people will always be happy with the decision, but in the–we're trying to put, you know, those com­mu­nity liaisons, Indigenous leadership within it to try to give a greater assurance that even if the outcome isn't what always–what people always want, and that's true in the justice sys­tem generally; they don't always get the outcome you want, but that the process was fair and was fulsome.

Mr. Chairperson: As previously agreed, we will now put the question on the reso­lu­tions.

      The first reso­lu­tion before the committee is resolu­tion 4.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $57,941,000 for Justice, Crown Law, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 4.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,672,000 for Justice, Legis­lative Counsel, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 4.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $230,858,000 for Justice, Correctional Services, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 4.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $76,112,000 for Justice, Courts, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 4.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $255,903,000 for Justice, Public Safety, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 4.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,286,000 for Justice, Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      Reso­lu­tion 4.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $87,344,000 for Justice, Other Reporting Entities Capital Invest­ment, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      The last item to be considered for the Estimates of this de­part­ment is item 4.1(a), the minister's salary, contained in reso­lu­tion 4.1. At this point, we request that all min­is­terial and op­posi­tion staff leave the Chamber for the con­sid­era­tion of this last item.

      The floor is open for questions.

Mr. Sandhu: I move that line 4.1(a) be amended so that the Minister of Justice's (Mr. Goertzen) salary be reduced to $21,000.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by the hon­our­able member for The Maples (Mr. Sandhu), seconded by the hon­our­able member–[interjection] There is no seconder, okay, my mistake–that the–that line item 4.1(a) be amended so that the Minister of Justice's salary be reduced to $21,000.

      The motion is in order. Are there any questions or comments on the motion?

Mr. Goertzen: Well, I just want to say that I believe that in my history as a minister, the reso­lu­tion has always proposed to reduce my salary to a dollar. So, I take this as a great vote of con­fi­dence from the opposition that they believe my salary should remain at $21,000. I look forward to future years when it's even higher than that.

      Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other questions?

      Is the com­mit­tee ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the motion pass?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Chairperson: I hear a no.

Voice Vote

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour, say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: I think the Nays have it.

      The motion is accordingly defeated.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: Reso­lu­tion 4.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $61,841,000 for Justice, Cor­por­ate and Strategic Services, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2023.

Resolution agreed to.

      This concludes the De­part­ment of Justice. Commit­tee recess.

The committee recessed at 12:27 p.m.

____________

The committee resumed at 12:30 p.m.

Mr. Chairperson: Will the Com­mit­tee of Supply please come to order.

      The hour being 12:30, com­mit­tee rise.

      Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hour being 12:30, this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 p.m.

      Have a good weekend, everybody.

CORRIGENDUM

On October 27, 2022, page 3418, first column, the sixth paragraph should have read:

      I would be remiss, of course, if I didn't also con­gratulate Cathy Merrick, who made history in becoming the first woman grand chief of the  Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. So, weweni [take care] to her


 

 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Friday, October 28, 2022

CONTENTS


Vol. 77

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Members' Statements

Rich and Therese Houston

Gordon  3477

Robert A. Steen Community Centre

Naylor 3477

Events Commemorating Air Schools in Manitoba

Michaleski 3478

Elder Charlie Bittern

Bushie  3478

Bruce Chegus

Johnston  3479

Oral Questions

Snow Clearing and Road Maintenance

Kinew   3480

Cullen  3480

Health-Care System

Kinew   3481

Cullen  3481

Government Transparency and Accountability

Fontaine  3482

Goertzen  3482

Increase in Project Nova Costs

Sandhu  3483

Goertzen  3483

Safe Consumption Site

B. Smith  3484

Guillemard  3484

Carbon Savings Account

Naylor 3485

Wharton  3485

Physician and Nurse Shortage

Lamont 3486

Gordon  3486

Assaults on Residents of Oakview Place

Lamont 3486

Johnston  3487

New Hospital in Neepawa

Wowchuk  3487

Gordon  3487

Daily Daycare Fees

Sala  3487

Ewasko  3487

Home-Care Services

Marcelino  3488

Johnston  3488

Petitions

Hearing Aids

Gerrard  3488

Louise Bridge

Maloway  3489

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Committee of Supply

(Concurrent Sections)

Room 254

Natural Resources and Northern Development

Bushie  3491

Nesbitt 3491

Room 255

Sport, Culture and Heritage

Brar 3496

A. Smith  3496

Agriculture

Johnson  3499

Brar 3501

Chamber

Justice

Goertzen  3506

Fontaine  3506

Marcelino  3513

Sandhu  3514

Lamont 3514