LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, April 13, 2023


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

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

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Introduction of Bills

Bill 236–The Public Expression Protection Act

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for Tyndall Park (Ms. Lamoureux), that Bill 236, The Public Expression Protection Act; Loi sur la protection de l'expression quant aux questions d'intérêt public, be now read a first time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Lamont: I rise today to intro­duce Bill 236, The Public Expression Pro­tec­tion Act, also known anti‑SLAPP legis­lation.

      The acronym SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public partici­pation, referring to litigation with­­out sub­stan­tial merit that is brought against citizens or groups to silence their op­posi­tion to issues of the public interest.

      Several juris­dic­tions in Canada and around the world have already adopted similar legis­lation. The express purposes of The Public Expression Pro­tec­tion Act seeks to balance the pro­tec­tion of public partici­pation and freedom of expression and the pro­tec­tion of reputation.

      The act is to encourage individuals to express them­­selves in matters of public interest, to promote broad partici­pation and debate on such matters and reduce the risk that partici­pation in public debate will be hampered by fear of legal action.

      We look forward to the support of all members towards Bill 236.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]

      Com­mit­tee reports? Tabling of reports?

Ministerial Statements

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage–and I would indicate that the required 90 minutes' notice prior to routine proceedings was provided in accordance with rule 27(2).

      Would the honourable minister please proceed with his statement.

Vaisakhi

Hon. Obby Khan (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I rise today and recog­nize Vaisakhi in Manitoba, which is observed on April 14th of this year. Vaisakhi is an im­por­tant festival that is celebrated in Punjab and marks the begin­ning of the new solar year and the harvest season, as well as to celebrate the year 1699, when Sikhism was born as a faith and a religion.

      Before its sig­ni­fi­cance as a Sikh religious festival, Vaisakhi was celebrated as the harvest festival in Punjab. However, in 1699, Guru Gobind Singh chose this festival to esta­blish the Khalsa, a warrior com­mu­nity of Sikhs.

      He came out of a tent carrying a sword to take any Sikh who was willing to sacrifice his life for faith. Few men disappeared into the tent and, after a while, five men came out of the tent unharmed and wearing turbans on their heads. These five men became known as the Panj Pyare and became the first five members of the Khalsa.

      They were baptized by Guru Gobind Singh by sprinkling holy water on them and reciting holy prayers. The same ritual is now followed at the baptism cere­mony of the Sikhs, with all men adopting the name Singh, meaning lion, and all women named Kaur, named princess–meaning princess. This signifies that the Khalsa forms a single family and they should defend the weak and promote justice.

      Now, during the Vaisakhi festival, Sikhs visit gurdwaras, their place of worship, which are specially decorated for the occasion. They are also–special processions and parades which take place during Vaisakhi called Nagar Kirtan. Nagar means town and Kirtan stands for the singing of hymns found in the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of Sikhs, which is also carried in the procession.

      The celebration on the day includes activities such as singing, reading aloud the scriptures and chanting hymns.

      Madam Speaker, the Vaisakhi celebration dem­on­­strates the tre­men­dous pride that Sikhs have in their culture and heritage. In Manitoba, we encourage all com­mu­nities to explore the history of their ancestry, honour their customs and traditions and share their culture with others. This, in turn, creates mutual respect and under­standing.

      The diversity of our people and our tradition of sharing our cultures continues to advance Manitoba as a model for an inclusive and a welcoming society. It is my hope that we continue to work together to build a welcoming com­mu­nity for all people in Manitoba.

      As a Punjabi man myself, and the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage, it is my true honour to present a min­is­terial statement on Vaisakhi. I would also like to recog­nize and honour the Punjabi men and women that have come before me. And, additionally, I would like to honour and recog­nize the two other Punjabi men in this Chamber: the member from Burrows and the member from Maples, as well as the larger Punjabi com­mu­nity and all the Punjabi members here in the Manitoba legislator.

      Madam Speaker, I ask that we rise and recog­nize the Punjabi com­mu­nity as they celebrate Vaisakhi.

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh. [The Khalsa belongs to God, Victory belongs to God.]

      Madam Speaker, I feel so proud today to stand up and respond to this min­is­terial statement on Vaisakhi and the birth of Khalsa, and by my traditional clothing, kurta pajama and pagri.

      Vaisakhi is a holiday celebrated by millions of people of many faiths across the globe. This holiday began as a spring harvest festival in the region of Punjab, which is known as the breadbasket of India. Vaisakhi is particularly meaningful for agricultural producers, who use the holiday as an opportunity to celebrate and prepare for the next farming season.

      Although Vaisakhi has traditionally been a harvest festival in Punjab, the day has a special significance for the Sikh com­mu­nity, as it is the day when Khalsa was born as a collective faith in 1699. Sikhs are a vibrant part of Manitoba's society, and Vaisakhi is one of the largest Sikh celebrations of the year. For Sikhs, Vaisakhi is also a festival to celebrate the birth of the Khalsa.

      On Vaisakhi in 1699, Guru Gobind Singh Ji created the order of the Khalsa. The Khalsa refers to a col­lect­ive of practising Sikhs who commit to live their lives in the spirit of service to all, equality and compassion.

      It was also on Vaisakhi Day in 1699 that Guru Gobind Singh Ji asked Sikhs to adorn themselves with the five Sikh articles of faith. The Khalsa Panth was created to serve humanity and oppose injustice wherever it may exist.

      While Manitobans celebrate Vaisakhi, we are also concerned about the situation in Punjab, where people are still fighting for their basic human rights and freedom of speech. As different communities cele­brate Vaisakhi, we must also recommit ourselves to caring for those around us and ensuring the rights of our fellow community members are protected. I urge everyone to live in peace, love and harmony.

      Madam Speaker, I ask all the members to join me in wishing all those celebrating a happy Vaisakhi and Khalsa Day, and welcome my Punjabi com­mu­nity mem­bers in the gallery–and especially the school students and teachers.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Madam Speaker, I ask for leave to respond to the minister's statement.

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

Ms. Lamoureux: Sat Sri Akal [Truth is God] and happy Vaisakhi to you and to all of the guests who have joined us today in the gallery.

      Madam Speaker, as you can tell, I am wearing a turban and I feel so honoured to be able to participate in Sikh Heritage Month by wearing a turban along with some of my colleagues here inside the Manitoba Legislative Chambers.

      I was quite young when I first started learning about what a turban represented and, throughout the years, I have learnt that it deserves immense respect as it means humility and kindness; how it is integral to religious identity; and how it's a symbol of sovereignty, courage, equality and self-respect.

      Madam Speaker, the member for Burrows did an excellent job in educating all of us in these Chambers about the turban when he intro­duced his legislation last year, and I want to thank him for today's event in the Rotunda and express how much I really appreciated his remarks about the Komagata Maru.

      And I'd be remissed if I didn't use this also as an opportunity to also encourage the government to help resource the Komagata Maru Park in Tyndall Park, as it's a step towards forgiveness and we need to make sure this happens.

* (13:40)

      Now, Madam Speaker, the celebration of Vaisakhi is a festival to celebrate the birth of the Khalsa. And what's so cool about this for me right now is less than two months ago I was in Anandpur Sahib, the place who the 10th guru, Guru Gobind Singh, founded the Khalsa in front of thousands of people in 1699. And whether it's Anandpur Sahib or visiting the Golden Temple, the biggest takeaway is the sincere respect, kindness and humility that Sikhs give to others and the community.

      Madam Speaker, this is what Vaisakhi is all about, and I look forward to celebrating more this weekend at the Vaisakhi event. I know there's one coming up tomorrow night. A lot of my colleagues are going to be joining, as well, at–being hosted by Punjab Foundation of Manitoba.

      Thank you.

Members' Statements

Ruth Ann Furgala

Hon. Derek Johnson (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ruth Ann Furgala, a resident of Riverton, for her many years of devoted service to her community and to 'numous' organizations.

      Ruth Ann retired in 2013 from an almost 40-year career with the Manitoba government. She also served for 28 years as a school trustee in Evergreen School Division and is an honorary lifetime member of the Manitoba School Boards Association and also the Canadian School Boards Association. She served eight years on the MSBA executive, including two years as president, and four years on the board of the CSBA, including one year as president and another two years as vice-president. In 2018, Ruth Ann was inducted into the Evergreen Foundation Hall of Fame for her dedicated contributions to the Evergreen Foundation of Manitoba.

      Ruth Ann's inspiring volunteerism included 13 years on the board with the Riverton-Bifrost recreation com­­­mis­sion and was four years on the board of the Westshore foundation of Manitoba, and she currently sits on the board of the Reggie Leach golf committee. She is an active member of Djorfung Ladies Aid and, in 2022, completed six years on the Interlake-Eastern Regional Health Author­ity board.

      Ruth Ann has been a member of the Riverton Transportation & Heritage Centre board of directors for 15 years and is thrilled the construction of the centre will soon begin. The warehouse will house new exhibits to showcase the heritage and diversity of the community.

      Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize Ruth Ann Furgala, who is in the gallery today with her husband Wayne. I thank Ruth Ann and commend her for her dedicated service to her community and to Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: The hon­our­able member for St. Vital (Mr. Moses)–oh, sorry.

      The hon­our­able member for Burrows.

Turban Day

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): I am honoured to rise in the House to recognize Manitoba's first Turban Day and Vaisakhi–the birth of Khalsa.

      In 2022, I brought forward a bill, bill 227, The Turban Day Act, to recognize and promote the sig­nificance of turbans as a part of Manitoba's diverse and multicultural social landscape. Manitobans of Punjabi heritage were pleased to see it pass with unanimous consent, and I would like to thank all MLAs, the community organizations and gurdwaras for their support.

      Turban, also known as the dastaar, is an article of faith donned by Sikhs all over the world. For the last 500 years, many Sikhs around the world have worn the turban as an expression of their faith and their commitment to serve humanity. Throughout history, Sikhs have worn the turban to signal their readiness to protect all people against injustice, regardless of faith, gender, caste or colour. Some of the most influential turban-wearing Sikhs have been women, one being Mai Bhago. Mai Bhago was a great female Sikh warrior who fought for justice and religious freedom.

      Sikhs have faced and continue to face racism, vio­lence and persecution throughout the world, including their homeland, the state of Punjab, because of their religious identity. I stand with my brothers and sisters in Punjab who are facing human rights violations as we speak. Today serves as an important reminder for all Manitobans to embrace principles of inclusivity each and every day.

      My turban is an important part of my identity. It represents my commitment to equality, unity, service–the very values that are at the heart of my friendly Manitobans. As I stand in this Chamber, my dastaar serves as a constant reminder of my responsibility as an elected official towards my constituents and all Manitobans.

      Madam Speaker, I would like to ask members to join me in recognizing Manitoba's first Turban Day and welcoming guests in the gallery.

Arts and Culture Funding for La Vérendrye

Mr. Dennis Smook (La Vérendrye): The month of March was an exciting time for the constituency of La Vérendrye, with the announcement that six local organ­izations are receiving funding as part of our government's Art, Culture and Sport in Community Fund. La Vérendrye is receiving over $1.5 million across our communities in new funding.

      The local organizations and projects receiving funding are: the RM of De Salsberry [phonetic] is receiving $700,000 for arena renovations to the St. Malo Arena. The RM of La Broquerie is receiving $650,000 for an arena ice plant efficiency enhancement to the La Broquerie arena. The Otterburne Curling Club is receiving $132,500 for an upgrade to the insulation in the rink area. The Dufrost Curling Club is receiving $39,320 for a new chiller. The Sprague & District historic museum is receiving $25,000 for an Indigenous exhibit building. The Jolys Regional Library in St. Pierre Jolys is receiving $25,000 for an access gatherings–accessible gathering space.

      I'm proud to be part of a government that under­stands how vital projects like these are to com­munities. Arenas and curling clubs are hubs for com­munities during the winter months. They provide participation and entertainment for a healthy lifestyle. These pro­jects will foster creativity and innovation in local arts, culture and sports initiatives in our communities, now and for generations to come.

      I would like to thank all the volunteers for the count­less hours they spend to make the many com­munity facilities function and grow. I thank them for their time and service.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Introduction of Guests

Madam Speaker: We have a group of students in the public gallery that won't be staying for very long, so I want to intro­duce them before they leave.

      We have seated in the public gallery, from Arthur Wright, 30 grade 7 and 8 students under the direction of Julie Rowluk, and this group is located in the con­stit­uency of the hon­our­able member for The Maples (Mr. Sandhu).

      On behalf of all hon­our­able member here, we welcome you to the Manitoba Legislature.

* * *

Madam Speaker: Further member statements?

St. Vital Con­stit­uent Concerns

Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): Over the past few months, I have had the privilege of hosting many coffee parties with seniors' groups throughout St. Vital. This allowed me the opportunity to listen and hear their concerns and discuss with them the state of our province.

      Now, I heard concerns about the lack of funding, both from the K‑to‑12 edu­ca­tion system as well the advanced education system and the impact that will have on Manitoba's future, as well I–as I heard concerns about the lack of affordable housing which this government has only made worse, and the need for more supports for renters, plus the frustration that the PC government hasn't addressed the addictions or the homelessness crisis.

      But, unsurprisingly, Madam Speaker, more often than any other issue, the No. 1 concern for seniors was our health-care system.

      You know, they shared with me the impact of some of their cuts by this PC gov­ern­ment. That includes extended ER wait times caused by ER closures here in Winnipeg, extended surgical wait times, long wait times for bloodwork at super-testing sites.

      It includes health-care staff burnout caused by mandatory overtime, limited access to diagnostic testing, increasing prescription drug costs, lack of timely and consistent access to home care, communication and co‑ordination issues between health de­part­ments, lack of health-care services for rural Manitoba, the in­creasing trend of health-care privatization under this PC gov­ern­ment and the closure of QuickCare clinics in St. Vital that serviced all of southeast Winnipeg.

* (13:50)

      Now, while I could go on and on with even more  ways that this PC government is failing our health‑care system and hurting the lives of seniors in our community, I would rather close by saying that Manitobans want better and deserve better, and our NDP team is committed to providing better health care for all Manitobans.

      So, I thank those seniors for raising their con­cerns, and I will continue to work on their behalf.

Foster Parents

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Today, I am rising to share with the House a bit about the resolu­tion that I have introduced and will be debated next week.

      The resolution calls for this government to recog­nize the incredible contributions and sacrifices that foster parents continue to make and asks the gov­ern­ment to look at designating a day of appreciation for foster parents.

      Madam Speaker, we have foster parents all over the province of Manitoba, and these incredible individ­uals, who have opened up their homes and hearts, have contributed so much, not only to our province but to hundreds of thousands of children and their families.

      The resolution begins by emphasizing the im­portance of doing everything we can to ensure families are never unnecessarily separated. I think this it's important because we–whether it be us as politicians, or CFS, or judges and more, we need to do everything we can, as we have a role in making sure that families can stay together.

      Further into the reso­lu­tion, it talks about how children, no matter the age, should feel safe, and live in a caring environment.

      It also speaks to the challenges that both children and families face throughout the fostering process, as well as the very positive cross‑cultural exchange that is happening where foster parents continue to try to help children and themselves in their families, through learning about reconciliation and important cultural considerations.

      Again, Madam Speaker, this resolution calls on the government to recognize the incredible con­tributions and sacrifices that foster parents continue to make, and asks that the gov­ern­ment look at designating a day of appreciation for our foster parents.

      And I hope for unanimous support by both the government and the official opposition.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Introduction of Guests

Madam Speaker: We have some other guests in the gallery that I would like to intro­duce to you–and we may have lost one of them just now, I'm not sure: students from école Sisler High school, under the direc­tion of Orysya Petryshyn. And those are the guests of the honour­able member for Burrows (Mr. Brar).

      Also in the public gallery, we have with us today high school students from the lady of the bay Catholic high school in Collingwood, Ontario, who are here on an exchange with The Peaceful Village Program, along with their Winnipeg host, Daniel Swaka, the executive director of Peaceful Village, and students of Peaceful Village, who are the guests of the hon­our­able member for St. James (Mr. Sala).

      On behalf of all hon­our­able members here, we welcome you to the Manitoba Legislature.

Oral Questions

Agri­cul­tural Crown Land Leasing
Timing of Changes to Program

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Brian Pallister didn't tell the people of Dauphin that he was going to cut jobs and close their correctional facility prior to the 2019 election. We know that the member for Dauphin (Mr. Michaleski) and the current Premier also did not share this infor­ma­tion with the people of Dauphin.

      FIPPA docu­ments that I'll table show another example of how the PCs hid their bad decision until after people voted in 2019.

      In March of that year, gov­ern­ment gathered im­por­tant stake­holders to discuss the future of Crown lands, but it was only after the election that ranchers found out about the bad changes to the Crown lands program.

      Will the Premier tell the House why her gov­ern­ment hid these changes from ranchers before the election?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): Certainly, when it comes to our Crown lands, we have sig­ni­fi­cant con­sul­ta­tion.

      We conduct sig­ni­fi­cant con­sul­ta­tion with agri­cul­ture producers in the com­mu­nity and right across this province, Madam Speaker, and we will continue to make sure that there's progress made in those con­sul­ta­tions.

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

Mr. Kinew: Well, we know the impact that these changes on the Crown lands program has had on young producers, ranchers in the Parkland Region and Interlake regions as well. It means that young ranchers are cut out of getting a start in the industry.

      Now, producers were handed huge increases to the cost of their leases during a time of drought and pandemic, and out‑of‑province companies pushed local com­mu­nity members to the brink. Brian Pallister hid these changes from Manitobans. That's what the FIPPA docu­ment that I shared shows.

      Will the Premier be accountable? Will she tell the House why her gov­ern­ment hid those changes from Manitobans before the last election?

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, changes will continue to be made as a result of the out­comes of those con­sul­ta­tions and so, that will continue to move forward.

      But I think it's very im­por­tant, Madam Speaker, that we thank all of our agri­cul­ture producers right across this great province of ours. We know that they not only feed people here in Manitoba and not just right across the country, but they feed the world.

      And so, we want to take this op­por­tun­ity to thank them for the in­cred­ible work that they do.

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

Mr. Kinew: Closing the Dauphin jail, raising the price of Crown lands while pushing out young ranchers and other producers. In both instances, the gov­ern­ment knew before the election what they were planning and they hid it from regular people in our province.

      Manitobans are right to feel as though they were misled. That's the record of the Pallister and Stefanson gov­ern­ments. Manitobans deserve account­ability for their decisions.

      Will the Premier tell the House why her gov­ern­ment hid the changes on Crown lands from ranchers before the last election?

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, again, Madam Speaker, I want to thank all those ag producers right across this great province of ours.

      And those producers will know that we gave them sig­ni­fi­cant relief–tax relief on the–on their farmland, Madam Speaker; some­thing that members opposite, each and every one of them, voted against and even started to call them rich individuals across the province.

      We don't believe that. We believe that our farmers do yeoman's work for feeding not just people in Manitoba and across the country, but right across the world.

      We respect the work that they do, and we thank them each and every day.

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

Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin
Timeline for Outlet Channel Construction

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Premier still won't tell Manitobans why her gov­ern­ment didn't tell the people about their plans prior to them voting last time around.

      For five years, Brian Pallister did nothing on the channels project in the Interlake. And now, for two years, the Premier has done nothing on the file, as well; in fact, didn't even bother to include it in the gov­ern­ment's most recent Throne Speech.

      FIPPA docu­ments that I'll table show that the gov­ern­ment allocated $5.7 million to the channels pro­­ject, and I quote, contingent on construction commencing in December 2022. End quote. But like all the an­nounce­ments this gov­ern­ment makes, no construction took place.

      Will the Premier tell the House when construction on the channels project will start?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): Well, Madam Speaker, yes, each and every year we budgeted for the Lake St. Martin outlet because we are anxious to move forward with the outlet.

      But we know that it's–continues to go through the environ­mental process, Madam Speaker, with the federal gov­ern­ment. We are encouraging that process to move forward as quickly as possible so we can move for­ward and look at making sure that that outlet is there for those who need it in the com­mu­nity.

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

Mr. Kinew: Well, for years, Brian Pallister wasted time picking fights with the federal gov­ern­ment instead of building the channels project and now, unfor­tunately, we see more of the same from this Premier.

      It's flood season right now. Families, ranchers, com­mu­nities–they're all worried about the impact that flooding could have on their operations and on their properties. The channels project is im­por­tant to making sure com­mu­nities are safe and protected.

      But the–there's been no action. Instead, the gov­ern­ment pretends to allocate these funds knowing full well that they are not going to be spent. Residents of the Interlake deserve answers. All Manitobans deserve answers.

      Will the–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –Premier tell the House when construction of the channels project is going to start?

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, maybe the Leader of the Opposi­tion could consult with his NDP-Liberal coalition friends in Ottawa and ask them when we might be able to expect that outlet to com­mence.

* (14:00)

      We will continue to make sure that the funds are there on the prov­incial side in the event that the federal NDP‑Liberal coalition decides to move forward on this project, Madam Speaker. We have been asking them to do that; we do, of course, and respect–we do, of course, respect the environ­mental process that it's going through right now.

      Maybe the Leader of the Op­posi­tion doesn't respect that process. We do, Madam Speaker. And we are–we will continue to work with all parties involved to ensure that we get this done as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, we respect the people of the Interlake. And when we talk to those folks, they say that there has been no en­gage­ment and no work to advance the channels project by this Premier.

      Now, this is one of the most im­por­tant flood-protec­tion projects that our province needs to get built, but there is simply no movement. Not a single Cabinet minister or the Premier is standing up to ensure that this project advances or even that a single shovel is put into the ground.

      Will the Premier answer directly a very im­por­tant question for this House: When will the construction of the channels project begin?

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, I think it's im­por­tant to remind Manitobans that 17 years, the NDP gov­ern­ment had the op­por­tun­ity to do some­thing about this, and they chose to do nothing.

      Now, the Leader of the Op­posi­tion claims to have respect for people in the Interlake. Well, perhaps if he has so much respect, he could call up his NDP-Liberal coalition friends in Ottawa, Madam Speaker, and have a con­ver­sa­tion with them about moving this very im­por­tant project forward. We recog­nize it's going through the environ­mental process. We respect that process.

      But again, the Leader of the Op­posi­tion has an op­por­tun­ity to do the right thing and call on his federal Liberal-NDP coalition friends to get the job done. Why won't he do that, Madam Speaker?

Lake Manitoba-Lake St. Martin Outlet Channel
Indigenous Economic Dev­elop­ment Fund

Mr. Ian Bushie (Keewatinook): We know the PCs have broken every single promise when it comes to the Lake St. Martin-Lake Manitoba channels project.

      They promised in 2016 to build a channels project by 2020, and now we've learned through FIPPA, the $15‑million fund they set up to support Indigenous economic dev­elop­ment op­por­tun­ities related to the channels project has not handed out one single dollar. I'll table the docu­ment now.

      Again, more an­nounce­ments with no action from this gov­ern­ment.

      Can the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) explain: Why has she failed to spend a single dollar on the channels project Indigenous fund?

Hon. Doyle Piwniuk (Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure): Well, Madam Speaker, if the member from Keewatinook, if they would–he was actually tell his colleagues in Ottawa, Singh, the leader of the NDP coalition government with Trudeau, to make sure this licensing gets passed so that we can actually start the channels.

      We do want to have First Nations partici­pation when it comes to contracts within the design and the construction of the channels, so we want to make sure that we're getting this right.

      We're doing con­sul­ta­tions. Our staff are out there continuously for the last number of year–two years to get con­sul­ta­tion to make sure this channel goes through, Madam Speaker.

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

Mr. Bushie: To be clear, this is a Manitoba fund. In October, the PCs announced $15 million to support Indigenous economic dev­elop­ment op­por­tun­ities related to the channels project, yet FIPPA docu­ments show that they haven't spent a single dollar in over six months. That means this project has not made any progress and com­mu­nities are having to wait even longer for flood pro­tec­tions.

      Can the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) explain: Why has she failed to make any progress on the channels project what­so­ever?

Mr. Piwniuk: Well, Madam Speaker, our staff are working continuously hard to make sure that this chan­nel gets done. We need to get the federal gov­ern­ment to make the an­nounce­ment that we can actually–the–when it comes to the licensing to be passed–so then we can start the construction of this.

      We're ready, the contractors are ready, to go on this project. And we're working with First Nations com­mu­nities to making sure that if there's any con­tracts out there, to make sure they apply to this grant, this op­por­tun­ity to get some grant money, when it comes to helping them build their busi­nesses so that they can be part of that construction side of this project.

      And this is going to happen, and with–when we get the an­nounce­ment happening with the federal gov­ern­ment making an an­nounce­ment that this licensing has passed.

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

Mr. Bushie: To be clear, Indigenous com­mu­nities in the Interlake call this a slap in the face and crumbs, and they're not even delivering on the crumbs for this.

      Seven years later, and not a shovel of dirt has been moved for the channels project. And it's been almost six months since the PCs announced that–the $15‑million fund to support Indigenous economic dev­elop­ment op­por­tun­ities related to the channels project, with absolutely no movement by this gov­ern­ment.

      And now we're getting into potential flood season, yet it appears the PCs are waiting for another devastating flood before they award a single dollar.

      Can the Premier explain why she failed to take any action at all to complete the channels project here in Manitoba?

Mr. Piwniuk: Well, Madam Speaker, when–much the work is based on trust. Our de­part­ment wants to work with First Nations com­mu­nities.

      But the member opposite thinks that it can be managed if you can manage this de­part­ment. But court records show that he cannot even manage a gas station. Suppliers had to go to court to get paid for a quarter of a million dollars worth of unpaid bills, Madam Speaker.

      So, if this member is giving us some advice, I don't think we're going to take any advice from this member from Keewatinook, Madam Speaker.

Increase in Tuberculosis Rates
Contact Tracing Program

MLA Uzoma Asagwara (Union Station): Madam Speaker, PC cuts and the damage they did to health in Manitoba came at the worst possible time, and it set health workers up to fail when working in a broken system.

      We've now learned that, under this PC gov­ern­ment, Manitoba tuberculosis cases are among the highest in the country along with Saskatchewan, and death rates more than doubled during the pandemic.

      Dr. Plourde, the medical director for integrated TB services with the WRHA, recently said that the death rates increased because TB contact tracing programs all but ceased as public health workers were redeployed during the pandemic.

      Will this Health Minister tell the House what specific efforts her gov­ern­ment is now taking pro­actively and pre-emptively to address this public health crisis?

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, we take TB very, very seriously. That is why our gov­ern­ment has made record invest­ments in Budget 2023. It is going to be spread across the entire health system to many program areas.

      We are working with public health. We are work­ing on the ground with front-line health providers to hear what the needs are post-COVID and how we can help the system to recover.

      We will continue to listen, Madam Speaker, and take action.

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

MLA Asagwara: In next-door Saskatchewan, health officials are warning medical practitioners to watch for TB in children, as a handful of First Nations com­mu­nities ex­per­ienced an unusual uptick in cases and, sadly, several children have died.

      Manitoba shares many of the same challenges in controlling TB as Saskatchewan. Living con­di­tions in remote First Nations com­mu­nities–can be over­crowded housing, poverty and scant access to essential medical care–make residents more vul­ner­able to tuberculosis.

      She didn't answer the first time I asked, Madam Speaker, so I'll ask the minister again, a very im­por­tant question: Can she confirm what concrete actions she is taking to reinstate and increase the contact-tracing efforts for these com­mu­nities?

Ms. Gordon: Madam Speaker, TB is–we take it very, very seriously. We value and ap­pre­ciate all our health-care providers in the system, all the program areas that they work in.

      I do want to ask the Leader of the Op­posi­tion a ques­tion today. In debate with the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) last week, he said nobody can explain the benefits of Shared Health, Madam Speaker, and vowed to cut their funding. Health Sciences Centre is part of Shared Health. The TB program is part of our health system.

      Can the Leader for the Op­posi­tion please tell Manitobans today which of the services–is it TB, Madam Speaker–that the Leader of the Op­posi­tion is planning to cut? How many of the 18,000 individuals who work at Shared Health–

Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.

* (14:10)

      The hon­our­able member for–[interjection] Order.

       The hon­our­able member for Union Station, on a final supplementary.

MLA Asagwara: Madam Speaker, the minister really needs to cut the theatrics. This is an in­cred­ibly serious issue.

      Under her gov­ern­ment, under her watch, active TB–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

MLA Asagwara: –cases in Manitoba increased to 195 last year. And, at the same time, death rates doubled.

      The trends are moving in the wrong direction. TB can be prevented and cured with long course of antibiotics, but can be fatal if it's left untreated. And that is what we're seeing under this gov­ern­ment.

      The disease progresses slowly and can sometimes be mistaken for smokers coughed or, in children, can be mistaken as a run‑of-the-mill viral illness.

      We know that this gov­ern­ment is distracted by the health-care crisis that their cuts have caused. And so, how can Manitobans trust any decisions they make in regards to health care?

      What is this minister going to do today–

Madam Speaker: This member's time has expired.

Ms. Gordon: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposi­tion has laid out his first plat­form promise to Manitobans: he is going to cut the funding to Shared Health.

      Part of Shared Health, Madam Speaker, is the Health Sciences Centre, our prov­incial hospital. Why does he want to close it down and cut it?

      Addictions Foundation, the Children's Hospital at HSC, Selkirk Mental Health Centre, diag­nos­tic services–which of the services is he planning to cut? Is it services and funding to TB, Madam Speaker? How many individuals is he planning to fire?

      All the programs in the health system–TB, HIV, AIDS, children's pro­gram­ming, CancerCare–is im­por­tant to Manitobans. I want the leader–

Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Premier of Manitoba
Financial Disclosure

Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): We know the Premier  of Manitoba broke the law when she failed to disclose 31 million in–dollars in property sales.

      We are now learning–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sala: –new infor­ma­tion about the Premier's finances, and it's raising serious questions, Madam Speaker.

      We've learned the Premier is a client of an exclu­sive, out-of-province manage­ment company that requires a $5‑million minimum to join–$5 million minimum.

      We don't know the full amount of the Premier's invest­ments or what those invest­ments are in, but when it comes to millions of dollars invested by the Premier, Manitobans deserve to have answers.

      Will the Premier tell the House what her millions are invested in?

Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Finance): Here we go again, Madam Speaker. We get members opposite just making things up on the fly.

      And I hope the member opposite would take a moment or two to actually read the judge's ruling. The com­mis­sioner advised that there was no conflict of interest. In fact, he–I think he went on to say that it would be absurd to rule otherwise.

      So, clearly, the judge had ruled there was no conflict of interest.

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

Mr. Sala: Regular Manitobans are struggling with the costs of groceries and gas, but not the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson).

      We're now learning the Premier of our province has invested at least $5 million with an exclusive manage­ment firm. I'll table the docu­ments for this House. The firm claims to, quote, create high returns on invested capital, end quote, while boasting of returning $55 million to clients to fund, quote, lifestyle expenses.

      The Premier holds the highest political office in this province, and when millions are at stake, Manitobans expect their leaders to be trans­par­ent and open.

      Will the Premier tell this House the amount of money she has invested in this private company?

Mr. Cullen: Clearly, I don't know what rabbit hole the op­posi­tion's going down today, but I mean, we're getting a little sick and tired of the allegations that they keep bringing forward with no justification what­so­ever.

      I mean, even the Liberal Party–in conjunction, I'm sure, with the NDP–said, listen, we're going to take this to court, as well, in terms of the conflict of interest. And again, the judge ruled, listen, this was an unintended breach, inadvertent. The evidence demon­strates the failure to do so was inadvertent.

      Nothing to see here, Madam Speaker. Nothing to see in these allegations either.

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

Mr. Sala: When the Premier of our province invests millions in exclusive private manage­ment companies, the people of Manitoba are right to ask questions.

      The people of Manitoba expect their leaders to be trans­par­ent and open, and when it comes to millions of dollars of invest­ments by the Premier, the ex­pect­a­tions are rightly even higher.

      We know this Premier has a problem with disclosing conflicts of interest. She failed to disclose $41 million–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sala: –in property sales. Now we've learned about–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sala: –an exclusive fund that requires a minimum $5‑million invest­ment to partici­pate in.

      Manitobans are right to ask: How much money has she invested and what is she invested in? These are straight­for­ward questions.

      Will the Premier answer them today?

Mr. Cullen: Madam Speaker, I'm speechless, quite frankly. I mean, these allegations are coming out of left field. There's absolutely no–nothing to the truth here.

      The members have to read the docu­ment that–put forward from the court. And they should take the time to read that. No criminal activity here, again. I think this was the allegations that are coming.

      Madam Speaker, if you want to talk about criminal activity, let's talk about the Leader of the Opposi­tion who paid court costs here: failure to comply con­di­tions of reconnaissance; refused to provide a sample; assault; failure to comply in con­di­tion of under­taking. Paid the bills–guilty.

      Madam Speaker, I table these docu­ments. That is criminal activity.

Northern Health-Care System
State of Health Services

MLA Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): My colleagues and I from the North have been raising concerns about the lack of access to health care in our com­mu­nities through­out this Legis­lative session.

      In Lynn Lake, the hospital auxiliary group has been trying to raise funds for much-needed items for patients, long-term-care residents at their local hospital. This group of volunteers is stepping up to advocate where the PC gov­ern­ment is failing.

      With the chaos this Premier's caused in health care, when does she suppose they will pay attention to the crisis they've created in northern Manitoba?

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): Unlike the members opposite, members on this side of the House do not suffer from perimeteritis, Madam Speaker. We spend a lot of time in the North, speaking to health pro­fes­sionals–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Ms. Gordon: –speaking to Indigenous groups.

      I was pleased to be up in Thompson meeting with over 30 stake­holders, Madam Speaker, around the table of solutions, talking about the challenges and how our gov­ern­ment can assist.

      We are responding, Madam Speaker, to the needs of the North, and I ask the member for Flin Flon to get on board with those discussions.

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

MLA Lindsey: The Pallister-Stefanson gov­ern­ments' cuts to health care make an already challenging situa­tion so much worse when it comes to provi­ding health care in the North. Year after year, people in the North are completely ignored at best by this PC gov­ern­ment.

      In Leaf Rapids, our elderly loved ones can't get access to proper home care. And the PC gov­ern­ment serves up nothing but excuses. Excuses for 20 per cent vacancy rate–and that's province-wide, not just in the North. I'm sure it's much higher in the North.

      So, what exactly will this minister do and will she acknowl­edge today that their gov­ern­ment's cuts have made challenges of delivering health care so much worse in the North?

* (14:20)

Ms. Gordon: Our gov­ern­ment is committed to invest­ing $812 million to support northern and rural health care, Madam Speaker. The clinical pre­ven­tative services plan is part of that $812 million. Front-line health-care workers were part of the discussions to create the clinical pre­ven­tative services plan in the North and in rural com­mu­nities.

      We are excited to be working with our 'nordern'–northern partners to reduce the need to travel to Winnipeg or other regions to receive care. We will continue to listen to the needs of the North and respond accordingly.

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

MLA Lindsey: Health delivery is always a challenge in the North. We accept that, and we know it. Shared respon­si­bility with the feds complicates things. We know that, too.

      But, with the entire prov­incial health system in crisis like it is today, it further isolates people from accessing proper health care. The Keewatin Tribal Council declared a regional state of emergency to sound the alarm over deaths, suicide, drugs, violence, inadequate health care.

      Last week, my colleague, the MLA for Thompson, asked this PC gov­ern­ment what they're doing, if anything, to support northern First Nations in accessing necessary health care. The same question applies to all northern Manitobans.

      When can northern Manitobans expect help for health care in the North?

Ms. Gordon: It appears that the member for Flin Flon's concerns for the North and–

An Honourable Member: Flip-flops.

Ms. Gordon: –issues–yes, it flip-flops. And it's situational, Madam Speaker.

      So, where was this member's concern when, under the NDP, the northern patient transport program was crumbling and underutilized because it was terribly underfunded? Where was the concern then, Madam Speaker?

      Our gov­ern­ment more than doubled the funding to the program, 'mathern'–Madam Speaker. Our gov­ern­ment sat around the table of solutions with northern and Indigenous stake­holders to create the clinical pre­ven­tative services–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Ms. Gordon: –plan. When I was in Thompson, I don't remember seeing the member for Flin Flon around the table of solutions.

      He only wants to complain, Madam Speaker, but not take ap­pro­priate actions.

Treaty Rights and Natural Resource Revenues
Manitoba Premier's Position

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Yesterday, when responding to news that First Nations might actually finally have their rights recog­nized for natural resource sharing, the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) called it a needless provocation.

      I don't know who the Premier thinks she's standing up for, because I was at the miners and prospectors association of Manitoba gala, and they want part­ner­ships and revenue sharing with First Nations.

      And I don't know who the Premier thinks she's fight­ing, because it's not Ottawa. It's Indigenous Manitobans who, for decades, have been shut out of revenue sharing while the prov­incial gov­ern­ment builds dams and signs off on mines to extract–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lamont: –billions in revenue while leaving com­mu­nities in poverty and pollution.

      Why is the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) siding with other provinces against basic rights for Indigenous Manitobans that the rest of us can take for granted?

Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Economic Development, Investment and Trade): I'm a little disappointed in the member from St. Boniface in his question, knowing full well that I actually meet regularly with First Nations regarding mining.

      As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, when I was in Toronto, at the PDAC conference, I was honoured to sit around a large room of First Nation and Indigenous folks from northern Manitoba with industry.

      Industry and First Nations are working together to betterment of First Nations, not only in the south but in the North, Madam Speaker.

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

Mr. Lamont: Madam Speaker–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lamont: –we're all Manitobans, and what is good for Indigenous people is good for Manitoba. We start the day in this Chamber talking about respecting treaties.

      Well, revenue sharing is respecting treaties. We talk about recon­ciliation. Revenue sharing is recon­ciliation. But the second that recon­ciliation stops just being talk and starts being some­thing real where the rights of Indigenous people would be respected in Canada, the Premier calls it a needless provocation.

      Equal treatment isn't special treatment; it's fairness. And making up for wrong isn't special treatment; it's justice.

      Why would the Premier join a chorus of far-right Conservatives in this litany of false accusations? Could she explain exactly why she thinks that finally recog­nizing Indigenous rights in Manitoba is un­con­stitu­tional?

Mr. Wharton: Wow, Madam Speaker. Well, I'm going to put some facts on the record, unlike the member from St. Boniface.

      Madam Speaker, I'll give the member, actually, an example of First Nations and industry working together for the betterment of First Nations.

      PADCOM recently–and will be opening up shortly, in the southeastern–western Manitoba. And we know that the profit‑sharing agree­ment signed between Gambler First Nation and industry are going to help First Nations, parti­cularly Gambler First Nation.

      I don't know where the member gets his infor­ma­tion from, but I suggest he goes back to research and figure it out.

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

Con­di­tion of Manitoba Roads
Invest­ments in Building Sus­tain­able Roads

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Ouch, ouch, ouch. Potholes, potholes, potholes. The Romans built roads and buildings that lasted–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gerrard: –for 2,000 years. Why is it that, under this gov­ern­ment, Manitoba can't build roads that last?

      Is it–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gerrard: –because, for decades and decades, we have had NDP and PC gov­ern­ments which have not made the commit­ments and the invest­ment in research that's needed to build a made-in-Manitoba road sur­face which lasts for more than a few years?

Hon. Andrew Smith (Minister of Municipal Relations): I'm not sure where the member was going with that question, but it's clear that he obviously doesn't read the press releases or watch media.

      Madam Speaker, our gov­ern­ment just recently gave the City of Winnipeg $7.5 million for road repair and pothole repair. That's in addition to the $47‑million increase in operational funding and in addition to the $23.5 million in capital funding in Budget '23.

      So, I'm not sure where the member gets his infor­ma­tion from. Of course, research seems to be a little dif­fi­cul­ty for the members from the Liberal caucus today. Suggest they go back to their caucus meeting and figure out what's actually happening in Manitoba.

Housing Programs for Seniors
New Program Announcement

Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): All members of this House should be proud that, for the first time Manitoba has a real seniors strategy.

      This morning, the Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care announced further supports in form of ad­di­tional housing supports.

      Can the minister outline how this program will address the needs of Manitoba's seniors?

Hon. Scott Johnston (Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care): I'd like to thank my friend from Portage la Prairie for that excellent question.

      Madam Speaker, in less than two months since launching the seniors strategy, we have already invested $34 million in multiple key initiatives to support Manitoba seniors. I was pleased to announce an invest­ment of $3 million today on two housing initiatives. The  first one is–the first initiative was to 'appride' $1.5 million in funding for new home-modification grant programs. Second item is sup­port­ive housing; our gov­ern­ment has announced $1.5 million to stabilize and strengthen Manitoba's sup­port­ive housing program.

      Madam Speaker, this gov­ern­ment has a plan, and we're imple­men­ting it.

Construction Industry Apprentices
Wage Reduction Concerns

MLA Malaya Marcelino (Notre Dame): Madam Speaker, this PC gov­ern­ment is completely out of touch with regular Manitobans. The cost of groceries keeps going up; the cost of living is going dramatically up.

      But this Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) could not care less about the workers and apprentices who build our province. It's no surprise that this PC Premier has tens of millions of dollars she conveniently forgets to disclose.

      I would ask again, from this Premier: Will she tell the House why her PC gov­ern­ment is looking to cut wages for apprentices?

* (14:30)

Hon. Sarah Guillemard (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): This member knows that she has absolutely no facts to stand on when she's making these false claims.

      And, Madam Speaker, I have some concerns about the fear mongering that is coming from all members opposite of us. That is unfair to Manitobans, and they need to apologize for what they're doing. There is no discussion about wage decreases for any apprentices.

      And if that member has infor­ma­tion, she needs to table it today.

Madam Speaker: The hon­our­able member for–[interjection] Order.

      The honourable member for Notre Dame, on a supplementary question.

MLA Marcelino: Madam Speaker, there are young people looking to work in the trades and there are those that are taking retraining courses to look to invest in them­selves and their families so that they can help our economy grow.

      While the minimum wage just went up, now the PCs are looking to cut the wages of apprentices this year. That's wrong. This will just make retaining skilled workers harder and hurt our efforts to tackle existing labour shortages. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

MLA Marcelino: These folks work hard and should be paid properly.

      Will this minister stop her plans to cut ap­prentice­ship wages today?

Mrs. Guillemard: Clearly, the member has nothing to table because she had no facts to draw from.

      I, again, will call on the member to apologize for fear mongering. This is unfair to do to Manitobans, especially young apprentices who are entering into a very rewarding career, and I commend them for making that choice. There will be no reductions to wages of apprentices. And that member knows better.

      And I hope she's willing to apologize to the apprentices, to their families and to all Manitobans for putting false infor­ma­tion on the record.

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

MLA Marcelino: I tabled those docu­ments for the minister three weeks ago, and I'd be happy to bring those docu­ments again to her office upstairs when we're done right here.

      Madam Speaker–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

MLA Marcelino: –Manitoba workers know that this PC gov­ern­ment doesn't have their backs. Under this PC gov­ern­ment, ap­prentice­ship funding was cut by 43 per cent since 2016. And they weakened safety pro­tec­tions by cutting ap­prentice­ship ratios.

      While everyday Manitobans are struggling with increasing bills, PCs are trying to cut the scheduled wage increases of apprentices who are trying to enter the trades. Manitoba workers deserve a clear commit­ment today.

      Will this PC gov­ern­ment back off their cuts to ap­prentice­ship wages? Yes or no?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Hon. Jon Reyes (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Madam Speaker, on the topic of affordability, I want to remind the member for Notre Dame that–was the former member for Logan and interim leader of the NDP that said their illegal PST increase of 1 per cent did not affect many low-income earners, many of whom are earning minimum wage. I table this.

      Well, Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House, we are the side of affordability. And when our gov­ern­ment reduced the PST from 8 to 7 per cent in 2019, we put hundreds of millions into the pockets of hard‑working Manitobans each year.

      We always stand up and fight for hard‑working workers and families, and we will take no lessons from the NDP.

Madam Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

      Petitions–oh, the hon­our­able minister for Sport, Culture and Heritage.

Hon. Obby Khan (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.

      It brings me no joy to do this–

Madam Speaker: Order. Order.

      The hon­our­able Minister for Sport, Culture and Heritage, on a matter of privilege.

Matter of Privilege

Hon. Obby Khan (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.

      It brings me no joy, especially today, to do this. This morning, I was at an event I was invited to attend by the member opposite from Burrows. Thank you for that.

      Following the member's comments, and that of the Leader of the Op­posi­tion, I was asked to bring comments of my own. I felt honoured to do that.

      I feel a deep sorrow that I am rising, but I feel that it must be said. I feel hurt, disrespected, threatened, unsafe as a matter–as a member of this Legis­lative Assembly. After my remarks, I walked over to shake the hand of the member from Burrows and a hug–Uncle. Went to shake the hand of the Leader of the Opposi­tion, at which point there was a delay in standing; stood up, reached for my hand, aggressively pulled me in, physic­ally squeezed my hand–I'm a big guy, I can take it–he has a very strong handshake. Pulled me in close to his ear–and the incident I'm about to recount is a clear violation of privilege, as noted by the House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 83, and is a prima facie violation of the privilege of members of this House.

      I am raising this at the earliest possible moment that I'm able to. As you may have noticed from my min­is­terial statement earlier, I was visibly shaken and delayed in my comments. I needed time to exit the Chamber, clear my head and gather my thoughts, for this incident just happened a few hours earlier.

      When the Leader of the Op­posi­tion grabbed my hand, physic­ally pulled me in as I went out to shake it, the comments I'm reluctant to share; I feel as though I must. I warn the language is going to be offensive and profane for the members in the House, for people at home, the media.

      The Leader of the Op­posi­tion pulled me in and said: You piece of shit. How you dare you politicize this fucking event? What you did is fucking wrong. We are never inviting you again to a fucking event.

      I tried to back away from it–I'm a big guy, I could've probably backed away if I really wanted to make a scene. And I leaned over–we were close to close–said, now is not the time for this. We can talk about this later. And he would not let me leave, held my hand in, again repeated: You piece of shit. How dare you do this? How dare you politicize this? We invited you here.

      After what was an awkward, what felt like five minutes–it was probably only one or two–he let go. I walked away back to the other side. I sat down, not sure what to do. When someone in this building calls you a piece of shit and swears at you, let alone the Leader of the Op­posi­tion–and I'm a big guy, I can take abuse, I was a pro­fes­sional football player for 10 years. I wasn't afraid for my life. I'm a big guy, I can defend myself. For 10 years I took a lot larger insults on the field and physical abuse playing football.

      But now, when I'm coming to work as an elected official, now, when I'm at such a joyous, such a great, great celebration of the Turban Day, laughing, celebrating how far we've come as a Punjabi man and my Punjabi colleagues–and to be called a piece of shit.

      This isn't just for me; I can handle myself. But I am, as you can see, I'm emotionally shaken by this. I was not expecting that. Inti­mida­tion attempts, insulting language and, to what I believe, a physical shove at the end of it. It takes a lot to move me. You could shove me as hard as you want and I probably wouldn't move. But when you're leaving the–when we left the handshake, there was a shove in the stomach. And with someone else, it might move them; for me it's not going to move me, but I felt it.

      If this can happen to me at six foot four, 200-plus pounds, it can happen to anyone. I expect more. I come to work and would like to be treated with respect. I know inside this Chamber things get heated and we say things back and forth, but outside of this it's–and even in here–I didn't expect Leader of the Opposi­tion for his actions, inti­mida­tion, aggressive language and physicality.

      Therefore, I move, seconded by the MLA for Fort Richmond, that this matter be imme­diately referred to a permanent standing com­mit­tee of this House for in­vesti­gation. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order. Order.

* (14:40)

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): I do want to address the commentary from my colleague from Fort Whyte, so I do beg your indulgence so that I can run through a few key pieces of infor­ma­tion.

      I want to begin by apologizing to my colleague from the Burrows, which I have done already privately.

      I do dispute the facts. Significant details were incorrect about what the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Khan) said. However, what we do agree on is that we had a tense exchange earlier today. And this was neither the–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Order.

Mr. Kinew: We had a tense exchange. It was a tense verbal exchange. We should have found a different time, a different place to follow up on this matter. [interjection]

      Madam Speaker, I would ask for the ability to address you on this matter without heckling from the other side. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: So I apologize to my colleague from the Burrows. It was neither the time nor the place. We should have sought an op­por­tun­ity to address the concerns that I had later on.

      So I would like to apologize to my colleague from Fort Whyte for this tense exchange that we had earlier. I can tell that he is upset, and for that, I am truly sorry.

      However, what happened between the two of us was partisan bickering, to be blunt.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Order. Order. Order.

      I would remind members that this is a matter of privilege. This is the–not the time for heckling or comments. This is really the time that we really carefully need to listen to what is being said. So I'm going to ask the members to please respectfully hear what is being said so that I can properly rule on this.

Mr. Kinew: Again, so, we shook hands. As we shook hands, I told the member for Fort Whyte that he should not have made partisan comments while he was speaking at the event. Earlier in the event–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –I had taken specific time to say, this event goes across party lines. The member for Fort Whyte, at said event, said that, you know, not only should the NDP banner be there, you should have a Liberal banner, a PC banner, and he also talked more about the PC gov­ern­ment.

      So I told him–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –as we were speaking, that he should not have brought the partisanship into that.

      And I said, we took a step on the high road to invite him–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –to our event. And then he went and did that, you know, course of action that he was addressing.

      So, again–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –I addressed this to him directly–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order. Order.

      I know this can be a tense issue, but I think we need to be listening to every­thing. I need to hear every­­thing, because I'm going to have to rule on this. So I'm going to ask everybody, although emotions may be high on this one, this is really one that I need to be able to hear every­thing, and everybody should be able to hear every­thing because this is what is expected when we have a matter of privilege.

      The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion (Mr. Kinew), to conclude his statements.

Mr. Kinew: There's a bit more to share, Madam Speaker. And I do feel it's im­por­tant so that you have the infor­ma­tion.

      So, we go back and forth. I said, you should not have said these partisan things. He comes back at me, he says, you have no class. We should address this at a different time. And then so I say, well, you should not have made these partisan comments.

      He then goes to attack us for having an NDP banner at an NDP-sponsored event. My colleague from The Maples was begin­ning to speak, and so I turned and said, we should listen–and I said the name of the member for The Maples (Mr. Sandhu)–to speak. That was the entirety of the exchange.

      At no time was there any swearing. At no time was there any name-calling. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: At no time was there any swearing. At no time was there any name-calling. And the interaction was that of words exchanged–albeit tensely, over–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –a handshake.

      So I do apologize to my colleague from Fort Whyte that I didn't avail myself of the op­por­tun­ity to seek a different time or a different place to share my thoughts. But that is the entirety of the exchange that took place earlier today.

      This occurred in a room full of people, Madam Speaker, right? Within earshot of many, many other people.

      So I dispute the facts, but I am apologizing for the nature of our exchange.

      And when it comes to the procedural matter at hand, this is some­thing that took place outside of the Legis­lative Chamber; it is therefore not a matter of privilege. And I would ask that you rule on this matter as soon as you are able.

Madam Speaker: Before recog­nizing any other members to speak, I would remind the House that remarks at this time by hon­our­able members are limited to strictly relevant comments about whether the alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest op­por­tun­ity and whether a prima facie case has been esta­blished.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I would just say this. This is a serious matter. It should be taken seriously. I recom­mend that you take it under ad­vise­ment and look at it calmly before coming to a decision.

Madam Speaker: And I will indicate that a matter of privilege is, indeed, a serious concern. And I am going to take this under ad­vise­ment to consult the author­ities and I will return to the House with a ruling.

Petitions

Prov­incial Road 224

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

      The back­ground to this petition is as follows:

      (1) Prov­incial Road 224 serves Peguis First Nation, Fisher River Cree Nation and surrounding com­mu­nities.

      The road is in need of sub­stan­tial repairs. The road has been in poor con­di­tion for years and has numer­ous potholes, uneven driving surfaces and extremely narrow shoulders.

      (3) Due to recent popu­la­tion growth in the area, there has been increased vehicle and pedestrian use of Prov­incial Road 224.

      (4) Without repair, Prov­incial Road 224 will continue to pose a hazard to the many Manitobans who use it on a regular basis.

      (5) Concerned Manitobans are requesting that Prov­incial Road 224 be assessed and repaired urgently to improve safety for its users.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the minister of Infra­structure to complete an assessment of Prov­incial Road 224 and implement the ap­pro­priate repairs using public funds as quickly as possible.

      This petition has been signed by many, many fine Manitobans.

      Ekosi.

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

Security System Incentive Program

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

      The background of this petition is as follows:

      (1) Cities across Canada and the United States, including Chicago; Washington, DC; Salinas, California; and Orillia, Ontario are offering home security rebate programs that enhance public safety and allow for more efficient use of their policing resources.

      (2) Home security surveillance systems protect homes and busi­nesses by potentially deterring burglaries.

      (3) Whole neighbourhoods benefit when more homes and busi­nesses have these security systems.

      (4) A 2022 Angus Reid In­sti­tute poll found 70 per cent of Winnipeggers surveyed believed crime had increased over the last five years, the highest percentage found among cities in Canada.

      (5) The same survey reported half of Winnipeggers polled do not feel safe walking alone at night, and almost 20 per cent of them said they were a victim of a police-reported crime in the last two years.

      (6) Though the public understands that the criminologists and com­mu­nity advocates point to as the main drivers of crime, namely the larger issues of lack of food, addictions and poverty, they support rebate programs like these as they help the most vul­ner­able in our com­mu­nity by removing financial barriers for personal pro­tec­tion.

* (14:50)

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to work with munici­palities to esta­blish a province-wide tax rebate or other incentive program to en­courage residents and busi­nesses to purchase ap­proved home and busi­ness security pro­tec­tion systems.

      This petition was signed by many, many Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Transcona.

Mr. Nello Altomare (Transcona): Did you call mine?

 

Madam Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Altomare: Okay, thank you.

Punjabi Bilingual Programs in Public Schools

Mr. Nello Altomare (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

      To the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba, the back­ground to this petition is as follows:

      (1) According to census 2021, Punjabi is the fourth most spoken language in Canada and there are 33,315 people in Manitoba whose native language is Punjabi.

      (2) Thousands of Punjabi new­comers are coming to Manitoba as students and as immigrants, looking to call this province home. People of Punjabi origin con­tribute a great deal to the social and economic dev­elop­ment of Canada and Manitoba in fields such as edu­ca­tion, science, health, busi­ness and politics.

      (3) In coming to Manitoba, Punjabi new­comers make sacrifices, including distance from their cultural roots and language. Many Punjabi parents and families want their children to retain their language and keep a continued cultural ap­pre­cia­tion.

      (4) Manitoba has many good bilingual programs in public schools for children and teens available in other languages, including French, Ukrainian, Ojibwe, Filipino, Cree, Hebrew, Spanish. Punjami [phonetic] bilingual programs for children and teens as well as Punjabi language instruction at a college and uni­ver­sity level could similarly teach and maintain Punjabi language and culture.

      (5) Punjabi bilingual instruction will help cross-cultural friendships, relationships and marriages and prepare young people to be multilingual pro­fes­sionals.

      We therefore petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to take steps to implement Punjabi bilingual programs in public schools similar to existing bilingual programs and take steps to implement Punjabi language instruction in other levels of edu­ca­tion in Manitoba.

      This petition is signed by Kulvir Sidhu, Kanwalpreet Sidhu, Kamaljit Sidhu, and many other Manitobans.

MLA Uzoma Asagwara (Union Station): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legis­lative Assembly.

      To the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba, the back­ground to this petition is as follows:

      (1) According to census 2021, Punjabi is the fourth most spoken language in Canada and there are 33,315 people in Manitoba whose native language is Punjabi.

      (2) Thousands of Punjabi new­comers are coming to Manitoba as students and as immigrants, looking to call this province home. People of Punjabi origin con­tribute a great deal to the social and economic dev­elop­ment of Canada and Manitoba in fields such as edu­ca­tion, science, health, busi­ness and politics.

      (3) In coming to Manitoba, Punjabi new­comers make sacrifices, including distance from their cultural roots and language. Many Punjabi parents and families want their children to retain their language and keep a continued cultural ap­pre­cia­tion.

      (4) Manitoba has good bilingual programs in public schools for children and teens available in other languages, including French, Ukrainian, Ojibwe, Filipino, Cree, Hebrew and Spanish. Punjabi bilingual programs for children and teens, as well as Punjabi language instruction at a college and uni­ver­sity level, could similarly teach and maintain Punjabi language and culture.

      (5) Punjabi bilingual instruction would help cross-cultural friendships, relationships and marriages and prepare young people to be multilingual pro­fes­sionals.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to take steps to implement Punjabi bilingual programs in public schools similar to existing bilingual programs and take steps to implement Punjabi language instruction in other levels of edu­ca­tion in Manitoba.

      This petition has been signed by many Manitobans.

Learning Disability Supports

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

      The back­ground to this petition is as follows:

      Individuals with neurodiversity and learning dis­abil­ities frequently have long wait times to get support and often fall through the gaps in current prov­incial support.

      When a child with a learning dis­order turns 18 years old, there is little in the way of helpful ser­vices except through the Learning Dis­abil­ities Association of Manitoba, which, sadly, has been under-­supported and underfunded, both by the present and the previous gov­ern­ments.

      Individuals with learning dis­abil­ities can have a high IQ and have great potential to succeed in work and life if they receive timely help to fully address and overcome their learning dis­abil­ity.

      However, if their needs are not met, some with learning dis­abil­ities are frustrated with delays in being diagnosed and being placed in an edu­ca­tion system which does not appropriately ac­com­modate them. These dif­fi­cul­ties often result in individuals dropping out of school, ex­per­iencing a life of inconsistent employ­ment, juvenile delinquency, crime, and likely will require ad­di­tional health‑care costs that could have been avoided.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      (1)  To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to provide online resources for children and adults with learning dis­abil­ities and IQs above 75, including:

      Online videos featuring individuals with learning dis­abil­ities explaining their situation in a strength-based way to help create awareness;

      (b)  A centralized listing of all resources for those with learning dis­abil­ities, including relevant support systems for family, schools, edu­ca­tional and em­ploy­ment in­sti­tutions; and

      (c)  A free online webinar series and resources to enable individuals with learning dis­abil­ities to access gov­ern­ment supports.

      (2) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to provide ad­di­tional resources to ensure that the present two-year wait-time list for assessments for learning dis­abil­ities is reduced to less than one month.

      (3) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to partner with organi­zations to provide supports for individual and/or group supports for those with learning dis­abil­ities who are transitioning to adulthood.

      (4) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to improve funding for Com­mu­nity Living disABILITY Services, CLDS, and other organi­zations which provide supports for those with learning dis­abil­ities in order to reduce wait times.

      (5) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to recog­nize that individuals with learning dis­abil­ities with a normal or high IQ have great potential for working, provided they have adequate supports, and to set up initiatives to help these individuals get and keep jobs.

      (6) To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to mandate that all teachers must take courses on learning disabilities during their post-secondary edu­ca­tion to better understand and educate in order to end the discrimina­tion they often ex­per­ience in the classroom.

      Signed by Richard Oakden, Douglas Adams, John Gross and many, many other Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: Further petitions?

      Grievances?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(Continued)

GOVERNMENT busi­ness

House Business

MLA Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): On House busi­ness, pursuant to rule 34(8), I am announcing that the private member's reso­lu­tion to be considered on the next Thursday of private members' busi­ness will be one put forward by the hon­our­able member for Concordia (Mr. Wiebe). The title of the reso­lu­tion is Calling on the Prov­incial Gov­ern­ment to Fairly Negotiate with Allied Health Pro­fes­sionals.

Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the private member's reso­lu­tion to be considered on the next Thursday of private members' busi­ness will be the one put forward by the hon­our­able member for Concordia. The title of the reso­lu­tion is Calling on the Prov­incial Gov­ern­ment to Fairly Negotiate with Allied Health Pro­fes­sionals.

* * *

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Could you please call for second reading debate this afternoon, in this order: Bill 8, 15, 19, 12 and 22.

Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the House will consider the following bills this afternoon–second reading of the following bills: 8, 15, 19, 12 and 22.

* (15:00)

Second Readings

Bill 8–The Off-Road Trails Safety and Maintenance Act

Madam Speaker: So I will therefore start with Bill 8, The Off-Road Trails Safety and Maintenance Act.

Hon. Greg Nesbitt (Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Development): I move, seconded by the Minister of Environ­ment and Climate (MLA Klein), that Bill 8, The Off-Road Trails Safety and Maintenance Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been advised of the bill, and I table the message.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the hon­our­able Minister for Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment, seconded by the hon­our­able Minister of Environ­ment and Climate, that Bill 8, The Off-Road Trails Safety and Maintenance Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been advised of the bill, and the message is tabled.

Mr. Nesbitt: It is my pleasure as Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment to stand today for the second reading of Bill 8, The Off-Road Trails Safety and Maintenance Act.

      Bill 8 establishes a new act which will intro­duce a nominal $25 user fee on registered off-road vehicles, with the revenue generated going directly to support activities to develop and maintain ORV trails across the province that help to keep Manitobans and visitors to our trails safe. It will also be used to support the rehabilitation of lands damaged by ORV use.

      Growth in the use of and demand for trails has high­lighted the need for enhanced planning and manage­­ment of Manitoba's trails network. Our forth­coming prov­incial trails strategy and action plan will provide a road map to ensure an in­ten­tional and co‑ordinated approach to this critical work.

      Creating and imple­men­ting the ORV user fee will help to advance several priorities identified in the upcoming strategy. All of the revenue generated will be provided to support ORV-related activities. The gov­ern­ment of Manitoba will not be using any of the funds to support gov­ern­ment's ongoing operation.

Mr. Andrew Micklefield, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

      Manitoba cannot do this work alone. Some of the funding will be provided to organi­zations like Snoman Inc. and ATV in Manitoba to continue and develop and maintain thousands of kilometres of trails and increase safety training, driver edu­ca­tion and other such programs that benefit all ORV owners.

      A portion of the funds will also be directed towards rehabilitation of lands and trails that have been damaged by ORV activity. This will help to ensure that Manitoba's beautiful landscapes across the province are maintained and im­por­tant ecosystems are protected.

      This initiative will help to provide Manitobans with safe riding experiences while also attracting ORV enthusiasts from outside the province and generating economic dev­elop­ment op­por­tun­ities for small towns and busi­nesses in rural and northern communities.

      In addition to the creation of the ORV user fee, this bill also includes provisions that will enable Manitoba and Snoman to work together to enhance the Snopass snowmobile trail permit program.

      These provisions will facilitate the creation of new short-term Snopass options and support ad­di­tional ways to buy them, including online. These im­prove­ments to the Snopass will increase convenience for customers and make it easier for out-of-province riders to purchase a Snopass.

      Bill 8 is an im­por­tant piece of legis­lation that will ensure our ORV trail networks are maintained and enhanced for years to come, helping to keep riders from Manitoba and abroad safe while we continue to protect the natural environ­ment.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'd like to welcome Yvonne Rideout, the executive director of Snoman Inc., who is here today. Their organi­zation has been great sup­porter of this bill.

      I look forward to the ensuing debate, and seek all-party support for this im­por­tant bill so it can have quick passage through the House.

      Thank you.

Questions

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any op­posi­tion or in­de­pen­dent member in the following sequence: the first question by the official opposition critic or designate; sub­sequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties; subsequent ques­tions asked by each independent member; remaining questions asked by any opposition members. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is open for questions.

MLA Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): So, we always ask a question about who did a minister consult with. That question becomes even more im­por­tant with this parti­cular piece of legis­lation because it affects a lot of divergent groups, different areas, that have different needs, different wants, different require­ments.

      So, my first question is, to the minister: Who all did he consult before he brought this piece of legis­lation in?

Hon. Greg Nesbitt (Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Development): Pleased to respond to that question. Our staff has been consulting ex­tensively with Snowman Inc. and the ATV Manitoba on this issue. There's been discussions under way for the past couple years to make sure we get this right.

      We've also had internal con­sul­ta­tions with Manitoba Trans­por­tation and Infra­structure, and Manitoba Public Insurance as well. And back in 2020, we had public en­gage­ment on the dev­elop­ment of the prov­incial trails strategy that illustrated a high level of support for Snoman and ATV clubs and riders for some type of user-pay system in Manitoba.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I thank the member for bringing this over. It looks like a reasonable move, but I would like just a clari­fi­ca­tion.

      Trails which are used in winter by snowmobiles and the like–to what extent are they used in the summer for ATVs or for hiking trails, and what kind of diverse usership is likely or is occurring?

Mr. Nesbitt: That is a great question. The Snoman Trails are often quite different from the ATV trails across the province. There's much more Snoman trails that, you know, with the permission of landowners and things like that, cross them. ATV Manitoba is in the process of creating trails, and this funding pro­vided through this will help them expand their network across Manitoba.

MLA Lindsey: So, my under­standing from what I've read and what I've just heard is that this bill now allows ATVs to use Snoman-approved trails, and I question whether anybody from Snoman has actually agreed to that. Maybe in the summer, but I'm pretty sure they don't want ATVs on their snowmobile trails that they pay to groom and maintain.

      So, can the minister address those questions?

Mr. Nesbitt: I think the member, perhaps, wasn't listening to my response, or misinterpreted it.

      Snoman has trails that cross over private lands. Snoman also has trails on Crown lands and things. All I'm saying is some of the ATV trails may utilize some of those trails, but likely not on private land. They would need agree­ments with landowners to use those trails.

      And, like I said, the ATV trails in Manitoba aren't very extensive at this point, and they're mostly in eastern Manitoba, so this funding will allow them to increase their trail network for a sport that's growing across the province.

Mr. Gerrard: Just one further bit of clari­fi­ca­tion on this matter. For a snowmobile trail in the winter, are some of those used for hiking in the summer, or not?

Mr. Nesbitt: Certainly, there's some trails across the province that will likely be used for all three–for snowmobiling, ATVing and hiking. The majority of the hiking trails would be different than ATV trails, though, and different than Snoman trails, but there could be a little bit of crossover in some areas on Crown land.

      I would expect the Trans Canada Trail–some­times there's hikers on that. Some of the Trans Canada Trail doesn't have motorized vehicles; some, I understand, there is. But we're trusting our organi­zations to deal with our landowners and ensure they have permission to go on any trails.

MLA Lindsey: So, my first question to the minister was about con­sul­ta­tion, and he told us how he con­sulted with Snoman.

      But, really, did he consult with some of the various users of these off-road vehicles? People like northern Indigenous groups have used them as part of their traditional use to hunt, to trap, to fish; farmers, perhaps, that use them for various reasons as part of their work that they use an off-road vehicle for some of these issues.

* (15:10)

      So, that's part of my question that the minister didn't ask the first time; was the con­sul­ta­tion piece seems like perhaps maybe it was missing–

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

Mr. Nesbitt: This new $25 fee will apply to all ORV owners who are required to register their ORV with Manitoba Public Insurance.

      But, there are exemptions. Owners that are exempt from the registration require­ment of their machines are also exempt from the ORV fee. For example, individuals in remote com­mu­nities and individuals that only drive their ORV on land they own or lease are exempt. Traditional harvesters who currently pay to register their ORV will pay the $25 fee.

Mr. Gerrard: Yes, just out of interest and for clari­fi­ca­tion, how much money does the minister expect to raise and what sort of percentage allocation will be used for what purposes?

Mr. Nesbitt: According to my numbers, there's 84,500 ORV owners in Manitoba. We expect this $25 levy, by doing the simple math, will raise around $2 million per year. And we'll be allocating that to Snoman Inc. and ATV Manitoba for the work, I said in my opening statement.

MLA Lindsey: Well, I guess I have to raise now and question the minister's math, because he talked about the total number of off-road vehicles in the province of Manitoba and does a simple multiplication to say how much money they're coming up with. But previously, he said that a certain number of those vehicles are exempt from having to pay this. So, clearly the minister should get his pencil out again and come up with the actual number, instead of using PC math.

Mr. Nesbitt: I'd be happy to respond to that. I said there's 84,500 registered vehicles. I'm assuming there's maybe 4,500 of them that aren't, you know, that aren't going to have to pay this fee. Actually, 84,500 gives more than $2 million. So that's PC math; 80,000 would give $2 million, correct?

      So, we're going to allocate that on a 50-50 basis, between Snoman–whatever we collect, we're going to allocate. That's the point. The gov­ern­ment will not be keeping a nickel.

Mr. Gerrard: Yes, I just thank the minister for the clarity that he's provided so far, and would ask as well, can the minister describe a little more detail the im­prove­ments that he anticipates being able to achieve with the funding?

Mr. Nesbitt: Certainly. We–of course, there'll be improved maintenance of trails and dev­elop­ment of new trails. I mean, Snoman has been grooming trails across the province for years, and, you know, they have Snopasses to run on those trails.

      Our de­part­ment has also been doing en­force­ment to ensure that machines have Snopasses and things like that. But there obviously is–we can't be everywhere and there are people perhaps using those trails without Snopasses.

      So, this fee will help Snoman continue their good work of grooming trails across Manitoba. It's going to be used for safety edu­ca­tion, training and promotion of safe trail riding, things like that; emergency trail repair, should we get any inclement weather–rains and such–on ATV trails.

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

MLA Lindsey: So, some of the stuff we've talked about so far, it hasn't really added up the way the minister would like it to.

      But let's talk about the safety aspect of it. He's referred to–this will help safety of off-road vehicle operation, and certainly, none of us are opposed to better safety and ensuring that, parti­cularly young people–well, all people–wear helmets and all the rest of that.

      So, can the minister us a little more detail on how he thinks collecting $25 from every user will actually make the use of those pieces of equip­ment safer?

Mr. Nesbitt: Obviously, safety is, you know, is para­mount in any sport. And organi­zations like Snoman, ATV Manitoba, they have safety training courses, and they're going to expand that. In meetings with ATV Manitoba a month ago, they're very excited about expanding training courses for people operating ATVs around the province.

      Snoman has always been a safety-conscious organi­zation and stresses safety. This is going to help them continue to promote safety, especially amongst our young people that are getting into the sport.

Mr. Gerrard: Yes, I want to con­gratu­late Snoman and the off-road vehicle organi­zation, and compliment you. But can you give us a 10-year view, a 10-year vision of where we are now?

      How many kilometres of off-road trails are there now? What do you expect in about 10 years?

Mr. Nesbitt: I don't have actual trail numbers here. The trails will be created by the clubs. This money is going to help them; it's going to be con­sistent funding year over year, we hope. And, as the sport grows, it will be even more.

      Like I say, none of the money is going to be kept by the gov­ern­ment, so we are going to encourage ATV Manitoba to develop more trails across the province, certainly for our summer season, and this money will help Snoman continue their good work through­out the winter.

MLA Lindsey: So, we've heard some answers and had some good questioning here.

      Can the minister explain or answer, does he think that there is a potential–because of this registration fee now being required of the $25 ad­di­tional fee when you register your equip­ment, does the minister think there may be some people who perhaps now will not bother registering their vehicles in order to save that $25 or to take a stand against the gov­ern­ment collecting $25? Does he see the potential for that?

Mr. Nesbitt: Is the member referring to off-road vehicle people breaking the law by not registering their vehicle and going on trails off of their land?

      I've said that, if they stay on their own land and they don't register their vehicle now, they're com­pletely legal. If they go off their land, don't register their vehicle and don't pay this fee, they're breaking the law.

Mr. Gerrard: Clearly, in the next two decades, we are concerned about things like climate change and what an impact it may have.

      I'm just–would like the minister to put in context, you know, what we expect in terms of impact of climate change on trails, and what action the minister may be taking.

Mr. Nesbitt: Well, I think this fee will go a long way to ensuring that our trails are maintained properly. If we get more rain, I mean, we can gravel these trails and things like that. They'll have money to do that.

      I think that this is a great step for protecting our Manitoba infra­structure here, and allowing these two great organi­zations to create new trails so that more Manitobans and, indeed, more Canadians can ex­per­ience the great outdoors.

MLA Lindsey: So, when it comes to the use of off-road vehicles like this for Indigenous trappers and fishers and stuff, I believe the minister said that they would be exempt from this $25 fee, but they're travelling everywhere, right? Everywhere within their traditional territory to carry on.

      So, is the minister saying that because they're not on a piece of farmland that's registered in their name, that now they must pay this $25 fee, because they're travelling all over?

Mr. Nesbitt: Again, I think the member misinterpreted my comments. I said traditional harvesters who currently pay to register their ORV will also pay the $25 fee. So if they're going off land that they own, and they're–have their vehicle registered, they're going to be respon­si­ble for paying this $25 fee to MPI.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

* (15:20)

Debate

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

MLA Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): It's unfor­tunate that I wasn't part of the con­ver­sa­tion that the minister had with the previous critic for the area that maybe some of my questions could've been better fleshed out and answered at that point in time.

      Some­thing that the minister just said does concern me, in–when it comes to use of these pieces of equip­ment, parti­cularly by Indigenous people who are on their traditional lands, although under our colonial lands may not be a piece of property that they have a title to. I think they have a pretty strong argument that they do have title and own their traditional lands and should be able to use that. So, I think, perhaps, maybe we had–need to have a more in‑depth con­ver­sa­tion around that, to make sure that that's actually what takes place.

      And that's part of why I wanted to see who all the minister had consulted with before bringing this piece of legis­lation in, because certainly those Indigenous groups through­out the province, not just in the North but through­out the province, may have had some very worthwhile input that would've made this a better bill, and that perhaps has been missed, unfor­tunately.

      The minister talked a little bit about making the use of these pieces of equip­ment safer. But there's nothing in this bill that actually does that, although it does talk about provi­ding some money to go to train­ing. But there's nothing that says somebody has to take that training. There's nothing that, like, if I get a driver's licence, I have to get the training–get that licence. So I'm not sure how this exactly is going to make sure that people are wearing helmets and are doing the things that they should do to operate safely.

      I understand the concept, because it's similar to the previous Snoman, where the shared cost of operating and maintaining the snowmobile trails has been tacked on to users; and there was great controversy when that first came into being, too, by the very same people that I'm talking about here today. So, I just–I want to make sure that those parti­cular issues haven't been overlooked.

      Certainly, there's been way too many deaths by people operating some of these pieces of equip­ment without the proper safety gear, or in unsafe manner. And it–if it–some of this money that the minister's collecting goes towards that, that's not a bad thing. It's just a questionable thing, at this point in time, as to how that actually is going to look, and how it's going to play out.

      I'm glad the minister said that he had talked with Snoman, because my question is a valid question about the use of groomed Snoman-approved trails by off-road vehicles. And the two pieces of equip­ment aren't necessarily combatable–compatible with the same trail. I know I've heard any number of complaints, and seen where people have used Snoman trails with other-than-snow machines, and it does affect the quality of the trail and the safety of the trail.

      This bill doesn't prevent that from happening, and may actually encourage it. So, I just want to make sure that we understand that that is what this bill may, in fact, do.

      I really question, and it comes back a lot of–to the con­sul­ta­tion piece that the minister really didn't give us a fulsome under­standing of who all he may have con­sulted with.

      And, certainly, things sometimes in northern Manitoba are different than they are in rural Manitoba. Private property–I get there's farms and farmers, as the minister said, that–they have a title to that piece of property, however many sections it happens to be–or, hectares, I guess, is the proper term now. So, they're not going to register their vehicles, perhaps, or they're not going to pay this fee, but it's the use of vehicles outside of the minister's normal scope of operation, scope of view, that may or may not have been ad­dressed properly here.

      So, I guess the other question I have that I never got, really, a chance to ask–time being what it is–is, MPI's going to collect this fund; has there been any­thing added to MPI, such as workers?

      Well, I understand there's been quite a number of workers added to MPI, but they're dedi­cated to some­thing else other than this. So, when people go to register these pieces of equip­ment and pay this fee and all that stuff, is it going to be a smooth operation, or is it going to be some­thing like the minister's previous parks entry fee, where it was just a nightmare to operate?

      And I understand there are several other things within the minister's purview that have turned into a bit of a nightmare for average people to access, but that's a conversation, perhaps, that I will have with the minister somewhere else because it has come to my attention that there's issues there, and so we'll address those elsewhere.

      I really want to make sure that, before every­thing comes to pass, that everybody fully understands that–what's being imple­mented; that everybody has had their say in it, which I don't think has happened quite yet. My under­standing is, certainly, from what the minis­ter said, there's more of these designated trails in the southern part of the province.

      And, certainly, I know in the North there's any number of trails that people use, that people have made to get to their cabins–their remote cabins. There's trails that trappers have made to get to their traplines; fishers have made to get where they need to get with their line of work.

      So, if everyone in the province is sharing in the cost, will everyone in the province share in the benefit? Will enough of the money collected go to maintain trails in the North or to develop recreational trails in the North, as opposed to necessary trails? And, by necessary, I mean ones that get you from your remote cabin back to the road or back to town or your trapline. Those, really, are the more necessary trails that may or may not, should or should not be captured by this parti­cular piece of legis­lation.

      But, if people are going to be asked to pay the $25 fee outside of the southern region of the province, will enough of that revenue be shared? And maybe that's a question that the answer is maybe, if they don't share it, then it's not as big a concern for people in the North because the trails won't expand.

      And–some of the things that we don't know that the bill, I believe, talks about penal­ties if people are found without this fee using a trail. Do we know what those penal­ties are going to be? Do we know if someone who's conducting their traditional use on a trapline has to cross one of these designated trails; they don't have the fee, they're doing their livelihood? Will they be subject to fines? Will they have to go to court and fight that? Is there some means to identify people that have the rights, that the minister talked about, that are excluded from this?

* (15:30)

      So, that there's things that, I'm sure, the minister will put in regula­tion that are some­what unknown at this point in time; that it's always the devil in the details, right, so.

An Honourable Member: Trust us.

MLA Lindsey: Well, I see the minister heckles from his seat and says trust us. And there's the problem, because most Manitobans have lost trust in this gov­ern­ment. And it doesn't matter whether we're talking about this, that people want to trust them, or whether we're talking about health care, where people have zero trust in this gov­ern­ment.

      The minister talked earlier about, well, some of this money will go to maintain the trails. We can't get this gov­ern­ment to maintain the highways.

      So, I'm not sure that anybody trusts them to put money into maintaining anything at this point in time. So, the minister has opened up the whole line of questioning around trust and it's an argument that he may not win.

      And I see the Gov­ern­ment House Leader (Mr. Goertzen) is suggesting that I should hurry along. And maybe I will; maybe I won't.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

MLA Lindsey: Fair enough. I do now, and it'll be longer when I'm done.

      All kidding aside, this is serious and it's serious to the extent that while this piece of legis­lation is pro­bably going to pass today, I certainly hope that the minister and people with concerns can have more con­ver­sa­tions, perhaps, before it gets imple­mented, and look at–is there some­thing that needs to be added as an amend­ment before third and final reading to make this piece of legis­lation better than what the minister involved has presented so far.

      And I would hope between–if it passes today and third reading–that the minister would take time to leave what he sees as normal operations and get out and talk to, parti­cularly Indigenous groups, parti­cularly people in the North, parti­cularly people that have a vested interest in what's taking place and what the minister has proposed.

      So, with those very few comments–

An Honourable Member: Sparse.

MLA Lindsey: –sparse, even; yes, for me it is–I will wrap up my comments.

      Thank you.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I thank the minister for bringing this forward. I note that that may be the shortest speech from the MLA for Flin Flon since I've been here.

      Anyway, I think that the comments from the MLA for Flin Flon are im­por­tant, but I would suggest that, you know, you make sure, since we can now have people connect in by Zoom, that you have a number of people from the North appearing at the com­mit­tee and making comments and sug­ges­tions, because I think it's im­por­tant that the northern voices are heard. And I'm sure you've got a few people who would be ready to comment from the Flin Flon con­stit­uency.

      So I want to pay tribute to Yvonne Rideout and the work that she has done as the executive director of Snoman, just a tre­men­dous amount of effort in making sure that trails are identified or gloomed–groomed, that people are trained and educated on safety issues. Thank you so much for all you've done over quite a number of years.

      The–we're ready to support this legis­lation. We think these trails are of vital importance to a lot of Manitobans. Some of these groomed trails are on the trans-Canada trails, which are shared not only by snowmobiles in the winter–Ski-Doos–but also by people walking–horses, sometimes–and so this is, you know, what's being done here in terms of promoting trails and making sure there's greater connectivity is being done for people in the winter, but it's also being done that will help people in the summer as well.

      So I think it's exciting and needed, and we're ready to be fully sup­port­ive of this legis­lation and hope that it will pass. I think it will provide some im­por­tant stability for Snoman and perhaps for other organi­zations and will also enable Snoman to be able to assure people that those trails are going to be groomed and that there's going to be some new connectivity that will help and extend–enhance the ex­per­ience of people who are travelling these trails.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other speakers?

      Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 8, The Off-Road Trails Safety and Maintenance Act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 15–The Court of King's Bench Amendment Act

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Seniors, that Bill 15, The Court of King's Bench Amend­ment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: The objective in bringing forward these amend­ments is to close a gap in the legis­lation for judicial compensation. Financial security is one of the key components when it comes to judicial com­pensation. Financial security is one of the three components of judicial in­de­pen­dence. Judges must be guaranteed sufficient and fair compensation to make decisions that are free of influence and based solely on the facts of law.

      The senior master of the Court of King's Bench in–is–and I know that there's some discussion about changing the name of masters, but I need to use it here for clarity. The senior master of the Court of King's Bench is compensated at the same level as the associate chief judge of the prov­incial court. When an associate chief judge completes their seven-year term, if they choose to continue serving as a regular judge, they're entitled to be paid at the associate chief judge level of pay if it is greater than the current pay of a regular judge. But it was recently identified that a senior master does not have this same entitlement under the current law.

      The goal of gov­ern­ment is to ensure that equitable compensation exists and to follow the recom­men­dations of the Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee. These amend­ments will ensure that a senior master who has completed at least seven years as a senior master will be entitled, upon stepping back into a regular master's role, to be paid at a senior master's pay level if it's greater than the current pay of a master and the same as an associate chief judge.

* (15:40)

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's im­por­tant for Manitobans to know that we're taking the necessary gaps to–steps to close the gaps to ensure that the compensation lines up for judges and masters. It's also im­por­tant to know that, when it comes to the compensation of judges, and in adherence with judicial in­de­pen­dence, it is through prov­incial legis­lation that a judicial compensation com­­­mit­tee is regularly struck and that compensation commit­tee then comes back after hearings and research with a report, and that we are obligated to then in­sti­tute the findings of that report.

      This has been a long-standing practice in Manitoba, differs some­what in other provinces. I believe that that's the Manitoba practice and former ministers of Justice and Attorneys General have also gone through that process and adhered to the recom­men­dations of the compensation com­mit­tee.

Questions

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any member in the following sequence: first question by the official op­posi­tion critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recog­nized op­posi­tion parties; subsequent questions asked by each in­de­pen­dent member; remaining questions asked by any op­posi­tion members. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is open for questions and I am not seeing any questions. Am I right in that there are no questions? Okay.

      The time for questions is thus over. The floor is open for debate.

Debate

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I strive to simply indi­cate that we support this bill and this minor change that is to be made. I do want to simply note, I guess, what you might call the irony of bringing forward this bill, which the minister references–or, are referenced in his opening statement.

He uses the word master a number of times, on the same–very same day that we brought forward a bill by the member for St. Johns (MLA Fontaine), which seeks to eliminate that word and its connotations–its harmful connotations and detrimental connotations from our system.

So, I want–I just wanted an op­por­tun­ity to rise to commend the member for St. Johns on that work, and the minister for agreeing to move that bill forward.

We do look forward to hearing at com­mit­tee stage if there are any concerns with Bill 15 as it stands right now, but we do expect that this should be passed very quickly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I just want to put a few words on the record. It's worth recog­nizing that compensation for justices of the court is im­por­tant–[interjection] I'll wait until my colleague's here.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      It's worth recog­nizing that compensation for justices of the court is im­por­tant for discussion for the reason that we need to ensure that competitive salaries are being paid to retain high-quality legal minds who serve as effective impartial justices here in the province of Manitoba.

      We do, however, need to be diligent and ensure the process for judicial compensation be maintained, spe­cific­ally towards a depoliticized process.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have the Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee to provide non-partisan advice to the gov­ern­ment to depoliticize the com­pensation of judges, and the gov­ern­ment is then to make its proposals to the in­de­pen­dent com­mit­tee which will, in turn, provide the gov­ern­ment advice on the ap­pro­priate compensation of justices of the head of the courts.

      We look forward to learning more about this legis­lation.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other speakers?

      Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Okay, the question before the House is Bill 15, The Court of King's Bench Amendment Act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

Bill 19–The Provincial Offences Amendment Act

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the minister of culture, heritage, tourism and sport that Bill 19, The Prov­incial Offences Amend­ment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: This bill will amend The Prov­incial Offences Act to address gaps in the inconsistencies in the act and clarify the application scope of certain provisions of it in line with the goals of criminal modernization, efficiency, timeliness and consistency in the application of the act.

      It'll first stan­dard­ize the rules respecting quashing and amending tickets and infor­ma­tion. The existing provisions in the act regarding tickets allow a justice to correct an irregularity or a minor error in its form or substance, provided that there was no prejudice to the defendant. A justice may quash a ticket that fails to meet the require­ments of the act.

      The amend­ments clarify that a justice would be able to amend a ticket on the same grounds that exist for amending an infor­ma­tion. That is, a justice may amend an infor­ma­tion that is valid on its face to add, delete or change any wording in the infor­ma­tion to grant an adjournment if that is necessary for the matter to be fairly decided. A justice may quash an infor­ma­tion that fails to meet the require­ments of the act unless it can be corrected without prejudicing the defendant.

      Second, clarifying the infor­ma­tion contained in the certificate evidence that appears to be signed by an en­force­ment officer or other authorized person, as well as infor­ma­tion contained in an appendix that sets out evidence of the alleged offence that is attached to the certificate, is admissible as evidence and is proof of the fact stated in the docu­ments in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

      This is im­por­tant because, at times, appendices may be used to include im­por­tant infor­ma­tion that does not fit on the certificate, such as diagrams of the scene. When an appendix is not presumed admissible under the act, ad­di­tional resources and time are needed to prove the evidence contained in the appendix or the evidence is not admitted, and prosecutions are hindered.

      Third, it clarifies that there are no interlocutory appeals or decisions made on motions or other preliminary matters in proceedings under the act unless the act spe­cific­ally allows for one. The act currently has a broad ground of appeal that does not spe­cific­ally limit on the circum­stances of which leave to appeal can be sought.

      Interlocutory appeals create sig­ni­fi­cant delays and inefficiencies; at times they can purposely be used as a delay tactic. The existing availability of an appeal of an interlocutory matter is also inconsistent with the appeal provisions of the Criminal Code, which only allows for an appeal from a conviction, judgment, sentence or verdict. The amend­ment will provide consistency of the application of the rules respecting interlocutory appeals with the Criminal Code and enhance efficiency of the justice system. It will not impact a defendant's right to appeal a final decision or judgment.

      Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Questions

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any member in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties; subsequent questions asked by each independ­ent member; remaining questions asked by any oppo­sition members. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is open for questions.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I had a question–a follow-up question to one that was posed during the bill briefing.

      Can the minister give some indication as to how many traffic tickets and other offences this would impact–the change that's proposed in this bill would impact on–in, say, any given year?

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): We'll seek to bring that infor­ma­tion to committee when the bill reaches that stage.

      Just for clari­fi­ca­tion, I want to make sure that I under­­stand the question correctly. Is the member asking for how many traffic tickets there are a year, or how many traffic tickets would otherwise perhaps be quashed and not quashed if this act were in provision? Is that what he's–which one is he asking?

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Can the minister explain the reason why the appeals process on decisions made on motions or other preliminary matters is removed under the new act?

* (15:50)

Mr. Goertzen: I think the member's referring, I think, to interlocutory matters.

      And so, interlocutory matters are things that aren't really the substance of the issue by which is being tried, but there are others issues, maybe about admissibility of certain things, that are decided within that trial or decided within the matter that a judge might rule upon. So they're not ruling upon the actual substance of the matter that's before the judge or the master; they're simply making a deter­min­ation within the trial.

      And so it was never the in­ten­tion that those matters, which are–I wouldn't want to call them procedural, but are not specific to the main issue–should be appealed.

      Of course, the main issue–

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

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, I ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to clarify.

      So, what I was asking about was the number of tickets that would be otherwise quashed because of minor, you know, issues with the ticket that could now be corrected by the magistrate.

      And ap­pre­ciate the minister–if he could bring that to the com­mit­tee stage, that would be ap­pre­ciated.

Mr. Goertzen: I'll ask the de­part­ment to provide that infor­ma­tion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other questions? The hon­our­able member–are there any other questions? No?

      Okay, seeing none, the time for questions, then, we'll wrap that it up; it's over, and we'll go to debate.

Debate

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I'm pleased to put a few words on the record with regards to Bill 19.

      This bill makes several minor amend­ments to The Prov­incial Offences Act with regards to rules respecting when a ticket or infor­ma­tion can be amended or quash­ed, which are clarified and stan­dard­ized under this bill.

      We know that infor­ma­tion contained in a docu­ment attached to a certificate of evidence signed by an en­force­ment officer or other authorized person is admissible as proof of the fact set out in that docu­ment. And there are no appeals of decisions made on motions or other preliminary matters and proceedings under the act, unless the act spe­cific­ally allows for an appeal.

      This bill will allow for these changes to be made. I think this is, you know, sort of a fairly straight­for­ward, understood situation.

      In fact, I was, you know, anecdotally, I've been talking about this bill to a number of folks, and it's amazing how many people will say, well, that situa­tion happened to me, and will say, you know, I got a ticket. I brought it into the magistrate, noticed there was one clerical or simple error on it, and it was thrown out at that point and so I didn't have to pay the ticket.

      So the reason why I asked the minister and do ap­pre­ciate that he's going to get some infor­ma­tion for me, is that, you know, this may be a fairly sig­ni­fi­cant number of tickets that now will need to be considered in the court system. And these tickets may be tickets that otherwise, you know, folks–they are planning to challenge these in some ways or to put–you know, to have a hearing rather than simply pay the ticket.

      And so my concern there is, once again, more pressures on our justice system. Now I ap­pre­ciate that this a different system than other parts of the justice system, but there are certainly going to be potentially new pressures now put on these magistrates and on that parti­cular court system. Or, you know, quite frankly, this might be some­thing that folks want to take to the next level in terms of their legal rights.

      So, I am concerned and do want to hear more with regards to this. I think this is one element of the bill, and you know, the reason why we bring this forward is because there are–have just been a number of pressures on the judicial system that this gov­ern­ment continues to not address and not fully fund and not fully deal with. And so, we're very concerned.

      We know that in just this last month, CBC reported that court delays were causing many cases to be thrown out or, you know, not be considered before the accused even stands trial. Lawyers say this is a sign that the system just isn't working.

      In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that cases for lesser charges must be heard within 18 months or 30 months for more serious charges. And data obtained by CBC News from Manitoba prosecutions showed delays–delay motions were filed for 53 cases in the province over the last two years. The Crown stayed 13 of them; another five were dropped because of these lengthy delays, meaning 18 cases were tossed and the accused went free simply because the resources weren't adequate in our justice system.

      According to a Winnipeg defence lawyer, these delays have corrosive effect across the entire criminal justice system. As people claim their innocence, don't have the op­por­tun­ity to clear their name in court, the accused often looks–is looked at as guilty even if they're let go on a delay motion because they were freed on a technicality. They don't have their day in court, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is im­por­tant.

      Additionally, some of these cases that have been dropped due to delays are serious charges, including at least one case of child pornography charges, which is in­cred­ibly con­cern­ing that delays in the justice system can affect such a serious case.

      Having cases heard as quickly as possible is, quote, for victims, the accused and for society as a whole. End quote. And that was a quote from Scott Newman, a Winnipeg criminal defence lawyer that I mentioned earlier.

      However, this past year, more than 3,000 cases took longer than 18 months to be heard by a judge, according to last year's prov­incial court annual report, which is an increase of nearly 5 and a half per cent. That's despite fewer cases being tried in the system, the report said, which have taken longer to conclude than in previous years, mainly because of suspensions of court proceedings before the–sorry, during the pandemic.

      The report also found that 40 per cent of the prov­incial court's workload involves the admin­is­tra­tion of justice offences, which include bail breaches and people moving without court approval. Experts say the system is being clogged with these minor offences, and this obviously impacts the more serious ones.

      Poor Internet ac­ces­si­bility exemplified the prob­lem for those in rural and northern parts of Manitoba and that leaves those in–parti­cularly in our northern com­mu­nities, our Indigenous com­mu­nities, parti­cularly vul­ner­able once again.

      Another quote by Mr. Newman; quote, There simply aren't enough court dates to deal with the volume of cases there. I think they–we are falling down in our efforts at recon­ciliation if we're not putting ap­pro­priate resources into helping those commu­nities.

      We also know that there are–is a major issue with regards to prosecutors in this province. Judge–sorry, prosecution and judge vacancies across Manitoba are at an all-time high. In October 2022, the Winnipeg Free Press reported that, quote, burnout, unmanageable workloads and stagnant pay, end quote, were draining the Manitoba justice system of seasoned prosecutors by forcing them to move out of province, into the private sector or, in some cases, into early retirement.

      As of October 2022, 17 of the Province's 175 full-time Crown prosecutor positions remained unfilled. In the past two years, the de­part­ment has lost 22–26 prosecutors, 16 of whom have left to work for the Crown in another province or switched to the defence bar. Of the remaining 10, two were appointed to the bench and eight retired.

      Many Crown attorneys are being recruited by Crown offices across the country because Manitoba has just failed to be competitive in this field. This is a direct result of this gov­ern­ment's refusal to address the problem and to act.

      Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys President Erika Dolcetti said that, quote, the gov­ern­ment is unwilling to do what they need to do, and we are losing Crowns at an exponential rate. Crowns are doing every­thing they can. We are at a point where the gov­ern­ment could do some­thing or things are going to fall–that the gov­ern­ment has to do some­thing or things are going to fall through the cracks. End quote.

      We know that that is already being seen in our com­mu­nities across this province. As violent crime rises in Winnipeg, the already strained justice system is struggling just to cope with the number of cases that is has, but this gov­ern­ment continues to refuse to help. As of October 2022, Manitoba Crown attorneys have been without a new contract since March of the–that year. And the previous contract included no increase to staffing levels.

      According to the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys, contract negotiations with the Province had been unsuccessful up to that point. Quote, we are asking the Province for a fair offer–a fair offer, Mr. Deputy Speaker–to retrain and recruit Crowns, and that's just not happening. And that is a quote by Erika Dolcetti.

      In addition to the new contract, Crown attorneys need support, they need resources, they need a real partner and a real gov­ern­ment at the table. Quote, with the high crime rate, Crowns do not have the time or resources to properly manage their caseloads. The gov­ern­ment needs to do some­thing to retain and recruit our senior litigators. End quote.

* (16:00)

      The burnout rate among Crown prosecutors is also much higher than normal. Well over half of this province's Crown prosecutors have sought counselling stress, and at least seven of them are currently on stress leave.

Madam Speaker in the Chair

      This is just the tip of the iceberg with regards to ways that this PC gov­ern­ment has failed to address the massive strains within our Justice system and, despite the words and election-year positioning that this gov­ern­ment wants to now do, we know that our com­mu­nities continue to get less safe because of the actions of this gov­ern­ment. So, we will continue to hold them to account.

      We do expect that Bill 19 will make some changes that will be positive, and we'll certainly allow this bill to pass here today. But I do look forward to hearing at com­mit­tee if there are any concerns that are brought forward, and we look forward to bringing those back to the Legislature.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I just want to make a few comments on the last provision of the bill, which deals with no appeals of the decisions made on motions or other preliminary matters and proceed­ings under The Prov­incial Offences Act.

      This section of the legis­lation seems to narrow the appeal rights of a defendant. Perhaps part of the reason for this provision is the legis­lation is to deal with the multitude of fines being contested in the prov­incial court system. It is absolutely a defendant's right to go to court, contest a ticket or a fine they receive under The Prov­incial Offences Act. However, it is also im­por­tant to note that the court must have the capacity to handle such cases to deliver appeals in a timely manner.

      Referring to the prov­incial court's recent annual report–spe­cific­ally page 14, which I table–Winnipeg continues to have more appearances per case than other regional court centres, which is attributable to a higher volume of charges and greater frequency of court settings.

      However, in the admin­is­tra­tion of justice, all defendants need to have the possi­bility of appeal, and the appeals process should continue to be ac­ces­si­ble to all, instead of narrowed in the admin­is­tra­tion of justice.

      Looking forward to further debate. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is there any further debate on this matter?

      Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 19, The Prov­incial Offences Amend­ment Act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

Bill 12–The Minor Amend­ments and Corrections Act, 2023

Madam Speaker: I will now call second reading of Bill 12, The Minor Amend­ments and Corrections Act, 2023.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Trans­por­tation, that Bill 12, The Minor Amendments and Corrections Act, 2023, be now read a second time and referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: This is the high­light of the legis­lative session every year, where the minor amend­ments and corrections act is brought forward.

      And just for the edification of, maybe, new members or those who don't monitor these things as closely as others do, this is the process by which, through­out the year, de­part­mental staff will look for spelling errors, either in the English version of an act or the French version of an act, and make note of those errors and collect them over the year, and then they compile them into the minor amend­ments and correc­tions act.

      In addition, though, there are some things that are truly minor in terms of the correction of acts that aren't just spelling errors or typographical errors; they're actually corrections that are deemed to be relatively small. And it's not just the Minister of Justice or others who make that deter­min­ation. There are Leg. Counsel folks who give us advice whether or not they are minor enough to fall within the minor corrections and amend­ment act. And so, this is the 2023 version of that act.

      I've had a few times I've been able to intro­duce this. I will forewarn members prior to the question period–and I'll give some description of the changes–but prior to the question period, because this is some­thing of an omnibus bill, where different–yes, lots of concern now about that word–but there are a variety of de­part­ments that bring forward these spelling mistakes or these minor corrections, and they are acts that are amended that aren't strictly under the Department of Justice. In fact, there are very few under the De­part­ment of Justice. So, if I don't always have complete knowledge of the acts–and members, don't be surprised by that–but I will, in com­mit­tee, try to provide answers to any questions that come.

      So, with those provisos and that explanation, here we go.

      There are a few different changes to the act. The Drivers and Vehicles Act is amended to address a small gap in a section relating to out-of-province vehicles. The current section requires owners of out-of-province vehicles to carry proof of financial respon­si­bility required by the act.

      However, there is no provision in the act that requires–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Goertzen: –owner­ship of out-of-province vehicles to maintain proof of financial respon­si­bility.

      The amend­ments clarify that owners of out-of-province vehicles are required to maintain proof of financial respon­si­bility in the amount and form set out in section 160 and 161 of The Highway Traffic Act.

      Under The Ombudsman Act, it is amended to provide the Ombudsman with the ability to delegate to the Deputy Ombudsman the power to make a report in the circum­stances where the Ombudsman is in a conflict of interest. A similar amend­ment is made to the child–The Advocate for Children and Youth Act.

      The Manitoba Hazardous Waste Manage­ment Cor­por­ation Act is amended to change the cor­por­ation's annual filing date–report-filing date–from three months to six months after the close of the fiscal year. This reflects the timing of when the corporation has infor­ma­tion from a third party that is necessary to be included in the report.

      The Prescription Drugs Cost Assist­ance Act is amended to add registered psychiatric nurses to the list of health-care pro­fes­sionals who are subject to the verification and inspection provisions in the statute. This is a con­se­quence of a class of registered psychiatric nurses having been given the author­ity to prescribe certain drugs in the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of Manitoba general regula­tion.

      Inspection provisions are also amended to refer to podiatrists. This corrects a missed con­se­quen­tial amend­ment from 2005–still cleaning up the NDP mess.

      The Resource Tourism Operators Act is amended to enable the minister to designate a member of the Resource Tourism Appeal Com­mit­tee as a vice-chair and specifies that the minister cannot appoint a core public servant to the com­mit­tee.

      The Family Support En­force­ment Act is amended to reflect the recent enactment of The Dis­abil­ity Support Act. It expands the definition of income assist­ance recipient to include an individual receiving dis­abil­ity support, shelter support or any other pay­ment or service under The Dis­abil­ity Support Act.

      The Reporting of Supports for Child Survivors of Sexual Assault Act (Trained Health Pro­fes­sionals and Evidence Collection Kits) is amended. This unproclaimed statue applies to regional health author­ities when the restructuring of the health system under the health system 'governernce' and account­ability act. These amend­ments are required to extend the reporting and con­sul­ta­tion require­ments to the prov­incial health author­ity, which provides treatment to child survivors of sexual assault, in parti­cular at the Health Sciences Centre.

      Part two of the bill consolidates into The Commemo­ra­tion of Days, Weeks and Months Act several commemorative days, weeks and months that were proclaimed in six separate statues in 2022. Since these commemorative statues will each be included in The Com­memo­ra­tion of Days, Weeks and Months Act as their own schedule, this part also repeals each of the separate statues. These amend­ments will en­sure that the public has a single location where they will be able to find each of the commemorative days, weeks and months proclaimed by the Legislature.

      And, finally, part three of the bill will amend two regula­tions and validate those amend­ments. The first is the Designation of Employees and Persons Deemed to be in the Civil Service Regula­tion. This is a retro­active amend­ment that is needed to ensure that a small number of long-time public servants will not be erroneously excluded from the pension fund because they were transferred to Shared Health Inc. prior to September 1st, 2019. The second is the School Divisions and Districts Esta­blish­ment Regula­tion. The amend­ments adjust the boundaries of nine school divisions to reflect the awards made since 2014 by the board of reference under The Public Schools Act, which is transferred land within–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Goertzen: –and outside school divisions.

* (16:10)

      This concludes my remarks, and I'd be pleased to fully discuss these at com­mit­tee.

Madam Speaker: I understand there are no questions to be asked on this bill.

Debate

Madam Speaker: The debate is open, however, if anybody wishes to speak in debate.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I thought the minister might read out every spelling error and grammatical mistake that was being corrected in this bill. And, you know, we may actually have ap­pre­ciated that because, you know, while this is truly minor amend­ments and corrections, these really are inconsequential, we know that this gov­ern­ment has a history, in the past, of bringing forward a BITSA bill, which is normally, you know, fairly straightforward enacting of the prov­incial budget, but they would often slip some­thing in there that impacted real people in our com­mu­nities.

      And, you know, when the minister pointed out that this is an omnibus bill, I thought, uh-oh, I better go back and re-read what was in here and maybe I would catch another cut, PC cut, that's come forward.

      But, you know, I haven't seen it yet although I'm keeping my eyes open because there are so many of these cuts and it really could be one stuck in the back of this bill. At this point, I don't see it. I do hope that if there are any concerns, they'll be brought to com­mit­tee, and we do expect this to move forward quickly.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is there any further debate on this motion?

      If not, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 12, The Minor Amend­ments and Corrections Act, 2023.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

Bill 22–The Emergency Measures Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: I will now call Bill 22, The Emergency Measures Amend­ment Act, the second reading of Bill 22.

Hon. Doyle Piwniuk (Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure): I move, seconded by the Minister of Munici­pal Relations (Mr. Smith), that Bill 22, The Emergency Measures Amend­ment Act, be now read a second time and referred to the com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Piwniuk: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to rise again to provide some comments on Bill 22, which will allow gov­ern­ment to better plan and respond to emergencies and disasters.

      These amend­ments are–stream­line that process gov­ern­ment–prov­incial gov­ern­ment's de­part­ments use to–prepared for emergencies and disasters. This is because Bill 22 will require all de­part­ments to prepare a continuity plan instead of emergency manage­ment program, which was required before.

      The continuity plan focuses on preserving the services that are delivered to Manitobans during any type of disaster compared to the emergency manage­ment program, which was specific plans for different types of emergencies.

      The continuity plan, known as the all-hazards plan, is flexible and adaptable, allowing de­part­ments to respond to any type of emergency, Madam Speaker. This change will allow de­part­ments to focus on their efforts to deliver key services; however, recog­nizing some of the de­part­ments for the more critical role of emergency planning and response than others.

      EMO will maintain the author­ity to direct de­part­ments to develop a detailed emergency manage­ment program if they feel is needed, Madam Speaker. These changes will also allow EMO, which will see its name changed to Manitoba emergency manage­ment organi­zations from previously the Manitoba Emergency Measures Organi­zation. This will be very con­sistent to other organi­zations across the country with other juris­dic­tions and will be more con­sistent. And as a result of this bill, to focus on extension, on esta­­blishing priorities and ex­pect­a­tions for emergency preparationess and responseness.

      This bill will also allow gov­ern­ments to designate busi­ness and organi­zations to define as critical service providers by groups or class as well as individuality. Without these amend­ments, critical services providers can only be designated individually, which is less efficient and increases the chance that a busi­ness or organi­zation may miss during designation.

      Along the classes of groups of busi­nesses or organ­i­zations or even sectors in–of the economy, to be designated as critical service providers will make the process of declaring critical service providers during an emergency and–more efficient and allow a more timely response, Madam Speaker. It will also mini­mize uncertainty as to what entities are considered critical services providers.

      This im­por­tant legis­lation will ensure that Manitoba is well-equipped to plan for and respond to emer­gencies and disasters in the future, Madam Speaker, and I am pleased to have the op­por­tun­ity to move this bill forward.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Questions

Madam Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any op­posi­tion or independent mem­ber in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties; subsequent questions asked by each independent member; remaining questions asked by any opposition members, and no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Ian Bushie (Keewatinook): I'd like to ask the minister, does this legis­lation come with any con­sul­ta­tion from com­mu­nities that were affected by natural disasters in previous years, for example, floods or wildfire?

Hon. Doyle Piwniuk (Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure): Well, I just want to let the member know from Keewatinook that, when it comes to this change of legis­lation here, it's basically for the de­part­ments of gov­ern­ment to continue their services during a disaster and emergency.

      When it comes to individual munici­palities, they–every­thing stays the same. They will all be–basically, preparedness, when it comes to a flood–and will be com­muni­cating with our staff or they come through our EMO staff for any kind of ongoing–when it comes to, say, the spring, with flooding happening, we will consult with our munici­palities just like we did before. Nothing changes there.

Mr. Bushie: So, the minister referenced munici­palities, but also highly affected com­mu­nities or northern com­mu­nities, in parti­cular First Nation com­mu­nities, when it comes to fire in parti­cular. I'm just wondering if the minister involved them in any discussions to change these parameters.

Mr. Piwniuk: Well, Madam Speaker, this legis­lation is just an amend­ment. It's to clean up the–when it comes to the legis­lation on the EMO. And the name change is the big one.

      But when it comes to de­part­ments, it's basically allowing the de­part­ments to continue doing their continuous service without any interruptions and making sure that they don't follow the same thing that a municipality or First Nation com­mu­nities have to follow.

      Our staff are always in contact with First Nation and municipalities when it comes to preparedness. We work with them, especially with First Nation com­mu­nities. We still work with the Indigenous Services Canada and we also work with Red Cross if it happens to be that there is an emergency evacuation for fires or flooding–

Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Bushie: I was wondering if the minister plans on using this legis­lation to act in an urgent manager for the potentially inevitable upcoming flood season.

Mr. Piwniuk: Yes, well, this–when there comes sort of passing this bill here, what's going to happen now is that our–again, the name is going to be changing.

      Our de­part­ments, when it comes to certain de­part­ments that are more active when it comes to a flood, let's say, of–let's say, last year or this coming year–say, Families. You know, when it comes to evacuations and housing with evacuees we want to make sure that hotels–it really affects the Families De­part­ment.

      But when it comes to Sport, Culture and Heritage, for instance, it's not being impacted by the flood, but we just want to show that, in gov­ern­ment, we–each of the de­part­ments will have a continuing of their ser­vices without any interruptions when it comes to a flooding situation or a forest fire.

Mr. Bushie: I'm wondering if the minister could give us an example of the cor­por­ations or organi­zations that will be designated as critical services under this piece of legis­lation?

Mr. Piwniuk: Well, some of the organi­zations that we've actually tendered before, when it comes to a tendering process, we may have to go to these companies to get–when it comes to engineering firms or if it comes to contractors, we go to them for emer­gency when it comes to having to fix a road in a flash flood.

      We have that op­por­tun­ity to use those same designated who are tendered when it comes to these companies that are actually–provided a tender process when it comes to a flood situation or a natural disaster.

Mr. Bushie: Madam Speaker, further to that, then, is there a–then going to be a pre-approved list of com­panies and organi­zations that will be allowed to tender on such events?

* (16:20)

Mr. Piwniuk: Well, Madam Speaker, when it comes to–way before any kind of flood, we always put it into a tender process that every company has an op­por­tun­ity to bid on that op­por­tun­ity to–would go to if we have a flood emergency.

      So, we do have a fair process when it comes to tendering.

Mr. Bushie: Yes, Madam Speaker, I'm wondering, with the gov­ern­ment proposing these modest changes now as opposed to earlier in the pandemic, why didn't they do it earlier on, when it would have had a larger impact?

Mr. Piwniuk: Well, Madam Speaker, when it comes to the pandemic, no one was–like, it was such a–some­thing that came so quickly.

      When it came to a pandemic, we–you know, you–when it comes to crisis, you learn from that situation, and there was no playbook when it came to a pan­demic. And this is where we are changing to make sure that government flows and continues to provide services.

      No matter what happens, what comes our way, we want to make sure–we learned so much from our floods in the past, we learned so much from our pandemic, and we'll–now, we are making sure that we change legis­lation and regula­tions to make sure that there's more of a continuous service from gov­ern­ment.

Mr. Bushie: I'm wondering if–with the designation of these organi­zations, if the minister feels it's sufficient enough to provide pro­tec­tions that need to be em­power­ed, sus­tain­able and resilient to the challenges of potential forthcoming–upcoming emergencies.

      And does the designation come with any specific support from the prov­incial gov­ern­ment?

Mr. Piwniuk: Well, Madam Speaker, you know, because of so many different floods from, you know, from 2011, '14 and '17 and '20, all these years, we have had floods. You know, I am so proud of my staff, who have been there last year to making sure that every­thing flowed so well.

      We've actually had the second worst flood in Manitoba history. And the thing is, we've hardly had any snags when it came to getting people to safety, getting DFAA programs paid out. You know, Madam Speaker, we do have a very good, efficient de­part­ment that gets things done.

      Thank you.

Madam Speaker: There any further questions?

Debate

Madam Speaker: If not, debate is open.

Mr. Ian Bushie (Keewatinook): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the op­por­tun­ity to put a few words on the record for Bill 22, The Emergency Measures Amendment Act.

      In some cases, it may be looked at as a–as house­keeping measures or just trying to tighten up various legis­lation or wording to change various descriptions of the organi­zation and the functions that it may have. But the reality of when–talk about emergency, there's nothing kind of simple and easy about it. And I think, here in Manitoba, we've seen that time and time again.

      And the sad thing is, especially under this PC gov­ern­ment, it's more like a reactionary approach to things. We need to be more proactive.

      So, we're talking about these changes, these amend­­ments and these em­power­ments of various organ­izations and juris­dic­tions but, at the same time, we're now doing that after a number of different emer­gencies, including a major flooding over the last couple years, major forest fires over the last couple years.

      So, it does beg the question, is, what took so long? What took so long to be able to do this? And it–this can't just be an–I'm hoping it's not just another kind of election year kind of–we're going to do this so we're–look like we're doing some­thing. Let's put some real action behind this.

      So, the question–the legitimate question in all this is, why didn't this take place sooner? And this is a piece of legis­lation that we're in support of, but we do have that question about why didn't this come sooner.

      Madam Speaker, the minister mentioned about munici­palities in–all over Manitoba, and the question I kind of bounced back to him about that, too, is also First Nations in northern Manitoba, because they were also affected.

      So, when we talk about natural disasters, there's not just one. We're not sitting here just talking about flood; we're not sitting here just talking about forest fires. There's a combination of both that encompasses our entire province, and so we need to be prepared in all ways that we do it.

      So, when gov­ern­ment says we're doing support–and it's about prov­incial and federal government say­ing we're doing enough to support. If that's the case, why do we still have displaced members from flood­ing, displaced members from forest fires, 'difsplaced' members from other natural disasters? If that's the case, we shouldn't have that situation, we shouldn't have people displaced after extended periods of time.

      And I'm not talking days or weeks or months, even; I'm talking years that people have been displaced from their homes and places that they lived and grew up and their parents and grandparents and their ancestors even lived.

      So, we have to have those discussions to exactly what happens the next time. When we talk about we've learned, we've learned from the past–not necessarily learned from our mistakes, but we learned how we need to kind of adjust and adapt to what we're going to do.

      So let's do things that are more proactive instead of reactive. Let's not sit here today–and I mean, that's why earlier today, we asked questions about the channel project, because that's an im­por­tant part. Hoping that it doesn't flood, hoping that it doesn't rain, hoping that we get either a slow melt, a quick melt, an easy melt, low–no rain, less snow; hoping for those kind of things is not a plan. So we need to be able to plan and implement for when those things arise, and when those emergencies arise.

      So, maybe we don't even look at them and–as emer­gencies anymore, because we're thoroughly prepared. And that's what we want to see in legis­lation. That's what we want to see gov­ern­ments do: prepare our com­mu­nities and–so everybody is ready. So we're ready to have that–and we don't use the word fight when it comes to floods and water; fight when it comes to fire and forests. We use–this is what we're doing: we're reacting to this in a positive way, for pro­tec­tion of all of us. Because that's the im­por­tant thing.

      And I know members opposite will thoroughly agree with that, that the safety and health of all Manitobans is our utmost priority. So that's–when we talk about Bill 22 and bringing forth minor changes and doing some em­power­ing to various organi­zations, that's why it's im­por­tant to do that. It's im­por­tant to be all-encompassing and really bring that forward and say, this is what this means. This really encompasses the best we can do.

      So, we're not coming forth later on and making amend­ments and changes to Bill 22, because it is enough on its face; and is it? That's the question that we're asking. We're asking that question. Does this really do that? Does this really empower, does this really prepare us for an emergency?

      And I don't know if this does. I really don't know. Because we've asked questions about–we need to talk to more people. We need to consult not just munici­palities, not just northern folks, not just First Nations, but all of Manitobans, because these disasters are happening on the norm. You've heard that term many times over the last couple years, the one-in-one-hundred-years flood, or the one-in-one-thousand-years flood, or forest fires, or dry season. But now it's becoming the norm. Now we're saying that's what's–some­thing that's happening year after year after year. So let's prepare for that. Let's get ready for that.

Mr. Dennis Smook, Acting Speaker, in the Chair

      So let's put a piece of legis­lation that truly en­compasses all that, and truly gets us prepared to go across and have every­thing in place. Because we're sitting here today north of where the water is right now, north of where there's a majority more snow now. I mean, we had a pretty decent melt here in Manitoba, pretty decent melt here in Winnipeg. But look what happened to us last week. You know, we, all of a sudden, had a massive dump of snow. It only lasted a day or so, but that water still was here.

      So we need to be prepared; if that becomes normal, what do we do? So, when I asked the minister about em­power­ing organi­zations and different parts of this legis­lation, and cor­por­ations and being able to do that, what does that mean? What does that mean on a real picture? When a true emergency happens, that we're not panicking, that we're not scrambling around and just kind of throwing money at the problem. That we, in fact, thought it through, and it's some­thing that's resolvable amongst all of us because we've all con­tri­bu­ted; we've all put our pieces in, and we've all been a part of the solution.

      And Manitobans at large know what's going on. Because there's been times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where Manitobans have not known what's going on in emergency, have not known what's going on with the rising waters in their backyard, have not known what's going on with the forest fire that all of a sudden cut off their power supply. So, we need to know. We need to have a com­pre­hen­sive system where we can inform all of Manitobans–and it links a lot of different de­part­ments. There's a lot of different things that come into play. We can talk about broadband and cell service, and those kind of things.

      Where I remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, sending messages to the people in Bloodvein and Poplar River, and all of a sudden, nothing. It just went blank. No messages were being delivered, no responses at all, because they were totally cut off. Not only that, this was 2 o'clock in the morning. So, totally cut off and in the dark.

      So we had to be prepared: what do we do there? So when we talk about Bill 22 and making changes to our emergency measures, we need to take all of that into con­sid­era­tion and really bring that forth in a whole­­some way and say, this is what we need to do; this is the strongest piece.

      So we don't have legis­lation that we're having to amend next year, or we're having to amend over a change of gov­ern­ment. That we can come to agree­ment on, say, this is the strongest piece of legis­lation we can do today, for us today.

      And yes, I'm sure there'll be changes when some­thing may arise in society overall. But when we talk about Mother Earth and what happens in our com­mu­nities with flood, with water, with fire, we can prepare for that, as well. There'll still be some things that maybe we're–not be totally prepared for. But for the most part, we can.

      So, as much as this may be a housekeeping measure kind of bill and an amend­ment act in terms of changing some terminology, it also talks about em­power­ing various organi­zations. So we need to know that those organi­zations truly have the best interests of all of us at heart, and they're truly prepared to do that. And we're not just doing it for whoever does it on the cheap, whoever's the cheapest place to go, whoever promises the best results. We need to know that those things can be delivered.

* (16:30)

      So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with those few words on the record here, I just wanted to say that this is a start. But, once again, with number of pieces of legis­lation, it still, I don't feel, is quite enough, so it still can be strengthened, but I look forward to being able to support the intent of what this does. Especially now that we're going into a potential flood season, and we really don't know what the outlook looks like; it changes on a daily basis, depending on the weather.

      And, I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker–and, I mean, we talk about–we visited from time to time on your area of Manitoba and kind of the changes that come–the water, the snow, the situation, the dryness of stuff. So that's all of us. That's not just the city of Winnipeg; that's rural, that's northern, that's southern and south­east, southwest of Manitoba. So we all know what this means for us and what this piece of legis­lation means for us.

      So it is more than just housekeeping. It is being able to thoroughly prepare us. And I don't know if it does it, but it is a start in the right direction.

      So with those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you.

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Yes, I mean, when it comes to emergency measures, in some ways this is sort of closing–as they say, closing the barn door once the horses have bolted.

      I just do want to briefly comment on the role of emergency measures, because it is floods, it is fires, but it is also supposed to be pandemics. And as far as I know, EMO was completely sidelined.

      Actually, emergency measures is supposed to be the lead in a pandemic, according to a docu­ment set out as a pandemic plan during and after the H1N1 pandemic, which was never used during the pan­demic. Emergency measures normally would be, as I say, the lead, but it was never clear through­out the pandemic who was in charge at all. We would some­times ask, who's actually respon­si­ble for making these sug­ges­tions, making these decisions? Is it political? Is it medical? Is it public health? Is it emergency measures?

      But if you look at what emergency measures was doing–normally, they'd be the ones who are in charge of all the logistics, because, with all due respect to public health, public health's job is public health. Emergency measures is usually the organi­zation that says, okay, well, we're going to book that building, and we're going to rent that building, and we're going to make sure that–we're going to gather all these volunteers and we're going to make sure that all these things are ready.

      And so now, we're reading that each gov­ern­ment de­part­ment has to prepare an emergency manage­ment program and that they have to develop continuity plans. Well, there were plans. This is what's even more distressing. There were plans that were written–they're on a Manitoba gov­ern­ment website–an entire plan for what should happen in the event of a pan­demic: What should Edu­ca­tion do? What should busi­ness do? And it was all ignored.

      So, we have to have a robust emergency measures system, because we don't. And we continually have emergencies in this province, some of which are natural, and some of which–or, like, all them–and some of which are climate change-related, some of which have happened for a long time.

      But we need a concrete–we needed a concrete proposal–or, a concrete system to make this happen and make sure that emergency measures was working properly, in­de­pen­dent of political control, 'in­de­plen­dent' of political con­sid­era­tions, and that didn't happen. That did not happen during the pandemic.

      And it's just as much of a problem when you look at issues. You know, we were–just yesterday, I was talking about Wasagamack First Nation, which had a colossal fire in 2017. They were evacuated under in­cred­ibly dangerous con­di­tions, but that's some­thing that's common; it happens all the time.

      But we have to–one of the things about disasters, you know, we accept that certain things are always going to be a problem, so we build systems that deal with them. We accept that there are always going to be issues of people who break the law, so we have the police and we have a justice system. We accept that people are always going to sick–be sick, so we have ambulances and EMS, and we have the hospital system, right?

      But there is–but we are not doing the same that we need to do–that is absolutely critical–when it comes to emergency services across Winnipeg and across Manitoba, because we haven't done a good job; we haven't done a good enough job of mitigating these dangers and these risks.

      And while this is a welcome bill–it is a welcome bill–to actually make sure that there'll be greater degree of pre­par­ation, that often, the hard part about it is that we have to be vigilant while not getting exhausted. But, as I recall, even when it comes to, again, pre­par­ations for how we would deal with a pandemic in–and look, I'm looking at right now; we have people on Zoom, we have people working remotely. That was some­thing we initially proposed in March 2020, before there was a single case in Manitoba, because we recog­nized that one of the things that has to happen is the province of–the Legislature has to keep working and that all sorts of other systems and de­part­ments need to keep–need to be able to keep working in event of a crisis.

      And, look, we are in a–and the other thing about it is that it's about being–emergency pre­par­ation is always going to be less efficient than anyone wants because to be safe in an emergency, you need redundancy, you need backups; you need two of every­thing–because otherwise, your entire system is too fragile–so that if one thing breaks down, you'll always have another thing to count on.

      But when you have years of austerity and cuts where you're not putting the money you need into com­muni­cations, into training, into making sure that the people are there, into early distant–distant early warning measures, into–whether it's detecting and surveilling infectious disease, fires, floods, making sure we actually have the measurements that were out there so that we can respond in time and dealing with it in a way that's timely, ap­pro­priate. Those are–these are enormous challenges, but it's–that's how we actually survive. Emergency measures are absolutely critical.

      And the one other thing–aspect of this is–was the lack of com­muni­cations, because I think part of the problem during the pandemic, again, was that people simply rejected that it was an emergency, because it wasn't the kind of emergency that people are used to. If you see a car crash on the highway, you know it's an emergency; you take it seriously. You see a flood and you see people in trouble, it's emergency. If you see forest fires, it's an emergency. But when you have a pandemic and it's invisible, it's not as obvious.

      And I think that's part of the problem people had, is that you don't see it. You don't–it's an invisible threat. And so people had trouble taking the–that emergency seriously and fought the idea that it really even was an emergency at all, and they sort of denied the seriousness of it.

      So there's an in­cred­ibly im­por­tant com­munica­tions aspect of this around emergencies and around making sure people understand how serious an emergency is, how people need to change their behaviour in an emergency and in order to keep people safe.

      So, this is, as some say, you know, a few days late and a few dollars short in terms of improving mea­sures to emergency organi­zation. We do need this bill, but we also need to make sure that we're putting money into all the training and all the reinforcements we need to make sure that emergency measures are actually sufficient in order to keep people safe across this province because it really is–you know, some­times we talk about the fact that we–when we work in this Chamber, we make decisions that are life-and-death situations.

      Emergency measures is one of those. It's some­thing we absolutely have to get right and that we have to put–make sure that we put all of our efforts into.

      So, with that, I'll sum up. Thank you very much. I ap­pre­ciate the time.

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): Are there any further speakers on this motion?

      Hearing no other speakers, is the House ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): The question before the House is second reading of Bill 22, The Emergency Measures Amend­ment Act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]

      I carry the–I declare the motion carried.

* * *

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, could you please canvass the House and see if it is the will of members to call it 5 p.m.?

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): Is it the will of members to call it 5 p.m.? [Agreed]

      The hour being 5 p.m., the House is adjourned and stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 p.m.


 

 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, April 13, 2023

CONTENTS


Vol. 41b

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Introduction of Bills

Bill 236–The Public Expression Protection Act

Lamont 1475

Ministerial Statements

Vaisakhi

Khan  1475

Brar 1476

Lamoureux  1476

Members' Statements

Ruth Ann Furgala

Johnson  1477

Turban Day

Brar 1477

Arts and Culture Funding for La Vérendrye

Smook  1478

St. Vital Constituent Concerns

Moses 1478

Foster Parents

Lamoureux  1479

Oral Questions

Agricultural Crown Land Leasing

Kinew   1479

Stefanson  1479

Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin

Kinew   1480

Stefanson  1480

Lake Manitoba-Lake St. Martin Outlet Channel

Bushie  1481

Piwniuk  1481

Increase in Tuberculosis Rates

Asagwara  1482

Gordon  1482

Premier of Manitoba

Sala  1483

Cullen  1483

Northern Health-Care System

Lindsey  1484

Gordon  1484

Treaty Rights and Natural Resource Revenues

Lamont 1485

Wharton  1486

Condition of Manitoba Roads

Gerrard  1486

A. Smith  1486

Housing Programs for Seniors

Wishart 1486

Johnston  1487

Construction Industry Apprentices

Marcelino  1487

Guillemard  1487

Reyes 1488

Matter of Privilege

Khan  1488

Kinew   1489

Gerrard  1490

Petitions

Provincial Road 224

Lathlin  1490

Security System Incentive Program

Maloway  1491

Punjabi Bilingual Programs in Public Schools

Altomare  1491

Asagwara  1492

Learning Disability Supports

Gerrard  1492

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(Continued)

GOVERNMENT business

Second Readings

Bill 8–The Off-Road Trails Safety and Maintenance Act

Nesbitt 1493

Questions

Lindsey  1494

Nesbitt 1494

Gerrard  1494

Debate

Lindsey  1497

Gerrard  1499

Bill 15–The Court of King's Bench Amendment Act

Goertzen  1499

Debate

Wiebe  1500

Lamoureux  1500

Bill 19–The Provincial Offences Amendment Act

Goertzen  1501

Questions

Wiebe  1501

Goertzen  1501

Lamoureux  1501

Debate

Wiebe  1502

Lamoureux  1504

Bill 12–The Minor Amendments and Corrections Act, 2023

Goertzen  1504

Debate

Wiebe  1506

Bill 22–The Emergency Measures Amendment Act

Piwniuk  1506

Questions

Bushie  1507

Piwniuk  1507

Debate

Bushie  1508

Lamont 1510