LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, May 9, 2023


The House met at 10 a.m.

Deputy Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): It is my duty to inform the House that the Speaker is unavoidably absent. Therefore, in accordance with the statues, I would ask the Assist­ant Deputy Speaker to please take the Chair.  

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of our people. Amen.

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

      Please be seated.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Speaker's Statement

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): I have a statement for the House. I am advising the House that Madam Speaker received a letter from the Gov­ern­ment House Leader (Mr. Goertzen) and the member for River Heights, indicating that his–that the member for River Heights has identified Bill 238, The Personal Care Home Account­ability Act (Various Acts Amended), as his selected bill for this session.

      As a reminder to the House, rule 25 permits each in­de­pen­dent member to select one private member's bill per session to proceed to a second reading vote, and requires the Gov­ern­ment House Leader and the member to provide written notice as to the date and time of the debate and the vote.

      In accordance with this rule and the letter, Bill 238 will be called for debate this morning as follows: debate on second reading will begin at 10  a.m., questions put to the–put on the second reading motion at 10:55 a.m.

      Accordingly, I will now recog­nize the hon­our­able member for River Heights to move his second reading motion to begin this debate.

Second Readings–Public Bills

Bill 238–The Personal Care Home Accountability Act
(Various Acts Amended)

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the MLA for Tyndall Park that Bill 238, The Personal Care Home Account­ability Act (Various Acts Amended); Le loi sur la responsabilisation des foyers des soins personnels (modification de diverses lois), be now read a second time, and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 238 provides for the esta­blish­ment and the operation of family councils in personal-care homes. While family councils have been attempted to be set up in some personal-care homes, there's not a legis­lated framework for them. This bill provides for the councils and sets up sufficient parameters to ensure that personal-care homes will set up councils, and that's–and that such councils can be an im­por­tant bridge between residents and operators of personal-care homes in order to im­prove the quality of care in these homes.

      We learned from the ex­per­ience during COVID‑19 that we need to make im­prove­ments in personal-care homes. Our seniors who have con­tri­bu­ted in a major way to the quality of life that we ex­per­ience today are precious people. They need to be able to spend the last years of their lives in a high quality of life, in dignity and in a loving environ­ment. Our elders deserve no less.

      During the many years that I have served as the MLA for River Heights, I've seen numer­ous issues that have arisen in personal-care homes. As an example, there has been and still is a tendency to be too quick to use anti-psychotic drugs.

      A number of years ago, when I was visiting in Portage la Prairie, there were many issues at Lions Prairie Manor. After I raised these concerns, which were brought to me by family members, there was an in­vesti­gation conducted by the Pro­tec­tion for Persons in Care Office. The Pro­tec­tion for Persons in Care Office found 12 cases of mistreatment. It should be noted that this was a facility which was a public facility operated by Southern Health.

      During the COVID‑19 pandemic, we all saw terrible tragedies in personal-care homes in Manitoba. A COVID‑19 outbreak at the 'mers'–Maples Long Term Care Home in Winnipeg occurred in the fall of 2020: 74 staff and 157 residents tested positive for COVID‑19 and there were 56 deaths linked to that outbreak. And there were many more deaths and problems in other personal-care homes, which were revealed also during the pandemic.

      Con­di­tions at the Maples Long Term Care Home were a disaster. In part because the prov­incial gov­ern­ment failed to heed the warnings that Liberal MLAs had provided five months previously before the 'outbake' of COVID in the Maples Personal Care Home. Liberals had noted that at outbreaks in other juris­dic­tions, there was an almost imme­diate loss of many staff who were either infected or had to be quarantined because there were close contacts of those who were infected.

      Liberals had called in May of that year for the province to have a rapid response team well-trained and ready for this. The gov­ern­ment failed to put in place the rapid response team until after the disastrous outbreak was raging in full force. Fifty‑six lives were lost because inadequate pre­par­ations were not made.

* (10:10)

      Today, we are talking about im­por­tant changes so that family members can form a family council and provide input to the operator and the staff at the personal-care home. There are several reasons why such a family council is really im­por­tant.

      One of these is that, for a number of reasons, resident councils are not sufficiently effective. Some or many residents in a personal-care home may have a degree of dementia. Some or many residents in the personal-care home may feel intimidated by staff and be reluctant to speak up. Some may have dif­fi­cul­ty in speaking up because their native language is not English or French or because of a stroke or other debilitating condition.

      Family members and/or close friends of residents of a personal-care home often spend long hours in the home, spending time with and caring for their loved ones who are residents of the home. They are frequently very good and close observers of what is happening and, as such, can provide highly know­ledgeable advice to the operators and staff of the personal-care home.

      But–and this is the rub–in order to provide such advice, there needs to be a more formal process, and that is why this legis­lation to enable and facilitate the formation of family councils and their operation is so im­por­tant.

      This legis­lation provides for the esta­blish­ment of family councils, which will facilitate com­muni­cation between family members and the operator of the personal-care home. They will also provide a venue where family concerns can be discussed and brought forward.

      I mentioned earlier that it's possible to try to set up a family council now, but the process is not adequate. I give you an example. A number of con­cerns arose at the Extendicare Oakview Place. A group of family members got together informally, sort of like a family council. They did their best to com­muni­cate their concerns with the operator and the staff of the personal-care homes, but the process was not nearly as effective as it could have been with a formal process and an esta­blished family council.

      If there had been a family council set up ahead of time, indeed, the problems might have been prevented or at least been caught before they rose to the extent that they did. If there had been a formal family council, they could achieve–have achieved much more to help the residents.

      It is the ex­per­ience at Extendicare Oakview Place which led directly to bringing forward this bill. It is my ex­per­ience personally that talking with family members of personal-care home residents over many years that tells me that family councils are badly needed. Family councils can be very effective, in par­ti­cular in improving the quality of care for residents of personal-care homes.

      And that is why we need this legis­lation, and that is why I hope that all MLAs will support this bill to be passed in second reading today, and go to com­mit­tee for the next stage.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Merci, miigwech.

Questions

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): A question period of up to 10 minutes will be held, and questions may be addressed in the following sequence: the first question may be asked by a member from another party; any subsequent questions must follow a rotation between parties; each independent member may ask one question. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): This proposed legis­lation would esta­blish the role of family councils.

      Can the member opposite speak how family is defined within this proposed legis­lation?

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes.

      It is the intent to have this defined broadly, and that is–that it is my ex­per­ience that it is often not just a wife or a husband who is there; it is very often a daughter or a son or a granddaughter or a grandson. Sometimes it is a parent.

      Occasionally, if you have somebody who is in a personal-care home because they have had stroke when they're very young, it could even be an aunt or an uncle–

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): The member's time has expired.

MLA Uzoma Asagwara (Union Station): I'm just wondering, with that question in mind regarding how is family defined: Can the member provide clarity in  regards to what the options there might be for someone living in a personal-care home who maybe doesn't have any blood-related family living the city or the province or a location that would allow them to partici­pate?

      So, the definition of family–is it broad enough to include those who aren't biologically linked to personal-care home residents?

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

      The bill very spe­cific­ally allows for the inclusion of one or more repre­sen­tatives of personal-care home residents. And so, that repre­sen­tative could be a friend, it could be whoever the personal–the resident chooses. And, indeed, it could be more than one person.

      So the legis­lation is permissive. It is meant to be friendly to those who care for their loved ones in the personal-care home and not to be exclusive.

Mr. Shannon Martin (McPhillips): I thank my colleague for intro­ducing this legis­lation this morning.

      When we're talking about family councils, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm wondering if the member can share any other juris­dic­tions Canada that this is modelled after and, more im­por­tant, their impact, positively and negatively as to where we can go with this legis­lation in terms of supporting it?

Mr. Gerrard: Yes, Ontario's Fixing Long-Term Care Act in 2021 sets out provisions to allow every long-term care home to esta­blish a family council. So, that's Ontario.

      Alberta's resident and 'famiry' councils act in 2018 supports the esta­blish­ment of resident and family councils. And, to be noted, that this allows the partici­pation of residents.

      BC's Com­mu­nity Care and Assisted Living Act, 2002, sets out the right for residents to be represented by a family council and the ex­per­ience, to the extent that I'm aware of it, has been positive.

MLA Asagwara: Can the member provide any in­sight as to whether or not he thinks that the PC gov­ern­ment's failure to meet their own commit­ment of esta­blish­ing 1,200 ad­di­tional personal-care-home beds has had any impact on the state of personal‑care homes across Manitoba?

      We know that, in fact, there's been a net loss of approximately 216 personal-care-home beds, despite this gov­ern­ment's commit­ment in 2016 to make the–to add 1,200 ad­di­tional personal-care-home beds.

      So, can the member provide his thoughts on whether or not this failure to meet their own standards and actually have a net loss of these beds has had an impact on personal-care homes in Manitoba?

Mr. Gerrard: Yes, the stresses on personal-care homes over a number of years clearly show that the family council is badly needed.

      And it really doesn't depend on the size or the number of homes, it depends on the fact that each home should have an operating family council, and this can be very beneficial at times when there are stresses in a home, then families partici­pate in a myriad of ways. And it can be very, very helpful.

      And that's another reason why this family council is so im­por­tant.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I'd like to thank my colleague for River Heights for bringing forward this really im­por­tant piece of legis­lation, and just for all of the work he has done to help seniors in our province, here in Manitoba.

* (10:20)

      My question for the member is: Could he speak a little bit to how a family council would not only help the residents who are living in long-term-care homes, but it's also a grounds and a means for friends and families who may have loved ones in long-term-care homes? Could he speak a little bit to that?

Mr. Gerrard: We've seen, over the last number of years, how im­por­tant it is through­out the health system to have people who are advocates for those who are vul­ner­able; in this case, those who are residents. And in this case, having family or friends being able to advocate them is extraordinarily im­por­tant. And it's a benefit, not just to the residents and the families, it's a benefit to the operator of the home, because they can bring forward issues which will make the operation of the home better and smoother.

      And so, really, it's a no‑brainer; whichever way you look at it, we need to do this.

MLA Asagwara: Can the member provide a bit of his thoughts on how the concerns that would be brought forward by this council would be actioned? So, what is the relationship between the council and the personal-care home and the–I guess the protocols or the mechanisms that would be in place in order for the concerns or ideas that would be brought forward by such council to actually be actioned upon?

      So, I'm just curious to know, you know, what resources are needed in order to support that? Is it more resources from gov­ern­ment or what exactly needs to be in place?

Mr. Gerrard: This family council includes the pres­ence of one or more repre­sen­tatives of the operator of the personal-care home. It improves provisions that the personal-care-home operator must provide specific, helpful infor­ma­tion to members of the family council.

      But it provides, most of all, an op­por­tun­ity for dialogue. And I think that that's where this really can be most useful; that the operator of the personal-care home can learn a tre­men­dous amount, in my ex­per­ience, from talking with family members, and that there are in­cred­ible op­por­tun­ities for im­prove­ment.

      And of course, if an operator is not fulfilling their promise–

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): The hon­our­able member's time has expired.

Mr. Lagassé: Can the member explain by making these reports of abuse and neglect publicly available, how will this impact the personal safety and right to privacy for the residents and the family impacted by the neglect or abuse?

Mr. Gerrard: The infor­ma­tion that is collected and provided is aggregate infor­ma­tion. It's not releasing personal infor­ma­tion about individual residents.

      I want to finish up what I said earlier on. If an operator is not working sub­stan­tially with the council, then the family members can come to their MLA, like the MLA for Notre Dame, and their MLA can bring forward the issues in a venue like this.

      Thank you.

MLA Asagwara: So, I ap­pre­ciate the member provi­ding the responses he has so far. He's provided a good amount of detail in his answers, and I'm wondering about the reports that would be made public. You know, it can be very distressing for families to read reports of that nature online, and I'm wondering if he can provide some clarity around what the descriptions would be–what they look like online.

      So, what would the criteria be in terms of what infor­ma­tion is disseminated and made public? How would the PHIA rights of residents be protected, and also, how do we ensure that people reading that infor­ma­tion have the supports–

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): The member's time has expired.

Mr. Gerrard: The kind of infor­ma­tion which is provided online is infor­ma­tion which is helpful to families. In my ex­per­ience, for example, even with the very distressing report of the Maples Personal Care Home, that family members were actually very pleased that the problems were brought out into the open so they could be discussed and then resolved.

      And the ex­pect­a­tion here is that provi­ding what is really a fairly minimum amount of infor­ma­tion can con­sid­erably improve the ability of families to advocate for residents and to improve con­di­tions.

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): Time for questions has now expired.

Debate

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): The floor is open for debate.

Mr. Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): I'd like to thank the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) for bringing forward Bill 238, The Personal Care Home Account­ability Act. I'm thankful to be in a riding that supports our seniors.

      In Dawson Trail, we have two seniors service groups: Seine River senior services for seniors and Taché Senior Resources. Both these groups work to ensure our seniors have the resources and supports they need. And I am grateful for the wonderful work they do.

      But I'd also be remiss to not mention the Villa Youville and the fantastic work that they do. They've got a very unique setting there in Ste. Anne, where they've got from the P‑C‑H‑N all the way to assisted living, as well as in­de­pen­dent living. And I find that this family model that the member for River Heights is talking about is really kind of mag­nified in that facility. Because if you have someone in the PCH and they're married and they can still live in the in­de­pen­dent living, they're under the one roof so they can come back and forth.

      As a son, a brother and a father, I understand the importance of having family that is involved in my life, and me in theirs. And family that is able to stand up and advocate for one another. We all have a duty to ensure our seniors are taken care of. We have a duty to support all Manitobans in their aging journeys. Not only do we need to support our seniors but also their families and their caregivers along the way.

      Who better is there to advocate and deter­mine the best care for our seniors than family that has been there from day one? Our parents, our grandparents, our aunts and uncles: they are the ones who have installed the values that we have in us today. We have an obligation to them to also make sure that their values, their needs are being met in every way possible.

      Our gov­ern­ment has always known that our aging popu­la­tion is of the utmost importance and we have 'tremendence'–tre­men­dous amount of respect for them. After every­thing they have con­tri­bu­ted to our way of life, raising their families and building our com­mu­nities and what they continue to contribute to Manitoba, we know they deserve the best.

      Our goal–the goal of our Manitoba gov­ern­ment–is to support the health and well-being of our seniors and their loved ones. Manitoba seniors deserve to have the respect and dignity of the in­de­pen­dent and em­power­ed lives. And for the first time ever, our gov­ern­ment has put a minister in charge of our seniors. A minister that was put forward–that has put forward a seniors strategy to focus and invest in the well-being of seniors in our province. Our minister's consulting with seniors and those who work with and care for and love them to make sure they have the best interests at heart. If that doesn't show our Manitoba gov­ern­ment's dedi­cation to supporting our aging popu­la­tion the way they want, I don't know if anything will.

      All of us need and want different things. And that is why bringing initiatives to ensure our seniors have what they want and need is im­por­tant. New initiatives that ensure older adults can age in their com­mu­nities and their homes as long as they choose will enhance their quality of life.

      Our 'govermain' made historic invest­ments in Budget 2023. The De­part­ment of Seniors and Long-Term Care increased the initiatives by over 72 per cent. What was $54 million is now $92 million. And that is in­cred­ible.

      Together, we're making Manitoba a great place to age. Our gov­ern­ment has committed over $45 million in funding to support the imple­men­ta­tion of the 17 recom­men­dations of the Stevenson review. The recom­men­dations will help strengthen the care pro­vided in all of Manitoba personal-care homes and will make a difference for families, staff and residents.

      The Stevenson review high­lighted the need for improving staffing levels and our gov­ern­ment–sorry, and our gov­ern­ment isn't listening. There was an increase of $13.8 million that is being provided in 2023, 2024 in response to the Stevenson review, to implement staff and emergency preparedness tech­no­lo­gy im­prove­ments in personal-care homes all across Manitoba.

* (10:30)

      This $13.8 million encompasses targeted funding for the following initiatives steaming from the Stevenson review. Esta­blish­ing an infection pre­ven­tion and control program to better prepare for any disease outbreaks. Increased allied 'heas'–allied health staffing within PCHs, including occupational ther­apists, physio­thera­pists, rehab aides, dieticians, social workers and recreational therapists.

      Increased housing–housekeeping staff, which will include health-care aides, registered nurses, licensed prac­tical nurses; enhanced infor­ma­tion and com­muni­cation capabilities, to better manage human resources, staffing issues before they become critical; enhancing Internet access for personal-care homes in rural and northern locations; and increased emer­gency manage­ment staffing.

      I must say that some of the stories that I–come forward regarding the lack of care for seniors across our nation is an absolute tragedy. That is why I'm so honoured to be part of a gov­ern­ment and to work alongside my colleagues who whole­heartedly care for the elderly in Manitoba, and work tirelessly to ensure that everyone has what they need when they need it.

      The health and well-being of Manitobans is our top priority as we move forward and heal Manitoba after going through a pandemic. Again, we'd like to thank the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) for bringing forward Bill 238, The Personal Care Home Account­ability Act.

MLA Uzoma Asagwara (Union Station): I'm always grateful to put a few words on the record in regards to health care in Manitoba, and this is a parti­cularly im­por­tant issue, as it is speaking, you know, directly to the needs of seniors in our province. Dis­propor­tion­ately, seniors are not the only people who live in personal-care homes, but they are the majority of folks who reside in long-term care and personal-care homes, and so I'll be speaking to this bill through that lens, Acting Deputy Speaker.

      I'd like to thank our colleague, the MLA for River Heights, for bringing this bill forward. You know, he's already put words on the record that outline sort of where his perspective is coming from, and amplifying the voices of families that he's been in com­muni­cation with, and I really respect that. I think that it's really im­por­tant that when we bring any legis­lation forward, that we ensure that we're centering the voices and the lived experiences of those who are most impacted by a legis­lation, and so I want to thank him for making the effort to bring this bill forward.

      You know, here in Manitoba, since 2016, we have seen the current gov­ern­ment not take the necessary steps to ensure that long-term care, personal-care homes across our province are adequately resourced. We saw, you know, funding to personal-care homes cut pre-pandemic. We saw aspects of health-care, that we know seniors really depend on being there for them and having strong infra­structure, be cut and undermined by this gov­ern­ment.

      One basic example would be cuts that were made to in‑patient physio­therapy and occupational therapy in hospitals. A cut that would see many seniors–to date, we know, you know, well over 1,000 folks, but many seniors not be able to get the physiotherapy and occupational therapy they needed in hospital, post-hip and knee surgeries. Which, I think, the general public understands the implications of that, but certainly if you'd taken any time to do a little bit of reading in this area, you understand that, when seniors undergo surgeries of that magnitude, of that sig­ni­fi­cance, you know, the recovery process within the first 24 to 72  hours post‑op is in­cred­ibly im­por­tant. And not having in that first 24 to 72, extending to about a week or two, not having occupational and physio­therapy available really impacted negatively the out­comes for these seniors.

      And so, we see that folks, you know, in personal-care homes and in long-term care who depend on those homes being adequately resourced, we see the folks who depend on our health-care system in areas like orthopedic surgery being adequately resourced, we see that unfor­tunately, due to this gov­ern­ment's cuts and mis­manage­ment of our health-care system, how it's negatively impacted seniors in Manitoba, and, ultimately, negatively impacted the health out­comes of seniors in Manitoba.

      And I mentioned pre-pandemic decision making because we saw, during the COVID‑19 pandemic, what happens when a gov­ern­ment cuts health care to the bone: you create a health-care system that cannot respond to the acute needs of its citizens. And we saw that personal-care homes in Manitoba, which had been underfunded and cut by this gov­ern­ment–we saw that personal-care homes who relied on staff who, under this gov­ern­ment, had had their wages frozen for quite some time; we saw personal-care homes where allied health-care pro­fes­sionals were denied a contract by this gov­ern­ment; we saw them unable to react or even act proactively and respond to the COVID‑19 pandemic.

And as a result, there were catastrophic out­comes. This is a gov­ern­ment that has been resistant to provi­ding infor­ma­tion to Manitobans–basic infor­ma­tion that Manitobans depend on to know how to better support their loved ones in personal-care homes.

      It should be stated on the record as a reminder to this House–especially con­sid­ering this bill is talking about publishing reports online and being trans­par­ent, that's really what it's talking about–that the only reason why Manitobans were made aware of what was going on at Maples Personal Care Home where 56 residents died during the pandemic, was because a paramedic posted what they witnessed when they were called to respond to Maples Personal Care Home on Reddit.

      A local paramedic responded to a call from Maples Personal Care Home and described night­marish circum­stances and posted it on Reddit because they knew that that might be the only way the gov­ern­ment would pay attention. That is an in­cred­ibly shameful moment in Manitoba's history, where the only way a gov­ern­ment would respond to dozens of residents dying in a personal-care home was due to a social media post from a first responder.

      It's in­cred­ibly shameful because this gov­ern­ment had actually been asked for help before that point and had not responded. And time and time again, that is what we see from this gov­ern­ment: people reaching out for help, pleading for help, asking their gov­ern­ment to do what a gov­ern­ment is supposed to do and this gov­ern­ment closing the door on those folks who are pleading for their assist­ance.

      And in the case of Maples Personal Care Home, the out­comes were devastating. And rightly so, many Manitoba families have mobilized for the sake of other families not having to go through what they endured, to see changes happen in our health-care system in regards to long-term care and personal-care homes.

      I know that the gov­ern­ment will say things like, well, you know what? We've got the Stevenson report and we're acting on that and that's good enough. But we also know that the Stevenson report is inherently flawed, that probably one of the most im­por­tant, if not the most im­por­tant question posed to this gov­ern­ment, posed in regards to that report was, who is respon­si­ble?

      Who is respon­si­ble for the devastation we saw at Maples, at Parkview Place, in long-term-care homes across Manitoba? And that is the one question that report not only failed to answer but avoided answering entirely, in­ten­tionally. And so that report is inherently flawed because there's actually no account­ability at the heart of it.

* (10:40)

      And I've said this before in the House, that in order for anyone, parti­cularly a gov­ern­ment, to move forward in a better way, in a way that improves our health-care system, you've got to be dealing with a gov­ern­ment that's accountable.

      And this is a gov­ern­ment, this PC gov­ern­ment, first under Brian Pallister, now under the Stefanson gov­ern­ment, that has done every­thing they possibly can to avoid account­ability. They'll blame anybody and everybody else before looking in their political mirrors and saying, you know what? We have to be the ones to fix the mistakes and the chaos we've created.

      And so, I certainly understand the desire to create new mechanisms for account­ability, for trans­par­ency, because those are the areas this gov­ern­ment continues to fail and refuses to invest in. We still have in­adequate staffing across personal care homes in Manitoba.

      Allied health-care pro­fes­sionals still don't have a deal in Manitoba, which is mitigating our ability to retain and recruit allied health-care pro­fes­sionals to personal care homes. We still are losing nurses from our health-care system in droves, right now, because of the mistreatment by this gov­ern­ment.

      Long-term‑care homes still do not have the support that they deserve from this gov­ern­ment. And seniors across Manitoba are well aware of that. And they will remember that in the coming months as we head to the polls.

      So, I thank the member for bringing this forward, and I want to make it very clear that this gov­ern­ment has failed seniors. They've failed personal-care home staff who love their jobs and want personal-care homes to be stronger in Manitoba. And the fact that we have a net loss of personal-care home beds in Manitoba, despite their promise, is a disgrace.

      Thank you.

Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield-Ritchot): Always a pleasure to get up and speak to im­por­tant legis­lation. I'd like to thank the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) for the work that he has put into this. I have served for many years with the member from River Heights and–great respect for him and the work that he does.

      In case the Chamber doesn't know, he was one of  the most pre‑eminent pedriatic oncologists this province ever had and did amazing work. And so I'd like to focus my attention to this legis­lation in dealing with family councils at personal-care homes.

      I look around the Chamber and I say to each and every member here, there's only a matter of time which separates us from perhaps needing these services. So, we want to be very mindful of what hap­pens. We probably have loved ones in them, whether it's grandparents or parents or aging aunts and uncles, or relatives of some kind, friends.

      And so, they're very im­por­tant. They're im­por­tant to what we do here as society; taking care of our aged. It's im­por­tant. These are men and women who have done amazing amount of work for us, for our city and for our province and our country. We want to make sure that they're well taken care of.

      One of the things, for those who go and visit personal-care homes, is often they are faced with an amazing amount of loneliness. The days tend to be long. They don't really get visitors; their families are busy. They–sometimes families choose not to visit them.

      So, it's im­por­tant that we have a family council. We have individuals who will give input into what it's like to be a family member of a resident. And I'm sure the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) did some con­sul­ta­tion at the personal-care homes to see how they were going to be viewing these additions to their–to the personal-care home. And, in fact, when this someday gets to a com­mit­tee, we will then be able to hear what personal-care homes have to say about it.

      But again, it's a very sensitive and very serious issue, because I, myself, personally have been and visited a lot of loved ones and individuals that I care for greatly, in personal-care homes. And you can't leave without being touched by how beautiful these people are and how much they absolutely love–love–to have someone visit.

      In fact, my children's great aunt, who came here from Russia, was in a personal-care home, the personal-care home right by Concordia Hospital. And I remember taking the kids to visit her, if not once a week, certainly once every 10 days, and she just loved it. She loved when family came and visited, and we would speak with the care providers.

      Anyway, the kids were out visiting family at the lake, so I went and I visited Tante Lydia, and the personal-care-home attendants came to myself as one of the family and suggested that maybe end-of-life protocols should be engaged, that she was slipping very quickly. And she was basically coming in and out of consciousness.

      But I went and I visited with her in her room, and very softly she said to me, where are the kids? I said, well, I'm here. And she said, where are the kids? I said, well, you know what, they're not going to be back until Monday or Tuesday, but I'll bring them in as soon as they come back from the lake. And I explained it to her and talked to her, and she said, okay. And she said, you know, do you think you could get me some coffee?

      And I got her some warm coffee, and we sat and I served her coffee, and it was a very special moment. Until the kids came back from the lake, she perked up and started eating, and was waiting for the kids to come. So, kids came back from the lake, and I took them to see Tante Lydia, and we went in, and we visited and she just beamed. Just glowed. And had a wonderful time, and the kids still sang her a couple of songs which she really loved.

      And, oh, she was just delighted, delightful. Just beaming. And just loved the fact the kids came, and hugged and kissed them before they left, and she was so happy. And, two days later, she passed away. She just lived to see them one more time.

      Families are im­por­tant. Im­por­tant to have them engaged and involved, and this is im­por­tant that we always stand there for those who walk the path to make our cities and our province and our country better than when they got here, and we hope some day we have the same care.

      And we certainly support this legis­lation.

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): Are there any further speakers to this bill?

      Seeing no further question–or speakers, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): The question before the House is second reading of Bill 238, The Personal Care Home Account­ability Act (Various Acts Amended).

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

      All those in favour of the motion, please say aye. They said–okay. I haven't heard any noes. The motion is accordingly passed.

      The hour being–oh.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Could you please canvass the House and see if it's the will of members to call it 11 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): Is it the will of the members to call it 11 a.m.? [Agreed]

Debate on Resolutions

Res. 9–Calling on the Federal Gov­ern­ment to Absorb the Cost of Increased RCMP Salaries

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): We will now move on to private members' reso­lu­tions. The hour being 10:49, this–we will end at 11:49, just to let every–give everybody notice that we will be done at 11:49.

      The private member's reso­lu­tion before us today is resumption of debate on reso­lu­tion No. 9, Calling on the Federal Gov­ern­ment to Absorb the Cost of Increased RCMP Salaries, standing in the name of the member from Burrows, who has 10 minutes remain­ing.

* (10:50)

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): It's an honour to rise in the House today and speak to this private member's reso­lu­tion.

      The burden of this expense is huge, and our munici­palities, they need help, no doubt about it. And we all know that our munici­palities are not in a good financial state for years. This reso­lu­tion brought for­ward by the member from Dauphin, if we take a look on the wording, it clearly tells us–I would actually request the munici­pal leaders to take a look on the detailed wording of this PMR.

      It clearly tells that this gov­ern­ment is not actually in favour of getting funding from the feds. Neither they have funded munici­palities well for the last seven years.

      So, we all know that when we ask for help, we should ask in a way that makes somebody help us. What if I come to you and say, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, that I don't like you; would you buy me a coffee? How does that sound? I will not get a coffee from you.

      What if I go to somebody for help and I say, I hate your policies; please give me some money. No, we're not getting any help.

      This reso­lu­tion, the way it's worded, it's more about condemning the federal gov­ern­ment and official opposition than asking for money or asking for help for our munici­palities. It's very clear. And if this gov­ern­ment really intends to help our munici­palities, why didn't they help munici­palities for the last seven years?

      The reso­lu­tion sounds to me like the PC gov­ern­ment saying to the feds, hey, can you do some­thing that we didn't do? Can you please fund our munici­palities because we didn't do so? So, if funding muni­cipalities is the right thing to do, this PC gov­ern­ment should have done this earlier. This gov­ern­ment is simply following Brian Pallister's cuts-and-closure policy. And it's visible from their decisions. The new Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) also followed the same policy; nothing changed.

      And when we talk about this RCMP retroactive salary, these costs are owed back to 2017. That's why it's $45 million that munici­palities are supposed to take care of if they don't get any support from anywhere. What would the munici­palities do? They would either cut some services to save money or they would increase tax or they would do the both. And that, too, at a time when Manitobans are undergoing so much stress due to the grocery prices hike, fuel prices hike and fertilizer prices hike.

      If this gov­ern­ment is really, really serious about getting some money, or they want to speak in support of the munici­palities, why didn't they stand up and speak in favour of the munici­palities? This PMR is on the floor, I think, for the third time. I didn't see them stand up and speak in support of munici­palities.

      So, munici­pal leaders should know their in­ten­tions. And I don't know if the Premier already reached out to the Prime Minister to ask for help. I don't know.

      So, nobody is stopping the Premier or the Cabinet ministers to reach out to the federal gov­ern­ment, write to them and ask for support. So, I understand this–that this reso­lu­tion is purposely drafted in a partisan style so that they–that this reso­lu­tion does not go anywhere, because attacking op­posi­tion seems more im­por­tant to the PCs than helping munici­palities.

      And we all know that they cut so many services. They cut–in 2017, they cut 50‑50 transit funding that impacted Winnipeg worth millions of dollars, and Brandon hundreds of thousands of dollars. They also cut infra­structure funds by millions of dollars. And they don't like to spend money. They underspent budgeted infra­structure in four years to the tune of $1 billion.

      So, if a–if money is budgeted for a purpose, what's the reason for not spending it?

      And then they downloaded this respon­si­bility of snow clearing to the munici­palities. Was that a way of helping munici­palities or punishing them for the great work they're doing?

      And during the COVID times, the former minister respon­si­ble for munici­palities wrote a letter to munici­palities pushing for layoffs and cut wages. So, this is the record of this gov­ern­ment.

      And they refused ad­di­tional funding for slow–snow clearing to Winnipeg when it was harsh winter. And the city had to pay $33.1 million accumulated from snow clearing.

      So, their policy is not to help munici­palities, to starve the de­part­ments, to cut services. I want to remind Manitobans about Bill 37, which is an effort to centralize decision making. So, land-use decisions transfer to the minister and Munici­pal Board. So, whatever the munici­palities decide, the gov­ern­ment would have power to change that decision forever. So, that's like silencing the local voices. And affected munici­palities have opposed this legis­lation.

      When this PC gov­ern­ment talks about crime, let's see their record on crime. Under their watch, in 2019, Winnipeg had 44 homicides. And that is double than 2018 numbers. That was under their watch: 2020 numbers, 43; 2021 numbers, 43 again. So, this is their record.

      So, I would like to say that munici­palities, they do need help. But we need a gov­ern­ment that really understands and that really wishes and takes action to support munici­palities. We would continue to advo­cate for invest­ments in services that address the root causes of crime, such as health care, edu­ca­tion, mental health and addiction services and recreation op­por­tun­ities, so that com­mu­nities can be safer long-term.

* (11:00)

      And we would call on the Province to construct a new healing lodge in Dauphin that–

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): The member's time has expired.

Mr. Mark Wasyliw (Fort Garry): Thank you, Mr.–[interjection] I'll take it. Thank you, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker.

      You know, when I was looking through the Stefanson gov­ern­ment motion that we're debating this morning, I thought back to my child­hood: 1970s, watching TV, and there was a show on TV which was the No. 1 show, probably, in North America. It was called Happy Days.

      And this thing had been going on for years at the No. 1 spot, and over­night, it just fell off. And what had happened in the episode that they traced back to its demise was the main character was wearing a leather jacket on water skis, literally jumping over a shark.

      It was so ridiculous, so implausible that this much-beloved TV show absolutely collapsed in the ratings. And, of course, it became a cultural phenom­enon, and today we actually refer to shows that are past their best-before date as jumping the shark.

      And when I look at this reso­lu­tion, this is very much the political equivalent of jumping the shark. This is not a serious reso­lu­tion; this is not a serious gov­ern­ment. We do not have a serious Justice Minister. You know, when you look at this, it's so–it even is internally ridiculous and contradictory.

      So, in the first part of the purpose or the preamble of this, the Stefanson gov­ern­ment is critical of the federal Liberal gov­ern­ment for, I quote, huge in­creases in salary for members of the RCMP. And then, in the exact same motion, says that the federal Liberals are defunding the police.

      Well, how is it? Are they massively putting, you know, more resources into policing or are they defunding? Well, this gov­ern­ment doesn't know and quite frankly, they don't care. Because if anybody is defunding the police around here, it's this Stefanson gov­ern­ment, right?

      Because we know that they have the power to fix this situation. They have, with the stroke of a pen–this minister–if he was serious, and I'm not saying he is–he could go back to his office and fix this right now. And the question for this body is, why is this unserious Minister of Justice (Mr. Goertzen) refusing to do the job the taxpayers pay him?

      He certainly isn't asking himself to be defunded. And why isn't he going back to his office right now and solving this problem and fixing it? Well, because they're not interested in public safety, and we've seen that for seven years.

      In seven years, we've gone from a relatively safe province to one where people live in our bus shelters. We have gone from having a mental health system that was no model by any means, but it certainly wasn't on the verge of collapse and, of course, is collapsing now.

      And there is a direct line between the policies of this gov­ern­ment and Manitobans being less safe. We have seen not only the cuts to health care, not only the cuts to edu­ca­tion, but we've seen the cuts to affordable housing. We've seen cuts to mental health supports and we've seen cuts to social services, rent assist, EIA, the list goes on and on and on. And this gov­ern­ment, which is extreme–I think they only rivalled by their friends in Alberta in their ideological extremity–they don't believe that Manitobans have an obligation to take care of one another.

      They believe that everybody is on their own and, to them, investing in Manitobans is an expense; it's a waste.

      And they don't want to do it, because they need money to send the Galen Westons of the world hun­dreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax­payers' money. And, you know, and if you're a party that's built on a foundation of greed, then that's your focus; that's what you're all about, right?

      But what happens to Manitobans when you don't support them, when you don't help them and–when they're vul­ner­able in their need? Well, they become des­per­ate. And what do des­per­ate people do? Well, they try to survive and they survive the best they can, and often in ways that make us all less safe.

      So, this minister could prove that he's actually serious and could get on–back to his office, sign the papers and clear up this funding problem right now, today. And so, ask yourself why he's not in a rush to do that, and why he would rather chase after these political ghosts of these defunders that only exists in his fever dreams, and wants to blame the federal gov­ern­ment for a problem that they can solve. And has, you know–that's the other part about this: your grand­father's PC Party believed in personal respon­si­bility; the new Stefanson gov­ern­ment believes in anything but.

      It's all about avoiding respon­si­bility, it's always about deflecting and blaming others for the problems you created. So, apparently, this gov­ern­ment could fix the funding issue with the RCMP, but won't. But they're going to blame the federal gov­ern­ment.

      But what is this gov­ern­ment even doing to advo­cate on behalf of Manitobans? We've seen time and time again that the federal gov­ern­ment has been dumping bags of money on their desk, and offering to dump more, but there's always a catch. There's a catch that they–that this Stefanson gov­ern­ment would have to partici­pate in programs that would actually assist people. And because they don't believe in that, they won't actually take that federal funding and they won't put it to work in Manitoba.

      You know, hopefully in a few months, with a change of gov­ern­ment, Manitobans will see what it's  like to have a gov­ern­ment in place that puts Manitobans first, that wants to take whatever re­sources are available, whether they're from the federal gov­ern­ment or not, and invest them back into Manitoba, because we believe that we're only as strong as a com­mu­nity as our most vul­ner­able people.

      And to judge a province and the success of a gov­ern­ment, you have to look at the vul­ner­able people in that com­mu­nity and how they are treated. And when we look at Manitobans and look at what happened in the last seven years, we can see the absolute sheer contempt this gov­ern­ment has for them and how little they think of Manitobans–especially those that can't write $5,000 cheques to the PC Party of Manitoba–that they will not invest in them, they will not stand with them and, in fact, they will blame them for their own problems, and they will blame others for their own problems, and they will sit on their hands and do nothing.

      And again, why? Because the Galen Westons of the world are calling. Apparently, they need another yacht, and this gov­ern­ment wants to serve that up for them.  

      So, let's also look at some of the other–you know, if we had a serious Justice Minister–right now, we have a crisis in our Crown prosecutions where we have a huge vacancy rate. Crown attorneys can cross the border into Saskatchewan, Alberta and get a $50,000 pay raise instantly.

      And they're leaving in droves. The ones remain­ing are just buried in workload. I'm hearing stories from Crown attorneys that come back to court and they're sitting in their office, they're breaking down and just crying. They're so frustrating, they're so over­whelmed, there's no supports. And after they collect them­selves, they go on the Internet and look for–they look for new jobs.

      And they're getting them, because this gov­ern­ment hasn't bargained fairly with Crown attorneys, and they still don't have a contract after a year. And this gov­ern­ment doesn't want to pay RCMP officers, because they have no respect for them, and they don't want to pay Crown attorneys, because they have no respect for them.

      So, who's the defunders in this scenarios? It's the Stefanson gov­ern­ment. Because if this Stefanson gov­ernment was serious about protecting Manitobans, they would take care of front-line workers. They wouldn't make them argue and fight with this gov­ern­ment for cost-of-living increases for over a year. They would be able to keep a court open in northern Manitoba. 

* (11:10)

      And let's talk about that: this gov­ern­ment privatized gov­ern­ment air services that used to fly into  these–had reliable trans­por­tation into these courts. What did they do? They gave it to PC donors and friends, the Exchange Income Cor­por­ation, who Gary Filmon, former PC premier, is making two, three hundred thousand dollars a year as a board member for this cor­por­ation.

      And now we have unstable court services and we can't hold court up in the North because this gov­ern­ment's only rationale for existing is to pay off their donors and their party favourites.

      So, I have lots more to say, but very little time.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Nello Altomare (Transcona): I just want to–sorry; clear my throat. There is a lot to say on this PMR. I find it in­cred­ibly im­por­tant to talk about this issue because of the very im­por­tant words put on the record by my colleague, the member for Burrows (Mr. Brar), and my colleague, the member for Fort Garry (Mr. Wasyliw).

      We began this debate a number of weeks ago, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, and it's an im­por­tant one. The people of Transcona have entrusted me to represent them in this Chamber. It's an in­cred­ible com­mu­nity, one that is in­cred­ibly sup­port­ive, not only of the people that work in gov­ern­ment, but also of the people that keep us safe.

      I was reminded of that this weekend as we, on the Transcona Trail on Saturday, unveiled a memorial to a former student of mine, Jordyn Reimer, who was tragically taken from us by a drunk driver earlier this year, on the corner of Kildare and Bond. In­cred­ibly, we saw a hundred people–hundreds of people out, Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, supporting this family.

      On the path is a beautiful bench was unveiled in her honour. A lot of tears were shed, and a lot of com­mu­nity bonding took place. Later that same afternoon, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, we saw some more of that com­mu­nity spirit in the L'Arche walk that took place in support of com­mu­nity living.

      Like I said earlier, it's an honour to stand in this House and represent the constituents of Transcona, because they send me here to talk about im­por­tant issues and to support what we believe as a com­mu­nity is im­por­tant in Manitoba.

      You'll find, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, too, that recently we had–I had a former teacher of mine just recently pass away. I believe his service is tonight. I just want to put on the record that Karl Gradt was a teacher at John Gunn Junior High in the '70s when I was there as a student and was in­cred­ibly influential.

      But on to the matters at hand.

      The PMR, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, Calling on the Federal Gov­ern­ment to Absorb the Cost of Increased RCMP Salaries. You know, I find it in­cred­ibly interesting that during a time of record federal transfer payments to this gov­ern­ment, record Hydro revenue to this gov­ern­ment, record income tax revenue to this gov­ern­ment, we are actually having to debate this PMR.

      I would wish that this gov­ern­ment would spend the energy on actually partnering with the federal gov­ern­ment and having a true dialogue on how to cover these increased costs, instead of transferring them down to munici­palities.

      This is at a time–also, what I find in­cred­ibly interesting, Deputy Speaker, and some­what troubling, is this gov­ern­ment is borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to send out rebate cheques to people that don't need them. We had that outlined yesterday in question period. We've talked about this for weeks. Where are the priorities? Are their priorities with their munici­pal partners, or are their priorities so misguided that they have to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to send out rebate cheques?

      I find it in­cred­ibly troubling, as the member for Transcona, repre­sen­ting my con­stit­uents, that I have to explain why a gov­ern­ment is borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars in a time of record reve­nues from the outlying three pieces that I talked about earlier–record federal transfer payments, record income tax revenue and record revenue from Manitoba Hydro–that we're doing and having these priorities that don't reflect, really with the priorities of Manitobans. What they want is, they want–just like the member from Fort Garry pointed out earlier, so eloquently, is a real partner in the prov­incial gov­ern­ment with the munici­palities to provide im­por­tant services such as policing. I can't believe that this isn't a priority where they would seriously partner with the federal gov­ern­ment to solve this issue.  

      Instead, we continually see a government that kicks the can down the road to the point now where we're at 23  per  cent increased costs for policing downloaded to munici­palities, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker.

      How can that happen when we have all of this revenue coming into this province of ours? Talks about setting priorities–sorry, my voice is a little scratchy this morning. I thank you for your indul­gence, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker.

      Again, this is in­cred­ibly troubling, because sup­ports to munici­palities were frozen. It's well docu­mented that they closed the Dauphin jail. It's also well documented that they cut funding to the Justice De­part­ment for years. And then they bring forward this PMR, calling on the federal gov­ern­ment instead of taking respon­si­bility.

      This is one thing, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, that we always talk about in schools: it's taking respon­si­bility for your actions. But they can't do that. If they were to take responsibility for their actions, they would have to own all of their decisions. That's the piece that they are reluctant to do. Decisions that munici­palities have had to absorb the costs for.

      This is a gov­ern­ment that doesn't want to truly partner with munici­palities. The AMM is on record saying that their lack of support has led them to make these many impossible decisions of what to cut next, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker.

      You know, I mean, that's–this sounds familiar, because it's also the same thing that school divisions have to deal with, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker. Years of underfunding, years of unpredictable funding that have led school divisions and munici­palities to make impossible decisions of what to cut next, what service do they curtail on next.

      Is it snow clearing? Do we not go down that service road that needs to have the snow cleared on a regular basis to ensure that emergency services can actually reach the homes when they need them? Like policing, RCMP, fire, all of those im­por­tant pieces that munici­palities are respon­si­ble for and demand a true partner in the prov­incial gov­ern­ment. This is what's missing.

      So then, all of a sudden, when it comes to crunch time, they wash their hands, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, and leave munici­palities on their own. And then we have to debate this PMR, a PMR that didn't need to come if they had a true partner in the prov­incial gov­ern­ment that has seen record revenue.

      That truly outlines what I believe is their­–is the way that they do not itemize real priorities of Manitobans. I began–when I began speaking a few minutes ago, about how much of a privilege this is to  be in here. Just imagine, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, if you're given a privilege of gov­ern­ment, of the respon­si­bilities that you have to every citizen in this province. It is an awesome respon­si­bility, one that cannot be taken likely.

      They want a gov­ern­ment that brings forth PMRs such as this that are serious, that really reflect the values and the priorities of the citizens of this province. Instead, we're debating this piece here that wants–that has a gov­ern­ment completely abdicating their respon­si­bility to munici­palities and, by exten­sion, to its citizens.

* (11:20)

      I find that in­cred­ible, but here we are. Here we are debating this parti­cular piece. And what we have are many, many needs in our munici­palities. I mean, we can outline them. They were–they've been outlined this past week.

      We have, of course, the need, because of climate change, around proper transit systems. We have nothing. We have cuts to munici­palities that resulted in cuts to transit. We have the third largest metro­politan area in this province, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, that doesn't have a transit system. It's called Steinbach, Manitoba. They don't even have that. Munici­pality can't provide it because they don't have enough funding.

      So, as I began nine minutes and 40 seconds ago repre­sen­ting here–standing, repre­sen­ting the people of Transcona, we remain disappointed in the priorities set by this gov­ern­ment and we'll hold them to account at election time.

      Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): I'd like to, you know, commend some of the words I've heard today with respect to this reso­lu­tion. It's im­por­tant that we're taking the time to debate this today because it's part of our jobs as MLAs, here, to debate the issues that are really critically im­por­tant to Manitobans.

      And certainly, com­mu­nity safety is im­por­tant to Manitobans. You know, obviously, I think health care is probably No. 1 priority for a lot of Manitobans, top of mind. But it's undoubtedly, com­mu­nity safety is an issue.

      But the problem with this reso­lu­tion as has been pointed out by my colleagues, the member from Transcona, the member for Fort Garry (Mr. Wasyliw), the member for Burrows (Mr. Brar), who have said it so eloquently today, this bill really isn't about com­mu­nity safety. It's not a serious reso­lu­tion that we're debating today.

      It wasn't written in a serious tone. It wasn't crafted to be actually effective in delivering its message about com­mu­nity safety. In fact, it has a bit of com­mu­nity safety, but is such a thick, heavy layer of partisanship and political nature that it's hard to really discern what steps in here would actually deliver safer com­mu­nities to Manitobans.

      And so, you know, I have the utmost respect for  law en­force­ment, especially those in Manitoba: RCMP and the Winnipeg Police Service. It's a tough job. And I think we're grateful for the work that they do. I've myself had the opportunity to go on a ride-along with Winnipeg Police Service and see what it's like for them and get a small snippet of the everyday work that they put in to–in our com­mu­nities. And I value that.

      And it's from those experiences that I can say that con­ver­sa­tions with law en­force­ment, they've told me that as much as they value the work that they do in our com­mu­nity, and it's valued, they know they can't do every­thing. They know that they can't do every­thing to help protect and keep com­mu­nities safe. That they need ad­di­tional supports. They need supports from people to help with social services in our community.

      And unfortunately, those very services have been cut by this PC gov­ern­ment–those services to deliver mental health supports to those who need it the most. When people are in crisis, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, when they're going through a life crisis, a mental health crisis, and they need to get supports, they want to get it from someone who is parti­cularly trained and specialized to deliver that type of crisis support.

      It's not always going to be the best fit for a police officer to deliver that right type of support for that individual in that parti­cular case. And so, if we don't fund one, we're putting an unburdened stress on that officer who should be doing other, really im­por­tant work in our com­mu­nities.

      And that's not just a disservice to the individual who's going through a crisis, who needs a gov­ern­ment to support them in the right way, it's a disservice to the police officer who's now being asked and tasked with the–doing a job that is not necessarily their expertise.

      And so we want to get, in my view, get policing to a role where they're doing a job that is best suited to them and put resources into specialists, like mental health specialists, like addictions specialists in our com­mu­nities who can help people and help them where they're at, help com­mu­nity members where they're at. And that's a difficult thing to do.

      But, you know, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, if the gov­ern­ment was really serious about this bill, they would have at least mentioned that in this reso­lu­tion. They would have put it in some of the words here. And, you know, I'd like to read the words here, but it's not even worth reading. It's such an unserious written reso­lu­tion that it's not worth repeating here.

      It's sufficient to say that the gov­ern­ment doesn't take this issue seriously, given the text that's written in this reso­lu­tion. By the fact that they have ignored some of the critical issues of addressing com­mu­nity safety. They haven't even mentioned how they're going to tackle mental health and addiction issues, or the homelessness challenges, or issues–tackle issues like poverty in our com­mu­nity.

      And we know all of these issues and root‑cause trauma are some of the issues that people deal with when they're interacting with law en­force­ment and leads to crime in our com­mu­nities.

      And it's sad to say that, you know, the gov­ern­ment is putting forward this sort of reso­lu­tion that's calling on the federal gov­ern­ment when, quite frankly, the minister could call. The minister here could call his federal counterpart and make this ask, if he really wanted to. He doesn't need this reso­lu­tion to do that.

      The Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) could call the fed­eral counterpart and make this call that they're asking. They don't need this reso­lu­tion here. This reso­lu­tion is shrouded in political–in a political nature and in a partisan language and it has no bearing in the fact that the minister could make the call.

      And I know the opposite side has–had such frac­tured relationships with folks over the past number of years. We know the former premier, Brian Pallister, had such a fractured relationship with the former mayor. We know, right now today, there's a fractured relationship between this Premier, the Health Minister and health-care workers. We know that this gov­ern­ment has fractured–frankly, fractured relationships and the PC gov­ern­ment go hand in hand. It's like peanut butter and jelly; they just stick together–fractured relationships. So, I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Minister, that if the minister called his federal counter­point, he may not even pick up the phone because of that fractured relationship.

      Maybe that's why he's brought this here today: because that relationship is so fractured that he wouldn't even pick up the phone for the prov­incial minister. Perhaps that's why he's brought this forward. Because he hasn't had the relationship.

      But you know, he could also send an email, if he can't pick up the phone. He could send an email to make a call for funding for RCMP. But he apparently hasn't or can't and he's brought this forward today, this reso­lu­tion that's wrapped and shrouded in partisan, political language.

      And I think that, you know, that says quite a lot about the nature of this PC gov­ern­ment, that they would rather play partisan and political games than do the work that would actually help com­mu­nities in Manitoba.

      And com­mu­nities in Manitoba are going to know this. They're going to remember this. They're going to remember this time when this gov­ern­ment had a choice between doing two things: (1) helping com­mu­nities and standing up for them, investing in com­mu­nity safety, investing in the lives of Manitobans; or play political and partisan games and have us debate a ridiculous reso­lu­tion in the House here for no other benefit than of Manitobans, I might add.

      Which one did they choose? They chose to play political and partisan games instead of helping the lives of regular Manitobans.

      So, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, I think it's im­por­tant that I talk about–before I get a chance to–before I conclude my remarks, I want to talk about some­thing very im­por­tant. I want to talk about some­thing very im­por­tant when it comes to dealing with the notion of this reso­lu­tion. The fact that we haven't–this gov­ern­ment for years has re­peat­edly made life more difficult for munici­palities to address com­mu­nity safety.

      So, not only is this bill wrapped in political and partisan language, not only does it fail to address key issues to keeping com­mu­nity safety, like addressing mental health and addiction issues and poverty and dealing with trauma, it actually is a slap in the face because this gov­ern­ment has frozen munici­pal fund­ing for years. They have frozen municipal funding, which has made it more difficult for munici­palities to fund RCMP each and every year of this gov­ern­ment's tenure.

* (11:30)

      And so, in fact, with the rising inflation that we've seen over the past many years, at this gov­ern­ment's choice, their decision, their conscious effort to freeze munici­pal funding, who in fact has defunded the police? I think it's clearly this PC gov­ern­ment.

      And so for them to now, at this point, just months away from an election, to bring this forward, when in fact they have (a) underfunded munici­palities and thus underfunded RCMP; when they have (b) simply ig­nored the core issues of keeping com­mu­nities safe; and when–(c) when given the choice between doing the right thing and helping Manitobans who are in need and actually instead bring forward a reso­lu­tion that is wrapped in political and partisan language, this gov­ern­ment has failed on all three levels.

      And Manitobans are going to remember this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They're going to remember this not only today, not only tomorrow, not on Thursday, but–

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): The member's time has expired.

      Before I recog­nize the next speaker, I'd–it was getting a little loud in here from both sides. I'd ask everybody to please, please keep the noise level down. Members, please keep the noise level down. And for the speakers to please try to remain relevant to the reso­lu­tion here that we're discussing today.

      Thank you very much and I would expect that things should change in here for the next 20 minutes.

Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): I just want to continue on from the rest of the speakers this morning, and really, you know, hammer down that this gov­ern­ment is not doing their part in terms of supporting RCMP and the munici­palities that are actually, you know, underfunded year after year from this gov­ern­ment.

      They've given them basket funding and said, oh, here, you go do what you want with it, and if you mismanage your money because you can't do every­thing that needs to be done, that's your fault. But it's actually on this gov­ern­ment, because they are underfunding 23 per cent–23 per cent–and they don't want to take respon­si­bility for that.

      Now they're bringing a reso­lu­tion forward. And like the–my colleague said, the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) can just pick up the phone. She can call the Prime Minister, she can call the Justice Minister, she can have a con­ver­sa­tion and they can discuss how they can both, you know, come to the table and make sure the munici­palities aren't having to raise taxes.

      We're in an inflation crisis in this province. People are struggling. People who, you know, were able to put money away in the bank are no longer able to do that, and this gov­ern­ment is going to force munici­palities because they have no relationship, or very little relationship with any of their partners, because they've continued to not come to the table in a good way.

      You know, we saw that with Pallister: picking fights with the mayor, picking fights with the Prime Minister. We see that carry on with the Stefanson gov­ern­ment. You know, we can have a good relationship with our munici­palities and with our Winnipeg Police, our RCMP. I've worked extensively with the RCMP, actually, have a good relationship with them.

      They talk about the resources that they need to support those that are struggling. And my colleagues outline that: mental health, addictions, you know, domestic violence. They need social workers. They're not able to hire those. They need a liaison worker when someone goes missing or is murdered to come in and help support that family.

      The Winnipeg Police, thankfully, have been able to do that, through Victim Services, but the RCMP aren't able to do that because of the underfunding from this gov­ern­ment. They're trying to shirk their respon­si­bility onto the federal gov­ern­ment and not come to the table with their fair share.

      We look at all of the cuts that this government has created. This, you know, level of crime that we see in Manitoba, it's due to their cuts; it's due to the social services cuts that they have created. You look at the housing. You only have to drive past one social housing to see that they're boarded up. We're in a housing crisis. And does this gov­ern­ment bother to fix up the existing housing that we have?

      You know, Acting Deputy Speaker, what they're trying to do is they're trying to shirk the responsibility, just like they're trying to do with the federal gov­ern­ment, to agencies, to say to agencies, here, you take over the social housing, we'll give it to you. Because they don't want to be landlords. They don't want to have the responsibility of fixing up social housing and ensuring those folks that are outside–you walk out this Manitoba Legislature, there's people sleeping in bus shacks. People sleeping in bus shacks. That's not dignity for folks.

      And it's a respon­si­bility of this gov­ern­ment, and its these cuts that they've made, and they don't want to come to the table to help with policing. And policing are saying we need funding from this gov­ern­ment. RCMP need funding from prov­incial gov­ern­ment and they're trying to say, well, it's all on the federal gov­ern­ment.

      Well, come to the table and talk to the federal gov­ern­ment. They don't need to bring a reso­lu­tion like this forward. If they had a relationship and they had a part­ner­ship, they would come to the table and figure it out. Because Manitobans are going to know, if their taxes go up, who is actually respon­si­ble for that. And that's going to be this PC gov­ern­ment because they are forcing munici­palities to raise taxes which is going to force, you know, Manitobans to make tough deci­sions.

      Now, whether that's taking out of their rainy day fund because they have to pay higher taxes because RCMP, you know, have increased 23 per cent and the money has to come from somewhere. And munici­palities are going to be forced to put that onto Manitobans. And that's not fair to Manitobans.

      Families are struggling to put money away for edu­ca­tion. And we have a gov­ern­ment here that underfunds edu­ca­tion. I look at Selkirk Avenue. That was supposed to be a bustling hub for edu­ca­tion. Very little folks from the North End inner city are actually attending school there. It's actually folks from other areas that are coming to attend classes there. That was created to help lift people out of poverty.

      This gov­ern­ment, through their austerity, through their cuts to social pro­gram­ming, through their cuts to social work, has created, you know, this increase in crime that we see here in the city. And I want to talk a little bit about the North End because you know, the North End is a lot like the North–

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): I would ask the member to please be a little bit more relevant to the reso­lu­tion here, if she could bring it back, please.

Mrs. Smith: When I'm talking about policing, I'm referencing the Winnipeg Police to the RCMP and the–what's happening here in the city and actually what's happening in, like, Thompson or The Pas, you know, some of these areas that have the same issues as the Winnipeg Police.

      I'm talking to RCMP, and RCMP are saying that they don't have the resources to support. They're seeing an increase in addictions, which we're seeing here in the city. They don't have addiction support workers. They don't have access to be able to hire them.

      They have–you know, they can barely pay their staff that they have. And this gov­ern­ment continues to underfund munici­palities and the RCMP. And it's helping, you know, to create this increase in crime that we see.

      So, I want to go back to some of the root causes of why we need more policing in, you know, the rural areas and why they're asking for more funding. Their salaries have–increased, 2017, under this gov­ern­ment. They've not had a raise. Now a 23 per cent increase. Where is that going to come from?

      They're trying to say to the federal gov­ern­ment that it's all of their respon­si­bility, but Acting Deputy Speaker, it's a respon­si­bility of both gov­ern­ments. And this gov­ern­ment should come to the table in good faith. They should ensure that it isn't shirked onto the taxpayers, that they're not having to pay increased taxes while this gov­ern­ment continues to increase hydro rates for Manitobans, they continue to increase rent rates here in Manitoba.

* (11:40)

      And Manitobans are struggling already, so if you put that on top of, you know, what they're having to pay for their taxes, because they have to pay for the increase in RCMP salaries, Manitobans are not–they're not going to have the wool pulled over their eyes by this gov­ern­ment. They're going to know exactly why their taxes are increasing: because the RCMP salaries are increasing, because they failed to come to the table to pay their fair share and want to blame it on the federal gov­ern­ment when they also have a respon­si­bility.

      So, we're, you know, we're coming to an election, and, you know, this gov­ern­ment is making a lot of an­nounce­ments, empty an­nounce­ments, that, you know, are far and few too late. We have people who are struggling with poverty, we have people who are struggling with mental health, we have people that are dying of addictions in this province.

      This gov­ern­ment is not addressing any of that. They're putting it onto policing. RCMP are struggling. They've had meetings. This gov­ern­ment knows what the struggles are. And they've asked for this gov­ern­ment to help support them in making sure that, you know, they're not responding to mental health calls, that there's a social worker that's coming there to do that.

      If someone's in addiction crisis, that they're not being, you know, held up at that–well, maybe some­one is being domestically abused. You know, there's a violent act happening, but they're, you know, here helping someone that is struggling with addictions, that an addiction support worker can actually come there and do that work.

      When we look at the housing crisis, you know, often you see the RCMP responding to someone who is sleeping in a bus shelter. Should it be the RCMP? RCMP are saying, no, it shouldn't be–that they would assist if needed, if someone is violent. But they want to see more supports within the RCMP to be able to have social workers respond to those types of things.

      So I want to say to this gov­ern­ment that, you know, an election is coming. Manitobans know who they can count on–

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): The member's time has expired.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I'm very pleased to speak to this PMR today, Calling on the Federal Gov­ern­ment to Absorb the Cost of Increased RCMP Salaries.

      You–reading this reso­lu­tion, you wouldn't really think that there was increased revenue coming to Manitoba. I mean, we have record reve­nues. It's un­likely that it's going to continue into the future given the prospect of possibly a reception–recession coming up. And I could understand that if this gov­ern­ment was running huge deficits, was short of revenue, federal transfers were down, that they could make this argument, that the munici­palities should pay the bills and the federal gov­ern­ment should pay the bills.

      But that's not what is going on here. This is all part of an election strategy to build wedges–you know, and I understand why they're doing it. They're not only doing it here, they've got this friendly Saskatchewan group that's running attack ads. Which, by the way, they'd better check those ads, because they could end up paying out a fair amount of money in a lawsuit very soon on that.

      And I mean, and the answer is pretty–it's a pretty straight­for­ward case, too, I will tell you. But they obviously are not paying much attention. Yes, they're just accepting that facts are facts, but they're not facts. They're not real. They were not real in 2008, 15 years ago, and they're not real now.

      But there was an audit in the meantime that said of all 57 MLAs in the Legislature, over a two-year period, they audited every expense. And there was not a problem with any one of them. So this is a case that wouldn't even end up going to trial. It'll be settled out of court, right?

      And so, I would caution them to be careful–

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): Order.

      If the member could please bring it back into the scope of the reso­lu­tion before us. It needs to be relevant to what we're discussing here.

Mr. Maloway: I consider that very relevant to what is going on with this reso­lu­tion. I mean, it's all part of the same picture to try to draw wedges just before an election. You know, once again, we have record reve­nues. And what are they doing with the record reve­nues? They could be taking care of this issue or helping to take care of this issue with the federal gov­ern­ment. But no, they don't want to do that. They want to try to buy as many votes as they can by sending rebate cheques out. Okay, there's rebate cheques.

      There's all sorts of different programs they have right now that they didn't have before. You know, they waited for all these years, didn't come out with any of these programs until just before the election. Well, I think the average voter–and I, you know, I talk to a lot of average voters, quite–and I can tell you that they see through this. They say, yes, they're happy to get their cheques, but they're certainly not voting for the PCs. Because they remember how they balanced the budget in the first place.

      You know, it's not that hard to do, just on infra­structure alone. All you have to do is put all the projects on hold, or most of them on hold. And when you do that, you don't spend the money. That's as simple as that. You just simply underspend your budget. And that's basically what they've done. And that's just one area, in infra­structure.

      When you take a look at health care, you see the same issues of cuts through­out the system. And that is how they end up with a balanced budget. Well, the public know that. The public understand first‑hand what is going on with their services, when the health care's not there anymore, when the infra­structure isn't being replaced and all of a sudden, they're getting cheques in the mail. And they're wondering what is all this about?

      And so, the–you know, they think that somehow this is going to benefit in the long run, but I can assure you that this–there's lots of evidence that show that this parti­cular strategy of theirs is not going to work. And the fact of the matter is that, you know, I think we should just get into the election.

       I mean, you want to have an election? Let's have an election, you know? Why do we have to keep torturing ourselves, you know, day after day, dealing with these issues when all what–we know what this is all about. There's no secrets here. We know this is all about an election coming up.

      And, you know, it depends on what level you're prepared to go to get the results you want. But if you have to go and throw things off to Saskatchewan and the federal PCs–anyway, I will continue this con­ver­sa­tion later.

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

      Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): The question before the House is calling–reso­lu­tion No. 9, Calling on the Federal Gov­ern­ment to Absorb the Cost of Increased RCMP Salaries.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to accept–to adopt this reso­lu­tion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): I hear a no.

Voice Vote

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): All those in favour, please say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): In my opinion, the Ayes have it.

      I declare this motion carried.

* * *

The Acting Speaker (Dennis Smook): And the hour being 12 o'clock, this House is recessed and stands recessed until 1:30 p.m. today.



LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, May 9, 2023

CONTENTS


Vol. 51a

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Speaker's Statement

Smook  2101

Second Readings–Public Bills

Bill 238–The Personal Care Home Accountability Act (Various Acts Amended)

Gerrard  2101

Questions

Lagassé  2103

Gerrard  2103

Asagwara  2103

Martin  2103

Lamoureux  2104

Debate

Lagassé  2105

Asagwara  2106

Schuler 2107

Debate on Resolutions

Res. 9–Calling on the Federal Government to Absorb the Cost of Increased RCMP Salaries

Brar 2109

Wasyliw   2110

Altomare  2112

Moses 2113

B. Smith  2115

Maloway  2117