LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, May 10, 2023


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

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

      We acknowledge we are gathered on Treaty 1 territory and that Manitoba is located on the treaty territories and ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg, Anishininewuk, Dakota Oyate, Denesuline and 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.

      Good afternoon, everybody. Please be seated.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Introduction of Bills

Bill 242–The Police and Peace Officers' Memorial Day Act
(Commemoration of Days, Weeks and Months Act Amended)

Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East): I move, seconded by the member from Dauphin, that Bill 242, The Police and Peace Officers' Memorial Day Act (Commemo­ra­tion of Days, Weeks and Months Act Amended), be now read a first time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Isleifson: I just want to start–[interjection] I think it's im­por­tant that in our province, as in every other province in Canada, we recog­nize the sacrifices that pro­tec­tion officers and police officers do in the line of duty every day and we recog­nize–at the end of September of every year, we take the op­por­tun­ity to recog­nize those who have sacrificed their lives in this fashion.

      We want to align, and this bill helps us align, with the federal gov­ern­ment with moving it from the last day in September to the last Sunday in September so that it is predictable every year.

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

Bill 233–The Chartered Pro­fes­sionals in Human Resources Act

Mr. Shannon Martin (McPhillips): I move, seconded by the member for Brandon West (Mr. Helwer), that Bill 233, The Chartered Pro­fes­sionals in Human Resources Act, be now read a first time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Martin: This bill is very straight­for­ward. It is a change to the designation of a 'chartle'–chartered pro­fes­sionals, allowing them to have that human resources designation.

      I look forward to all support in this House.

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

Committee Reports

Standing Committee on Legis­lative Affairs


Sixth Report

Mr. Dennis Smook (Chairperson): I wish to present the sixth report of the Standing Com­mit­tee on Legislative Affairs.

Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Your standing com­mit­tee–

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense.

Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Sixth Report.

Meetings

Your Committee met on May 9, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building.

Matters under Consideration

·         Bill (No. 23) – The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les personnes vulnérables ayant une déficience mentale

·         Bill (No. 31) – The Animal Care Amendment Act (2) / Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur le soin des animaux

·         Bill (No. 32) – An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Jurisdiction and Related Amendments) / Loi concernant les services à l'enfant et à la famille (champ de compétence autochtone et modifications connexes)

Committee Membership

·         Mr. Brar

·         MLA Fontaine

·         Hon. Mr. Johnson (Interlake-Gimli)

·         Mr. Smook

·         Hon. Ms. Squires

·         Mr. Wishart

Your Committee elected Mr. Smook as the Chairperson.

Your Committee elected Mr. Wishart as the Vice-Chairperson.

Non-Committee Members Speaking on Record

·         Hon. Mr. Gerrard

Public Presentations

Your Committee heard the following seven presentations on Bill (No. 23) – The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les personnes vulnérables ayant une déficience mentale:

Jessica Croy, People First of Manitoba

Tomas Ponzilius, Private citizen

Sharon McIlraith, Private citizen

Twila Richards, Private citizen

Dale Kendel, Private citizen

Debra Roach, Family Advocacy Network of Manitoba

Amy Shawcross, Community Living Manitoba

Your Committee heard the following presentation on Bill (No. 31) – The Animal Care Amendment Act (2) / Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur le soin des animaux:

Brenna Mahoney and Cameron Dahl, Keystone Agric­­ultural Producers and Manitoba Pork Council

Your Committee heard the following three presentations on Bill (No. 32) – An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Jurisdiction and Related Amendments) / Loi concernant les services à l'enfant et à la famille (champ de compétence autochtone et modifications connexes):

Doreen Moellenbeck-Dushnitsky, Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services

Trudy Lavallee, Animikii Ozoson Child and Family Services Inc.

Sherry Gott, Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth

Written Submissions

Your Committee received the following written submission on Bill (No. 23) – The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les personnes vulnérables ayant une déficience mentale:

Suzanne Swanton, Continuity Care Inc.

Your Committee received the following written submission on Bill (No. 31) – The Animal Care Amendment Act (2) / Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur le soin des animaux:

Kaitlyn Mitchell, Animal Justice

Your Committee received the following two written submissions on Bill (No. 32) – An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Jurisdiction and Related Amendments) / Loi concernant les services à l'enfant et à la famille (champ de compétence autochtone et modifications connexes):

Joshua Nepinak, Private citizen

Bert Crocker, Private citizen

Bills Considered and Reported

·         Bill (No. 23) – The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Amendment Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les personnes vulnérables ayant une déficience mentale

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

·         Bill (No. 31) – The Animal Care Amendment Act (2) / Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur le soin des animaux

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

·         Bill (No. 32) – An Act respecting Child and Family Services (Indigenous Jurisdiction and Related Amendments) / Loi concernant les services à l'enfant et à la famille (champ de compétence autochtone et modifications connexes)

Your Committee agreed to report this Bill without amendment.

Mr. Smook: I move, seconded by the hon­our­able member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Wishart), that the report of the com­mit­tee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Tabling of reports? Min­is­terial statements?

Introduction of Guests

Madam Speaker: And I'm going to take this op­por­tun­ity to intro­duce the students we have in the gallery, because they won't be up there for very long.

      We have seated in the public gallery, from Woodlawn School, 48 grade 3 to 4 students under the direction of Simmy Gandhi, and this group is located in the con­stit­uency of the hon­our­able member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen).

      Oh behalf of all of us here, we welcome you to the Manitoba Legislature.

Members' Statements

Summer Activities in Brandon

Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East): As summer approaches, many Manitobans will be making vacation plans that may include a scenic drive through Riding Mountain National Park or maybe even heading south to International Peace Garden for the day. Some families may venture north for some class–trophy pike fishing at Sickle Lake or maybe even make plans to spend a week or weekend at one of the beaches at one of our many finest provincial parks.

      Whatever Manitobans plan to do this summer, I would highly recommend they include a visit to Manitoba's second largest city, Brandon.

      Thanks to the hard work and dedication of Executive Director Jenn Watson and her regional co‑ordinators, Sara Girard and Pam Reiss, at Brandon First, there are plenty of things to do in Brandon this summer.

      To warm us up, on May 27th we will see the hosting of the Apple & Pine Spring Market at the Keystone Centre, followed by the Manitoba Summer Fair at the Keystone from June 7th to the 11th. Also, June 8th to 10th we'll see the Manitoba High School Athletics Association track and field provincials at the Brandon Community Sportsplex; July 19th to 23rd will be the world–pardon me–the World Clydesdale Show at the Keystone Centre; the Salamander Summer Music Festival at Rideau Park takes place from July 9th to the 23rd; and August 9 to 13th, we'll see Softball Canada's U15 Girl's national cham­pion­ships at Ashley Neufeld Softball Complex. Also, August the 11 to 13th we'll see the Western Canadian Powerlifting Cham­pion­ships at the Healthy Living Centre at Brandon Uni­ver­sity.

      Brandon First is a not-for-profit destination mar­ket­ing organization that consists of 12 board mem­bers, a three-person staff and a membership base of more 40 local business stakeholders. They are com­mitted to working as a cohesive group to promote Brandon, Manitoba, as a host city for events, and have a very impressive success record.

      Madam Speaker, with a goal to drive economic development in Brandon through multi-day event tourism and successful event hosting, I can honestly say, once you have attended an event, Brandon Brings You Back.

* (13:40)

      Thank you.

Reetu Chahal

Mr. Mintu Sandhu (The Maples): Today, I would like to recognize truly amazing local athletes.

      Reetu Chahal is a Winnipeg athlete who was born with Down syndrome and has never given up on her dreams of being a champion. Reetu has participated in Special Olympics Manitoba since 2000 and has committed to making her mark in sports since she completed her grade 12 certificate from Maples Collegiate in 2009. She has participated in various sports, such as weightlifting, swimming, five-pin bowling, track and field and basketball.

      Six Manitobans will represent Team Canada in the world Special Olympic games, and Reetu has been selected to compete in powerlifting in Berlin June–in June. Reetu will travel with Team Canada from June 10th to 27th to participate in the games.

      And she has also been selected to participate in five-pin bowling for the February 2024 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games in Calgary, Alberta. She trains three times a week with Sport Manitoba, and, when she is not training, she volunteers three times a week with ImagineAbility program, helping different businesses throughout Winnipeg.

      Special Olympics Manitoba has played a monumental role for individuals with intellectual disabilities, providing opportunities to feel proud of their hard work, amazing talents and accomplishments.

      Reetu's entire family are proud of her and her–are thanking for the Special Olympics Manitoba and all her coaches, who are working hard to achieve her goals.

      I would all–like my colleagues to please join me in–for congratulating Reetu for all her hard work, accomplishments so far, as well as wishing her the best in Berlin next month.

      Reetu is joined by her parents, Mewa and Jaswinder Chahal.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ridhwanlai Badmos

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): I rise in the House today to recognize Ridhwanlai Badmos, a grade 12 student at Windsor Park Collegiate.

      Ridhwanlai has done outstanding work to con­tribute to his community. He founded the non‑­profit Wake-Up Mental Health and created a diversity, equity and inclusion council at his school.

      Ridhwanlai's contributions have not gone unnoticed. Today, it is my pleasure to share the awards he has received in recognition of his efforts.

      Ridhwanlai is one of 36 scholars for the Loran Award, which recognizes students' integrity, courage and grit. He is one of the current finalists of the Terry Fox Humanitarian Award for his volunteering and humanitarian efforts and he is one of 50 finalists for the TD community leadership award.

      Ridhwanlai was the successful recipient of the University of British Columbia Beyond Tomorrow award for exceptional Black Canadian scholars. He won the international optimist essay contest and has accepted the University of Toronto's National Book Award. Most recently, he accepted the Mark Dickof Memorial Scholar­ship for his work in championing mental health and well‑being and making a difference in his community.

      Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to recognize the efforts and accomplishments of this outstanding student.

      Scholarships and awards are impressive achieve­ments, and are often a reflection of an individual's commitment, hard work and dedication to their community.

      Sitting in the gallery today is Ridhwanlai, his family members and Ms. Jennifer Stevenson from Windsor Park Collegiate.

      Madam Speaker, I ask all members in the Chamber to please join me to congratulate Ridhwanlai and thanking his family and teachers for their uplifting support.

      Con­gratu­la­tions.

Steven Bignell

Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas-Kameesak): Today, I would like to recog­nize the outstanding success of Steven Bignell–who is watching live right now with his family–a self-taught artist and filmmaker who has made a name for himself in the Canadian film industry.

      Born and raised in Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Steven's passion for the arts has driven him to create exceptional artwork and captivating films which have been showcased across Canada and the United States.

      After pursuing a short acting career in 2005, Steven founded A Flat Broke Production in 2011, a film company based in his home community of OCN. He started small, creating short segments, before expanding into short films and eventually full-length feature films. His latest film, The Tomahawk, which premiered on national film board day, has received critical acclaim.

      The Tomahawk tells of a story of a Cree soldier who meets a young, inexperienced German youth soldier in the closing months of World War II. The film depicts the soldier's journey to teach the German youth about his people and culture. Steven spent countless hours writing and rewriting the script as well as creating storyboards. The film was supported by the National Screen Institute, Reel Canada and the Directors Guild of Canada.

      Steven's dedication to his craft is evident in his work, and his passion for showcasing–'showcayshing' local talent is admirable. He also–written several more scripts and that he hopes to bring to life in future projects, with the goal of putting Opaskwayak Cree Nation and the town of The Pas on the map for its local talent and crew.

      I would like to commend Steven for his hard work and creativity. His success as a filmmaker and artist is truly inspiring, and it is a testament for his dedication and perseverance. Steven's achievements are not only bought recognition to himself but also have shed light on the Indigenous community's talent in the arts.

      I would like my colleagues to please join me in congratulating Steve on his success.

      Ekosi.

Green Team Program

Mr. Dennis Smook (La Vérendrye): Today may be the last time I rise in this House to do a private mem­ber's statement. I have decided to speak about the importance of youth employment.

      I am proud to be part of a government that under­stands this and is willing to do something about it.

      Madam Speaker, I am talking about The Green Team program and our PC gov­ern­ment's funding of community projects across our entire province.

      I am pleased to say that La Vérendrye will receive $235,694.30 from the total of $9.6 million to support The Green Team program this year. Madam Speaker, these funds will be used to support so many projects in our local communities. Not only are these projects important to com­mu­nities, they are important to our youth.

      Over the years, I have seen the importance of our youth finding employment, especially those that this may be their first job. These jobs not only give a financial benefit, they provide life skills.

      Madam Speaker, in my previous life before politics, I was a business owner, and every year I employed between four and six high school students. After being employed for a few months, you could see the change in many of them as they gained self-confidence and people skills.

      These are just some of the reasons I feel it is important for our youth to find em­ploy­ment, and The Green Team program is doing just that. I want to thank our PC government for providing these job opportunities.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, seeking leave to revert back to tabling of reports to table the Estimates order.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to 'resert' back to tabling–revert back to tabling? [Agreed]

      Leave has been granted.

Tabling of Reports

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Gov­ern­ment House Leader): Pleased to table the Estimates order, which is permanent and signed by myself and the acting Op­posi­tion House Leader, the member for Keewatinook (Mr. Bushie).

Introduction of Guests

Madam Speaker: And at this time, I would like to draw the attention of all hon­our­able members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today two special guests known to many of us.

* (13:50)

      We have Laura Tomaka, director of Council of State Gov­ern­ments, and Ilene Grossman, assist­ant director of Council of State Gov­ern­ments.

      And on behalf of all of us here, we would like to like to welcome you to the Manitoba Legislature, and wish MLC the best in the future.

Oral Questions

Health-Care System
Gov­ern­ance Structure Concerns

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Doctors are speaking out. Of course, we've already heard from Dr. Dan Roberts, and now, other physicians are joining to the chorus of criticisms of the PC health-care cuts.

      Now, one physician has said that the gov­ern­ance structure of Shared Health, and I quote here, is completely a mess. End quote. And the diag­nos­tic and surgical task force has added another layer of bureaucracy.

      He added, and I quote here, it's an absolute mess. You have to get rid of some layers and you have to fix the gov­ern­ance. Who reports to whom? End quote.

      Does the Premier acknowl­edge that health care under her watch is an absolute mess?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): I want to thank all of those that sit on the surgical and diag­nos­tic task force. They are making sig­ni­fi­cant headway at the backlogs that were created as a result of the global pandemic, and we want to thank them for the in­cred­ible work that they do day in, day out, to ensure that Manitobans get the surgical and diag­nos­tic procedures that they need.

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

Mr. Kinew: I just want to correct the record and point out that it was PC health-care cuts that helped to create the surgical and diag­nos­tic backlog. Everyone in Manitoba knows that this is one of the only juris­dic­tions in the world–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: –that was cutting ICU beds as we approach­ed the pandemic, one of many reasons doctors are speaking out.

      PCs have created a bureaucracy that even they them­selves cannot manage.

      Here's what front-line doctors are saying, and I quote here: If you need funding for some­thing, do you go to the task force? Do you go to Shared Health? Do you go to your own health region to pay for the task force? Do you go to your own region or go to Shared Health? End quote.

      No one knows, least of all this PC Cabinet, and that's why health care has deteriorated so much under their watch.

      Does the Premier acknowl­edge that her gov­ern­ment has created such a profound dysfunction in our very im­por­tant health-care system?

Mrs. Stefanson: Manitobans know, and the Leader of the Op­posi­tion should know, that we are making record invest­ments in health care in the province of Manitoba, almost $8 billion in health care this year  alone, a $668‑million increase over last year, a 22 per cent increase since we took office.

      That's more, not lest–less, Madam Speaker. That's sig­ni­fi­cant im­prove­ments in areas like the Leader of the Op­posi­tion mentioned, ICU capacity.

      In fact, I was just at the Grace Hospital not so long ago making an an­nounce­ment there with those doctors and nurses and everyone at the Grace Hospital, about an expansion–$30 million that we are investing in an expansion of the ICU at Grace Hospital.

      That is more, not less.

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

Mr. Kinew: For all the an­nounce­ments the Premier likes to attend, there are fewer health-care services available to Manitobans.

      There are fewer emergency rooms. There are fewer CancerCare clinics. And there are even fewer drugs covered by the prov­incial formulary. Those are the cuts that this PC gov­ern­ment made.

      And so how is it that Manitobans are paying more and getting less when it comes to health care? It's because of the bureaucratic mess that this Premier and Brian Pallister installed at the heart of our health-care system. The dysfunction of that is one of the chief causes of burnout at the front lines, and that's why physicians are speaking out.

      Why has the Premier created so much bureau­cracy in health care at the same time that she's cut front-line health-care services?

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Op­posi­tion talks about doctors speaking out. I'm going to talk about doctors that are stepping up to help Manitobans, those who are members of our surgical and diag­nos­tic task force.

      And I want to thank them for the in­cred­ible work that they do. People like Dr. Peter MacDonald, who is the chair of the diag­nos­tic and surgical task force; Dr. Luis Oppenheimer; Dr. David Hochman; Dr. David Matear. There's others: Dr. Chris Christodouda–doulou [phonetic], Madam Speaker; Dr. Ed Buchel.

      These are all Manitobans–and there's more, Madam Speaker–these are all Manitoba doctors who have stepped up to help find solutions to the challenges that we face not just here in Manitoba, but these are challenges that are faced right across the country.

      These individuals are focused on finding solutions to these challenges, and I want to thank them for taking the time out of their schedule to do what's im­por­tant to all Manitobans.

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

Edu­ca­tion Property Tax Credit
Out-of-Province Cor­por­ate Rebates

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, earlier this week, the company that owns Superstore raised its dividend. Now, the reason that they did that is because they made a profit of $426 million in just the first three months of the year. They did that by raising grocery prices on the hard‑working people of Manitoba.

      At the same time, we uncovered that this gov­ern­ment is sending that same company and its billionaire owner a cheque for $327,000.

      If that weren't enough, yesterday the Premier went on to claim that if we didn't send them this ad­di­tional $327,000, that somehow this wildly profitable cor­por­ation would, quote, go out of busi­ness. End quote.

      Does the Premier actually believe that Loblaws will go out of busi­ness if we don't send them another $327,000 cheque?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): Why the Leader of the Op­posi­tion and members opposite are busy picking fights with busi­nesses in Manitoba, Madam Speaker, we'll continue to support those busi­nesses in Manitoba to ensure that we're creating an environ­ment in Manitoba–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Stefanson: –that's conducive for them to grow their busi­nesses here in Manitoba.

      The Leader of the Op­posi­tion and members oppo­site don't seem to understand that if busi­nesses grow in Manitoba, it means more reve­nues to the gov­ern­ment. More reve­nues to the gov­ern­ment is how we pay for better health care, edu­ca­tion, justice, social services, Madam Speaker. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Stefanson: I know members opposite don't like that and they don't understand how to grow our economy. They don't understand that it's a good thing to support busi­nesses in Manitoba, Madam Speaker.

      Their only solution is to jack up taxes on the backs of hard‑working–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Stefanson: –Manitobans.

      We think that's wrong.

Madam Speaker: I'm looking for a quieter day today so that everybody that is watching this can hear what is being said. And I'm going to ask for everybody's co‑operation, please.

      The honourable member–the hon­our­able Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question.

Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, the average Manitoban hears that first question that I asked and they're out­raged that billionaires are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars that should rightfully be going to public schools.

      But here's how out of touch the PCs are. They heard that first question and they said, what? [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinew: Loblaws is raising its dividend?

      On that side of the House, they support the billionaires. On this side of the House, we support public schools.

      The money for these cheques is being taken from revenue that is 'supporsed'–that is supposed to support edu­ca­tion in Manitoba.

      Will the Premier stop her practice of sending cheques to billionaires and instead invest in local public schools?

Mrs. Stefanson: If the Leader of the Op­posi­tion and members opposite truly cared about funding edu­ca­tion, Madam Speaker, then they would've voted in favour of our budget that provides more than $100‑million increase to the edu­ca­tion budget alone this year. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Stefanson: That's a 6.1 per cent record increase in invest­ments in our schools right across this province, Madam Speaker. Every single school division got a raise. That's part of that $100 million.

* (14:00)

      And the Leader of the Op­posi­tion and every single member opposite voted against that, Madam Speaker. We will take no lessons from the members opposite.

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

Mr. Kinew: Ask any parent or educator in the province, and they'll tell you that the PCs have been underfunding edu­ca­tion in this province for years.

      They'd also tell you that that $327,000 that the Stefanson gov­ern­ment is sending to the company that owns Superstore, well, that could go a really long way in our local schools.

      That could pay for several EAs to help children with exceptional needs. That could pay for extra­curricular programs to help young people flourish. That could help address some of the infra­structure needs that have only grown under the PCs. [interjection]

      I really wish that PC MLAs would heckle this much at the school cuts rather than when we fight for public edu­ca­tion.

      Seeing as how the Manitoba NDP is the only team that will stand up for public schools in this province, I will ask once again: Is this Premier going to cancel the cheques for billionaires and instead invest in public edu­ca­tion?

Mrs. Stefanson: I always ap­pre­ciate a question on all the invest­ments that we're making in our edu­ca­tion system in Manitoba, and it's time to put some facts on the record, Madam Speaker.

      A 23 per cent increase in edu­ca­tion funding–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Stefanson: –since we came to office, Madam Speaker; over $100‑million increase in invest­ment over last year alone. Every single school division right across this province of ours got an increase to their funding.

      And when the Leader of the Op­posi­tion claims that he cares about edu­ca­tion funding, Madam Speaker, he had the op­por­tun­ity at that time to vote in favour of increased funding to edu­ca­tion. And what did he do? He voted against it.

      We will take no lessons from the members opposite.

Edu­ca­tion Property Tax Credit
Out-of-Province Cor­por­ate Rebates

Mr. Mark Wasyliw (Fort Garry): On this side–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wasyliw: –of the House, we don't think billion­aires need gov­ern­ment handouts. Yet that's–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wasyliw: –exactly what the–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wasyliw: –Premier and her entire PC–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order. Order.

      If I can't hear, that means Hansard can't hear, that means our clerks can't hear and that means the public can't hear. So, I'm going to ask for everybody's co‑operation please.

      And we have some guests from the United States that I think are very interested in our system of gov­ern­ment, and I think they're looking to see more civility and respect for demo­cracy on this floor.

Mr. Wasyliw: Okay. Madam Speaker, they gave Galen Weston, the president of Superstore and No Frills, a cheque for over $327,000. Manitobans know that Galen Weston has been making their lives harder by jacking up grocery prices. Yet this Premier thinks he needs even more money.

      Will the Premier simply admit that this is wrong and commit to stop cutting cheques for billionaires?

Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Finance): Here we go again, the op­posi­tion members picking fights with Manitoba busi­nesses.

      Clearly, under our gov­ern­ment and the direction of the Premier, we've been focusing on creating an atmosphere for economic dev­elop­ment, an op­por­tun­ity for Manitoba busi­ness to grow. And when Manitoba busi­nesses grow, more Manitobans are working.

      In fact, Madam Speaker, we had one of the fastest growing economies at 3.6 per cent last year. We've got more Manitobans working than ever before. And as a result of that, we've been able to make historic invest­ment in public edu­ca­tion–$100 million plus a 6.1 per cent increase in this year's budget alone. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

      The honourable member for Fort Garry, on a supplementary question.

Mr. Wasyliw: This Premier made a choice. She chose to stand with out-of-province billionaires.

      On this side of the House, we also made a choice. We will always stand with Manitobans.

      Yesterday, the Premier claimed that without her gov­ern­ment's $327,000 cheque, No Frills and Superstore could go out of busi­ness. It's clear the Premier's not living in reality. No Frills and Superstore made $418 million in profits in the first quarter this year by hiking Manitobans' grocery costs. They don't need gov­ern­ment handouts.

      Maybe this Premier doesn't remember, because she forgot the $31 million to disclose in her own property sales.

      Will this Premier do the right thing and stop cutting cheques for billionaires?

Mr. Cullen: Well, Madam Speaker, through our edu­ca­tion property rebates, we're giving historic money back to Manitobans–their hard-earned income tax money.

      What–under the NDP–and this would be the mem­ber for Fort Garry–should pay attention was that when he was over at the Winnipeg School Division–we know their plan. Under his watch at the Winnipeg School Division, local property taxes went up almost 37 per cent.

      We know what the NDP's mandate is. They're the tax-and-spend NDP. That will never change.

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

Mr. Wasyliw: I hate to break it to this gov­ern­ment, but Galen Weston is not a Manitoban.

      Now, Manitobans are struggling with their grocery bills, and this Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) is–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wasyliw: –cutting cheques for billionaires. That includes the $327,000 to Galen Weston, the same person who's making groceries more expensive for Manitobans. That's $327,000 that should be invested in our schools.

      On this side of the House, we know that's wrong.

      Will the Premier do the right thing and stop giving cheques to billionaires?

Mr. Cullen: Well, this parti­cular company employs 6,000 Manitobans. We are going to support 6,000 Manitoban workers here in Manitoba.

      Now, we know the NDP have got a record of taxing and spending. The member from Fort Garry–37 per cent increase on the back of Manitoba taxpayers.

      Now we've got the Leader of the Op­posi­tion saying, well, some com­mercial properties should pay, maybe some shouldn't. What kind of rules is he making up? Is he making policy on the fly? Is he going to pick and choose winners and losers? What is his agenda, besides taxing them?

Agency Nursing Costs
Public-Private Services

MLA Uzoma Asagwara (Union Station): Madam Speaker, when it comes to health care, the PCs just can't do anything right. They refuse to listen to front-line health-care workers, they let vacancy rates reach dangerous levels and they continue to cut health-care services that Manitobans rely on.

      Yet, one thing they seem to have no problem doing is sending millions of dollars to private, for-profit providers instead of investing in our public health-care system.

      New docu­ments from August 2022 to March of 2023 show the PCs spent $5.24 million on agency nurses in the Southern Health region alone. I'll table those docu­ments now.

      Can the Premier explain why she's sending millions of dollars to private, for-profit agencies, instead of investing in nurses in our public health-care system?

* (14:10)

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): I'd like to start by saying happy nurses week to all the nurses here in Manitoba. Thank you for your dedi­cation and your commit­ment to provi­ding care to Manitobans.

      Madam Speaker, I was pleased to announce yester­day that 55 nurses have been hired into the Manitoba gov­ern­ment's prov­incial nursing pool since its inception late last year. These nurses have worked approximately 900 shifts in the first three months of this year, in Northern Health Region, Interlake and Prairie Mountain. And two thirds of those nurses have returned to the public system from agency nursing.

      Welcome back and happy nurses week.

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

MLA Asagwara: Instead of investing in our public health-care system, the PCs are still spending even more money–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

MLA Asagwara: –on private, for-profit companies.

      In only seven months, they spent $5.24 million on agency nurses in the southern region alone. That's millions of dollars that could've been invested in filling vacancies in our public health-care system, vacancies that the PCs helped create through their health-care cuts.

      The PCs should put the care and the out­comes of Manitobans first, not the bottom line of private, for-profit companies.

      Can the Premier tell this House why she's spend­ing millions of dollars for private companies instead of investing in nurses in our public health-care system?

Ms. Gordon: The health human resource action plan is showing sig­ni­fi­cant im­prove­ments in the health system. Nearly 900 new hires, Madam Speaker; 259 of those new hires are nurses.

      And through the incentives that these nurses shared with myself when I went right to the front line to speak with them, we invested $200 million into incentives, and I can report that 11,600 weekend super-premiums have been paid; 8,747 wellness bonuses, Madam Speaker; 11,562 licensure reimburse­ments.

      We are investing in the health system. We are investing in nurses. Again, happy nurses week.

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

MLA Asagwara: Madam Speaker, while the PCs continue to spend and send millions of dollars to private, for-profit companies, they also continue to cut our health-care system. Dozens of beds have been closed, vacancy rates have reached dangerous levels, and nurses are being mandated to work overtime just to ensure our system doesn't fall apart.

      On this side of the House, we think that's wrong, Madam Speaker. The Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) should invest in strengthening our public health-care system instead of spending millions upon millions of dollars on private, for-profit agency companies.

      Will she make that commit­ment today?

Ms. Gordon: May is a very exciting month for the Univer­sity of Manitoba college of nursing: 120 students are making history this month as they enter the inaugural summer intake into the nursing program.

      This was made possible through an agree­ment with our gov­ern­ment and the Uni­ver­sity of Manitoba, and I'm thrilled to be celebrating this milestone with all of you. Enjoy your summer program, and I wish you all the very best in the profession you have chosen and as you enter careers in the health system.

Allied Health Professionals
Collective Bargaining Negotiations

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, every­one in Manitoba knows that the PC gov­ern­ment does not respect collective bargaining, and everyone knows that the PCs have made a mess of our–[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Ms. Naylor: –prov­incial health-care system.

      Last month, allied health-care workers voted 99 per cent in favour of a strike mandate, and it's easy to see why. Front-line workers like rural paramedics, pharmacy techs, MRI techs, radiation therapists and 190 other allied health pro­fes­sionals have had their wages frozen by this PC gov­ern­ment for five years.

      We're in a cost of living crisis and the health-care workers who take care of us deserve so much better.

      Will the Premier give allied health workers a fair deal today?

Hon. James Teitsma (Minister of Consumer Protection and Government Services): You know, it seems kind of ironic to me that on this side of the House, the Progressive Conservative caucus has to explain the collecting–collective bargaining process to the members of the NDP. You would think that they would be more familiar with it.

      As the member should know, the Gov­ern­ment of Manitoba is not the employer here; Shared Health is. And certainly our hope is that Shared Health and the MAHCP and the other unions gather together at the bargaining table, that they work faithfully and dili­gently on negotiations, that they are able to come to a good collective agree­ment.

      That's what everybody wants.

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

Ms. Naylor: Madam Speaker, 99 per cent of allied health-care workers voted in favour of a strike. If that doesn't scream failure on behalf of this gov­ern­ment, I don't know what does.

      Thousands of front-line health-care pro­fes­sionals feel disrespected by this gov­ern­ment. This is an un­pre­cedented mandate, and it's a clear sign that they've had enough of this gov­ern­ment's incompetence.

      Ultimately, this PC gov­ern­ment is respon­si­ble. Ultimately, it would be excellent if the Minister of Labour could speak to a labour question and take some respon­si­bility.

      When will the Premier stop disrespecting allied health-care workers and negotiate a fair deal?

Mr. Teitsma: I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the NDP don't know what a good team looks like, but this is what a good team looks like.

      Now, I'm disappointed. I continue to be disappointed, though not parti­cularly surprised, that the members opposite continue to try to inflame this situation. It's irresponsible for them to do so.

      It does harken back to the Selinger days, where they thought that they were at the buffet–I mean the, you know, bargaining table. Sorry, not the buffet table. But that's what it felt like, I think, for the unions of the time.

      Active bargaining is continuing. Negotiations are under way, as they should be.

      That is what should be happening. I wish the member would, instead of trying to inflame the situation in this House, support that process and ensure that it can come to a good conclusion.

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

Ms. Naylor:

The PCs are always trying to change the channel from their failures in the health-care system, but it's their seven years of cuts that have thrown health care into chaos.

      A wage freeze for five years during our cost of living crisis, that's the policy of this PC gov­ern­ment.

      Allied health-care workers have had enough. They voted 99 per cent in favour of a strike mandate, and they deserve a fair deal.

      On this side of the House, we respect allied health-care workers, and we recog­nize them as our con­stit­uents, our neighbours and our care providers.

      Why has the PC gov­ern­ment failed to give them a fair deal?

Mr. Teitsma: The way to get to a fair deal is by nego­tiation and potentially through arbitration or other tactics, other techniques. That's exactly what's going on.

      Now, what I will say to the members opposite is that I have been out knocking on doors, speaking with many PC supporters. Every once in a while, I do run across an NDP supporter. I do. They appear to be just as dejected, deflated and divided as this NDP caucus.

      But one thing that does seem to unite them is they all wish that the Leader of the Op­posi­tion would be the member for St. James (Mr. Sala).

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order. [interjection] Order. Order. Order.

Highway and Road Safety
Debris Clearing and Road Signage

Mr. Ian Bushie (Keewatinook): In September of last year, motorcyclist Denis L'Heureux was killed in a collision on Highway 311. Denis was celebrating his 45th birthday on a charity ride alongside friends and family when the group hit a large patch of muddy debris left on the road, leading to the tragic accident.

* (14:20)

      Denis's family and friends continued to call on the Province to increase highway safety by having better account­ability and signage when there's debris left on the road. When we raised this issue last fall, the minister said that his gov­ern­ment is studying a pilot project in Ontario regarding clearing mud and debris from highways.

      Can the minister provide an update on the status of this, and how his gov­ern­ment will implement lessons learned from this tragic accident?

Hon. Doyle Piwniuk (Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure): It was a while since the member from Keewatinook even actually had got up and asked me a question, so it's great to have the op­por­tun­ity to say that this last couple weeks I've actually met with the 'millersicle' group of Manitoba to talk about the safety when it comes to motorcycle riding in rural Manitoba, especially on our highways, especially when it comes to agri­cul­ture sector.

      We've actually met with them, with Minister of Agri­cul­ture (Mr. Johnson), too, to talk about the op­por­tun­ities that we have to educate the public and work with MPI–and also work with Manitoba Agricul­ture when it comes to Keystone agriproducers.

      We're collaborating, Madam Speaker, and we'll continue the talks and we're also looking at what happens in Ontario.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Munici­pal Maintenance Contracts

Mr. Bushie: We raised this issue last fall because Denis's death was tragic and his loved ones want to ensure no one else suffers the same fate. We owe it to Denis and others to make sure Manitoba's highways are safe for everyone.

      Advocates are calling for highways to be cleared quicker and for better signage, en­force­ment and account­ability to prevent further tragic accidents. The minister also said last fall that his gov­ern­ment is looking into maintenance contracts with munici­palities.

      Can the minister provide an update on what progress has been made on these maintenance contracts?

Mr. Piwniuk: I just wanted to say to the people in the House here that when it came to this weekend, I had the op­por­tun­ity to put–do a proclamation to safety month for motorcycles in Manitoba. And I had the op­por­tun­ity to talk to Denis's wife, Lise, who actually, tragically, lost her husband, and we had a great con­ver­sa­tion to talk about what we're going to do, what we're–our commit­ment is as gov­ern­ment here.

      We are going to look into this matter; we're going to make sure that we col­lab­o­rate with everybody out there when it comes to edu­ca­tion to the public. Because everybody should have looked out for motorcycle drivers, and this is why we're having safety month this month and the proclamation that we did this past weekend.

      Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Debris Clearing and Road Signage

Mr. Bushie: Highway safety is something all Manitobans can get behind. One death on our roads is too many.

      Safety advocates are calling for action to be taken; they want to see roads cleared quicker, better signage and stronger en­force­ment to ensure if someone–to ensure someone is accountable for clearing debris.

      Can the minister tell us what concrete steps and what commit­ment his de­part­ment will take to improve account­ability and ensure that no other family has to grieve this kind of tragic loss?

Mr. Piwniuk: Madam Speaker, you know, it's always safety when it comes to–is, lot of–No. 1 priority when it comes to Manitoba Trans­por­tation and Infra­structure.

      When it comes to safety, especially motorcyclists, like, we're going to be working with RMs, local gov­ern­ments; we're going to be working with First Nation com­mu­nities. We're going to be working with every­body to make sure that roads are safe.

      And I just want to make an­nounce­ment–I just want to table this–but we actually, now, reduced the speed limit at Brokenhead First Nation to 50 kilo­metres an hour. It took them 20 years to even look at it; we actually did it, Madam Speaker.

Brandon School Board Meeting
Gov­ern­ment Position on Book Banning

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): At Monday's meeting of the Brandon school board, a former school trustee made a pre­sen­ta­tion demanding book banning. There's a video of it online, which went into graphic detail that was frankly disgusting, because of the terrible accusations it levels at educators and librarians.

      That includes describing being 2SLGBTQ as an ideology. It's not. It's not catching; you don't get con­verted to being 2SLGBTQ by reading a book, and you can't be converted away from it. And let's be clear: I'm a father. I want my children to be safe, and that includes being safe from extremists who want to take away our freedom of choice and freedom to read.

      There's been silence from this gov­ern­ment so far on these attempts to ban books.

      Will the PCs take a stand against this US style of extremism and censorship?

Hon. Sarah Guillemard (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): We understand that this is a pre­sen­ta­tion that was given at a school board, and school boards are set up and they have elected officials with trustees who are elected by the public. And it is a process that has autonomy to look at these issues as they arise, and parents can raise various concerns.

      Our gov­ern­ment supports an inclusive and sup­port­ive environ­ment for all students to learn. We trust that the trustees also are looking at the best interests of children.

      This is a matter that right now is being looked at at Brandon School Division and we will follow closely the out­comes of those discussions.

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

Mr. Lamont: If these folks are worried about what's in a public library, they sure are in for a surprise if they ever find out about the Internet, because let's be clear: in order to protect children from abuse, there's evidence that access to com­pre­hen­sive, scientifically accurate sex ed material helps reduce the child–the risk of a child being sexually abused.

      Does the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) agree that book banning and attacks on educators need to be rejected?

Hon. Obby Khan (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): As my colleague said, public libraries are for everyone. They provide equal and equitable access to infor­ma­tion and knowledge in accordance with the needs, rights, and freedoms of all residents.

      Under the Manitoba libraries act, as my colleague said, library boards are the author­ity for the gov­ern­ance and procedure for public libraries. They are respon­si­ble for the dev­elop­ment and imple­men­ta­tion of collection policies, including the review and con­sid­era­tion of challenged materials.

      I'm not sure how else we can say it to the member opposite, but this is governed under the Manitoba Public Libraries Act. We are looking into it. We are working along with the boards as well.

      Thank you.

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

Manage­ment of Health-Care System
Staffing and Equip­ment Planning

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, manage­ment and planning with respect to health care, parti­cularly in human resources, are not the gov­ern­ment's strong point.

      We're seeing shortages of health-care personnel; family physicians, nurses, specialist physicians, like in ophthalmology.

      The current des­per­ate shortage of psychologists is causing critical delays in youth care. A PET/CT scanner is sitting idle because advance staffing and other planning was not done. A neuro-ophthalmologist has been hired to come to Winnipeg, but the planning wasn't done to prepare for his arrival and he may now go elsewhere.

      Why has the gov­ern­ment had such profound dysfunction in its human resource and equip­ment planning?

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to rise in the Chamber today to share again and to con­gratu­late all the individuals that have been working on the health human resource action plan task force that has led to nearly 900 new hires.

      Madam Speaker, 73 of those new hires are phys­icians, 259 are nurses, 82 allied health providers, 438 health‑care aides, 32 physician and clinical assistants.

      Madam Speaker, we recog­nize that more work needs to be done, and our gov­ern­ment has taken steps to ensure that the health system is staffed through our health human resource action plan and our historic invest­ment of $200 million.

Canada-Manitoba Housing Benefit
Program for Low-Income Manitobans

Mr. Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): Madam Speaker, our gov­ern­ment has shown a commit­ment to affordability.

      The Canada-Manitoba Housing Benefit is provi­ding $154.6 million in housing benefits to support over 17,000 low‑income Manitobans. The Minister of Families recently announced this as part of the National Housing Strategy.

      Can the minister provide further details on this funding and the benefit?

Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Families): I'd like to thank my colleague for that very im­por­tant question on housing.

      Our gov­ern­ment agrees that youth coming out of the child and family services system, as well as those who are ex­per­iencing addictions, are at most risk for homelessness or becoming unsheltered or facing housing insecurity.

      That is why our gov­ern­ment has allocated, in addition to the $126 million homelessness strategy, we are allocating a $350‑a‑month top-up benefit for shelters so that anyone who meets the criteria, either kids coming out of care or those at risk of homeless­ness, can receive this monthly benefit so that they can achieve housing security in the province of Manitoba.

* (14:30)

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order. Order.

High-Speed Internet
Ac­ces­si­bility Concerns

MLA Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, in 2021, this PC gov­ern­ment made a promise to 125,000 Manitobans, 350 com­mu­nities that they'd have them hooked up to high-speed Internet.

      I was recently in Tadoule Lake, Lac Brochet and Brochet, and we know that this gov­ern­ment has broken that promise, spe­cific­ally in the North, but through­out other com­mu­nities as well. Lack of access to high-speed Internet in those com­mu­nities makes it hard for their children to get ahead in edu­ca­tion. It makes it hard for their busi­nesses to succeed.  

      Can the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) tell us why she's failed to live up to her promise to bring high-speed Internet to those com­mu­nities?

Hon. James Teitsma (Minister of Consumer Protection and Government Services): Bringing high-speed Internet to rural Manitoba com­mu­nities, northern Manitoba com­mu­nities is, was, remains a priority for our gov­ern­ment.

      That's why I believe we had a debate–was it last week or the week before in this House–where I tried des­per­ately to read the names of every single one of the 409 com­mu­nities that have already been hooked up by our gov­ern­ment. Yes, there are more to do, but the 409, I just couldn't get through it in the 10 minutes I had available to me.

      We are making sig­ni­fi­cant progress on this file. We are hooking up tens of thousands of homes to high‑speed Internet under this agree­ment.

Madam Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Petitions

Punjabi Bilingual Programs in Public Schools

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

      The back­ground to this petition is as follows:

      (1) According to the 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. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Altomare: (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 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 our 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, Madam Speaker, is signed by many Manitobans.

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

Diagnostic Testing Accessibility

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

      The background of this petition is as follows:

      (1) Until recently, diag­nos­tic tests, including those for blood and fluid samples, were available and accessible in most medical clinics.

      (2) Dynacare blood test labs have consolidated their blood and fluid testing services by closing 25 of its labs.

      (3) Provincial government has cut diag­nostic testing as many–at many clinic sites, and residents now have to travel to different locations to get their testing done, even for a simple blood test or urine sample.

      (4) Further, travel challenges for vulnerable and elderly residents of northeast Winnipeg may result in fewer tests being done or delays in testing, with the attendant effects of increased health-care costs and poorer individual patient outcomes.

      (5) COVID‑19 emergency rules resulted in long outdoor lineups, putting vulnerable residents at further risk of extreme–in extreme weather, be it hot or cold. Moreover, these long lineups have resulted in longer wait times and services and poorer service in general.

      (6) Manitoba residents value the convenience and efficiency of the health-care system when they are able to give their samples at the time of the doctor visit.

      We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the provincial government to immedi­ately demand Dynacare increase their testing capacity so residents can better access these services locally and re-esta­blish blood testing services at medical clinics in the local com­mu­nity.

      And this petition is signed by many, many Manitobans.

Drug Overdose Reporting

Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas):  I wish to present the following petition to the Manitoba Legislature.

      The back­ground to this petition is as follows:

      (1) Across the province, many Manitobans con­tinue to struggle with addictions, and the pandemic has led to even more deaths and worsened the ongoing public health crisis of opioid overdoses.

      (2) Three hundred and seventy-two Manitobans died from an overdose in 2020, and that's over one a day and an 80 per seven–87 per cent in–higher than in 2019.

      (3) Manitoba is expected to exceed over 400 over­dose deaths in 2021, but the data is not publicly available since the last public reporting of opioid deaths was published in 2019.

      The data for drug overdose deaths from 2020 and 2021 was compiled through media inquiries, and this needs to change.

      (5) Access to timely data on the harms of drugs helps to inform both gov­ern­ment and stake­holders on where to take action and target resources needed in various com­mu­nities.

      (6) Manitoba is the only province not provi­ding regular, timely data to the federal gov­ern­ment opioid infor­ma­tion portal.

      (7) Manitobans deserve a gov­ern­ment that takes the growing drug crisis seriously and will report the data publicly in a timely matter to target actions and allow for account­ability.

      We petition the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the prov­incial gov­ern­ment to enact Bill 217, The Fatality Inquiries Amend­ment Act (Overdose Death Reporting), to require the Province to publish the number of drug overdose deaths, as well as the type of drug, on a gov­ern­ment website in a timely fashion.

      And this has been signed by Marcel Catcheway, Rita Maud, Esther Catcheway and many other Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: Further petitions?

Brandon Uni­ver­sity Funding

Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

      To the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, these are the reasons for this petition:

      (1) Since taking office, the provincial government has cut operating funding to post-secondary institutions such as Brandon University, while simultaneously increasing tuition and student fees.

      (2) Brandon University is the only university in rural Manitoba and serves as an important hub for Westman.

      (3) Brandon University is the largest university outside of Winnipeg with over 2,200 full-time stu­dents and just under 1,000 part-time students.

      (4) Despite the important role Brandon University plays in Manitoba, the provincial government is continuing to cut the university's funding in Budget 2023‑24, as funding yet again fails to keep pace with inflation.

      (5) Inadequate funding hurts students and the quality of education they receive as it may force Brandon University to raise tuition, cut programs and services, or both.

      (6) Funding cuts also negatively impact Brandon University's faculty who are at risk of having their courses cut or being let go altogether.

      (7) The provincial government has refused to explain why Brandon University's 2023‑24 operating funding increase falls below inflation, and why it is lower than other universities in Manitoba.

      We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

      To urge the provincial government to adequately fund Brandon University so that the institution can avoid making cuts and continue to serve students, faculty, Westman and the province of Manitoba as a whole.

      And this petition has been signed by many Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: Grievances?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, could you please resolve the House into Committee of Supply.

Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the House will consider Estimates this afternoon. This House will now resolve into Com­mit­tee of Supply.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair.

Committee of Supply

(Concurrent Sections)

Room 254

Consumer Protection and Government Services

* (14:40)

Mr. Chairperson (Dennis Smook): Will the Commit­tee of Supply please come to order. This section of Com­mit­tee of Supply will now consider the Estimates of the De­part­ment of Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services.

      Does the hon­our­able minister have an opening statement?

Hon. James Teitsma (Minister of Consumer Protection and Government Services): I do.

      It's a real pleasure for me to be here today to discuss Budget 2023, one of the best budgets ever as it pertains, in parti­cular, to the De­part­ment of Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services.

      I will also note that I, as a minister, this is my first time through this Com­mit­tee of Supply process, so I hope everyone will be reasonably patient with me and ac­com­mo­dating.

      And I–but I believe my op­posi­tion critic might be in the same boat, and so the two of us rookies together, we're going to get through this together.

      I should just say what my de­part­ment is respon­si­ble for. It's like quite a few different things. I've got the modernization of gov­ern­ment services, such as procurement, infor­ma­tion tech­no­lo­gy, digital gov­ern­ment–that's the manage­ment of the gov­ern­ment's vertical and underground capital infra­structure through capital planning; project delivery and asset manage­ment–building things like schools. It's supporting and pro­tecting the interests of Manitoba consumers, citizens, busi­nesses, landlords and tenants through consumer pro­tec­tion, Resi­den­tial Tenancies Com­mis­sion, et cetera.

      In all the de­part­ment has five divisions: capital planning and project delivery; Asset Manage­ment; Digital and Tech­no­lo­gy Solutions; consumer pro­tec­tion and Procurement and Supply Chain.

      The capital and project delivery division is respon­si­ble for negotiating bilateral capital funding agree­ments, developing and maintaining a multi‑year capital infra­structure plan, delivery and project manage­ment.

      The division's goals are to ensure efficient ex­pendi­ture of capital allocations on approved projects, con­sistently apply risk manage­ment to capital funding and projects, improve asset manage­ment for all gov­ern­ment assets and provide real estate services to gov­ern­ment and oversee real estate and property asset disposal.

      The Asset Manage­ment division is respon­si­ble for the safe and efficient operations of all CPGS owned and operated buildings to support reliable delivery of gov­ern­ment services and programs across Manitoba. They also provide insurance and risk and real estate services to gov­ern­ment, including overseeing leases and property disposal and acquisition.

      The Digital and Tech­no­lo­gy Solutions–DTS division–is Manitoba's central organi­zation respon­si­ble for in­for­ma­­tion and com­muni­cations tech­no­lo­gy, and as someone with a back­ground in IT, I especially ap­pre­ciate having this in my portfolio. That includes cyber­security as well.

      It also includes the busi­ness transformation strategy, policy and service delivery for the gov­ern­ment of Manitoba, and strategic leadership to continuously improve the Manitoba gov­ern­ment's ICT environ­ment through planning and imple­men­ting solutions to meet current and future ICT needs.

      The Consumer Pro­tec­tion Division administers con­sumer pro­tec­tion legis­lation, investigates and facilitates dispute reso­lu­tion between consumers and busi­nesses and tenants and landlords.

      The division also provides oversight over public utilities and designated organi­zations related to improving rates, overseeing land titles and personal property registries and issuing a variety of foundational certificates, including births, marriages, name changes and deaths through Vital Statistics.

      The Procurement and Supply Chain Division–PSC–sets the strategic direction, policies and pro­cesses for procurement and supply chain related functions across gov­ern­ment. PSC also provides strategic procurement services and co‑ordinates procurement across Manitoba gov­ern­ment de­part­ments, agencies and the broader public sector.

      The division includes two special operating agencies, or SOAs: the Materials Dis­tri­bu­tion Agency, MDA, provides mail and materials dis­tri­bu­tion services to the public sector, and the Vehicle and Equip­ment Manage­ment Agency, or VEMA, which provides competitive, com­pre­hen­sive fleet and equip­ment manage­ment services to public sector organi­zations in Manitoba, including provincial de­part­ment, agencies and Crown cor­por­ations.

      The central capital program areas seek to ensure predictability of the gov­ern­ment's commit­ment to annual strategic infra­structure invest­ments and ex­pediting capital project planning and delivery through innovative project delivery approaches, including design, build and P3s.

* (14:50)

      The de­part­ment is also working with federal and munici­pal partners to deliver funding for worthy infra­structure projects, with the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, or ICIP, as well as future bi- or trilateral programs.

      The de­part­ment provides strategic leadership to continuously improve the Manitoba gov­ern­ment's ICT environ­ment through planning and imple­men­ting solutions to meet current and future ICT needs. And as part of its mandate, the de­part­ment will continue to–its best efforts to–or its efforts to best utilize tax­payer dollars and work with stake­holders to expand Manitoba's procurement strategy across the public sector.

      Consumer Pro­tec­tion supports and protects the interests of Manitoba consumers, citizens, busi­ness people, landlords and tenants, and we also increase value for Manitoba by investing and maximizing the value of owned assets, including working closely with the Legis­lative Assembly to restore the Legis­lative Building, grounds around the Legislature and Gov­ern­ment House, and if I may say, I'd love to see some air conditioning in this parti­cular room sometime soon. I will do my best to get that done.

      And also we obtain best value for Manitoba by modernizing procurement policies, stan­dard­izing pro­cure­ment, planning purchases across gov­ern­ment and sourcing products and services through a category manage­ment approach.

      That should be a quick summary of what happens in my de­part­ment. It is quite an–a lengthy list, as–I believe I was addressing a French crowd the other day and described my title and various–my full title, my complete title and all its various accoutrements and said it was a sacrée 'bouche-ful' [quite a mouthful].

      And so concludes my remarks.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments.

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

Mr. Mintu Sandhu (The Maples): Good afternoon to you and the minister and all the members and the staff from Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services. Really looking forward to the answers from the minister regarding P3s, Vital Stats, Residential Tenancies Branch, rural broadband and right to appear, and many more questions.

      And, yes, thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member for those comments.

      Under Manitoba practice, debate on the minister's salary is the last item considered for a de­part­ment in the Com­mit­tee of Supply. Accordingly, we shall now defer con­sid­era­tion of line item 8.1(a) contained in reso­lu­tion 8.1.

      At this time we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask that the minister intro­duce the staff in attendance.

Mr. Teitsma: It gives me great pleasure to intro­duce some members of my team. Imme­diately to my left we have Joseph or Joe Dunford, who is the Deputy Minister of Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services, recently arrived on these shores from out east. Across from him is Kathryn Durkin-Chudd, the assist­ant deputy minister of Consumer Pro­tec­tion. And next to the deputy is Ann Leibfried, the acting assist­ant deputy minister and chief financial officer.

      And then against the wall is the most famous member of my entourage. You all know her, although you may not know what she looks like, for her signature appears in every elevator in all of Winnipeg, Cheryl Lashek, the acting assist­ant deputy minister, capital projects, planning and delivery.

Mr. Chairperson: According to our rule 78(16), during the con­sid­era­tion of 'de­part­amental' Estimates, ques­tioning for each de­part­ment shall proceed in a global manner, with questions put separately on all reso­lu­tions once the official critic indicates that questioning has concluded.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Sandhu: Can the minister under­take to give a list of all technical ap­point­ments in her–in his de­part­ment, including names and titles?

Mr. Teitsma: Sorry, all–just a clari­fi­ca­tion, all technical–[interjection] Ap­point­ments. All right.

      I thank the member for the question. The one technical officer that I neglected to actually intro­duce, as I–my line of sight went straight through my assist­ant deputy minister, and so, pardon my neglect for that in the first response.

      I have with me Kyle Reenders, who is chief of staff, otherwise known as a special assist­ant, and he is, in fact, one of the technical officers in Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services. The other is perhaps a familiar name as well: Robert Gabor, who is the chairperson of the Public Utilities Board.

Mr. Sandhu: Can the minister under­take to give an organizational chart that lists all employees and program areas?

Mr. Teitsma: All right. I thank the member for the question. I do have in front of me the organizational chart as of May the 1st at least. Many of the individuals have already been intro­duced and the divisions I spoke to in the–in my opening statement.

      But reporting directly to me under the organi­zational chart would be the Resi­den­tial Tenancies Com­mis­sion, the Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Com­mis­sion and the Public Utilities Board.

* (15:00)

      My deputy minister, Joe Dunford, who you've met; and reporting to him from central Finance is acting assist­ant deputy minister Ms. Leibfried. And then going across the divisions within the de­part­ment, we have Consumer Pro­tec­tion and underneath that is Entrepreneurship Manitoba and the Public Guardian and Trustee. We have the procurement supply chain, under with–underneath which is the Materials Distribu­tion Agency and VEMA.

      We have digital and technical solutions, under­neath which is MERLIN, or the Manitoba Edu­ca­tion, Research and Learning Infor­ma­tion Networks. We also have Asset Manage­ment, which is led ably by Susanne Parent. And I should've mentioned, DTS is led by Hong Chung.

      And then we have capital project and planning and delivery, which is led by Steven Spry; and then we have Cor­por­ate Admin­is­tra­tion and Planning–that position is currently vacant, but also included with that is strategic initiatives with assist­ant deputy minister Young.

Mr. Sandhu: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Minister, for that.

      And also, I see equity and diversity is the main im­por­tant thing that I have seen in this budget docu­ment.

      And can he please provide me the list of diversity in your–recently, that you have given, the list with women, Indigenous people, visible minority and persons with dis­abil­ities, please?

Mr. Teitsma: I thank the member. I would refer him to page 36 of the Sup­ple­ment to the Estimates of Expenditure, where we describe the various equity groups that are tracked: women, Indigenous people, visible minorities and persons with dis­abil­ity, along with their benchmarks and then the actual percentage of total employees, at least as of December 31st, 2022, across Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services.

      But I should have a caveat in there that that would–at this time, these numbers would include the de­part­ment of Labour, or the division of Labour at that time, because when these docu­ments were prepared Labour was still joined together with Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services.

      I hope that's enough specificity; as you can see, there's some areas where we'd like to see an increase. Visible minorities is actually almost double the target, so good news there.

Mr. Sandhu: Can the minister probably break those down into executive, manage­ment and individual contributors, please?

Mr. Teitsma: In the interests of brevity, I think the shortest answer would be no, I cannot provide that parti­cular of a breakdown. We don't track it that way.

      I should also note that in terms of the stats that are there, it's a voluntary self-identification, so it's not neces­sarily tracked on every single individual employee.

Mr. Sandhu: As the minister said, this is voluntary. And can the minister, maybe, take–under­take to pro­vide later on what those numbers are, whenever they are being provided to the minister and the de­part­ment?

Mr. Teitsma: Yes, ap­pre­ciate the question from the member.

      Just in speaking with my team here, we'll cer­tainly attempt to get that infor­ma­tion. If it's available, we'll provide it to the member. If not, we will let him know that it's not and why.

Mr. Sandhu: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and the minister.

      Can the minister give a list of all current vacancies in the de­part­ment?

Mr. Teitsma: Thank you for that question.

      Certainly, we don't track it on an individual position basis, but I can give you a divisional roll-up.

      So, within Cor­por­ate Admin­is­tra­tion and Planning, there are eight vacancies, which is 44 per cent; within capital programs, there is 171.7 vacancies. That's about 30 per cent; within DTS–Digital Tech­no­lo­gy Solutions–there is 69 vacancies, about 32 per cent; within Procurement and Supply Chain, there is 16 and a half vacancies, or about 20 per cent; within Public Safety Communications Services, there are no vacancies, zero per cent; within Consumer Pro­tec­tion, there is 24.7 vacancies, or about 15 per cent.

      And I will mention that there are no vacancies in the Office of the Registrar-General, the Public Guardian and Trustee or Entrepreneurship Manitoba. And that was as of May the 1st.

      We continue to hire.

      Thank you.

Mr. Sandhu: So, can the minister also provide the vacancies in Vital Stats, what percentage of the vacancies there are?

* (15:10)

Mr. Teitsma: I thank the member and, yes, happy to drill down in that parti­cular division. As he knows, it's receiving con­sid­erable attention from myself as the minister and also from him as the critic. And so, happy to report some progress being made there as well.

      There is an active hiring process under way, and so we actually have a staff member starting next week and one the week thereafter. After those two people have started work, there will be five vacancies on 42  total approved FTEs, so that would be an 11.9 per cent vacancy rate.

      But what I will mention in addition to that is that, in addition to those full-time staff that we have work­ing, we also have some temporary staff that have been allocated as well as–so, there's three of those–as well as 13 full-time STEP students that have also been brought to bear onto–into division.

      So, that actually brings us to 51 people working full-time at Vital Statistics, so I guess that would put my vacancy rate somewhere around minus 20 because we actually have more people working in the division than the budget allows.

Mr. Sandhu: On this Esti­mates book, on page 8, it states that the number of employees will only increase by six. Why is the de­part­ment not planning on filling those vacancies this year?

Mr. Teitsma: I thank the member.

      I hope I'm under­standing his line of questioning properly here, but as he's indicated, the budget for '23-24 does have six more staff in it in Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services than it did in '22 and '23. Of course, there are vacancies, as we've already seen, within that. Efforts are being under­taken to fill those vacancies.

      And I think, you know, what I just reported from Vital Statistics certainly indicates that the commit­ment is there to get those vacancies filled, and I think you can see that reflected in some of the increases in expenditure that are expected as part of this year's budget.

Mr. Sandhu: Thank you, Mr. Chair and the minister, and I will like to move on to P3 schools now.

      In 2018, the PC gov­ern­ment looked into construc­tion–constructing P3 schools, yet abandoned the idea after finding it would cost taxpayers more. The study found that for the same cost as building four schools using pre‑three models, the Province could build five schools using traditional methods.

      Yet now, the minister has announced they are going to build schools using the P3 model, despite no evidence that it will be cheaper than the traditional method.

      Can the minister explain why is his gov­ern­ment planning on building schools through a P3 model, despite knowing that they will cost taxpayers more?

Mr. Teitsma: Certainly happy to talk about our com­mit­ment to building schools. As the member knows, we're building far more schools under this gov­ern­ment than had previously been built, and that's my priority, as I want to ensure that those schools get built and get built quickly and are high quality.

      So, that's why I'm under­taking this approach because this is an approach that will get nine schools built in a matter of just a few years. They're going to be built two years ahead of the original commit­ment made by my–by our gov­ern­ment. We're going to build, not just the 20 schools that we committed to building, but 23 schools. So, three ad­di­tional schools, two years sooner, and that's more than enough reason for me.

Mr. Sandhu: I guess–thank you, Mr. Chair, for that, and the minister for that explanation, but isn't it–this was not really the answer that I was looking for.

      I was just–to know what has changed since 2018? And we knew, through the study that the gov­ern­ment has done, that it will cost taxpayers more. And what has changed since then that we are using P3 models, other than maybe, as the minister said, quicker? What other had changed? Like, how is it going to be cheaper for the school division to take over?

Mr. Teitsma: I think I understand a little better what the member might be getting at. And so, he asked what has changed since 2018?

      I think, on any other table, such a question would be met with 'incredgiluity', incredulousness. Now, I'm not sure what the right word is there, but we're going to put that in Hansard and they'll have to spell it. And that's simply because we've gone through a global pandemic. We've gone through in­cred­ible disruptions to supply chains. We've seen un­pre­cedented construc­tion inflation, not just on a year-over-year basis, but sometimes, you know, on a month-over-month basis, as tenders are put out and then bids are received. And then, as the construction actually proceeds, there are sig­ni­fi­cant challenges caused by the pandemic and in–disruptive to our supply chain.

      So, one of the benefits of a P3 approach is that it insulates gov­ern­ment against those disruptions. And so that would be one way in which the market is different today than it was, you know, in 2018.

      But, again, and I would challenge the member's assertions, I think, in terms of costs. Certainly P3s have been used as a model to construct schools in many other provinces in Canada and elsewhere. And certainly, P3 has been used as a model in Manitoba to build some of the best roads that we have here in the city of Winnipeg. All those are hopeful and optimistic things there, I think we can take from that.

* (15:20)

      Certainly, there's some lessons to be learned from some of these other prov­incial imple­men­ta­tions, and I think the member is well aware of what I might be referring to there. But that's why we are going to ensure that this approach here in Manitoba is going to work well.

      It's going to insulate Manitoba taxpayers. It's going to insulate children and parents from the uncertainty associated with our supply chain challenges and our construction inflation. And it's going to ensure that we get quality schools built quickly, which is really what we're after.

Mr. Sandhu: The question still stays the same. Why would any busi­ness want to lose money? After they can bid on a contract, or after they can build schools, they will want to make sure they are making money.

      What exactly had changed? Like, how is it the private, like, one big company building seven schools going to make a difference than the traditional way of building schools with the local private contractors?

      And where you have probably seven different con­tractors, compared to one big contract through that, they will be subcontracting to the smaller ones. But, again, the contract–the one company that will be bidding on the contract want to make sure they are making money.

      So, how is that pro­tec­tion to the taxpayers of Manitobans?

Mr. Teitsma: Yes, lots to dig into there, so we'll see if I can get–if I can remember it all at least, as I get through it here.

      What I would say, first of all, is that it's not one company. Typically with P3s, what you have is you have a consortium of companies, often a consortium of local companies, that come together and that make the bid.

      What–I would just remind the member, too, like, the goal here is not just to have a quality school built, but a quality school maintained. And so, that–there can be certainty that the costs associated with properly maintaining that school are known up front, and that they're well understood and that they're properly funded–contractually funded.

      I can remember when we first came to gov­ern­ment in 2016 as the Progressive Conservative gov­ern­ment at the time, we were quite mortified to find how much deferred maintenance existed within the–all the schools across this province.

      We had sig­ni­fi­cant projects that had not been done: building envelope, roofing, new boilers, ac­ces­si­bility renovations that were left undone, sometimes for more than a decade and were greatly overdue–that doesn't happen in a P3 model. In a P3 model, there's a contractual obligation to properly maintain the asset and to keep it in almost like-new con­di­tion. You know, it's essentially like a deluxe warranty on a–extended warranty on a vehicle.

      And so, you know, certainly we don't want to fall into the member's mathematical issues where, you know, maybe he pretends that a school built the traditional way costs less because the NDP never maintained them. I certainly want that–wouldn't want that to be the case here. We have schools that are going to be properly maintained, that are going to be built, you know, by local construction companies, for the most part–that's my ex­pect­a­tion–that are going to be high quality right from the get-go and through­out the 30-year period. So that's really what we're after.

      Now, why would companies be interested in this kind of a job is the same reason they're interested in any kind of a job, and that is so that they can do some good work and help grow our economy, pay their employees, drive busi­ness, drive growth here in this province, ensure that their company can prosper as well.

      And that's my ex­pect­a­tion, is that that's exactly what will happen. And we've seen that evidence first-hand. I think about the companies that built, you know, the P3 roadways that I've mentioned; you know, the Disraeli overpass, the Chief Peguis Trail, the Moray Street–these are some of the best roads in Winnipeg, and everybody knows it. And everybody knows that if a pothole does appear on one of these roads, it's typically addressed very quickly and in a way that's permanent in the solve.

      So those are really what I expect to have happen. And one of the other benefits I just want to make sure the member understands, when you're dealing with the total cost of owner­ship, when you're looking at the project over a 30-year period, you make better deci­sions in that first year. Maybe you invest an extra 10 per cent in a parti­cular building component because it extends the life of that component by 50 per cent. That gives an op­por­tun­ity for the–for money to be made, and that's the kind of–by the company–but that's the kind of savings that just would not happen under a traditional model.

      So those are just a few of the reasons, I guess, that we're pursuing this model, but I think Manitobans are happy to have a commit­ment to build, not just 20 schools, but 23 schools–so three more schools–to have those schools built two years ahead of our original commit­ment of 2029. Now they'll be built by 2027.

      I know that, you know, folks in my com­mu­nity are very excited that Devonshire Park school is going to be part of those extra nine schools. I know the member for Dawson Trail (Mr. Lagassé), he's giving me the big thumbs-up here as he looks down the table because he knows that in his com­mu­nity as well there's going to be another new school, a high school, built as part of this bundle of nine schools.

      And given that there's nine, I assume there's probably seven other happy MLAs wandering the building. I'm not going to list them all right now, but I'm pretty sure we can agree that building new schools–lots of new schools–is good for Manitoba. It's good for Manitoba students, parents and our province.

Mr. Sandhu: In his response, the minister said it will cost more than the traditional way of building schools.

      So the minister is admitting it, that it will cost more, as he just answered in his just previous–my previous question, he answered it.

Mr. Teitsma: Well, I'll have to check the Hansard, but I'm pretty certain I didn't say that. So maybe it was a mis­under­standing.

      Generally speaking, P3 projects, in the long term, when they're looking at the total cost of owner­ship, a P3 project will cost less than a traditional build that is properly maintained.

      Now, what I would say to that member is I have seen some suspicious mathematics being espoused by people who are opposed to P3s for political reasons that are looking at the actual costs of maintaining a school.

      Under the NDP gov­ern­ment, the actual costs of maintaining a school were, of course, minimal because they weren't making the invest­ments. And at the end of this–at the end of the process, you ended up with a school that's crumbling, needs a new roof, needs a new boiler, the elevator's broken, the bricks are falling off the walls, and then to say that that building costs less than the P3 school built down the street that has a building that's–or a roof that's going to last another 50 years, that has bricks that will never fall off, that it has an elevator that's going to work without anything other than routine maintenance for another 10 years.

      I'm not going to compare those two and say that I should only compare them on the basis of how much money was put into them. I don't doubt that a poorly maintained school that didn't receive the treatments–the invest­ments that it needed would cost less than a properly 'maintuned' school. But I can tell you this: Manitoba students, Manitoba parents do not want to send their kids to that. They want to send their kids to well-maintained, properly built schools, and that's exactly what they're going to get with this gov­ern­ment.

* (15:30)

Mr. Sandhu: And maybe the minister's response also telling me that in the last seven years, they haven't really funded the schools properly. Is that correct?

Mr. Teitsma: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I have no idea where the member's going now. And I should, you know, perhaps, pause between responses here a little bit more. But I'll just, you know, at least set the record if not completely straight at least a little straighter than that.

      And what I would say is that when we came to gov­ern­ment, what did we find? Not just poorly main­tained schools but portables. If the previous gov­ern­ment focused on anything, it was building portables. I think the Edu­ca­tion minister, Nancy Allan at the time, thought that they were great. She thought they were wonderful. And I think, you know, the last I checked, there was over 360 portables in use by the NDP when they were in charge–360–360. That holds 9,000 students in portables.

      So, that's not happening anymore under our gov­ern­ment. We are building schools. We are building–we've already got 14 of them either completed or under way. We're going to get another nine of them built as part of this schools project. These are sig­ni­fi­cant invest­ments, invest­ments in schools that amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, over the last five years, $984 million has been invested in edu­ca­tion capital spending. That's five years, $984 million.

      And lest the member think that we're in any way taking our foot off the gas, the projection for the five years after that is more than $300 million higher. It is $1.297 billion of invest­ments planned in capital–edu­ca­tion capital spending over the next five years. That is $1,297 million.

      So, in total, over a 10-year period, our gov­ern­ment will have invested more than $2.2 billion in edu­ca­tion capital infra­structure. That is far beyond any­thing the previous gov­ern­ment ever did, even when you include all the money they wasted on portables.

Mr. Sandhu: I guess probably I'll just move from that because we can go back and forth on this one.

      We can even–as I see the minister just walked in, we can go to his quote from 2018. But I'll probably bring that one up later on.

      Provinces across Canada just as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia are moving away from using the P3 model to build schools. Nova Scotia's Auditor General found that P3 schools cost $52 million more than standard construction. P3 schools in Regina prohibited teachers from opening their windows or decorating their classroom. Alberta cancelled their plan to build schools using P3s in December. They have learned their mistake from P3s.

      Can the minister explain why has the gov­ern­ment not learned from the mistakes of the other provinces? [interjection]

Mr. Teitsma: I'd love Hansard to reflect that at last, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Goertzen) has refrained from heckling his own minister and has moved on to the critic, and for that, we can be grateful. I expect he'll be headed back my way soon.

      But, nevertheless, the member mentions he doesn't want to go back and forth. I think I agree, I think I want to go forth. And I know that Manitobans do not want to go back, and they don't want to go back to the NDP where they, you know, neglected the needs of students in Manitoba by housing them in portables, making them trundle across frigid parking lots at -35° to go to an overcrowded, undersized washroom and to hope to share a gym if it wasn't closed because the roof was leaking.

      That's what going back looks like. Going forth looks like what we see happening in the Waverley West neighbourhood. Bison Run School, I think I just got recently to visit–man, is that thing a piece of beautiful work. It is so, so well put together; it has so many amazing features. Included in it is a extra­ordin­arily high-quality school. It's exactly the sort of school that Manitoba parents want, it's exactly the sort of school that Manitoba students want to go to school in and it's exactly the sort of schools that will be built as part of this Manitoba schools project.

      Now, I am remembering that I think the member was referring to some of the other provinces. I think there's been some successes, there's been some issues; certainly, we're a gov­ern­ment that actually listens. We're a government that learns. I'm–I've got within my de­part­ment a procurement division that I think is quite possibly the finest in the entire country, and I expect that they are going to do a phenomenal job on this parti­cular project. They're going to knock it out of the park and they're going to make sure that if there were issues in some of these other provinces, that they've learned from those mistakes, that we ensure that these schools are built properly.

      Now, I will just–before the member might even want to go there–I think I've heard him say, well, if there was mistakes in some P3s then, you know, why would you do them at all? I'll just remind the member that every op­por­tun­ity to tender a gov­ern­ment project has possible challenges associated with it. We've seen examples. Just look at Keeyask, where cost overruns were rampant and where, you know, the way in which that project was tendered and the decision-making processes around it created all kinds of hardships for Manitoba ratepayers and Manitoba taxpayers.

      Procurement is a science and an art. It has to be done well, and I'm confident that the team within Consumer Pro­tec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services has the ability to do it well. That's why we're going to proceed.

      Thank you.

Mr. Sandhu: Minister, in his answer, said he's–his de­part­ment is–or he or his de­part­ment is listening. And I just want to know, because earlier they did a study. They'd listen–they didn't listen to that study, whoever did the study. And now they said they're listening.

      Can the minister explain a little bit more, maybe, who he's referring to when he said they are listening?

Mr. Teitsma: I–if I didn't make it clear enough, I guess, in the first response, I can make it a little clearer now.

* (15:40)

      Many of these experts work in my de­part­ment. They are procurement experts. That's why they're in the procurement division in a position of leadership–not just in our province, but I genuinely believe across the country. And I'm in­cred­ibly proud of them and of their abilities. They certainly have, you know, demon­strated their ability to deliver projects for Manitobans. And so when they recom­mend that we deliver these nine schools in this model, then, absolutely, I'm going to listen to their advice.

      Now, what I would remind the member of is, you know, some of the other provinces that he might want to talk about and some of the concerns that were raised in some of these projects is that there's various ways that P3 models can be constructed. I want to make sure the member's aware of how these projects can be constructed.

      There's a number of acronyms in play. DBFM is the approach that we are taking; that means design, build, finance, maintain. DBFOM is the method that is in use by some of the provinces where there were some issues, and that's an operate-and-maintain model.

      We've made it very clear that the schools will be owned publicly and that the schools will be operated by the school division exactly the same way as, you know, a school built down the street under the traditional model.

      And so, from a parent's perspective, the schools–these schools are going to be amazing. From the student's perspective, these schools are going to be amazing. From the school division's perspective, these schools are going to be amazing and they're going to be built before the enrolment pressure reaches the breaking point, not after 9,000 students are stuck in 361 portables across our province. That's the way the NDP did it. We're not doing it that way.

      And if you take a look at the beautiful schools coming up in the Waverley West division, you take a look at the beautiful schools happening in Winnipeg north, take a look at the schools planned in the Brandon area–all of these schools are addressing enrolment pressures that have not yet reached critical mass. And they're going to be built ready to receive these students. That's what planning–good planning, proper execution can get you.

      I know the member might not be familiar with that, he certainly is not going to get that from the NDP Edu­ca­tion minister, Nancy Allan. After all, she thought the portables were a wonderful, wonderful solution for the problem facing Manitoba students.

Mr. Sandhu: Minister also has said–like, I'm agree, like, hundred and ten per cent, there's lots of good people in the de­part­ment that are doing good work on behalf of Manitoba ratepayers.

      And–but my question still–go back to 2018. So, what was the reason of doing the study 2018, spending taxpayers' money, when we know we have a great mind sitting in the de­part­ment?

Mr. Teitsma: I thank the member, and I 'guets' we're right back to the back-and-forth where he wants to take us back, you know, five years, 10 years, 15 years. We want to move forward.

      And moving forward is what we're going to do. Moving forward with this project is going to deliver nine high-quality schools in our province. That's going to happen in relatively short order.

      I–you know, under the NDP, I talked to a number of school trustees, and they told me it was routine that, between when a school would have an approval from the NDP prov­incial gov­ern­ment to when they actually could get students in the building, eight years, nine years–took forever.

      Part of the mandate given to these highly talented staff–and I do thank the member for acknowl­edging the amazing technical staff that we have working in that division. Certainly cannot say enough good things about them, and I'm glad the member agrees.

      But, you know, when they make a recom­men­dation based on the project parameters that have been given to them–to build nine schools, not just four or five; to build high-quality schools; to build schools that'll be maintained for decades in a high-quality state, and also to be built in this post-pandemic environ­ment where there's a lot of uncertainty–I trust their expertise, and I think the member should too.

Mr. Sandhu: Even though the minister didn't really answer what had changed or what was–why the study was done in 2018, what I'll–I'd like to move to a different question.

      Can the minister provide details on the proposal–proposed deal to build schools using the P3 model? Will the Province own the schools?

Mr. Teitsma: Yes, the Province will own the schools.

Mr. Sandhu: How much it will cost the taxpayers?

Mr. Teitsma: I suppose if the member, you know, woke up one day and found $600,000 sitting in his bank account and–along with a note from the family to say, please use this $600,000 to build a house, I would recom­mend strongly to him that he not share that figure with the people doing the building and tell them exactly how much he has to spend, as much as those contractors–or, sorry, as much as those car sales­men and house salesmen, you know, might want to know exactly how much you have to spend when you show up at their busi­ness.

      And so, you know, I don't want to suggest that the member's not ready in any way to be in gov­ern­ment if he's asking questions like that. That wouldn't neces­sarily be charitable of me. But I will say that, certainly, we understand in gov­ern­ment that it's best to let the tendering process and the competitive process drive the price and not put out figures that might suggest that we're willing to pay more than we would otherwise have to.

Mr. Sandhu: I'm sure the minister and the de­part­ment have those numbers that–how much it will–going to cost the taxpayers. I'm sure they have studied those numbers.

      Is there any studies done to see whereabouts those numbers will be–just the internal part only–they have done any studies on that one, though?

* (15:50)

Mr. Teitsma: Yes, I thank the member. And I'm certain that we will know what the price of the project is after it's been awarded.

      But saying it before, is kind of like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Goertzen) was just telling us about his wife's en­gage­ment ring. He made the mistake of entering the jewellery shop and saying he could spend up to $3,000, and out came the recom­men­dation for a $3,000 en­gage­ment ring, which is probably twice what I paid for my wife's en­gage­ment ring, I'm ashamed to say. But I told my wife–[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order. Order here, guys.

Mr. Teitsma: –she could spend up to $5,000.

      In any case, I think the member–I hope the member can see why it's im­por­tant to allow the process to drive the price and to not, you know, provide a sense even of what the price range might be, because of the impact that might have on the tendering process. We want to ensure that we're getting good value for taxpayers, and once again, I, you know, I'm not an expert in procurement yet, but I know that people in my de­part­ment are, and so I trust their advice on that as well.

Mr. Sandhu: So the minister said earlier that they won't be using a single vendor. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able member.

      Oh, sorry, the hon­our­able minister.

Mr. Teitsma: You know, certainly, it's–the creativity of Manitobans is, I think, boundless, and I expect that will come to bear in this process as well. The door is certainly open, and the ex­pect­a­tion, based on what we see happening in other provinces, is that a con­sortium–well, actually, multiple consortiums–will likely form. And those consortiums will together put together a bid to, you know, a proposal to deliver the nine schools. And that's my ex­pect­a­tion of what's going to happen this time, as well.

      So, it's not really fair, I think, to talk about a single vendor as if there's one company that's fronting the whole thing. It will be a bid, most likely put together by a consortium of companies, many of those com­panies I expect to be local right here in Manitoba.

Mr. Sandhu: We know, like, P3 schools in Regina prevented teachers from opening their window or decorating their classroom. Will the teacher be allowed to open the window and decorate their classrooms?

Mr. Teitsma: I should know already if the member has kids in school in Manitoba, but I'm sorry, I don't necessarily know that off the top of my head. But I certainly do. [interjection] You have one? One? [interjection] Good. I've got the indication there's one student.

      So you may have seen from time to time art on display, paper art, often, you know, maybe in the hall­ways of the school or in the classrooms of the school, or if not there, then certainly on your fridge at home. But what I would say is when art is on display in the classroom and in the school, there is a limit. And that limit's actually part of fire code. I think it's around 20 per cent here in Manitoba. But, certainly, you don't want, you know, a lot of flammable substances on the walls of a school. You want to make sure that you're taking reasonable precautions there.

      So I would certainly expect Manitobans to follow fire code when it comes to putting things–coming things–putting things on the walls and ensuring that that's the case. I know that the school that my kids went to, they got a visit from the Fire Com­mis­sioner and were told that they had a little bit too much up on the walls and had to take some down. And they got a little too enthusiastic with their artwork, and that does happen from time to time. So we certainly need to make sure that fire code and building codes are followed. And so I just want to preface my response with that.

      What I would do is I would also–I would just remind the member that these schools are publicly owned and that they are going to be operated by the school division. So if the design of the school includes, you know, windows that are not openable, I guess you can't open them. But if they are operable windows, so that they can be opened, yes, they will be able to open them.

Mr. Sandhu: So I think the minister already said the school divisions will have the control over the school. Is that correct?

Mr. Teitsma: Yes, I thank the member for the question.

      You know, I think I've made it clear that the school divisions will be able to operate these schools the same way they operate other schools. But when it comes to, you know, major maintenance that needs to get done in the school–roof re­place­ments, for example–well, that's the respon­si­bility of the Project Co, as it's called, or the consortium.

      And so what I think would be different than the way that, you know, traditional schools are managed under the NDP is that when the school building needs a new roof, they'll get one–not 10 years later. When they need a new boiler, they'll get one–not 10 years later, but when they need it is when they'll get it. The school will be properly maintained. And that's one of the key benefits of this approach.

Mr. Sandhu: Will all the schools be identical, or they will have a similar design for all the schools?

* (16:00)

Mr. Teitsma: I'm happy to report that the answer to the question is no, but I'll give a little bit more infor­ma­tion to the member beyond that.

      For starters, you know, they're–if you look closely at the schools that are part of the nine schools project, there's–some are grade 9 through 12 schools with industrial arts sections and the like; some are K to 8; and then I think there's also a K‑to‑12–a couple of K‑to‑12s in the list as well. So I would assure the member that certainly those three design profiles will not be identical, nor should they be.

      But when you're talking about, for example, I'll use a K-to-8 school–that's what's going to get built, you know, in my neighbourhood as part of the new dev­elop­ment north of Costco; that's going to be a K‑to-8 school–and I would expect that a lot of the design elements in that school and the way it's built will be similar to the other K-to-8 schools in the bundle.

      But there will be an op­por­tun­ity for school divi­sions and the parents in those school divisions to kind of indicate some of the priorities that they might have, the local priorities they might have, and some of the, you know, parti­cular aspects of the design that they might want to see reflected. That op­por­tun­ity will be there.

      Of course, it's limited, because we're going to be building, I mean, fun­da­mentally, what do you need? You need classrooms. You need gymnasiums. I don't think there's any reason for one K-to-8 gymnasium to be 10 feet longer than the other K-to-8 gymnasium. I expect they'd all be the same.

      And so, yes, I think the answer to the question is no, they are not going to be identical, but largely the same when it comes to the same pro­gram­ming needs: K to 8, K to 12 and 9 through 12.

Mr. Sandhu: So, K to 8, like, the schools they are having be built, they will be similar in design. And grade 9 to 12 will be similar in design. Is that correct?

Mr. Teitsma: Yes, I'd expect that the designs would be similar, but not identical, because the program needs are similar, but not identical.

Mr. Sandhu: When will the contract be signed?

Mr. Teitsma: Happy to inform the member that the tender–or, sorry, that the contract will be signed when the tendering and negotiation processes are complete.

Mr. Sandhu: When that will be done, then?

Mr. Teitsma: Certainly, I wouldn't want to rush that process, but at the same time, we don't want it to drag on.

      So we're going to ensure that the process is done well. We want to make sure that all the necessary steps are followed, negotiations done properly and that the team of technical experts within the procurement divi­sion are satisfied that they're moving things forward that they're comfortable with.

      So, when all that is done, that's when the–when it will be signed. The intent is to have these schools open in 2027.

Mr. Sandhu: I have some more questions about the PC gov­ern­ment's use of P3s.

      Did he send a request for proposal posted by the de­part­ment stated that the Gov­ern­ment of Manitoba was looking to prequalify suppliers to provide engineering and architectural services to buying groups which consist of Manitoba Health organi­zations, MBLL, MHRC, Manitoba Hydro, the gov­ern­ment as a whole and MPI?

      Can the minister explain what project his de­part­ment is looking to at using P3 model for?

Mr. Teitsma: I've got to tell you that we've been chatting with my folks here on this side and we're not really sure what the member is exactly referring to, so I would ask for two things: I would ask that he repeat the question, and then if he does have a copy of the docu­ment he was referring to, and that–the parts that he's quoting, if he could share that with me so I could hand it to my technical staff so they at least know which docu­ment in parti­cular we're referring to.

      It's a big de­part­ment. There's lots going on.

Mr. Sandhu: This is related to procurement on page 21. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order. Order.

      If you guys have some­thing to discuss, please take it to the back of the room so you wouldn't disturb people at the front.

* (16:10)

Mr. Teitsma: I thank the member for the clarity of the page number. I'm looking at the page number, and I remember him saying the words Hydro and MPI and I'm not seeing that on the page. So if he could explain, I guess, which page he's referring to spe­cific­ally, or which program, or which paragraph.

      And–just to make sure I'm actually under­standing the question. Because I'm not really seeing what he's talking about and how that would apply to things like Hydro and MPI.

Mr. Sandhu: I guess, probably, I'll get back to the minister on this one, because I'm also looking at that page and I don't see it either. So I'm going to just get–maybe just going to go to Vital Stats from here.

      So just earlier, I think my question was what was the–vacancy rate was at the Vital Stats.

      Can the minister also provide what was the vacancy rate for the last five years in Vital Stats? Last five years.

Mr. Teitsma: I thank the member for that question. Five years' worth of vacancy infor­ma­tion I do not have, but I do have the last eight months or so.

      And so we have, during that time, had a vacancy rate that went as high as 40 per cent, as the member likely knows, just as I entered the role as minister of this de­part­ment. Certainly, I think you can see the results of my focus on this de­part­ment in terms of what happened with the vacancy rate soon after that, as in March the vacancy rate declined from 40 to 32.5. In April, it declined to 19. In May, it's at 11.9.

      And on top of that, as I indicated, there's so many temporary and full-time students–step-students on staff that the vacancy rate is actually a negative num­ber, I guess, because there's 20 per cent more staff than there are FTEs approved in the budget, as we have 51 full-time staff and a 42 full-time equivalent budget complement.

      So, certainly, we've been heading in the right direc­tion, and I would say have completely turned around the issues that were being caused by, you know, an unacceptably high vacancy rate within that de­part­ment.

Mr. Sandhu: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and the minister.

      And I was just wondering, like, the minister had the number for the last eight months, but doesn't have the numbers for, like, say–not five years, two years, three years?

Mr. Teitsma: Thank the member, and, you know, I did provide the eight months of vacancy infor­ma­tion.

      And I think, as I indicated to him earlier, we're a gov­ern­ment that wants to move forward and not, you know, not look too far backwards other than learning from the mistakes of, maybe, previous gov­ern­ments or other gov­ern­ments, sometimes our own, but less often.

      What I will say is that I'm in­cred­ibly proud of the work of the folks that do work in Vital Statistics and also the co‑operation that I've got to witness first-hand.

* (16:20)

      We've got–all reporting up to me, I guess, in various ways–I have Vital Statistics reporting to me, but I also have digital and tech­no­lo­gical services, and they're helping, and then also, of course, the Public Service Com­mis­sion through a different deputy report­ing to me as well. And they've been brought to bear to really ensure that we address the vacancies and the con­tri­bu­tion that those vacancies had to the service levels being delivered by Vital Statistics.

      The member knows that what's happening at Vital Statistics Branch has my attention and has the attention of my staff and my deputy correspondently. And so that's certainly where our focus is, it's on moving forward. And I'll just remind the member, like, we've essentially gotten this vacancy rate down to 11.9 per cent at this time, effectively at minus 20 when you include the temporary staff and the students that have been brought to bear.

      And this is at a time when across Canada in every juris­dic­tion there have been staffing challenges. There are high vacancy rates affecting not just gov­ern­ment but many industries as well where, you know, restaurants have been forced to change their hours and hotels have been shuttering floors and construction busi­nesses are unable to bid on contracts because they just can't find enough workers.

      So I think on that backdrop, to look at the accom­plish­ments of my de­part­ment and–both in CPGS here and in the Public Service Com­mis­sion–to take a de­part­ment like Vital Statistics and to take it from having a 40 per cent vacancy rate to essentially a negative 20 per cent vacancy rate in a matter of three months; that's a tre­men­dous accom­plish­ment.

      I'm in­cred­ibly proud of them. I'm very pleased to see the work that they did bear fruit, and I'm en­couraged as I look out on the future that we're going to ensure that Vital Statistics delivers world-class service to all Manitobans, especially with all these staff now helping and being brought to bear.

Mr. Sandhu: This is on the Estimates book–sorry–budget, and page 25. It said VSB partnered with Manitoba Gov­ern­ment Inquiry to answer inbound telephone calls.

      This has been always the case, or this is some­thing new?

Mr. Len Isleifson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

Mr. Teitsma: I'll make it up to the member for taking a few minutes there to answer the question by giving him, you know, maybe three responses to previous questions that we left unanswered earlier today.

      But first, I'm going to deal with the question he just asked, which is around the use of the Manitoba Gov­ern­ment Inquiry line as a way to help with inbound calls to Vital Statistics.

      So, that practice began on November the 15th, 2021, pretty much right in the heart of the pandemic. And it was done as a way to address some of the staffing challenges that had already appeared within Vital Statistics, at that time, that were making it chal­lenging to deliver the services in the way that we want to be delivering them.

* (16:30)

      The intent is to–now that we have a full staff complement, certainly, we're bringing them to bear and–in clearing the backlog and improving response times and wait times for birth certificates, death certificates, marriage certificates, both the registration and the issuance of a certificate. All those are in scope for us.

      And, as that is improved, the ex­pect­a­tion is that the assist­ance of MGI for inbound calls will also revert back into Vital Statistics. We do have positions available to do that work, and our hope is that we'll be able to bring that back into Vital Statistics, you know, as we address the backlog.

      Now, I did promise a couple extra answers for the member. So, I did find the vacancy rate as of a year and a little bit ago. So, as of March the 25th in 2022–so that is 13 and a half months ago–the vacancy rate within Vital Statistics was 39.5 per cent. So that's some infor­ma­tion that I'm sure the member would be happy to receive.

      And then, if we recall back–earlier in the after­noon, when we were talking about equity and diversity benchmarks, and if I had that by, you know, senior manage­ment. So, I do have the–my staff been working on getting the executive level breakdown. So, for the executive level breakdown–and that would be deputy ministers, assist­ant deputy ministers, executive directors and directors that provide leader­ship to con­tribute to the strategic direction of the organ­ization–there are 34 people in those positions.

      And, as you can perhaps guess based on who's sitting beside me at the table here, more than 50 per cent of them are women–spe­cific­ally, 52.9 per cent are women–2.9 per cent are Indigenous, 5.9 per cent are persons with dis­abil­ities and 17.6 per cent are visible minorities. So, I was able to get that infor­ma­tion. I hope that's useful to the member.

      And look forward to continuing to answer ques­tions for many, many hours more.

Mr. Sandhu: Thank you for that infor­ma­tion, to the minister.

      And so when people call the gov­ern­ment inquiry line, how long they are usually on hold before the call is being answered?

Mr. Teitsma: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nice to have you in the Chair.

      I thank the member for the question. I don't have the specific number of minutes spent waiting, but what I would counsel Manitobans and this member both, is to say, you know, we're aware that there are processing challenges, that there are–that it's taking longer than we would like to process certificate applications and to process birth registrations.

      I think, you know, many Manitobans I speak with, they understand that and so they are patient. Others are eager to try to accelerate the process, and they think that maybe phoning will help accelerate that.

      I would just caution them, right, that, like, my ex­pect­a­tion is–and I've made that clear to the de­part­ment–is that these applications are going to be pro­cessed in shorter and shorter time frames, that they're going to be processed in such a way that improves our client ex­per­ience. And that part of that is that if there is an error or concern with a registration–birth registra­tion or with an application for a certificate, that we reach out to them.

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

      And so, my advice, I think, to Manitobans would be to ensure that they've got a phone number on their application forms and on their registration infor­ma­tion that's live and that the staff at Vital Statistics can get a hold of them if they need to to work out any parti­cular details or errors or, you know, issues with questions that they might have about either the birth registration or the certificate application that they've completed.

      I think that's where Manitobans are going to get the best service. I think having–encouraging a whole bunch of them to phone Vital Statistics is–in the end of the day, is not necessarily going to be provi­ding any assist­ance to them or to the de­part­ment, and maybe–may only end up increasing frustration, so we don't want that to happen.

* (16:40)

Mr. Sandhu: Can the minister provide the turnaround time once the call is received and a person has requested the docu­ment or inquiry over–regarding some docu­ments. What is the turnaround time; once they've got the call, send it to Vital Stats, how long does is take the Vital Stats to respond back?

Mr. Teitsma: I thank the member for the question, and thank him for his patience as we've tried to get that answer from–directly from the staff that work over at Vital Statistics, so–getting it hot off the presses, since I didn't have that infor­ma­tion at my fingertips.

      Just so you understand the process, when the phone call goes in to MGI–Manitoba Gov­ern­ment Inquiry's line–then they log that on a spreadsheet and essentially send that spreadsheet over to Vital Statistics to pro­cess. They're currently backlogged as well on return­ing calls. So it's typically taking about a week, some­times a little longer than that, before the call is returned.

      Unacceptably long, in my opinion; and the hope is to get to the point where we're getting certificates–or, sorry, births registered, certificates issued in a much more timely basis.

Mr. Sandhu: Earlier, actually, I asked the question how long people are on hold when they call the Manitoba gov­ern­ment inquiries. One minister can provide those numbers but the other one can't; why is that? Minister for Advanced Edu­ca­tion can provide those numbers, but the Minister of–for Consumer Protec­tion and Gov­ern­ment Services can't.

      What's the difference?

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

      Yes, I can only speak for what my de­part­ment here is responsible for, and perhaps the Minister of Advanced Edu­ca­tion has a dedi­cated line or better reporting statistics or maybe she's just better at her job; it's all good.

      But I'll just say that I don't have the number for how long they are to wait. But I'll reiterate what I said in the previous response, right, which is that, you know, inbound calls are probably not the most effective way to move things along when it comes to moving forward issues.

      What I do encourage individuals to do is maybe reach out to their MLA. I believe the member opposite has probably had some people reach out to him where they have a particular need, you know, for example, related to immigration or to travel or some­thing where a certificate is needed sooner than, perhaps, the ordinary processes are able to deliver.

* (16:50)

      And certainly when that happens, when it comes to my office from another MLA–no matter what party stripe–you know, I don't hesitate to give that–pass that along to my team to see if people who are in parti­cular circum­stances where the delay is causing undue hard­ship, that they're able to still get what they need, when they need it.

      But for the most part, I'm–I guess my ask of Manitobans is that they be patient as we continue to staff up, which we have done, and then to work on the backlog, which we are doing.

Mr. Sandhu: So, the minister is telling the public to call the MLA so they can get their birth certificate, marriage certificate or death certificate sooner? That's what the minister is saying?

Mr. Teitsma: Well, the member certainly doesn't have a history of twisting my words too often, but this time I think he's guilty.

      What I would say is that when there are ex­ceptional needs–if there's a parti­cular need where, as I indicated, immigration or passport or another dependent need, that it just–it causes undue hardship for the person to simply be patient and allow the process to play out, and that's why I encourage them to contact their MLA, because their MLA should be able to interact with that individual and assess, you know, if that need is real, or if it's simply just a matter that they would really like to get it quickly, and–but they don't have any, necessarily, more compelling reason to request it than most other Manitobans would.

      In those exceptional circum­stances–and I think, to date, I certainly have not heard of any MLAs that have abused that op­por­tun­ity; I think most MLAs under­stand that such es­cal­ation should be used judiciously and rarely–and only under those circum­stances are we able to move forward in a respon­si­ble way.

      Clearly, if I got thousands of requests to accelerate the delivery of birth certificates, well, that would only further delay and distract, I think, from the good work that's happening to ensure that our processes are improved, that the birth certificate registrations, applications, marriage certificate registrations and applications and death certificate registrations and applications are happening as efficiently as possible and as accurately as possible, and in time as quickly as possible.

Mr. Sandhu: I'm sure whoever called Manitoba Govern­ment Inquiry, they always do it whenever those people need it; they are in some kind of–they need a docu­ment to travel or some­thing, they need a new passport, too, for their kids.

      And, maybe, I'm kind of–just to ask, like, if the minister can provide us the–they can break down by the type of docu­ments, like, but–numbers. Like, hundreds, thousands; like, death certificate, birth certificate, marriage certificate–if the minister can give us the list by breaking those numbers down.

Mr. Teitsma: Yes, I thank the member.

      My de­part­ment staff are reminding me also that we do have an op­por­tun­ity to apply for a rush issuance of a certificate. And so, once the event is registered–the birth or the marriage, for example–is registered, and if a rush certificate is applied for, that rush certificate is delivered within about three days of the registration of the event. And, certainly, that–I think the member would agree that three days between a registration and a birth certificate is good turnaround time.

      The amount of time that it takes to register the event, though, is, I think, where he and I probably share the concern. Is that, you know, for marriages, for example, that's a nice, quick–you get married one week and your marriage is registered the next week, and there's no backlog in that regard.

      But with births, it's not like that. With a birth, you know, the registration should be–the form is being filled out, typically, in the medical–in the health-care facility, and then that form is passed along to–or, sent in to Vital Statistics. But that's where one of the, you know, key backlogs, or parts of the backlog that we're focused on is, and that's taking, you know, certainly longer than the three days.

Mr. Sandhu: I think my question was: Can the minister provide those docu­ments by the numbers? What is the waiting list? Like, it is thousands of people are waiting, 500 people are waiting, 700 people are waiting in each docu­ment type?

Mr. Teitsma: I thank the member very much for his question.

      I ap­pre­ciate what he's trying to get at. Probably good to set the back­ground, though, first, to under­stand, you know, how much processing is happening at Vital Statistics on a week-by-week or a year-by-year basis, right.

      And so, on a year-by-year basis, it's probably about 125,000 events are occurring, right. So quick math between myself and the member would tell you that that means, you know, on an average week, there's 2,000 to 2,500 events that are having to be processed in that week. That's assuming zero backlog, and–or, assuming, you know, that an application that's made one week is processed within that week.

      And so, that's in the thousands already, just because of the volume–

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., com­mit­tee rise.

Room 255

Agriculture

* (14:40)

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

      Does the hon­our­able minister have an opening statement?

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

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able Minister of Agricul­ture.

Mr. Johnson: As Manitoba's Agri­cul­ture Minister, I'm, of course, pleased to discuss our de­part­ment's 2023 budget and our progress towards sus­tain­able growth in agri­cul­ture and agri-processing.

      Manitobans, like all Canadians, have dealt with major challenges in the past three years, from the pandemic to the invasion of Ukraine, supply chain issues, inflation and increasing interest rates. The 2023 budget continues invest­ments that create op­por­tun­ities and foster the sus­tain­able growth of Manitoba producers and agri-producers through innovative, reli­able supports and services.

      Launched in 2019, the Manitoba Protein Advantage strategy is positioning us as North America's preferred supplier of sustainably produced protein. Manitoba was the first North American juris­dic­tion to develop a com­pre­hen­sive protein strategy to advance sus­tain­able animal and plant protein production with the benefits of increased invest­ment and job creation.

      We are pleased to see strong progress in the strategy, including $823 million in new plant and animal protein invest­ments by the private sector, which is about 55 per cent of our goal. We have seen over 900 new jobs created, which is about 59 per cent of our goal.

      Manitoba has committed to 1 and a half million dollars over six years to create the strategic research chair in sus­tain­able protein at the Uni­ver­sity of Manitoba. This role will accelerate innovation to support the protein strategy.

      Budget 2023 continues to invest in innovation and product commercialization through capital expendi­tures of 2 and a half million dollars for equip­ment renewal and en­hance­ments at the de­part­ment's Food Dev­elop­ment Centre. This will further support the Manitoba food industry and Protein Advantage strategy.

      The upgraded equip­ment will enhance protein extraction capability, expanded starting material options and improve efficiencies. It will also increase the range of functional testing, allowing clients to better understand the resulting protein ingredients and explore possible uses for by-products.

      Additionally, the upgrades will enable a demon­stra­tion of self-stable formulization for beverage and liquid food applications, provi­ding broader market testing op­por­tun­ities and easier client co-manufacturing.

      Collaborating with Food Dev­elop­ment Centre has helped companies explore potential uses for co-products, evaluate revenue op­por­tun­ities, increase product value and reduce their environ­mental impact.

      Budget 2023 continues progress in the largest tax reduction in the history of our province with the school tax rebate for farm properties increasing from 37 and a half to 50 per cent. This historic increase will result in $54.8 million more in the pockets of hard-working farmers in 2023. From '21 to '23, inclusive, $123 million will be returned to Manitoba farmers.

* (14:50)

      This year's school tax rebate, combined with the Farmland School Tax Rebate of $24 million will see savings to farm owners increase to almost $79 million for 2023.

      On April 1st, 2023, the sus­tain­able agri­cul­ture part­ner­ship, or S-CAP, was launched. The prov­incial-federal cost-sharing agree­ment continues at nearly 20‑year joint commit­ment to agri­cul­ture growth.

      The Province of Manitoba, along with the federal gov­ern­ment, are investing $221 million in our province's agri­cul­ture industry over the next five years–2023 to 2028–with this province contributing 40 per cent. This is a 25 per cent increase of funding from the previous five-year CAP agree­ment.

      Planned S-CAP pro­gram­ming for Manitoba will support sus­tain­able dev­elop­ment into the agri-food industry now and into the future. Extensive con­sul­ta­tions has taken place with stake­holders to ensure that the programs we develop under S-CAP meet the needs of producers across the province. These programs will serve to advance several of Manitoba's strategies and priorities. These include the Protein Advantage strategy, the water strategy, the Skills, Talent and Knowledge Strategy, the Climate and Green Plan, red tape reduction and Indigenous recon­ciliation.

      Ensuring strong farming com­mu­nities, the S-CAP framework also includes a suite of busi­ness risk manage­­ment programs, namely AgriInsurance, AgriStability, AgriInvest and AgriRecovery. These programs are critical to ensuring producers have reliable and responsive supports, ensuring Manitoba producers remain competitive in the wake of uncertainty.

      We expect total funding in '23-24 for Busi­ness Risk Manage­ment pro­gram­ming to reach $140.6 million. Enhance­ments to the AgriStability program include increasing the compensation rate from 70 to 80 per cent, provi­ding greater support for the deepest losses during bad years, approving the program's simplicity, timeli­ness, predictability and equity.

      In Budget 2023 Manitoba is making the largest ever con­tri­bu­tion to AgriInsurance premiums esti­mated to be $103.1 million. Manitoba's con­tri­bu­tion represents approximately 24 per cent of the total projected premiums of $432.4 million on an esti­mated 9.4 million acres.

      AgriInsurance protects producers against crop production shortfalls and quality losses caused by natural perils. This historic con­tri­bu­tion to AgriInsurance premiums will provide Manitoba farmers with the con­fi­dence to invest in their crops.

      For 2023, coverage levels for excess moisture insurance, which provides pro­tec­tion against the inability to seed due to wet con­di­tions have also increased to 75, 100, and 125 dollars per acre.

      The contract price option will now be available for the majority of crops where, previously, the CPO was only available for canola and field peas.

      The Manitoba Agri­cul­ture Services Cor­por­ation, or MASC, continues to adapt to industry changes and client ex­pect­a­tions. As a policy-based lender, MASC performs regular reviews and revises aggregate loan limits to account for the changing economic environ­ment in the agri­cul­ture sector.

      Based on increasing farmland values, the direct loan limit will increase by $500,000 to $4.75 million as of April 1st, 2023. Using continuous im­prove­ment approaches and stake­holder feedback, MASC con­tinues to review lending products annually to help MASC to ensure delivery on this mandate to provide a stable source of credit, parti­cularly for young farmers.

      In response to moisture extremes over the past two years, and stake­holder feedback, Manitoba announced a three-year rent reduction for ag Crown lands, forage lease provi­ding ranchers with up to $4 million in relief.

      The forage lease rent reduction in place for the next three years begins with a 50 per cent reduction in 2023, a 33 per cent reduction in '24, and a 15 per cent reduction in '25.

      Manitoba has about 1.5 million acres of ag Crown land available for agri­cul­ture activities. These lands are im­por­tant strategic resources supporting the sus­tain­ability objectives of Manitoba Protein Advantage strategy.

      Recog­nizing the importments of ag Crown lands the de­part­ment is dedicating initial resources of approxi­mately $394,000 to build capacity to support the active and productive manage­ment of ACL.

      Healthy and well cared for animals are the corner­stone of all livestock and poultry operations. Healthy animals reduce risk and strengthen profitability. Livestock and poultry accounted for $2.47 billion in farm cash receipts in 2021, which is about 32 per cent of Manitoba's total; about $2.4 billion in proceeds of food sales, which is about 39 per cent.

      The budget for 2023 builds on previous Animal Health and Welfare commit­ments, such as $2.1 million for invest­ment in laboratory infor­ma­tion manage­ment system to enhance the reporting and surveillance of animal diseases in the province; an increase in the funding to the Western College of Veterinary Medicine, raising the number of Manistoba [phonetic] students annually to 20.

      Our de­part­ment leads the way in animal disease surveillance, lowering the risk of disease, managing animal disease and enforcing animal welfare for com­mercial and companion animals.

      We have strengthened veterinary diag­nos­tic services, thus reducing the risk for livestock and poultry producers from large-scale disease outbreaks and econ­omic harm. We've done this by investing $396,000 to support the operations of a new laboratory infor­ma­tion manage­ment system and by adding two additional medical technologists to the VDS laboratory, which will allow for sustained higher volumes of animal disease testing and timely results, along with com­mitting capital of $500,000 towards the renewal of diag­nos­tic lab equip­ment.

      These invest­ments in animal health will continue the de­part­ment's progress in responding to key recom­men­dations in the 2021 Auditor General report on animal disease preparedness.

      The de­part­ment's budget for 2023 is an increase of 21 per cent from the prior year, or almost $40 million. This demonstrates continued commit­ment to producers.

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able minister's time is up. We thank the minister for those comments.

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

Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): Yes, Mr. Chair, I do.

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able member for the Burrows.

Mr. Brar: If you ate today, thank a farmer. That's what we always say, and I would start with ap­pre­cia­ting the stewards of land, of our farmers, producers, for putting table–putting food on our table three times a day.

      And still, we have so many challenges to feed the world because we are growing in numbers and we need better sus­tain­able practices, better research, better staffing and better policies to feed the world.

      I want to take an op­por­tun­ity here to thank all the ag researchers, all the Ag staff–de­part­mental staff. I had been working in Manitoba Agri­cul­ture for so many years before coming to this building. And I know how hard they work to help our producers pro­duce food in a sus­tain­able manner.

      But still our farmers are dealing with so many diverse issues on daily basis. And they need con­tinuous support to keep producing that food for us while taking care of the environ­ment.

      As we all know, that cost of production is going up. It's very hard for our producers to balance their expenses and their standard of living. Maintaining standard of living is not easy for them in this situation, and Ag policies play an im­por­tant role to help them achieve what they want to achieve.

      Agri­cul­ture production is always a gamble when we take a look at the weather and climate patterns. Challenges after challenges. Labour issues. Even front-line extension services, we need quality exten­sion services to help our producers.

      And, as we have seen in Manitoba, there have been staffing issues in the De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture especially. And also in general in ag industry, we would need more and better workforces in coming years and we need to work together.

* (15:00)

       So this time in Estimates gives us this op­por­tun­ity to talk about such issues and the possi­bilities of working together to make what we want to make happen in the service of farmers and to serve the popu­la­tion we are intended to serve.

      Diversity and inclusion is another issue that I want to touch base because we need the de­part­ments that reflect the diversity in our popu­la­tion. Same way, I've been talking to Crown land leaseholders for so many years; I have been talking to beekeepers; I've been talking to so many livestock producers, and they have shared their concerns and they want to hear about the plans of the minister to address those issues.

      So I ap­pre­ciate this op­por­tun­ity to work together and talk in detail because we often don't get this much time in our regular settings.

      So, looking forward to touch on so many issues that I mentioned and beyond that.

      I ap­pre­ciate the time for this opening statement, Mr. Chair.

      Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the official op­posi­tion critic for his opening comments.

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

      At this time, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask the minister, when he's ready, to intro­duce his staff in attendance.

Mr. Johnson: I would like to intro­duce deputy minis­ters coming here first: Brenda DeSerranno. We have David Hunt, who's the assist­ant deputy minister. We have Jared Munro, who is MASC chief executive officer. We have Kevin Kroeker, which is executive financial officer. We have my chief of staff, Brant Field. We have Patti Rothenburger, who is assist­ant deputy minister. And last, but definitely not least, we have assist­ant deputy minister, Maurice Bouvier. And I think we have MASC chief of–oh, we have more people back there. Manon Pascal is here, as well, and senior project manager, Chipo Lubale.

      I think that's enough.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those intro­ductions and welcome you all to this com­mit­tee.

      According to rule 78(16), during the considera­tion of de­part­mental Estimates, questioning for each de­part­ment shall proceed in a global manner, with questions put separately on all reso­lu­tions once the official op­posi­tion critic indicates that questioning has concluded.

      The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Brar: I want to say thank you to the de­part­mental staff and wonderful team of Agri­cul­ture to join us today, and I welcome you all.

      So, my first question would be to the minister: Can the minister under­take to give a list of all technical ap­point­ments in his de­part­ment, including names and titles?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, just before we get into the fulsome list here, I just want to reflect a little bit on the critic's opening comments.

      And although he did thank the staff for the hard wick–work, which I do every day, and I will say it again here today, thank you, guys, for every­thing you do for Agri­cul­ture; ministers come and go, but you guys are the cornerstone of Agri­cul­ture.

      And just the comments of the critic of better staffing: I think we have really, really good staffing, and I'm very proud to work with them, and we've accom­plished so many things together as a group.

      So I will–this list is–needs to be dated, so I will–give me a second; I will endeavour to get that to you on the next question or so.

Mr. Brar: In response to the minister's comments about my comments about staffing: it was about staffing, not staff. So I didn't say better staff; I said better staffing. I wanted to say we need a better staffing percentage.

      I intended to indicate to the vacancy rate in the de­part­ment because I've been hearing from the pro­ducers and other Manitobans that there are still some services that are not up to date, and people have to struggle to access those services.

      So, the staff currently working in the de­part­ment is absolutely great. I agree to that.

      I want to ask the minister: Can the minister under­take to give an organizational chart that lists all em­ployees and program areas?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, so I'll get–give you the list of technical officers and OIC ap­point­ments. So I'll go through–right here, I intro­duced already special assist­ant to the minister, Brant Field. Jack Zinger is executive assist­ant to the minister, which–he's here in the room as well. Madison Dodds is a com­mu­nity liaison in the Brandon area, or Westman.

      And the OIC ap­point­ments–so those are technical officers–the OIC ap­point­ments is Jack Zinger, execu­tive assist­ant to the minister, and Brenda DeSerranno, who's the deputy minister and Brant Field, who is the special assist­ant to the minister.

      Can I just clarify if he asked me to table the org chart or if he wants me to continue to go through it. Because I could definitely go through it. I guess I could start.

      So there's–yes, I'll just ask the member if he wants me to table it or go through it, because it's pretty extensive. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: The hon­our­able member for Burrows (Mr. Brar).

Mr. Brar: Just–thank you, Mr. Chair. Just wanted to confirm that the docu­ment that you tabled includes the lists of all employees and program areas.

Mr. Johnson: Yes. I haven't tabled it as of yet, but yes, I'm told it includes all of that. We'll have to endeavour to get copies made, and then I will table it at that point after we have copies made.

Mr. Brar: I thank the minister for that infor­ma­tion.

      Can the minister give a list of all current vacancies in the de­part­ment as a number and percentage?

* (15:10)

Mr. Johnson: Okay, so I'll just be clear here. This is on the date ending March 31st, 2023.

      So, Cor­por­ate Services and Innovation, there's multiple listings under that, so item 3.1(a), there is zero per cent; 3.1(b) is two, which is 18.18 per cent.

      Oh, you wanted the total number of positions and vacancies and percentage. Okay, so let me start over.

      So, Cor­por­ate Services and Innovation, total posi­tions–total FTEs–is 141.5; number of vacant positions is 29.1; vacancy percentage is 20.57.

      Under that, there's a subcategory, so I'll break it down for you. So, 3.1(a) is one FTE, zero vacant positions, so therefore zero per cent; oh–3.1(b) is 11 posi­­tions, two vacant, so 18.18 per cent; 3.1(c) is 32 positions, seven vacant positions for 21.88 per cent; 3.1(d), total of 25 FTEs, with 3.6 vacant, for a vacancy of 14.4 per cent; 3.1(e) is 40 and a half FTEs, seven and a half vacant positions, for a vacancy of 18.52 per cent; 3.1(f) is 32 positions, nine vacant posi­tions, 28.13 per cent.

      So, under Industry Advancement, a total of 141 FTEs, the number of vacant positions is 14.8, and so that leaves 10.5 per cent vacancy rate. So, line item 3.3(a) is 25 FTEs, with 3.4 vacant positions, therefore 13.6 per cent; 3.3(b), 24 total FTEs, six vacant positions, for a total of 25 per cent; 3.3(c) is 31 FTEs, two vacancies, for 6.45 per cent; 3.3(d), 61 FTEs, 3.4 vacant positions, and 5.57 per cent vacancy per cent.

      So now, on Agri­cul­ture Production and Resilience: 102 FTEs total with 19.8 per cent–nine point–19.8 positions vacant for a 19.41 per cent vacancy rate; 3.4(a) was 38 positions, 9.2 vacant positions, a total of 24.21 per cent; line 3.4(b) is 64 positions, 10.6 vacant positions, therefore 16.56 per cent.

      So this is a total, overall, of 384.5 FTEs with 63.7 vacant positions for a 16.57 per cent vacancy rate.

Mr. Brar: I thank the minister for this detailed infor­ma­tion. And I see there is still a lot of vacant positions in various sub­divi­sions of the de­part­ment.

      I just wanted the minister to clarify, he said 384‑plus positions. Is that the current capacity, or it's 380 currently? Wasn't 384 last year? What's the current capacity, 384-plus or 380?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, if the member was listening at the very beginning, I said this was accurate of March 31st, 2023.

      So, there was 384 and a half positions in last fiscal year. So, this fiscal year, as of April 1st–which we don't have the vacancy rates for that yet–but the member is accurate that it's 380.

      Those four and a half positions, as part of the re-org when Agri­cul­ture split away from mining and all of that, and that went over to NRND at the time. If you recall, they used to be together.

      So, those were the last of the positions to move from Agri­cul­ture over to NRND, and that was the four and a half discrepancy that the member is asking about.

Mr. Brar: So, as the minister said, a few divisions or offices moved away from the de­part­ment.

      Was there any inclusion after the re-organi­zation of the de­part­ment?

Mr. Johnson: Inclusion of what?

* (15:20)

Mr. Brar: As the minister said that the de­part­ment was reorganized and some of the parts of the de­part­ment are not currently under the de­part­ment because it went under other min­is­tries, I would say.

      Was there any parts that the de­part­ment has taken over from other de­part­ments? That's my question.

Mr. Johnson: No.

Mr. Brar: Thank you so much.

      Was there any hiring done in the de­part­ment? And if it was done, how many employees were hired since the minister has taken over?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, we're hiring all the time. I'm for­ever signing to hire new people on to the de­part­ment. So, the answer is yes, we're hiring all the time.

      We do also have staff that are retiring, as you well know. I want to thank our previous deputy minister for her 40–she was in her 44th year–for serving with the Manitoba gov­ern­ment. And a wealth of knowledge, you know, left with her, and I just want to say that we have a new deputy minister that is amazing as well.

      And–but to answer the member's question, yes, we're hiring perpetually all the time.

Mr. Brar: Can the minister share the number of employees hired since he took over the de­part­ment?

Mr. Johnson: Okay, so the total for–this is for '22‑23 inclusive–so, the total adverts that we've put out were 54, and we hired 81. So, the member might ask how we advertised 54 and hired 81. Well, it's because sometimes there's vacancies–numer­ous vacancies in the same position category. So, I'll just run through the list here of the positions that were advertised.

      So, admin assist­ant to the minister–or ATM, as we know it–is one position; admin officer 1, or AO1, is one position; admin officer 2 was one position; admin officer 3 was two positions advertised; admin secretary 3, or AY3, is one; admin secretary 4, AY4, was one; agrologist 3 was three; agrologist 4, or G4, was five; agrologist 5 was one; biologist 2 was one; biologist 3 was one; busi­ness analyst 3 was two; a clerk 3 was one; a clerk 4 was one; economic dev­elop­ment consultant, or an IC3, was three; economic dev­elop­ment consultant 4, IC4, was four; economic analyst 1, or ER1, was one; environ­mental officer 2, EO2, was three; executive officer 2 was one; financial officer 5 was one; geologist 3 was one; lab tech­nologist 3 was one; labour was one; medical tech­nologist 2 was one; media specialist 2 was one; planning consultant was two; planning program 2 was three; planning programmer 3 was three; senior manager 2 was five; statistical analysis 1, or an SS1, was one; statistical analysis 2 was one; and a vet, medical officer 4, or a VT 4, was one.

      Those were the positions that were advertised this '22-23 year, for a total of 81 hires or ap­point­ments out of those 54 advertisements. There's 32 different classifications, where the 54 adverts were published.

* (15:30)

Mr. Brar: I ap­pre­ciate the details on this.

      And I see many of the positions are–that are men­tioned or hired are non-technical. I'm worried about the positions. The minister did mention a few of them, but I'm worried about the positions that actually are front‑line positions and help the farmers directly on food production.

      When I look at the Estimates book, it says that we have 380 full-time equivalents, and the minister plans to keep it at 380. Would that mean that there is no plan to hire anybody in the next year?

Mr. Johnson: I'll just start a little bit by–in the critic's opening comments, he stated ag industry needs a better workforce. The de­part­ment has an outstanding workforce, and they are part of the industry. And all positions are valuable in the De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture. So, our goal is to have zero vacancies and fill all 380 positions, fill all the vacancies to have a full complement of 380 filled positions.

      As the member knows, there's retirement; there's people that move around not just in this building but from de­part­ment to department. As you're well aware with our deputy minister here, she came over from Treasury Board and is doing an outstanding job here.

      And it's im­por­tant that we allow people's careers to grow. So I'm never upset when somebody leaves Agri­cul­ture to better their career and do better things for their choice, their time in life. And it's–you know, that's how people get ahead. And they make those decisions based on where they are with family or where they are emotionally and if they're loving Manitoba.

      So, we have more people coming than going to Manitoba, thank goodness, and our goal, as people come to Manitoba, is to encourage them to come and work not only in gov­ern­ment but directly in the Depart­ment of Agri­cul­ture, put their great skills to good use.

Mr. Brar: I ap­pre­ciate the minister on expanding that.

      I didn't mean to say that non-technical positions are not im­por­tant. I ap­pre­ciate everybody working in the de­part­ment. The deputy minister retired, and we hired a wonderful person to fill that position.

      But I've seen that so many front-line workers, those actually–the ones that talk to farmers, scout their fields, work on their S-CAP cap and Growing Forward 3 applications, go out to the fields, take soil samples and talk to the producers in person whenever they need them. So, when they retire, the farming com­mu­nity and the industry expects the leadership to fill on those positions as well.

      From the minister's response, it sounds like if we have 380 wonderful workers in the de­part­ment right now–and he himself mentioned that we have up to 25 per cent, 20 per cent, 21 per cent-plus vacancy rates while having 380 people working in the de­part­ment.

      So, does that mean that the minister is making sure that he maintains that vacancy rate, or vacancy rate plus?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, we're endeavouring to keep a zero per cent vacancy rate. I mean, it's not realistic; people move on and it takes time to fill those positions. But our goal, our heart, our passion is to have a zero per cent vacancy rate in the entire Agri­cul­ture De­part­ment.

Mr. Brar: I've been talking to so many producers and rural Manitobans, and they're really, really upset about the office closures that did impact their day-to-day lives and the services they need to grow food for all of us.

      Because I have been part of this de­part­ment, and I have seen and provided those services to the people–our producers–who need those services.

      They're really upset about having no office. Either no office in their town or having an office and having great workers inside the office, but the minister does not allow people to access those services. They can look at each other–for example, in Beausejour, farmers can go to the building and look at the wonderful em­ployees through the glass and maybe frown at them or smile at them, but they're not allowed to get in and access the services that they want to access.

      So, can the minister reflect on how this office closures and cuts to the de­part­ment helped improve services in Ag extension?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, we obviously have outstanding service delivery model objectives, including, but not limited to: to provide quality, con­sistent and con­venient service using the com­muni­cation method that the client would prefer; modernizing service delivery to match how clients prefer to do busi­ness; improve efficiency as human, physical and financial resources; and improve col­lab­o­ration between the de­part­ment and MASC at an organizational and staff level.

      I think we all realize–the producers that I visit with, a good majority of them are–have not been into the office in decades. They do stuff online, and that seems to be the way our world is going. As we are seeing right now, we have online partici­pation if we choose right here with our staff.

      I would just wonder, when the member is speak­ing to these producers, if he's reminding them that the NDP has committed to taking $54.8 million in property tax rebates to farmers out of their pockets. I'm wondering if he's talking to them about that and how they feel.

      I think producers, the ones that I've spoken with, would ask the member to stand up against his leader and state that this isn't the right thing to do. Mr. Chair, $54.8 million is no chicken feed when you're a farmer, pardon the pun of chicken feed.

      But Budget '21 committed to a 10-year phase-out of our school taxes and the intro­duction of the school tax rebate, which provides 25 per cent rebate to resi­den­tial and farm properties and 10 per cent rebate to com­mercial properties. That year, $27.4 million was given back to farm owners in school tax rebates.

* (15:40)

      The rebate increased from 25 to 37 and a half per cent for resi­den­tial properties in Budget 2022, provi­ding an ad­di­tional $40.6 million to farm owners. Budget 2023 increases the rebate again for resi­den­tial and farm properties from 37 and a half to 50 per cent. This will result in Manitoba farm owners receiving rebates of $54.8 million in 2023.

      The members opposite, they all stood up, voted against it. That was the critic's time that he could stand up with the producers, the producers that are watching here today. The member could've stood up and voted in favour of that tax rebate for the producers of Manitoba.

      So, in this year's budget, $54.8 million: just this year's budget. Now, you combine that with the regular farm school tax rebate of $24 million; means that farm owners will see the value of their savings increased to almost $79 million in 2023.

      I really hope the member reflects upon his deci­sion to vote against that for you, for the producer, and that he reconsider that next time we complete this busi­ness.

Mr. Brar: I ap­pre­ciate the detailed response from the minister, trying to divert from the topic that I want to bring him to.

      But, anyway, talking about standing with the producers, I have and I will always stand with the producers. In the past, it's documented that I stood with the producers. I visited them when they called me, even in the con­stit­uency of the minister and the con­stit­uency of the MLA Lakeside. Both of these MLAs were missing in attendance when I was standing with 100-plus producers listening to them about how drought has impacted their lives. And, unfor­tunately, at the occasion, I didn't even see a regret message sent from either of these wonderful elected officials.

      So that saddens me, and that tells me that what the minister expects from other elected repre­sen­tatives, he doesn't follow those rules himself and a few of his colleagues, as well, don't follow those rules and never stand with the farmers. When I talk to the farmers, I listen to them, what they want to tell me; I don't tell them what they should tell me.

      So, when we talk about modernization and the minister talks about his leadership in modernizing extension services, let me tell to those listening today that scouting in soybean fields cannot be done online. Yes, infor­ma­tion, general infor­ma­tion, applications can be done online, but for that we need a good infra­structure. We need high-speed Internet that this gov­ern­ment fails to provide to rural Manitobans.

      And they just dream of having a world where any­body, any producer can just sit in front of the com­puter or laptop or their cellphone and access all the great extension services. That does not happen automatically. We need a vehicle for the tech­no­lo­gy to transfer from these offices and these libraries and in­sti­tutions to the farmers' fields. Unfor­tunately, we don't have that vehicle, and this minister is doing nothing to improve that.

      In the meantime, they expect that we just made the changes and every­thing would be all right. Talk about MASC. MASC is in a situation that they are transitioning from an old system to a new system. And the minister is simply dreaming that the new system is already there. It's not. I've talked to so many people. People have retired early because they get stressed and suffocated due to the policies of this gov­ern­ment.

      And I don't know if the minister knows where is the nearest MASC rep from Arborg, or where is the nearest Crown land farm production extension special­ist for–say, from Teulon or Stonewall.

      So, they're covering miles of distances, and then the producers have to go in person to access services. They spend more on gas. They have to spend more time to access the same services that were available in their backyard at one time.

      So, I would like the minister to respond to this situation. Does the minister think that we have ex­cellent rural connectivity that he thinks we should rely on and kick out all the wonderful people who used to work in the de­part­ment, or they retire and do nothing after they retire? No hiring, nothing?

      So, I would like to hear the minister on this issue–how he thinks that these cuts and 'cloyures' have made the things better in rural Manitoba for producers.

Mr. Johnson: The member's heard me say it, and I'll say it again: we endeavour to keep a zero per cent vacancy to ensure that everybody has access to service when and where they need it.

      But the member spoke that he stands with pro­ducers, and I don't think he stands with producers when he stands with the Leader of the Op­posi­tion and votes against a $54.8‑million edu­ca­tion property tax rebate to the producers.

      Now, he spoke of drought when the farmers needed help with drought, and I know the MLA for Lakeside has–had done an amazing job here getting this all set up. And the amount of work that the de­part­ment went to designing this program that we, for ag recovery drought pro­gram­ming that the member brought up earlier, that meeting that was at Erinview Hall–or, fire hall–that the former minister has–had took–taken that to heart. He was a busy–in–working hard with the hard‑working de­part­ment to ensure that there was a program that was developed to help those producers.

      And they–for lack of better words, they nailed it. Outstanding, outstanding, outstanding. There–we have been–as Manitobans, we've been the envy of other producers across Canada–$155‑million commit­ment towards producers, and I've received personal letters from producers that stated, without this, they wouldn't be farming anymore.

      So, this member knows that a $155-million com­mit­­ment from Manitoba and the federal gov­ern­ment, as well–from both of our de­part­ments, from the Depart­ment of Agri­cul­ture, from the previous minis­ter, from myself, from the hard-working de­part­ment, is standing with producers.

Mr. Brar: Again, I want the minister to share what's the state of the beef industry in Manitoba.

      Are the producers joining the beef industry, or–they're selling their cows–a part of the herd or, in some cases, they are getting out of the busi­ness and selling 100 per cent of their cows under his leadership.

      So, what he thinks he is planning to do to support those farmers and bring new, young farmers in the industry so that we can continue producing food for Manitobans and people outside Manitoba, as we ex­port a lot of that food.

      It's published in the newspapers in this minister's writing, and he is well aware of the fact that people are getting out of busi­ness, especially ranchers and livestock producers, in his riding and beyond.

* (15:50)

      So, what does the minister think has impacted those producers leaving the busi­ness? They're frustrated. Does the minister know that fact, or he needs more infor­ma­tion or data to prove that?

Mr. Johnson: Well, I hope the member would know that there used to be, at a peak, 680,000 head in Manitoba. And by 2016–so that peak was in 2006–by 2016, with the aggressive attacks that the NDP do on producers, like the one exercised by the member for Burrows of voting against a $54.8‑million tax rebate to farmers, that is not standing with farmers.

      There was a 210,000-head decline under the NDP in Manitoba. So, I will not take any advice from the member opposite. His colleagues stood by and did nothing while the Manitoba beef industry suffered in the largest decline in prov­incial history, under the NDP gov­ern­ment.

Mr. Brar: I'm talking about working together to serve the farming com­mu­nity, to feed Manitobans and the world. I'm not here to advise the minister; the minister is on the driving seat, and people have ex­pect­a­tions. And it's my job to ask the questions that people, who I represent, want me to ask.

      Talking about livestock, most of the livestock–many of the livestock producers, they rely on our good resource, Crown lands, to do their busi­ness.

      Can the minister provide statistics on the number of Crown lands ranchers in Manitoba over the past five years; has this number gone up or down?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, I think the member is well aware that our average farm size is growing. And you see it grow; I've seen my neighbour's farm–my relative's farm–grow to a very large size. And then when the time comes, the three boys take that farm over, and then it goes back down into smaller pieces again.

      So, the size and the amount of farmers is flexible in Manitoba; we all know there's economies of scale with larger tracts of land, it's easier to fence off. We are encouraging, through our RALP pro­gram­ming, for cross-fencing and rotational grazing, but in general, it is economies of scale that help the local producer succeed.

      And so, everybody is competing for land, and that's why the price of land keeps going up. And they're also competing for ag Crown land. As the member well knows, that's all public infor­ma­tion that he can look up.

Mr. Brar: Everybody knows that land is–farmland is consolidating as we go, and from the minister's response, it looks like–that he's sitting back and watching what's happening and explaining to those listening to us today here that, hey, this is happening; that they already know.

      The minister is here to show leadership. The minis­ter is the one the people look at for better decisions, better policies, to save our family farms. I'm talking about the small ranchers. If you just leave them at their own, it's obvious that the people with deeper pockets would buy all the land, and they would–the small farmers would get out of busi­ness.

      What would happen to our rural small towns? What would happen to the corner store? What would happen to the grocery stores?

      So, what is the minister doing to save those family farms that are looking at the minister and minister's office to do some­thing to help them so that they can continue doing their busi­ness sustainably?

Mr. Johnson: I hope the member isn't suggesting that we buy or start to subsidize smaller farmers to ensure that they can remain in­de­pen­dent. I hope the member is well versed with the World Trade Organi­zation and how they view gov­ern­ment subsidies on production.

      And, you know, moves like that–I hope that's not going to be one of the NDP's policies in this coming election–but moves like that can cause exports to cease out of Canada, Manitoba especially.

      So, I really hope the member isn't hoping that we, you know, buy the land and allow smaller producers to farm that land or to, you know, just write them a cheque every year. Because WTO is definitely not favourable to that at all. They would put tariffs on our beef or hogs leaving the province–chicken, turkey, you name it. It would be–it would not turn out well for the farmer if the member's suggesting.

      So, we will not make choices that will com­pro­mise the small farmer with decisions and case law that's been done by the World Trade Organi­zation. We will not put them at risk.

Mr. Brar: From the minister's comments, it seems like the minister wants to see these small farms get out of busi­ness. Because he's just sitting and watching what's happening.

      We need diversity in busi­nesses, diversity in every industry. A combination of large farmers and small farmers is the beautiful thing to have. But the minister, as he commented, seems like he doesn't want to see our small farmers sustain or grow there.

      They are im­por­tant to our economy. It's not all about exports. Exports is im­por­tant for sure because we bring in revenue by sending our grains and our beef outside of Canada and outside of Manitoba. But small farmers do need help, and there are many ways we can help them.

      The minister is in the leadership role, and the first thing, which is the easiest thing to do, is to listen to those producers. And when I go back to them and talk to them, this is their first complaint. Being ac­ces­si­ble and listening to them and sitting together with them and working on the possible solutions is the right thing to do. Not just saying that that's the trend because–that that's what's happening all around the world, so let it go, let what's happening to them happen and continue to happen.

      Because small busi­nesses, small farms, are the backbone of our industry. They have to sustain. And it's our duty, because we have been privileged, we have been blessed to be here to make policies and think how we can help them.

      But, to me, the minister sounds like he's not ready or willing to support our small farmers and livestock ranchers. At least we can give them the services offered by the de­part­ment.

* (16:00)

      So, I would like to touch on our de­part­mental capacity because it needs a good team and a team of optimum size to serve our Crown land leaseholders. They have so many questions. They have so many issues that need to be addressed.

      Can the minister share how many Crown land farm extension specialists are working in the de­part­ment right now, and what was the number in 2019, and what was the number in 2016?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, the member may suggest that we're not a listening gov­ern­ment. There is nothing that is further from the truth.

      Listening gov­ern­ment isn't just the elected officials. It's the great people that we have in our–in the room here and the great people that they manage and the outstanding job that they do. And that is huge for collecting of infor­ma­tion.

      And, quite frankly, all farmers are im­por­tant, large and small. The agri­cul­ture and agri-processing sector directly con­tri­bu­ted to 7.2 per cent of the prov­incial GDP and 5.2 per cent of prov­incial jobs, or 35,405 direct jobs.

      Farm cash receipts have risen strongly in recent years, with 2022 continuing the trend and–of–at–a 14.9 per cent increase to $9.73 billion. It was a–it was firing-in-all-cylinders kind of year with the crops and $6.7 billion in–$5.27 billion in 2021, lot of livestock, $3.03 billion, up from 2.78 in 2021 and program pay­ments also rose to $634 million from $418 million in 2021 for crop and livestock. Strong prices and good sale volumes drove the increase.

      Now, the member was talking about putting a moratorium on buying and selling farmland, and keep­ing every­thing the way it is. I can guarantee you this gov­ern­ment, while we're in power, will not put a moratorium on buying and selling farmland. That's a ridiculous idea. I really hope the member walk back–walks back that statement because that's communism, for lack of a better word.

      Although the NDP did put a moratorium on hog barns. And we heard from Manitoba Pork here last night that there's–they produce 8 million hogs in the province of Manitoba and 85 per cent of those, roughly, are exported. That is money that's coming into the pro­vince from other sources, whether it's other provinces, but pre­domi­nantly United States and Japan. So, that's money coming into our province that–we reversed that moratorium that the NDP put on hog barns, and look what that has done for the prov­incial and agri­cul­ture economy.

      So, for the member to stand there, I wouldn't doubt it, I guess, but I would really hope that they're not talking about a moratorium on buying and selling farmland to keep everybody the size that they are and, you know, not be–allow maybe kids to divide the farm into three. If somebody has three children that want to, you know, as somebody moves on, their kids might want to take it over. Maybe only two want to take it over.

      But a moratorium on buying and selling land is just ridiculous and our gov­ern­ment will not support that.

Mr. Brar: Minister talks about reversing decisions.

      Would the minister consider reversing his gov­ern­ment's decision about the Crown lands? Does the minister think that these Crown land changes that the PC gov­ern­ment did just before 2019 prov­incial elections and disclosed after the prov­incial elections was a great idea? What is the minister listening from those Crown land leaseholders?

      And what's his take on those changes that were not well received, according to my con­ver­sa­tions with leaseholders? Does the minister think that that was a great idea to change those regula­tions? And what's his plan going forward?

Mr. Johnson: Stay tuned.

Mr. Brar: That tells me that whenever anybody asked this PC gov­ern­ment before September 10th, 2019, about the Crown lands, this would be the answer: Stay tuned. And the minister still is sticking to the same answer. That means there would be surprises. I don't see any positive future actions that this minister plans in favour of the leaseholders.

      Because the leaseholders have been reaching out–trying to reach out to minister's office. They are reaching out to me; they're talking to me. I'm talking to them, taking their phone calls, visiting them. And they are very, very upset about these changes.

      And any time I have raised this issue in the Chamber, whenever I asked this minister about his take on these changes and is he planning to reverse these changes to the Crown land lease system, he would start talking about Clover the cow, 4‑H clubs, or some­thing else, vet shortage. And when I talk about the vet shortage, then he would be talking about altogether some­thing else.

      I want to bring the minister to the topic and ask again: Does he think that the policy decisions should reflect the feedback that the Crown land ranchers have sent clearly to the minister and the world through the survey that is recently conducted by this minister's own gov­ern­ment?

      Mr. Chair, 85 per cent of the respondents, they support the ability of leaseholders to transfer their lease to someone else, some­thing the PC gov­ern­ment eliminated when they changed the rules in 2019.

      Does the minister think that this is an im­por­tant feedback? And what is the minister doing after hearing from those producers under his own survey, conducted by his own gov­ern­ment?

Mr. Johnson: I'm hoping the member would recog­nize that all feedback is im­por­tant.

      But under the NDP and their regressive attacks and the hog moratorium that they've done in the past, quite frankly, I hope that they never get to manage agri­cul­ture in this province again. That was under his so-called team's watch.

      But the member also brought up 4‑H, and that is a great topic. It is outstanding what that group does and the edu­ca­tion that they do and the morals and every­thing that they teach kids. That's an outstanding program. So, hopefully he's not giving 4‑H a slight of the recog­nition that they deserve. They deserve all the recog­nition that any of us can muster in this room.

      And I know he spoke of vet shortages in his com­ment here a second ago, and I just want to say–you know, thank my colleagues in Advanced Edu­ca­tion and all the work that we've done together to increase the vet seats in the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in our neighbouring province, to increase them from 15 seats to 20.

      That's outstanding and I really hope the member realizes that there's an incentive or an attraction for rural members, including simple things that the NDP never did, I might add.

      You know, sure, they'd–they may have sponsored the seats back in the day, but they didn't focus it on large animal, which is the De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture's focus, on livestock. And those seats was something as simple as having a 1,000 hours on a farm as part of the criteria is very im­por­tant.

* (16:10)

      And so, I just want to say thank you to both de­part­ments, Advanced Edu­ca­tion and the De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture, for working so hard to make this a reality. You know, this–you can't just wave a magic wand and find five seats in Canada, never mind Manitoba, because there aren't any. You can't just wave a magic wand and have these seats appear.

      So, that took a lot of hard work, dedi­cation, talking with the college and the dean. And I just want to say thank you to the de­part­ment for their great work.

Mr. Brar: I am so happy that the minister proved that what I said is correct. Whenever–whenever–I ask this minister a question about Crown lands and Crown land lease regula­tions, the minister starts talking about 4-H clubs or vet shortages. That's exactly what the minister did in his response a minute back.

      I can assure the minister that I would give him an op­por­tun­ity to talk about our wonderful people at Manitoba 4-H Council. I know they are doing great work.

      And I would give this minister an op­por­tun­ity to talk about vet shortages. I've been talking to dairy farmers, talking to livestock producers, pet owners in Manitoba. Everyone has a concern about vet shortages. We would come to that point.

      But let's talk about Crown lands first. My question to the minister is how much revenue these Crown land changes brought about by the PC gov­ern­ment has brought to the gov­ern­ment.

Mr. Johnson: Well, I apologize if the member rambles so much. He is the one in his question that mentioned 4-H; he was the one that mentioned vet shortages spe­cific­ally in his question. So, if he's rambling from topic to topic, I really only have, you know, so much time to get to all of these answers.

      But, yes, I'm glad he supports 4-H, and I see he's wearing a green tie today, which we all know is 4-H's colours. But a lot of those producers–or, 4-H kids grow up to be producers, and they work–you know, pre­domi­nantly, a lot of them work on the farm. And this is, believe it or not, their–kind of their pastime, their enjoyment time, to go out and practice in 4-H. It's not spe­cific­ally just farm kids, so don't get me wrong there. There's a whole mix of kids.

      But as those kids grow up, it's im­por­tant that if they chose–choose to go into being a producer, go into farming, that they have access. So, the member's sug­ges­tion that, you know, we put a moratorium on all farmland sales is a little ridiculous, because how are these kids coming out of 4-H going to get into that system and purchase Crown–purchase farmland?

      Now, along with farmland, they may want access to Agri­cul­ture Crown Lands as well, ag Crown land. And our success that we've had in our auctions have put access to young producers at nearly 40 per cent of the ag Crown land–using this last auction as an example–was won by young farmers.

      And along with times that are trying–I know a couple questions ago, the member mentioned that we–that gov­ern­ment sits back and does nothing. Well, to help producers, and speaking of ag Crown land, it's–I'm very proud of the hard work that the de­part­ment did in getting a 50, 35 and 15 per cent–a 33 per cent, sorry. Let me re-say that.

      A 50 per cent reduction in 2023; a 33 per cent reduc­tion in 2024; and a 15 per cent reduction in 2025, on forage lease rents. And that's a reduction that's in place for the next three years.

      And Manitoba has about 1.5 million acres of ag Crown land available for agri­cul­ture activities. These lands are a very im­por­tant, strategic resource, that supports our producers and the sus­tain­ability objectives of the Manitoba Protein Advantage strategy.

      And on this side of the House, as gov­ern­ment, we recog­nize the importance of ag Crown lands, and the de­part­ment is dedicating ad­di­tional resources of approximately $394,000 to build capacity to support the active and productive manage­ment of ag Crown lands.

Mr. Brar: The minister just mentioned about reduc­tion: 50 per cent, 33 per cent and 15 per cent reduction in lease rates.

      So, that means that–minister agrees that raising of lease rates on our Crown land ranchers was wrong. That's why now, the minister has considered helping those producers.

      Does the minister think that the Crown land changes decision taken in 2019, before the prov­incial election and disclosed after the prov­incial election, was a wrong decision?

Mr. Johnson: I really hope the memory of the member is well enough to remember the drought of 2021.

      As I spoke about the pro­gram­ming that we released here earlier that helped producers make it through those extreme circum­stances, and then we go from one extreme, from that drought, to excess moisture in the following year. And it goes from one extreme to the other, and I would argue that Interlake-Gimli, my home constituency, was the epicentre of this.

      And to respond to that, the land was very stressed from one extreme to the other and this rent reduction allows producers to recover from multiple years of extreme weather.

      So, I don't know if the member doesn't remember that, but that was the impetus for the ag Crown land reduction. It was to allow the land to recover, reducing the rent. The–hopefully, the member would know that when you have extreme stress on land, that you–it doesn't just keep growing grass for the animals to eat. The member would know that you have to rest the land and you need to give it a break, and we gave the producers a break.

Mr. Brar: Can the minister confirm that these changes are not permanent, and minister is going back to the increased lease rates that his gov­ern­ment imposed on the Crown land ranchers?

Mr. Johnson: It was–I clearly stated that this program reduces the rate by 50 per cent, followed by 33 per cent and then followed by 15 per cent. So, that's what the current program is.

      And the member talks about engaging with farmers. We set up a producer-led advisory group to help with the 2021 drought, and it was producer-led. Not every­thing has to be led by gov­ern­ment. Although they do a great job, sometimes the ideas coming from the front lines are sometimes outstanding ideas.

* (16:20)

      So, you know, we listen. We support producers. And we support the–what they come up with from their advisory group and we listen to them. And that's all part of our con­sul­ta­tions.

Mr. Brar: I just want to share with the minister that I did visit his own con­stit­uency, and I went to a farmer–I cannot disclose the name–in Ashern. And I met him and his father, who were struggling with the impacts of drought, and they clearly said to me that our MLA and the member from Interlake-Gimli is not responding to our emails. Who do we go to?

      Then they knocked at my door, and I took my vehicle and visited them in Ashern. And they were hoping for some support, but they didn't receive any support from minister's office at that time.

      But the thing is, if the minister and his gov­ern­ment thinks that those changes were for the favour of the farmers, or doing some­thing great for the stewards of land, especially people who care for these Crown lands, what was the impact of that decision?

      I ask again, how much ad­di­tional revenue these Crown land changes brought to Manitoba?

Mr. Johnson: So, the member's starting to get a little lonely with the truth there. He's taking snapshots of time.

      The member is well aware, we have the–came up with the most com­pre­hen­sive drought program in Manitoba history, and it takes time to put a program like that together. The other provinces that reacted–knee-jerk reaction and just said, okay, that's it, we're going to give everybody in the province $100 per head–$100 per head. So, whether a producer needed it or not, he got the $100 per head. But the producer that needed $250 per head didn't get it; they only got $100. In Manitoba, we focused on the producers that needed the help.

      So, the member is taking a snapshot in time and extrapolating from it. That producer, I well know who he's talking about, was ecstatic with the great work that the de­part­ment did on producing that drought program.

Mr. Chairperson: Before I recog­nize the hon­our­able member for Burrows, I will just remind the minister and other members of the com­mit­tee, that the term lonely with the truth is coming awfully close to accusation of lying, so I would just throw that note of caution to members of this com­mit­tee.

Mr. Brar: I'm really, really interested to hear the minister's thoughts about the recent survey done under his leadership: 85 per cent of the respondents support the ability for leaseholders to transfer their lease to someone else, some­thing the PC gov­ern­ment eliminated when they changed the rules in 2019.

      Now, we have the results of the survey on the table. I want to know, and Manitoban producers, ranchers, want to know, what's the action that this minister would be taking after he has seen the results and the feelings of Manitoba ranchers?

Mr. Johnson: Well, I am very proud of this gov­ern­ment for putting together the EngageMB website. Under the previous NDP gov­ern­ment, they didn't listen to anybody. They didn't have EngageMB. They had nothing. Nowhere for somebody to go and put their opinion forward.

      We, as this gov­ern­ment, ap­pre­ciate and respect the opinions of the Manitoba public, and that's exactly why we designed EngageMB and listen to farmers, listen to Manitobans. That is a very, very powerful tool that this gov­ern­ment uses to engage and listen and then take that infor­ma­tion and decide what policies can be brought forward out of it.

      So, yes–yes–there was 85 per cent of people that responded in one certain direction. But, under the NDP, there would be zero per cent–there would be zero–because they never listened to anybody. They didn't have EngageMB.

      So, I just want to say that that's outstanding work by this gov­ern­ment to have that tool there so that we can actually listen to Manitobans and then act on the infor­ma­tion and con­sul­ta­tions that we receive through EngageMB.

Mr. Brar: What the results of this survey are saying is exactly what the ranchers were saying before the survey was launched, because they knew that these changes are wrong. Unit transfers should be allowed.

      There are so many producers in Manitoba who planned their retirement according to the rules avail­able at the time of making decisions. That was decades back. And now, the minister took away this option of unit transfer. So, it feels like somebody has worked for a de­part­ment for 39 years and, all of a sudden, gov­ern­ment says there's no pension. How does that sound?

      Those ranchers are suffering. And now, the minister cannot run away from the fact, because it's in black and white, what the producers were saying and suggesting years ago–that is right. That's on his table now; 85 per cent of the producers are demanding unit transfers.

      Does the minister plan to reverse those changes and help these producers who are feeding us all?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, one of the things that also came out of an–EngageMB is easier and–access to ag Crown land, and that's what we've done. It is up–it actually increased the young farmers' access in this last auction up to 40 per cent–40 per cent of the ag Crown land that was won as this last auction went to young farmers.

      We also–our active leases have gone up. Under the NDP, we've increased our active leases by almost 4 per cent.

      So, every­thing in the member's statement about them being for Ag is wrong. They wouldn't even listen to Ag producers. They didn't have somewhere to go. We designed EngageMB and–so now producers have somewhere to actually voice their concerns.

      And, yes, we're a listening gov­ern­ment. Every­thing that we do through EngageMB is taken in, it's 'looken' at, it's actioned upon. The policies that we'll be–we'll take that into con­sid­era­tion as our con­sul­ta­tions.

* (16:30)

      Absolutely, EngageMB is the most powerful tool for people to reach out to–on multiple fronts; not just Agri­cul­ture, but gov­ern­ment in general. It's a very im­por­tant tool for producers, in this case, to voice their opinion on.

Mr. Brar: And I want to continue on this point. It's good that people are using this virtual com­muni­cation plat­form and I ap­pre­ciate the wonderful people in the de­part­ment who have developed this tool. But the fact is that there are still some people, due to many reasons, they're not able to partici­pate in this way because of literacy issues or connectivity issues, or their comfort level using this system.

      And if this PC gov­ern­ment had not cut positions in the de­part­ment, if we still had more number of farm-production-extension specialists in Crown lands, if we have more number of Ag offices still open, this number, 85 per cent, it would jump up to 95 or 98 per cent, because we are excluding so many pro­ducers who are comfortable going to–physic­ally going to an office, knocking at the door, talking to the Crown lands specialist. How do they talk to the Crown lands specialist when there is no one available there?

      So, survey is good. Results are there. But the minister refuses to commit any action on this survey. So what was the purpose of the survey, then? We have the survey, no plan to take action. That means that was just for the purpose of saying that, yes, we did listen to you. Listening without action means nothing.

      I have to ask this question again and again, because I'm supposed to. I represent the people who are being impacted by these decisions, and I still wonder why this survey was not done earlier. So, if the minister is doing this survey now, that means the Crown land changes, they were done without any survey because if these–if this survey was done before making those changes, 85 per cent of the people would oppose those changes.

      But the gov­ern­ment didn't want to plan bottom up. The gov­ern­ment didn't want to listen to the voices that matter. They simply went ahead and made changes.

      I would like to ask the minister why this survey was not done before making these changes.

Mr. Johnson: Yes. The member talks about people not having access through EngageMB and I would like to inform the member that over and above com­mu­nity en­gage­ment and con­sul­ta­tions, you know, we consulted with Manitoba grasslands and forage association and all their members. Manitoba Beef Producers, they were a large, large part of this. Keystone Ag Producers, and if the member remembers last night, they represent 15,000 producers, and they were part of the con­sul­ta­tions.

      And recog­nizing that Rome wasn't built in a day, but the members opposite, they want to keep every­thing stagnant. Under their gov­ern­ment every­thing was stagnant. And when things continued to grow, like the hog sector, they actually brought in a moratorium to cease agri­cul­ture in the hog sector in Manitoba.

      So, they're talking about con­sul­ta­tions? I know for a fact they didn't consult on that. They did not, and this gov­ern­ment, we consult, we listen, we're going to continue to listen.

      And the member opposite suggests earlier in his comments that we put a moratorium–like they did on hog barns, we put a moratorium on buying and selling farmland so the farm sizes don't change so we can keep small farms; I don't know, that doesn't look like any sort of gov­ern­ment that I'd want.

      So, I'm glad that they're not going to be suc­cess­ful in this next election, and we're going to continue to consult and listen to producers, whether it's through EngageMB, com­mu­nity con­sul­ta­tions.

      Manitoba Beef Producers has agents that are–repre­sen­tatives that are across the province; they have regions. They have regions and they have a repre­sen­tative in each and every region. And the producers know who they are.

      Keystone Ag Producers, as I mentioned, represents 15,000 not just producers, households; 15,000 households. And the member suggests that there's no con­sul­ta­tion? All that, and Manitoba grasslands and forage association, as well, was part of it.

      And there's more that escapes my memory at the moment here, but I'll endeavour to get–to expand on that list in my next question.

Mr. Brar: We're talking about Crown lands, and the minister mentioned so many organi­zations that I respect so much, and I know their leadership personally, I com­muni­cate with them. They're doing great work for Manitoba ag industry.

      But did the minister just miss or did not consult Manitoba Crown Land Leaseholders Association? Because that's an organi­zation that represents the people who are being impacted by these decisions.

      I just want to know if Manitoba Crown Land Leaseholders Association was consulted spe­cific­ally, as the minister mentions other organi­zations and maybe the minister reached out to them with a letter or email or picked up the phone and talked to the leadership.

      Did the minister's con­sul­ta­tion process involve Manitoba Crown Land Leaseholders Association specific­ally?

Mr. Johnson: Yes. We had a meeting, we had a direct meeting–myself–excuse me–and multiple other MLAs, the de­part­ment, right here in this building in room 230, that is kind of kitty-corner, it's across the hall over there.

      I can take the member and show him the room if he would like. Beautiful room, I might add. There was actually a movie filmed in there if the member wants to check that out.

      But the answer to his question is yes.

Mr. Brar: I was not suc­cess­ful getting any commit­ment from the minister that he would take any action on this 85 per cent respondents that want him to bring back unit transfers. He won't commit. So, how long I should keep asking the same question again and again and again?

      So, let me change a bit here and ask the minister: Can the minister share what percentage of suc­cess­ful bidders of Crown lands were young Manitobans again?

Mr. Johnson: Okay, maybe I'll go a little slower this time, because I mentioned it multiple times.

      It's just shy of 40 per cent of the ag Crown land was won by young farmers at our last auction.

* (16:40)

Mr. Brar: Is the minister shy of sharing the percentage of acres allotted to young Manitobans?

Mr. Johnson: That would probably take many, many hours of work by the de­part­ment to break down each package and give that.

      I am very proud of our young producers that are getting into the–into farming. As you–as I mentioned earlier in my comments, you know, I have some cousins that are getting older, and their three sons are on the farm with them. But I'm sure when the day comes that my older cousin retires, that farm's going to split up into three. And then, at that point, they might be looking at access for ag Crown land.

      So I'm very, very proud to say that this system in the last auction was just shy of 40 per cent of Crown land was won by young farmers.

Mr. Brar: That's obviously the number of farmers; that's what we're talking about here. But I'm really interested to know what percentage of the land, number of acres, were allotted to young farmers.

      In the meantime–maybe the minister is working on gathering that infor­ma­tion–I would like to ask: What was the size of the largest parcel of land given away during the recent auctions done by the de­part­ment?

Mr. Johnson: Yes, while we're waiting to see if we can get that infor­ma­tion and how that falls under freedom of infor­ma­tion and privacy pro­tec­tion act–if the member's trying to tie it to a certain name. I'll–I'm pretty sure the infor­ma­tion's public, so he could go on and look. All the results were posted online. So, I'm sure the member will endeavour to go and look online for the public infor­ma­tion.

      What I'm not prepared to do is disclose private infor­ma­tion, which I recog­nize the member hasn't asked for private infor­ma­tion as of yet.

      But I would like to talk a little bit more about the other people that we consulted through not only EngageMB and Keystone ag producers; Manitoba Beef Producers, as I mentioned; Manitoba grassland and forage association; along with com­mu­nity con­sul­ta­tions. We had Crown land clients; we actually reached out to producers that have Crown land and/or are looking to obtain Crown land.

      So, we have that list from people that partici­pated in auctions at certain points in the past. So, every single one of those people were reached out to. There is also the watershed districts, the Bison Association, com­mu­nity pastures association, AMM, Association of Manitoba Munici­palities, Cattle Feeders' Association. And that's just a few more that I thought of, and I'm sure I'll add to those after.

      But if the member wants to ask another question so we don't just roll time away here while we're endeavouring to find that previous answer.

Mr. Brar: Just wanted to clarify that. I didn't intend to ask any private infor­ma­tion about somebody who took the land.

      My purpose of asking the question was, for example, if one suc­cess­ful bidder took, say, 5,000 acres, one parcel of 5,000 acres, and another one that took just 500, say. So, that would mean one was the young farmer, another was not. That would mean that 50 per cent of the suc­cess­ful bidders were young farmers. So, that doesn't make any sense because we have to take into account, actually, the number of acres.

      I have talked to so many producers, and producers are sharing with me that they have seen, like, buses full of people out–from outside Manitoba, and they are looking at the lands and making plans how to get this land, and just before the auction is held. So, people are worried about their land being taken by the people with deeper pockets.

      But we are interested to hand over the land to those who love the land, who actually want to farm the land, who actually have passion about farming and they have some farming ex­per­ience. So, we don't want to end up having this land given to those who are just investing their money and keeping that land doing nothing.

      So, the purpose was–the in­ten­tion was not to get the names of who took it, but I was interested to know the size of the parcels that was given out. So, if it's still possible to know the largest parcel size and the smallest parcel size during the recent auctions that were held by the de­part­ment.

Mr. Johnson: Yes, the member talks about young farmers and having them get access to land. Well, this gov­ern­ment has increased the ag Crown land active leases by almost 4 per cent.

      So, under the NDP, they put on moratoriums. They had lower ag Crown land allotments, and then, even the leader of their party, yesterday in the Chamber, said that they will roll back the edu­ca­tion property tax credit, which gives $54.8 million–$54.8 million that goes to producers, and this gov­ern­ment is going to take it away, this NDP gov­ern­ment. If they ever form gov­ern­ment, this NDP party has committed to rolling that back; $54.8 million that goes right into producers' pockets today will be rolled back if NDP ever forms gov­ern­ment.

      So, I pity the day, 20, 30 years down the line, where that may happen. They will take that away. They will make producers pay more. How are young producers–the member talks about young producers and his passion for young producers. I'm adding the word passion; I'm trying to give him a little bit of leeway here.

      But he is committing, and he hasn't said he's not, because he stood up in the Chamber and voted against $54.8 million going back to the producers. He stood up in the Chamber, the member for Burrows, his leader, the whole NDP team, stood up in the Chamber and voted against $54.8 million going back to pro­ducers, including young farmers. That's going to hurt them.

* (16:50)

      And he talks about access to Crown land; we have, in the last auction, as I mentioned, over 40–just, sorry, just under 40 per cent of ag Crown land was won by young producers.

      They talk about putting on moratoriums on buying and selling land just like they put moratoriums on hog barns. That's not the way this gov­ern­ment's going to go.

Mr. Brar: So, let's talk about standing up.

      I stood up for regular Manitobans, yes I did, in the Chamber. I voted against–what I voted against is what I want to share now. I voted against tax benefits to billionaires that this gov­ern­ment intends to–they're writing cheques to billionaires.

      I stood against a $1-million cheque to Cadillac Fairview. I stood against a $80,000 cheque to Charles Koch. I stood against a $327,000 cheque to Galen Weston. Yes, I did stand against these decisions, and I do have a point standing against, because we don't want our taxpayer dollars being sent to billionaires. [interjection]

      And this Premier (Mrs. Stefanson)–

Mr. Chairperson: Order.

      I want to just remind the members of this com­mit­tee, this is a committee of Agri­cul­ture, a very im­por­tant com­mit­tee, and I expect there to be respect for people who have the floor and to limit the amount of heckling that's going on, and please have respect for the people that are asking and answering questions.

Mr. Brar: I would continue, that I stood against those decisions, which I think are wrong, because our schools need invest­ment. Our health care, our infra­structure, our munici­palities–they need help.

      But this gov­ern­ment is making the wrong choices to help those who never even asked for that help. And the Premier and the PC gov­ern­ment is worried about these billionaires, these rich busi­nesses getting out of busi­ness–a busi­ness which is making, like, over $400 million in three months, if they didn't get a cheque worth $327,000, they would go out of busi­ness. That does not make any sense.

      It's clear that this PC gov­ern­ment, they stand with billionaires, and we stand with regular Manitobans.

      Let me make the minister's life a bit easier here, let's talk about 4-H clubs. And the minister said that he is going to give to me a green tie, because he has got two, I've only got one and I get a hard time matching with my turbans. So let's talk about 4‑H clubs and green things.

      I know the minister loves Clover the cow, and I'm also told that the minister also named her baby, baby Leaf, the calf.

      I also love 4‑H clubs. I also love people who work in 4-H clubs, and I respect those families who choose to send their kids to 4‑H clubs because that's a great program to improve your com­muni­cation skills, to im­prove your–to give an exposure to your kids regarding various things, especially in rural Manitoba, in art, in beef production and so on, especially com­muni­cations.

      I also sent my older one to the 4-H clubs and I was so happy to see him, because I got to know about 4‑H clubs when I was in uni­ver­sity, and I am still im­pressed by that program, and we want that program to grow.

      So, I expect that when I ask this question about 4‑H clubs, the minister–can the minister commit that he won't talk about vet shortage, or he won't talk about the Crown lands.

      Let us focus ourselves for a few minutes on 4-H clubs. Can the minister share that–how many students were–or registrants are there in Manitoba 4-H programs currently in Manitoba?

Mr. Johnson: Well, I don't have that number off the top of my head, so I apologize.

      But yes, 4-H is an outstanding program. I remember going to it when I was young. Of course, I could–oh, I was only able to attend for the short period of time after calving and before we started haying, so I was on the very short program of it. So, at eight years old, I was out raking. So, I don't know if that'd be frowned upon nowadays, but it definitely wasn't back then.

      So, yes, 4-H is outstanding, and we were proud to sponsor Clover the cow with $5,000 going towards it. And just so people know what we're talking about, in case they–people that are watching today don't know what Clover is, if you didn't get the full video of me working with Clover, I will say it's an avatar that is–that you can give real scenarios of birthing a calf. So you can position–I've chosen to name the calf Leaf, I think it's kind of stuck. Four-leaf clover, you know. But Leaf is the calf that you're able to deliver from inside of Clover.

      But real-life scenarios and im­por­tant invest­ments like that in 4-H from the gov­ern­ment are im­por­tant. So it actually has air bladders that you can pump up to increase the friction and simulate a harder calf birth. You can place it breached. They actually have one similar at the western veterinary college of medicine in our neighbouring province, Saskatchewan. They use it there for–right in the vet school.

      So it's a very, very powerful tool, very powerful avatar. But you can inflate the bladders, you can place the calf breached, you can turn its nose back or you can have one leg behind and the head still facing forward, and all these different scenarios actually can train the kids how to deliver calves.

      So the calf, you can actually use real things that you would use to deliver a calf, like calving chains that you would use to put around the front hooves to pull it out and all the others tools that go along with delivering a calf. So it's a very im­por­tant tool.

      And it's im­por­tant that we as a gov­ern­ment con­tinue to support 4-H and all of the work that they do. Again, I partici­pated when I was young. I had limited time. I could go there through­out the year, but I thoroughly enjoyed every­thing that I was exposed to, and I still remember my director's name, Dianne Riding. I still remember her, and she's still involved with 4-H and different things. So when it's in you, when you start partici­pating at a young age, people stay with it for a long, long time.

      And it's very im­por­tant to support our 97 clubs in Manitoba. All 97 of them, even though they have different focuses, they're still an outstanding way to educate children and incorporate them into agri­cul­ture so they can kind of do hands on.

      And all 1,070 members are excited when they come to–I've had numer­ous visits here at the Legislature, and they're just excited to be engaged and learn about every­thing. And our 327 leaders that still help educate and get a hands on for those kids is outstanding. And they have 1,341 different projects that they do around the province.

Mr. Chairperson: Order.

      The hour being 5 p.m., com­mit­tee rise.

Chamber

Indigenous recon­ciliation and Northern Relations

* (14:50)

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

      This section of the Com­mit­tee of Supply will now resume con­sid­era­tion of the Estimates for the De­part­ment of Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations.

      At this time, we invite min­is­terial and op­posi­tion staff to enter the Chamber and I would ask the minister and critic to please intro­duce their staff in attendance.

      If the hon­our­able minister may intro­duce their staff, please.

Hon. Eileen Clarke (Minister of Indigenous Reconciliation and Northern Relations): Okay. Thank you very much.

      To my left, I have Ainsley Krone, deputy minister. Next to her, Kevin McPike; next to him, Mike Sosiak, and next to him, Frankie Snider. And I gave all their positions last session, so, same people.

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): Will the hon­our­able critic please intro­duce his staff.

Mr. Eric Redhead (Thompson): To my left, I have Julia Antonyshyn, caucus assist­ant.

      Thanks.

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): I thank the minister and member.

      As was previously indicated, questioning for this de­part­ment will proceed in a global manner.

      The floor is now open for questions.

      The hon­our­able critic–[interjection]–the hon­our­able member for Thompson.

Mr. Redhead: So, we'll continue off for–where we left off on Monday. On Monday, the minister men­tioned several vacancies that currently exist within the de­part­ment. I believe it was 25 per cent vacancy rate or 25 positions? [interjection] Positions.

      I'm wondering if the minister can explain how and when these positions will be filled?

Ms. Clarke: Sorry. Thank you for your patience.

      Indication 25 vacancies as of the end of February, which includes 10 positions, which we identified last time, are new positions within our de­part­ment. All these positions are at various stages of recruitment, and how and when they'll be filled is very much dependent on the type of vacancy that they are.

      But you also asked about Indigenous component within our staffing, which we take very seriously, and we have identified that there is an increase in Indigenous staff, as it is a key priority for our de­part­ment and also across gov­ern­ment; I want to add that. And we've been working to ensure priority is given to these candidates.

* (15:00)

      And I just have to add to that, just the week that I was reappointed as minister, I was invited–we have a very large office over on Donald Street, and I was–went over to meet with the staff there, as I've done in the past. And I have to say, in my short vacancy from this position, when I went in and met the staff that was there–and I have to say I was very proud of the fact that most of the staff was still there. That's excellent, because that's continuity in the work that we do.

      But I was also very pleased to know that our DM had been ensuring that he brought in staff that he knew was competent and very worthy within our de­part­ment. And many of them were Indigenous that I knew from other de­part­ments within gov­ern­ment or outside in our other offices.

      So, even for me, that's–that was a very high score for our de­part­ment. And as an example, my DM here is of–Indigenous, and I'm very proud of that. And over the last several months that we have–we've done really well in this.

      Through the Public Service Commission, our gov­ern­ment is recruiting Indigenous talent acquisition pro­fes­sionals and–which have been funded through the R‑A-R-I-F fund to increase Indigenous staff. And I've said this, not only in our de­part­ment, this is all across gov­ern­ment and it's also in our boards and com­mit­tees.

      Thank you.

Mr. Redhead: Can the minister please tell us more about what her priorities are as minister of this de­part­ment?

Ms. Clarke: That's a great question.

      It's actually really exciting. I have days now when I view my departure to retirement as a bit of a sad note because I see how far gov­ern­ment has come working with Indigenous com­mu­nities' leadership.

      Economic dev­elop­ment has to be just way at the top. The meetings that we're having with various First Nations com­mu­nities and their leadership on the strides forward on economic dev­elop­ment is–I would have to say it exceeds my ex­pect­a­tions. And I have mentioned before that sometimes my ex­pect­a­tions are a little lofty and hard to–sometimes hard to reach for myself, and maybe my ex­pect­a­tions of others. But I find it pretty over­whelming, the direction that we're going.

      And I've got a few examples. I was going to enter­tain you today with some remarks of things that I do see as priorities that have been happening–are hap­pening, as this will be my last Estimates in my profession. And it's actually a part of my job that I enjoy Estimates, contrary to many.

      But I have to point out–and to me, this is one that goes right back to day 1. It never happened in the previous gov­ern­ment ever, and I think it is probably one of our biggest achieve­ments. And I find myself actually even a little emotional on this, because this has been an ask for many, many years. And it's revenue sharing. And that is going to make the difference in so many com­mu­nities, for so many families, for jobs, the income.

      And it's not even just about that, it's the sense of belonging, the sense of part­ner­ships going forward. And there were–two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve–about 16 letters sent out–it was–initiative within the De­part­ment of northern–no, Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment. And there were 16 letters sent out to First Nations to have this discussion. And I have to say, this was earlier this year, I believe–yes, it was March 31st, 2023, so it's not that long ago–and to date, there's at least six First Nations have signed these revenue sharing agree­ments.

      And I'm extremely proud to say there's one taking place right now that I would have loved to be at. And I want to acknowl­edge these com­mu­nities for coming quickly and I'm–it's long overdue.

      And the emotions that are in–attached to this, for them, is almost hard to explain, but I certainly under­stand it because it–the–it just makes for so much ability for them to move forward where they haven't had that ability before.

      So, I'm very proud of my colleagues in different min­is­tries for the work that they are doing for in­clusion, for revenue sharing. There's just a lot going on. I'm just looking for some of the other ones here.

      I guess health care would have to be the next one for Indigenous peoples, especially in northern Manitoba, and we've heard that brought forward several times. And I have been meeting with the Health Minister as well as other partners within health care, and we are working with leadership with MKO, with AMC, with the tribal councils.

      And I was at a tribal council AGM just two weeks ago, I believe–two or three weeks ago, and we dis­cussed at great length health care in northern Manitoba and some of their most serious concerns. And you know, they're like the rest of Manitobans, they want health care close to home, they want, you know, the health-care pro­fes­sionals where they need them and their nursing stations man–you know, operational and that they are able to be confident in their health-care system.

      There's a new CEO, as you know, in the Northern Health Region, and they talked about that that day. And I just want to acknowl­edge–his name is Raj Sweda [phonetic], and they indicated that he was going to be coming to their A-G-A the following day and they were looking forward to that. They were a little 'amprehensive', but grand chief called me back later that day–the second day–and said that the CEO had come and had spent the full day with them and that they were really, really pleased with the con­ver­sa­tions they had and they–

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): The hon­our­able minister's time has expired.

Mr. Redhead: I'd like to dive into the comment that the minister made about revenue sharing. I–you know, I know she had–or, sorry, they had mentioned the other de­part­ments in terms of revenue sharing.

      So, which de­part­ments are sharing reve­nues with Indigenous com­mu­nities and that–does that also include Manitoba Hydro? As you know, Manitoba Hydro has a big footprint within Indigenous territories. And, are Indigenous com­mu­nities benefitting from the millions of dollars of revenue that Hydro is generating each and every year? And if so, which com­mu­nities?

Ms. Clarke: I can't speak to Manitoba Hydro and I don't have that infor­ma­tion with me, and that should come from that de­part­ment.

      I only have this parti­cular infor­ma­tion from Natural Resources and Northern Dev­elop­ment today because I was invited to be at that revenue sharing. And I asked the minister, as he was leaving pro­ceedings today, if he could give me some infor­ma­tion, and he did leave me with some.

      And as of March 31st, the pilot revenue sharing agree­ments have been signed with Chemawawin Cree Nation, Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Pine Creek Cree nation, Moose Lake Cree nation, Sapotaweyak Cree Nation and Wusi Siphik [phonetic] Cree nation is there today.

      And I'm–that's the list I've got but, as I said, there's many more. And I know that the minister is in con­ver­sa­tion with these Cree nations–or northern nations, and I think this is just a big win for everybody.

Mr. Redhead: I'm going to ask the minister if she thinks it's priority that Manitoba Hydro do enter into revenue sharing with Indigenous com­mu­nities? Because, you know, there is a huge, huge footprint that Manitoba Hydro has within Indigenous traditional territories and right in com­mu­nities them­selves.

      And we know that this is a thorn, sometimes, in some First Nations, and I can speak to that as a former chief, former grand chief. And a lot of the times, what we hear is that Manitoba Hydro is extracting or utilizing resources within their territories and not giving back enough to com­mu­nities.

* (15:10)

      And we know that sometimes creating these agree­­ments can benefit the com­mu­nities and have a ripple effect in terms of economic growth, prosperity and overall wellness when it comes to revenue sharing, especially like–for a conglomerate like Manitoba Hydro.

      So, I'm wondering if this is a priority for the minister and if she can commit to exploring this with her counterparts and in the Indigenous com­mu­nities.

Ms. Clarke: I think I've made it very clear that our gov­ern­ment is working on revenue-sharing commit­ments to First Nations, for sure.

      As I've indicated, I don't have infor­ma­tion on Manitoba Hydro. There's every op­por­tun­ity–I can't speak on behalf of other de­part­ments. As I've said, I've only got this infor­ma­tion because I was invited to be there today, and I have not been in con­ver­sa­tions directly with Manitoba Hydro Minister. And I strongly en­courage you to pass those questions to them so that they can give you a clear indication of what their mandate is.

      As you can understand, you perhaps get frustrated that I can't ask–answer questions that are related to other de­part­ments. However, Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations is a relationship de­part­ment. We foster relationships between First Nations, Métis, Inuit, between other de­part­ments with our gov­ern­ment, other organi­zations. However, when it comes to specific questions about the de­part­ment, I am not in a position to answer those questions. Would I be a part of those con­ver­sa­tions we're–you know, yes. We work all across gov­ern­ment–we try to work all across gov­ern­ment, and if that discussion is brought forward, I would certainly–I would hope to be a part of it.

Mr. Redhead: The minister did seem happy to bolster the revenue-sharing agree­ment when it comes to extrac­tions of minerals. I just would assume she would be just as enthusiastic to foster that con­ver­sa­tion within her gov­ern­ment for Manitoba Hydro. But I didn't hear a yes from the minister, so I'm going to move on. I took that as a no.

      So, on Monday, we were unable to get an answer to the–to this question because the finance officer wasn't able to attend the meeting. So I'm going to take the op­por­tun­ity again today to ask this question. So, for the past five years, the Northern Healthy Foods Initiative has been underspent.

      In 2019–2017, it was underspent by $624,000; 2017-18, underspent by $666,000; '18-19, underspent by $659,000–and, mind you, this is pre-pandemic–2019-20, underspent by $692,000. And in 2021, unspent by two hundred and–underspent, sorry, by $244,000 for a total of $2.85 million in underspending within that program.

      Can the minister explain why the initiative is being underspent despite the levels of high demand, food insecurity in the North, inflation, yet this program is continuously being underspent. We just would like an answer to that. Thank you.

Ms. Clarke: Chair, I do have a printed response for the member opposite that I'd like to table from the previous question. Thank you.

      And I would just like to add, further to the ques­tion previously on Manitoba Hydro.

      I would like to share with the member opposite, do not assume my answer is a yes or no, that–an assumption is not an ap­pro­priate decision of my discussion. Thank you. Okay.

      I'll add to that. We'll note in the review that we have dramatically increased spending by doubling from the 2016-17 to twenty–twenty–to '21-23, and decreased the underexpenditure. Thank you.

Mr. Redhead: Anyway, we were talking a little bit about revenue sharing in–with Indigenous com­mu­nities, so I'm going to move on to a little bit of economic recon­ciliation here.

      Can the minister tell us the difference between the economic recon­ciliation framework referenced on page 19 of the Estimates book, and the recon­ciliation strategy that her gov­ern­ment is required to produce, by law, under the path of the recon­ciliation act?

* (15:20)

Ms. Clarke: I just want to take a few minutes to go back to the discussion on revenue sharing because I found some infor­ma­tion here that I had not necessarily skipped over but I didn't read, but I think you'll be really happy to hear this.

      The six First Nations–or Cree Nations, basically, that have had revenue sharing since January of 2022, to the end of 2022–it's done in six-month segments–but in that one-year time frame, the total amount of revenue, going back to just five of them–and I'll explain why just five–is $3,524,830 in one year. So, that's sig­ni­fi­cant, and that's only just the begin­ning in their treaty territories.

      So, I need to add this. So, the lack of revenue shared with Chemawawin Cree Nation is due to the lack of activity in their revenue-sharing area in '22 to '23, and in part­ner­ship with industry, they are in the process of developing a new multi-year operating area, which will be the result in shared revenue begin­ning in '23-24, so this year.

      The revenue-sharing agree­ment was a catalyst for this new operating part­ner­ship. And it's–is the 'disportionately' large payment to the first three nations, period one, is due to record commodity prices for oriented strand board and softwood lumber, which is produced in their area. Manitoba's timber rates rise and fall, of course, with commodity rates, so we'll hope the prices stay up and that they all do really well. So again, I have to say I think this is very exciting and a big win for everybody.

      Now to your question on recon­ciliation strategy and the framework. Okay, we'll start with the recon­ciliation strategy. And that will encompass a number of priority areas brought forward in the Calls to Action, as you are aware, and as are referenced in The Path to Recon­ciliation Act. And you will recall the Speech from the Throne made parti­cular commit­ments to building on previous years' commit­ments to advance recon­ciliation by provi­ding an im­por­tant focus on wealth dev­elop­ment and economic op­por­tun­ities–and I think I've already given you a great example of that.

      This focus has been a result of numer­ous en­gage­ments–meetings, as well as the calls for actions them­selves. Now, the economic recon­ciliation framework–and we talked about his on our previous session–it'll be part of the broader recon­ciliation strategy, and that was referenced as I said prior. As indicated, the neces­sary first step is to engage with Indigenous leadership to deter­mine what that looks like. And we can't develop this strategy or resulting frameworks in isolation or without those Indigenous partners.

      Thank you.

Mr. Redhead: In this com­mit­tee on Monday, the minister said that letters had been sent out to various First Nation organi­zations, such as MKO, SCO, AMC, MMF and MIA to begin en­gage­ment on recon­ciliation framework referenced on page 19.

      When I later asked for an update on the recon­ciliation strategy that this gov­ern­ment is required to–required by law to produce, the minister referenced these same letters.

      Can the minister please confirm whether these letters were sent once or twice, and whether they were regarding the economic recon­ciliation framework or the recon­ciliation strategy?

Ms. Clarke: Yes, sorry if I didn't make myself totally clear on that. The invitation letters are forthcoming and expected out next week–and I'm reading this exactly as I had it here last week, and maybe I didn't articulate it clearly–and they are part of the larger recon­ciliation strategy.

      So they are final draft, and will be going out within days.

Mr. Redhead: I'm going to go on to MMIWG2S a little bit, here. Regarding the MMIWG2S calls to justice, can the minister provide us with a list–for a list of justice–wait, sorry–with a list of Calls for Justice in order of priority within our gov­ern­ment. I can clarify that, I kind of stumbled a bit, yes.

      So, what are your priorities within your de­part­ment for the MMIWG2S calls–order–for justice?

* (15:30)

Ms. Clarke: I would like to point out to the member opposite that he em­pha­sized: what am I doing? I don't do anything on my own; I work as a team. I think my team knows that. I don't make the decisions; we make them collectively, and we also make them collectively as a gov­ern­ment.

      And I certainly want to thank all of my colleagues in the various de­part­ments who we work col­lab­o­ratively with to ensure that we cover all issues, not just with MMIWG, but all Indigenous issues. And responding to the issue of MMIWG and gender-based violence is a priority for our gov­ern­ment; I want to make that very clear.

      We are also working with MMIWG2SL+ imple­men­ta­tion com­mit­tee to set those priorities, taking advice and guidance from them. And, as mentioned prior, this group has repre­sen­tation from com­mu­nity and will form our gov­ern­ment priorities where they would like us to go. And I think that's very im­por­tant to remember. This is an Indigenous-led approach, and that's the way we feel is the right way to go. We continue to work with Indigenous partners and, most im­por­tantly, families and survivors, to co-develop approaches. This approach has been developed and founded on the principles of recon­ciliation through listening to those that have been most impacted.

      And I have some ad­di­tional infor­ma­tion I'll also share. Manitoba's pursuing a wide variety of activities that align with the Calls for Justice and support efforts to end violence against Indigenous women and girls. Examples of these activities from 2022 include continuing to provide core funding to Indigenous com­mu­nity-led organi­zations and leadership to deliver services to families and survivors affected by MMIWG. Organi­zations include AMC, SCO, MKO, Manitoba Inuit Association, Manitoba Moon Voices. These organi­zations provide direct or indirect support to families and survivors.

      Continuing to provide funding for support, healing and commemorative events in honour of MMIWG victims, survivors and loved ones. Organi­zations supported in 2022 include the Brandon Urban Aboriginal Peoples' Council and Wa-Say Healing Centre, amongst others. Invested funding support into 10 Indigenous-led resi­den­tial school healing centres across the province to support and promote healing and advance recon­ciliation. This con­tri­bu­tion builds on the $200,000 invest­ment previously made by the Province in September 2021 to support pro­gram­ming and awareness for the National Day for Truth and Recon­ciliation.

      The new funding aligns with IRNR's mandate to engage with Indigenous com­mu­nities and organi­zations and all Manitobans on a path to recon­ciliation. And we will continue to work actively with the federal gov­ern­ment and other provinces as well, and territories, in relation to Canada's efforts to respond to these Calls for Justice. And we will continue to align our activities with the national action plan.

Mr. Redhead: I understand in the response that the minister's office is working with Indigenous organi­zations to address some of the calls to justice. My–I guess–I wonder, is there an official working group to–for–that the gov­ern­ment is working with to implement all 231 calls to justice that sit regularly and that advises the gov­ern­ment on this matter. If no, then why?

* (15:40)

Ms. Clarke: I did indicate in my former response that the imple­men­ta­tion com­mit­tee that I did reference is the group that we work with, and this is a group, by their design, that they have chosen the persons to sit on it. And that's where we address all issues coming forward.

      And, of course, it would always be a goal to imple­ment as many recom­men­dations as possible. They can't all be done at one time. They're not done by one de­part­ment. They're all across gov­ern­ment. And they're done not just across gov­ern­ment, but they're also done by other groups and organi­zations. And we are always connected to all of that.

      I work with–I sit on the Gender-Based Violence Com­mit­tee of Cabinet. I also sit on–what was the other one–gender-based violence and–it leaves my mind right now. But I sat on both of those com­mit­tees as previous minister, and I do again. And we work very col­lab­o­ratively.

      We also work with a lot of other groups that, you know, within Justice, within Status of Women and now, especially, Mental Health and wellness, because we are–we're not just looking to catch up. We're also working at a grassroots level so that, you know–it's not just the families and victims. We have to work, really, across gov­ern­ment to ensure that this stops; that it doesn't continue. I mean, it's–it has to end.

      And so, we are also spending time and, definitely, resources through–again, through the justice system, through Mental Health and wellness, through Families, especially, to ensure that families are getting the sup­ports they needed. And sometimes it's financial, and sometimes, it's medical, edu­ca­tion, so many different venues where we are trying to offer support so that they can get through. And we need to end this.

      And we focus constantly on the women and girls. And I get a lot of response from First Nations or other com­mu­nities: how about the men and boys? Why is nobody talking about that? And I've been watching our statistics, and I've been watching what's hap­pening in our province just in the last weeks and months on boys, and very young boys; very, very young boys. And, you know, we have to be in mind that we have to help all genders, not just the missing, murdered women and girls.

      So, I think it's very im­por­tant that we continue to support any way that we possibly can going forward, and I'm–again, I have to say, I'm very happy to be working with colleagues that are all committed to these better out­comes and ensuring that we move forward in a better way.

Mr. Redhead: The minister had indicated that there is a com­mit­tee that is advising her, I believe, on the calls to justice. Am I correct?

Ms. Clarke: It's called the imple­men­ta­tion com­mit­tee, and it's–I had a–I believe we give you the break­down of that com­mit­tee in–on Monday of who was involved in that. I don't have it in my notes here, but I think we gave kind of–no? Okay.

      But, it's an imple­men­ta­tion and it's–is there family members? I'm not sure. We can probably get a make­up of that com­mit­tee for you, so that you–yes.

Mr. Redhead: I'd ap­pre­ciate that. I know it's im­por­tant that gov­ern­ment work to address the 231 calls to justice, and I ap­pre­ciate that. The list of who was on that committee and how they're appointed and the breakdown of that would really–I would ap­pre­ciate that list.

      You know, again, the calls to justice are there. There's 231 of them. I don't think adding more red tape to imple­men­ting these calls to justice is necessary.

      But, what I will ask is: What's the de­part­ment's timeline to imple­men­ting all 231 of the Calls for Justice?

Ms. Clarke: I will say: As quickly as possible.

      And we have to work with this group, and some­times that sets the pace, to be very clear. But, as I've indicated right from begin­ning, this is a very high priority.

      I was the minister when this inquiry was first esta­blished. I was at the meeting with other ministers from 'acoss' Canada when this decision was made. I was a person that voted on this MMIWG inquiry.

      I was also there in Gatineau when it was released. I was with the families and the leadership from Manitoba there. I made a commitment at that time, on behalf of our gov­ern­ment, that we would work with this and we would do every­thing in our power to ensure that these actions were met.

      And I will 'reinterate' again: I think our gov­ern­ment has done a really good job, as good as job as could be expected, given that we had three years of COVID in between, where we could not meet personally. And it–you know, discussions with individuals in remote areas, spe­cific­ally families, survivors, victims, you know, we couldn't have those meetings at that time. So, it set us back. I think we are all aware of that. There's a lot that didn't happen, but that, I think, is indicated.

      And I have to say, coming back into the Cabinet in 2022 and being re-appointed to the Treasury Board, I was really, I'm not going to say impressed, but I was really happy to see the amount of funding that was going towards different avenues that would enhance the work that is being done.

      Because there has to be funding in order to bring people to meetings. There has to be funding and so much support services for anything that we do. You know, when it comes to MMIWG, it–you know your­self, there has to be a support system, and it takes a lot of people and it takes a lot of time.

      This is some­thing we can't rush. We have to be respectful and we have to be very aware that this pace is set by this imple­men­ta­tion com­mit­tee. We have to ensure that we are following their guidance. We have to do what is im­por­tant to them, and we'll continue to do that.

* (15:50)

      And I'll be honest, I have not been at an imple­men­ta­tion meeting since I've returned, which is a very brief time that I've been back into this de­part­ment. But I know the work that's being done and I know the funding that's going to it, and it's sig­ni­fi­cant, I will add that.

      Okay. I've got a bit more infor­ma­tion here. Hopefully, it's helpfully to you.

      Ad­di­tional support has been provided to the Manitoba MMIWG2S+ Part­ner­ship Imple­men­ta­tion Plan. It's a grassroots Indigenous-led program that will implement the Calls for Justice in a culturally relevant way. The program will be led by traditional Indigenous matriarchal governing body, com­pro­mised of knowledge keepers, elders, MMIWG2S and family members, survivors and Indigenous experts, also including poverty reduction and economic dev­elop­ment board.

      Both programs represent a whole-of-Manitoba ap­­proach based on part­ner­ships, co-dev­elop­ment and col­lab­o­ration and em­pha­size a foundational principle of recon­ciliation and nothing about us without us.

      It also says there's family. Ma Mawi–I can't read this–[interjection]–Tongasi [phonetic], 2S people of Manitoba, The Pas Family Resource Centre, SCO, MKO, MMF, 'infimity'–and 'infimity'–'infimity'–oh, my gosh–my mouth is not still frozen–Infinity Women Secretariat–that's the MMF group. So it's a very broad group.

      So that's the list you were asking for.

      Thank you.

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): The hon­our­able critic.

Mr. Redhead: And I ap­pre­ciate the minister provi­ding that list.

      I'm wondering, you know, it sounds as though the com­mit­tee meets on a regular basis to discuss, you know, the Calls for Justice. To me it's–I'm wondering if the minister–or if I'm able to obtain minutes for these meetings and review them or even–maybe even be a part of that com­mit­tee because I think it's im­por­tant that we work together, moving forward, for these calls to justice.

      I just would like to see what is being said and if the gov­ern­ment is actually abiding by the recom­men­dations of this com­mit­tee that is in place. And that's why I'm asking if the minutes could be shared with me.

Ms. Clarke: Sandra DeLaronde is the chair of that com­mit­tee, and we would have to speak to her in regards to how much infor­ma­tion they'd be prepared to share.

      But I've always had a really good working relationship with Sandra back from day one with her and Hilda Anderson-Pyrz, with MMIWG, so, you know, that con­ver­sa­tion can be held. [interjection] We can ask her, but I can't guarantee what the response will be.

      I will also add to the member opposite, I've opened my door; I've made it very clear that I'm willing and prepared to meet anytime on any issue that he might bring forward, and I would be more–that offer's always open.

Mr. Redhead: I look forward to a response and, hopefully, it's a positive one.

      Since the minister has resumed her role–oh, sorry–I'm going to flip back. How many of the 231 calls to justice have been imple­mented so far?

* (16:00)

Ms. Clarke: Again, I think previously stated a lot of this. The Calls for Justice are interrelated and by design are extensive in scope, touching on fun­da­mental aspects of Canadian society. They're not necessarily intended to be a checklist, and personally, calling them a checklist bothers me personally.

      And we are working with our partners to address them in a culturally ap­pro­priate way through our work with the imple­men­ta­tion com­mit­tee. Our progress all across gov­ern­ment de­part­ments are reported on our website as outlined by the path and reconciliation act or agree­ment our gov­ern­ment passed in 2017 and the Manitoba Status of Women also reports publicly on responding to gender-based violence broadly through its gender-based violence framework.

      And I will just add that–and I was going to respond to this earlier–not all the calls suggested are directed at prov­incial gov­ern­ment, as you would know if you read them. However, in our PRA report, we have responded to as many as possible and we con­tinue to work with that.

      And I just have to say, further to that, as I've indicated, you know, having sat in this position before, and now coming back to it, I want to give a sincere thank you to Premier Stefanson for fostering a respectful and a sincere commit­ment, not just to MMIWG–

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): Sorry, may I interrupt the minister?

      Members can only be referred to by their title or their con­stit­uency, please–or portfolio.

Ms. Clarke: –for commit­ment to all aspects for Indigenous people of Manitoba. Spe­cific­ally, to Indigenous leadership to work together and to ensure that their com­mu­nities and their families have a voice in this gov­ern­ment with suc­cess­ful out­comes and that is not just for MMIWG. It's–as you've seen, it's for economic dev­elop­ment and so many other aspects.

      When I say that this is a committed gov­ern­ment, I mean that with most sincerity.

      Thank you.

Mr. Redhead: I'm going to give a few minutes to the member of St. Boniface an op­por­tun­ity to ask a few questions to the minister.

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Yes, my ques­tion's about the issue of withholding payments or the issue of special children's allowances that were withheld by the Province of Manitoba for a number of years, and then in the 2020 Budget, the–part of that bill was to withhold that–to continue to withhold that money and to cancel all the–and bar any future legal action, though it didn't work.

      Can the minister just explain why she voted for that legis­lation, which violated the human rights of First Nations children?

Ms. Clarke: I won't respond to voting for it, but I also–I have to advise the minister opposite–or the member opposite–that this is clearly a question for the member of–Minister of Families (Ms. Squires). That is totally within her de­part­ment, and that is where that needs to be directed.

Mr. Lamont: Because I know that there's–I know that there's a court case, but is there–has there been any–is there any con­sid­era­tion of negotiating a settlement over this rather than having it in the courts?

Ms. Clarke: Well, as the member already indicated, it was a lawsuit, and there is ongoing discussion, and it would be very inappropriate of me to discuss that because I'm not a part of those discussions.

Mr. Lamont: Just on the question of Lake St. Martin, the Lake St. Martin outlet, I know that there have been many delays and issues with section 35 con­sul­ta­tion for Indigenous com­mu­nities. There haven't been any public hearings on it.

      Is there any–has there been any expression to the minister as far as Indigenous and First Nations groups having public hearings about–which is a $600‑million pro­­ject which is going to have a major impact on the environ­ment in the Interlake and on First Nations com­mu­nities? Has there been any discussion of having public hearings on that, or has the minister heard of that?

Ms. Clarke: I am not a part of–directly a part of those discussions. Of course, that's under Minister of Transpor­tation. And–although I was with–meetings with First Nations affected by that–Interlake tribal council, for instance–in my previous position as minister of Indigenous.

      Since I've been reappointed, I have had meetings with those same chiefs, and they have not even brought the–that issue up at all. So they obviously are relatively satisfied with the process that's going forward and the–their relationship with the Minister of Trans­por­tation.

Mr. Lamont: Just a question about Hydro-affected com­mu­nities in the North. I know that there have been–I recently received an email from a repre­sen­tative south of Indian Lake, which is one of many com­­mu­nities that have had really devastating damage as a result of Hydro construction altering the flow of rivers, lakes, that sort of wiped out their ability to even sustain and feed them­selves because of the destruction of fisheries.

      Has there been any–has the minister been involved in any discussions with Hydro and Indigenous com­mu­nities or First Nations com­mu­nities about reparations or about compensation for the damage that took place?

Ms. Clarke: I don't want to be disrespectful or put the member from St. Boniface off.

      Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations is a de­part­ment within this gov­ern­ment based on rela­tion­ships. When I first was appointed to this position in 2016, I had a lot of work to do building relation­ships with all other de­part­ments, building relation­ships with Indigenous leadership, Indigenous com­mu­nities, on various issues at that time. And at that time, I was almost always included in any of those discussions, which was great, and it provided me a lot of knowledge, especially learning at that time in point.

      However, I have to say, in being reappointed most recently to this position, I don't know if it saddens me or I see it as a sense of accom­plish­ment, but the partners–and whether it's Indigenous com­mu­nities, leadership or external part­ner­ships, whether it's the channel or whether it's to do with Hydro–these groups now go directly to the minister that is respon­si­ble for that.

      I think that's a huge step forward, and I am typically not always invited to those meetings. If we are, we definitely would send a staff member.

Mr. Josh Guenter, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

* (16:10)

      But these meetings take place, and I'm not neces­sarily always aware of it. And I don't see that as a parti­cular bad decision because that shows that our gov­ern­ment is taking respon­si­bilities and they can go directly to any de­part­ment that they want to get answers directly from that de­part­ment.

Mr. Lamont: Yes, just one more question, then I'll pass it back to the member for Thompson.

      The annual report from 2021 shows that the Northern Healthy Foods Initiative was underspent by $244,000, or a 25 reduction–per cent reduction of the budget for the program.

      Can the minister explain that reduction, and why there was no increase to the Northern Healthy Foods Initiative in the Estimates for 2022 to 2023? [interjection]

The Acting Chairperson (Josh Guenter): The hon­our­able minister––

An Honourable Member: Sorry. 

The Acting Chairperson (Josh Guenter): Just–yes, the minister has the floor.

An Honourable Member: She's so eager to answer.

Ms. Clarke: I am. Okay?

The Acting Chairperson (Josh Guenter): The minister has the floor.

Ms. Clarke: We just provided a copy of that infor­ma­tion to the hon­our­able critic, and we'll see to it that you get a copy of that, as well.

      Thank you.

Mr. Redhead: So I'm going to move on to a little bit more on recon­ciliation and the recon­ciliation strategy, and why has it taken so long to begin en­gage­ment with Indigenous com­mu­nities on recon­ciliation–on the recon­­ciliation strategy that this de­part­ment is required by law to develop.

      Now I know, you know, I was a chief during, you know, the worst pandemic in history, yet we were still able to engage with gov­ern­ment federally and in other levels, and so I think this is an im­por­tant question: why has it taken so long?

      And, you know, COVID shouldn't have hindered that, because we've seen progress in other de­part­ments moving forward, so–yes. That's the question.

Mr. Shannon Martin, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

* (16:20)

Ms. Clarke: Again, I thank the member opposite for his patience. I wish we could have done this as an office meeting, because we could have probably had a really fulsome discussion.

      However, in Estimates, it's a whole different pro­cess. So, you know, perhaps we can do that at some point, where I can have members from within my de­part­ment that work on these initiatives on a daily basis and can give you, you know, more updated infor­ma­tion, rather than trying to do it through virtual and those that are here today.

      En­gage­ment has been occurring all across a variety of de­part­ments, which I've indicated to you, and on a number of key priorities. And I'll have to go with this back to the Office of the Auditor General in April 2022; I don't know if you read the report on our imple­men­ta­tion to The Path to Recon­ciliation Act–and he did indicate at that time that he released an in­de­pen­dent audit on our imple­men­ta­tion of The Path to Recon­ciliation Act.

      His report noted that the minister respon­si­ble–at that time, that was myself–for 'recognation' had made attempts to lead recon­ciliation efforts, but overall, cross-gov­ern­ment co‑ordination was lacking, and no strategy for recon­ciliation had, at that point, been developed.

      I have been giving you sig­ni­fi­cant infor­ma­tion in the past two days that we've met on what our gov­ern­ment is doing and that it is now working across all de­part­ments. And it would be great to have a list from each and every de­part­ment of what is happening in regards to recon­ciliation.

      And it's interesting, because some of the meetings that I've had and some of the discussions that I've had with First Nations, as well as the Métis Federation, and there'll be some­thing that takes place, and, you know, it's a–it seems like a casual con­ver­sa­tion, but it's like, now that's recon­ciliation; that's the way it should be. You know, it's not necessarily one of the Calls to Action, but there is so much happening that really, clearly indicates to me–because I watch for it and I look for it–to see that things are changing, you know, you got to look for the change. Things are changes.

      However, when you asked the question the past day of these deliberations and when you questioned our vacancy rate on both occasions, we have his­torically had a very small staff in this de­part­ment, but a hard‑working team. And to co‑ordinate the strategy dev­elop­ment that we have been talking about and to formalize many of the pieces of the work already under way across gov­ern­ment, we needed a bigger team. And have indicated we are hiring 10 more people to work on this through­out, not just our de­part­ment, but across gov­ern­ment.

      Our de­part­ment and our gov­ern­ment have, how­ever, been doing a lot–we have not been sitting idle–to advance recon­ciliation. And we have not waited on a published strategy to do this work. This is evidenced by the accom­plish­ments published in The Path to Recon­ciliation Act annual report–as I've indicated, is online–as well as evidenced in numer­ous an­nounce­ments since the passing of the act.

Mr. Redhead: You know, I look forward to the invite to your office, Minister, but you know, the point of Estimates is to get things on the record and have a public audience.

      I'm going to step back a bit and talk a little–or, ask a question about the docu­ment that you tabled earlier today, and then I'll come back to the recon­ciliation strategy, if that's okay.

      I'd like to–thank you, first of all, for provi­ding some of the infor­ma­tion in response to my question regarding the $2.85 million underspent in the healthy foods initiative since 2016.

      I would like to note that the infor­ma­tion shows an ad­di­tional $218,000 underspent in 2021‑2022, bring­ing this underspending up over $3 million. In the notes for 2021‑2022, it says that the savings reflect cancelled projects due to pandemic travel restrictions.

      Could the minister please tell us which projects were cancelled due to COVID and whether these projects will be reinstated? Thank you.

Ms. Clarke: In regards to the question, we can't get that list or a complete, fulsome answer for you on that, but we will get it for you, and we will present it to you.

Mr. Redhead: I'm glad the minister's taking that under ad­vise­ment.

      I'm going to go back to a little bit on the recon­ciliation strategy. Is there a timeline for the dev­elop­ment and imple­men­ta­tion of the recon­ciliation strategy?

* (16:30)

Ms. Clarke: I would like to just clarify that as a gov­ern­ment, as a de­part­ment, we are not waiting for the strategy to begin imple­men­ta­tion based on the Calls to Action.

      However, the timeline on the release of a formal plan will be dependent on a number of factors, including co‑dev­elop­ment of an agreed upon process for en­gage­ment through upcoming discussions with the Indigenous leaders. What should be included, who should be involved and what form the strategy should take is not to be deter­mined by the gov­ern­ment, but in keeping with the principles of recon­ciliation.

      A progress report on this year's activities will be forthcoming in our path to recon­ciliation annual report.

      And as also previously mentioned, we've been inviting key Indigenous leaders to begin this formalizing process by negotiating MOUs, docu­ments affirming and clarifying our gov­ern­ment-to-gov­ern­ment relation­ship with respect to the co-dev­elop­ment of prov­incial recon­ciliation strategy.

      And I want to thank the Minister of Mental Health and Com­mu­nity Wellness (Ms. Morley-Lecomte). She provided some infor­ma­tion to me today and I think this really speaks to basic–exactly what you're asking about. February of last year, the Mental Health and Com­mu­nity Wellness released: a path to mental health and com­mu­nity wellness–a roadmap for Manitoba, along with $17-million invest­ment to sup­port the one-year plan.

      Now, this road map includes gov­ern­ment commit­­ment on advancing recon­ciliation and strengthening relationships with Indigenous gov­ern­ments, right holders and Indigenous-led organi­zations. It will also increase access to Indigenous cultural pro­gram­ming and healing services. As part of this road map, mental health com­mu­nity wellness has committed to esta­blish­ing formal Indigenous planning and advisory groups that promote and foster col­lab­o­ration as well as gathering input from diverse voices to ensure that we better meet the needs of all Indigenous people.

      In 2022, the prov­incial Speech from the Throne included a commit­ment to build a co‑ordinated prov­incial response to the pre­ven­tion of suicide with a focus on at-risk com­mu­nities and First Nations. In the upcoming year, mental health com­mu­nity wellness will begin to develop, also, a suicide-pre­ven­tion action plan, which will identify key priorities for this work.

* (16:40)

      And I have to say, my working relationship with this parti­cular minister has proved to be very instru­mental in taking good steps forward. We heard the emergency call for action from northern First Nations very recently, and we responded to it very quickly because their indication was that the prov­incial nor the federal gov­ern­ment were there to help them.

      This parti­cular minister and I, we put out a call to the parti­cular chief that was speaking at that time, Chief Ducharme, and we also put out a call at the same time to Grand Chief Settee, to ask them, spe­cific­ally, what can we do? What can we do right now to help? What will make a difference? And they explained very much to us about their crisis-response team that was working up in the North at that time. They have only nine employees, and they were working across three different com­mu­nities. They were exhausted; they were tired because it was a variety of different critical incidents that had happened.

      And so they indicated that, we need help; we need ad­di­tional help. And we responded. We responded imme­diately, within days, and we provided over $1 million to MKO as well as $1 million plus to SCO, so that they could strengthen their crisis-response teams, which they are working on. And they indicated that this definitely will make a difference. We know this is not a long-term solution, but it does give us the time to work directly with them to find solutions going forward, and they indicated they were very pleased with that response.

      I also indicated that our gov­ern­ment has taken a whole-of-gov­ern­ment approach to increase access to co‑ordinated care for mental health and addictions services, and it made invest­ments in a number of initiatives for culturally safe services for Indigenous popu­la­tions.

      Our gov­ern­ment is committed to working col­lab­o­ratively and respectfully with Indigenous gov­ern­ments and right holders, including all elders, knowledge keepers and com­mu­nity members, as we seek recon­ciliation, healing and meaningful ways to honour the lives lost as well as support survivors of families in our province. The situations are–

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): The hon­our­able minister's time has expired.

Mr. Ian Bushie (Keewatinook): Over the last couple years, of course, the minister is–was the former minister of this de­part­ment as well, as well as myself also being the former critic, so we're very familiar with, kind of, the ins and outs of the de­part­ment. And then questions I had in Estimates over the previous years, including when the current minister was the minister at the time, we talked about the con­sul­ta­tion policy that was being developed for First Nations here in Manitoba.

      And there was con­ver­sa­tions back and forth where the minister had talked about it being in place, and there was kind of a structure or a blueprint or a skeleton of it, and that it was still–I believe the words at the time were 'ominent'–were imminent as to when that was going to be released, and then it came under–there was a Cabinet shuffle. The new minister had said, well, kind of nowhere now; we're kind of scrapping that idea because it wasn't going anywhere.

      So wondering if the minister can share with the com­mit­tee where that con­sul­ta­tion policy is at, where she was the–when she was the minister at the time, and is now back in the min­is­try again.

Ms. Clarke: I ap­pre­ciate the question from the mem­ber opposite.

      We have–the de­part­ment of IRNR has finalized a new framework for respectful and productive con­sul­ta­tions with Indigenous com­mu­nities and we are seeking Cabinet approval. And that is expected to go forward very shortly–happy to say that.

      And once approved, this framework will replace the 2009 interim prov­incial policy and Crown con­sul­ta­tions with First Nations, Métis com­mu­nities, and other Aboriginal com­mu­nities. And, I think, as we've acknowl­edged before, that we are committed to work­ing with Indigenous people to advance shared goals and promote truth and recon­ciliation.

      And I have to say, I realize you weren't here for some of the previous discussion, but a lot of what's happening right now clearly indicates that con­sul­ta­tion is taking place. Some good steps are coming forward out of that, even without this having the final, you know, approval.

      Just knowing that it is already taking place is really good, but we've got to have that structure of the same con­sul­ta­tion process for every­thing across gov­ern­ment, which is–I look forward to getting that done.

      Facilitating respectful and productive con­sul­ta­tions and listening to the concerns of Indigenous people across our province is an im­por­tant step forward towards recon­ciliation. And, again, I have to em­pha­size this is happening in a very, very good way.

      Our de­part­ment, in col­lab­o­ration with other gov­ern­ment de­part­ments, and through en­gage­ment with the Indigenous com­mu­nities and proponents of natural resource dev­elop­ment, has finalized a renewed frame­work for respectful and productive Crown con­sul­ta­tions with the com­mu­nities. And I'll just list a couple of the objectives of the framework so you have an idea of where it's going.

      Number 1: to meet the–Manitoba's legal obliga­tion under Section 35 of the Con­sti­tu­tion Act; also to demon­strate a coordinated whole-of-gov­ern­ment ap­proach to con­sul­ta­tion, which is happening.

      Ensure con­sul­ta­tion processes that avoid duplica­tion of efforts and advancement of recon­ciliation with Indigenous com­mu­nities.

      And, over the past year, there has been a lot of en­gage­ment with First Nation leaders on this draft. They have been a part of it, helping to get it to what they feel is respectful to their needs going forward on a renewed framework. And we welcome proposals to work together on a renewed approach to the Crown's duty to consult and ac­com­modate with the Indigenous com­mu­nities.

      I'll leave it at that.

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): The hon­our­able member.

An Honourable Member: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

      And the under­standing was that this policy had already been forwarded to Cabinet–

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): I apologize–sorry. The hon­our­able member for Keewatinook (Mr. Bushie).

Mr. Bushie: Thank you. And the under­standing was that this policy had already been forwarded to Cabinet.

      So, the minister had mentioned that now it's pending Cabinet approval. Could she tell us what date it went for Cabinet approval?

Ms. Clarke: I said it was waiting for Cabinet approval.

      It goes through a process to get to the Cabinet and that is up to the clerk. We don't get to decide when it's put before Cabinet. Yes. The process is going forward to Cabinet, but I cannot give a date for that because we don't decide when those are forwarded, like, when it's accepted by–onto the Cabinet agenda.

Mr. Bushie: Just for clari­fi­ca­tion, what date was it then submitted?

* (16:50)

Ms. Clarke: I don't have that infor­ma­tion. I don't know if there's a specific date.

Mr. Bushie: So, just to clarify then, the minister's de­part­ment, who was respon­si­ble for developing this con­sul­ta­tion policy, is not aware of what date it was submitted or what date it was completed?

Ms. Clarke: Okay, I will clarify. It is in the process of going to Cabinet.

      And I realize if you haven't been a part of Cabinet and the process that it takes to take these types of–when we forward as a de­part­ment, it has to go through the signatures, it has to go through different de­part­ments, it has to go through the clerk. It is a process.

      It is in the process. There's no date when it goes from one parti­cular person to another for these signatures to get to Cabinet, but that–it is in process.

Mr. Redhead: You know, today is spirit day–Spirit Bear Day. I was hoping to see a statement on it from the minister in the Chamber today, but didn't happen. You know, spirit day, which is an im­por­tant date in the history of the Jordan's Principle program and at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

      What involvement has the minister had with the Jordan's Principle program to date, and how is the minister working to uphold Jordan's Principle in her work with this de­part­ment?

Ms. Clarke: Very happy to talk about Jordan's Principle.

      I've been to quite a few different discussion groups with Jordan's Principle. I've also met–visited, I think, no less than 10 First Nations to visit their program and what they're offering. The Minister for Families did put forward a statement for Spirit Bear today.

      I think it goes without saying–I mean, the member opposite knows that I'm very committed to–it's–whether it's Jordan's Principle or any of the other topics that we have discussed, I think he clearly understands my commit­ment to the Indigenous people of this province and anything that relates to their well-being, to their culture, to their ceremony. I take it all very, very seriously.

      And I have to say, because we're running out of time once again, but I have to take this op­por­tun­ity, and I thank both critics here, past and present. You know, we don't get a lot of time in question period, unfor­tunately. Maybe that's good. But I want to thank you for your respectful dialogue through­out.

      And I also want to indicate that today is national Indigenous–or, nurses day. Although nurses week is all week, but today is National Nurses Day.

      I also want to indicate that we have several teams from across Canada for the national Indigenous hockey games this week, at which I attended–not last evening, the evening before. And I did, at my–in my comments, I spoke to recon­ciliation. I also spoke to the resi­den­tial school survivors and children from the past.

      So, this is not some­thing that I take lightly, any of these items that you've brought forward. I take it all very seriously. I take this forward to my colleagues on a daily basis. We have these discussions.

      And I have to say, with the most humble pride, that we have come a long ways from where we were in 2016. There's a long ways to go, but I'm also very confident in my colleagues for the future, that they will respectfully take all these con­sid­era­tions forward, and they will continue. The relationships between my colleagues and First Nations, Métis and Inuit people is respectful, and I have great admiration for the people that I have met along this journey, and I could not be more grateful for the ex­per­ience that I've had, and I thank all of you for that.

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): Are there any–the hon­our­able critic.

Mr. Redhead: Oh, sorry. Being mindful of time, I have no questions–no more questions, no further questions.

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): We shall proceed with reso­lu­tions.

      Reso­lu­tion 19.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to His Majesty a sum not exceeding $36,200,000 for Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations, Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2024.

Resolution agreed to.

      The last item to be considered for the Estimates of this de­part­ment is item 19.1(a), the minister's salary, contained in reso­lu­tion 19.1. If necessary, at this point, we will request that the–all ministerial and op­posi­tion staff leave the Chamber for the con­sid­era­tion of this last item.

      So, the floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Redhead: I move that line item 19.1(a) be amended so that the Minister of Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations' salary be reduced to $21,000.

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): It's been moved by the hon­our­able member for Thompson that line 19.1(a)–[interjection]–sorry, that line item 19.1(a) be amended so that the Minister of Indigenous Recon­ciliation and Northern Relations' salary be reduced to $21,000.

      The motion is in order.

      It's debatable. Is there any debate on the motion?

      The–he's not–[interjection]

      The hon­our­able member is not in his chair. The hon­our­able minister of conserva­tion.

Hon. Greg Nesbitt (Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Development): Well, close, Mr. Chair, but thank you very much.

      I'd like to speak to the good work being done by the minister here, and I really feel it's unfair to try to reduce her salary, you know, given the excellent work she's doing in this de­part­ment in terms of reconciliation. I know she works hard along with my de­part­ment in trying to ensure that First Nations have access to our gov­ern­ment, every de­part­ment, and I know she regularly meets with the First Nations.

      This afternoon, for example, Mr. Chair, she was in Estimates here; I was busy signing an historic revenue-sharing agree­ment with Chief Elwood Zastre of the Wuskwi Siphik First Nation. And, you know, Chief Zastre sent his regards to minister–the minister here, and–

The Acting Chairperson (Shannon Martin): The time being 5 p.m., the motion carries over. Com­mit­tee rise.

      Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

The Acting Speaker (Shannon Martin): The time being 5 p.m., the House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.


 

 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, May 10, 2023

CONTENTS


Vol. 52

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Introduction of Bills

Bill 242–The Police and Peace Officers' Memorial Day Act (Commemoration of Days, Weeks  and Months Act Amended)

Isleifson  2175

Bill 233–The Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Act

Martin  2175

Committee Reports

Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs

Sixth Report

Smook  2175

Members' Statements

Summer Activities in Brandon

Isleifson  2177

Reetu Chahal

Sandhu  2177

Ridhwanlai Badmos

Gordon  2178

Steven Bignell

Lathlin  2178

Green Team Program

Smook  2179

Tabling of Reports

Goertzen  2179

Oral Questions

Health-Care System

Kinew   2179

Stefanson  2179

Education Property Tax Credit

Kinew  2180

Stefanson  2181

Education Property Tax Credit

Wasyliw   2182

Cullen  2182

Agency Nursing Costs

Asagwara  2183

Gordon  2183

Allied Health Professionals

Naylor 2184

Teitsma  2184

Highway and Road Safety

Bushie  2185

Piwniuk  2185

Brandon School Board Meeting

Lamont 2186

Guillemard  2186

Khan  2186

Management of Health-Care System

Gerrard  2187

Gordon  2187

Canada-Manitoba Housing Benefit

Lagassé  2187

Squires 2187

High-Speed Internet

Lindsey  2187

Teitsma  2187

Petitions

Punjabi Bilingual Programs in Public Schools

Altomare  2188

Diagnostic Testing Accessibility

Maloway  2188

Drug Overdose Reporting

B. Smith  2189

Brandon University Funding

Moses 2189

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Committee of Supply

(Concurrent Sections)

Room 254

Consumer Protection and Government Services

Teitsma  2190

Sandhu  2191

Room 255

Agriculture

Johnson  2204

Brar 2206

Chamber

Indigenous Reconciliation and Northern Relations

Clarke  2221

Redhead  2221

Lamont 2228

Bushie  2231

Nesbitt 2233