LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, May 15, 2023


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

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

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

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

      Please be seated.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Introduction of Bills

Bill 243–The Human Rights Code Amendment Act

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I move, seconded by the MLA for Tyndall Park, that Bill 243, The Human Rights Code Amend­ment Act; la Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne, be now read a first time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Gerrard: This bill makes a small change. Learning dis­abil­ities have been too often forgotten, and people with learning dis­abil­ities have too often been neglected.

      This puts a small change in The Human Rights Code to make sure that when it refers to somebody with a mental illness, The Human Rights Code would apply to an individual with a learning dis­abil­ity.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

      Com­mit­tee reports?

Tabling of Reports

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In accordance with section 32(1) of The Elections Act and subsection 107(1) of The Election Financing Act, I am tabling the Elections Manitoba 2022 Annual Report, including the conduct of the Fort Whyte, Thompson and Kirkfield Park by‑elections.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage–and I would indicate to the House that in accordance with rule 27(2) the required notice was provided.

Polish Heritage Month

Hon. Obby Khan (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): Dzień dobry. [Good afternoon.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the first time in Manitoba's history, I am honoured to stand and recognize the month of May as Polish Heritage Month.

      Polish settlers arrived in the Red River region in the early 19th century. Within this very Legislative Building, there is a plaque to commemorate 200 years of immigration of Polish people to Manitoba from 1817 to 2017, installed in honour of the long history of the Polish heritage of these lands.

      Like so many of the communities in Manitoba–cultural mosaic, the Polish community has made significant cultural, social and economic contributions to our province.

      Manitoba is home to the largest per capita population of people with Polish heritage in Canada, which, as of last census, makes up about 6 per cent of Manitoba's total population. We value and appreciate the contributions of the Polish community to Manitoba's cultural and economic landscape.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, the preservation and promo­tion of Manitoba's cultural heritage contributes to our province's diversity while strengthening our com­munities. Due to these efforts of the community organizations such as Canadian Polish Congress and the Polish Combatants' Association, and of performing art groups such as S.P.K. Iskry and many others, the Polish community's stories, arts, dance, language and culinary traditions remain active and shared for the benefit of all Manitobans to enjoy.

      As the Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage, this past Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the 55th anniversary of S.P.K. Iskry Footsteps Through Poland gala and the 75th anniversary of the Polish Combatants' Association, Branch 13, where I, myself, enjoyed Polish hospitality, food, drinks and even learned how to waltz.

      Madam Speaker, this May, I would like to encourage many colleagues–all my colleagues and all Manitobans to learn more about the many important contributions made by those Polish heritage within our province. There are a number of excellent events and activities planned throughout the province, and I encourage every­one to enjoy.

      Through supporting and celebrating our diverse heritage, we make a stronger and welcoming Manitoba for all. Our diversity is our strength. Dziękuję. [Thank you.]

      I would like to recog­nize the lovely people in our gallery today: the Polish Scouts, Harcerstwa; Polish Saturday school; S.P.K. Iskry; Polish School of Dance Sokol school, St. Boniface and so many others, and I'll also ask leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to include the names of all the lovely kids in attendance today.

      Thank you very much. And now I ask my col­leagues to stand and recog­nize Polish Heritage Month.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: And is there leave for the names of the children who were referenced by the minister to be included in Hansard? [Agreed]

Janel Bem, Jaxon Bem, Julia Biel, Livia Biel, Colton Gronowski, Jayden Gronowski, Kaja Pecold, Gabrysia Stasica, Matylda Stasica, Patrycja Stasica

Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas-Kameesak): May is Polish Heritage Month, an annual celebration of the Polish community coming together and sharing Polish culture and heritage with others.

May 3rd is celebrated by many Polish people around the world to commemorate the 1791 Constitution, was a–which is a symbol of Poland's aspiration for freedom, democracy and in­de­pen­dence. As such the month of May is chosen to celebrate Polish heritage.

* (13:40)

      Manitoba also has a large and vibrant Polish com­munity with a rich history dating back to the early days of our province. The community has long made significant contributions to the development of Manitoba, the Prairies and across Canada in areas such as agri­culture, industry, culture. Polish foods has–always been staples in our province.

      Polish Heritage Month includes events and activities that are held to showcase the vibrant and diverse culture of the Polish and Polish Canadian com­munities. These events can include music and dance performances, art exhibits, food festivals and cultural workshops and much more. These activities not only allow the Polish community to celebrate and share their heritage, but also to provide an opportunity for all Manitobans to learn more about Polish culture and history.

      It is important to recognize and celebrate the con­tributions of all communities in our society, and Polish Heritage Month is a wonderful example of this. By celebrating the rich history and contributions of the Polish community, we can promote greater under­standing and appreciation of our shared cultural heritage and the history of our province.

      Ekosi.

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave for the member for Tyndall Park to respond to the min­is­ter's statement? [Agreed]

Ms. Lamoureux: I rise today to commemorate Polish Heritage Month.

      It was in 1817 that people from Poland first arrived in Manitoba. At the time, Poland was experiencing political turmoil which is why many sought new places to build their lives, and we are lucky to have many Polish settlers choose Manitoba to call home.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, with time, these new immi­grants became well established, and today we are proud of the big role they have played in building up our country and our very own communities.

      I know right here in Manitoba, I have a dear friend who has joined us here today, Margaret von Lau. Many members of this House know her as well, and she herself is a Polish immigrant who created the Newcomers Employment and Education Development Services, also known as NEEDS, in 1999.

      And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this was based on her own challenges as a new Canadian, and she chan­nelled these challenges by creating a program tailored to the needs of newcomers. Last fiscal year alone, NEEDS served 4,600 children and youth, and over 2,000 of them were from Ukraine.

      We have seen by both those with Polish heritage living here in Manitoba and those living in Poland, how they have led by example in helping those from Ukraine and have inspired many other countries and individuals to do the same.

Currently, Manitoba is home to over 80,000 people of Polish heritage and, here at the Legislature, there's a plaque to commemorate 200 years of immigration of Poles to Manitoba from 1817 to 2017. The initiator of this project was the Manitoba district of the Canadian Polish Congress.

      In wrapping up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by recog­nizing Polish Heritage Month, the province of Manitoba pays tribute to the enduring spirit and remark­able contributions of the Polish com­mu­nity here in Manitoba. We're very glad Polish Heritage Month has officially been proclaimed here in Manitoba and I'd like to thank all of those who have joined us in the galleries here today for coming out and being able to be part of this proclamation, and for the minister for bringing for­ward today's statement.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Members' Statements

Bo Huang and Mingdi Zhao

Hon. Jon Reyes (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I am delighted today to share with you the fascinating story of Waverley con­stit­uents Bo Huang and Mingdi Zhao.

      On April 17th, 2023, the duo represented Winnipeg, Canada and participated in the world-famous Boston Marathon. The Boston Marathon is one of the most prestigious road races in the world, attracting elite athletes from around the globe.

      Bo and Mingdi finished with a flourish in that race, with Bo clinching a personal best time of three hours and 13 minutes and 41 seconds, and both of them ranking in the top half of 30,000 fast runners from all over the world.

      Bo and Mingdi started to put their passion into running about eight years ago and have maintained a strong momentum since then. Bo has now run six full marathons and Mingdi has run 11. Accomplishments like this come from dedication, discipline and deter­mination. They trained very hard for the Boston Marathon for several months; early morning long runs, late-night speed workouts, and all this hard work finally paid off. In addition, this duo has been accepted to run in the New York City Marathon in November this year. Their consistency and commit­ment to running has inspired many people in the Winnipeg running community.

      Bo is a senior design engineer at New Flyer Industries, and Mingdi is a teacher at Sisler High School. Apart from their dedication to their jobs, they are also highly involved in community services. They gave back to the running community by volunteering in multiple running events. They also use their passion for running to raise funds for the community. In May this year, they are participating in the Million Reasons Run to raise funds for Winnipeg's Children's Hospital, and also, in July this year, they'll participate in RunThePeg100 to raise funds for the unsheltered com­­mu­nity, End Homelessness Winnipeg, by running 100 kilometres around Winnipeg in one day.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bo and Mingdi are perfect examples of the Manitobans we can truly be proud of. I ask my colleagues to celebrate this duo with me for being such pacesetters with an unending passion for running for a cause.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Hat Phan

MLA Uzoma Asagwara (Union Station): It is with great pleasure that I recognize the years of dedication and exceptional service provided by Hat Phan, Winnipeg's best tailor. For the past 25 years, Hat has been an integral part of Winnipeg's fashion industry, bringing her unique skills and style to our community of Union Station.

      After immigrating from Vietnam 38 years ago, Hat eventually started her tailoring business in the basement of the old Hudson Bay building. She then moved to her current location at 120 Donald in 2001.

      Hat has worked in her trade for so long that day-to-day tasks have become secondary to the customers who make her so happy. She loves the people in our neighbourhood. Much of her clientele were people at The Bay and those nearby who lived nearby, and they've since retired. Her customer base has shifted to include much younger people, and Hat says she really likes that. She enjoys the energy they bring to her shop.

      As one of her loyal customers, I can attest to Hat's exceptional skills as a tailor. She always makes the experience fun, affirming and flexible. She truly cares about her customers, going above and beyond to ensure that they are satisfied with her work and leave her store feeling confident.

      Hat is a community staple, and people always light up when they talk about her. She is a shining example of what can be achieved with dedication, com­mu­nity-mindedness and a love for one's craft.

      All of her hard work is also reflected in her beautiful family. Hat has four children and three grandchildren and, like her, they exemplify the values of hard work, dedication and perseverance.

      It is an honour to recognize Hat Phan's 25 years of success as a business owner in Union Station. I invite everyone to join me in celebrating Hat's achievements as she joins us in the gallery today with her husband, Ha Tran.

      Congratulations, Hat, and thank you for being such a vibrant and im­por­tant part of our Union Station community.

Curtis Charison

Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): It gives me great pride to stand today and recognize the recipient of the prestigious Lions Club award, Curtis Charison.

      Mr. Charison is the recipient of the Melvin Jones Fellowship award. This award is a worldwide honour presented to those who showed tremendous care and compassion for their communities. It is putting the needs of our neighbours and our communities first. It requires taking action to serve others.

      Mr. Charison has lived in the entire–his entire life in the Gunton area. Here he runs Charison's Turkey Hatchery, which has been a staple in Teulon and Gunton areas. The hatchery has been running since 1952, supports many local events and projects with their generous donations. Each and every year, Curtis consistently steps up with his donations in support of the local com­mu­nity, which he considers an honour to be able to help out.

      Giving of one's time and energy to others is a great way to help your community. Mr. Charison truly cares about the people and the community. He is compassionate and generous beyond any expectations. He has certainly made the community better, has led by example, building relationships and improving the world through kindness. Curtis made a lasting impact and changed many lives.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope the members of this House will join me in wishing Curtis Charison con­gratulations on his outstanding achievement. He truly deserves this honour and something to be proud of.

      Thank you.

* (13:50)

Susie Erjavec Parker and Allan Pineda

Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): Local entrepreneurs and community organizers are an important part of what makes our communities in Manitoba so vibrant. It's my honour to highlight two of these today: Susie Erjavec Parker and Allan Pineda, two Filipino entre­preneurs from St. James who founded Winnipeg's Fried Chicken Fest.

      Fried Chicken Fest began in 2018 as a way to support local chicken farmers and our robust agri­cultural scene. Since then, it's become the food festival that kicks off the year and a celebration of the fantastic restauranteurs of the province. It takes place for 10 days during January, which is typically a slow month for the restaurant scene. During Fried Chicken Fest, Winnipeggers can try out fried chicken dishes from participating restaurants and vote on their favourite.

      For Susie and Allan, the work they do for Fried Chicken Fest is all about promoting the local busi­nesses and organizations that make Manitoba a great place to live and work. This has become especially important as we recover from COVID.

      We know the pandemic hit the restaurant industry especially hard. And because of this, Susie also created the save Manitoba restaurants campaign. It was an effort to encourage folks to order from restaurants directly whenever possible. This allows them to keep more of their profits and reinvest in their businesses by paying staff and suppliers. It's especially important for small and independent restaurants, who often have thin profit margins.

      The efforts of Susie and Allan have made a difference. The save Manitoba restaurants campaign spread coast to coast in support of the restaurant industry. And they heard from many restaurants who said Fried Chicken Fest has helped keep their businesses afloat.

      In the future, they hope to bring Fried Chicken Fest to other Canadian cities.

      I'm so proud that these incredible entrepreneurs are from my community in St. James. Susie is here with us today, along with her daughter, Steffi. I invite them to stand up. And I want to sincerely thank both Susie and Allan for their contributions to our economy and quality of life here in Manitoba.

Polish School of Dance "Sokol"

Mr. Shannon Martin (McPhillips): It gives me great pleasure to recognize the Polish School of Dance "Sokol" Winnipeg on celebrating their 50th anniversary on June 17th.

      The Polish School of Dance was founded in 1973 by Mrs. Gladys Kulas, under the Polish Gymnastic Association "Sokol" Winnipeg. The school of dance was supported by many Polish Canadians who felt there was a need to pass on ancestral culture. They wanted to return to their roots by giving their children an opportunity to learn about the Polish culture through song and dance, and this has continued for the past 50 years. Today, it continues to be home to over 70 proud dancers ranging in ages from three to 17.

      Throughout the years, "Sokol" has always taken pride in its leadership and choreographers. Over the past 50 years, the school has had almost 40 dedicated and passionate instructors that have worked with children, passing on their love of Polish culture, dance and tradition.

      Over the decades, the Polish School of Dance in Winnipeg has had the privilege and honour of sharing traditional Polish folk dance, attire and language at many events, both within and outside of our province of Manitoba; some including Folklorama, Polish Fest, year‑end concerts, Christmas concerts, dance camps, senior citizens' homes, hospitals, community centres and countless special and commemorative concerts for various organizations.

      These children have travelled to out‑of-town per­formances at Cooks Creek, Beausejour, Brandon, Selkirk, Kenora, Thunder Bay and have performed during two tours through Ontario and Alberta.

      The Polish School of Dance has also travelled to the International Folk Festival in Poland on two separate occasions. They have participated and represented our province among thousands of other Polish folk dancers and singers around the world.

      To all the dancers, past and present, congratula­tions on your great achieve­ments. Your talent and love for Polish culture is inspiring to your own community and to our province's–as a whole. We wish the Polish School of Dance a wonderful 50th anniversary, and we wish nothing but success for the next 50.

      Thank you.

Oral Questions

Death of Jason Butchart
Con­dol­ences to Family

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able official leader–or, Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion.

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): I want to start today by paying tribute to a Manitoban who left us far too soon. Jason Butchart was a volun­teer fire­fighter with the Fisher Fire De­part­ment. He was a father, a trauma nurse and a veteran of our Armed Forces. Before he passed away, Jason helped survivors of an accident on Highway 68, that included a 10‑month-old child.

      He's an absolute hero, and he will be deeply missed.

      I do have a question that I would like to pose to the First Minister, but I wanted to put those words on the record first.

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): Our hearts go out to Jason and his family and–on the tragic loss.

      We–our thoughts go out to all volunteer fire­fighters in the com­mu­nity who do in­cred­ible work to save lives each and every single day.

      We thank them for the in­cred­ible work that they do.

School Libraries Containing LGBTQ2S Content
Gov­ern­ment Position on Call for Book Ban

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): On this side of the House, we think that books shouldn't be banned in this province.

      We also think that it's im­por­tant to call out anti-2SLGBTQ+ rhetoric. When that happens, we should send a clear message to kids and families across Manitoba that we support them.

      Now, we called on this prov­incial gov­ern­ment to make 2SLGBTQ+ training available to all trustees and elected leaders in 2016. Recent events have made it clear that this training is still needed in Manitoba. It's im­por­tant that we send a clear and united message to people across the province on this issue.

      I would ask the First Minister: Will she clearly and unequivocally state that books should not be banned in our province?

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): We support our 2SLGBT com­mu­nity, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And when it comes to this situation, I know that, certainly, school divisions have been involved, and we know that we've left certain things and decisions up to those school divisions.

      But I will say that we do support the com­mu­nity. We want to ensure that there is no–that nobody is being discriminated against when it comes to infor­ma­tion that is being out there, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

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

Mr. Kinew: You well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that all kids in our province should be supported, and that's why it's im­por­tant for leaders on this issue to speak very clearly.

      We also know that the prov­incial gov­ern­ment has an im­por­tant role to play when it comes to the K‑to‑12 edu­ca­tion system. It can send a powerful and im­por­tant message of support to 2SLGBTQ+ children, families and everyone in the com­mu­nity, that we see them and that we support them.

      That means ensuring that books that reflect their lives and the lives of their families are not banned, parti­cularly not in public schools.

      The Premier has the ability to ensure that no books will be banned simply because they feature 2SLGBTQ people within their pages.

      Will she commit to taking action today?

Mrs. Stefanson: I just said that we do support our 2SLGBTQ com­mu­nity in Manitoba, children–and children right across the board who are being taught through our public school system and all school systems in Manitoba, Madam Speaker.

      Obviously, that's–the situation is being dealt with at the school division level, and we'll continue to support those in our L‑G‑D‑P com­mu­nity, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      But, again, this will take place at that level.

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

Winnipeg Hospitals
Nurse Staffing Levels

Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): I just want to say, for the record, that the Premier should unequivocally state that these sorts of things should not be happening at the school division level, and it's the role of prov­incial gov­ern­ment to intervene.

      We know that the Premier has also refused to tell us just how many people are leaving the front lines of our health-care system. However, we now have the facts. I'll table the infor­ma­tion that shows just how many nurses have left the bedside.

      In 2016, there were 8,014 nurses working in Winnipeg hospitals. Seven years later, there are 300 fewer nurses. Those are the facts.

      Will the Premier tell the House why her gov­ern­ment cut the number of nurses working in Winnipeg by 300?

* (14:00)

Hon. Heather Stefanson (Premier): The Leader of the Op­posi­tion and all Manitobans will know that we are investing $200 million more in–to ensure that our–there's more health human resources in the province of Manitoba, Madam–or, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is including more than $125 million spe­cific­ally for nursing in Manitoba.

      We'll continue to make those invest­ments in health human resources as needed in the province of Manitoba.

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

Mr. Kinew: Well, what the facts show is that there are actually fewer resources. There are fewer nurses working in Winnipeg hospitals today than when this PC gov­ern­ment took office.

      Every day, we hear about the impact of the cuts that began under Brian Pallister and have continued under the Stefanson gov­ern­ment: cancelled surgeries, nurses being forced to work mandatory overtime, being run off their feet and more nurses than ever leaving the profession.

      The Premier should be accountable for the deci­sions she made as Health minister and implements today as the Premier.

      So, will she tell Manitobans why there are 300 fewer nurses in Winnipeg hospitals than there were in 2016?

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do know that, as a result of our health human resource action plan, that we've added more than 259 nurses to the system as a result of those invest­ments that are being made.

      The Leader of the Op­posi­tion will know, as well, that since 2016, there–we had a worldwide pandemic that was a sig­ni­fi­cant challenge, not just here in Manitoba, when it comes to health human resources. It's right across the country, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      We're taking action, and we're getting results.

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

Mr. Kinew: Actually, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what the numbers that I just shared with the public show is that the amount of nurses working at the bedside in Winnipeg hospitals decreased each and every year that the PCs have been in office.

      That means that they began their program of cutting the number of nurses working at the bedside many years before the pandemic. And, unfor­tunately, it continued right through the pandemic.

      And so, today, here we are in an election year that the PCs are promising to change, but we see that what their actions have been since they've taken office has been to cut the number of nurses working and caring for you, the people of Manitoba.

      So I'll ask again: Can the Premier explain to the House, why did she cut the number of nurses working in Winnipeg hospitals by 300?

Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as part of our health human resource action plan, invest­ment of more than $200 million into that, into recruitment, retention and training of all health-care pro­fes­sionals, including nurses. We have added 400 ad­di­tional nursing beds in the province of Manitoba. That has resulted in us retaining more–there's been a number of initiatives that we've taken to retain nurses, as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we've added 259 more nurses in the way of recruitments.

      We'll continue to take action on behalf of Manitobans.

Health-Care System
Nurse Staffing Levels

MLA Uzoma Asagwara (Union Station): Deputy Speaker, Manitobans across the province are suffering thanks to the PCs' health-care cuts. These cuts have led to reduced services and less care by the bedside.

      Instead of stopping their cuts, the PCs are des­per­ately trying to mislead Manitobans by pretending that they've added hundreds of health-care workers to the system, yet they won't say how many workers have left.

      We have a FIPPA, which I'll table, which shows the reality after seven years of the PCs. There are 50 less nurses working in the Southern Health region since–sorry, since 2016.

      Will the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) explain why she cut 50 nurses from Southern Health?

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): I was so pleased to be out in Southern Health this morning making another great an­nounce­ment on behalf of the doctors, nurses, allied health pro­fes­sionals and support staff in that area, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      And I thank all the workers in the Southern Health region for the in­cred­ible work you've been doing to support Manitobans and make care available closer to home.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, nearly 900 new health pro­fes­sionals have been 'hadded' to the health system.

MLA Asagwara: Deputy Speaker, when the PCs aren't spending millions of dollars on private for-profit agency nurses, they're firing public sector nurses. There are less–there are 50 less nurses work­ing in Southern Health today, compared to when the PCs took office in 2016, yet the PCs are trying to mislead Manitobans–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

MLA Asagwara: –by saying they've added hundreds of health-care workers.

      Manitobans won't be fooled so easily by these PCs. They don't trust them when it comes to–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

MLA Asagwara: –health care, given their terrible track record on the issue. It's time for the Premier to do the right thing and end her cuts to health care.

      Will the Premier commit today to stop firing nurses and stop cutting health care?

Ms. Gordon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, our commit­ment is to add more nurses to the health system. That is why our gov­ern­ment is committed to adding 400 ad­di­tional nurse training seats.

      Just last week, I was at the college of nursing,  wel­coming 120 students to the inaugural summer program. For the first time in the province of–in the history of this province, we will have three intakes at the college of nursing; 259 nurses have been added through the health human resource action plan.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will continue to answer the call for nurses to be added to the Manitoba health system.

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

MLA Asagwara: Deputy Speaker, 50 fewer nurses in Southern Health, cuts and less care by the bedside. That is the record of seven years under this PC gov­ern­ment.

      Less nurses means less care for those Manitobans in their time of need. Instead of investing in public nurses, the PCs are instead sending millions of dollars to private, for-profit agencies for nurses across our province. That's the wrong approach.

      The Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) should do the right thing: stop cutting nurses and invest today in strengthening our public health-care system.

      Will she commit to doing so?

Ms. Gordon: When I had the privilege of meeting at the front line with nurses, they said, Minister, these are the incentives we propose that your gov­ern­ment launch to retain, train and recruit nurses to the province.

      And out of that came the health human resource action plan, Mr. Deputy Speaker: $123 million for nine incentives. Adding more individuals to the college of nursing inaugural summer program; 400 ad­di­tional nurse training seats.

      You know what the nurses told me when I met with them? In the 17 years they were in office, no one ever went to speak with nurses, and they did nothing for nurses.

      But we're standing–

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

Manitoba Hydro
Rate Increase Request

Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): Deputy Speaker, Manitobans are facing–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sala: –a cost of living crisis. Families are struggling to make ends meet and can't afford any more surprises.

      But instead of helping regular Manitobans, this PC gov­ern­ment is going to hike up their hydro rates again. They're now asking the Public Utilities Board to approve a resi­den­tial rate hike of 2.4 per cent for September, and then another 2.4 per cent in April next year.

      That's nearly 5 per cent, after this PC gov­ern­ment has already increased hydro rates by over 20 per cent since 2016. Enough is enough.

      Will the Premier stop hiking up hydro rates on Manitoba families?

Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro): I hope you will see the irony in the NDP coming forward and talking about afford­ability when it comes to Manitoba Hydro.

      Madam–Mr. Deputy Speaker, we know what hap­pened under the NDP: the biggest capital boon­doggle in the history of Manitoba. They created a $24 billion of debt; they were $4 billion over target on that.

      That has created increased rates to Manitobans. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

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

Mr. Sala: Deputy Speaker, we know the PC gov­ern­ment's playbook. They didn't like the PUB's in­de­pen­dent oversight of hydro rates, so they rewrote the law to let them hike up rates 5 per cent every year.

      Now they can set rates at the Cabinet table, costing families hundreds of dollars. We believe, on this side of the House, that that's wrong.

      Will the Premier stand up and commit to stopping her hydro rate hikes today?

* (14:10)

Mr. Cullen: Well, part of the $4‑billion overrun on behalf of the NDP was because they chose to ignore the Public Utilities Board process.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have taken steps to make sure to stabilize Manitoba Hydro and we've also taken steps to make sure the Public Utilities Board is stronger than every–before, by adding $2 million to the PUB budget. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

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

Mr. Sala: Hydro rates have increased by over 20 per cent under this PC gov­ern­ment. That's hundred of dollars more out of the pockets of Manitoba families. And now this PC gov­ern­ment wants to raise rates another 5 per cent while Manitobans are already struggling with rising costs.

      On this side of the House, we believe that hydro rates should be set through in­de­pen­dent oversight, not behind closed doors at the Cabinet table, as we're seeing with this PC government.

      Will the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) stop raising hydro rates today, yes or no?

Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, under their watch, what happened was they increased the water rental rates and the debt guarantee rates to Manitoba Hydro by twofold.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, we took it upon ourselves as gov­ern­ment to reduce that in half this past year. That will save Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba Hydro rate­payers $185 million. That's why it's gone from a 3.5 per cent increase down to a 2 per cent increase.

      That is progress.

Allied Health Professionals
Collective Bargaining Negotiations

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's allied health-care pro­fes­sionals week but workers are still waiting for a fair deal from this gov­ern­ment after having had their wages frozen for over five years. This includes rural paramedics, pharmacy and MRI techs, radiation therapists and 190 other allied health pro­fes­sionals. Some mental health and addictions counsellors have been waiting for over six years.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government committed in their 2022 budget to completing all wage contract settlements by the end of the 2022‑2023 fiscal year, but allied health-care workers are still waiting.

      Will the minister give them a fair deal today?

Hon. James Teitsma (Minister of Consumer Protection and Government Services): Not surprising, I suppose, that the NDP continue this con­sistently irresponsible approach as espoused by their leader.

      I'll remind the member that gov­ern­ment is not the employer. The parties that are involved are involved in active bargaining–aided, in fact, by a mediator at this time.

      What the Leader of the Op­posi­tion and this member is doing is inflaming the situation. They need to stop.

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

Ms. Naylor: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the PC gov­ern­ment promised Manitobans in their budget last year that they would complete all wage contract settlements by the end of the fiscal year. That date has come and gone, forcing allied health-care workers to vote 99 per cent in favour of a strike mandate.

      This is an un­pre­cedented mandate and it's clear that thousands of front-line health-care pro­fes­sionals feel disrespected by the Stefanson gov­ern­ment, including addictions and mental health workers during an addictions crisis.

      Will the Minister of Health (Ms. Gordon) stand up during allied health-care pro­fes­sionals week and finally say she can give allied health-care workers a fair deal?

Mr. Teitsma: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this side of the House, we have nothing but respect for the amazing work of Manitoba's allied health-care pro­fes­sionals.

      The member doesn't seem to want to listen to our members, though, so perhaps she'll listen to former NDP Cabinet minister Jennifer Howard, who said, I believe and I know that collective bargaining can be a delicate process and I don't think any of this–anyone in this House would want to inter­fere with this process–except for, apparently, this member and her leader–or would want to see that process go off of the rails because they want to take political advantage of a situation.

      I think that's what the member is doing. Sadly, this–I tell you, Jennifer Howard, as a Cabinet minister, had more credentials, more capability and more courage than the entire front bench of the NDP.

      Shame on them.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. Order. Order

      The honourable member for Wolseley, on a final supplementary.

Ms. Naylor: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this PC gov­ern­ment's seven years have–of cuts have thrown our health-care system into chaos. Allied health-care workers have had enough.

      The PC gov­ern­ment promised to complete all wage contract settlements by the end of 2022‑2023 fiscal year. The deadline has come and gone, and allied health-care workers are no closer to a fair deal.

      A five-year wage freeze during a cost-of-living crisis is unacceptable, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On this side of the House, we believe in respecting health-care workers who care for us and our families.

      Will the minister give allied health-care workers a fair deal today?

Mr. Teitsma: I think the member knows that we shouldn't be commenting publicly on the specifics of active negotiation and that we should be respecting the bargaining process. I hope that she will take at least that infor­ma­tion from this question period. Given that this is–I don't know how many times that she's come back to the same question, though, I kind of doubt it.

      I would just say to that member that we have actually arrived at a number of suc­cess­ful contracts within the health bargaining units, and in every single one of those cases, there has been retroactive pay available, there has been compounding increases available.

      I expect that will happen here again.

Assiniboine Com­mu­nity College
Funding for Nurse Diploma Program

Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, the–in February, the PC gov­ern­ment pro­mised Assiniboine Com­mu­nity College ad­di­tional funds to esta­blish a one-time nursing diploma program.

      Yet after making this promise, the PC gov­ern­ment backtracked, saying the funding for the nursing diploma program would have to come out of ACC's base funding. That left ACC on the hook for over $300,000 in ad­di­tional costs. That's another broken promise by this PC gov­ern­ment.

      Can the minister explain why she's forcing ACC to pick up the tab for this nursing diploma program?

Hon. Sarah Guillemard (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): First, I want to thank Mr. Mark Frison, who is the president of ACC, for all his hard work in leading ACC and their pro­gramming. And he and I have been in constant com­muni­cation and contact, and this was an unfor­tunate situation that we are actively working on a solution for.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able member for St. Vital, on a follow-up question.

Mr. Moses: As it stands right now, Assiniboine Commu­nity College is projecting a $750,000 deficit this year, and that's thanks in large part to the PC govern­ment.

      And they've resulted in thirty–$300,000 in a broken promise. And that money should have been gone to nursing students in the diploma nursing program.

      And for years, the PC gov­ern­ment has under­funded uni­ver­sities and colleges, including ACC, and failing to provide adequate funding, and spe­cific­ally for this nursing program. The funding for ACC this year is below inflation, and it's below other Manitoba post-secondary in­sti­tutions.

      Can the minister explain why she's leaving ACC behind?

Mrs. Guillemard: There is no risk to the nursing diploma program. It will go ahead as planned. There is no risk to the funding for this program.

      The president of ACC understands that this nursing program will go forward and is committed to helping the province meet their 400-ad­di­tional-nursing-seat commit­ment, and he is actively coming up with solutions that we are working towards addressing that goal.

      The member opposite does not have all of his facts straight, but I do acknowl­edge that the situation was unfor­tunate and we are actively working for a reso­lu­tion.

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

Mr. Moses: The fact is, the PC gov­ern­ment broke their promise. They broke their promise to fund the one-time nursing diploma program at Assiniboine Com­mu­nity College.

      They went against their word. They should have funded it. Instead, they told them to fund it out of their base funding; another example of why Manitobans can't trust PC an­nounce­ments because they break their promises imme­diately. And it's another example of the sheer incompetence of this PC gov­ern­ment.

* (14:20)

      ACC is being forced to pick up the tab for this program. Despite inflation and inadequate funding by this–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Moses: –gov­ern­ment, they've already 'folced' to cut–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Moses: –at least one industrial mechanical program.

      So, will the minister do the right thing today? Will she fund the nursing diploma program at ACC fully? And will she commit to that right now, right next–right here? [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Guillemard: The president of ACC does not characterize this as a broken promise; only members opposite are characterizing this way. Again, another example of the members opposite putting misinforma­tion on the record.

      They owe Manitobans an apology.

Funding for Nurse Training Programs
Budget Clawback Concerns

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): We all know there's a massive shortage of nurses in this province. And despite what the gov­ern­ment may claim, every­one predicted it coming for decades.

      Both the NDP and the PCs froze edu­ca­tion budgets for years, which meant we had fewer nurses, and it's still happening. The Brandon Sun is reporting, as I table, that despite promising new funding in February, the PC gov­ern­ment reversed itself and, at the last minute, pulled–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lamont: –nursing funding 'lead-to-ing' to a $300,000 deficit for the college and cuts to another needed program in industrial mechanics course, quote, all because of some mis­commu­ni­ca­tion within the gov­ern­ment's ranks. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lamont: Now, Brandon Uni­ver­sity only got an increase of 3.9 per cent this year while ACC had to make to–do with only a 2 per cent increase.

      Is this blunder a one-off mistake, or is it because this gov­ern­ment has no in­ten­tion of keeping their health‑care promises?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able leader–or, the hon­our­able Minister for Advanced Edu­ca­tion and Training.

Hon. Sarah Guillemard (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Once again, I'll reiterate that we are in close contact with our post-secondary institutes and leadership, working on reso­lu­tion of a number of different issues.

      Every post-secondary in­sti­tute did receive an increase this year. There is over $100 million more added to our post-secondary institutes that is creating more programs, including nursing seat expansions.

      We are committed to our 400-seat expansion in the nursing training seats. We will meet those goals.

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

Mr. Lamont: You know, year after year, we've asked this gov­ern­ment for some­thing pretty simple, which is an honest accounting for the budget.

      Because when the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) stands to talk about all the extra money that's supposed to be going to health care, when–year after year, the PCs put one number in the budget, and then immediately turned around and demanded 15 per cent cuts, imposed wage freezes through legis­lation and forced reorganiza­tions that resulted in hundreds of staff deletions and thousands of resig­na­tions.

      They did that year after year, and we're still in a health-care crisis. And I don't want to hear how much more money they're spending than the NDP, because that's exactly what Brian Pallister said when he was cutting.

      We've heard that people are being told that if they go over their health-care budgets this year, it will be clawed back next year.

      Is that why the gov­ern­ment is cutting funding to nurse training programs now?

Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Finance): Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the reality is, under this Premier and this year's budget, we've increased assist­ance–financial assist­ance–to health care to the tune of a 9.2 per cent increase.

      And also to that, we've committed to ad­di­tional seats in our post-secondary in­sti­tutions for health-care pro­fes­sionals. We've committed ad­di­tional money to post-secondary to the tune of $60 million. We've also committed, to health care in parti­cular, $200 million, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to support and attract 2,000 more people to health care.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, we're on the right track.

Work Permit Holders
Health-Care Coverage

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): A couple of weeks ago, I asked the Health Minister what she's going to do to make sure those on work permits here in Manitoba are provided health coverage, as they are entitled to.

      I have three open cases. These are people who live and work in Manitoba, one who is pregnant and due in October. I've been working with the federal gov­ern­ment on the technicality that their work permits are a few days shy of a year.

      However, this is not just a federal issue. The Minister of Health in Manitoba has a big respon­si­bility, as it is her job to ensure those in Manitoba on work permits are, in fact, receiving the health coverage they are entitled to. Health is a prov­incial topic.

      Will the minister respon­si­ble provide assurance today that these three Manitobans will, in fact, receive health-care coverage?

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): I thank the member for bringing this forward. This is an issue that Manitoba Health was actually leading the way in discussing with the federal gov­ern­ment in terms of their work permits and when they expire and how it impacts on our ability to provide health-care coverage to individuals whose work permits are expiring.

      This is a very live issue that I encourage the member to continue to work with their federal col­leagues on, as Manitoba Health is also continuing those discussions.

Portage Place Shopping Centre
Redevelopment Announcement

Mr. Shannon Martin (McPhillips): Mr. Speaker, sus­tain­able and lasting economic dev­elop­ment requires a gov­ern­ment and com­mu­nity stake­holders to work towards a common goal.

      I understand that last week, the Minister of Economic Dev­elop­ment, Invest­ment and Trade joined the Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) for a historic an­nounce­ment that follows this principle.

      Can the minister elaborate on this an­nounce­ment and how it will help Manitobans and our downtown?

Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Economic Development, Investment and Trade): I want to thank my colleague from McPhillips for that question and the op­por­tun­ity to speak on this exciting, un­pre­cedented an­nounce­ment last Friday.

      I was pleased to join the Premier last Friday, along with repre­sen­tatives from True North, leaders in our health-care sector and also Grand Chief Jerry Daniels, as well, at Portage Place shopping centre.    

      At the heart of this in­cred­ible an­nounce­ment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, $500-million invest­ment in our downtown core and the creation of a com­pre­hen­sive health-care centre with the Pan Am Clinic expanding to become the anchor tenant; truly remark­able.

      Our gov­ern­ment is committed to growing the economy, healing our health care and creating safer streets, unlike the NDP, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who have a track record of broken promises and failed projects.

      I'd like to thank everyone who made this project a reality and–

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

Silica Mine Project and Drinking Water Safety
Munici­pal Board Zoning Rules

Mr. Mark Wasyliw (Fort Garry): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Environ­ment and Climate has so far failed to stand up in this House and commit to protecting drinking water for Manitobans.

      Residents near Vivian in southeast Manitoba fear that the Sio Silica mining project would permanently damage the freshwater aquafer they drink from every day.

      The local RM rejected zoning changes for this project, a decision that was recently overturned by this PC‑gov­ern­ment-appointed munici­pal board.

      Can the minister tell us why the PC gov­ern­ment is not listening to elected local officials?

Hon. Kevin E. Klein (Minister of Environment and Climate): I would hope that the members opposite begin their statements with once upon a time, because they're filled with fictitious points and comments. They're not talking about the facts.

      The member opposite is obviously very busy in court and doesn't understand that, in fact, we are listening to Manitobans and we will continue to listen to Manitobans. That's why we sent it to the Clean Environ­ment Com­mis­sion so that they could listen to hundreds and hundreds of Manitobans, unlike the NDP when they ignored the Clean Environ­ment Commis­sion year after year, not replacing the North End treatment plant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Fort Garry, on a sup­ple­mentary question.

Mr. Wasyliw: Not only is this minister not listening to the people of southeastern Manitoba, he is over­turning the decisions of demo­cratic­ally elected local councils in that area.

      The proposed Sio Silica project will drill thousands of wells across the region, and if the mine is approved, wells will extend deep past the limestone aquafer where many residents draw their water and into the sandstone below.

      It should not be difficult for this minister to stand up in this House and commit to protecting drinking water for all Manitobans.

      Why won't he do that today?

MLA Klein: Yet again, we have more election propaganda and misleading statements being made on the record. It's embar­rass­ing for the members opposite.

       I can tell you that we are, indeed, listening to the residents of Manitoba. Every statement that member made is fictitious; it's made up. It is nothing more than election propaganda.

* (14:30)

      If that's the way they're going to win an election and try to get back into office and destroy our environ­ment–as noted in a Winnipeg Free Press article–or a Winnipeg Sun article that said their fraudulent climate change plan was fraudulent and driven mostly by spin and propaganda.

      We will take no lessons from the members opposite.

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

Mr. Wasyliw: You know, I would suggest the minister take this lesson: perhaps he can start listening to the people of Dawson Trail and Springfield-Ritchot, because on this side of the House, we certainly do.

      The Manitoba Auditor General shows us that the PC gov­ern­ment has failed to fully implement 90 per cent of recom­men­dations from the past several years, including recom­men­dations on drinking water safety.

      The local RM has concerns about zoning implica­tions for the Sio Silica project, but now that decision has been overturned by this PC gov­ern­ment-appointed munici­pal board.

      Will the minister respect the concerns of local decision makers and commit to protecting drinking water for all Manitobans?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before recog­nizing the minister, just a caution around language about fictitious when referring to what is spoken by another member in this House.

MLA Klein: I guess if I can't use that term to properly identify what is being said on the public record, it is nothing more than misleading. And I can tell you as somebody who has spent over 26 years in the media, it is absolutely misleading.

      So, let's instead of answering these false claims and stories that are being made up at this parti­cular point in time, let's talk about the facts. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

MLA Klein: Are you–do you want to listen to this or no? [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

MLA Klein: Kids, kids.

      Let's look at the fact. The fact is that during the NDP's time, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipegosis fisheries–

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

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I–order. Order.

      Comments need to go through the Chair, and let's behave like adults.

Lynn Lake Hospital Staffing Levels
Return to Com­mu­nity for Transferred Patients

MLA Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Let's talk about misleading statements. Residents of Lynn Lake and the Marcel Colomb Cree Nation were told that their family members had to get shipped hundreds of kilometres away because of staffing levels at the Lynn Lake hospital.

      We now know that those staffing levels are back to where they need to be, and yet those people have not been repatriated to their home com­mu­nity.

      Will the minister tell the people of Lynn Lake and Marcel Colomb Cree Nation when their family mem­bers will return to Lynn Lake, or will she continue to ignore them?

Hon. Audrey Gordon (Minister of Health): I'd like to thank the member for Flin Flon for thanking our gov­ern­ment for fixing the staffing issue in Lynn Lake.

      We will be working very closely with the com­mu­nities in–around Lynn Lake on their needs. We continue to bring individuals to the table of solutions to address the specific needs of com­mu­nities, and Lynn Lake is a priority for us as well.

      Thank you.

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

MLA Lindsey: Quite frankly, the people of Lynn Lake and Marcel Colomb Cree Nation are tired of that minister's spin and refusing to answer the primary question: When will their family members be allowed to return to the hospital in Lynn Lake?

      Can the minister answer that question because the staffing levels are back where they need to be, or did she always plan to shut down the hospital in Lynn Lake?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Ms. Gordon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, members opposite will continue to rely on fear mongering as their narrative. But, do you know what fear is? It's fake evidence appearing real. That is what they rely on every day that they come into this Chamber.

      The members on this side of the House care about the North. We care about the residents of Lynn Lake and the surrounding com­mu­nities, and we'll continue to work with the leadership of those com­mu­nities to address their needs.

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.

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

Matter of Privilege

Mr. Deputy Speaker: And I did understand that that member was rising on another matter, so I will recognize him again.

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): I rise on a matter of privilege.

      There are two con­di­tions that must be satisfied in order for a matter to be ruled in order as a prima facie matter of privilege: first, was the issue raised at the earliest op­por­tun­ity, and second, has sufficient evidence been provided to demon­strate that a prima facie matter of privilege has occurred in order to warrant putting the matter to the House.

      On the question of the first op­por­tun­ity, this matter concerns remarks that were made in the House on Thursday, May 11th, after oral questions. Therefore, this is my first op­por­tun­ity to raise the issue.

      On that day, I asked the current policy–about the current policy in Manitoba that has taxpayers directly financing second homes for MLAs, some­thing that, at the federal gov­ern­ment level, is prohibited for members of Parliament. I did not suggest that anyone was breaking the rules. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I was asking why the rules in Manitoba are so lax.

      On the question of a prima facie case of privilege, after oral questions, the NDP member from Elmwood and the PC Gov­ern­ment House Leader (Mr. Goertzen) approached my colleague in this Chamber and asked them to tell me to stop asking questions about it. The member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) said it was dangerous and the PC Gov­ern­ment House Leader said to warn me that if I continued my line of questioning, they would retaliate.

      The NDP member from Elmwood said I was walking a dangerous line, and the PC House leader and MLA for Steinbach said if I continued to bring it up, the PCs would respond by raising the issues of office–of travel expenses by the former Manitoba MLA for Keewatinook, who had a home in Steinbach and also drove to her home com­mu­nity of St. Theresa Point in Island Lake, to which there's only winter-road access, a com­mu­nity of 15,000 people with no rail, boat or all-weather roads, so you can imagine she had some mileage claims.

      The member of Steinbach also wanted–from Steinbach also wanted to bring up my office expenses, including a dinner and the fact that we'd bought laptops, which remain gov­ern­ment of Manitoba property. Those are my office expenses, and we bought laptops so my staff and I would have the tools to do our jobs. I know that there's a lot that this gov­ern­ment does that's on paper or on fax or with tech­no­lo­gy that's decades out of date, but my staff and I actually use modern tech­no­lo­gy to do our work.

      And I'm talking about the one issue–personal expenses and the use of public money to help MLAs pay for their mortgages on a second home that they get to keep and sell. For another member to approach my colleague and convey to me that I will face retaliation and that I should not ask questions on this subject is a prima facie violation of my privilege and my freedom of speech as a member in this House.

      The single most im­por­tant right we have as legis­lators is parlia­mentary privilege and the freedom of speech to be able to speak truth without fear of reprisal. It's in the bill of rights, dating back to 1688; it's in the British North America Act of 1867; it is in the Constitu­tion Act of 1982. And it's some­thing that's personally im­por­tant to me. It's reflected in the legis­lation I've brought forward.

      And, to be clear, I know what it's like to be silenced in this Chamber, because as an in­de­pen­dent MLA, we can be silenced all the time. When I asked for leave from the House on a min­is­terial statement on Inter­national Women's Day, the House leader and the NDP said no. So, I could not pay tribute to my aunt, who was the–one of the first ever all-women–member of the first ever all-women law firms in Manitoba, along with her friend and law partner Marion Meadmore, who was the first First Nations woman ever called to the bar in Canada.

      When I asked for leave for speak on inter­national day of la Francophonie, I was denied it by the Gov­ern­ment House Leader (Mr. Goertzen). I represent St. Boniface, where the founder of this province is buried after being murdered for having temerity to–able to speak his own language in his own land. And I was silenced, as so many French speakers have been through­out this province's history. That's because, by legis­lation, in­de­pen­dent MLAs are treated as second-class members of this Legislature, and this Legislature denies us the right to speak and vote that other members can take for granted.

      You may not want to hear the questions we ask, but we were chosen by the people of our con­stit­uencies to represent them, so it's our con­stit­uents and Manitobans who are being denied repre­sen­tation and denied a say in this House. And more than our con­stit­uents, because we have to cover all of the min­is­tries, and we may help people anywhere in Manitoba.

      We are demo­cratic­ally elected members of this House, elected to represent our com­mu­nities and all Manitobans as best we can, and yet, we are denied the basic demo­cratic right to speak and vote in this House that other parties can take for granted and have gone out of their way to knowingly suppress. That is contempt for demo­cracy, it's contempt for freedom of speech and contempt of this Legislature.

* (14:40)

      I don't know how it works with other prov­incial and federal parties, but–and the–are–the NDP or the Conservatives, but nobody in any other party ever gets to tell any Leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party what questions they get to ask in this House–not the NDP, not the PCs, not the federal Liberals, for that matter.

      I presented evidence, in the form the member's own expenses, from this gov­ern­ment's own public disclosures. I showed them what they did and I asked them how they could justify it. What was the response? Not, you know what, your leader is right, we should do some­thing about this; not, look, it's clear we can't defend this, this needs to change. It was a threat that if I brought it up again, I'd get muck thrown at me, and my former caucus colleague, a First Nations woman who is no longer in politics, would get muck thrown at her.

      So I'm being threatened by the members of both the NDP and the PCs that, unless I stay quiet, they'll smear me–every­thing wrong with Manitoba politics right in a nutshell.

      So, Madam Speaker–so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as matter of privilege, it is fun­da­mental as–to our jobs as MLAs that we cannot be threatened to dissuade us from asking questions in this House.

      I cite House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3, Privileges and immunities: Members are entitled to go about their parlia­mentary busi­ness undisturbed. Menacing any member on the floor of the House, when they are coming or going to the House, or on account of their behaviour during a proceeding of Parliament, is a violation of the rights of Parliament. Any form of inti­mida­tion of a person, for or on account of his behaviour, during a proceeding of Parliament could amount to contempt. That's Maingot, second edition, 230 to one.

      Now, the fact that my colleague was approached, and not me personally, doesn't change the fact that they were asked by two members to tell me not to ask questions.

      And I want add, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a matter of the utmost seriousness. The offence is not just against me but the Legislature as a whole, because as the Speaker knows, what people at home or even in this gallery do not realize the truly terrible things that are continually said as part of heckling in this House.

      Now, to be threatened with being smeared for acting–asking completely legitimate questions is a vio­late of the right–violation of the rights of Parliament, not just a violation of my rights as a member. Unless it is made absolutely clear that this behaviour is unacceptable, it will continue, because we will not be silenced and we will not be denied.

      I move, seconded by the member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), that the members for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) and Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) be asked to apologize to the House for the violation of privilege and that it be referred to an all-party com­mit­tee for imme­diate con­sid­era­tion.

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

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): It seems that the member opposite has two parti­cular issues that he's raised in one matter of privilege.

      The first seems to deal with the fact that he doesn't like that our rules require the member opposite, as an in­de­pen­dent member, to ask for a leave on certain matters of the House. That is, as he asked–or cited as an example, for responding to min­is­terial statements.

      That's just one example. There'd be numer­ous examples where in­de­pen­dent members do have to ask for leave. Those are rules that are esta­blished by the House. In fact, the House has long had the rule that a party has to achieve four seats in this House to be able to be recog­nized as a political–[interjection]

      It is–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Steinbach has the floor and will be respected as such.

Mr. Goertzen: It is slightly ironic that the member opposite, who raised as part of his matter of privilege a concern about heckling, now heckles from his seat. So perhaps he can take his own advice.

      He raised the issue about being silenced in this House and he gave several examples. Each one of those examples, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are related to the rules of this House, and they require that to be recog­nized as an official political party one has to achieve four seats.

      Now, briefly, in the last 20 years, the Liberal caucus has achieved four seats until they lost the fourth seat and went back down to three seats. He will remember, because it was during his time as leader, that during that time where they had four seats, he didn't have to ask for leave to respond to min­is­terial statements or other things because they briefly achieved those four seats.

      The remedy for that, if he's concerned about having to ask for leave, isn't coming with a matter of privilege to the House, it's either changing the legis­lation and the rules of this House–and they brought forward a private member's bill in the past on that–it didn't pass, but they could do so again–or trying to find a fourth seat in the next election. Or maybe they'll even aspire higher; I have no idea what their aspira­tions are. But if they actually achieve party status after the next election, then this isn't an issue. It in no way forms a matter of privilege.

      When it comes to accusations in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I said it in my response to my question last week, the rules as it relates to expenses for individual members of this House are set by an in­de­pen­dent com­mis­sion and they're agreed that it should be an in­de­pen­dent com­mis­sion.

      There are some legislatures in Canada that have MLAs or their equivalent, MPPs, in some cases, setting their own expenses. That is not the way it's done in Manitoba. That's not the way it should be done in Manitoba.

      And I'll repeat to the member, as I repeated to others, that accusations that rules are being broken should not be brought to the floor of the House without evidence, which the member did not present. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

MLA Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): I'm going to keep my comments very, very short.

      I know that the member is emotional in respect of what may or may not have been said to his colleague or to him in respect of what he perceives his roles and privileges are in the House. I will let that for the deputy–for yourself, Deputy Speaker–to attest to its truth and its validity.

      I will say only this: it is in­cred­ibly rich, coming from the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Lamont), to talk about being silenced or attacked or however he emotionally attempted to construct, again, whatever he feels may or may not have happened, when we have given that member ample op­por­tun­ity to get up in this House and apologize to a female member of the Legis­lative Assembly for his interaction and his threatening and his yelling in the face of a female member of this Legis­lative Assembly in October of 2020, outside these legis­lative doors.

      He still has not done so. Him, as a male member of this Manitoba Legis­lative Assembly, has still doubled down and refused to apologize to a female member of this Legis­lative Assembly, of whom we are all equal here. He has still not apologized for getting in her face and yelling and screaming and swearing at her.

      I will leave that on the record.

      Miigwech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A matter of privilege is a serious concern. I'm going to take this under–a matter under ad­vise­ment to consult the author­ities and will return to the House with a ruling.

      We will now move on to petitions.

Petitions

Drug Overdose Reporting

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

      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 death 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 87 per cent higher than in 2019.

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

      (4) 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 manner to target actions and allow for account­ability.

* (14:50)

      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 Hilda McKay Canard, Flora McKay, Brenda Catcheway and many other Manitobans.

Security System Incentive Program

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

      The background of this petition is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

      We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

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

      Petition's been signed by many, many Manitobans.

Punjabi Bilingual Programs in Public Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      We 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, Deputy Speaker, is signed by many Manitobans.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Grievances?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

House Business

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Prior to announcing the busi­ness for this afternoon, I'd like to announce that the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment will meet on Wednesday, May 17th, 2023, at 6 p.m. to consider the following: Bill 230, The Munici­pal Councils and School Boards Elections Amend­ment Act; Bill 231, The Residen­tial Tenancies Amend­ment Act (2); and Bill 235, The Em­ploy­ment Standards Code Amend­ment Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been announced by the hon­our­able Gov­ern­ment House Leader the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment will meet on Wednesday, May 17th, 2023, at 6 p.m. to consider the following: Bill 230, The Munici­pal Councils and School Boards Elections Amend­ment Act; Bill 231, The Resi­den­tial Tenancies Amend­ment Act (2); Bill 235, The Em­ploy­ment Standards Code Amend­ment Act.

* * *

Mr. Goertzen: Could you please call for third reading this afternoon: Bill 2, Bill 6, Bill 11, Bill 12, Bill 15, Bill 18, Bill 19, Bill 26, Bill 34, Bill 38, Bill 17.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been announced by the hon­our­able Gov­ern­ment House Leader that this after­noon we will consider concurrence and third readings on bills 2, 6, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 26, 34, 38 and 17.

Concurrence and Third Readings

Bill 2–The Official Time Amendment Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will now com­mence, as previously announced, with Bill 2, The Official Time Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Andrew Smith (Minister of Municipal Relations): I move, seconded by the infra­structure–the Minister of Infra­structure and Trans­por­tation (Mr. Piwniuk), that Bill 2, The Official Time Amend­ment Act, be now read a third time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honour­able Minister of Munici­pal Relations, seconded by the hon­our­able Minister for Infra­structure and Transpor­tation, that Bill 2, The Official Time Amend­ment Act, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. [interjection]

      We're going to get the minister to read that again. It's im­por­tant that it gets done right.

Mr. Smith: I move, seconded by the Minister of Infra­structure and Trans­por­tation, that The Official Time Amend­ment Act, be now read a third time and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I'm going to ask the minister to try that one more time.

Mr. Smith: Okay.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Infrastructure and Trans­por­tation, that The Official Time Amend­ment Act be–reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Legis­lative Affairs, be con­curred in and now be read for a third time and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the hon­our­able Minister for Munici­pal Relations, seconded by the hon­our­able Minister for Infra­structure and Trans­por­tation, that Bill 2, The Official Time Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Com­mittee on Legis­lative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

Mr. Smith: I thank you for the op­por­tun­ity to put a few words on the record with respect to this–with Bill 2.

* (15:00)

      The Official Time Amend­ment Act will allow Manitoba to consider adopting permanent daylight saving time.

      We know that that's some­thing that's been discussed, not only here in our juris­dic­tion, across the country and of course, in the United States. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we want to make sure that Manitoba is aligned properly with other juris­dic­tions, parti­cularly our largest trading partner, the United States.

      So this bill will essentially allow, if the will of Manitobans, through con­sul­ta­tion, and of course if the United States goes through with their time change, that we would follow suit and make sure that Manitoba is able to align itself with permanent daylight saving time with our partners, colleagues, and of course, our good allies to the south of the border, the United States of America.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think we all can ap­pre­ciate the importance of having that alignment, not only for convenience sake when folks travel across the border, as many of us do. We have quite a strong working relationship and a very good relationship with the United States.

      It certainly would also help in matters of trade. We know that our largest trading partner, by far, is the United States, and Manitoba has a tre­men­dous amount of exports that go to the United States, agri­cul­ture being one of them.

      So we do thank that–ask that the House considers this, passes it and makes sure that Manitoba aligns ourselves with the United States, should they choose that path as well.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other speakers wishing to speak to Bill 2?

Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): Why did the gov­ern­ment decide that now was the right time to put forward this bill? [interjection]

Mr. Brad Michaleski, Acting Speaker, in the Chair

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): The hon­our­able member for Wolseley.

Ms. Naylor: Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, this bill amends The Official Time Act to discontinue the seasonal time change for daylight saving time.

      We know, as has already been discussed in this House, that daylight saving time is a divisive issue in Manitoba. Even this bill is conflicted over whether we should move away from daylight saving time.

      It doesn't even fully commit to ending time changes and esta­blish­ing permanent daylight saving time, instead leaving the decision up to the United States, where the bill is currently stalled in Congress.

      Thoughts on what should happen to daylight saving time in Manitoba are mixed. Some Manitobans prefer permanent daylight time, which is what the gov­ern­ment is sort of proposing, and this would keep the time as it is during the summer after the clocks are switched for daylight saving time, meaning that sunsets and sunrises would be later in winter and stay as they currently are in summer.

      Longer nights in winter is an obvious benefit of this system. One negative result of permanent daylight time, however, would be that some children and workers would have to make their morning commute in the dark during part of winter.

      However, other people prefer permanent standard time. This would mean that the sunrises and sunsets in summer would be earlier and remain as they currently are in winter.

      Some sleep experts favour this, claiming that it's healthier for people and is more in line with the body's circadian rhythm.

      In Canada, daylight saving time is the practice of turning clocks ahead one hour on the second Sunday in March, and back one hour on the first Sunday in November.

      Canada has six standard time zones that may be abbreviated as: PST for Pacific Standard Time; MST for Mountain Standard Time, etc. However, during the daylight saving period between March and November, they may be abbreviated as PTD and MDT. Sorry, PT–PDT and MDT, et cetera.

      The boundaries of the standard time zones are not necessarily the same as those of the cor­res­pond­ing daylight saving time zones. For example, the Mountain Time zones include a portion of northeastern British Columbia in the summer, but not during the winter; boundary shift because some munici­palities choose not to partici­pate in daylight savings time.

      It's up to each province to decide whether to use daylight time and not all do. Most, but not all juris­dic­tions in Canada and US, have been moving their clocks ahead by one hour on the second Sunday in March and back by one hour on the first Sunday in November.

      The majority of Saskatchewan has followed Central Standard Time year-round since 1966. However, some towns along the Manitoba and Alberta border have chosen to follow the time scheme of the province beside them, rather than staying with the rest of Saskatchewan.

      In 2020, Yukon Territory switched to observing Yukon Standard Time year-round. In Canada, areas of Quebec do not change to daylight time and remain on Atlantic Standard Time year-round. Pockets of Ontario and British Columbia do not use daylight time.

      The bill in the US Congress to make daylight saving time permanent, which would trigger Manitoba at doing the same if Bill 2 is passed, has been stalled in the House of Repre­sen­tatives since November 2022. The US Senate passed the bill in March. Supporters of the bill in the US claim that the change will be to brighter afternoons and increased economic activity.

      Because it is now a new year, supporters of the bill in the Senate will need to intro­duce it if they want the bill to eventually be passed. Supporters argue that if approved, the so-called sunshine pro­tec­tion act, would allow children to play outdoors later and would reduce seasonal depression.

      Critics, including the National Association of Convenience Stores, say it will force many children to walk to school in darkness during the winter since the measure would delay sunrise by an hour in some places.

      US President Biden has not said that he supports the bill to making daylight saving time permanent in the US. While this bill is currently stalled, since 2015 about 30 states have intro­duced or passed legis­lation to end the twice-yearly changing of clocks, with some states proposing to do it only if neighbouring states do the same.

      Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, it's commonly as­sumed that daylight saving time was put in place as a way to give farmers more time to work in the fields in the spring and the summer. However, the purpose of having it be lighter later in the day was actually about reducing electricity con­sump­tion.

      Although first instituted in 1915, the idea of daylight time have been battled around for more than a century. Benjamin Franklin suggested the idea more than once in the 1770s while he was an emissary to France.

      In 1784 he sent a letter to the editor of the Journal of Paris suggesting that Parisians could save money by getting up earlier during the summer because it would allow them to light fewer candles in the evening.

      But it wasn't until more than a century later that the idea of daylight time was taken seriously. William Willett, an English builder, revived the idea in 1907, and eight years later Germany was the first nation to adopt to daylight time.

      Daylight time was first enacted in Germany in 1915, then quickly adopted by Britain and much of Europe and Canada. The Canadian gov­ern­ment intro­duced daylight saving time in 1918 as a measure for increasing production during the First World War.

      The idea was that during months when the sun stays visible for longer, a pre-breakfast hour of day­light could be saved for use after supper. Countries did this by turning the clocks ahead by one hour in the spring to start the day earlier and back by one hour in the fall.

      It was reasoned that people would expend less energy trying to light their homes, for instance, if time were adjusted to suit their daily patterns.

      When the days started getting shorter in the fall and people awoke to increasing darkness, the clocks were turned back an hour to get more light in the morning.

      During the First World War, daylight saving time was used in parts of Europe, the US and Canada. Great Britain, for example, put the clocks ahead one hour during the winter months and two hours during the summer. However, in most cases, observance of daylight time ended with armistice.

      In Canada, federal gov­ern­ment regula­tion of day­light saving time lapsed with the end of the First World War but resumed during the Second World War.

      Canada and the United States both used a form of daylight saving time all year round during the Second World War.

* (15:10)

      During the Second World War, a different form of daylight time was also reinstated by Britain, and clocks were set two hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time during the summer. It was known as double summertime. The time shift didn't end with the summer, as clocks were rolled back to be one hour ahead of GMT through the winter.

      The Uniform Time Act enacted by US Congress in 1966 esta­blished a system of uniform–within each time zone–uniform daylight time through­out most of US, exempting only those states in which the legislatures voted to keep the entire state on standard time. However, in 1973, the US adopted year-round daylight saving time again in an attempt to reduce energy use because of an oil embargo.

      They repealed the use of year-round daylight saving times the next year, allegedly because of its unpopularity with the public.

      Munici­palities in Canada came to regulate DST to reduce the confusion present when different busi­nesses on the same street used different times. The provinces became involved, passing different sorts of time legislation.

      Since 1987, official time zones and DST have been regulated by the prov­incial, territorial and munici­pal gov­ern­ments.

      Other countries have also done away with time changes. For example, Russia experimented with a permanent daylight time in 2011, but three years later, opted to implement a permanent standard time. In November 2022, Mexico rolled back its clocks one last time after the passage of a law last week to abolish daylight saving time. Some northern towns will con­tinue to practice the time change come spring, however, likely due to their ties with US cities across the border. The move, long sought by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador was based on backing by voters as well as negligible energy savings and negative health effects from the time change, officials said.

      Some parts of Australia have adopted daylight time. Of course, it's done a little differently than in the northern hemisphere, where seasons are opposite. So when daylight time starts in Canada, it comes to an end in Australia and vice versa.

      I know that was one of the most fascinating speeches ever delivered in this Legislature and potentially one of the most controversial. But on that note, I don't want to take up any more time, as I'm absolutely certain that members across the House want their op­por­tun­ity to speak on this issue as well.

      So, on that note, Mr. Assist­ant Deputy Speaker, I will thank the House for their time and this op­por­tun­ity, and take my seat.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to comment and little bit on this bill. We support this bill because we, in fact, need to stan­dard­ize with the United States in terms of time, but, of course, things are still up in the air in the United States and we don't know exactly where they're going to finally end up. So this is a bill which is there in case, and it may not necessarily happen. So, we'll see.

      I think it's im­por­tant to mention and to remember that Canada had a very im­por­tant role in the esta­blish­ment of inter­national standard time. In fact, it was Sir Sandford Fleming who was credited with being the father of inter­national standard time. He apparently spent an uncomfortable night in a railway station because of time confusion and, in part, as a result of that, became a strong advocate for 24 time zones around the world, each equal to 15 degrees of longitude, and with each time zone repre­sen­ting one hour difference; of course, begin­ning at Greenwich meridian.

      The intro­duction of standard time happened in North America in 1883 to begin with, at least for railways. And that was led by Sir Sandford Fleming.

      And it was not only a matter of convenience to passengers to avoid people having over­night stays when they shouldn't have because there was time confusion; it was also pretty im­por­tant in terms of safety. It wasn't desirable to have two trains using two different time references, ending up going in opposite directions on the same train–same tracks at the same time. Obviously one needed for safety's sake to do some­thing.

      There were in North America at one point 144 official time zones. Thank goodness we don't have that many now. In Sir Sanford Fleming's role, he was very im­por­tant in convening an inter­national prime 'meridium' conference in Washington, DC, in 1884. And there were many countries from around the world represent­ed, and out of that meeting came the inter­national standard time dev­elop­ment.

      So here we are, many decades later, and we are debating time and how we allocate it, and how we set it up and how we set our clocks. It is a much better position from which we are starting from, but, of course, there's still a lot of debate as to whether we should have daylight saving time or not; and we will leave it–in this case, the decision will be up to our neighbours to the south, and we will see what they decide and then we will do–follow along.

      It is im­por­tant that we, on this day as we're debating this bill, remember the importance of time, the importance of standard time and the im­por­tant role Canadian Sir Sandford Flaning [phonetic]–Fleming played in having this arrive internationally and globally.

      Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): Is there any further speakers?

      Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 2, The Official Time Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 6–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): We will now move on to Bill 6, The Manitoba Public Insurance Cor­por­ation Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen), that Bill 6, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Justice, be concurred in and now read for a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: I put on sig­ni­fi­cant comments on the record on second reading, so I won't repeat all of those. We heard–we brought this to com­mit­tee; it's passed that stage.

      Just in brief, then, this will either expand or enhance the benefits for the personal injury and pro­tec­tion plan, or allow MPI to collect back funds from an individual who should not have been provided funds because of inaccurate or false infor­ma­tion.

      Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Speaker.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity, put a few words on the record at third reading of Bill 6.

      This bill makes several amend­ments to The Manitoba Public Insurance Cor­por­ation Act. The cor­por­ation is not required to pay benefits to a resident of juris­dic­tion other than Manitoba, if there is an inter­jurisdictional agree­ment that exempts the cor­por­ation from provi­ding benefits to residents of that juris­dic­tion. Currently, an accident victim 65 years or older is entitled to an income re­place­ment indemnity only if they are employed at the time of the accident. This–the entitlement is broadened to also apply if the victim has a job offer or a history of seasonal, casual or temporary em­ploy­ment.

* (15:20)

      The corporation is authorized to pay funds in trust to a person to manage on their behalf of a victim with impaired cognitive functioning, even if no formal com­mit­tee or substitute decision maker has been appointed by or for the victim, and the cor­por­ation's ability to recover overpayments is strengthened.

      This bill brings forward three main changes: it expands the ability to reclaim funds from people who have made fraudulent claims, as I mentioned; it changes the criteria for qualifying income re­place­ment due to an accident; and it allows to pay funds in trust to a person on behalf of someone with an impaired cognitive functioning.

      We have a number of concerns, of course, as you may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with regard to how this gov­ern­ment has managed or mismanaged, in this case, MPI.

      Manitobans value their public insurer. They see the value in having a public insurance cor­por­ation in this province. And, in fact, it was, of course, an NDP gov­ern­ment which brought forward MPI as a solution to keep those rates low.

      Manitobans want to see their Autopac bills stay low as one of the items of affordability that we can implement here in this province, especially at a time when inflationary pressures are making every­thing more expensive. That is the goal, or should be the goal, of MPI.

      But, of course, we've seen under this gov­ern­ment, as we've seen with so many other elements of public life and public purview that this gov­ern­ment has control over, they don't see it that way. They see this as a way to continually pressure the cost to average Manitobans.

      We've, of course, seen that with Manitoba Hydro. We've seen just this week where this gov­ern­ment has gone, once again, to the PUB, saying, we want to max out the amount that we can increase our Manitobans' hydro bills by applying for a rate increase at the PUB.

      And now we've seen it again with MPI just this spring with Autopac rates going up at a time when even the insurer says they should be going down. PUB says they should be going down. Rates should be going down because people drove less during the pandemic; there were less claims; there was an op­por­tun­ity to pass some of those savings along to the average Manitoban.

      But why are rates going up? Well, we know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they're going up because this gov­ern­ment has mismanaged MPI, spe­cific­ally when it comes to the IT upgrade, known as Project Nova.

      This gov­ern­ment, you know, stepped in early on in the process and said, we know better; we know how to manage this project. In fact, it was the minister himself who said, I will step in; I will be the one to tell you how to upgrade this project. And it's been an absolute boondoggle ever since. And now Manitobans are paying more every month when it comes to their Autopac bills because of the mismanagement that this gov­ern­ment has. [interjection]

      Now, I hear the minister being quite loud, and it's quite actually strange that he's not out answering questions in the hallway right now with reporters because we know for a fact that the mis­manage­ment and the boondoggle continues at MPI as the board and as the hand-picked CEO continue to mismanage the project, and rates are going up because of it.

      So, you know, my question, I guess, if we had an op­por­tun­ity to ask questions–I know the member for Wolseley (Ms. Naylor) was eager to ask questions even at third reading. I would like to do the same because I'd like to know how the minister expects that this bill can be imple­mented at a Crown cor­por­ation that is so mismanaged that they're having trouble even delivering to Manitobans the most basic elements of the cheap rates that they expect. That is–has become an issue, and it will continue to be an issue as long as this gov­ern­ment is in power.

      The buck stops with this gov­ern­ment. They have the respon­si­bility to manage these on behalf of Manitobans, to manage our Crown cor­por­ations in a respon­si­ble way, and they have failed over and over and over again.

      It's time that–for them to be held accountable. We will do so at the next election, at the ballot box. I look forward to that happening.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words about this bill. And I want to parti­cularly comment on the changes which relate to who would be eligible for income re­place­ment in­demnity. And currently, the situation is that an acci­dent victim, 65 years or older, is entitled to an income re­place­ment indemnity only if they're employed at the time of the accident.

      In this bill, it is broadened to apply to a victim who has a reasonable ex­pect­a­tion of em­ploy­ment at the time of the accident, and it falls into one or two categories: that they have received a written offer of em­ploy­ment and the offer has not been declined; (b) they have a history of seasonal, casual or temporary em­ploy­ment that would have continued but for the accident.

      This is a useful and helpful extension. I thank the gov­ern­ment for making those changes.

      I personally think that there should be a broader look and a broader eligibility for those who are victims. Remember, these are people who are victims in a car accident and who can be severely, badly affected. Why are we limiting it to people who have em­ploy­ment? Certainly, it seems to me that a case can be made that we should not base this on whether somebody is employed or not. This is somebody who is a victim, and maybe we should start to look at whether there should be more equivalent indemnifica­tion for individuals.

      Certainly, in my ex­per­ience, I've come across a number of individuals who were excluded from such–having such an indemnity because they didn't quite fall under the con­di­tion of being currently employed, and they felt that this was very unfair. And some of these would be captured in these new changes, but not all of them.

      And so I think that at some point in the future, we should actually look at a broader–opening it up to those who are victims of an accident, because I think all 'vixtims' of an accident should be looked at and not be discriminated against for one reason or another.

      With those comments, I will sit down and look for­ward to this law passing third reading and becoming imple­mented.

      Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): Are there any further speakers?

      Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 6, The Manitoba Public Insurance Cor­por­ation Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 11–The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2023

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): We will now move on to Bill 11, The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2023.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Seniors, that Bill 11, The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2023, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Justice, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: As noted at second reading, this bill has a number of different provisions regarding acts that are respon­si­ble under a number of different min­is­tries.

      A couple that I would quickly high­light is the ability to allow for the City of Winnipeg to permit planning notices to be sent electronically, that would be a convenience to many residents of the city of Winnipeg; and also to allow paramedics to respond and to direct traffic, as they are often first on scene, especially in rural areas. That's an im­por­tant provision.

* (15:30)

      The other provisions I spoke to at second reading and at com­mit­tee, and I don't need to put any further words on the record.

Mr. Mintu Sandhu (The Maples): It is my honour to rise in the House today to put a few comments on Bill 11, The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2023. This bill amends several acts to reduce or eliminate regula­tory require­ments or pro­hibitions to improve services and to stream­line gov­ern­ment operations.

      The Amusements Act is amended to eliminate the prohibition on reselling tickets at a markup price. The City of Winnipeg Charter and the city of Winnipeg–sorry–The City of Winnipeg Charter and The City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amendment Act are amended to permit planning notices to be sent electronically.

      The Highway Traffic Act is amended to give para­medics and emergency medical respon­ders the same author­ity as fire­fighters to direct traffic and to eliminate an exemption that allowed vehicles other than emergency vehicles to disregard speed limits, stops, signals and other traffic control devices if carrying first aid or rescue equip­ment.

      The Teachers' Pensions Act is amended to allow the Teachers' Retirement Allowance Fund to set its own board procedures and adapt forms to reduce the admin­is­tra­tion of the Teachers' Retirement Allowance Fund.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, I've already spoken to this bill earlier on the second reading, but I'd still like to put a few comments. This is where we had a chance to sit down with True North and Ticketmaster to see what their position is, especially regarding The Amusements Act, which is eliminated–you know, they can–anybody can sell–resell those tickets.

      And what they were thinking is that the gov­ern­ment will bring in a bill which–well, actually, they have given the name to–Manitoba ticket sales act–and to have a pro­tec­tion for the consumers.

      So, I will put on the record what they were talking about or what they were saying, how can this gov­ern­ment or people in the–all the MLAs who can maybe vote on this and to protect the consumers.

      So, they were asking to ban the use of software bots, which are designed to circumvent online security measures, cut to the front of the line and steal tickets; prohibit–sorry–tickets posting, which deceive fans into paying higher prices for tickets not even on sale yet; bring ticket reselling out of the black market with a strong and new consumer pro­tec­tion such as mandatory money back­ground keeper of the sold tickets, disclosure of exact seat location and information, transactions in Canadian dollars only, trans­par­ency in pricing through prompt pricing outlet fees and taxes, display of the tickets' refund policies in the event of event cancellation; ban deceptive marketing like the unsanctioned use of name, logo or teams, artists and venues on reselling websites to confuse consumers; consider it a require­ment for resellers to register with the prov­incial consumer pro­tec­tion author­ity to certify that they do not use deceptive practices, software bots and require payment of local taxes.

      So this was–but the True North and Ticketmaster were thinking that the gov­ern­ment might bring another bill for the consumers' pro­tec­tion. I guess the gov­ern­ment was busy with other stuff, so maybe instead of trying to get them­selves re‑elected and not paying really attention what the consumer pro­tec­tion is.

      So I'll leave with this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I'll give the chance to other people to speak on this bill.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): And I'm happy to be able to rise this afternoon and just put on a few more words on the record here about Bill 11, The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill actually amends several acts. There's four parts to it, and The Amusement Act, which is the first on the bill, eliminates pro­hibition on reselling tickets at a markup. And I'm very weary with respect to this piece of the legis­lation. I think that there's a lot we're going to have to do to be proactive on this piece of the legis­lation.

      And I also think it's worthy of having its own piece of legis­lation being early debated by all MLAs and be intro­duced on its own. We see so much fraud happening, and it's not just in Manitoba, but it's all over Canada, all over the world, and I can reflect to just a few weeks ago with the Whiteout parties happening here in Winnipeg when the Winnipeg Jets were still in our Stanley Cup here, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      And it was unfor­tunate because we were here and we were so excited about these Whiteout parties, and within two days of tickets going on sale, we heard people trying to sell fake tickets; we heard people trying to upsell the tickets from what they originally paid for them.

      And we just–we want to make sure that we're setting a tone here in Manitoba that it is creating an atmosphere for all Manitobans to be able to partici­pate in different forms of enter­tain­ment, for example. It's a big part of our social atmosphere, and I'm weary with this piece of legis­lation that that might impact that a little bit.

      We want to ensure that everyone is able to attend what they would like to attend and that people are not going to buy in bulk just to then resell what they have bought, going into it with that in­ten­tion.

      Another part of the legis­lation is the City of Winnipeg Charter and the City of Winnipeg Charter Amend­ment and Planning Amend­ment Act. They're amended to permit planning notices to be sent electronically. It's fairly straight­for­ward and makes sense.

      The Highway Traffic Act gives paramedics and emergency medical respon­ders the same author­ity as fire­fighters to direct traffic and eliminate an exception that allowed vehicles, other than emergency vehicles, to disregard speed limits, stop signals, and other traffic control devices if carrying first aid or rescue equip­ment, and fairly straight­for­ward.

      And the last piece, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is The Teachers' Pension Act that allows TRAF–the Teachers' Retirement Allowance Fund board–to set its own board procedures and adopt forms to be used for admin­is­tra­tion of the Teachers' Retirement Allowance Fund.

      As many members of this House know, over the last year, we've actually all done a lot of work for the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba, spe­cific­ally with respect to the TRAF board, and I want to thank all of my colleagues in–with–for the unanimous support in the legis­lation that was brought forward.

      So, we want to make sure that, with this legis­lation, we are properly equipping TRAF; therefore, properly equipping the entire teachers association to have the resources they need, to have the discussions that need to be had at the board level.

      So, there's definitely some merits to this piece of legis­lation. I don't like how they've lumped together several different pieces into one. I think they should be different pieces of legis­lation, all individually debated and voted upon. But overall, I think it's good legis­lation.

      Thank you for the op­por­tun­ity.

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): Any further speakers?

      Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 11, The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2023.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 12–The Minor Amend­ments and Corrections Act, 2023

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): We'll now move on to Bill 12.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Families (Ms. Squires), that Bill 12, The Minor Amend­ments and Corrections Act, 2023, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Justice, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

* (15:40)

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Acting Speaker, this is an annual bill and, as the name would suggest, it contains minor amend­ments and corrections.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): That'll certainly bring up anyone's spirits to know that I have the support of my colleagues as I rise to debate Bill 12. And it is im­por­tant to be part of a strong team here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is fighting for Manitobans every single day on every single bill, including Bill 12.

      Now, I, you know, I'd be remiss if I didn't make the joke that this is an omnibus bill, as the minister said, not an ominous bill. But I'm always leery, of course, of this minister and this gov­ern­ment because we know that, in the past, they have used bills that address number of different legis­lative acts to hide their cuts. And we know that that has been their modus operandi now for seven years.

      So, it was im­por­tant that we went through this bill and we made sure that, as far as we can tell, and I'm not–don't take my word for it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we–one might have slipped past us, as it does sometimes. But there are certainly always cuts coming from this gov­ern­ment, so we're always very leery when we see thick bills that the gov­ern­ment says don't worry about, don't pay attention to.

      We do, of course, pay attention to them because Manitobans have seen the impact that this gov­ern­ment's austerity and cuts have had, and that's been, of course, under the Pallister gov­ern­ment, under Brian Pallister as the premier. That was–you know, he proudly said that.

      But, of course, we know, under the Stefanson gov­ern­ment, this current Premier (Mrs. Stefanson) con­tinues to do the same thing, but maybe just doesn't say it quite as loudly or as boastfully. But we know for a fact that she has continued on this–the former premier's cuts and austerity, and that has been their only offering to Manitobans.

      What has been the impact? We know, in the health-care system, there have been severe impacts, there have been severe con­se­quences and we know that that carries across the board, whether it be in edu­ca­tion–as I hear my friend from Transcona nodding along and agreeing with me on, he has seen and we have seen, in all of our con­stit­uencies, the impact that edu­ca­tion cuts have had.

      And we have seen this every single budget year, but this one maybe even more so, more acutely, because, while the gov­ern­ment has gone out and said, just trust us in an election year, we're going to spend more than ever on edu­ca­tion, we have actually seen school divisions cutting programs that impact stu­dents, not least of which, of course, in River East Transcona School Division; we've seen library techs cut, we've seen the Inter­national Baccalaureate program cut.

      So, we have seen firsthand, we know what the gov­ern­ment is saying is not true. And, of course, we know that while they're sending cheques to billion­aires, the school divisions are saying, we don't have what we need to offer the pro­gram­ming that our students and our families are asking for.

      So, again, that's just one example, and I could go through the minor corrections and amend­ments act, and, of course, this touches on a number of very im­por­tant acts in this province. And, you know, as the minister correctly noted, it–usually spelling errors and very minor stuff.

      But the impact that is–every de­part­ment and every element of public service and gov­ern­ment has been impacted by this gov­ern­ment's, you know, single-minded focus on simply cutting rather than finding solutions, rather than listening to those at the front lines and rather than making a real difference.

      Manitobans are suffering. They want a change. We are here to offer that to them, and I look forward to offering in–that to them, on the doorsteps, as we go to the next election.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I'm happy to rise and speak to Bill 12 here this afternoon. And, you know, I've had the op­por­tun­ity to speak to Bill 12 in the past, so I'm going to keep my remarks short here. I did just want to clarify some­thing that the last member just shared on record here.

      It was actually the NDP who first cut funding for edu­ca­tion. For them to then come into the House and say switch direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we need to be very clear that they were the ones who first cut edu­ca­tion. PCs didn't help, but they were the ones who first cut it.

      Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): Is there any further speakers?

      Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 12, The Minor Amend­ments and Corrections Act, 2023.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

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

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): We'll now move on to Bill 15, The Court of King's Bench Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agri­cul­ture (Mr. Johnson), that Bill 15, the court of queen's bench amend­ment act, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Justice, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): It has been moved by the hon­our­able Minister of Justice, seconded by the hon­our­able Minister of Agri­cul­ture, that Bill 15, The Court of King's Bench Amend­ment Act, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Justice, be concurred in and now read for a third time and passed.

Mr. Goertzen: This bill deals with a relatively small classification of individuals currently knows as masters in the court–that might change at some point in the near future, in terms of their name, but that's what they're currently known as.

      The senior masters, when they move back into a position of a regular master after seven years, it has to do with equalizing their pay, as is done with others in the judiciary or the court system.

      And this was recom­mended by the Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee, which meets on a statutory basis to make recom­men­dations when it comes to the pay of those in our justice system, as it's an in­de­pen­dent system, and so their pay is set in­de­pen­dently.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to address Bill 15, The Court of King's Bench Amend­ment Act. And I am very much interested in putting some words, once again, on the record with regards to this im­por­tant bill.

      This bill amends The Court of King's Bench Act to esta­blish a salary for a person who resigns as the senior master but continues to act as a master.

      Now, I just wanted to pause very quickly before I put any more words on the record, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I do know that there is a bill before the Legislature, brought forward by my very, very learned and exceptional colleague, the member for St. Johns (MLA Fontaine), who has–[interjection]

      I'm hearing that there's leave that I can continue on, on this line of comments. We could con­tinue on all afternoon on this.

      But I just wanted to say, that–on a very serious note–that she has brought forward a bill that does address this very outdated and archaic language that's being used in this bill, and is currently used in the justice system.

      But I just wanted to address that, because I do hope that that bill finds unanimous support and is passed.

      However, just in terms of my comments today, I do–will continue to use the current language, just for clarity's sake. But that is just a note for those paying attention to the debate here this afternoon.

      We do support the measures in this bill to make salary scales align with seniority. This change will, hopefully, help with retention of existing staff.

      We're also concerned that this gov­ern­ment has failed to support our justice system, as we are seeing just right now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in­cred­ibly high vacancy rates among prosecutors and challenges in retaining them here in this province. We know that we're seeing burnout across our prosecutors, and they are being offered incentives and higher pay elsewhere in the country, even within western Canada.

      This has caused major, major issues within our justice system, and continues to pressure our justice system in a way that we least need right now, as public safety is No. 1 concern–or, one of the high concerns of munici­palities and many through­out our province.

      In March 2023, CBC reported that court delays were causing many cases to be thrown out before the accused even stood trial. Lawyers say this is a sign that the system just isn't working.

* (15:50)

      In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that cases for lesser charges must be heard within 18 months, or 30 months for more serious charges. Data obtained by CBC News from Manitoba prosecutors show delay motions were filed for 53 cases in this province over the past two years. The Crown stayed 13 of them, and another five were dropped because of the lengthy delays, meaning 18 cases, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were tossed–have been tossed, and the accuser went free because of delays in the system.

      But we also know that the actual number of cases being thrown out every year is esti­mated to be much higher than that because some charges are stayed before a delay motion is even needed. According to the Winnipeg defence lawyer, these delays have a corro­sive effect across the criminal justice system as people who claim that they're innocence–who claim–sorry, claim their innocence don't have an op­por­tun­ity to clear their name in court. The accused are often looking–looked at as guilty if they're let go on a delay motion because they were freed on a technicality even though they were looking for their day in court and wanted to have that–their due process.

      Additionally, some of the cases that are dropped or have been dropped are due to delays of serious charges, including at least one case of child porno­graphy charges. Having cases heard as quickly as possible, we know, of course, is, quote, best for victims, the accused and for society as a whole, end quote. And that's from Scott Newman, a Winnipeg criminal defence lawyer.

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

      The report also found that 40 per cent of the Provincial Court's workload involved the admin­is­tra­tion of justice offences, which includes bail breaches and people moving around without court approval. Experts say the system is being clogged by these minor offences.

      More Internet ac­ces­si­bility has exemplified the prob­lem for those in rural and northern parts of Manitoba, he said, leaving those in Indigenous and northern Manitoba com­mu­nities parti­cularly vul­ner­able. There simply aren't–quote, there are simply aren't enough court dates to deal with the volume of cases there. I think we're falling down in our efforts at recon­ciliation if we're not putting ap­pro­priate resources into those com­mu­nities. And, again–end quote. Again, that was Scott Newman, the Winnipeg criminal defence lawyer I quoted earlier.

      We also know, though, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that another contributing factor to these delays is an increase in prosecution and judge vacancies across Manitoba, and this was pointed out, once again, by CBC, March 17th, 2023.

      In October 2022, Winnipeg Free Press also reported that, quote, burnout, unimaginable work­loads and stagnant pay, end quote, were draining the Manitoba justice system of seasoned prosecutors by forcing them to move out of province, to the private sector or into early retirement. As of October 2022, 17 of the province's 175 full-time Crown prosecutor positions remained unfilled. We know that number continues to be high.

      In the past two years, the de­part­ment has lost 26 prosecutors, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 16 of whom have left work for Crown–for the Crown in another province–

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): Order, order.

      I just want to raise a point with the member.

      The bill amends a Court of King's Bench amend­ment, and it's–the subject matter that you're wandering out is not dealing directly with the bill, so I just remind the member to come back to the matter of the bill.

Mr. Wiebe: I ap­pre­ciate the guidance and will con­tinue to do that, and make sure that we are relevant talking about Bill 15.

      What I will note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that when I was going on about the–how great our member for St. Johns (MLA Fontaine) was, nobody called relevance. So, I–you know, I could go back to talking about that, and I'd be happy to do that, I'm sure.

      Everybody across the way is certainly all of a sudden paying attention and wants to hear more about the amazing work of our House leader and member for St. Johns. But I do take your caution. I do ap­pre­ciate the guidance.

      No calls for relevance there.

      So, what I do want to just quickly note, Mr. Deputy Speaker–and, again, I ap­pre­ciate your guidance–is that it is im­por­tant that our justice system is functioning in a way that gives people con­fi­dence that those issues that are happening with regards to safety in com­mu­nity are being addressed within our justice system.

      Of course, we know that within Bill 15, it is im­por­tant that seniority is held up as a–one of the ele­ments most im­por­tant for us to pay attention to in terms of assigning the designation. However, we know that for the justice system as a whole, many Crown attorneys are being recruited across the country because of the dysfunction spe­cific­ally within the justice system here in Manitoba. This is a specific and direct result of this PC gov­ern­ment's failure to act.

      Now, I will give the gov­ern­ment some–maybe some leeway here to say that maybe, you know, the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen), the new and current Justice Minister, has brought forward a plethora of bills, just a few of which I've had a chance to speak to today, but I look forward to speaking to many more as we go through this legis­lative process. And so, I wouldn't want to blame him directly.

      In fact, I might point the direction of blame more spe­cific­ally at the former minister of Justice. And who was that? Of course, our current Premier (Mrs. Stefanson).

      And many forget that, because we know of her time as a failed Health minister in this province, especially during a time of acute need within the health-care system. But many forget that she was also our Justice minister when many of the shortcomings and failures we see in the justice system began to take root.

      This bill is a bill that we will support, but we certainly don't support a gov­ern­ment and a former Justice minister who has made such a mess of public safety across our province. We look forward to bringing that message forward to the people of Manitoba in the next election.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): We need to recog­nize that compensation for justices of the court is im­por­tant for discussion for the reason that we need to ensure that competitive salaries are being paid to retain high-quality legal minds who serve as effective, impartial justices here in the province of Manitoba. It's good to be diligent and to ensure the process for judicial compensation be maintained, spe­cific­ally for its deep, politicizing process.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have the Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee, with the purpose to pro­vide nonpartisan advice to the gov­ern­ment to depoliticize the compensation of judges. And the gov­ern­ment is then to make its proposals to this in­de­pen­dent committee, which will, in turn, provide the gov­ern­ment advice on the ap­pro­priate compensation of justices of the court.

      And you know, again–just, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in theory of this debate here–I think we need to correct the record once again. The NDP, they love to come out and just play the high role, when really it's not flattering to them in any form. The NDP love to blame. They blame this gov­ern­ment–this prov­incial gov­ern­ment, they blame the federal gov­ern­ment, they blame anyone and everyone that they can.

      But we need to remember that, here in Manitoba, the NDP were very detrimental to our justice system. The NDP–under the NDP, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our in­car­cer­ation rates went up. Under the NDP, they under‑resourced all of our halfway houses, and we no longer have them here.

      Under the NDP, they actually got rid of youth justice com­mit­tees. Youth justice com­mit­tees were a tre­men­dously im­por­tant part, here in Manitoba, for youth to have made–whether it's an accident, as long as they are remorseful, it provided them the op­por­tun­ity to come forward and give back to the com­mu­nity.

      And the NDP cut the youth justice committees. They hurt our justice system here in the province of Manitoba. And I think that it's really im­por­tant that they learn to recog­nize and acknowl­edge their own mistakes, rather than blame, blame and blame others.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): Is there any further questions? Or, speakers, sorry.

      Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 15, The Court of King's Bench Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 18–The Legislative Security Amendment Act

The Acting Speaker (Brad Michaleski): We'll now move on to Bill 18, The Legis­lative Security Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen), that Bill 18, The Legis­lative Security Amend­ment Act, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Justice, be concurred in and now read for a third time and passed.

* (16:00)

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Acting Speaker, I put sig­ni­fi­cant comments on the record at second reading regarding this bill.

      The one portion of those comments that I would reiterate briefly is that the changes that we make, when it comes to security in this building, while often the media or the public might focus on the fact that there are MLAs, elected officials, in this building, really, we make changes in this circum­stance, both on the grounds but across the street, what's commonly known as Memorial Park, at a portion of Memorial Park.

Mr. Andrew Micklefield, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

      The changes are not really about us as MLAs, but it is about protecting everyone who comes to the grounds of the Legislature. That would include tourists; that would include students, who often come to visit, parti­cularly at this time of the school year. That would certainly include those who are being recog­nized in the gallery, as we often see during members' state­ments. That would include visiting dignitaries who come to the Assembly for a variety of reasons. That would include con­stit­uents who come here to meet with their MLAs for busi­ness. That would also include protesters who come to the grounds to lawfully and peacefully protest.

      So, the changes that are made to The Legis­lative Security Act and security, in general, in this building are really as much, and some would say more, about protecting all of those individuals who access the seat of gov­ern­ment, recog­nizing that this House, that this building, must always be the people's House and always be ac­ces­si­ble for individuals. But ac­ces­si­bility also includes security and to ensure that those who are coming here, who have a level of ex­pect­a­tion when it comes to their personal pro­tec­tion, that that level of ex­pect­a­tion is met.

      Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I see my–oh, there, okay. I know that my audience is–

An Honourable Member: Fading fast.

Mr. Wiebe: –is fading fast, maybe, according to some, but I hope that we're going to build through­out the afternoon because I do ap­pre­ciate the chance we get to put a few more words on the record.

      I did just want to pick up where the minister left off because I do think he makes an im­por­tant point and one that I made at com­mit­tee and I believe at second reading as well–I'll continue to make–is that we, as legis­lators, certainly are–it is im­por­tant that we protect our safety. And we know that the circum­stances of our interactions with the public have changed over time, and I could certainly spend some time talking about that and the impacts that have had–has had on many in this Chamber.

      But, first and foremost, I do think it is im­por­tant that we assure the public that we will protect them when they come to the people's building, when they come to this place to, you know, witness demo­cracy in action on a daily basis. Whether that's school­children who come as part of a school trip, whether it's seniors who come, want to partici­pate, when it's average people, tourists, of course, from all over the world, when it's average people who want to come and just spend some time learning more about their demo­cracy and, again, seeing us in action here, whether we're in session or not, I think it's im­por­tant that we offer to them the highest levels of assurance that their safety and security is paramount. I think that's one of the most im­por­tant things that we can do as legis­lators.

      I also want to take the op­por­tun­ity, again, as I've done at every op­por­tun­ity, to thank our security personnel in the building, our security personnel through­out the Legis­lative precinct and grounds. Whether that be law en­force­ment, whether that be pro­tec­tive services, whether it be here in the Chamber with our wonderful staff, who have specific training to make sure that things are safe here in this place, I want to thank them for the work that they do because it is im­por­tant that we see them as partners in any changes that we make.

      And that's why making changes that are suggested under Bill 18, I think, are an im­por­tant step and can help us to extend that envelope of security beyond just the specific grounds of the Legislature to Memorial Park–and, you know, I would suggest to the minister should have really been beyond just that one space.

      Now, I understand the thinking behind this bill and the intent of the bill is to eliminate some of that friction or some of that bureaucratic overlap, if I can call it that, whereby Memorial Park, as a prov­incial park, is actually administered and–security is administer­ed by con­ser­va­tion officers, which, as we saw during this past, I guess, you know, two years or so, when there have been more–there's been increased activity on the Legis­lative grounds, that we've also seen our con­ser­va­tion officers who have joined the effort to keep our precinct safe.

      That being said–and I want to thank them for the work that they do–they did during that time, to offer that service. That being said, we all–I think all under­stood that that really isn't the role that they would have or should have in this place, and I–can be better ad­ministered and delivered by the existing security and others, in co‑ordination with the City of Winnipeg.

      But I will mention, though, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during the question and answer period during our debate at second reading, our debate at com­mit­tee, that that is one of the questions that we remain–that remains outstanding, is that interaction between the Winnipeg police–and RCMP, as the case should be–and our security services here in the building.

      Of course, we know, by expanding their reach and expanding their respon­si­bilities, that this adds added pressure to the work that they are already doing and certainly might give them more dif­fi­cul­ty in deliver­ing that safe environ­ment that we all expect.

      As I said, I also believe that this envelope pro­bably could have been extended beyond just Memorial Park. We know that memorial avenue is used quite extensively–I'm not sure, memorial street–anyway, the mall just in front of the Legislature is used extensively during protests. And we've seen that over the last while, that that also could be an element that could be co‑ordinated better, I think, with the Legislative security services.

      All this to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, as I referenced earlier, I think that there has been a noticeable shift in tone and in decorum, if I can call it that, between the public and elected officials. And, you know, I mean, it's easy to blame this or to look southward. I often mention or talk about how, you know, the state of discourse in the United States has certainly degenerated and, I think, has some­what im­pacted how we conduct ourselves here in Canada and in this province.

      But I do think that there is an element of home­grown discontent that is being fostered by certain people here directly in this province that is permeating through­out certain groups that are then feeling more emboldened to come to this Legislature and be disruptive in a way that we haven't seen before. Or to come to our con­stit­uency offices, as we've heard from not just members on our side of the House, but mem­bers all over this Chamber, who have talked about interactions with the public that have felt–that left them feeling unsafe.

      This is a serious, serious concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And I do think that we need to ensure that we allow for access, we give access to the public in every way that we can, we open up the barriers in the front of the Legislature to allow people to be in their building more freely and openly.

      There's no reason why we need to keep this place locked down, you know, when we have great security who are already offering an amazing service for us. But–I think it gives an atmosphere of distance that I think we shouldn't have, and we certainly carry that along as individual legislature–legis­lators, I know, in every public interaction that we have. All of us want to be seen as being ac­ces­si­ble and feel that we can be–have the kind of discourse with our con­stit­uents and with others that we need.

      However, you know, what we've seen over time is that this gov­ern­ment hasn't taken this as seriously as it should have.

      In a time of national crisis, in a time when we saw a convoy travelling across this country that, in many ways, was–you know, was part of a normal part of discourse and political discourse, there were, of course, so many times across the country where we saw it turn to violence or disruption in a way that we have never seen before. We saw what happen in Ottawa, but–and that's easy for us to hold up as an example. Here, in Manitoba, at the Emerson border, we saw folks holding up the border and closing down our inter­national border, at a time when we needed that traffic to be moving.

* (16:10)

      And then we saw the protest that happened here at this building, in Memorial Park spe­cific­ally, that Bill 18 is trying to address. And we all saw that, at that time, we needed decisive action by this gov­ern­ment to make sure that people felt safe; not just the people who live downtown, the people who were trying to access this building, but the protesters them­selves, some of whom maybe were just trying to get a point across.

      Others were disruptive and they had ulterior motives. They were violent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And because of the problems presented by this juris­dic­tional issue–caused by the Memorial Park being considered a prov­incial park, and there being no ability for pro­tec­tive services, and where the City of Winnipeg still had some juris­dic­tion, but pro­tec­tive services spe­cific­ally didn't have the ability to impact those people who were setting up in Memorial Park–there were major, major safety concerns that were being felt across our city.

      And why, why wouldn't a gov­ern­ment who, again, had all the political capital in the world to make this change, to come in in a very decisive and very specific way, why wouldn't they make this change and come forward with legis­lation like this earlier?

      Well, I think we know the answer to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there was members oppo­site who were joining in with these disruptive pro­tests. We had the member for Borderland (Mr. Guenter) at the Emerson border handing out coffee and saying, you know, good work, way to go, this is what we should be doing.

      We don't agree with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I think that most Manitobans would say we should have been stronger here in this province. Where, you know, other places looked for some kind of, you know, legis­lative tool much earlier than this, this gov­ern­ment sat on its hands, because I'm sure at the caucus table this was in debate–and still is, right? There's still members opposite who, you know, speak out openly against vaccine 'mandiday'–mandates and such.

      So, we know that for members who represent some of those com­mu­nities where these convoy protests were most vibrant, those members have been silent or have spoken out in favour of them, and I'm sure behind closed doors, they're very vocal about their support of that.

      So, next time the Memorial Park has protesters in it, and we need a strong legis­lation, we will hope that this will be the legis­lation that enables it; but I do think that it could've gone further, and it–there could've been stronger steps by this gov­ern­ment to ensure that people felt safe and that they felt protected whether they're on this ground spe­cific­ally, or just across the street in Memorial Park. Course, that's not really a rele­vant distinction when it comes to the safety that we're trying to provide for Manitobans.

      So, you know, this is a gov­ern­ment who continues to listen to their convoy base rather than what–doing what's right to protect the public and to protect safety in this province. We're going to show Manitobans a different path; we're going to show them how we can open this building, we can make it ac­ces­si­ble, we can make it a welcoming place and we can assure them that their safety will be respected. We can reassure all members–or, all people that live downtown that we will continue to make their–the place that they live and work safe, and we will do so starting here in this building.

      I look forward to bringing that message to the people of Manitoba in the next election.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I just–I echo a lot of the thoughts that have been shared with respect to the building.

      And it's really im­por­tant, and it's some­thing we should be very proud of here in Manitoba, that our Legis­lative Assembly, our Legis­lative Building is, in fact, the people's building. It is a public building, and we want anyone who comes to visit, whether as an invited guest or someone who is touring Winnipeg, just travelling through the province, we want anyone and everyone to feel welcome in our building as well as safe in the building, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      And some­thing more we could be doing, too, is ensuring that people are aware of all the wonderful services that the Legis­lative Assembly actually offers. Whether that be through the Speaker's office, whether that be through tourism–we actually have a lot of different tours that go through the Manitoba Legislature, and I think we could do a better job at promoting a lot of them.

      We truly do have a beautiful Legislature, and I recog­nize I'm very biased, being a politician here in Manitoba. But, of all the legislatures within Canada–even Parliament Hill, Mr. Deputy Speaker–the Manitoba Legislature is, by far, the most beautiful legislature, and I think that's some­thing we should very much value and cherish here in the province.

      Now, I recog­nize times are changing and, there­fore, changes do need to be made. And I think that's why it's good that this piece of legis­lation is coming forward and it's allowing all of us MLAs the op­por­tun­ity to speak a little bit to it.

      I know security has been a big issue, especially over the last few years. My colleagues have spoken in the House about experiences within their own con­stit­uency offices, and I know I've had my own, as well, where staff aren't always feeling safe because of people who are choosing to enter the offices and the actions that they are taking and what they are sharing with the staff members, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      And so, if there are more things we can be doing, even to extend outside of the Legislature into the con­stit­uency offices, again, I think we should be doing so. We need to continue to work towards political en­gage­ment and involvement and legis­lation such as this, that is making it safer and more comfortable for people to access the public building. I think it's a positive step towards that.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 18, The Legislative Security Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 19–The Provincial Offences Amendment Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will now move to Bill 19, The Prov­incial Offences Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Munici­pal Relations (Mr. Smith), that Bill 19, The Prov­incial Offences Amend­ment Act, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Justice, be concurred in and now read for a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: At second reading, I gave detailed explanation in terms of this bill, outlining that it provides clari­fi­ca­tion of tickets and when tickets can be quashed and when they needn't be quashed. Also, what can be attached to a ticket and considered as evidence, as well as interlocutory matters in a court proceeding, and whether or not and where they can be appealed and when they shouldn't be allowed to be appealed.

      At committee, I believe that there was a presenter who came forward who, I think, rightfully cautioned about ensuring that, while efficiency within the court system is im­por­tant, that expediency can sometimes come at the cost of fairness.

      And, I believe, at com­mit­tee, not–in addition to answering questions that came at the Q & A portion of second reading, I indicated to that presenter that this bill was not about making the court system faster in and of itself, but provi­ding clarity and an assurance of when and how tickets get dealt with and how interlocutory matters are dealt with.

      However, I wanted to put those comments on the record regarding the presenter who came at com­mit­tee, thank them for their pre­sen­ta­tion and that their point was heard and respected.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I want to thank my col­leagues for the warm encouragement that they con­tinue to give me as we move through these im­por­tant pieces of legis­lation.

      I am eager to talk–put some words on the record with regards to Bill 19. And, once again, I wanted to start by echoing the words of the minister and acknowl­edging that he heard some of the caution of the presenter at com­mit­tee.

      But, more broadly, of course, we've heard this from others in the com­mu­nity as we've done outreach around this parti­cular bill, that there is concern that this will be too prescriptive with regards to how this legis­lation will be interpreted.

* (16:20)

      I know I've had assurances from the minister and from others that that is not the case, but I do know that there are many situations where, you know, as I've said now just a few times, you know, anecdotally, it's been shared with me that these, you know, former loopholes or ways of getting out of a ticket have been utilized by folks–by real folks.

      This isn't a rare occurrence, is what I'm trying to say here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And–you know, and while we understand that admin­is­tra­tive errors shouldn't be the reason why somebody who, you know, has been clearly convicted or has received a ticket and is justifiably being fined for that, why they wouldn't be held accountable.

      I think most understand that beyond that, they want to ensure that the system is treating them fairly, each case individually, and it's not just a sort of rubber stamp; well, we can change this, we can alter that and, you know, and off to the next person at the justice.

      It is an im­por­tant issue. It is some­thing that im­pacts regular people all the time. You know, again, whether they're rightly accused of some­thing or whether they have actually done the offence, point is is that they want to make sure that their due process is fulsome and is complete.

      And, you know, most Manitobans understand their respon­si­bilities under the law in the same way that the law understands their respon­si­bility to ensure that they are giving those folks that due process.

      So, while we support Bill 19, we do think that it is some­thing that, as I said, we've heard it from–caution from many others. We want to continue to listen to them to ensure that this is being imple­mented in a way that doesn't impact people negatively when they are trying to be good adherents to the law.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Just want to stand and speak a little bit to Bill 19.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, just a few comments on the last provision of the bill dealing with the no appeals of decisions made on motions or other preliminary matters and proceedings under The Prov­incial Offences Act.

      The bottom line is it's absolutely a defendant's rights to go to court to contest a ticket or a fine they receive under The Prov­incial Offences Act, and it's im­por­tant that the court must have the capacity to handle such cases to deliver appeals in a timely fashion.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, referring to the prov­incial court's recent annual report, and I actually tabled this during second reading of this legis­lation, Winnipeg continues to have more appearances per case than other regional court centres, which is attributable to a higher volume of charges and greater frequency of court sittings.

      I think that this is very evident and in part why we need to be doing more to work on our justice system here in the province of Manitoba, and I think there's a lot more we can be doing and hope to have more debate on that.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 19, The Provincial Offences Amend­ment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 26–The Limitations Amendment and Public Officers Amendment Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will now move, as previously announced, to Bill 26, The Limitations Amend­ment and Public Officers Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour and Immigration (Mr. Reyes), that Bill 26, The Limitations Amend­ment and Public Officers Amend­ment Act, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Justice, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: At second reading I put on sig­ni­fi­cant comments on the record regarding what exactly this bill does. Members will know that The Limitations Act and limitations in–generally are sometimes an overly complex area of law when they shouldn't be.

      So there has been work done by our gov­ern­ment previously to make it more con­sistent in terms of limitations and, in general–although not spe­cific­ally, for every case–but, in general–The Limitations Act has been changed so that the limitation period when an individual can bring forward a proceeding the clock starts ticking, as it were, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the individual becomes aware of the situation that they might want to take action upon. In many cases, under prov­incial legis­lation previously, the limit–the clock would start ticking when the action happened, but if an individual, of course, didn't become aware of the situation for a few years, they might not have been able to take action because the limitation period had already expired.

      So, in general, there's a common limitation period. However, there was an oversight, I believe, in the drafting of legis­lation where The Public Officers Act was improperly or not included in this parti­cular situation. And I know that the member opposite, the member for Concordia, had some questions regarding where the act could apply, for example, in the environ­ment situation. He didn't ask specific examples, but I tried to answer at com­mit­tee in a general sense of the act. So where an act has a different provision than that general–or that specific provision would take effect, but the general Limitations Act now, for most cases, puts in place that two-year window from when an individual becomes aware of the situation on which they might want to take some sort of a legal action upon.

      Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Concordia.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): All right, all right; now, we're talking. I know that the members on this side of the House are very concerned about this gov­ern­ment's record when it comes to the justice system, public safety and they're certainly eager to get out on the streets and talk to Manitobans about the failures of this Stefanson gov­ern­ment when it comes to public safety across the province. And that's why they're so interested in hearing me put a few words this afternoon on the record with regard to Bill 26.

      We know that Bill 26 is an im­por­tant step in making sure that Manitobans have the ability to access the justice system in a way that keeps their com­mu­nity safe. We know that limitation periods create a maximum length of time that a claim can be brought forward against someone. It's im­por­tant that enough time is allowed for a claim to be brought forward, especially when the effects may not be noticed for some time. It's also crucial that consultation is done to ensure that limitation periods are not preventing the legitimate claims from being brought forward, and so that's why we look forward to seeing this bill move forward.

      We know, though, that this was, of course, a further bill built, or, you know, evolved out of bill 51. And, of course, I mentioned to the minister during second reading, during question period, during com­mit­tee stage, I believe, and every op­por­tun­ity that I could, that we are concerns–concerned about First Nations con­sul­ta­tion because when bill 51, The Limitations Act, was brought forward, we raised those concerns about the lack of con­sul­ta­tions with First nations.

      The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs at that time published a press release vehemently disapproving of bill 51, calling it, quote, an example of an abject failure to meet the principles of recon­ciliation and the honour of the Crown, end quote. This was because in drafting bill 51, the Manitoba Crown failed to consult with any First Nations. And AMC says, the bill fails to meet the Truth and Recon­ciliation Com­mis­sion's Call to Action, spe­cific­ally Call to Action 26, which calls upon the federal, prov­incial and territorial gov­ern­ments to review and amend their respective statutes of limitations to ensure that they conform to the principle that gov­ern­ments and other entities cannot rely on limitation defenses to defend legal actions of historical abuse brought by Aboriginal people.

      AMC–and that's a–sorry–that was a quote with regards to that parti­cular language. AMC noted that bill 51 imposed an ultimate 30-year limitation period for proceeding to respect existing Indigenous and treaty rights that are recog­nized and affirmed by the Con­sti­tu­tion Act, 1982 or an equitable form–claim by an Indigenous people against the Crown.

      It also barred any claim from proceeding under bill 51 where the limitation period expired under formal limitations period legis­lation. This means that for First Nations, for most First Nations, historical claims arising prior to coming into force in bill 51 would've expired due to the six-year limitation period in former legis­lation. This was a major concern by AMC then, and we continue to hope that the gov­ern­ment continues to consult with them now with regards to Bill 26.

* (16:30)

      With regards, as well, and some of the concerns that we had at that time with bill 51, the environ­mental concerns on bill–March 9th, 2021, the then-minister of Justice made the claim in a media scrum that bill 51 does not affect claims involv­ing the environ­ment. He said, quote: This bill is careful to deter­mine that these changes do not apply in ways–to areas of law like sexual assault; there is unlimited time to claim. And also when an issue is environ­mental in nature, there is no cap.

      However, nowhere in bill 51 was there mention of the word environ­ment. Spe­cific­ally under no–under the, quote, no-limitation-period section, again, the word environment does not appear.

      The following is what was excluded from the limitation period: (a) a claim relating to a sexual assault in nature–assault of a sexual nature, my apologies; a claim–(b) a claim relating to an assault if, at the time of assault, the claimant (i) had a intimate relationship with the person alleged to have committed the assault, or (ii) was financially, emotionally, physic­ally or otherwise dependent on the person alleged to have com­mitted the assault; (c) to–a claim to recover possession of land, except as provided in section 19; (d) a claim by a debtor in possession of collateral, that is, personal property to redeem it; (e) a claim by a creditor in possession of collateral that is personal property to realize on it; (f) a claim to recover money owing to the Crown respecting taxes, finance penal­ties or interest on any of them; (g)–or, (g) a claim brought by the Crown relating to (i) the admin­is­tra­tion of social, health, edu­ca­tion or economic programs, or (ii) the provision of direct or indirect support of mem­bers of the public in connection with social, health, edu­ca­tional or economic policies.

      This is the concerns that we brought forward at that time. We continue to be concerned about Bill 26 in its current form; however, we do see this as a step in the right direction, and we look forward to bringing forward, you know, more com­pre­hen­sive legis­lation and we'll address the safety of Manitobans across this province. That will be certainly one of the messages that we bring forward at the doorstep.

      We look forward to going to the next election with that positive message for Manitobans.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I'm happy to rise and just be able to share a few thoughts on Bill 26, The Limitations Amend­ment and Public Officers Amend­ment Act, here at third reading.

      This act allows claimants to start a claim two years after discovery, rather than at the occurrence of the event, and it also brings Manitoba up to speed with other provinces here in Canada right now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      It allows for individuals who may have a claim to bring forward to have a little bit more time on their side, and I think it is very–there's unanimous support on that, that we want to be able to provide that time for individuals not to be forced to make decisions or disclosures right off the bat if there has been an ex­per­ience or a situation that they are going through.

      An ex­per­ience of this nature, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is not a one-time thought process; it is often some­thing that will resonate with a person and stay with a person, oftentimes for their entire life. And I think it–that's why it's really im­por­tant we aren't forcing people in any way to disclose what may have happened, what–a feeling that they may have had as well, if they are not ready to do so.

      Every person handles and copes and processes dif­ferently. Some want to be able to talk about it right off the bat, and that's great as long as there's a safe op­por­tun­ity for them to do that. Some want to sit on some­thing that may have happened for years.

      And we need to provide safety for individuals in that some individuals might never want to disclose some­thing. And no one should be shamed if they don't want to disclose something either, Mr. Deputy Speaker; but the best thing we can be doing as legis­lators are provi­ding op­por­tun­ities to speak to what they are comfortable sharing, when they are comfortable sharing, in a safe way.

      And I think that this is also why it's really im­por­tant that we work towards regulating psychotherapy here in the province of Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker. By regulating psychotherapy, it allows: (1) people to be able to access therapeutic services, whether it be at the costs, whether it be at the–we need more psycho­therapists here in Manitoba; it would–by regulating it, it would ensure that anyone who wants to access it can, in fact, afford to do so and access one.

      The second thing that regulating psychotherapy would actually do is it would ensure that those who are practising and provi­ding these services are properly trained and equipped to do so.

      I like to think about mental health the way physical health is treated. Right now, if you go into the hospital and you've broken your arm, the person who works on your arm is a trained person. They know what they're doing; they are equipped to handle the broken arm in this case.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, right now in Manitoba, people don't have to be trained to be practising as a therapist. You could be a high school dropout and open up your own private practice and make busi­ness cards. And this is extremely alarming, that people who are provi­ding these essential services to work with mental health of others within the province are not properly trained and equipped to do so.

      And that's why I think, by regulating psycho­therapy, it would actually be an addition to this legis­lation, always ensuring that people are equipped with the resources they need, in this case to disclose when they are ready to disclose.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 26, The Limitations Amendment and Public Officers Amendment Act.

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

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 34–The Police Services Amendment Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously announced, we will now move to Bill 34, The Police Services Amendment Act.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Economic Dev­elop­ment, Invest­ment and Trade (Mr. Wharton), that Bill 34, The Police Services Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Justice, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: Certainly sig­ni­fi­cant comments placed on the record at second reading. Also sig­ni­fi­cant public comment on this bill in the media and otherwise.

      It's a bill that is supported by the City of Winnipeg as they look to deal with some of the safety concerns that they have on City of Winnipeg transit buses, some­thing that Mayor Gillingham ran on during his election campaign last fall.

      More recently, the Association of Manitoba Munici­palities came forward to support the legis­lation. There's also been support from other leaders in Manitoba as they look to use com­mu­nity safety officers in a way that will alleviate some of the burdens that exist on other police officers currently in the province of Manitoba and provide them with ad­di­tional options when it comes to com­mu­nity safety.

      This form of layered policing, as one example in this bill, hasn't always come easily. There've been op­posi­tion to different types of individuals being given peace officer status in the province of Manitoba over the last 20 years. I've seen and sometimes partici­pated in those debates.

      But I'm pleased to see that we see sig­ni­fi­cant sup­port from police entities across the province, munici­pal entities, rural and urban. And I look forward to this bill passing and the training continuing to happen and benefitting both the city of Winnipeg and com­mu­nities outside the city of Winnipeg.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): You know, cuts have con­se­quences. You might have heard me mention that phrase a few times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it couldn't be more obvious than when we're dealing with bills like Bill 34.

      We have seen, now, seven years of freezes and cuts to com­mu­nity safety and to the munici­palities that, in many cases, deliver them, by this PC gov­ern­ment. And now we are seeing some of the impacts and some of the effects. In the city of Winnipeg, we see it. We see it through­out our downtown core. We see it out in the suburbs. We see it out in com­mu­nities like Concordia, where I live and where my kids go to school and where my parents live. And when we see the kinds of violence that's happening there, we know that it's because of decisions made by this gov­ern­ment that we're seeing things get worse.

      They can't run from that record, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and they can't now say, well, just trust us. We're going to come up with a new type of program that will help com­mu­nity, when, at the same time, they have done nothing to actually implement this program or allow it to be rolled out suc­cess­fully across the province.

* (16:40)

      We know that munici­palities have been shouting from the rooftops now for seven years, saying that things are getting worse across this province because of these cuts that this gov­ern­ment has imple­mented.

      And I'm not just talking about cuts to justice and cuts to policing, because we've seen that kind of defunding from this gov­ern­ment year over year over year, but what I'm talking about is also cuts to mental health supports. I'm talking about cuts to addictions supports. I'm talking about cuts to health care. I'm talking about cuts to edu­ca­tion. All of these cuts add up and they make a difference, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      And now, for this gov­ern­ment to say, oh, well, we need to do some­thing about it. Well, you're darn rights we need to some­thing about it, and that's why we need a change in gov­ern­ment. We need a new gov­ern­ment that'll start listening to Manitobans.

      Well, thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologize. I do get a little fired up on this issue and I look forward to the op­por­tun­ity to bring this to the doorsteps. Because Manitobans have seen through this gov­ern­ment who now wants to talk tough, and they want to say we're going to clean things up when, at the same time, they can't even implement their own in­sti­tutional safety officer program, which, we've men­tioned many times in this House, was–been brought forward in the media.

      We've heard from nurses directly at the Health Sciences Centre who are saying, why can't we be safe in our health-care facilities when the gov­ern­ment was given the green light four years ago? Was given an op­por­tun­ity to start developing and imple­men­ting a program. They did nothing. They sat on their hands. It was all talk and no action from this gov­ern­ment.

      Well, now they're saying again, well, don't worry, we're going to implement the com­mu­nity safety officer. They said, well, the mayor ran on this as an issue. Why wasn't it this gov­ern­ment that was pushing this issue forward? Why did they sit on their hands and wait for munici­palities to come storming the Legislature to say, time after time, to say we need a–some help and some assist­ance. Why did they wait for the mayor to push this at the city level? Why couldn't this gov­ern­ment acknowl­edge their own failures and mistakes and start stepping up and a–being accountable for the cuts that they have made? Why couldn't they do that?

      Well, we know why, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because they had one singular focus, and that was to cut every­where that they could. All of these cuts have an impact. They all add up to a situation where Manitobans are feeling less safe.

      We need to restore our mental health and addic­tions services in this province. Full stop. We need to give people who are–the most vul­ner­able place in their life op­por­tun­ities to have safe injection and safe con­sump­tion sites so that they can be on a path to getting better.

      We need to ensure that our health-care system is fully funded and is looking after those who are most vul­ner­able, who aren't even showing up at our ERs anymore because they know that the wait times are through the roof.

      We need an edu­ca­tion system that looks after all stu­dents in this province; a nutrition program that helps them get a good start.

      These are all interrelated and they all come down to the issues that people are feeling when it comes to public safety.

      So, people have a chance this fall to make a real change. A real change; not just words, not just don't look at the, you know, the gov­ern­ment that we've been for seven years and pretend that we're someone else, just trust us. You know, that's what this gov­ern­ment continues to say, just trust us, as if they're going to be the ones to fix the problems that they created.

      No; Manitobans have a real op­por­tun­ity to actually vote in a gov­ern­ment that's going to make a change at the fun­da­mental level that is going to make their com­mu­nities safer. That is what we want to bring forward as a message.

      We know that the AMM has pointed out that this legis­lation, while giving op­por­tun­ity for com­mu­nities to esta­blish a com­mu­nity safety officer, it does nothing to actually support that program being imple­mented in a munici­pality. No financial–ad­di­tional funding being offered with this bill.

      It's simply just more words, Mr. Deputy Speaker. More words by this gov­ern­ment, and no action, once again, to actually make our com­mu­nities more safe.

      And, you know, Kam Blight, president of AMM, was very clear when he came to committee to say that AMM has been urging this prov­incial gov­ern­ment for more than 10 years to have some ability to address some of these issues in their com­mu­nities and was given no support. No support by this gov­ern­ment for seven years as they cut and froze those municipal budgets.

      And now, the Minister for Munici­pal Relations says, oh, don't worry, it's going to be different, just trust us. Nobody trust this gov­ern­ment. They see right through this facade and this des­per­ate election-year stance that they're taking now.

      There is no substance when it comes to these kind of programs. [interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wiebe: We've seen it with the in­sti­tutional safety officers. And maybe the member wants to stand up and defend his gov­ern­ment for four years doing nothing to keep our health-care workers safe, for making no changes, no actual changes in our com­mu­nity.

      But he can't do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He will remain silent because he knows the record of his gov­ern­ment; he knows the shameful out­comes of their cuts over those seven years, and he sits at the Cabinet table and he supports every time that this Premier (Mrs. Stefanson), whether she was under Brian Pallister or now as Premier, as she stands up and she supports these cuts as well.

      This is deplorable stuff, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And, you know, Manitobans aren't fooled by it. They see right through this gov­ern­ment. They see right through this election-time grandiose positioning, the negative attacks on personalities on one side, the over-promising and just trust us on the other side. They see right through this gov­ern­ment. They know that records matter. They know that past behaviour deter­mines future out­comes.

      This is the record of this gov­ern­ment, and they will be held accountable for it. I look forward to delivering that message on the doorsteps as we go into the next prov­incial election.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): And I'm happy to rise and just put a few words on record about Bill 34, The Police Services Amend­ment Act.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, the AMM, the Association of Manitoba Munici­palities, has long called on our pro­vince to review the dis­tri­bu­tion of policing costs, and I'm glad. You know, it was a pledge made by Mayor Scott Gillingham. I'm glad that he made this pledge because it seems to be creating some traction here in the province.

      And it's very nice to see the various levels of gov­ern­ment actually come together and work together. It shows you, through this ex­per­ience, that various levels of gov­ern­ment can, in fact, work together. We need more of that here, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      Just in 2022, there were 130 assaults reported on transit workers and many who work within Winnipeg Transit reported feeling unsafe. Many of them are in very different situations as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, different de­part­ments within Winnipeg Transit.

      And, you know, I do–I want to correct the record because the member from Concordia just–the hypocrisy is so real, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Crime got worse here in the province of Manitoba under the NDP gov­ern­ment. I hear the member from Concordia saying that's false, but it actually is true. It is very, very true, and the reason I share this–he talks about–he just stood up two minutes ago and he was speaking to restoring programs.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is the NDP who got rid of programs within justice system here in Manitoba. They got rid of the youth justice com­mit­tees. Youth justice com­mit­tees was a wonderful resource we used here in the province of Manitoba. It allowed for op­por­tun­ities and second chances and ways to give back to the com­mu­nity. And the NDP cut it.

      They love to stand here in the Legislature and act all mighty, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But the truth of the matter is: NDP, they were the ones who really hurt our province. They were the ones that tore down justice within the province of Manitoba. And don't get me wrong–PCs have not done any better–but it started under the NDP.

      So it really does bother many of the members of this House when an NDP member who was in gov­ern­ment at the time when all of this happened, he has the audacity to stand here and speak to the justice system getting worse. The hypocrisy–it's so real. It's so hard to watch, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      So, with those few words, I'll allow debate to continue. I can hear the member from Point Douglas, she has a few words she'd like to put on record, and I'd encourage her to do so.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 34, The Police Services Amend­ment Act.

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

      We will now move, as previously announced, to Bill 38, The Builders' Liens Amend­ment Act (Prompt Payment).

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Deputy Speaker–[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Bill 38–The Builders' Liens Amendment Act
(Prompt Payment)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Now, we will move to Bill 38, The Builders' Liens Amend­ment Act (Prompt Payment), and I recog­nize the hon­our­able Minister of Justice.

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour and Immigration (Mr. Reyes), that Bill 38, The Builders' Liens Amendment Act (Prompt Payment), as amended and reported from the Standing Com­mit­tee on Social and Economic Dev­elop­ment, be concurred in and be now read a third time and passed.

* (16:50)

Motion presented.

Mr. Goertzen: I want to–I know that sig­ni­fi­cant words have been put on the record by the minister respon­si­ble for the bill at second reading, but I want to, at this stage, recog­nize the work of the member for Brandon West (Mr. Helwer), who has brought forward legis­lation on prompt payment in a number of dif­ferent forms and fashions.

      I believe it began in op­posi­tion–so, more than seven years ago–that he brought forward this bill after hearing from concerns in the industry. And then, of course, when we came into gov­ern­ment, he started to work on the legis­lation and, like a lot of things, you then realize that things are more complicated and difficult sometimes to bring forward in terms of legis­lation because there's various different viewpoints and things are more complex.

      This, of course, relates to The Builders' Liens Act, which is also a very complex piece of legis­lation and–which our gov­ern­ment has committed to embarking on, reforming and changing. But that's a very long process. It might take a couple of years to ensure that that's done well.

      Even though there's been studies on it from the Law Reform Com­mis­sion and from unified law reform com­mis­sion, I believe, but we'll–we've com­mitted to that work, even though in the De­part­ment of Justice we know that it'll take sig­ni­fi­cant time, but we didn't want to leave this parti­cular piece of busi­ness unfinished.

      And so, together with the current minister, and certainly spear­headed by the former minister, the member for Brandon West, they brought together the industry players and found a path forward that every­body could agree upon, which wasn't easy, but they did find a way forward. There's agree­ment on this particular piece of legis­lation as it related to prompt payment.

      And I want to parti­cularly note–I know my friend from Brandon West isn't running again in the next election, and there'll be many of things that he'll reflect upon as being an im­por­tant part of his work here. Certainly, part of that will be of the work that he's done when it comes to organ donation. I know that, as the former minister of Health, he very much spear­headed much of the work on organ donation here in Manitoba.

      But this parti­cular piece of legis­lation, I know, has been a passion of his, and it'll be part of the legacy of the great work that he's done in the Legislature. I want to commend my friend from Brandon West.

Mr. Mintu Sandhu (The Maples): It's an honour to rise in the House today to put a few comments on Bill 38, The Builders' Liens Amendment Act (Prompt Payment).

      Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I spoke during the second reading, that we are in support of this bill. And the construction industry accounts for approximately 8 per cent of Manitoba's em­ploy­ment and is a 'significent' contributor to the economy–economic stability of Manitoba.

      Construction workers provide essential services to our province that allow us to have safe roads and buildings, helping us create a productive and 'presipous' province for all.

      With the start of construction seasons as the weather gets warm, it is im­por­tant that we ensure that those working in the industry are getting paid for their long hours of work.

      Bill 38 amends The Builders' Liens Act to esta­blish a prompt payment scheme. Making sure the con­struction and subcontractors are paid on time is in all of our best interests. It's good for busi­ness and its–that means workers can bring home rightful earned money on time to their families.

      Most Manitoba construction contractors are small- and medium-sized companies with a limited cash flow and limited extra credit. Delayed payment limits the ability of these contractors to invest in their busi­ness. Because of this, getting paid on time is essential for all those small busi­nesses.

      So, as I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are in–Manitoba NDP is–support of this bill and we are looking forward to passing it.

      Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): I–just some very quick words on the record for this, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      I was at com­mit­tee for this. It was very clear that there was unanimous support, both across the parties but also that it was extremely im­por­tant that this legis­lation be passed as quickly as possible as far as contractors in the industry were concerned. So we look forward to speedy passage of this bill.

      Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 38, The Builders' Liens Amend­ment Act (Prompt Payment). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

      I declare the motion carried.

* * *

Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you canvass the House and see if it's the will of members to call it 5 p.m.?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of members to call it 5 p.m.? [Agreed]

      The hour being 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.


 

 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, May 15, 2023

CONTENTS


Vol. 54

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Introduction of Bills

Bill 243–The Human Rights Code Amendment Act

Gerrard  2319

Tabling of Reports

Micklefield  2319

Ministerial Statements

Polish Heritage Month

Khan  2319

Lathlin  2320

Lamoureux  2320

Members' Statements

Bo Huang and Mingdi Zhao

Reyes 2321

Hat Phan

Asagwara  2321

Curtis Charison

Eichler 2322

Susie Erjavec Parker and Allan Pineda

Sala  2322

Polish School of Dance "Sokol"

Martin  2323

Oral Questions

Death of Jason Butchart

Kinew   2323

Stefanson  2323

School Libraries Containing LGBTQ2S Content

Kinew   2323

Stefanson  2324

Winnipeg Hospitals

Kinew   2324

Stefanson  2324

Health-Care System

Asagwara  2325

Gordon  2325

Manitoba Hydro

Sala  2326

Cullen  2326

Allied Health Professionals

Naylor 2327

Teitsma  2327

Assiniboine Community College

Moses 2328

Guillemard  2328

Funding for Nurse Training Programs

Lamont 2329

Guillemard  2329

Cullen  2329

Work Permit Holders

Lamoureux  2329

Gordon  2330

Portage Place Shopping Centre

Martin  2330

Wharton  2330

Silica Mine Project and Drinking Water Safety

Wasyliw   2330

Klein  2330

Lynn Lake Hospital Staffing Levels

Lindsey  2331

Gordon  2331

Lamont 2332

Matter of Privilege

Lamont 2332

Goertzen  2334

Fontaine  2334

Petitions

Drug Overdose Reporting

B. Smith  2335

Security System Incentive Program

Maloway  2335

Punjabi Bilingual Programs in Public Schools

Altomare  2335

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Concurrence and Third Readings

Bill 2–The Official Time Amendment Act

A. Smith  2336

Naylor 2337

Gerrard  2339

Bill 6–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act

Goertzen  2340

Wiebe  2340

Gerrard  2341

Bill 11–The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2023

Goertzen  2342

Sandhu  2342

Lamoureux  2343

Bill 12–The Minor Amendments and Corrections Act, 2023

Goertzen  2344

Wiebe  2344

Lamoureux  2345

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

Goertzen  2345

Wiebe  2345

Lamoureux  2347

Bill 18–The Legislative Security Amendment Act

Goertzen  2348

Wiebe  2348

Lamoureux  2350

Bill 19–The Provincial Offences Amendment Act

Goertzen  2351

Wiebe  2351

Lamoureux  2352

Bill 26–The Limitations Amendment and Public Officers Amendment Act

Goertzen  2352

Wiebe  2353

Lamoureux  2354

Bill 34–The Police Services Amendment Act

Goertzen  2355

Wiebe  2355

Lamoureux  2357

Bill 38–The Builders' Liens Amendment Act (Prompt Payment)

Goertzen  2358

Sandhu  2358

Lamont 2358