LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, March 18, 2024


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

The Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled before Thee here to–[interjection] Sorry about that. I'll start again.

      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, 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.

Matter of Privilege

Mr. Grant Jackson (Spruce Woods): On a matter of privilege.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Spruce Woods, on a matter of privilege.

Mr. Jackson: I rise today on a matter of privilege, and argue that the member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Kinew) has breached my privileges as a member of this place by re­peat­edly calling me a failed political staffer and a poor-quality candidate to be an MLA, which was put on the record in Hansard and is in­cred­ibly rich and hypocritical, given his comments last Thursday in this place, where he said he has to rise at all occasions to stand up against personal attacks on the floor–the Legis­lative Assembly.

      These comments were on the record, as I said, and have impeded my ability to serve my con­stit­uents. And so therefore I move, seconded by the member for Interlake-Gimli (Mr. Johnson), that this matter be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

* (13:50)

The Speaker: I thank the member for his point of–matter of privilege.

      Before anyone else rises to speak on the matter, I would advise that we should all keep our comments relevant to the matter of privilege before us. Anyone else wishing–the hon­our­able Gov­ern­ment House Leader.

Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): I would submit to the House that it's not a matter of privilege. I would submit that the member opposite is simply attempting to waste everybody's time in this Chamber here, bringing forward such a frivolous private member's–or matter of privilege.

      And certainly, I would, actually, also submit and put on the record that I think it is in­cred­ibly hypo­critical for any member opposite to attempt to say that the member for Fort Rouge is saying anything disparagely when we know for the last almost eight years what members opposite have put on the record in this Chamber in respect of our Premier and several other members on this side of the House.

      So again, it's not a matter of privilege; the member's simply wasting everybody's time.

      Miigwech.

The Speaker: A matter of privilege is a very im­por­tant aspect of what we do in this Chamber. As such, I will take the matter under ad­vise­ment.

Matter of Privilege

The Speaker: The hon­our­able gov­ern­ment–the hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion.

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): Hon­our­able Speaker, I rise this after­noon on a matter of privilege as well.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion, on a matter of privilege.

Mr. Ewasko: We have both been members of this Chamber for many years and I believe we are both aware how serious of a charge this is.

      The ability for a member to freely partici­pate in this Chamber, to fulfill our respon­si­bilities as legis­lators is vital. If we cannot do our job unobstructed, then Manitobans that have sent us here to this Chamber are not represented in the law‑making of our province.

      I regret needing to rise today on this matter of privilege. Bosc and Gagnon write at length about the privileges of a member in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.

      These writings have informed much of what I say today. Personal anecdote about how im­por­tant repre­sen­tation is. Importance of maintaining decorum. House can get lively, but words matter and we are repre­sen­tatives. The work we do matters.

      As many of us know, a matter of privilege must meet two criteria, the first of which is that I must be raising this matter at the first op­por­tun­ity; the second, that it must be a clear–it must be clear that a breach of privilege has occurred, or in the specific terms of Assembly, that a prima facie breach has occurred.

      I believe that both of these con­di­tions have been met, and, Hon­our­able Speaker, I ask that you consider what I am presenting to you carefully, as it has a direct impact, not only in my ability to partici­pate, but also on the public's faith in us as their collective repre­sen­tatives.

      I am bringing this matter forward at the earliest available time as I needed to consult the House broad­cast, as well as Hansard, as well as the relevant material as to ensure that this did, in fact, constitute a matter of privilege.

      The series of events and level of hostility I will describe meets these tests on several fronts. As Bosc and Gagnon write, it is impossible to codify all in­cidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, inter­ference, molestation or inti­mida­tion and as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege.

      However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a member's reputation, the 'usurpertation' of the title of a Member of Parliament, the inti­mida­tion of members and their staff and of wit­nesses before com­mit­tees, and the provision of misleading infor­ma­tion. End quote.

      On multiple occasions last week, the Premier (Mr. Kinew) manipulated quotations that I gave to The Globe and Mail in an attempt to avoid answering the im­por­tant questions that I brought forward on behalf of my con­stit­uents and all Manitobans, in my role in this Chamber as the Leader of the Op­posi­tion.

      The free exchange of questions and answers is a fun­da­mental component of the legis­lative process. This Premier refusing to answer multiple questions in this Chamber is not why I rise today, but rather the despicable things that he said instead of an answer or any substance.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I chose, as a profession, to be an educator, to be a teacher, had the honour to attend our post-secondary–one of our in­cred­ible post-secondary in­sti­tutions here in this great province of ours, became a teacher. Shortly after that, took a job as an edu­ca­tional assist­ant working with students with special needs.

      And I really feel, Hon­our­able Speaker, that, unfor­t­u­nately, many of the things that the Premier had stated and put on the record last week, I think, was trying to put a damper of the 17-plus years that I spent as a teacher and guidance counsellor.

      I really felt that the time that I spent, and I under­stand that they–a couple members from the gov­ern­ment's side are speaking out of turn just yet, but I'm sure that they will have the–an op­por­tun­ity to put some words on the record as well.

      The 17 years that I had spent as not only a class­room teacher but as a guidance counsellor, many of which had to work with students and the student services teams, not only in our school, our school divi­sion, but all across this great province of ours and made many connections with many other professions and pro­fes­sionals within the edu­ca­tion world.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, on March 12, in avoiding a question about bail monitoring and public safety, this Premier made the accusation, and I quote: Trans chil­dren are not safe with me in the political sphere.

      To accuse anyone of being a danger to children is a serious allegation, but to a former educator, this is an attempt to completely ruin a reputation.

      He also had accused me in the House of making transphobic remarks, called me anti-trans and made allegations of other terrible things.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I had the honour and the privilege of being chosen by my caucus to be the interim Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion. That means that, as Leader of the Op­posi­tion, I am part of a team that will be holding this Premier and his gov­ern­ment to account for not only things that they had promised during the election, but anything possibly moving forward.

      I did state in The Globe and Mail article that I felt, in the position–and I had stated this multiple times before–a matter of fact, the current Edu­ca­tion and Early Child­hood Learning Minister was present when I mentioned this; he disagreed with me, but he was present when I mentioned this–that all parents and guardians within the province of Manitoba should be informed of anything that's happening within the education world because, Hon­our­able Speaker, at the end of the day, once those students and children hopefully graduate from high school, it is yet the parents and guardians that are still there.

      And my comments on this was definitely in regards to making sure that parents and guardians were aware of what is happening in the edu­ca­tion world and especially informing parents when it's more than safe to do so, Hon­our­able Speaker. I mentioned on multiple times the fact that I was part of a great student services team. We had resources, we had social workers, we had access to Child and Family Services, we had access to housing, all of those wrap-around supports for students.

* (14:00)

      However, I em­pha­size at this part that we must wield that freedom of speech carefully, as Speakers such as Parent, Fraser and Driedger have all noted. And in 1987, Speaker Fraser covered the importance of speaking facts and cautioned against the damaging of a member's reputation.

      The privileges–and I quote: The privileges of a member are violated by any action which might im­pede him or her in the fulfillment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation can constitute such an impediment. The normal course of a member who felt himself or herself were they or them to be defamed–I apologize, I have to back that up because this–I'm quoting. The normal course of a member who felt himself or herself to be defamed would be the same as that available to any other citizen, recourse to the courts under the laws of defamation with the possi­bility of damages to substitute for the harm that might be done. However, should the alleged defamation take place on the floor of the House, this recourse is not available.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, the comments put forward by the member, the MLA for Fort Rouge, the now-Premier (Mr. Kinew), are beneath this House and they are beneath him. He knows what he said was unsubstantiated. He knows that he was doctoring the quotes to make politi­cal hay and he knows the repercussions of making such baseless allegations.

      As I said in the start, this took me a little bit to bring this forward, Hon­our­able Speaker. [interjection]

      I ap­pre­ciate the member from St. Johns wanting to add comments, and I'm sure she will have the op­por­tun­ity to do so in a little bit.

      To call me, Hon­our­able Speaker, with some of the names that the Premier had called me just because I am suggesting that parents and guardians be informed on–informed, and in some cases consented to, through­­out the edu­ca­tion world does not make myself or 70‑plus per cent of Manitobans polled transphobes, bigots or any other in­cred­ibly harmful words that the Premier wants to put on the record.

      In fact, as an educator–and I know that there's many in this Chamber–as educators, on a day-to-day basis, we were all working towards and hoping that the parents would want to be involved in their chil­dren's edu­ca­tion, whether that's parent-teachers, whether that's anything, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      And for the Premier to stand up in his place and to start name-calling not only myself, but anyone else who feels that parents and guardians should be informed of what's happening in edu­ca­tion world, is, again, beneath the Premier.

      And that being said, Hon­our­able Speaker, the point is is that many of us are parents. Many teachers are parents. Many people in the 2SLGBT com­mu­nity are parents and is just trying to make sure that that is there.

      We also know, Hon­our­able Speaker, that this Manitoba NDP are familiar with these rules around the in­ten­tional damaging of a member's reputation. In 2012–[interjection]

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I understand that the mem­ber for Union Station (MLA Asagwara) wants to put some words on the record. I understand that they are wanting to shout me down at this time because they know that their Premier is wrong.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, in 2012, Speaker Scheer found the cyber campaigns made against Vic Toews, then-minister of Public Safety, constituted an attack on the most fun­da­mental privileges of the House and referred the matter to a standing com­mit­tee.

      This example is im­por­tant in our context because not only was this campaign linked to the Manitoba NDP, but the individual that obtained the infor­ma­tion used in this threat is closely connected to those NDP benches.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, we are here today repre­sen­ting Manitobans, and that this is a serious honour that we cannot and shall not make light of. The Premier (Mr. Kinew) rose to defend his Minister of Agri­cul­ture (Mr. Kostyshyn) when he felt we had gone too far. He said–the Premier, that is–the hypocrisy of this state­ment after the personal and baseless attacks he has levelled at myself and my colleagues is indescribable, and he knows this.

      As Speakers in this Chamber and in other Assemblies–

The Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

      I would ask the member to please finish his matter of privilege and stick to the matter of privilege. I've allowed him quite a bit of latitude in getting off topic, so please stick to the topic and conclude soon, please.

Mr. Ewasko: I'm not quite sure where I've gotten off topic, but I'm going to try to–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I would remind the Honour­able Leader of the–[interjection] Order, please. I would remind the Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion that commenting on some­thing the Speaker has just said is not acceptable. So please carry on with your matter of privilege and conclude it quickly.

Mr. Ewasko: As Speakers in this Chamber and in other Assemblies have previously ruled, the unjust damaging of a member's good name and–may con­situte an obstruction and inter­ference of that member.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I move, seconded by the mem­ber for La Vérendrye (Mr. Narth), that this House call on the member for Fort Rouge to retract his in­flam­ma­tory remarks and apologize, as well as direct this matter to an all-party com­mit­tee for review.

The Speaker: Before recog­nizing any other members to speak, I would remind the House that the remarks at this time by the hon­our­able members are limited strictly to 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. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): First and foremost I just want to, on behalf of the member opposite who is wasting all of our time, I just want to apologize to everybody that's in the gallery, parti­cularly the individuals that are here to see the member for Kirkfield intro­duce his first bill, the two-spirit and transgender day of visibility act.

      The member opposite is delaying our member to be able to intro­duce his bill and actually wasting every­body's time in the gallery. So let me apologize to everybody in the gallery.

      Again, Hon­our­able Speaker, the member opposite said it himself: this occurred–you know, whatever his  inter­pre­ta­tion of what he thinks occurred–on March 12. That was six days ago. Certainly wasn't the first op­por­tun­ity that the member could have risen to raise a matter of privilege, again, in however he inter­prets the con­ver­sa­tion or the back and forth that took place here.

      Let me say this: I think it is, again, in­cred­ibly rich for any member, but actually in parti­cular that member from Lac du Bonnet, to get up into the Chamber and talk about raising a matter of privilege in respect of comments that may or may not have been made in this Chamber. All of us on this side of the House remem­ber the years and years of disrespectful, anti-Indigenous comments that have been levelled against the Premier; transphobic misgendering of our Health Minister and a whole host of other comments, in­cluding from the former minister of Finance, who said that I, as an Indigenous woman, would know all about gangs.

* (14:10)

      So it is in­cred­ibly rich for any member there to stand up on a matter of privilege in respect of what they may–what they think may or may not have happened.

      I want to make it explicitly clear: This is not a matter of privilege. This is members opposite standing in the way, delaying really important gov­ern­ment bills. We have amazing bills that are getting ready to be intro­duced, again, including the two-spirit and trans­gender day of visibility act.

      That's what members right now, sitting in their place, allowing their interim leader to do–to waste time here, that's what they're doing. That's what they're stand­­ing in the way. They're standing in the way of historical labour legislation that's going to make it better for workers here in Manitoba.

      That's what they're getting in the way of and that's what they're delaying. So, Hon­our­able Speaker, this is not a matter of privilege. Again, I would encourage members opposite–people are here to hear their members' statements, I'm assuming including members oppo­site. Let us get on with the work of the day that we are all elected to do. Let's get on with it.

      Miigwech.

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

Matter of Privilege

Mr. Obby Khan (Fort Whyte): Hon­our­able Speaker, on a matter of privilege.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Fort Whyte, on a matter of privilege.

Mr. Khan: I take this op­por­tun­ity to rise on this matter of privilege. I do have a very im­por­tant, sig­ni­fi­cant issue that I'd like to raise as a matter of privilege in this House as it directly impacts my ability to partici­pate as a legislature and, for a matter of fact, everyone in this room, as the matter of privilege that I'm going to raise affects everyone.

      To regard to those comments in matter of privilege, it's very rich that the member from St. Johns wants to stand up and talk about the relevance of the–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Khan: –that our interim leader has brought up the matter of privilege. A matter of privilege is a very serious and sig­ni­fi­cant motion that's brought forward.

      And now, the member from Concordia wants to heckle down and shout. And the member from Concordia may not remember, but everyone remembers that it wasn't only him, but it was also the member from Union Station and the member from St. Johns, the member from–a bunch of other members on that side actually stood up and delayed very im­por­tant issues. About three or four years ago, they went through this process.

      Now, the issue at hand here is actually very im­por­tant. If they listened to what our leader had spoken about, they would understand. If they'd allow me the op­por­tun­ity–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I would remind all mem­bers that matters of privi­lege are pretty im­por­tant things that are being brought up and I need to be able to hear them. And I realize that some of the things will be emotionally charged and cause people to want to be able to comment.

      They'll have the op­por­tun­ity to comment when the member is done. And I would advise all members, matters of privilege: stick to the matter of privilege, don't vector off.

Mr. Khan: I was going to get to the matter of privilege after just addressing a few opening remarks since the member of St. Johns felt it so relevant or im­por­tant to comment on what was happening today.

      This is the demo­cratic process in which we're going through. This is a legis­lative process in which we're going to, where members can bring up issues and concerns they have where they may not be able to fulfil their duty as legislatures. That's what this pro­cess is about.

      What the–our leader had mentioned as a matter of privilege directly affects his ability, his reputation, his image, his messaging as the leader of this party on this side of the House. As well, myself. The misinforma­tion–when the member of St. Johns wants to reference misinformation, it brings me right to my matter of privilege, actually.

      So with those opening remarks, I'll get to it. I think that all members in this Assembly need to pay very close attention to the words in which we say, to the way in which we answer the questions that are posed to us.

      I think it's some­thing that all members, certainly on this side of the House, feel that's very im­por­tant. When a question is asked to you, you answer the question. If you don't know the answer to the question, you admit, I don't know the answer to the question. I will get back to you with the infor­ma­tion.

      The respon­si­bility of an elected official is to listen, advocate and work for their con­stit­uents, to work within–sorry, I am fasting; this is day eight right now so the mouth is getting excessively dry–to work within the legis­lative process to make Manitoba better.

      An MLA may be required to fulfill as many as four distinct roles. The role of a legislator involves understanding the spirit of existing laws, passing new laws and studying, discussing and then supporting or opposing the enactment of new laws. We might disagree in this House on what those laws are, what the validity of those laws are, how we in­sti­tute those laws and move forward on them, but that is why we are all here. We are all here to represent Manitobans. We've been elected to have a voice in the Legislature, and we on this side of the House take that very, very seriously.

      In the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, Bosc and Gagnon clearly spell out the ex­pect­a­tions that members of an Assembly have the freedoms needed for us to do our work. Included in this is the freedom from obstruction, and this is the im­por­tant part of the matter of 'plivirege,' so maybe members opposite want to pay attention instead of heckling.

      But included in this is the freedom from obstruc­tion, inter­ference, inti­mida­tion and molesta­tion. Though often thought of as only physical ob­struction, we know that historical precedence expands on this. [interjection]

      You know, and I can hear the members opposite saying that we're bullies, and you're bullying, and we're bullying, and that I'm a bully and that spe­cific­ally, Obby, you are a bully. The fact that the members opposite–the minister respon­si­ble–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I'd remind the member that referring to members by name, even if it's referring to yourself by name, is against the rules of this place. And I would ask the member to keep his comments relevant to his matter of privilege.

Mr. Khan: I apologize for that. I was aware I wasn't allowed to mention other members by their name, I was remiss that I thought I could mention myself by my name.

      But as I read that last line, and the Minister of Environ­ment might want to listen to this one, included in this is the freedom of obstruction, inter­ference, inti­mida­tion. And just before you rose, Hon­our­able Speaker, the minister on that side, the member said–thought it was ap­pro­priate to say, the member from Fort Whyte is a bully; you're a bully. I believe that right there, on its own grounds, would be inti­mida­tion, would be inter­ference, would be obstruction.

      Everyone on this side of the House heard it. I'm sure everyone on that side of the House heard it. I'm sure people in viewing gallery heard the Minister of Environ­ment refer to me as a bully when I'm referencing legis­lative rules and practices that are done here. She might not like them–she might not like them. She might not like what I have to say, but nowhere does it grant her the right to intimidate or to say what the member is saying.

      A member of privilege–a matter of privilege, Hon­our­able Speaker, must satisfy two con­di­tions. And if you bear with me, I will explain why this is the case. These are that prima facie breach of privilege has occurred, and it must be raised at its earliest op­por­tun­ity. The member from St. Johns had issue with the member from Lac du Bonnet's matter of 'plivirege.' I'll get to the timeline on mine.

      Bosc and Gagnon write extensively on the historical precedent that legislatures before us have used to develop the rules by which we operate in this Chamber and that definition of what constitutes the earliest op­por­tun­ity, and expanded on it to be as soon as practical after becoming aware of the situation.

      There are many factors that come into the earliest op­por­tun­ity. A change from day to day in the House, various changes and moving parts within the legis­lative process, bill readings and debates, con­sul­ta­tion, which is a much-needed process coming forward with any sort of–whether it be a matter of privilege or a bill, which members opposite seem to struggle with the con­sul­ta­tion process–meetings that are required before you come forward with a serious matter; various other factors that all must be done at this earliest op­por­tun­ity.

* (14:20)

      That being said, I have taken time to consult with experts, Hansard, my own notes, as well as refer to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, as well as the rules we have agreed upon for this Assembly.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I trust that you can expect–accept that this matter of privilege meets both criteria, and I need to reference these matter–these materials before bringing this matter forward. Because a matter of privilege in such matter such as when the Minister of Finance (MLA Sala) invited myself–and this is where the misinformation, this is where the inability to do my work as a legislature, but not only my work as a legislature, I would agree with everyone else's work in this Legislature.

      If you don't have the right infor­ma­tion, Hon­our­able Speaker, it's hard to be informed. It's hard to let your con­stit­uents know. When the Minister of Finance invited me to his office, along with Liberal colleague from Tyndall Park, for a bill briefing on Bill 3, gas holiday, he's used specific language. They had assured us that in the session, and later in the House, that they had done their due diligence on looking at what the gas tax holiday would represent for savings for Manitobans.

Some Honourable Members: Relevance.

Mr. Khan: The relevance, as members wanted to know, is misleading infor­ma­tion. The inability of myself, as a legislature, to do the work without having all of the prior infor­ma­tion.

      They assured us that they had done their work, that they had done their due diligence, Hon­our­able Speaker. When it was brought up by myself and other members in that meeting that other juris­dic­tions had done the same thing and had seen the savings from this gas tax holiday disappear within weeks, the minis­ter had assured us that would not happen in this pro­vince and agreed to provide us with infor­ma­tion on how they would make sure that doesn't happen.

      We had agreed. They had assured us infor­ma­tion would be made public. That has not occurred.

      And yet, what did we see for this gas tax holiday? Exactly what members on this side of the House had said: that the savings for the gas tax would only be repre­sen­ted for a short period of time, thus making–thus interfering with my ability to do my job as an MLA and everyone in this building.

      Again, I will quote for the members opposite, that–this is–and they can check the legis­lative process and the rules and the legis­lation: It is impossible to codify all incidences which–this is Bosc and Gagnon, a quote–it is impossible to codify all incidences which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, inter­ference, molestation or inti­mida­tion and, as such, con­stitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of member's reputation, the 'ursay' of the title of Member of Parliament and the inti­mida­tion of members–sorry, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      When you look at the quote from Bosc and Gagnon here, you see directly there: member's reputa­tion. The inability to do your work because the member's reputation could be damaged; that speaks to the previous member from Lac du Bonnet.

      This one here is: and the provision of misleading infor­ma­tion. End quote. Misleading infor­ma­tion, has–provided by the members opposite–has made it, if not impossible, very difficult for members in this Legis­lative Building to do their work.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, it's clear that when you're not given the right infor­ma­tion, you are not able to com­muni­cate that to your con­stit­uents, thus affecting your job, your ability to be an effective legislature in this building.

      Members opposite want to heckle and say speak for yourself, speak for yourself. Well, I mean, maybe members on that side of the House are used to getting false infor­ma­tion and then further putting false infor­ma­tion out there to the con­stit­uents and further spread­ing false infor­ma­tion to the public. And maybe that's how they want to operate.

      On this side of the House, we need real infor­ma­tion, we need real facts, we need real numbers. When that was asked for from the members opposite, that was not provided, thus interfering with my ability to do my job as an MLA and everyone else in this building.

      Instead of the minister providing me with informa­tion and tables that were to be provided, I had to table my own report showing that gas prices–and I tabled that in the House, Honourable Speaker, that as soon as gas pricings–savings were instituted, within three weeks, those savings were gone. So much so that the price of gas now is higher than what it was before.

      This was cautioned to the minister, it was caution­ed to members opposite, it was spoke about at com­mittee at length. Manitobans came and spoke about this, and the minister did not want to listen to this informa­tion, and yet, instead, put his misinformation on the record.

      That is where we are at: the misinformation, the evaporation of savings within three weeks, as we had cautioned.

      The document I tabled showed exactly what we had said in committee and in the briefing: gas prices were back up. This is what we had warned about. This is what we were told would not happen and did happen

       Bosc and Gagnon are right–and again, members want to continue to heckle. It is impossible to codify all incidences which might be interpreted. And I have other incidences where I'd get to which affect my ability to do my job as a legislature. It's impossible to codify all incidences which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitutes prima facie cases of privilege.

      However, some matters found to be prima facie include the–damaging a member's reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of members and their staff and of witnesses before committee and the provision of misleading information.

      I would ask everyone to pay attention to the very important last point: misleading information we spoke about. We would agree that it's very hard to do your job if you're given wrong information. Holding the provision of making sure you get the correct informa­tion–the Supreme Court of Canada, for example, you have to provide the right information, hold the provision that misleading of information constitutes a breach of privileges of the members of this House.

      And it is clear that this government, its Premier (Mr. Kinew), its Minister of Finance (MLA Sala) and all other ministers on that side are guilty of that provi­sion of providing misleading information.

      The provision of misleading information has occurred and has prevented me to do the job as an elected MLA properly. By providing me misinformation, I am now spreading that misinformation to my constituents. It is not only my ability, it's everyone's and it's every­one in this when we were sold a book of deeds by this government and this minister that that gas tax holiday would make life more affordable.

      The minister failing to answer questions–now, there's misleading information and there's obstruction of information, as is quoted by Bosc and Gagnon. I don't think you want me to requote again, but I can if you want, which says: the–it is impossible to codify all incidences–might be interpreted as matters of ob­struction, interference. Not answering a question, Honourable Speaker, is a form of 'abstruction'.

      There's no way around this. You ask a question, you don't get an answer. You ask it again. You don't get an answer. You ask it a third time, you don't get an answer. That is obstruction, plain and simple.

      To the timeline: March 6, questions were asked, no answer; March 11, questions were asked, no answer; March 13, questions were asked, no answer; and surprise, March 14, questions were asked, no answers were provided. And that was the last day we sat, so today is the earliest time I could bring this up. It was a recurring pattern that has happened over and over again with this government of not answering questions.

      And the member from Lac du Bonnet brought up the same points with this Premier, how he refused to answer questions, instead deflected, obstructed, inti­midated the member from Lac du Bonnet.

      It is very clear that this government and this Premier do not want to answer questions. They are obstructing from information that Manitobans have a right, that they deserve to have answered.

* (14:30)

      When this gov­ern­ment now promised they would do things they said they were going to do, Manitobans have a right to see that. The savings is one example of that. When the minister doesn't want to answer the question and refused to–any of the ministers don't want to answer questions in–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I would ask the member to please keep his com­ments relevant to his matter of privilege. He's now dangerously repeating himself over and over again. If you have some­thing new to bring up in relation to your matter of privilege, please do so.

Mr. Khan: Hon­our­able Speaker, and I sincerely ap­pre­ciate you for guidance when you're standing up or speaking. There's a lot of things happening, so I apolo­gize if I've repeated myself. I'll move on to more dissemination of misinformation and how this matter of privilege is so relevant.

      The minister and the gov­ern­ment want to table a–have brought up a report over and over again. And I'll ask the Hon­our­able Speaker and everyone, actually, in the gallery, if you're to com­mis­sion a report, to write a report, and you only get one side of infor­ma­tion, you only have one input of infor­ma­tion that comes into that, what's going to come out of that report? The infor­ma­­tion you provided. And I think it was pretty simple. If you want a report to say what you want it to say, you're going to provide one channel of infor­ma­tion.

      And not only that, that infor­ma­tion that goes in there, Honourable Speaker, you're not going to allow it to be audited, may not allow it to be verified, may not allow a third party to take a look at it before you present that infor­ma­tion. This is exactly what this govern­ment has done, and they're trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes in this province by disseminating misinformation.

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I've asked the member to please confine his com­ments to his matter of privilege. He's getting pretty far afield every time. So I would again remind the member, keep your comments relevant to your matter of privilege and please come to a conclusion rather quickly.

Mr. Khan: Again, I apologize. The relevance of that comment in the last time before you said it wasn't, is that it's clearly, it is clear as day that my matter of privilege is about misinformation, that this gov­ern­ment and these ministers are provi­ding to not only us as legislatures, to everyone in Manitoba.

      So my matter of privilege is on misinformation, and I think it is im­por­tant that they understand that this report that this gov­ern­ment had done was a one-sided infor­ma­tion report; it was unverified, unchecked, unaudited, unsubstantiated, and now this gov­ern­ment is quoting this as it's the holiest of holy books, and yet the reports within itself says it did not audit or in­de­pen­dently verify the accuracy or completedness of the supporting infor­ma­tion.

      I mean, that on its own should raise some con­cerns about misinformation and your ability to do your job. If I take that report forward–

An Honourable Member: Sit down. We have people in the gallery. We have people in the gallery.

Mr. Khan: You know, Hon­our­able Speaker, now you have the member from St. Johns saying sit down. You have the member from St. Johns saying sit down, yelling at me to sit down. I'm standing here talking about an im­por­tant thing that's happening–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Khan: And I realize that there are people in the gallery, and this is part of the demo­cratic process. This is im­por­tant. Manitobans have a right to hear the real infor­ma­tion, and the member from St. Johns–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I would again remind members that orders of privilege are very serious matters. I have to be able to hear what's being said, and I would again ask the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Khan) to please hurry up and con­clude his comments and keep them relevant to his matter of privilege, please.

Mr. Khan: You know, when we talk about inti­mida­tion, Hon­our­able Speaker, and it's clear as day they're intimidating. It's clear as day they're obstructing. It's clear as day they don't want me, as an elected official in this building, to speak about what's im­por­tant; they don't want that. That in its own is the definition of what I'm speaking about, exactly what I'm speaking about. It's inti­mida­tion. It's bullying. It is obstructing. This is what they are doing.

      It's not surprising because this is what they do day in and day out in the House. When we ask a question on this side, they refuse to answer it and they attack, refuse to answer to answer and attack, and then they say, oh, that–it's disgusting you guys would do that, and yet they're the ones that did that for eight years on this side of the House.

      We are trying to ask questions. We are not attack­ing. We're just trying to get infor­ma­tion. We're trying to inquire as to what's happening with immigration, as to what's happening with our economy, what's hap­pening with our justice's bail, when this minister said he would have bail changed within 100 days and it's over 150 days and nothing's been done.

      This is im­por­tant. When they campaign on some­thing and now they cannot execute on what they're doing, this is im­por­tant for Manitobans to know.

      I'll get back to the misinformation on this MNP report that, again, I'm not questioning the credibility of MNP. They're giving–they're producing a docu­ment based on the infor­ma­tion they're given. Unaudited, indepen­dently–not in­de­pen­dently verified accuracy or completeness of supporting infor­ma­tion.

      Now, I'll move on. I will move on as the Hon­our­able Speaker has asked me to. That the minister, time and time again, when asked the questions will duck, dodge, dip like a dodgeball. We've all seen that. The minister failing to answer. I'll move on now, as you've requested.

      So, we've talked a little bit about the gas tax. We talked about the carbon tax and this Premier's (Mr. Kinew) clear flip‑flop over a dozen times now. Well, see, I can't keep track of how many times of flip‑flopping on that. Further, in the House–this was outside the House, but you're inside the House–when asked the question, will not give an answer or will obstruct from giving an answer. That's another issue on the carbon tax.

      Immigration, the same questions were asked. No answer given. BSC, which is a vital–a vital–resource for building stronger com­mu­nities in this province, minis­­ter refuses to answer. It is a pattern with this gov­ern­ment, it is a pattern with these ministers that they do not want to answer any questions. When you're not answering the questions, you are obstructing from mem­bers finding out what the answers are. Plain and simple, there's no way around it, that's what it is.

      This was brought up at its earliest time, as the last time this came up was on March 14. Today is the next day of sitting, so I believe it is brought up the next time. When this gov­ern­ment wants to talk about making affordable living as their–one of their priorities, they are doing the exact opposite of that. It is an increase on April 1, carbon tax will increase 23 per cent and yet this minister and gov­ern­ment want to talk about a gas tax that is now higher than what it was on January 1.

      They want to talk about gas prices that are higher, when they could have, at com­mit­tee, spoken about making life more affordable. And I know you're kind of getting antsy, Hon­our­able Speaker. I'll circle this back to–sorry. I will circle this back to a simple point of, when they say some­thing on that side of the House, as gov­ern­ment, it has weight. It carries a message, and when that message is misinformation, when that message is obstructing the questions, when that message is attack­ing the member opposite for simply doing their job, that is a matter of privilege.

      That is why we are elected here. We are critics. We are op­posi­tion. It is our job to hold them account­able. They might not like it. I mean, I know when the roles were flipped, it wasn't so likeable on that side either. This is the process. You're going to be asked tough questions that you may not like. You're going to be asked and put in a situation you don't like. But as gov­ern­ment, it's their respon­si­bility to do that.

      I have a whole list of other examples I can go on and on about, about putting misinformation on it. I can go through every single minister and every single depart­ment that's stood up in this House and refuses to answer the question. It needs to stop. These minis­ters, this gov­ern­ment, are–need to be held accountable to Manitobans. They need to be accountable to the in­sti­tution that we're at, that this is a matter of privilege–sorry, it's really dry today; must be hot in here.

      Con­stit­uents bear the brunt of this NDP gov­ern­ment not putting the right infor­ma­tion on the record. As an elected official, we have to have the right infor­ma­tion and we have to have answers to the questions so–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I've asked the member several times now to conclude his remarks. He's going over the same infor­ma­tion over and over, making the same comments, so I would ask him to please wrap up his matter of privilege and quit repeating the same comments over and over.

Mr. Khan: Okay, thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker, and, again, ap­pre­ciate your guidance. I thought I was referencing new points, but I will take the new–the points may be there, but then the–but the body of the context is the same, so I will refrain from that.

* (14:40)

      I'll just use another–one more example, and then I'll move on to the closing remarks of this matter of privilege.

      Oh, man, so dry. When it comes to doing your job in this building, you cannot do that without the right infor­ma­tion. Plain and simple. The privileges of a member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in their fulfillment of his or her duties and func­tions. Plain and simple; if you're not given the infor­ma­tion, can't do your job.

      I've offered direct evidence of this; I'm going to offer one more of this. And this is completely ob­structing, deflecting, avoiding, interfering with infor­ma­tion. At com­mit­tee, it was asked to the Minister of Finance (MLA Sala) how much it would cost to–this gov­ern­ment–how much it would cost to convert the existing 260,000 houses in Manitoba off natural gas to geothermal, as this gov­ern­ment has said they want to do. They said they want to do it, it was in their cam­paign, they've said it in here numer­ous times. They want to take 260,000 houses and put it on geothermal or thermal, because the minister had gone back and forth and said geothermal and air is the same thing. We don't agree; geothermal and air pumps are very different. But regardless.

      The question was posed to the Minister of Finance. Minister of Finance said, you can reference Hansard, was, that's a question that the minister of Efficiency Manitoba can answer for you. I asked again; minister of Manitoba efficiency will answer that for you. Okay. We'll take it there. So deflects to the minister of Manitoba efficiency. At com­mit­tee when that same question was brought up, read word‑per-word verbatim, what did the minister of Efficiency Manitoba offer for an answer?

      Nothing. Nothing. No answer. I don't have an answer. Can I provide you with an answer? The Minister of Finance was maybe incorrect in deflecting you here. We don't have a price to that. When I offered up our own math calculations, the minister cannot verify that as well.

      So question is, if you have one minister deflecting to another minister, you have another minister saying, no, I'm not going to answer that question, that is by definition obstruct–it's deflecting and it's obstructing. Manitobans want to know.

      Now, I will wrap up. It's upsetting that the minis­ter cannot provide that data, since this was some­thing that they had ran on, and campaigned that this was the–what they were going to do. Hon­our­able Speaker, it's clear that this NDP gov­ern­ment is not forthcoming with infor­ma­tion, and therefore making it very diffi­cult to do our jobs.

      As Bosc and Gagnon write, and I quote again, it is impossible–last time, and I won't say it again, Honour­able Speaker; I know you've–that you've–gave me some leeway here, so I ap­pre­ciate that. It is im­possible to codify all incidences which might be inter­preted as matter of obstruction, inter­ference, molesta­­tion or inti­mida­tion, and such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters–sorry–however, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a member's reputation, their usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the inti­mida­tion of mem­bers and their staff and witnesses before com­mit­tees, and the provision of misleading infor­ma­tion.

      This is a serious matter, Hon­our­able Speaker. It has deeply affected all of our abilities in this building to do their job as legis­latures. If I had been made aware of this non-data of the gas tax savings or the cost of conversions–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I would ask the member to conclude his statement now. He's repeated the same things over and over again. It's not actually going to help resolve the issue. So if the minister would keep his comments relative and wrap up now, that would be greatly ap­pre­ciated.

Mr. Khan: It's the last paragraph here, then I'm done, Hon­our­able Speaker. [interjection]

      I mean, this is direct inti­mida­tion, is what I'm talking about in the House. Direct inti­mida­tion, ob­struction of trying to do our job. The members oppo­site have such a short memory that they recall–they seem to forget that they've done this for the last eight years, they did this every single session; that they spoke and spoke at lengths, and because it's the demo­cratic legis­lative process, we let it occur.

      Now, wrapping up, taking all of this into con­sid­era­tion, Hon­our­able Speaker, I move, seconded by the member from Agassiz, that this House refer to this matter on all-party com­mit­tee for con­sid­era­tion.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able Op­posi­tion House Leader.

Mr. Derek Johnson (Official Opposition House Leader): On House busi­ness.

The Speaker: On House busi­ness.

Mr. Johnson: Could you please canvass the House for leave to pause this matter of privilege so that the House may consider members' statements, private members' state­­ments, with the under­standing that after the five statements, we will imme­diately resume this matter of privilege?

The Speaker: Is there leave to pause this matter of privilege so that the House may consider members' statements with the under­standing that after the five statements, we will imme­diately resume this matter of privilege?

      Is there leave? [Agreed]

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Members' Statements

Russ and Fred

Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Minister of Families): If I can just have a bit of leeway, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      I'm going to say the members' statement now, folks. Can I just have, like, two seconds? Okay, thank you.

The Speaker: Could I ask the member to proceed with her statement.

MLA Fontaine: Just–they're making their way down. They're just–they need a little bit of help. Just–okay. Miigwech. Miigwech, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      Today, I'm–I want to honour the very special friend­ship of Russ and Fred, who join us in the gallery.

      During the COVID-19 pandemic, Russ had chal­lenges connecting with people in the community and, because of the isolation, he had a hard time meeting new friends.

      Russ and Fred met back in 2022 at the autism ride and poker derby annual fundraiser. As a huge fan of Harley-Davidson, Russ was thrilled to learn the ride would be hosted by the Winnipeg Harley-Davidson store, and he volunteered to sell raffle tickets.

      Russ and Fred started talking over lunch, and the two instantly bonded over their shared love of all things motorcycle. After their meal together, Russ checked out Fred's bike and got to see it in action.

      The pair now meet up regularly to swap stories and pictures from their lives, whether it be a cool car or the bike they found, a WWE wrestling show or a precious memory of friends and families.

      This has made a positive impact on both of their lives, and Russ has been much happier with his friend Fred.

      Through the friendship, Russ welcomed Fred into a wider community surrounding St. Amant, a non-­for-profit organization dedicated to supporting folks with developmental disabilities, autism and acquired brain injuries.

      With 2,200 people with disabilities and over 2,000 staff work together every day to lead deeply authentic and meaningful lives as part of our Manitoba community.

      By placing the values of collaboration, 'hospitility,' excellence and respect at the core of their work, every­one at St. Amant plays an important role in advancing the cause of inclusion across the province.

      Russ and Fred's friendship highlights all that is good and the value of taking time to see one another as family in this big, beautiful province of ours.

      Miigwech to Russ, Fred and the whole St. Amant team for your invaluable contributions to our province and our communities.

      If I can ask everyone to honour our special guests in the House today.

* (14:50)

Thunderhill Ski Area

An Honourable Member: Today, I rise to recog­nize one of the many gems of my–

The Speaker: Sorry; the hon­our­able member for Swan River.

Mr. Rick Wowchuk (Swan River): Today, I rise to recog­nize one of the many gems of my con­stit­uency, Thunderhill Ski Area, located 30 kilometres west of Swan River.

      Thunderhill serves as a place of recreation for families, school groups and outdoor enthusiasts. It has 24 groomed trails where 200-plus skiers and snow­boarders will come on any given weekend to challenge the largest vertical drop in Manitoba of 450 feet, and two of the longest runs of over 1.2 kilometres.

      Thunderhill was started in 1967 as a centennial pro­­ject by Benito Elks. In 1974, a group formed the Thunderhill Ski Club. Upgrades were done and in 2013 a modern T-bar was installed, which allowed for expansion of the ski area.

      A group of hill supporters gathered in 2020 with a vision to replace the existing chalet and rental facility located on top of the hill. This vision included a facility at the base of the multi-season use, including multi-use trail systems for mountain biking, hiking, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing.

      This vision initiated a fundraising campaign, which 110 individual organizations and business sponsors came together and generated over $1.3 million to build the new Swan Valley Co-op Chalet.

      The Province, under the leadership of the PC gov­ern­ment, was able to join the effort with a $300,000 BSC funding, and so construction began in the spring of 2021.

      The group was successful in applying for an ACSC funding towards a magic carpet lift for new skiers. The ski area will also repurpose two COVID shelters into first aid and ski instructor facilities.

      Thank you to the many builders, donors and volun­teer committee members for your work in making Thunderhill a first-class facility to bring joy to so many, when it comes to skiing the Prairies.

Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba

Mr. Tyler Blashko (Lagimodière): I rise today to ac­knowledge the contributions of the Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba. Founded in 2013, CPAM is a community organization that helps newcomers find success and brings people together.

Celebrating and preserving Palestinian culture for future generations is a central goal for the organiza­tion. Sharing their heritage and history through crafts, cooking and dabka, a Palestinian style of dance, instills a sense of pride in younger generations and builds bridges across the province.

      As they care for their growing community, raising awareness of the issues faced by Palestinians has become a necessary part of their work. CPAM has con­­tinued to work in collaboration with many organizations on demon­strations, vigils, fundraisers, academic panels and family events.

      Their bridge building and edu­ca­tion has brought together labour, academia, cultural communities, faith groups, queer and Indigenous organizations. Confronting the dehumanizing effects of Islamophobia and anti­-Palestinian sentiment is an everyday reality.

      As part of that work, they recently partnered with national organizations to bring Canadian MPs to the West Bank. We are gathered here during the holy month of Ramadan, as CPAM raises awareness and lives with the knowledge their family and friends in Gaza are facing starvation.

      Just last month, the community established a mosque in St. James. Beit Nabala Mosque is named after a historical village that many Palestinian Manitobans tie their histories to and whose families were displaced from in 1948. The mosque also serves as the offices for CPAM.

      Palestinians have lived here in Manitoba for over 60 years. They are business owners, lawyers, students, academics, professionals and valued members of the community. Palestinian history is Manitoban history. Our province is stronger because of the work, activism and community building that CPAM has taken on over the years.

      We have in the gallery Ramsey Zeid, their president, members of his family and members of CPAM. Thank you for your continued commitment to your com­munity, to bridge building and a more just and equitable world.

Grant Lazaruk

Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): HyLife, a global food company and Neepawa's largest employer, has a new chief executive officer following the retirement of Grant Lazaruk.

      Lazaruk, who grew up on a farm near Oakburn and was educated in Rossburn, served as CAO–CEO of one of the largest pork producing companies in Canada since 2010 before retiring at the end of February.

      When the farm boy joined the company, there were 65 employees at the first Christmas party. Today, there are 2,800 employees. In 2010, weanling pigs were sold into markets in the United States. Today, HyLife sells pork around the world.

      HyLife has gone from a company representing a pair of farm families to a multinational company and Lazaruk has been an integral part of the company every step of the way, guiding HyLife through both prosperous and challenging times.

      The 60-year-old Steinbach resident said he is con­fident in the solid leadership team in place at HyLife and believes now is the right time to step back and focus on his family and his community.

      Lazaruk has always believed in giving back to his community and serves in a leadership role with the Steinbach Pistons of the Manitoba Junior Hockey League. He is also involved in the planning and con­struction of the Southeast Event Centre in Steinbach.

      Thank you, Grant, for your years of work in growing HyLife into a major employer and con­tributor to the Manitoba economy, as well as one of the best food companies in the world.

      Congratulations from your friends and relatives in the Riding Mountain constituency and indeed all Manitobans on your well-deserved retirement.

Earl Grey Community Centre
and Dante Day Nursery

Mr. Mark Wasyliw (Fort Garry): Honourable Speaker, it's my pleasure to rise today and speak on the incredible milestones of the Earl Grey Community Centre and Dante Day Nursery. This year, the Earl Grey Community Centre will be celebrating their 100th anniversary, and Dante Day Nursery will be recognizing their 50th.

      Over 100 years ago, a group of ambitious com­munity members came together in the block of Fleet, Garwood and Dudley to contemplate what would best benefit the residents of Earl Grey. 'Deckiding' on a skating rink and a baseball diamond in 1924, the pro­ject eventually led to the Earl Grey's first clubhouse, a donated box car from CN railroad.

      Today, the Earl Grey Community Centre is doing its part to keep our community vibrant. They offer a variety of recreational programs like movie night, sports games, family dances, fundraisers, craft sales and seniors' activities.

      Located in the same building, Dante Day Nursery has been providing child-care services to families in Fort Garry since 1974. Established by founding mem­bers like Maria Ursi and Frances McQuiggin, this nursery has been resoundingly successful in providing safe, caring, high-quality care to all children who attend.

      I would like to congratulate Karen Webster, the director of Dante Day Nursery, Sue-Ann Campbell, the general manager of Earl Grey Community Centre, and all the staff and volunteers throughout the years who have made these remarkable milestones possible.

      On June 21, both centres will be hosting a joint annual family fun night. I look forward to celebrating this amazing accomplishment with them, and I hope my colleagues will join me in doing the same.

      Thank you.

The Speaker: Before recognizing any other members to speak–as previously agreed, we will now return to the matter of privilege.

Matter of Privilege

(Continued)

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

Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): For the third time today, it's my honour to get up in the House and disabuse what the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Khan) has put on the record.

      First and foremost, let me just say, Honourable Speaker, which I suspect most people in this Chamber would know, it wasn't the earliest opportunity that the member had to get up and raise a matter of privilege. So I would submit that to the–to your leadership.

      And, you know, I find it particularly amusing that that particular member would get up in the House and claim that members on this side of the House are bully­ing him, when that member, and actually every single member across the way, chose to stand in sup­port and champion and celebrate a provincial election campaign on the backs of and at the risk of and the detriment to trans youth in Manitoba.

* (15:00)

      In fact, the member opposite was the face of a political campaign that chose to put trans youth in Manitoba at risk; he was the face of it.

      There is nothing more–there's not a quintessential example of bullying than what that member stood for during the election. And that member stood up for all Manitobans, and actually for all Canada, to see, in which, you know, I know that the members opposite don't have much connection with folks across the–Canada, but I can tell you that people across Canada were absolutely disgusted with the political campaign that the members opposite, again, all signed on to, including a political campaign on the backs of and on the murders of Indigenous women.

      That's what members opposite chose to do. So when the member opposite gets up in this Chamber and 'trines'–tries to fake–like, say that he's being bullied we know that that's absolutely nonsense. What the mem­bers opposite are attempting to do today is block really im­por­tant legis­lation in our province, legis­lation that will revolutionize labour law, legis­lation that is–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I would request that the member keep her comments relevant to the matter of privilege.

MLA Fontaine: Let me just say this: No member oppo­site, including the member for Fort Whyte, has a leg to stand on in respect of anything that they've tried to present to the Chamber here today and to Manitobans in respect to being bullied or not being able to do their job or however they construct whatever they heard. They have not a leg to stand on.

      In fact, members opposite, including the members that have gotten up today, are really the face of what  they're trying to blame our members over here. It's not a matter of privilege, and I suspect that the Honour­able Speaker will rule it as such in his due time.

      Miigwech.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Tyndall Park, on the same matter of privilege.

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Yes, Honour­able Speaker, on the same matter of privilege.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Tyndall Park.

MLA Lamoureux: I'm not going to speak for very long. I don't want to stand between legis­lation being intro­duced, especially while we have guests up here in the gallery. But I did want to express just a few thoughts, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      I remember, it was not very long ago that when the NDP were in op­posi­tion, they used this very same tactic, we're going to say, for multiple days. We now see–multiple weeks, perhaps. We now see the PCs perhaps are doing the same–it might be a little early to tell–but we are a couple of hours now into the after­noon, and it is disheartening. When we come to work, we come here to serve our con­stit­uents. We come here to work for Manitobans. We know that we need to be debating the petroleum situation; it's being characterized as com­pro­mised right now, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      There are a lot of further discussions we could be having, and as op­posi­tion, as in­de­pen­dent members, we need to do our best job to hold this gov­ern­ment accountable, and I believe in order to do that, we need to continue on with orders of the day.

      Thank you.

Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): On a matter of privilege, Hon­our­able Speaker.

The Speaker: I'd advise the hon­our­able member for Brandon West that we've not finished dealing with this matter of privilege.

      On this matter of privilege, I have a ruling for the House.

      On the matter of privilege raised by the hon­our­able member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Khan), I would like to inform the House that this is clearly a difference of the facts.

      Past Manitoba Speakers have ruled on several similar occasions that a dispute between two members as to allegations of fact does not constitute a breach of privilege.

      Bosc and Gagnon advise on page 148 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice that if a question of privilege involves a disagreement between two or more members as to facts, the Speaker typical­ly rules that such a dispute does not prevent members from fulfilling their parlia­mentary functions, nor does such a disagreement breach the collective privilege of the House.

      Beauchene's, citation 31(1) advises that a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of facts does not fulfill the con­di­tions of parlia­mentary privilege.

      Joseph Maingot, on page 223 of the second edition of Parlia­mentary Privilege in Canada states: a dispute between two members about questions of facts said in a debate does not constitute a valid question of privilege because it is a matter of debate.

      I would therefore rule that the hon­our­able mem­ber does not have a prima facie case of privilege.

Mr. Derek Johnson (Official Opposition House Leader): With the utmost respect, Hon­our­able Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

The Speaker: The ruling of the Speaker has been challenged.

Voice Vote

The Speaker: All those in favour of supporting the ruling of the Speaker, please rise–please say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

The Speaker: All those opposed to the ruling of the Speaker, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion, the Ayes have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. Johnson: On a recorded vote, please, Hon­our­able Speaker.

The Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

* (16:00)

      Order, please.

      The one‑hour time limit provided for the ringing of the division bells has expired. I am directing the bells be turned off and the House proceed to the vote.

      The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Speaker be sustained.

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Ayes

Altomare, Asagwara, Blashko, Brar, Bushie, Cable, Chen, Cross, Dela Cruz, Devgan, Fontaine, Kostyshyn, Lathlin, Loiselle, Maloway, Marcelino, Moroz, Moses, Moyes, Naylor, Oxenham, Pankratz, Redhead, Sala, Sandhu, Schmidt, Schott, Smith, Wasyliw, Wiebe.

Nays

Balcaen, Bereza, Byram, Cook, Ewasko, Goertzen, Guenter, Jackson, Johnson, Khan, King, Lagassé, Narth, Nesbitt, Piwniuk, Schuler, Stefanson, Wharton, Wowchuk.

Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Yeas 30, Nays 19.

The Speaker: The motion is accordingly passed.

      The hon­our­able member for–[interjection] The ruling is accordingly sustained.

* (16:10)

Matter of Privilege

Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): On a matter of privilege.

The Speaker: Hon­our­able member for Brandon West, on a matter of privilege.

Mr. Balcaen: Hon­our­able Speaker, I rise today to raise a matter of privilege.

      Though I may be new to this House, as has been pointed out by the hon­our­able member for St. Johns (MLA Fontaine) several times, I com­pre­hend the amazing respon­si­bility that we have been given by all Manitobans–each and every one of us–to be in here and to rise on a matter of privilege. We are here on their behalf, and we need to be able to do our jobs and represent them–each and every one of them.

      That is why I rise on this very, very im­por­tant and significant issue, as it directly impacts my ability to represent them. That is why I think it's some­thing that all members opposite should pay very close attention to, and it's some­thing that I think that all members, and certainly on this side of the House, feel is an im­por­tant matter of privilege.

      In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in the third edition, Bosc and Gagnon clearly spell out the ex­pect­a­tion that members of an assembly have and the freedoms that are needed for us to do our work. Included in this freedom is freedom from obstruction, inter­ference, inti­mida­tion and molestation.

      Though often thought of as only physical obstruc­tions, we know that historical precedents matter, and they expand on this. And as it should, as no member in this House should be obstructed from doing their duty and their due diligence.

      There are two criterion that a point of privilege must meet, and I'm sure everyone is well aware of that in this House, but I will reiterate it. It must be raised at the first available op­por­tun­ity, and it must be a clear example of a violation of privilege.

      The situation that I am raising today meets both of these criterion, and this is the first op­por­tun­ity that I have had to raise it only after consulting Hansard and other relevant material as well as Bosc and Gagnon and their informative text.

      Repre­sen­ting my con­stit­uency, the con­stit­uency of Brandon West, it is of utmost importance and is paramount to my duties to be able to speak to this matter of privilege.

      Repre­sen­tation is the cornerstone of being an ef­fec­tive and productive member of this esteemed Chamber. And it's also an expectation of my and collectively our con­stit­uents of this great province. If a member of this Legis­lative Assembly cannot repre­sent their con­stit­uents, then public trust and con­fi­dence is eroded in a system that is set up in such a demo­cratic fashion. Each of us was sent to this great Chamber to represent our ridings, and it is not only an honour and a great, great privilege to do that, but it's an ex­pect­a­tion that is bestowed upon each and every one of us in this House.

      I personally put my name forward to become a member of the Legis­lative Assembly of Manitoba, as I have deep and unwavering belief in freedoms that we, as Canadians, and by default, Manitobans, all have. I've spent my career making sure that these free­doms are respected and these freedoms are granted to each and every one of us.

      The freedom of expression–the freedom of ex­pres­­sion, Hon­our­able Speaker–is at the very height, the very top of this list. I put my name forward to represent the people of Brandon West so that I could continue my long career of public service to my con­stit­uency, to my com­mu­nity, and to assure–ensure they had a strong and caring voice in this Chamber.

      And, Hon­our­able Speaker, I know that that is each and every one of us in the Chamber, whether it's on this side of the House or the side opposite, we are all here for that same reason. Also of a great–of great importance was the ability to change others in this Chamber, when–or, sorry–challenge others in this Chamber, when I believe an error has been made. And, therefore, I get to exercise my legis­lative rights to raise a matter of privilege in this House.

      I have always, always stood for what is right, even when that stance is unpopular or uncomfortable to express. We may disagree in this Chamber, but we all serve Manitobans, and that must come first. As we all serve Manitobans for what is best for everyone, it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to ensure our voice is heard, and we have the op­por­tun­ity to challenge these errors–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I'd request that the member kindly get to his matter of privilege; he's talked for quite a while, and we still have no idea what that matter of privilege is. [interjection] Order.

Mr. Balcaen: Thank you very much, Hon­our­able Speaker, for the guidance; as I mentioned earlier in this–I'm new to this Chamber, and I'm slowly starting to learn all of the rules of order. And I ap­pre­ciate you making sure that I stay on track.

      And as I said that the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the third edition, Bosc and Gagnon clearly spelled out the ex­pect­a­tions and the freedoms needed for us to go along our work. So I'll continue getting to where my matter of privilege is, Hon­our­able Speaker.

* (16:20)

      As I said, we may disagree in this Chamber, but we all serve the Manitobans that put us here. And you know what, it's im­por­tant that factual errors or state­ments that are incorrect, misleading or leave false im­pressions on our powers here at the prov­incial level are addressed.

      Manitobans deserve the truth, and fact-based–as a matter of fact, evidence-based infor­ma­tion needs to be shared in this Chamber and outside of this Chamber when we are addressing Manitobans, whether that be during campaigns or while speaking during session.

      Everyday Manitobans implore us to bring them infor­ma­tion that they can trust and understand from a layman's perspective, not veiled in wording that con­fuses or twists the meaning of what has been presented.

      And that, Hon­our­able Speaker, is why I must bring this concern forward, as it has impacted my ability to represent the citizens of Brandon West and, therefore, all citizens of Manitoba.

      Bosc and Gagnon write about the difference be­tween privilege and contempt, and the fact that certain actions are affronts against this very Chamber. One of the listed examples is deliberately attempting to mislead the House.

      Unfor­tunately, that is an action that this Premier (Mr. Kinew) has under­taken in response to myself and other members on this side of the House when they're raising concerns.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, you may be compelled to recog­­nize these differences as a matter of debate, but it is much more clear cut, and I will provide specific, irrefutable examples through­out my matter of privilege.

      Manitobans have been clear: public safety is one of the most im­por­tant concerns that they have. It's been expressed by the Premier and his party, as well as our party, the utmost importance of public safety. [interjection]

      Thank you.

      And I will add to that again, Hon­our­able Speaker, that I've spent my career, 33 years, over three decades–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I would ask the member to please get back to his matter of privilege and direct his comments to his matter of privilege.

      The hon­our­able member for Brandon East (Mr. Simard)–oh, member for Brandon West.

Mr. Balcaen: As you're aware, I have some hearing dif­fi­cul­ties, so I have to take a moment to use the hearing device in order to catch exactly what you're saying. I ap­pre­ciate, again, the infor­ma­tion that you're provi­ding me to continue on this route.

      So–I have to find where I was, sorry–Manitobans have been clear that public safety is one of the most im­por­tant concerns that they have, and that is where it's leading to my matter of privilege that I rise in this House to speak about today, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      Manitobans not only expect a safe and secure com­munity, but they deserve it. They deserve to be able to leave their homes and walk to their cars, walk in their com­mu­nities, their neighbourhoods, and not only have the feeling that they are safe, but know that they are safe and protected.

      Manitobans want to be able to go out with their families, with their children, with their grandchildren and with their great-grandchildren to walk in parks, in playgrounds, at fairs and know that they will all return home safe and sound after a day of family time and adventure. Manitobans want and deserve to know that if they are the unfor­tunate–unfor­tunate–victims of a crime, especially one of violence, that they will be pro­tected from reoccurrence and that offenders will be dealt with appropriately, justly and timely.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I have been fortunate to pro­tect the people of Brandon, Westman and all of Manitoba since 1990 when I began my law en­force­ment career. I have worked the front lines of uniform policing, attending to Manitobans' 911 calls, calls that are often made during the worst circum­stances imaginable and while our citizens are ex­per­iencing trauma that many of you in this Chamber can only imagine in your very worst nightmares.

      I have worked in detective units where I have been assigned to follow up on horrific–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I've asked the member a couple times now to please keep his comments relevant to his matter of privilege. I believe he's giving a nice political speech, but please, let's hear what your matter of privilege is.

Mr. Balcaen: I will certainly get to that matter of privilege. I've touched on it a couple of times, and I will continue to make sure that–[interjection] I'm sorry?

The Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

      The hon­our­able member for Brandon West (Mr. Balcaen) has the floor.

Mr. Balcaen: Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker, ap­pre­ciate that very much and the op­por­tun­ity to continue my matter of privilege here in this House.

      As I said, some of the areas while I was a detec­tive would be–I would be assigned to follow up on some of these horrific crimes that happen within our province and within our cities, and crimes that victims hope and pray that their offenders will be locked away for life. A lot of them look to bail reform for this, to the bail system. And that's where I am heading with this point of privilege, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      I've also been in the drug en­force­ment units where we focused on traffickers who brought powered–powdered death to our com­mu­nities. And I speak of these because–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order, please.

      The member from Brandon West still has the floor. [interjection] Order, please.

      If the member would please address his matter of privilege and never mind what the rulings of the Speaker are about calling order. Please get to your matter of privilege sooner rather than later.

Mr. Balcaen: Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker, and I ap­pre­ciate the guidance again.

      I speak about the traffickers and the drug traf­fickers that bring in this powdered death to our com­mu­nities because it's one of the causes of crime. And it's certainly an area that the Premier (Mr. Kinew) and this NDP gov­ern­ment has spoke about, is being tough on crime, but the causes of crime. And if it's not recog­nized in my matter of privilege that clauses of crime are what has brought us to this matter of privilege. That is why I'm bringing this forward, Hon­our­able Speaker.

* (16:30)

      I've also been in executive positions within our police service where I got to advocate for real change on the bail system at a national level where federal laws that are embedded in such statutes as the Criminal Code of Canada and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are legis­lated. These are both areas that we need to recog­nize are federal issues, Hon­our­able Speaker, and the relevance for this is that bail reform can only be done at a federal level. [interjection] It cannot be done, as has been spoken to–

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Balcaen: It cannot be done at a prov­incial level without con­sul­ta­tion and direction from the federal gov­ern­ment. They are the ones that make legis­lation at the federal level such as the Criminal Code of Canada and–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I've repeatedly asked the member to get to his matter of privilege. [interjection] I'd strongly advise him to get to his matter of privilege–[interjection]– now, and I'd ask the Gov­ern­ment House Leader (MLA Fontaine) to please refrain from commenting, parti­cularly when the Speaker is standing.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: Order, order.

      Once again, the Speaker is standing. That means your applause comes to a stop, chatter comes to a stop, and you show the Speaker, the position, the respect it deserves, and I will expect that in the future.

Mr. Balcaen: I ap­pre­ciate those words of wisdom as in my career having that respect for the author­ity has always been paramount, and I hope I observe that daily with you in this House.

      I'm having a difficult time, sometimes getting to the text of my member–order of privilege, Hon­our­able Speaker, because I keep getting heckling and, of course, I have to stop and listen to what's being said before I can go forward. So I will continue on this path and thank you.

      My commit­ment to public safety is unwavering, and I dedi­cated my entire life to the study, practice and imple­men­ta­tion of public safety initiatives, including bail reform. And this has included over 33 years as a law en­force­ment officer, as a member of research com­­mit­tees on such topics as bail reform, involve­ment in local, prov­incial and national com­mit­tees that focus on public safety and bail reform. And I can bring in these levels a voice to federal laws, some­thing that–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I've asked the member from Brandon West to please tell me what his matter of privilege is. I've asked him several times, and I would strongly recom­mend that he puts down his prepared speech and tells us what the matter of privilege is, which he wishes to have us address.

Mr. Balcaen: Hon­our­able Speaker, I ap­pre­ciate the guidance again. I've mentioned it a few times that my matter of privilege has to do with bail and bail reform and the fact that bail is actually a federal juris­dic­tion when it comes to bail reform and not a prov­incial juris­dic­tion, as was brought forward by this Premier and his party during elections.

      So we've also heard, Hon­our­able Speaker, that false and misleading infor­ma­tion in this Chamber during question periods, during speeches by this side of the House, as well as during their campaign; so that is some of my concerns on this matter of privilege, is that I can't effectively do my job as an MLA.

      But secondly, as the critic for Justice, when false and misleading statements are presented in this House, and I have the commit­ment to Manitobans to make sure that infor­ma­tion that is put out in this House is relevant, is true and is timely. And so I wanted to make sure that I brought this matter of privilege forward, because I'm deeply rooted in safety, and I want to make sure that all Manitobans have the op­por­tun­ity to be–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      I'd ask the member to now conclude his matter of privilege. I've asked the member to please conclude his matter of privilege.

Mr. Balcaen: Well, thank you for the guidance, Honour­able Speaker. I have a few more points that I must bring forward on this matter of privilege, because it's absolutely relevant to what we have been talking about–[interjection]–on bail reform. I don't find it a laughing matter myself; I find it extremely, extremely serious. So–and I would ask that members opposite respect the matter of privilege that is brought forward.

      Again, as a new member, I've read through some of the directions of this House, and one of them is the matter of privilege, and it should be given due respect, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      So, again, getting back to time that–I think it's im­por­tant being a lifetime learner on these areas of law and of bail reform. It is certainly im­por­tant that I, as a critic for Justice, as a member of this Legis­lative Assembly and as a repre­sen­tative of my con­stit­uents of Brandon West, that I have the ability to bring this matter of privilege forward and touch on the many points that I think Manitobans should be aware of, that Manitobans have maybe been misled on or their guidance isn't necessarily where I think it should be regarding federal bail reform.

      And that's why, Hon­our­able Speaker, I have brought this matter of privilege forward regarding bail reform and the misguidance that has been put out to Manitobans. And I want to make sure that they're well aware of this, as I continue on.

      So I can continue to articulate and discuss bail reform and what can't be done on the Canadian and Manitoban stage–

The Speaker: Order, please.

      The member from Brandon West is begin­ning to try my patience. I've asked him to please conclude his matter of privilege, and I would ask that he now concludes it.

Mr. Balcaen: When pressed on this vital subject of bail reform, this Premier (Mr. Kinew) has reiterated commit­ments that he made in the election regarding bail reform. Indeed, he is conflating the terms with bail monitoring, and has misrepresented this Legislature's ability to change and influence the Criminal Code of Canada.

      So, with that said, Hon­our­able Speaker, there are many, many areas of this that need to be looked at regarding bail reform and the fact that it cannot be changed at a prov­incial level.

* (16:40)

      So, con­sid­ering all of this, Hon­our­able Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Mr. Wowchuk), that this matter be referred to an all-party com­mit­tee for review.

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

Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): So the member opposite and I have one thing that we agree on, and that is that it is a fact that he's just a new member, just recently getting elected, so he's been elected for a couple of minutes now and certainly doesn't understand what a matter of privilege is and how im­por­tant and actually, quite honestly, how sacred a matter of privilege is within our legis­latures and Parliament.

      And so he is doing the bidding of his members, his caucus there, to try to stand up in this House–he's actually going against what he was actually voted in for, which is to do the work of the Chamber, to do what he's elected to do, which is to debate bills.

      But he's being used by members in his caucus to delay our legis­lation, our legis­lative agenda, which is a really, really good legis­lative agenda. So I'm looking forward to when they're going to hear from our mem­bers on their legis­lation.

      So, again, Hon­our­able Speaker, I would question, and I would submit to the House that this is not the earliest op­por­tun­ity that the member opposite had to raise this supposed matter of privilege and, secondly, it simply isn't a matter of privilege.

      Let's get on with the busi­ness of this House. Let us move into intro­duction of bills and do the work that we are elected to do.

The Speaker: On the matter of privilege raised by the hon­our­able member for Brandon West (Mr. Balcaen), I would like to inform the House that this is clearly a difference of facts. Past Manitoba Speakers have ruled on several similar occasions that a dispute between two members as allegations of fact does not constitute a breach of privilege.

      Bosc and Gagnon advise, on page 148 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, that if a question of privilege involves a disagreement between two or more members as to facts, the Speaker typical­ly rules that such a dispute does not prevent members from fulfilling their parlia­mentary functions, nor does such a disagreement breach the collective privileges of the House.

      Beauchesne's citation 31(1) advises that a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of facts does not fulfill the con­di­tion of parlia­mentary privilege.

      Joseph Maingot, on page 223 of the second edi­tion of Parlia­mentary Privilege in Canada, states: a dispute between two members about questions of facts said in a debate does not constitute a valid question of privilege because it is a matter of debate.

      I would therefore rule that the hon­our­able member does not have a prima facie case–prima facie matter of privilege.

Mr. Derek Johnson (Official Opposition House Leader): I respectfully challenge your ruling.

The Speaker: The ruling of the Speaker has been challenged.

Voice Vote

The Speaker: All those in favour of the ruling, please say aye.

Some Honourable Members: Aye.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

The Speaker: I believe the Ayes have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. Johnson: I really thought we had it that time, Honourable Speaker.

      I would like a recorded vote.

The Speaker: A recorded vote has been called. Please call in the members.

* (17:30)

      The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Ayes

Altomare, Asagwara, Blashko, Brar, Bushie, Cable, Chen, Cross, Dela Cruz, Devgan, Fontaine, Kinew, Kostyshyn, Lathlin, Loiselle, Maloway, Marcelino, Moroz, Moses, Moyes, Naylor, Oxenham, Pankratz, Redhead, Sala, Sandhu, Schmidt, Schott, Smith, Wasyliw, Wiebe.

Nays

Balcaen, Bereza, Byram, Ewasko, Guenter, Jackson, Johnson, King, Lagassé, Narth, Nesbitt, Piwniuk, Schuler, Wharton, Wowchuk.

Clerk (Mr. Rick Yarish): Yeas 31, Nays 15.

* (17:40)

The Speaker: Motion is accordingly passed.

* * *

The Speaker: The–[interjection]

      I would just point out to all members that the one member that was trying to vote did not have their camera on when the bells stopped ringing, so, unfor­tunately, they can't vote at that point.

      Ruling of the Chair has been sustained.

* * *

The Speaker: The hour now being past 5 o'clock, this House stands adjourned and is adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.


 

 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, March 18, 2024

CONTENTS


Vol. 31

Matter of Privilege

Jackson  801

Fontaine  801

Matter of Privilege

Ewasko  801

Fontaine  804

Matter of Privilege

Khan  805

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Members' Statements

Russ and Fred

Fontaine  811

Thunderhill Ski Area

Wowchuk  812

Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba

Blashko  812

Grant Lazaruk

Nesbitt 813

Earl Grey Community Centre and Dante Day Nursery

Wasyliw   813

Matter of Privilege

(Continued)

Fontaine  814

Lamoureux  814

Matter of Privilege

Balcaen  815

Fontaine  819