Manitoba Hansard — 16 June 2016 (Sitting 22A, 41st Legislature, 1st Session)

41-1-22a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session – Forty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Myrna Driedger Speaker Vol. LXIX No. 22A - 10 a.m., Thursday, June 16, 2016 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-First Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLUM, James Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP BINDLE, Kelly Thompson PC CHIEF, Kevin Point Douglas NDP CLARKE, Eileen, Hon. Agassiz PC COX, Cathy, Hon. River East PC CULLEN, Cliff, Hon. Spruce Woods PC CURRY, Nic Kildonan PC DRIEDGER, Myrna, Hon. Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph, Hon. Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FIELDING, Scott, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC FLETCHER, Steven, Hon. Assiniboia PC FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon.

River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin, Hon. Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Clifford Emerson PC GUILLEMARD, Sarah Fort Richmond PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC ISLEIFSON, Len Brandon East PC JOHNSON, Derek Interlake PC JOHNSTON, Scott St. James PC KINEW, Wab Fort Rouge NDP KLASSEN, Judy Kewatinook Lib. LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAGIMODIERE, Alan Selkirk PC LAMOUREUX, Cindy Burrows Lib. LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas NDP LINDSEY, Tom Flin Flon NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MARTIN, Shannon Morris PC MAYER, Colleen St.

Vital PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine, Hon. Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Arthur-Virden PC REYES, Jon St. Norbert PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron, Hon. St. Paul PC SELINGER, Greg St. Boniface NDP SMITH, Andrew Southdale PC SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC SWAN, Andrew Minto NDP TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WHARTON, Jeff Gimli PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian, Hon.

Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC YAKIMOSKI, Blair Transcona PC

927 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, June 16, 2016 The House met at 10 a.m. Madam Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom, and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen. Please be seated. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon.

Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, as previously agreed, would you please resolve the House into Committee of Supply? Madam Speaker: The House will now resolve into Committee of Supply. Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) EXECUTIVE COUNCIL * (10:00) Mr. Chairperson (Dennis Smook): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order? This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for Executive Council. As previously agreed, questioning for this department will proceed in a global manner. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. To begin, could the First Minister walk us through what some of the –what the cost of borrowing is for the Province right now? What are some of the interest rates that the Province is paying? An Honourable Member: While we're–oh, sorry. Mr. Chairperson: The honourable First Minister. Hon.

Brian Pallister (Premier): I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. It's been a full 16 hours since the last session. I've already forgotten the rules. I'm sorry. While we're digging up the detail on the interest rates, I'll just say that we do know that the interest rates are currently at historical lows, and so the borrowing that is being done currently is at lower rates than was historically the case. We also know, though, that the cost of borrowing is somewhat higher as a consequence of our credit rating downgrade, which occurred last year, and the warn ing, of course, as well, the year before.

These things impact on the cost of borrowing, as they do, as everyone who has ever levered money for a personal mortgage or, you know, a business –small business loan would understand that the higher the risk of the individual–I know my first loan was –I had the security of a nine-year-old used car, so my interest rate was a little higher than my brother who had my dad backing him on the farm. It was a –if I sound like I resent that, it's not true. I’m very proud of my brother.

But when the –when borrowing is done, it's important, obviously, for us as a Province to try to keep those rates as low as we possibly can. So here's –I'll just read this into the record, I guess. I've got some–thank you very much. An Honourable Member: Good timing. Mr. Pallister: Yes, that was good. Thank you. Lots of eye trouble. The '16- 17 public debt costs are estimated to be about $230 million, an increase of $10 million or 4.5 per cent from the '15 -16 adjusted vote of 220, increase of $25 million or 12.2 from the '15-16 forecast, which was 205.

So, with–in other words, last year's forecasted debt was lower than is the case currently. This is–and, of course, this increase is primarily due to the increased cost of deficit financing. Public debt costs are the net cost of interest and related expenses payable with respect to the public debt of Manitoba. And just for further clarification, the number at the top used–I think it's approximately $900 million–

928 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 is

summary and what I just referr ed to is core, so it's two different subcategories. One includes things like Manitoba Hydro and the other does not, so that's why it's a lower number on the–the core number is lower. So there's –there are–there's a lot more detail here, but I'll –I won't g o on. I'll let the member go into more detail, if he wishes. * (10:10) Mr. Kinew: Yes, I do appreciate the high- level

summary provided and would like just a bit more detail, like in terms of the interest rates, like the rates that are being paid by the Province. And if the First Minister could provide some additional detail on that, it would be much appreciated. Mr. Pallister: Well, the staff's digging around here to see if we can get it here, and if not, I'll certainly get back to the member later today, it would be my hope, at the latest, with detail on interest rates on that.

I thin k if we could also get some additional information for the members on length of time and so on, you know, on the bond terms, that would be also, I think, would be good information to have for committee members to know how long the various borrowings are that we are obtaining. Mr. Kinew: Yes, I think it would probably be beneficial for everyone around the table to have, you know, a relatively full accounting of the various bond yields relative to the lifespan of each instrument. So as much as can be –detail as can be provided without being overly onerous burden on the staff I think would be beneficial.

I had heard, you know, a 30- year bond made mention of in some other conversations around the building, so that in particular, I think, would be beneficial, but I think we'd like to see the others in particular. And, I guess, just for greater specificity, you know, if we could also hear specifically what is the cost of the borrowing to finance capital projects. I think that would also be very helpful for our deliberations and conversations. Mr. Pallister: Sure, so we'll get the member additional information and more detail on that. I look forward to further discussion on that as we can.

If not, again, this morning, it would be this afternoon. Mr. Kinew: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, again, thanks for the undertaking to get that information. I'd like the First Minister to share with the committee, you know, what his plan is with respect to using public -private partnerships going forward with respect to cap ital projects, what sort of role he feels that will play, you know, under this mandate. Mr. Pallister: Good. I'll address that topic. I want to just back up for a second and say I have some additional information here, too, if members are interested, that I brought.

And this is information in respect to how the budget is designed that I thought might be interesting. This is the –so I was looking for information I thought members –all members might benefit from that I would have loved to have gotten when I c ame into the Legislature, quite frankly, and didn't, about how operating budgets are prepared, how departments put together their proposals for spending. And I'm not trying to–I'm letting members know–members will have their own questions they want to ask.

I’m not, you know –but these are–this is just other information that I wanted–I thought might be helpful to members, not just those who are new, quite frankly, because a lot of this information, after my first four years in the Legislature –I wasn't aware after four years how budgets are prepared. So I thought it might be interesting. If we wanted to go there later on, these are some topics we could address. I brought some information also on how capital budgets are prepared, not just operating expenses–you know, the salary costs and that type of thing–but also the capital budgets.

So that–and that, I guess, what twigged me reminding me to mention this, is the member's question about public -private partnerships, because that is one approach that many governments have taken in respect of obtaining capital, getting capital investment into projects that benefit the public, but are not exclusively funded in many jurisdictions by the public. Examples in Manitoba of what are commonly referred to as 3P–we'll get some more background on the specifics of the topic and I understand they can be designed any number of different ways. There were some 3Ps done by the previous administration.

I know one example was Chief Peguis extension was done through a public -private partnership. As well, the Bill Clement bridge –I call it Moray – was a public -private partnership. I'm struggling to remember, but I'll get more background. It's an interesting topic to learn more about. I've done a little bit of reading. Don't claim to be a

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 929 great expert on the topic, but I’m interested in how other governments have used–and this – and previous government used this approach to, specifically in these examples, to do infrastructure, invest in infrastructure and get, you know, because we have–we all know we have an infrastructure deficit. We have a massive number of proposals coming forward from individuals and municipal local governments, indigenous governments as well, on projects that they feel are high priority, and limited dollars to do this solely from the public sector point of view.

And so I gather this pressure is there elsewhere, not just exclusively in Manitoba or in Canada, but around the world. And so I know, for example, in Saskatchewan, they just proceeded with –this would be, I think, less than two years ago–a public -private partnership on a water -sewer major project in Regina, and they actually included –they gave the public the right to decide. They had–actually, had a referendum on the project and said what do you think? Do you want to go ahead with this project or not? And it was, from what I understand, a fairly close outcome and they decided to proceed.

What I liked about that approach, I guess, at first blush, was that it included the people in it. It let the people ha ve a say. They got a chance to decide whether they felt this was a smart approach to take or not. And so I tend–tended–tend to believe in those –some of those cases these things can work rather well. So we'll get more detail for the member on the specific aspects Manitoba's deal. Oh, of course, phase 2 rapid transit –I should've thought of that –is also, of course, a 3P partnership as well, so, yes. Mr.

Kinew: So, appreciating, you know, the substance of the First Minister's previous response that, you know, he does want to take a look at some of the information further, can he share with the committee what he sees is the advantages, disadvantages of, you know, the public -private partnerships approach and how would that factor into his decision-making process about whether or not to deploy them under his mandate? Mr. Pallister: Well, again, with the caveat that I –in giving a response to the member, I'm not claiming to have a Ph .D. in this issue.

I'm simply an interested reader of information from whatever sou rce I can find it. I think, like most of us, we're lifelong learners in this business or we become lifelong learners, anyway, with the sheets of paper–they get put on our desk. So I just say I know there are pros and cons to any approach and, certainly, when–I think one of the arguments that opponents have made to 3P approaches would be that the private sector has to pay more to borrow money than the public sector, so it should be the public sector that does all the projects.

Of course, the challenge w ith that is if you're borrowing too much money, you're –for infrastructure–you're not able to borrow as much money for other things. * (10:20) So there are always priorities that have to be weighed in any government and, I suppose, right now health care w ould rank very high as a priority. An example might be the construction of personal - care homes, something we've committed to doing and believe, you know, is a clear priority for our government, something that may have been pushed down the list a bit over the last few years by the previous administration.

So the argument is that there, you know, if we can access some additional capital to do these infrastructure projects, share in the consequence of that, share in the obligations to the public, and the private sector gets some reward, the public gets the reward of having capital to be put to other priorities at the same time. And it's not –it doesn't have to be put towards the –those infrastructure priorities to the same degree it would have. So that would be the argument, simply put, as to why some would argue that the 3 P projects assist the general public good.

The argument against, I think, is principally that private sector entities shouldn't profit from the investment that they make in these types of endeavours because they are for the public good. I know in Ontario they have –they use toll roads. If you've driven around Greater Toronto Area, you know you got tolled. And there are different approaches different governments take. I don't –I would not be incl ined to say one is perfect, but I do think there are good arguments to be better understood on both sides of that debate. Mr.

Kinew: Is the First Minister contemplating using public -private partnerships to pay for the additional personal -care home beds th at he is committed to adding in the province? Mr. Pallister: What we're planning on doing is developing a model that creates a partnership, which is essentially what most health -care institutions in our province have done and are endeavouring to

930 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 do on an ongoing basis so that you have shared support network in the interests of all. Of course, traditionally, this was done, say, with hospitals in the old days before RHAs. If you were involved with a hospital organization, you know there were normally local associations that involved themselves in assisting in various ways in those facilities. There– well, you remember the old auxiliary model that's still in place in a number of hospitals with volunteer people assisting in a variety of ways.

You also had s hared funding on a number of fronts, volunteer activity, very plentiful. These are forms of partnerships, capital investment too. Significant donations through hospital foundations from the private sector, including and not limited to the provision for additional equipment, additional supports, additional, you know, even TVs in the lounge, furniture, you know, things like this. This is a model that's not new to Manitoba, and I think Manitoba has a tremendous strength in the sense that we lead the count ry in supporting worthy causes, charitable causes. We lead the country in volunteering, frankly.

Every Stats Can compilation of data since they started that stat shows Manitobans lead the way. So partnership models like this suit our heritage. They suit our nature. We understand that you can't get a better province if you don't step up and help. And so our people tend to step up and help, and it's a good quality, I think, of Manitobans in every respect. So for the personal -care home question the member asked, I don't think we should rule out that model. I know the previous administration enjoyed a fine celebration in Niverville when the Niverville personal -care home opened.

There wasn't a partnership there in the sense that I think we could have one be cause there wasn't a dollar of government money in that facility. It was totally privately constructed. But it, of course, offered an opportunity for celebration because of the great work that people did, and there was –there were government representatives from the previous administration there for the ribbon cutting.

And that was good because the government will assume the ongoing operating obligations that are important, but there also is a private –significant private sector investment that was mad e in that facility's construction. Folks who made that investment, many of them made an investment by volunteering, many by working, supplying goods at cost; others by simply using their skills to advise or to construct; others on an ongoing basis to volunteer in the facility and to work with the seniors in the facility –beautiful facility, a fine end result.

I think probably the member would agree the key thing is to address the issue of the shortage of personal-care-home beds, and then we'll talk about different models to do it. But the key is to recognize it's a serious problem. It's a deficiency in Manitoba right now that we have to address. And, as I say, I see the challenge there. I also see a great opportunity for us to address it effectively. And I wouldn't rule out working with–in a partnership of some manner with private sector people. To me, private sector people means Manitobans. Mr.

Kinew: Yes, I think I share some of the observations the First Minister makes. My old boss, now University of W innipeg president, but who was formerly a deputy minister in the Alberta public service for a number of years, originally a Winnipegger from Transcona, upon returning to the province from Alberta, she often, in the time since, has shared the comment that i n Alberta people often talk about what they have in terms of houses, recreational vehicles, you know, big boats, things like that.

But , when she came back to Manitoba, she noticed that Manitobans often comment about what they're involved with in terms of volunteerism, in terms of, you know, time in the community, things like that. So, yes, I take seriously what the First Minister is saying and I do appreciate that. Is there an accounting in, you know, the hands of the civil servants that show what the pote ntial costs of borrowing from, you know, a private, you know, what a private partner in a public- private partnership would get, what the interest rates would be that they are currently paying? Mr.

Pallister: I think we could probably just phone a bank and find out. I mean, these guys are already working on the first question. I'm not going to undertake to get them to phone the bank. We know that governments generally can borrow at lower rates than private se ctor companies. And I would be the first one to observe that. There are very rare exceptions, I'm told, in terms of, you know, incredibly large multinational corporations. We might be able to obtain some comparable data from the government of Saskatchewan because of the recency of their project; then it might be one we could dig up.

But it would be historical data, right?

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 931 Obviously, the rates are going to change somewhat, though they've remained relatively low. I say relatively low because I'm now flashin g back into my memory and my first mortgage, which was 17 and a half per cent for five years locked in, which I thought was a great deal at the time. So we don't borrow at rates like that now, and that's really good.

I watched what happened with those high interest rates, and that's partly my motivation in a recent trip the Finance Minister and I to meet with the bond-rating agencies, because we really want to be proactive on guarding against an additional downgrade on our credit rating, if we can. It's i nteresting. People get complacent with interest rates. I did a presentation at the Winnipeg chamber recently and I asked the audience to put up their hand if they remembered –if they had borrowed money at, ever, at double -digit interest rates.

And that audience revealed itself to be very, very aware of what double -digit interest rates were. About half the audience put up their hand. But the under -40 people didn't put up their hand, because they haven't ever had to borrow money at those rates. And there is a danger with thinking that borrowing money because it's cheap to borrow it is a smart proposition in–from the standpoint of money management.

It is not ever a smart proposition, because, of course, besides the interest serving costs– servicing costs, the capital has to be repaid, naturally, as well, and because excessive borrowing in any year can then erode one's ability to borrow in the subsequent year, and so what happens over time with that philosophy and money management practice is that, on a graph, the line slopes upward from the left to the right as obligations compound over time and the ability of people in a society to service that debt does not go up at a commensurate –at a corresponding degree –to a corresponding degree necessarily.

So what happens is that there becomes pressure in terms of limited assets over a period of time on such a graph as I've described. Over time, the capacity to do the things you want to do is limited by the spending of the past. * (10:30) Now, this compounds so that, for example, we know the Building Manitoba Fund commitment to government made to spend one seventh of PST revenue on infrastructure, doing so in, well, failing to do so in the first two years, but then succeeding in doing so the year before the election, sounds good in the short term.

The trouble is, over time that obligation accelerates and so the Building Manitoba Fund is overcommitted now. In the next couple of years there won't be extra capital for new projects because the projects that have taken up that money don't stop costing. It isn't a one -year thing. It's an amortized thing. So, over a period of time , capital projects compound, and as a consequence reduces the ability of future governments going forward to access capital to the degree they might want to for additional projects, for maintenance, for repairs, things like that.

So, just–I guess what I'm describing is just the catch-up factor of the way that govern- ments catalogue their expenditures. They –when a government builds a bridge, it doesn't just show up as a cost one year and it's done. It's amortized, so like a mortgage. It takes 25 or 40 years, depends on the asset, and different assets are categorized differently on the books. But it takes an obligation in the first year, doesn't mean that there's no obligation in the next 24.

And so the obligation continues and then, subsequently, it's happening again and again and again and again, and as these projects continue to be put on the books there is less capital available. Now, compounding the difficulty is the consequence of interest rate increases because if an interest rate goes up, obviously, then the debt service component gets higher and you have even less money to spend in future years. Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): Sorry, I didn't quite obtain a clear commitment from the Premier (Mr. Pallister) about Freedom Road.

What is your government's commitment to freedom –building Freedom Road on Shoal Lake–in Shoal Lake? Mr. Pallister: Well, we think it should be built. Ms. Marcelino: Thank you to the Premier. That's a big comfort. That road is very, very important. Our First Nations brothers and sisters from Shoal Lake has endured so much suffering because of the absence of a road. They're marooned in an island as a result. Also, I would like to, Mr. Chair, ask the Premier: Is he committed to maintaining the same level of funding for the all-weather road in the North? Mr.

Pallister: I should mention, back to Freedom Road for a second, if I could, just to further clarify for the member. I appreciate her interest in that project and I am very interested in that project. I've travelled to that community, I've recognized what the

932 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 member is saying. I wouldn't want her to assume that all problems and challenges faced by that community would be solved by a road necessarily, but certainly some would be addressed, for sure. I think it's important to know that there's a discussion under way on that project and others including northern roads with potential partners.

And in this instance, I'm referencing not exclusively the federal government, and so in terms of the –in terms of answering the question specifically, I can't do that honestly becaus e I'm in the middle of those discussions with those partners. As the member knows, the cost estimates on projects can change, and they do, and they have. And so, there's discussion and negotiation with partners that happens, as happened when she was in government on–not exclusively on infrastructure projects, but on many things. And so she's asking a question I can't answer just because of the reasons I've explained. Ms.

Marcelino: Repeating the other question, how about funding for the all -weather road i n the northeast side? Mr. Pallister: I was trying to explain that this is also an area of discussion, and as the member is aware, the arguments that I just put forward–they're not arguments, but the reasons, the rationale, apply with the East Side Road and with Freedom Road and with numerous other infrastructure projects where there is a federal government currently committed, as was the previous federal government, to investing more money in infrastructure.

We're negotiating to obtain the maximum adva ntages for Manitobans, as we should, on these projects. So, not exclusively Freedom Road but many others as well are on the table. So these things are in process. This is an ongoing thing. The previous administration was involved in these discussions. I'v e inherited the results of the discussions to April 19th and now continue with those discussions. Ms. Marcelino: In the discussions by the government or the minister–[interjection] Thank you.

In the discussions with the East Side Road Authority, now non- existent, what happens to the community benefit agreements struck by ESRA with the local First Nations community? What is happening now with those community benefit agreements? Are they being honoured by the Department of Infrastructure as they do the r oad building in that part of the province? Mr. Pallister: Well, any community benefit agreements, or CBAs, negotiated in good faith will be honoured. That's the obligation of the Crown, I think.

The obligation of the Crown in–historically, in many respects in dealing with indigenous people has not been met satisfactorily, and I think it's important that we restore stronger relationships of trust, and that would mean fulfilling the obligations of the Crown. And this is why I've long been a supporter of the duty to consult and of framing it, as we spoke a little bit about the other day, of framing it so that First Nations people, leaders, community members have a good understanding of what the obligations are.

And also the Crown and private sector operations interested in working on First Nations lands or traditional lands have obligations as well. And the better job we do, I think, of framing those obligations and understandings is –it's going to be beneficial to helping communities move forward. Ms. Marcelino: I thank the Premier (Mr. Pallister) for the answer. Mr. Chair, through you, I would like to ask the Premier: Has, in his –I don't know how many times he has met or spoken with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, his new government is committed to helping build the all-weather road on the east side.

Is that part of the conversation or future conversation that the Premier would like to undertake with the Prime Minister? Mr. Pallister: I will say to the member, and I know she is the same, when I have private discussions with people, I keep them private unless I have permission from them to say what we've talked about. And so I would respect that with my discussions with the Prime Ministe r. That being said, I think it was reported already and I think the Prime Minister put out a press release about it, so I wouldn’t be remiss in saying that we have had discussion on the topic she raises. * (10:40) Ms.

Marcelino: In the budget there's $48 million cuts to infrastructure, can the Premier provide us a list of what is in those 48 million cuts out of those budgets? Mr. Pallister: No, I think–yes, I was trying to figure out what the number was the member is alluding to, and what she's talking about is the difference between what the NDP ran on in the election on

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 933 spending and what we committed to spending, and that's not a cut. That's us keeping our promise, not keeping the so- called promise of the previous administration when they were campaigning for re-election. Our budgetary commitment to infrastructure investment is approximately $1.8 billion, and that is a very, very significant commitment. What is also very significant about the commitment is our commitment to continue it on an ongoing bas is.

This will allow us to get a much better result than the previous government's approach which was to make the commitment, underinvest in infrastructure by 20 per cent or more each year for the first four years of their mandate to the tune of over $2 bil lion that was not put into infrastructure, but went into other department spending. This was the previous approach, and what resulted from it was, of course, less value for money because the– as a consequence of it, we got less potholes filled. We had les s faith in the process that the private sector in construction companies engaged in when bidding on jobs.

Fewer participants in those processes meant higher bids generally would be awarded. Also, because of the lack of faith in the consistency of the gover nment's ability to do what it said it would do, private sector companies did not upgrade their capacity to participate knowing that, based on the record, the administration likely would not follow through on its s tated commitments budgetarily. This would mean, of course, that –therefore, that companies' capacities were limited.

Their ability to grow, to invest, to hire, to purchase materials and equipment were all somewhat supressed as a result of this betrayal of the trust of the people, not just the industry, but of Manitoba. Now, our commitment in respect of infrastructure is to do consistent investment. We anticipate that the consequence of that would be a restoration of some faith in the relationship among the–not just the heavy construction industry, though that would be a major part of it, but other industries, building trades and the like who all participate when encouraged to do so in a bidding process.

I would also point out to the member that the previous administration's lack of good faith in respect of these things was highlighted to me by many of the industry participants who shared with me their frustration at the government awarding–as the Auditor General had pointed out two years ago in her report –untendered contracts that would go to a competitor in the industry, but not posting the information on–in the required manner so that – imagine your frustration. You know, you're in the industry. You want to compete. You're doing your best to compete.

You find out the person you're competing against has been given a big job by the administration. You can't even get the details. You know, people got very frustrated with that and communicated on a regular basis. So this is why we believe changing the system, improving the transparency, making public all the information on untendered contracts is the way to go, just as the Auditor General recommended and just as the law required. And the previous administration ignored the law. We will not. We will invest in infrastructure on a regular basis. We will d o it openly.

We will encourage the industry to participate through competitive processes whenever possible, and we will make sure that we get better value for the money we invest. I don't know how many Manitobans took seriously the promises of the government in respect of infrastructure knowing that four out of five previous years they hadn't kept their word. I don't think many. But I want the member to know that what she was referring to in her

preamble was unjustifiably labelled by her a cut and i s not a cut at all. Our commitment is to invest, to invest consistently and to get better value for money for Manitobans. And we will do that. Ms. Marcelino: I was informed by my colleague that he has requested, and it's now under advisement, a detaile d list of the $9 -million reduction in the Education budget, right? Education– [interjection] spending. Now, in the budget, the department's highway capital budget was cut by $48 million. Can the Premier also provide us, under advisement, the list of–identifying the $48 million as well? Mr. Pallister: Well, again, because the member is wrong in her

preamble, I can't provide her with information which doesn't exist , so I will not undertake to provide her with information to support a false

preamble. She's inc orrect. I will, however, outline for her in detail –and it is contained in the budget document itself –the investments we're committing to in our budget of '16 -17, and she may review these in the budget document on page 12 as well.

934 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 In terms of core government infrastructure investment, roads, highways, bridges, flood protection and parks, under the category of highways and bridges, $542- million commitment; water-related capital, $45 million; parks, cottages and camping, 12; for a subtotal of $599 million.

In terms of capital grants, maintenance and preservation–we all know how important maintenance and preservation is even though the previous administration focused almost exclusively on new projects involving ribbons and signs as opposed to mai ntenance and preservation – maintenance and preservation capital grants for Building Manitoba Fund, $284 million; maintenance and preservation of highways, $144 million; maintenance and preservation of water, $10 million; subtotal 438, and your core governme nt infrastructure total is $1,037,000,000.

Under other provincial infrastructure as well, not related directly to the core government infrastructure that I just described, are significant investments in areas of health, $442 million; education, $241 mil lion; housing, $120 million; northern affairs communities, $15 million; and the other provincial infrastructure total $818 million for a total strategic infrastructure of one point – $1,855,000,000. Ms. Marcelino: I would like to go back again to my question yesterday, to my statement that a $40,000 annual joint family income is not a high income or wealthy Manitoban.

Last night I received a letter, and I believe other members of the government may have received this letter too. It was addressed to me an d I'd like to read it: Dear Ms. Marcelino, I'm a senior citizen that was counting on the seniors' education rebate this year that was scrapped by this Conservative government. Mr. Brian Pallister said on CJOB that he would honour the seniors' rebate as est ablished by the NDP party. I was waiting on the phone with that exact question when a caller by the name of Allen asked me question–asked the question for me.

That was the first lie on this issue. * (10:50) The second lie on this issue is an email receiv ed from Jillian Currie on April 15, 2016, four days prior to the election. And I quote: Per your question regarding seniors property tax rebates; the PC Party will commit to ensure that seniors are rebated as they have been under the current government. End quote. Who is holding this government accountable for the bare faced lie to seniors? How is it politicians can lie through their teeth just to acquire power and votes with no repercussions?

I am a low income earner trying desperately to hang on to my home and the seniors' tax rebate in full this year would have made that possible. I am appalled at the lack of integrity this government has shown and they are barely out of the starting gate. I am attaching a copy of the letter I wrote to Heather Stefanson, MLA for Tuxedo. Subsequently I found out this $470. amount wasn't even going to be deducted until Income Tax year 2016. Had they been upfront about this, I would not have voted for them.

However if they won in spite of being of honest about the Seniors' E ducation Rebate, I would have at least known it was an honest win. Yours truly, Maureen McGregor. Mr. Chairperson: Can I interrupt for a second here? Some of the language that's being used from that letter should not be brought forward. If you are going to talk about anybody, they should be used –name– their name should not be used, it should be their title, member or whatever it is. An Honourable Member: I'm reading from an email I received. I cannot–[interjection] Okay, could I ask– Mr.

Chairperson: Even though you're reading from a document, you should not be quoting any unparliamentary language. Ms. Marcelino: Could I request my colleague to read it? Mr. Kinew: The–my colleague from Logan has asked me to read the letter. I'll do so in a way that removes any unparliamentary language and personal references to members of the Legislative Assembly. Is that appropriate? Yes? Okay, thank you. All right, so I'll skip over the date and address at the top of the letter. Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. Would a copy of this letter be available for u s here?

It's a private document, so I believe it should be tabled. An Honourable Member: Okay. Mr. Chairperson: The time has ex pired, so I will – the First Minister, the honourable First Minister to respond. Mr. Pallister: So, first of all, it is beneath the member to read personal attacks and under somebody else's auspices. And it is unparliamentary,

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 935 as the Chairman noted, and disappoints me, especially because when we leave here all we will have is our reputation and our integrity and no one welcomes allegations put through a third party on the record or directly given. But the pure cowardice at reading into the record an accusa tion alleging lying five times in it is disappointing. It's disappointing because it does not reflect well on the member and certainly has no relevance to me.

I think the real point to be understood here is that our commitment to maintain the pre -existing seniors' tax rebate and to means tested is a principled and positive and well -supported endeavour to make sure that the people who need the support get it, and the shallow, callous, deliberate, poli tically motivated attempt by the previous government to purchase the votes of seniors who they had pillaged over the previous five or six years with massive tax hikes impacting on their take -home pay was despicable and beyond reprehensible. It was absolutely an assault on the senior population of our province.

And in the last days, last hours, before the election to go out and promise that they would quintuple the benefit and hope that people would actually believe it. They were preying on the naïveté of some in our province. They were preying on the very people that they had hurt with their endeavours, their tax –massive tax hikes, the highest in Canada, and most viciously their attacks on seniors were not appreciated by seniors. Now the member comes here and she reads a quote attacking my integrity on an issue she agrees with, on an issue she says we took the right steps.

She says, quote: We agree with that PC plan to introduce income testing of the seniors' education tax credit. Those who can afford I think a progressive taxation, those who can afford to susta in themselves should do, and those who cannot in society should help until these folks are lifted up.

I encourage her to have the integrity and personal authenticity necessary to stand up when people make accusations that are false and she knows it, to sa y they're false and not to try to obtain some petty partisan advantage from every interaction she has with those very people who she as a Cabinet minister took money away from. Kate Kehler , executive director of the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, hardly traditionally a right-wing think tank, welcomed the measure, calling it a very good move.

I mean, I could read into the record numbers of emails I've gotten from people saying congratulations on the courage of your endeavour and thank you very much for supporting us. As low-income seniors, we appreciate it. But I'm not going to do that. I simply ask the member if she would like to have a discussion on issues of this nature, policy discussions, let's discuss the policy but don't bring into this place contrived quotations, real or not, from people and read non- parliamentary information into the record to attack my integrity. I do not appreciate that. I don't think Manitobans appreciate that.

And I would encourage her not to do that. I certainly have not mentioned a word about her experience with Health Canada; I've left it alone. She knows that. And I've done that out of personal respect for her and I expect the same respect back. Mr. Chairperson: Before I continue, I'd just like to remind all th e members of the use of unparliamentary language in this committee room. Ms. Marcelino: I appreciate the response of the Premier (Mr. Pallister), and the Premier is free to bring up Health Canada. I have nothing to hide there, and, in fact, I would like i t out because the real truth will come out.

Anyway, the point of that letter I think is, the Premier himself told Manitoba on CJOB that he intends to keep the seniors' tax credit. That's why this lady wrote this letter or emailed this, and I believe this is the same email that was forwarded to members opposite. Mr. Chairperson: Are you tabling this? Ms. Marcelino: I am tabling the letter and the email. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. The honourable First Minister. Mr. Pallister: No question, no answer. Ms. Marcelino: My question is: The Premier is –it's not–the accusation is not from me.

It was the Premier himself who on CJOB mentioned that he will honour the seniors' tax rebate. Will the Premier now in light of many people saying that we're not wealthy if we're in the $40,000 annual income range, will the Premier consider giving back the tax rebate to seniors who are not wealthy?

936 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 Mr. Pallister: We're going to do as we promised in our budget and as I promised on CJOB: maintain the seniors' tax credit for those who need it most. Mr. Chairperson: As previously announced, the hour being 11 a.m., this

section of the Committee of Supply will now set aside the Estimates of Executive Council in order to consider the Estimates of the Department of Indigenous and Municipal Relations. Is it the will of the committee to take a short recess? [Agreed] The committee recessed at 11:00 a.m. ____________ The committee resumed at 11:05 a.m. INDIGENOUS AND MUNICIPAL RELATIONS Mr. Chairperson: Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the C ommittee of Supply will now consider the Estimates of the Department of Indigenous and Municipal Relations. Does the honourable minister have an opening statement? Hon. Eileen Clarke (Minister of Indigenous and Municipal Relations): Good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to be able to make a few comments on the 2016-17 Estimates and discuss some of the important activities of the Department of Indigenous and Municipal Relations.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging the hard work of my department staff and the work that they do with indigenous people in communities, northern Manitobans and communities and Manitoba municipalities and important stakeholders like the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. I'm honour ed to be the minister of the new Department of Indigenous and Municipal Relations. This is a great honour for me personally, and I look forward to working with everyone in this capacity.

My mandate is to work positive - ly and respectfully with all communities across Manitoba, local governments, indigenous people and communities and important stakeholders. I am in a unique position, giving my –given my background in municipal relations to facilitate these discussions and to deliver on our mandate and improve our service to the public.

Our department is committed to a new way of doing business with communities all across Manitoba, one that establishes new partnerships, reduces red tape to allow more efficient access to government programs and ens ures that all budgeted infrastructure dollars are fully allocated and spent to benefit all municipalities. Achieving our department's priorities cannot be done based on the status quo. A new approach is needed, and that is why we have strategically aligned areas of government that best meet the priorities of municipalities and indigenous communities.

With respect to indigenous relations, this new approach means working positively and respectfully with indigenous people and communities, to develop a new relationship build upon reconciliation. I've had the opportunity to meet with many Metis, Inuit and First Nation Leaders in my short time as minister already. It is my intent to serve as a bridge between the indigenous people, local governments and industry to ensure that a common understanding is achieved.

That's why I've already directed staff within my department to formulate a plan that will engage indigenous leaderships on establish- ing a duty-to-consult framework for productive consultations with indigenous communities. It's also why we will work to build respectful and effective partnerships involving all levels of government to responsible and sustainably develop our natural resources, as well as encourage the federal government to enhance funding for those students on reserves.

This new approach will also benefit our ongoing work with respect to the implementation of Treaty Land Entitlement agreements in Manitoba, including garnering support for urban Aboriginal economic development zones in partnership with First Nations communities, continuing work on the terrible issue of murdered and indigenous women and girls and ensuring that Manitoba continues to play a leadership role in national inquiry that is about to begin, with a particular focus on the role of survivors and the families of the missing and murdered.

Ensuring that we continue to deliver funding for operating and maintenance costs for municipal services in 50 communities under The Northern Affairs Act, as well as loan act funding f or capital initiatives in these communities such as water and waste-water projects, co -operating with the federal government and First Nations communities related to Interlake 2011 flooding, including negotiation and

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 937 trilateral comprehensive settlement agr eements and above all else, return these people home. In terms of municipal relations, our department's new approach means building a single -window system for local communities to access government programs and initiatives, as well as the development of a new partnership process with the AMM and the City of Winnipeg to establish a basket -model approach funding communities.

We will also work to ensure value for provincial dollars by prioritizing projects based on a return-on-investment model in advance of major capital decisions. One of our department's first priorities is to work with municipalities to hear their ideas on new infrastructure -funding approach. In other words, our priority is to give all municipalities a fair say in infrastructure investment. That's why we've committed to meet with municipalities within our first 100 days of our mandate. Our new government believes that municipal leaders are best positioned to determine local infrastructure priorities.

They deserve a fair say in how infrastruc ture dollars are spent. * (11:10) To date, municipalities have told us that the provincial infrastructure funding needs to be more flexible to address local priorities and that this funding needs to be easier to access with less red tape. We're excited t o consult with the AMM and other municipalities during these past weeks. These consultations invite feedback on key municipal infrastructure priorities and how current programming can be changed to better address these priorities. Similar consultations will also take place with the City of Winnipeg.

Also, ensuring that municipalities have a fair say will be one of my top priorities as minister and it will be a top priority of our government this year. On a personal note, I'm proud to be in this newly elected government as the MLA for Agassiz constituency, as well as the Minister for Indigenous and Municipal Relations, working on behalf of all Manitobans. I will do so without prejudice of race, culture, religion or individuals' choice of lifestyle or their views and opinions on all issues facing government or society as a whole.

I'm proud to be one of the 12 chosen Cabinet ministers in this government, and will work hard every day to represent our government and the people we serve in a respectful and compassionate way. We are often criticized and accused of not having a diverse caucus. I believe, of the 57 elected representatives in our Chamber, there are no two of us alike. I'm proud of my Mennonite heritage, the language we speak, the religion or faith we choose, and the traditions or customs we teach our children and grandchildren as taught to us by our parents and grandparents.

Everyone deserves to be respected regardless of colour or heritage. I'm also proud to be one of the 12 Cabinet ministers in o ur government that was selected not because it was required to have more women or persons of 'visimble' minorities. For me, there would be no pride in being appointed to this Cabinet to fill a quota for the number of women, or if I was plugged into a position to meet a demand. I was pleased when I first heard our Premier (Mr. Pallister) announce all Cabinet members would be selected for their qualifications and ability to perform their duties of the position.

I have always had high expectations of myself t o do the best job possible in an effort to exceed the expectations of others. I will do no less as I carry out the duties and mandate of this honourable position that I've been appointed to. I will do so with respect and compassion for all the people I work for and with. I also want to make reference to the unfortunate incident that took place in our Chamber yesterday during question period. As elected officials, we are to be leaders and represent our constituencies and our province in a respectful manner.

I found it especially disturbing to have to witness such a display of bad behaviour and bullying within our Legislature. The individuals in the gallery were visitors and represented thousands of hard- working people in our province that I know would not support their bullying and inappropriate comments that were shouted out. It was disrespectful to our Speaker and everyone else that had to witness their planned efforts to discredit the proceedings of our government.

Even more concerning was the fact that there were also a group of young children in the gallery that were subjected to bad behaviour of individuals of our society that consider themselves professionals. Is that what they want to teach their children and grandchildren?

938 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 We listen daily to questions and discussions of the wrongdoings and bad decisions of the past that are still causing so much pain and loss and frustration to those trying to cope and survive. We are accused of not doing enough to correct the past and show respect and compassion for all. What are we teaching our children now? Is it better than the past? We need to do a better job as elected officials in our government, as we will lead by example. Hatred, bullying and lack of respect for all has to start at the top.

It's time for all of us in government to focus on prevention and education of better decisions and behaviour to ensure a respectful and inclusive society for the future. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments. Does the official opposition critic have any opening comments? Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are holding this committee on Treaty 1 land. So I acknowledge the Anishinabe communities here in Manitoba who are signatories to Treaty 1 and whose band communities are now scattered across southern Manitoba.

I also would like to acknowledge the Dakota people, who never signed a treaty here in Manitoba, on whose homelands we are also gathered and who now find many of their communities located in southwestern Manitoba, places like Canupawakpa and Dakota Tipi and Birdtail Sioux.

And I would also like to acknowledge the Metis Nation on whose land we are now located as well and say that it is a state of the art in indigen ous studies that leading Metis scholars now view the Manitoba Act as a treaty with the Metis Nation, and therefore it is fair to say that the Metis Nation played a founding role in bringing our province into confederation. And so, in addition to acknowledging their territory, we also must acknowledge the crucial role that the Metis played in our politics here in this part of the world.

And by way of being inclusive and not leaving any indigenous group out, I would also like to acknowledge the Cree, the Oj i-Cree, the Dene and the Inuit peoples, whose homes are also located around Manitoba.

And, of course, we sometimes have fun specifically with our Ojibway and Cree brothers and sisters as to whose territory is where and who has the rightful claim to this ar ea, but, you know, we all recognize that the Aboriginal and treaty rights which are asserted by these communities take their force and power due to the fact that indigenous nations were here since time immemorial, and so I begin with an acknowledgement of that.

Also, having worked with, you know, the mayor of Winnipeg in a volunteer capacity, I have a profound respect for the municipal leaders across our province, and so I also acknowledge the work undertaken by some 137 mayors and reeves, I believe is the number, across our province.

And, you know, be they the mayor of the City of Winnipeg who has to contend with, you know, serving the vast majority of the provincial population here in the provincial capital or, you know, reeves in the Interlake who have to respond to emergencies like flooding, you know, I fully acknowledge the great public service that many of those people undertake on all of our behalfs on a regular basis. On a similar note, I congratulate the minister for her appointment as a minister of the Crown.

It is certainly a great honour, and I'm sure that it's one that she will undertake with great seriousness and will carry out her duties with great integrity. And so I look forward to collaborating with her in whichever way I can. I'm here to work on behalf of the people of Manitoba, so however I can serve, I'm happy to do so.

In a similar respect, I'd like to acknowledge my colleagues, the member from The Pas and the member–actually, I should probably refer to him as our House leader, to be more formal, who will undertake to be critics in portfolios that are also overseen by the Minister of Municipal and Indigenous Relations (Ms. Clarke). In particular, just as opening comments, I understand that these two– previously two different departments have been consolidated under the new provincial government. However, I would like to put on the record that there are some important differences between municipalities and indigenous nations.

In particular –well, there's a number, actually, that we coul d go on the record with, but some of the more germane, I think, to the conversations in government: One is that indigenous nations have constitutionally recognized rights and also have title in many parts of the country, which are unique and are held collectively by indigenous communities and are the source of many of the

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 939 contemporary political norms and discourse with which we now engage. For instance, the duty to consult, which the minister made mention of, arises in the discourse today as a contemporar y legal

interpretation of how to operationalize the

section 35 affirmation and recognition in our Canadian constitution of Aboriginal and treaty rights. And so those unique rights, inherent rights, have to be paramount in our dealings with indigenous na tions and indigenous peoples, and they ought to be respected. * (11:20) Turning to–I guess the other key difference is that indigenous people disproportionately bear the brunt of the worst conditions of abject poverty and social dispossession in our provi nce as well.

And to me, I would assert, that given the fact that when you look at those affected by the child- welfare system, by those affected by the criminal justice system, those affected by poverty, those Manitobans that don't have access to clean dri nking water, those Manitobans who live in what are sometimes referred to as third-world conditions that the, you know, vast majority of those Manitobans are indigenous. To me that highlights a great urgency to act to alleviate those conditions and to make sure that we are doing all that we can to uphold the honour of the Crown.

We know that the honour of the Crown is at stake and the duty to consult and–is implicated in the treaty relationships which govern many of the relationships with indigenous communities, but, you know, it's simply a matter of public service as well, in my mind. So that adds urgency to many of these discussions. I know also that municipalities are unique in their own ways in different respects, and I note ever-broadening public disc ourse on what the role and scope of responsibilities for municipalities should be in our contemporary political landscape.

So, we saw evidence of this in the recent provincial campaign where, you know, the AMM and, you know, specific mayors and reeves stood up to demand, in their words, a fair share and a fair say, and I note that the minister is committed to a fair say. So perhaps we can discuss what the fair share component might look like and where that would be implicated.

But I was also very curious t o read over past months about mayors in different jurisdictions around the country also standing up and saying that at some point there should be a constitutional recognition in our country of the role of municipalities, that currently under

section 91(24) we have a recognition of a division of powers between federal and municipal levels of government, but that these mayors were saying that our constitution–I guess, the implication is that there is a blind spot there and that there ought to be a constitutional recognition for the role and the scope of responsibility for municipalities. So, in my mind , this is a very interesting emerging field of political discourse, and I think it's one that it would behoove us to pay attention to because at the end of the day there is only one voter.

There is only one taxpayer, ratepayer, constituent, however you choose to define the person and, you know, it is up to us as people in government to ensure that we are most effectively serving them across a broad measure of out comes. So not just fiscal, but also outcomes of well -being, and things like that. I would add a couple of comments just to some of the other points raised in the minister's opening statement. One, with respect to performance of people from different–I see the yellow card again which always brings a smile to my face when the Chair raises it.

I wonder when the red card will show up in these discussions. But soccer references aside, I just want to point out that, again, I would encourage, you know, the minister –tons of briefing happening, but perhaps over the summer, you know, could take a look at Malcolm Gladwell's book. I believe it was The Tipping Point where he examined affirmative action programs –the contemporary research on affirmative programs in the state and showed that , regardless of how people came in to programs at universities, it was no indicator of how well they performed in the life of their careers.

So, specifically, that programs and decisions to create equity within professional environments will show in the future no correlation between those who entered by that and their performance as, you know, officials or professionals in that capacity. So I would just offer that, as a counter, that there could've been gender equity in– Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member's time has expired. We thank the critic from the official opposition for those remarks.

940 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 Under Manitoba practice, debate on the minister's salary is the last item considered for a department in the Committee of Supply. Accordingly, we shall now defer consideration of line item 13.1.(a), contained in resolution 13.1. At this time we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table and we ask that the minister intr oduce the staff in attendance. Ms. Clarke: I want to thank t he opposition critic for his comments, and I do enjoy and will look forward to working and consulting with you.

I'd like to introduce today Deputy Minister Fred Meier; Deputy Minister Robert Wavey; Nick Kulyk, polic y advise r; Laurie Davidson, assistant deputy minister on the provincial municipal support; Ramona Mattix, assistant deputy minister for Community Planning and D evelopment; Craig Halwachs, assistant deputy minister, financial and administrative services; Karlene Debance, executive director for the Canada -Manitoba agreements; Dave Shwaluk, general manager for Manitoba Water Services Board; Mike Sosiak, director, M unicipal Finance and Advisory Services.

Joanne Velez, acting director of the F inancial and Administrative Services; Pavlo Motruk, acting executive financial officer; Rob Ballantyne, executive director of Indigenous Affairs secretariat. And–is that Chris? An Honourable Member: Freda. Ms. Clarke: Freda Albert, executive director for Local Government Development. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Does the committee wish to proceed through the Estimates of this department chronologicall y or have a global discussion? An Honourable Member: Global. Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed? [Agreed] Thank you.

It is agreed that the questioning for this department will proceed in a global manner, with all resolutions to be passed once questioning is concluded. Just to remind all members, when– you're allowed the five minutes; when you're down to four – or, like, one minute left, at the four -minute mark, I'll just wave this around so that you know that you're getting a yellow card. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Kinew: Thanks for the advanced warning on the yellow card once again. I'd like to begin just by asking some questions with respect to the organizational structure of this newly consolidated department.

Can the minister explain, does this department include what was previously known as northern affairs as well? Ms. Clarke: Yes, that would be correct. Mr. Kinew: So, when, you know, there's, like, a part of the province which is unincorporated, a matter pertaining to that were to come forward to the ministry, whose doorstep would that arrive that in terms of the organization? Ms. Clarke: That is under the indigenous relations portion. Mr. Kinew: I see that the Taxicab Board is under the purview of the minister as well. Are there any changes to the membership of the Taxicab Board being currently contemplated? Ms.

Clarke: There will be a reassignment of the chair of the board. Unfortunately , he passed away just this past week, so that, of course, will have to be looked at, yes. Mr. Kinew: You know, I'm sure we would all like to put on the record our, you know, sympathies for the family and, you know, recognize the contribution to public service that the former chair made, the former chair of the Taxicab Board just for greater clarity. What criteria will be used to select a new chair for the Taxicab Board? * (11:30) Ms. Clarke: Yes, thank you for that question.

I think with the Taxicab Board, as with all boards that are appointed by government, we're definitely looking to somebody that has experience and a background in this taxicab industry, very important going forward. The fact that we are looking for a board chair, that is even more so a very high priority because we want somebody that totally understands all the business dealings of it, but also on the relations in regards to–there have been issues in the past and incidents.

So we definitely would want someone that can work with the staff and with other boards members to ensure that we get the best quality of service in the city of Winnipeg or wherever the taxis are located.

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 941 This is a quasi-judicial board, and going forward we want them also to be aware of the indigenous aspects and issues that come forward. So they'll have to have a really good understanding of all those types of expense. It's a service industry. So they are very much in the public awareness as to the o perations and service provided. So, we definitely want somebody that works well within the department, but also that works well and relates well to the public. Mr. Kinew: Could the minister explain what is meant by indigenous aspects and issues? Ms.

Clarke: I think we all know that in the media in the past, quite frequently there has been concerns as to how indigenous peoples are treated, perhaps, that concerns us and the board. We want to ensure that there's fairness to all participants and all those who are looking for the services of the taxis. People need to feel safe. They need to 'beel' confident, regardless of who they are, that when they call for the service of a taxi that they're going to be well taken care of, they are going to be respected and they're going to arrive at their destination safely and be treated well. Mr.

Kinew: Are there other changes other than the chair position being contemplated to the membership of the Taxicab Board? Ms. Clarke: The discussion that we most recently had was specifically for the chair board, which is a high priority and urgent. It's a very busy position and it's one that needs to be filled quickly because the previous chair was off due to serious illness and, therefore, there's a lot of business that needs to be conducted right now. At this point we are not aware of any other changes. Mr.

Kinew: What is the minister's take on how the Taxicab Board should intervene with respect to ride - sharing services in Manitoba? Ms. Clarke: Yes, thank you for your question. There is a study that is going to be conducted going forward. We'll be consulting with patrons as well as individuals and all those involved as well as all aspects of the taxi board industry. There's an expectation that this should be completed late summer, early fall. That's the projected timeframe. It will then be discussed with our government.

It is a–will be a really inclusive study so that we have a full understanding of any changes that could or should be made that will enhance the industry. It will definitely include the ride -sharing program that you were discussing. Once this is –comes to government and can be discussed at that level, then next steps in regards to the industry will be considered. Mr. Kinew: Just for the purposes of greater clarity, does this study have within its purview to examine large multinational tech companies that are in the ride-sharing space? * (11:40) Ms. Clarke: Thank you for your question.

There is a consultant, a very qualifi ed consultant has been hired to, as I indicated earlier, look at all aspects. There's a fairly inclusive terms of reference that comes with his mandate to do this. It also includes the current framework as well as all new services and the ride- sharing program. There's a focus on technology and everything that's being considered. The level of service, of course, here is very important. It will also look at the number of licences and it will be completed, as I indicated, early this fall.

So the time frame is relatively short so we should be able to move forward before the end of the year, I would expect. Mr. Kinew: And, again, for the purposes of greater clarity, does this study include within its purview other, perhaps, more grassroots forms of ride-sharing services that have sprung up in the city recently, things–hopefully, I'm getting the names right, but things like Neechi safe rides and Ikwe safe rides, services that, you know, private individuals have undertaken to respond, in their view, to the safety concerns that indigenous women have faced. So, again, you know, that bit of

preamble as background to explain what I mean by more grassroots, quote unquote, ride-sharing services. Will that also be undertaken by this study? Ms. Clarke: I think most def initely we would feel pretty confident when I say generally all aspects will be considered. These are all issues that we are, as a public, generally aware of. We see them in the media every day. There's lots of opinions and options out there now that we ha ve never had in the past, and I think that's why this study and consultation is very timely. Winnipeg definitely wants to be up to speed not just in Canada, but with, you know, throughout, and

942 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 ensure that we do have a really good taxicab service, one that is–one that can be respected for the quality of service that they provide and one that provides all the needs of the people we serve in the city of Winnipeg at affordable rates that people feel that they can afford, and also respectful of all their patrons and that–as, once again, that they do feel safe and have a choice of what they might like to use. Mr. Kinew: And what is the fee paid to the consultant who will undertake this ride -sharing study? Ms. Clarke: Yes, thank you for your question.

This consultant was hired by a tendered contract and it has been awarded and the contract price is $100,000. Mr. Kinew: Thank you for the, you know, prompt and direct response to the question. And who is the consultant who's been under – who is undertaking this study? Ms. Clarke: The contract was awarded to Meyers Norris Penny. Mr. Kinew: I see that the Municipal Board is under the purview of the minister. I was wondering if there's any changes being contemplated to that body. Ms. Clarke: Thank you for your question.

We recently met, and I was advised by my deputy minister that there were, I believe, four positions that expired on May 31st. There's another, I think, five. I think it was a total of nine positions by the end of June that will expire, so they' re–we're just going to clarify that for you. Nine is the correct answer. I did good on that one. Mr. Kinew: So the minister had observed, in an aside, that she wasn't sure about her memory, but it seems her memory serves her correct, so it's a good sign.

So could the minister just talk me through, as a newbie, like, what the process will be for filling those vacancies and who will be stepping into those roles? Ms. Clarke: Thanks for your question. Interesting that I have to bring forward to you what the Municipal Board should do. I'm usually on– I have been across the table, on the other side of the Municipal Board, so a different role, now, for sure.

But, regardless of which side of the table you're sitting on, the Municipal Board is a very important board, and they make decisions when our municipalities or the people in our municipalities do not agree in decisions being made. And they come in to listen to both parties –the municipality, the councils and the public that are questioning decisions. So, without doubt, we would want this board to have –board members, as such, to have experience. You know, they need experience on borrowing, because it's financial issues.

They would also have to have some sort of background or some type of experience in planning, because these are normally planning issues. Experience on boards, I think, is also very important, and should be considered, also experience with issues and the process of hearings. * (11:50) I think we want to ensure that for their time spent listening, and it's a relatively short period of time, so they've got to really have a good perception of what they're dealing with going into it so that decisions–their decisions for our municipalities are extremely important.

And as councils, cou ncils want to be confident that they're going to get a positive decision regardless of which way it goes, but one that's going to ensure that, you know, whether it's the planning aspect, but that the proper –they have the proper information on The Planning Act, for instance, that the acts are followed, you know, as far as the government perspective, but also that the best interests of the taxpayers are met as well. So the members, they sit to hear the applications, appeals, referrals pursuant to various sta tutes for our Province.

The board consists of part -time members, including a chair, and they are appointed, of course, by the Province by order of council and there's also a full-time vice-chair. Mr. Kinew: I'd like to return to the earlier comments about the fair say –or Fair Share Fair Say Campaign from the recent, you know, provincial election–I guess, picked up first on what the minister commented, that–which was the fair say portion of that. So can the minister just provide us with a more fulsome explanation of what, you know,

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 943 the minister's view is of what a fair say for municipalities will mean to the current government? Ms. Clarke: All right, yes, fair say –we heard a lot about it during the campaign period from the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. And having a municipal background, I understand their request for this because they are the, of course, the government that works directly with the people. They deal with them on a –on almost a daily basis, the elected officials. They live in these municipalities and they know what's required.

And so consequently a good working relationship with the provincial and federal governments, most specifically the provincial government, is a really important one. And I'm really happy that our governm ent has taken their request very seriously in regards to fair say. I think a lot can be achieved by working together more closely as it does with our indigenous communities as well. I think listening to each other, I think working together, we're definitel y a stronger province. And I'm really honoured to have that opportunity to work with the municipalities as well as our indigenous communities.

Now, moving forward in our department with fair say for the municipalities, we want their feedback. We're asking them for their feedback. They have 'reenings' every June. They're called regional meetings. There's seven regions within the province of Manitoba, seven municipal regions, and they meet in these regions normally in June. It's an all-day meeting. And this is the opportunity for municipalities to meet with the AMM, who are their representatives that lobby our government. Also, municipal officials–I should have been at those meetings this past week, but due to this process, I wasn't able to go.

My deputy, Fr ed Meier, has attended all of them on my behalf. He's there to present on our behalf the fair say package that we've put together for municipalities. I'm understanding for what he's told me and feedback from other municipalities that have already attended these meetings that it's being met very favourably. They are liking what we've put together for them. They have the opportunity at these meetings, after the presentation is made from our department, to ask questions. They have opportunity to present their views. And they are all recorded, of course, at these meetings.

They also have opportunities, because of the breaks, to meet directly, whether it would be myself or my staff or other government officials. And there's officials that go to these meetings from planning, from assessment and all the different aspects of our department. And this is done annually. This is not their only opportunity, but this is one where they have a one -on-one with all government officials to discuss or ask questions. I think t he really important part of this is we're making a really important effort to reduce red tape that has caused a lot of frustration in the past.

There's a lot of different funding opportunities for municipalities, but there always been individual little grants and programs, and it just seems you're constantly applying. And that's why they were asking for a basket approach whereby there would perhaps be one application where there would be four or five different grants and you can just make one single application. You know, the CAO's time isn't going to be tied up applying for a lot of different grants. And they're looking at this very favourably. We also are planning on doing a survey this fall for municipalities in regards to the fair say.

And further to that, there will be regional roundtables held so they once again have that opportunity to talk about, and discuss and ask questions in regards to the fair say. So, having these grants that have been there but bundled into one is probably one of the most favourable aspects of the fair say. Mr. Kinew: Can the minister table the fair say package that was referred to? Ms. Clarke: I'm getting the gong already. [interjection] I do. Yes, my term package is what we are presenting, and it is the discussions that a re ongoing. There is not a package per se. Mr.

Chairperson: The time being –sorry, everybody, I had my mic turned off, so the time being 12 o'clock noon, I am interrupting the proceedings. The Committee of Supply will resume sitting this afternoon following the conclusion of routine proceedings. HEALTH, SENIORS AND ACTIVE LIVING * (10:00) Madam Chairperson (Colleen Mayer): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Health, Seniors and Active Living.

944 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 As previously agreed, questioning for this department will proceed in a global manner. The floor is now open for questions; however, the minister has something to bring forward. Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health , Seniors and Active Living): Good morning, Madam Chairperson, and to my friend from Concordia. So we committed to getting some responses to questions that were posed late in the day yesterday by the member. So I'll provide those.

Before I speak, specifically, to the number of employees within the RHAs, just want to caution that the counts of employees in the RHAs, of course, a moving target. There's–it's a large workforce, and, as with any large workforce, there are people who come and there are people who go for reasons that are of their own sort of personal choices. So I'll just put that into there.

Also, the amounts can change based on new or alteration in the mix of the programming that happens within the RHA, w hich is largely determined, of course, by them, based on the needs they see within the health community and within the health resources. But notwithstanding that, I made a commitment to the member to provide the best information I could, and so I want to do that. * (10:10) Within the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, I'm advised by officials that there are currently 28,139 employees. Within Southern Health- Santé Sud, there would be as of today, or last night I suppose, 5,962.

In Prairie Mountain Regional Health Authority, there would be 8,813; within the Interlake-Eastern Regional Health Authority, 3,318; and within the Northern Regional Health Authority, 1,994. So that represents a little over 48,000 dedicated staff who are working in RHAs to deliver the health -care services that the Manitobans need on a daily basis. I do want to also note for my critic's informa - tion that this staffing complement would not include other provincial health -related entities such as diagnostic services, CancerCare Manitoba, Addictions Foundation of Manitoba, and the Selkirk Mental Health Centre.

That staff involved with those entities would be over and above those that I've already described. So I'd want to note that we currently have 2,508 physicians that are prov iding clinical services across Manitoba, as I mentioned yesterday those are largely fee -for-service physicians. And so as such, they are private operators; they were private under the former government, they are private still today as they operate contract ually in that way, and they're not then employees of the regional health authorities.

Another question was related to the salary of my special assistant, and I'm advised that her salary is $98,096.25. Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Thanks to the minister for providing the information. And maybe this is information he also has or maybe he needs to dig in a little bit deeper, but what we were looking for as well within the RHAs was to get a breakdown of, I guess, of who those staff are, so how many are nurs es, how many, you know, how many are doctors, and maybe I'm understanding him to say that all doctors are considered fee -for-service so they wouldn't be included in that number.

But how many are doctors, how many home care aides, you know, all that sort of thing. So–and I can appreciate this is probably a fairly complex number to, or breakdown to arrive at. So I'd be happy if the member would take it as –minister would take it as notice and we could pick up on that tomorrow as well, or later in the day. Mr.

Goertzen: Right, so I've, my understanding is that it would be difficult to maybe delineate it on a bit of person- by-person, but we can certainly try to provide broad categories, you know, nursing and of course, different levels of nurses, or different categories even within the nursing profession. The doctors that I provided, the number provided were the fee- for-service physicians, so we can certainly, you know, take some –probably some digging to get the broad categories of every area within the regional health authorities but I think that we can certainly try to provide that to the member.

I doubt it would be later today but we will, my capable staff will do the best they can. Mr. Wiebe: Well and I can appreciate your very lean staff being stretched to the limit probably as is, so that'd be fine it this was something that was made available tomorrow. The other category I guess we're looking at is administrative staff within each RHA, basically any kind of job classifications that the department tracks, if we can get breakdowns on those numbers, that'd be very helpful. The other side that we're looking at is, of course, the management level in, within the regional health authorities.

So just wanted to get a sense of how

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 945 many folks are in the, at the management level, and in each RHA and what percentage of the total workforce that they make up. And I guess further to that, what percentage of the staff salaries do they make up? Mr. Goertzen: So there's a number of questions that the member had asked and I'll certainly give you the– I'll give the staff maybe a little bit more time than tomorrow to determine some of those. But we'll certainly do our best in the categories that are indicated by the member to try to provide that information.

He spoke a little bit about administration and trying to get the categories, we'll provide that as well. Just for some of the detail related to administration costs, the most recent data that I have would be that administration in the Interlake -Eastern RHA makes u p about 6.2 per cent of the costs that they incur globally; the northern RHA would be 5.9 per cent; in Prairie Mountain it would be 4.4 per cent; in southern the administrative costs as a percentage of their overall budget would be 4.7; CancerCare Man itoba is 4.2; and Winnipeg would be 4.2, for a provincial average of 4.4. Mr.

Wiebe: And sort of had a whole bundle of questions there, but I –I'm understanding the minister's going to take those and bring back a little bit more detail. Is that what I'm understanding? Mr. Goertzen: Yes. In terms of the staffing that the member was asking about, we will get some information. The categories may be a little broader than he was indicating. I don't know they're tracked quite as granuarly as he was indicating, but, certainly, within the categories that the department tracks staff we could provide that information. Mr. Wiebe: I appreciate that.

So just to stay on staffing for just a little bit longer here, what percentage of the increase to this year's Health budget for this–in this budget will go to cover the staff increases in the RHAs? Mr. Goertzen : So I understand the official is looking for that information and they'll likely be able to provide it shortly. If the member wants to proceed with another question, I don't want to use up too much of his time. Mr. Wiebe: Has the minister developed a list or given the department any directive on which staff employed by the Department of Health or in the RHAs would be considered front -line?

Well, you know, we use this term front-line workers? Mr. Goertzen: Well, it's an interesting question that the member raises, and I know there's been, you know, in the Assembly lots of questions regarding specific

definitions. Certainly, I know in meeting and visiting some of the hospitals already in the short time that I've been the Minister of Health, that'll include CancerCare over at the Health Sciences Centre. I've been just tremendously impressed by all of those who are working to improve the health and well-being of those w ho are within our health- care facilities. * (10:20) And, of course, that goes beyond our hospitals.

There's many entities within health, whether that's diagnostic services or within the addictions field, where people are working on a very specific and daily basis with those who are dealing with many different issues and, often, more than one. And we sometimes forget the relationship between mental health and addictions, and I think it's important to recognize that there really is a close relationship between those two and to look at strategies that deal with them collectively. In particular, to the member's question, I've not given any specific direction to the department as it relates to staffing in terms of

definitions. There's been a lot of other –of course, key issues that are happening, but I certainly want to give the member every assurance that we value–very much so –the work that is done by those within the health- care department, and every day we appreciate the work that they do. Mr. Wiebe: So is it–is the intention, then –I understand the minister hasn't given that directive.

Is it the intention of the minister to give some direction when, you know, they're looking for reductions in staffing within the department, to give any kind of direction on wh o might be considered a front-line staff person or who might not be? Mr. Goertzen: I mean, I think as there's –it can be problematic, sometimes, in terms of the question contextually when the member talks about direction on reducing staff. That certainly i s–no direction has been given from me in that regard. But he does raise an interesting point and I think a very good point about finding savings within the system.

I wouldn’t want to suggest, nor do I think

946 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 that he was trying to suggest, that the only pla ce one could find savings is through staff reductions. There are many, I think, different places that one could look to try to find efficiencies within the health -care system, as within every system within government. And that was part of the commitment th at we made during the election in terms of looking, really, across the board to try to find things that weren't working well or that weren't providing Manitobans with good value for money.

The member will be interested to know, and I'm sure he'll probabl y ask questions later on, that we will be proceeding with a health -care innovation and sustainability review, which is part –it's not – it's a separate part, but it's part of the overall commitment to have a review of government to try to find savings wi thin the system. That'll happen as a separate portion of that review. There'll be more details released on that, I think, in the relatively near future.

And my hope is that that review will find some of the efficiencies and savings that the member identifies, but I wouldn't focus specifically or exclusively on the issue of staffing. I think there are many different places where one can find efficiency, and I'm sure that the innovation and sustainability review will provide some of that. And just as a –and I appreciate the patience for the member as we get some of the information he's been asking for.

My understanding from officials is that as it relates to the current budget that's before the Estimates committee right now, that of the increase that is coming for the Department of Health, approximately 70 per cent would be for staff that would be allocated through the regional health authority. That would include hospitals, home care, medical and non-medical staff. Mr. Wiebe: Well, and what I'm trying to get from that number is–and I guess that number isn't exactly what we're looking for –was with regards to the increase in the budget.

So not the overall, not the percentage of the overall budget, but the percentage of the increase. Mr. Goertzen : So, for c larification, then, if one were to look at the overall health -care budget, about 75 per cent of that overall health -care budget would be considered staff, medical and non- medical staff. The department advises that 70 per cent of the increase in this curren t budget to the health- care budget would also be for medical and non- medical staff. So the 70 per cent is related to the increase in the budget, but looking overall, 75 per cent of the budget is related to staff.

So they're relatively close in number. Mr. Wiebe: Maybe I can ask this in a different way. Would the increases that have been made within this budget, are they in line with the obligations of the collective agreements? Mr. Goertzen: Right, and so, I mean, the member raises a good point in that obviously one of the challenges within the health -care system is that staffing is by far the greatest cost. And that's not entirely a surprise because human resources would be the most direct thing that would impact individual patients on a day -to-day basi s within the medical system.

And so that is –that's not unexpected, that you would find that the vast majority of costs would relate to human resources. The member asked specifically first about the increase, which, as he knows, is three hundred – approximately $335 million this year, of which 70 per cent, approximately 70 per cent would be for medical and non-medical staff. He asked specifically about the labour agreements that are governed within the department. Of course, those agreements are contractual .

And so the increase within the budget will certainly cover off the contractual obligations that had been duly negotiated by the individual collective bargaining units. Mr. Wiebe: Can the minister give me a

summary of the collective agreements that are currently being renegotiated or being renegotiated within the next, say, 12 months? * (10:30) Mr. Goertzen : So there are a couple, I'm aware from officials at the moment, that are still in the process of negotiation. One would be Diagnostic Services within the Interlake region. I think the member's probably seen or heard some about that negotiation. CancerCare oncologists are also currently in the process of negotiation.

Looking forward a little bit, because the member asked a bit about that, the com munity support contract would be valid–ratified, until March 31st of 2018, at which point there'd be the ability for renegotiation. Facilities support, labour group, is ratified until March 31st of 2017. Maintenance and trades are ratified until March 31s t of 2016. So that one is currently in–or, up for negotiation. The nurses' contract is ratified until

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 947 March 31st of 2017 and, then, professional and technical is ratified until March 31st of 2018. Mr. Wiebe: Okay, well, that –and that's helpful. I appreciate the minister getting some information on that and –with regards to staff to follow up with a little bit more information later. I did want to switch gears slightly now and just ask about an item that appears in our budget papers, C, with regards to the seniors' tax – seniors' education tax rebate.

And on –within that section, there is an amount listed for 2016 -'17 of $44.5 million, but there is a note that–at the bottom– that talks about adjustments that are attributable to 2015-2016. So, $37 million going forward but $44.5 million for this current budget. I'm just wondering what that 7 and a half million dollars is, exactly. Mr. Goertzen : Just to assist officials, can the minister–or the member be specific on which part of the Health Estimates books he's referring to, or which page? Mr. Wiebe: So we're looking at the budget and budget papers document. C1 is the page number. Mr.

Goertzen: So my officials are indicating that– I mean, that's probably a question that's better directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen). That information would be more contained within his appropriation. Mr. Wiebe: You know, I mean, I can appreciate the answer, but this is something that, you know, as I've raised a number of times in the House and raised a number of times with the First Minister, and with the Minister of Health and Seniors, this is an issue that affects seniors very acutely. And, you know, really, I'm just trying to get a sense.

So maybe he's saying that he hasn't had a chance to look at what, you know, where these–what the reduction to the seniors' school tax credit looks like and how it actually affects seniors, you know, who were counting on that money, quite frankly, for this year. Maybe he hasn't had a chance to look at it or maybe he has. And I can understand he –that–you know, maybe he hasn't looked at this page in a few days. This was part of the original budget document papers that came out when the budget was tabled.

But maybe he can just give me his thoughts on his understanding of where tha t money, where that cut has come from with regards to this year's budget? Mr. Goertzen: I thank the member for the question. It has less to do with whether I've reviewed the specific portions of the main budget books and more to do with sort of how the Estimates generally work here within the Assembly.

And he knows as well as I do, we both are relatively experienced members in the Assembly, that certain portions of the Estimates are contained within certain departments, and getting detailed information a bout those portions of the department are best in the department that they fall under. I believe that the Finance Estimates are still happening within the Assembly, and he could certainly go and pose that question in Finance. I'd hate to lose him at the ta ble here. I'm not suggesting that he leave. But that option is open to him and exists for him if he chooses to go to the other Estimates committee.

You know, but he does raise an issue, I think, that's–that is important, and I don't want to dismiss it. And he raised–he's raised it in the Assembly and he's raised it here now in Estimates, about the seniors' tax rebate. And, certainly, we know, as a government, that our seniors are very valuable members of our community. We spoke even just yesterday, on el der abuse day, about the importance of recognizing seniors and ensuring that they have safety and security within their homes and the different places that they live. So that is not an unimportant issue that the member raises.

I think when we went door to door, as the member would have done in his own riding, we would have heard from seniors. I heard from seniors in my constituency and a few others around the province, and the concerns that I heard from them related to–largely around health care, and so it 's an appropriate question in this set of Estimates to ensure that there is accessibility for health care, but also sustainability. I always want to remind the member that I think seniors in particular have a perspective that they look also back and see that the different lessons that they've learned over their life.

And what I often hear from seniors is that we need to ensure that things are sustainable and that they're there for the future, as well. Many seniors, of course, raise the issue of health car e for themselves today and ensuring that it's there in an appropriate way, but they also talked about making sure that health care was there for their children, and often, in particular, for their grandchildren because they recognize that a certain level of spending is just certainly not sustainable.

948 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 And so the member's question is a good question, not in the sense that I think it's the appropriate place for it to be answered in a granular fashion in terms of the tax credit. That's more directed under t he department from which it falls. But he does ask, I think, a good question about seniors and some of their views. And I've often heard from seniors that they are concerned about the future of health care and they want to ensure that it's not only there f or them today, but also there for their loved ones that they care about as well in the future.

So from that perspective I do appreciate the question the member's raised. Mr. Wiebe: Well, and I can appreciate from a technical standpoint that the minister m ay not be up to speed on every element of a tax rebate program. You know, I wouldn't profess to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to taxes and tax rebates. But he is the Minister of Seniors as well as being the Minister for Health, and I understand this is a smaller portion of his portfolio, but I think it's an important one.

And I think this is one of the elements that is most important for seniors is affordability, the ability to look after themselves, to live in their own homes , to be self -sufficient, and in that way take less –or put less of a burden on our health-care system. * (10:40) So, I think there's –this is a question that I think is important and it is a lot broader than the minister is giving it credit right now. And with regards to how this tax credit was administered, and, again, I'm no expert, but it was my understanding that, you know, this was an election commitment, as the Premier (Mr.

Pallister) so brightly pointed out in 2011, that the seniors' tax credit woul d be extended to the full amount of the education portion of the property tax by 2016, and in fact it was fulfilled in Budget 2015. In Budget 2015, which the House passed, which I recognize that the minister and the rest of his colleagues who were then in the opposition voted against that budget. But nevertheless, that budget passed through the House and was adopted.

And in that budget was an amount for the calendar year of 2016 for seniors who were going to be receiving the full $2,300 rebate for the edu cation portion of their property tax. And I can understand that the government has charted a new course; seniors aren't happy about the new course, reducing it down to $470, limiting it to only a certain segment of the –of seniors who are eligible.

I can appreciate that the government has decided that's the course they want to take, but instead of just saying from this day forward we're going to reduce this amount and squeeze seniors, we're actually going to go back to the beginning of the calendar year. The portion of the year between the beginning of the calendar year and the end of the fiscal year, where in 20–in the 2015 Budget was an amount allotted for this tax rebate to be extended to its full amount for seniors, was something that was passed in the House, was put on the record, was talked about to every senior in this province.

And then, when we knocked on those doors as the minister says –like to say, we knocked on those doors, we said you are now getting that rebate. And the fact they didn't get their cheque in the mail doesn't mean that that cheque wasn't owed to them.

And so, when the minister came in and said we don't prioritize seniors, we're not going to stand up for seniors, as the Minister for Seniors wasn't going to stand up for those seniors , he was effectively grabbing that cheque out of their mailbox and running away with it, and counting it as seven and a half million extra dollars in this year's budget to simply fit the narrative that they were saving money within the first month of coming into government, and it's a fiction. And it's a fiction based on changing what this House had passed in, as a budget line, that seniors were entitled to.

And so, when, you know, we bring seniors to the gallery, and there have been many that have called my office, when we bring those seniors to the gallery and they say they were counting on that money, that's because that money was owed to them, and it was simply taken out of their mailboxes.

And I'm simply asking the minister, he doesn't have to have al l the details; he has to say that he's willing to stand up for seniors, he's willing to recognize the affordability is such an important issue, and that he's going to go talk to his Finance Minister, I invite him right after Estimates, go talk to his Finance Minister, say this is wrong and that we need to give that money back. Mr. Goertzen: I thank the member for –I'm not sure that that was a question, but for whatever that was, I thank him for it. You know, he raised a number of different points within there. One is he talked about that when

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 949 something passes in the Legislature, that it can never be changed. Well, that's an interesting sort of take on the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy that we have in our system, because, certainly, governments run on platforms and governments run on ideas, and they are mandated to be involved with those if they win the election.

I know that the member was part of a government in 2011 that went door to door, knocked on seniors' doors and many others, and looke d them right in the eye and said that they wouldn't raise the provincial sales tax, or any other tax for that matter. About a year after that, the member for Concordia stood in his seat and supported a budget that was the largest tax increase in the histo ry of our province.

And I'm not even talking about the increase of the PST; that was the extension of the provincial sales tax to a number of things that it didn't exist on before, including haircuts that many seniors would have received, including health –oh, sorry, insurance on homes. Those very seniors' homes had PST applied to them that had never applied to before, that's not actually a 1 per cent increase, that's a 7 per cent increase, right out of the pockets of seniors.

And then, you know, one woul d think that maybe the member made an honest mistake that year, he didn't realize what he was doing when he voted for that budget. But, then, the next year, the very next year, when his government and his leader decided to increase the PST by 1 per cent across the board on everything from 7 per cent to 8 per cent, he stood in the House and he decided that he was going to support that. So, I mean, I don't necessarily mind the discussion about the Westminster motto of Parliament that we have here, and what election commitments mean and what they don't mean.

I think that's a healthy discussion, and I don't mind the member raising it, but it's a little bit difficult when the member was part of a government that so blatantly, so obviously, and so consistently s aid things to Manitobans and then didn't follow through on them. And I would, you know, I would say humbly to the member that, you know, that the recent election result for his party was probably a verdict on that, probably a verdict on some of the things that his party had previously said they were going to do and then didn't fulfill. Now I'm not here to give the member political advice.

He'll come up with his own political advice and his own political strategy over time, Madam Chairperson, but, you know, in the interests of humility and being a friend of the member, he may want to just take a step back and think a little bit about that and think a little bit about the commitments that he made and that his party made. And this is the time of reflection, y ou know. I've been on the losing side of a few campaigns. I don't want to remember every one of them in great detail, but the member would remind me of them I'm sure.

And I think with each one of those, there was the opportunity to, sort of, step back and say, well, you know, maybe Manitobans are saying something and can we learn from that. And I think as a party, we did. And I think we looked at that as –not as a negative thing, necessarily, though you don't feel good about it at the time, but what positive can come from that experience. And I would challenge the member and his caucus, and the caucus that remains, to take that opportunity, to take a step back, to have some moments of reflection and to say what Manitobans said.

We should look at that respect fully and wonder how we could learn from that and wonder how we can grow from that and how we can do things differently. Because, as I've said it in the House before, I think a good opposition makes a good government. I believe that. I firmly believe we' re talking about the Westminster motto of politics: That a good opposition makes a good government. But a good opposition starts with looking at itself and looking at what it can do to change and to earn back the trust of the electorate that it might have lost.

So I accept that the member wants to make a point, and I accept that he's trying to bring forward something that is important, but I think there's a responsibility on him as well to look at some of his own actions within his own party, and I hope he takes that with all the intention and the positiveness that I wanted to leave it with him– Madam Chairperson: The minister's time is expired. Mr.

Wiebe: Well, I appreciate that the minister has now put on the record that they did, in fact, go back in time, that he tried to rewrite history here by going against the will of this House, by going against the budget that was passed by this House, and changing what the deal, effectively, that seniors had come to count on. So I appreciate that the minister has now

950 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 made that clear that that's in fact what they did, and that the seven and a half million dollars that they're now clocking for no other reason but to say that that number is –can now be recorded in their budget to make up some magic number of savings that they're trying to hit, some target that they're trying to hit, to only look at the bottom line rather than the bottom line of seniors. He's just admitted that that's in fact what they did. * (10:50) So that's helpful and that does inform the conversation, I think, a little bit.

But it does put the onus squarely on the minister to explain then to seniors why he didn't in fact honour the commitment that this House had made to the –to seniors of this province that they would, in fact, be receiving the full $2,300 rebate for the beginning–at the very least the beginning of this calendar year, the end of the fiscal year, and at least honour that, because not only now are seniors waiting–or not getting that money, but they're also waiting now until the followin g year to be able to claim that on their tax bill and seek that rebate only if they're eligible.

And this is the other key factor that the minister hasn't touched on, I think, is worthwhile pursuing, is the idea that the minister has said that they want to income-test the rebate but starting at $40,000. So I guess my question to the minister is whether he thinks seniors who are making $40,000 are wealthy and aren't deserving of a break. Mr.

Goertzen: Well, you know, the member starts off with an interesting premise, and his premise was that a legislature can never undo something that a previous legislature had done, which is actually the exact opposite argument that this member and his party made in court regarding the PST, but so I'm –I can't square that circle in terms of the legal argument there.

But what he's saying is that because the previous legislature increased the PST on every Manitoban, on every senior, on every young person, who is purchasing something, some sort of a good in the province, that t hat can't be undone, that it should never be undone, that when Bill 20 that passed as part of the 2013 budget that that should be locked in forever. I mean, I don't–this would be an interesting point that I'd love to bring up in question period.

If I didn 't respect the member so much, I would actually like to give him the opportunity to rethink that position, because what he's put on the record here in this Chamber is that the increase of the PST should be locked in and never should be able to be changed, which I don't even think is a position that his own party has taken. But he's indicated now that because the 2013 budget passed, after a very long summer, of course, as we all remember, but it did pass, and it passed in an appropriate and a legal way in this Assembly, even though we disagreed with it.

But, because it is passed, he feels that it should never change, that the PST increase must be locked in. Now, we don't govern ourselves by polls and that's not sort of the right way to govern any sort of a province or a country, but he may want to take an informal poll of his own neighbours to ask them whether or not that increase of the PST should be locked in forever because a previous government, a previous legislature passed in in their budget. That's the position that the member has put on the record. And, again, I'm actually trying to help him here.

I consider him an ally in this by asking him to reconsider what he's just said, because I actually don't think that's what he meant.

I think he probably meant something else, but it came out very clearly that he feels that because a budget is passed that something can never be changed, and that means that the increase of the PST in his view, based on the words he put on the record, can never be changed because this Legislature in 2013, as a collective body, although not every individual member supported it and maybe he can clarify whether he really believes that the PST should never be able to be reduced because it was passed in the 2013 budget. Mr.

Wiebe: Well, you know, I'm no big- city lawyer like the minister here but–so I'm not going to comment on any kind of legal opinions. But what I will say is that this was a deal that this House had with seniors, and seniors understood it to be that way. And he m ay not believe this to be the case; maybe he's not getting the same phone calls I am, I'm not sure. Maybe they can't find his phone number to reach him, but I certainly know that I'm getting phone calls of seniors who are concerned about this.

We're gettin g letters, of course, that are published in the newspaper, seniors who are just wondering why the deal was changed. And, again, not to put too much time on this because I do want to move off to other issues and we only have a limited amount of time here, but this is something that it's a little different when just because the money–the cheque hadn't actually been cut yet, that it wasn't something that was owed to seniors. So

June 16, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 951 that money was clocked, was put away in a safe somewhere maybe, I'm not really su re, and accumulated for seniors and they were just waiting for that application to come out so that they could apply for the money. The money was put aside for them and, at the last minute, was taken away. So I think the analogy saying that this money was taken out of their mailboxes is accurate. And that's certainly how seniors feel with regards to this. So, you know, I'm going to continue to bring this as an issue forward.

I think it is an important issue that Manitobans want clarification on and why, at the very least, why the extra amount from the beginning of the year was taken. And again, to just–you know, I don't think I heard an answer in there, that –why the minister, you know, does he feel that seniors who are making $40,000 aren't deserving of a break. So –but maybe I'll leave it at that and move off and just sort of switch gears once again. And I, again, I apologize for moving around a little bit, but I do want to make sure that we get to everything that we want to cover here.

And so I just wanted to move off and talk about the boards that fall under Health. And I'm just looking for a comprehensive list of all boards, advisory committees, appeal panels –appeal boards and panels–that fall under the purview of Health. Mr. Goertzen: Well, you know, the member started off by saying something interesting. He said that somewheres in this building or somewheres in government, there's a safe that has all this money that's been put aside. And I'm not the Finance Minister.

We've all–we've gone through that al ready, and if he has questions –if he has a question for the Finance Minister, he should bring it up to him. But I'd like to know where that safe is with all the money because when we came into government, we were told by the previous government that the de ficit was originally supposed to be $400 million. Then they revised that to $600 million. And it turned out to be over $1 billion, more than $600 million more than the government –the former government initially said.

Now, I'm not a–I'm neither a big-city lawyer or a small-city accountant or a small-village actuarial, but what I do know –what I do know very clearly –is that when you have a deficit, it means that you don't actually have money, that when there is a deficit, that means you have less money, that there isn't actual money. So the member for Concordia said that somewheres in this building, there is a safe that money has been put into for seniors or for someone else, and I'd like to know where that safe is. I'd even like to know what the combination is.

And I'm going to, then, go to the Finance Minister and tell him that the member for Concordia (Mr. Wiebe) has acknowledged that there is a safe filled with money that's been set aside. And then we can certainly apply that to the deficit or whatever; it can be part of the savings. The savings can go from $122 million to whatever is in addition in that safe.

But the fact that there is actually a safe filled with money in this building after we've inherited a $1-billion deficit is very, very interesting, and maybe the member can clarify where exactly that safe is housed and what is the combination, so we can get at that money for the benefit of Manitobans. Mr. Wiebe: Well, I'm so glad –I'm glad that the minister is so interested in paying out what's owed to seniors.

So what I will do, then, is I'll let him go over to his Finance Minister –we've got about another hour here –and he's going to stand up and say, I am the Minister responsible for Seniors, I think–I understand that there is money owed to seniors, and I'm going to stand up for them. I'm going to make sure that what is owed to them is paid to them. And I understand the minister's going to actually stand up and do his job as the Minister responsible for Seniors, which is great news, and I'm sure seniors across the province are going to be very happy to understand that that's the direction that the minister is going.

So just, again, to switch paths once again, looking for an understanding of which boards –a list, a comprehensive list of boards, advisory committees, appeal boards and panels that fall under the purview of Health. Mr. Goertzen : Well, and I want to assure the member, and he, you know, a couple of questions ago, he said something to the effect that seniors was a small part of my department. And I know what he meant there, and I don't want to ascribe any sort of motives or motivation to him.

He meant, I think, in a fiscal perspective, that in relation to the overall department, that it was a relatively small part of that money. * (11:00) But I don't want to leave it on the record that in any way that I feel that it's a small part of the department. I actually think it's an incredibly important part of the department. I've heard from

952 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 16, 2016 many that they feel it's good that the Active Living and the Seniors portion of the department has been brought together back into Health and there's some synergies there, that that allows a broader perspective and a broader look at things. And I want the member to know that I very much take seriously the Seniors portion of the portfolio. I've had an opportunity to meet with some of the seniors' groups, not nearly as many as I'd like or that I hope to when this House recesses after December.

But when we–when I have the opportunity to meet with those seniors' groups, I want them to know that it is very important to me and that I value their input, but not only their input today, but I very much value the contribution that they've made to the province of Manitoba historically. So I don't want the member to–and I don't think he meant to suggest that it was a diminished part of the department

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-1-22a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 1st hansardpdf 22a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4da7eeebb47a98662c88da0c12d5a0c14ff5d11a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).