Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 41 (42nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

42-3-41

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Myrna Driedger Speaker Vol. LXXV No. 41 - 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 24, 2021 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-Second Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ADAMS, Danielle Thompson NDP ALTOMARE, Nello Transcona NDP ASAGWARA, Uzoma Union Station NDP BRAR, Diljeet Burrows NDP BUSHIE, Ian Keewatinook NDP CLARKE, Eileen, Hon. Agassiz PC COX, Cathy, Hon. Kildonan-River East PC CULLEN, Cliff, Hon. Spruce Woods PC DRIEDGER, Myrna, Hon. Roblin PC EICHLER, Ralph, Hon. Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne, Hon. Lac du Bonnet PC FIELDING, Scott, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib.

GOERTZEN, Kelvin, Hon. Steinbach PC GORDON, Audrey, Hon. Southdale PC GUENTER, Josh Borderland PC GUILLEMARD, Sarah, Hon. Fort Richmond PC HELWER, Reg, Hon. Brandon West PC ISLEIFSON, Len Brandon East PC JOHNSON, Derek, Hon. Interlake-Gimli PC JOHNSTON, Scott Assiniboia PC KINEW, Wab Fort Rouge NDP LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAGIMODIERE, Alan Selkirk PC LAMONT, Dougald St. Boniface Lib. LAMOUREUX, Cindy Tyndall Park Lib.

LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas-Kameesak NDP LINDSEY, Tom Flin Flon NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Malaya Notre Dame NDP MARTIN, Shannon McPhillips PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC MOSES, Jamie St. Vital NDP NAYLOR, Lisa Wolseley NDP NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine, Hon. Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Turtle Mountain PC REYES, Jon Waverley PC SALA, Adrien St. James NDP SANDHU, Mintu The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron, Hon.

Springfield-Ritchot PC SMITH, Andrew Lagimodière PC SMITH, Bernadette Point Douglas NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Vérendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WASYLIW, Mark Fort Garry NDP WHARTON, Jeff, Hon. Red River North PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC

1907 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, March 24, 2021 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Madam Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen. Please be seated. Good afternoon, everybody.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Madam Speaker: Introduction of bills? Committee reports? Tabling of reports? Ministerial statements? MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Optimist Park Expansion Mr. Scott Johnston (Assiniboia): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and good afternoon. Today, I would recognize the newly expanded St. James -Assiniboia Optimist Park and ongoing contributions that it makes to our community of St. James-Assiniboia. In September 2020, I was pleased to be invited to the grand re-opening and ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Optimist Park field, hosted by City Councillor Scott Gillingham.

The Manitoba government worked with the City of Winnipeg on this project. The Province of Manitoba was pleased to finan - cially contribute more than $1.7 million as a parcel of land to the relocation and expansion project, which became necessary with the construction of CentrePort Canada Way. St. James -Assiniboia Optimist board members were tirelessly –worked tirelessly on this labour of love. They can now begin to pursue events and generate economic activity to continue to maintain and upgrade their facility. The community of St.

James-Assiniboia will now be able to enjoy a relocated soccer field, newly constructed playgrounds, new baseball diamonds and improvements to their canteen. With nine top- tier baseball diamonds, the St. James Assiniboia Minor Baseball Association can now host city, provincial, western Canadian and Canadian championships. In addition, they can continue to offer diamonds to local schools, both junior and senior, for their events. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues today to honour all the volunteers and donors who worked tire- lessly to see the St. James -Assiniboia Optimist Park reach its potential.

This facility will encourage more young people to participate in sporting and recreational activities. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ronald Bresch Mr. Nello Altomare (Transcona): Good afternoon, everyone. Madam Speaker, I would like to take the time today to acknowledge the contributions of a person who's been a mentor in our community here in Transcona. Coach Ronald Bresch, who passed away suddenly in 2015, was Murdoch MacKay Collegiate's football coach, teacher and, most important ly, a mentor to young people.

Coach Bresch taught his students com- mitment, the value of hard work and the meaning of family and camaraderie– Madam Speaker: Order, please. Order. I'm won - dering if the member can ensure that his video is on. We have not seen him. Could he– Mr. Altomare: What happened? Excuse me, Madam Speaker. Sometimes my video just goes, but I'm glad that you can hear me. Can I continue? May I have leave to continue? Madam Speaker: Please continue. [interjection] Oh, wait. I'm told, no.

Is there leave to allow the member to continue just verbally? [Agreed] The honourable member for Transcona can– [interjection]–wrong person? Okay. The honourable member for Transcona. Mr. Altomare: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Everyone loves the story o f an underdog, and 10 years ago the late Ronald Bresch led Murdoch MacKay Collegiate's humble football team of 32 players to their first ever championship win, which

1908 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 to this day has left an everlasting impact on the young people that were part of the team , some of whom realized their ultimate dream and have become professional football players. Now, six years later, after his passing, his friends, family and former students remember Coach Ron fondly to this day. The members of the Murdoch MacKay champion ship football team tell me that Coach Bresch was a person larger than life with a tendency to give a hug before a handshake. He was never afraid to tell people around him that he loved them on a daily basis.

And it is for this reason that so many of his fo rmer students and players are caring parents, partners and coaches who work daily towards making contributions in the communities in which they live. Coach Bresch may not be here with us today to help celebrate him, but his memory and legacy live on, not only through the football program that he helped build, but through his former players, coaches and loved ones. I would also like to extend my thanks to the Murdoch MacKay championship team for sharing– me the story of someone who they have held dear and near to their hearts. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The honourable minister of mental health, wellness and addictions– An Honourable Member: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Madam Speaker: Oh. The honourabl e member for St. James, on a matter of privilege. Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): I rise at the earliest opportunity, as the breach I'll identify has only properly come to light in media yesterday, and since that time, this is the first time the House has convened.

The second test of a matter of privilege, to show in what way my privileges as an MLA have been breached, are based on the following: my abilities to perform my job as an MLA and fundamentally to hold this government to account have been undermined by the government's refusal to allow members of the opposition to meet with the CEO and board chair of Manitoba Hydro or to call regular meetings of the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations.

This is deeply concerning because there are urgent matte rs that must be discussed regarding Manitoba Hydro, and the government's refusal and interference in Hydro is impeding my ability to adequately fulfill my responsibility to my con - stituents to ensure proper management of their Crown corporation.

The Cr own Corporations Governance and Accountability Act states the following: that when an annual report of a corporation is laid before the Legislative Assembly, the annual report, subject to any other act, then stands permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations of the Legislative Assembly unless the Assembly otherwise orders. The last time the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations met regarding the annual reports for Manitoba Hydro was nearly a year ago.

We have repeatedly requested meetings to discuss urgent matters with the leadership of Manitoba Hydro–and I table the letters for the House's consideration–but I've received no response. Now, this is a prima facie case of privilege, Madam Speaker, because, as members, it is our privilege to ask questions of those responsible for our Crown corporations to ensure they are being managed properly.

Marleau and Montpetit, from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, clearly define priv- ilege as, quote, "the rights and immunities th at are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions." End quote.

Many events have taken place regarding Manitoba Hydro over the last year that make it deeply concerning that this government is refusing to call the committee or permit the CEO to meet with the official opposition, specifically the bypassing of the Public Utilities Board and the raising of hydro rates; the refusal of this government to present a general rate application to the Public Utilities Board; the demand for layoffs and wage cuts from front -line hydro workers; the privatization of profitable subsidiaries and the government's interference, which has precipi- tated a strike. * (13:40) It is a member's duty to hold the government to account and ensure these public entities are being properly managed.

It is important that we have the opportunity to discuss the corporation at large, to know what is functioning, what is not, and to under - stand how recent developments and events are

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1909 impacting their function. Given the media reports of the government hiding $5 billion in export sales from Manitobans for nearly a year, this is why this standing committee needs to be called immediately. Therefore, a s a result of the interference of the Premier (Mr. Pallister) and Minister of Crown Services (Mr. Wharton), I move, seconded by the member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Kinew), that the Standing Committee of Crown Corporations be im - mediately called to discuss the current state of Manitoba Hydro. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): On the two issues that need to be established for a prima facie case of privilege to be considered to be so by yourself, Madam Speaker: on the first issue of timeliness, it is questionable at best whether or not that standard is even met, and that's a relatively low threshold. It wasn't even the earliest opportunity today, and the member opposite himself indicates that he's been contemplating this for some time. So I don't believe it meets that initial threshold.

But on the more substantive issue of whether or not the member's privileges have some way been breached, I would say tha t all members within this Chamber are looking forward to a Crown Corporations Committee, particularly when it comes to Hydro. I'm sure that there are members of all sides of the House who want to ask questions about the appropriateness of a leader in this Assembly taking sides in a labour dispute. I'm sure that there are members who are going to question that unpreced- ented situation.

I'm sure that there are many members of the House, and I hope the opposition as well, who want to ask questions regarding t he recently released Wall report, which talked about $10 billion that was wasted because the NDP became cheerleaders for certain projects. I'm sure that members of the opposition are going to want to ask those questions as well. So I think that all members of the House are looking forward to that committee being called.

There are many things that have to be uncovered when it comes to the NDP's mismanagement of Hydro, both their actions more currently under this Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Kinew), but also members from the previous administration, Madam Speaker. And that committee will be called in due course, but it is certainly not a matter of privilege. But we all look forward to the committee to get to the bottom of the NDP scandals, Madam Speaker. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words on this matter of privilege.

I think, clearly, the question of this being called at the earliest possible opportunity, we were –just learned today about the $5 billion being hidden by the government. This is clearly an example of the sort of things which need to be looked at by the Crown Corporations Committee. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Gerrard: As to whether it could have been raised earlier, you know, this is very early in the day today, and we have had previously, occasionally, matters of privilege which have been raised right after question period as–and accepted as the earliest possible time.

So I think that there's a reasonable argument that this was raised at the earliest possible time. I think that the –some of the accusations of the government, for example, that the NDP are interfering on one side or the other of this dispute, that's a bit rich given the way the government has handled a lot of negotiations–or lack of negotiations–with universities and many other organizations, in terms of mandating what is allowable or what is not allowable.

The government has clearly interfered in many, many circumstances, and this should not be a reason for disrega rding the imperative of having a meeting of the Crown corporations to deal with Hydro at the earliest possible opportunity. It is our largest corporation. It is extraordinarily important to all Manitobans. And to have $5 billion hidden and to have o ther things going on at Hydro, it is really imperative that we have that legislative committee as soon as possible, as the member for St. James (Mr. Sala) has asked. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

1910 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 Madam Speaker: A matter of privilege is a serious concern. I'm going to take this matter under advise - ment to consult the authorities and will return to the House with a ruling. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS (Continued) Madam Speaker: Continuing now with members' statements, the honourable minister of mental health, wellness and addictions. Paulette Côté Hon.

Audrey Gordon (Minister of Mental Health, Wellness and Recovery): Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Windsor Park resident Paulette Côté, who recently retired as the community liaison worker at École Varennes school. During her tenure, she developed a newsletter to promote Indigenous celebration nights, healthy food programs, the St. Mary's Road United Church food bank and intergenerational programming with Riverside Lions Seniors Residences.

Paulette is known throughout the community for the development of a community garden that intro- duced students to gardening and allowed them to grow cherry tomatoes for the food bank and make sweet green relish and rhubarb compote. When the COVID -19 pandemic was declared, Paulette and her husband Peter organized the hashtag 2020 #donationdozen auction, where she auctioned his Ukrainian Easter egg art, raising $3,800 for the food bank.

When hobby farmers offered their land for a larger community garden, she developed the Harvesting for Harvest group and grew vegetables for the food bank and other local Winnipeg agencies. Paulette and Peter also founded the Winnipeg Soup Fairies project to prepare and serve soup to family and friends that are homebound during the pandemic. They're grateful to the local businesses such as Shannon's Irish Pub and Chef in the House chef, Roger Wilton, that have joined the project to help reach more people.

Paulette believes her accomplishments are due to the unconditional positive regard she shows to every- one in the community. As she says, together, as a com- munity, everything is possible. Please join me to thank Paulette Côté for her dedi- cation and commitment to the community and wish her continued health and prosperity in her retirement. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hydro Power Sale to Saskatchewan Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): While this Premier (Mr. Pallister) was crying wolf, he was simul - taneously performing the cover-up of the century.

As it turns out, despite the Premier's claims that Manitoba Hydro is in dire financial state and that rates need to be raised and workers' wages need to be frozen, Manitoba Hydro actually looks quite profitable in the future. It was recently unveiled that Manitoba Hydro had inked two power sales with Saskatchewan–signed by both the Premier and his supposedly unbiased commissioner, Brad Wall–worth $5 billion.

Skeptical about the Brad Wall review of Manitoba Hydro was already high, given his lack of support for clean energy and his privatization agenda as the premier of Saskatchewan, but now the lid has been blown off completely. Wall claimed that Manitoba Hydro's future looked bleak but, despite signing the papers himself, he conveniently left out any details of these details with Saskatchewan. How can we trust anything Brad Wall says or the findings of the report when a multi-billion-dollar deal that he signed–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Lindsey: –was excluded from his own review?

In fact, this deal was left out o f the review at the directive of the Premier himself because it would go against his plan to paint Manitoba Hydro as unprofitable and then chop it up bit by bit. The Premier knew about this deal that was coming and he still directed Manitoba Hydro to incr ease rates – [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Lindsey: –freeze IBEW workers' wages and – sorry. * (13:50) In fact, the Premier knew about this deal that was coming. He still directed Manitoba Hydro to increase rates, freeze wages, directly misleading the public and 2,300 employees about the financial state of Hydro.

The strike that is happening today is directly because of–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order.

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1911 Mr. Lindsey: –interference in our Crown jewel. He raised rates on Manitoba Hydro at the stroke of a pen at a Cabinet meeting, despite the fact that he knew Manitoba Hydro– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. Mr. Lindsey: I ask leave to continue. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time. The member has asked me something and because of the heckling that is going on from both sides of the House, I cannot hear what he actually said to me. Mr. Lindsey: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to finish my member's statement.

Madam Speaker: Okay. Is there leave for the member to conclude his statement? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Speaker: Leave has been denied. World Down Syndrome Day Mr. James Teitsma (Radisson): What is the first word that pops into your head when I say D own syndrome? I imagine each of us here might answer that question differently. But one word that I really hope does come to the top of our minds is joy. Yes, joy. A recent study showed that people with Down syndrome are among the happiest on earth. A f ull 99 per cent of those surveyed said that they are happy with their lives.

Madam Speaker, 97 per cent answered yes to the question, do you like who you are? And an amazing 99 per cent agreed with the statement, do you love your family? Happiness and joy are special commodities. The more you share, the more you give, the more you'll have, and people with Down syndrome have more happiness than most. If you don't believe me, I invite you to join myself and the member for Transcona (Mr. Altomare) for a visi t to L'Arche Tova Café to meet some of the wonderful people who work there. Madam Speaker, o n Sunday, we celeb rated World Down Syndrome Day.

Down syndrome is a naturally oc curring chromo somal arrangement that has always been a part of the human condition. It's universally present across all races, genders and socio-economic conditions in about one in 800 live births. Now, when prenatal parents receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome for their unborn child, their first reaction may be one of sadness or shock. It takes time for them to understand that, despite having different abilities and medical needs, a child with Down syndrome will be able to live a happy and fulfilling life.

Ontario recently passed a law that ensures expectant parents receiving a positi ve test for Down syndrome are given accurate information and the time they need to process it. In the same study I mentioned earlier, people with Down syndrome were asked what advice they'd give to expectant parents. Participants wanted parents to know that their child will be happy, that their family will be better because of them and that their baby will love them. These themes of self -worth, value and acceptance were echoed again when participants were asked to provide advice to physicians.

Our community is better when it includes people with Down syndrome, so let's be sure to welcome them with open arms. ORAL QUESTIONS Manitoba Hydro Revenue Projections Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, you can call it the cover-up of the century. You can call it rate-gate. You can call it whatever you want, but it's very clear what has happened: the Premier has covered up more than $5 billion in revenue at Manitoba Hydro, specifically for partisan political purposes. In the process , he misleads the hard -working Manitobans who pay those hydro bills.

He misleads the very Hydro workers who are outside of the building even as we gather here today. And in the process, he hired another Conservative premier, for millions of dollars, and in the end, only serves to undermine that man's credibility as well as his own. The Premier has to tell Manitobans why he hid the $5 billion in Hydro revenue. Was it purely for political purposes, or did he intend also to mislead Manitobans? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, there you go again, Madam Speaker. We know that the NDP ran up a bill to Americanize Manitoba Hydro to the tune of

1912 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 over $10 billion, but now, when we make a deal with Saskatchewan, that's supposed to be a bad thing. I'm sorry but their plan to Americanize Manitoba Hydro undermined Manitoba Hydro for generations to come–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: Our plan –[interjection]–our plan to make money for Manitobans and help our neighbours get off carbon -producing energy, Madam Speaker, onto clean–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –green energy is a darn good plan. That's why we put out a bunch of press releases when we did it.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question. Manitoba Hydro Revenue Request for PUB Hearing Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Premier continues to cover up $5 billion in export sales, and he does it for political purposes. He does it so that he can raise rates on hard -working Manitobans during the height of the second wave. He does it so that he can present a low -ball offer to the hard- working workers at Manitoba Hydro.

And he does it so that he can secure a more than $1- million pay ment to another former Conservative premier. Purely for political purposes, he has attacked and undermined our most important Crown corporation. In the end, of course, we know that he seeks to privatize. Given that he is engaged in the cover -up of a century, given that–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: –the Premier has $10 billion in export sales that he continues to cover up, will the Premier call for a Public Utilities Board hearing today? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Premier): NDP ignored the Public Utilities Board, went ahead with a $10 -billion waste of time, Madam Speaker, and they did it without consulting the Public Utilities Board. They ignored the Public Utilities Board. If the member opposite and his friends want to have the Public U tilities Board convene, support Bill 35, it'll convene right away. They're trying to delay. What are they hiding, Madam Speaker? What are they hiding over there that they would block– An Honourable Member: Cover-up of the century. Mr. Pallister: What's a cover-up?

The member who wouldn't present–the member who colluded with his party to cover up his own personal record, Madam Speaker, speaks about cover-ups today in the House. The problem–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: The proble m, Madam Speaker, the problem the NDP has is no matter how long– [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –and how loud they yell, Manitoba Hydro is $10 billion more in–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –is $10 billion more in debt because the NDP covered up their intentions to Americanize Manitoba Hydro.

We're bringing it home to Canada, Madam Speaker. That's why we're doing these kinds of deals instead of Americanizing it. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, the Premier is attacking and undermining the Public Utilities Board. His Bill 35 will remove PUB oversight from Manitoba Hydro. He does this strictly to continue his $5-billion cover-up of export sales to Saskatchewan. Even now the Cabinet around him seeks to distance themselves very quickly. Of course, the cover-up of a century is a real career-limiting move.

There is one way to get–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: –to the bottom of the cover -up of the century: it is to call a Public Utilities Board hearing today. I will table a letter from the member for St. James (Mr. Sala) and myself to the Premier, asking for him to immediately call a Public Utilities Board hearing so that the people of Manitoba can finally hear the truth about the $5-billion cover-up.

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1913 Mr. Pallister: Kind of ironic, Madam Speaker –he's talking about Manitoba Hydro like he actually cares about it. Madam Speaker, you know, trying to discredit somebody who did an investigation into the biggest scam of Manitoba history, and unearthed a lot of inter- esting facts that we have to dig deeper on, isn't going to help. The fact that Americanizing Manitoba Hydro was the goal of the previous NDP administration is bad enough, but the member now speaks in support of that very thing, Madam Speaker.

This is a party of cover- up, and that's the captain of cover-up right there. So the fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, when we do press releases on deals with Saskatchewan Power, that's not a cover -up. When we generate an additional billion dollars for Manitoba Hydro over years to come, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. And the NDP and the Free Press are trusting one another, and they shouldn't. The NDP believe the Free Press does their research. They don't. The Free Press believes the NDP do their research. They don't.

And so, Madam Speaker, this is what results when neither of these groups does any homework. * (14:00) Madam Speaker: The member's –the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question. Hydro Labour Dispute Arbitration Request Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Just as a quick aside, on this side of the House, we believe in the freedom of the press, whether they're writing in favour of us or against us, Madam Speaker. Now, very clearly– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Kinew: –we have a party that does not believe in the freedom of the press, Madam Speaker, and so I'll leave it to them to try and clarify their–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: –attack on the fundamental civil liberties that our society is built on. But I'll tell you one thing that I am happy about. I'm happy that the 2,300 Hydro workers rejected the low-ball offer that this government presented to them. I'm glad that those IBEW members stood up for themselves.

Because we find out, after they go on strike, after the low -ball offer, that it turns out Manitoba Hydro actually had $5 billion more in revenue. Will the Premier finally allow Manitoba Hydro to negotiate fairly with its workers and remove all inter- ference that he's introduced to date? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): The member might've taken economics, but he needs a review, Madam Speaker.

The reality of the situation is Hydro's profits this year are pretty good, but if they made the same amount every year for the next 99 years, they'd pay off the principal only, not the interest, on the NDP boondoggle that was the biggest in Manitoba history. So, Madam Speaker, the–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –member opposite likes to 'conflaint'– conflate issues, but I don't, Madam Speaker. I'm just going to say, never have I seen a political leader that is so reckless as to take an overt position– [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Pallister: –against the ratepayers of Manitoba– [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Enough. Order. Order. Could the table please stop the clock. I'm asking all members –and there's some shril l voices here–I really would like to see us get through oral questions –[interjection]–I would like to see us get through oral questions in a respectful manner, in a civil manner, so that we can actually hear the questions and hear the answers. And I think that nobody likes to be shouted down.

And when people continue to shout, when people – other people are speaking, I don't think that is showing very respectful behaviour in this House. We've got a long, long day ahead of us, and I'm going to ask for every body's co-operation so that we can move this along today. There's a big agenda this afternoon, and I would ask for everybody –I don't know why people feel they need to be shouting each other down like this. That is not going to get us anywhere, or–it's not in the public's interest either. And I'm going to give fair warning.

If this continues, I'm going to have to start identifying people because, you know, I can't hear, and in order for me to

1914 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 be able to, you know, rule on anything, I have to be able to hear the questions and the answers and all the words in all of that. That's the expectation of the Speaker. So I'm asking for your co-operation, please. And maybe you could pretend that there's schoolchildren in the galleries, and maybe that'll help a little bit. The honourable Premier, to conclude his answer. Mr. Pallister: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

A $10 -billion waste, Madam Speaker, that was done without Manitobans' permission and done dis - respectfully to all concerned: 80 per cent of the money spent on the Keeyask project didn't go to any Manitoba workers, didn't go to IBEW employees. It went out of province. That's a question that needs to be addressed. Madam Speaker, 40 per cent rate hikes under the NDP–40 per cent rate hikes– Madam Speaker: And the member's time has expired. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question. Mr.

Kinew: I want to thank the member for Fort Whyte for confirming the cover -up and the rationale for why he's concealed the $5 billion in sales. You saw it in the answer right there, Madam Speaker. His entire political story is constructed on incomplete and outdated information that is rendered moot once you learn about the $5 billion in export sales. He didn't want to share the information about the $5 billion in export sales because it would've meant that those 2,300 striking Hydro workers should've negotiated a wage increase instead of the wage freeze that he offered 'em.

This is not an abstract political issue floating around in the ether. This is a cover -up that is costing families' lives. That's money taken out of the mouths of the striking IBEW workers. Will the Premier apologize today and send the strike to arbitration? Mr. Pallister: The NDP said to Manitobans: Bipole won't cost you a cent. The NDP told Hydro exec - utives: Go ahead and build it on the west side and don't worry about anything else that your experts say; it doesn't matter. And they covered that all up, Madam Speaker.

The NDP decided th at they'd present data to the Public Utilities Board only after they'd already started building Keeyask and put $1 billion in the ground. That's how little respect they had for PUB, Madam Speaker. And they excluded the bipole line from the hearings entirely. That's how little respect they had for the Public Utilities Board. Madam Speaker, we're bringing Hydro back into the light. They put it in the dark. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, Keeyask went to the Public Utilities Board.

The $5 billion in export sales did not. The Premier is actively engaging in a con- tinued cover-up of Manitoba Hydro and it is not only costing the workers at IBEW, it is costing all of us. We know that a prolonged strike at Manitoba Hydro will cost a lot of money. In one case, when Hydro has to bring in replacement workers to cross the picket line, it's already cost $750,000. That was on day one, after one call, Madam Speaker. I'll table the document for the minister to take a look at.

This strike does not make any sense, and it is being launched on false pretenses by the Premier because he concealed the $5 billion in revenue from the very workers that he was trying to negotiate with. Will the Prem ier allow Hydro to bargain fairly, and will he send the matter to arbitration? Mr. Pallister: I respect the bargaining process enough to understand that the Opposition Leader is being reckless in entering into it. There's no place for him at the table.

IBEW's done a great job representing their members for a long time without the member for Fort Rouge sticking his nose in, and he'll –they'll continue to. They don't need his help to do their job. There's a bargaining table. People need to be at one side, IB EW the other side –on behalf of all the owners of Manitoba Hydro –everybody. That's what we respect, Madam Speaker. So the member understands that the NDP covered up $10 billion of Americanization waste, and now he's accusing us wrongly, Madam Speaker, of covering up new revenues derived by sales to a fellow Canadian province.

Madam Speaker, I guess, in terms of the relative charges, I'd say I know that the evidence speaks truly to the NDP cover -up of a $10- billion loss, but it doesn't speak to us covering up a new profit, a profit

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1915 that Manitoba Hydro and all Manitobans'll benefit from. We're proud of generating those sales to Saskatchewan, that's why we did a press release. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, those sales are only possible because of Keeyask, so I thank–I guess, thank you, Gary Doer. When it comes to the strike and when it comes to the failure at the negotiating table, there can only be a fair–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Kinew: –negotiation when the government is being honest about the books. And yet they are not, Madam Speaker. It's not a free negotiation when the IBEW members have concealed from them, by this First Minister, $5 billion in revenue. Given that his interference, unprecedented as it is, has led to this labour disruption and this labour dispute, will the Premier, step 1, apologize to the workers who are honking outside the Chamber even as we speak, and (2) will he send the strike to arbitration? * (14:10) Mr.

Pallister: I understand that the recklessness of the member preceded his time in politics, but it's raising its head regularly here, Madam Speaker. The reality is he's just misdescribed the entire negotiation process, which he wants to be part of but doesn't know anything about. Madam Speaker, that inexperience–[interjection]–hurts the people at IBEW. Madam Speaker: Uh-oh, uh-oh, oh. Mr. Pallister: That hurts the people at IBEW. It hurts the workers. Because the member's trying now to draw attention to himself and saying, look at me, watch me. I caused a strike. Look at me, he says, I got people to strike.

Look at me, he says. Look at the– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Pallister: –drawing attention to himself, Madam Speaker, when really, what he should be doing is focusing on the best interests of workers and rate - payers. And the best interests of workers and rate - payers are not well served by a leader that chooses himself over them. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question. Manitoba Hydro Rates Increase During Pandemic Mr.

Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Premier caused the strike by hiding $5 billion in revenue from the workers. They were entitled to that information before they got to the negotiating table so that they could bargain a fair deal. The matter should immediately be sent to arbitration. But that's not even the worst part of what the Premier has done when it comes to Manito ba Hydro. Think back to December 1st. We were at the height of the second wave. Manitobans were losing their lives. Manitobans were losing their livelihoods. What was this team's response?

Raise hydro rates in the cover of night. We now see, with $5 billion in revenue concealed from the people of Manitoba, that this hike was unnecessary. Will the Premier apologize to the people of Manitoba for raising rates during the height of the second wave, and will he immediately send the matter to the Public Utilities Board? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): The member opposite gets more and more bizarre with every subsequent comment, Madam Speaker. The fact of the matter is that the rate increase is an interim increase while we're strengthening the PUB.

If the member doesn't understand that, he hasn't read the bill, and if he hasn't read the bill, he's a danger to himself and his party, Madam Speaker. It's reckless behaviour. And the member is saying–the member is claiming–claiming that this contract with Saskatchewan's the reason for a strike . That's just bizarre behaviour. It's bizarre behaviour on display here today. Where would we be today if Manitoba Hydro had $10 billion back that the NDP said let's throw to the Americans? Where would we be today, Madam Speaker?

Our workers'd be happier, our ratepayers'd be happier, and the member wouldn't be able to celebrate creating a strike. Madam Speaker, the fact is, the member's cele - brating a strike in the middle of a pandemic. That's just bizarre.

1916 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, let's be clear. The Premier raised rates on Manitobans during the worst recession in recent memory. He did it at the height of the second wave. His wh ole Cabinet clapped for him and said: Great idea. Let's make life more expensive on every Manitoban as the hospitals are being overrun. Let's make life more expensive as the economy falls into the deepest, darkest pits of recession.

Let's raise the cost of living for every single person in the province. With a public hearing? No, the Premier interrupted his Cabinet colleagues, let's do that by burying it in an 'omnimus' bill and not telling anyone about it. Madam Speaker, n ow that we've learned about the $5-billion cover-up, will we hear an apology from the Premier? Will the Premier apologize today for increasing rates on everyday Manitobans at the height of the second wave? Mr. Pallister: The member seems to be losing his grounding, Madam Speaker, in ter ms of his argu - ments. They're bizarre.

The NDP raided the kitchen tables of Manitobans for years and years and years, Madam Speaker. We brought in a small interim increase that is smaller by 16 per cent than the NDP did under Greg Selinger. Those years, Madam Speaker, were littered with rate increases. They were littered with rate increases: a 40 per cent rate increase under the NDP– [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: Madam Speaker, I'm not sure why the members don't understand that they can't take money– [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Pallister: –off the kitchen tables of Manitobans over 16 or 17 years and not have them notice that that's what they're doing. Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is our bill will strengthen the PUB and make sure–make sure– that rate increases are as low as possible going forward. That's our goal, and that was never the NDP goal. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Order. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question. Legislation on Public Utilities Reform Request to Withdraw Bill 35 Mr.

Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Premier took money off the kitchen tables from Manitobans when they needed it most. He took it off those kitchen tables at the height of the second wave. He took it away from business owners as they were struggling to keep their doors open. And did anyone on the other side of the House speak up and raise one objection? Do they do so now? None of them, Madam Speaker. They all stood in line, right with the Premier, with his plan to increase hydro rates. Did any of them speak up and say there should be a public hearing?

Do any of them stand up today and–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: –say there should be a public hearing at the PUB? No, they do not. That's why they want to pass Bill 35, Madam Speaker. But now that we've learned about the $5 billion cover-up–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: –and we see that Bill 35 is a purely political exercise, will somebody on the opposite side of the House finally stand up and say, we must withdraw Bill 35? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Premier): Madam Speaker, as steamy as the member gets, he helps to reinforce the point that the NDP does not care about working families in this province. Even the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives verified that we are among the largest investors in support in the country of Canada. And that is not generally anything that the NDP would ever do. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: They would tax, they would spend and they would debt people, but they would not support them. Madam Speaker, we have.

Our spending on health care and education and social services is No. 1 in the country on a per capita basis–No. 1, after five years in government, in spite of the billion-dollar deficits we had to clean up, left to us by the – [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order.

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1917 Mr. Pallister: –people on the other side and their friends, Madam Speaker. So while we clean up the finances, we are also reducing taxes and fees and putting money into the households of our province to support them in these times and in all times. Madam Speaker: And I have a list, and I'm going to start identifying that list of people that are not heeding the direction of the Speaker in asking for some civility in the House and some respect for people that are asking and answering questions. There's no need to yell.

And I've started my list and I'm going to give you one last chance and that's it. And there's a few of you on that list already. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, you will note that the Premier (Mr. Pallister) doesn't come anywhere close to trying to defend raising hydro rates at the height of the second wave. Put simply, that was indefensible. And I'm not surprised that none of his colleagues are standing up to defend the move, either. Making life more expensive on December 1st, at the height of the second wave, in the province most impacted by the second wave? Bad move. Unethical. Mistake – capital M, Madam Speaker.

We know that Bill 35 will compound this and make it the practice for years to come for hydro rate increases not to come from a public, overseen, open hearing but instead to come from this Premier and his Cabinet table. Given the fact that they raised rates at the time when Manitobans could least afford to pay it, that's a major concern. Will they simply withdraw Bill 35 today? Mr. Pallister: Madam Speaker, the member advocated–told David Chartrand he'd give him $70 million of Manitobans' money, but keep it quiet, he said. Before he'd read the agreement. He hasn't read the bill.

If he read the bill, he'd know there's a been a rate–interim rate increase until the Public Utilities Board can be strengthened and it can make those decisio ns. If the member cared about Manitobans, he would support the bill. But he hasn't read the bill, and so he has strong opinions against something he hasn't read, Madam Speaker.

The record of the NDP on raising hydro rates is clear and it's demonstrative; the record of the NDP on raising the PST on home insurance is clear and demonstrative; raising the PST on hair services on women, Madam Speaker; raising the PST on wills so people who wanted to prepare their estate would get taxed on it; raising fees on probate; raising fees on car registration; raising fees on everything. * (14:20) That's what the NDP is good at: taxing, spending and then lying about it later. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary. Mr.

Kinew: It's pathetic that he can't defend his own actions in raising hydro rates in the middle of the second wave, Madam Speaker. And we know why he wants to pass Bill 35: because it will allow him to increase rates that way every single year for years to come –no public over - sight, no public hearing, Madam Speaker, no ability for the people of Manitoba to understand what is going on in Manitoba Hydro. It's not surprising that the Premier covered up the $5 billion, Madam Speaker, because it undermines the political story that he is trying to tell.

He is trying to spin a false narrative about Hydro so that he can raise rates, he can shortchange workers and he can break up and sell off pieces of Hydro to private bidders. With Bill 35 making all of those things more possible by removing PUB oversight from Hydro, we stand with the majority of Manitobans and say that it's wrong. Will the remaining holdouts–the Premier and his Cabinet–finally come to the winning side and agree to immediately withdraw Bill 35? Mr.

Pallister: The winning side wouldn't be the side that endorses harassment and repeated false accus - ations against defenceless civil servants, Madam Speaker. That would be your losing side right there. That would be your losing side. And the losing side would be the one that tries to defend a $10- billion Americanization attempt done in secret by the NDP and take ownership of it. That would be the losing side, Madam Speaker.

And the losing side would be the one that opposed seniors' economi c recovery benefits; that opposed Risk Recognition Program, as designed by union advisers; that opposed the MPI COVID rebates –not one, but two–that opposed the Disability Economic Support Program.

1918 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 And, Madam Speaker, these are not demonstrative actions of a winning side. They are demonstrative actions of a losing side. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question. Manitoba Hydro Review Export Sales Projection Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Premier certainly is losing it, just like he lost his credibility on Hydro, just like he forced Brad Wall to lose his credibility on energy as well. It's very clear that this Wall report was a purely partisan political exercise.

The fact that the Premier covered up $5 billion in revenue and didn't ask Brad Wall to look at that–by the way, Brad Wall knew about the $5 billion at the time –but the fact that they conspired to omit that information from the report completely undermines all the credibility of that Wall review. Given the fact that that was purely a sham report, will the Premier today ask Brad Wall to pay back the more than $1 million that he was paid by the people of Manitoba? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): I understand the member is grasping at straws, and so does he, Madam Speaker.

I understand that his sole strategy is try to belittle a credible person who worked diligently to prepare a factual report that he doesn't want to address. I understand that the NDP wants to cover that up, too, Madam Speaker–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –because it keeps the cover-up going. First, you cover up a $10-billion Americanization strategy–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –and then you want to cov er up the report that examined that, Madam Speaker, naturally. I understand the member's desire to cover it up. We won't cover it up. We won't.

What they put into the dark, we'll bring into the light instead: the disrespect they showed to their own board, their appointed board; the disrespect that the member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine) showed to the Hydro experts who said, don't go down the west side, you'll waste $1 billion. The disrespect, Madam Speaker, it needs to be investigated even further, and t hat's what we'll do because it'll never happen again. It'll never happen again while this government's in power, but it sure as heck might some day 25 years from now when the member for St. Johns finally gets to the government side.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, so, so far the people responsible for the Premier's cover-up are the member for St. Johns, David Chartrand and, I assume, QAnon. Madam Speaker, the Premier i s grasping. We know that when he says someone doesn't have credibility on Hydro, he's looking in the mirror. We know that when he talks about a fact related to the Wall report, he's talking about the $5 billion that he covered up and told Mr. Wall not to i nclude in his report. Now, again, Mr.

Wall certainly has many questions to answer, not least of all why did he deny knowledge of this $5 billion when he was premier when the term sheets were signed? But my interest is on getting answers from the Premier. Clearly, Mr. Wall didn't come up with this himself. So will the Premier today publish any and all orders and directives that he issued to Mr. Wall and to Manitoba Hydro to cover up the $5 billion in export sales? Mr. Pallister: It's okay, Madam Speaker. It's a tactic all bullies use. When they know they're wrong they point at somebody else and say it's their fault.

That's what they do, and that's what the member's doing now. Madam Speaker, here are the facts. Here are the facts. Premier Wall spoke–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: Premier Wall spoke at the press conference–if the member would have paid any attention–about this very deal. The government issued press releases about this very deal. The member's letting a writer at the Free Press–who pretends to be a journalist, but is not; is an opinion columnist –he is letting that person do his research for him because he's too lazy or does not desire to get to the facts.

And the facts are as I just outlined, Madam Speaker. Now, the member for St. Johns knows this. That's why she's yelling, Madam Speaker. She knows this. She knows. She knows that the NDP government

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1919 disrespected its own appointees. She knows they built the project without approval. She knows they tried to avoid the scruti ny of the Public Utilities Board, and she knows–she knows–that that was wrong and that was the wrong thing to do, and now she yells to cover it up. It's such a shame. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, I just want to take a second to chastise the Premier for attacking Mr. Lett, for attacking my colleague.

He does so because he doesn't have the courage to engage with me in an honest debate about the failures that he's made at Manitoba Hydro. And I invite him at any time to engage directly with me because we have the facts on our side, Madam Speaker. We know that he concealed $5 billion–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: –in revenue from the people of Manitoba simply because it did not fit his political story. But that's not bad enough.

It's not bad enough that that entire get- along gang of Cabinet lackeys applauded him at every turn, but, in fact, what is really objectionable, Madam Speaker, is that he enlisted Brad Wall to help him with the cover-up. I will table a letter from the member for St. James (Mr. Sala) and myself to the Premier today asking that he immediately publish any–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: –and all orders and directives that he gave to Mr. Wall and to Manitoba Hydro directing them to cover up the $5 billion in export sales. Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.

This might be a good time for me to remind members too, I don't think we need to go down the road of name-calling at any level. So I'm just going to ask members to please back away from that. And we will continue, then, with oral questions. The honourable leader of the –or the honourable First Minister. Mr. Pallister: I'm not– An Honour able Member: I was recognized so, again, I'll repeat my question– Madam Speaker: No, sorry. Order. Order. Order. That was disrespectful to the Chair. I made a bit of a mistake here.

I should've called the Premier, and I am recognizing him now, so that wa s inappropriate for the member to do that, so–[interjection] And the– and members know the order of speaking. They know the order of questions and answers, so please, let's elevate this debate a little bit. The honourable First Minister. Mr. Pallister: Well, Madam Speaker, the member speaks so much about courage and bravery, but fails to demonstrate it in his debate here or elsewhere. * (14:30) And the fact remains honest debate doesn't mean false assertions.

It doesn't mean false assertions not based on fact, like the member made, for example, when he said that I had interfered and my office had interfered in an arm's -length investigation of unhealthy behaviour by a member of his caucus. He went out and told the media I had interfered. Because, Madam Speaker, because he didn't like the report, he decided to attack me. And now he doesn't like the Wall report; that's clear. And so he decides to accuse me of wrongdoing. Madam Speaker, I'm not the one who covered up my record to get in –elected. I'm not the one who did that.

I don't have a record of doing that, the member does, and so he has to be careful when he makes assertions about courage and bravery in this place, that he demonstrate those characteristics, that he not fail to demonstrate those characteristics yet again. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question. Manitoba Hydro Revenue Sale of Subsidiaries Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Well, and the Premier adds another page to his book: you know you're losing question period when, dot, dot, dot. And he's right.

I do completely reject the Wall report, in particular the recommendation that Mr. Wall made that Manitoba Hydro break up and sell off subsidiaries. We must keep Manitoba Hydro public, Madam Speaker. Now, the significance of the $5- billion cover-up of export sales at Manitoba Hydro is relevant to this point because any possible conceivable rationale that the PCs might use to privatize subsidiaries of

1920 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 Manitoba Hydro completely f alls apart when you learn about that $5 billion in export sales. Will the Premier finally acknowledge that his house of cards has collapsed as a result of his $5-billion cover-up being revealed, and acknowledge to people today he plans to privatize subsi diaries and tell them simply which subsidiary is he going to privatize first? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Premier): I believe the Hydro board is–and management have already talked about Manitoba Hydro International, Madam Speaker, as one aspect of what they would like to see brought back to Manitoba. I believe they've already talked about that. That is a decision of Hydro board and Hydro management, and I would respect that. The NDP apparently doesn't respect the Hydro board, apparently doesn't respect Hydro management.

That's why the member opposite has taken sides and now taken credit for organizing a strike because he doesn't respect Hydro management, because he doesn't respect the owners of Hydro, either. I don't know, if he read the Wall report, and I don't think he has, Madam Speaker, he might have some cogent arguments to make against some of the assertions. Here's one: There was no doubt the government was fully in support of the projects, even before they were approved. The government proceeded to direct the construction to begin prior to approval by the PUB. An Honourable Member: No one believes you. Mr.

Pallister: Does he –okay. The member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine) says no one believes me. Read the report. Read the report and then argue factually, Madam Speaker. The member speaks about covers–covering up. If he read the report and– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question. Mr. Kinew: Well, for all the ska ting and dodging today, the Premier finally did confirm that he intends to break up and sell off Manitoba Hydro International, and I have simply one thing to say to that: shame on you, sir.

That is an absolute shame, Madam Speaker. The people of Manitoba own Manitoba Hydro. Hydro must remain public. That's why the people of Manitoba had a right to know about the $5 billion in export sales before the Premier raised rates on them, before he low -ball offered the Hydro workers and before he listens to the Wall report recommendation on privatizing subsidiaries. Given that the Premier has lost all credibility on Manitoba Hydro, will he simply acknowledge today that privatization and higher rates has always been part of the plan, and that's why he hid the $5 billion? Mr.

Pallister: Well, it was demonstrative, Madam Speaker, just equally as effective as all signing a statement saying they are above the harassment rules– very effective. What I would say to the member, in respect of the right to know, is this–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –Manitobans have the right to know what went wrong with the $10- billion Americanization strategy so it never happens again. Manitobans have the right to know why the govern - ment became a cheerleader and t hen covered it up.

They have a right to know why the government proceeded to instruct Hydro–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –why the government proceeded to instruct Hydro against the wishes of its own board. The people of Manitoba have the right to know how it could be that numbers could be presented, finally, to the Public Utilities Board and then be changed just after approvals were given. The public needs to know these things, Madam Speaker, because they are the owners of Manitoba Hydro. The member opposite is not.

And Manitoba Hydro will come into the light under this government, not stay in the dark where they had it. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Oh. Order, please. Order, please. Order. Order. Hon. Wayne Ewask o (Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Immigration): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: On a point of order. Mr. Ewasko: On a bit of a ruling, as we were standing– Madam Speaker: Oh. Order, please. Order.

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1921 I am–before moving to addressing this point of order, in order to be fair to the Liberals, I'm going to extend oral questions so that the Liberals get their questions. Otherwise, they would–[interjection] Is there leave to allow the Liberals to have their questions? Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Speaker: Leave has been denied. The honourable member–or, the honourable –the time for oral questions has expired. Point of Order Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Advanced Education, on a point of order. Mr.

Ewasko: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to rise and speak to a point of order. Unfortunately, from my seat in the House, as we were standing and giving a round of ovation for our Premier (Mr. Pallister), the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Kinew ) sat in his spot, lifted his phone and was using it to take photos at that second. And I do believe that the rules –and, I mean, I've only been here for about 10 years, Madam Speaker–I believe that the rules are pretty clear that the use of technology and phones in the House, in the Chamber, are not allowable.

And I'd ask for the member to–and I'd ask for the Leader of the Official Opposition to apologize and delete the photo. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on the same point of order. Mr. Kinew: Yes, Madam Speaker, I thought it was completely shameful that the Cabinet and caucus opposite would stand and clap for a $5-billion cover- up and so I did take a photo to document the incident. I would note that the rules have recently changed to permit electronic devices to be used during question period and in the Chamber.

So, of course, I will defer to your learned exper - tise on the matter, but it was my understanding that once the pandemic rules kicked in, that there was a different allowance for these things to be used. And so again, you know, I'm happy to defer to your expertise, but I'm shining some light on the darkness that exists– [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: –on the other side of the Chamber. Madam Speaker: It looks like maybe the honourable member for River Heights wants to comment on that point of order. Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): While there may be some ability currently to–temporarily –to use electronic devices like laptop recorders and s o on, there is no ability to extend that to taking photographs. That has been outlawed for a long, long time. It is totally inappropriate for photos to be taken within the Chamber, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will apologize. Madam Speaker: In regards to this point of order, I would indicate that the member does have a point of order. * (14:40) There is never a time in here that taking photos is allowed. That has never been allowed at any point, pandemic or not.

So photos in the Chamber are never allowed at any point of time that we are sitting, and that applies to committee rooms as well. So, I would ask the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition if he would care to apologize and delete that photo. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, I will –I've already deleted the photo– Madam Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Kinew: –as

an act of good faith– Madam Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Kinew: –and I just want to note, for the permanent record, that that House is –or, this side of the House is absolutely– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Oy. Once a Speaker has ruled, it is disrespectful for members to stand and basically disrespect the ruling that the Speaker has just brought down, even if a member is looking to, you know, score some – especially when a member is looking to score some more political points, that when I rule, that's the end of the issue.

So, I don't know if the member wishes to apologize or just –if he wants to just walk away and leave it at that. I appreciate th e fact he did delete the picture.

1922 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 Mr. Kinew: Of course, I respect the institution and the Chair, which you inhabit. So I apologize to you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Thank you. I appreciate that. And, hopefully, that should resolve this issue. * * * Madam Speaker: Petitions? Are there any –oh. Are there any petitions? Grievances? Oh–I missed this, so I'm going to revert back– there is a petition. PETITIONS Diagnostic Testing Accessibility Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background of this petition is as follows:

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

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

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

(4) Further, travel challenges for vulnerable and elderly residents of northeast Winnipeg may result in fewer tests being done or delays in testing, with the attendant effects of increased health -care costs and poorer individual patient outcomes. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. I can't hear. Mr. Maloway:

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

(6) Manitoba residents value the convenience and efficiency of the health -care system when they are able to give their samples at the time of the doctor visit. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to immedi - ately demand Dynacare maintain all the phlebotomy, blood sample, sites existing prior to the COVID -19 public health emergency, and allow all Manitobans to get their blood and urine tests done when visiting their doctor, thereby facilitating local access to blood testing services. And this petition is signed by many Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: In accordance with our rule 133(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Are there any further petitions? Grievances? ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, in accordance with rule 2(10) and the Ses sional Order passed on March 15th, 2021, I would like to table a list of the five bills designated by the official opposition for this Third Session of the 42nd Legislature.

Our designated bills for this session are: Bill 16, The Labour Relations Amendme nt Act; Bill 35, The Public Utilities Ratepayer Protection and Regulatory Reform Act (Various Acts Amended); Bill 40, The Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Amendment and Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act; Bill 57, The Protection of Critical Infrastructure Act; Bill 64, The Education Modernization Act.

Madam Speaker: It has been announced that, in accordance with rule 2(10) and the Sessional Order passed on March 15th, 2021, the five bills designated by the official opposition for this Third Session of the 42nd Legislature are: Bill 16, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Bill 35, The Public Utilities Ratepayer Protection and Regulatory Reform Act (Various Acts Amended); Bill 40, The Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation Amendment and Liquor, Gaming and Cannabis Control Amendment Act; Bill 57, The Protection of Critical Infrastructure Act; and Bill 64, The Education Modernization Act. Hon.

Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on House business. In accordance w ith rule 2(10) and the Sessional Order passed on March 15th, 2021, I'm announcing that the following bills will be considered by the government as specified for this Third Session of

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1923 the 42nd Legislature: bills 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16–15– I'll start at 15 again; trying to sneak one in there, Madam Speaker–15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67 and 68.

Madam Speaker: It has been announced that, in accordance with rule 2(10) and the Sessional Order passed on March 15th, 2021, that the following bills will be considered by the government as specified for this Third Session of the 42nd Legislature: bills 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 68. Felt like somebody should call bingo. Mr. Goertzen: I felt like the Co unt from Sesame Street there, Madam Speaker.

All right, could we please call for debate this afternoon and evening, Madam Speaker, bills 55, 51, 27, 3, 10, 11, 13, 38, 60, 15, 46, 30, 52, 67, 58, 48– [interjection]–30, 67, 58, 48, 21, 28, 29, 54, 56, 52, 53, 6, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 36, 5, 8, 12, 26, 32, 33, 37, 41, 45, 47, 49, 61, 62 and 63.

And we look forward to having this done by 5 o'clock, Madam Speaker. * (14:50) Madam Speaker: In accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on March 15th, 2021, today and tomorrow during orders of the day in the afternoon, the House will be dealing with second reading of government bills that are on the specified track. Limited debates will be taking place on those days in accordance with rule 2(10), with the exception that after each debate concludes, the Speaker shall put the question on the bill under consideration.

For government bills that have not yet had the second reading motion moved, for each bill, the minister responsible will move the second reading motion and then speak for up to 10 minutes. An up-to-15-minute question period will be held, followed by the official opposition critic and the independent Liberals getting to speak for up to 10 minutes each. Once these steps have been completed, the question will be put on the second reading motion.

This will happen for bills in the following sequence: 55, 51, 27, 3, 10, 11, 13, 38, 60, 15, 46, 30, 67, 58, 48, 21, 28, 29, 54, 56, 52, 53, 6, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25 and 36. Once these bills have been completed, the House will then deal with bills that are already in debate at second reading to complete all of actions that are required to ensure that the question period has finished, and the official opposition critic and the in- dependent members have the opportunity to speak up to 10 minutes each if they have not already done so. Following this, the question is to be put.

The bills in this category are bills 5, 8, 12, 26, 32, 33, 37, 41, 45, 47, 49, 61, 62 and 63. The House is to sit until midnight on Wednesday and Thursday, with points of order and matters of privilege to be deferred until 1:30 p.m. on the following sitting day. On Thursday at midnight, there is to be no further debate. At that time, second reading motions will be moved and the quest ion put immediately without debate, and the bells can ring for no more than one minute on each question.

SECOND READINGS Bill 55–The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2021 Madam Speaker: I will now call bill–second reading of Bill 55, The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2021, and recognize the honourable Minister of Legislative a nd Public Affairs to move and speak to the second reading motion. Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Legislative and Public Affairs): I move, seconded by–nobody took a picture–I move, seconded by the Minister of Central Services (Mr.

Helwer), that Bill 55, The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act, 2021, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Goertzen: I'm pleased to be in the House this afternoon for second reading of Bill 55, The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act. The legend state–the legislation continues our government's long- standing commitment to reducing red tape on local governments, businesses, non-profits and its citizens.

The proposed repeals and amendments of various legislation will contribute towards the Manitoba government's effort of achieving the red tape reduc - tion target. It's part of the working smarter priority of the government's balanced scorecard strategy.

1924 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 The Manitoba government is committed to the annual introduction of a bill called The Reducing Red Tape and Improving Services Act –the bill before the Legislature this afternoon–to make it easier for depart- ments to make small changes to legislation that removes red tape, streamlines processes for both stakeholders and government and improves services that Manitobans rely upon, Madam Speaker. In 2021, there–in this bill, the 2021 bill, there are proposals to amend 11 statutes and repeal two others in their entirety.

These proposed changes include phasing out the enhanced ID cards and Enhanced Driver's Licenses in light of the widespread use of passports and NEXUS cards for Manitobans seeking to enter the United States. And we know that because the border is currently closed for non- essential travel, that this is an opportune time for change, but also understand that there's a reduced usage in these cards over time.

And, as recommended by the Chief Elector al Officer, allowing Elections Manitoba to use electronic document filing and electronic signatures: there are a number of documents, although it won't include all of them, such as the nomination form, Madam Speaker, that can be filed electronically, inclu ding annual statements. And this will make this process easier.

Permitting a municipal hearing notice to refer to a property street address rather than its legal des - cription for greater certainty, Madam Speaker; authorizing Crown corporations to hold public meetings virtually rather than only in person; allowing private landowners to take reasonable actions to protect their property from wildlife -related flood damage; enabling Manitoba Public Insurance to provide garage keepers with vehicle ownership information when they are exercising their legal rights to sell vehicles for unpaid fees; removing unnecessary permits for businesses that sell farm equipment; doubling the period of validity from 12 to 24 months for subdivision approval certificates; and streamlining the statute law process to automatically repeal unpro- claimed bills that have been passed by the Legislature but not yet brought into force by the government, something that is done in other provinces to ensure that bills do not sit on the unproc laimed docket for decades at times–these are just a few of the changes we are making to improve services and reduce burden–the burden of red tape on Manitobans.

These changes will show that Manitoba continues to look forward while still maintaining critical checks and balances. The Manitoba government continues to make significant progress in promoting regulatory account- ability. As of March 31st, 2020, the number of regulatory requirements across government showed an overall reduction of 9.4 per cent from the April 1st, 2016 baseline measurement of 961,997 regulations, a decrease of 90,824 regula- tory require ments. Our ongoing red tape reduction work reflected in this bill will ensure that this progress continues for Manitobans.

In clos ing, Madam Speaker, I hope that all members will join me in supporting this bill and reducing the burden of red tape on Manitobans. Questions Madam Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any member in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate, subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties, subsequent questions asked by each in- dependent member, remaining questions asked by any opposition members. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): So, I do have some questions for the minister on this reducing- red-tape- and-hurting-Manitobans bill that he's presenting. So, why is this government reducing transparency around adult literacy when what we've seen is outcomes have declined every year since this govern- ment has been in charge? Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Legislative and Public Affairs): In fact, there 's not a reduction in transparency when it comes to adult literacy. All of us, I believe, take that issue very seriously.

What we find, though, is in other jurisdictions around Canada, Madam Speaker, they are not bound by a legislative framework which pr events them from being more nimble and more flexible when bringing in programs. We know that when there are changes that are needed to improve adult literacy, they should happen quickly and not be tied into a legislative framework. Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): In the change which will eliminate the enhanced driver's education, it brings to mind the question of what the minister and his government are doing with regard to identification for people who don't have driver's licences.

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1925 This is now an i mportant issue, particularly with the need for identification for a variety of purposes. Mr. Goertzen: It's a legitimate question that is asked, and one that has been, you know, wrestled with with other governments and other administrations as they look a t the different ways to provide government - issued IDs. So there is a phase -out period involved here, Madam Speaker.

And, of course, there are legacy cards that'll continue on for some time, and they'll continue to work with those who need a form of government ID, as the member indicates, that is something different than the Enhanced Driver's Licence. * (15:00) Mr. Lindsey: So, one part of this bill purports to allow landowners to protect their property from wild animals or supposedly the damage, but it takes out what used to be an exemption that landowners couldn't just go killing moose, caribou, deer, antelope, cougar, elks, game birds.

So, is what the minister is proposing with this legislation now open season for anybody who happens to be a landowner? Mr. Goertzen: No; of course not, Madam Speaker. Obviously, the legislation is intended to ensure that there's not disproportionate harm that's placed upon a landowner who, for whatever reason–and we could use the example of a dam that is holding back water and flooding unnaturally a landowner's property where they could, in a responsible way, take action so that their livelihood is not unaffected–or not affected, but still being responsible for those that are also downstream.

So, I don't accept the c haracterization that the member put on the record of Manitobans being irresponsible. Mr. Gerrard: To the minister, Madam Speaker: the minister, in his introductory remarks, talked about measures that would deal with bills which have been long-standing but which have not been enacted. And to which sections does this apply in this bill? Mr. Goertzen: It applies, I believe, to bills that have been on the record for a decade, I believe, Madam Speaker, that haven't been proclaimed.

And there are probably a variety of different reasons why governments in the past have left bills unproclaimed and not dealt with them, Madam Speaker. I don't know that all those reasons are necessarily nefarious or political reasons. Maybe it's just something that wasn't seen as a priority. But it does cause some confusion for the public where bills have been passed and there would be an expectation that those bills are somehow, then, enforceable in the province of Manitoba. And by having this in the legislation, it both encourages governments to act upon that and eliminates the con- fusion for Manitobans. Mr.

Gerrard: Yes, I have a question in terms of Crown corporations being able to hold their meetings either in person or electronically. But the wording of this suggests that the Crown corporations can do one or the other, but not do both in the same meeting. Mr.

Goertzen: This is obviously an opportunity–the pandemic, while it is very difficult for many Manitobans, including members of the Legislature in different ways, Mada m Speaker, it's also a learning opportunity for government as we partake in different ways to provide services and to ensure that others have the ability to access different forms of govern - ment communication that might not otherwise be available, maybe because of distance.

So, the Crown corporations will be looking to learn from what they've already experienced in the pandemic and continue that to provide information and accessibility for Manitobans all across our province. Mr. Lindsey: Speaking of unpr oclaimed bills, I'm assuming, then, that this minister will stand up today and repeal what was then bill 28, which has been proven in court to be unconstitutional. Not only has it caused great confusion amongst working people, but it's caused great harm for Manitobans. So, will the minister repeal that bill immediately? Mr.

Goertzen: Probably a little bit out of scope in terms of questions, Madam Speaker, but it does allow me the opportunity to talk about the great harm that's been done by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Kinew) by foisting himself into a labour dispute and taking sides and taking the sides opposite of many Manitobans. Madam Speaker, I hope that he'll use this oppor - tunity, once he's able to get out of his kitchen, to go to his leader and to say that it is entirely inappro priate for his leader to take sides in a labour dispute.

1926 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 Mr. Gerrard: Yes, once more on the repeal of acts which have not been proclaimed. The minister must table in the Assembly a list–a report listing every act or provision of the act that is to come into force but has not been. And I wonder if the minister would consider at the time that that list is tabled, that there be an explanation for why the government has decided not to implement that act. Mr. Goertzen: It's a reasonable request.

I don't know that that needs to be embedded in legislation or maybe that's something that can be taken upon as a policy of the government. If the member wants to bring that up at committee, I think it's something that, if not dealt with by way of an amend- ment, potentially could be dealt with by way of a commitment at committee. Mr.

Lindsey: So I want to just move to apprentices, if we could, for a little bit, and ask the minister: why does he think requiring workplaces to have a premises on public works projects is merely a matter of red tape and, really, what it is is a matter of supplying opport- unity for young people going forward? So, why did the minister decide to repeal that specific piece of legislation that o ffered opportunity and education for Manitoba's young people? Mr.

Goertzen: In fact, there are, of course, and we know how important apprenticeship opportunities are for many Manitobans, and all of us, I'm sure, have people within our lives who've benefit ed from the opportunity to act in an apprenticeship role.

That's why this government has continued to work with the different trades, work with the different associations who help to govern apprenticeship by virtue of their participation within the various boards, Madam Speaker, to ensure that there are not only opportunities but continuing opportunities and good opportunities for all Manitobans who are working in the trades or want to work in the trades. Mr. Gerrard: Under The Wildlife Act, the–there's a provision, I understand, which provides that indi - viduals may kill wild animals to defend their property on agricultural land that they lease from the Crown.

Does this provision for wild animals to be killed apply to endangered species? Mr. Goertzen: There would be specific legislation that protects endangered species in other acts, Madam Speaker. I think it's another good question to reiterate at committee, but there are legislative provisions that rightfully protect endangered species. Mr. Lindsey: Just to get back to the apprentice piece for a little bit again.

So, the minister says that they've consulted and really care about creating apprentice opportunities, but, clearly, this bill very specifically removes a requirement that public works projects take on apprentices. Other things that this minister's done just before Christmas, where they changed the appren- ticeship ratio, doesn't protect apprentices, doesn't protect Manitobans. Some of the things that they've talked about with the training i n other pieces doesn't protect apprentices.

So, again, I have to ask the minister why they think reducing red tape is all about reducing– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. Mr. Goertzen: I didn't hear the member actually complete his question. He might want to be a little bit more concise if he has an opportunity to ask a question again on this bill. But I did hear him talk about why we think it is important for young people to have opportunities and jobs in the trades, Madam Speaker, and I think that it is clear that there are many excellent jobs that exist within the trades. I think that those opportunities will continue to grow.

I think that there's a greater aware - ness among young Manitobans, whether they're in high school or post -high sc hool, about the value of having an education and a career in the trades, and we will continue to promote that. If the member has a question, he may want to pose it more concisely. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard). The honourable member for River Heights needs to unmute. Mr. Gerrard: I'm sorry, I've completed my questions. Thank you, Madam Speaker. * (15:10) Madam Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Lindsey: So, I'll be very concise.

What does this minister have against young people getting apprenticeships that he thinks not requiring apprenticeships on public works projects is something that he should just do away with? What has he got against young Manitobans and apprentices?

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1927 Mr. Goertzen: Absolutely nothing, Madam Speaker. Mr. Lindsey: Clearly, the minister's answer doesn't exactly line up with his actions, because, in fact, everything he's done has made it tougher for apprentices. Just to get back to the landowners piece. So, landowners are allowed to go out and kill animals. Does there have to be any proof that the land was being harmed by said animals? Or is it just the farm– or the landowner's opinion that that deer that's in his freezer was causing harm? Mr.

Goertzen: I'm very disappointed in that member who seems to believe that somehow Manitobans are out there like the Wild West days, just shooting animals without a particular reason or regulation or out of season or whatever the various governing factors are. Obviously, this is designed to ensure that those landowners who are having their land affected have the opportunity to be able to take appropriate actions to protect their land, to protect their livelihood. And if the member opposite feels, for example, that there are laws that are being broken, he should t hen bring that forward, Madam Speaker. Mr.

Lindsey: Well, Madam Speaker, the law in question won't be being broken anymore, because the minister's doing away with the law. So, really and truly, what it does do is it allows open season for any 'landover' without proof that they can shoot, kill, big game animals or anything else with very little for justification. So, will the minister commit today that something in a regulation will provide justification for that land- owner being able to kill animals? Mr.

Goertzen: There certainly are, Madam Speaker, regulation-building opportunities, but I would also say that it's a little bit disingenuous from the member, I know, that when the issue of night hunting was being debated in this House and the inherent danger for those who might be impacted because of night hunting, and we know that there are examples – specific examples–well, and still, you know, the op- position is still in favour of such a dangerous practice. I wish that they would be a little bit more – [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Goertzen: –concerned about the dangers of night hunting and put that on the record as opposed to heckling from their seats that they don't care about the lives of Manitobans, Madam Speaker. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. There's no need for the yelling across the Chamber like that. The time for this question period is over. Debate Madam Speaker: I will now recognize the honourable member for Flin Flon for debate. Mr.

Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): It gives me not great pleasure to have to stand up and debate a bill like this with the minister, who clearly doesn't care about Manitobans and clearly doesn't care about Manitoba workers, Manitoba young people. Some of the things that, really, we find egregious in this bill are the parts that do away with things around adult literacy, things that we really should be working towards enhancing so that more Manitobans have better literacy skills that, again, would provide better opportunities for them.

And what we've seen is the opposite from this government; that really, the statistics show that those numbers, those oppor - tunities, are going the opposite direction. The minister talks about how much they want to support young people and apprentices but really, even from the answers that he gave today about this bill and others that–have negatively impacted opportunity for Manitoba young people.

One of the things that Manitoba should have been proud of was the require- ment on public work projects –projects that inv olve public dollars–that Manitoba took that opportunity to provide training, education, for young people so that their lives could be better. It took the opportunity to make sure that there was a certain number of apprentices on those projects. This government, with the stroke of a pen, has done away with that opportunity for Manitoban young people. But it's not the only thing that they've done to do away with opportunity.

I mean, the whole part about project labour agreements that this government has tried since, I think, 2016 to do away with is really about opportunity. It's about opportunity for working people; it's about opportunity for apprentices; it's about opportunity for workers to be able to work safely and get the training and education that they need to do their jobs. And everything this government does –even though they say they're in support of Manitobans–has not supported Manitobans. And this bill is another

1928 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 crass example of the government's failure to, again, support Manitobans, Manitoba workers. So we talked a little bit about the literacy part that's being repealed in this act. We've talked a little bit about the apprenticeship employment oppor - tunities act that, at the stroke of a pen, young people won't have the opportunities.

But I guess the flip side of that, Madam Speaker, is at best, this government will be sticking around for two more years –and from what we've seen, there won't be any public work projects, there won't be any big projects because all they've done is cut spending on infrastructure and cut spending on this and cut spending on that. So for the next couple of years, until they're voted out of office, the chances of there being many opportunities for many Manitobans to enter the trades is probably pretty slim anyway.

And when we're in government in a couple years, we can fix that, which we will because that's what we do. We represent Manitobans, not just big business, not just the rich and powerful, which really is what parts of this bill are about also, right? It's not the small family farmer that goes out and shoots deer out of season; it's going to be the corporate farms that want to make sure that nothing gets in the way of their agricultural machine– their machine that generates money for them. Mr. Doyle Piwniuk, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair And they don't care whether it's animals or people.

So, they now have the ability to just go out and kill animals at will. It really will present the oppor - tunity for a wide-open hunting season on animals that may already be str essed, and the member brings up our opposition to their racist bills around night hunting, where they claimed they were so concerned about people who have constitutionally protected rights from hunting. And now, here we go. They're going to give hunting r ights to people that don't have that same constitutionally protected right to hunt at any time of the year, as long as they own the land or lease the land.

And we know that they've made leasing land more difficult for small family farms because, again, they're kowtowing to the industrial agricultural sector, the industrial farm, which is –really needs to get brought into the public's eye, that it's not the family farm that you think of when you think of a farmer, it's a corporate entity who's driven solely by profit. So, there's so many different parts of this bill that attack different segments of society and provide benefits to those who aren't necessarily even from this province.

We've seen this government constantly attack working people, constantly, with their drive towards free trade agreements, undermine the success of Manitoba workers. We see them bringing–allowing the contracting out of work to the lowest bidder, which won't be necessarily well -trained Manitoba workers. * (15:20) We've seen any number of bills that really undermine everything that Manitoba should be doing to help Manitobans, particularly during a pandemic, when we've seen a downturn in the economy.

So when things start to pick up again, what we see is a government who won't be there for Manitobans, who won't be there to help Manitobans get back on their feet. They'll be there to help somebody from out of the province. They'll be there to help their corporate entities make money. Young people are losing out with this piece of legislation and so many other pieces of legislation that this government has brought into play. And I don't understand, Madam Speaker, what this government in particular has against Manitoba workers, whether it's their current Bill 16, the former bill 28.

I m ean, the minister clearly talked about there's some pieces of legislation that have never been proclaimed that probably should be repealed. And there's probably some very good reasons why some of those pieces of legislation never got proclaimed. The only good reason for not proclaiming this government's former bill 28 was, as the court said, it's unconstitutional and it should be withdrawn im - mediately. But did the government include with - drawing it in this piece of legislation that cancels out other bills that haven't been proclaimed?

No, because they're willing to stand behind their unconstitutional attack on working people in this province. You know, earlier today, even though I'm on Zoom from many miles away, I could hear the protests, the honk-a-thons, and I suspect that's some - thing that we're going to hear a lot more of as long as this government continues to attack workers, con- tinues to attack education, child care, health care. Everything that Manitobans should be holding dear, this government is attacking or, as we found out today, not only are they attacking but they're hiding the true

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1929 facts like we've seen with the Wall investigation, that apparently the former premier of Saskatchewan is now just a puppet for the present Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Pallister). And it besmirches his reputation as much as it does our Premier's reputation, simply because he got paid a lot of money to say what Brian Pallister told him to say, it seems. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I just want to remind the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Lindsey) that when addressing members in the Legislature, either their title or their constituency name. Mr.

Lindsey: I apologize for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So I just want to wrap up very quickly and let the Premier and the members know that we don't support this particular bill, simply because there's too many things that this government has done to attack workers, and this is just one more kick at Manitobans, not just workers but people trying to get better skills so they can get better jobs, get out of poverty. No, this government just continues to attack them. And they talk about trying to protect farmers and farmland and yet they've underspent their budget on rural drainage every year. Mr.

Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, several comments on this legislation. First of all, with regard to the Crown corporation meetings, under the bill, as it is put forward now, meetings can be held either electronically or in person. But it would seem to me it would be more logical, now that we are widely using Zoom technology and so on, that the meetings could be held in person even with small gatherings today, but also electronically at the same time, and this would be very useful.

For example, there's a requirement that there be one meeting in northern Manitoba, but northern Manitoba's a big area. If the meeting were held in Thompson, but were both in person and electronically, then there could be participating people from all over the North and that would have a good advantage. We want people to be involved, and knowing what's happening with our largest and most important Crown corporation, Manitoba Hydro, but it also applies to other Crown corporations.

The second p oint I would like to make is with regard to the getting rid of the Enhanced Driver's Licence, which, in some instances, has been used as an important identification card. We've found recently, and this goes back a long ways, that there are problems with people having photo identification cards which are government issues if they don't have driver's licence, and there really is a strong need for such a photo identification card. It has been suggested to me that the most logical change would be to make the health card a photo identification card and put a photo on it.

This would help people within the health-care system but it would also enable a much larger proportion of Manitobans, including those who don't have driver's licence, to have a photo identific ation card which they can present on occasion when they need, and that this would be useful, for example, for some individuals to get employment and income assistance, because one of the things that they're often asked for there is some sort of photo ID.

With regard to the situation of bills which have not been proclaimed, it is reasonable to erase these from the list of outstanding bills which have not been proclaimed if many years have passed, but I think it is really important that the government table that list. I would suggest that it would be important to table that list a year before the deadline so that people can have a look at it and look at the reason, which the govern- ment should also table, so that there can be some public understanding of why the bill was not proclaimed, and there can be one last look before the bill completely expires.

I've mentioned in question period about The Wildlife Act and a consideration with respect to endangered species. I personally think that it is reasonable for farmers to be able to protect their cattle, their sheep, from predators, and that this is, you know, a reasonable component of this act. But I think it's also important that we also recognize that there needs to be recognition of a specific endangered species and that there's a recog - nition in this context that there be some understanding of the wildlife populations and that we are engaged in good stewardship of wildlife populations.

Beaver populations are doing very well at the moment, for example, but if, at some point in the distant future or for some reason beavers became very scarce, it would be a very different situation.

1930 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 And so I think that we want to be cognizant of the fact that wildlife stewardship is important, that we should have some understanding of what wildlife populations are and that there are some circumstances where endangered species specifically should be protected. And the last point that I want to comment on is with respect to The Highway Traffic Act. The minister of highways can now set highways where there are speeds above 90 kilometres an hour.

You know, I think this is reasonable, but I will remind the members of the Legislature that in British Columbia some time ago there was a highways minister whose name was Phil Gagliardi. He was called Flying Phil because he loved flying, almost going very fast along highways. He got huge numbers of speeding tickets because he sped so often. And if he was ever–or somebody like him was ever highways minister in Manitoba, look out for the highways speeds –traffic speeds to be set, in many areas, above 90 kilometres an hour. So there is a caution, here.

I remind the members of the government that Flying Phil was a member of a right-wing party, that he was fond of saying that those trees o n the side of a mountain weren't put on that mountain by God to be praised, they were put there to be chopped down. He was an avid developer.

He didn't have a lot to –good to say about conservation, and I think that we want to make sure that we don't have a Flying Phil as highways minister in Manitoba because all of a sudden we could be having lots and lots of speed limits rising and I don't think that that's the intention of this legislation. * (15:30) I'll close with one comment from Flying Phil, who had many colourful sayings, and one of them was: The only time I tell a lie is when I think I'm telling the truth. He said that in the Legislature, I understand. Anyway, enough for stories.

We've got many more bills to do, and I will pass it on to others and to a vote on this bill. Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any other speakers? Since there are no other speakers, the question before the House is second reading of Bill 55, the reduce red tape and improving services act, 2021 act. Is it the pleasure o f the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 51–The Limitations Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will now call Bill 51, The Limitations Act, and be recognized for the honourable member for–Minister for Justice to move and speak on the second reading of the motion. Hon.

Cameron Friesen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister for Central Services, that Bill 51, The Limitations Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Friesen: I rise to put some brief comments on the record in respect of Bill 51, The Limitations Act, cognizant of the fact that we have now 43 more bills left to get through in this somewhat historic agreement that we have struck with all parties, to get all of these bills advanced and through second reading by the end of tomorrow at midnight.

So, here we go, and thank you to all of those who are assisting us today in the Chamber –our table officers, our clerks, our sergeant -of-arms and their staff, ou r pages of the Legislature, those who are assisting us everywhere–because this is a monumental task and a late night for everyone. Madam Speaker, we've had a good discussion at the bill briefing with the other parties in respect of this bill that is designed to essentially modernize and simplify limitation periods in Manitoba. The bill will repeal and replace The Limitation of Actions Act.

I would want to, first of all, note that in Manitoba right now we have anything but simplicity when it comes to the current act and its provisions. Why? Because when it comes to limiting the period of time within which a person with a civil claim can start a court proceeding to, essentially, sue someone else, well, right now it's a bit of a dog's breakfast. If, for in stance, the issue is certain statutory informer-based penalties, it's a one-year provision on limitation. If it's for statutory causes of action or from breach of privacy or certain other specified torts, it's a two-year provision.

If it's defamation from damage, it's a two-year provision, and yet if it is trespass to real property or claims to recover money, it's a six- year provision. It's also a six-year provision for fraud from discovery, and yet it's a 10- year provision for enforcing a judgment from the date of judgment. We are not unique in this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many other jurisdictions have, in the last number of

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1931 years, looked at their legislation and said this is some- thing that must be addressed; it must be simplified in order for there to be co nsistency, coherence, but also consistency with other jurisdictions. So, in Manitoba, other provinces that have already undertaken the work to modernize their limitations legislation, BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia –in fact, only Newfoundland and PEI have not yet done so.

I would also want to make the note that the recommendation to act and to address this issue comes, actually, from a 2010 Manitoba Law Reform Commission report. So, while these changes were given to the N DP previous government for advice, it is our government, once again, who is doing the work to advance this. This should be a set of changes that we can all agree on this afternoon. I'll keep my remarks short and say the following: as I mentioned, our current legislation's in place since 1931. Other jurisdictions have modernized.

Essen- tially, right now, we have limitation periods ranging from between two and 10 years, as I said, based on the kind of legal action. What this bill would do is replace those v arious periods with a streamlined structure based on a two- year basic limitation period and 15–and a 10- year– 15-year ultimate limitation period. So Bill 51 establishes a default regime. The basic limitation period and ultimate limitation period will apply to all civil claims unless otherwise specified. So this approach simplifies the law. It promotes efficiency in the justice system.

It also reduces the likelihood of stale, dated claims, and this was a concern that was raised. Bill 51 carries forward cert ain protective provisions, however, and I would want to take the time to reinforce those. It lists a variety of proceedings for which there is, of course, no limitation period. I believe that at one point in time, after the bill was distributed, the member for Fort Garry (Mr. Wasyliw) tried to assert somehow that we were reducing the limitation period for things like sexual assault. Let me be clear: proceedings arising from sexual assault, there is no limitation period.

It suspends limitation periods duri ng a time a claimant is a child or when someone has a disability and, of course, when it comes to Indigenous, there is no change to the limitations in respect of limitations and obligations for Indigenous peoples and claims that can be brought. Bill 51 brings Manitoba into step with the other provinces who have already undertaken the work, simplified and modernized their limitation laws. It eliminates certain needless steps from the current act. It reduces expenses for litigants and facilitates access to justice. So I'm pleased to have the bill here for debate.

We know that we will have continued discussion at the committee stage and in third reading. Let me just conclude my remarks by simply saying that we already made clear that the bill responds to recommendations that were made years ago, and we are pleased to bring this bill this afternoon for discussion. Questions Mr. Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held.

Questions may be addressed to the minister by the members of the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate; subsequent questions may be asked by each independent member; remaining questions asked by the opposition members; and no questions or answers should exceed 45 seconds. Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Can the minister provide more information regarding Aboriginal title? It has been suggested that there is no limitation on such claims and that this bill continues that, but we don't see directly any such provision.

So can the minister perhaps explain how Aboriginal title continues to be exempt from this limitation? Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):

Section 10 sub (2) makes clear that there is no change in respect of ultimate limitation periods or basic limitation periods when it comes to claims based on Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in t he Constitution Act, 1982, or equitable claims by an Aboriginal people against the Crown must not be commenced more than 30 years after the day the act or omission on which the claim is based took place. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights? The member from River Heights, can you unmute–okay, there we go. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Okay. To the minister: I have had concerns raised with me with regard to individuals who already have claims

1932 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 before the courts and for a claim that has, for instance, a 10 -year limitation currently, it will move to a two-year limitation. The individual is very concerned that the two - year limitation will prevent him from proceeding with his claim in court because, you know, of –when you change the limitation period, you change the ability for somebody to bring an action forward. * (15:40) Mr.

Friesen: The legislation makes cle ar that this – that when it comes to actions that are currently under way, there is no prejudice; there is no negative impact to claims that are currently under way. In other words, it is–there is no retroactivity to the bills. Ms. Fontaine: Can the minister explain if environ- mental claims will be exempt from the limitation changes outlined in this bill, and can he be a bit more specific on how that is, in this case? Mr. Friesen: Yes, if the member turns to the bill, they will see that there's a whole lis t that indicates the scope.

So what this is, is this is a standard; it is a symmetry that's being applied to all these limitation periods. So, of course, going back to the bill, that two-year period describes the point at which the individual ought to have known–or did know–and 15 years–to all matters then, besides those that are explicitly stated – is the ultimate period of time after which claims cannot be brought. Mr. Gerrard: Yes. Just–first of all, a follow-up to last time: this is not a bill which is going to be retroactive, but at what stage in the court proceedings will the action have to have progressed to?

Will it be just to – sufficient for an individual to have filed a claim, or it must be a claim which is more advanced than that? Mr. Friesen: I believe that a–an action, at any point, is not prejudiced or negatively impacted in any way by the proposed legislation. Ms. Fontaine: If the minister claims that this bill does not affect the unlimited limitations set for environ - mental claims, then why does the word environment not appear once in this bill? Mr.

Friesen: There are many types of claims that are not explicitly named in the act, and yet what this is, is it's a general collecting, then, of the rules in respect of both the basic and the ultimate limitation period. So, as I said, there are explicitly some areas where we have taken care in the wording to indicate that these–that there is no, essentially, ultimate period that is prescribed. For the other ones, it is exactly as the bill states: with a two-year basic period of limitation and the ultimate one of 15 years. Mr. Gerrard: Yes.

To the minister and in follow-up: from–as I interpret the minister's discussion that there will be some environmental claims which fall under the two-year limit and that this is probably going to be the general practice moving forward, we know historically that it has often taken a long time to –for environmental claims to be put forward and to be advanced, and I would have hoped that the minister would have actual ly specified very clearly that environmental claims would not have this two- year limitation. Mr. Friesen: We did have some of this discussion in the bill briefing.

The member does know that environmental claims are assorted by government under environment al remediation statutes; in other words, nothing, then–nothing supersedes other legislation. So, in this case, as I stated: limitations are found in those other statutes. Ms. Fontaine: With the act open, we feel that this is a missed opportunity for the Pallister government to take a second look at the limitations on suits from First Nations' rights, Deputy Speaker.

So, would the minister provide us with a list of the–and, orally as well, right here and now –with the First Nations that the minister or th e department consulted with? Mr. Friesen: As the member would have known had she attended the bill briefing that was arranged for the purpose of briefing opposition parties, these proposals were actually first proposed in 2010 in this province.

So, I mentioned that in my remarks, and I can tell that member, as I did at the bill briefing, that there was wide canvassing of groups at the time –stakeholder groups, inter -jurisdictional comparisons –all of that was assembled, and we thank that agency for doing that in 2010, when they did it under the Manitoba Law Reform Commission, and they tabled a report in 2010. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard). Member for River Heights, unmute his sound? Mr.

Gerrard: I was able to get a list of potential areas where there–which would– where this would take precedent, and it's not clear to me specifically when the act doesn't apply, if another act contains a specific

March 24, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1933 limitation period that otherwise applies to the claim or otherwise conflicts with this act. You know, if there was a previous limit of six years or 10 years or two years–I mean, basically, what this act seems to be saying is that the other act will apply because it does provide a specific limitation period. Mr. Friesen: Perhaps an example would be best to illustrate the principle that we're speaking about. And if the member goes to the consequential and related amendments, he will see, for instance–if I just take the

section 34 change, there it talks about The Dental Hygienists Act and the repealing of that. Why is it repealed? Because it's essentially a consequential amendment because, essentially, this bill establishes the general two-year basic and 15-year ultimate limit- ation period, which means that it's irrelevant now that there was another limitation set in that act. So wherever there has been a limitation set in a different act that is in conflict, then by consequence, that former rule must be repealed. Ms.

Fontaine: I just want to put it on the record, I know that the minister has said it a couple of times now that I have not gone to bill briefings. Absolutely, I want to remind the Chamber that that is the same man who stood in this Chamber –or, sat in this Chamber and said that I would know about gangs. Of co urse, as an Indigenous woman in this Chamber, I would not feel safe sitting in the same room with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Friesen). So he can bring it up as many times as he wants, but our staff attend those Justice briefings, to which I am very, very grateful, and they thoroughly brief me.

But I will not sit in the same room with the Minister of Justice. Will the Minister of Justice tell us why didn't this government– Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up. Mr. Friesen: Over time, I find myself less and less able to understand how the member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine) chooses to conduct herself in this Chamber. Reputations matter. I spent 52 years building a reputation as an honest broker. I do not appreciate that member's attempts to try to damage my reputation.

I work hard to maintain it and I severely dislike the implication that somehow I'm a person around whom others must feel unsafe. I cannot tell that member how to feel, but I can exhort her to try to conduct herself be tter in this Chamber. Mr.

Gerrard: Yes, I –because this will deal with things like dentists and chiropractors and nurses and technologists and certain naturopaths and so on that, in The Pharmaceutical Act, you know, there are some instances where there's clearly of concern and some - times the cases, they're very complicated and it takes people quite a bit of time to get the information together, to be able to file it. I have, on more than one occasion, had people tell me that, you know, it was very difficult to file a– Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up. Mr.

Friesen: It does give me an opportunity to additionally clarify a question that the member had asked before. So, in other words, if

an act–if a different act has a different limitation period in it, that other pact –act does prevail. And that is why, to the question of environmental issues, there is other provisions. If they've been left in, those conditions prevail if, in this case–as I said in the consequential amendments –if they are listed there as changing, they are being listed to change to be in alignment with this act. So those other limitations periods are repealed, these ones take effect, but in case of environmental, of course, those ones supersede. * (15:50) Ms.

Fontaine: I'm going to educate the minister on the language that he uses in this House because, clearly, he doesn't know. He referred in –to–the answer in one of my previous questions, he referred to Indigenous peoples as groups and stakeholders. Let me just be defi nitive in this House for his education. Indigenous peoples are not groups or stakeholders. We are the original peoples of these territories from coast to coast to coast. And so he should fix his lan- guage when he talks about our people. And so I'll ask hi m again: Which Indigenous peoples did he consult with in this bill? Mr.

Friesen: The member knows that the recommendations made in this bill were made 10 years ago to an NDP party who did not act on the recommendations. That is why our government has taken now the opportunity to bring this bill, full of very reasonable changes, that I say will create better

1934 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 24, 2021 access to justice, more efficiency in our processes, more

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	42-3-41
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	42nd 3rd hansardpdf 41.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	625e4c8977dbd1574b7fb997d0e79d5cd32ef74b

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