Manitoba Hansard — 25 May 2017 (Sitting 58B, 41st Legislature, 2nd Session)

41-2-58b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session – Forty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Myrna Driedger Speaker Vol. LXX No. 58B - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, May 25, 2017 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

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

2455 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, May 25, 2017 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Madam Speaker: Please be seated. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 36–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance): I move, seco nded by the Minister of Justice , that Bill 36, The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2017; Loi d'exécution du budget de 2017 et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité , be now read a first time. Motion presented. Mr.

Friesen : The budget –the BITSA bill will provide the legislative authority for the imple - mentation of the tax, financial and other measures that were announced in Budget 2017. It also contains amendments to various tax acts. Madam Speaker, in making these changes, our government is committed to ensuring an affordable and competitive tax environment that increases productivity and encourages economic growth and job creation, while working to restore the fiscal integrity of our Province and responsibly move Manitoba along the road to recovery. Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed? [Agreed] Bill 226–The Manitoba Conservation Officers Recognition Day Act Mr. Alan Lagimodiere (Selkirk): I move, seconded by the honourble member from Swan River, that Bill 226, The Manitoba Conservation Officers Recognition Day Act, be now read a first time. Motion presented. Mr.

Lagimodiere: The purpose of this bill is to recognize the conservation officers' importance in Manitoba as to who they are, which type of training they go through, acknowledges the sacrifices they make in their daily lives, an d to have time to recognize the importance that –of what conservation officers do for the province of Manitoba. Madam Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed] Committee reports? TABLING OF REPORTS Hon.

Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I am pleased to table the Manitoba Justice, Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, 2017 -18 Departmental Expenditure Estimates. Madam Speaker: Ministerial statements? MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Pembina Trails Celebrates Canada 150 Mr. Jon Reyes (St. Norbert ): I rise today to take this opportunity to proudly acknowledge the Pembina Trails School Division.

Their motto is Accomplish Anything, and yesterday, under a beautiful blue sky, more than 15,0 00 students and faculty packed the Winnipeg's Investors Group Field for a massive Canada 150 celebration. Yesterday's event may well be the largest school-based celebration of its kind in the country. I, as well as my colleague from Fort Richmond, had the pleasure to celebrate with the students and share what it means to be Canadian.

Marking the 150th anniversary of Confederation, students throughout the school division have been focusing their studies on the topics of diversity, inclusion, truth and reconciliation, and sustainability. With the theme of celebrating our heritage, students recognized that Canada is a great country and made pledges to honour and continue to support our province and our nation.

At this time, it is my pleasure to acknowledge Elaine Egan, assistant superintendent; Kathleen McMillan, David Johnson, trustees; and thank each and every member of the board of trustees, the superintendent and the senior admin team, the teachers, staff and volunteers who made yesterday's event both historic and meaningful. A special recognition must be given to I ain Riffel and Connie Brezden for what can only be called military precision in the co -ordinating of such

2456 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 a memorable celebration. Your service and efforts are valued and make a difference. And I know our Premier (Mr. Pallister) , the honourable First Minister, said it best in his remarks at yesterday's event: t he only thing better than today is indeed–in Manitoba, is tomorrow in Manitoba. Thank you for all making that happen. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Norbert. Mr. Reyes: Madam Speaker, I ask the names of the board of trustees and the senior admin team be recorded to Hansard as well.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to include those names in Hansard? [Agreed] Pembina Trails School Division, Board of Trustees, Ward 1: Jaime Glenat, vice -chair of the board; Gerry Melnyk; Dianne Zuk; Ward 2: Sheila Billinghurst; David Johnson; Tim Johnson; Ward 3: Julie Fisher, chair of the board; Laureen Goodridge; Kathleen McMillan Senior Administration Team: Ted Fransen, superintendent of education; Elaine Egan, assistant superintendent, human resources and policy; John Karras, assistant superintendent, divisional support services; Iain Riffel, assistant superintendent, program; Susan Schmidt, assistant superintendent, student services; Craig Stahlke, secretary- treasurer; Patty Antoniak, associate secretary-treasurer Aboriginal Awareness Week Ms.

Amanda Lathlin (The Pas): Aboriginal Awareness Week was established across Canada in 1992, held on the four days following Victoria Day. This week is designed to increase awareness of indigenous peoples within the public service and within Canada as a whole. It has evolved into a week honouring the many indigenous cultures in Canada, including Metis, Inuit and First Nations. Last week, Manitobans got the chance to take

part in the Manito Ahbee Festival where they learned about and shared the richness of indigenous cultures, histories and traditions. However, this awareness week alone is not enough. This government must take steps to courageously resolve issues that continue today. Past policies, rooted in racism and ignorance, still perpetuate the horrendous consequences of 'conolyism' and the residential school system. Festivals are great, but we need real, concrete action. Madam Speaker, our NDP team is working hard to repair Manitoba's relationship with indigenous groups across the province.

From implementing the findings of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry to investing heavily in education for indigenous youth, we are committed to righting the wrongs of the past. My hope, Madam Speaker, is that future generations don't have to face systematic racism, discrimination or gender violence. I hope hurtful stereotypes demeaning our cultur es and values will be a thing of the past. Tomorrow marks the end of Aboriginal Awareness Week, but it's never too late to implement change through government action or through personal commitment. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Bug Chucker Cup Mr.

Brad Michaleski (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, the community of Roblin is indeed the jewel of Manitoba's Parkland. Roblin is a modern region with a diverse agricultural base and has some of the most scenic landscapes in Manitoba, making it a popular year-round dest ination for a wide range of outdoor activities. Within minutes of Roblin are some of Manitoba's most spectacular parks and some of the best fishing around. Madam Speaker, on May 26th and 27th this year, Roblin's is host to the Bug Chucker Cup, Manitoba's premier still -water fly -fishing tour - nament.

This competition is dedicated to advancing fly-fishing sport development and promoting Roblin's incredible still- water trout lakes. Competitors will fish a total of four lakes in two days including e ast and west Goose Lake, North Twin Lake and Percy Lake. The Bug Chucker Cup is a great opportunity to join other fly fishers for some good- natured competition while matching your wits and skills against rainbow, brown, speckle and tiger trout.

And if th at doesn't get you going, Madam Speaker, from May 28th to June 3rd, right after the Bug Chucker Cup, the Parkland communities of Roblin, Russell and Roblin–or Rossburn partner up to host the 15th National Fly Fishing Championship and Conservation Symposium. Madam Speaker, through the great work of many local volunteers, stakeholders, local and provincial government partners, Manitoba's Parkland visionaries have developed a world -class fish –trout

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2457 fishery as one method of facilitating economic and recreational activities. Information regarding other Parkland activities can be found in the annual Parkland Explorer Guide, or by visiting parklandtourism.com. Madam Speaker, I want to wish good chucking to all the bug chuckers headed out to Roblin. Heart and Stroke Foundation Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Every seven minutes in Canada, someone dies from heart disease or a stroke. It's a frightening reality, a reality that the Heart and Stroke Foundation is dedicated to fight against.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation invests in life - saving research, they empower and support Canadians to take control of their health, and they advocate to governments to invest in programs and awareness campaigns. A couple days ago, the foundation hosted a lunch and presentation here at the Legislative Building.

The foundation shared with us the latest in research breakthroughs and the need for increased attention from all levels of government. * (13:40) Madam Speaker, the presentation reminded us of the need to eat healthy, and I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the signs of a stroke or the acronym FAST: F stands for face, is it drooping?; A stands for arms, can you raise both above your head?; S stands for speech, is it slurred or jumbled?; and T stands for time, meaning call 911 immediately. The Heart and Stroke Foundation is a health charity active in communities all across the country.

A great way this government could help is by investing in a dedicated stroke unit here in Manitoba to help lower the loss of life related to heart disease and stroke. Another way we can show support is by riding the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Big Bike. Our Liberal caucus has already entered a team. In closing, I would like to thank the Heart and Stroke Foundation for the important research and data they provide, and I encourage my colleagues here in the House to get involved and be sure to memorize the acronym, FAST. Thank you, Madam Speaker. International Peace Gardens Mr.

Doyle Piwniuk (Arthur-Virden): Madam Speaker, I rise here today inspired by the vision of Henry J. Moore, the concept of an I nternational Peace Garden. In 1929, at the heart of this continent , a vision of an international gardens association, they turned his plans and sketches of a garden that would tell a story of peace between two great countries into reality. In 1932, the unveiling of a cairn built by fieldstones by students from both Canada and the United States of America was situated right on the 49th parallel . T his marked the creation of an International Peace Garden.

The cairn located at the site reads: To God in his glory, we two nations dedicate this garden and pledge ourselves that as long as we shall live, we shall not ta ke up arms against one another. This is a reminder of how we all must work together for peace for all our citizens. At the opening a crowd of 50,000 people came to celebrate this momentous occasion. The International Peace Garden is located at the heart of the Turtle Mountains in my constituency of Arthur-Virden. It's a perfect place to gather, meet and experience and promise of peace created more than 80 years ago.

With more than 100,000 visitors each year to enjoy the 2,300 acres of exploring, adventure and history, the peace garden plants over 150,000 flowers each summer . G uests ar e invited to enjoy the ever-changing display. Each year the International Peace Garden hosts many events , including the I nternational Music Camp, the international sports camp, square dancing, Envirothon and horticulture programs , to name a few.

This gem on the map also features a peace chapel, a 9/11 memorial site and many different water gardens that make up the relaxing surroundings; they have a fully –their fully stocked gift shop for all your souvenir needs and a restaurant to sit and dine. For more information on their website, visit www.peacegarden.com. The Inter national Peace Garden is a must -stop for all ages. Special thanks goes out to Garry Enns, his staff and many volunteers for continuing to make the international tourist attraction an amazing place to visit. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

2458 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to introduce to you some guests we have in the gallery. We have seated in the public gallery, from Woodlawn School, 103 grade 4 students under the direction of Simmy Gandhi, and this group is located in the constituency of the honourable member of Health, Seniors and Active Living. And also in the public gallery we have visiting us Gerald, Elliott and Ava Olin, who are the guests of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Stefanson).

And on behalf of all of us, we welcome all of you here to the Manitoba Legislature. Speaker's Statement Madam Speaker: Today we begin the bittersweet tradition of saying farewell to this year's pages as they each have their last shift in this House. We will begin with Karsen Lee Winters. Karsen will be graduating from West Kildonan Collegiate in June and plans to go to the University of Manitoba to study science. He will graduate with marks in the high 90s, and his favourite subjects have been math and science.

His long -term future plans include going to medical school to become a researcher, and his short- term summer plans include job hunting. Karsen would like to thank everybody at the Legislature for providing an enjoyable and friendly work environment. Nell Perry will be graduating from Kelvin High School next month with the class of 2017 and with an average of 92 per cent. Other than calling votes, Nell's interests include yoga, improv, choir and volunteering for community projects at Kelvin.

Nell will particularly miss her days doing high school improv at Kelvin, but she plans to continue her love for it in the future. Nell will be moving to Montreal, Quebec, next year to attend Concordia University in the depart - ment of sociology. At university she hopes to pursue a BA in sociology with the hope of pursuing graduate studies later on with a scholarship from Concordia University. Nell wanted us to know how thankful she is for her experiences here as a page this year. So from all of us to the two pages, thank you very much for all you've done for all of us this year, and good luck.

ORAL QUESTIONS Transparency and Accountability Premier's Performance Record Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): The Premier preaches a message he does not practise. He claims he is transparent, but his government refuses to release reports for basel ess reasons. He claims he is accountable, but refuses to do the most of basic–the most basic of items to show Manitobans his work. He claims he wants to negotiate, but makes threats to workers with heavy - handed legislation. The Premier has clearly broken his word. Now we've seen that he's turning on a member of his own caucus.

Will the Premier today commit to being accountable for his actions? Will he actually listen to all Manitobans? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, I appreciate the member's sage advice in terms of how to build a unified caucus. I appreciate also –I also appreciate her concerns–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –about protecting the best interests of workers. The previous administration proceeded in a manner that was a threat to families –working families–and seniors across the province by raising taxes in innumerable categories. When they promised, of course, they would not, they did anyway.

But this was hardly evidence of their ability to listen, Madam Speaker. We, on the other hand, are very much engaged in the honest exercise of consulting with Manitobans. We did so prior to–as an opposition in the last election. We will continue to do so. Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Leader of the Official Op position, on a supplementary question. Ms. Marcelino: The Premier refuses to listen to regular Manitobans. He refuses to listen to front -line workers. He refuses to listen to members of his own caucus.

He claims to be part of a team, but refuses to even listen to one of his most experienced members.

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2459 He claims to want to bring people in, but offers vague threats instead. The Premier has the opportunity to actually listen to all the different voices on the important subject of hydro. The voices of workers and rate - payers and the voices of MLAs who have been elected–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Ms. Marcelino: –to voice the concerns of their constituents. Mr. Pallister: Well, Madam Speaker, actually, we were elected by Manitobans because we demonstrated the sincerity of our desire to listen, didn't just speak about listening but actually did.

We put together a very reasonable and moderate vision for the future of the province that involves, after a decade of debt, fixing the finances of our province; after a decade of decay, repairing the services of our province; after a decade of decline, rebuildin g the economy of our province. And, Madam Speaker, we are unified in the pursuit of achieving those goals. Manitobans saw what a non- team looked like and now they have the wonderful opportunity to see what a team can do.

Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary –or a final supplementary. * (13:50) Efficiency Manitoba Act Request to Withdraw Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): It is n o secret that the Premier's aggressive style is one that pushes people away rather than bringing them together. It has pushed away the federal government, preventing an agree - ment on climate change and health. It has pushed away labour, who cannot see a partner in the Premier when he won't even meet with them.

It has pushed away workers, who were left languishing for two years before the Premier would even consider looking at the minimum wage. The Premier always notes it's the tone on the top which sets the direction for an organization. Will the Premier change his tone, stop pushing people away, actually listen to the concerns of all Manitobans and withdraw Bill 19? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, Madam Speaker, quite frankly, that's nonsense. I mean, it's ridiculous. The previous government pushed each other away. They staged a rebellion for all to see.

They made their own government the laughing stock of the country and, Madam Speaker, they have demonstrated no expertise whatsoever in doing what we are actually doing. I've had the glorious opportunity in my life to be part of building winning teams in sports, in business and, now, in government. And I am proud of my teammates on this side of the House, who are working together for the good of their constituents and also for the good of Manitoba. Madam Speaker, our focus is on what is in the best interest of Manitobans.

The previous administration was caught up in looking– navel-gazing and looking at what was best for their party and they couldn't figure that out, Madam Speaker. We figured out where our focus lies and it's on building a stronger Manitoba in partnership with Manitobans. Point Douglas Community Funding Cut for Women's Centres Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns ): Well, we learned the North Point Douglas W omen's Centre and the North End women's resource centre have been advised the funding they receive through Neighbourhoods Alive! has been cut significantly. These are only the two women centres in Point Douglas.

For the North Point Douglas Women's Centre, the $120,000 cut represents all of their provincial government funding. This is a massive hit to a small organization, their staff and the thousands of women that they serve. Why did the Premier cut off all funding for only one of two women's organizations serving Point Douglas women? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, you see, Madam Speaker, the member from St. Johns is at a bit of a disadvantage. She's been making false assertions throughout this session on a number of fronts. They aren't backed up.

When the investigative journalists we have in our province investigate her

preambles, they find that they are based on false information and misinformation.

2460 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 So, as she has done that repeatedly, Madam Speaker, in regard to women's issues, in regard to fiscal issues, in regard to false assertions concerning decisions that we may or may not have made on this side of the House, she's weakened her credibility in making such allegations today. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a supplementary question. Ms. Fontaine: These cut dollars go towards programming that help the most vulnerable women and children, including those escaping violence and those that are sexually exploited.

The centre will lose four positions: an advocacy and peer support co- ordinator; a basic needs co-ordinator; an education and training co- ordinator; and a drop- in co -ordinator. The people who staff these positions were born and raised in Point Douglas and had worked their way up as volunteers with the centre. How can this Premier show such disdain and such disrespect for these workers and for Point Douglas women? Hon.

Rochelle Squires (Minister responsible for the Status of Women ): I appreciate the member raising the North Point Douglas Women's Centre in the House today because it does give me the opportunity to express my deepest gratitude for the work and the services that all the people do at the North Point Douglas Women's Centre. I recently visited the centre about a month and a half back and attended a healing circle at their –at the resource centre, and was told that for 17 years they tried to get a minister to come and sit around the table with them, to no avail.

So, Madam Speaker, we're standing up for the North Point Douglas Women's Centre– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Ms. Squires: –and the resources there– Madam Speaker: Order. Ms. Squires : –and we'll take no lessons from members opposite. Thanks. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a final supplementary. Ms. Fontaine: So the minister goes and visits it and then decides to cut $120,000 from its budget, the only money that they give towards this organization? This morning we sat in this House and we all voted unanimously on Bill 221.

Does the Pre mier or the ministers –whoever–actually see the connection between trying to honour MMIWG on the one hand and then pull funding on the other, which intrinsically sets the conditions in which women and children's lives are put at risk in this province, in Point Douglas? How many more women's organizations is this Premier going to cut the funding for? Ms. Squires: Again, the member's assertions are full of false allegations and misinformation. We're standing up for women in the province of Manitoba.

And we know that women in the province were unduly affected by the previous admin- istration's tax regime and the oppressive measures that they did that hurt people that were living below the poverty level and women, it disproportionately affected them. We are building a stronger economy and a better province for all Manitobans and, in particular, women in the province of Manitoba. Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation Duty to Consult with Indigenous Communities Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): I'm wondering if anyone from the government side of the House, the Premier (Mr.

Pallister) or the minister, could stand here today and confirm that they feel they have met their constitutional obligations under

section 35, the duty to consult with indigenous people, over their dismantling of the single desk of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Will they give that assertion here in the House today: they have met

section 35, duty to consult? Hon. Cathy Cox (Minister of Sustainable Development): I'd like to thank the member opposite for that question. We have been out consulting and talking to Manitoba commercial fishermen. As a matter of fact, the envoy has talked to, I think, almost 300 commercial fishermen just within the last few months. So we have gone out, talked to them. I have personally talked to them at the Lake Winnipeg co-management foundation board just last December, and we know that they really appreciate

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2461 having that opportunity to provide us with their feedback. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on a supplementary question. Mr. Altemeyer: As has been pointed out to this minister in writing from First Nations communities themselves, the Crown cannot delegate its duty to consult to a third party–namely, the very same envoy that she refers to. But let's stick with the envoy for a moment. They've had some meetings, true. Where's their final report? Has the government received it and, if so, why isn't it public yet? Mrs.

Cox: Thanks to the member opposite. I've actually had many discussions with Minister LeBlanc, who's the federal fisheries minister, and had those discussions with regard to us moving towards a single desk. So those discussions and consultations have taken place, and we are moving forward with pro viding commercial fishermen the opportunity to keep more money in their pockets, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on a final supplementary. Mr.

Altemeyer: Well, Madam Speaker, that answer is going to continue to concern many fishers who are wondering what the future of their industry holds. The minister refused to answer a very simple question: Has she received– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Altemeyer: –the final report –has she received the final report from the envoys? What does it say? And when is that public–when is that report going to be made public so everyone can see what their conclusions were?

Granted, they were told what the conclusions were supposed to be, before they even started consulting, by this very same government. Mrs. Cox: Thanks to the member opposite. I don't know why he will not get on board and support commercial fishermen and the opportunity for them to keep more money in their pocket. I think that it's something that all Manitobans deserve. We know that competition is important and it provides them to keep more money into their pocketbook and more money on the table.

He should read the auditor report that was prepared by the auditor, and it slams the federal fish agency for their mismanagement. So I don't know why he supports the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, but he should get on board and support commercial fishermen. * (14:00) Efficiency Manitoba Act Member for Assiniboia's Position Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): The member for Assiniboia (Mr. Fletcher) believes that it makes no sense to rip apart Manitoba Hydro.

And when the people of Assiniboia marked their ballots, they marked it for that member, yet the Premier chooses to disrespect the people of Assiniboia, claiming that partisanship should come before service to the people. Why is the Premier putting his party before Manitobans? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Madam Speaker, another false assertion from the member opposite. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Tyndall Park, on a supplementary question. Mr. Marcelino: I thank the Premier for the answer. The Premier asks everyone to get on board with him, but if you disagree, you get cast overboard.

The member for Assiniboia raises very important concerns. The voters of Assiniboia voted for him to do just that, yet the Premier suggests he has disciplined the member and is keeping his eye on him. Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: I don't believe I heard a question, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Tyndall Park, on a final supplementary. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Marcelino: The question is: Why is the Premier muzzling voices that raise important questions?

2462 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 Madam Speaker, the Premi er's promise of openness and transparency, turns out that the statement appears to and –applies if you agree with everything he says. Will the Premier allow his members to freely vote on Bill 19 and allow the member from Assiniboia to express his concerns about this legislation? There is a question. Mr.

Pallister: Well, members opposite are no stranger to internal caucus discussions, and they've had variances of view on things wide -ranging, including whether they should maintain a premier who got the largest plurality of any NDP leader in the history of Manitoba. Madam Speaker, these kinds of discussions occur within parties. Our discussions are productive ones aimed at achieving a better future for the people of Manitoba; their discussions centre on polls. Family Law Reform Act Passage to Committee Mr.

Andrew Swan (Minto): This morning we ran short of time to debate Bill 224, the bill to modernize family law in Manitoba. I was pleased that the Liberal caucus joins our NDP caucus in supporting the bill moving to committee. I listened carefully to the speeches of the member for Southdale (Mr. Smith) and the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Mayer) and heard no criticisms with the content of the bill. The Government House Leader (Mr. Micklefield) stated som e questions, which I'd be happy to answer at committee or before the briefing, if preferred.

Will the Minister of Justice recommend the bill move on to committee in a timely way? Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, the member opposite has been here for a number of years. I think he understands the rules of the House and how they work, and we abide by those rules. And, Madam Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that he was part of a Cabinet tha t– of a NDP government that was in for 17 years. They had the opportunity to bring forward such legislation at that time. In fact, he was the minister for five years himself.

He had the opportunity to bring that forward at the time. Clearly, it was not a priority for that government in the past, and, in fact, it was a bill that ended up dying in the dark days of the end of the NDP era. And they had the choice to make it a priority; they chose not to. Shame on them. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Order. The honourable member for Minto, on a supplementary question. Mr. Swan: Well, I thank the minister for her reasons, if I can call them that, to oppose a bill to help Manitoba children.

Bill 224 would support more family law disputes being settled in ways that are less expensive, less confrontational and less harmful to children. The bill would start a framework for dealing with cases when one parent wishes to relocate outside Manitoba. T he bill would reflect the reality of reproductive technologies and the diversity of Manitoba families, including same-sex couples who face the expense of court just to be named as parents. I would hope the best interests of Manitoba children would be taken into account and the bill could proceed to committee. Will the Minister of Justice get on board? Mrs.

Stefanson: If the member opposite truly cared about putting children first and about this type of reform, he had the opportunity to do it in–when he was in government. He chose not to. They made – they didn't make this a priority when they had the opportunity to do so. Again, I say to the member opposite, he should have taken that opportunity when he had the chance. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto, on a final supplementary. Mr.

Swan: Resolving more family disputes outside of the courtroom will free up more court resources, not only judges, but also court staff and courtrooms and ease the pressure on Legal Aid family law services. Resolving more family disputes outside of the courtroom may reduce family violence, lead to better outcomes in education and health and even reduce the number of children coming into care. I can give the minister contact information for lawyers, child -development experts and even the people in her own department, if that'll help move the bill forward.

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2463 Will this minister put aside the partisan rhetoric, support Manitoba children and recommend that Bill 224 move on to committee? Mrs. Stefan son: Well, Madam Speaker, perhaps if the member opposite wasn't occupying his time while he was a minister of Justice building a rebellion against his leader at the time and spending that time and his energy on that, rather than being focused on what he should have been doing, maybe he could have gotten this bill passed then. Misericordia Health Centre Support for Facility Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, almost every day the Minister of Health gets up and says that the system that he is responsible for is broken. Madam Speaker, the minister should spend less time bashing the system and more time recognizing the incredible things that people are trying to do within the system in spite of his bashing. I speak of incredible things like ope rating the best eye -care centre in western Canada, together with the best operating urgent-care centre at Misericordia.

Will the minister start respecting and standing up for the Misericordia centre of excellence and the health professionals who work the re, instead of trying to break it up? Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health , Seniors and Active Living): Every day that I get up I consider to be a good day, and I'm glad and happy to be able to get up out of bed each day and to come to work and do the good work that we have. We have many good people in the health- care system in Manitoba who are out there doing great things.

I'm always amazed at the doctors and the nurses, the many aides who are in our health- care system, who every day are saving lives. We often hear about the difficult situations, the things that don't go as well, but for every one of those there are thousands of things that go particularly well in the health-care system, and that is the result of nurses, doctors, our very skilled medical professions–professionals. I'm glad the member's given me the opportunity to stand up and give them credit, because they deserve the credit for all that goes well in the health-care system, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights, on a supplementary question. Health-Care Services Physical Size Discrimination Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, speaking of respect, currently the health - care system the minister is responsible for is not adequately looking after individuals with large bodies. I wrote weeks ago to the minister about a man who's been stuck in his bed for 14 weeks because the system doesn't have the lifts and the wheelchairs to accommodate him, let alone the exercise facility he needs.

Madam Speaker, 51 days ago the minister's staff replied; 28 days ago the minister said that the concerns were being addressed, but many weeks later the gentleman remains stuck in his bed 24 hours a day because there has been no action. When will the minister ensure that those who have large bodies are treated with respect– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health , Seniors and Active Living ): Madam Speaker, the member raises a particular constituent concern.

Certainly, I will take that information back and I will look into it. * (14:10) Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights, on a final supplementary. Mr. Gerrard: The minister's had 51 days, but there's been nothing. Madam Speaker, our province and our health- care system need to accommodate and respect people, whatever their body size or shape, and that includes little people.

Later today, the Little People of Manitoba will be in the private dining room at 5 o' clock to meet with all MLAs who can drop by so that they can share their concerns that need to be addressed so that discrimination of bias –and bias against them and others, based on physical size and weight, can end in Manitoba. I ask the Premier (Mr. Pallister): Will he be encouraging members of his caucus to drop by to meet with the Little People of Manitoba between 5 and 6 today in the Legislature's private dining room? Mr. Goertzen: Well, Madam Speaker, members of our caucus meet with individual Manitobans each

2464 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 and every day to hear their concerns, to hear their ideas and to hear their suggestions. That is something that this caucus and this government and our Premier (Mr. Pallister) is proud of. It is something he encourages, and we will always continue to reach out and speak to Manitobans to hear their concerns and ideas. Vale Mine Closure Northern Economic Strategy Mr. Kelly Bindle (Thompson): Madam Speaker, there are plenty of opportunities in the North, and our government has made a clear commitment to growing our northern economy.

There have been investments in tourism and we're looking at other initiatives to expand the northern economy. But, like any resource -based economy, global market forces can have a large impact, as we have seen in my hometown of Thompson, with the Vale announcing the coming suspension of mining operations at Birchtree Mine in October – [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Bindle: In light of the Vale announcement, can the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade please tell the House where this government is looking to facilitate opportunities for business in the North? Hon.

Cliff Cullen (Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade): I appreciate the question from the member. Certainly, the member from Thompson repre - sented our team last week. He met with Vale. He met with the union leaders. He met with the City, and we're certainly excited about having the mayor and council in tomorrow, and certainly union leaders will be in the building tomorrow and we look forward to that discussion.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the Minister of Education, in partnership with the City of Thompson, Vale and the federal government, will help fund a project manager position to support the work of Thompson 2020 task force. This task force has been established with the community and labour to address the economic impacts and certainly in regard to the refinery closure. We l ook forward to working with the community in the best interests– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. Health-Care Services Federal Funding Agreement Mr.

Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Yesterday in Estimates, we heard from the Health Minister that he can't give a specific timeline for a deal on federal health funding. In fact, the Premier and the Health Minister have spent months bickering with the federal government, using the health ca re of Manitoba seniors and families as a chip in their game. But the world doesn't stop for a minister to pick political fights, and both the federal and the provincial governments have now written their budgets with millions of dollars in placeholder funding.

When will the Health Minister stop the games and get back to the table and get the best deal he can for the people of Manitoba? Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health , Seniors and Active Living): Well, Madam Speaker, this member raises an important point, but he doesn't raise it in the right way. The point is that we need the federal government to be a real partner when it comes to health care. We've seen over the last number of years that there has been a declining amount of support on a perce ntage basis when it comes to support from the federal government to the health-care needs of Manitobans.

Now, the member wants to stand up and he wants to bluster in the House about that, but I wish he would've stood up with us when we were speaking to O ttawa and continue to speak to Ottawa about being a real partner. It's not too late. We still need all Manitobans to be able to stand up to Ottawa and say, you need to be a real partner. It's not too late for him. I hope he joins with us today in that fight, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia, on a supplementary question. Mr.

Wiebe: Well, the Premier yesterday said that it was pointless for anyone to monitor the national Health Accord negotiations, but Manitobans are, in fact, paying close attention. They're paying attention because that funding is crucial to maintaining the front-line services that this Premier said he wanted to protect. Families want assurances that their health care is going to be stable, reliable and pr otected against negotiations that have gone awry at the top level.

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2465 Instead, negotiations become an arena for this Premier and this Health Minister to play political games. The Premier's antics are adding more uncertainty to our health system that has alrea dy been thrown into turmoil. Can the minister commit to this House that there'll be no last -minute changes to the funding promised which will put families' health care at risk? Mr.

Goertzen : Madam Speaker, I had encour - agement on that first question tha t maybe the member was coming around, and that encouragement has turned to discouragement because now he feels that it is playing political games to try to get a fair share for Manitoba. He feels that it's political games to ensure that there is sustainability in the health-care system, to ensure that the federal government fulfills its rightful role in being a fair funder when it comes to health care in Manitoba. He doesn't feel that that is important; he wants to diminish that. That is not how Manitobans feel.

Manitobans rightfully feel that we should be standing up for them when it comes to talking to Ottawa, because we know that their health -care needs and their health -care outcomes are related to having a real partner in Ottawa. I don't know why this member doesn't want to join with us in that, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia, on a final supplementary. Mr. Wiebe: These negotiations have now dragged on for months and Manitoba's the last province without an agreement with the federal government.

Every other province was able to put the health of their residents first, but this Premier's actions have actually spoiled the relationships with the federal government so bad, and is now putting the health care of Manitobans at risk. The Premier's bickering has forced the Department of Health to budget for money that isn't– [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Wiebe: –even confirmed and putting us further behind in receiving important funding for indigenous health, mental health and home care.

Will the Premier commit today to actually picking up the phone, talking with the federal government and finally negotiate a health -care deal for all Manitobans? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Premier): I appreciate the irony, and I hope the members opposite do, of any advice that emanates from that side of the House on building strong relationships with anyone, Madam Speaker, because their relationship -building skills were put on display for the people of Manitoba and the people Canada as they dysfunctioned their party in a virtual nonexistant position, and now we are receiving advice from them on how to build stronger relationships with others. Madam Speaker, we are standing up for better health care for all Canadians.

We are supported by every research report that has been done on the proposals by the federal government. Each report, as recently as a week ago, that has discussed th is issue, has supported Manitoba's position that it is not sustainable to support health care across this country, with an aging population, with evolving technology, at 3 per cent. And so, we stand up for Manitobans' health care while the members opposi te applaud what, Madam Speaker? They applaud a disintegration of the support for the very thing Manitobans and Canadians deserve most: a partnership between Ottawa and all the provinces.

Ten provinces are united in saying this is a bad deal. We are standing up for Manitobans and Canadians for better health care. Federal-Provincial Relations Government Negotiation Strategy Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): Thank you, Madam Speaker. [interjection] Yes, I haven't even started my question yet and already they're heckling. We're already into June, Madam Speaker, and the Health Minister has failed to get a deal on health care with the federal government, and then the Premier had the brilliant idea of tying the health-care accord to signing the climate -change accord, and now we have neither.

Can the Premier tell us: Why does he insist on being the bad boy of Confederation and get on with the job of building this province and building this country? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Finally, a question on something the member has expertise in: being a bad boy.

2466 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 We had the opportunity, and we gave everyone in this House the opportunity, to stand up for Manitoba seniors and Canadian seni ors for a better Canada Pension Plan. Members opposite chose to sit on their hands or clap their hands and applaud Ottawa on a bad proposal. We stood up for a better proposal to make Canada's pension plan work better for all seniors, not just to be bigger but to be better for all seniors. We won, Madam Speaker.

We had the chance to stand up against a federal government threat to remove a $60 -million commitment for Manitoba in the terms of –in terms of Factory of the Future. * (14:20) Other members were given the opportunity to join with us, to stand up for Manitoba's best interests, to stand up for the aerospace and innovation sectors in our province. They chose not to; we chose to, and we won again, Madam Speaker.

And on this, by standing up for what's right in health-care funding and support and making it sustainable across the country, we have the support of over half the federal Liberal government's caucus, who have demonstrated previously that they support our position, not the position now espoused by their government, and we will win on that too. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview, on a supplementary question. Mr. Allum: Well, Madam Speaker, only a fool and the member from Steinbach would get behind a failed–colossally–failure federal -provincial relations strategy. That's not a good idea.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Order. I would just urge some caution with the comments that the member has put forward. They do tend to be inflammatory comme nts and are coming pretty close to being unparliamentary. And I would urge caution in the member making any accusations, as he was doing. I wonder if he would care to withdraw his comments. Mr. Allum: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your position that–what–the point I was trying to make is that no one would– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Order.

I would just make a comment that, in the comments that the member was making, he was pretty close to challenging the Speaker. I would ask him to just straight out withdraw the words he made and then we'll go from there. Mr. Allum: I didn't quite understand what –the direction you were giving me. Of course, I would withdraw those comments. All– Madam Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member for Fort Garry -Riverview, to continue with his question. Mr. Allum: Thank you.

The simple gist of the question was this: is that the Premier has engaged in a federal-provincial-relations strategy that has proven to be a colossal failure, a disaster by any standard and yet, he's–the Premier stands up in this House and claims victory. My God, Madam Speaker, that's not v ictory. That's a total loss and it's a total loss for the people of Manitoba. So I want to ask the Premier today: Will he just admit that his federal -provincial-relations strategy has been an abject failure? Mr. Pallister: Well the member's entitled to his opinion, Madam Speaker, but not to his own facts.

Here are some facts for him. We now have what I call dictatorial federalism–Bob Rae, former Liberal interim leader: that's in respect of the Liberals' current proposal which the members opposite clearly support to reduce transfer increases by half. Ralph Goodale said, Mr. Harper announced a new funding formula. It was arbitrary, unilateral, non- negotiable. He'll keep commitments Liberals put in place, but then cut back. It's dictatorial federalism by b rute force. Well, this is what the members are choosing to support, Madam Speaker.

Judy Foote, former minister, said it's not right that throughout our country we're seeing reduced health -care funding to the provinces by nearly $36 billion in the name of financial prudence and austerity. Madam Speaker, Stéphane Dion, many other Liberal members–Scott Brison, Joyce Murray, Geoff Regan, Hedy Fry –they're all on side with our position, or at least they were. Now, it appears the NDP supports the new, cut posit ion of the federal Liberals. But we don't. We support Manitobans. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview, on a final supplementary.

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2467 Mr. Allum: Well, what we on this side of the House support is more funding for mental health, more funding to fight addictions, more funding to fight climate change and on all three of those points he's a failure, not a winner. So I want to just make a plea to the Premier today to set aside his usual style. [interjection] That's right, not to be able to get along with anyone. To have to– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Allum: –stand alone, to have to be the centre of attention.

We know nine provinces have a deal on the health accord– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Allum: –eight provinces have a deal on climate change. Why can't he be on board and be a nation builder in this country instead of tearing this country apart day after day after day? Mr. Pallister: Madam Speaker, really, I'm amazed the member has any hair left on the top of his head.

The fact is we've set–we've negotiated successful deals with Ottawa on a number of fronts, Madam Speaker, from social housing to the Shoal Lake road, which the members opposite could never get done – they just talked about, the outlet in the north end of Lake Manitoba and the progress and partnerships is very real, training, many, many –agriculture and many, many other files. But when the member says he's for more funding and at the same time supports less funding, he puts himself in an indefensible position, Madam Speaker. We're for more funding and we're also for better health care for Manitobans.

Infrastructure Budget 2017 Long-Term Investment Strategy Mr. Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): Madam Speaker, we all know when it comes to infrastructure funding the former NDP government was focused on their own political benefit. They liked to build projects where votes were needed instead of where a road was needed, and they were notorious for pre-election spending sprees, short -term thinking and rushed political funding decisions. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Lagass é: Can the Minister of Indigenous and Municipal Relations please update the House on how this government is investing in strategic infra - structure for the long- term benefit of Manitobans? [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Hon. Eileen Clarke (Minister of Indigenous and Municipal Relations): I thank my colleague for that question.

This year's budget delivers an investment of $1.7 billion for infrastructure, amongst the highest levels of investment in Manitoba's history, and we are making sure that our investments in roads, bridges and core infrastructure are strategic through a new return -on-investment test and by working together with municipalities on long-term investment strategies that focus on their priorities. Madam Speaker, we promised no less than $1 billion annually for infrastructure, to give municipalities a fair say on provincial funding and to investing strategically while putting Manitoba back on track to a balanced budget.

Our infrastructure plan delivers on every single one of these commitments. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Speaker's Statement Madam Speaker: And I have another statement for the House. I'm going to make some comments about another one of our pages who–this is her last day. Lily is graduating from Stonewall Collegiate this year, class of 2017. She has been accepted to the faculty of agriculture at University of Manitoba for the upcoming year, but plans to take some time to travel first.

She has an interest in performing, singing and playing guitar and looks forward to many upcoming local shows. She is so grateful for her time as a page and will miss ghost hunting and visiting this beautiful building so often and will look back on this year as a wonderful learning experience. She can't wait to share the stories she's taken

part in here, and we wish her well in her future endeavours.

2468 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 PETITIONS Neighbourhoods Alive! Funding Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) Since 2001, the Neighbourhoods Alive! program has supported stronger neighbourhoods and communities in Manitoba.

(2) Neighbourhoods Alive! uses a commu - nity-led development model that partners with neighbourhood renewal corporations on projects that aim to revitalize communities.

(3) Neighbourhoods Alive! and the neighbour - hood renewal corporations it supports have played a vital and important role in revitalizing many neighbourhoods in Manitoba through commu - nity-driven solutions, including: employment and training, education and recreation, safety and crime prevention, and housing and physical improvements.

(4) Neigh bourhoods Alive! now serves 13 neighbourhood renewal corporations across Manitoba which have developed expertise in engaging with their local residents and determining the priorities of their communities.

(5) The provincial government's previous investments into Neighbourhoods Alive! have been bolstered by community a nd corporate donations as well as essential support from community volunteers, small businesses and local agencies.

(6) Late in 2016, the minister responsible for the Neighbourhoods Alive! program said new funding for initiatives was paused and that the future of the Neighbourhoods Alive! program was being reviewed, bringing hundreds of community projects to a standstill.

(7) Neighbourhood renewal corporations and their communities are concerned this funding freeze is the first step in a s low phase -out of the Neighbourhoods Alive! grant program, which would have severe negative impacts on families and communities. * (14:30) We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: That the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba be urged to support the Neighbourhoods Alive! program and the communities served by neighbourhood renewal corporations by continuing to provide consistent core funding for existing neighbourhood renewal corporations and enhancing the public funding available for specific initiatives.

Madam Speaker, this petition is signed by many Manitobans. Madam Speaker: Pardon me. In accordance with our rule 133(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Taxi Industry Regulation Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I couldn't hear you with all this noise over there. I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background of the petition is as follows:

(1) The taxi industry in Winnipeg provides an important service to all Manitobans.

(2) The taxi industry is regulated to ensure that there are both the provision of taxi service and a fair and affordable fare structure.

(3) Regulations have been put in place that has made Winnipeg a leader in protecting the saf ety of taxi drivers through the installation of shields and cameras.

(4) The regulated taxi system also has significant measures in place to protect passengers, including a stringent complaint system.

(5) The provincial government has moved to bring in legislation through Bill 30 that will transfer jurisdiction to the City of Winnipeg in order to bring in so-called ride-sharing services like Uber.

(6) There were no consultations with the taxi industry prior to the introduction of this bill.

(7) The introduction of this bill jeopardizes safety, taxi service and also puts consumers at risk, as well as the livelihood of hundreds of Manitobans, many of whom have invested their life savings into the industry.

(8) The proposed legislation also puts the regulated framework at risk and could lead to issues such as what has been seen in other jurisdictions, including differential pricing, not providing service to some areas of the city and significant risk in terms of taxi driver and passenger safety. We p etition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2469 To urge the provincial government to withdraw its plans to deregulate the taxi industry, including withdrawing Bill 30. And this petition is signed by many Manitobans. Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And the background to this petition is as follows: The taxi industry in Winnipeg provides an important service to all Manitobans.

(2) The taxi industry is regulate d to ensure there are both the provision of taxi service and a fair and affordable fare structure.

(3) The regulations have been put in place that has made Winnipeg a leader in protecting the safety of taxi drivers through the installation of shields and cameras.

(4) The regulated taxi system also has significant measures in place to protect passengers, including a stringent complaint system.

(5) The provincial government has moved to bring in legislation through Bill 30 that will transfer jurisdiction to the City of Winnipeg in order to bring in so-called ride-sharing services like Uber.

(6) There were no consultations with the taxi industry prior to the introduction of this bill.

(7) The introduction of this bill jeopardizes safety, taxi service and also puts consumers at risk, as well as the livelihood of hundreds of Manitobans, many of whom have invested their life savings into the industry.

(8) The proposed legislation also puts the regulated framework at risk and could lead to issues such wa s–such as what has been seen in other jurisdictions, including differential pricing, not providing service to some areas of the city and significant risks in terms of taxi driver and passenger safety. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to withdraw its plans to deregulate the taxi industry, including withdrawing Bill 30. This petition is signed by many Manitobans. Thank you. Ms.

Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The taxi industry in Winnipeg provides an important service to all Manitobans.

(2) The taxi industry is regulated to ensure the re are both the provision of taxi service and a fair and affordable fare structure.

(3) Regulations have been put in place that has made Winnipeg a leader in protecting the safety of taxi drivers through the installation of shields and cameras.

(4) The regulated taxi system also has significant measures in place to protect passengers, including a stringent complaint system.

(5) The provincial government has moved to bring in legislation through Bill 30 that will transfer jurisdiction to the City of Winnipeg in order to bring in the so-called ride-sharing services like Uber.

(6) There were no consultations with the taxi industry prior to the introduction of this bill.

(7) The introduction of this bill jeopardizes safety, taxi service and also puts consumers at risk, as well as the livelihood of hundreds of Manitobans, many of whom have invested their life savings into the industry.

(8) The proposed legislation also puts the regulated framework at risk and could lead to issues such as what has been seen in other jurisdictions, including differential pricing, not providing service to some areas of the city and significant risks in terms of taxi driver and passenger safety. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to withdraw its plans to deregulate the taxi industry, including withdrawing Bill 30. Signed by many, many Manitobans. Thank you. Mr. Mohinder Saran (The Maples): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows:

2470 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017

(1) The taxi industry in Winnipeg provides an important service to all Manitobans.

(2) The taxi industry is regulated to ensure there are both the provision of taxi se rvice and a fair and affordable fare structure.

(3) Regulations have been put in place that has made Winnipeg a leader in protecting the safety of taxi drivers through the installation of shields and cameras.

(4) The regulated taxi system also has significant measures in place to protect passengers, including a stringent complaint system.

(5) The provincial government has moved to bring in legislation through Bill 30 that will transfer jurisdiction to the City of Winnipeg in order to bring in so-called ride-sharing services like Uber.

(6) There were no consultation with the taxi industry prior to the introduction of this bill.

(7) The introduction of this bill jeopardizes safety, taxi service and also puts consumers at risk, as well as livelihood o f hundreds of Manitobans, many of whom have invested their life savings into the industry.

(8) The proposed legislation also puts the regulated framework at risk and could lead to issues such as what has been seen in other jurisdiction, including differe ntial pricing, not providing service to some areas of the city and significant risks in terms of taxi driver and passenger safety. * (14:40) We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to withdraw its plan to deregulate the taxi industry, including withdrawing Bill 30. Signed by Manitobans. Madam Speaker: Grievances? The honourable member for The Maples? Mr.

Mohinder Saran (The Maples): Yes, Madam, a point of order. Point of Order Madam Speaker: On a point of order. Mr. Saran: Yes, Madam. In the morning today during voting, with the intention of sitting neutral, I did not stand to vote neither in favour nor against. And the Deputy Speaker asked me, either I have to stand in favour or against and I cannot stay neutral; if I want to stay neutral, I will have to leave the chair. That's what I did.

I request the honourable Speaker, for the benefit of all the members, to educate the House why a member cannot stay in his or her chair if that member wants to stay neutral for voting on particular issues. Thank you. Madam Speaker: I thank the minister for that. I would–or, the member for that. I would point out that our rules do not allow abstentions, that if you are in your chair you do have to vote one way or another. There are no options to that and those are long- standing rules of this Legislature. So the member does not have a point of order. * * * Madam Speaker: Grievances?

ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): On House business, pursuant to rule 33(8), I'm announcing that the private member's resolution to be considered on next Thursday of private members' business will be put forward by the honourable member for Elmwood. The title of the resolution is Committing to an East -West Power Grid for Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the private member's resolution to be considered on the next Thursday of private members' business will be one put forward by the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). The title of the resolution is Committing to an Eas t-West Power Grid for Manitoba. * * * Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): This afternoon we would like to proceed with Estimates.

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2471 Madam Speaker: The House will now resolve itself into Committee of Supply. Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) EXECUTIVE COUNCIL * (15:10) Mr. Chairperson (Dennis Smook): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Executive Council. The floor is now open for questions. Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Miigwech, Mr. Chair–Deputy Chair? An Honourable Member: Mr. Chair. Ms. Fontaine: Chair. Chair. Mr. Chair. So I would just like to ask–we're going to explore, obviously, some of the Neighbourhoods Alive! funding that we've all come to learn about in the last little bit. So I'm curious, when did the Neighbourhoods Alive! send notice letters to organizations that– advising them that their funding was under review? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Premier): I'd encourage the member–the ministers available to answer any of those questions in the other room, as we speak. So I'd encourage the member, if she had any questions relating to details of that program, they'd be best directed to the minister of that department, who I'm sure'd be able to edify her on any additional facts that I m ight have to, by the nature of my once -removal from that position, only be able to give her general comment on. Ms.

Fontaine: I can appreciate that the minister has– should, in theory, have most of the details, but I am asking questions, as is my right as a member of this committee to do. So, if the Premier doesn't have that specific information, I would like to explore when the direction to put all of the Neighbourhoods Alive! funding under review, then. When was –when did that occur? Mr. Pallister: That direction was given by the people of Manitoba, I believe, last April –about the third week, if I'm not mistaken –in a provincial election.

It was given by the people of Manitoba when they gave the Progressive Conservative team a mandate to govern. It was gi ven following an election in which a clear platform was outlined.

The–one of the key components of that platform was a commitment to review government spending, to make sure that we moved away from a direction of growing deficits and growing debt, which was identified as dangerous not only by international bond rating agencies with two very harsh and critical reviews of the previous government's money man - agement ability, but also recognized by the previous government itself in repeated throne speeches, y ear after year, as being a key concern that they shared.

And the commitment was made by the previous administration in several throne speeches to review and address government spending, but the unfortu- nate truth was that the previous government wasn't able to get those reviews done, act on the commitments they made, both in the throne speeches and in budget speeches.

And so as a consequence, we saw growing–not only growing tax burden on families in the province, but in addition, of course, a growing–in combination it seems a contradiction, but there was growing revenue flowing in from higher increases in transfers from other provinces, via Ottawa, for health care and social services. Those were escalating rather rapidly. So you had a combination that's hard to–it's hard to dispute, wasn't –the government didn't have the ability to take advantage of. Because you had declining interest rates and lower debt service charges as a result of declining interest rates.

Add to that higher transfer payments coming in, shooting up 6 per cent year over year on the health file along. So greater revenues from the interest savings, greater revenues from the transfers. You had these things happening at the same time as you had greater revenues from record tax increases. So all these additional revenues were flowing into the previous government, yet they were having larger deficits as well. So their spending growth was exceeding almost unprecedented revenue growth.

Out - of-control spending was the way Stan Struthers described it at various times and said that he and his government were committed to getting it under control. * (15:20) They just –but it was –it just seemed that they were unable to fight that addiction, spending more and more year after year. And so we actually ran on

2472 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 a commitment to do what the previous government had committed to do but failed to do. We ran on a commitment to do a review of government spending, to move towards more sustainability in fiscal management because, fundamentally, like most Manitobans understand, we understand that being able to sustain services today is important, but it is also important to be able to sustain them going forward.

And that seven -generations concept that I've learned from many of my indigenous friends is ingrained in many of them and the values they've learned over their lives, is very real, I think. A very real opportunity for us to learn that we have to manage with a view not only to this generation and these challenges today, but also to the challenges we'll face tomorrow. And so long story short, we ran on that commitment, we said we'd do our best to fix the finances and we committed to reviewing government expenditure. That direction was given by the people of Manitoba in April of 2016. Ms.

Fontaine: When I wen t to go vote, I don't remember ever seeing on the ballot that the direction was to cut funding to vital and critical programs in the Neighbourhoods Alive! pro - gramming. I don't remember that. I don't specifically remember Manitobans so -called giving direc tions in April to actually put women's lives and children's lives at risk. So, I mean, I think it's really disingenuous for the Premier (Mr.

Pallister) to sit here and make light of the –you know, the direction that clearly came from the top, which is him , in respect of reviewing successful critical needed programs under the Neighbourhoods Alive! and several other programs – but we're just talking about Neighbourhoods Alive! so–and then to kind of –it–I find it, as an indigenous person, just so wholly offensive that the Premier then kind of, in his rambling on, you know, chooses to talk about seven generations. That's actually a teaching that we're taught and we live day in and day out, and it actually doesn't mean what you're saying.

It doesn't mean that the –you know, your austerity – the Premier's austerity measures are actually borne off the backs of vulnerable and at -risk women and children. It certainly doesn't mean that. And, if it does, then I should go back for teachings, because clearly I missed those teachings from our elders. So, you know, I do want to put on the record that, you know, the direction that this government takes comes from the Premier. It's in his mandate letters, it's in the spirit of how he wants to govern and in the spirit of his vision for Manitoba.

And in the Premier's spirit of how he kind of –he wants to see things transpire in Manitoba, he is creating a regime that is seeing cuts off of the backs of vulnerable and at -risk women. And if they're not vulnerable and at -risk and simply just need some supports, he's certainly putting the conditions by reviewing all of these programs and cutting and not renewing them–or, reviewing them and not renewing them. He's certainly putting the conditions in which Manitoba women and children are goi ng to be more at-risk.

So, you know, I would ask the Premier, like, how does this–how does austerity off of the backs of women and children fit into his overall vision of –for Manitobans? Mr. Pallister: Well, I–let me encourage the member in her understanding of the word austerity. The word austerity means bitter and bleak. And what could be more bitter and bleak than handing future generations a massive burden, a $35- billion debt? Double the debt of nine years ago; that would be bitter and bleak. On whose shoulders would that debt fall?

Well, children yet to be born, young people who haven't enjoyed the benefits of having a chance to find a job or work in our society. That's bitter. That's bleak. So the member needs to understand austerity, true austerity is bitterness, and there would be a great deal of bitterness justifiable on the parts o f future generations if they were handed, as they have been, accelerated debt obligations for things they haven't benefited from at all. That's recognized by political leaders from all stripes. It's not a partisan observation. Jack Layton, rest his soul, supported balanced budgets and said so many times.

Thomas Mulcair, the federal NDP former leader–discarded by his party, I think, rather prematurely; but the member may have different views on that and I respect her views –but those people, NDP members, didn't see this as an ideological thing, they saw it as a practical thing and they stood for balanced budgets. And frankly, I think most Manitobans understand they have to balance their books or they'll create austerity for their children and grandchildren, a nd that wouldn't be right. You know, real austerity is what the previous government was creating, and they acknowledged

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2473 that. In fact, NDP Finance ministers acknowledged that repeatedly. They said that it wasn't right to run massive deficits and to keep t hem getting larger and larger was dangerous. They said that–members of the party the member chose to run for. So here's a quote from the –for example, here's the 2012 budget address delivered on April 17th of that year, and it says restoring balance is a key. That's what it says.

So you know, unless the member is not committed to moving to balance –and maybe that is implicit in what she's saying, but she needs to be clear about that –she must understand that the position of her party has been frequently arti culated as moving towards balance. In fact, she ran for a political organization that claimed it was moving towards balance itself and said that in the election campaign.

In fact, in Gord Mackintosh's new treatise that he published recently, he says that the previous administration had talking points which claimed that they were moving towards balance by 2016, even when all of them knew they weren't. And they stuck to those talking points. Now, why would they stick to talking points about moving to balanc e if they didn't think moving to balance was the right thing to do? Surely, those wouldn't be very good talking points. Why would the previous administration have said it wanted to move to balance if that wasn't what they really wanted to do?

I mean, so the member is harsh in her condemnation, as is all too often the custom, but she's condemning her own party in the process, not me. Restoring balance is what they said in 2012, and I'll quote from that speech. It says: governments around the world confront the need to contain spending while providing important services. So we've actually run on that commitment. We said that's exactly what we would do. The member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine) shouldn't run away from the reality that her position is extremely at odds with the position articulated by her own party, again and again and again.

In fact, it's at odds with the position she ran on, because her party said in the election campaign that they were going to move towards balance. They said they had a plan to move towards balance. They said they were moving towards balance when they did the budget speech–well, it wasn't really a speech about the budget, because there was no budget, but it was a sort of a financial forecast. And they forecasted, in their financial forecast, they said that they would be at about $300- million deficit. And then they ended up being over $900 million. Wow –missed it by that much.

So integrity is doing what you say you'll do. Previous administration demonstrated lack of integrity o n fiscal issues, certainly; where it said it was going to accomplish things like move towards balance and sustainability, failed to do so year after year after year. We ran on a promise to restore the financial security of this province and its future, and that is exactly what we're working towards doing. Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): I would like to follow up the question of my colleague.

Cutting services –or cutting funding for social programs that are being delivered by commu nity organizations such as the Point Douglas women's centre, these are the programs that we could certainly put in the categories of prevention programs. Would the Premier (Mr. Pallister) prefer spending millions on health -care costs, or even cost to jails, cost to social peace and justice issues, rather than a few hundred dollars for prevention programs like housing and education for the less –for the marginalized members of our society. * (15:30) Mr.

Pallister: Well, I would emphasize to the member that sustainability of providing services is an important thing to consider. It is a common sense thing to consider for most Manitobans, and I would ask the member to understand that borrowing $900 million more this year than we're bringing in with some of the country's highest taxes is hardly a way to assure the ability, future ability, to deliver meaningful programs to support Manitoba's most vulnerable people.

And so, as a government, we're undertaking to ascertain how we can move to a position of strength and away from a position of weakness as personified by the previous government. For example, we know that the debt service costs in our country and in the world, currently, are the lowest they've ever been in the history of humanity.

Interest rates have gone down for borrowing costs rather consistently over the last number of years, and yet, when the previous administration came to power –the premier, previous premier, came to power in 2009- 10 fiscal –for example, the debt service–summary debt service costs fo r the Province of Manitoba were $756 million, a pretty significant amount of money.

2474 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 This year, the forecast amount is $235 million higher than that. It's $235 million higher, $991 million and getting up very close to $1 billion a year, with the lowest interest rates in the history of humankind. We're approaching $1 billion a year that can't go –not $1 of it –can't go to support programs like the member describes, can't support vulnerable people, not a bit–close to $1 billion gone. Just before the year begins , we predict that this will be the amount. That's $235 million more than it was in 2009-10 fiscal.

So, just taking the performance of the previous government, they're responsible for almost a quarter of a billion dollars of additional debt service cost through that time frame, one of the most profitable times in the history of Manitoba, when revenues flowing into the government were increasing at rates unprecedented, when transfers from Ottawa were growing year over year over year over year over year, accelerating, when the interest rates to service the pre-existing debt were the lowest that they'd been up to that point in time and have since lowered. This is a missed opportunity.

This defines a missed opportunity to strengthen the Province's fiscal situation so that you can strengthen the ability to care for vulnerable people. So the member's

preamble fails to demonstrate an understanding that having $1 billion of debt servicing costs is hardly a way to provide better services to vulnerable people. More t han that, there's the absence of any plan whatsoever, when the previous government was in power, to take on the challenge of moving to sustainable management practices so that we could deliver these kinds of services next year and the year after and the year after that. So what you have is a recipe for vulnerability that will grow.

What we have now, instead, with a new direction, is a demonstrated willingness to tackle the challenges of doing exactly what Manitobans must do in their own homes with their own budgets or in their own small businesses, which is to make the necessary decisions to move towards balance, something that was articulated by the previous government and by NDP leaders throughout the country, including Rachel Notley and Jack Layton and T homas Mulcair. In fact, it's been articulated by Chisholm in Nova Scotia as well.

So NDPers across the country believe that we should move towards balance, and they speak a lot about it, and some of them are actually succeeding in moving in that direction when–rarely, but on occasion–when they have the chance to do something about it. But we know from the words of the budget speech in 2012, the previous administration talked a good game about –well, here's a quote again: We're balancing expenditure reducti ons with modest, fair measures to increase revenues without raising any major tax rates.

This is the same budget –that speech, that quote, was in the same budget where the PST was broadened to include items never previously included, and over $200 million of new revenue was taken off the kitchen tables of Manitobans and put into the coffers of the government while their deficit was growing and their ability to look after vulnerable people was being eroded. So that's not a record that speaks to genuine compassion. It speaks to a willingness to spend more than one can afford, and it speaks very much to a lack of understanding what foresight really means.

It created an austere environment –a bleak and bitter feeling among Manitobans. Ms. Fontaine: Well, I mean , I always –it's always interesting listening to the Premier (Mr. Pallister) try to spin what is really just egregious decisions that he's making under–or that he's giving direction to do.

And I think it's particularly entertaining when he starts to rattle off different NDP leaders, like Jack Layton, who actually, I'm pretty sure, would be rolling around in his grave if he knew that the Premier is actually utilizing his good name and the good work that he did in the discussion of not renewing $120,000 for the North Point Douglas Women's Centre. I'm pretty sure that he would be rolling around in his grave.

And it's also, you know, adorable when the Premier talks about compassion in the same discussion that we're having about cutting $120,000 from the North Point Douglas Women's Centre that services thousands of women, currently employs, you know, 4.5 positions from that dollar, which I do want to say that, in respect of everything that the Premier's talking about, about budgeting and balancing books and al l of this, I would say that $120,000 for 4.5 positions is pretty good to get that many positions and to do that much programming with $120,000.

So, again, I think it's adorable and I –you know, it's great to listen to the Premier talk about, you

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2475 know, my c olleagues across the country who I'm pretty, pretty sure wouldn't appreciate that –him dropping their names when he's just dropped really what is a bomb of information on the North Point Douglas Women's Centre and certainly in the lives of the four staff that they now have to fire. So, you know–and I know that the Premier, you know, rattles off all of these different things, like the international bond agencies and da da da, so I do want to ask the Premier (Mr.

Pallister) : Did the international bond agencie s that he's, you know, met with or referring to, did they deem the Neighbourhoods Alive! programming as very dangerous to the Manitoba economy? Mr. Pallister: Well, I appreciate that the member's trying to run the Point Douglas by -election here today at Estimates, and that's pretty self-evident. But I knew Jack Layton and I knew his attitude towards balancing budgets, and I can assure the member that I represe nt quite accurately what his approach was in respect of that and what his commitment was.

If she has other ideas about that, she might like to reference some legitimate research or some empirical research that she's done. But I know the member's very def ensive about these issues, because she understands, as all Manitobans do, that accelerated debt service costs place at risk worthwhile programs, and that is the nature of mismanagement and overspending by governments that does that very thing. It makes more vulnerable those who need protection, not less vulnerable. And so the member was trying to defend the indefensible.

She's trying to defend something even previous Finance ministers found indefensible and said so in their budget speeches. So the commitment of the previous administration year after year after year to get their spending in order was –it's on record. She can review any of the budget speeches; she'll see it there. So, while she may try to make this a partisan issue, I think it's less partisan than she might realize.

It is actually a point of agreement, I think, by many, including people in all political parties, that you can't prosper in the long run and support the people who need support in the long run if you overspend today, because you'll make their–your ability to help them tomorrow a less realistic, less likely proposition. Of course, we saw that in the last provincial election. We saw a lack of understanding; we saw desperation.

We saw the NDP go out and double down, triple down, quadruple down on their promise campaign, saying they were going to run a $300-million deficit, and we knew it actually at the end of the year turned out to be triple that. * (15:40) That's not the worst of it. The actual fact is that that actual deficit in the

summary accounts of the Province, which is real, which places us on risk of losing our credit rating or having it reduced even further–tens of millions of dollars gone from the projects she likes to cite, because of the fact that the government–previous government–couldn't get their spending under control. The worst problem is they actually went out and tried to promise their way to re -election. They promised funding for, among other things, well, $600 million of additional spending on a wide array of things all across the spectrum of public policy.

So they targeted commitments in a wide array of various things like saying they would spend more money on the North Interlake Training Centre, the Keystone Centre, that they'd combat gender -based violence, that they'd invest in capital funding and build greenhouses, QuickCare clinics, school capital funds, student loans to grants, the Lorette multiplex because they really wanted to win that riding, recreational facilities all over the province to the tune of $25 million. Went out to targeted ridings all over the province, all over the city, promised they'd build new facilities.

They–just an amazing, amazing display of a lack of integrity. So you know, they talk in the budget speech about strengthening our credit rating on the one hand while on the other hand, promising to spend $600 million more. And this leaves out things like the St. Norbert bypass. I mean, we're talking about hundreds of millions in addition to this. These are specific projects listed. So, you know, this–these are the kinds of things that –these are the kinds of projects that are all worthwhile, and so naturally the members want to run on doing them. They promised to do them all in the same year.

You know, it doesn't demonstrate an understa nding of sustainable management practices. So the member expresses –in a rather petulant manner, she expresses concern about one program she claims it doesn't have support. That's easy to do. What's hard to do is what Manitobans do every year, balance their books. And what we're aiming to do is get the fiscal mess we inherited under control, and that's what we're dedicated to doing. I know the

2476 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 member won't be part of doing that because she was part of making the mess, and she wants to deny there is a mess, but decrying internationally respected lending agencies and criticizing former NDP budget speeches by former NDP finance ministers is hardly a credible way to make her case. Ms. Fontaine: Well, I always love when the Premier (Mr. Pallister), you know, te lls me that I don't know what I'm talking about and I don't know –you know, my

preamble is not right, when clearly we saw today that it was. And I mean, I think that the Premier has to explain why he very publicly in question period said that I wasn't right when clearly I was. So it's –I mean, I –you know, of course a woman always enjoys being told by a man that she doesn't know what she's talking about. So I mean, I hear that all the time in question period. I thought that we would've left it out of these sessions. But I do want to put on the record because, actually, I know that some media had asked me –and the Premier just said it, that I'm trying to –what did you say?

Influence the by -election in Point Douglas here? Let me be explicitly clear that that in n o way, shape, or form is what I'm trying to do. And the members opposite can laugh all they want, but the reality is is that the funding that was cut from the North Point Douglas Women's Centre is a significant amount of money that will actually have a significant impact on the lives of women.

And, while the member from Emerson thinks that it's so funny that Manitoba women's lives are put at risk, and I'll be sure to put that in one of my notes because I'm–it's just hilarious, and here's the Premier not even directing his caucus to show some respect to Manitoba women who now are going to be put at risk from the very policy that this government put in place. This is not a joke.

Like, I don't know why members think that this is funny and why members opposite would support a leader who thinks that this is funny, to put women's lives at risk by cutting what is a significant amount of dollars to the organization, but certainly not a significant amount of money for the government of Manitoba. Surely, the Prem ier could've maybe, I don't know, negotiated better price in respect of some of the reports that they got and actually kept the $120,000 for the North Point Douglas Women's Centre and negotiated a better price for some of the reports that they did. That would've been great.

I would've been standing up in the House and applauding the Premier for that. But, no –but, no–the Premier decides to actually cut $120,000 from the North Point Douglas woman's centre, and members opposite–not all of them but certainly th e member from Emerson –thinks it's hilarious, thinks it's absolutely hilarious. And it is, regardless of the Point Douglas by -election, it is so egregious and so offensive. And when you ask the Premier questions, he can't even answer the questions. He dances around; he reads off something.

I'm talking about right now the direction that he's given his minister to do a total review of the Neighbourhoods Alive! and then cut and slash and burn really good critical programs. How can the Premier who I've said in the House time and time again has such a sacred responsibility. It is an absolute privilege to be sitting where you're sitting, and what do you do? What does the Premier do? He cuts $120,000 from already an organization that doesn't get a lot of dollars , but does phenomenal work. How can you sit here and justify that? Mr.

Pallister: Well, the member speaks about a number of things there in that little rant that she just launched. She invokes womanhood in her

preamble. I encouraged her, in response to her first question, if she wanted additional details from a minister to ask the minister. The minister is a female, and so I've demonstrated nothing but respect for women in my decisions around our team and the responsibilities that women have in our caucus. The NDP elected one new female member to the Legislature, and it's the member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine). We elected six. We had a record number of women run for our party. I'm proud of that, and I have been a long -time advocate for working to include more women in political activities.

So I encourage the member in her activities politically, but I encourage her to use truth whenever possible and not depart into rhetoric. She spoke about getting a better deal on reports. The previous government commissioned a number of reports. For example, they commissioned a Dr. Peachey to do a report on an issue that matters deeply to all Manitobans, not, of course, solely women, but not exclusively women either, and that was wait times. And the wait -times issue is a scandal.

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2477 Under the previous administration, the wait times grew and grew and grew to be the longest in Canada, and so people were waiting excessively long periods of time. The previous government recognized this as a problem. Because they recognized it as a problem didn't mean they were going to solve it though. They commissioned a report, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for that report, and shelved the report and did nothing about it. They got the advice that they needed. They were given advice; they just wouldn't take it.

So the member speaks about value for reports. How is commissioning a report at massive expense from experts and then not listening to it getting value for that report? The previous administration also commissioned reports i n respect of the Public Utilities Board examination of Hydro, a number of issues around Hydro, and a gentleman named Philippe Dunsky who was an international –a renowned international expert on the management of utilities and hydro utilities among them, was commissioned to do a report. That report was covered up too.

That report recommended things which the government said it supported too, but it still covered up the report. Taxpayers paid for the report; hundreds and thousands of dollars was spent. The m ember speaks about getting value from reports. I'm quite interested in her explaining how the covering up of reports is getting value for reports. We asked for information. So did members of the media on the tendering of –or non- tendering of contracts for w hat are called Tiger Dams.

They're orange plastic bags that are supposed to stop flooding from damaging as much as it would have if they didn't have the plastic bags in place. Now, the previous Infrastructure minister was asked numerous questions about the se–the purchases of these. They were never disclosed. They were untendered, as it turns out, and they should've been disclosed by law. They were not; they were covered up. A report was done internally by the department. We asked for it. We used the freedom of information act, as did many members of the media, to try to get information on the report on the evaluation of those Tiger Dams.

It was paid for by taxpayers, but it w as covered up too. * (15:50) So the member talks about getting value for money. I'm very interested in her ideas on how we do that. But I don't know how credible her argument would be that she's going to –her government's going to–her former government di d anything other than not get value for money when it commissioned reports, which it covered up, refused to make available. This non-disclosure of information doesn't stand as a very credible example.

I mean, the member was even part of a plan to try to make the previous NDP government look better on kids in care by changing the way they were counted. Okay? So I encourage the member not to be anything but humble and modest in her evaluation of the previous government's ability to do those things which a re necessary. Even the previous minister, Kerri Irvin-Ross, said of that plan, which I expect as an adviser to the government the member was instrumental in advancing–the Minister Kerri Irvin - Ross said it's very embarrassing. It's very embarrassing, she sa id.

She announced that the province was being–previously announced the province of being unfairly compared to other provinces because it was counting its numbers of kids in care differently, and it turned out that that wasn't true at all. So the playing with numbers thing that the member likes to do and has done frequently in respect of the number of categories, erodes her credibility when she makes arguments and when she makes assertions. That would be true whether she was a man or a woman and it has not hing to do with sex. It has to do with honest research and it has to do with integrity and advancing arguments.

Ms. Fontaine: Well, so I'm not sure if the Premier (Mr. Pallister) knows about some of the programs that actually North Point Douglas does and executes. I'm not going to ask him, I'm going to let him know some of them because I assume that he's going to, as is his typical MO, go into some rant and rave about whatever.

So I do want to put on the record what some of the amazing programs that the North Point Douglas Women's Centre does and, you know, if we talk about value for reports or value for dollars, again, I want it–you know–explicitly understood that the $120,000 that the North Point Douglas woman centre gets funds 4.5 positions. And in those 4.5 positions–which, again, I think is pretty good value for money –the North Point Douglas woman's programs–they do free counselling for women, they do parenting programs–I'm going to speak louder just to make sure that the Premier's hearing the

2478 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 programs–parenting programs, examples: Nobody's Perfect Parenting. They do safety, so they do–they help women leaving domestic violence and advocate for them and get help for them which, as I'm sure the Premier (Mr. Pallister) should know, you know, one of the f irst steps is actually women who are in domestic violent relationships–actually getting them to make those first calls or those first inquiries. So the North Point Douglas woman's programming includes that. They do health classes.

So they do nutritional classes, they do exercise programming, programming for children which–I think this is great. They have a community oven. So–it's a wood fire oven for community food accessibility. I think that that's wonderful. I've done many baking sessions with families o f MMIWG, and I know that that goes a long way in the lives of women and children. They have emergency housing solutions for women that find themselves in a –very vulnerable positions in respect of housing.

They also–even though it's the North Point Douglas Women's Centre, they actually have drop -in for men, women, and children, which I think is a testament to the phenomenal work that they do, that it's not only for women, they also include men. And so there's men's programming there, as well. So I want to put that on the record because I think that it should be point out –pointed out the phenomenal work that they do there, and the staff that they have who I know pour so much of their time, energy, and spirit into the work that they do.

This is the program ing that the Premier has directed his staff –his minister–to cut. This amazing programing here for $120,000 plus the 4.5 staff –this is what the Premier of Manitoba has directed his staff–his minister, his departments under his direction for the vision of this province–to cut. So, again, I –you know, I know that the Premier goes on about this and that, but he hasn't really answered the question in respect of justifying cutting $120,000 from an organization that does phenomenal, substantial work in the lives of women, not only in Point Douglas but St. Johns.

I'm sure that other women in surrounding areas also utilize the North Point Douglas Women's Centre. How can the Premier justify doing so? Mr. Pallister: Well, again, I would encourage the member to do additional research where necessary to become possessed of facts rather than simply rhetoric. I said earlier, and she questioned this, that it's –I think it's well known by many people that Jack Layton was committed to balancing the budget, but Tom Mulcair just ran the last federal election on a commitment to do the same.

And he said as recently as March 18th on CBC, on a program called The House, he said: are you just dumping more debt on the back of future generations? Kevin Page –that would be the former Pa rliamentary Budget Officer – had a take on that last week, that we have to be careful because we're leaving a huge debt to future generations without much to show for it.

Well you know, again, NDPers around the country, I expect maybe even a few in Manitoba are very cognizant of the big concept that the member seems unable to grasp: that overspending is a danger and that getting fiscal circumstances strengthened is a way to strengthen our ability to protect the vulnerable in our province and in our country. Her record on advising the previous minister in the last term to provoke an adversarial fight with Osborne House runs in contrast to her now adamant defence of another agency and is puzzling, I think, to many.

The vindictive approach in shutting down a women's shelter and personal attacks launched, an email attempted to be blacked out that wasn't blacked out which accused people trying to organize a fundraiser for Osborne House as being do- good ignorant white people –and the member now talks about being in praise of another agency which runs some programs which are different but some which are very, very similar to those run by Osborne House. Yet no voice lifted in defence of another agency, just a voice lifted now in anticipation of a by-election. It's –doesn't give credibility to the argument that she's making.

This approach was wrapped–this –these comments that were made were vindictive ones. What did Osborne House do that was so bad? Besides the good work they did, they actually asked for increased support from the government. They had the audacity to ask for some help, previous government decided in their own manner that they would take a resentful and vindictive and short-sighted approach in respect to the programs offered by that organization. They de cided to act to denigrate the people on the board, to criticize them very, very harshly. They decided to essentially shut down the organization.

That was how they handled a

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2479 women's shelter when they were in government and now the member launches very oppor tune attacks based on questionable evidence. Again, I encourage the member to understand that, as she is not cognizant of the position of her own party when she advocates that we should ignore the fiscal circumstances and challenges facing our province.

I–again, I'll quote from the budget speech the NDP did in 2012–again, the year that they broadened the PST and added fees on things as far -ranging as new beer and wine taxes; a fee on every car owner in the province; additional cottage fees that would triple, quadruple, and quintuple some of the charges that people made on their family cabin at the lake if they had one.

From that speech it says here, and this was the commitment of the previous government: we are balancing expenditure reductions with modest , fair measures to increase revenues without raising any major tax rates –that's what they said right in the speech, the same speech where they raised them. Now, we have already reduced expenses –they said in the speech –we've successfully negotiated a pause in wage increases with many parts of our public sector–something else that they –the members of the opposition now decry they actually did.

Then it says –goes further and says: we've managed spending in the health- care system by increasing efficiencies and legislating a cap on administrative costs for regional health authorities – something else which we're doing which they criticize. * (16:00) See, eerily reminiscent of these words are the words in our own budget speech. The difference is, what they prom ise to do, they failed to do in that administration; what we promise to do, we are in the process of doing.

But the member ought not to criticize so harshly and so ferociously one program and, erroneously, I expect, when she fails to recognize the broader picture and the larger problem. Ms. Fontaine: Well, I would encourage the Premier (Mr. Pallister) to get over it, in respect of Osborne House. And I, you know, I'm sure that the Premier is, you know, a little disappointed that I beat his chosen candidate in St. Johns, the candidate that we found out l ater has half a million dollars in her personal bank account taken from Osborne House to answer phone calls.

So, I mean, I understand that the Premier would be upset that I beat his chosen candidate that, actually, even after the election he chose to hono ur and, then, you know, we find out that she's got a half a million dollars in her personal bank account. So I would encourage the Premier to actually do a little bit more research on his candidates next time around. So, you know, we know that the North Point Douglas Women's Centre provides the programming that's typically done by a neighborhood renewal corporation because Point Douglas doesn't have one.

So, you know, if he is cutting the centre funding, will he replace the services with a neighborhood renewal corporation? Mr. Pallister: Well, I assure the member that my comments in respect of her inability to do accurate research have nothing whatsoever to do with her electoral success. I recognize that she may feel somewhat put upon by the fact she wasn't the chosen candidate of her own party in that riding, and that others were trying to take her out, in high positions.

I understand that, and I respect the fact that she faced some challenges in securing her nomination, I applaud her for her willingness to face those challenges. She now needs to face the challenges of being accurate in her assertions if she wishes to have credibility in this position as an advocate for those things she claims to believe in. She'll have to explain why she tried to convinc e the previous government to change the way that children in care were counted so it would look better in newspaper columns.

She'll have to explain why she makes the false assertion that we took salary increases when she knows that's false and when she knows that the previous administration gave themselves salary increases. And she also will have to explain why the administration she ran for chose to give themselves a vote tax of a million dollars as a subsidy to their members at a time when they were also running massive deficits. So, in effect, they were borrowing the money to pay themselves a vote tax subsidy in lieu of actually going out and working for their party. This is an

article from the Canadian –or from another newspaper that's not the Sun that publishes in Manitoba, and it says a number of embarrassing factual errors by the government –NDP government has led officials to backtrack on plans to change the way the province counts children in care.

2480 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 It goes on to say a report from The Globe and Mail, Thursday, revealed several factual in - accuracies, and the member may remember that phrase being used to describe some of her false assertions over the last few months. Mrs. Sarah Guillemard, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair In a four -page backgrounder, the Province sent last month, after it announced it would no longer include voluntary placements in its total tally of children in care, the change would remove a little over 700 kids from their current tally of 10,295, bringing it under 10,000.

The arti cle goes on to say that the backgrounder indicated Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario did not count voluntary placements in their tally, and in the interests of comparing fairly to other provinces, Manitoba would follow suit. Except it appears somebody didn't do their homework. Quote: We found out recently it was extremely inaccurate, and this is embarrassing for all of us, said Family Services minister, Kerri Irvin - Ross, there was no intent at all to hide the total number of children re ceiving services.

Turns out, four of these provinces count kids in voluntary placement in their total tally. And several of the figures cited by the previous government, who received advice from the present member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine) on these issu es, turns out that advice was wrong. Now, the member would have to attest to whether it was deliberately wrong or it was simply an oversight.

Either way, it was wrong, and, again, the member needs to explain why it would be that she would give this kind o f advice to the previous administration, place them in this embarrassing position, all in the name of trying to create the false impression that we had less of a problem with kids in care than we really had. I mean, it says in here a variety of things, but it turns out that the figures cited by the government regarding other provinces' kids in care were wrong figures. The Province did not date or source in the background where they got their information.

So this particular publication actually did its research, which is something that is –I encourage the member to consider, and reached out to the four provinces mentioned in the background here to ask them how they tally children in care, and all four responded by pointing the newspaper to data on their website–not hard to get –all different numbers than what was given by the Province of Manitoba who received advice from the member –present member for St. Johns, the former adviser on these issues.

All four stated their numbers included children placed in vo luntary care, yet the previous govern - ment claimed –after the advice from the member, I expect, and others–that this was not the case. So here you go. That's the record of the previous government and the member who advised them on this specific issue. This is why I encourage the member and congratulate her on her efforts in capturing her nomination. Supported by the previous senior people in the NDP or not, she was able to capture a nomination and she deserves to be given credit for that.

But she will get more credit from me and from others if she insists on being more scrupulous in her research than has been evidenced thus far. Ms. Fontaine: Well, I mean I don't even know where to begin with all the erroneous facts and that. I mean it's –it's–it's–it's–a conversation with the Premier (Mr. Pallister) and trying to get some questions answered is –it's–your head just spins. I mean, the amount of erroneous stated facts in the Premier's last rambling on of God knows what, I'm not sure where–I don't remember actually ever seeing the Premier in the building.

I actually remember seeing the Premier once in the cafeteria, so I'm not sure why the Premier would think that he would know what I did in respect of advice given, and for the record–I will certainly put it on the record that–so that he can stop with that, you know, nonsense that he's talking about. I didn't work on the CFS files, so I honestly don't know what you're talking about, and you know, I'm just trying to get some questions answered.

I'm just trying to figure out that if the Premier has chosen to cut $120,000 from the North Point Douglas Women's Centre, is he planning on replacing that with a neighbourhood renewal corporation. They're very simple questions that I'm sure that Tara, the executive directo r from the North Point Douglas Women's Centre, would like to know who– although she's a little bit busy right now; she's actually organizing a rally tomorrow which, of course, I'll be there to support her.

I'll invite members opposite if they want to come down and actually hear from Tara directly on the consequences of your boss's direction to cut $120,000, but she's

May 25, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2481 busy. So she's busy right now, but I certainly will see her tomorrow. But she certainly –I'm sure her and her board of directors and the staff and the women that are reliant on the program would like to know whether or not, now that the Premier (Mr. Pallister) has cut this funding–which again, I will put on the record, is a significant amount of dollars for the organization, but not that significant for the government in respect of the value that this government gets for that $120,000–what is the Premier planning on doing now?

There's going to be an absolute gap in services, so is the Premier planning on developing a renewal corporation for Point Douglas? I think that Point Douglas–and again, surrounding areas as well – deserve to know that this gap, that the Premier has absolutely no problem cutting; this funding, that he has no problem cutting, that he can go to bed tonight sound and–you know, ha ve a good night's sleep while four people just lost their job and thousands of women are going to be impacted on this. * (16:10) What is he going to do? Is the government going to be doing anything in replace of that?

Are they going to be looking at a ne ighbourhood renewal corporation? And I would suggest –I would suggest –and I would recommend to the Premier, stop concentrating on me, like, concentrate on the programming that I'm actually asking questions about, that are actually impacting on the lives o f Manitoba women, that actually he has an equitable responsibility to as well. Mr. Pallister: Well, I appreciate the member being clear that she wasn't involved in these issues.

I understood, of course, that she was retained as an adviser on Aboriginal women's issues, and I understand that she's raising questions about a shelter. I understand that she was the recipient – exchanged emails with the previous minister, Eric Robinson, on Osborne House, in which she criticized rather harshly a fundraising idea tha t had emanated from Osborne House, and the response was something about do- good, ignorant white people.

If she's now claiming that she isn't involved with kids in care, maybe she can explain why approximately 88 per cent of the kids in care are indigenous and she's an adviser in indigenous women's issues to the previous minister but doesn't deal with the issue of kids in care. That doesn't make any sense, doesn't make any sense at all. The member needs to understand this exchange of emails. Okay, well, here's APTN: Manitoba's deputy premier and Aboriginal affairs minister stands by comments made in an email obtained by APTN national news in which he refers to the ignorance of do- good whi te people.

A three -line email–and this is from Melissa Ridgen, who's an APTN reporter–a three- line email from Eric Robinson, NDP MLA for Kewatinook, dated November 22nd, 2012, was sent to the Province's special adviser on Aboriginal women's issues, the present member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine). A copy was obtained through The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

It begins in response to an email from the member outlining her concerns about a Winnipeg–about a media report that a Winnipeg c lothing store was holding a burlesque fundraiser, proceeds of which would go to Osborne House, a provincially funded shelter for battered women. Quote, this is so bad–with capital S -O–and looks so bad–capital S-O–and is simply a bad idea on the part of the Osborne House ED, executive director. This is what the member wrote. I'm not disputing that the member has a right to her views on whether the fundraiser is a good idea or a bad idea. That's not the issue.

But the member claims that she didn't have invo lvement in issues about kids in care, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, she's actively involved in exchanging emails about shelters, shelters that protect women who have children. Kids who are in their care, presently, may or may not be needing stat e assistance later. And the previous government's record was a record of taking kids into state custody rather frequently, and the member claims that she was an adviser on issues pertaining to women. I would say shelters and kids in care are issues pertain ing to women.

So the –Eric Robinson replied: I know nothing of this matter. I haven't seen today's 'Freep'–I think he's referring to a local newspaper–but I will now. The remaining two lines of email are blacked out. When held up to a certain light, the type under the black bar that is used to hide the blacked-out word shows the words, quote: On the surface, it is not a very good idea, and, moreover, further exploits an already vulnerable group in society. It also further demonstrates the ignorance of do-good white people without giving it a second thought. Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

2482 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2017 Now, that, combined with the reality that the NDP government admitted that in respect of this little attempt at subterfuge on kids -in-care numbers– there's a quote here

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-2-58b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 2nd hansardpdf 58b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	80284e1e80dbdee5c11dcf2ef0958798fad4e97c

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