Manitoba Hansard — 13 April 2018 (Sitting 32C, 41st Legislature, 3rd Session)

41-3-32c

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third 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. LXXI No. 32C - 10 a.m., Friday, April 13, 2018 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 Ind. FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib.

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

Vital PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine, Hon. Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Arthur-Virden PC REYES, Jon St. Norbert PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples Ind. SCHULER, Ron, Hon. St. Paul PC SMITH, Andrew Southdale PC SMITH, Bernadette Point Douglas NDP 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, Hon. Gimli PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian, Hon.

Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC YAKIMOSKI, Blair Transcona PC Vacant St. Boniface

1359 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, April 13, 2018 The House met at 10 a.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS (Continued) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) (Continued) INFRASTRUCTURE Madam Chairperson (Sarah Guillemard): 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 Infrastructure. As previously agreed, questioning for this department will proceed in a global manner. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to ask the minister about the Land Value Appraisal Commission. It's disappeared as a line in the minister's Estimates book. I'd like to know where it is now. Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Infrastructure): Well, thank you very much, and good morning, committee.

Great to be here: sun's shining in, can't imagine any place I'd rather be than sitting h ere with the member for Elmwood, dealing with the important matters of state. An Honourable Member: Me too. Mr. Schuler: Yes, and the m ember for Elmwood indicates there is no place he would either rather be, and I know the member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino) is excited to be here too. You can just see it, how we're all just happy to be here. Anyway, committee, thank you for coming, and I also want to welcome two individuals that are going to be here for today helping with the departmental Estimates.

We have Larry Halayko, spelt, h -y-l-a-n-k-o, who's the executive director of Construction and Maintenance; and then we have Lynn Cowley, who is director of finance. She's here as well. Welcome, and I know they are also very excited to be here this morning in this beautiful room. The member asked a question about the Land Value Appraisal Commission. If he would go to page 88 of the Estimates of Expenditure and Revenue, he would see that on the top of the page of 88, it says (

h) Boards and Commissions, and if he goes down, he will see there's a footnote. And that is that land appraisal commission, Motor Transport, Highway Traffic boards as well as Licence Suspension Appea l Board, medical review committee, have been amalgamated under that one subcategory. Mr. Maloway: A number of the engineering divisions look like they've also been combined. And I believe that's Materials Engineering, transportation and Traffic Engineering. Do I have that right? Mr. Schuler: Yes. If the member would go to page 89, (e), he would see that they've been amalgamated under that section. Mr.

Maloway: In terms of the line, Highway Engineering, the numbers don't line up, so perhaps the minister can tell us: What lines from last year were added together to make the line, Highway Engineering? Mr. Schuler: Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record, if I may, and that Larry Halayko is spel led H-a-l-a-y-k-o, if Hansard would please disregard the other spelling. It's Larry Halayko. Further to the member's question, there was a realignment of the departments. Transport policy and legislative review wen t into (

c) Corporate Information Management. Mr. Maloway: Highway's transportation and water control programs used to have an expenditure called other jurisdictions, Madam Chair, and it provided specialized services to other departments in government and to rural municipalities on a cost-recovery basis. It was just over $1.5 million last year and no longer appears in the budget. Have these services been eliminated? * (10:10) Mr. Schuler: I would like to inform the member for Elmwood that that has now been moved into

section (e), of page 89, Highway Engineering.

1360 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 Mr. Maloway: Boards and Commissions have been removed as a line, and I'm assuming that's through the minister's elimination of his boards. Is that correct? Mr. Schuler: If the member would look at page 88–I don't know if he has his books with him. If not, I'm sure the member for Assiniboia has about eight of them; he could lend him one of his. [interjection] He'll be back. He could probably just table one of the–[interjection]–Yes, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) would then have to return it back to the library. I had–took a whole cartful of stuff back to the library this morning. On page 88, if he would look at item (

h) Boards and Commissions, that's where it's bee n moved to. It's listed there, though. Mr. Maloway: It is just back to the previous question. He had indicated that the –I just want to know what appropriation that was in. He said it was

section (

e) of page –on page 89, Highway Engineering. And I just want to know what appropriation is he referring to. Mr. Schuler: If the member would look at page 89, (e), planning and design of property services, Materials Engineering, Traffic, Engineering is 15.2(e); that's where he would find that. And, on page 87, Tra nsportation Policy, in Legislative Review, is in 15.1.(c). Mr. Maloway: I'd like to ask the minister: What boards and commissions does this minister retain if this bill goes through? * (10:20) Mr.

Schuler: Once the opposition passes that wonderful and glorious bill, the boards that are going to be left are the land appraisal commission, Licence Suspension Appeal Board and the Medical Review Committee. Mr. Maloway: Madam Chair, the maintenance and preservation of provincial highways has declined by over $5 million. Question is, why? Mr. Schuler: Well, as the member will know, we've spoken about being not just smart shoppers but smarter shoppers. So we're looking at a lot of cutting-edge technology, innovation, working with our partners. And we believe that there are ways in which we can find efficiencies.

Keeping in mind, I would like to point out to the member, after 17 dark, polluting, bad, bad years for the environment, we know that the member for Elmwood just didn't–him–he and his government did not believe in protecting the environment. And one of the things that I'm very, very supportive is, is protecting our fresh water. We sustain ourselves with clean, fresh water. And we also appreciate the beautiful and fresh, clean air that we breathe in. And, frankly, we make our living– An Honourable Member: Madman Speaker, point of order. Mr.

Schuler: –off of the ground that we grow our crops in, and that is very– Madam Chairperson: The honourable–order. Point of Order Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Assiniboia, on a point of order. Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): The answers should be proportionate and regarding the question of the questioner. The –talking about things that happened decades ago, or the environment or things, do not have a nything to do with spending. They do not have anything to do with Estimates.

When the committee agrees to do a global – they're not–if you look at the policy and procedure manual in Canada and how the practice is done across Canada in the committee, a reas onable question deserves a reasonable answer without condescension, tone or any of the other stuff that seems to be endemic in the Manitoba political culture. So I wonder if the minister can simply answer the question for all our sakes. Madam Chairperson: The honourable minister, on the same point of order. Mr. Schuler: Yes, Madam Speaker, I mean, clearly this is not a point of order.

This is –and we understand that individuals get elected to this Legislature and don't know the rules and don't – perhaps don't even respect the rules, don't understand how the rules work. I was answering the question for the member for Elmwood. Normally, what we do at committee is we give the courtesy to members to take their fully allotted time to ask the ques tion. The member for Assiniboia was given that courtesy yesterday. He asked questions that were long trips off a short pier that seemed to go nowhere. And we listened to him. And

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1361 the answers–I have a very clear, definitive answer I want to give the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), explaining why it is that there's a reduction, why we have to be cognizant of our environment and, yes, we run our equipment with fuel in it. So, if the members would allow the answer to be given, even new members from –the new member from Assiniboine could actually learn something. I think he might find it advantageous. There's no point of order. Madam Chairperson: I feel I have sufficient information to rule on this point of order.

According to page 510 of O'Brien and Bosc, members may not insist on an answer, and a minister's refusal to answer a question may not be questioned or treated as the subject of a point of order or question of privilege. I would also note that the Chair is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions. Therefore, I must rule that the member does not have a point of order. * * * Mr. Schuler: Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And, again, what we want to do is ensure that as we move forward as a province, that we do things efficiently. We see that the member for Assiniboia's (Mr.

Fletcher) former friends, in fact, even the member for Elmwood's former friends in Ottawa are now going to be bringing in a carbon tax, and we are trying to protect Manitobans with pre-empting it, so we don't go t o an extreme of $50, $80, $100 per carbon ton but cap it at $25. So we want to make sure that the equipment we're running is efficient. We know that our new equipment is faster; it can do more with the same time and investment. So there are savings there. And we want to be cognizant of the fact that we do burn fuel in these vehicles. We want to ensure that we're always protecting the environment.

Perhaps at some point in time we could start looking at electric vehicles. That's maybe a little bit further o ut. The technology hasn't quite caught up to this kind of equipment, but it's coming. And we want to ensure that our department, in what we do, we do it the most efficiently and that we do it the best for the environment. And those savings, Madam Speaker, are then passed on to the taxpayer. And I'm sure the member for Elmwood would be ecstatic about that, that after 17 years of the mismanagement of the environment file, we are back on track on being the most clean and green province in the nation. Mr.

Maloway: Before I turn over questioning to the member for Assiniboia, I just want to point out that in the first session of the Estimates, two days ago, the minister was asked by myself, by the member for Assiniboia, many times about the date of the Treasury Board meeting and the Cabinet meetings that approved the sole -source contract that we were discussing that day.

And that question could've been answered in just a couple of words, and yet the minister raged on and on for his full time allotment on each and every question, deliberately not answering the question that he was directly being asked and talking about things that were–had nothing to do with the Manitoba Legislature even. So I invite the member for Assiniboia to ask some questions. * (10:30) Mr.

Schul er: Well, Madam Speaker, we, over the last several days , have asked the member for Elmwood if he would, in very short words –he wouldn't have to run out the clock, wouldn't have to use up his whole time allotted him to ask a question– if, in that time frame, he would be prepared to apologize to one member of the Legislature who, the member for Elmwood attacked his wife, falsely attacked her, wrongly attacked her for being related to somebody else in the Chamber. He was wrong. He should apologize for that. We gave him that opportunity.

We also gave him the opportunity to apologize to the family of another member for the kind of attacks that he made on the fact that someone's daughter wants to enter the workforce. She wants to participate in the economy. She w as doing so before the member was even appointed to any position here in the Legislature. Our families, our children and, yes, our daughters are allowed to go and have jobs in the economy.

And, Madam Speaker, that was untoward, it was uncalled for , that th e member for Elmwood would attack a member's wife, falsely accusing her of being related, and somehow it was untoward what was going on, and then going after someone's daughter. And you have to wonder why the member for Elmwood would even go down that pa th, why he didn't check his facts, why he didn't make sure and ensure that what he was saying was accurate, why he didn't do any of that. And then, when he was called

1362 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 out for having put misinformation on the record, for having gotten it wrong, for having gone outside of the realm of what we normally do in this Legislature, where we go after each other–yes, we call each other to task, yes we call each other short when we feel something isn't right. But we don't involve families, and we don't 'invive'–involve wives and daughters as collateral damage when we're dealing with issues in this Chamber. So the question then really should be, why does the member for Elmwood (Mr.

Maloway) not avail himself of his time and just apologize? One word, that's all he would have to say is –actually, two: I apologize. That's all he would have to say. And he should. And he should apologize to the member of this Legislature whose wife he wrongly attacked, and the member whose daughter he brought into this. And that was untoward. And he shouldn't have done that. Why doesn't the member for Elmwood apologize and take 30 seconds and do so? Mr. Fletcher: The process that we are in is called Estimates. It's the Estimates of government expenditure and how those expenditures take pl ace.

Anything outside of that is outside the administrative authority of government and should not be part of the discussion in the Chamber at committee. And I will be happy to provide the appropriate references in the appropriate journals from across t he Commonwealth. The member –the minister –and again, it's the sole-source contracting. Conservatives believe in competition. We believe in transparency. We believe in Aboriginal involvement. We believe in fairness. And we believe in value for money for ta xpayers' dollars.

And, over time, the centuries have demonstrated that, when there is competition, that is in the best interests of the taxpayer. And when there is not competition, that is not in the interest of taxpayers in the context of infrastructure projects. It's just that simple. Now the minister has said that he won't apologize for what could be a mistake, and he won't make a commitment that it won't happen again. Well, I'd like to go to page 1.

So the minister's comments are–and by the way, if you can let me know when there's, like, 30 seconds left , Madam Speaker–this is what the minister said just a few days ago: Every decision –Cabinet. There's a Treasury Board and there's a PMP and there's a Regulatory Accountability Committee –the Regu - latory Accountability Committee. So they are to ensure that the regulations for procurements are followed.

There is no way the sole source contract from – that was presented could have successfully gone through that regulatory as sessment committee because sole-source contracting almost by definition doesn't meet the criteria of that –I'm ending my sentence with a preposition. The minister goes on to say, so decisions are government decisions. They're made after a lot of consideration, a lot of discussion, and they're made through a process. The government decision–and the government makes the decision and the government defends the decision. The members will know that–blah, blah, blah, blah.

So the member– An Honourable Member: I said blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? Mr. Fletcher: –the blah, blah, blah is not part of the Hansard, it's just, but one could be left with the impression that it was. So the government , on one hand, is saying they make the decision and then, on the other, they say it's the department. The minister – and we'll get to this in the second question–throws the department under the bus, doesn't take responsibility. He says, oh, it's all done over there. Madam Chairperson: The member's time has expired. Mr.

Schuler : This morning the committee walked in, and we walked into this absolutely glorious room, sunshine streaming in all the windows, and we greeted each other and talked about what a beautiful day it was and how wonderful it was to be here at committee. And you know what, I understand that for some people they go through life always being negative. So, you know what, the member –I'm going to pull out anything positive I can out of his question–and what the member is asking for is, in this Estimates process wou ld we talk about some of the positive things that are coming out of this department.

I would like to point out that we had the opportunity to go up to Lac du Bonnet and the Winnipeg River bridge. This is a bridge that has been 'deteriating' for many year s. The NDP, the member for Elmwood and his government, decided that what they were going to do–that they were going to deal with a bridge that was declining in safety,

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1363 that was 'deteriating' –what they decided to do was take a two -lane bridge and reduce it down to one lane. That was their idea of repair and maintenance. Now the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) who, you know, occasionally travels from his dacha on the riverbanks of Elmwood and occasionally travels to Transcona, usually when he's running for federal office, and has all his Frisbees paid for by the taxpayer and throws them out at parades.

He does occasionally get out, but he should get out of the Perimeter, and what he should do is go to Lac du Bonnet and he should see what sorry state –he personally and his government for 17 years –allowed that bridge to 'deteriate' to, and we announced a magnificent upgrade of that bridge. * (10:40) I would point out to the member, unlike him and his black helicopter, black ops that he seems to run everywhere in the province, we drove out there on that beautiful, magnificent day, stood out there on the banks of the river and announced the retrofit. And it is necessary.

When that bridge is complete, it will be back to two lanes; it will be slightly wider; it will be a magnificent bridge. Unfortunately, I have to tell members of this committee and people from Lac du Bonnet that for three weeks, probably in fall when the bulk of the heavy traffic is complete, that we'll have to close it for three weeks. And, for instance, it will allow for generations–in fact, we have the latest generation of Currys in the back of the room. I see that she has joined us. And we want, for generations to come that–it's her first birthday, I'd like to point out, the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr.

Curry), his daughter, and that bridge will be there for when she gets her licence. And I would point out the member for Kildonan, it's going to come faster than he thinks when she'll want the keys. And she'll probably be driving across that bridge, and she will know that after 17 dark, dark days of neglect of the member of Elmwood and his NDP government, that we are going to rehabilitate that bridge, and people will be driving across it not one lane at a time–no. It'll be a proper two-lane bridge where traffic can cross back and forth.

Again, unfortunately, we're going to have to close it for three weeks just because of construction. We'll try and do that in fall when traffic is down. And I'd like to point out there's the Christmas bridge in Portage la Prairie. And it is so termed, Madam Speaker–I think the legal term is the –it's on the Portage bypass, but we refer to it as the Christmas bridge. And the reason why we do that is because, under the NDP, a truck happened to run into that bridge, and it looked like it was missing a tooth.

About a year and a half ago, it was struck a second time by a truck, and we decided to do the right thing, rather than just keep removing teeth out of the bridge. We are doing a new design study; we're going to raise the bridge; we're going to put in a new structure. And, when people in Portage la Prairie drive by, they don't have to drive by all kinds of barricades, because the NDP –it was the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) and his government –did repair by barricade. Rather than put any money in it, they just bought some barricades, threw them on, and traffic had to go to one lane.

We are doing a lot of positive things. And I know the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Fletcher) is just ecstatic to hear the good news coming out of this budget. I hope he's going to vote for it. Mr. Fletcher: Madam Chair, another example of asking a specific question and getting gobbledygook back. Yesterday–or the other day, the minister said the following: Governments, being C abinet, decide policy.

Goes on to say, whether it goes to MERX or single source, it's the civil servants, non-partisan civil servants, that do the legwork, whether it's on MERX–they collect all the bids, pick up the right bid and recommend it to government. To be very clear, the Cabinet does not open up bids and decide which bids are right or [inaudible] – and it does it –it's done by professionals in the department. What–Cabinet role is to set policy. And, then, okay, well, the minister goes on: What government can do is say yes or no, and then it goes back. Why didn't the minister say no to a sole -source procurement contract?

Why didn't he say no? He knows sole -source contracting is against the trade agreements, the New West Partnership Agreement, against Conservative principles. He should have said no. He says right here that's all he –he doesn't know about all the other stuff. Should have said no. He didn't say no–said yes to a sole -source contract.

1364 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 Why did he say yes? That's what he says; he says yes to a sole-source contract. Well, the–so, if the department said, you know what, I would like you to jump off a cliff, I don't think the minister would do that. But sole -source contracting for a Conservative is the metaphoric equivalent of jumping off a cliff: no transparency, no accountability, no competition, against free trade.

And they won't even just take the proper way out and say that it was a mistake and a promise that the procedures of the Province of Manitoba, as laid out in their own procedure manual, will be followed. And will the minister simply–simply–tell us why he said yes to a sole- source contract? There is nothing anywhere that allows for that in this situation, nothing. Mr. Schuler: I just want to take this opportunity to welcome Sophia and Ellen Curry to the committee today, and–S -o-p-h-i-a and E -l-l-e-n, just the spellings for Hansard.

And I want Sophia to know that, unlike negative members of committee, we are going to say yes, and we are going to say yes to building a dynamic and wonderful Manitoba. And, unlike the neglect that we saw under the NDP for 17 years, neglect of our roads, neglect of our environment, which, the more they proclaimed environmental policy, the worse things got for the environment. And we had some of the worst wait times. In fact, not just were we 10th, but we were always getting further and further behind nine. And we want Sophia to know that we are saying yes to building a strong and healthy economy here in Manitoba.

I'd like to point out to negative members of this committee, those that feel that everything is negative, that we have brought over $1 billion in less than two years of private investment that –endangered species under the last 17 years of the NDP, where the private investment crane had all but disappeared–we are now bringing amazing investment into Manitoba. Between Roquette and Simplot and HyLife –and the list goes on.

We have the software developer which, once they get established here, that's 100 fantastic jobs for the new, upcoming generation of –by and large, they'll either be engineers or they will be computer science or just all the way around incredibly bright young people. So we are going to have, in all sectors of our economy, we are going to have individuals getting jobs. [interjection] And, Madam Chair, maybe we should point out to Sophia that she does not have a voice at this table, but she is so terribly cute. And we're just so pleased to have the next –[interjection]–she–the member for Elmwood (Mr.

Maloway) says is that he actually can understand her, and that's good. That's good; we're pleased that the member for Elmwood is as pleased to have Sophia here today, as well. I would like to point out to the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Fletcher) that probably jumping off of cliffs, whether it's cliff diving, hand gliding, base jumping or 'bundee' jumping, is not really my thing. I know he suggested that maybe I take some of thos e up, and I would suggest to him that I won't. I won't–I won't take hand gliding up. It's not on my bucket list.

But I thank him for that encouragement that I go and I do these kinds of activities. That's probably more down Sophia's kind of a thing. She'll probably engage in those kinds of things; it's not something that I would do. * (10:50) But I would point out to the member for Assiniboia, we are doing some amazing investments in infrastructure in the province, and that he should start focusing on the positive things. I would like to point out to him, for instance, there is Freedom Road.

For 17 dark years, we heard the NDP commit and promise; and promise and commit; and commit and promise; and talk, talk, talk, talk, talk; and they slayed all kinds of trees out of the Amazon forest, putting out press releases on all these projects, including Freedom Road; and accomplished nothing–nothing–Madam Chair. Nothing was ever accomplished on Freedom Road in 17 dark, dark years of the NDP.

In 22 months of our government, phase 1 is complete, phase 2 is under construction, and we hope that, all things being equal, that by this fall, Freedom Road will be complete –something that 17 years of the member for Elmwood and his NDP party c ould never get accomplished. Mr. Fletcher: The minister has managed, again, to not answer the questions on Estimates. This is a serious committee dealing with serious issues.

The fact that I'm simply asking a question on sole -source procurement of $11 million that went out against the policies and procedures of the department, at the outrage of the construction industry in Manitoba, to the detriment of our interprovincial trade agreements is an absolutely important decision. I've offered the minister the–ways out–off-ramps to apologiz e, make it a mistake, make a commit - ment–I'd be happy with just a commitment that it

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1365 would never –sole-source contracting won't happen again, or that the government just follow their own policies, follow the principles of Conservatism. I will ask, again, if we can –the minister said that contracts go through the regulatory accountability committee, like–or administrative committee. I'd like the minister to demonstrate that; tell us who's on that committee; give us some evidence that some due diligence was d one on the sole -source contracting; tell us when the date was it. Maybe it pre -dated the minister.

Maybe it– I don't know –there could be a plethora of reasons, but we haven't heard anything but the minister providing condescending remarks to the people who are asking questions, condescending remarks to the member from Elmwood, to myself, to the process. Madam Chair, Estimates, the numbers –that's all that we're dealing with, and how money is spent. Sole course contracting is not in the interests of the Manitoba taxpayer, Manitoba workers. If it happened in the past, that's bad. But let's not have this government use the last government as the standard.

We can do better, and by admitting that this government made a mistake, perhaps with the culture that they inherited from the previous government in the department or wherever, it was a mistake. The positive thing is to say it was a mistake; it won't happen again. Or the minister could take responsibility for a decision, which, apparently, he didn't make. Or the minister can do what he did the other day and throw the department and the deputy minister under the bus, saying it was all their fault, and the minister could have just said no to a sole-source on common sense. But we know that it wasn't the minister.

This decision was made somewhere else. And how are we going to ever get to accountability when we get these ridiculous, hogwash answers from the minister on a very serious issue? Madam Chairperson: The member's time has expired. Mr. Schuler: Well, Madam Speaker, we've heard it over and over again, and I'm not too sure if the one term that the member's using is the most appropriate today. I would suggest that maybe he leave that term for another time in light of circumstances that have happened in other jurisdictions. Maybe he would like to just refrain from using that.

I don't think that is appropriate, especially in light of the fact that today is going to be a very painful and sad time for individuals saying goodbye to loved ones. So I don't know if I would use that one term. I do, however, want to suggest– An Honourable Member: Madam Chair, on a point of order. Point of Order Madam Chairperson: The honourable member from Assiniboia, on a point of order. Mr. Fletcher: I'm sorry, I can't hear the minister. There's a fan or something going on back here. Oh, never mind, it's fixed. Sorry, didn't see that.

Madam Chairperson: That is technically not a point of order, but we are happy to address the issue. * * * Mr. Schuler : I would like to say to committee, Estimates is a good opportunity. In fact, member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) took the opportunity this morning to ask a whole series of technical questions where appropriations had been moved to and why they were moved th ere and the like. And those are questions that are very technical for a critic to find out what's happening within the department.

The other thing that members could ask is positive questions or technical questions or questions about the Estimates, or they can be negative. I mean, negativity, in some circles, really does have its place. They–some people love to live in negative places or always view everything as being half empty and dark and dreary, and I don't live there. I just don't live there. I want t o view this as a very much a positive, good-news story.

And I would like to point out to committee, and I know the member for Elmwood was just going to ask the question and then he had to hand the series over to the –to his colleague, his compadre, the me mber for Assiniboine, but I know the member for Elmwood was just going to ask about the Norway House inspection station. And that's something that came out of this budget, and how did that happen, and how did it come about? And I want to thank Chief Ron Ev ans, who's now former chief, who–of Norway House, who did just an amazing job on that.

In fact, evidently he wasn't getting much uptake from the dark days, again, the kind of dark- and-gloom days of the NDP, and he came and he saw me as minister of Crowns, and he approached me on this idea, and I know he approached other ministers, and we got on board and absolutely helped in whatever way possible for Norway House to have an

1366 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 inspection station to be able to stem the kind of drugs and contraband items coming into his community. We know that human trafficking is also a concern, and that was part of it. * (11:00) And I actu ally want to thank, again, the department of Manitoba Infrastructure. I know there were other departments involved as well: Indigenous Relations, the Minister responsible and– [interjection] Okay. So I'd like to thank the Minister responsible for Indigenous Relations, Minister of Crown Services (Mr. Cullen).

There were a lot of individuals involved in getting that inspection station up and running. We had the opportunity to go up there and view it and be there for the grand opening. We were part of the feast. I want to point out to members that these are the positive things that come out of Estimates. What I would suggest to members, when they're asking questions, is rather than just dwell in darkness and negativity, that they start talking about all the positive and great things that are coming out of the department.

And look forward to spending at least another hour and a half, and probably next week a whole bunch of hours, talking about all the good things and the positive things that are coming out of the Department of Infrastructure. Mr. Fletcher: As an engineer, I look at the glass, and I say it's 50 per cent capacity. Or –it's not half-empty; it's not half -full. But it may have potential and the objective of the glass is to add water. A rational approach is a good approach to life.

Minister talks about negativity, but the only thing that's negative here today is the refusal of the minister to answer the questions that are specific on Estimates, specific on his responsibility as minister and the collective responsibility of government. I've asked the minister if he would table to this committee, or get back to me on a variety of th ings, including the regulatory –the RAP –or RAC, including the timelines for the decision making. If the minister has any plausible excuse, reason, loophole to allow for that sole -source procurement, present it, because there is none.

But I challenge the minister to do that. Just present it to us. What is the loophole? Madam Chair, the minister may also want to search in his soul about why –go to fundamental principles of why we are Conservatives: trans - parency, accountability, open markets, competition, allowing people to reach their full potential. All of this is done, and it –or is believed by Conservatives, and it's undermined when commitments are not fulfilled–and we haven't even got into the –like, I haven't gotten into the Infrastructure budget. Because that –but I do know this. We all know this.

Sole -source contracting can only lead to bad outcomes. The minister has not –has not –answered any of the questions over the last many days. People can read in Hansard. It seems to be some sort of triumphant of pe rsonal attacks between the minister, one of the government MLAs, and the member from Elmwood. Like, that is very unfortunate. The minister has not demonstrated ministerial responsibility. He throws the –he's saying that the department is responsible for the sole -source contract, and they could have said no, but the government said yes. And that is not responsibility.

Madam Chair, I hope the minister is more responsible with the material that I gave him yesterday, and I hope he will return it to the library when he's done, because I don't want to be stuck with his late fees the way that taxpayers have been stuck with higher– Madam Chairperson: The member's time has expired. Mr. Schuler: I forgot to mention that we did actually travel up to Norway House, and it was just a fantastic event where the inspection station was –the ribbon cutting, and they did a blessing on it. And I know there were other individuals, or, as the member for Flin Flon (Mr.

Lindsey) would describe it , as a junket–I'm getting there. And–now, the member for Flin Flon refers to anybody travelling anywhere as a junket. I guess he would include the member for Elmwood's (Mr. Maloway) junkets when he occasionally leaves his dacha on the banks of the Red River and occasionally on–well, once at least–travels outside of the city. But we were up there, and it was just a magnificent event. It was really good to touch base and have a look around the community and hear the aspirations of where the community wants to go and how they are moving their community forward.

I would like to point out to the committee that they put on a magnificent feast. The food was just amazing. And for the first time in my life, I actually

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1367 got to taste a real rabbit stew, and I got myself a bowlful, and I had my first spoonful, and then the member for the Interlake grabbed the bowl from me and ate it up. And that –I never did get to finish my bowl of rabbit stew. And it was just really great to be up there and to connect, and we really appreciate the kind of leadership that is shown. And there is a positive story. There is something, perhaps, that the member for Assiniboia (Mr.

Fletcher) would like to read a little bit more about and familiarize himself with the positivity of the kinds of things that are going on acros s our province, not just the negativity that he would like to, you know, continue to be involved in. I do also want to point out to committee that if we go to Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, and I know the member for Elmwood's (Mr. Maloway) flipping through the pages, so I want to direct him to page 106.

Member for Assiniboia can look at it in his multiple books that he took out of the Legislative Library, and we want to ensure that he takes them back so he doesn't have to pay all the overdue dues–wouldn't want him to have to pay that. But, on page 106, it's Emergency Measures Organization.

And the objectives of the EMO is –and it's in here, but I'll just read it for him–is "responsible for overseeing and coordinating all aspects of emergency preparedness in the province and to manage, coordinate and direct the response of all government departments to a major emergency or disaster, established by The Emergency Measures Act. Manitoba EMO also provides disaster assistance to Manitobans impac ted by disasters through the Disaster Financial Assistance . . . program." * (11:10) And I would like to thank acting Assistant Deputy Minister Jeremy Angus, who happens to be here.

We thank him for the work that he does in that department. It is very im portant. And, if there's one thing that I've appreciated very much and that was from Assistant Deputy Minister Angus' s leadership, w e got to have a wonderful briefing on the infrastructure that's been put in place to protect Manitoba from disasters that w e have seen over, really, hundreds and hundreds of years, and how we protect this province.

It is absolutely magnificent, and it's something that any engineer worth his salt would want to talk about at committee, would want to get into, because this would be just –it's like Christmastime for engineers, about how well this is laid out and how well it's built and how well it's run. And, to the engineers within the department and those that are responsible and tasked for EMO, they do just a great job and we a re so pleased. And I'm sure the member for Assiniboia might want to avail himself of some of the answers and some of the technical things that go on.

I'm sure he would be very much appreciative of it and, of course, the channel leading from Lake Manitoba i s part of that. And I look forward to the member for Assiniboine asking those kinds of Estimates-positive kinds of questions. We'll wait for his next question. Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): I appreciate the chance to ask a few questions. Has the department done an evaluation of the possible, presumably negative, impacts on infrastructure in Manitoba if one of the diversion projects, water diversion projects on the books in North Dakota goes ahead?

If people are unfamiliar with this, very briefly, there was an environmental assessment done. It's about 10 years old. It was done by the American side of the equation. I actually want to give some props to the person who got the environmental assessment online. It is one of our legislative inte rns, Angela Reeves, who contacted the department down there and said, hey, we can't find this, and they put it up online as a result. So the department can check it out. There are over two dozen foreign invasive species identified in that document as bei ng in the waters of the Missouri River.

Some of them could potentially end up here, if those projects go ahead, if there isn't proper treatment, if the treatment system fails at any point. So just wondering is the department looking at this? Have they had any conversations with their Sustainable Development colleagues who might be the lead on that response for the government? Mr. Schuler: Well, I'd like to point out to the member that, as he would know, having been part of the previous NDP government, that Sustainable Development would be the lead on this particular issue.

I would point out that Manitoba Infrastructure does take an active role in the Red River basin joint commission. We work closely with them, but, again, it is Sustainable Development that would be the lead on this one. And I would point out to the member that as soon as the critic for Education allows Education to rise, then Sustainable Development will

1368 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 be in the Chamber for their Estimates, and that would be a really good opportunity for t he member, then, to ask questions of Sustainable Development. That should be coming imminently. Mr. Altemeyer: Okay. Thanks for that. Perhaps a similar answer coming to my next question, but I'll try anyway. Does the department have any funds budgeted this year to install charging stations for electric vehicles alongside any highway restoration or construction projects that it will be undertaking this year? Mr.

Schuler: Well, as the member knows, that our government has put forward a green action plan. Finally, the Province of Manitoba has a real plan, not like in the last 17 years, where the more talk the NDP did on the environment, the worse things got. And the member asking the question, the member for Wo lseley (Mr. Altemeyer), will have been part of that, and will know that Manitoba consistently underperformed when it came to the environment under his leadership.

It seemed to be that it was actually better if New Democrats didn't talk about the environmen t, because then things wouldn't decline as badly as they did under the NDP. Our government has put forward a green plan. Now, unfortunately, the member for Elmwood (Mr.

Maloway) wants to stall legislation that involves road safety, and the member for Wolseley wants to stall legislation that deals with the environment, which is the strangest thing possible because you would think that the critic for Manitoba Infrastructure would be supportive of legislation that brings in road safety, and you'd think that the member for Wolseley, who is a self -proclaimed environmentalist, would be interested in putting forward and supporting legislation that protects the environment and helps us meet our targets. Instead, neither critic does what they should be doing.

So I would suggest to the member the best thing he could do is walk into caucus –if they still allow him–he should walk into caucus, put aside his unity pledge and all those kinds of things, and focus on the duty at hand. And he should convince his caucus–good luck– he should convince his caucus that they should pass the environment plan so we can get going on the things that Manitobans want and the things that we need for our environment.

Maybe he should start showing some leadership and get his caucus on bo ard, instead of stalling legislation that deal with road safety, instead of stalling legislation that are going to help our environment. Instead, Madam Speaker, they are stalling these things. He should convince his caucus to support those pieces of legislation so we can move on. Mr. Altemeyer: That's one of the lengthier versions of no, I think, I've heard in my career.

I read with some passing interest the dialogue – and I want to thank my honourable colleague from Elmwood for starting that –that took pla ce yesterday during Estimates trying to unravel and unpack the various movements of money from this department to a green fund and then back to the department. Now, what I read in Hansard, maybe let's just start with this, to confirm that we're all on th e same page, in Hansard yesterday, the minister indicated that $32,000,595 had been transferred out of his department to go into the new green fund.

Is that – let's just start with that, is that the accurate number? * (11:20) Mr. Schuler: Well, as the member will know, or should know, every department in government should be part of a green plan. And one of the things that we have learned is that if governments use political slogans or platitudes and talk about things but don't actually have real direction, if they don't have the political muscle behind something, they fail.

And we've seen that 17 years of failures under the NDP, in that it was talk –whether it was the Freedom Road or the environment, and there were a whole slew of other examples; I won't get into them all. So what we have decided as government is that we want to identify where it is that we can help improve our environment, and I'd like to point out to committee members: Let's be very clear. Although we have truly some of the most beautiful, pristine, clean water, we want to keep it that way.

I would suggest to you if you travelled around the world, you would find that every one of those countries, every country, started off with pristine and clean and beautiful water, and they weren't vigila nt. And, if members have travelled–I was in Cambodia with my daughter, and we crossed a river, and we were just appalled. It was clear that what was being flushed was coming right out in the middle of the river. And that is an absolute disregard of the env ironment.

It was so nauseating you could barely –you had to hold your breath, then hurry and scurry across the bridge to get to the other side, because it was just that bad.

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1369 We want to ensure that we leave a Manitoba better than when we got it. And, unfor tunately, that's not something that occurred under the NDP in the last 17 years. That is our goal, and every department has to participate. Every department has to be part of that. And our Minister of Sustainable Development (Ms. Squires) is a real champio n of the environment. And we have to protect our water, we have to protect our air and we have to protect our soil to make sure that we can continue to feed ourselves, have fresh water and have clean air.

And even within the Department of Manitoba Infrastructure, we have to shoulder our share of the responsibility. We do so willingly. Wherever we can, we are going to look at green initiatives. I'd like to point out to members, we are –we have put the department under review and we are challenging how we do things. And I'll share with the member. For instance, if we need to have a vehicle at a construction site observing some work being done, supervising or whatever they might be doing, does that have to be an F150 or another big truck, or could that be a hybrid, or could that even be an electric vehicle?

If it's not pulling a trailer, if it's not involved in the construction part of it, can the vehicle be there and be environmentally friendly at the same time? Because we understand our department needs to have oversight. That's one of the duties that we do. We ensure that the public is being protected for the dollars it expends. But there are real, meaningful things that every department can do. Now, I would also point out to members opposite, that takes courage. Did the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) have that courage? Nyet. No. Non. Absolutely not. He did not have the courage. Member for Wolseley (Mr.

Altemeyer), who runs around talking about how green he is, were any of those conversations ever part of our department when he was in government? No, because talk is cheap. And that's what the member for Wolseley wanted to do, was talk. We are going to act, and every one of our departments has been tasked on how we can do things more efficiently and how we can do it in such a sustainable way to help protect the environment. Mr.

Altemeyer: So the minister doesn't know, is basically what I 'm taking from that answer, either that or he's refusing to answer the question, which is bizarre because yesterday he had a fairly precise answer. It is a perfectly legitimate question, and, Madam Chair, having sat in your chair for many a year, and lost many an hour of my life to the Estimates process, there is a –there's an element of ragging the puck, if you will, when ministers are trying to chew up the clock. At the end of the day, the minister is obligated to provide an answer. The staff have absolut e capacity to provide him with the answer.

They may have acted on his instructions or his government's instructions to do something that he's now trying to cover up. I do not blame the staff for this at all. But that answer's ludicrous, and he should be embarrassed to stoop to that level when yesterday he had an answer. I'm merely trying to establish that what he said yesterday was accurate, because I understand that the staff were not able to listen on the microphones, and they came over here a little late.

A very simple question, and the reason I ask it is that, on page 86 of the budget and on page –where is it–12, I think, of his departmental book, it indicates that the appropriation from his department to the green fund was not $32,000,595, it's $30,616,000. So has the minister lost 1 and a half million dollars since yesterday? I mean, let's at least just get a straight answer: How much money from his department has gone into the green fund? * (11:30) Let's start there, and then we can dig through the rest of it afterwards. I would invite the minister to take the partisan aspect out of this.

This is simply exploration, trying to confirm that my understanding of his government's department's Estimates are accurate. If he chooses to embarrass himself agai n, I can't prevent that, but I am not here to shame or show up anybody. I'm merely trying to understand why these numbers don't seem to add up and to learn more about what is actually going on. Thank you. Mr.

Schuler: I'd point out to the member opposite, and he's been at this for a while, as well, is that there is a time limit to which we're allowed to answer, and I do believe, however, it's important to give an answer so that the committee understands where government is coming from. So he got that, whic h is more than I got from many of his ministers when I was a critic. And I would like to point out to committee that, yes, department of Manitoba Infrastructure does transfer money to the green fund, and then has access to funds out of the green fund to fund green initiatives.

He's absolutely correct there, and, again, that gets back to the initial discussion we

1370 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 had, and that is, that every department is tasked to be responsible and to show some responsibility for the environment. And that we do, and that we have done, and I gave him some examples. Now, clearly, he doesn't want to hear positive news like other members before him asking questions. Every time you talk about something positive, then it's, like, oh, he doesn't know, or oh, he doesn't this, and then right away they get negative. We're actually giving a very fulsome answer on where we are going as a government. We–the member should be clapping and cheering.

He should be just absolutely ecstatic that finally we have a government in Manitoba that not just is speaking about the environment but is actually doing something about it. So, yes, there is money being transferred out of the budget into the green fund, and then the department can withdraw funds out of the green fund for green initiatives within the department.

And, Madam Speaker, I would point out to members opposite, they should be very pleased that we have a government in Manitoba that has been on the forefront of the green discussion, that has been on the forefront of the debate on how we should be proceeding with green initiatives, and I don't know why the member is always so negative. Mr. Altemeyer: I thank the minister for pointing out what is clear in the budget documents: that money from his department is going into the green fund and then coming back to his department; that wasn't what I've been asking, as I think he knows.

What I'm wondering is how much money is involved, because we have two different answers to that. So which one is it? Is it $32,595,000 for this year, or is it $30,616,000 for this year? Mr. Schuler: Yes, and I'd like to point out to members of the committee, I mean, one of the things that we have done as a government is put forward legislation and I would suggest to the member opposite that he take time when he' s in Estimates with Sustainable Development and has the opportunity, to ask questions about where we're going with that legislation. Perhaps he can convince the member for Elmwood (Mr.

Maloway) and other members of his government–of his party to support a very good green initiative. Madam Speaker, we've been clear that every department is partially responsible, must do its part for the environment and that we've been tasked to do. We have a government that takes the environment very serious. We have seen w eather events coming forward. It affects us, whether it's in the Crowns, it affects us whether it's in Agriculture, affects us whether it's in Infrastructure, it affects us in all aspects, and we have to be aware of what's taking place.

And our government has taken a real strong lead, not just from what we've seen in the past, but also in Manitoba and across the nation. We have been absolutely on the forefront of this and I would suggest to members opposite that they get on board, support our legislation. The member can follow along in Estimates. We are transferring money out of Manitoba Infrastructure into the green fund and then money can be withdrawn for green projects that we know will benefit all Manitobans. We had this conversation yesterday with one of the–one of his colleagues about that.

We have pristine lakes where you can actually go to the lake and cup your hands and drink water right out of it, and that is just amazing that we have the kind of pristine lakes. Those are the lakes that we wan t to protect and we want to make sure that we leave for future generations. And having travelled around the world, yet you come back and you say, you know, we're –our government is on the right track now to protect our environment.

The member can read in the Estimates books exactly what's taking place and we are really pleased that we finally have a government that is going to take the environment seriously. Mr. Altemeyer: For a minister to not be able or not willing to simply explain numbers that are contained in his own department's budget does not bode well for the future of this green fund, so-called. Perhaps it would be helpful if we just looked for the pieces that make up whatever the ultimate number is and did it that way. And the minister did some good work with his critic yesterday in getting that started.

The minister went on the record as saying that $7 million has been transferred in the green fund and then taken out again, money that goes to maintenance, and that another $11 million is capital money that is from the department into the green fund and then back out again to the department. That's $18 million. We're not anywhere close to 30.6 or 32 yet, so can anyone tell me the other sources that are contributing to the green fund?

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1371 * (11:40) Mr. Schuler: Well, Madam Speaker, and, again, I'd like to point out to members of the committee we have a government that put forward a very clear environmental policy. Our Premier (Mr. Pallister) went out and he said, rather than having the Trudeau escalator where –and I'm sure members of the NDP would be ecstatic to see the carbon tax go to $50, to $80, to $100, and who knows where that might land.

The Premier was very clear that the basis of our environmental plan would be that there would be a cap, that the carbon tax would start at $25 and be capped at $25. The concern our government has is that with the Trudeau tax, that there is no cap; the target is $50 a carbon ton, and it's never indicated that that is a hard -and-fast cap. So we understand that mem bers opposite oppose road safety, they oppose the environment, they oppose everything. Madam Speaker, t he environmental policy that we put out in front of the Legislature is a reasoned, made-in-Manitoba solution.

And what it allows for is it allows for all of those –and we have a very robust transportation industry in Manitoba–and it allows for them to have predictability. It's a concern to a lot of businesses that they face the prospect that they could actually see a carbon tax go up to $50 and then exceed that. Mr. James Teitsma, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair So I would like to convey to members oppos ite, yes, every department is part of it. We're very, very clear that every department must participate, and it's not just the monies that are transferred into the green fund.

It should be something that all of us should be part of as ministers, as leaders , as members of the Legislature, as opposition MLAs –also have a

part in this, in that, how do we make our province increasingly more green without damaging the industries that employ Manitobans, that put money on the table, that feed our families, that al low our families to participate in the kinds of events that we like to participate in? So we feel that this is a very healthy balance between moving our province further along in a green economy and also protecting the jobs in our very robust transportation sector. So I'd like to point out to the member opposite, yes, he is absolutely correct. Every department must be part of this, including Manitoba Infrastructure.

We are part of this green fund. We are part of trying to be responsible stewards of our env ironment. I'd like to point out to the member opposite it's unfortunate that our federal government doesn't view the investment that we're making in Manitoba Hydro, Madam Speaker. Manitobans, by the time the NDP projects will be done, will be sitting at $ 26 billion in debt. We have indicated, to the Prime Minister and to the federal government, that should also be factored in when we have conversations on the carbon tax. Manitoba is paying its fair share in trying to be as green as they can be.

Again, we had an NDP government that was far too overzealous in building hydro lines in the wrong direction and dams that never went through the proper process and should have had the proper review. All of that having been said, Manitobans are still going to be paying the interest on that debt, but that should also be viewed as part of our contribution to a 'creen'–green economy. In fact, Manitoba's going to be sitting on a lot of energy.

We can hel p other provinces and other jurisdictions in helping them become green, and we have made the argument that that should also be part of our contribution to greening the environment. And my time has run out, and I'm prepared to give the rest of my answer after the next question. Mr. Altemeyer: So the minister so far has been either unable or, more likely, unwilling to tell the public whether or not 30 and a half million dollars or $32 million is involved in the green fund.

He is also, so far, unable or, mor e likely, unwilling to provide any information on what makes up that 30 and a half–or $32-million in-and-out scheme. Do you think–does the minister think his constituents would be proud of learning about his performance this morning? Every minister should be able to answer those types of very simple questions, and his constituents, I'm sure, would have the same reaction that I'm having: what is he hiding, and why does he think it's appropriate to hide basic information from the public? So let me give him another chance.

Let's talk about the $7 million in maintenance that the minister himself referenced yesterday, like, just 24 hours ago– less than that–the minister indicated that 7 million of the dollars going into the green fund in this in- and- out scheme b etween the green fund and his department was for something called maintenance. Is the minister capable of providing any information about what maintenance means in the real world? What is that $7 million going to do this year?

1372 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 This is Estimates. I'm an o pposition critic. I get to ask questions like that, and the minister should answer them. It's not rocket science. Go ahead. * (11:50) Mr. Schuler: Well, I think the public is very pleased that they now have a government –including my constituents–that they now have a government that's put a green plan in front of the Manitoba Legislature. They've put it in front of the people of Manitoba. What I think they would be very perturbed about is they've got a so -called fake NDP green party that won't allow that to go to debate.

In fact, if there is a group of individuals that are trying to stifle debate on the environment, as they did for 17 years –the member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer) included – who never could meet a target if their finances depended on it, never seemed to achieve anything on the green file. And, when there's a green plan in front of the Legislature, will they allow it to go to committee where the public can come forward and have a debate on it? No. No, they shut it down. I think that's where c onstituents and where members and the public of Manitoba would look at it and say, that is an absolute disgrace.

In fact, what's even worse is we have now the member for the NDP referring to environmental issues and environmental plans as in-and-out schemes. No wonder–no wonder–they could never meet a target. The member sat here and referred to the environmental plans as in- and-out schemes. And perhaps that's what he did when he sat, when he was in his own government –gave advice to ministers, gave advice to his premier, gave advice to his policy- makers that anything to do with the environment is an in -and-out scheme and that it is not worthy to proceed with.

I would say to the member that is offensive, that environmental issues are not in- and-out schemes , that they are not to be referred to as in- and-out schemes, that–in fact, the opposite. Investing in the environment, investing in green programs, investing, like I suggested to the member opposite, that we go and we test what it is that we do in the depa rtment. Of course, he doesn't want to hear that. You know, he says, well, that's not answering the question.

When you actually go through and give examples – and I could for the member –real concrete examples that protect the environment, that help the environment, that are good for the environment – those are the kinds of things that we should be talking about. Instead, he wants to talk about in- and-out schemes and say that's what environment policy is all about. Actually, I think that's terribly offensive. Let's talk about real things, about how we can deal with the environment. I would like to point for members opposite, we have probably one of the most robust composting families in the province of Manitoba.

My youngest daughter and I, we went out one day and, at one of the fairs, we got one of those compost bins and we've turned it over several times. We make sure that everything is composted–anything and everything that can be recycled. And we've now had –where China is now no longer going to take our recycling unless it's between 80 and 90 per cent clean, and now we're going to make sure that what we recycle is always clean–what goes into the bin. Those are the things we should be talking about. How are we going to move our province forward in green initiatives after a disastrous, disastrous 17 years?

And I know he's sensitive about it. What he wants to do is flip pages and talk about this page versus that page and refer to anything green as an in - and-out scheme. Well, Madam Speaker, let's talk about concrete issues. Why doesn't he come forward and give some ideas of how he thinks we could be more green? Why doesn't he be progressive? Why doesn't he be more forward on things? Because the only thing he does is stall green legislation –just like the member for Elmwood (Mr.

Maloway) does nothing but stall safety legislation, the member for the environment on the NDP benches wants to ensure that green legislation is stalled, that the public never gets a chance to have their part and have their say in it that come forward with good ideas. Why doesn't the member for Wolseley tell us what he thinks we should do to better and make our department even more green? And the reason is, why–because has no ideas. After 17 years of being bankrupt of any ideas on the environment, our government has come forward.

And, yes, the Department of Manitoba Infrastructure is going to be part of that green plan. Mr. Altemeyer: I'm giving the minister every ample opportunity to explain how this is not an in- and-out scheme, and he's actually the one who's refusing to step up to the plate and answer very simple questions about money within his department.

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1373 Why does this appear, to not just myself, but to the general public, to be an in-and-out scheme? Well, looking on page 86 of the minister's own budget it says, a transfer to the green fund of $30,616,000 out of his department. And then there are lots of instances, multiple instances in, again, his government's own document, their own budget. Page 89, looks like there's a recoverable from other appropriations under Water Management and Structures of nearly $6 million.

Then, on the next page, page 90, Maintenance and Preservation of Water Related Assets, there's a Recoverable from other appropriations of nearly $20 million. And, not to be outdone by that, on page 91 we have Infrastructure Assets - Water Related, Amortization Expense, Interest Expense, Less: Recoverable from other appropriations of $15.7 million. None of these figures add up to the total number that's supposed to be going to the green fund.

It looks very much like the government has transferred money to the green fund and then redirected it right back to the department for the department to keep doing whatever it was doing before, and that's fine, but the public deserves to know if the green fund is actually new money that's going to be f unding new projects or if it's just a green washing of existing activities within his department.

And, if he wants to make it clear that this is not green washing, that there is new activity going to happen, as his government is claiming, coming out of the green fund, I'm giving him every opportunity to explain how that's happening. He's the one that's blocking the dialogue, Mr. Committee Chair. So, you know, if he wants to thump the table some more and, you know, take that approach, I can't stop him, but the facts should be pretty easy for him to pull together. His staff are here in the room. Staff are highly trained, highly competent. They're the ones that would have pulled these numbers together.

They will know the ins and outs of this and they will be able to give the minister every opportunity to refute the image that he himself is perpetuating today, that the so- called green fund is nothing more than a green-washed in-and-out scheme. So, if he wants to refute that, here's his chance. I would love to know that the green fund is actually going to lead to more activity defending our environment. Please tell me how you're going to do that or admit that this is just an in -and-out scheme of 30-something million dollars, and the minister doesn't even know the answer of how much money is involved.

Take your pick. Mr. Schuler: And what we have now is a very clear delineation. You have a government that believes in a green province, believes that we should have strong environmental policy, and we have a crit ic from the NDP who believes environmental policy is a Ponzi scheme; it's an in-and-out scheme. * (12:00) The member for Wolseley has now clarified for all Manitobans that the NDP believe that the environment is nothing more than an in- and-out Ponzi scheme. There. Now we have a very healthy separation of where we are on this debate.

Our government believes t hat we should embrace environmental policy, that we should be doing things that are good for the environment, unlike the last 17 years, where the member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer) sat and saw, every time they talked, things go worse in the environment because, now we know why, because he believes anything to do with the environment is a Ponzi in-and-out scheme. Now we have it clear. No wonder we failed every time the NDP talked about the environment. Things went the opposite direction.

I would point to the member that if he pulls out his book, 2018- 2019 Departmental Expenditure Estimates, page 95, Maintenance and Preservation of Water-Related Assets, Objectives: "Protect public investment in water -related assets and support their safe, efficient and opti mum operation." There is a very good green way of doing things: efficient and optimum. "Acquire and analyze data to support water management, flood forecasting and flood mitigation efforts." As part of our green initiative, we understand that we have gott en an awful lot of water -related events coming at us.

We also have a partner out west who has not been as considerate of their neighbours to the east and have done a lot of drainage, 'cleanage' and are sending us a lot of water. What did the NDP do when they were in government dealing with their partners to the west? Nothing. Our Premier (Mr. Pallister) has dealt with the Premier of Saskatchewan and indicated to them, amongst other things, is that good neighbours don't flood good neighbours.

1374 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 Furthermore: "Manage and administer flood protection programs for communities, homes, businesses, buildings that are prone to flooding." We go on. Activity Identification: "Deliver the water-related maintenance and preservation program. Operate and maintain water man agement systems and networks . C onduct condition inspections and assessments of water -related assets . S upport flood operational response. Act as the primary contact for stakeholders regarding water -related asset issues. Maintain the provincial hyrdrometric stations program.

Preparation of flood risk maps through collection of light detection and randing" –or LiDAR–topography data and hydraulic modelling. That, Madam Speaker –that, Mr. Chair, is incredibly important that we involve ourselves in this. What we have done with our partners, federal partners, and with LiDAR, something the members opposite should've been far more interested in, is we can give a far better mapping of where water will go when we get water -related events. Members of – opposite should ask a little bit more.

Why does the member not ask a little bit more about LiDAR and what that's going to mean for Manitobans and mean for our economy as we go further in our green economy?

I move on: Support ice jam mitigation activities; support activitie s to ensure efficient and effective hydrological forecast and water management strategies; a cquisition and integration of flood forecasting data management software, flood forecasting models and hydrologic model ling tools ; and administer individual flood protection programs to provide financial assistance for flood mitigation projects to protect individual homes and businesses ; and administer and provide engineering support for community flood protection programs.

I would point out to committee, as we see weather patterns changing, as we see flood –the way that floods are coming at our province, that we need to be aware and we need to be prepared for that. That is all part of preparing ourselves not just for a green economy but for the kinds of changes that are taking place. And it is important that we invest there. Expected Results: "The network of water-related assets is efficient, economical and sustainable. " [interjection] And I am informed that my time has run out.

I would be more than willing on the next question to complete the answer and let the committee know the kinds of expected results we want. Mr. Altemeyer: Well, Ponzi scheme is an interesting way to describe wha t his government has done. I don't know if there'll be a future question period maybe that might riff off of that to good effect. It's, you know, the minister's choice of words ; it's not mine. But, I mean, the minister's answer, such as it was, does confirm exactly what I've been saying, that this entire

section of his department's Estimates, where he lays out very worthwhile things that the department's doing this year, is what they did last year. There's even a number attached to what they did to achieve all of the goals and objective the minister just mentioned, and the number last year happens to be 2 and a half million dollars higher than it is scheduled for this upcoming year, which proves my point that the green fund is just an in -and-out scheme.

Work that was done by this department last year has been numerically transferred to the green fund to make it look big, and then all the money's pulled back into the department, so it can keep doing what it has always done. There's nothing new in the green fund, and the minister just confirmed it, right, for us. So it took a while–you know, closer to an hour and something to finally get an answer. I don't think the minister intended to give me that answer, but he did. So I thank him for that. Let's keep goi ng.

You know, this answers the $17,534,000 Ponzi scheme, to use the minister's words, related to Maintenance and Preservation of Water Related Assets. Let's go to Infrastructure Assets - Water Related, Less: Recoverable from other appropriations, amortization. You know, could the minister perhaps direct me to the page number, in the departmental books, and explain how paying the amortization costs on a water-related asset –is that related to money that's gone into the green fund and come back out again? I'm done. Mr.

Schuler: So the NDP comes to committee; refers to green programs as in -and-out Ponzi schemes; and says, finally, now they have their answer. It took this committee for them to figure out that the reason why they failed for 17 years is because they view environmental funding and environmental programs as in- and-out Ponzi schemes. You know, it can't get any stranger, or maybe it can with the member from Wolseley. After all, it was

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1375 him who came up with that incredibly unique unity pledge thing. So Winnipeg Free Press weighted in on that one, and we'll leave that one be. The member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer) should know that our government is earmarking monies for our green initiative, and we do not view it, as the members opposite, as the NDP. Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), the member for Wolseley view funding of the environment as an in- and-out Ponzi scheme. And, yes, the member for Wolseley needed to have that clarified for him. What a shameful approach to environment.

But it does answer the question, why is it that for 17 years, under the NDP, did the environment deteriorate? Why did, instead of coming close to even matching their targets, they actually underperformed considerably? It's because what we learnt here at committee: that the member for Wolseley put on the record that any monies that you put into the environment are an in -and-out Ponzi scheme. That is just remarkable.

That–I know committee is shocked at that, but shouldn't be, because, if we look at the track record of the mem ber for Elmwood, the member for Wolseley and the NDP party –that they could never hit one of their targets. Madam Speaker, yes, we are going to invest in infrastructure, green infrastructure; yes, we are going to review our departments to make us more gre en; yes, we are going to look at the way we do business, because there are a lot of areas where we can be a lot more green, where we can save. And sometimes it's not even that big of a savings.

It's small savings all over the place, and they start to add u p, and they make a big impact on society, something that the NDP members never had courage to do. They never had the courage to take these things on. Our government is prepared to do that. * (12:10) And, if the member wants to sit and start talking about the kinds of things that we could be doing within our department, the kinds of savings we could have, I would point out to members we are looking at our fleet. Manitoba Infrastructure has a very large fleet. How can we be more green in the way that we run our vehicles? How can we be more efficient?

How can we be more responsible and help the environment in the way that we do business? That's all fair, that's all healthy, to be testing our department, and each and every one of us should be testing ourselves. How can we be more efficient and be better for the environment. I would suggest to the member for Wolseley, member for Elmwood, you know, perhaps composting would be something they would like to look at. Perhaps recycling, something should be looking a t. I'd like to point out to committee, yes, when we renovated our kitchen, we removed the garburator.

I did not feel it was right to 'garburate' a whole bunch of biodegradables, send it over to the sewage treatment plant and then add extra burden on the se wage treatment plant in my community. There are ways that each and every one of us –and within the department –that our government and our department and each–every one of us can be far more green and be far more responsible for environmental policy. And the fact that the NDP review that as an in -and-out Ponzi scheme is very unfortunate, but a reason why they never met one of their targets. Mr.

Altemeyer: Yes, I'll answer my own question since the minister seems unwilling or unable to do so. If he would go to page 117 of the departmental expenditures Estimates for his department, he wil l see under sub-appropriation 15–5.(

d) that–subsection (3), Infrastructure Assets - Water Related, the entire amount of $20,200,000 has a little note next to it. And that little note, the explanation reads: Recovery of $15,061 relates to c limate and green fund for implementation of the Made -in-Manitoba Climate and Green Plan. So, when I asked how much of the so -called green plan –so-called green fund is actually money that the Department of Infrastructure has already been spending and is going to spend again, the minister could have very easily just said, look at page 117. And there's the answer.

And now –it's part of the answer, it's not the whole answer, but we now have $15,061,000 accounted for. And let's be clear, these are amortization and interest expenses. That means this –the government built structures –built infrastructure related to water and is now paying them off. And so the government has decided that, somehow, that type of number belongs in the green fund. You should be glad Rick Mercer is retiring. But we have $15,061,000 accounted for there, we have 17 and a half million dollars, thanks to the minister's accidental answer earlier.

So, doing some quick math, we've now got almost $32.6 million of – to use the minister's term –a Ponzi scheme, in and

1376 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 out, with his department, leading to absolutely no new action on the environment, on water, on biodiversity, on climate change, on anything. Ponzi scheme's a good word for it. I think the minister actually gave us something useful with that phrase, today, because –and it's right in his own books. Page 117 of his own department's document, which I guess he didn't read close enough, because it was great of him to refer me to it. I give him credit for that. And then, page 97 –yes, there it is.

It' s still there, unlike yesterday, because yesterday we had precise numbers of $32,000,595 were involved altogether. And now we know that the actual number is $32,595,000. So may have been a little mix-up in the minister's numbers yesterday, or maybe it didn't come through clearly on the audio feed to the good folks in Hansard, but now thanks to the minister's accidental answer we can s ee on page 97 that, yes, 17 and a half million dollars of stuff the department was going to do anyways has been temporarily rebranded as funding the green fund.

And not to be outdone with that little scheme, the department's now claiming over $15 million of amortization and interest costs is –belongs in the green fund as well. And that gets us to $32.6 million roughly, $32,595,000 out of a $40- million green fund is–to use the minister's own words for it, an in- and-out Ponzi scheme. I want to thank the minister for clarifying that for us. I didn't have high hopes that we would get that level of clarity today, but we did. He's done a job there. I'll give him a chance, you know –there's still $7-million-plus to account for in the green fund.

Does the department have any other hidden– The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): The member's time has expired. Mr. Schuler: When the member for Wolseley got himself involved in a civil war that was taking place in his party and decided to come up with all kinds of unity challenges, I think it was the Free Press that referred to some individuals within the NDP as brothers dim, so we want to make sure that we are very clear here and this is one of the problems with this NDP group is that they never let facts get in the way of their tirades. They very rarely know exactly what they're talking about.

So I want to go back to something that the member said. He said, why is it that yesterday was put on the record 32,595– $32,595,000 and in the Estimates it says $30,616,000. And if you go to page 86 of Estimates of Expenditure and Revenue, page 86, it says very clearly 2017- 2018 budget. So the member was confusing the budget that we're discussing with the 2017- 18 budget. Yesterday –and if the member would've been paying attention yesterday, which he wasn't because he was far too consumed with whatever it was that he just did now and he tends to do, which makes absolutely zero sense.

It was made very clear –and he should go back and have a look what was put on the record. So, if you go to page 90 of this current budget that is under discussion, and if he goes to page 90, he goes to (b)(3) there is a category of $17,534,000. Out of that comes $12,395,000–is taken out of that fund and if he goes to page 91, and he goes to 15.5(

d) and he looks at the $20,200,000, if you add $20,200,000 and the $12,395,000, you come up with the figure of $32,595,000 that was laid out yesterday. But the member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer), who doesn't pay attention, who wants to have his own opinions and wants to falsely create his own facts, and he can't do that. He can't go and claim numbers from previous years and drag them into–as if it was this budget year and talk and talk and talk and talk and spend, spend, spend.

He is the crafter of his own ND P party policy that–a n environmental policy is nothing but an in-and-out Ponzi scheme. * (12:20) The member for Wolseley has now called his party's viewpoint on the environment as in -and-out Ponzi schemes. No wonder –no wonder –the Free Press reflected on h im and his colleagues when, and I choose my words carefully, when they ran an

article about him. To be very clear, that in the 2018-2019 budget, it is $32,595,000 that goes into the fund, and I laid it out where exactly it comes from, and maybe the member should be careful that he doesn't misquote and take items out of the 2017- 2018 budget and try to somehow misconstrue that as being the budget of 2018 and 2019. I would point out to him those are two different budget years, and he should be very careful when he does that, because, you know, previously he had a premier and a Cabinet and a government that used to

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1377 spin around, protect him from this kind of stuff, and even they had trouble protecting the member opposite. He should be careful when he puts tha t kind of stuff on the record, and he goes back and he takes something that was said and spins it around and tries to make it into this narrow, false narrative that he's trying to put on the record. To be very clear, we are comparing two different years. Mr. Altemeyer: Well, this has been loads of fun.

The–if the minister knew what he just said an hour ago, he could have just answered it, because that was my first question. It's what –why is there a discrepancy between what he answered yesterday and what was in the budget documents. And I do want to thank him, again, for confirming that of the $40 million the budget has put in a so -called green fund, that over 32 and a half million of that is just going to pay for things that his department was doing already. And, you know, that was my main question here today, is: How much of this green fund is real and how much of it isn't?

It's not in any way to disparage the environment-related work that the department is doing. That's fine, but you don't call that a green fund and expect to get away with it. A green fund, the way the government has been describing it, suggests that there's a new $40- million pot of money that's actually going to go to work and address some of the incredibly pressing environmental issues of –that we face. And it's quite clear, thanks to the Estimates process today, that that is absolutely not what is happening. The vast majority of the money in the so -called green fund is a sham. It's not new money at all.

It is money that has been taken out of one department, wrapped it up in some green ribbon and put some green paint on it, called it environmental, and then retracted it right away and put it back to what it was going to do anyways. I mean, for goodness' sakes, you could go through every single department and, you know, pull out, you know, maybe a small contract that someone has to pick up the recycling bins over in the health facilities. Well, that relates to the environment. Let's put that in the green fund. Or, you know, maybe someone drops off a water cooler so people have clean water to drink.

Not that, you know, bottled water is necessarily better. It's been proven quite often it's no better than tap water, but let's say someone's delivering clean water to our hardworking staff. Well, that kind of relates to the environment. Let's put that in the green fund, and then pull it back out again and just have things continue as usual. That's the type of stuff that drives the public crazy, and it's thanks to the Estimates process that we were able to get clarity on that today. There was some sort of misrepresentation yesterday in what was said and what was written down in Hansard.

I do not blame anybody for that. I am not calling that the minister's mistake or anything at all, but this is why having this type of conversation during Estimates is important. In Hansard, because I just read it today, the document says $32,000,595, and the minister has clarified today , and we have confirmed with his inadvertent help, that the actual amount of money temporarily being branded green and then sent back to paying interest costs on ditches and bridges and other infrastructure is actually $32,595,000. So I would argue this conversation was worthwhile for that clarification alone.

The minister was given multiple opportunities to describe how it is that, you know, these dollar amounts added up. He was given ample opportunity to explain the breakdown in terms of real -world work that is going to happen as a result of the green fund. And he was unable or unwilling to do that. That's disappointing, but, you know, his performance today is now on the public record. It was his own decision to approach thi s dialogue with me in the way that he did, and I have no control or understanding of how or why he chose to do that. But the truth has come out and it's quite stark.

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma) : The member's time has expired. Mr. Schuler: First of all, we had the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) falsely accusing a member of this Legislature's wife of being related to somebody and the story went on and on and on. It was wrong. The member for Elmwood was wrong. He falsely accused somebody, never apologized. Now that's disappointing. Then we have the member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer), comes into committee and says there's $2 million missing. Where's the $2 million?

1378 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 Madam Speaker, maybe the member for Wolseley feels that he can be as irresp onsible in opposition as he was in government, but we're going to make sure that we test constantly what's being said by members opposite, because so far we can't find anything yet that was factually backable. Neither the member for Wolseley, neither the member for Elmwood, and, frankly, none of their members seem to be able to come up with an argument, something that actually is based on fact and not made up. So, yes, the member's absolutely correct. We checked our numbers.

We checked what was put on the record. It was absolutely accurate. The member from Wolseley seems to have a problem figuring out there's a difference between 2017 and 2018 budget – last year's budget and this year's budget. The member has a little problem with that. We always make sure we check the numbers, we check the facts and we put that on the record. Something maybe members opposite, with all their budget that they get for staff, for doing research, maybe they should do a little bit better. Or maybe they should do better.

T hey can't keep coming to session;, they can't keep coming to committee and putting stuff on the record that is not true. They can't keep doing that. This isn't a joke. This is Estimates. And the member sat and made all kinds of accusations in the beginni ng, and then when it's pointed out that he had his two years wrong, that maybe he should have paid attention when it was explained the first time, and then he says, well, you know, whatever. And then he goes on and he attacks any green initiative that an y government puts forward because they failed to achieve any one of their commitments.

In fact, if–right before they were summarily defeated in a significant way, they had put forward a green plan that basically would have removed every road off the–every vehicle off the roads of every street in Manitoba, and they knew there wasn't a chance they would ever get to that, Mr. Chair. I would suggest to members opposite that –start doing your homework, start doing your research and deal with the facts, and stop getting it so wrong. Stop slagging people, stop smearing people and start getting your years right in your budget when you put stuff on the record.

The Acting Chairperson (James Teitsma): The hour being 12:30 p.m., committee rise. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL * (10:00) Mr. Chairperson (Dennis Smook): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Executive Council. The floor is now open for questions. The honourable Leader of –oh, the Leader of the Official Opposition. Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): I think, obviously, my first question is, who is ready for game 2 of the Winnipeg Jets versus the Minnesota Wild? [interjection] Yes, hopefully the Wild aren't ready.

But I'm confident that, even if they are, that the Jets got something for them and, you know, our team had a very good start the other day and set the tone with high- intensity play and a lot of physicality. So, very in spiring for the city. Good times. But, of course, I'm being just a little – having a little fun, there.

Did want to talk about education a bit this morning and begin just by asking the Premier: we've heard an announcement that the province wants to move to province-wide bargaining with teachers, so I'm wondering if the Premier can explain when that decision was taken to move towards province -wide bargaining with the teachers in Manitoba? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): The province-wide bargaining positi on has been spoken about, but there's a process to make it happen that has to be followed.

And that will take time because, of course, there's just a process of bargaining that's been in place for some time that involved each school division, trustees invo lved in that process at a the local level, and so on. And to make the change in that would require legislation, I believe. I don't see my clerk nodding his head sideways, so I believe that's true. There would be legislative requirement to make that change. Mr.

Kinew: So I guess just to clarify: Has the government made the decision to province -wide bargaining, and it's just a matter of rolling out that process and bringing in legislation at a later date, or is this something that's still under consideration? It's not yet been decided on? Mr. Pallister: It's been decided on. Of course, it requires a process to enact, though. So it will happen.

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1379 It's been advocated for by my old union for some time, even since the days I was a union rep, which is prior to the Jets –before the Jets left and prior to the Jets coming back. So a long time ago. Mr. Kinew: So the current agreements that teachers are in expire at the end of June. Is there going to be anything done on that day? Like, will there be a move from the province on June 30th towards province-wide bargaining for teachers? Mr. Pallister: Well, as I said before, it's a process, and that process takes time.

The –I think that old description about, what is it, people shouldn't watch law being made or wieners –often applies in terms of bargaining, in particular at the –with respect to the teachers. It is not always a pretty process, but it has been a –according to the MTS, it's been a process that's involved a lot of duplication for a long time. A lot of taking time of teachers away from their students, without –in terms of the usefulness of that time, according to the MTS, not a good use of teachers' time and all the different divisions.

Each division, of course, has a –representatives in the–at the table, and many of the teach ers have communicated, over the last number of years, to the– to their union that they feel this is less than a productive use of their time. Mr. Kinew: So, when teachers' contracts expire on June 30th, does the Premier (Mr. Pallister) expect that there will be province -wide bargaining on that day? Mr. Pallister: Well, I've tried to clarify the member: it's a process, so there has to be a process, also, of consultation that'll have to be followed.

But the goal is clear, and the goal is to reduce to number of collective agreements, reduce the erosion of time, in particular, front-line teaching staff, so that they can educate as they were trained to do and as they desire to do. And to–I think, ultimately, the argument has been made by not –certainly not just the MTS but by others, including school trustees, on occasion, that having more consistency between and amongst school divisions, in terms of collective agreements, would be helpful. There–you know, there's going to be, there are going to be, I expect, in the process, you know, various points of view.

That is understandable. There are various points of view in every school board and in every staff room in the province. So they’re going to be different points of view, but I think the larger goal is to hav e more effective use of time, more effective outcomes, at the end of the day, and less erosion of the front line, a focus that educators in our province want to have. Mr. Kinew: So the Premier has talked about a process to move towards province -wide colle ctive bargaining with the teachers. What is the timeline to implement this process? Mr.

Pallister: Well, those consultations with the school boards, with MTS are under way. I expect they'll continue. Mr. Kinew: And they will continue towards what date? Like, when is the timeline at least targeted, at this point, to be completed and when would the legislation that the Premier is talking about be brought in? Mr. Pallister: That'll depend on the progress of the consultations. Mr. Kinew: And what –what legislative framework would be required, at least as of the discussions right now? Is this a Public Schools Act? Labour Relations Act? What sort of legislative pieces would require amendment? Mr.

Pallister: I don't like to speculate, but I'll speculate t hat The Public Schools Act would be involved in the enactment, but I don't want to pre-judge the consultations. They're just nicely under way, I understand, so we'll let them take their course. * (10:10) Mr. Kinew: So, if the province -wide bargaining comes into place –or sorry, if it doesn't come into place, because there's no legislation on the Order Paper right now, it wouldn't pass by the end of June 30th. Does that mean that the Premier will proclaim Bill 28 and sort of get to de facto province - wide bargaining in the interim?

Should I repeat the question? An Honourable Member: No, I got it. I'm okay– Mr. Kinew: Will the Premier proclaim Bill 28 after June 30th, when the teachers' contracts expire just as a–maybe an interim form of province -wide bargaining? Mr. Pallister: As I said earlier, the consultations are under way, and it wouldn't be without precedent under previous governments–NDP and Conservative governments–that teachers negotiations often weren't concluded until two, three, four years eve n after the

1380 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 termination date of the existing contract. It wouldn't be the first time. Mr. Kinew: Does the Premier (Mr. Pallister) plan to proclaim Bill 28 this summer? Mr. Pallister: Manitoba's a wonderful province, full of community events. I plan to at tend most of them this summer. Mr. Kinew: Most community events? That's a pretty ambitious target. We'll have to ask about that in QP when we come back in the fall and, you know, we'll be sure to wag our finger and say, yeah, there's a broken promise, Madam Speaker, et cetera, et cetera. But, no.

The question again is: Does the Premier plan to proclaim Bill 28 this summer? Mr. Pallister: I'll undertake and answer that question when I find out when the member's going to table that commission of investigation on harassment that he undertook to provide, I think, over two months ago. I think that would be really helpful. I've emphasized to him before we need to work together to end harassment here and so having a silent commission that is kept secret would be just perpetuating the culture of conceal ment that existed too much in the past.

We need to benefit from the work that his able commissioners have undertaken and promise to complete, I believe, by now. And so I –again, I would encourage him to release that report. If there's, you know, there's no problem with the NDP in terms of harassment today, then he can take credit for that and I think that would give peace of mind to everybody in the building. If there is a problem, it should be clarified and it should be addressed and that's certainly the approach we've taken as a government and I believe it's the approach that would be in the best interests of all who work here. Mr.

Kinew: There's been a–some strike actions by teachers in the States recently that have, sort of, gotten a lot of attentio n in American media, and there's been some sort of labour actions in some parts of Canada, I guess. Notably, Nova Scotia. I'm wondering, what does the Premier think about the no- strike provision that has applied to teachers in this province for a long time now? Mr. Pallister: Sorry, was the member suggesting we should eliminate the no -strike provision that has existed in Manitoba for some time? Mr. Kinew: No.

I'm asking the Premier's views in an attempt to ascertain whether he would try and move towards changing that. Again, I would not want to interfere with the collective bargaining rights of teachers. Mr. Pallister: Nor would I. Mr. Kinew: Why has the Premier not answered the question on the proclamation of Bill 28? Is there, you know, some sort of an issue with the proclamation of the bill? Is it, you know, one of the challenges to it that is causing concern, or is there some other issue that perhaps the Premier could share that would highlight why this hasn't been proclaimed? Mr.

Pallister: Well, no unknown issues. The issues are well understood, I think, by most. The issues are that we have a structural deficit we inherited at close to a billion dollars. The expenditures far exceed the revenues, and the revenues derived from Manitobans' pocketbooks are significant. The–Manitobans have endured some of the largest tax increases in the country in the last number of years under the NDP. And so there's a concern, certainly, that's real, that was demonstrated in the results of the election of '16 that 'Manitobas' don't – they feel they're taxed to the max.

They don't want to pay more taxes, and they understand. They're smart people they understand that the deficit is just a tax delayed and with interest attached to it. So, when you have a billion-dollar deficit, you got a problem. We've taken the approach that we're working to find savings to reduce that deficit amount, so we can get to balance before it's too late, before interest rates rise significantly, before NDP hydro hikes come into play, before other governments continue, like the federal Liberals, to raise taxes and local governments continue to raise taxes too.

So we recognize that Manitobans are having a struggle to make ends meet. Many families have less than–according to a recent study I read, more than 50 per cent of households in Manitoba have less than $200 to spend at the end of the month. And so, obviously, for us, continuing with a status quo wasn't acceptable–you know, and the deficits weren't just approaching well over $900 million, they were going up.

So, according to Treasury Board officials, when I was first briefed, they said that if we –even if we don't keep a single additional commitment made by the NDP during the election, which was to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of promises, as we

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1381 all remember, even if we don't do that, we're going to see a deficit in '19 -20 of $1.6 billion. That's an annual deficit. An Honourable Member: Nineteen-twenty? Mr. Pallister: Nineteen-twenty fiscal year, we would see a deficit of $1.6 billion. That would be a one-year deficit. So, clearly, we were on the wrong path and had to take steps urgently to avoid that course of action, if you can call it course of inaction, I suppose, under the previous government would be a better way to describe it.

So, clearly, we have to get a handle on our expenditure side, because although the NDP always goes to the revenue side, it seems, to find solutions; you know, never met a tax they didn't like and never met a tax they wouldn't hike. So, after a series of increases in tax over the last four or five years of the NDP term, we felt, as a government, that that was not the course of action to be followed and that there needed to be management decisions made on the expenditures side.

And so that's why we've launched into a number of initiatives to try to find waste, to try to find overlap, to try to find duplication, why we've reduced our expenditures. My office is about half the size of Greg Selinger's, in terms of staffing. My budget is just a little over half what the previous premier's budget was –to try to set a tone at the top that demonstrated we're responsible money managers and responsible and respectful of the tax situation Manitobans find themselves in.

But, again, you know, just the impact of the NDP in the last couple of years of their term, on our credit rating, was a tremendously significant thing. Estimates in the tens of millions of dollars of additional costs every time a credit rating is downgraded two downgrades in the morning. And, if my assistant would find it for me, I can share with the member some of the comments from the bond rating agencies and from the financial institutions about our performance in our first two years.

There's some re al positive response, and I'm pleased to share it with the member the –this is important, because it assures, not only the Province but also the City of Winnipeg and other municipal governments whose credit rating is based largely on the provincial performa nce, that they don't see an erosion of the dollars available to them.

And, speaking to the mayor, he certainly appreciated the fact that we've taken a responsible approach, which is meant that as opposed to under the previous government when their City's credit rating was downgraded along with the provincial credit-rating downgrade, that added millions of dollars of costs to them; they couldn't put that into water and sewer projects, anything else. So he appreciates the fact that we've endeavoured to get a handle on our expenditure side. Just as all municipal governments must, by legislation and–so I'll get into the commentary from some of the bond rating agencies and so on.

And we'll finish by complimenting our Health Minister and our colleagues who hav e been involved in the Treasury Board and our fiscal stabilization committee, I call it, that have been looking with a fine-tooth comb for savings and trying to find ways to get us to a situation that every householder in Manitoba understands they have to be in: of balance, to sustain the important programs that we have to sustain in our province. Mr. Kinew: Will the Premier (Mr. Pallister) allow contracts with teachers to be signed after June 30th? Mr.

Pallister: Well, as I said, out of respect for the process of consultation, I'll let the consulted process continue. * (10:20) I would share with the member, though, that here–these comments, this is the first one, is March 13th, so just three weeks a bit ago, bef ore the Jets made the playoffs. Dominion Bond Rating said that the 2018 budget exceeded Dominion Bond Rating's expectations. I would mention that it was consecutively for almost two decades before under the NDP where the word exceeded expectations, that that phrase would never have appeared unless they were referring to spending.

If they were referring to spending, yes, the NDP's performance exceeded expectations virtually every single year. They spent more than they said they would in every department of government with the exception of Infrastructure –not Infrastructure, where they consistently underspent until, well, guess what, 2015, the year before the last election. And then there were steady growth signs all over the province promoting projects; conspicuous construction, yes.

1382 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 Another quote from Dominion Bond Rating: The government's commitment to deficit reduction now appears increasingly credible with two years of budget outperformance and an ongoing focus on spending discipline. As opposed to the member's assertion about cuts, of course, we haven't cut in any department with the exception this year of Growth, Enterprise and Trade. So our spending commitments are not only being kept, they're consistent, and departmental officials know that. We've also done this without layoffs.

We've allowed people–yes, we've allowed people to retire without being replaced, for sure we've done that. And we've committed to reducing the overall size of the civil service by 8 per cent in our first term, but we hav e not been laying people off. It's less than one fifth of 1 per cent is the total number, and for many of those folks, because our unemployment rate is so low, because people are retiring on a rotational basis, really –it seems our baby boomers are wanting to not work when they hit 65 or sooner in some cases –that openings occur on a regular basis.

So we don't anticipate that there'll be, really, any significant loss of employment as a consequence of what we're doing. It's a moderate approach. It's a balanced and reasonable approach, keeps people working, as opposed to many other provincial governments who have taken significant steps to lay people off in the last few years as they have tried to wrestle with the problems the NDP government previously ignored. And so, as we face these challenges together, we do it with the front -line workers of our system, government workers, in mind.

But we also do it with the private sector employees in mind, as opposed to the previous government, where they saw the privat e sector as a cow to be milked and raised taxes on the private sector on a regular basis, not just a raising of the PST –that's a –that was a $300 million hit for Manitobans–but also the broadening of it. So you see people in the private sector who have a little business hit with taxes on, you know, doing– styling someone's hair.

And you hear from people who run hair salons, as I did, who were faced with decisions that were tremendously difficult because of that 8 per cent tax hike, and their payroll tax increases, the tax on benefits also going up by 8 per cent. I remember one woman in the Charleswood area telling me that she had to make a decision, as she was pretty near tears, she had to make a decision to lay off one of her two employees and they'd both been with her over 15 years. And they're obviously friends, you know, working together, but she said, I can't maintain my business this way and I've got no choice.

That's the kind of thing that happens in the real world in the private sector when you start jacking up costs. People have to–have choices to make, and they're difficult choices to make. So we recognize that and we respect the people who invest in private– small businesses. And that's why we stood up against the federal Liberal government's proposals to jack up taxes on small-business people and their accusations that small-business people were tax evaders while they were abiding with laws made by Pierre Trudeau. Yes, used –they used that phrase tax evasion in the House of Commons.

The Prim e Minister and the Finance Minister, Bill Morneau, used that phrase over 50 times–tax evader–for people who had abided by the laws and had taken risks and employed people and done the best they could to support themselves, their families, their customers f or decades. And it was a hurtful approach, boy, wrong- headed approach. Mr. Kinew: On June 30th of this year, the agreements with teachers will expire. Now, we know that the Province has not brought in legislation to enact province -wide bargaining by June 30th of this year. Based on the Premier's (Mr.

Pallister), you know, dodges to previous questions, it seems like they're not going to proclaim Bill 28. So I'm wondering if there are agreements signed this summer, after June 30th, with teachers, will the Premier respect those agreements? Mr. Pallister: As previously asked, and previously answered, but I would say –I would ask the member this: if another incident of harassment involving an NDP MLA comes to light in the next number of months, and the member has suppressed an internal report that he promised would be made public, how will he look?

He said that he cares deeply about this issue, yet his actions haven't–they belie that commitment. And I'm asking him again to fulfill his commitment, made to all Manitobans not just to his own political staff, to shed light on the study, this commission he's pulled together so that we can deal with this issue

April 13, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1383 now, because he's asking me a hypothetical question, and I'll reciprocate. If another incident comes to light in future months, the member has to ask himsel f: How will that reflect on his decisions? He's chastised Greg Selinger for knowing about these abuses and not acting, and I don’t –in Mr. Selinger's absence, I don't wish to add to these critical comments. I respect the fact he had said that he wasn't aware. Others have said he was. Others have said his chief of staff was; therefore, they expect he would have been aware.

And the member has said, in various times in the media comments, that I'm looking for now as we discuss this issue, but comments, as I r ecall, like: Mr. Selinger's–it's time for Mr. Selinger to go; it's a failure of leadership, I believe he called it; the NDP did not deserve to win the last election. Things like that. Now, I don't–none of us wants to see a repeat of the Struthers inciden t or any other behaviour that's offensive or threatening to people who work here or anywhere else in the civil service.

That I would expect, but we must respond accordingly, given the opportunity, and we have the opportunity to do that now. And so, when the member says, and I'm quoting here now, he says: I'm very disappointed in the NDP. We're supposed to be the party that protects the vulnerable. Exactly. I agree with him. Supposed to be; now, do it. You've done a study. If there are no–if there's no problem, say so. Let's come clean. That's good, and let's work together to make changes, as we are beginning that process and as we are enthusiastically focussed on doing.

But let's work together; not continue this culture of concealment that caused these p roblems to happen, that caused them to continue and reoccur, time after time, again and again, with other staffers, then, either afraid to report incidents, or, in reporting them, being ignored or told to suck it up. And the member has a great opportunity to show leadership on this issue. He's done it verbally in the press; it's been well reported. He's disappointed in the NDP, failure of leadership, chastised, asked the former premier to resign on the basis of this issue.

And now he has the opportunity to demonstrate the courage of his convictions and I just –I fail to see why he would not do so. I implore him to do so, so that we can all work together to end harassment, throughout government and elsewhere. So we can set an example that will protect people better against these kinds of behaviours that should never have happened and should not be condoned ever. And I just implore him to do that. I think it –far be it from me to give him political advice, but I would say, if there is another incident that comes to light after this and he hasn't acted, he's going to wear it.

And he doesn't need to; he shouldn't. But he's creating a situation where he's going to. Mr. Kinew: So, Mr. Chair, I'd remind the Premier (Mr. Pallister), through you, that the question is about province-wide bargaining for teachers. Some teachers' unions, or some locals, I guess, have given notice that they intend to bargain. They’ve already given this notice that they're going to try and ent er into new agreements. If they sign an agreement before or after June 30th, will the Premier respect those agreements? * (10:30) Mr.

Pallister: Again, I see the member ignoring the issue I've raised, and it's almost as if it was only an issue two months ago and is no longer an issue to him. It's almost as if he doesn't care anymore about this. And it was in the news, and he had to do damage control. He was right there in front of the cameras talking about how disappointed he was in the NDP, and now he's disappointing the NDP and everybody else with his failure to act.

I have previously answered his questions in regard to respecting the process of moving to a more efficient and effective way of bargaining, and so I will simply repeat that 38 school divisions, each with a teachers' collective agreement, has been an issue that teachers have raised and their union have raised for a long time as being an ineffective way to use teachers' time, not to mention the time of school trustees around the province as wel l and the resources entrusted by taxpayers to the process of collective bargaining as well. So we're looking to act on the advice of others.

We're looking to consult with these groups and others to move to a system that works better. We will be looking to also reduce the number of bargaining units elsewhere in government. That is important because we know that our situation here in terms of collective bargaining and bargaining units is an antiquity. We know that other provinces have moved

1384 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 13, 2018 ahead co-operatively, that their labour leaders have, in some cases, initiated a dialogue and have certainly participated co-operatively, as opposed to Manitoba's labour leaders, in respect of moving towards a smaller number of bargaining units so that people could spend l ess time bargaining at a table with – rather than doing the pipefitting, electrical work and cleaning that they were trained to do, and that is a good thing, and it's happened in other provinces, and it needs to happen here, so we'll legislate that, as we have said.

The bargaining– number of bargaining units in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia combined is 19, and in the Winnipeg RHA, 186–186. And so people are being taken off their front -line work and sat –sitting at a bargaining table in hundreds of cases, when they would rather be working at the job that they were trained to do. The costs, administratively –

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-3-32c
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 3rd hansardpdf 32c.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	81627785d3ecd413610206dda1dc87e88e21d7ff

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