Manitoba Hansard — 20 June 2016 (Sitting 24, 41st Legislature, 1st Session)

41-1-24

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session – Forty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Myrna Driedger Speaker Vol. LXIX No. 24 - 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 20, 2016 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

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

1101 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, June 20, 2016 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Madam Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here bef ore Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and ac complish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen. Please be seated.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Madam Speaker: Introduction of bills? Committee reports? TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Crown Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the quarterly report of the Manitoba Hydro- Electric Board for the year ended March 31st, 2016. Hon. Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table th e Department of Manitoba Infrastructure's Supplementary Estimates for Legislative Review for 2016 and '17. Madam Speaker: Ministerial statements? MEMBERS' STATEMENTS World Refugee Day Hon.

Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize World Refugee Day in Manitoba. June 20th is celebrated as World Refugee Day in solidarity with refugees in Canada, and around the world, to promote the awareness of refugee issues and challenges in Manitoba. Canada and Manitoba have a long history of being places of refuge for people from around the world, for helping and protecting refugees.

The wisdom, diverse experiences, unceasing courage and remarkable resiliency of refugees enrich our province and strengthen our narrative that Manitoba and Canada are beacons of hope and open our doors for those in need. The United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted on December 24, 2000, a resolution naming June 20th of every year as World Refugee Day to build awareness, empathy , support and respect for refugees.

The province of Manitoba is one of the most diverse provinces in the world, and its people continue to welcome refugees and provide supports to them and their families so that they have a dignified life in a safe and free environment. Education is one of the most important elements in healing the physical, emotional and cognitive wounds caused by war, persecution and deprivation of basic needs. Schools throughout Manitoba strive to create safe, inclusive, caring environm ents that have welcomed hundreds of Syrian and other refugee children and their families.

I look forward to joining with members of the public to celebrate World Refugee Day later today on the Legislative grounds. Steinbach Pride March Ms. Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the organizers of the inaugural Steinbach Pride parade –Pride march, scheduled for July 9th. Michelle McHale and her organizing committee have joined us in the gallery today. We all witnessed the devastating events that took place in Orlando recently.

I shared the grief and commitment of support of the NDP caucus at the vigils for the victims, hosted in both Winnipeg and Steinbach. The vigil in Steinbach was attended by over 200 people, showing that support for LGBTTQ* people exists across the country –the province. The upcoming Steinbach Pride parade on July 9th brings LGBTTQ* community members and their allies together to show support for human rights and love for every one, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity.

With Winnipeg, Brandon, Thompson and now Steinbach all hosting Pride celebrations this year, we are proud to see this solidarity with Manitobans extending across the province. The vigil in Steinba ch and the Pride parade fill me with hope because, in spite of a terrible tragedy, safe places for LGBTTQ* people, particularly youth, continue to grow in Manitoba.

1102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 Thank you, Michelle McHale, and everyone involved in organizing Steinbach's first Pride parade. We've come a long way, but there's still much work to be done. Our NDP caucus has always stood for LGBTTQ* Manitobans and their rights and will continue to do so. We have registered for the Pride march and will see you in Steinbach on July 9th. Jessica Mayes Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Arthur-Virden): Madam Speaker, I'm honoured here today to rise to recognize a constituent in my area that has made a positive change in her community.

Jessica Mayes comes from the small town of Pierson, Manitoba. After being inspired by WE Day, she was the founder of a sustainability group in her school in 2012. Since that time, the group's accomplished including reduced waste in their recycling program by replacing plastic bags used to collect recyclables and usable–with us able burlap sacks. They've also started a compost program in all the classrooms. The compost project has evolved into vermicomposting, using worms to digest the organic waste and produce a natural fertilizer which is used for their school's greenhouses.

N ot only did the group get the students involved and educated about sustainability, but the members of the community took notice and also wanted to be –and get involved by offering their help and even supplied the group with the worms for composting. It was –brought the people together to learn about something important as well as to make a positive impact, not only for their community but for drawing attention to the issues of sustainability. These efforts have not been not unnoticed. They are now being recognized on a national scale.

Jessica is being awarded inaugural Prince's Youth Service Award for sustainability category. She was chosen out of hundreds of applicants. I would like to applaud Jessica for her efforts. It is commitment and leadership like th is coming from a young person which allow the province to thrive and prosper in the coming years. Ideas like Jessica's are not the drop of –are like a drop of water; they create a ripple effect. She has said that at times the group was just herself and a fe w people, but that has all been taken to make notice of change. Sustainability is arguably one of the largest issues that we face.

Without sustainability environment in this province, we will experience more issues into the future. I would like to congratulate Jessica, who is sitting in the gallery today with her grandparents, for her wonderful commitment to our planet and to–for inspiring so many others to take action. Thank you, Madam Speaker. * (13:40) Violence Against Women in Public Service Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns ): Madam Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with my sisters across the world who have committed their lives to public service.

Within the last week, we've witnessed the horrific murder of UK Labour MP Jo C ox alongside, here in Canada, targeted, misogynistic attacks against Alberta Premier Rachel Notley. Thursday last, between these two incidents, my own constituency assistant received an anonymous phone call from a man who warned me to watch what I say in this House.

What's more, throughout my campaign in seeking this office, I faced vitriolic and attacking speech culminating in having to be escorted out of a forum by a good 10 people while a man stood at the front exit screaming profanities at me while declaring that I was going to get it. The reality is that women engaged in public life across the globe are consistently intimidated, threatened, sanctioned, silenced, ridiculed and, in some cases, tortured, raped and murdered. These threatening and lethal actions are generation - ally rooted in the legislation, regulation and marginalization of women's space and agency.

The command of public service, discourse and governance is not the exclusive domain of men. Women and men are equal to one another, and together we balance out perspectives, ideologies and the manifestation of privilege and power within our public service duties. It is not enough to say that women have the right to be engaged in public service, but men also positioned within public service must support their sister colleagues in combatting misogyny in all its forms. And so I encourage all my brother colleagues here today to consistently and publicly denounce violence against women engaged in public service.

And, finally, Madam Speaker, to the individuals, including the gentleman who called my office last

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1103 week, who believe they have the right to shame and silence women– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. 2016 World Curling Silver Medal Champions Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the recent silver medal win at the world senior men's curling championships in–held in Karlstad, Sweden, by Team Canada rink of Randy Neufeld, Dean Moxham, Peter Nicholls and Dale Michie. Tw o of those members are joining us today in the gallery: Skip Randy Neufeld and Dean Moxham.

After competing in the round robin portion of the tournament with an 8 and 0 record, Team Canada lost the gold- medal game to the host country, Sweden, on April 28th, 2016. The Neufeld rink, which curls out of the La Salle Curling Club, earned the right to represent Canada by winning the 2015 Canadian championships last spring in Digby, Nova Scotia. Two of the members of Team Canada are from Portage la Prairie. D ean Moxham is from Oakville; Dale Michie resides in Portage la Prairie.

Both are active members of the Portage Curling Club and have enjoyed many successes at the local and provincial level and now have a national championship and a world silver medal to a dd to their accomplishments. Manitoba is home to several world -class curling rinks with many Manitobans competing at the national and international stage. This province is home to several championship trophies, and Manitoba rink won curling gold at the Olympics. The rich curling tradition in Manitoba is a source of immense pride for our citizens.

Likewise, Portage la Prairie has a rich curling tradition, with many successful individuals and teams coming from the Portage Curling Club. The recent success of Mr. Moxham and Mr. Michie adds to this great tradition and sparks additional pride in our athletes, community and our curling club. I invite all members to join me in congratulating Dean Moxham, Dale Michie and –sorry, Randy Neufeld–sorry, and Peter Ni cholls along with their teammates on the great accomplishment of the world senior men's curling championships. ORAL QUESTIONS Immigrant Services Government Support Ms.

Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, today is World Refugee Day. We stand united in support of vulnerable people and we celebrate the courage and conviction of refugees. Madam Speaker, just last week, the Winnipeg Free Press announced that Manitoba's population growth is hitting modern -day records. The Manitoba Bureau of Statistics points out that Manitoba is also seeing incredible growth in immigration to the province. I ask the Premier: Why, at this time of incredible growth, is his party calling investments for immigrants wasteful government spending? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, I thank the member for pointing out the optimism that all Manitobans feel and tell her that it's just an early indication of the attitudinal change in this province towards growth. People are excited about the provinc e's prospects; they're coming here. We're seeing a growing population that's tremendous. We have real challenges to face, and we'll face those together, but I think that all Manitobans respect and appreciate the opportunities that are to be found here and we are very open here, of course, to being the new home of hope for people from all over the world.

Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Official Opposition Leader, on a supplementary question. Ms. Marcelino: That optimism had been around for over a decade now. Madam Speaker, just last week, our critic asked the Finance Minister about support for newcomers, who are engineers and licensed professional nurses, to make the process easier for their credentials to be recognized and to find the training they need. Given our immigration growth, this is critical. I ask the Premier again: Why does he think these supports are wasteful government spending? Mr.

Pallister: Yes, first of all, Madam Speaker, I'd be remiss if I didn't add my personal congratulations to Randy Neufeld from La Salle and Dean Moxham from Oakville and thank Dean's wife Dawn for their tremendous work with junior curling around the province as well. They're just tremendous citizens

1104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 in the province, and I just wanted to add my congratulations and thanks to them again if I could. And I wanted to also say they are fortunate that the member for Minto (Mr. Swan) and the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Ewasko) are occupied here; otherwise they would've had greater challenges on the road to their championships. Madam Speaker, the member is right to raise the topic she raises. She speaks about optimism being around. In this respect, she's right. A renewed optimism is present here in the province.

But, you know, for example, small -business optimism was at record lows in March of this year and now at record highs in June, and I think that's a tremendous indication of the new -found optimism that Manitobans enjoy. Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Official Opposition Leader, on a final supplementary. Ms. Marcelino: I still don't hear an answer why support for immigrant services, new immigrants, are wasteful government spending? Madam Speaker, $208,000 to support an engineer's qualification and $450,000 for Assiniboine Community College l icensed professional nurse, LPN, program.

This government cancels and cuts, and their party calls it wasteful government spending. How do they think they can grow the economy without supporting immigrants get good jobs? Mr. Pallister: Well, the member i s right, Madam Speaker, to raise the concerns about frustration with new immigrants to our province. Those concerns have grown over years of inattentive lack of leadership from the previous administration.

But I would point out to the member that it was a Progressive Conservative government that introduced to this province a very important program that is the reason that many of our immigrant population has come to the province, and– [interjection]–of course, the member for Fort Garry-Riverview (Mr. Al lum), in the midst of his babbling, would understand that that program was the Provincial Nominee Program, which this government actually didn't introduce, a previous PC government introduced.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to continuing with oral questions, I would just like to draw the attention of all members to the public gallery where we have seated, from Glenboro School, 18 grade 5 and 6 students, under the direction of Marilyn Cullen. * (13:50) This group is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade (Mr. Cullen). On behalf of all members, we welcome you here today. Newcomer Support Grant Funding Commitment Inquiry Mr.

Mohinder Saran (The Maples): Madam Speaker, the government has consistently refused to tell Manitobans specifically where they are finding their so-called savings and what they will cut. Can the Minister of Education please confirm if they have kept our former government's commitment to increase funding to the newcomer support grant by $300,000 or did they cut that too? Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for the question. We certainly value–as this government, we value immigration to Manito ba very highly.

We know that it not only helps the individuals involved but it also helps the province build more strongly on a – in a great future, an inclusive future that involves everyone in our community. We are working with new immigrants to make sure that they have the supports that are necessary to make sure that they adapt well to Manitoba and that they have the supports that they need to prosper in this province. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Maples, on a supplementary question. Mr. Saran: Madam Speaker, the newcomer support grant is a targeted grant for refugees and war-affected children.

Today, on World Refugee Day, we are now hearing from the government that they are cutting support the NDP had committed to, which will help some of our most vulnerable children adjust to life in Manitoba. Why won't the Education Minister commit to providing additonal funding to help refugee children when they need it most? Mr. Wishart: I thank the member for the question. We are certainly committed to making sure that new immigrants to this province have the support

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1105 that they need at their critical time. Whether it be partly through the education system and getting them back–or getting them back into the workplace, I think those are both areas where we can help a lot. But the member must remember that on April 19th, Manitobans did make a different choice. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Maples, on a final supplementary. Mr. Saran: There are many newcomer refugee families in Manitoba today who are counting supports like these.

They deserve to know the answer to this question: Is the Education and Training Minister cutting supports our NDP government had committed to that will help war -affected children at school? Mr. Wishart: I would remind the member that we have put forward solid support to the education system, with a 2 per cent increase–or more than 2 per cent increase in the K -to-12 funding and a 2 and a half per cent increase to post-secondary.

But we are continuing to provide the additional necessary supports to new immigrants in this province, and we are certainly working with them to have–so that they can have a successful life here in Manitoba. We work with the fairness commission to make sure tha t their credentials are proved as necessary so that they can get back into the workplace as quickly as possible. I think that Manitobans made a different choice on April 19th, and I think they want to see us carry it forward. Hanover School Division LGBTTQ* Rights Recognition Ms.

Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): The Education Minister continues to refuse to intervene in the Hanover school issue, citing local autonomy. The farthest he was willing to go was sending a letter offering voluntary training to school trustees. It's not nearly enough. This is about human rights. Will the Premier (Mr. Pallister) intervene to make this training mandatory? Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the honourable Opposi tion Leader for the question.

We certainly continue to work with the Hanover School Division, and we want to encourage as much local discussion as possible. I think it is very constructive to have a discussion in the community. I understand that the famil y in question has taken advantage of their right that they have here in Manitoba to go to the Human Rights Commission, and I respect them for that. I think that we'll work very strongly with the local school division, and, hopefully, we can find a resoluti on before such time as Human Rights Commission has to reach a conclusion.

Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Official Opposition Leader, on a supplementary question. Ms. Marcelino: This government's responsibility is clear. They must be responsible for the supervision, control and direction of all public schools and all other schools. The Education Minister's tepid and voluntary measures are not enough. Will the Premier act to ensure full recognition of diversity, of LGBTTQ* rights in the Hanover School Division? Mr. Wishart: I thank the member for the question. As we have said before, we are working very constructively with the local school division.

We do respect their local autonomy. It's something that appears to be lacking across the floor, but we are working with them to try and find a resolution to the situation, but we do also respect the individual's right to go to the Human Rights Commission. I think that we still have further opportunities to work with both parties and we're certainly prep ared to do that, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Official Opposition Leader, on a final supplementary. Ms. Marcelino: LGBTTQ* rights are human rights, and human rights are not optional and can't wait.

They are not subject to the opinions of a local school board or local schools. Why won't the Premier act to ensure respect for diversity and ensure our LGBTTQ* kids have a safe place in each and every school in Manitoba, including in the Hanover School Division? Mr. Wishart : I appreciate the question from the member. We're certainly always supportive of making sure that every child in this province has a safe place to go to school, so we are certainly prepared to work very strongly with the school division to make sure that that certainly takes place.

1106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 But the member also needs to have some respect for the Human Rights Commission and that process. You can't intervene in every case. We certainly have safety–safeguards in place and to make sure that due course is followed. It is not a question of the Leade r of the Opposition's opinion as to whether or not they should act. Hanover School Division Compliance with Human Rights Code Mr.

Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): I bring your attention the following: The Hanover School Division has two meetings left before they finalize the policies that will be in place for the next school year. Will the Minister of Education intervene to make sure that the human rights of all children, but specifically LGBTTQ* children and those with LGBTTQ* family members, are protected under those policies and in accordance with the Manitoba curriculum? Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for the question. I recognize that the school year is winding down.

Many people out there are looking forward to the end of this school year, not the least of which is probably many of the students. But there is a process in place. I think the member should respect the process, and once it's begun, it should be taken through to its fruition, and I do hope that they find a way to continue the discussion between the family and the school division. A constructive discussion is probably the best way to change opinions in the long term, and we certainly are looking forward to a constructive discussion as part of the process.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Rouge, on a supplementary question. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, it's one issue whether or not the Hanover School Division has contravened any human rights, and that will be resolved by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. However, it is a completely separate issue as to whether or not the Education Minister will act. He has the authority to remind the Hanover School Division it must operate according to the Human Rights Code. Will he direct the division to make sure their policies comply with the Manitoba Human Rights Code? * (14:00) Mr.

Wishart: I thank the member for the question. I think we've been pretty clear all the way along that we are working very strongly, aggressively, with the Hanover School Division in regards to making our services available to them and encourage them to do whatever is necessary to find accommodation to meet the needs of this particular family in terms of their human rights requirement. But as I mentioned earlier, they have chosen to take their complaint to the Human Rights Commission and that, too, is part of the law of this land.

And, certainly, we support them in tha t right to do so and hope that they can find a resolution that way. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Rouge, on a final supplementary. Mr. Kinew: Again, the Education Minister can act if he so chooses. I would point out that Michelle McHale and Karen Phillips's kids are only kids once. The same is true of all children in the Hanover School Division. In fact, 17- year-old Mika Schellenberg is graduating this year and has personally experienced the impact of the status quo in the Hanover School Division.

Is the Minister of Education really going to wait for another class of students to graduate before taking steps to protect th eir safety and the quality of their education? Mr. Wishart: I appreciate the member's question. I certainly want to congratulate the student on her graduation or pending graduation. I certainly hope that she is able to put that to her best advantage and move forward in her life.

But the school division is in the process and I think that any timelines at this point in time are at least partially in their hands as to how they work with the family, and I want the discussion to continue between the school division and the family. Hopefully they can find some resolution before the end of the school year which, as I know, is not very far away. But, certainly, it's a constructive process in terms of working together. Thank you.

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1107 Child-Care Spaces Government Intention Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): During the last campaign, the Minister of Education announced that additional centre -based child -care spots would be committed to later in the campaign. Recognizing that this commitment addresses a mere 5 per cen t of the wait- list, the press asked if this would be their only child -care commitment. The Minister of Education promised we could, and I quote, expect more commitments in the campaign. But, Madam Speaker, no commitments were made.

Can the minister comment on these additional child-care promises? Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Families): I appreciate the question from members opposite. This side of the House is absolutely committed. We are committed to enhancing the access for child-care systems in the province of Manitoba. We know that our plan–and we know with the current system that there's too much red tape and barriers that are happening to starting up the child-care system. We also know that there's not enough home -based car ers. That's a part of it.

And that's why our plan, we think, is a strong plan moving forward for the children of Manitoba. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a supplementary question. Ms. Fontaine: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Families: What exactly is the plan on child care for this government? Mr. Fielding: We're ecstatic about what our plan is in terms of child care. We obviously know that child care is something that's critical. It 's critical to people in the working world; it's critical to our economy. That's why we're so excited about our plan. We know that ECEs are important.

We know that home -based child care is important, and that's part of our plan going forward to increase s paces for our citizens of Manitoba. Thank you. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a final supplementary. Ms. Fontaine: Madam Speaker I'm not sure about anybody else on this side of the House, but I'm still seriously confused and–at what the plan is. Would the Minister of Families explain to us in point form what the plan is of this government on child care? It is a very simple question. Miigwech, Madam Speaker. Mr.

Fielding: I very much appreciate the question, and, you know, it' s interesting coming from a government where you had left over, after 17 years, over 12,000 spaces that are part of this. What's actually going to have to happen, Madam Speaker, is the new member –and I respect the new member; I think she's a very passionate individual – but she's going to have to have some uncomfortable conversations with people at the caucus table. She's going to asks–have to ask some members in terms of why they left so many people on the waiting list for people that are need –for child ca re.

And that's why we think that our plan makes a lot of sense, and we're going to have access for child care for the citizens of Manitoba. Thank you. Provincial Nominee Program Expansion Plan for Business Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Looking for investors to invest in Manitoba needs to be a priority of this government. It is the small- and medium-sized businesses that strengthen our economy. Would the minister responsible please share with the House today if the new government is planning on expanding the Provincial Nominee Program for Businesses or leaving it as it is? Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon.

Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): We're certainly interested in immigration, and the business branch of the immigration progr am will certainly be something that we are looking at developing further, in the future. We have –there has been–historically, there has been some issues under the previous government, and so we're certainly looking at better ways to make this program work better in the future and get better results for Manitobans. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, on a supplementary question. Deposit Agreement Compliance Ms.

Lamoureux: I would encourage expanding the program.

1108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 We all know and understand the importance and benefits of foreign investment. According to the May 2016 follow -up of recommendations from the Auditor General, it has been recommended that the government, and I quote, develop a process to follow up on nominees who do not comply with the deposit agreement. This makes me incredibly nervous. Was there no follow-up with the previous government? My question is: To what degree and how, exactly, does the government plan to ensure that applicants are complying with the deposit agreement? Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr.

Wishart : I appreciate the member's question, and she has certainly hit the nail on the head. There was, certainly, some issues because of lack of follow -up and the very poor management of the program. We are looking at wa ys to deal with those problems and to make the program –in concept, the program actually could work very well and could bring a lot of very valuable 'entreneurs' – entrepreneurs to Manitoba, and we certainly support that. Madam Speaker: The honourable membe r for Burrows, on a final supplementary. Business Application Approvals Ms.

Lamoureux: I would like to thank the minister for his answer; however, I didn't hear exactly what the plan was. Would the minister please share with the House today how many prov incial nominee business applications he would like to see approved come to Manitoba in the 2016- 17 fiscal year? And, of the 2015 business applications that were approved, how many of them are still operating businesses? Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Wishart: I appreciate the member's question.

We're certainly interested in finding ways to actually increase the number of business entrepreneurs that might come, under this program, to Manitoba, and very much aware of the fact that there was a very high failure rate under the previous program. We don't actually blame the entrepreneurs solely for that. We think, actually, the administration and the way things were run by this government –the previous government –was certainly a big factor in that. Leadership is always an issue, and we didn't see any. Air Canada Act–Bill C-10 Senate Committee Presentation Mrs. Colleen Mayer (St.

Vital): Madam Speaker, we know that growing the Manitoba economy is an important priority for our government. Jobs in the aerospace industry are integral to our economy, and it's important that all levels of the federal government know that we are standing up to their proposed Bill C-10 to protect Manitoba jobs and t he Manitoba economy. Could the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade please inform the House of his presentation to the Senate committee studying this legislation? Hon.

Cliff Cullen (Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade ): I want to thank the member for that question. * (14:10) Later today the Deputy Premier and I will be presenting to the Senate committee on Bill C-10. We continue to consult with local businesses, with labour and the aerospace stakeholders. Manitoba stakeholders are united in seeking a direct and long- term commitment to Manitoba aerospace from our federal partners. They have expressed grave concern Bill C -10 is being rushed through for no apparent reason. Manitoban's aerospace sector employs over 5,400 people and is truly world- class.

It is a sector that we support and want to see thrive. Madam Speaker, we stand up for good jobs in Manitoba and a stronger economy for all Manitobans. Mental Health Court Brandon Location Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Madam Speaker, problem-solving courts such as drug treament courts and mental health courts are effective in changing the behaviour of offenders, sometimes with lengthy criminal records, and improve public safety.

Manitoba's first mental health court has been operating in Winnipeg for several years with good results, but the proposal to create a mental health court in Brandon has now been put at risk by this government. The mental health court in Brandon is supported by the mental health community, by judges, lawyers and many others in that city. In fact,

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1109 there's a working group dedicated to getting this court established. Why won't this Minister of Justice stand up for Brandon and commit to getting a mental health court running in Manitoba's second largest city? Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I want to thank my honourable colleague, the critic for Justice, for asking the question. Of course, we have two sound representatives from Brandon in the Manitoba Legislature .

We've–I want to–[interjection] And I just want to say to the member that one of the things, you know –of course, the members opposite had 17 years to make this happen. It wasn't a priority under their government. We are, in fact, doing a review. We an - nounced this review during the campaign. It's what Manitobans elected us on and it's what we're going to deliver on. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto, on a supplementary question. Justice Initiatives Funding Concerns Mr.

Andrew Swan (Minto): Well, I thank the minister for confirming it's not just her but the two MLAs from Brandon that won't stand up for Brandonites. A commitment was made by the previous government to establish a mental health court in Brandon, but that is now at ris k. This minister says there's a review under way but won't say if or when the review will be completed. The minister confirmed– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. The honourable member to continue. Mr.

Swan: The minister confirmed in Estimates there's not a single dollar in this year's budget to support a mental health court in Brandon, nor are there any resources for additional problem -solving courts anywhere in Manitoba. Why is this minister unwilling to s tep up to make any commitment to expanding successful and cost-effective justice initiatives? Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I want to thank the member for the question. Of course, we were faced with –as a result of 17 years of NDP mismanagement –with a $1 -billion deficit that Manitobans are facing today.

So there's going to be some tough decisions that are –that need to take place. Not only that, but there's an over-$800-million cost of servicing that debt as well. That's eight –over $800 million that could have gone to programs such as this prior to when this government–when the NDP government was in power. But because of that, they chose not to do it. They chose not to make this a priority. And now, Madam Speaker, now, all of a sudden, first time in opposition, now, all of a sudden, everything's a priority. Well, that's not the way it works.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto, on a final supplementary. Mr. Swan: Well, Madam Speaker, I remind the member–the minister opposite that it was actually the previous government that created the first mental health court in Manitoba and that member, and every Progressive Conservative member, voted agains t the money to do that. I saw comments in the Brandon Sun about Brandon's community mobilization unit. And it's based on the Prince Albert model, which, in turn, followed a successful violence- reduction project in Glasgow, Scotland.

A similar program is now operating in the William Whyte area of Winnipeg called the Thunderwing Block by Block program. But the Minister of Justice admitted there's nothing – not a single dollar–in this year's budget to expand the size of this project nor expand it to any other communities. Why is this government and minister unwilling to support community programs shown to improve outcomes not just in justice, but health care, education and family services– Madam Speaker: Minister's time has expired. Mrs. Stefanson: I thank the member for question.

Of course, what we did vote against in the past was the incredible NDP mismanagement of 17 years after their watch, Madam Speaker, and I would say that after inheriting, as a new government, a $1-billion deficit as a result of that 17 years of mismanagement, there are some decisions that need to take place.

1110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 We ran on the election campaign with a review on capital projects. That's exactly what we're going to deliver on. Rail Line Relocation Government Support Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I'd like to start today by acknowledging all the first responders in this province for the important work that they do. When we find ourselves in crisis, we rely on them to come to our aid as fast as possible. Unfortunately, in Winnipeg, EMS first responders are often delayed by things out of their control, like being stopped at a train crossing.

Given the mayor of Winnipeg supports proceeding with the rail relocation feasibility study that was provided for in last year's budget, does this Premier (Mr. Pallister) support proceeding with this important study? Hon. Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Infrastructure): This government is going to take all previous commitments under consideration as we move forward. It –infrastructure is based on return on investment and making strategic infrastructure investments, so we will take this under consideration. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia, on a supplementary question. Mr.

Wiebe: You know, the Premier believes Manitobans are 'shart' –smart shoppers, so why can't he see that an investment now to support this study will pay massive dividends down the road? By reinventing Winnipeg as a multimodal transport hub and freeing up land now for urban renewal and geographic reconciliation, we will a lso be saving on expensive and divisive infrastructure costs. Will the Premier move ahead on this important initiative? Mr. Pedersen : Madam Speaker, the previous government had 17 years to act on this particular item.

They chose not to touch it until the dying days of an election when they went out and promised the world to everyone, and they had no intention of doing this. This is same as we've seen with so many other–$600 million worth of promises that they had no intention of doing. And now, with them , everything is a priority. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia, on a final supplementary. Mr. Wiebe: Madam Speaker, this initiative is just not one we can afford to jeopardize now by stalling. The impacts of real–rail relocation are wide-ranging, and, in some cases, lives depend on it.

Will the minister simply support the establishment of the intergovernmental working group to support this feasibility study? Mr. Pedersen : A $1- billion debt, longest waiting lists in health care, 12,000 kids in care, 12,000 kids waiting placement in child -care spaces, and now, suddenly, they have a new priority. They had 17 years to do this. They should have got on this before if they thought it was a priority. However, now, in opposition, everything is a priority. Primary-Care Clinic–The Pas Funding Commitment Concerns Ms.

Amanda Lathlin (The Pas): This government has been consistently ignoring the needs of our northern communities, particularly when it comes to strengthening our health- care services. In my constituency of The Pas, residents are worried that plans for our new primary -care clinic wil l be scrapped under this government's review of strategic infrastructure projects. Madam Speaker, this clinic is desperately needed, a much welcomed project initiated by the former government. The current health clinic in The Pas is struggling to retain d octors and can only be open half days.

Residents, including my family, are forced to go to the emergency room to get a prescription filled. Can the Minister of Health confirm whether or not their primary-care clinic in The Pas will be under review? * (14:20) Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health , Seniors and Active Living): Well, Madam Speaker, that was less of a question and more of a list of all the things that her government failed to do when they were in government. And I would say that the member's absolutely correct. They did fail to get doctors to come to the province and actually stay in the province.

They did fail to get a lot of the different health facilities to stay open adequate hours. She's right; they failed to do all of those things when they were in government. I support her in that question.

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1111 Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, on a supplementary question. Ms. Lathlin: With no mention of a health -care strategy for the North in this governm ent's Throne Speech, and very little in their budget, northerners feel–are feeling ignored and undervalued. A primary-care clinic would provide accessible and cultural -appropriate services for residents of The Pas, OCN, and the surrounding communities. It's among the top five lists of urgent –of new urgent-care facilities the province has needed to build.

Will the minister commit to continuing to fund this clinic? Mr. Goertzen: The member is correct. It is among the top five priorities. It's been among the top five priorities, along with other issues in northern health care for many, many years, Madam Speaker. There has certainly not been the appropriate attention paid to the different challenges within northern Manitoba with health care, but not jus t in northern Manitoba. That extends to southern Manitoba. That extends to all of Manitoba, including Winnipeg.

In fact, the only thing this government was ever really consistent on is they failed on health care right across the province. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, on a final supplementary. Northern Manitoba Communities Government Health-Care Strategy Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas): I'm not hearing any commitments from the minister. Clearly, he doesn't want to admit that there's no real strategy to address health-care needs in my community and the rest of northern Manitoba. Northern families need better access to healthy foods, mental health supports and integrated health and social services.

We need doctors and nurses to stay in our communities, and who have come from our communities. We need investment in our northern hospitals, not cuts this government delivered the last time they were in power. Will the minister admit that this government has not presented a real comprehensive health -care strategy for northerners? Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health , Seniors and Active Living ): Well, again, Madam Speaker, the list that my honourable friend, the member for The Pas, presents is absolutely correct.

The former government failed to ensure that doctors were actually staying in the province of Manitoba. The former government failed on a northern food strategy. The former government failed to ensure that there was an integration of services among different places. The member for The Pas is absolutely correct. They failed on all of those things and that's why we've committed to be the most improved province in Canada at t he end of our term on many different issues. Infrastructure Spending Government Direction Mr.

Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): Madam Speaker, Manitobans know the NDP record well when it comes to infrastructure spending for political gain. The member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Kinew) and his colleagues in the opposition want our government to make infrastructure decisions on the basis of political ridings, rather than acting in the best interests of Manitobans. Could the Minister of Infrastructure please inform the House on the plan our government has when it comes to infrastructure for all Manitobans? Hon.

Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Infrastructure): I'd like to thank the member for Riding Mountain for raising concerns about the statements made by the member for Fort Rouge in the Estimates committee. Unlike the previous NDP government, our government does not believe in using infrastructure money in an attempt to buy votes. Infrastructure decisions will now be based on needs of Manitobans from every p art of the province based on strategic return on investment, not on politics, as the way the NDP did it. Dedicated Stroke Unit Government Intention Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, one of the most urgently needed investments in Manitoba is for a dedicated stroke unit. We are a long way behind most provinces. We need this on an urgent fashion. The government has given lip service to this.

1112 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 Last Thursday the Minister of Health provided a very long list of ongoing projects. The dedicated stroke unit was not on that. I ask the Minister of Health: Is he sincere in going to move forward on a dedicated stroke unit? Why was it not on this long list of projects listed last week? Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health , Seniors and Active Liv ing): I know that the member is a busy guy, because he only has three members within his caucus, and so he's running around from room to room and trying to cover off the different Estimates.

The reason it wasn't on that list is because the question was s pecifically about projects that are currently under construction, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. PETITIONS Bell's Purchase of MTS Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background to the petition is as follows: Manitoba telephone system is currently a fourth cellular carrier used by Manitobans, along with the big national three carriers: Telus, Rogers and Bell.

In Toronto, with only the big three national companies controlling the market, the average 5G unlimited monthly cellular package is $117 as compared to Winnipeg, where MTS charges $66 for the same package. Losing MTS will mean less competition and will result in higher costs for cellphone packages in the province. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to do all that is possible to prevent the Bell takeover of MTS, and to preserve a more competitive cellphone market so that cellular bills for Manitobans do not increase unnecessarily.

And this petition is signed by many fine Manitobans. Madam Speaker: In accordance with our rule 133(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. House Business Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Before calling government business, would you please canvass the House to see if there is leave for this House to set aside private members' business for the purpose of considering second reading on government bills tomorrow morning?

Madam Speaker: Is there leave for setting aside private members' business during tomorrow morning's meeting for the purpose of consider ing second reading of government bills? [Agreed] ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): I thank the House, and could you please resolve into Committee of Supply. Madam Speaker: The House will now resolve int o Committee of Supply. Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) EXECUTIVE COUNCIL * (15:00) Mr. Chairperson (Dennis Smook): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for Executive Council. As previously agreed, questioning for this department will proceed in a global manner. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): I have a few questions about the Premier's (Mr. Pallister) failure to disclose shares of corporations that he owns in Costa Rica.

With someone who talks a lot about transparency and accountability, it's hard to come up with a valid reason why the Premier t hought it appropriate not to disclose his ownership of the shares of various corporations, as required by law. But the ques tion I have is: Did the Premier ever receive any written opinion from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner telling him that he did not have to disclose his ownership of shares in the corporations in Costa Rica? One –and I apologize for my Spanish pronunciation–Finca Denetes Doce S.A., and a numbered corporation, 3-102-580018 Ltd. SA.

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1113 Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): I thank the member for his interest in the issue. I got verbal advice from this adviser and the previous one, to answer the question correctly and honestly. And so I did that. In–on this year's form, I added the additional information of my own volition and disclosed it, but it wasn't required. That was the advice I received from both the present adviser and the previous one. Mr.

Swan: I'd like to ask the Premier whether he ever requested a written opinion from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner on whether or not he had to disclose his ownership of shares in the two corporations in Costa Rica. Mr. Pallister: I didn't. Maybe the member could tell me why I should have done that, but I didn't do that.

I met with the adviser–this one and the previous one– so that I could seek their advice, sought their advice, disclosed the assets to both of them in my conversations with them, and was given the advice – by both of them –that they fell outside of the parameters of the questions that were asked on the form. So I answered the questions on the form in a forthright manner consistent with the advice I was given. I guess I could have asked for a ruling from both of them in writing, but I was –I didn't see why, and they never advised me to do that.

So, I guess, I'm asking the member to take my word for the fact that I raised the existence of the assets, but I would hope he would. Mr. Swan: Well, the Premier asked me why.

The reason why I'm asking the question is that the conflict of interest act is clear that, if somebody believes that there is an asset that need not be disclosed, they can avail themselves of a written opinion from the commissioner, which then gets filed in the Clerk's office, which can then be used as an answer in case an MLA raises the question, in case a voter raises the question, in case a Queen's Bench judge raises a question in the event of a court application. So the Premier's confirming that he never requested a written opinion from the commissioner on whether or not he had to declare these corporations.

I'd like to know: Did the Premier ever provide either the current or the previous Conflict of Interest Commissioner with anything in writing respecting the nature of his ownership of the two corporations in Costa Rica? Mr. Pallister: Our discussions were private, but I'll share with the member that they were verbal and so, no. The answer –honest answer would be no. I just disclosed the assets that I had. I might have –I expect I had in my possession at my initial meeting, as I recall I did, written documentation of my holdings for the discussions that we had.

So I guess, in a sense, I provided some things in writing, but as far as filing a document or anything like that, if that's what the member's asking me, no, I didn't file any documents or anything of that nature. Mr. Swan: Given the fact that the Premier availed himself of seeking a written opinion and didn't, and as far as we know there is nothing in writing from the commissioners, it really does seem like the opposite of transparency and accountability. To now, today, after the Premier has been discovered to own shares of corporations in Costa Rica, to now make what he calls a voluntary disclosure.

I think many Manitobans believe the Premier didn't disclose his – these two corporations in 2012, when he had two chances to do so, in 2013, in 2014 and in 2015 because he didn't want to and because he thought he would never get caught not disclosing his corporations. The Premier's confirmed he's got nothing in writing from the commissioner, or the previous commissioner, and he's confirmed he's got nothing in writing even to show that he made full disclosure of the nature of what he owned in Costa Rica.

I'd like to ask the Premier : are there any other corporations in Costa Rica or anywhere else in the world that the Premier has failed to disclose since he returned to the Manitoba Legislature in 2012? * (15:10) Mr. Pallister: Well, I'm disappointed the member would impugn my integrity or attempt to in his

preamble. I'm disappointed in that. I thought more highly of his integrity than he's just revealed with the question. My intention, as I expect is his and I would assume is the intention of all my colleagues, is to abide by the advice they receive from the commissioner when they meet with him or her, as the case may be in the future, and I certainly did that. Mr. Swan: The question I had for the Premier is whether he's failed to disclose any other corporate

1114 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 interests in any of his disclosure statements since he returned to the Manitoba Legislature in 2012. Mr. Pallister: Well, again, the member's

preamble reveals, I think, a desperate attempt to impugn my integrity when he says, failed to reveal. I listened to the advice of the commissioner; the commissioner advised me that I had no reason to disclose the asset, so I didn't disclose the asset. Perhaps the member would like to elaborate on how he thinks a possible conflict could exist because someone holds foreign property. Simple ownership of foreign property implies –I don't think implies wrongdoing on the part of anyone.

A significant number of Manitobans own foreign property, so to suggest that the simple ownership of foreign property is somehow a betrayal of someone's trust is, I think, awfully bizarre. I abided by the advice of the ethics adviser. The ethic adviser said you don't need to disclose those assets. I didn't disclose them. So asking me about other assets I didn't disclose is hardly pertinent to the question. I disclosed all assets pertinent to the ethics commissioner's requests for information, as reflected in the forms that I was given, answered all questions openly and honestly.

I actually disclosed more information than I was required to on occasion in my last form because it was already a matter of public record and I felt that it was clear that the public would want to know more details, so I gave them more detail through an additional piece of information that I filed in the document, but it wasn't on the bequest of the ethics adviser, it was of my own volition. So, you know, again, I guess I'd have to ask the member how he feels he's more of an authority on the rules than the actual ethics commissioner himself. Mr. Swan: Well, I'm surprised to hear the Premier (Mr.

Pallister) go down this road, given that I'd tabled copies out of the declarations that he himself had signed and filed in the House from 2012, from 2013 and 2014, and I filed those in the House just about a month ago– Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Minto (Mr. Swan). [interjection] We recognize now because when you stop, they had cut you off there, so. Mr. Swan: Right, I thank the Chair for that.

I'm asking the question because I had tabled copies of the Premier's declarations in the House from 2012, 2013 and 2014 about a month ago, and in 2012 the Premier failed to disclose not only his shares of his Costa Rica companies, and I've heard what he has to say on that and I supposed we'll agree to disagree, but I'd like to ask the Premier why he didn't disclose his ownership of the sh ares in two Manitoba corporations, namely Pallister Insurance Agency Ltd., and Pallister Investments 22 Ltd. in his disclosure form dated September 20, 2012. Mr.

Pallister: Well, as I recall, we did a company reorganization after that which created those, so they wouldn't have existed. I guess that's the best answer I can give the member. So, declaring a company that doesn't exist would seem a little bizarre. On the issue of the –what he keeps referring to as nondisclosure, again, I met with the ethics commissioner, as all members, I believe do, and took the advice of the person I met with, who I would assume would have a great familiarity with the regulations and laws that he was advising me on.

And he advised me, not necessary to disclose assets as I told him I had, so, you know, I mean, if the member is chastising me for not taking the advice of the adviser, I guess he should say that, but I certainly did take the advice of the adviser, assuming that that was the correct thing to do. Filled out the forms as I was advised to do, forwarded them, and that's, as I understand it to be, the process, that was the process I followed. Mr. Swan: Well, I'm not chi ding the Premier, I'm just–I'm asking questions about his declaration forms.

Is it the Premier's position that Pallister Insurance Agency Ltd. did not exist on September 20, 2012? Mr. Pallister: I think Pallister Insurance Agency Ltd., in my recollection, was created in 1985. I could be off by –I'll just say to the member I'm not exactly sure, but we could check the corporate record on it. And Pallister Insurance Agency is the corporate entity that holds the –my, you know, company in–that's located in Portage la Prairie and has for 30 years. I'm just trying to get a copy of the 2012 one as well, so I can know what the member's referring to in his question. And–if I could, can I continue?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes. Mr. Pallister: Yes, and I think the member had asked about Pallister Investments 22. Again,

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1115 we did a–the member's familiar with corporat e structuring. We did set up trusts for our children, our–we reorganized our company in– I'd have to double-check the forms to see the year. I think it would have been approximately in 2010, maybe, but I should be able to find that out if the member's interested in that. To do a family trust, to set up the start of a family trust, that was the intention.

On this I do not claim great expertise, but I have other people advise me on that too, and they suggested that you needed to take inactive assets out of yo ur company to do that. There's some rule about –you have to have –a certain percentage of your assets have to be actively involved in the operation of the company. Over some years, we'd accumulated some profit that remained in that company.

I think the phra se they used was it was offside there, because there was too much accumulated in it, so we set up a holding company, I believe that's what it's called, and Pallister Investments 22 became that entity to take the savings out of the company to move it over so that we could set up a –the start of a trust, which I believe–the member's a lawyer so he would probably know a lot more about this than I do, but I –that was the intention of Pallister Investments 22. * (15:20) What I would point out to the member is, essentially, Pallister Investments 22 and Pallister Insurance Agency are two different corporations, but essentially the same thing, because the Pallister Investments is just the money that's come out of the insurance company over 30 years.

Mr. Swan: I thank the Premier (Mr. Pallister) for that, and I'm not going to haggle on whether Pallister Insurance Agency Ltd. was incorporated in 1985 or 1987. I certainly recall seeing the signs along the highway–on Highway 3 to and from Morden and Carman and other points.

But my question is this: That being s aid, the Premier, I'm sure, will acknowledge once he sees this, that he had not referred to any interest in shares in either of those two corporations when he first returned to the Legislature in September 2012, nor his next filing, which was when the new legislative session started, in his declaration that he signed November 27, 2012. An Honourable Member: Point of order. Mr. Chairperson: I have to recognize you. The honourable member from Emerson. Point of Order Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Chair, what does this have to do with Estimates?

This has got nothing to do with Estimates. This is a personal attack, and they want to do something, then do it outside of Estimates, not in this situation. Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Minto (Mr. Swan), to speak to the point of order. Mr. Swan: Of course, it has been the pattern in this Legislature to proceed with Estimates in a global fashion, which allows exami nation of a number of different items.

As I said right at the start of my questioning, the Premier has spoken a lot about transparency and accountability, and the place that starts is in documents which are required to be filed by this Premier and other members of the House, every year at the start of the session. In Manitoba, The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act is –it's a self -reporting system. There is no means for anyone else to complete somebody's forms.

It's a sel f-reporting system that everybody has the responsibility to comply with the act, and I'm asking the Premier questions about whether or not he has complied with his responsibility as a Cabinet minister and an MLA under this act. Mr. Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I submit that there is a Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and that's where his question should be directed. This here is for Estimates, and it's not for this– what he is doing now in a personal attack. Mr. Chairperson: It isn't the job of this Chair to rule on the quality of the questions or the quality of the answers.

I would suggest that members do try to keep their questions in regards to the budget, but it is something that I cannot rule on as far as the quality of the questions or the answers. We are in Executive Council, which is questioning the government, I guess. So that would be my ruling on that. Mr. Graydon: Mr. Chair, I challenge your ruling. This situation here is totally different. It's a personal attack. Mr. Chairperson: Just–could the member from Emerson just hang on for a minute, please? [interjection]

1116 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 I would like to address the member from Emerson. In accordance to subrule 52(4), ruling on points of order by a Chairperson in Committee of Supply and in Committee of the Whole House are not subject to appeal. * * * Mr. Chairperson: We will move on with questioning. Mr. Pallister: I don't –I'm not saying I like having my integrity attacked, but I respect the member's right to ask questions here, and I'm doing my best to answer them. So I'll back up and just say the member should note in 2012 that I did declare Pallister Insurance Agency on my form as owning the land on the–under the

section on land, I put Pallister Insurance Agency in there. So the assertion I didn't declare it is not right. The capital stock question–I was advised that my capital stock wasn't worth $500 per holding, so that would be the reason there that–but the next year, I added it just so there wouldn't be any confusion that I didn't have a company that did something other than hold land. So that would be the reason it's in all the subsequent forms, just to avoid the confusion. But the capital stock of that company, according to my accountant, isn't worth $500 per share.

And I believe that may be the same rationale the ethics commissioner said, it's not the –with these Costa Rican companies, they aren't of a significant value based on the criteria set out on these forms. Nonetheless, I've declared the existence of them earlier to the ethics adviser and now on my forms each year So, you know, I don't think there's any doubt as much as the member might try to make out that I have some kind of a tax haven. I recall as that was the angle of attack that the NDP used during the election campaign.

They were actually implying that I was somehow associated with –what were those papers called? The what? [interjection] Panama Papers. That I somehow had millions of dollars in offshore accounts and that I was somehow trying to hide that. I think that was t he clear insinuation of the NDP tactic during the election campaign. And I assure the member that such is not the case. My wife and I saved up for approximately a total of well over 40 years. We purchased a lot; we built a retirement home. We have–I have told the ethics counsellor about it.

He tells me it's not something I need to report, the previous one and this one. I didn't report it until this year. The reason I reported it was because I felt that I had to defend my integrity in respect of the accusations that were made during the election campaign about hiding things. The company structure that we were advised to follow in Costa Rica was to not leave your assets personal but to put them into a structure so that your liability was limited. I think a s imilar rationale to why people set up companies in Manitoba, to protect yourself. And so we had two companies in Costa Rica.

They own –one of them owns the land and the other one owns a vehicle and a quad. As far as the arguments about–the insinuations about the Panama Papers or anything else is concerned, I think it's sad and laughable, but it is, I guess, what sometimes politics come down to in some quarters. Mr. Swan: Well, I can tell the Premier (Mr. Pallister) I'm not asking about the Panama Papers. And, actually, right now, I'm not asking him about his Costa Rica corporations. I'm asking about his Manitoba corporations.

So it's the Premier's position that in 2012, when he didn't disclose shares in Pallister Insurance Agency Ltd. and Pallister Investm ents 22 Ltd., it's because he takes the position that his shares were not worth more than $500 in each one. Is that correct? Mr. Pallister: That's what the position was of the ethics adviser. I would encourage the member to read the question. And if he was to read the question, he might like to rephrase his question. I never asserted what they're worth. The question, if you read it, is very straightforward.

It says, and I'll read it: I hereby declare that I and/or the following name dependents hold a beneficial interest, share, warrant or option in 5 per cent or more of the following issued capital stock worth over $500 per holding. * (15:30) It was the advice of the ethics commissioner this was not the case, they didn't have to–I did not need to report it to comply with the act as he interpreted it. That was this year's advice, that was last year's advice and this is earlier year's advice. Mr.

Swan: So just to confirm, again, with respect to the Man itoba corporations, the Premier doesn't have a written statement or written opinion from the

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1117 Conflict of Interest Commissioner. He's relying on what he says is a verbal discussion that he had with the commissioner. Mr. Pallister: Well, that's how I get advice from advisers a lot of the time, and that's the advice I got from these guys. I don't know how many MLAs have got written advice that they've requested from ethics advisers, but maybe they have reasons for that. I just kind of take people at their word, the ethics commissioner especially. He gave me his advice, I took his advice, I followed his advice. Mr. Swan: So, then, why did the Premier (Mr.

Pallister) then disclose his shares in Pallister Insurance Agency Ltd. and Pallister Investments 22 Ltd. the next year in his declaration that he signed on November 20, 2013? An Honourable Member: Andrew, I'm sorry, I missed that. Mr. Swan: Right, I can repeat the question. If that is the Premier's statement, then I'm wondering why he then di sclosed his shares in Pallister Insurance Agency Ltd. and Pallister Investments 22 Ltd. the very next year in his disclosure form, signed November 20, 2013. Mr. Pallister: Same reason I disclosed my Tiger Dams–oh, I'm sorry, it wasn't Tiger Dams.

I thought for a second –I was just confused there. I was thinking that was me that had those Tiger Dams. That wasn't me. No, it was another thing. The same reason I disclosed the Costa Rica properties, I mean–you know, I want to clear this up, so I'm trying to be –I'm going beyond what the requirements are of the act, to make sure that my position can't be assailed as being in conflict, or that I would not be rightly accused of being in conflict.

It's the same reason when I was in the House of Commons I recused m yself on several occasions from dealings with the Finance Committee in the House of Commons because I had assets which might have put me in a state of conflict if someone was to raise that. I hold, as I know the member does, my integrity as something impor tant and to protect. And, so, though I had declared the ownership of my personal corporation in the year prior, and it was not a secret.

As the member knows, I mean, operation of a small business requires advertising, so there were, actually, a fair number of people–not just in Portage la Prairie, in my hometown, but around the province –who knew of the existence of this company. But it was important, in the context, I think, of the role that I would have as –in the opposition at that time that I declare that I have that company. And so I added it to the form, just as I added the Costa Rica data this year's form. Mr. Swan: All right. Well, then, I'll just try and understand, then, the next year.

The Premier another declaration form, dated November 24, 2014, which did not include either of these two Manitoba corporations. But, fair enough, the Premier , I think, filed an updated disclosure form just three days later, and referred to his shareholdings in Palli ster Insurance Agency Ltd., but not the other company, Pallister Investments 22 Ltd. Why did the Premier , then, in 2014, decide to disclose one corporation, but not the other? Mr. Pallister: I'm sorry to the member. I don't have a copy of all my filings; I just have the basic forms. So I don't have the additional filing he refers to.

But it would be pretty clear that I disclosed my assets as per the instructions of the ethics adviser. I'd mentioned to the member, and I'm going to–I'll have to double che ck on the dates of organization of the family trust to know exactly the year of that, so I'm not able to respond accurately to his question in respect of the Pallister Investments 22.

But, again, I guess I would go back to this: the fundamental intention, as I understand it, of this legislation and of these forms is to ensure that members are not in a state of conflict, and the member might like to elaborate on how having a hold co. with investments in it would put a person in conflict in the first place. That might be helpful.

I certainly know, as the member does, that our present system, in respect of these things, needs to be revamped and that's why we're looking to upgrade it and improve it, because it seems that there is the potential for misinterpretation in respect of some of these things. And I know that that can be dangerous to a person's integrity, when people in our position are attacked for their behaviour, for example, for taking nondisclosed gifts and things like that. I know that's not easy. But I would encourage the member in this line of questioning to understand the intention of the legislation itself. Mr.

Swan: Well, I app reciate the Premier doesn't like the law, but the fact is, he's bound by it, and the– what he's telling us today is that, in 2012, he received

1118 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 verbal advice from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that he didn't have to disclose either Manitoba corporation, that in 2013 he was advised that he should disclose both corporations. In 2014, he was advised that he should only disclose one corporation, and then lo and behold, now in 2016, he's filed a new declaration that includes both corporations. I'm not –I understand that the Premier (Mr. Pallister) is upset with this line of questioning. I think he's imputing in my question a lot more than I am.

I simply want to ask the Premier, given his statements about transparency and accountability, has the Premier just been careless with respect to his corporations here in Manitoba, or does he expect us to believe that he's received different advice four times from the conflict of interest commissioners? Mr. Pallister: I recognize that the member has done his courtroom preparation, but I reject his entire premise. On the 2012 form where he refers to me – just made reference to me not declaring the existence of a corporation, I, in fact, refer to it specifically not once, but four times on the form.

I don't think that that supports his thesis that I'm trying to hide a ssets at all, so I would be very careful in the insinuation if I were the member. Mr. Swan: Well, I appreciate the caution from the Premier, but I'm asking questions in Estimates, and, again, I would point out to the Premier, that he does not disclose any shares in those two corporations in 2012. He's told us, based on a verbal discussion with the then -conflict of interest commissioner with nothing in writing going either way, that he didn't have to disclose shares in either one of those corporations.

Then, in 2013, the wind changes, and the Premier decides to disclose both corporations. The wind changes again in 2014, and the Premier only discloses one corporation, and the wind appears to have changed again in 2016. And, frankly, at this point, I'm not –I'm actually going to give the Premier an opportunity to say that he's simply been careless with respect to the Manitoba corporations and the way that his shares have been described in his conflict of interest declarations since he returned to the Legislat ure in 2012. Mr.

Pallister: Any carelessness here is on the part of the member in the insinuation that the ethics commissioner doesn't know his job. That's the clear insinuation in his comments so far today. And in respect of the declarations, as I've tol d him, they're right on the form.

So, as far as his desperate attempts to assert wrongdoing, I think he –his party went too far during the election campaign, in desperation, I expect, and now he's perpetuating that wrongdoing by attempting to impugn my integrity, and more than that, he's attacking the integrity of the ethics adviser who gave me the advice I followed. * (15:40) Mr. Swan: Well, this Premier has made it impossible to know what he did or didn't tell the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

There are provisions in the act which say that the Premier obtained a written opinion; that written opinion would require full disclosure of all facts regarding the assets, and we're left in a position w here the Premier, by his failure to ask for that report, has left us guessing. Frankly, I don't believe that the Premier received different verbal advice from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner in four to five years. That seems very difficult to believe.

Knowing what I do about the previous commissioner and the current commissioner, it seems very unlikely that they would ignore a clear directive in the law which says that every member of the Legislature is required to disclose their holding in shares of corporations anywhere in the world as long as their shares are – have a value of over $500 per holding and represent 5 per cent of the value of that corporation. So, I 've actually given the Premier an opportunity to admit that he was careless in completing the forms. He's chosen not to do that.

He says that he's got verbal assurances which not only cannot be backed up by anything else he's provided but defy comm on sense. So I know the Premier advice from anyone and I doubt he's going to take advice from me. Can I simply suggest the Premier get a copy of this year's declaration and use it as a guide for next year so he can start a practice of making complete declarations each year, as required by Manitoba law? Mr. Pallister: First of all, I did follow the advice of the ethics commissioner, and the fact that I added information beyond what is required is what's causing the member such confusion.

And I would invite the member to put on the record how many writt en directives he's received from the ethics commissioner or any other member that he's talked to, because what he's doing is implying that there's some wrongdoing or deception

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1119 on my part, but I don't believe for a second that unless he can produce it here today he ever got a written directive from the ethics commissioner. So I don't think his case is very well made. I got directives from ethics advisers, I followed them. I continue to follow them. I intend to follow them.

I actually intend to spruce up this legislation so that it actually will work against the very thing that the member's trying to do in future, and make it more clear to all members that declarations will be required in–on a number of other fronts beyond what is required today. And I'm t old we have the least effective, least far-reaching legislation in the country. We'll research that and verify it, but it is my intention that we do make sure that we protect each other's integrity here with a new and improved regime so that things like the member is asserting today don't plague members in the future. Mr.

Swan: Well, it's ironic the Premier (Mr. Pallister) about strengthening a law that he's been frankly unable to follow since his return to the Legislature. I just want to deal with one thing. The Premier talks about getting advice from ethics advisers; does he mean the two gentlemen who've served as the conflict of interest commissioners since his return to the Legislature in 2012 or is he talking about other ethics advisers that he relie s upon in preparing his declaration? Mr. Pallister: I'm talking about the conflict of interest people that I've talked to, two different ones since I came back here.

Again, the member says I'm unable to follow the law, so it's pretty clear that what he is doing is demonstrating he has an inability to read the actual form and to accept that the ethics adviser, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner could actually read the form as well. The adviser told me that I did not need to declare the property based on the questions on the share's page. I did not declare the property based on the question on the share's page, and the member is impugning the integrity of not only me but he's questioning the competence of the conflict of interest adviser at the same time.

Again, I invite him if he's every received a written direction, he's basically making the assertion that because I never got a written direction that somehow I'm guilty of some wrongdoing. I'd invite him to put on the record if he himself has ever got a written direction from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. And if he has, perhaps he'd like to table what that said. Mr.

Swan: Well, I could put on the record that I don't own any corporations in foreign countries and, in fact, I don't happen to ow n any companies in Manitoba either, but if I did I would be disclosing my interest in those companies on my conflict of interest disclosure every year, as I'm required to do by the conflict of interest act. Mr. Pallister: And I'm just curious, since the member is so forthcoming, if he would do that in spite of advice to the contrary, and if he'd do it if his capital stock issued was not worth $500 per holding, would he do that? Would he go beyond and above the requirements?

Would he disclose the information if he was (

a) advised not to and (

b) if his capital stock was worth less issue than $500 per share? Mr. Swan: Well, it's interesting, the Premier now with his back to the wall, decides that he's the one who gets to ask questions . These are the Estimates for the opposition to ask questions of government. I think the Premier, by his responses and non-responses today, has made it very clear. So I will pass it to my colleague from Flin Flon to move on with some other ques tions, and I thank the Prem ier for maybe not the most pleasant discussion we're ever going to have but a telling one nonetheless. Mr.

Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): I guess we'll ask some different questions. Mainly, what I want to talk to –about today is project labour agreements. I understand that the Premier or the government wishes to no longer employ project labour agreements. Can I ask if that is the government's intention? Mr. Pallister: Well, again, I'm sorry that the member for Minto (Mr. Swan), you know, feels petulant about my responses, but, again, I would put on the record that I have responded fully and honestly and have taken the advice of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner throughout my time here.

And I would also put on the record for the member that my shares in Costa Rica weren't disclosed because I was advised that it was not necessary for me to disclose them because they do not have a value subject to the question on the form. And so I seriously doubt that the member, in his reporting of

1120 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 assets, would disclose assets that were not required to be disclosed, but I did that this year nonetheless. So, again, I'm sorry that he has chosen to respond petulantly. I have some affection for the member, but I don't have much affection for anyone who tries to impugn the integrity of another person without justification of any kind, based on falsehoods. The form itself is clear. The shares are worth less than was the threshold, as is required on the form. So the member can talk about written opinions all he wants.

He's alr eady failed to provide any evidence that he himself ever got one. And impugning the integrity of someone who fails to get a written form when it's not required, when one hasn't got one themselves, doesn't put anybody in a very good position of leverage in respect of making an argument, I don't think, other than a hypothetical and desperately political one. So I would encourage the member to understand that impugning the integrity of another human being without justification of any kind is not an admirable quality in any person regardless of their political stripe and not one I certainly admire.

It disappoints me, in fact. In respect of the project labour agreements question, yes, our intention is to allow non-unionized companies to bid on government work. We think that that's the right thing to do and the fair thing to do. A significant majority of the companies that do, for example, heavy construction in Manitoba aren't unionized. This doesn't mean to say that unionized companies would be prohibited from bidding. I should make that very clear to the member. We're not trying to–just because the minority of companies are unionized, we're not trying to prohibit them from bidding on jobs.

What we're suggesting is that in the interests of fairness and openness, that companies that are unionized and aren't unionized should both have the opportunity to respond to tenders and do public work. They, after all, are comprised of working men and women who pay taxes in this province and who volunteer for their local community clubs, probably, or raise their kids here. They share the same challenges in life, and they should have the same opportunity to do work here. Mr. Lindsey: I thank the Premier (Mr. Pallister) for that answer.

I guess I have to ask or respond to the comment that he wants to allow non- union contractors to bid on projects. Is the Premier aware that, since at least 2005, non- union contractors have been allowed to bid, the same as union contractors, on project labour agreements under the auspices of project labour agreements? And that was an agreement that was negotiated by Wally Fox -Decent back in 2005 specific to the East Side Road Authority but then it's workable for any project.

So nothing precludes a non- union contractor from bidding and being successful on these projects under the terms of project labour agreements. * (15:50) Mr. Pallister: I just–for the member from Flin Flon, I've just given a response to a question he had asked me last week. If that's okay with him, I'll just –I'll read the respons e into the record and get him that information he had asked me that–[interjection] Yes, okay.

This was in respect of The Labour Relations Amendment Act, and Bill 7 is intended to help restore democracy in the workplace by making secret ballot votes mandat ory before a union can be certified as a bargaining agent for a group of employees. This will allow all workers to exercise their democratic right to vote on whether or not they want a union to represent them. Currently, if 65 per cent of employees sign a union card, the Manitoba Labour Board can automatically certify the union.

This means workers are forced to share their choice to certify or not certify a union with their coworkers and their union organizers, which may result in workers feeling somewha t pressured into making a choice that does not reflect their true wishes. We believe that requiring secret ballot votes for all union certification is a better option for Manitoba workers. Workers deserve the opportunity to make decisions about union repr esentation in privacy and with confidence, knowing that they will not face intimidation or retaliation for expressing their true wishes.

We also know that voting with a secret ballot's the fairest and most accurate way for any group of people to make an important decision. Recently, concerns were raised that the bill might reduce protections for workers –this is the part the member had raised specifically –might reduce protections for workers against intimidation and harassment. And I can assure [inaudible] that that's not the case.

The Manitoba Labour Board is currently required to ensure that employees are not subject to intimidation, fraud, coercion or threat and that their wishes for union representation were expressed freely before a union i s certified. So this

section was put in place when the act was amended

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1121 in 2000 to eliminate secret ballot votes. So it was linked to the elimination of secret ballot votes for all union certifications. This was a committee amendment. It was made due to vi gorous opposi - tion from stakeholders that were concerned about employee intimidation during certification drives. They were worried about workers being coerced by fellow employees or union officials into signing union cards in order to reach the 65 per c ent threshold for automatic certification. This

section was intended to clarify and emphasize the right of workers to make decisions free of intimidation and coercion, given that the right to guaranteed certification vote was being taken away. Okay? Due to changes proposed by Bill 7, this wording will no longer be necessary because a secret ballot will be required for all union certifications. And the board will no longer rely solely on membership cards.

This will reduce the opportunities for intimidation as workers will now have the right to make their choice in the privacy of a voting booth instead of in front of their coworkers and union officials by signing a union card. The proposed changes made by Bill 7 will not diminish the protections for workers that have applied for union certification. In fact, the act currently contains a number of provisions intended to ensure that certification votes are conducted fairly and remedies are available to prevent or mitigate the possibility of intimidation or coercion by employers during the certification process.

For example, both employers and unions are prohibited from electioneering and distributing printed materials at the workplace on the day of the certification vote. The act also provides employees wi th the right to join a union and prohibits employers from interfering with this right. Employers also cannot lay off, transfer or fire employees or make changes to their wages or their working conditions while a certification application is being considered.

And, finally, Bill 7 will not impact the Labour Board's ability to certify a union without a vote if an employer or someone acting on their behalf has interfered in the certification process to the extent that the true wishes of employees are unlikely to be determined. So, the protections remain. Mr. Lindsey: I thank the Premier (Mr. Pallister) for getting back to me with that.

Today's question is about project labour agreements, and I asked, prior to the Premier's to a previous question, if he was aware that, since 2005, with a deal that was negotiated by Wally Fox -Decent, that both union and non- union contractors are eligible to work, to bid on projects covered under project labour agreements. So, contrary to what he said, that this forced unionization on workers, that's not the case. Is the Premier aware of that? Mr.

Pallister: Yes, but they also are required to pay considerable additional costs into a pot of money that is available to a designated union that is designated by the government as the recipient of said pot of money.

And this, according to the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, the Winnipeg Construction Association and numerous other people that I've spoken with who have expertise in this industry, is an unnecessary inhibit or to the ability of companies to compete in a fair and level way without incurring additional costs beneficial not to the taxpayer but –and not measurably beneficial to the production of a good or service for the –on behalf of the people of Manitoba.

So the argument that has been given from some is that by requiring this pot-of-money approach to be taken–which has been discarded as illegal in all of Europe, is discarded in most United States now and other provinces are moving away from–the argument that's been made here is it will preserve labour peace, and we won't have strikes and walkouts and such things. But there is no record of that prior to the introduction of this –adoption of this technique or approach by the provincial NDP government. We haven't had a significant strike or loss of time due to a strike in a long, long time in Manitoba.

And that's way prior to the adoption of this project labour approach, which the government certainly utilized during, for example, the construction of the Red River Floodway, as an example, and other projects. So it's not an extinct bird, but it's getting along the lines of the whooping crane in a lot of jurisdictions around the world. Mr. Lindsey: I thank the Premier for that. Again, I hope that the Premier an d the government of the day are aware that nothing precludes a non -union contractor from bidding on a job under a project labour agreement. And the

1122 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 Premier talks about a pot of money, that somehow, non-union contractors are obligated to give a gift to the union and nothing in return for that. And, of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm sure the Premier is well aware of that. The money goes towards things like safety training, because there's two places, generally, that provide the best safety training. One is the government and the other is the unions. So unionized contractors generally have better safety training programs. The unions provide better safety training.

And I know, myself, coming out of a union, that the training I got as far as safety and the ability for us to train unionized workers to make it safer was far and above what was ever provided by a non- union contractor. In fact, even without a project labour agreement, some of the stuff that I did as a union safety guy, as a union trainer, was to provide training to non- unionized workers.

So that, really, was the basis of why the non- union contractor paid that money out, was so that all workers were offered the same protection, were offered the same level of training so that they could all have the same level of competency. Does the Premier (Mr. Pallister) agree with that premise? Mr.

Pallister: Having had a little bit of experience in the workplace over the years as an employee in a– not necessarily always a safe environment, as a farm boy–every farm boy's got a story about almost dying–I value safe workplaces more than most, and I value what the member's referencing in terms of training very much. And I look back on my life, early days on our farm, with more than a little bit of a sense of being fortunate that we, with the limited training we got around that farm, that we didn't have more accidents on that work site.

But I would say this: there's a tremendous amount of training that goes on in unionized and non-unionized environments, because that sentiment is felt just as much by employers whose workers have decided against unionizing as it is felt by employers who feel a compelling sense to protect their employees. And I wouldn't want it misrepresented that only union shops were the places where protection of the workers was uppermost in the minds of people or a priority. That is –certainly would be misrepresenting the facts of the case.

Greatest resource we have is our people, and every small-business person understands that. * (16:00) That being said, I think any initiatives that we can undertake to assist in upgrading safety in the workplace are useful, and I am very appreciative and respectful of the work of our collective bargaining agencies or organizations in our uni ons in respect of advancing safe workplaces. I think it's positive and a really good thing.

That being said, I know of advances that have been undertaken by employers and their people, who have not decided to be unionized, that have been also incredible in respect of the results they've achieved, so I don't think it's an either -or. I think we can advance the cause of a safer workplace, respectful always of the end goal which is to make sure we reduce the number of accidents and reduce the amount of workpl ace risk that our workers are exposed to. Mr.

Lindsey: Having come out of the agricultural sector myself, where there were no rules, I would like to point out that it's because unions have pushed that there needs to be workplace health and safety rules in the agricultural sector to protect workers in those fields, why the agricultural sector is safer now than it once was.

I'd also like to point out that in the mining sector, that once upon a time was the bad boy of all industry, that they were heavily uni onized, and through the efforts of those unions providing safety themselves–to the members –as well as making sure that the companies that they represented provided safety training, that that's no longer the case, that unionized mining companies are no longer the bad boys of industry.

So there is definite benefit to unionization, which were thought to be important as far back as the 1960s when then- Premier Duff Roblin first introduced project labour agreements as part of a hydro dam construction. He recognized that by bringing that in, it was going to require no work stoppages, which would make the project come in on time and lead to being on budget, because the costs of everything were known upfront. The workers' wages, all the benefits were known upfront. There was no work stoppages, strikes throughout the course of the project that would change those numbers.

So it was –it–that was the basis of the project labour agreements, so that it would make a better value for mo ney, which is what the Premier to espouse. Except now the twist seems to be that,

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1123 along with Bill 7, which makes it more difficult for unions to organize, doing away with the project labour agreement, will make it more difficult for workers to achieve decent levels of pay on these jobs, as well as decent levels of protections, because without the unionized contractors being there, those levels will go down as we seen in jurisdictions such as the US, that the Premier quotes, that don't have the same level of unionization, that also have horrendous safety records, that also have workers working for lower wages.

So, again, I would ask the Premier (Mr. Pallister) if he can supply any statistics on projects prior to project labour agreements being in effect as opposed to projects since project labou r agreements were in effect, or projects that didn't have those type of agreements as opposed to ones that do. If he could provide those statistics that help him and the government decide that project labour agreements were a bad thing. Mr. Pallister: Just go back for a second, the member's

preamble, because you talked about –we were talking about safety for a minute and then the member alluded to wages. I would encourage him to understand that there are many private -sector employers in this province tha t pay as well or better than union shops. You can do some cross -comparisons and, you know, I wouldn't want the general assertion to be out there that you have to be unionized to make good money, because there's a lot of companies that pay pretty nice wages to workers who aren't unionized as well. And I think it'd be up to the workers to decide which company they choose to work with.

And the member's ideology I understand, but I wouldn't want it on the record that somehow – that it wasn't–that the private sector somehow didn't pay fair wages. There is a Construction Industry Wages Act, as well, that sets a regime for compensation as minimums, but I know of numerous heavy construction companies, for example, that pay in excess of the minimums requir ed. So I just wouldn't want that assertion to be out there. I know the member wouldn't want that out there as it would reveal a rather extreme and unsupportable bias against the private sector.

That being said, the –in terms of the safety aspects the member raised, there's a tremendous amount of work going on in terms of safety training, and I'll go back to the heavy construction industry again. WORKSAFELY programs that are out there, these are offered to unionized workers, non-unionized workers. The idea here is, through the Heavy Construction Association, to benefit all workers and all companies in the process of doing courses. There's a –I'll just read a few examples, but just this month, for example, core leadership course in safety excellence offered at the Heavy central offices.

That just was last week. A flag person safety course–that's next week; traffic control co -ordinator courses–again, they're not limited to just union members. So there's, you know, a company –workers can decide if they want to u nionize or not. If they decide not to, they're not cut out of these courses.

So I wouldn't want –again, I wouldn't want the assertion to be out there that, you know, only the 23 per cent –was the last number I saw –of companies that are unionized in the M anitoba Heavy Construction Association care about the safety of their workers, because three out of four are not unionized, and they're availing themselves of training courses and programs all the time because they care about their employees and they care about them as people as much they do as assets, I expect.

So, you know, there's lots of courses going on – excavation and training safety courses, train the trainer courses, leadership courses in safety excellence, principles of health and safety management–that's coming up in August. Again, lots of programs available to improve the safety of our workers around the province. Union or non- union, that shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be improving safety. I think that's really the key here, is to make sure that our companies are protecting their workers and to make sure that we adopt approaches which support that happening. Mr.

Lindsey: I acknowledge what the Premier is saying, but certainly the world has changed in the few–last few years where injuring and killing workers is no longer socially acceptable, and the world has changed in its outlook on that. But I want to get back to–can the Premier provide any statistics on pre -project labour agreements, post-project labour agreements as far as the economics of either-or? Mr.

Pallister: I expect the member was speaking facetiously, but, again, suggesting it's no longer publicly acceptable for workers to be injured or killed–I don't believe it was ever publicly acceptable in our province, ever, and I doubt that there was another province i n Canada where that was ever publicly acceptable, so I can't –you know, I can't

1124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 let that sit there as a comment. Public safety is everybody's business, and I think if the member is saying that–if he's implying that employers are more aware now than they u sed to be, that's one thing, but referencing injured and dead workers in the context of this discussion as being publicly acceptable at one time is just not–that's beyond the pale.

There–the group that has principal representation, I suppose, in the heav y construction industry, in response to the member's question about costs–I was very, very concerned when the government–previous administration adopted the project-labour-agreement approach on the Red River Floodway.

I forget the exact numbers, but it wa s tens of millions of dollars they felt at the time of additional costs were being imposed on the industry and therefore on the taxpayers in the provision of the services that they provided in that construction project. * (16:10) The arguments, as I sai d previously, that were made at that point in time –remember, we're not talking about the 1960s now, we're talking about 2000s, and relationships, I suppose, can change over time, but the willingness of the union organizers to work in the context of co- operation with non- union companies, I think, has very significantly changed over those years.

Quite frankly, many of my friends in the heavy construction industry that have union shops also work, very co -operatively, with non-union. It wasn't always the case. Non-union firms that supply –the culture's changed quite a bit, I think, over the years from one of adversarial relationships, almost, you know, where, you know, you're not a union shop, we don't deal with you, that type of thing. And the culture has shi fted to–instead of built working against one another, the attitude now is we build things, and we build them together.

And so I'm not suggesting there isn't the possibility of conflict in a negotiation, there always can be, but I am suggesting that the a rguments that once were made for certain practices are not as supportable in the present context. And that's, I suspect, why many jurisdictions have gotten away from using this model, because it adds, also, a burden of paperwork and red tape to the mix tha t many companies–unionized or not –don't particularly enjoy. They'd rather be building something or fixing something or maintaining something than doing paperwork inside an office.

And that seems to be the makeup, I think, of most of us. We'd rather be doing the real work of getting out to see our constituents than, you know, doing paperwork in our offices. I think that's natural. And so these are some of the reasons I expect that other jurisdictions –some of the reasons more than expect, some of the reas ons have been shared with me by industry participants as to why they would like to see a sort of a more straightforward, level playing field when it comes to tendering practices and getting value for taxpayers with the best possible outcomes with their projects. Mr.

Lindsey: So, from what I can gather from the Premier's (Mr. Pallister) response, is there was some consultations, some discussions with industry on their desire to have the project labour agreements done away with. Was there any consultation with labour groups on that same issue? Mr. Pallister: Well, we'd have to check with the Infrastructure Minister when he gets into Estimates. I'd encourage the member to check with him on the specific nature of the consultations that he has undertaken.

Certainly–I just want to back up for a second if I could on the safety side, and just share with the member, as well, some other initiatives that are under way in terms of workplace safety. And these are safety procedures that are available, again, to unionized companies, non- unionized companies. Their teams of employees, whether they've chosen to unionize or not chosen to unionize isn't the pertinent issue, the pertinent issue is the safety of those people.

So, for example, there are Safety Talks –and I'll just read from the bulletin here: Safety Talks are an essential tool to educating and informing your employees on current and relevant workplace safety and health topics. Each safety talk gives you the following: content of talks is specific to constructi on projects and meet legislative requirements; Safety Talks is distributed to all core certified companies; Safety Talks supports internal, external core audit requirements.

So, as the member knows, there are requirements for taking a certain number –and I don't have the expertise on this to know the exact number of hours but if you want to be core certified as a company, you have to do a certain amount of safety training as a minimum requirement. And, so, these are core certified courses we're talking about,

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1125 available to non -unionized or unionized companies – that's not the issue. So in–this year, there's safety talks on a –I won't read the member the whole list, b ut I expect he would be interested in this because it is, you know, it's improving the safety of workers –fatigue awareness. This is an important one, I can tell you. The workplace bullying and harassment; there's a session on preventing Lyme disease because a lot of people are out and as he knows, there's a lot of bush involved in some of these projects, getting them ready to go.

That bipole line, for example, I think they were talking about 500 kilometres of land that was unnecessarily brutalized by the –that project, bush that was pushed down. A lot of workers, unfortunately, had to be involved in that project unnecessarily and at a great cost to the taxpayer and ratepayer.

There's safety talks on concrete reinforcement, and I think they're talking in a r eal sense, not a figurative sense, about concrete reinforcement in that particular seminar; housekeeping; push- pull safety; protecting workers from heat stress; thunderstorms and lightning hazards; manual material handling; shovelling; digging; industry be st practices session on road safety; falls through unsecured shafts or openings; mounting and dismounting on excavators, there's a course on that; preventing slips and falls; safe lifting and your back; preventing tripping; winter survival; winter perso nal protective equipment; frostbite; black ice awareness; slips, trips, falls on icy surfaces; driving on country roads.

Now that's one that the member and I don't need a seminar on; we've done enough of that. But I expect there are some folks who actually could benefit from a training seminar on that. I never even thought of that as a possible topic until I just read it off the sheet. That's something you take for granted when you're born and raised in the country, I think. You've got excavation and trenching safety; winter work gear; transporting equipment; snowplow operation; bees and wasps during outdoor work; pneumatic tools; health hazards of cement; and equipment refuelling.

And that's just a sample of the kinds of safety work that are being done, not on the basis of ideology just for union shops but for non- unionized and unionized workers alike. And there's an array of those kinds of examples out there that I'm sure the member would be impressed by. Mr. Lindsey: Well, I thank the Premier (Mr. Pallister) for reading through a partial list of safety talks. He certainly doesn't need to attempt to school me on workplace health and safety. That's what I've done for the last 20 years of my life.

So I'm fortunate and glad that I did it in a unionized environment and also helped non- unionized workers in the process. So, again, I asked if he could supply any statistics that would back up his desire to do away with project labour agreements. So far, he's failed to provide any such statistics, and I have a f unny feeling we're not going to see them today; I could be wrong. But project labour agreements as they tie into community benefit agreements: Is the Premier and this government in favour of community benefit agreements? Mr. Pallister: Now, Mr. Chair, I got to tell you.

I have enjoyed the discussions that I've had with this member, and I expect we'll enjoy many in the future. But I take it as a personal challenge, and maybe that is why he raised the question in the way he did, when he suggested I wouldn't be forthcoming on answering a question, because I've been very forthcoming with the member throughout our sessions and I will continue to be. Now there is no reason to believe that restricting the number of participants in a bidding process in any way, shape or form would actually assist us in getting better value for Manitoba taxpayers.

And this is the fundamental challenge that a lot of small businesses face when there is –when there are the requirements imposed on them of a project labour agreement. I know the member favours –and he deserves to be proud of his work within his union environment, and he should–he–and I commend him for that. But a lot of great work goes on in non- union shops too. And I don't think it's right to work on the assumption that simply because he's done good things in his life in a union environment, others couldn't have done good things in a non-unionized environment.

So that's, I guess, the point I'm trying to get across. I know a lot of people worked awfully hard in the Depart ment of Agriculture over the years on programs, and I'm attempting to get some more detail for the member, but I had personal experience with this in respect–he referenced farms and the risks around farms.

1126 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 20, 2016 * (16:20) And I know from my former life as a fi nancial adviser, I dealt with disability and illness issues quite frequently, trying to protect workers in case they had fell ill or –and to get them compensation, worked very hard to prevent the lack of financial resources being available to them if they fell ill or were hurt on a job-related or non-job-related accident, right.

And I know how important it is when someone, especially when someone's ill or injured, I know how important it is for their –themselves and their family to have those financial resou rces available. I spent a lot of my life making sure that we did everything we could to provide, for example, disability income when a worker was off. So –because workers' comp works fine if you have an injury related to work, but it isn't very good if you' re, you know, if you have a car accident not related to work or something, you're out of luck.

So we set up programs for workers over many years in the private sector to help make sure that they had those benefits. Now, I know what the member's thinking. He's thinking, if they'd have been unionized, they'd have had them, right. That isn't always the case –wasn't always the case. And I know the member will know that it isn't always the case, regardless of union or non-union. And so I appreciate his work. I hope he appreciates mine too, because I care very much about protection for workers. It's something that I've spent a lot of my life working for. And I think in this we share that common goal.

As far as the project labour agreement additional cost, that's–it's cited in –I would say, common sense, first and foremost, that if you're going to make it more difficult for a small business to bid on a job, you're going to find the costs are going to go up, ultimately, because many of the small businesses will bid competitively. And that is what this is. According to the Heavy Construction Association, it's one of the impediments that has been there with the closed bidding process that project labour agreement entails. I would also say there is a principle at work here that many espouse.

Merit Contractors, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Christian Labour Association of Canada, Winnipeg Construction Association have all advocated for a model–a managed open -site model. And it is very commonplace around the world, a managed open-site model. It is not discriminatory in any way against union shops, in fact, quite the contrary. And what a managed open- site model does, it uses multiple project labour agreement models, in a sense, within– depending on the project, the type of company, organization, you can allow an alternative union, non-union, a union.

The managed open -site model sets general obligations for everybody on the site, such as, for example, the number of hours you can work a week, so that –get into this fatigue issue, that is a big issue on heavy site. And people, I think, who work in–well, we don't work in an air -conditioned environment here, but many people who work in an air-conditioned environment in the middle of summer don't understand the stress that a worker is under working outside on a construction project. You know, a 40- hour week on some of those sites is an enormously long period of time. Mr. Lindsey: I thank the Premier (Mr.

Pallister) for that. The question was about communit y benefit agreements. Does the Premier support community benefit agreements? Mr. Pallister: Well, I hope the member's not, you know, not objecting to my answer to his

preamble, because he did reference that I wasn't going to answer, and then I did give him a response on his previous question, which he said I wouldn't. So I hope he'll acknowledge I did give him an answer and I hope he will review Hansard and appreciate the incredible detail that was contained in that answer as well. The community benefit agreements, you know, again, I think there's probably good opportunity. I know that the Infrastructure Minister's just itching to get into Estimates and would probably dearly love to give the member all kinds of incredible detail on that when he has the opportunity.

If he does get the opportunity, I'm sure that the member will have all kinds of incredible detail made available to him by someone who has far greater expertise on that than I do. Mr. Lindsey: I acknowledge the Premier for answering a question. Certainly beginning to get a clearer picture of his consultation process but, again, I want to know if the Premier supports the concept of community benefit agreements. Mr. Pallister: I'm all for communities benefiting, if that's what the member's askin g, but I did want to

June 20, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1127 give him more detail on this safety training program that is offered through Manitoba Heavy Construction Association. I think he'll benefit from knowing about this. It's–because it is, I know, particularly of interest to him. And thi s references driving on country roads. This is a program–now, the member–now, I've got to respond here, Mr. Chair, because you yourself didn't respond but the member for Agassiz (Ms. Clarke), the new member for Agassiz responded there.

I think that it's be cause she takes for granted the skills that she has developed over many years driving on country roads in Agassiz. And I know they've been enhanced in recent months as a result of her participation in a contested nomination that was a very big contest in t hat part of the province –very interesting contest, there.

And I know that she availed herself of the opportunity to travel on many of those roads, and I know that she'll be urging the Infrastructure Minister to make improvements in many of those roads as a consequence of the neglect of the past 17 years, of course, which all Manitobans are suffering as a consequence of today. But I would mention that these hazards that the member for Ag assiz is particularly familiar with include, but are not limited to, some of the following, and I would reference driving on country roads. And this is in the

preamble, now, of the WORKSAFELY Manitoba Heavy Construction Association program, which I would emphasi ze to the member is not a union initiative but, rather, is a certified safety program offered through the COR standards program, which is a national standards program. Now, I know that the member would be interested in knowing some of the topics t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-1-24
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 1st hansardpdf 24.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	be90e93237f2031600d13104a46a148e410643e3

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