Manitoba Hansard — 28 June 2016 (Sitting 30B, 41st Legislature, 1st Session)

41-1-30b

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. 30B - 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 28, 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

1615 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, June 28, 2016 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Madam Speaker: Please be seated. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Madam Speaker: Introduction of bills? COMMITTEE REPORTS Standing Committee on Public Accounts First Report Mr. Reg Helwer (Vice-Chairperson): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Public Accounts presents the– Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Public Accounts presents the following as its First Report.

Meetings Your Committee met on June 27, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building. Matters under Consideration • Election of the Chairperson • Election of the Vice-Chairperson Committee Membership • Mr. BINDLE • Mr. HELWER • Mr. JOHNSTON • Ms. KLASSEN • Mr. MALOWAY • Mr. MARCELINO • Mrs. MAYER • Mr. MICHALESKI • Ms. MORLEY-LECOMTE • Mr. WIEBE • Mr. YAKIMOSKI Your Committee elected Mr. W IEBE as the Chairperson. Your Committee elected Mr. H ELWER as the Vice-Chairperson.

Agreements: Your Committee reached the following agreements: • To establish a Steering Co mmittee of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts comprising of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson, the Auditor General, a Committee Clerk and the Research Officer. • To have in camera pre-meeting briefing sessions with the Auditor General. Mr. Helwer: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Wharton), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Madam Speaker: Tabling of reports? MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Motor Vehicle Industry of Manitoba Hon.

Ron Schuler (Minister of Crown Services): I am pleased to rise today– Madam Speaker: Prior to the member proceeding, I would just ask if the member had–is standing on a ministerial statement. Mr. Schuler: Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: I do not believe that the 90-minute rule –it had been? Okay. My apologies, the Minister of Crown Services. The required 90 minutes notice prior to proceedings was provided in accordance with rule 26(2). Would the honourable member please proceed. Mr. Schuler: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to recognize the Motor Vehicle Industry of Manitoba's efforts to provide young Manitobans assistance in realizing their dreams of becoming skilled motor vehicle tradespeople. The Motor Vehicle Indus try of Manitoba Scholarship Fund has been established as a mechanism to assist in the development of future skilled automotive technicians. This is of particular importance as watching and retraining young people and women within

1616 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 the automotive techni cian trades is an ongoing challenge. As a result of initiatives like the Motor Vehicle Industry of Manitoba Scholarship Fund, the number of women training for careers in the automotive industry is growing. Currently, women make up about 47 per cent of the labour force, but only 24 per cent of the automotive workforce, and this calls for more leadership, education, networking and growth opportunities for these professionals.

Motor Vehicle Industry of Manitoba Scholarship Fund provides financial support that helps to remove some of the barriers faced by young people and women working towards professions and these challenging professional certifications. On June 15th it was my pleasure to congratulate the 22 scholarship award recipients presented by the Motor Vehicle Industry of Manitoba, who will be furthering their education as they follow their 'prentership' for Red Seal certification as mechanical, collision repair and collision refurnishing technicians.

I am pleased to read the recipients' names into the record: Bendrine Klassen; Alisa Everett; Max Wazney; Ashley Weber; Andrew Friesen; Calvin Kaartinen; Jessie Posthumus; Arnel Marasigan; Dustyn Zacharias; Dominic Feist; Rico Maceda; Raphael Ople; Eric Seib; Darryl Merritt; Meghan Connor; Scott Hugill; Chris Maher; Carissa Ness; Megatron Boultanyshen; Brayden Robb; Sebastian Fiola; and Dessiray Nault. In particular, I would like to congratulate Ashley Weber, a talented young woman who has won gold in three consecutive Skills Canada competitions, not only within the province but, also, at a national level.

Once again, I would like to congratulate all of the scholarship award recipients and thank you for your efforts. Mr. Kevin Chief (Point Douglas): I'd like to – and we'd like to, congratulate the recipients of the Motor Vehicle Industry of Manitoba Scholarship award recipients. I'd also like to take the time to congratulate all Manitoba graduates and their families for their exceptional achievements this fall graduation–this spring graduation.

Madam Speaker, Manitoba has one of the youngest and fastest growing demographics in the country, and for Manitoba to continue to have one of the fastest growing economies with one of the lowest unemployment rates, we need to continue to provide education, employment and training opportunities for young people. We've always recognized the value of education for all Manitobans. It grows the economy and Manitoba's place in the world. It also lifts people out of poverty and provides direction for people who are struggling.

Whenever we invest in education, we always had in mind to create opportunities for young people. That's why we're proud to stand with families and our training institutions to freeze tuition at the rate of inflation and make Manitoba the fir st province in western Canada to offer interest -free loans. Together we created specialized high school programs where students have access to industry experts and state-of-the-art equipment like the Sisler High School's Cyber Security Academy.

We're pro ud to take –we have heard and we've always been proud to take the classroom to the workplace and bring the workplace to the classroom. That was highlighted during our time in government when we reached a milestone of almost 11,000 active apprentices; that's triple the number when we came into government. We were proud to work with the business community to make it easier to hire apprentices by increasing the apprenticeship tax credit to up to $5,000 for every apprentice. Madam Speaker, young people are proud of who they are.

They're proud of where they're from, and they want to have the opportunity to give back. We'd like to thank all the people who support the Motor Vehicle Industry of Manitoba Scholarship and all the award recipients. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement. Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave? [Agreed] Ms. Klassen: I always admire anyone who has the determination to work in any skilled trade. I know, personally, I have a white truck, a grey car, a black SUV, and that's as much as I know about vehicles.

So today I offer my congratulations to the 22 recipients of this year's Motor Vehicle Industry of Manitoba, their scholarships and the families who support these people. Attracting and keeping young people interested in becoming automotive technicians has been, and continues to be, an ongoing challenge. Programs like this that bring together all industry stakeholders in the advancement of training and education, as well as

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1617 increasing access to industry, should be commended. Thanks to The Winnipeg Foundation, Sobering Auto Electric, Manitoba Motor Dealers Association, Manitoba Used Car Dealers Association, Automotive Trades Association Manitoba and the Aut omotive Recyclers of Manitoba for keeping up this important work and opportunity alive in Manitoba. And I would also like to extend my best wishes to the recipients in their bright futures. Thank you, Madam Speaker. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Kinsman Club of All Saints Hon.

Rochelle Squires (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage ): Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to recognize the Kinsmen Club of All Saints and the great contributions they make in my constituency of Riel and throughout Winnipeg. They have 22 active members in their club and are celebrating 70 years of service in our community. Their motto is Serving the Community's Greatest Need and, as anyone who knows them can attest, they embody this model to the fullest. * (13:40) Madam Speaker, the Kinsmen Club of All Saints recently announced a project to build 45 additional affordable -living housing units in Riel.

The Chesterfield housing development, which is a division of the St. Vital- based Kinsmen Club, is expanding to help provide additional housing for 55-plus individuals living on a fixed income. This $4.5-million project on Chesterfield Avenue is being built entirely with private money and is scheduled to open in the summer of 2017. It will increase the total number of apartments in the complex to 105. This recent development is a continuation of the commitment to affordable housing the All Saints Kinsmen made back in the 1950s.

Their long- term dedication to helping seniors is commendable, and I'm proud to call the Kinsmen my frien ds and my neighbours. In addition to their ambitious goals –housing goals, the Kinsmen Club of All Saints is extremely busy raising funds for communities and charities in need and can be seen putting on barbecues to end– to help end cystic fibrosis, helping out with the Peaceful Village graduation activities and raising money to provide bulletproof vests for the Winnipeg Police Service K-9 Unit, to name a few.

Madam Speaker, the Kinsmen Club of All Saints also celebrate with families in Riel who regularly use the services of the Salvation Army by holding annual Christmas activities, taking kids to the Festival of Lights and having Santa deliver gifts to our families in the community. Madam Speaker, the Kinsmen Club of All Saints is a wonderful example of the great spirit of generosity that Manitobans are known for, and I wish them many, many years of continued success. And I thank Art O'Donnell for attending the Chamber this afternoon on behalf of the All Saints –the Kinsmen Club of All Saints.

Emergency Measures Organization Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): I'm pleased to rise today to recognize the hard work of Manitoba's Emergency Measures Organization, along with all the first responders and volunteers who are helping to fight fires in the North and flooding in the Whiteshell. The fires near Chemawawin Cree Nation and Easterville have temporarily displaced over 2,000 people, but thanks to the quick response of EMO and the first responders, there have been no fatalities. Despite the fact that the fires came within 100 metres of the community, no houses were lost.

At the same time, the flooding in eastern Manitoba has put hundreds of cottagers on evacuation notice. This is the second evacuation order for cottage country since wildfires ravaged the same area last month. Madam Speaker, Manitobans are all too familiar with the demands and challenges of natural disasters. Extreme weather can happen at any time of the year in this province, and each experience is a reminder of the importance of preparation and prevention. We've asked the Minister of Infrastruct ure (Mr. Pedersen) numerous times about highway spending, particularly in the North.

Highways like 392 and 280 are critical to the northern economy but they're also become critical evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. The Minister of Infrastructure has kept quiet about the potential impacts from cuts to the highway program. Emergencies like fires in the North and flooding in the east make those impacts all too clear. Madam Speaker, this government's cuts to highways amounting to $48 million spells potentially devastating results for our economy but also for our ability to deal with and prevent emergencies. They've already made it clear that they don't appear to be

1618 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 interested in prevention. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised. Thank you. Brandon Environment Committee Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East): In this sometimes crazy place we call earth, we share our environment with over 7.4 billion people, with United Nations estimating a global population increase to 11.2 billion by the year 2100. I feel very confident that we all share the desire to maintain our environment for generations to come well beyond the next 2,000 years.

On a more local perspective to the constituencies of both Brandon East and Brandon West, one has to look no further than the Brandon Environment Committee to see the passion for sustainability to our environment. The Environment Committee and the City of Brandon have worked tirelessly to ensure the right steps are being taken to ensure that they lead by example. Madam Speaker, I have had the extreme pleasure of chairing the Brandon Environment Committee for a number of years prior to the election in April.

The work this committee does is well recognized in the city of Brandon, but it is so important to the overall environment that I find it important to recognize their efforts here today. In November of 2007, the City of Brandon created the Environmental Strategic Plan that was developed with the help of the Brandon Environ- ment Committee. This plan has identified clear, conscientious actions that can be implemented both on a community and on a corporate level. This plan was revised and adopted by the city council of Brandon in June of 2013.

There are many initiatives and projects supported or led by the efforts of this great committee such as the Solar Light Pilot Project, the Brandon enviro 'expro,' Green Scene TV, Fair Trade Town, Urban Forestry Learning, Clean Sweep and so much more. I would like to give a special shout -out to Ms. Lindsay Hargreaves, the environmental initiatives co -ordinator for the City of Brandon. Ms.

Hargreaves has been extremely instrumental in the city of Brandon obtaining national accolades for their environmental sustainability efforts by completing the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Partners for Climate Change Protection program. Brandon's environmental sustainability efforts were also recognized with the 2015 Environmental Action Awards. Madam Speaker, I ask that all members join me in recognizing the work done by t he Brandon Environment Committee, the City of Brandon and Ms. Hargreaves. Thank you very much. Constable Kevin Drane Mr.

Kelly Bindle (Thompson): It is with great honour I rise in this House today to recognize an exemplary member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in my riding. This member, currently on duty today, Constable Kevin Drane of the Thompson RCMP detachment went above and beyond the cal l of duty on May 12th, 2016, by risking his own life to ensure the safety of others was not in jeopardy. Just over one month ago on that day, Thompson had a snowfall of 25 centimetres and the roads were left covered with ice.

While on patrol, this fine constable came across a group of concerned Manitobans staring at a vehicle with its front end submerged under the freezing water of the first causeway north of Thompson on Provincial Road 391. Not knowing if anyone was trapped or endangered within the v ehicle, Constable Drane stood on an unstable snowbank in an attempt to look through the window. Unable to see anything inside and with the potential of someone in grave danger, Constable Drane, after removing his RCMP vest and duty belt, dove into the icy water to see if there were any people in the vehicle.

Fortunately, for all involved, the vehicle was empty and it was later discovered that all passengers were able to safely escape and were picked up by passing motorists earlier. The actions taken by Constable Drane that day were truly heroic, risking his own life to ensure no persons or animals were trapped in that vehicle. He braved the freezing temperature of the lake, and we're very fortunate to have such incredible professionals in public safety doing everything they can to keep us safe. Madam Speaker, I invite all members to join me in thanking Constable Drane for his outstanding service.

Manitobans should place great confidence in the members of the RCMP as they work tirelessly each and every single day to keep us safe. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1619 Burrows Graduates Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): Growing up there were a few aspects of my father's job that I never fully grasped, one of them being, how could he be so busy when the weather in June was so beautiful and we had a cabin just waiting for us. Well, I get it now. June is a very busy month and it is graduation season. This is a time to celebrate the accomplishments achieved and to plan for the future. This year, I have the pleasure of attending and presenting at five graduations all in the riding of Burrows.

Not as many as my colleague from River Heights, though, he has 16. So far I have attended The Maples high school graduation, a class of 360 grade 12 students. There was an outstanding valedictorian duo speech, and I was happy to be able to present an award to Simranpreet Dhaliwal. Just last night I was granted the opportunity to attend the Seven Oaks adult learning graduation. I presented a community citizenship award to Riley Higgens, and I cannot express the amount of positive pride that filled the room.

This morning I was able to witness 32 grade 8 students bid farewell to Shaughnessy Park School as they move on to high school this September. I still have two more grads to atten d this week which I'm very excited for: Andrew Mynarski, where I had the distinct pleasure of awarding the most improved student award; and lastly, Sisler High School. Now, I would be remissed if I did not mention how this graduation is extra special both to myself and my colleague from St. Norbert. Class of 2009 and 1990, can you guess which year is who? We are both very, very proud Spartans.

And in conclusion, I want to encourage all graduates that even if you do not know your next step, it doesn't mean that you're not ready. With that said, when you do figure out your next step, give it your absolute all. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to oral quest ions, I would like to introduce–I see we have a special guest in our loge to my left, and that would be Stan Struthers, the former MLA for Dauphin. * (13:50) And I'd also like to bid adieu on behalf of all of us to Eric Schillberg. Eric was a page in 2013- 2014. He is a graduate from West Kildonan Collegiate.

He has since filled in as page, gallery attendant and assisted in the message room. Eric has done a terrific job for the Assembly by showing his dedication to this House. Eric often goes to work at a s econd job before or after his shift, depending on his hours. Eric entered the U of M in 2014 and is presently taking civil engineering with an expected graduation date in 2019. He is currently a member of the University of Manitoba Institute of Transport ation Engineers. In addition, Eric is head director of professional relations for the University of Manitoba Engineering Society.

Eric hopes to use his engineering degree to travel abroad and gain valuable work experience. One day, he would like to return to Manitoba and run for a position as a member of the Legislative Assembly. And on behalf of all of us, we'd like to wish Eric the very best and thank him very much for all of his service. And on behalf of all of you, I'd like to just say, on behalf of us, to Stan Struthers, we welcome him here today. ORAL QUESTIONS Madam Speaker: And now we'll turn it over to question period. Heavy Construction Industry Capital Spending Plans Ms.

Flor Marcelino (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, Manitobans are increasingly seeing the degree to which the Premier (Mr. Pallister) cannot accept criticism without responding with the most bizarre comments. Yesterday the construction industry pleaded with this Premier not to cut investments in infrastructure and to move on to the next round of planned projects. The Premier's response: bah, humbug. Why is this Premier so insensitive to the threat to the construction industry and our economy by his actions? Hon.

Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Infrastructure): I thank the interim Leader of the Official Opposition for that question because it allows me, then, to expand on our predictable, steady infrastructure growth in this province.

1620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 That–accessibility is important for all Manitoba municipalities and for our communities, and this is where it takes steady planning and investment on a regular basis. Unlike the previous government, we have committed $1 billion each and every year going forward, and we will be accountable for that. Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Official Opposition leader, on a supplementary question. Ms. Marcelino: When it comes to infrastructure, the Premier (Mr. Pallister) and this minister are clueless.

When our NDP government came into power, we took investments in highway infrastructure from $178 million to $500 million in our first decade. We then targeted a historic increase in investments to more than $750 million. Virtually every year was a record year for construction. It is clear that the only reason there will be significant construction this year is because of the tenders that our NDP government issued that even this government can't cancel. But the fact is, they are collecting the one cent on the dollar that is targeted for infrastruc ture but cutting the highways dollar budget by $48 million.

Why won't this Premier– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. Mr. Pedersen : So much for the better tone in this House from that comment. But I just want to reiterate that consistently over the last number of years of the previous government, they underspent the infrastructure budget by 27 per cent each and every year until last year when there was an election coming and they tried to buy votes from Manitobans by opening the floodgates on the construction last year. And the only reason that they were able to do that is that we had one of the best seasons for construction over the entire year.

That's the only way that they were able to do this. So I take no lessons from this previous government. Madam Speaker: The honourable interim Official Opposition Leader, on a final supplementary. Ms. Marcelino: If the NDP government was not able to –the NDP government was able to stimulate the economy. The unemployment rate was second lowest in the country because of infrastructure investments. Madam Speaker, what was particular strange was that this Premier accused the Heavy Construction Association of fear mongering. This is a term he applies to anyone that disagrees with him.

The fact is, th ose who work in this industry know a lot more than what is going on in the construction industry than the Premier and this minister do. From the Premier's prior statements, he probably now feels there is a Heavy Construction Association and Winnipeg Sun c onspiracy against him, but why won't he recognize the need to get on with the historic investment in infrastructure that– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. Mr.

Pedersen : Well, there is a few –Madam Speaker, there is a few consistencies in there because our $1- billion annual infrastructure investment is also the same number as the $1 -billion deficit that this government left the people of Manitoba. And in spite of leaving us in such a financial mess, we realize the importance of infrastructure, and we will continue to invest in infrastructure each and every year, unlike the former government. Heavy Construction Industry Capital Spending Plans Mr. Kevin Chief (Point Douglas): We have seen quite a pattern from this government.

When they said they found $102 million in cuts, but when they were asked for details about that, they said, sorry, we'll have to get back to you. On their 97 per cent transparent value-for-money review, when asked for details about it: Sorry, we'll get back to you. When it came down to their plan for CPP and who supports it: Sorry, we'll have to get back to you. Now Chris Lorenc from the Manitoba Heavy Construction is saying the government has stalled further tenders pending review and this could lead– his words, not ours–lead to devastating results to–for Manitoba's economy.

So I ask the minister: Does he agree with Manitoba businesses that the sorry-we'll-get-back-to-you a pproach is putting Manitoba jobs at risk? Hon. Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Infrastructure): I was wondering who was supposed to answer this because I think he pretty well went through the whole dictionary of NDP failures on that.

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1621 So they're –we will con tinue–we've been left a financial mess from this previous government: a $1-billion annual deficit right now that we have –we are facing on behalf of the people of Manitoba. We got a strong mandate from the voters on April 19th to clean up the financial mess in Manitoba and at the same time invest in Manitoba in a $1 -billion annual infrastructure investment. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas, on a supplementary question. Mr.

Chief: Well, Madam Speaker, the member says he doesn't know on that side of the House who should answer the question. That's exactly what the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association is saying as well. The fact is, here's what else they're saying, that this gove rnment–that this government's approach– they're saying that their approach will result in laying off workers, reduced hiring, leave companies unable to offer work beyond six weeks and force Manitoba workers to search for work in other provinces. Madam Speaker, we know that the members opposite really like Saskatchewan.

I have to ask: Do they agree with the Manitoba heavy construction industry that their approach is putting–going to end up putting more jobs in Saskatchewan than they are in our own province? Mr. Pedersen: In a May issue of The Heavy News Weekly which is published by the Manitoba heavy construction industry, the industry talked about the meeting that their industry and other groups had with the Premier (Mr. Pallister) and myself. * (14:00) And amongst their many recommendations was a request that project labour agreements, to the extent used, not require any forced unionization.

They also asked to amend labour relations legislation to permit secret ballots. So we have a very good relation ship with the Manitoba heavy construction agency. We will take advice from them, and we will continue to meet with them. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas, on a final supplementary. Mr. Chief: The last time the Premier sat around the Cabinet table, Madam Speaker, businesses were closing, storefronts went dark, buildings sat empty. It got so bad the Winnipeg Jets left town.

Madam Speaker, now we've heard again from the construction industry that he's up to it again, hurting busines ses, creating –not our words, businesses' words–creating the perfect storm by cutting $50 million and stalling tenders. And then, when asked about this, the Premier says he can't respond to irrational arguments of fear. So I ask the minister: Will he stand with th e Premier's bah-humbug approach to jobs, or will he stand with Manitoba businesses who say they have a legitimate concern? Mr. Pedersen: Madam Speaker, I think I just heard an irrational argument of fear from the member.

So, and, again, from the meeting that we had, one of the other recommendations that this group had for us was harmonization and transportation weights and measures regulated–related regulations, so that it all spoke to joining the New West Partnership, which the previous government absolutely refused to do, which this present opposition wants no part of. We have a good working relationship with both Manitoba Heavy Construction and the other industry partners in there, and we'll continue to foster that good relationship that we have now. Northern Manitoba Communities Capital Spending Plans Ms.

Amanda Lathlin (The Pas): The Minister of Indigenous and Municipal Relations (Ms. Clarke) informed this House this morning that roadway construction is important for economic development. We agree, Madam Speaker, but this leaves us wondering how they think they will create good jobs in the North when they are cutting the highway program by $48 million. The heavy construction industry is already going public about their concerns about the repercussions for the Manitoba economy.

Our NDP government made record investments in northern Manitoba, but in Estimates we find out the PC plan is to reduce capital spending in the North by as much as 60 per cent. Will this minister come clean and admit they have no plan for jobs and the North, and that they are massively cutting needed investment in northern Manitoba? Hon. Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Infrastructure): I thank the member for that question because it–again, I will remind the House, I will remind all Manitobans of how this previous government cut the highway budget by 27 per cent

1622 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 each and every year until the year of an election when they then increased it. They also cut back– from 2006, they cut the maintenance and preservation budget, which is affecting the very roads that this member talks about. If they had had any foresight, they would've kept maintaining those roads so that they're not in the position that they are now. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, on a supplementary question. Ms. Lathlin: The Minister of Infrastructure has refused to come clean on t he effects of cutting the highway program by $48 million.

We know that, when you care about growth for northern Manitoba, you have to make investments in major northern highways. We made historic commitments to roadways like Moose Lake and Nelson House tha t would create good jobs that northerners could rely on. With $48 million less in the highway capital program and up to 60 per cent less in northern investment, how will the minister invest in the future of northern families and assure that they are able to participate in our province's northern economy? Mr. Pedersen: I thank the member for that question because she talks about commitments and promises.

Boy, Manitoba heard a lot of promises out of this former government during the election campaign, $600 million worth of empty promises. If they had maintained the roads like they should've over the last number of years we would not be in the position we are. We have a $1 -billion annual deficit courtesy of the former government, and now they want to promise the moon to everyone. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, on a final supplementary. Ms. Lathlin: There's nothing wrong with investing in our North. We're talking about the future of northern communities and all this Premier (Mr.

Pallister) can say is bah, humbug. This Premier's arrogant and hidden approach to this critical issue means less jobs and less opportunity in Manitoba's North. Will the minister reconsider his plan to slash the northern infrastructure budget and instead continue our communities–our commitments to good jobs and steady growth in the North? Mr. Pedersen: I thank the member for that question because it just begs the question: 17 years of empty commitments, 17 years of empty promises, 17 years of slashing the infrastructure budget by an average of 27 per cent, and now they stand up and pretend to care about everyone.

They only cared about themselves when they were in government; that's why they're–all the empty promises that they made during the election, but Manitobans saw better of that, of the empty promises that this former government was so full of. Midwifery Program Government Intention Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): Midwifery students met with the Minister of Education on June 13th regarding the future of their program. He reassured them, saying there will be a program for them this fall. But yesterday, they were told that the midwifery program is gone.

The only thing the university could offer them were spots in the nursing program. Again, in Estimates last Thursday, the minister said that he wanted their cohort to be accredited with the College of Midwives –midwives, Madam Speaker, not nurses. Now these students a re left in the lurch with student loans as well as professional and family sacrifices to deal with. Will the minister admit that he told these students their program had a future when he was really planning to scrap it? Hon.

Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I know this is an issue you have a lot of interest in as well, as does everyone on this side. We know there is a substantial need for midwives in Manitoba, but the reality is the existing program was so badly managed by the previous government that there was no program available that the College of Midwives was prepared to certify. So the reality was we had to provide an option for these students, and we have done so, and we will continue to meet with them if they want to meet further.

But I can tell you that the previous government is the one that scuttled their ship. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Rouge, on a supplementary question. Mr. Kinew: I spoke personally with the College of Midwives, and they told me they were prepared to

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1623 accredit the joint program between UCN and the University of Manitoba. Madam Speaker, the only way for the minister to make it up to these students is to reinstate funding for the joint program. W ithholding that funding for the joint program amounts to cutting the entire thing. Will the minister commit to reinstating the funding, allowing the students to continue their education and ensure the future of midwifery right here in Manitoba? Mr.

Wishart: I thank the member for the statement, which is at–completely at odds with the statement we have in writing from the College of Midwives. So perhaps he needs to talk to someone beyond the secretary. [interjection] Yes. Same –we have it in writing so the member can argue that fact later if he wants to. But we've been very clear all the way along. We have not cut the funding for this program, and I made that statement in Estimates. I made that statement in answer to questions in the House, really clear on that.

So if the member can't accept the facts, perhaps he'd like to write his own history book as well. * (14:10) Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Rouge, on a final supplementary. Mr. Kinew: Page 1 of my new history book: June 13th, the M inister of Education says there will be a program for them this fall. He withdraws the funding for the joint program; today there is no program. How can he account for this? His –the minister's actions led to the demise of the program. Therefore, it's his responsibility to make it right.

Will the minister agree to meet with these students after question period and explain why he promised them a program that he actually cut? Madam Speaker: I would just like to indicate to members in the public gallery that there's not to be any applause and any interaction with the proceedings here on the floor, and I'd appreciate your co-operation on that. Thanks very much. Mr. Wishart: I would hate to start a book out with many factual errors as this member has ju st done. We have not withdrawn the funding.

We continue to work with the university to try and develop a program that will meet the needs of the students, and we will continue to do that. The member's statement that we have withdrawn this funding is absol utely incorrect, and I would like to put that on the record. Midwifery Program Government Intention Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): This afternoon we met with midwifery students who were shocked to learn yesterday that the Minister of Education has gone back on his promise not to cut funding to the joint UCN, U of W, U of M midwifery program. We know indigenous communities have always had midwives.

However, with the advent of colonialism, midwifery was banned. Indigenous women are required to leave their home communities for the south weeks in advance of their due dates and away from the support of their community, family and partner. The midwifery program was created with the intent to strengthen reproductive health for indigenous women in northern communities. Can the Minister of Education admit his decision to cut the midwifery program has severely– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I repeat: We have not cut the funding.

We continue to fund the midwife program. Certainly, we have some issues with the midwife program because the previous government did not manage the program well and did not put it on a sustainable basis, left the students vulnerable and, frankly, Manitobans vulnerable. Recognize the need for m idwives in this province, and we are prepared to work very strongly to make sure that there are midwives trained in Manitoba available to meet the needs in Manitoba. In fact, I would remind the House that it was Manitoba PC government that actually made th e College of Midwives an institution in Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a supplementary question. Ms. Fontaine: I'm not sure how this government plans to produce more midwives when they cut the programs. Midwives are primary health -care providers, caring for pregnant women, their babies

1624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 and their families throughout pregnancy and for the first weeks in postpartum. Midwives are a key partner in ensuring indigenous rights over their bodies, over their reproductive health and their birthing plans, while also promoting breastfeeding, nutrition, parenting skills and reducing health-care costs. Can the minister explain why he chose not to invest in Manitoba midwives, despite saying he would, and warned them not to talk to me dia about this? Mr. Wishart: Well, I repeat that –and the member's statement that we did not fund the program is incorrect.

We have continued to fund the program. I suspect we're seeing a moment of NDP strategy where if you tell the same bit of misinformation often enough, the media might actually begin to believe it. Certainly, they themselves clearly begin to believe it, but– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Mr. Wishart: I assure this House that we continue to fund the program. We recognize the value of midwives in Manitoba, whether they be in the North or in the south.

We recognize that there is a substantial need for midwives in Manitoba, and we are prepared to work with the college and with the universities to make sure that there is a program. So please get it right next time. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a final supplementary. Ms. Fontaine: Madam Speaker, I can assure this minister that this is not a strategy. We are talking about people's lives who have sacrificed so much and given up so much to pursue their educational careers that they want and give the reproductive health services that Manitoba women deserve in this province.

Will this minister, after question period, meet with these students and explain his decision? Mr. Wishart: And as I've said earlier, I am prepared to meet with the students. I met with the students earlier, when they were here on –early June, and I'm certainly prepared to sit down with them again. And as to whether or not this is a strategy on their part, I would repeat, I think that they are beginning to provide misinformation to the public and I'm afraid that misinformation may actually hurt the students' chances in the future. Children and Youth in Care Children's Special Allowances Ms.

Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): We first see the item called Children's Special Allowances in the 1999 budget revenue Estimates. If we add in all the subsequent amounts, you get a staggering $266.6 million. I'd like to table this document. Ninety per cent of CFS kids are indigenous. So this equates to $240 million for my people's children. If even only half was kept in trusts, kids coming out of the CFS system today as a young adult would have a –would finally have a fair shot in life with a decent nest egg. What is this government's plan to reinstate these trusts? Hon.

Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for the question. This is an issue that those of us on this side of the House feel very strongly about as well. It was the previous government that began the habit of clawing back or taking the Children's Special Allowances to fund child-welfare programs, CFS programs here in the province of Manitoba, and during the time that they were in government the number of children in CFS grew dramatically to over 11,000. And I suspect that the member shares my concern that that money maybe not was put to the best use.

So, going back, I wish we could rewrite history in this case again and g et it right because the government got it wrong before. Ms. Klassen: I've heard many stories of children just turned 18 being dropped off here at run- down bars along Main Street. Those are supposed to be days of celebration with birthday cakes, presents, celebrations, not utter abandonment. Far too many foster children do not know love. These children can be dynamic members of society. I'd like to quote Cindy Blackstock: Great governments are not measured by interests or issues.

They are measured by w hether they stand on guard for the values of our country. Can we stand on guard for these valuable children? Can we give them their rightfully owed resources?

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1625 Mr. Wishart : I certainly join this member in expressing her concern. I can share with her some further stories, if she wants, about particular charitable agencies that operate in the city of Winnipeg talking about the CFS dump jobs that appear at their front gate. It is certainly nothing to be proud of, and I want to be a member of a government –and I know we intend to be a government –that measures its success by how it treats its most vulnerable people. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kewatinook, on a final supplementary. Ms.

Klassen: I look forward to that conversation. My federal cousins are doing their part to lift over 300,000 kids out of poverty by increasing the Canada Child Benefit, and I'd like to table this document. * (14:20) According to the report, there's 10,295 kids in care. At an average of $490 monthly pa yment at 12 months, equates to $60.5 million. We need an action plan today because this increase takes effect this month. I have previously called upon the new government to be proactive rather than reactive.

Can we work today, together, and protect t hese children by making– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. Mr. Wishart : And I certainly share the member's concern. I know the Minister of Families (Mr.

Fielding) has already had some discussions with his federal counterpart regarding the ch anges that have come down from the Canada Child Benefit program and how that might work, and, of course, if the member realizes that Children's Special Allowances agreement that went back to 1999 was actually an agreement that was signed between the federal and provincial governments at the time, and that we expect that there'll probably be a new agreement put i n place at some point regarding the Canada Child Benefit.

I know that the minister looks forward to an opportunity to make sure that that is structured in a way that benefits the children of Manitoba. Digital Media Industry Changes to Tax Credit Mr. Jon Reyes (St. Norbert ): Interactive digital media is an import part of the economy for the future. That's why programs like the one at my alma mater, Sisler High School, home of my beloved Spartans here in Winnipeg, are vital that students entering the jo b market have all the tools they need to succeed.

By the way, Sisler High School was the alma mater to some notable politicians: the former premier, Honourable Gary Filmon; currently my colleague, the honourable member of Burrows; and yours truly. Could the hard -working Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade please update the House on how the announcements he made yesterday at Sisler High School will benefit the growing digital media industry in our province? Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade ): And I do want to thank the member for his question and certainly his interest in this important initiative.

I'm happy to say that yesterday, along with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen), I had the privilege of announcing our budget commitment to strengthen the digital media tax credit. Our changes will eliminate the $500,000 maximum tax credit and the two-year limit for eligible projects. These exchanges will make the tax credit more available to job creators here in Manitoba, allowing for more growth in this cutting- edge growth sector.

These changes will ensure that graduates from institutions like Sisler High School will be able to pursue lucrative and innovative jobs in the tech sector right here at home in Manitoba. Madam Speaker, another important promise delivered on by this government. Canada Pension Plan Reform Government Position Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry -Riverview): Last week the government embarrassed Manitoba when they went to a federal finance meeting wi thout doing their homework and wouldn't join the broad national consensus on the CPP.

Now they came late to the party with a bunch of amendments that were tabled nine days too late. The federal government had said quite clearly that the

1626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 agreement in prin ciple will not be reopened. That ship has sailed. So would the Premier (Mr. Pallister) quit posturing, quit grandstanding, and sign the agreement now, today? Hon. Heather Stefanson (Deputy Premier): I want to thank the member for the question.

And, y es, there is already a consensus among provinces that there should be changes made to the Canada Pension Plan, but we believe in Manitoba that we could enhance some of those changes and that's why we have announced several initiatives that we would like to see included in those changes, including eliminating–the elimination of the Guaranteed Income Supplement clawback for widowed seniors, also including making sure that the death benefit keeps up with rising costs and inflation. These are just a couple of the initiatives that we want to see included in the changes of the CPP.

We hope members opposite join with us in ensuring that those are included. Thank you. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview, on a supplementary question. Mr. Allum: Well, if the Deputy Premier wanted to put that on the table, she should have done it nine days ago, not start talking about it in her press conference in the theatre of the basement of the Manitoba Legislature. They should have taken that to Vancouver where the meeting was being held. The fact is they're too late. The feds have said the ship has sailed.

Will the Finance Minister and the Premier simply put their egos aside and admit they were wrong and sign the deal right now? Mrs. Stefanson: I would think that, if there are ways that we can enhance the CPP, which we have offered to Manitobans–this is a made -in-Manitoba approach that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen) and the Premier have introduced. I would hope that – especially w hen this deals with widowed seniors, Madam Speaker, I would hope that members opposite would stand with us in support of those vulnerable citizens in our society. This is a made -in- Manitoba approach.

We hope that they will support us because we believe it's in the best interests of Manitobans. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview, on a final supplementary. Mr. Allum: The Deputy Premier wants me to stand on the dock long after the ship has sailed. What's she talking about? I thi nk the reality, and I think what's become crystal clear– Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Mr. Allum: I think what's become crystal clear to Manitobans, Madam Speaker, and to Canadians, that this has been a bizarre attempt to throw a wrench into the planned reform of the CPP here in Canada.

Will the Premier simply admit that his efforts yesterday were disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst? Mrs. Stefanson : It's very disappointing when this member takes that kind of a tone when it comes to– what we're trying to do is stand up for Manitobans. What we're trying to do–what we are doing is taking into consideration low -income seniors, the indexation of the death benefit, enhance affordability to individuals and to businesses in Manitoba and a commitment to a comprehensive review of other CP benefits, including disability.

And these, of course–we believe now is the time to get things right, and now is the time to stand up for Manitobans. We would just hope that members opposite would join us in doing just that. WCB Review Committee Terms of Reference Change Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Yesterday, the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade responded to my question about changes in the terms of reference that will be provided to the review committee at an upcoming review of The Workers Compensation Act. He replied that he's putting together a letter with new terms of reference, adding to the value of that particular review.

Will the minister now tell the House what specifically will be added or removed from the terms of reference provided to the review committee in January? Hon. Cliff Cullen (Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade ): I do appreciate the question from the member. Obviously, a 10- year review of the Workers Compensation Board is very important. It only comes around so often, so we want to make sure that we get that initiative correct. And I certainly –I have

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1627 a draft letter actually sitting on my desk and I will be reviewing that tomorrow. So the contents of that letter will be available in due course. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a supplementary question. Mr. Lindsey: The minister committed to providing plenty of direction to the review comm ittee short of writing the report for them, I hope. So I ask the minister again: What specifically will be added or removed from the terms of reference provided to the review committee in January? Mr. Cullen: I appreciate the member's comments.

I'm not sure what the doom -and-gloom party over there is worried about. I mean, this is going to be an open dialogue with Manitobans. This is going to be a consultation with Manitobans. I know that the members opposite aren't used to having a consultation with M anitobans. We on this side of the House, as a new government, are listening to Manitobans and we will continue to have that dialogue with Manitobans. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, on a final supplementary. * (14:30) Mr.

Lindsey: The review by the committee also includes input from all stakeholders, which will be considered in the preparation of the final report. Will the minister outline the form that this public consultation will take place, when the committee will begin its work and when the review will be completed? Mr. Cullen : I do appreciate the question. I do appreciate the opportunity to respond to this. As I said, it's a 10 -year review of the Workers Compensation Board. We think it should be open and transparent.

That's why I'm ensuring that we will provide as much input as possible from Manitobans and open it to conversations from Manitobans. So I'm going to spread the dialogue around. We are asking to –the board to look at very robust areas of the review, and certainly th is review will be undertaken very –in the very near future, and results will be open, the conversation will be open and I guess the members will –an opportunity to put input into the consultation period. Secondary Suites Program Government Commitment Mr.

Mohinder Saran (The Maples): Within Manitoba's immigrant communities, families play a central role in the daily life, having multiple generations under the same roof. Investing in housing that can accommodate three generations in immigrant househol ds helps to relieve stress on Manitoba child care and seniors housing programs. Will this government commit to the Secondary Suites Program already in place to assist families in renovation of existing homes to accommodate these multi-generation arrangements? Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for the question.

We share his concern regarding low -income housing and access to affordable housing for – especially for new immigrant families. We know that's something that many of them have challenges with in their early years when they come to Manitoba, and I recognize the point that many of them very quickly become homeowners here in Manitoba, which is certainly something that we all celebrate. We are certainly working t o encourage more low-income housing, and we are prepared to invest $48 million this coming year in low -income housing here in Manitoba. Madam Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.

Point of Order Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights, on a point of order. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Education during question period referred to a letter, and he described in detail the contents of that letter. I would ask the m inister if he would table that letter. Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): I know that the member is trying to extend question period. He should accept the fact that question period is over. He didn't get his chance to ask a question. He might get a chance tomorrow; he should have that discussion in his caucus.

The member for –the Minister of Education didn't quote a letter and is under no obligation to table it, Madam Speaker.

1628 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 Madam Speaker: The minister did not read from a letter, so the minister is not obligated to table any letter. PETITIONS Bell's Purchase of MTS Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background of 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 five-gigabyte 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 all cellphone packages in the province. We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: To urge the provincial government to do all that is possible to prevent the Bell takeover MTS and 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. Union Certification Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. Manitobans have benefited greatly from fair and balanced approach to labour relations that has led to a long period of labour peace in this province.

Under current legislation, if 65 per cent of workers in a workplace vote to join a union by signing a union card, then the union can qualify to become automatically certified as the official bargaining agent for the workers. These signed union cards are submitted to the Labour Board and an independent review by the Labour Board is held to ensure that the law has been followed. Provincial threshold to achieve automatic certification of a union is the highest in the country, at 65 per cent. The democratic will and decisio n of workers to vote and join the union is absolutely clear.

During the recent provincial election, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party announced, without any consultations, that it was his intention to change this fair and balanced legislation by requiring a second vote conducted on a matter where the democratic will of workers has already been expressed. This plan opens up the process to potential employer interference and takes the same misguided approach the federal Conservatives under the Harper administration took in Bill C-525, which was nothing more than a solution looking for a problem.

The recent introduction of Bill 7 by the provincial government confirmed this possibility by removing automatic certification and the safeguards in The Labour Relations Act to protect workers from employer intimidation during the certification 'protess.' We petition the Legislature of –Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government maintain the current legislation for union certification which reflects the balance and fairness rather than adopting the intention to make it harder for workers to organize. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Grievances?

ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS (Continued) House Business Mr. Jim Maloway (Official Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on House business, I'd like to table the opposition list of govern - ment ministers to be called for concurrence on Wednesday, June 29th, 2016. * * *

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1629 Hon. Kelvin Goertzen (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you please resolve into Committee of Supply? Madam Speaker: The House will now resolve into Committee of Supply. Mr. Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Continued) Concurrence Motion (Continued) Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The committee of –will now resume consideration for the motion concurrently –for the Supply resolution related to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2017.

On June 27th, 2016, the Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Maloway) tabled the following list of ministers of the Crown who may be called for sequential questioning for the debate on this motion today: Infrastructure, Crown Services, Indigenous and Municipal Relations and Sustainable Development. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): I welcome the Minister for Crown Services in this very good hour for concurrence. And I just want to take him back to the mandate letter, just to give him a refresher of what he has been quoting for quite a while.

The open and transparent style of government that he often mentions, from my point of view and in my opinion, suggests that maybe he should answer some questions a little bit more directly and not in a roundabout, circuitous non-answer. * (14:40) The–first of all, let's deal with Manitoba Hydro. And Manitoba Hydro is a very important crown jewel in our province. It is the largest Crown corporation and it involves public services. It's a utility company that provides the energy to our province.

And, philosophically, when it was first envisioned as a Crown corporation, the –Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, was designed to provide the energy needs of the province for the longest time possible. Now, my question is this: How far along has the Bipole III been under construction, and how much has been spent? Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Crown Services): Well, I'd like to thank the member for the question. And he speaks about when Manitoba Hydro was first envisioned.

I think I've said to him before, there is an interesting debate that took place right in this Chamber, and it involved, of all people, Premier Duff Roblin. And it was his government that started the whole process of creating Manitoba Hydro, and they certainly had an amazing vision for Manitoba Hydro.

I would even go further back, and I would say to the member for Tyndall Park–I'd like to say to him, if he were to look straight up at the dome, and if we could see through all the building material, we would notice that the Golden Boy on top of this building faces not south, but he faces north, because the feeling was then, already, that the future of this province would be in the North, and how right they were. They were absolutely right that the future of the province of Manitoba lies to the north, and a large part of that is Manitoba Hydro.

The member for Tyndall Park is absolutely correct; it was Premier Roblin and his government of the day, Progressive Conservative government, that created Manitoba Hydro. In fact, Bipole III, already they were discussing where lines would come through. And I would suggest to the member that, already, the genesis of coming down on the east side of Lake Winnipeg wa s already being discussed at that time, that it would come down on the east side. Bipole III has been under construction for a while.

I would point out to the member, interestingly enough, I used to be the critic for Manitoba Hydro, and I can tell him we got very little or next to nothing – nothing–from his government on where the project was, how far along it is, what had been completed, what had been spent. And even at committee we were not given the information that we asked for when we were at Crown corporations committee. I would say to the member we have a –tasked a board of directors to look into all of those questions. We are waiting for a reply back with recommendations.

When those recommendations come forward, those recommendations will be made public and we will know all of those answers. But I think we have to be very careful that we don't do what happened with the previous NDP government,

1630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 start the interfering in the Crown corporations and getting them off of what they should be doing. And currently one of those things is a review of the Bipole line, and, frankly, all bricks and mortar. They–that's their mandate, that's what they're doing, they're looking into it. When they're ready to give a recommendation, that recommendation will then be made public. Mr. Marcelino : So I take it that the honourable minister does not know how much has been spent on Bipole III? Mr.

Schuler: If the member is asking for a global figure, I can give him a global figure. But, no, we do not know to the penny what's been spent. Manitoba Hydro is currently still working on the project. There were contracts that were let that have been signed. Those are still being lived up to. I understand that the amount is approximately $1.2 billion. We will find out at some point in time what the actual true number is.

I would suggest to members in this Chamber, we, as politicians, love to 'banty' around numbers because we don't have the patience to wait for any kind of actual report or an audited statement, because we like the num bers fast, and often we like to be fairly loose with the numbers. The number so far, and this is, again, just an estimate, of $1.2 billion. We do not know the exact number.

And I don't want the member, at some point in time, if it's 1.15 or it ends up being $1.27 billion, he'll get up in question period and say, why did the minister mislead the House, and, you know, he's off by, you know, $75 on one side or the other. I don't want to get into that kind of discussion. What we do want to get into is a di scussion that we've made it very clear to the Crown corporation board of directors, Manitoba Hydro board of directors that they are to look at the corporation, do a review and come back with recommendations. And at that time we will know what numbers they were looking at.

Back to the member, from what I understand, a global number, an estimated number to date, is $1.2 billion. Mr. Marcelino : On the basis of the $1.2 billion guesstimate from the minister, what is the basis of $1.2 billion? What does that consist? Is it with the purchase of the rights of way, or does that include the foundation already poured, the concrete already bought, the labour costs that have been involved, the design that have been included? And does he have any documents to suggest that he even knows what that number really means? Mr. Schuler: Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for being here.

I kind of have this feeling the critic and I are in two parallel universe discussions here. I keep saying to him, we are currently doi ng a review of a project that for 17 years, leading up to April the 19th, he was personally responsible for. And for the last, now, it's maybe eight weeks that we've been government, we're trying to find out those numbers. I would suggest to him, why doe sn't he look through his notes up until April the 19th? He should know. He had access to this, for 17 years he had access to it. We've been government for nine weeks. Now we are trying to find out exactly what he's asking.

And, you know, I would say to t he member, it's interesting. We have 14 NDP members of the Legislature, who used to be the government, who know nothing about what happened the last 17 years, and they're speaking to a government that's been there for nine weeks and that is trying to find out what the facts are. And he is frustrated that after 17 years of NDP knowing nothing about what was going on, that now the Conservatives, after having been there for nine weeks, don't have all the answers yet. * (14:50) You know, this is this parallel universe discussion we're having in the Chamber.

I would say to the member he's been with a party that was in government for 17 years that started the fiasco that wasn't defeated until April the 19th –unfortunately not sooner –but why doesn't he look through his notes? Member for Elmwood's (Mr. Maloway) chirping the whole time –all the time I speak; member for Elmwood is so eager to get into this debate. Why doesn't he consult with the grise éminence of the NDP? The member for Elmwood, why doesn't he ask him to go into his notes? Between the two of them they have probably 25 years in this Chamber.

Certainly, after having been the government for 17 years, they should have the answer.

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1631 If he's asking for me for the answer after nine weeks, I can tell him we are working on it. As soon as we have the answers, we will let people know, but we are going to allow the Crown corporations to do– it's a word he might want to be interested in–it's called due diligence, and what due diligence means is you look at things, you make sure you got the right numbers, and then you produce them. If the member has those numbers, why doesn't he table them?

If it's not a good enough answer, he has to wait for the Crown corporation board of directors to do the due diligence. That's w hat's happening right now, and, no, we are not going to undermine that process. Mr. Marcelino : Okay, so what I get from that answer that took about four minutes is that he does not know, and he could have said it in a straightaway–I don't know. But I'll go to the next topic then.

If the honourable minister does not know how far along Bipole III is, and if we are to assume that there has been spent $1.2 billion on the preparation and construction of Bipole III, is the honourable minister aware that $1.2 billion is a lot of money? Mr. Schuler: I would like to say to the member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino), I miss him in question period. That question should have come up today in question period. I think he'd put it out of the ballpark, you know. Do I think $1.2 billion is a lot of money?

And I would say to him I believe that the billion -dollar deficit that he, the member for Tyndall Park, and each and every one of the 14 NDP MLAs left behind is an unbelievable amount of money to leave in a deficit. How could the member for Tyndall Park, how could the member for Concordia (Mr. Wiebe), how could the member for The Maples (Mr. Saran), how could the member for The Pas –Logan–the member for Logan (Ms.

Marcelino), how could they have left the people of Manitoba with a billion-dollar deficit? [interjection] And we clearly, clearly know that the member for Logan, who basically broke the Province, she basically bankrupted the Province; she was one of the most senior, one of the highest echelon of the NDP. She helped to bankrupt the Province. A billion dollars, I would say, is a lot of money. I would point out to the member, the member for Logan, who wants to now get involved in the debate and seems to be debating and forgetting her microphone's not on.

She has to wait for the microphone to go on; then she can put her words on the record. But I would like to point out to the member for Tyndall Park that the entire Bipole III project was supposed to cost in its entirety $1.2 billion, and now the estimate, his gove rnment estimate, is that it'll breach $4 billion. Do I think $1.2 billion is a lot of money? Yes.

What frightens me even more is that under the member for Tyndall Park and the member for Logan and the member for Concordia , the member for The Maples, all of them–all of them – drove a project that should have been $1.2 billion, which is now not the completion number, is actually the starting point. That's the starting point for Bipole III. It's going to potentially hit $4 billion. Does all of that scare me and concern me as a member of Her Majesty's Cabinet? Absolutely. And we should never take that lightly.

The kind of numbers that the NDP drove up in their mis - management–whether it was the member for Logan when she sat at the Cabinet table and drove a deficit of more than $1 billion; absolutely, the member for Logan, her deficit, absolutely appalls me. Now, what about the $1.2 billion as a starting point? It's not the finishing point for Bipole III; the start point now of $1.2 billion for the bipole line 3. Does that concern me? Do I think that's a lot of money? Absolutely.

A nd the member for Tyndall Park and the member for Logan and the member for The Maples and all the other NDP MLAs, the first thing they should've done when they walked into this House is they should have apologized for the disastrous policies of the last 17 years. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Marcelino: Thank you for the applause. The honourable minister is admitting that $1.2 billion–or whatever figure it is –is a lot of money. S o is it–if it has been already spent and converter stations have been built and all the anchors have been poured, what, then, is the purpose of the review? Mr.

Schuler: During the last election, I had two individuals, seniors, call me. They live on Pipeli ne Road. They've been there for more than 60 years. No fault to their own, their school taxes are going up because the NDP underfunded education, drove up school taxes. Their sewer service charge in front of their house went up because the NDP refused to fund

1632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 municipal sewerage–sewage; their sewer charge went up. They looked at the NDP over the last six years. Their hydro rates have gone up astronomically. Never, never, in the history of this province have we seen hydro rates increase like they did under the last 17 years of the NDP. Fact, it accelerated, was the last three, four years. The member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino), he was a senior member of that government. Under his watch, never before had we ever seen hydro rates go up like that, ever bef ore.

And they –these seniors said to me, in tears, that because of the tax increases, because of the NDP mismanagement, they were now putting their houses up for sale; they couldn't afford to live in their homes anymore. * (15:00) And when the review was r ecommended, I said to the board chair and I said to the board: Your responsibility is to run a company that provides good service, that provides good rates, that provides a good Crown corporation for the senior living on Pipeline Road, the widow living on Inkster Boulevard, the individual living in northern Manitoba, the person on a farm in southern Manitoba; whether it's in a city, a town, a hamlet, a community, it should make no difference.

Run the corporation, keeping in mind that for some people, a $10 or $15 or $20 increase on their hydro bill every month means that they have to make tough choices. And that's how we should be running our Crown corporations, and not sitting around like the member for Tyndall Park , wanting to be the marionette master, pulling strings, and a billion here and, well, if we've spent a billion, is a billion a lot of dollars? You know what, there are people sitting at their kitchen tables that are talking about that $30 extra a month is a lot of dollars.

And it is for those people that we have to have a heart, and it's for those people that we should be concerned how we run our Crown corporations, and it's for those people that we should be concerned about the mismanagement that went on under the administration of the member for Tyndall Park and the member for Fort Garry -Riverview (Mr. Allum) and the other 14 NDP MLAs. It is those people that are going to bear the brunt of this. And I would suggest to the member for Tyndall Park–he sits here and has a guessing game on what is or isn't done.

He guesstimates at everything and then uses that as logic that's somehow we shouldn't do a review. I would suggest to the member for Tyndall Park that I will listen to the professionals of the Crown corporation, the men and women who are trained engineers, accountants, architects, the people who do the numbers, the actuaries, all of those individuals, people who have got a lot of training in Manitoba Hydro; I will take their advice anytime above the member for Tyndall Park's guessing game that he's running here in this Chamber today.

We need to make decisions on the facts and on the facts only; not on hypothetical, politically driven guesstimates of t he member for Tyndall Park or anybody else in this Chamber. We need to base our decision on hard facts. We need to know what was done, what's been done, what's been paid for, what hasn't been paid for, how far is the project. That is what a review is necessary for, and not the guessing game that s eems to be put forward as something we should be building a company on, the member for Tyndall Park. I'll take the professionals from Hydro any day. Mr.

Marcelino: Would the minister be able to tell us, at least, what the Bipole III is –what kind of load would the Bipole III carry from the dam to the converter stations? Is that something that's within his information and knowledge? Mr.

Schuler: I would like to suggest to the member for Tyndall Park that we are going to have a Crown Corporations Committee, and I would recommend that if he's interested on what every line is going to carry, what the load -bearing line is for a particular line, I would suggest to him, if he wants to put forward a list of –you know, if he wants it to be a couple pages of questions, if he wants to give those ahead of time, we'll send them in to the corporation, when we get into Crown Corporations Committee, they can answer those questions.

There's no state secret on what any of those lines are supposed to carry or what they carry. That's all perfectly legitimate questions, but that is a question that we should really be answering in Crown Corporations Committee. I think the Estimates process really does deal on a global way with the Department of Crown Services. Mr. Marcelino : Let's go to the question about Bipole III and the decision to build it on the west side.

If there is a determination on the part of the board of Manitoba Hydro that the west transmission lines is not feasible and the $1.2 billion will just be wasted–the $1.2 billion that has been spent will just be wasted, and the design and the and the

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1633 construction that has been done will just be abandoned. Will the minister consent to the construction of the Bipole III on the east side? Mr. Schuler: Well, and you know what? I thank the member for that question, and that is something that's been debated out in the general public now for a long time.

I would like to say to all members as you read different articles in the newspaper, I avail myself from occasion to the comments that are made in the paper, the Free Press or the Winnipeg Sun, and sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes there is a real healthy debate and what the member raises today is part of that public debate. And I would say to the member opposite that, as the minister, I have to be very careful that I don't prejudice the review that's taking place. And I'll say to the member, absolutely what he raises is an important part of the debate.

I think individuals should be asking those questions. I think those questions are legitimate and everything he's raised I don't have truck nor trade with. The thing is that, as the Minister of Crown Services, we have asked the Crown corporations to do–and I tabled the framework letters –we've asked them to do facility rev iews. I cannot, as minister, ask for a review of the facilities–we call it a bricks-and-mortar review–and then be sitting in the House or going in front of the media or going outside of this building and starting to second- guess what's taking place.

There are a lot of men and women very professional, and I've met with a lot of them now over the last couple of weeks. You meet them at announcements, you meet them–we had a delegation come in from Bavaria, a great delegation, very interested in what we're doing here in hydro. So I got to meet some of the officials and I'd have to say incredibly highly educated men and women.

And I'd say to the member, very impressive, and if there's something that's unfortunate that we as legislators don't have the opportunity to meet the men and women who actually run these corporations at a high level, I am, like, absolutely impressed by the kind of education, the kind of experience, the kind of seriousness that we get from these individuals. And I would say to the member for Tyndall Park (Mr.

Marcelino), it would be disingenuous, it would be unbecoming, of myself to start speculating on what he raises as a debate, and I'm not saying the member isn't right to raise these issues and I think this is an important debate and people should be debating this. But, as minister, I will exclude myself from this debate because it shouldn't look like I'm second- guessing the boards that we've appointed to these corporations and the professionals that the boards are asking for their recommendations from.

So I will not engage–I would say to the member, one of the other things that I am not allowed to do as minister–I'm actually allowed to buy a lottery ticket; I just am not allowed to win anything. So I don't participate in any lottery of any kind. There are certain things that when I became minister I just don't do and certain things that I shouldn't do. And one of the things that I shouldn't do is second- guess and try doing an end run around the boards of directors that were appointed, and we think we've got an outstanding board of directors for Manitoba Hydro.

We think we've got outstanding professionals at Manitoba Hydro and for myself as minister to do an end run around them, I think would be very unbecoming. And that doesn't mean that the minister isn't entitled to his questions, neither do I think the – you know, the member is absolutely entitled to the debate. I just think I should not include myself in that debate. * (15:10) Mr. Marcelino : So let us define our terms, then. When the honourable Minister for Crown Services was appointed, and he was given a so-called mandate letter.

The question that comes to mind when I was reading this is that there is no mention of the Manitoba Liquor & Lott eries or the MPI, which is the Manitoba Public Insurance. There's no mention that it should be –or they should be kept publicly owned. The only mention that we have, on page 2 of the supposedly mandate letter dated May 3rd, 2016, on the second paragraph of the same page, it says here, as Minister of Crown Services you are the lead in fulfilling the following platform commitments. Above all else, keep Manitoba's largest Crown corporation, Manitoba Hydro, publicly owned.

And it goes on with three other bullets , and then it went on to the third paragraph where it says, you will form teams with your Cabinet colleagues to ensure we fulfill the following platform commitments, in particular–and there it's followed by two more bullets. Now, there's nothing mentione d about keeping MPI and MLLC and the centennial corporation–the

1634 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 Manitoba centennial corporation publicly owned. Is that a tipoff that those three other Crown corporations could be privatized? Mr. Schuler: I'd like to point out the member –to the member, the election in 2011–one of the most dishonest elections we've seen of late, probably the most dishonest election we've ever seen–[interjection] And the member for Logan (Ms. Marcelino) says she doesn't want us to go there, because she's very sensitive.

And the member for Logan was one of those individuals who went door to door, canvassed, said, oh, we're going to spend all kinds of money on all kinds of stuff. And when the member for Logan was asked, would she raise the PST, what was her answer? Ridicul ous. Read my lips: never, not a chance. And what did she do? The first thing as one of the senior members of Cabinet, stuck Manitobans with the biggest tax increase and the PST increase.

But also in that campaign a very dishonest component was involved i n that campaign, and that was a concerted effort by the NDP and –misleading Manitobans on that the Conservatives were going to sell Manitoba Hydro. Manitoba Hydro, which was a Progressive Conservative creation, was created under Premier Duff Roblin, a Progr essive Conservative premier, a member of this Chamber who did amazing things. He is known as the father of modern Manitoba, changed the education system, changed all kinds of things, moved Manitoba forward like no premier before, and, certainly, not anythi ng we saw in the last 17 years.

And it was very unfortunate the kinds of advertising and the kinds of dishonest things that were taking place in the 2011 campaign. So I think what the member –and if the member wanted to know the answer, he should probably pay a little closer attention. What the letter is very clear on, it sends a message, because the NDP run campaigns on fear. They never run campaigns on what they believe in, what's good for the future, what's–you know, hope and opportunity. What they do is they run their campaigns on anger and fear.

And, unfortunately, they were able to communicate a very–the NDP was able to convey a very negative and dishonest –the Progressive Conservatives were going to sell Manitoba Hydro. And, even when we came into this House, one of the first questions –first questions –the member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino) asked was on, are you going to sell Manitoba Hydro. Got up and said–we said: No. No, we would not. [interjection] And, in fact, I would say the member for Logan, who's – always wants to get on the debate, it's just that she never waits for her microphone to go live.

She's the one who started the whole process of selling off Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries. She's the one who was part of selling off of all kinds of components within her government. An Honourable Member: Land titles. Mr. Schuler: Land titles being one of those. She's the big privatizer herself, and now she sits there and, oh, oh, we're worried about selling something off. Yes, her and her Cabinet –her and her Cabinet –the big privatizers. But back to what the letter –the letter that the member was asking about. [interjection] And I know the member for Logan keeps wanting to interject with questions.

And I have to always answer them for her, because she is the member's boss. So, you know, maybe the member for Logan wants to wait until her microphone is live, and then she can put her questions on the record. But, in the meantime, I'll get back to the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Chief) and his question. The reason why Hydro was specifically mentioned in the letter is because of the dishonesty of the 2011 campaign. In fact, it was something that even came up in the last election.

But, by that point in time, Manitobans had had it with the doom and gloom, negative –negative–dark–dark–sinister NDP kind of approach, where they even went so far as try to scare cancer patients with their statements. I mean, it was just ugly–ugly–stuff that is just unbecoming of elected officials. So the Premier (Mr. Pallister) put that into the letter to make it very clear to Manitobans that, as the party that created Manitoba Hydro, we are going to make it a great Manitoba publicly owned corporation. Mr. Marcelino: The question that I had was a very simple one.

And it's a si mple question that could be answered simply. I'll repeat the question, then. Will the Crown Services Minister attempt to sell MPI? Mr. Schuler: No. Mr. Marcelino : And will the Crown Services Minister attempt to sell Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries Corporation? Mr. Schuler: No.

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1635 Mr. Marcelino: And will the minister attempt to sell or privatize any portion of Manitoba Hydro? Mr. Schuler: No. Mr. Marcelino: And that no, is that something that's definitely just for today, or is it good–[interjection] You could bang your head a little bit harder, and if I sound stupid, you could say it. Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Tyndall Park (Mr. Marcelino). * (15:20) Mr. Marcelino: I'm sorry. The promise to maintain an open and transparent government, I think, has been failing with this minister.

And the answers to the questions that I have always been very, very straightforward backwards. And it's amazing how we waste our time asking these questions and getting non-answers. And the politicization of the tone and the personal attack that I think should not be part of what the minister should be doing. I have a lot of respect for the minister, but now, that's waning a little bit. Let me ask another question, then, about not Hydro but Manitoba Lotteries.

The head office plan of Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries to go downtown, it was made by a board of directors of that corporation, and it was made with a little bit more than just a decision on a whim. Would the honourable minister please tell us if there was an y needs analysis before the purchase of the downtown location was made and before it was closed in November? Mr. Schuler: I think the member for Tyndall Park is asking–and I don't know why he feels this has become personal. He's asked me questions, and I' ve answered him more forthright answers than I've gotten from most ministers in the last 17 years.

I answered him three–he asked three straight -up questions, and I answered him straight up. And he's frustrated with a straight-up answer. So what he's asking is, can I tell him what the process was when he was a government MLA, sitting on the board of Liquor & Lotteries. That's correct. He was the government MLA on the board. He was a government member on–[interjection] I stand corrected. See, I–even I'm willing to admit it when I was wrong. I believe then it was the member for Assiniboine who was –[interjection] Yes. Once in a while, the minister gets it wrong.

It was the member for Assiniboine, Jim Rondeau, must have been the government appointment. And I have to tell members, unfortunately, the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger) fired all the MLAs off the Crown corporations board after the election, before we became government. So I actually am not entirely sure who was on which board, so I stand corr ected on that. But the member was in a government that was part of the decision making on what was going to happen with Liquor, Lotteries and moving downtown.

We understand that that was a decision made in conjunction with the Cabinet, with Cabinet ministers and the corporation. Who made the decision? I'd have to defer to the member because I was not sitting in the NDP Cabinet, thank goodness. And that was a decision made by individuals on the opposite benches who made that decision. They made the decisio n. I'd have to tell the member, he'd be better off going to the member for Fort Garry-Riverview (Mr. Allum) or the member for Logan (Ms. Marcelino). They were part of the disastrous political interference in the Crown corporations, and member for Point Douglas (Mr.

Chief), he'd be another individual who could tell the member exactly how that decision was made. I was not minister at the time. I have no idea what process they undertook to come to that conclusion. He'd have to speak to one of his former C abinet ministers. Mr. Marcelino: So what I get from that answer is that during the last seven or eight weeks the honourable minister has not asked any questions about the purchase of the downtown location for Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries. Is that correct? Mr. Schuler : Well, Mr.

Chair, I don't want to be – I don't want to come across as disrespectful to the member because he seems to think he's being disrespected when I answer the questions. So I will answer very respectfully: no. Mr. Marcelino: So there was not even an inquiry or a question asked or an email sent or a telephone call made regarding the reason behind the relocation of the Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries head office on Empress Street and Buffalo Place? Is that what the honourable minister is trying to tell us? Mr. Schuler : I know that this is a really tough concept for NDP MLAs to understand, and I get it.

I get it that there's a lot of struggle on the opposite benches on this issue.

1636 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 If we put in a board of directors and we gave them a framewo rk letter that says facility reviews should take place, why would, then, the minister call up the corporation and do a facilities review of his own or her own of the Crown corporations? Either you trust the people you put on the boards and the boards trust the professionals in the Crown corporation, or you don't. And, if the member for Tyndall Park (Mr.

Marcelino) says that he doesn't believe the government should trust the board of directors or the professionals of the corporation to do a good enough job, that it should be a politician sitting in an office in this building that should be calling into the Crowns and asking for all the information and deciding because –and I take, for instance, the member for Tyndall Park or myself, we could ask for all th e drawings, but we're not engineers. We could ask for all the legal documents, but we're not lawyers. We could ask for all the financial statements, but we're not a CPA.

And we could go through the list, but what we–rather than the minister calling for all that information and then doing, I can't imagine what with it, what we've done as a government is appointed men and women who do have a legal background, who do have a business background, who do have a financial background, who are individuals who understand engineering and all the rest of it.

And they call for the documents, and they work with the professionals in the Crown corporations, and they are the ones that decide what should happen on a go- forward basis and not political operatives bought and paid for from –by– from within the ranks of the NDP. Why would a NDP political organizer know what should or shouldn't happen with a Crown corporation? That's why you put boards of directors in charge of the Crown corporations and you have them do a review, and they work with the professionals in th e corporation, and they come forward with recommendations.

And I know this bores the member for Tyndall Park, and I know members opposite are frustrated with this because what they want to know is can I tell them which political hack gets what information and does what political action to do whatever with the Crown corporation to further the political interests of the NDP party. * (15:30) That's what interests them. But that wasn't in the best interests of Manitobans. That was not in the best interests o f what was taking place in the Crown corporations, and that is what got us into the mess with Bipole III.

A line that was supposed to cost $1.2 billion is now hitting a $4 -billion benchmark and counting. It was because of political interference by members opposite. And no, we're not going to do that. So the member asked me a straightforward question: Did I by phone, pigeon, email, letter, whatever else–greyhound racing dog or whatever – did I send a message in that I want all this information. No. And I di dn't do it for any corporation. I didn't want that information because there are individuals that are qualified that should be doing the review and bringing recommendations to government.

And government, then, can go from there. But the recommendations must come from the corporation or, in the case of should they go with a blue pen instead of a black pen, that's a board decision. There is some stuff that needn't come. But what–we're going to do it on a business model, and we've made it very clear to the me mber, for days and weeks on end, that's how we're running the corporation, and not with political operatives sitting in this building. Mr. Marcelino: So let's chase that tail of the dog; what was said, tail of the dog.

Let me ask the question, then: If the decision to relocate downtown was already made by a board of directors that was supposedly doing their jobs as a board of directors, why is it necessary for the minister to second -guess them in their decision to relocate downtown? Mr. Schuler: The minister is not second- guessing. The minister has made it very clear we aren't taking a position on any of those very controversial decisions. We are allowing the boards to do their job. That's been our position since we got elected. Mr.

Marcelino: So the statement that was attributed to the PC Liquor & Lotteries critic, quoted in a news item some time before the honourable minister was appointed, that it seems to me they have done their due diligence, when asked about the purchase at the cost of $7.9 million by Liquor & Lotteries to relocate downtown. What did he base his statement that they must have done their due diligence? Is that just flowery words or he didn't mean it? Mr. Schuler: You know, it's amazing that there is a government, in government right now, that has been

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1637 consistent in opposition as it is in government. It's a political party that has been consistent. I would point out to the member opposite that it was Ron Lemieux, the member for Dawson Trail, was the minister at the time. He called in myself –I believe he made the same offer to the Liberals –gave us a briefing on the building, what was done. We were allowed to ask all kinds of questions, which we did, and we came out as a political party and said, very clearly, that we weren't g oing to second- guess the board.

All that we wanted was an assurance that this was in the best interest of ratepayers. We weren't going to second- guess them. The minister gave us a briefing; we asked all kinds of questions. And the minister assured us that it had gone to tender, they'd checked all the different tenders that came in. This was what they considered to be the best option. And, interestingly enough, we've carried that practice through into government. We're not going to second-guess the boards of the Crown corporations. Mr.

Marcelino : Now, dovetailing –another tail– dovetailing on that answer, second- guessing: Can you please–can the honourable minister please define what second-guessing is? Mr. Schuler: One of the worst things you can do to professional people is ask them to get information, do a proper study, do a review, spend a lot of time – when you ask somebody to do something, a professional, you're under the assumption they're going to use a lot of their life, a lot of hours, a lot of creativity, and they're going to put together something that they believe very passionately, very strongly on.

And you ask them for that advice not because you're trying to humour them. I know the member's then going to ask me, well, what do you actually mean by humour, so I'll define that as well. What I mean is is you're not playing them for the fool. You're not asking them for advice even though you've already made up your decision. You ask them to come forward with a strong recommendation based on facts, based on what they feel is in the best interest of the organization would – be it a non- profit, be it a government, be it a church group, whatever it is.

When you're second- guessing them is when you walk around and you say, you know, boy, I sure hope they know what they're doing. And you undermine them. And that's what second-guessing basically does. It undermines individuals who take what they're doing very serious. And we respected the previous board of Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries, as we respect the current board of Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries. And, as critic, we were very careful to never disrespect the board. We wanted to make sure the board made a fulsome decision based on the facts. They had done their decision, what they–with all due diligence.

And w e were not about to second- guess them. We were not about to undermine their decision-making process, undermine their decision or, if you will, to disrespect who they are as professionals and what they were doing. And that carries over to the new boards. We are not going to second-guess or undermine or disrespect them.

And I would suggest that the critic –he's new to this role–he came in as a government MLA, and this is now his foray –first foray into opposition–that when it comes to the Crown corporations, we always have to remember that the men and women, the professionals in this corporations, should always be above our politics. And I would say to the member opposite, I never, ever attacked individuals who worked in the Crown corporations or who served on the boards. * (15:40) Mr.

Marcelino : And if the previous board of directors of Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries did their due diligence before the decision to buy the Medical Arts Building was made and the cheque was cut for the purchase price and the deal was closed. How can the minister now say that he's not second-guessing when he's putting up the whole thing under review? And, if that's not second-guessing, I don't know what that is. Anyway, at this juncture, I will defer the questioning of the honourable minister to my colleague the member for Fort Rouge. Thank you. Mr.

Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): I was pleased to see in the mandate letter for the Minister of Crown Services (Mr. Schuler) that there was a directive to ensure that Manitoba Hydro remains public over the course of this mandate. So I would like to ask, just for clarification on that, is it the minister's intention to ensure that all the subsidiary business units of Manitoba Hydro remain public during this government's mandate? Mr. Schuler: Too bad the member wasn't paying better attention. I think we've answered that question in its totality and its fulsomeness. We have no

1638 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 intention on selling off Manitoba Hydro, and that would include its subsidiaries. Mr. Kinew: So all the busine ss units that are currently a part of Manitoba Hydro will remain public? Mr. Schuler: Yes. Mr. Kinew: So there's a specific part of Manitoba Hydro called Manitoba Hydro Telecom, which potentially could be very valuable, because what this part of Manitoba Hydro has done is they've installed a broadband fibre -optic backbone along the portion of the transmission lines that Manitoba Hydro operate in the province here.

And so Manitoba Hydro Telecom, you know, as a operator of broadband is, you know, potentiall y a portion of the Crown corporation which has a great deal of value. We know that they sometimes sell bandwidth to private Internet service providers, and therefore there is, you know, a market demand for the specific activities that this subsidiary unit of Manitoba Hydro undertakes. So, therefore, I'd just like, you know, to have on the record the question to the minister as to whether Manitoba Hydro Telecom specifically, as an operating unit of Manitoba Hydro, will remain in public hands. Mr.

Schuler: Well, first of all, I think one of the first things we'd like to do is ensure that the fire-sale price that the NDP sold Manitoba Hydro to all kinds of pension funds in American financiers –we want to stop the bleeding of Manitoba Hydro because the single worse thing that Manitoba Hydro is facing is its enormous debt. And the member opposite should apologize along with the rest of his colleagues for what the NDP did to Manitoba Hydro.

And the member talks about all kinds of stuff and doesn't talk about the real issues facing Manitoba Hydro, and that's its enormous debt that they have left us and the kinds of projects that are way over price. We won't even talk about projects that are now complete that were supposed to be in the $800-million range and ended up being 1.2– $1.3 billion and won't make money for 20 years.

So I would suggest to the member that there are far more serious issues facing Manitoba Hydro than their telecommunication's component of it, and I think we've made it very clear it's not our intention to be selling off pieces of Manitoba Hydro. And, you know, never before –certainly not under his party ever was a mandate letter ever published, never was a framework letter ever published for a Crown corporation. It was the most secretive–you know, what they might as well have put the NDRP for redaction in their political party because that–every document we got was 90 per cent redacted. The member for St.

Boniface (Mr. Selinger) sits there and scowls. You know what, they ran out of more bl ack Sharpies than any jurisdiction in the world. That's all they did is sat and redacted everything off of documents. This has been the most open and transparent government ever, and certainly the last 17 years, where they might as well have just tabled what they didn't redact, and that would have barely have made it on a half a piece of paper of – foolscap paper. You'd been lucky to have gotten that much on one piece of paper what they didn't redact. So I'd suggest to the member, you know, why doesn't he listen to the answers?

We've made it very clear that we are going to preserve and protect Manitoba Hydro for future generations, something that they didn't do –they didn't do–in the entire 17 years that they were government, and they should have done it. They never protected the ratepayers, nor did they protect the taxpayers. And they sit and they spin themselves in circles about privatization when they went and they sold Manitoba Hydro to all kinds of American financiers for the debt load that we are hold ing with Manitoba Hydro.

It's going to take generations to get us out of that debt, and they should, each and every one of them, starting with the member for St. Boniface , should apologize to the people from–of Manitoba for the debt load they put on top of Manitoba Hydro. Mr. Kinew: Yes, I –you know, I wonder whether the member would apologize for stealing Justin Trudeau's playbook in releasing the mandate letters to the public.

I certainly enjoyed it when Justin Trudeau did it first, and so to see the PC government now following the federal Liberal playbook in attempting to claim openness and transparency, you know, it's always amusing and interesting. But I digress on that point, Mr. Chair. Again, I did have a question that was germane to Manitoba Hydro Telecom, and I'd like to know why the minister wouldn't answer the question about keeping Manitoba Hydro Telecom public. Why wouldn't he answer that with a yes or a no? Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, we've answered the question, now two different critics.

You know, it reminds me of the Jean Chrétien: when the proof is

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1639 in the proof, then the proof is the proof when the proof is in the proof. I mean, we've said we have no intention on selling off any component of Manitoba Hydro. In fact, I –we look across the way ; that's the privatization party.

They sold off more departments out of their government, and we come into office –and so far as the mandate letters, maybe Justin Trudeau could take a page out of our playbook and release the framework letters that they gav e their Crown corporations, and they could actually live up to a standard of openness never seen across this country, certainly not under when the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger) was a minister. We never saw anything out of him, never a framewor k letter.

I mean, the only thing he did was send letters – political letters of direction to the Crown corporation telling them what they should or shouldn't do. We never saw any kind of a mandate letter from a minister, certainly not when the member for St. Boniface was a minister and certainly not when he was a premier. And, actually, you know, when it comes to openness, I think Justin Trudeau could learn a lot from us, because we've done a lot more for openness in these last nine weeks than any other government has, including the member for St. Boniface's government in the last 17 years.

We are the benchmark in this country when it comes to openness. We need no lessons from member at – members opposite, but thank you very much. Mr. Kinew: So will Manitob a Hydro Telecom remain public? Manitoba Hydro Telecom. Public. Mr. Schuler: I think they have to listen very clearly. Are they listening? Yes. Mr. Kinew: I thank the Minister for Crown Services for his frank, clear and forthright answer. [interjection] And, yes, well, you know, other people can comment on the tone of the answer, but I do recognize that there was a factual answer in that statement. Interesting to me, Mr.

Chair, because the same question posed to the First Minister, the Premier (Mr. Pallister), received no factual answer. In fact, several follow -up questions proved to show some very strenuous evasion and counter-challenges. In effect, I would say that the First Minister refused to answer that question. * (15:50) So my follow -up question would be to the Minister of Crown Services (Mr.

Schuler): Will he now take his very strong and clear commitment to keep Manitoba Hydro Telecom back to the Cabinet table and argue and strenuously underline to the First Minister the importance of keeping Manit oba Hydro Telecom public? Mr. Schuler: You know, once in a while, you actually think people in this Chamber are taking things serious, and we're having a serious discussion, and then we have the kind of silly and gratuitous question of the member opposite, which, I would say, doesn't look that good on him. He asked questions and he got the answers. And it's in my mandate letter. He got a copy.

We've been public and open and transparent. He got his answer, but that's not enough. Now he has to go and now he's going to start playing silly games, not because he's interested, not because he wants what's best for Manitobans but because he wants to play silly games. And, you know what, I would encourage him to play those silly games all he wants. But what we're going to do, as a government, is we' re going to build Crown corporations. We're going to build an economy. We're going to build a province that Manitobans are proud of.

It's going to be the singularly most improved province in the country –in our mandate. And we're already on our way there. And we're not going to do it by playing silly games. Answered the questions –and I would say to the member, in 17 years sitting here, I –rarely did you ever get an answer to a question. And, certainly, not the way we've done it today. Steve Ashton was one of the very few guys who would actually give you a straightforward answer. And the rest of the group, it was just silly, in-circles nonsense. The member got his answer.

I'm not interested in his little political gamesmanship and how he's going to further his leadership career by whatever. Answer was given; it was given straight up. I would ask him to ask something that actually would further what we're trying to do as a province. And I would say to him, I can't imagine, you know, if we went back in time in the debate, and I read the debate that took place when Duff Roblin and the opposition was debating Manitoba Hydro. It's interesting how they would cede the floor to one another, and the discussions. And the NDP, at the time, had some questions about what Hydro would be.

And it was all very straight up. And they got straight-up answers. And it's a really good read. And

1640 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 2016 I'd recommend members opposite, all members, for that matter, to read it. It's a very interesting historical read. And, you know what, people at that time didn't sit around and play silly little political games. Gave the answer, and I gave it straight up. Mr. Kinew: Can the minister explain why he was able to give a clear and forthright answer to the question of whether or not Manitoba Hydro Telecom will remain in public hands, but the Premier (Mr. Pallister) would refuse to answer the question, that the Premier neve r did provide a clear answer to the question?

Can he explain that discrepancy? Mr. Schuler: Premier appointed a minister with a mandate letter, something we never got from members opposite ever –ever. We got nothing from members opposite. You know what , they might as well just have sent us over a big box of Sharpie pens and some blank paper, and we could just draw lines on it, because that's all we ever got from members opposite. The– An Honourable Member: Not answering the question. Mr. Schuler: I've answered every question that has been produced so far. And the member for Logan (Ms.

Marcelino), who has spent her entire time on her little iPhone, never paying attention, should actually turn around, pay attention, so I don't have to answer all the same questions again. Maybe she'd like to focus in. These are serious questions. And serious answers are being given. The First Minister appointed a Minister of Crown Services, and in the letter, the mandate letter, makes it very clear what the responsibilit y is for the minister. I would suggest that the member for Fort Garry-Riverview (Mr. Allum) –no; I'm struggling with the member asking it –Fort Rouge–member for Fort Rouge (Mr.

Kinew), that he makes himself–gets himself a copy of the mandate letter. It's there; it's clear. The member for Fort Rouge should read the letter. It states very clearly that Manitoba Hydro is to stay public. Mr. Kinew: The question again is can –will the minister explain the discrepancy between his answer on the Manitoba Hydro Telecom issue and the First Minister's answer on Manitoba Hydro Telecom issue? The reason why I'm asking is because I think it is germane to the proceedings that we're currently in right now. If there is disagreement in Cabinet I'd like some insight onto the mat ter.

It seems that the Premier wants to reserve the ability to manage Manitoba Hydro Telecom in whichever way he sees fit, which may include privatization. However, the minister has taken a very unequivocal stance far beyond what the First Minister did in t he Estimates, and so I'd like him to, you know, please, you know, illuminate us, provide us with a greater insight into the tension between those two positions. So, if he could please explain that would be greatly appreciated. Mr.

Schuler: The member h as to, first of all, get himself a copy of the letter –of the mandate letter given to the minister, and he should read it. Probably be a lot more knowledgeable in his questions if he actually read the letter and would see that the Premier gave the mandate to a minister and often the Premier–I know this comes as a shock because, unlike members opposite, this is a team on this side; the Premier will often say to the media that when it comes to issues with the Crown corporations they should go and speak to the minister. That's the way things are done.

The Premier can decide he wants to defer that issue to one of the ministers and then I suspect that might have been part of the conversation. I suspect the Premier, often in his Estimates, said that would be bett er brought up in Estimates of Families, or Health, or Infrastructure, or Crown Corporations. That's where that would take place, and the discussions taking place, I would suggest to the member, you know, I know he comes from the entertainment world. This i sn't entertainment world; this is Estimates here.

He asks a question and, like his colleague from Tyndall Park, then he gets the answer and he's frustrated. And then he gets an answer and then he's angry, and then he gets the answer and he doesn't know wha t to do with it because, seemingly, NDP MLAs can't handle when they get straight-up answers.

And I would suggest that the member go and look in the mandate letter, and it states there very clearly what the role is for Crown Services, and seeing as it's the Premier's signature at the bottom of the letter, seeing as it is the Premier who wrote the letter, and seeing as it's the Premier who presented the letter, I don't see where in this member's –the member for Fort Rouge –why he has to go into his grassy knoll conspiracy thing, but I guess that –that's the kind of politician he is and so be it.

June 28, 2016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1641 But, the Premier has been clear in his letter to the minister where we stand on Manitoba Hydro, and I know members opposite struggle with the team approach and they s truggle with straight -up answers because 17 years, we never got one other than the occasional one from Steve Ashton, but other than that, they just can't handle the truth. * (16:00) Mr. Kinew: I appreciate the minister's best Jack Nicholson impersonation at the end of his statement there.

So on a related point, would he consider intervening to keep Manitoba Hydro Telecom public, would he consider that if, you know, he was –if the board came to him with a recommendation regarding privatization, if he had to intervene to keep the asset public, to keep the Crown corporation public, would he consider that an example of political interference? Mr. Schuler : Actually, what I would consider political interference is sitting here and second-guessing what the board's going to do and not going to do. We have sent a clear framework letter over to the Crown corporations.

They, very successful business people, they know how to run successful businesses. I would suggest Sandy Riley is one of our stellar business people in this community, and others on that board. We trust the individuals we've placed on the board. And, if they meet and come to us with recommendations, we will have a look at those recommendations. But we are not going to second-guess what they're going to send, or what recommendations, or what the boards are going to do, or what colour pen should be –what kind of ink should be in a pen, or what kind of lines should be on paper. We're not going to micromanage.

And I know this is shocking for NDP members who, each one of the Crown corporations, if members can imagine this, every Crown corporation paid for a political operative –an NDP hack, basically. An NDP organizer was paid for to si t in the minister's office and run interference in the Crown corporation. And I know for the NDP they can't understand that you'd actually respect a board of directors or that you would respect professionals in a Crown corporation, because when it comes to all-being, all -knowing, all -seeing, when the NDP viewed themselves as that –and I would say that's what got us into this trouble.

That's what got us into the mess in the first place, is that the member, and his political party, and each one of those NDP MLAs couldn't help themselves, and I would say to the member the whole Jets tickets thing was actually the pinnacle of where NDP MLAs and Cabinet ministers viewed the Crown corporations as basically just a wing or an arm of the NDP. And they got so caught up in their own entitlements, that they were entitled to their entitlements and they were entitled to walk into a Crown corporation and demand front -row seats. Each and every one of those MLAs made themselves available to Jets tickets.

And how unfortunate, how unfortunate that they felt that they had a right, that they had gotten themselves to the point where they believed that they were the owners of the Crown corporations. And we've reversed that in nine weeks to where we respect our boards, we respect the professionals and we respect the Crown corporations. And what they bring forward, that we will leave up to the boards and the professionals in them. And we will not second- guess, nor will we disrespect them by running interference in the Crown corporations. Mr.

Kinew: So, if the board of Manitoba Hydro comes forward with a recommendation to privatize a subsidiary, then the minister will take a look at it, is that what I'm hearing? Mr. Schuler: Wha

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-1-30b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 1st hansardpdf 30b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d20a2a204d13d0b53f9f47935f971100f53766ef

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