Manitoba Committee Hansard — Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 1 (43rd Legislature, 1st Session)

43-1-sed1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session – Forty-Third Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Mr. Tyler Blashko Constituency of Lagimodière Vol. LXXVIII No. 1 - 6 p.m., Wednesday, November 29, 2023 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-Third Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALTOMARE, Nello, Hon. Transcona NDP ASAGWARA, Uzoma, Hon. Union Station NDP BALCAEN, Wayne Brandon West PC BEREZA, Jeff Portage la Prairie PC BLASHKO, Tyler Lagimodière NDP BRAR, Diljeet Burrows NDP BUSHIE, Ian, Hon. Keewatinook NDP BYRAM, Jodie Agassiz PC CABLE, Renée, Hon. Southdale NDP CHEN, Jennifer Fort Richmond NDP COOK, Kathleen Roblin PC CROSS, Billie Seine River NDP DELA CRUZ, Jelynn Radisson NDP DEVGAN, JD McPhillips NDP EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FONTAINE, Nahanni, Hon. St.

Johns NDP GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach PC GUENTER, Josh Borderland PC HIEBERT, Carrie Morden-Winkler PC JACKSON, Grant Spruce Woods PC JOHNSON, Derek Interlake-Gimli PC KENNEDY, Nellie Assiniboia NDP KHAN, Obby Fort Whyte PC KINEW, Wab, Hon. Fort Rouge NDP KING, Trevor Lakeside PC KOSTYSHYN, Ron, Hon. Dauphin NDP LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAMOUREUX, Cindy Tyndall Park Lib. LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas-Kameesak NDP LINDSEY, Tom, Hon. Flin Flon NDP LOISELLE, Robert St. Boniface NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Malaya, Hon. Notre Dame NDP MOROZ, Mike River Heights NDP MOSES, Jamie, Hon. St.

Vital NDP MOYES, Mike Riel NDP NARTH, Konrad La Vérendrye PC NAYLOR, Lisa, Hon. Wolseley NDP NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC OXENHAM, Logan Kirkfield Park NDP PANKRATZ, David Waverley NDP PERCHOTTE, Richard Selkirk PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Turtle Mountain PC REDHEAD, Eric Thompson NDP SALA, Adrien, Hon. St. James NDP SANDHU, Mintu The Maples NDP SCHMIDT, Tracy, Hon. Rossmere NDP SCHOTT, Rachelle Kildonan-River East NDP SCHULER, Ron Springfield-Ritchot PC SIMARD, Glen, Hon. Brandon East NDP SMITH, Bernadette, Hon.

Point Douglas NDP STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo PC STONE, Lauren Midland PC WASYLIW, Mark Fort Garry NDP WHARTON, Jeff Red River North PC WIEBE, Matt, Hon. Concordia NDP WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC

1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Wednesday, November 29, 2023 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Tyler Blashko (Lagimodière) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – MLA Billie Cross (Seine River) ATTENDANCE – 6 QUORUM – 4 Members of the committee present: Hon. Min. Sala MLA Bereza, Mr. Blashko, MLAs Cross, Devgan, Khan APPEARING: Cindy Lamoureux, MLA for Tyndall Park PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Jason Wiebe, Snoman Inc.

Cam Dahl, Manitoba Pork Council Michael Shaw, private citizen Josh Brandon, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg Gage Haubrich, Canadian Taxpayers Federation Christopher Crawford, Canadian Propane Association WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Carson Callum, Manitoba Beef Producers MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 3 – The Fuel Tax Amend ment Act (Fuel Tax Holiday) * * * Clerk Assistant (Ms. Katerina Tefft): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order. Before the committee can proceed with the busi - ness before it, it must select a Chairperson. Are there any nominations?

MLA JD Devgan (McPhillips): I nominate Mr. Blashko. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Blashko has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Blashko, will you please take the Chair. The Chairperson: Our next item of busi ness is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? MLA Devgan: I nominate MLA Cross. The Chairperson: Are there any other nominations? [interjection] Oh, sorry. MLA Cross has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? MLA Obby Khan (Fort Whyte): I nominate MLA Nesbitt. The Chairperson: MLA Nesbitt has been nominated.

Are there any other nominations? [interjection] So, nominees have to be on the committee; so, MLA Nesbitt is not eligible. Are there any other nominations? MLA Khan: I nominate MLA Bereza. The Chairperson: Okay. MLA Bereza is nominated. Recorded Vote The Chairperson: Okay, so we will be proceeding with a voice vote. We'll be –the motion put forward is will MLA Cross be the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Ayes 3, Nays 2. The Chairperson: Okay. Con gratu lations, MLA Cross.

MLA Cross has been elected Vice-Chairperson. * * * The Chairperson: The meeting has been called to consider the following bill, Bill 3, The Fuel Tax Amendment Act (Fuel Tax Holiday). I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjourn- ment. A standing committee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 or to consider clause by clause of a bill except by unanimous consent of the committee. Written submissions from the following person have been received and distributed to committee mem- bers: Carson Callum of the Manitoba Beef Producers on Bill 3. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? Agreed? [Agreed] Public presentation guidelines: Prior to pro ceed- ing with these public pre sentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in a com mittee.

In accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. Questions shall not exceed 30 seconds in length and no time limit for answers. Questions may be addressed to presenters in the following rotation: first the minister sponsoring th e bill; second, a member of the official opposition; and third, an independent member. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

If the presenter is not in attendance when their nam e is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. Order of pre sentations: On the topic of deter - mining the order of public pre sentations, I will note that we do have out-of-town presenters in attendance.

With these considerations in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? An Honourable Member: Be preferable to allow out-of-towners to go first– The Chairperson: Sorry, Minister Sala. Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister of Finance): I would ask if the commit tee supports allowing those who are from out of town to go first to ensure that they can get home at an earlier time. Yes, I would recommend and– The Chairperson: Sorry, Minister Sala. MLA Sala: We'll figure this out.

My recommendation would be for those folks who are from out of town or are here physic ally, that they have the opportunity to go at the front end. The Chairperson: Those on the com mittee, are we comfortable allowing out-of-town presenters in person going first? All those agreed? [Agreed] Okay. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations. Bill 3–The Fuel Tax Amendment Act (Fuel Tax Holiday) The Chairperson: I will now call Mr. Jason Wiebe of Snoman (Snowmobilers of Manitoba) Inc. Mr. Jason Wiebe, please proceed with your pre- sentation.

Jason Wiebe (Snoman): Good evening, and thank you for having me. I'm Jason Wiebe, and I'm the president of Snoman Inc. I'll start with an intro duction of my organization. Snoman was incorporated in 1975 and provides strong leadership and support to its 53 member clubs to develop and maintain safe and environmentally sus tainable snowmobile trails to further the enjoyment of organized recreational snowmobiling throughout Mani toba. Snoman's trail network is the largest trail system of any kind in the province of Manitoba and the only user-pay model.

Funding from the sale of 23,000 annual snow passes is allocated to clubs, based on their trail length for maintenance and kilometres groomed. In addition, Snoman allocates $100,000 a year in trail im prove- ment funding, which is paid on a per-kilometre basis. There are 13,000 kilometres of groomed trails in the province that's seen over 180,000 kilometres of grooming last year. * (18:10) It has been proven that the signed and groomed trails are the safest option for all riders.

A recent study by the University of Guelph shows that snowmobiling is a good form of physical activity and is beneficial for one's mental health. In fact, a single day of snowmobiling can benefit your mental health for up to a week after. Our clubs maintain trails, build and maintain emer- gency shelters, provide equipment to groom trails, and the financial commitment is enormous. Clubs are made

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 up of volunteers and, in addition to extensive fund- raising, members donate their time to ensure Manitoba has one of the safest trail networks in Manitoba. Since preparing for this pre sentation, it has been noted by Minister Sala that all clear gasoline and diesel purchased in Manitoba will be temporarily exempt from the provincial tax, regardless of how or where it is used. Municipalities, tourists, boaters, snow- mobilers and all other users will benefit, as quoted in the Free Press. While this is good news, Bill 3, as it currently reads, does not allow for this to become a reality. The Fuel Tax Act,

section 8, the rates of the tax are as follows: 14 cents a litre for any other fuel, does not specify on-road versus off-road vehicles. However, in

section 8.2 of Bill 3, it states: despite

section 8, the rate of tax payable for fuel purchased for use in operating a motor vehicle on a roadway may be reduced by regulation for any period beginning after the tax holiday and ending before January 1st,

Section 8.2 of Bill 3 goes above and beyond by specifying motor vehicle on roadway.

Section 12.2(a), temporary exemption tax holiday, needs to be amended to read: a motor vehicle on or off a roadway. This will allow groomers and snow - mobiles to fall in line with the fuel tax holiday. Our rationalization is that the extent of snow - mobile trail networks throughout the province comes at a substantial cost to maintain. The increase in cost of operating is having a dire impact on our clubs. Over the past two years alone, operating costs have risen by as much as 100 per cent, the greatest impact on our operations being fuel and equipment, which have risen by 60 per cent.

The cost of the carbon tax alone represents an increase in 2023 of $5.34 a kilometr e. That jumps to $11.52 a kilometre by 2028. Snoman, unlike other industries, is unable to pass these costs on to the consumer. Our last snow pass rate increase was in 2015, and Snoman is no longer able to fund clubs adequately to match their expenses and remain viable into the future. This in spite of seeking organizational efficiencies wherever possible. If the gas tax holiday was applied to fuel for groomers, it would help with the cost of operation and grooming the 13,000 kilometres of trail that connect Manitoba.

In our opinion, it is unfair treatment and it pits different recreational activities against each other. If one family decides to go skiing, the commuter vehicle is rewarded with a fuel tax holiday. However, if another family decides to g o snowmobiling, they are not getting the fuel tax holiday. Therefore, selecting a closer-to-home recreational option is being discrimi - nated against, in our opinion. The impact on tourism and the benefit to rural communities: the economic impact to sno wmobiling in Manitoba is over $332 million annually, and it creates 900 jobs.

These numbers are from our 2013 economic impact study, and we know that our numbers today are much higher. We know that many rural busi nesses rely on snowmobilers to sustain their operations in the winter months when other tourism is slow. By exempting snowmobiles from the gas tax holiday, it is, in turn, hurting rural busi nesses, and some cannot exist without snowmobile traffic. In conclusion, we cannot stress the importance of this bill being amended to include or be spe cifically snowmobiles and/or grooming equipment. Thank you for your time, and I'm open to your questions.

The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Jason Wiebe, and congratulations on being our inaugural presenter for this session. Thank you for that pre sen- tation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Adrien Sala (Minister of Finance): Thank you so much, Mr. Wiebe, for your presentation, and I want to thank you off the top for all you're doing to support Manitobans in their ability to get outdoors and enjoy our beautiful province, and for all of your volunteers and efforts.

I appreciate what you've shared here very much tonight, and you noted at the top of your presentation, but I just want to be clear for you here tonight, this bill does not exclude snowmobilers. This bill will ensure that the snowmobiler goes to the pump to fill up their snowmobile, they will benefit from that same 14-cent- per-litre reduction, and that's great news for Manitobans in every corner of this province. J. Wiebe: You said snowmobiles. Will it apply to the diesel fuel for our groomers as well?

4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 MLA Obby Khan (Fort Whyte): Thank you very much for your pre sentation, but also thank you very much for the work you and your organization do. I've had the pleasure of getting out on the trails. They are beautiful; they are immaculate; they are a ton of fun. My neck hurt for a few days afterwards– jumping up and down–but it was one of the best weekends I've ever had. I look forward to getting out there again. So, thank you and your organization for all you do.

You mentioned the economic impact of what Snoman has brought to the province: $332 million, 900 jobs, and that's 2013. Do you think that, if this gas tax was applied uniformly across and you had this savings, that this would further increase or bolster the tourism spend in industry here in the province? J. Wiebe: Yes, absolutely. Any time our snowmobilers can save a few dollars, we always say: snowmobilers travel with their wallets. So whatever money they don't spend at the fuel pumps is going to go directly into restaurants, hotels, direct and indirect impacts to industry. The Chairperson: Thank you.

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Thank you, Mr. Wiebe, for your presentation, as well. You spoke a little bit about how this legis lation could pick–or pit recreational activities against one another. We've had a lot of debate on this so far, but it's the first I hear of that. Could you speak a little bit more to that and just how that could affect Manitobans at large? J.

Wiebe: Yes, depending on which form of recrea - tion you choose, if you were to choose a form where, say, you travelled a long distance in a car and y ou filled your car with gasoline, that recreational activity would benefit from the fuel -tax holiday,

whereas presently, as the bill is worded, if you chose an off - road form of recreation, you would not benefit from the fuel-tax holiday. MLA Khan: In your presentation, you state here that, you know, you quote Minister Sala as saying that this would apply for snowmobiles, boaters–in the Winnipeg Free Press–and yet you go on to talk about in the act in

section 8 that will not be the case according to the way the current bill is written right now. So, what would you look for, for the minister, in this bill–I mean, the newspaper's one thing and then legislation is one thing else in the bill. So, what would you like to see in this bill to give you peace that you are actually–your organization and your snowmobilers are protected? J. Wiebe: Yes, I guess we would look for a

section 12.2 (

a) to be amended to mead –to read motor vehicle on or off roadway. That amendment would clean this up nicely. The Chairperso n: MLA Lamoureux, do you have another question? No? Okay. MLA Khan: So, just to –what I'm reading –what I'm hearing from you, I just want to make sure that when you say

section 12.2 (a), you don't believe the way the current clause is written is that you are covered, or your organi zation, your snowmobilers are currently covered in this clause the way it's currently written, so you'd like to see an amendment to that. The Chairperson: Sorry. Mr. Wiebe. J. Wiebe: Yes, that is correct. I can ap preciate Minister Sala's comments that this does apply, but until it's written down, you know, we would like to see it in writing to believe it.

MLA Khan: So, I believe I have to cede the floor to my counterpart here for him to ask some questions or I have to give him the question. [interjection] He's on the–[interjection] Yes, so I–to you. MLA Jeff Bereza (Portage la Prairie): Thank you very much, Mr. Wiebe, for coming tonight. You mention in here if the gas -tax holiday was applied to fuel for your groomers, it would be with the cost of operation and grooming 13,000 trails through- out Manitoba. Do you believe that, if this isn't amended, that it would affect the $332 million and create almost 900 jobs? Do you think it would have an effect on that?

The Chairperson: The time has expired. Is there leave for Mr. Wiebe to answer the question? [Agreed] J. Wiebe: Yes, it would definitely affect the spend. It would affect that–the way the spend is. So, you know, more money into tax and less money into other things: rural economic development, businesses, restaurants, hotels, all of those other businesses that could benefit.

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 The Chairperson: Thank you so much for your pre- sentation. We appreciate it. I'd like to call Mr. Cam Dahl. * (18:20) Mr. Dahl, please proceed with your presentation. Cam Dahl (Manitoba Pork Council): I'd–first I'd like to congratulate Chair on your hard-fought election to the position. It is an important role, so congratulations. My name is Cam Dahl. I'm the general manager of Manitoba Pork Council. And I'm here speaking on behalf of a ad hoc coalition that came together to look at Bill 3 'thwou gh' a rural lens.

Coalition partners included the Keystone Agri cultural Producers, Manitoba Beef Producers and the Canadian Propane Association, who you're going to hear from in a little bit. I would like to begin by thanking you all for the time to be able to speak to you today, and I would additionally like to thank Minister Sala and Minister Kostyshyn and their teams for meeting with us yester- day. We ap preciate your time and your openness to seeking feedback. Working together, we believe, is the key to our mutual success and the success of all Manitobans. We would like to commend the initiative behind Bill 3.

It has the potential to genera te a very positive impact on farmers and our rural communities. We do have some tweaks to suggest. The positive impacts of Bill 3 would be increased with the inclu - sion of propane and dyed gasolines in the list of eligible fuels for tax exemption, and we request that this be considered as the com mittee goes through clause by clause. My focus for the rest of the pre sentation will be on the inclusion of marked gasoline, also known as dyed gas or purple fuel. Fuel costs are one of the largest components of farmers' cost bills, and of course has a direct impact on their bottom line.

Using Manitoba Agri culture's cost–production–of production models, some annual estimates are of about $330,000 for gas and diesel fuel for grains and oil -seed farm of about 7,000 acres; $12,000 for gas and diesel fuel for a 300- head cow- calf operation. So it's a significant number. Currently, dyed gas has a 3-cent-per-litre fuel tax. As Bill 3 is written, dyed gas is not included under the list of exempt fuels for th e fuel tax holidays, thus meaning farmers will still be paying throughout the time that the provisions of Bill 3 are in effect.

I've had some in the media ask, you know, why don't farmers simply move to purchasing regular gasoline? Governments of all levels have chosen to reduce– excuse me–have chosen to reduce the tax burden on fuel used for farming operations for a number of reasons. One is to support agriculture production, which of course you all know is a key driver of Manitoba's economy as wel l as the Canadian economy.

And another reason for these exemptions is because farmers sell into international marketplaces, where competing commodities from other countries do not face the same taxes, such as the cost on 'carbor.' Recognizing these poi nts, the Gov ernment of Canada has chosen to exempt gas and diesel fuel used in farming operations from the price of carbon. As of January 1, this price will be 17.6 cents per litre. So, shifting to clear gasoline will mean that farmers would save the 14 cents of litre from the provisions of this bill, but in turn they would be incurring the costs of the federal carbon tax.

So there would be an increase in that regard. Including dyed gas, or purple gas, would send a very strong signal to farmers that the government of Manitoba has actively considered their operating con- ditions when drafting the legislation. Just to quickly summarize –and you'll hear from the Propane Association shortly –the collective ask from our partner groups is for the committee to amend Bill 3 to include dyed gas and propane as exempted fuels.

The inclusion of these two fuel types would showcase Manitoba's comprehensive consideration of diverse fuel types and their multifaceted applications, in line with the bill's intent. Thank you all again for your time; I look forward to your questions. And thank you for this legislation. The Chairperson: Thank you so much, Mr. Dahl. MLA Sala: Thank you so much for the presentation, Cam. It's good to see you. I want to thank you at the top here for all the work you do in support of pork producers in this province and I know how incredibly important pork producers are to a lot of our com munities across Manitoba.

So thank you for the work you do, the good work you do.

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 You di d mention the positive impacts that we expect that this bill will have on farm families. Hoping you can just elaborate on that a bit. [interjection] The Chairperson: Mr. Dahl. It's all good; we're getting used to the mics. C. Dahl: Out of practice, as well. Just like all Manitobans, fuel is a con siderable cost to rural communities and members of rural com- munities. Whether they're going to their farm or coming into the city, it's a considerable cost.

And the 14 cent tax holiday is going to be some thing that, again, as has been mentioned around the com mittee here already, will free up scarce resources in a time when inflation has really eaten into disposable income. So, the benefits that we see throughout Manitoba are also going to be experienced by rural citizens, and in fact more, because they probably drive a lot more; I know I do. MLA Khan: Thank you very much, Cam, for coming out and all the work you do in this province, and all your counterparts and how much you guys provide and contribute to a growing and booming Manitoba. We want to keep that going.

In regards to this specific bill here, you men - tioned, you know, fuel cost is one of the largest costs. And bill –I'm sure you've looked at –in 12.2 it talks about the temporary exemptions, mot or vehicles and a farm truck. But I imagine with the industry you're in, a lot of fuel is used– propane, diesel, gasoline – maybe you can elaborate a little bit more on that. And the savings that that would add to that equipment which is now exempt from the law–the bill here.

So what are your recom mendations on that and thoughts on provi ding those tax exemptions for various different types of fuel– The Chairperson: I'll just remind all members that you have 30 seconds to ask your question. Your time is expired, yes. C. Dahl: Thank you for the question. So, first off, diesel fuel is–farm diesel fuel or dyed diesel fuel, purple diesel fuel, whatever you want to call it–is exempt. So, we're talking about a marked or dyed gasoline. And there is that 3 cents a litre that would be a savings.

And today, if you buy purple gasoline, the price is about–it's just under $1.18; it's one one seven nine is my average that I came up with this afternoon. So the savings would be about–that 3 cents a litre is about 2 and a half per cent of the price of purple gasoline today. MLA Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Dahl, for your presentation and for the consultation that you did. Do you believe that this bill should still pass, go through the House and become legis lation, if the suggested amendment is not put forward? Is it still a good bill? C. Dahl: That's a very good question. Yes.

MLA Khan: I'll cede to my counterpart here for a question, MLA Bereza. [interjection] The Chairperson: Sorry, I'll–MLA Bereza. MLA Bereza: Thanks very much for coming out tonight, Cam. Appreciate your presentation here. When you said–and again, being in the agri cul- ture business a number of years as well, too–you said that, again, a lot of our grain is exported and that. Do you feel that, with this bill not going through as you've asked for, the amend ments on, would it affect our exported grain? C.

Dahl: I think, from my perspective, you know, what the bill proposes is a positive, positive change, and we would still see some impact of those positive changes on farming operations. Again, that's for the price of purple gasoline, it is about 2 and a half per cent, is that 3 cents a litre. So, yes the bill will have a positive impact, but that will be a little bit more if the dyed gasoline is also included. The Chairperson: Just checking, MLA Lamoureux, you're good? MLA Khan: You mentioned the 3 cents on the dyed gasoline.

But according to the way the bill is written now, if a farmer was to switch from a dyed gasoline to a clear gasoline, they would then– * (18:30) The Chairperson: Sorry, I just have–time is expired. Is there leave for MLA Khan to finish his question? [Agreed] Okay. MLA Khan: Thank you to everyone for allowing me leave. But January 1st is 17.6 carbon tax–cents on the carbon tax. So, if the farmer chooses to go clear gasoline, are they not then giving up the 17.6 cents in

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 federal carbon tax for the 3 -cent savings on the clear gasoline that they could save? So three, 17.6– C. Dahl: They would be hit with the federal price on carbon. The Chairperson: Thank you so much for your pre- sentation. We really appreciate it. I will now call Michael Shaw. Thank you for coming out, Michael Shaw. Please proceed with your presentation. Michael Shaw (Private Citizen): Hi, my name's Michael Shaw. I'm from the faculty at biological sciences at the University of Manitoba, and I'm here to speak against the bill. We are in a climate crisis.

I was very hopeful when this new government formed that they were going to make data and policy decisions that were based on the science; they weren't going to hold back from safe injection and those sorts of things; they were actually going to do where public policy should be going based on the data. And to have this bill out in front of us , when I walked here from my car, in this shirt, in the last week of November, and we know that the South Pacific will be making this another hot and dry winter here in Manitoba, reducing that tax is a short-term measure. We have two crises. There is an affordability crisis.

There were ways that this gov ernment could have tackled affordability crisis that didn't contribute more to climate change. Subsidies, reduced prices for Winnipeg Transit, would've gotten more people onto the transit buses and would' ve reduced Manitoba's carbon footprint. There are other options out there that policy experts would've told you about. So addressing affordability by exacerbating the climate crisis is not good public policy, and I would encourage this bill not to go forward. It's going to, but it's only going to help those people who drive cars.

There's–we heard earlier from some of the speakers about how it would put –pit people against different people. There's nothing in this bill for people like myself who take the bus down Pembina Highway to go to work every day. There's nothing in it for my affordability. There's nothing in it for the thousands of Manitobans who use public transit rather than take a car–personal automobile every day. There's nothing in it for them to 'attress' that. There's transit opportunities in Brandon for public transportation to become better in Brandon.

So, there were lots of ways that affordability could've been used and to use affordability by reducing the tax and then the first tw o presenters want even greater exemptions to the tax. We know that pricing on things is the No. 1 way to discourage people from using those things. We have had great public policy on smoking. How did we achieve that? By making a pack of cigarettes way more expensive. We know that the best way to change behaviour, from a governmental standpoint and from a public policy standpoint, is through price points.

And if we are going to get ahead here in Manitoba, from the climate standpoint, making gasoline cheaper is not the solution. We also know –I've lived in other juris dictions that have given tax holidays. Oftentimes, what hap- pens is your $1.45 a litre gasoline is $1.45 the next day and Co-op–I'm a member; that's fine–but, you know, ExxonMobil or Petro- Canada or whoever, just swallows up that 14 per cent, and your 14 per cent doesn't go to the Manitobans; your 14 per cent goes to the gasoline commodity purchasers and providers.

So it's–you know, I'm hopeful that the new gov- ernment will be the difference in terms of listening to public policy, but this very first bill is not good public policy, and I hope it would be withdrawn. I don't think that's going to happen. But I was complaining to my long- suffering partner, and she said, don't complain to me, sign up and go to the com- mittee meeting and complain at the committee meeting. So that's why I'm here tonight, and that's what I have to say. It's not good public policy, and I hope it will get better. But that's my time. Thanks. The Chairperson: Thank you, Michael.

MLA Sala: Thank you so much, Mr. Shaw, for being here, for being part of the process. It's great that you took time to present and share your thoughts on–and concerns. I do just want to say that, as it relates to climate change, we share your deep concern about climate change, as the Manitoba NDP. And one thing that I'm very proud of is that we've brought forward policies that will help to electrify home heating through a geothermal program, which we've focused on and we've also committed to EV rebates to help electrify

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 transportation. That forms about 60, 65 per cent of emissions in this province. So, you can see that our party is committed to moving forward on initiatives that will help to reduce carbon emissions in this province , while we bring affordability relief for Manitobans. I really appreciate your presentation and I want to thank you for your time. M. Shaw: Thanks for your response to that. Rebates on electrical vehicles do not help the poorest Manitobans. The c heapest electrical vehicle out there, even with your rebates is in the 50K -plus category.

That doesn't help with affordability. That helps with the people that can afford fancy new cars but the climate crisis is real. And you'll hear people say: Well, what does–can Manitoba do on that? Well, one thing we can do is not increase the driver for people to burn more gasoline and this bill, I don't think most of the 14 per cent is going to be passed onto the consumer anyway. But if it was, it's not–getting people to drive their cars more; not a solution to climate change. MLA Khan: Thank you very much, Mr. Shaw, for your presentation today.

And climate change is very, very important for those who have young families or living in Manitoba. Even if you don't have kids, it's– climate change is ever -important these days and for the future. You mentioned, you know, public transportation, pitting Manitoba and gov ernment people against people, and, you know, we've said Manitoban against Manitoban with this. Very specific to cars–$370 million a year is roughly budgeted for this in the tax. What do you think some of the–how much of the money would you think needs to make –could have gone into public transportation to make a difference?

What are your tho ughts around that $370 million for this tax affordability bill? M. Shaw: That level of funding is some thing that is split between places like Brandon and, in Manitoba, could make public transit a dollar a ride rather than the over $3 a ride it is now and get ridership up. We know from other jurisdictions around the world that the No. 1 way that a city can make itself have a lower carbon footprint outside of home heating is by greater access to public trans portation and active transportation.

So, take your $375 million, if that was the number, put it into the –completing the Winnipeg bus system, in terms of the dedi cated routes out into the east part of the city, make more active transportation routes for cyclists. All of those sorts of things would have –and those are permanent changes. Those sorts of infra - structure changes are permanent changes, as opposed to a one-time tax holiday. So if we could spend those sorts of funds on better Winnipeg transit, the long-term affordability and just lower climate–more active society, win, win, win. MLA Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Shaw, for your presentation.

I really, really appreciated how you sort of broke it up into two different issues. It's an issue of affordability and it's an issue of environmentalism here in the province of Manitoba. I'm wondering if you can speak a little bit to –do you feel that this bill could be a step backwards for fighting climate change in Manitoba? M. Shaw: I spent most of my time saying, yes, this bill does do that. Agai n, the federal gov ernment has badly mishandled it more recently, but we do know from other jurisdictions that pricing carbon is the most effective way to reduce people's utilization of carbon.

And this is reducing the cost of carbon, which is exactly the wrong message to send. The Chairperson: MLA Barerra [phonetic]. An Honourable Member: Bereza. The Chairperson: Bereza. Sorry. MLA Bereza: That's okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Shaw. I appreciate your comments. The question I have to you, and you mentioned about the big oil companies and them not putting the dollars back into–or the 14 per cent being absorbed by them and the consumer not gaining anything by this, do you have evidence of that or what would your idea to amend the policies on this?

You mentioned that, you know, you think it's going to go through. How would you amend this? M. Shaw: It's a–that's a tough question because it's got a premise that I don't agree with at the very begin- ning. * (18:40)

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 But if the bill had a mechanism that required that, but then you're having gov ernment–you're no longer having a free market in terms of gasoline and– The Chairperson: Sorry, time has expired. Is there leave for him to finish? [Agreed] Okay, there's leave. M. Shaw: So, 14 per cent reduct ion. It seems very problematic to the mechanism to enforce a 14 per cent reduction in all of the petroleum stations across the province. It would likely cost about $375 million a year, just as a rough example, so it's probably not the most efficient way to do it.

But, again, thank you all very much for your time. The Chairperson: Thank you so much, Michael Shaw. MLA Khan: Before the next presenter, because I'd like to ask for leave for a five- minute recess. I suffer from ulcerative colitis, Crohn's dise ase, and sometimes that kicks in when the disease is acting up. The Chairperson: Is there leave for a five- minute recess? An Honourable Member: Absolutely. The Chairperson: Okay. Leave granted. The com - mittee is now recessed for five minutes. The committee recessed at 6:41 p.m. ____________ The committee resumed at 6:47 p.m. The Chairperson: Order.

The com mittee is back in session. Our next presenter is Mr. Josh Brandon. We would invite him to join the meeting and turn his video and mic on. Okay, Mr. Josh Brandon, please proceed with your presentation. Josh Brandon (Social Planning Council of Winnipeg): Thank you very much for the oppor tunity to present today. This is the first time I've had a chance to appear before you since the election, and so I'd like to take a moment to congratulate you all on your success and recognize the im portant trust your constituents have given you to make important decisions on behalf of all Manitobans.

I'd like to present some comments regarding Bill 3, The Fuel Tax Amendment Act. I'm here repre- senting Social Planning Council of Winnipeg. We are a com munity organi zation that has been working towards a more caring, socially equitable and environ- mentally sustainable city and province for more than 100 years. This bill will provide a tax holiday of up to six months on eligible fuel for motor vehicles, and I recognize that the gov ernment is seeking to provide affordability relief to Manitobans. And this is an im- portant issue for us at the Social Planning Council.

We work closely with com munities and organi zations involved in the fight against poverty, and it's from this perspective that I offer my remarks this evening. Affordability is a key issue for all Manitobans, and we've all been seeing the pressures of high inflation and increased costs over the past few years. But I'd like to note that these cost increases have been especially acute for those in low income, Manitobans in poverty. And just for example of that, if you look at the market basket measure of poverty, that has increased between 2020 and 2022 alone. That level increased 12.1 per cent.

So that's the basket of goods that people in low income need just to get by and so that's even higher than the general rate of inflation. One of the reports that we are involved in pro - ducing each year is the Campaign 2000 child and family report card, and each year that I've been involved in the project we've unfortunately shown that Manitoba is the province with the highest rates of child and family poverty, with over one in four chil - dren living in poverty. Our recent report showed a correlation between child poverty and health effects. The results are stark.

Children growing up in poverty are more likely to face poverty-related illness, as w ell as lower preparedness for edu cation, higher rates of infant mortality and moreover children in low- income neighbourhoods have higher rates of suicide. This is preventable, but we need to dedicate the resources towards ending poverty, and especially towards ending child poverty.

So my concern about the measure being put forward today is the lost revenue that will come from the gas holiday. * (18:50) A recent report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released just this week showed there' s been over $1.6 billion in lost revenue since 2016 due to tax cuts, and this cuts the funding available for our social priorities. The foregone revenue means that the Province will be less able to fund the revenue needed to address important priorities.

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 Last winter, the coalition Make Poverty History Manitoba conducted consultations among low-income communities about what is most needed around affordability. We asked Manitobans what are the priorities that will most affect the people in the deepest poverty, especially looking at the intersection between poverty and racialized communities, Indigenous communities, children, seniors, other groups –people with disabilities–other groups that are deeply affected by poverty. And I have to say that cutting gas taxes did not come as a priority in those consultations.

We came up with a list of 10 priority areas that the gov ernment should focus on, and many of you received our cor respondence about this campaign during your election campaign.

We talked about the need to act on the truth and reconciliation and missing and murdered indigenous women calls to action and justice; the implementing a provincial poverty reduction legislation; transforming EIA to a basic needs benefit; advancing inclusive, equitable and decent em ployment; imple menting a comprehensive poverty–comprehensive housing strategy; supporting education, early learning and child care; increasing funding for mental health- care services; increasing support for restorative justice programs; increasing support for children in care and youth aging out in–out of care; and investing in equitable public transportation.

And I just want to focus on that last one a little bit, because it directly relates to what we're t alking about here today. Two of the ideas that came up in our consultation were that Manitoba must increase fund- ing for the subsidized U -Pass transit programs and invest in intercommunity transportation. There's a need for increased support for pu blic transportation here in Winnipeg, as well as other com- munities with transit systems, as well as support for people travelling between com munities, especially from rural Manitoba, where people don't have a public transportation system anymore.

S ince the end of Greyhound, people travelling to Winnipeg for health reasons and job oppor tunities and other im portant things–if you're low income, very few oppor tunities to–for affordable travel. I had a look at the 2021 census data most recently. And it shows that low -income com munities, parti - cularly in the inner city where we have the highest rates of poverty, have the lowest rates of commuting by private vehicle and will be least likely to benefit from this policy.

Many areas of the inner city of Winnipeg, less than 50 per cent of commuters drive a vehicle to work or school, and these are the areas with the highest concentration of poverty. And I'd like to note as well that this extends to other areas of the city. It's not just in the inner city. You know, I noted that in one area, in St. James – which will be dear to a couple of your hearts –in the Bruce creek area, just 58 per cent of people are driving to work, compared to 72 per cent city wide. So, very few Manitobans, as well–I just wanted to note–very few Manitobans on income assist ance can even afford cars.

So, this policy will not meet the affordability needs of those who are in deepest poverty and in most need of affordability relief. A couple of sug gestions that I have to make the bill more equitable and in line with the Province's obligation to reduce poverty, I'd like to suggest a couple of additional measures that would be targeted to those most in need of economic support. And so, we could look at funding a six- month pilot program for free transit in Winnipeg and other communities.

We could look at establishing an inter- city provincial transportation service to service rural Manitoba in line with the policy priorities that we laid out at Make Poverty History Manitoba. And also, we need to look at imple menting a transportation benefit for recipients on EIA. I know that some people on EIA have, as part of their budget, a transportation allowance to help pay for a bus pass, but that needs to be a universal benefit. All Manitobans need transportation, need trans portation that they can afford, and so that should be a universal program and a universal benefit.

Thank you very much for your time today, and I hope you'll consider these suggestions seriously. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Brandon. MLA Sala: Thank you so much, Josh, for bringing comments and your pre sentation tonight, and thank you for all the im portant work you do in support of low-income Manitobans. You've been a –doing ad- vocacy work for years and that work is greatly appre- ciated. I appreciate your comments that you've offered here tonight and, you know, we've been clear about this: that this is really about supporting all Manitobans

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 who are driving right now, who are challenged with these very high prices that they've been paying at the pump and have been really getting hammered for years and haven't been getting help from the previous government. We're proud to bring this forward; do appre ciate your concerns, but we do think it's im portant that we do provide a break for those everyday Manitobans that are driving and need those cost savings. The Chairperson: Mr. Brandon, would you like to respond? J.

Brandon: Well, I–as I said in my comments, you know, I understand that all Manitobans are feeling the pinch of affordability, and inflation has been at very high levels, but I think that we also need to recognize that there are especially grave concerns of afford - ability for low-income Manitobans, and this measure will not do enough to target the households that are in the greatest need. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Brandon. I'll just remind all committee members, you have 30 seconds to ask your questions, and I'll be a little bit more ruthless with the mic.

MLA Khan: Josh, thank you very much for the work you do and your comments today. In the interest of time, I'll get right to the question. This is a fuel amendment tax holiday but–reality, it's an affordability bill. It's about making life more affordable for Manitobans. Do you think that the gov ernment, if they're serious about affordability for Manitobans, that there would have been a better way for them to address affordability issues here in the province of Manitoba? And what do you think those would be, off the top of your head? I know you listed off some, but the best ones. J.

Brandon: Yes, I think that there's much that the Province could do around affordability. We did analy- sis last year of some affordability measures that were put in plac e by the previous gov ernment and found that they were–the main problem with them was that they were not targeted enough to the households most in need. Similarly, with this bill, because it's a broad tax cut that affects all Manitobans who drive, it's n ot targeted enough to the households that are most in need.

So there is specific tax initiatives that could be targeted to low -income Manitobans that would increase affordability and without as much expense. But there's also much that the Province can do around rent relief, targeting programs that it has under its control around housing costs, child-care costs and other areas. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Brandon. MLA Khan: Interesting that, you know, affordability is top of mind here in Manitoba for everyone, and this tax bill is one way to do it.

Was your group consulted with before this bill came forward, or groups like yours consulted before a bill that addresses affordability in this measure of the gas tax? But –were you consulted with other organi - zations like yours? * (19:00) J. Brandon: No, I believe that this announcement came up as a campaign priority during the –or a campaign commitment during the election campaign. And we weren't consulted about that during the campaign. We did have a chance during the campaign to address our concerns about that promise, as well as concerns about the need for more measures to reduce poverty in Manitoba.

MLA Bereza: Mr. Brandon, I'll be quick. Thank you for your 'advosky'–advocacy work that you do. You mentioned about the most vulnerable people that are affected here. The gas tax is supposed to cut roughly $250 for people that drive two vehicles. What percentage of the people that we would call most vulnerable drive vehicles? J. Brandon: Yes, I don't know where the $250 figure comes from. I saw one figure saying that that was for– based on a family that was driving two large trucks: F-fifty-one trucks-F-fifty trucks-one fifty trucks, I think they're called. And the– The Chairperson: Sorry, Mr.

Brandon, t ime has expired. Is there leave for him to finish? [Agreed] Okay. J. Brandon: Yes. So I looked at the cost of those trucks and they–the new trucks are $50,000 each. So, most of the families that we're working with are unlikely to have –often don't even have a single vehicle, certainly don't have two vehicles and cer - tainly don't have two luxury vehicles. And so, the problem with this tax is–break is that it isn't targeted enough. It–and it does benefit families

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 that have larger vehicles, often more expensive vehicles. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Brandon, we really appreciate your submission. Next up, I will call Mr. Gage Haubrich, which I believe he is online, so if he could please join the meeting and turn on his audio visual. Mr. Haubrich, please proceed with your presenta- tion. Gage Haubrich (Canadian Taxpayers Federation): Relief at the pumps is what Manitoba taxpayers need, and they need it permanently. I'm Gage Haubrich, and I'm here with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

I'm here on behalf of thousands of Manitoba taxpayers who need relief from the prov incial gas tax as soon as possible; permanent relief. It's great to see the Manitoba government moving so quickly to cut the gas tax. As you know, cutting the 14 cents that the Manitoba government currently charges drivers will save them $250 over six months or 500 bucks if extended the entire year.

The taxpayers have three key points when it comes to this relief and this proposed bill: (1) needs to be provided for all motor fuels, included dyed gas; (2) it needs to be permanent ; and (3) it needs to be passed as swiftly as possible. So, to the first point, needs to be provided for all motor fuels. No taxpayer should be left out in the cold on this relief. It doesn't make sense to give some drivers a break at the 'cump' –break at the pump and not necessarily for farmers who use dyed gas. Farmers use much more fuel to run their farms. They also need that relief. This relief also needs to be in –permanent.

That's my most im portant point. Ma nitobans aren't just feeling the pain from high fuel prices, but also from the rest of the taxes that they are forced to pay to prov- incial government. A Winnipeg family who's making $75,000 a year can expect to pay just about $7,000 in prov incial taxes. If that same family was living in Regina, Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal, they'd be paying at least $2,000 less in taxes. If you compare strictly with Calgary, that number jumps to $4,000. That's money that those families can't use to make ends meet.

The gov ernments of Alberta, Ontario and Newfoundland have all extended their gas tax cuts after an initial period. That's because those gov ern- ments saw how much the cuts help out drivers directly with their trans portation costs. Manitoba need s to follow the suit and go even further, making this gas tax cut permanent. And all those prov incial taxes, coupled with the federal gov ernment's plan to keep increasing the carbon tax, the pain at the pump will only become worse for drivers beyond the six months of this bill.

When the 14-cents-per-litre gas tax cut is imple - mented, it will spare drivers from the pain of the carbon tax, but only for a moment, because as soon as April 1, 2024, hits, drivers will again be punished for filling up their v ehicles, because that's when the federal government is increasing the carbon tax on gas to 18 cents per litre. But by 2030, that number will be 37 cents per litre. This year alone the carbon tax will cost Manitobans about $400, according to the Parlia mentary Budget Officer, and that includes the rebates.

By 2030, that cost jumps to $1,500 per Manitoban, and those costs don't include the second carbon tax that by 2030 will add about 13 cents a litre extra for the cost of gas as well. In 2030, filling up a minivan will cost $40 in carbon tax alone. Manitoba will have to do more for relief than to temporarily cut prov incial fuel tax to help Manitobans. To start with, the Manitoba government can join most of the country and the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia and push for the federal gov ernment to scrap the carbon tax on everything for everyone.

And it also needs to be passed as swiftly as possible. That's my third point. Manitobans don't just need relief when the gov ernment gets around to it; they need it right now. Manitobans can't put a pause on driving to get to work, driving to the grocery store or taking their kids to hockey practice. Gas tax relief is a good first step to make life affordable fo r Manitobans, but the federal gov ern- ment–Manitoba government also needs to oppose the federal carbon tax as driving up the cost at the pump. Nearly 70 per cent of people say they are paying much more now on essentials than they were a year ago.

Almost half say they are $200 away from being unable to pay their bills. All the while, more and more people are turning to food banks to feed their families.

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 More tax relief needs to be–come soon, and it needs to be permanent. Thank you. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Haubrich. MLA Sala: Thank you so much, Mr. Haubrich, for your presentation. I greatly appreciate you taking time to be with us tonight. I want to say that our gov ern- ment agrees with you that we need to reduce the cost at the pump for Mani tobans and we need to do that swiftly. And that's exactly why we've prioritized bringing this bill forward to bring Manitobans those savings. So we do appreciate that you are in alignment with that.

And I do want to state, you know, the only question I think here is whether or not the opposi tion will be willing to help this go through quickly. So we are hopeful that they will support it and that we'll be able to bring these savings to Manitobans starting January 1st. The Chairperson: Would you like to respond, Mr. Haubrich? G. Haubrich: Sure, yes, I think that that's definitely great.

We're definitely supportive of this move to save people money at the pumps, but what we're looking for is some assured relief that the –some assuredness that the relie f is going to continue beyond the six months because that carbon price is going to be jacked up and the prices at the pumps are going to go even higher. MLA Khan: You know, to the minister's point, he's right. He's one third of the way there. We want to get this done for affordability for Manitobans, but the other two thirds permanent and on all fuels. We called for those amend ments as well.

Let's make it permanent, let's get it on all fuels, and let's get this done for affordability for all Manitobans. So I just, you know, I know you already men - tioned that, but maybe you can reiterate your stance on those three points that we brought forward as amendments. Just, what are your take on those three? And if the minister wants to support affordability for Manitobans, then let's get it done. The Chairperson: Mr. Haubrich. G. Haubrich: Oh, sorry. I think you are definitely right on that. The first point doesn't even provide for all motor fuels.

Our farmers are the ones who feed Manitobans three meals a day. It makes no sense to exclude them from relief as well as other drivers. But the most im portant point, again, to hammer home is that it needs to be permanent. There seems to be no end in sight for high gas prices, so a six- month break is only –it's not going to get the full relief that people need for the long times they're going to be driving. They're not going to stop driving after six months, so we need this relief to be permanent.

And we need it to be done as fast as possible because, like I said, tomorrow Manitobans are have to get up and drive to work; they can't stop doing that until they get this fuel tax holiday. So that needs to be done as soon as possible. The Chairperson: Thank you. MLA Khan: Thank you very much. I'm glad we're in agreement on that, so let's get this done for afford- ability for Manitobans. You mentioned the carbon tax and how much that's going to go up to 18 cents and then in the near future 30 cents and onwards, and the carbon tax is affecting everything and affordability measures.

So do you think cutting the carbon tax would have a greater benefit on affordability or cutting this 14 cents on the gas tax? What's your stance on that? * (19:10) G. Haubrich: Well, I don't think that too much tax relief is ever a probl em. In an ideal world we would like to do –we would like to cut both. So what we would like to see here is the gov ernment moves forward in cutting this 14-cents-per-litre gas tax. But then the clock starts and when the carbon tax is going to be higher tha n that gas tax cut.

So the Manitoba government needs to come out and demand that the federal gov ernment scraps it to actually save Manitobans money at the pump and not simply try and make excuses for what Ottawa's doing. MLA Khan: So, how would you word an amendment, if you wanted to see an amend ment coming forward for this bill here when it comes to the gas tax? I know you mentioned permanently; I know you mentioned dyed already; carbon tax, a combination of thereof. What would you think would be the best way to amend this going forward if affordability was really at top of mind for this bill for Manitobans? G.

Haubrich: Well, I mean, I'll leave the specific wording to the legislators, who are experts on that, but

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 the fact of the matter is that the gas tax needs to be gone for good. Gas prices have never been higher, and they'll continue–they seem like they're going to con- tinue to stay high. Inflation isn't usually some thing that goes the other direction. So as long as Manitobans have to drive ca rs and pay gas, they shouldn't have to be paying a gas tax on that. MLA Bereza: Again, thank you, Mr. Haubrich. Once again about the carbon tax: what type of an effect do you think it's having on Manitoba farmers? G.

Haubrich: Oh, the carbon tax as a whole is hurting Manitoba farmers and farmers all across the country. For example, I've talked to chicken farmers here where I'm from, and it's getting cold outside, you know, and they have to heat their barns, so they're getting huge gas bills to heat those barns, and it's only going up as it gets colder. So scrapping the carbon tax would provide affordability in so many other different ways, because as you know, it's not applied to just gasoline, but also natural gas, propane and every thing else.

So gettin g that scrapped would go a long way to help afford- ability for Manitobans. The Chairperson: And time has expired. Thank you for your presentation. And next up we have Mr. Christopher Crawford, who is virtual. So if he could join the meeting and turn on your audiovisual please. Okay, Mr. Crawford, you can proceed with your presentation. Christopher Crawford (Canadian Propane Association): Thank you, appreciate the time. So just following up on what Mr. Dahl said earlier this evening.

The Canadian P ropane Association is with coalition partners–has coalition partners with Keystone Agricul- tural Producers, the Manitoba Pork Council and the Manitoba Beef Producers. And as we've said, we support the premise of –we support the bill, and we just–there's some amendments that we would like to see going forward. Just so everyone knows, the Canadian Propane Association is a national association with 400 member companies that represent all facets of the propane industry, from large producers to family -owned operations, including those in Manitoba.

Propane has been in existence as a fuel source for well over 100 years. For a fuel that is so well known, however, propane is not very well understood, in- cluding its use as a trans portation fuel. Most people think about propane for their cottage or for their barbecue, but don't think about it for powering or fuelling automotive vehicles. However, people who operate farms, drive a courier vehicle such as UPS or a school bus in the Brandon School Division are very familiar with pro- pane as an important transportation fuel. Propane is subject to a 3-cent-per-litre fuel tax in the province of Manitoba.

Propane is used in many automotive settings, which includes school bus fleets, and across Canada there are abo ut 96,000 propane vehicles on the road, and approximately 800 retail fuel outlets across the country. Natural Resources Canada reports that there are about 50 propane fuelling stations across the province of Manitoba. Just so everyone knows, there is a different nozzle mechanism to fill propane vehicles versus a small cylinder, so that would be used for a barbecue or patio fireplace, which should address the concerns raised with respect to using auto propane for non-automotive purposes.

Propane is also–propane in automotive ap- plications also has a lower carbon footprint than gaso- line, up to 26 per cent less life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, and up to 98 per cent less particle matter than diesel-fuelled vehicles. And our requests, just to keep this nice and short, our requests from the Manitoba Legislature is to add propane as a list of fuels in Bill 3. And that's my remarks. The Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Crawford.

MLA Sala: I want to thank you, Chris, for the presen- tation and the infor mation, and I also want to thank you for the good meeting that we were able to have yesterday with yourself and others from KAP and it was a great discussion. I ap preciate your support for the bill and, again, thank you for making time for the committee tonight. The Chairperson: Mr. Crawford, would you like to respond? C. Crawford: No. Just a thank you to the minister for his time yesterday as well. MLA Bereza: Mr. Crawford, thank you so much for your presentation this evening.

You mentioned about the Brandon School Division switching over to pro- pane vehicles.

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 What will be the cost of savings versus gasoline to–what would they be saving on their fleet? C. Crawford: I don't have that number offhand, but I can definitely provide that to the com mittee. I just don't have that number on me right now, but I can get that over to you or to the Chair. MLA Khan: You mentioned the environment and the effects that propane has on the environment and that propane is a much cleaner gas–or fuel–than traditional fuel.

If this government is serious about environment, environment concerns as they claim to be, wouldn't it make sense to have propane on this if propane burns cleaner? C. Crawford: Yes, sorry–I jumped the gun. Just want to–yes–so we're looking to get this added to the list of fuels just to make the bill more encompassing of all types of fuel. Natural gas, diesel and gas were in - cluded as a list of fuels. We're just asking for propane to be included because we often get–the fuel often gets forgotten. It's not just in the province of Manitoba, but in other juris dictions that have done similar gas holidays.

MLA Khan: When it comes to affordability measure on the tax amendment as we're bringing it forward, or as the gov ernment's bringing forward her e today, if we're looking at affordability measures, would it make sense to have propane added to this list for the cost of, let's say, grain drying for farmers and other opera - tions? How proportional, I guess, the usage of propane for farmers for equip ment and the cost and afford- ability that would–impact it would have on them? C. Crawford: Yes.

So –oh, sorry –so I wonder if saying the purpose of this bill is just for the road– automotive use and road tax, but our association has been pretty adamant about getting C -234 passed by the Senate federally. So we'd like to see that relief for farmers that use propane for grain drying and for heating their barns. The Chairperson: Thank you. Any more questions? Okay. Thank you for your time, Mr. Crawford. C. Crawford: Thank you. The Chairperson: That concludes the list of presenters I have before me. * * * The Chairperson: We will now proceed with clause by clause of Bill 3.

Does the minister responsible for Bill 3 have any opening statements? MLA Sala: Thanks to everyone for being here tonight to talk about this im portant bill, and I want to thank, as well, all the presenters who made time tonight to be part of this process. This is a unique process we have in Manitoba where the public can participate and offer comments, and that's something that we want to honour and it's great that folks took time to share their con- cerns tonight.

You know, for many years in this province, Manitobans struggled with affordability challenges and a government that really was not concerned or did not demonstrate any concern or a willingness to take action. But things have changed, and Manitobans elected our gov ernment into the Legislature to help make life more affordable. That was one of the key things I think that led to us being elected. There's people in this province feeling like they really weren't being listened to for many years. So we're really proud to have brought this bill forward.

This is an important measure for families that are struggling with inflation, higher prices at the pump for years, and this will make a big difference for families. * (19:20) And so, you know, really hopeful that the opposi- tion recognizes the importance of this, that they're willing to support it and to make sure that Manitobans can get this benefit starting on January 1. And, ul - timately, that will be up to them if they want to ensure that Manitobans can get that benefit. We're hopeful they will support. And I do want to highlight, again, you know, tonight we heard some good pre sentations.

Again, greatly appreciated, and the insights were helpful. But we do want to, you know, I do want to take this opportunity to again state that this measure will help Manitobans in every corner of this province, and especially those families living in rural and Northern communities, and especially the families of farmers who live in our rural com munities, who have long distances to commute to work, to school. This will really provide great benefits to the families of those farmers and producers in this province, as we've heard tonight unequivocally from Mr. Dahl.

So, you know, I do want to just wrap by saying, again, I want to encourage the opposi tion to support

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 this measure, to embrace this measure, to see the value it's going to provide to Manitobans. And I also just want to take a second to thank our team in the De partment of Finance for their work in developing the bill and helping to move this important initiative forward. So with that, I thank the committee. The Chairperson: And we thank the minister. Does the critic from the official op position have an opening statement? MLA Khan: I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much to the minister for his remarks and bringing this bill forward.

And thank you to all the presenters that came out tonight, virtually or in person, who drove in. And thank you for all the great work you do in making Manitoba better, whether it be from a tourism aspect, from an agri culture aspect, from a social services impacts here in Manitoba. Thank you all for the great work you're doing.

You know, it's really, I guess, frustrating or up- setting to sit here and, you know, listen to the talk of, you know, previous government did this and this, and they didn't do thi s, and they could have done this, and you know, when people in this room know that this gov ernment made historic –historic–investments in affordability. I mean, it's well known. Average Manitobans received $5,500 in affordability measures. It's well known. It's also known that, you know, this bill is being brought forward to help with tax at the fuel pump. That's true. We don't deny that on this side of the House.

We're in favour of tax cuts. We're in favour of making life more affordable for Manitobans. I've said it over a dozen times, 20, probably, times in the House, in the media –on social media for those who follow. We want affordability measures. We stand for lower taxes. Previous gov ernment was the one that personal tax exemptions. You know, the tax brackets. Two affordability cheques were sent out, along with many other measures were done along the way. It's well documented. But we're here today talking about this tax bill.

So, we want to go back and say that the previous gov- ernment do anythi ng; you know, we all know that's not the case. We–the previous government did a lot of work to make life more affordable for Manitobans. Historic investments. And we all know that. Now, when it comes to this bill spe cifically, we heard from speaker time in and time again, and we've heard in the House, and we've seen the commentary, that this bill does not include all Manitobans. It's clear.

It's clear as day, if we can read this bill, and we'll have an opportunity to go through it clause by clause, and I'm really looking forward to that, and taking some of the comments that the speakers brought forward today. This bill does not take into account all Manitobans. We know it doesn't. The language is not inclusive of everyone. The language is not inc lusive of farm vehicles, off -roading vehicles, fisheries, fishermen. I mean, I can go on and on about what's not–and I really look forward to doing that in the clause

section –but we're advocating for an afford- ability measure for all Manitobans. I don't know why we're not open to–I mean, I really hope the minister is open to some amendments after today. That's our job as the opposition, is to hold the gov ernment accountable to Manitobans. And I think we're going to do that.

And hopefully we'll be s uccessful tonight, with the presenters we've had tonight, that making this bill with amendments that we've heard from presenters, we've heard in the House –if this bill is about afford - ability–and the minister has said it time in and time out again, we've heard it from his leader, the Premier (Mr. Kinew)–then let's make it affordable. Build in measures. Minister's on the record saying that inflation, cost of living, gas, will not go down in the next six months–paraphrasing, sorry–that it won't go down in the next six months. Cost of living's not.

So if we know that, then why aren't we raking real affordability measures? Why are we not moving this forward to an indefinite or permanent timeline? Or tying it along with inflation or cost of living or the carbon tax–I mean, there's many mechanisms to do this. But to do a six -month pause on this when, on April 1st, the carbon tax is going to go up to, I believe, 18 cents–what's the point? Now, again, on this side, we are in favour of affordability measures and lower taxes. We've done it time and time and again. But it has to be a measure that includes all Manitobans.

We can't pick and choose who's going to 'bene' from this.

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 We've heard from speakers today that, you know, the hardest hit people in these affor dability measures are people on lower income. And yet, this bill completely leaves them out of it. And then, you know, the commentary from the other side is, well, this is a–the–a tax bill. It's for roads. It's about transportation. Well, is it about roads and gas tax, or is it about affordability? Because if it's about affordability, there's lots of ways in which this can get done. If it's about roads, that's different.

If it's about gas tax and this is specific- ally the gas tax, then call it the gas tax, then, and talk about gas tax. But if you want to talk about affordability measures and what is being done for affordability measures, affordability affects all Manitobans. Everyone, whether you drive a car, electric car, you take the transit, you're a farmer, you're a fisherman–it affects everyone. We need to look at amendments to this bill to encompass everyone. The minister may say, oh, you know, snow – Snoman, you're allowed; and ATVs, you're allowed; and boats, you can pull up–the bill clearly states they are not.

The bill clearly states they are not. And we'll be going to go through line by line on this, but when the bill specifically says a motor vehicle on a roadway, I don't know how a boat is a motor vehicle on a roadway. I don't know how a farmer's combine is a farm truck. And we'll go through this, but we need to look at affordability. We need to amend this. We're saying let's amend this. Let's make this better for all Manitobans. This is what we want. This is what the minister has gone on the record saying. This is what the Premier (Mr. Kinew) has gone on the record and saying.

And this is what I, myself, as the Finance critic, I am saying. We want affordability measures for all Manitobans. Let's make it for all Manitobans. Let's get this permanent. Let's make this– six months from now, it doesn't do–it does good in the short term, but six months when the carbon taxes will go to 18 cents and then they'll get hit with the 14-cent provincial gas tax. What are we talking about? Are we really talking about affordability measures and we're going to have that happen to Manitobans in six months from now? Permanent–they've called for permanent dyed gas. Dyed gas is clearly left off this bill.

Now, I know this bill was rushed forward. They ran on this in the campaign. They should have had time to do their due diligence and understand what dyed gas is, but it's obvious they didn't. And they –maybe they've never heard of dyed gas before it was brought up in the House, but dyed gas is what farmers use. Three cents is what they pay. So, that's great; they save 11 cents on that. So instead of paying 14, they pay three. But they also save the carbon tax, which is 14 cents. So now they're saving 25 cents. And the minister proposes the newspaper yester- day, well, the farmers can just switch to clear gasoline.

Well, sure. They can, but they're going to pay 11 cents more. And come April 1st, they're going to pay 15 cents more. And the next time the carbon tax goes, they're going to pay 20 -plus cents more and 30 cents plus more. So why would they do it? It doesn't make sense. Amend the act to allow a further reduction of the dyed gas. Not rocket science. We're sitting here, we're elected officials to help Manitobans make it –life more affordable. I under - stand there is, you know, different parties and dif - ferent views on this.

But when it comes to affordability measures, if we're talking about affordability measures –we're not talking about a road, as been alluded to. Was –if the purpose was about roads–it's not about roads. It's about affordability. We want affordability for all Manitobans. Agreed. Well let's do it. How do we do it? We make it permanent. We include all gases. We help out the farmers. The farmers who are being squeezed day in and day out because of carbon tax and cost of labour and food costs. We help them out with their grain drying. We help them out their farm equipment. We add propane to the list.

It's not hard amendments. There are a lot of qualified people in this building, in this province, that have been elected to make these changes. And we're merely saying–we're saying, let's make these changes to amend this bill so that it is 'representive' of all Manitobans. * (19:30) We've heard it from the speakers, we've heard it from our side, you've probably heard it from your own colleagues. I understand this was rushed forward;

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 I understand it's the first bill by the government. First bill. They had to get it out. It's a complicated bill. You've realized that there were some mistakes in here, so let's fix the mistakes. That's why you have the opposition here. Our job is to hold you accountable, so this is what we're doing. We're making this bill better for all Manitobans. Again, I want to thank the presenters for all coming out tonight and having their say in it, every one of them had a valuable insight in their industry and the people they represent.

There are better ways to do this; we need to look at that. We need to look at how we can make this affordable for all Manit obans. This temporary measure does not go far enough. We know it does not go far enough, we've heard from everyone it does not go far enough and if you look at it, just looked at the surface of this bill and what it represents, it is not far enough. It's not good enough, it's not worded well enough. The government can do better. We're going to hold them to do better.

Manitobans have elected us to hold them accountable to doing better, so let's do better for all Manitobans and make this a real affordabili ty bill like they claim it is. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The Chairperson: We thank the member. During the consid eration of a bill, the enacting clause and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order. Shall clause 1 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. An Honourable Member: No. The Chairperson: I hear a no. The floor is open for questions. [interjection] Is it you that has the question? Yes? Yes, like–[interjection] Yes.

So MLA Khan, if you have a question. Yes. MLA Khan: In clause 1 here, The Fuel Tax Act is amended by this act. Does the minister believe that the wording around affordability should be included in this act? MLA Sala: Not quite clear on the question that's been asked here. Could the member provide more clarity on exactly what it is that he's asking? MLA Bereza: The Fuel Tax Act, again, we're talking tonight about it being an affordability as well, too. And I think that's what Manitobans want, is they want a clear indication of what we're doing.

When we were elected here, and I sat with most of you that are in the room here, that we talked about wanting to work together on this as well, too. And I don't think there's any doubt that, you know, afford- ability is important to all people that are out there. So I would suggest that we amend this by adding the word affordability in there as well. MLA Sala: To be clear, are the members proposing a change in the title of the bill? I'm still not–and I don't mean to be, you know, petulant here. I'm just trying to understand what is being asked specifically. MLA Khan: I think we can just move on past that.

I was reading another line in that act. So I believe, you know, we can withdraw those questions and the minis- ter–we can leave clause 1, we allow–or, approve as is, I guess. The Chairperson: Okay. So seeing as there's no other questions. Clause 1–pass. Shall clause 2 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. An Honourable Member: No. The Chairperson: I hear a no. The floor is open for questions. MLA Bereza: Under the word roadway, again, we heard pre sentations tonight regarding from Snoman and the cost of the economic impact, that it could cost the recreation industry.

We also talked to several farm groups as well as a number of different farmers on this as well, too. A combine can't go to a gas station and fill up and then go to the field, do its work. That –there, same thing with a swather or a tractor, or anything like that. So I think the word roadway, if we are looking at adding in other things here, roadway is not defined properly. MLA Sala: Yes. One second, please. Yes, I do want to point out that you mentioned combines and the use of that type of equipment. That would use diesel fuel, marked diesel. That is already

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 exempt from the fuel tax, so there's no–there would be no proposed changes there because they're already exempted fully from the fuel tax. To your question specifically about this section, I would say again, we've been very clear when –we've been clear in the media, been clear in the House.

If you pull up to a fuel station in Manitoba retail- ing clear gasoline, you will receive a 14-cent-per-litre reduction, regardless of whether or not you pull up with a trailer behind you with a jerry can on it or with some kind of an outdoor vehicle, you will still get those benefits. And so, that's been crystal clear, and I don't know that we can do much more to make that any clearer. The Chairperson: Just a quick reminder to the room to address all comments through the Chair. MLA Khan: Thank you very much for that reminder, Mr. Chair.

To my colleague's question, the roadway defini - tion, The Highway Traffic Act. I mean, the definition is clear on The Highway Traffic Act. And the minister, you know, says that, you know, vehicles, ATVs, motorbikes, snowmobiles, boats, et cetera, will be allowed to take use of this tax act as defined on the roadway, which he alluded to in 12.2, where he says a motor vehicle on a roadway.

And yet, the definition of a roadway here says , roadway as–this is in The Highway Traffic Act, as his department is probably well aware of–roadway means the portion of a highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular trafficked. I can go on, but it pretty much just goes on and on about, you know, shoulders of the highways, et cetera. That is not Snoman. That is not ATVs. That's not off-roads. That's not boats. So, will the minister not address the need for an amendment in this bill to add more than just simple roadway to this, as he's clearly saying that they will be allowed to pull up.

Why is it not reflected in the bill? MLA Sala: Appreciate the question from the member. I would just say, again, with clarity, if you're a Manitoban and you want to save money, you can pull up to the pump after January 1st once this bill is passed and save money when you purchase clear gas in Manitoba. Appreciate that the members are continuing to ask about this, but again, I'll just continue to offer the same answer. When you show up to a pump in Manitoba, if this bill passes, to buy clear gas, you will save that money.

So, you know, we can talk about this 50 different ways, but again it–I don't know what's not clear about what's being said here. You will save the 14 cents per litre should you guys support the passage of this bill. So, we can talk about

definitions all day long here. What I'm com - municating is that you will save that money if you go to the gas station and buy clear gas. All Manitobans who go to that gas station will save those dollars. MLA Bereza: So, let me get this straight here. So, the government is saying that it's okay for Manitobans to break the law. So, if a Manitoban comes with an ATV without a licence plate on it, he's driving on a roadway. So, he's got to drive on a roadway to get to a gas station.

If an– if a person is coming with a snowmobile that doesn't have a licence plate on it, he's breaking the law by going to a gas station to fill up. So, if that is correct, then do we put in here that we're breaking the law in order to save this 14 cents? MLA Sala: The bill proposes no such thing. Manitobans will not be breaking the law. There's no compliance or enforcement mechanism outlined in the bill. Manitobans who show up at a gas station will save money should this bill pass. Very simple. You know, again, you could be driving a small vehicle, a large truck. You pull up, you got a trailer behind you.

You will ultimately benefit from those savings come January 1st, should the opposi tion decide to support this bill. * (19:40) The Chairperson: Okay. Just for information for the committee, it is practice that the critic holds the floor. So–[interjection]–yes. Basically meaning gov - ernment has oppor tunity for questions after–if you don't have any more questions. Yes. So MLA Bereza, did you have a question? MLA Bereza: Yes.

So I just want to be straight with this, and again, minister stated there that all people that want to pull up to the pump can, whether they're breaking the law or not by not having a licence plate

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 on their vehicle or whatever vehicle they're driving. I just want to make sure that that is the clarification. MLA Sala: We are not proposing that people without licences pull up to gas stations. We're proposing that vehicles pulling up to gas stations –or, licensed vehicles of some kind that are pulling up to gas stations–will benefit from those savings. There's nothing illegal being proposed here, or encouraged. MLA Bereza: What about Snoman, with their groomers? Again, how does this fit here?

Again, when we're talking about –I can't stress this enough, is that a person driving a vehicle without a –Mr. Chair, a person driving a vehicle without proper insurance and registration, again, is risking going to that gas station in order to save 14 cents. Again, we're all about affordability, too. But my concern here is, are we encouraging Manitobans to go out, you can pull up to the pump; it doesn't matter if you have a registration, doesn't matter if you have insurance on the vehicle, but as long as you get to that pump, you will save 14 cents. Is that correct?

MLA Sala: Look, there is infinite possi bilities that can be explored by the opposition, and I know they're going to cook up a variety of different directions here to try to, you know, find examples of whatever it is they're looking to demonstrate here. And again, I'll just say for the record, if you pull up to a gas station post-January 1st, should this bill pass, you will save the money. This is a measure that was brought in to improve affordability of life for Manitobans. We're proud of this.

We think it's im portant, and we encourage you guys to get on board and to support this bill so we can bring these savings to Manitobans. MLA Khan: Mr. Chair, the purpose of bills is to codify the law in words, what we, as a society, have to live by. The question to the minister is simple: why are they so opposed to simply amending the words where the minister has clearly said tonight and in the House, over and over and over again, that this bill will apply to vehicles that do not only go on the roadway? So, if the minister has said it, why are we simply not codifying it in the bill?

I don't understand why–the nuances back and forth. It is a simple matter of saying, hey, l et's change the definition of this; let's make it larger so that every- one's safe. If a Manitoban is to go by the word of the law, which is a bill passed in this building, then we are giving Manitobans legal course and precedent to argue and go against each other. The minister may say, oh, just pull up and you can get what you want, get the 14-cent savings. Great. The bill clearly states that is not the case on a roadway. You are not taking snowmobiles on the roadway; they have their own.

You are not taking a boat on a roadway; it's on a trailer. Why is the minister so opposed to just changing some of the

definitions in here, or amending them, to protect all Manitobans so we avoid this in the future? We're just struggling, like, dumbfounded, on this side to understand why there's just this–dig our heels in to not change or modify and amend this simple defini - tion of what a roadway is when the minister himself has said–and again, I'll take him–you know, I'd like to take him at his word. I've gotten to know the minister over the fast–past few years and, you know, we've had some pleasant con versations, and I just don't under - stand why–what the hesitation is to changing it.

MLA Sala: You know, I –again, we ap preciate that the opposition is bringing this forward. We can repeat it all night, if we want. I'll go until whenever we want here. It's fine. If we want to keep repeating the same question, I'll say that your proposal has been heard. I appreciate that you've brought it forward and I think our response to that has been clear tonight. So, again, we want to keep repeating this we can continue to have that same back and forth. I'm open to that and looking forward to hearing concerns brought forward by the opposition. But, again, they've brought this proposal forward.

I think it's clear that they feel that should be amended, and we've brought our response. There's not a lot more to add, but, again, we can do this all night, if that's what they want to do. The Chairperson: Just a little gentle reminder to keep everything coming through the Chair. MLA Khan: And, you know, I mean we're happy to stay here all night. It's what we're elected for, is to hold the government accountable to make bills and laws for Manitobans that are representative for all Manitobans. So we're more than happy to stay here all night. I can continue this into tomorrow if need so be.

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 So the minister has made it clear that he's heard from us and he hears what we're saying. He's pro- cessed what we're saying, so just one last time I would like the minister, on the record, to say why the minis- ter is so opposed to amending the roadway as in definition in this bill as he has clearly stated time and time again that –verbally–that, yes, that pull up and you're good. So, one last time, maybe then we can move on and maybe we won't be here all night if the minister can clearly state why he and his gov ernment and his Premier (Mr.

Kinew) are so opposed to amending this definition of the roadway, as he said to the various speakers, they would be allowed. MLA Sala: I ap preciate the comments from the member, and I'll just say again one more time clearly: this bill will provide savings at the pump for all Manitobans. Hopefully, the opposition will support it and we'll see these savin gs being brought to Manitobans come January 1. MLA Khan: Mr. Chair, so again, you know, when asked will the minister go on the record and say why, they won't. It's a non answer.

We've heard from pre - senters tonight that they do not believe this bill applies to them based specifically on the wording. Presenters said that. So, not us, elected officials. Presenters, Manitobans who want to make Manitoba better, who are making Manitoba better, said that they do not believe this bill applies to them based off the wording. Why not amend it to ensure all Manitobans be - lieve it does what it says, unless there's some other hidden agenda here. I can't understand it. It's a very simple ask on this one. I mean, we have multiple pages to get through and we're on 2(a).

So, the minister gave a non- answer as to why he will not be willing to –or what his response is. Obviously, he's not willing to modify it, so I'm trying to get an understanding as to why they are not willing to amend the definition of what a roadway is when he has verbally stated that this will apply to everyone that pulls up to a gas station in Manitoba no matter what you're driving.

So, just again, I'll simplify the question down: Why will the minister not amend the definition of what a roadway is when he has verbally said every - one's allowed to do it and pull up, and everyone's on a roadway and boats are on roadways, and snowmobiles are on roadways, and combines and tractors are on roadways, and everyone applies to T he Highway Traffic Act, why the minister just won't modify that.

MLA Sala: You know, I think it's worth commenting on the fact that the opposi tion's bringing forward a whole bunch of ideas tonight about how to make this bill better, and they've got a lot of things that they're bringing forward. But they didn't take any action for the last seven years. They didn't do this. They didn't take action to bring savings for Manitobans in terms of helping them with their cost of fuel. They did not act. So, you know, it's worth just sort of high lighting that, you know, this –the concerns being brought for - ward, I ap preciate them.

It's good to hear the ideas being brought forward, but let's highlight at the same time that they did not take action for seven years in this area. So, lots of big ideas that we're hearing today, but we didn't see any of these ideas over the last seven years. We're bringing forward affordability measures. They should get on board. * (19:50) MLA Khan: You know, affordability measures, as we heard from speakers today, include all Manitobans. We heard that from every presenter tonight.

You know, we heard from presenters in the $250 of savings over six months were forecasted on a family of two, family driving two vehicles, believe to be two F-150s, the bill was quoted, average family would consume $250 of gas in six months. Okay. So $250 in gas, in savings, for sure it is. Over a year, $500. Okay. And the minister goes on the record saying that the previous gov ernment has done nothing to combat affordability measures.

The minister goes on to say that the previous gov- ernment had an opportunity to handle affordability, or address affordability for Manitobans, I believe is para- phrasing roughly what the minister had said. And yet, the minister fails to acknowle dge that the previous government historic invest ments in, Mr. Chair, in affordability measures for Manitobans. So we're talking 250 bucks over six months, $500 a year for someone who drives two F-150s, or a family that has two F -150s. I don't know who that is, but, I mean, God bless them.

So, 500 bucks a year, and the previous government did on average a $5,500 in aver- age savings. So we're talking $5,500 in average savings. We're talking increasing the basic personal exemption.

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 We're talking income tax brackets. Two affordability cheques that went out roughly, actually, I think some of them were larger than what this rebate is based on: $250 for two F-150s; $5,500 in average. So the minister wants to say that, Mr. Chair, the minister wants to addre ss that the previous gov ern- ment didn't do anything to really help with afford - ability, and yet I would say that $5,500 on average is a lot more than $500 in average savings. Now, that all being said, this still all circles back to the simple question on

definitions within this bill. And the reason why this is so important now, because it's going to come up later in

section 12.2–I'm not sure if they've gotten that far ahead–but it's going to come up later, where it's im portant that we define a motor vehicle on a roadway. That's why it's important now, because the defini- tion needs to be changed now, because it's going to come up in 12.2, where we talk about motor vehicles. So if we talk about ATVs, and we're going to have to address, you know, what a –the definition of a motor vehicle is, because I've also tabled that for the minister as well. That the definition of a motor vehicle is not also as inclusive as the minister likes to believe it is.

Just like the definition of a roadway, according to The Highway Traffic Act, is not as inclusive as what the minister says it is. So the simple ask is, why will the minister not be willing to adjust the definition of a roadway to better reflect what Manitobans are asking for, what our presenters –asking for, what the bill clearly lacks. Anybody can see this at its surface that this bill is not written for all of Manitobans and it does not give Manitobans peace to know that when they go to pull up at the pump, that they will be, that, you can't say, look, the minister said it is.

I mean, as great as that sounds, I don't know if little Bobby working at the gas station in Dauphin or in Sifton or, you know, is–that's going to suffice.

So, again, getting back to all of this to land the airplane and saying, you know, the minister is really, has dug his heels in on a simple definition matter, and I think it's important that Manitobans realize this, that the sheer lack of ability to adjust the definition in this bill, let alone the rest of this stuff, really shows where, you know, this government and minister's priority are when it comes to affordability for Manitobans, and when it comes to helping Manitobans, that we are so stuck with our heels in the ground that we do not want to simply modify the definition of what a roadway is.

That gives me a lot of concern as op position. It should give Manitobans concern. That's the reason why we're not moving on past this point. As much as I love sitting here and debating and talking and hanging out with my colleagues and opposi tion and then government and civil servants, you know, I can think of other things. But here we are. It shows that the minister is refusing to modify the definition within this bill. It shows that even when brought forward by presenters, the minister is refusing to address it; that we're just supposed to take him at his word.

And if that's what the minister says, that we're just going to take him at his word, then I guess so be it, and we don't need to 'beleajer' this point anymore unless my colleague has something to add afterwards. MLA Sala: Again, I ap preciate the comments from the opposition. MLA Bereza: Minister talked about affordability, working together, looking for us to do things together. I think what we're trying to do here tonight is to make this less complicated for Manitobans. I don't think anybody in this room is talking about not wanting affordability for Manitobans.

What we want is a clear understanding of what's going on here. Because again, if we don't define this right now, then we're going to leave it up to Johnny [phonetic], or we're going to leave it up–Bobby [phonetic], or FCL, to decide who gets filled up or not. Do they have to check licence plates, as well, too, when they're there? You know, does a person from Saskatchewan get this as well too? Again, or do they have to have two sets of pumps with two separate prices on it? Again, I think it comes down to the affordability thing and coming to some agreements here. Otherwise I'm with MLA Khan on this as well, too.

We've got to work for all Manitobans. I think we all want to work for all Manitobans. And that's what we want to look at tonight with amending what we're looking at here as a definition here of a roadway. MLA Sala: Again, I ap preciate the comments from the opposi tion, and I'd say there is only one party who's trying to make things more complicated here than they need to be. We've been crystal clear, and we think Manitobans have heard that message. And we're looking forward to bringing these savings to Manitobans every time they go to the pump, who I

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 think understand what we've com municated very clearly. MLA Khan: Oh boy, oh boy, Mr. Chair. You know, it's –we are here as elected officials, Mr. Chair, as you know, and everyone else is–is to try to make Manitoba better. Let's remove the tensions, hostilities that we might put Manitobans in. Let's remove any ambiguity, any confusion over what it might be so we don't have these problems out in Manitoba.

This bill, and the minister's digging in of his heels, just simply shows that he is refusing to listen to what presenters say, what colleagues are saying, what Manitobans are saying on this issue. He just refuses to move forward on that. So, you know, the minister–and I guess it's evident that this was maybe going to be the course for the remainder of the evening tonight. The minister told media today he was not willing to amend this bill before listening to presenters.

So before tonight even started, the minister, in a scrum, said he is not willing to am end this bill–said it in the scrum–before presenters tonight; before hearing from presenters tonight. So, I mean, I guess that's clear. The minister's made up his mind on what the definition of a roadway is, and I guess a boat can travel on a 'roadray' and I guess so can 'snowdoos' and ATVs and combines and unlicensed vehicles–that the minister's already dug his heels in.

We're trying to be reasonable, we're trying to just simply understand the definition wording framework of what this bill is setting up forward, and the minister refuses to do that. So, I guess, maybe that's going to set the tone for the rest of the evening here, because we have a lot of other points to debate and go back and forth on. So, you know, it's unfortunate that, you know, he sends a strong message to Manitobans that he's already made up his mind before hearing them tonight, and even when we're trying to have reasonable debate back and forth, the minister is not engaged.

So, you know, it's unfortunate, but while I regret we don't get an answer, you know, on the definition of a roadway or amending that to include more, I believe we should probably move on to the next clause because it seems like the minister is not moving on. As I guess, you know, should've listened earlier in the conference–press conference. So that, Mr. Chair, I guess the question has to come forward again then, I believe? The Chairperson: The hon ourable minister has a chance to respond. * (20:00) MLA Sala: Appreciate the comments from the members of the opposition. Looking forward to further questions.

Hopefully, we can continue on, here. The Chairperson: Any further questions? Seeing none, shall clause 2 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. An Honourable Member: No. The Chairperson: Okay. I guess the floor is open – [interjection]–sorry. Voice Vote The Chairperson: All those in favour of passing clause 2, please say aye. Some Honourable Members: Aye. The Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. The Chairperson: In my opinion, the Ayes have it. Clause 2 is accordingly passed. * * * The Chairperson: We're just going to take a tiny moment to consult the authorities.

An Honourable Member: Mr. Chair, can we have a two-minute break? The Chairperson: There's a request for a five-minute recess. Okay, so after consulting with the authorities, we are not going back to clause 2, but for clarity we are redoing the vote. Shall clause 2 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. An Honourable Member: No. Voice Vote The Chairperson: All those in favour of the clause 2, please say aye. Some Honourable Members: Aye. The Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay.

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 The Chairperson: In my opinion, the Ayes have it. Clause 2 is accordingly passed. Recorded Vote MLA Khan: A recorded vote. The Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Ayes 3, Nays 2. The Chairperson: Clause 2 is accordingly passed. * * * The Chairperson: Clause 3–pass. * (20:10) Shall clause 4 pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Some Honourable Members: No. The Chairperson: I hear noes. The floor is open to questions. Are there questions?

MLA Khan: So, in the clause here, 4–6(2.3): No tax is payable by an operator under subsection (2), and no single-trip permit is to be issued under subsection–and you can read the rest there. Can the minister please clarify what constitutes a single-trip permit? MLA Sala: One second. Happy to answer the question. Single-trip permits are a method of collecting fuel tax from out-of-province carriers that are not operating under a carrier licence. MLA Khan: I apologize for that. I must be getting old in my age. Can the minister just please repeat that a little louder and maybe a little slower? Please and thank you.

MLA Sala: Single-trip permits are a method of collecting fuel tax from out -of-province carriers that are not operating under a carrier licence.

MLA Khan: So, to clarify that, single trip is out -of- province carrier, and no single -trip permit is to be issued under subsection–so, just a clarification, is the minister saying that no tax is payable by operator and no single permit –so, an operator coming from Saskatchewan through Manitoba to go to Ontario and onwards to greener pastures in Cape Breton, let's say, would that operator then not –or, would they be exempt or they would not be exempt from this 14-cent tax–fuel tax holiday, as listed here? So, a little clarifi cation on that, please, from the minister, Mr. Chair.

MLA Sala: I want to apologize to the member, because I didn't catch a sig nificant portion of your question. I dug into some information there. I would ask, if you would, repeat it for my benefit. MLA Khan: Sorry, just to be clear, again, minister, just the last

preamble I went on or the one before that? Just the last one, right? [interjection] Okay, yes. Okay, so the question was, so, the single –from what I understand, the non– single-trip permit would be for a out-of-province operator coming through, let's just say from Saskatchewan. So, does–is this clause here, 6(2.3), saying that no tax is payable from a single -trip permit? So, if you have a truck from Saskatchewan coming through, they fuel up here, they're not –they–no tax is payable. So they d on't have to pay that tax and then they can proceed on through Ontario without paying that tax.

Is that what this clause is clearly stating here? MLA Sala: Yes. MLA Khan: Okay, so, again, that same example, you have a–hundreds, if not thousands, of trucks I imagine coming from Saskatchewan, either west to east or you have east to west coming through, you have people coming south to north, States, and thousands and thousands of vehicles coming here. So these vehicles that are now coming here have no inte ntion per se of staying in Manitoba; they're passed right through, are going to fuel up in Manitoba and take advantage of this tax savings, is that correct?

MLA Sala: Most trucks would be covered under the International Fuel Tax Agree ment. This is for t hose trucks that are not covered under that agreement. MLA Khan: Can the minister please indulge us in what the International Fuel Tax Agreement is? MLA Sala: I'd be happy to. Just give me a second. So the agreement essentially works to ensure that truckers pay the relevant fuel taxes in whatever juris dictions they're driving through. MLA Khan: Okay, so just to be clear here, so this clause here is referring to single -trip permits. So a truck coming from Saskatchewan through Manitoba,

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 the minister has stated that most trucks would abide by the Inter national Fuel Tax Agreement, which means they would then abide by the relevant tax. But that, again, that is most trucks, so we still have to deal with what's not most. But most trucks would deal with an International Fuel Tax Agreement, and relevant tax. So does that mean they would pay the relevant tax, or they would take advantage of this tax holiday according to the Inter national Fuel Tax Agreement. * (20:20) MLA Sala: Just relating to this section, just going to reiterate.

This means that truckers will not pay tax for the mileage they incur in Manitoba, right. So, there's the truckers that operate under the international agree- ment, which we referenced earlier. This clause ensures that those trucks that are not part of that agreement can still continue to see those savings. That's what this specific clause gets at. Is that clear? MLA Khan: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Honour- able–Mr. Chair–[interjection]–Mr. Chair, sorry, it's getting long–late night now–Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the minister for clarification on that.

So, again, just to be clear: so, a truck coming from west Canada, let's say Moosomin on the No. 1, is flowing through a border. They get to Manitoba because they know that we don't have a tax , or we–they save 14 cents. They pull up; they load up their 18-wheeler, and they continue on all the way through Manitoba, and now they get to, you know, they're just about to enter Kenora, about to exit Manitoba, and they're going to fill up again. So, those fill-ups, they're not paying the tax. They are exempt from the tax holiday. They get the 14 cents off. I just want to be clear that that's what we're saying. Correct?

MLA Sala: That's accurate. [interjection] The Chairperson: MLA Khan. MLA Khan: So, these thousands and thousands of trucks are coming through Manitoba in the course of a year. I'm sure the minister could probably get numbers on that or, you know, it would actually be nice if we could get numbers on how many t rucks actually flow through Manitoba on a six-month and an annual basis, what this bill's going to reflect. Those trucks are coming through. They're going to take advantage of the tax, but this has nothing to do with affordability for them, because they don't live in Manitoba.

So, this tax is a tax fuel holiday designed for affordability for Manitobans, and yet we're saying, come on through, truckers, and anyone else that might be going through; fill up and get out of here, and we're not going to get any taxes off of you, but you're going to use our roads; you're going to use our infrastructure; you're going to damage those with the thousands of trucks that are moving through this province, and we're not going to get anything from you. So, just, you know, maybe stop off at a convenience store and buy a bag of Cheetos or something and get going.

Just want to make sure that this is what this clause is stating in here and I'm not missing anything. MLA Sala: I don't remember saying anything about Cheetos, but I think we were clear about what this clause indicates. MLA Bereza: For the record, and again, in case I'm missing some thing here, I'm driving through from Saskatchewan. I stop in Virden. I fill up with fuel. I'm going through into Ontario. I stop be fore the Ontario border, fill up again with fuel. So, I'm being able to fill my truck twice in Manitoba. The good people of Manitoba are going to be absorbing this. They're going to be paying for it.

They're going to be parrying for the wear and tear on the roads. So, the question, through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister: Are you okay with people coming from out of province, filling up their trucks or vehicles once, twice, ten times while they're in Manitoba, yes or no? MLA Sala: I appreciate the question. I think we've been clear about what this clause implies and what it provides for. There is this North American agreement for truckers to ensure that they pay fuel taxes reflective of where they are. We in Manitoba are reducing our fuel tax from 14 cents to zero, should your party decide to support it.

And I think, again, the implications to the clause are clear. MLA Khan: You know, I want to be clear, we are – we think it's fantastic we have a North American agreement and that we encourage trade a nd we en - courage transportation through the province. We think this is wonderful.

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 29, 2023 But what's not wonderful is that that agreement now would take advantage of affordability measures or what a bill is supposed to be for affordability mea- sures for Manito bans. This is a bill designed to be a tax relief for Manitobans, and yet , clearly, in this clause, this is not the case. Clearly , in this clause, again, because the bill has been rushed through, that they're–they haven't thought of this. And that's okay. I want to be clear: it's okay to make mistakes in a bill, and that's why we have these committees to address these.

So, to my colleague's question, thousands of trucks coming through–also, a town right on the border – Moosomin, right, it's pretty close on the border? What's stopping someone from Saskatchewan–how many kilometres is that roughly? –from the border, 15 kilometres, 12 miles, saying, hey, we got to fill up, mom and dad, let's go get gas; come fill up and then go back. And then hey, when we fill up, let's go back. And coming back to Saskatchewan, doesn't have this. So, what's stopping someone from doing that, and is the minister okay with that? Is that what this bill is designed for?

MLA Sala: Yes, I appreciate the comments. I'd say, you know, we're part of this international agreement. I can hear that the op position wants us to just go ahead and break up that inter national agree- ment. They're making proposals that would suggest that, or speak to that. Whether they'd like to acknowl- edge t hat or not, that's effectively what they're suggesting. We are part of this agree ment, and this is what needs to be done here to accommodate our partici - pation in that agreement. MLA Bereza: What we are saying is, you know what, we are for affordability for Manitobans.

We are not for paying for somebody's damages that are being –happening to our infra structure here. We are not for millions of dollars leaving this pro - vince when we're talking about businesses that may be operating in Manitoba, but being–but having head offices in other provinces. They may have licensed vehicles that are operating in Manitoba, but the money is all going out of the province. So, I just want to make clear that this gov- ernment is okay with millions and millions of dollars of–exiting the province on–from the border com mu- nities. MLA Sala: Yes, I appreciate the question.

I'd say, you know, we're here, and we were elected– big part of why we were elected was to help make life more affordable for Manitobans, right? So, a gain, I know the opposi tion, you know, they're driving at some thing here. I'm not quite sure where they think that's going, but I'll say this: we are bringing $163 million in esti mated tax savings for Manitobans as a result of this measure; an esti mated $100 million in fuel tax savings for households; $60 million for busi nesses across Manitoba; and an estimated $3 million for municipalities.

This is about improving affordability for Manitobans, and, you know, we're really proud of that. And I think that, regardless of the, you know, the comments from the opposi tion, I think Manitobans understand what it is we're doing here. It's clear to me that they understand that. And I think if the members opposite went back to their communities and they spoke with folks, and they asked them, will life get better for you if we reduce the fuel tax by 14 cents a litre on January 1, the answer they're going to hear is yes.

So, again, we can talk about these various scenarios that they're referencing here and bringing up. Appreciate that they're bringing this to this committee. * (20:30) But I'll say again for clarity: this is about afford - ability for Manitobans. We're proud to bring this for- ward, and, again, I hope that the opposition chooses to support it. MLA Bereza: I am listening to my con stituents in Portage la Prairie. I am also listening because I am the agricultural shadow minister as well too. I understand there's $163 million that you say that is being saved here for Manitobans.

How much money is going into Saskatchewan and Ontario or other provinces? Do you have any estimate on that? The Chairperson: A gentle reminder about questions through the Chair. MLA Sala: So, again, this is for–it is for Manitobans. We've got an esti mated $250 over six months that Manitobans can expect to save. And I just want to clarify. You know, I know the opposition was having a little bit of fun with that, but that's not two F -150s. This is a ccording to Natural Resources Canada, for an average fuel con sumption

November 29, 2023 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 for a family with two vehicles. Mr. Chair, $250 is a lot of money for an average family in this province. And I know, you know, again, the member says he's in close contact with his constituents; I appreciate that. I get the sense that he does care about their concerns. And I would encourage him to go back and ask your constituents, what does $250 in your pocket over the next six months mean to you and your family? And I think what he'll hear back with clarity is, that is incredible news for us; that is a great -news story.

So, again, you know, I really encourage the mem- bers to consider what that $250 means for families and their community, and I hope they choose to support this bill because people need this help now. And, again, for years that party, the opposition party, was not willing to take action like we are here. We're taking action to reduce energy costs for Manitobans. And I'd say not only energy costs on fuel, but we're–we brought forward a number of other great initiatives that we've talked about in the House, and are–we're focused on helping everyday Manitobans reduce their cost of living.

That's something we didn't see from the gov ern- ment in years past, the previous government. MLA Khan: Just a couple of pointers here. Not once at one point did we ever suggest that we weren't in favour of the North American agreement or trade, or ever insinuated once that we want to violate that or break that. You know, and I know some of these questions are pretty in depth and, you know, very in the weeds with the bill, and, you know, I'd see the minister at times has to, you know, ask his staff.

So, if he wants, when I ask a question, if he wants a pause, I'm more than happy to pause, let the minister get the proper information, because it is a big file, and then come back because that wasn't mentioned. So, maybe at times where, you know, the minis - ter's getting pointers from his staff on how to answer these complicated questions properly, he's been actually missing what we say. But we never once said that we want to violate the North American agreement. What we did say is that we want affordability for Manitobans. The minister also said he wants afford - ability for Manitobans.

So, we agree on that: we want affordability for Manitobans. I don't see how someone living in Saskatchewan, driving here to fuel up their tank 10 miles away and then going back to Saskatchewan is affordability for Manitobans. I might be wrong. Maybe the minister can tell me if I'm wrong on that point . Or someone from Ontario coming here, filling up and going back. You know, I don't see how a trucker, thousands, tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, I'm not sure; I'm not the infrastructure guy. You know, maybe if the member from Turtle Mountain was here he would know.

But, you know, driving through Manitoba, I don't see how that's affordability for Manitobans; it's not. It's wear and tear on our roads in Manitoba. If this bill was thought out properly we could simply just simply say that we want to apply this to Manitobans only and have a mechanism for Manitobans only instead of rushing it through on January 1st. Affordability is No. 1.

We agree affordability has to be, and we are –this is why we're here; this is why we are both passionately debating this, is because we agree for more affordability for Manitobans, not for out-of-province people, not for people who are driving through, not for truckers. It's clear that –and now this minister might want to send cheques to millionaires outside of the province; that's concerning. You know, as he knows the talking points.

And when he talks about affordability, you know, I apolo- gize, I took the two F-150s from the previous speaker, but it was two vehicles, $250 in six months, $500 a year; that's a lot of money. He's right, it's a lot of money, and we should–we –affordability is top of mind. But, you know what's a lot more money than 500 bucks a year? Eleven times that. Eleven times that is what the previous government did for the aver age Manitoban last year, '22-23; $5,500 in average savings. Eleven times. So, the minister wants to talk about savings, I agree, we agree; affordability, No. 1.

Got to make it affordable for Manitobans. A bill that allows people to drive through Manitoba to

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	43-1-sed1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	43rd 1st hansardpdf sed1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e865f7f0056a91625a82a8d3257ca42980e85744

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