Manitoba Hansard — 11 March 2021 (Sitting 34B, 42nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

42-3-34b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Myrna Driedger Speaker Vol. LXXV No. 34B - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, March 11, 2021 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-Second Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ADAMS, Danielle Thompson NDP ALTOMARE, Nello Transcona NDP ASAGWARA, Uzoma Union Station NDP BRAR, Diljeet Burrows NDP BUSHIE, Ian Keewatinook NDP CLARKE, Eileen, Hon. Agassiz PC COX, Cathy, Hon. Kildonan-River East PC CULLEN, Cliff, Hon. Spruce Woods PC DRIEDGER, Myrna, Hon. Roblin PC EICHLER, Ralph, Hon. Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne, Hon. Lac du Bonnet PC FIELDING, Scott, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib.

GOERTZEN, Kelvin, Hon. Steinbach PC GORDON, Audrey, Hon. Southdale PC GUENTER, Josh Borderland PC GUILLEMARD, Sarah, Hon. Fort Richmond PC HELWER, Reg, Hon. Brandon West PC ISLEIFSON, Len Brandon East PC JOHNSON, Derek, Hon. Interlake-Gimli PC JOHNSTON, Scott Assiniboia PC KINEW, Wab Fort Rouge NDP LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAGIMODIERE, Alan Selkirk PC LAMONT, Dougald St. Boniface Lib. LAMOUREUX, Cindy Tyndall Park Lib.

LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas-Kameesak NDP LINDSEY, Tom Flin Flon NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Malaya Notre Dame NDP MARTIN, Shannon McPhillips PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC MOSES, Jamie St. Vital NDP NAYLOR, Lisa Wolseley NDP NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine, Hon. Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Turtle Mountain PC REYES, Jon Waverley PC SALA, Adrien St. James NDP SANDHU, Mintu The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron, Hon.

Springfield-Ritchot PC SMITH, Andrew Lagimodière PC SMITH, Bernadette Point Douglas NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Vérendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WASYLIW, Mark Fort Garry NDP WHARTON, Jeff, Hon. Red River North PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC

1569 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, March 11, 2021 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Madam Speaker: Good afternoon, everybody. Please be seated. An Honourable Member: A matter of privilege. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on a matter of privilege. Ms. Danielle Adams (Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for–[interjection] Okay. I rise on a matter of privilege. This is a serious matter, Madam Speaker, and I request an opportunity to properly lay out the facts of the matter as I under - stand them.

This is the first opportunity I have had to rise on this matter, Madam Speaker, since learning of the facts. It's a first opportunity because the matter concerns a bill which was introduced and –but not distributed, November 2020. I have learned the contents of the bill were shared publicly with the media just hours ago, prior to distribution in this House, and–the House adjourned in the morning sitting. As this is the first time the House has met since then, I –taken place, I believe this is the earliest opportunity to bring this matter to your attention.

On the matter itself, it's a long -standing and clearly understood the –tradition of the House and tradition–practice has been affirmed and reaffirmed on many occasions, that the bills are not –to be intro- duced in this House and debated in this House must be first presented to this House prior to any other person or venue. It offends the authority of this House to have the question of this legislator first proposed to individuals other than those who have a duty–duly elected by the people of the province to consider, debate and vote on such important matters.

Our most important authority, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, O'Brien Bosc, on page 85 are very clear. It notes the distribute of bills to the media prior to members of Legislature–a breach of privilege. They wrote: For example, in 2001, the question of privilege was raised regarding briefing of the Department of Justice held for members of the media on a bill that was yet introduced in the House, while denying members access to the same information.

Speaker Migilken [phonetic] ruled that the provisions informed– concerning the legislator to the media without effect- ive measures to secure the rights of the House – consists of prima facie case of a contempt –Debates, March 19th, 2001, 1839- 1840. The matter was referred to a standing committee on procedure of the House affairs.

It is–the 14th report presented to the House on May 9th, 2001, and a committee found that privilege of the House had been breached: This case should serve as a warning to –our House that –will insist on full-page recognition of constitutional factions and historic privilege across the spectrum of government. However, the committee did not recommend sanctions in light of an apology of the Minister of Justice, of corrective actions to be taken, and ensure actions did not reoccur.

A prima –case of breach of privilege was found–similar case latter the same year and a matter was referred to a procedure of the House affairs committee. To be clear, the information provided to the media in advance of this Chamber was not general in nature; it did not solely–concern solely the general principle or the principle of the bill. It was –concerned the details of the legislation of the bill.

Members of this Chamber who were duly elected by the people of this province have a mandated role to fulfill their Parliamentary functions and demand a presentation with the details of the legislation which must be debated and voted upon. Even the Government House Leader (Mr.

Goertzen) said it– should be an agreement with–principle, and I quote – the Chamber, former House leader, government caucus, May 9th, 2018: The contents of the legislation being shared with both public and media before mem- bers of this Legislative Assembly have a chance to review, receive, shows a history of disrespecting our traditions and practices of this Assembly and the rights of MLAs receiving information first before we ask–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order.

1570 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 Ms. Adams: –to offend commitment or debate. This has been long- standing parliamentary tradition and one that is observed in this Chamber and its members. Those were words spoken by the government House caucus, Madam Speaker. The government's own ministers failed to heed their own words in their actions. As a result of these actions by the Minister of Families (Ms. Squires), this government–I move, seconded by the member for St. James (Mr.

Sala) that Bill 47 not be considered a specified bill in this session for the legislator – Legislative Assembly; that the Minister of Families apologize for the breach of privilege to all members. Madam Speaker: Before recognizing any other members to speak, I would remind the H ouse that remarks at this time by honourable members are limit- ed to strictly relevant comments about whether the alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest opportunity and whether a prima facie case has been established. Hon.

Kelvin Goe rtzen (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to reply briefly to this matter of privilege. Madam Speaker, you will know, as all members who have been in the Chamber for some time will know, that there are certain proced ures that happen when it comes to advising the media in an embargoed or sometimes a lock -up situation, information and briefings in advance of certain things happening here in the House. The obvious example is the budget lockup that happens, where members of the media are provided information–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Goertzen: –where members of the media are provided information, Madam Speaker, regarding the budget prior to it being distributed here in the Chamber, but it, of course, isn 't made public. There's not a public release of the budget in advance of that. And I suspect that this particular situation is similar to that where there was a private or an em - bargoed situation, where there was a briefing given to the media in some level of detail regarding a bill, but it was not a public disclosure of the bill. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights. Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, Madam Speaker– Madam Speaker: The member needs leave. [interjection] Oh, sorry– Mr. Gerrard: I ask leave– no, I don't need leave on this. Madam Speaker: No, you're right, you don't. Go ahead. Mr. Gerrard: Okay. Madam Speaker, I speak in full support of the MLA for Thompson that it is outrageous that the bill has been provided t o others outside the Chamber before the bill was tabled in the House. I would add that it is a travesty that this bill, which I think was introduced November the 2nd last year, has still not been tabled in this House.

And this would not have happened if the government had done their job properly and tabled this bill on November the 2nd. We understand they may not even have had a bill at that date to table. But even if they hadn't, they had all of November and part of December to table it, and it is just a real miscarriage of the normal processes of the Legislature that this bill hasn't been tabled. But that as it be, this point of privilege deals specifically with the matter of the contents of the bill being shared with people outside the Legislature, rath er than in the –provided MLAs first.

This is clearly a breach of procedure and a breach–and we should have a matter of privilege on this basis, and I concur with the member for Thompson (Ms. Adams) that this bill should no longer be considered a specified bill because of the mis - handling of it. Madam Speaker: A matter of privilege is a serious concern. I am going to take this matter under advise - ment to consult the authorities and will return to the House with a ruling. Introduction of bills–oh. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Madam Speaker: Introduction of bills? Committee reports? Tabling of reports?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, and I would indicate that the required 90 minutes notice prior to routine proceedings was provided in accord - ance with rule 26(2).

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1571 Would the honourable First Minister please proceed with his statement. Pandemic's One Year Anniversary in Manitoba Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): It seems like much longer than a year ago, Madam Speaker, but it was just a year ago since the arrival of COVID -19 here in Manitoba. It's been a year of incredible challenge and hardship, but it has also been a year of resilience and innovation and perseverance. Over the last year, we've learned what Manitobans are made of in many respects.

The challenges of having to stay away from people you love to keep them safe only proved what we already knew: that we need each other, Madam Speaker. * (13:40) We saw neighbours stepping up to help their neighbours. We saw friends volunteering to check in on one other. We saw people volunteering to shovel the walks for seniors, so that they could be safe, and to deliver groceries and to help others in many ways. We learned ways to be together while being apart.

We learned how to take advantage of the technology– better than, perhaps, we had ever before–that allowed us to interact, to study, to help our children learn how to study, to hold meetings without being in the same room. Local business people, local educators all, I think, displayed a remarkable ability to innovate and to problem-solve, to overcome challenges that even six months before COVID came here they could never have imagined.

Madam Speaker, I talked to a young teacher the other day, and he said that he'll never again go back to the old ways of teaching, that being able to use video for his students who can't always make it to class, to assist them in reviewing lessons, to assist them in studying and so on is a technique that he'll take for - ward. He knows many of his colleagues will, too. So we've all learned, Madam Speaker, many things, but for many families, the last year will be remembered as one of loss. We've lost more than 900 Manitobans–the vast majority, of course, being older Manitobans–to COVID-19.

Many families are griev- ing and many families need to know that we here in this House and all Manitobans grieve with them, and we offer our condolences to them. As we honour those that are no longer with us, Madam Speaker, we are also grateful for the many lives we've saved, and I thank Manitobans for that. Provincial modelling has indicated to us that these restrictions that we imposed last fall have actually saved thousands of lives in this province, and the worst-case scenario that we were presented with–that we would, by the end of November, have over 1,000 COVID cases each day –never materialized.

And thank goodness it was avoided, thanks to Manitobans bending the curve together. To our doctors, to our nurses, to our health- care aides, to all the other health- care workers and pro - fessionals that we count on, this has been one of their most difficult years, too, Madam Speaker, being on the front line, seeing the effects of COVID. Manitobans are grateful for them and we're grateful for your heroic efforts and to you I say, you have displayed remarkable courage and perseverance in the face of incredible challenges.

The economic impacts of this pandemic have been borne by all of us, Madam Speaker, but in particular by those who have lost jobs and by local businesses that create jobs for Manitobans. Local businesses that have adapted their models and ad- justed as part of this collective effort to bend the curve have shown their creativity and their ingenuity and shown us why Manitoba's known as a hard- working province with a wonderful base of small -business people that are so concerned with doing a great job for their customers.

Our government has done our best to offer these businesses the supports, and individuals the supports that they need to get through this difficult time, and one year into this pandemic we believe that there is hope on the horizon. We're proud of the work we did to prepare in advance of this pandemic, which we did not know was coming, Madam Speaker, but Manitoba is notorious for having challenges, challenges Mother Nature pro- vides us with on a regular basis, for example. And so we knew, as a government, it was wise to be prepared and we worked hard to prepare.

And so with that preparation in mind, we were able to offer some of the most important and sup- portive programs to benefit individuals, non- profits, charities and small businesses in the country of Canada. We're glad of that because that positions us to come out of this when the time comes, to emerge when it's safe to do so.

1572 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 Widespread vaccination's our best strategy to return to a semblance of COVID -normal, and we know that–that normal we long for when grandparents can hug their children, when we can meet friends for dinner, when we can go to church again, when we can attend a Jets game and watch them thrash the oppo- nent, Madam Speaker, or a concert. These are things we all want to do again, and we know that Manitobans long for these days ahead, and they will come.

And that's why we've launched a historic vacci - nation campaign, the largest and the most complex immunization campaign in the history of our pro- vince, and I am tremendously proud of the efforts of everyone that's involved–volunteers, Madam Speaker, leaders from our business community, from our military community, fro m the civil service of our province, working together to get these vaccines out to Manitobans. They are saving lives and I say thank you to them as well, on behalf of all Manitobans.

Together, I know that we'll look back on this year with both sorrow and with pride–sorrow for the losses we have sustained, but also, Madam Speaker, pride for the challenges that we overcame together and our col- lective courage and our resilience in the face of the greatest threat that most of us will ever see in our lifetimes. So, Madam Speaker, I would ask for leave for–of the House for a moment of silence in the Chamber to commemorate this event today, this anniversary, and also in respect for the many families who have lost loved ones over the past year.

Madam Speaker: I will call for that moment of sil - ence after all members have spoken to this. Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): This wasn't part of my wardrobe a year ago, Madam Speaker. And as we take the opportunity to reflect on the one-year anniversary since the global pandemic was declared, there are certainly many things that flood to mind. It is a day of mixed emotions tinged with tremen- dous sadness. As of this morning, 911 Manitobans had lost their lives –cut tragically short because of the novel coronavirus and the disease COVID -19 that it causes.

These are friends, families and community mem- bers that are mourned, that are remembered, that are grieved to this day. So we send our condolences. We also send our best wishes for a speedy re - covery to those who are still fighting for their lives in hospital today, for those who are still recovering from the impacts on their bodies, their hearts and their minds. On a personal level, I wanted to take the oppor - tunity during this statement today to pay a special tribute to the 10 -year-old boy that we lost in Manitoba.

I was told by a Globe and Mail reporter that, at the time of his passing, he was the youngest COVID victim in our country. And wrapped up in that moment is the embodi - ment of so much of what makes this pandemic such a tragedy for so many people. From a parental per - spective, my heart really goes out, but from the perspective of anyone with a beating heart, the fact that we lost a 10-year-old child to this terrible scourge has to move you. At the same time as we have had our hearts broken, there have been some reasons for optimism.

We want to thank all of our front-line heroes for their tremendous courage, whether it was the people who provide our food, the people who keep our supply chains moving, whether it's the front -line workers in education and child care or law enforcement, who continue to go to work each and every day to ensure that our essential services could continue to be pro- vided. We say miigwech, thank you, merci. To those working in our health- care system–the doctors, the nurses, the health- care aides, the heath - care professionals–we owe you a tremendous, un- repayable debt of gratitude.

You put your lives on the line to protect ours. You did so in the face of un- certainty, particularly early on in the pandemic when we didn't quite yet understand the parameters of this foe with which we are currently toiling against. And so, certainly our heart felt thanks, gratitude and dedi- cation to all of those good folks.

We shou ld also be proud of the tremendous, unprecedented, global scientific collaboration that delivered us these vaccines in record time, and that are now providing not just a sense of hope, but also a desire among so many of our fellow Manitobans to figure out when we can roll up our sleeves. And so certainly, we look ahead to that. But as we look ahead to the future, as we look ahead toward a recovery on the other side of the COVID pandemic, let us never forget the lessons that we learned.

Let us never forget of the collective tragedy that has befallen our seniors in the way that we failed them with long-term care across the country, but also unfortunately in this province.

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1573 Let us remember the heroism of our front -line workers by ensuring that they all earn a living wage; whether they work in the retail sector, food services, caring for our children or caring for our elderly relatives at the end of their lives. The care economy is crucial to our recovery. And importantly, let us not forget that if we do come out of the other side of this thing, that if we do triumph over the coronavirus and COVID -19, it will not have been the result of individual action.

It was only through the result of collective action that we were able to accomplish this thing. Through our shared commitment as Manitobans to abide by public health restrictions, to wear a mask, to participate in the vaccine program when it was our turn, that is how we have been able to stem the tide. * (13:50) And so, on this day, it is with a heavy heart that I offer my condolences to those that we've lost and to the families that they've left behind. I offer my thanks and my honour to the commitment displayed by all those Manitobans who are still here with us, looking ahead towards a brighter tomorrow.

And I say that, one year into this thing, the message is largely the same, though perhaps with a little bit more hope. We're all in this together. The only way we're going to get through this is together, and so let's keep having one another's backs. Thank you very much. Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): I ask for leave to speak in response to the minister's statement. Madam Speaker: Does the member have leave to respond to the ministerial statement? [Agreed] Mr. Lamont: It's difficult on this sombe r day to do justice to what happened in the last year.

First and foremost, we offer our condolences to the families of all those who died, and thanks and gratitude to all those who cared for them. Because Manitobans' response to this crisis has been extra - ordinary, and the fact that Manitobans have endured and persevered through this crisis is a testament to the generosity, caring and skill of the people in this province. D'abord et avant tout, nous offrons nos condoléances aux familles tous–de tous ceux qui sont morts, ainsi que nos remerciements et notre gratitude à ceux qui ont pris soin d'eux.

Parce que la réaction du Manitoba à cette crise a été extraordinaire, et le fait que les Manitobains aient enduré et persévéré tout au longue de cette crise témo igne de la générosité, la bienveillance et des compétences des gens de cette province. Translation First and foremost, we offer our condolences to the families of all those who died, and thanks and gratitude to all those who cared for them.

Indeed, Manitoba’s response to this crisis has been extraordinary, and the fact Manitobans endured and persevered through this entire crisis is a testament to the generosity, caring and skills of the people in this province. English And because we have an obligation in this House, both to truth and to history, we have to point out that Manitobans have persevered, not because of this government, but in spite of it.

We've been borne through this pandemic thanks to the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, lab workers, health-care workers, teachers, principals, educational assistants and early childhood educators, First Nations leaders, public servants, construction crews, small businesses, Hydro workers who keep the lights on, grocery wor - kers, delivery and truck dr ivers, artists and per- formers. Et parce que nous avons une obligation à la fois envers la vérité et envers l'Histoire, les Manitobains ont préservé – non pas à cause de ce gouvernement, mais malgré lui.

Nous avons survécu à cette pandémie grâce au travail acharné et au dévouement des médecins, des infirmières, de travailleurs de laboratoire, de travailleurs de santé, d'enseignants, de directeurs d'école, d'adjoints, et à l'éducation – d'éducateurs de la petite enfance, des chefs des Premières Nations, des fonctionnaires, des équipes de construction, petites entreprises, travailleurs d'Hydro qui gardent les lumières allumées, travailleurs de l'épicerie, chauffeurs de livraison, artistes et interprètes.

Translation And because we have an obligation both to truth and to history, Manitobans have persevered–not because of this government, but in spite of it. We have survived this pandemic thanks to the tireless efforts of doctors, nurses, laboratory workers, health workers, teachers, principals, educational assis tants, early childhood educators, First Nations leaders, public servants, construction crews, small businesses, Manitoba

1574 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 Hydro workers who keep the lights on, grocery stores workers, delivery drivers, artists and performers. English And even before this pandemic, we warned to get ready, and throughout this pandemic, we've worked to warn this government of dangers and provide solu- tions. More than a year ago, we asked to protect First Nations and personal-care homes, to set up a central command centre and remote technology so the Legislature could keep working.

In May, after the tragic deaths in Ontario and Quebec, we asked the government to set up rapid - response teams to prepare for a second wave in Manitoba. We called for more funding to protect seniors homes and schools, and when the Premier (Mr. Pallister) in July declared mission accomplished and announced the event attraction would be a pillar of economic recovery, we pointed out that cases were spiking in Alberta and that borders should stay closed.

In August, we helped secure a change to the federal 'sood' surplus program, which meant that Fisher River First Nation could buy and distribute for free $10.8 million in fish to First Nations com - munities, and fishers across Manitoba and Western Canada could get back to work. We called for asymptomatic testing in July, harder shutdowns in September, emergency teams to be sent to personal -care homes in October, vaccine planning and emergency homelessness supports in December and variant testing in January, and there is no pleasure in this.

There is no pleasure in warning of a disaster and seeing it unfold before your eyes, only to have the people in charge say that no one could see it coming in a province with the second worst mortality rate in Canada. Today, while the flags outside the Legislature are at half -mast, rather than hold a press conference marking any of this, the Premier talked about account- ability at Hydro. There is light at the end of the tunnel, and hope is around the corner, but once we are clear from this, we cannot let the record of this government's failures be swept under the rug.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave for a moment of silence? [Agreed] Please stand. A moment of silence was observed. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Kidney Health Awareness Hon. Reg Helwer (Minister of Central Services): Madam Speaker, March is recognized as Kidney Health Month and today, March 11th, is World Kidney Day. The message remains the same each and every year, and it is to raise public awareness of the importance of kidneys to our overall health and to reduce the frequency and impact of kidney disease.

Today is also the national day observance for those who have died of COVID -19 and the day to wear white in recognition of the nurses and front-line health-care staff who have been so important to us during the COVID-19 pandemic. During our family's very personal journey through the kidney donor and transplant system, we met several of those caring nurses and have many thanks for their knowledge and strength. In Manitoba, we are a leader in kidney trans - plants.

There is a dedicated team of physicians, nurses, members of Transplant Manitoba and the Kidney Health Clinic who provide the highest level of care and access to quality information for those living with kidney disease. November of 2019 was the 50th anniversary of the first kidney transplant in Manitoba. The pandemic made many changes and most provinces saw kidney donations fall by 35 per cent. Here in Manitoba, we saw a small increase due to the generos ity of Manitobans.

Please consider participating in our many cam - paigns virtually, and show your support by registering for Manitoba's online tissue and organ donor registry at Sign Up For Life. As of January 21st, we held the donation decisions of 52,000 Manitobans. A gentle reminder: we have transitioned away from paper donor cards, so please take the opportunity to remind your family and friends to identify their intentions by going online to signupforlife.ca and registering to be a donor. It only take s a few minutes if you have your Manitoba Health card available.

I encourage all Manitobans to discuss organ and tissue donations with their loved ones. By registering, you can save a life. Thank you. Kewal Singh Chocan Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): I r ise today to pay tribute to a pillar of our community, Kewal Singh

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1575 Chohan, a loving and devoted father, husband and spiritual leader to thousands. Kewal Singh tragically passed away two weeks ago, leaving an enormous hole in the hearts of so many across our province and beyond. Faith was a driving force for Kewal and his devotion to the Sikh community in Winnipeg ex- tended throughout his life. As part of an early wave of Punjabi newcomers to Manitoba in the 1970s, Kewal was a pioneer who helped build the Sikh community of Winnipeg and establish Gurdwaras throughout the city.

He would go on to serve as an executive member of the Manitoba Sikh Cultural and Seniors Centre and a multicultural consultant for various municipal, provincial and federal organizations. Kewal's advocacy was not limited to his faith, however. His activism equally extended to advocating for Indigenous rights, education and knowledge and working to give every family equal and fair opportunities. Deservedly, he was recognized on bo th the national and international stage, including with the Governor General's award and Queen Elizabeth golden jubilee medal, among many, many other rewards–awards.

Politically active his whole life, there was hardly an election campaign that Kewal wasn't a part of. His advocacy had lasting impact. Working alongside MP Bill Blaikie, he helped bring forward a resolution to parliament that officially recognized the four K's and the importance of Sikhism in Canada's history. In Manitoba, he worked with our N DP caucus to build public awareness and pass Sikh Heritage Month into provincial law. Kewal was a mentor, a teacher and a friend to me, as he was to so many.

He helped me better understand the Sikh community and faith and he always em - phasized the shared humanity of all people. His words were always pointed and profound but he was also kind and welcoming, not only to me but to my family: my mother-in-law, my wife and my children, as we would often sit to enjoy the langar well into the afternoon. On behal f of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, I wish to extend our sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Kewal Singh, and to everyone he touched over his lifetime.

Kewal's life has left an immeasurable and positive impact in our com- munity and he will long be remembered by those whose lives he changed for the better. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Edward "Ted" Poyser Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): Madam Speaker, I rise today to honour and recognize an extraordinary man who achieved many thi ngs in his life. * (14:00) Edward Arnold "Ted" Poyser was a true steward of the land. He passed away on November 21st, 2020, and will be greatly missed.

Though Ted's heart never really left the prairie soil he grew up in, life led him to the city, wher e he become a scientist, conservationist and practical ecol- ogist. Graduating from the University of Manitoba with a masters degree in agricultural science in 1950, he began a career in public service, which continued through and beyond his formal retirement. Ted helped to map and publish some of the first Manitoba soil survey reports, which are still is use today.

Later, with the Department of Agriculture, he helped establish the Whitemud Watershed Con- servation District, which would become a model for our conservation districts. He also created produc - tivity ratings for land, which became the basis for Manitoba crop insurance program. Ted also helped organize major draining systems across southern Manitoba and worked to establish provincial parks, such as Oak Hammock Marsh, Spruce Woods park, Birds Hill and many other parks and wildlife management areas for all Manitobans to enjoy.

Never losing his passion for soil and water con- servation, Ted continued into his final years to write, explain and advocate for sustainable prairie care. Ted's public service and his impact on agricultural policies and institutions and practices was acknowl- edged with many distinguished honours throughout his career. Some highlights included his inauguration in the Agri cultural Hall of Fame, winning the con- servation builder award, achieving honoured titles such as distinguished agrologist and a fellow of the Agricultural Institute of Canada.

He was a man of integrity and was very knowl edgeable about chal - lenges faced b y rural communities, from floods to droughts to water quality or soil management.

1576 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 Madam Speaker, his legacy is more than the many work accomplishments. It's also the people he in- fluenced along the way, who live on under his influence. Thank you. Manitoba 150 Volunteer Award Winners Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas-Kameesak): Cheryl Antonio, Sandra Margaret Bartlett, Terry McKellep and Olivia McCorriston: these are the four inspiring women from The Pas that Manitoba 150 com mittee selected to be honoured, as part of Manitoba's 150th anniversary celebrations, for their tireless volunteer work that has helped shaped the province as we know it.

Cheryl has played a major role in reviving the Helping Hands 4- H Club for our youth and has tirelessly promoted The Pas, Opaskwayak Cree Nation and the RM of Kelsey over the years, running a face group–Facebook group which promotes many events in our area. The other groups she's volunteered for are numerous and include the Friendship Centre and The Pas correctional institute library. Margaret has dedicated much of her time with the Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 19 Ladies Auxiliary for the past 27 years.

The Legion itself has been described as the backbone of our community, as collectively they've volunteered cou ntless hours supporting events in our community. Terry is very well known in the community, in part thanks to her volunteer work. She's very passion- ate about her work with the Northern Manitoba Trappers' Festival and has been the president for the Rotary club for many years. On top of that, she's been a member of the Legion since 2000 and a volunteer for our celebration of Opaskwayak Indian Days.

Olivia has done extensive work in education and community building, including founding educational supports such as the Songide'ewin program, helping open the Aboriginal Literacy Foundation, among many other initiatives. She's also played an instru - mental role in keeping Oscar's Place open–a homeless shelter in The Pas. These women were four of the 150 Mani tobans who were selected by a jury to receive this honour, which includes a commemorative medal, $500 to be donated to the charity of their choice.

They've made our community proud and they've also made our com- munities better through their selfless volunteerism. Ekosi. I Love To Read Month Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Celebrating I Love To Read Month i s definitely one of the best parts of being an MLA because it's an opportunity to speak to students and teachers directly, together.

Now, this year was a little bit different con - sidering it was all virtual, but I must say that the schools in my constituency –Tyndall Park, Garden Grove, Meadows West, Stanley Knowles, Prairie Rose and Shaughnessy Park–far exceeded expect - ations and made celebrating I Love to Read Month virtually not only possible, but fun and informative. Between the 14 classrooms I had the opportunity to read with, I read through Curious George, The Orange Shirt Story, Have You Filled a Bucket Today and Uniquely Wired, several ti mes.

And of course, with the readings I also like to remind the schools that they are technically my bosses, and it's my job to bring to this government's attention their concerns and their ideas. So, Madam Speaker, this year, students in Tyndall Park said that this government needs to create more accessible compost options for households, make sure teachers have money to buy students the resources they need, and lastly, there was a suggestion of a three -hour gym class; however, I think this one may warrant a little more debate.

Madam Speaker, as you can see, I believe these students are on to something, and in addition to these great ideas, I also want to use this time to say how doing virtual readings with schools really made me appreciate first-hand just how flexible and adaptable our teachers have been in their abilities with teaching and adapting to online and in- class studies. So just a big, big acknowledgement and thank you to all of our teachers, school administrators, parents and students.

And las tly, Madam Speaker, I want to give a shout out to gain some awareness about a spring 50/50 raffle that Stanley Knowles Children's Centre is having to raise funds to be put towards toys, books, activity supplies and furniture for the centre. If anyone is interested in supporting, please visit www.fundingchange.ca/skcc/. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1577 ORAL QUESTIONS Hydro Labour Dispute Arbitration Request Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): I want to send my sincere congrat - ulations to Steph anie Scott, the new director of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. She is the first woman to be appointed to the role. Manitoba Hydro's 2,300 IBEW employees are standing up. Now, these are the workers who have been threatened with layoffs by this government, who've had their wages frozen, who aren't being dealt with fairly at the negotiating table.

They've asked the Premier to bargain in good faith, and they've given him the opportunity to do so by asking for arbitration to resolve the curr ent labour impasse. Unfortunately, the member for Fort Whyte has refused to even consider the idea. Why is the Premier so afraid of that independent process? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): First of all, I'll add my congratulations to the Opposition Le ader's to Ms. Scott, and congratulations to her on the appoint - ment that she has just received. I look forward to working with her to achieve shared goals.

I would also like to, if I could, Madam Speaker, just pass on our condolences but also our appreciation for the life of Ted Poyser and his family and many, many friends. A wonderful man and–who gave so much to our province throughout his life. In respect of giving, Madam Speaker, we have also given a clear mandate to Manitoba Hydro to enter into negotiations with IBEW. This is important. This transparency is important, and it was absent for close to two decades when the NDP were in power. Sadly, we bear the consequences of that, and the other 10 billion reasons I can give you in the subsequent answer.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, I'll tell you why the Premier is afraid of an independent arbitration pro- cess. He is afraid because he knows he will lose. That's what has happened every time their fis cal mumbo jumbo has been put up in front of an in - dependent adjudicator, whether that was the Court of Queen's Bench, whether that was the Manitoba Labour Board, whether that was merely an arbitrator on a school-division-level labour dispute.

Every single time they've gone to an independent adjudicator, they have lost, Madam Speaker. And it seems like that is the real reason they will not go to arbitration with the good, hard- working Manitoba Hydro members of the IBEW union. Again, we recognize that these workers are so important to our provincial economy and to our way of life. Will the Premier simply agree and allow these 2,300 hard-working folks to have arbitration? * (14:10) Mr.

Pallister: Well, again, Madam S peaker, the mess–the $10- billion debt burden–that Manitobans have been asked to carry because of the NDP is, in part, because the NDP felt that they knew better than Manitobans and didn't trust Manitobans to be in- volved in the process. They covered up t he process of advancing their ideas to the extent that they overruled Manitoba Hydro leadership. They ignored their own board at Manitoba Hydro. They actually didn't even give the PUB-appointed board the chance to look at the projects that they pushed forw ard politically before they began construction.

So, Madam Speaker, this kind of disrespect continues: nothing new with you-know-who. What he is advancing here is an idea that we should solve the problem of a labour negotiation by taking sides in advance and disrespect the process. That disrespect was evident during the NDP time in office and it's obvious that it's still there today. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, I forgot to name an additional independent adjudicator who struck down this government's failing ideas.

In addition to the Court of Queen's Bench, the Manitoba Labour Board, the arbitrators for school divisions, the Public Utilities Board also struck down their 8 per cent rate increase, proving once and for all you just can't believe the PCs when it comes to Manitoba Hydro. And, of course, that's why, when it comes to Bill 35, that they seek to remove Public Utilities Board oversight of Manitoba Hydro almost entirely.

1578 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 And so certainly these IBEW members, hard - working folks that they are, deserve to have an independent adjudicator look at their situation as well. They're so important to our way of life, to our pro- vincial economy. Why doesn't the Premier just admit that this belongs with an independent arbitrator? Mr. Pallister: Well, Madam Speaker, Mr. Schreyer– our beloved former premier–had it right when he said the NDP doesn't have a darn clue how to run Hydro. And the member has made it obvious that he's inherited that sane–same ineptitude himself.

Madam Speaker, the fact is the previous govern - ment decided that it wouldn't listen to its own people. It decided that it would keep Manitobans in the dark while it advanced $10-billion boondoggle that would help Americans get cheap power and Manitobans would pay for it. But, Madam Speaker, they also, in doing that, decided that once they got their way, they wouldn't even bother discussing it amongst themselves, I guess maybe because they just didn't trust each other.

So there's no record of Treasury Board ever considering what $10 billion of additional debt would do to the province while our provincial debt was being doubled by that government, no evidence that the Cabinet actually considered it either. So wha t the member is suggesting is just a continuation of the endangerment that the previous NDP government did when it entered into this boon- doggle at the expense of Manitobans. We're going to clean up that mess. We'll fix it. Madam Speaker: The honourable L eader of the Official Opposition, on a new question. Manitoba Hydro Subsidiaries Privatization Inquiry Mr.

Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): I have tremendous respect for former Premier Ed Schreyer, and certainly I seek out his advice on M anitoba Hydro all the time. One of the important points he makes is that we need the Public Utilities Board to continue to have oversight over Manitoba Hydro. But when it comes to keeping Manitobans in the dark, it is this Premier and this Cabinet who have been the worst offenders of all.

Just last December, after having their 8 per cent hydro rate increase struck down by the Public Utilities Board, they snuck around in the dark of night –4 a.m. when it received royal assent. They chose legislation instead of a public process to increase the rates for all the good, hard- working Manitobans out there. We know why they don't want PUB oversight. They plan to sell off Manitoba Hydro Telecom's fibre- optic backbone to Bell MTS. Will the Premier simply admit as much today? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, I appreciate any question from the member about sneaking around in the dark of night, Madam Speaker. I can tell you I know where his expertise lies and it sure doesn't lie in running Hydro. If he's liste ning to Ed Schreyer, he'll know that Ed Schreyer has no respect for the way the NDP mis- managed Hydro. He'll know that for sure. And if he'd really listened to Mr. Schreyer, then he'll know that he shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past. And we're not going to, Madam Speaker.

That's why we're strengthening the Public Utilities Board, so never again can a government agency come to the Public Utilities Board, as the NDP did, and say: Approve our project; we already built it. Because that's exactly what t hey did with the Keeyask dam, Madam Speaker: $1 billion already invested. That's how little respect they had for the Public Utilities Board. We're going to strengthen the Public Utilities Board, make sure that never happens again, Madam Speaker. It must never happen again because Manitoba Hydro doesn't belong to the NDP. It belongs to Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question. Mr. Kinew: Madam Speaker, the reason that will never happen at th e Public Utilities Board again is because they are never going to refer anything to the Public Utilities Board again. Last year, they refused to go to the PUB for their rate increase. They snuck it in through those doors in the form of Bill 2, Madam Spea ker. We know what would have happened if they went to the PUB. The PUB would have struck it down just as they did with their 8 per cent rate increase a few years back.

Madam Speaker, again, there was no press release about Bill 2. There was no press conf erence about Bill 2. No one was informed publicly until the members on this side of the House shared it with– [interjection]

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1579 Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: –the people of Manitoba. We cannot allow that to happen again, Madam Speaker, and that's why their Bill 35 will be so harmful: rate increases every single year signed off on at the Cabinet table without Manitobans ever being any the wiser. Why is the Premier so obsessed with privatizing Hydro subsidiaries and raising rates on Manitobans? Mr. Pallister: Aw, it's springtime, Madam Speaker. The member better get off the pond before the ice melts entirely. He's sinking fast here.

Look, any question on sneaking in from the member is one I welcome, Madam Speaker. Lookit, the Madam–the fact of the matter is the NDP raised hydro rates by 40 per cent –40 per cent–and now he's trying to–and tripled Manitoba Hydro's debt. So any question he has on Hydro debt I welcome it. Look, they tripled Hydro's debt while they circumvented the right of Manitobans to even know why they were doing it. They went ahead and they didn't even get approval from the Public Utilities Board. They decided let's build it and then, well, they'll rubber stamp it for sure. That's not respectful, Madam Speaker.

We know how little respect they have for referenda. They actually went to the doors, knocked, promised every- body they wouldn't raise PST, and then they went and they changed the rules on the referendum so they could raise it. Lookit, we are strengthening the referendum rule so t hat people who get to decide on these massive mega projects in the future aren't the NDP –never again; going to be the people in Manitoba instead. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary. Mr.

Kinew: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether any of the members opposite who clap along so un- enthusiastically and listlessly to all of these questions on Manitoba Hydro, whether they ever stop to think: why does everything the Premier say actually get discounted, dismissed and disproved by independent experts time and time again? Because it is completely without bearing to reality, Madam Speaker. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: The facts are this: just a few hours ago, the Premier committed to implementing every recom- mendation of the Wall report, including

chapter 6, which recommends the sale and privatization of Manitoba Hydro subsidiaries. Wow. Apparently the Cabinet was not informed before they were told about the privatization of Manitoba Hydro subsidiaries. My only question for the Premier at this point is: Which Hydro subsidiary is he going to privatize first? Mr. Pallister: Madam Speaker, all I can say is I think it was

chapter 5 where he said the taxi driver made him do it, so I don't think we need to take his credibility seriously here. Madam Speaker, there's nothing in that report that says that, and he's making it up. The fact is he's using the boogeyman of fear to try to get what he wants. He's done it before. He did it before he got into politics. He's doing it now. He's doing it in the middle of COVID. He's trying to frighten people. He's trying to frighten people to get his way. He's trying to frighten front-line workers.

The NDP tried to frighten cancer–people who were–had cancer–[interjection] * (14:20) Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: They'd get cut their medications. That's what they said. They tried to frighten front -line teachers in the last election. Nurses–they tried to tell everybody to be afraid. That's how they get their way. It's called coercion, and it's done, Madam Speaker. We're going to get the truth out. And the truth is going to support Manitoba Hydro belonging to the Manitoba Hydro people. And Manitoba Hydro people aren't the member from Fort Rouge, Madam Speaker.

The people who own Manitoba Hydro are Manitobans, and that's who we respect. Swan Lake ER Vacancies Physician Recruitment MLA Uzoma Asagwara (Union Station): Madam Speaker, the community of Swan Lake will soon be losing the two doctors needed to run their local emer- gency department. While community members are concerned that they might not see replacement physicians to keep their ER open, the Premier (Mr. Pallister) has already decided to downgrade it.

1580 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 The loss of this emergency room will have major long-term implications on health care in Swan Lake and in many surrounding communities who rely on this ER. Will the minister reverse her decision and tell us today what the plans are to actively recruit new physicians and keep the emergency department open in Swan Lake? Hon.

Heather Stefanson (Minister of Health and Seniors Care): Before I address the issue that the member opposite has brought up, I just want to say that, one year ago today the World Health Organization declared a global p ublic health emer - gency, and our condolences go to all of those who lost their lives in this pandemic. Today, many of us, Madam Speaker, are wearing white to acknowledge the sacrifices and extraordinary efforts of health-care workers during the COVID -19 pandemic.

To all of our nurses, to our doctors, to our health- care aides, to our countless health-care professionals, we know that these have been some of the most difficult times in your life, and today we say thank you. And I also just want to send s incere gratitude to leaders, members of our COVID-19 response team, to our Manitoba Vaccine Implementation Task Force and to all those Manitobans who have really sacrificed their lives in the last year. To all of you, we salute you. We– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. The honourable member for Union Station, on a supplementary question.

MLA Asagwara: Madam Speaker, community members are still rightfully concerned about the decision by this government. People are worried that they're pushing ahead in the middle of a pandemic with phase 2 of their health -care plan that's going to see them cut health care and close rural emergency rooms across Manitoba. If this ER closes, 2,000 residents from Swan Lake First Nation, villages of Swan Lake, Br uxelles, Mariapolis and St. Alphonse are all going to have to travel even further to access emergency care–in some cases, almost a one-hour drive.

Will the Minister of Health reverse course and work actively to recruit doctors to keep Swan Lake ER open and care close to home for those community members? Mrs. Stefanson: The member opposite and the former NDP government will know well that –of the challenges in recruitment of and retention of our health-care professionals, physicians and so on in our–some of our rural and more remote communities. This is nothing new. This is something that rural and more remote communities face across our country.

Madam Speaker, that's why we are moving ahead with our clinical preventative services plan, which will provide better health care sooner, closer to home for Manitobans. That's what we're working on and that's what we'll deliver on. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Union Station, on a final supplementary. MLA Asagwara: Madam Speaker –and I hope that the minister takes the time to really listen to the question that I'm asking here about this decision- making–the government continues to ignore the health staffing vacancies in rural Manitoba. And it's causing a disruption in our health-care system.

We know how crucial access to emergency rooms is for people who are having strokes, heart attacks. And if those folks are forced to wait even longer for an ambulance to get to the nearest ER, which is even further away, that essential care is eroded. Filling thes e vacancies and keeping emergency rooms open in rural communities is vital for their health. Will the minister reverse course and tell us today what her plans are to fill those physician vacancies in Swan Lake and keep their emergency department open? Mrs.

Stefanson: I'll remember the member opposite about the 17 emergency rooms that the previous NDP government closed across rural Manitoba, Madam Speaker. That is not the approach that we are going to take. We have put together the clinical preventative services plan. This is all about providing better health care, sooner, closer to home for people in remote communities. We're working with our clinical plan and those who are involved in it, Madam Speaker, to ensure that those in remote communities will have the access that they need, want and deserve, closer to home.

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1581 Animal Diseases Amendment Act Request to Repeal Bill 62 Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): In the last year, during a global pandemic, we can thank the Premier (Mr. Pallister) for tens of thousands of Manitobans currently out of work. Over 900 Manitobans have lost their lives. We know that the road to recovery is going to be monumental. And so what's the priority for the Premier right now?

Well, to pick fights with a handful of animal rights activists, threatening $100,000 of fines or even jail time for doing some things like giving water to an animal in times of distress. The Pallister government has the wrong priorities. Will the Premier repeal this unconstitutional legislation today? Hon. Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Agriculture and Resource Development): I would take it the member's referring to Bill 62, and this is about the safety of our food supply. This –they adhere to national standards for biosecurity in our food supply.

It ens ures poultry and animals are looked after humanely and safely. It's about the protection of the– from the introduction of unwanted diseases or restricted food ingredients. This is also about the safety for our farm families, who want to avoid potentially dangerous confrontations. And I guess the member is opposed to all those things; and we're all about food safety and the safety of farm families. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. John's, on a supplementary question. Ms. Fontaine: The Ford government has similar legislation, which is currently being challenged on constitutional grounds.

And as it's written, Manitoba's Bill 62 could mean that –large fines or even jail time for providing water to an animal that's clearly in distress. The minister's response, similar to just right now, and I quote: Who knows what's in that water? Are they contaminating that water, which would contaminate the food system? Madam Speaker, come on. That's absolutely ridiculous. This legislation is the government's priority in a pandemic and in a recession. What's wrong with this Pallister government? Will they repeal this ridiculous legislation today? Mr.

Pedersen: Madam Speaker, it's unfortunate that the member takes food safety as not a serious matter. It is ver y serious that food safety –is safe, the food production system is safe, the food handling system is safe. And ultimately, consumers want safe food, and that's what this bill is all about. It's providing safety in the food system and also safety for farm families, and it's unfortunate that the member is putting all that at risk. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. John's, on a final supplementary. Ms. Fontaine: So let's consider another bill: Bill 63.

Currently, if you're out hiking or berry -picking, Manitobans know not to cross fences or to go into farmers' fields. If an area is marked with signs as private property, we all know not to go in. That's the law. Now, the Premier intends to make it illegal. This is completely 'inenforceable', and it's the government's priority–again, in a pandemic and in a recession. What a waste, Madam Speaker. Why is the Premier prioritizing misguided legis - lation in a time of a pandemic? * (14:30) Hon.

Cameron Friesen (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): On the contrary, we are pleased to sponsor amendments that we think are reasonable, that actually work to de-escalate situations. Current rules under the NDP required a con- frontation between landowners and people on their land. We don't want that. So we are moving to a system that actually decreases the likelihood for a negative interaction. We believe that these are balanced, reasonable and safe changes, and we're looking forward to debate. We had a bill briefing, but the member didn't come.

Supports for Children in Care Children's Advocate Recommendations Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas- Kameesak): Everyone here knows the name Phoenix Sinclair and the Hughes inquiry that followed her violent death. Today's the –today, the children's advocate brought forward a new report that details the tragic deaths of 19 young children who needed safety and love.

1582 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 Agencies will be challenged to implement–under block funding. Will the minister reconsider this arrangement to ensure progress is made? Hon. Rochel le Squires (Minister of Families): I want to thank member opposite for that question, as it gives me an opportunity to rise in this House and, perhaps on behalf of all members of this Legislature, express sincere condolences to the families and the loved ones of those 19 children who died un- necessarily and very tragically.

I also do want to express my gratitude to the acting advocate for her very thoughtful and concise report. As I had stated earlier today, I believe that report provides a pathway towards greater supports and reunification of families so that we can support our vulnerable families and that we can ensure that no children fall through the cracks again in Manitoba. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas-Kameesak, on a supplementary question. Ms. Lathlin: The advocate includes interviews with caregivers involved with the deaths of these children.

The advocate suggests that, based on evidence, the risk of harm can be reduced through supports and a culturally appropriate unification policy. When can Manitobans expect these investments in their communities as the advocate recommends? Ms. Squires: Again, I thank the member for her question, and also her collaboration.

That member knows, as do us on this side of the House and al l Manitobans, that we will get better outcomes for families and these vulnerable children when we work together, when we cross aisles and work together to support these families, when we work across agencies and authorities, when we work together as a prov ince and with the federal govern - ment too, supporting these vulnerable families.

In regards to supports for vulnerable families, our government was pleased to give $1 million recently for a community helpers initiative to prevent child apprehensions, as well as money towards Granny's House, which provides 24- 7 respite care for at -risk families, as well as $400,000 for the Mothering Project at Mount Carmel Clinic. We believe these investments are integral. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas-Kameesak, on a final supplementary. Ms. Lathlin: We met with the advocate to hear more about these cases and about their recommendations.

We share their concern and commitment to reforming CFS and improving the lives of children at risk. The children's advocate also recommends that culturally appropriate parenting programs be pro- vided, not just in one community, but across the province in every community, Madam Speaker. Will the minister provide assistance to deliver this this year? Ekosi. Ms.

Squires: Again, I couldn't agree more with the children's–the acting children's advocate when she said that we need to provide culturally appropriate services, as well as some reunification support, and work together across party lines and work across agencies and authorities, also working with our federal government. We know that with the intro - duction of Bill C-92, the act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and youth, that we all have a role to play in transforming child welfare.

And our government is committed to implement- ing the recommendations as outlined by the acting advocate in her report today. Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation Department of Fisheries Recommendations Mr. Ian Bushie (Keewatinook): On January 12th, the federal Fisheries Minister received a report on the future of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. It proposes very substantial changes to the FFMC, including transitioning it to a co-operative. The Pallister government has been completely silent on this imp ortant matter that impacts so many Manitoba fishers.

I ask the minister: Do they support this transition, and what supports, if anything, are they proposing to actually support fishers? Hon. Blaine Pedersen (Minister of Agriculture and Resource Develop ment): We certainly have been supporting Manitoba fishers. We recently announced an eco -certification program for Cedar Lake and many other lakes across Manitoba. The way to market fish in the future is to have a certification process. That's what the con- sumers are asking for, is for eco-certification.

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1583 And we'll continue to work with our commercial fishermen all across Manitoba in order to build that market because it fits in with our protein strategy. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Keewatinook, on a supplementary question. The honourable member for Keewatinook? I would indicate that there is a technical problem, and I'm going to move on, and we will ensure that the member–oh. Problem fixed, then. The honourable member for Keewatinook, on a supplementary question. Mr. Bushie: I'll save my rural broadband connectivity issue for a different question.

But to go back to my other question on Manitoba freshwater, the Pallister government has been com - pletely missing in action for Manitoba fishers. They make regulatory changes without consultation, they rip up the single desk without working through the consequences and now there's no evidence whatso - ever that the Pallister government is engaged with the proposal put forward by the department of fisheries. What is the minister's position and what supports, if any, are they going to put forward to help Manitoba fishers today? Mr.

Pedersen: Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, we're working with fishermen to build the markets all across the world for our fish products commercial–from the commercial fisheries. We also continue, as the member may not be aware of, that – the freight allowance that brings fish down to the freshwater fish marketing board. And we will continue to work with fishermen all across Manitoba to build that market because it does fit in with our protein strategy.

It's an eco -certified product that we can market worldwide and it'll help commercial fishermen build their markets and build their incomes all across Manitoba. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Keewatinook, on a final supplementary. Mr. Bushie: Madam Speaker, it's always been disheartening when I hear the minister tout the buy - back program, and the buy -back program has done nothing but to–designed to eliminate fishers. But during this pandemic, there's been a very difficult time for Manitoba fishers, and especially those in northern communities. They have faced many challenges.

Many unincorporated fishers, unfortunately, were excluded from provincial support programs. Now the federal government proposes ending the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation as a publicly owned entity. Will the minister be involved with the supports in any process going forward, or will fishers once again truly be on their own? Mr. Pedersen: I should note that we did have outreach with the fishers around Lake Winnipeg, the various communities. And actually, what they were talking about is that the federal programs, they were not eligible for.

They're eligible for provincial pr o- grams but not for federal programs. That aside, it has been a difficult year in–early in the pandemic because the freshwater fish shut down because they couldn't market the fish that they had on– in stock. It's been a difficult year for them but the markets are rebounding. The protein market is building for their product. And we will continue to support fishers all across Manitoba because we know that there's a tremendous future for them in the markets and in the worldwide markets. And Manitoba will be the place to be to produce that product.

Supports for Children in Care Children's Advocate Recommendations Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Today, the children's advocate released its follow -up in to the inquiry into the tragic death of Phoenix Sinclair.

Now, it took five years for an inquiry to be called into her death in the first place, and at the current pace it will take 23 years to fulfill all the recommendations of the inquiry, and the report says that progress is slowing. * (14:40) What h appened to Phoenix Sinclair is still happening to children under this government because CFS, like ERs or 911, can't turn people away because all other supports, like housing, income and mental health care, are not available. Why is it going to take 28 ye ars after Phoenix Sinclair's death to fulfill the inquiry's recom- mendations? Hon.

Rochelle Squires (Minister of Families): As I stated previously, our government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the acting

1584 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 advocate's report, and we are also working with our partners in delivering child welfare. Our government ended the practice of birth alerts last July to ensure that we've got mothers supported throughout the birthing process and that they are better equipped to take care of their babies and their children. We're also working with our child- care workers to ensure greater supports are available to those vul - nerable families.

We know that much more work needs to be done, and we're committed to doing this work with all of our partners to ensure child safety in the province of Manitoba. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Boniface, on a supplementary question. Accessible Prenatal Care Available to All Manitoba Women Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): The issue of children in care, especially Indigenous children in care, is the single greatest moral issue we face. From the residential schools to the '60s scoop to CFS to the– Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Lamont: –2000s scoop, governments have never stopped tearing apart Indige nous families while forcing those same families into povert y by d enying them access to rights and resources others can take for granted. A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. This may be more of a plea than a question: Will this government do the right thing and make amends, go beyond the inquiry recommendations, keeping families together instead of tearing them apart, and starting with a guarantee for quality, accessible pre- natal care for every mother in Manitoba? Hon.

Rochelle Squires (Minister of Families): Our government does recognize the need for pre-natal care for mothers in the province of Manitoba, that is why we launched the very first Indigenous doula program, where expectant mothers can be paired with a doula to provide those supports so that she would be better equipped when her baby comes into this world; that's why we also invested $4 million in a Healthy Baby program, so that families and expectant mothers can get those supports that they need during that critical time. We're committed to working with families.

We know more needs to be done to support these vulnerable families, and we're committed to getting the job done. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Tyndall Park. [interjection] Oh. The honourable member for River Heights. Deaths from Neonatal Syphilis Prevention Resources Needed Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, there's a major outbreak of syphilis in Manitoba, with the highest rates for syphilis and neo- natal syphilis of any province, and perhaps one of the highest in the world. Contact tracing for sexually transmitted diseases is short-staffed and less than needed.

The latest report of the number of STDs in Manitoba is years behind. Why is the government hiding information? I ask: H ow many children have died from neo- natal syphilis? How many children will suffer the life- long consequences of congenital syphilis under this government's watch? And when will the government provide the desperately needed additional funding and resources to get syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia under control in our province? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Premier): Yes, the last three questions have highlighted a serious problem and concern we're actually addressing on a number of fronts, but I would emphasize t o my Liberal col- leagues that they need to get on board with the NDP and the PC parties, and they need to get behind the call for their federal Liberal cousins to back health care in this country. They're calling for more funding from us, but they're not calling for the federal Liberals to provide more funding in a partnership with us.

And there's an incongruity with that, I think, Madam Speaker, be - cause federal support for health care in our province has dropped to its lowest level ever in the history of Manitoba.

So, I appreciate them raising the issues, I appre - ciate them calling for us to address them, but I'd like them to join in with the NDP and PC parties here and be part of the unified approach that's happening all across the country in every other province, with the exception of here in Manitoba, unfortunately, where the Liberal Party is not joining in and calling for the federal government to resume its rightful role, its responsible role in supporting programs like the very ones they just asked we address today.

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1585 Fire Protection Grant Update on Initiative Mr. Greg Nesbitt (Riding Mountain): This government recognizes the critical importance of fire protection and emergency response for the safety of all Manitobans. Last fall, I was very pleased to see the then-minister of Municipal Relations launch a Fire Protection Grant initiative. Can the current Minister of Municipal Relations share with the House the outcome of this fire protection grant initiative? Hon.

Derek Johnson (Minister of Mu nicipal Relations): I'd like to thank my colleague from Riding Mountain for that wonderful question. I'd also like to thank all the firefighters in the province for their dedication that they show every day into pro - tecting Manitobans and our families. We'd initially launched a grant that was a $5-million program in September. Between September and November, we received hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of applications– very good applications–from all over the province. Upon review of the funding, we we re able to expand our support to more than $9 million.

These funds assisted some 209 projects for community fire halls and mutual aid districts and a wide range of equipment, including SCBAs. Madam Speaker, these projects protect Manitobans across Manitoba, all parts of the province, something our PC government is committing to do for all Manitobans. Provincial Park Services Privatization Inquiry Ms. Lisa Naylor (Wolseley): Two days ago, I very deliberately asked the Minister of Conservation and Climate if she would commit to keeping Manitoba park services public, and she never provided Manitobans with an answer. Park passes have already been privatized.

People want to know that all other aspects of our parks will remain public, and they have not bee n provided this reassurance. Madam Speaker, I ask again: Will the minister commit to keeping Manitoba parks services public? Hon. Sarah Guillemard (Minister of Conservation and Climate): Again, I thank the member for asking the question. I thought I was quite clear three days ago when she asked the first time, and I will state again, that our parks are not for sale. Madam Speaker, our parks have always been open to enhancements, except under the previous NDP government.

Our government is committed to improving services, not privatization in any forms. However, Madam Speaker, I would caution the member to wait until reports are released so that she can base her questions and debates on truth, not on– Madam Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired. The time for oral questions has expired. Speaker's Rulings Madam Speaker: And I have a–I have rulings for the House. Following oral questions on October 28th, 2020, the honourable First Minister raised a matter of privilege regarding comments made in the House by the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Sala).

The comments in question referred to the then- Treasury Board secretary specifically alleging a conflict of interest, and the Premier (Mr. Pallister) argued that these comments breached his privileges as an MLA. He also stated that these comments infringed upon his ability to perform his duties as First Minister and to receive professional guidance from a senior civil servant. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Kinew) and the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) both spoke to this matter before I took it under advisement to consult the procedural authorities.

As members know, there are two conditions that must be satisfied in order for a mat ter raised to be ruled in order as a prima facie case of privilege: was the issue raised at the earliest available opportunity and was sufficient evidence provided to demonstrate that the privileges of the member or of the House were breached. * (14:50) On the issue of timeliness, the honourable First Minister indicated in his submission that this was his first opportunity to raise this matter, as the statements in question were made by the honourable member for St. James in question period that same day, October 28th, 2020.

Based on this information, I would rule that the honourable First Minister did meet the requirement of timeliness.

1586 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 Regarding the second condition, I would remind the House that when any Speaker is dealing with a matter of privilege, th ey are dealing solely with the procedural aspects of the matter. As noted by Speaker Fox in a ruling in this House on privilege in 1972, the Speaker deals only with the technical and procedural aspects of the matter and not in any way with the merits of th e situation or the allegations.

Therefore, when a Speaker makes a ruling indicating that there is or is not a prima facie case of privilege, the Speaker is neither condemning nor condoning any actions taken. Regarding the question of civil servants being the subject of allegations made in the House, I must note that government staff are not protected by parlia - mentary privilege and cannot claim the protections of parliamentary privilege. Only MLAs are protected by parliamentary privilege.

As identified by Joseph Maingot on page 100 of the second edition, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, in order for non- elected persons to claim the protection of parlia - mentary privilege, they must be taking

part in a parlia- mentary proceeding, such as appearing as a witness before committees or counsel who speak on behalf of petitioners for private legislation. Providing professional advice to a minister would not count as participating in a parliamentary pro - ceeding. Several Manitoba Speakers have previously affirmed this principle, including Speaker Reid in 2012.

Additionally, on page 224 of the same edition, Maingot advises that parliamentary privilege is con - cerned with the special rights of members, not in their capacity as ministers, party leaders or whips, but strictly in their capacity as members in their parliamentary work. Claims that privilege has been violated relating to a member's role as a minister of the Crown are therefore not the basis for a prima facie case of privilege. This perspective has been supported in numerous rulings in this House, including rulings from Speaker Rocan, Speaker Hickes, Speaker Reid, as well as in rulings I have delivered.

I would also add that when the First Minister made his remarks on this matter, he did not conclude by moving a motion. As a reminder to all members, our rule 36(2) states that, and I quote: A submission from a member raising a matter of privilege should conclude with a motion giving the House the power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy. End quote. Considering of all of these factors, then, I must respectfully rule that the matter raised does not fulfill the criteria of a prima facie case of privilege.

Once again, I will note that, in ruling this way, I am not passing a value judgment on the concerns raised by the member or the comments made in debate by any other member; I am simply evaluating the matter on purely procedural grounds. I will conclude with some advice that I hope will be instructive for all members in the House. On page 92 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Bosc and Gagnon wrote about the importance of freedom of speech in the parliamentary setting and the need to exercise it cautiously.

And he said: "Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in t he Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoy- ing complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they might make. This freedom is essential for the effective working of the House. Under it, Members are able to make state - ments or allegations about outside bodies or persons which they might hesitate to make without the protection of privilege.

Though this is often criticized, the freedom to make allegations which the Member genuinely believes at the time to b e true, or at least worthy of investigation, is fundamental. The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its members were able to speak and criticize without having to account to any outside body." End quote.

Further to that point, in 1984, House of Commons Speaker Bosley affirmed that, and I quote: The privilege of a Member of Parliament, when speaking in the House or in a committee, is absolute, and that it would be very difficult to find that any statement made under the cloak of parliamenta ry privilege constituted a violation of that privilege. End quote. Because the privilege of freedom of speech is such an extremely powerful immunity, on occasion, Speakers have had to caution members about its misuse.

I believe that Speaker Milliken aptl y sum - marized this sentiment in 2003 when he advised the House of Commons as follows, and I quote: "Speakers discourage members of Parliament from using names in speeches if they are speaking ill of some other person because, with parliamentary privilege applying to what they say, anything that is damaging to the reputation or to the individual, . . . is then liable to be published with the cover of parliamentary privilege

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1587 and the person is unable to bring any action in respect of those claims." That quotation can be found on page 98 of Bosc and Gagnon, and this sentiment would also apply to civil servants, as they would not be able to defend themselves in this place. I trust that all members of this House will heed these words of caution and govern themselves accordingly. I also have another ruling. Prior to petitions on November 2nd, 2020, the honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Ms.

Fontaine) raised a matter of privilege regarding the government's failure to distribute printed copies of bills that had received first reading earlier in the same sitting day during routine proceedings. She noted that out of 23 government bills that had been introduced for first reading, only copies of four of those bills were available for MLAs and that the lack of the printed copies of bills prevented MLAs from being able to comment on legislation.

The honourable Official Opposition House Leader concluded her remarks by moving, and I quote, "that this matter be immediately referred to a committee for consideration." End quote. The honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Goertzen) and the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) also spoke to the matter of privilege. I then took the matter under advisement. I thank the honourable members for their advice to the Chair.

There are two conditions that must be satisfied in order for a matter raised to be ruled in order as a prima facie case of privilege: was the issue raised at the earliest available opportunity, and was sufficient evi- dence provided to demonstrate that the privileges of the member or of the House were breached. The honourable Official Opposition Leader asserted that she was raising the issue at the earliest opportunity given that 'verication' was required to see if the bills that had been introduced earlier in the sitting day had also been distributed.

After hearing this explanation, I am satisfied that the matter was raised at the earliest available opportunity. The second issue to consider is whether the evidence provided was sufficient t o demonstrate that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred. Regarding the second issue, I would like to advise the House that a matter concerning the methods by which the House proceeds in the conduct of business is a matter of order, not privilege.

Joseph Maingot, in the second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, states on page 13, that, and I quote: Allegations of breach of privilege by a member in the House that amount to complaints about procedures and practices in the House are by their very nature matters of order. End quote. He also states, on page 223 of the same edition, and I quote: A breach of a standing order or failure to follow an established practice would invoke a point of order rather than a question of privilege. End quote.

I would also like to advise the House of a 2008 ruling by Speaker Hickes where the issue of a lack of bill distribution after first reading approval was raised as a matter of privilege. In that ruling, Speaker Hickes explained that it was not a prima f acie case of privilege. He noted for the House, and I quote: Once the first reading motion for a bill has been agreed to, the sponsoring member or minister is then provided with a letter authorizing distribution of the bill within the Chamber. Until that d istribution letter has been signed and returned to the table, the bill cannot be distributed.

The sponsoring member or minister has the option of authorizing immediately distribution or of authorizing distribution at a later time or on a later date by prov iding specific instructions. There is no requirement in the rules that the distribution must take place immediately, and this is the decision of the sponsoring member or minister. End quote. * (15:00) I would also remind the House that until a bill is distributed, it does not appear on the Order Paper for the second reading debate, so the House would not be proceeding to debate these bills until distribution has taken place.

I can appreciate the concern of the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, but I must respect- fully rule that it does not fulfill the criteria of a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. And I have another ruling for the House. Following introduction of bills on November 25th, 2020, the honourable Official Opposition House Leader raised a point of order claiming that the government was in breach of rule 2 by not distributing bills when they are introduced, suggesting that the intent of rule 2 was not being respected. The honourable Government House Leader (Mr.

Goertzen) and the honourable member for River

1588 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 Heights (Mr. Gerrard) also spoke to the point of order before I took the matter under advisement. I thank the honourable members for their advice on this matter. In her submission on this point of order, the honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Ms. Fontaine) referenced our rule 2(8) regarding specified government bills. She noted that this rule indicates that, in order for government bills to be considered specified, first reading must be moved no later than the 20th sitting day after presentation of the Throne Speech.

She further interpreted the rule as meaning that, for any such bill to be considered specified, it would have to be both introduced and distributed prior to that deadline day. The honourable Official Opposition House Leader elaborated on this point by referencing comments made in the rules committee in 2015, when this rule was adopted. On this point, I will respectfully disagree with the Official Opposition House Leader. I appreciate the argument she presented on this matter, but her inter - pretation of rule 2(8) is incorrect.

There is no pro- vision anywhere in that rule, or in any of our rules, which enforces the immediate distribution of bills when introduced. I reference a 2008 ruling by Speaker Hickes, where the issue of a lack of bill distribution after first reading was raised as a matter of privilege. In that ruling, Speaker Hickes explained to the House the process regarding introduction and distribution of bills, and I quote: Once the first reading motion for a bill has been agreed to, the sponsoring member or minister is then provided with a letter authorizing distribution of the bill within the Chamber.

Until that distribution letter has been signed and returned to the table, the bi ll cannot be distributed. The sponsoring member or minister has the option of authorizing immediate distribution or of authorizing distribution at a later time or on a later date by providing specific instructions. There is no requirement in the rules that the distribution must take place immediately, and this is the decision of the sponsoring member or minister. While I can appreciate the concerns raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I must respectfully rule that there is no point of order.

There's one other matter I must raise for the attention of all members regarding this point of order. In her submission, the honourable Official Opposition House Leader quoted at some length comments regarding rule 2 made by the Clerk of the Ass embly during the meeting of the standing committee on the rules of the House on June 26th, 2015. While I understand why the member referred to the transcript of that meeting as background, I must caution her on referencing a table officer in her arguments.

This point has been made by previous Manitoba Speakers, most notably Speaker Hickes in 2008, when he stated, and I quote: I also wanted to give a reminder to all members that in raising points of order or matters of privilege in the House, it is not appropriate to be bringing the non-partisan staff of the House into disputes between the various parties in the House. The staff at the table are all non -political, non- partisan staff of the House and, as such, serve all members equally and provide excellent service.

They also do not have the ability to defend themselves on the record and, as Speaker, I am sure I can speak for all members on all sides of the House when I say that it is not appropriate to be dragging non- political staff into disagreements, and I hope we do not see this happen again in the future. End quote. I concur with Speaker Hickes on this point in general, though I would add an important quali - fication. During meetings of the standing committee on the rules of the House, it is the duty of the Clerk or Deputy Clerk to explain the nuances of rule -change proposals for all members.

For this reason, I do under- stand why the honourable Official Opposition House Leader quoted the Clerk's comments from 2015 when framing her argument regarding her

interpretation of that rule. However, I would caution all members to be very careful when quoting our table officers. I would not want any member to make it seem, inadvertently or otherwise, that one of our Clerks was advocating for any argument raised by a member in the House. I will echo Speaker Hickes here and remind members that all of our table officers are pro - fessionals, thoroughly non-partisan, serving all mem- bers equally at all times.

It would be unfortunate and inappropriate there to ever be any impression given that they are taking sides on any dispute or debate in this House, something they would never do. I thank all members for their attention to this ruling, and I have another ruling. During orders of the day on December 2nd, 2020, the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Sala) raised a matter of privilege regarding his ability to ask questions of the government in the House without intimidation. Specifically, he alleged that the then -

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1589 secretary of the Treasury Board had used a respectful workplace complaint against him as a means of preventing him from asking questions in the House. The member concluded his remarks by moving, and I quote: "that this matter be immediately referred to a special committee of this House so the privileges of all members may be respected and the government be properly held to account." The honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Goertzen) and the member for River Heights (Mr.

Gerrard) both spoke to this matter before I took it under advisement to consult the procedural authorities. Before I proceed, I will ask members to bear with me. This is one of the most serious and complex matters of privilege I have encountered as your Speaker, requiring extensive research and con - sultation. For that reason, this ruling is quite detailed, and I ask for the patience and attention of all members.

As members know, there are two conditions that must be satisfied in order for a matter raised to be ruled in order as a prima facie case of privilege: (1) was the issue raised at the earliest available opportunity; and (2) was sufficient evidence provided to support the member's claim that their privileges, or the privileges of the House, were breached. On the issue of timeliness, the honourable member for St.

James correctl y indicated in his submission that a member must –pardon me –that a member, and I quote, "must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practical after becoming aware of the situation." End quote. The member further explained that the circum - stances related to the infringement of his privi leges had been ongoing and that he raised the matter, and I quote, "in the most immediate and responsible way", end quote, he could.

He concluded that the complicated nature of the matter required, and I quote, "significant research, significant deliberation and consultation and significant examination of the authorities in order to be properly presented in this House." End quote. I will admit that I am concerned about many aspects of this matter, including the timing of the member's submission, as the situation referred to began weeks before he raised this in the House.

However, I will note that a respectful workplace complaint such as the one referenced here shou ld remain entirely confidential, as the policies require both complainant and respondent to not disclose or discuss the complaint, except with the independent investigators. For the information of all members, these investigators are hired by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the policy approved by the Legislative Assembly Management Commission, which is posted on the Assembly website.

I reference the respectful workplace complaint here because it could explain why a member would not have immediately raised this matter in the House. Based on this unusual set of circumstances, I would rule that the honourable member for St. James did meet the test of timeliness. * (15:10) On the subject of the respectful workplace complaint, I will note for th e House that while that process is clearly linked to this matter of privilege, in this ruling I am not addressing in any way the content or outcome of that process.

That process has been addressed in another forum and my sole focus here is the procedural merit of this submission. Accordingly, I would remind the House that when any Speaker is dealing with a matter of privilege, they are dealing only with the procedural aspects of the matter, in this case based solely on the information raised in the House on December 2nd, 2020. As noted by Speaker Fox in a 1972 ruling in this House regarding privilege, the Speaker deals only with the technical and procedural aspects of such matters, and not in any way with the merits of the situation or the allegations.

Therefore, when a Speaker makes a ruling indicate that there is or is not a prima facie case of privilege, the Speaker is neither condemning nor condoning any actions taken. Further, I would like to explain to members that in this context the phrase prima facie means at first sight or on the face of it.

Joseph Maingot, the pre - eminent Canadian scholar on such matters, explains this further on page 221 of the second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by stating that, and I quote: A prima facie case of privilege in the parlia - mentary sense is one where the evidence, on its face, as outlined by the member, is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of the H ouse have been breached or a contempt has occurred and report to the House.

1590 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 While the Speaker may find that a prima facie case of privilege exists and give the matter precedence in debate, it is the House alone that decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has occurred, for only the House has the power to commit or punish for contempt. As this is a complex situation, to explain my ruling further I must first revisit some of the specific comments made by the honourable member for St. James (Mr . Sala) in his submission and then consider remarks made in response by the honourable Government House Leader (Mr. Goertzen).

The honourable member for St. James began by asserting that there had been, and I quote, "a breach of my privileges as an MLA. In particular, through an attempt to intimidate me as an MLA, my freedom of speech has been undermined." End quote. The member then alleged that he had been, and I quote, "the subject of an attempt to intimidate me in order to stop me from performing my duties in the House." End quote. Specifically, the member indicated that the then - secretary of the Treasury Board lodged a complaint against him under the Legislative Assembly's Respectful Workplace Policy.

The member stated that in the complaint the then -secretary, and I quote: "alleged I failed to display respectful behaviour toward him, that I harassed and bullied him, that I offended and embarrassed him and acted in a way that reflects negatively on this Legislature by asking questions of the government and the Premier in the Legislature." End quote. The member concluded by stating that the then - secretary demanded in the complaint that the member stop asking questions of the government in this House on this issue and that the member keep this complaint confidential.

These are, indeed, serious allegations, and I'm sure the House can understand why I have given this matter very careful consideration. In responding to the allegations from the honourable member for St. James, the honourable Government House Leader made the point that when members speak in the House about civil servants there should be, and I quote, "a greater onus upon us to be respectful because, while they are part of the process that we are all engaged in, they are not necessarily part of that political process that we are engaged in." End quote.

The honourable Government House Leader also noted that members, and I quote, "have a respon- sibility as politicians to carry out our affairs in a responsible way", end quote, and that while members, and I quote, "have the unique opportunity to have privilege in this House, that privilege shouldn't be abused." End quote. For members' reference, I will remind the House that parliamentary privilege is a constitutional right that has been passed on to the Parliament of Canada and to the provincial legislatures from the United Kingdom's 1689 Bill of Rights.

Parliamentary privilege was incorporated into the Canadian constitution and has been in existence since 1867 to provide protection for members to exercise their parliamentary duties free from interference.

More specifically, Bosc and Gagnon note on page 89 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, that, and I quote: The rights, privileges and immunities of all individual m embers of the House may be categorized as follows: freedom of speech; freedom from arrest in civil actions; exemption from jury duty; exemption from being subpoenaed to attend court as a witness; and freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation. Elaborating on these–pardon me, I'll start again.

Elaborating on this point on pages 89 and 92, Bosc and Gagnon explain that, and I quote: By far, the most important right accorded to members of the House is the exercise of freedom of spee ch in parlia- mentary proceedings. It has been described as a fundamental right without which they would be ham- pered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.

He goes on to say: "Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting or in co mmittees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they might make. This freedom is essential for the effective working of the House. Under it, Members are able to make statements or allegations ab out outside bodies or persons, which they may hesitate to make without the protection of privilege." End quote.

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1591 Having established the primacy of members' freedom of speech, I will now explore the parameters of what would constitute the obstruction of a mem- ber's privilege to speak freely in the House. Joseph Maingot advises on page 14 of the second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada that, and I quote: To constitute privilege generally there must be some improper obstruction to the member in per - forming his parliamentary work in either a direct or constructive way. End quote.

Further, on page 228 of the same edition, Maingot elaborates on this point, stating that, and I quote: Improper interference with the personal rights of members of the House of Commons–i.e., freedom of speech, freedom from arrest in civil matters and freedom from attending as a witness or as a member of a jury in court–may constitute a breach of privilege. End quote.

Members may or may not be aware that our rule 1(2) advises us that when our rules or practices do not fully address a matter raised in this House, we are to be guided by the parliamentary traditions of the House of Commons and other legislative assemblies in Canada. Accordingly, in order to conduct as thorough an examination as possible of this matter, I have researched similar matters raised and ruled on by other Canadian Speakers. In 1992, two opposition members of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick were look - ing into the activities of the provincia l workers' compensation board.

The board then hired a private investigator to question the members on where and how they received their information. In response, one of the members raised a matter of privilege alleging that her privileges had been breached by this action.

In ruling on the matter, Speaker Dysart found this action to be an attempt to interfere with or intimidate the member, and therefore ruled that a prima facie case had been established, stating, and I quote: In my view, there could be a prima facie case of privilege if the activity complained of is of such a nature as to interfere with the members in the discharge of their parliamentary responsibilities. End quote. In response to matters of privilege raised on similar matters in the National Assembly, three Quebec Speakers offered comments in their rulings pertinent to this matter of privilege.

In a 1991 ruling from Speaker Saintonge it was established that sending a member of the Assembly a formal notice telling them to stop talking abo ut the content of a contract, specifying that they may be found personally liable, notwithstanding parlia - mentary privilege, was ruled a prima facie breach of privilege. In 2004, Speaker Bissonnet ruled that, and I quote: Our parliamentary jurisprudence established that pressuring a member of the Assembly to deter him or her from asking a question or discharging his or her parliamentary duties may breach the rights of the Assembly.

Pressuring a member has been described as an influence or insistent acti on aimed at coercing the member in the performance of his or her duties. Finally, Speaker Chagnon ruled in 2014 that, and I quote: It is of the essence of parliamentary instit - utions to be a place of debate and exchange, and it will never tolerate that a member be subjected to threats or intimidation. End quote. * (15:20) In consideration of the current matter before this House, I find these examples compelling and relevant.

Before I conclude my rulings however, I am obliged to raise several other concer ns I have regarding the circumstances of this case. First, I must note one complication with the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Sala) raising this matter in reference to a respectful workplace complaint. Such processes are intended to be, and should remain, completely confidential. These com - plaints are not to be shared with anyone outside of the affected parties and the investigators, both during and after the process.

As members and citizens now know, both the complainant and the member involved spoke of the results of this investigation in the media. While I find the actions of both parties in that regard troubling and disappointing, they are not the subject of this ruling, and, as the presiding officer of this House, they are not something I hav e the power to address from this Chair. Instead, I will note for all members that due to the need for confidentiality in the respectful workplace process, there are complications with such an issue being raised in the House instead of attempting to seek a resolution in another forum.

For the information of all members, in light of this situation, I have already asked Assembly adminis - tration staff to review our respectful workplace policies and recommend improvements. Once that document is ready for cons ideration, I will ask our

1592 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 Legislative Assembly Management Com mission to consider the revised policies as soon as possible. Second, let me be clear when I say that a mem - ber's privileges in this House take constitutional precedence over any other process or complaint raised outside of this place. This means that having a respect- ful workplace complaint raised against a member does not supersede that member's right to ask questions or speak on any topic in this House.

Members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba are governed in this House by our rules and practices, and by the rulings of their Speaker, but while they are in this place they are in no way governed by the opinions or directives of civil servants or other individuals outside of this Legislature. This is because the parliamentary principle of freedom of speech unequivocally gives members the freedom to raise subjects in the House without interference from outside the Assembly.

For further clarity, I will add that while this ruling, and my authority as your Speaker, govern comments made by members in this House, that authority does not extend outside of this House. As your Speaker, I do not have any authority to govern, or respond to, comments made outside of the House, nor are members protected by the privilege of freedom of speech outside of this House. Third, earlier in this ruling I explained the importance of members' freedom of speech. Because this privilege is such an extremely powerful im - munity, on occasion Speakers have cautioned members about its misuse.

Speaker Milliken aptly summarized this sen - timent in 2003 when he advised the House of Commons as follows, and I quote: Speakers discourage members of Parliament from using names in speeches if they are speaking ill of some othe r person because, with parliamentary privilege applying to what they say, anything that is damaging to the reputation or to the individual is then liable to be published with the cover of parliamentary privilege and the person is unable to bring any action in respect of those claims. End quote.

This sentiment would also apply to civil servants, as they would not be able to defend themselves in this place, and I would ask all members to reflect on that. We all sign up for this business by voluntarily putting our names on a ballot, but others, whether they be civil servants, Assembly staff, or other individuals, do not sign up for this, nor can they defend themselves in this place. I would therefore ask all of you to consider your words very carefully whenever you stand up to speak in this House. Yes, you have the immense privilege of freedom of speech here.

I advise you all to be certain that you are using that privilege wisely. Returning to the matter raised, in this privilege submission in the House on De cember 2, 2020, the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Sala) alleged that the then Treasury Board secretary intimidated him and attempted to obstruct him in his duties by seeking to prevent him from asking questions of the government in the House.

Based on the allegations raised by the member, the procedural authorities outlined in this ruling, and the rulings from other Canadian Speakers in similar situations, at first sight I am ruling that the actions alleged by the honourable member for St. James do constitute a prima facie breach of the member's privileges. As a result, the motion moved by the honourable member for St. James may take precedence in debate and should go forward today in the House as the first item of business under orders of the day.

It is a debatable motion, and the House must vote on and adopt the motion in order for the remedy suggested in the motion to proceed. If the motion is defeated, the matter will be concluded. I trust that all members will heed my words of caution today re garding these circumstances and govern themselves accordingly in the future. I thank you all for the courtesy of your attention. Now that the ruling has been delivered for the benefit of all members, I would like to explain the rules and practices governing the process for debating a privilege motion, and outline the steps that the House needs to take.

In accordance with Manitoba rules and practice, and as noted on pages 143 to 153 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, when a prima facie case of privilege has been established, the following procedures apply: (1) the privilege motion is debatable and amendable, and takes precedence in debate over other orders of the day, meaning the Speaker shall call the motion for debate at the start of orders of the day on the same sitting day as it is ruled to be prima facie; (2) the motion is subject to all procedures and practices governing debate on a

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1593 substantive motion; (3) speaking times for a sub - stantive motion are set out in our rules 44(1) and (2) as follows: 30 minutes for members, recognized party leaders have unlimited time; and (4) should the debate on the motion not be completed by the daily adjournment hour, the motion will take priority over all other orders of the day at the next sitting, and it will appear on the next day's Order Paper as the first item of business listed under orders of the day. And I have no more rulings for today.

PETITIONS Madam Speaker: The honourable m ember for Thompson (Ms. Adams)? The honourable member for Elmwood. Diagnostic Testing Accessibility Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background of this petition is as follows:

(1) Until recently, diagnostic medical tests, including for blood and fluid samples, were available and accessible in most medical clinics.

(2) Dynacare blood test labs have consolidated their blood and fluid testing services by closing 25 of its labs.

(3) The provincial government has cut diagnostic testing at many clinic sites, and residents now have to travel to different locations to get their testing done, even for a simple blood test or urine sample.

(4) Further, travel challenges for vulnerable and elderly residents of northeast Winnipeg may result in fewer tests being done or delays in testing, with the attendant effects of increased health -care costs and poorer individual patient outcomes.

(5) COVID-19 emergency rules have resulted in long outdoor lineups, putting vulnerable residents at further risk in extreme weather, be it hot or cold. Moreover, these long lineups have resulted in longer waiting times for services and poorer service in general.

(6) Manitoba residents value the convenience and efficiency of the health -care system where they are able to give their samples at the time of the doctor visit. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to immedi - ately demand Dynacare maintain all the phlebotomy, blood sample sites existing prior to the COVID -19 public health emergency, and allow all Manitobans to get their blood and urine tests done when visiting their doctor, thereby facilitating local access to blood testing services. And this petition has been signed by many, many Manitobans.

Madam Speaker: In accordance with our rule 133(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Grievances? Oh, pardon me. I do see that the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) does have a petition to read–apologize for that. Vivian Sand Facility Project– Clean Environment Commission Review Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. * (15:30) The background to this petition is as follows: The Vivian sands project is a proposed silica sand mine and processing plant to be built in the RM of Springfield.

The overall project includes mining claims of over 85,000 hectares, making it the largest claim– Madam Speaker: Order, please. Before proceeding, I wonder if the member for River Heights could turn his camera on. We are not seeing him in the Chamber. Mr. Gerrard: My mistake. Madam Speaker: Almost had it. Mr. Gerrard: There. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights. Mr. Gerrard: Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Shall I start at the beginning? Or I can continue from– Madam Speaker: You might as well start at the beginning. Mr. Gerrard: Okay.

Madam Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background to this petition is as follows:

1594 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 11, 2021 The Vivian sands project is a proposed silica sand mine and processing plant to be built in the RM of Springfield. The overall project includes mining claims of over 85,000 hectares, making it the largest claim ever given to a single co mpany in Manitoba's history. It is larger than the city of Winnipeg, which is 46,410 hectares. The amount of dry, solid sand mined and produced per year according to the EAP is 1.36 million tons, and much of this sand will be used in fracking.

A major c oncern of the proposed mine and plant is that, if developed, it could contaminate the Sandilands aquifer, including both carbonate and sandstone aquifers, which covers much of south- eastern Manitoba. It has excellent water quality and is the water source for tens of thousands of Manitobans, including many municipal water systems, agriculture, industry, private wells and an abundance of wildlife and ecosystems.

Further, people in the Indigenous communities that are potentially affected by this were not afforded the required Indigenous consultation from either fed- eral or provincial government officials. The sustainable yield of the combined sandstone and carbonate aquifers has still not yet been esta - blished by provincial authorities. The mine could cause leaching of acid and heavy metals and pollute the aquifer, as it will go down 200 feet into the Winnipeg formation of the sandstone aquifer.

There is concern that the shale, which separates the carbonate and sandstone aquifers –sand and pyritic oolite itself contains sulphides–will, when exposed to injected air from the CanWhite Sands extraction process, turn to acid. An additional concern with the proposed mine and plant is the potential to pollute the Brokenhead River and the aquatic food chain leadi ng to Lake Winnipeg.

Residents in the area have also expressed fears of being overexposed to silica dust during production, as there has been a demonstrated lack of safety and environmental procedures by the CanWhite Sands Corporation during the explorat ory drilling phase. Signage and fencing has been poor; identifying and required mine claim tags were missing; and there were no warnings for silica dust exposure and no coverings to prevent exposure of the silica stockpiles to the elements. Residents' con cerns include the fact that bore- holes, which should have been promptly and properly sealed, were left open for a year.

The drilling of hundreds of improperly sealed boreholes yearly create significant risks of surface contamination, mixing of aquifer waters and drainage of surface fecal matter into the aquifer. There is also a risk of transboundary issues that need to be addressed as the aquifers extend into Minnesota. This project should not proceed, as no licensing conditions and mitigation measures w ill alleviate the risk to all Manitobans and the environment since CanWhite Sands Corporation plans to use an un- precedented mining technique with no established safe outcome.

The corporation has gone on record indicating that it does not know how to mine for the silica in the water supply and need to develop a new extraction methodology that's never been done before. Contamination of the aquifers and the environ- ment is irreversible and there are many surface sources of high purity silica that can be extracted without endangering two essential regional aquifers.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to undertake a combined review of the Vivian Sand Facility processing plant and the mining/extraction portion of the operation as a class 3 development with a review by Manitoba's Clean Environment Commission to include public hearings and participant funding. To urge the provincial government to halt all activity at the mine and plant until the Clea n Environment Commission's review is completed and the project proposal has been thoroughly evaluated.

Signed by Charlene Closer, Grant Fertiliy [phonetic], Jaskaren Grewal, and many, many others. Madam Speaker: Are there any further petitions? If not, grievances? ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS MATTER OF PRIVILEGE (Continued) Madam Speaker: I will now indicate that the House will now consider the motion referenced in the ruling, and I would ask the member for St. James to move his motion.

March 11, 2021 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1595 Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): I ask that the motion be moved. Madam Speaker: The member needs to say I move, seconded by, and then read what his motion was. Mr. Sala: I'm going to need some language here, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Apparently it was emailed to him. He may want to check his email. Mr. Sala: Yes, I'm doing that. Okay. I move, seconded by the member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Kinew), that this matter be immediately referred to a special committee of this House so the privileges of all members may be respected and government be properly held to account.

Motion presented. Mr. Sala: I'm very pleased to hear this ruling today. I think it's an important ruling that confirms, I think, what many of us felt throughout this process, which was that the r ights of myself as an MLA and –were threatened, and that frankly, I was prevented from being able to do my job. This is what was shared today by yourself, Madam Speaker, that, quote, on December 2nd, 2020, the honourable member for St.

James alleged that the then-Treasury Board secretary intimidated him and attempted to obstruct him in his duties by seeking to prevent him from asking questions of the member, or asking questions to the government in the House. Based on the allegations raised by the member, t he procedural authorities outlined in this ruling and the rulings from other Canadian Speakers, at first sight I am ruling that the actions alleged by the honourable member for St. James do constitute a prima facie breach of the member's privileges. I t hink it's important here to emphasiz

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	42-3-34b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	42nd 3rd hansardpdf 34b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f7615cf489043da51506ed1e56908bbb176ac140

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