Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 77 (41st Legislature, 3rd Session)

41-3-77

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Myrna Driedger Speaker Vol. LXXI No. 77 - 1:30 p.m., Monday, October 22, 2018 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

Gimli PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC YAKIMOSKI, Blair Transcona PC

3615 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, October 22, 2018 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Madam Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen. Please be seated.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Madam Speaker: Introduction of bills? An Honourable Member: Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Oh, the honourable member for Assiniboia. Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): On a matter of privilege. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Assiniboia, on a matter of privilege. Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this matter. Madam Speaker, on the last sitting on a week Thursday, we passed some legislation, including The Loan Act, providing the opportunity for the government to loan about almost $4 billion.

However, Madam Speaker, the order -in-council of October 3rd, 2018 indicated that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was delegated the authority to borrow about $3.4 billion, approximately. Usually one would expect that the statutory authority to borrow would come before an order -in-council to borrow, especially at this magnitude of funds. There is a provision to allow for $200 million to be borrowed to a maximum, but, in this case, it appears that

section 53 of the financial amendment – or fiscal administration act, which explicitly states a statutory authority should be given for the borrowing of funds, may have been violated because the statutory authority did not occur until the last moment of our sitting day. So, in other words, Madam Speaker, the OIC seems to have got ahead of itself, and the $3.4 billion, plus or minus a few hundred million dollars, it's in question because it's not clear where that money is being allocated to, under what fund? Is it a consolidated fund? Is it a Manitoba Hydro issue? Or is it some other reason?

So, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member from Maples, that this matter be referred to the Auditor General. Madam Speaker: I would just point out for the member that what the member is raising is not a violation of the privileges of the House or of members. It is a matter that the member is certainly entitled to have an opinion on, but it is not a matter of privilege, and nor does the Speaker determine the appropriateness of fiscal actions like this. So, with all due respect, the member does not have a matter of privilege. * * * Madam Speaker: Moving forward, introduction of bills? Mr.

Fletcher: Can I see if there's willingness to challenge the Chair on that? Madam Speaker: Does the member have three other members in support of challenging the Speaker? Leave has been denied. Committee reports? TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Heather Stefanson (Minister of Families): Madam Speaker, I wish to table the Social Services Appeal Board Annual Report for 2017- 18 and the Manitoba's Poverty Reduction and Social Inclusion Strategy for 2017-18, Annual Report. Hon. Cathy Cox (Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage): I am pleased to table the Annual Report for the Manitoba Arts Council for the fiscal year 2017-18.

3616 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister for Status of Women, and I would indicate that the required 90 minutes notice prior to routine proceedings was provided in accordance with our rule 26(2). Would the honourable minister please proceed with her statement? Persons Day Hon. Rochell e Squires (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): I rise today to acknowledge Persons Day, which was last Thursday, October 18th. The British North America Act of 1867 is our country's founding document.

This act used the word persons when it referred to more than one person and the word he when it referred to one person. In the 1920s, women's groups began pressuring the federal government to appoint a woman to the Senate. Governments argued if the word person applied only to men, that only me n could be appointed. In 1927, Manitoba's own Nellie McClung and four other prominent Canadian women–Emily Murphy, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards –convinced the government to submit a question to the Supreme Court: Does the word person in

section 24 of the British North America Act include a female person? After five weeks of debate and argument, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the word person did not include women. These five women, who became known as the Famous Five, were appalled by the decision and refused to give up the fight. They took their case to the Privy Council in London, which was the – Canada's highest court of appeal. On October 18th of 1929, the Privy Council announced its decision, that the exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than our own.

And to those who would ask why the word person should include females, the obvious answer is: why should it not? The Famous Five not only won the right for women to serve in the Senate but also paved the way for women to participate equally in, and contribute equally to, all other aspects of public life in Canada. So, on October 18th, ever y year, we celebrate this historic occasion when women were deemed to be people. In the years that followed, countless other women and men pushed even further for gender equality in all aspects of Canadian society.

Even so, almost 90 years later, we know t hat the work of the Famous Five is far from over. Women are still underrepresented and excluded from many aspects of our society, and while we recognize the enormous progress that has been made, we also need to recommit to this important work. Persons Day reminds us that all women's voices matter. When women step forward and make themself heard, changes they create benefit us all. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. * (13:40) Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St.

Johns): We're honoured to commemorate the historic Persons Case of 1929, in which Canada's highest court of appeal expanded the legal definition of persons to include women. The court's decision to grant certain women the ability to participate in political life was due to the dedication of the Famous Five. And while this ruling paved the way for female representation in politics, indigenous women were excluded, Madam Speaker. Within indigenous politics, women and men have always been considered equal. However, Canadian law developed by settlers did not recognize or appreciate indigenous women in the same way.

Indigenous women continued to be –fought to be seen as persons and continue to fight for equitable representation and the right to be safe, Madam Speaker. And all women, still today, continue t o strive to break barriers and strive for our human rights. We fight for a harassment -free work environment, total control over our bodies and the opportunity to excel in both our professional and personal lives. We fight against systemic discriminatio n preventing us from engaging in public life in the same way that men do.

We fight for inclusivity, recognizing indigenous women, women of colour, black women and the LGBTTQ women must enjoy and have equality. Democracy is only possible if there is true equality,

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3617 Madam Speaker. Therefore, it only improves our democratic processes. Finally, every time a woman asserts herself and demands and commands her space, her rights are respected, the world becomes a better place for all of us. Miigwech, Madam Speaker. Ms. Cindy Lamoureux (Burrows): It's great to stand today and have the opportunity to speak about Persons Day. Madam Speaker, Persons Day marks the day that some women first won the right to vote here in Manitoba. It was followed in 1960 with laws that gave indigenous women the right to vote.

As we reflect upon the Famous Five, we think about the five women who fought for equality and women's rights. It is because of their courage and strength that opportunities were created for women to participate in our democracy and our parliamentary institutions. We celebrate them on this day as we acknowledge Persons Day because they were the ones who spoke up and paved the way. You know, Madam Speaker, in talking about individuals who speak up and are paving the way, I wanted give a shout -out to a friend of mine, Hannah Guenther-Wexler, who has joined us here in the gallery today.

Hannah was recognized this year for Persons Day because of her dedication and hard work in politics. She is an inspiring young woman who is passionate, enthusiastic and striving to make a difference in the fight for gender equality. Madam Speaker, Hannah has goals of running for office one day, and we need more women like her here in these Chambers. So, in closing, thank you, Hannah, for being such an inspiration for women all over the world. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Run Sage Creek Mr.

Andrew Smith (Southdale): I rise today to recognize the first annual Run Sage Creek and those who volunteered their time in order to make it a successful event in our community. The run took place on October 7th of this year, with both myself and the Minister of Sustainable Development (Ms. Squires) who had the privilege to participate in the five -kilometre run. Not only could people take

part in the run itself, but they could also choose to participate in it as a walk, or even pushing their stroller, so that the entire family could take

part in the race. As well, Madam Speaker, in order to accommodate everyone's level of fitness, there were several different races that consisted of courses of distances between one, three, five and 10 kilometres. All participants paid a registration fee, with all proceeds going to the École Sage Creek parent advisory council. A portion of the funds will be use d for levelled reading books for both French and English programs at École Sage Creek School, with the rest being put forth to continue funding school and community events and initiatives.

In order for such an event to be a success, a significant amount of advanced planning has to take place, along with many hours of diligent volunteer work from those who co- ordinated their efforts. We have with us here today in the gallery the core group who donated their time in order to make the Run Sage Creek possible. Please help me in recognizing Becky Hryniuk, Andrew Hryniuk, Sandra-Dee Beer, Paul Jonker, Jen Shapka and Dorothy Komzak. Please give them a round of applause. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Southdale. Mr. Smith: I do ask permission from the House to place the names in Hansard.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to include names in Hansard? [Agreed] Run Sage Creek volunteers: Sandra-Dee Beer, Becky Hryniuk, Andrew Hryniuk, Paul Jonker, Dorothy Komzak, Jen Shapka Health-Care Support Workers Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): I'm proud today to thank Manitoba's health -care support workers for everything they do for Manitoba patients. I thought maybe the minister would rise on a ministerial statement about Health Care Support Workers' Week; however, he didn't, because this government cares so little about health workers they don't even know when the week should be.

And I've got one proclamation here signed by the minister for October 8th to 12th, 2018, and another one signed by the minister for October 15th to 19, 2018. But this should not surprise anyone working in health care–

3618 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Swan: –or, for that matter, anyone who needs health care in Manitoba. This Pallister government has been–made life miserable for Manitoba's health -care workers. They refused to bargain fairly, by freezing future wage increases without negotiation, which is now being challenged in court.

They've turned countless families' lives upside down by issuing thousands of deletion notices and forcing employees to play musical chairs for jobs which, if they exist, may be at a different facility, at different t imes, or in a different field, without any allowance for retraining. They're ignoring employees' autonomy to be represented by their current bargaining agent by now forcing health- care employees into needless representation votes, in the cynical hope i t'll distract health-care workers from challenging this government's cuts.

They frustrate health -care employees by forcing them to do more with less, which means less care for Manitoba patients. This government's even restricted basic supplies like u nderwear, pads and blankets available to health-care support workers to give to their patients. Whether Health Care Support Workers' Week was last week or the week before that –this government doesn't know or care –New Democrats stand with Manitoba's health- care support workers all year-round and will fight for health- care support workers to continue play their important role in providing care and comfort for Manitoba patients.

Alec Baldwin Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Municipal Relations): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to recognize a remarkable young man, Alec Baldwin. Alec, age 24, has had to journey through life on a different path than his peers. He has autism that affects his ability to communicate with people respectively and expressively. But his determined attitude and motto, Keep Moving Forward, sees him through the challenges. This multitalented young man is kind, generous and very easy to talk to, especially if you share his love of dogs.

His passion for dogs started at a very young age, and when he had earned enough money, he bought his first beagle, Shiloh. Alec took dog-handling classes and has shown his dog in three provinces and including Fargo. He began to draw and paint his favourite dogs, winning best acrylic at the Icelandic Festival art show in 2016 and was commissioned to paint the program cover of the National Dog Show in Philadelphia in 2017. The summer –this summer Alec hosted his 11th community dog party. He is a talented musician; he sings, plays pian o, clarinet and guitar.

He has won the trophy class of sacred solo and instrument class at the Evergreen festival of arts. He is a –he's an accomplished athlete, training five to six times per week. He has –he's competed in Special Olympics in snowshoeing and track and field in four provinces, Madam Speaker. Alec also loves to help the elderly and hoped to train in–his new beagle pup to be a therapy dog that he can take to visit nursing homes and hospitals. I have no doubt this remarkable young man will always find a way to achieve his goals.

I would ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming Alec, his mother Tanis Benson, his father Joel Baldwin and his sister Nicola Baldwin to the gallery today, Madam Speaker. Sidewalk Safety Mr. Mohinder Saran (The Maples): Madam Speaker, it is observed in my constituency, as well as in other areas of the city, that many important roads and intersections lack any sidewalk. There are many schools and busy business establishments and offices that are not well saf eguarded by appropriate sidewalks. When we say safety first, we should act for safety first.

Roads and streets without at least one sidewalk is always a risk for the passerby. The risk is specifically high for children and elderly people. Some sidewalks provide school-going children space for some light sports and physical activities, at least some stretch-ability and relaxed feel. Sidewalks have psychological implications as well, as additional space always provides people a sense of additional security and comfort. * (13:50) I suggest that the government should bring legislation to enforce on the city all new roads and streets must be constructed with keeping a

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3619 mandatory provision of at least one sidewalk. Improvements should be brought to old city roads as well. Madam Speaker, I also want to raise the – raise other issues of The Maples constituency. The Maples constituency is one of the fastest expanding constituencies. Therefore, the constituents are constantly in need of essential civic amenities. Construction of new schools and a community centre is a dire need to The Maples residents. The previous government already approved two schools. The previous minister recommitted to keep the promise.

However, the construction experiences a series of delays a nd backlogs. I request the present Education Minister to speed up the process further. I also request the government to approve one more high school and help to build a new community centre for the diverse needs of diverse people of The Maples constituency. I hope the government plays sensitive and caring attention to these dire needs of The Maples constituents so that they not consider themselves excluded and discriminated. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Cassandra McConnell Hon.

Ron Schuler (Minister of Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize Small Business Week in Manitoba and to celebrate Cassandra McConnell, who owns a small business called We All Have Cravings Etc. Small Business Week highlights the importance of self- employment in the success of our local economies. Manitoba's more than 120,000 small businesses employ 72 per cent of the Manitoban workforce. One of these success stories is Cassandra McConnell and her take -home meal and catering business.

For the first few years, Cassandra's business was just a hobby, making take -home meals and desserts for family and friends. Her delicious food was a hit, and, in 2015, with an expanding customer base, Cassandra saw the need for a retail location in Oakbank. It was right beside my constituency office, and she definitely got rave reviews from the MLA's office for her lunch specials and daily baking. Cassandra's success was also recognized with the 2016- 17 Business of the Year Award, which I was pleased to present to her at a Community Futures banquet with her daughters, Ella and Taylor, present.

Her daughters' initials plus her own initial create the et cetera–ETC –in the name We All Have Cravings Etc. The family touch truly makes this a family business. The success of We All Have Cravings Etc. did not stop there. With the growing demand, Cassandra has changed locations once again and now has her own commercial kitchen. While continuing her retail sales, she now also supplies wholesale take -home meals and frozen entrees f or 12 retail outlets in Springfield, Winnipeg and across Manitoba. This expansion has also allowed her to specialize in a wider variety of dietary limitations.

Always community-minded and dedicated to youth in her community, Cassandra often provides cooki ng workshops for kids and teens to create fun specialties with gluten-free cookies and to learn kitchen safety. Congratulations to We All Have Cravings Etc. and to all Manitoba entrepreneurs and business owners. Your business achievements and dedication to excellence do not go unnoticed. Joining us in the gallery today is Cassandra McConnell, her daughter Taylor McConne ll and her mother Wanda Howard [phonetic] . Would you please join me in welcoming them to the Chamber.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to oral questions, we have some guests in the gallery. And in the loge to my left, firstly, I would like to introduce to you Doug Martindale, the former MLA for Burrows. And we welcome you back to the Legislature. And I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Mr. Tim Abbot t, who started with the Assembly on Monday, October 15th, in a term position as a C ommittee Clerk.

Tim holds a bachelor of law degree from the University of Reading in England, and he has several years' experience working with public sector and government accounts for an IT consultancy in the UK. On behalf of all members here, we welcome you to the Manitoba Legislature. And also in the publ ic gallery we have with us today the provincial executive of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, who are the guests of the

3620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Goertzen). On behalf of all honourable members here, we also welcome you to the Manitoba Legislature. ORAL QUESTIONS Northern Health Services Investments Needed Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Madam Speaker, it's hard to go anywhere in northern Manitoba these days without hearing about health care, as I found out ove r the past week or so. Families there are worried because they don't have enough doctors.

Seniors are worried because they don't have access to the same facilities that we do here in the south, and northerners feel left behind by this government. Now, when northerners look to this government, they see the Premier doesn't seem to care. This is a Premier who cancels clinics in The Pas and in Thompson. This is a Premier who has cut escorts for the Northern Patient Transportation Program. That program helps fa mily members go with loved ones when they have to come here to Winnipeg for surgery or for medical treatments.

Now, the Premier needs to hear the voice of northern Manitobans who are calling for more investment, who are calling for more doctors, who are calling for more supports for heath care in the North. Will the Premier stop his cuts for health care? Will he listen to people right across northern Manitoba? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Madam Speaker, we're investing, this year alone, $700 million more than the NDP ever did in health care. The member's

preamble is false, and our concerns for health- care access in the North remain steadfast. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question. Health-Care Case Concern Request for Inquest Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Well, there was a big tragedy that happened since the last time we gathered for question period here in the House. It's very tragic, the case of Mr. Abraham Donkey. It illustrates the challenges that all northerners have to face when they try to access health care in this province. Now, we know that Mr.

Donkey died on a bus travelling to Winnipeg for follow -up treatment after his recent heart surgery, and his death leaves many questions: Why did he die alone? Why wasn't anyone accompanying him while he was on the bus on his way to medical treatment? What was he doing on the bus in the first place? If he was sick enough to pass away while riding on the bus, shouldn't he have been on a plane? Mr. Donkey–his family wants the government to take responsibility for finding out the answers to these questions and why he passed away on the bus.

We need to know that this government is going to make sure there is an inquest. The question for this Premier is very simple: Will he stand up; will he take responsibility for finding out the answers to these questions, and will he support an inquest into the death of Mr. Abraham Donkey? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): No, Madam Speaker, the member's

preamble is false, and the fact remains that our sadness for Mr. Donkey's family is sincere. And the fact remains that we'll continue to stand steadfastly in favour of supporting health care for northerners, regardless of the community or the jurisdiction they live in. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary. Mr. Kinew: Well, it's no surprise, though it certainly is very disappointing, that the Premier will not support an inquest into the death of Mr. Donkey. My

preamble was simply the questions that are left by his death on a bus while coming to treatment here in Winnipeg, so I'll repeat them for the benefit of the Premier: Why did Mr. Donkey die alone? Why wasn't anyone accompanying him? And if he was sick enough to die on the bus, shouldn't he have been on a plane? Supporting an inquest will be able to create answers for these questions on the part of the family. We know that this Premier found 2 and a half million dollars last week for another political inquiry. Why can't he support a simple inquest into the death of Mr. Donkey?

So I'll ask him again: Will the Premier rise in his place and commit to supporting an inquest into the death of Abraham Donkey? Mr. Pallister: First of all, Madam Speaker, when it comes to waste, the NDP threw $15 billion at

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3621 unnecessary hydro projects that we could have been using for health care right now in this province, so I think I need no lectures from the member opposite. I also don't think that Manitobans benefit from political showboating by the member. This is a federal decision, and he understands that fully and understands that well. He understands the federal government is reviewing the decisions that led to it, and he also understands there was exactly the same process in place for years under the NDP government.

So, Madam Speaker, this is just political showboating, trying to profit politically on the backs–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –of a disaster that affected a Manitoba family. That's shameful. The member should apologize. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Order. * (14:00) The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question. Education Review Commission Inclusion of Stakeholders Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): I've spoken to the family –I don't know if the Pre mier has –but they want an inquest. And that's where the nature of the questions arise from.

There were provincial cuts made to a provincial health program. He was in a provincial health facility. Therefore, the leader of the provincial government should–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Order. Mr. Kinew: –support an inquest. Now, we know that we are joined by our esteemed colleagues, many of them teachers, in the gallery, here today. While I was up north, I also heard an earful from many teachers who are afraid of this government's upcoming education review. Now, part of the reason they're so worried is because they know that when this–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Kinew: –government says review, it really means develop a plan for cuts. Now, the reasons for the concern are numerous. There's, you know, impacts on the collective bargaining agreement, impact on the funding for schools. But what I heard time and time again from teachers in Thompson, where EAs and library – teacher-librarians have been cut, is the impact on the students themselves. Now, the Teachers' Society is not sure whether they will have a voice in this education review process.

I would ask the Premier: Will he commit to giving the Manitoba Teachers' Society a s eat at the education review– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Again, Madam Speaker, the refuge of inaccuracy is the one that the member hides in. There are $400 million more being invested in education this year than ever under the NDP–$400 million. It doesn't sound like a cut to any common sense Manitoban. Now, needs for change in education. Madam Speaker, teachers have been telling us that for years. We'll pursue that with their full participation in the K-to-12 review.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a supplementary question. Mr. Kinew: Well, the Premier says full participation of teachers, but inquiring minds would wonder whether that includes the representation of t he organization that represents teachers right across Manitoba, Madam Speaker. Now, we know that the direction that this Premier is choosing is not one that matches up with the values of Manitobans. Now, we know that when we talk to the average parent in this province, they want their child to have more one -on-one time with their teacher.

More individual attention leads to better outcomes for students. However, this government has cut the small class sizes initiative. This government has also handed down de facto cuts for education funding, even as enrolment is increasing, right–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: –across the province. The government's made these moves even though they still can't point out one parent who wants their child t o have less one-on-one time with their teacher.

3622 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 So I'd ask whether parents and the representative organizations of the other stakeholders are going to be included in this education review. Will the Manitoba association for parent councils and other sta keholders be included in this Premier's education review commission? Mr. Pallister: Of course, Madam Speaker. But the member speaks about choosing values and choosing behaviours that demonstrate the values of Manitobans, and I would invite him to debate me on that aspect of his argument at any point in time. I'd be happy to follow up with him on that.

We have ch osen values that Manitobans believe in. We value education. I myself am a former member of the Manitoba Teachers' Society and a former union representative for that organization. And–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –I am proud–I'm pro ud of my association with the MTS and I couldn't have got through university without a scholarship the MTS provided for me. And I'm deeply appreciative of them as an organization, as I appreciate the parents who involve themselves in parent councils around our great province, Madam Speaker.

Most of all, I would hope the member would join with us in appreciating the need to review our educational structures in a meaningful way and make sure we do the best possible job for our students in this province. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a final supplementary. Gimli High School Music Room Expansion Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Glad the Premier is so high on the Manitoba Teachers' Society, because I'm going to table the January 2016 edition of The Manitoba Teacher wherein the Premier said: "You have to allow local autonomy to exist.

School boards have decisions to make." That's a direct quote. But the Premier is not allowing the Evergreen School Division to make decisions, Madam Speaker. He's telling them they're not allowed to build a new music room for their students in Gimli. They need a new music room because the existing one is too cold. Even instruments are being damaged in this room. [interjection] Now, the division has already raised the funds – in answer to some of the heckling that I'm hearing across the way –they simply need an approval from the government.

It won't cost the government a cent, and yet the government is still saying no, at the order of this Premier, to the creation of a new music room in Gimli. Now, this decision only makes–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinew: –sense if the Premier is plan ning to amalgamate school divisions. But perhaps that's for another day, Madam Speaker. The question today is: Will the Premier let the school division build a music room with money that they've already set aside? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Premier): I've had the benefit of guidance from music educators in my K -to-12 experience and post -secondary as well, and I deeply appreciated that opportunity as a person, as I know many members of this House have and do. But, Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is we 're playing catch -up in this province because the previous government chose to spend billions of dollars on things that didn't help education. Fifteen billion–[interjection] I would– Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: I would ask the member for Fort Rouge to give me the respect I've given him in asking his question.

I did not intervene. I would appreciate if the member for Fort Rouge would be silent– Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Pallister: –when I'm giving my answer. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Order. Order. Mr. Pallister: Fifteen billion dollars that went to unnecessary Hydro projects that could've built schools, and instead, kids are in portable classrooms all over the province–[interjection] And we're building seven– Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –new schools, Madam Speaker, right now, to catch up so that we can help make sure that children get educated in a good environment in a quality school.

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3623 Now, the member opposite was, quite frankly, quick to throw his former l eader under the bus. Perhaps he'll get up in his next

preamble and throw him under the bus again for not building schools in this province and not prioritizing–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Pallister: –the education of the children of this province. Gimli High School Music Room Expansion Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Madam Speaker, students at Gimli High School are in desperate need of a new space for their music learning program. The program has 'gron' –grown well beyond the current space.

Stu dents are being forced to practise in storage closets, and in the winter months, students often have to put on their winter clothing– [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Wiebe: –and instruments–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Wiebe: –are being damaged by the cold. I hear a lot of laughing, Madam Speaker, but the students are here–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Wiebe: –in the gallery–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Wiebe: Madam Speaker, we're joined today by the superintendent, the assistant superintendent, the principal of the school, the music instructor, just a few of the so many students who are concerned about this project. The community has the funds. They've raised the funds to move this project forward, and yet the government has so far said no. The simple question is: Why? Hon. Scott Fielding (Acting Minister of Education and Training): First of all, I want to commend the students for the passion they're showing about education. That's something that our government very much shares.

That's why we're engaged in a review, K -through-12 review. We think that's important. We made substantial investments in the education system; over $399 million are being spent than when taken office under the Conservative government. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia, on a supplementary question. Mr. Wiebe: Madam Speaker , elected officials on Broadway need to do a better job of promoting the work school trustees do, giving them autonomy and giving them local decision -making powers. The best decisions are made at the local level because they know what's happening in the ar ea.

More than anything, it's about respect. That is a quote from this Minister of Education in 2016. And yet the Evergreen School Division, who has decided to make this project a priority for their community, these students, who have come down to this Legislature, are making this a priority. And yet the minister will not stand up and support this project. The simply question is: Why? Mr. Fielding: Our government is committed to the education system. That's why we want to improve it. We know the system t hat was left under the NDP government. We're spending close to $1 billion in debt-servicing costs.

Those are monies that could not be spent on important improvements, whether it be in Gimli, whether important improvements on other areas. What this government is very proud of is the fact that we've commissioned over seven new schools. So if you look– you talk to children, whether it be in Templeton, whether it be–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Fielding: –Waterford Green, whether it be Waverley West, these are important areas that we think we need investments, and that's exactly what this government has done.

Madam Speaker: Before the –I recognize the honourable member for Concordia, I'm wondering if the documents on his desk are something that's going to be tabled or –I'm hoping he's not using them as props for anything. If he's not tabling them, I would ask him to put them under his desk. And then the honourable member for Concordia. * (14:10) Mr. Wiebe: In fact, 170 people from that community in Gimli have written to the minister, have demanded that this government reconsider. And

3624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 yet, we hear nothing from this minister other than his own talking points. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Wiebe: The only answer that this –that the students have gotten so far is to wait for their political–politically motivated review before they'll move forward on this project. That's not good enough for this community and that's not good enough for us.

Students, parents, teachers, school trustees, principals, superintendents, community members – everyone has united behind this project and simply asking this government: Why is the minister standing in the way of this much-needed project? Mr. Fielding: I know an important dialogue is happening with the group. We'll continue to do that. I can say, as a government, we built over seven schools–or, are in the process–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Fielding: –of building over seven schools in our first two years. We know under the NDP government, they didn't do that.

They didn't do that at all, Madam Speaker. Fact–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Fielding: –they left a lot of deferred maintenance, whether it be things –important investments like education, housing, health care. That's the record of the NDP. We're making important investments for Manitobans. Madam Speaker: I have been standing for a little bit and I'm asking everybody that, when the Speaker stands, there is to be silence in the House.

And the reason I'm standing is because we do have students in the gallery, and I think when we have students in the gallery, I have a much higher expectation of all members on this floor to be respectful in the dialogue and the questions and answers so that we can show that there is a place for good democracy. I've been asking for order a number of times, and if we want to be good role models for these students that are learning about democracy in their schools, I shouldn't have to be calling order as often as I am, when we're not even halfway through oral questions.

So I'm going to ask everybody to please be respectful of each other. I'm having a hard time hearing as well, and so I need to be able to hear the questions and answers. So for all of the people that are watching on the Internet, in our galleries and particularly for the students here, I think we need to do a better job right now and cease the heckling that is going on on this floor. Women's Reproductive Health Access to Mifegymiso Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Well, it's been two years since Canadian women and girls finally got access to Mifegymiso.

As I've said, the abortion pill is a fundamental game -changer in reproductive health. A recent analysis examining access to the abortion pill across Canada shows Manitoba women are still struggling to access the abortion pill, owing to this Premier's (Mr. Pallister) terrible, and I quote, record in dealing with this file. The Premier continues to play politics with women and girls' reproductive rights. Will the Pr emier provide comprehensive access to the abortion pill for all women and girls in Manitoba, starting today? Hon.

Rochelle Squires (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Speaking of playing politics with the lives of women and girls, we know that that is something that this member is very fond of doing. But that doesn't entitle to–her to her own set of facts. Madam Speaker, the reality is is that our government has done more to enhance the lives of women and girls in this province, including access to health-care services and so much more than the NDP ever did, and we're going to continue to do that. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a supplementary question. Ms.

Fontaine: This government has dragged its feet for months with all kinds of so -called reviews. Then they restricted access to the abortion pill only to locations currently offering surgical abortions in Winnipeg and Brandon. Let me say it again, Madam Speaker: this does absolutely nothing for women and girls acces sing Mifegymiso who live in rural and northern areas. Here are what the experts are saying. Dr. Wendy Norman says Manitoba's policy, and I quote: appears to be more political than making sense for the health of the people.

Will the Premier stop playing politics and provide comprehensive access to the abortion pill for all women and girls in Manitoba, starting today?

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3625 Ms. Squires: I would ask this member to stop playing politics with this issue and stick to the facts. The facts are–is that we put Mifegymiso on the formulary in July of 2017 and have made available coverage for women throughout the province. That is the reality. That is the fact. She refuses to accept it because she wants to play politics with this issue. Shame on her. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. The honourable member for St. Johns, on a final supplementary. Ms.

Fontaine: The executive director of the women's health centre asks this government to improve access to abortion in Manitoba. The executive director says these improvements haven't been, and I quote, entertained. Why? We know that fewer than two dozen doctors have been trained to prescribe the abortion pill. Again, why, Madam Speaker? Whether or not this Premier and his Cabinet believe it, reproductive health care is a human right for women in Manitoba, and this Premier is acting as the gatekeeper to women's rep roductive health in Manitoba. Why?

So I ask, for the umpteenth time i n this House: will the Premier stop playing politics and provide comprehensive access to the abortion pill for all Manitoba women and girls, starting today? Ms. Squires: And I have asked this member, for the umpteenth time, to stop putting misinformation on the record. The reality is, is that we put the drug on the – [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Ms. Squires: –formulary in July of 2017. We've also enhanced the funding for the Women's Health Clinic to historic levels, unlike the NDP ever did.

We've increased the funding to other women's agencies in the province, and that is what we're committed to. We're committed to enhancing the lives of women and girls in this province, unlike members opposite, who is only interested in playing politics with the lives of women and girls. Emission Reduction Carbon Pricing Mr. Dougald Lamont (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Speaker, allow me to quote from this Premier's climate plan. Quote: A carbon levy is simpler and more effective for Manitoba. It can cover more emissions in our economy, leading to more reductions, which is the goal.

It gives price certainty to business, helping them plan and invest accordingly, and it costs less to put in place than any other system. This is the only part of this plan that was actually going to happen. As for the rest, it's not made in Manitoba and it's not a plan. It's a nice list of things to do, without any commitment to do or fund a single one . The only action this government has made on climate change so far is to back out of the only concrete commitment they promised: the carbon tax. Does the Premier believe that a price on pollution will make a difference in reducing emissions or not? Hon.

Brian Pallister (Premier): I appreciate the fact that the member from Ottawa -west wants to support Ottawa -east in invoking the carbon tax, Madam Speaker, and he wants to join with the NDP in advocating for it. But, Madam Speaker, we're concerned for the welfare of Manitobans and we're concerned that the federal government has failed to demonstrate any respect for the green record this province has and continues to have. And so, because of that, we're saying no to the carbon tax and yes to our green plan.

We'll continue to make progressive changes to make sure that we leave this province cleaner and better for those who follow us. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Second Opposition, on a supplementary question. Manitoba Hydro Financial Position Mr. Dougald Lamont (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Speaker, I don't know why the First Minister always refers to Ottawa when I ask questions. [interjection] When it came to my leadership, my election campaign and my caucus, – [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, order.

3626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 Mr. Lamont: –everybody was born and raised in Manitoba, which is more than the First Minister can say. This government has complained that the federal government refused to give them c redit for billings and hydro development–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Lamont: What matters is what this province will do in the future to reduce emissions, not what it has done in the past.

We all know, as the First Minister has said, that billings of investment as Hydro hasn't been well spent, and, clearly, the Premier knows this since he repeats it every other day and several times a day in the House. But now the government is going to spend 2 and a half million dollars hiring Gordon Campbell to look into Keeyask and Bipole III, when I, along with many other Manitobans, could have told him what the problem is for free. I understand–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Lamont: Surely they could have found a consultant in Mani toba who did not also personally approve a hydro project whose costs are spiralling out of control. Mr. Gordon Campbell might be a very fine person, but he approved Site C in BC, which was originally supposed to cost $8.3 billion, costs have risen to 10.7– Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired. Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Well, Madam Speaker, I assure the member that I am born and raised in Manitoba, but that in no way–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr.

Pallister: –that in no way should be misinterpreted to be taken as a condemnation of anyone who wasn't born and raised here because we are the most open province in the country, which is the most open country in the world. I'm open to ideas from everywhere, Madam Speaker. * (14:20) The reason I refer to the member's position as supportive of Ottawa -east, being he is Ottawa -west, is because every position he's advocated for so far is equal to the position advocated for by the Trudeau government. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Second Opposition, on a final supplementary. Mr.

Lamont: The Premier's mistaken again, Madam Speaker. When it comes to Hydro, we know what happened and what needs to be done. Everyone thought that oil would stay at $100- a-barrel-plus forever; no one saw fracking coming and no one remembered the lessons of the 1980s that oil prices could plummet. We know the NDP government forced Hydro to move bipole at colossal extra expense, and we know that this government, like the NDP before it, has continued to use Hydro as an ATM.

When Manitoba Hydro's board resigned en masse, they made it clear, and I quote: the previous government rightly deserves to be criticized for putting Manitoba Hydro into such a perilous state, but those who bec ome aware of the problems and fail to deal with them are equally responsible. For Hydro to survive, this government needs to stop hiding its debt on Hydro's books as the NDP did. Will this government stop raiding Hydro so it can recover and maintain affor dable hydro rates for all Manitobans? Mr. Pallister: That doesn't merit applause, I don't think, Madam Speaker.

The fact is that the–the fact is that Manitoba Hydro actually saves hundreds of millions of dollars by using the credit rating of the Province every year and was charged 1 per cent for that fee, which is negligible. The fact is that the review that we have commissioned is a forward -looking review. The member claims he knows it all when it comes to Hydro. I doubt that, Madam Speaker, and I think Manitobans deserve a full review, and they deserve a forward-looking review, and that's what they'll get. The member refers to the cost of the review.

The review, I should share with the member, as a percentage of the expected cost of bipole and Keeyask, is not 1 per cent, but 0.0001 of a per cent of the expected cost of those projects. Madam Speaker, we have to learn from the mistakes of the past, or–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order.

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3627 Mr. Pallister: –we'll be condemned to repeat them, as the member h as clearly indicated he is willing to do here today in the House. Deer Lodge Centre Staffing and Budget Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Madam Speaker, it's pretty clear when–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Swan: –it comes to health care, this government only cares about the bottom line. Last year, this government cut 15 nursing positions from Deer Lodge Centre in St. James, and now this year the cuts are continuing.

Earlier this month, staff at Deer Lodge were informed that the Pallister government is now cutting health and rehabilitation aides, nurse case managers and volunteer co-ordinators at Deer Lodge. Why is this government only focused on the bottom line and not the quality of care of people who need our support? Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Health, Seniors and Active Living): Well, once again, Madam Speaker, this member of the Legislative Assembly has his facts wrong, but I'm happy to stand and to correct those errors.

I would like to inform all members of the House that the lat est projections show that the number of nursing positions in the –in Manitoba is up over 100 positions. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto, on a supplementary question. Mr. Swan: It was just last year the Pallister government said it was offse tting cuts to nurses at Deer Lodge Centre through the use of health- care aides, but one year later, through a memo that was sent on October 9, 2018, we now know the Pallister government's cutting those very health and rehabilitation aides as well.

The Pallister government's treating this health-care system like a game of musical chairs, but it isn't a game and the quality of our health -care system is at stake. Why is this minister cutting staff at Deer Lodge Centre for the second year in a row now? Mr. Friesen: Well, the member is either uninformed, or he's trying to mislead the House. That member should know that Veterans Affairs Canada does a determination of supplementary staffing and funding for services within personal -care homes specific to veterans. As veteran numbers reduce in those facilities, they recalibrate that number of spending.

That, of course, has meant that the feds have made some changes. However, we are working to make sure that affected staff in this case have suitable opportuniti es elsewhere in the WHRA. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Minto, on a final supplementary. Mr. Swan: Yes, the memo makes it very clear there are some federal cuts to Deer Lodge Centre, and it also makes it clear there are provincial cuts for messengers, prime health -care aides, rehab aides, volunteer co-ordinators, personal-care unit clerks and nurse case managers in day hospitals.

And it tells us additional cost- saving measures have been implemented to reduce the recreation entertainment budge t for patients at Deer Lodge Centre, reducing the costs associated with volunteer refreshments–so we take away a cup of tea and a box of Peek Freans cookies for people coming in to bring flowers or read to people in Deer Lodge Centre–and eliminating the continuing education budget which was previously announced. That's all this government. Why are they making such mean -spirited cuts to people at Deer Lodge Centre? Mr.

Friesen: Well, again, Madam Speaker, maybe he should pose the question to the individual seated just to the left of himself. In this case, it's a federal government decision to reduce their funding in that facility because of the number of veterans that are reduced there. Nevertheless, I give him the assurance that we are working closely with affected staff in that facility to make sure that there are suitable opportunities elsewhere in the WRHA where they can continue to be working. Shoal Lake 40 First Nation Freedom Road Update Mr.

Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): Madam Speaker, for more than a century, the residents of Shoal Lake 40 First Nation have been without an all -weather road. Earlier this year, our government, along with the federal and municipal partners, announced funding for phase 2 of this historical and long-overdue project.

3628 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 Freedom Road will significantly improve the well-being of community members and is a major step towards unlocking economic opportunities for the community and advancing reconciliation. Can the Minister of Infrastructure provide us an update on this project? Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Infrastructure): I'd like to thank that member for a great question, Madam Speaker. And our government was elected to repair the services of Manitoba.

In fact, Shoal Lake 40 leadership and members begged, asked, requested, pleaded for 17 years for the NDP to do something on Freedom Road. And they chose to do nothing. Madam Speaker, unde r t he leadership of our Premier and our government, we decided to take on the Freedom Road and, as of December 1st, there will be a complete connection between Shoal Lake 40 and Highway No. 1. In fact, under the NDP it was estimated to be $54 million. It came in at $32 million. Yes, Madam Speaker, we were elected to repair the services, and that's exactly what we're going to do.

Climate and Green Plan Act Request to Table Amendments Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, the Premier has done a complete about-face on Bill 16, his plan to address climate change and to save the planet. We will soon have committee meetings on the Premier's plan, or lack of it, to address climate change. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Gerrard: People wishing to present at the committee would like to know the specifics of the amendments the Premier will put forward – [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Gerrard: –to Bill 16 so that they can provide useful advice on saving the planet.

Will the Premier table today his amendments to Bill 16 so that all will know the specific changes he's proposing? Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Sustainable Development): I'd like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to everybody who signed up to present to Bill 16 committee last week, and I'd like to say shame on that member and his Liberal caucus for having members of the public come down to this Chamber, to this Legislative Building, to make their voices heard, only to be thwarted by that member playing politics.

So shame on him, and I certainly hope that he will not do that again this week when we invite– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for River Heights, on a supplementary question. Mr. Gerrard: The Premier wanted to take this to committee without the amendments, without people knowing what was going to be in this new bill after he'd ripped it apart. Now, even with the price on pollution in the original bill, it was pretty darn weak. And now, without a price on pollution, major improvements are clearly needed.

The IPCC is saying there's a greater urgency–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Gerrard: –than ever to save the planet. William Nordhaus is being recognized with a Nobel Prize for work showing that putting a price on pollution is effective. What is the full extent of the changes the Premier's proposing? What will the new bill look like? Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): I'm really appreciative of the member's

preamble because we now finally, for the first time, have a position that's different with the Ottawa -west and Ottawa -east. Because Ottawa- east has said that they want to introduce a lower levy than the one we had originally proposed. That's what they said: a lower levy. And the member just went on record as saying it's not high enough. So good. Good for him. He and Prime Minister Trudeau are in conflict with one another. Now he's got disagreement with Ottawa-east. Congratulations. * (14:30) We're taking the car bon tax out of the bill. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order.

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3629 Mr. Pallister: We're taking the carbon tax out of the bill because it's dangerous for Manitoba and its future, and the people of Manitoba will benefit from that amendment. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. The honourable member for River Heights, on a final supplementary. Mr. Gerrard: Madam Speaker, Bill 16 without the price on pollution is like a ghost bill without a physical framework. Economists are clear: putting a price on pollution is much less restrictive to businesses and more economically efficient than regulatory approaches.

The Premier actually said that before. Businesses need to know what regulatory approaches the Premier will take. It's only reasonable for the Premier to r elease his amendments ahead of time, as he now opposes the central premise of what was Bill 16. Will the Premier please table his amendments today so that presenters to Bill 16 know what the government plans at committee stage? Mr. Pallister: Well, Mada m Speaker, the member seems confused, and he wasn't confused in the '90s when he served as a Member of Parliament and cut health-care transfers to the provinces. He wasn't confused then.

He supported reducing support for health care in the 1990s. And now, I don't know how we can get it any simpler for him: we're taking the carbon tax out of the bill. It's as straightforward as it can possibly be. We're saying no to the carbon tax. We're saying yes to green. We're going to move ahead with our green initiatives, Madam Speaker. There are many of them and we're serious about them. But the NDP and Liberals now have to fight over who wants to raise the carbon tax higher so they can go after that special-interest vote that they're so concerned about.

Madam Speaker, the people we're concerned about are the people that are going to have to pay $1,500 more a year for higher home heating and gas for their vehicles. We're concerned about them. Madam Speaker, we'll stand up for Manitobans. He can stand up for Ottawa. Northern Airports Snow-Clearing Funding Ms. Amanda Lathlin (The Pas): This government is making cuts to northern airports that First Nations leaders say are appalling and unacceptable. We've heard from MKO Grand Chief Garrison Settee that just over $2 million in funding has been cut from northern airports and marine operations.

That means that runways at over 20 northern airports will no longer be cleared of snow unless there's an emergency –weekend emergency–a medical emergency on weekends. I don't know if the Premier (Mr. Pallister) knows this, but medical emergencies don't take weekends off and they don't have time to wait for runways to be cleared. Will this government reverse this cut immediately? Hon. Ron Schuler (Minister of Infrastructure): Well, Madam Speaker, I wish to assure the member that we will continue to clear the railway –the airports.

I want to be very clear that this is a federally mandated standard and we will continue to clear the runways to the federally mandated standard. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, on a supplementary question. Ms. Lathlin: We know that snow clearing isn't being done as usual because Barren Lands First Nation Chief John Clarke heard about the cuts when his flight home last Saturday was diverted to Thompson because the runway wasn't clear. Chief Clarke says that some passengers on his flight who weren't prepared for a diver sion couldn't afford accommodations for the night.

This government's decision is leaving people vulnerable and stranded in airports with no money. Will this government immediately restore funding for weekend snow clearing at northern airports? Mr. Schuler: Well, and I always appreciate the member's passion for airports in the North. I want to be very clear to the House that we continue to clear the runways. We will do so to a federal standard and we will take her particular case forward and ask the department to come forward with more information, but I do want to be very clear to the Legislature that we continue to clear the runways to a federal standard.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, on a final supplementary. Ms. Lathlin: Mr. Abraham Donkey died because he didn't have timely access to health care.

3630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 Can it be shown any more clearly, Madam Speaker? This government's failure to invest in northern infrastructure, their refusal to help people get health care in their communities, c uts to the Northern Patient Transportation Program, cuts to northern airports and a privatization approach to Lifeflight, with –all increases the possibility that more low-income northern Manitobans will die. Will this government recognize the danger of their approach and reverse all of these reckless decisions? Mr.

Schuler: Well, Madam Speaker, I'd like to reference the reckless decision that was made for 17 years by the NDP when Shoal Lake 40 came forward. In fact, they even walked for 80 kilometres along railroad tracks. They camped out on railroad tracks to try to–[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Schuler: –get the NDP government's attention, and the NDP decided to do nothing. Madam Speaker, we are focused on what's going on in the North, and we will continue to stand up for the North, and we'll continue to clear the runways to a federal standard. Madam Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.

Speaker's Ruling Madam Speaker: And I have a ruling for the House. During orders of the day on Wednesday, June 6th, 2018, the honourable member for St. Johns (Ms. Fontaine) raised a matter of privilege, alleging that the then honourable government House leader was putting false information on the record in comments he had made on Monday, June 4th, 2018. She went on to say that the then honourable government House leader attacked the character of members of this Chamber without cause or justification.

She concluded her remarks by moving, and I quote: "that a committee of this House be struck to examine the member's statements and recommend whatever action is necessary to restore trust and honour to this Chamber." The then honourable government House leader spoke to the matter before I took it under advisement to consult the authorities. As members know, there are two conditions which must be met to demonstrate a prima facie case of privilege: time limits and the demonstration of sufficient evidence to prove that the privileges of the House have been breached.

In her submission, the member did not make any reference to whether or not she was raising this matter at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, I must rule that she did not meet the test of timeliness. In seeking to demonstrate which privileges were breached, the honourable member for St.

Johns argued that by putting false information on the record, a member, and I quote, "arbitrarily flouts the rules of his House and takes it upon themselves to decide which rules it will follow and which rules it will break." She concluded that, "this fundamentally interferes with the rights of all members to exercise their privileges as members." On this point, I must indicate that disputes between members regarding information put on the record are neither matters of privil ege nor order, but rather are matters of debate.

As the 6th edition of Beauchesne advises in citation 31(1), a dispute over the facts does not fulfill the criteria for a prima facie case of privilege.

Further, on page 148 of the 3rd edition to House of Co mmons Procedure and Practice, Bosc and Gagnon state that, and I quote: "If the question of privilege involves a disagreement between two (or more) members as to facts, the Speaker typically rules that such a dispute does not prevent Members from fulfillin g their parliamentary functions, nor does such a disagreement breach the collective privileges of the House." In consideration of all of these factors, I must respectfully rule that the member does not have a prima facie case of privilege. * * * Madam Speaker: Petitions. An Honourable Member: Point of order.

Point of Order Madam Speaker: Oh, the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a point of order. Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): So, on a point of order. Again, I don' t necessarily support everything that my colleague from St. Boniface does. In particular, blocking the public from weighing in at committee and then coming back a few days later to ask why people

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3631 couldn't make a point at committee struck me as odd earlier today. * (14:40) But I do certainly support his right to exercise his duties as a member of this Legislative Assembly. Earlier today, during question period, the Premier (Mr. Pallister) referred to him as the member for Ottawa-west, in the first response, I believe it was, to one of the questions from our colleague from St. Boniface. It is a rule of this House that we're supposed to refer to people either by their Cabinet portfolio, if they are in Cabinet, or by the constituency which they represent.

We should all be referring to our colleague here as the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Lamont) or perhaps the Leader of the Second Opposition (Mr. Lamont), whichever title is most appropriate, but we should not be calling him the member for Ottawa -west or, you know, any similar such claim. So I'd simply ask that the Premier be called to order and refrain from using such language in the future. Madam Speaker: I would point out that the member does have a point of order. We are all to be using our names either as a constituency or a minister, and that was–I apologize; I did miss that in question period.

So the member did rise on a valid point of order that when we refer to other members, we refer to them by their names of their constituencies. PETITIONS Seven Oaks General Hospital Emergency Room Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order. Mrs. Smith: The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government has announced the closures of three emergency rooms and an urgent-care centre in the city of Winnipeg, including closing down the emergency room at Seven Oaks General Hospital.

(2) The closures come on the heels of the closing of a nearby QuickCare clinic, as well as cancelled plans for ACCESS centres and personal -care homes, such as Park Manor, that would have provided important services for families and seniors in the area.

(3) The closures have left families and seniors in north Winnipeg without any point of contact with front-line health -care services and will result – [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mrs. Smith: –in having them to travel 20 minutes or more to St. Boniface emergency –St. Boniface Hospital's em ergency room or Health Sciences Centre's emergency room for emergency care.

(4) These cuts will place a heavy burden on the many seniors who live in north Winnipeg and visit the emergency room frequently, especially for those who are unable to drive or are low income.

(5) The provincial government failed to consult with families and seniors in north Winnipeg regarding the closure of their emergency room or to consult with health -care officials and health official workers–health-care workers at Seven Oak s to discuss how this closure would impact patient care in advance of the announcement.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to reverse the decision to close Seven Oaks General Hospital's emergency room so that families and seniors in north Winnipeg and the surrounding areas have timely access to quality health-care services. Signed by Marife Cadag, Aaron Cadag, Rhodesia Celog and many, many other Manitobans. Madam Speaker: In accordance with o ur rule 133(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House. Vimy Arena Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

The background to this petition is as follows: The residents of St. James and other areas of Manitoba are concerned with the intention expressed by the provincial government to use the Vimy Arena site as a Manitoba Housing project.

(2) The Vimy Arena site is in the middle of a residential area near man y schools, churches, community clubs and senior homes, and neither the

3632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 provincial government nor the City of Winnipeg considered better-suited locations in rural, semi-rural or industrial sites such as the St. Boniface Industrial Park, the 200,000 acres at CentrePort or existing properties such as the Shriners Hospital, old Children's Hospital on Wellington Crescent.

(3) The provincial government is exempt from any zoning requirements that would have existed if the land was owned by the City of Winnipeg. T his exemption bypasses community input and due diligence and ignores better uses for the land which would be consistent with a residential area.

(4) There are no standards that one would expect for a treatment centre. The Minister of Health, Seniors and A ctive Living has stated that the Department of Health had no role to play in the acquisition of the land for this Manitoba Housing project for use as a addiction facility.

(5) The Manitoba Housing project initiated by the provincial government changes the fundamental nature of the community. Including park and recreational uses, concerns of the residents of St. James and others regarding public safety, property values and their way of life are not being properly addressed.

(6) The concerns of the residen ts of St. James are being ignored while obvious other locations in wealthier neighbourhoods, such as Tuxedo and River Heights, have not been considered for a Manitoba Housing project, even though there are hundreds of acres of land available for developmen t at Kapyong Barracks or parks like Heubach Park that share the same zoning as Vimy Arena.

(7) The Manitoba Housing project and the operation of a drug treatment centre fall outside the statutory mandate of the Manitoba Housing renewal corporation.

(8) The provincial government does not have a co-ordinated plan for addiction treatment in Manitoba as it currently underfunds treatment centres which are running far under capacity and potential.

(9) The community has been misled regarding the true intention of the Manitoba Housing as the land is being transferred for a 50- bed facility, even though the project is clearly outside of Manitoba Housing's responsibility. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

(1) To urge the provincial gove rnment to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Vimy Arena site is not used for an addiction treatment facility.

(2) To urge the provincial government to take the necessary steps to ensure the preservation of public land along Sturgeon Creek for the purposes of parkland and recreational activities for public use, including being an important component of the Sturgeon Creek Greenway Trail and the Sturgeon Creek ecosystem under the current designation of PR2 for the 255 Hamilton Ave . location at Vimy Arena site, and to maintain the land to be continued to be designated for parks and recreation activity neighbourhood and community.

This petition's been signed by Al Conwell [phonetic], Alan Rads [phonetic], Richard McLeod and many other Manitobans. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tina Fontaine–Public Inquiry Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition:

(1) Tina Fontaine was murdered at the age of 15 years, and her body was found in the Red River on August 17th, 2014.

(2) Tina Fontaine was robbed of her loving family and the Anishinabe community of Sagkeeng First Nation.

(3) Tina Fontaine was failed by multiple systems which did not protect her as they intervened in her life.

(4) Tina Fontaine was further failed by systems meant to seek and pursue justice for her murder.

(5) Tina Fontaine's murder galvanized Canada on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, MMIWG , as she q uickly became our collective daughter and the symbol of MMIWG across Canada.

(6) Manitoba has failed to fully implement the recommendations of numerous reports and recommendations meant to improve and protect the lives of indigenous peoples and children, including the Manitoba Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Phoenix Sinclair inquiry.

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3633 We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: * (14:50)

(1) To urge the Premier of Manitoba and the Minister of Justice to immediately call a public inquiry into the systems that had a role in the life and death of Tina Fontaine, as well as the function of the administration of justice after her death; and

(2) To urge that the terms of reference of a public inquir y be developed jointly with the caregivers of Tina Fontaine and/or the agent appointed by them. This petition is signed why –by Bronwyn Guard, Julia Huard, Laura Gillies and many other Manitobans. Medical Laboratory Services Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heig hts): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provision of laboratory services to medical clinics and physicians' offices has been historically, and continues to be, a private sector service.

(2) It is vitally important that there be competition in laboratory services to allow medical clinics to seek solutions from more than one provider to control costs and to improve service for health professionals and patients.

(3) Under the present provincial government, Dynacare, an Ontario -based subsidiary of a US company, has acquired Unicity labs, resulting in a monopoly situation for the provision of laboratory services in medical clinics and physicians' offices.

(4) The creation of this monopoly has resulted in the closure of many laboratories by Dynacare in and around the city of Winnipeg. Since the acquisition of Unicity labs, Dynacare has engaged in anti - competitive activities, where it has changed the collection schedules of patients' specimens and charged some medical offices for collection services.

(5) These closures have created a situation where a great number of patients are less well served, having to travel significant distances in some cases, waiting considerable periods of time and sometimes being denied or having to leave without obtaining laboratory services. The situation is particularly critical for patients requiring fasting blood draws, as they may experience complications that could be life-threatening, bas ed on their individual health situations.

(6) Furthermore, Dynacare has instructed that all STATs patients, patients with suspicious internal infections, be directed to its King Edward location. This creates unnecessary obstacles for the patients who are required to travel to that lab rather than simply completing the test in their doctor's office. This new directive by Dynacare presents a direct risk to patients' health in the interest of higher profits. This has further resulted in patients opting to vis it emergency rooms rather than travelling twice, which increases costs to the health-care system.

(7) Medical clinics and physicians' offices service thousands of patients in their communities and have structured their offices to provide a one - stop servic e, acting as a health -care front line that takes off some of the load from emergency rooms. The creation of this monopoly has been problematic to many medical clinics and physicians, hampering their ability to provide high -quality and complete service to t heir patients due to closures of so many laboratories.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to request Dynacare to reopen the closed laboratories or allow Diagnostic Services of Manitoba to freely open labs in clinics which formerly housed labs that have been shut down by Dynacare. To urge the provincial government to ensure high-quality lab services for patients and a level playing field and competition in the provision of laboratory services to medical offices.

To urge the provincial government to address this matter immediately in the interest of better patient-focused care and improved support for health professionals. Signed by Marilyn Hooper, Yong [phonetic] Edgar, Jodi Robertson and many others. Madam Speaker: Grievances? I have a statement. Oh.

3634 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Speaker's Statement Madam Speaker: I have a statement for the House. I am advising the House that I have received a letter from the S econd Opposition House Leader (Mr. Gerrard) indicating that their caucus has identified Bill 216, The Human Rights Code Amendment Act, and Bill 231, The Municipal Harassment Policy Act (Various Acts Amended), as their last two selected bills for this session.

As a reminder to the House, rule 24 permits each recognized party to select up to three private members' bills per session to proceed to a second reading vote, and requires the House leader to provide written notice as to the date and time of the vote.

The Second Opposition House Leader has therefore advised that both selected bills will be scheduled for second reading debates and votes on Thursday, October 25th, 2018, as follows: Bill 216, The Human Rights Code Amendment Act, to be moved at 10 a.m. and debated until 10:30 a.m.; Bill 231, The Municipal Harassment Policy Act (Various Acts Amended), to be moved at 10:30 a.m. and debated until 11 a.m.; the questions on both bills shall be put consecutively at 11:55 a.m. House Business Hon.

Blaine Pedersen (Acting Government House Leader): I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet on Wednesday, October 24th, 2018, and, if necessary, on Thursday, October 25th, 2018, at 6 p.m., to consider Bill 16, The Clima te and Green Plan Implementation Act. Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet on Wednesday, October 24th, 2018, and, if necessary, on Thursday, October 25th, 2018, at 6 p.m., to consider Bill 16, The Climate and Green Plan Implementation Act. Mr.

Pedersen : Madam Speaker, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet on Wednesday, October 24th, 2018, and, if necessary, on Thursday, October 25th, 2018, at 6 p.m., to consider the following: Bill 8, The Government Notices Modernization Act (Various Acts Amended); Bill 12, The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2018; Bill 24, The Social Services Appeal Board Am endment Act; and Bill 27, The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Amendment Act.

Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet on Wednesday, October 24th, 2018, and, if necess ary, on Thursday, October 25th, 2018, at 6 p.m., to consider the following: Bill 8, The Government Notices Modernization Act (Various Acts Amended); Bill 12, The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2018; Bill 24, The Social Services Appeal Board Amendment Act; and Bill 27, The Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Amendment Act. * * * Mr. Pedersen: Could you please call Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 34.

Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the House will consider Commi ttee of the Whole on Bill 34 this afternoon. The House will now resolve itself into–oh. Just as a reminder to the House, as per the sessional order adopted on June 25th, 2018, on days when the budget implementation and tax statutes amendment act is considered in the Committee of the Whole, the House will sit until 6:30 p.m. instead of rising at 5 p.m. The House will now resolve into Committee of the Whole. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, please take the Chair. * (15:00) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Bill 34–The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2018 Mr. Chairperson (Doyle Piwniuk): Will the Committee of the Whole please come to order. Does the minister responsible for Bill 34 have an opening statement? Hon. Scott Fielding (Minister of Finance): Well–I can sit down? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, you can sit. Mr. Fielding: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to extend our sitting here and have debate

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3635 with Manitobans. We know that that was, of course, a contentious issue in the fall, and so the agreement amongst the House leaders was to offer up more than nine hour s more in public –or, rather, sessions from the opposition in committee as a whole. It’s an important process, to make sure everyone has all the information related to the budget implementation bill.

As mentioned, the bill really provides legislative auth ority for implementation of the tax, financial and other measures such as introducing professional incorporations for such things as chiropractors. Mr. Deputy Speaker, based on the evidence and expert advice and Manitobans' input, we are tabling concrete steps for Manitobans' most improved province. BITSA 2'18 delivers on our commitment to restore stability of our finances, strengthen the economy, ensure that Manitobans' tax regime and supports continue to meet their needs of outcomes of fiscal responsible manner.

The bill streamlines processes for Manitobans who own homes and provide caregivers accessing provincial credits, extending cultural tax credits, introducing new supports for families, for infants, enhancing supports for venture capital, improvi ng enhancements to our taxes. Some technical and administrative amendments are also included, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the bill, of course, is here to be debated. So thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I welcome any questions from the opposition. Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister. Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement? Mr.

James Allum (Fort Garry -Riverview): Mr. Chair, I want to first begin by welcoming the new Finance Minister to his portfolio and wish him the very best. I hope that he's able to do what his predecessor couldn't do, which is to be fully transparent–both with the House and with the people of Manitoba–when it came to matters financial here in this great province. He will know, because he wa s here in the spring in another portfolio.

I know that this legislation should have actually been introduced and debated and actually passed in the spring, and yet here we are, middle of October, heading toward November, and we're only now getting to do –to debate and to ask questions about the BITSA legislation, when it should have been done four or five months ago. This is not the kind of conduct that we would expect from a responsible Minister of Finance. It suggests, in fact, that the former minister of Finance didn't really understand what his job was and wasn't able to perform his duties as they should be. We know further that in the interim, Mr.

Chair, that the government has been called out by the Auditor General for very significant mistakes th at were made during the budgeting process, all intended to mislead, frankly, the people of Manitoba as to the size of the actual deficit here in Manitoba, all intended to justify a continuing barrage of cuts to the services that Manitobans rely on and all intended, frankly, to justify an austerity agenda which simply does not work and is the politics of the past. * (15:10) We have many questions about the BITSA legislation that we're going to be asking over the course of the next several hours to the Fina nce Minister.

What we're really asking, though, is – direct–asking for, Mr. Chair, is direct answers to direct questions. His predecessor was unable to do that. I'm holding–I'm hopeful that the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will be better prepared a nd more willing to talk openly and transparently to the people of Manitoba during this question- and-answer period on the budget implementation bill. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: We want to thank the member. Does the critic for the second opposition party have an opening statement? Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Yes, I have several comments that I want to make. This is a very unusual time in this Legislature that–with the delay of the BITSA bill and, oh, the budget bills, some of them being passed quite recently, we have a government which has just notified us very recently that it is not proceeding with the carbon tax–or with the price on pollution, as it's probably better desc ribed–and that the government is instead going to proceed with Bill 16. And the problem here is that the carbon tax, or the price on pollution, was going to bring in a lot of dollars.

And, all of a sudden, the dollars that were to come in are not going to be there. And so we're hoping for an explanation from this government of what is going to happen, how he is actually going to

3636 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 meet the numbers in his budget when a lot of the money that he budgeted as revenue is no longer there. The second question that we're interested in some answers for is the cannabis tax. The –cannabis is now legal. We are hearing that the retail sales of cannabis have been very high in the first few days and presumably bringing in quite a bit of tax. The government has said that all the money bringing in from that tax is going to look after the issues related to the implementation of the tax that they have to look after.

And so that now that it's clear that there's going to be significant dollars coming in, and with rather vague promises on how the money is going to be spent at this point, we're very much looking forward to an explanation from the minister in terms of how much money, now that he has a better idea of what the situation is, is going to be in new revenue and precisely where those monies are going to be spent.

A third question, which seems to be quite important, was, indeed, a –an issue raise d by the member for Assiniboia earlier today that the government apparently passed an order -in-council to be able to borrow somethi ng more than $3 billion even before the loans act–which would be permissive of that order -in-council–was passed. And so we're trying to understand what the –procedure the government is following and how the government can be spending or borrowing more than $3 billion without even having passed the legislation which is – supports that. So there are a lot of questions this time around, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, about what this government is doing. Those are just scratching the surface, really, of the questions which I could be asking, but they are ones which have come up very recently and certainly need attention. And we're looking forward during the course of this discussion of this important financial bill to be able to get some answers to these questions. Mr. Chairperson: We want to thank the member. Hon. Steven Fletcher (Assiniboia): Thank you, Mr. Chair– Mr. Chairperson: Are you asking for leave? Mr. Fletcher: Oh, yes. Can I have leave to speak, please? Mr.

Chairperson: To the House to give leave for the member for Assiniboia to have opening statement? [Agreed] Mr. Fletcher: Thank you, everyone. A few rapid-fire questions related to the budget. First is: Why are we dealing with the 'bubet'– Mr. Chairperson: I just want the –have the member–if this is an opening statement, the questions are–come out later. So do you have an opening statement for the member–for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding)? Mr. Fletcher: Well, like in Jeopardy, I'll form my opening statement in a question, a very long question.

I wonder –I look forward to an explanation to why the budget implementation bill was not brought in in a timely manner. I look forward to an explanation why we had to wait until August 15th–in the middle of summer–for the implementation bill to come in. I'm looking for an explanation of why the government used the cannabis as a scapegoat or a way to justify the delay of the budget implementation bill but, yet, really, it's not significant relative to $16 billion. It's really not a reason to delay. Often in those kind of cases, you just budget zero and deal with it later.

I'm looking for an explanation to the order -in- council of October 3rd, which I raised ea rlier today and the member from River Heights reiterated. It looks like there was an OIC directive for the minister, from the Minister of Finance, before the legislative authority. We passed the loans bill last Thursday for $3.8 billion and it's not clear if that is related to the OIC; and if it is, why are we approving legislation before the –or, doing an OIC before the legislation? Seems in contradiction to

section 15 –or 53 of The Financial Administration Act. I'm looking for an explanation on the carbon tax. How can the government possibly go forward and have a flip-flop on its major revenue -generating–and it is a tax grab –program and then continue on like nothing has happened? The government projected an annual revenue of $260 million on that alone, say $300 million, plus $67 million in green funds from the federal government. So not only have they foregone the carbon- tax tax grab, they have also foregone the federal monies. So that's $300 million. So that's a $600- million difference in what they had originally planned. That is off the top and without any analysis.

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3637 So I'd like to get an explanation on how the government can –it seems extraordinary that the government can just flip -flop on a major –an ill-thought-out, by the way, Mr. Chair, tax initiative. They should never have done it and they know they shouldn't have done it. You know how I know? Because I told them that. Yes, I told them that and I got the boot. So let that be a lesson, Mr. Chair. If you want the Premier (Mr.

Pallister) to listen to you, come and join me on this side of the House. * (15:20) The issue of the tax and undermining all the Conservative governments in Canada –because they've already disagreed on the–or, already agreed that the federal government has the ability to impose the tax and they just couldn't agree on price. The Province an –wanted to tax faster and more than the federal government. They flip -flopped and now there's a huge hole in the budget with no explanation, so I would look forward to the minister answering these questions. Mr. Chairperson: The member's time is up.

We thank the member for his comments. Before we get on to the

preamble and the enacting clauses, clause- by-clause, is it the will to the House to–the committee to actually ask questions on–ongoing here? [interjection] A question on the bill. Agreed and so carried. Now we'll start with the questions. Mr. Allum: Mr. Chair, as I said in my opening statement, the minister knows that BITSA is tabled in the spring. It has been a tradition here in Manitoba not only for decades but, you know, for a generation or two, and the only time that doesn't happen is when there's an election.

So maybe the minister can start by telling us and the people of Manit oba why did the government delay BITSA and hide it from Manitobans for months? Mr. Fielding : And the government did not hide BITSA. In fact, we worked with the opposition. There wasn't –all the appropriate information, as it relates to BITSA, we worked w ith the opposition to find a process where which, I believe, was agreed to, where information of BITSA was produced in August 15th. A part of this process is today's session where we have over nine more hours of implementation questions that are associated with it.

Let's be clear: The budget was tabled in, you know, first quarter –just in the first quarter of last year, so, to be fair, we're halfway through the year. We needed more information from the federal government on a variety of 'topcs', so that' s why implementation was there. But I guess I would turn it back to you and ask yourself and your caucus why you didn't want to delay the implementation of BITSA. Mr. Allum: Sorry, madam–Mr. Chair. I didn't quite hear what the minister was asking me. Maybe he's got this a little mixed up.

We ask the questions; he's required to give some answers, and that was not really very good. We need an explanation–the people of Manitoba deserve an explanation as to why BITSA was not introduced in the spring until the opposition rallied, held the government to account, pressed them to do something, and only then–only then–was that bill introduced and was there an agreement about when it would come forward and what other aspects of debate would happen. The minister also says that it was delayed for a variety of reasons. Now, I said the bar was pretty low with the previous Finance minister.

He's not really jumping over that bar very well if he can't be able to give us specific –a specific explanation and specific reasons why a bill traditionally introduced in this House, in the spring, debated in the spring, passed in the spring, wasn't introduced until late, late summer, and only then afte r the opposition and the NDP did its work here in the Chamber. So could he provide a proper explanation? And instead of giving explanations around a variety of reasons, could he articulate those reasons for us today and, through us, to the people of Manitoba? Mr. Fielding: My answer really doesn't change.

It's a matter of the opposition, so although this may be not a question period to answer yourself, maybe that's an area that you can look yourself in the mirror. BITSA is obviously that we introduced the budget in the last quarter of this year. There was more information that was needed on the carbon tax. I think that was –or rather the cannabis, and so that was well documented at the time, a part of the process. In fact, the government went into extens ion in terms of the time frames wen we were sitting to

3638 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 talk about other legislation that's there. I know the opposition didn't want to debate that at that point, but I can tell you we came forth with an agreement that would allow for more time for BITSA to be discussed. That information was provided. We suggested that we were going to provide that information by August 15th. I can tell you that I was the minister at that point, and we provided that information to the members of the Legislature. We are h ere debating this session as we speak. And that's really the focal point of why there was a delay.

It was information related to the cannabis. And that's –was well documented at the time. So the answer does not change from the previous minister in respect of that answer. Mr. Allum: Well, I don't quite follow that answer, Mr. Chair. Initially, he said that the government minister said that the government needed more information on the carbon tax. Maybe he just misspoke there, I'm not sure about that, because there were projections in the budget around putting a price on carbon. But, regardless, the Premier of Manitoba (Mr.

Pallister) woke up on the cranky side of the bed one day and decided to pull that central 'tenent' of their green-washing plan out of the mix, even though, as we all know that during the course of the last two years, the government caucus, every minister, every backbencher was on the doors of Manitoba promising, committing to put a tax on–put a price on carbon. And yet now we find the –a mo nstrous flip-flop and, frankly, a drive -by deception on the part of the government, who simply failed to live up to their commitment on putting a price on carbon.

But he –the minister asked me some question about, well, what were we doing. Actually, we we re holding the governm ent, the Premier , the Cabinet and the former Finance minister to account for failing to introduce BITSA in the proper and appropriate time frame. And he still –the new minister–and, admittedly, he was not the minister at the time, but he should know as a member of 'cabinent', as a minister of the Crown, that these decisions are not only made collectively, but they are to be held accountable broadly for the government.

So, to simply say, well, I wasn't in that job at that time so don't ask me is really quite insufficient. He's a member of Cabinet, a minister of the Crown, and he ought to be accountable and responsible to this Chamber in providing direct answers to direct questions. So I'm going to ask him one more time: Can he please clarify for us–and, through us, to the people of Manitoba–why a bill traditionally introduced in the spring, debated in the spring, passed in the spring was delayed for several months and now here it is in late October, and we're only getting to do that now.

Could he please explain that circumstance to us and to the people of Manitoba? Mr. Fielding : I'll repeat it for a third time. The member may not like the answers, but the –but my answers will remain the same. So we can –we do have nine hours to debate this. If you like, we can debate on this all afternoon. But I'll explain it one more time just so the member has that opportunity to understand what our position is. We did have two interim appropriation acts in spring, as the opposition would not agree to pass the appropriations act. I think we can all agree to that.

Exceptional year, as we were discussing the implementation of the green plan and cannabis legalization in the summer. The federal government delayed the cannabis legalization for similar reasons. I think we all realized that the date went to October 17th and the Province and the federal government were not ready. And that's clear because of the change of the date. So that is my answer. That will remain my answer if we ask four or five times. And otherwise we can get on to other topics.

We clearly have more than nine hours here of further debate, which we are excited to tell Manitobans in terms of the steady process, the steady progress we're making on reducing deficits and reducing taxes for Manitobans. Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): Thank you to my colleague for kicking us off this afternoon and asking some questions –some important questions about BITSA, about the budget and about this government's priorities. I did just want to spend a little bit of time this afternoon talking about cannabis. Of course, it was a momentous week last week in the country. Cannabis is now legal.

The minister will know that we spent quite a bit of time back in the spring, again, as my colleague mentioned –when we had hoped to spend more time talking about BITSA and talking about the budget–about the expected revenues. And, at the time, the government was saying, you know, look, we understand a little bit more about the

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3639 expenditures. I think the number kicked around was $100 million in expenditures but could not come up with an estimate on revenues. Now that the roll out has begun, and, certainly, there's been some sales in the province–I've heard stories that the –some stores were runni ng out that evening in the middle of the night. * (15:30) Can the minister give me a sense of what those revenues, over the first few days, look like and what revenues to the Province in terms of the levy were generated in those first few days? Mr.

Fiel ding: We know that cannabis is a new venture not just in Manitoba –across the country. We also know what the NDP's budget forecasting process has been like in years. In fact, I think the last year of your budget process, you over –in fact, your budget projected that it would be $400 million less than it actually was. I'm not quite sure how you can miss that target by that much and be that much in the glue. But what I can tell you is that it is a new venture. We're asking the departments to track and monitor not just costs but revenues.

It's not surprising that the NDP really wants to talk about revenues all the time. For our point of view, it is a new venture that's going forward. We're asking departments to review what costs were. There's a lot of variables that go into the equation, depends on the strain of the drug that you're–the amount of cannabis that you're doing. There's different things like edibles that will play into the equation in future years. There's –really, we don't know what the uptake is. We 're four days into this, so I think a true sense of where we are will probably be six to eight months into the legalization regimen.

And we're hoping to have out budgets take into some costs that are associated with it, and we're continuing to work with the departments in respect to that. Mr. Wiebe: Well, again, I appreciate the–you know, the fact that this is a new process, that, you know, we are just days into this –into legalization. And so, you know, I can understand that the minister wants to have as complete a picture as possible. You know, I don't need the kind of level of analysis that I think the–maybe the minister is thinking that I'm asking for in terms of revenues versus projected costs.

Certainly, I can understand–again, the government has been clear right from the beginning. One hundred million dollars is what the –their estimate was on cost to legalize cannabis. But what we're talking about here is simply revenue. Maybe I could just get a little bit of clarification because I'm still a bit u nsure about the taxation on cannabis here in this province. The government collects a levy; is that right? Maybe the minister can just give us a bit more information about exactly what kind of taxation has been in place so far on cannabis over the last few days. Mr.

Fielding: We, as a government, wanted to keep the cost of non- recreational cannabis as low as possible, and the reason why we did that is to ensure we get rid of the black market, the people of the illicit drug trade. That is important to this government. It's –I think it'd probably be important to everyone–members of this Chamber. With that, we didn't introduce a tax that's associated with non-medical cannabis. We introduced a social responsibility fee. The social responsibility fee is something that will help pay for advertisements – some costs for addictions that are there.

We will be asking the retailers to collect this. It'll be remitted back to the government in 2020– June of 2020. And so we think that retailers have a part and everybody has a part to play in terms of the social responsibility component of it. There is also a cost-recovery markup that is very similar to what alcohol may be. It's different kind of levels, and alcohol's more of a complicated markup system. But those –the approac h, and we didn't introduce a provincial sales –rather, a sales tax –a tax on the cannabis because we want, again, to keep the cost as low as possible. Mr.

Wiebe: So the social responsibility fee, is that something, then, that the government would set aside exclusively, as the minister says, for issues of social responsibility? So, in other words, if the revenues are–and I'm just picking numbers out of a hat, but the minister had talked about $100 million in costs. I recognize it wasn't this minister; it was the previous minister. If there was $100 million in revenue, that $100 million in costs would go–or the $100 million of revenue would go directly to addressing those costs, or if–or is there any element that the funds collected go directly into general revenue?

Mr. Fielding : Well, just as a bit of clarification, I did look at that $100-million cost. I don't believe that was actually the context the former minister had said, so I did scour through our Hansard in respect to that. What I can tell you is, again, the social responsibility

3640 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 fee–it is a fee–will be collected and be remitted back to the government in 2020. And that's –we feel, obviously people that are retailing this have a part to play in this in terms of the social responsibility, so we will kn ow in June of 2020 what is collected in terms of social responsibility fee, where there will be some information–there will be, obviously, revenue sources or money that is –flows from the federal government is for things such as the device and for some training.

That, of course, was announced at the federal government level and so that will be forthcoming. Mr. Wiebe: Okay, now I'm even more confused, which is, you know–well, you know, it does happen, does happen from time to time, as members from the House are happy to remind me of. I guess what I'm confused about –the minister is talking about the social responsibility fee. That is from retailers. I guess what I was asking about is the tax that's applied to the product itself that consumers are paying. So when they walk through the door, you know, the –there's some kind of tax on that.

So I'm just trying to get a clar ification, what is the percentage that they're paying, or is it a flat fee, or what? How–exactly what is that amount that's being taken in by the government? Mr. Fielding : I think what you're maybe talking about is in terms of the dollar fee that's associated for the federal government that's associated. Right now, we don't have an agreement with the federal government. We've put a 75-cent placeholder, 'thach' would be equivalent to what the federal government has talked about. So that is the money that it 's associated with. Mr.

Wiebe: There is no provincial tax on cannabis in this province? Mr. Fielding: That's right. Mr. Wiebe: Okay so –but the minister mentioned 75 cents as a placeholder amount, so again, I mean, we're, you know, talking, I would imagi ne pretty simple math for–well, not for me, maybe, but for the very smart people in the Department of Finance, I'm sure this is simple math. We have an idea of what the cannabis sales were on day one, on day two, on day three, on day four, on day five. So I'm just–I guess I'm trying to understand what would the –can the minister give me any kind of–maybe I could put it in simpler terms.

Instead of asking what the specific amount would be, have sales met the expectations that his department had drawn up, or were they lower or were they higher? Mr. Fielding: Well, I–we're four days into the new venture. I mean, you know, without even just a back-and-forth of political, I don't think four days you can measure, you know, whether we'll have the – what revenues are going to come in. It's pretty early to identify what revenues are going to come in. There's other stores that will come online soon. There's edibles that will happen later on down the line.

So, to be fair, four days isn't a long enough time to identify, you know, are we on track or not. Maybe talk to us –probably in six to eight, six to nine months, we'd be able to identify what sort of revenue. But to be fair, after four days, it's really hard to give you an accurate number. That's not just political rhetoric. It's, you know, it's got the added benefit of actually being true. Mr. Wiebe: Well, you know, the minister did say six to eight months. Now he just said six to nine months. So I'm, you know, I'm going to hold you to that, the minister, there. We're adding months already.

You know, I'm just –no, I guess what I'm trying to get a sense of, like, in other jurisdictions, obviously, they're–we know that cannabis has been legalized in other jurisdictions. I think when we asked the minister, the previous minister about this, he said, well, you know, these are different places. We don't know what the demand is going to be. We don't know; we don't understand what the market looks like here in Canada. I know that other provinces also, you know, were struggling with this, and I've heard some various numbers.

Did the minister go out and talk to those other provinces and say, okay, so what are your numbers that you're working with? And again, I understand that these are –we're talking, you know, just a few days of rollout, but I think it's, you know, at least given us a bit of a snapshot of what the demand or the market might look like. So, when he's talking–I'm just asking the minister, you know, when you're talking to your officials, when the minister's talking to his officials, are they saying, you know, this is pretty much rolling out how we expected?

Are they saying, well, actually the demand seems to be higher than we expected?

October 22, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3641 Is–are they saying, no, actually, it seems like the market might be smaller than we expected? * (15:40) Mr. Fielding : While I haven't had a ministers' meeting–you know, quite frankly, I haven't had a ministers' meeting sin ce I was elected, I have met with a minister for Newfoundland; I've had some brief discussions with the minister of – from Saskatchewan, the Minister of Finance in Saskatchewan. There hasn't been a ministers' meeting in respect of that. You do look at some of the other provinces.

There's been some dramatic changes in terms of their approach. Ontario came in and they changed their model quite extensively, and, in fact, I think, their delivery system; I believe I'm not mistaken, that they can only buy online for the first little while. So, you know, to be fair, we're into a new venture. There's a whole bunch of different variables in terms of this.

You know, when strength–I'm using the wrong words, but you know what I'm saying: the strength of the product and you're looking at a whole bunch of variables; you don't know how well, except that this will be–one interesting aspect of this will be the sociology of this. This is something new that's brought in as a new law, and we'll see how relevant it is. You might have a budget in your own household for maybe you have a glass of wine or a beer on a weekly basis–is that going to change? Is that going to impact beer sales, for instance? Some people think it will.

So, you know, I'm not trying to be coy; I'm just realistically telling you that we don't have a great indication right now, and whether you say six, eight, nine, 10 months, I think we'll have a better track–not tracking system–a better indication of what costs and revenues are there, and I can tell you, f rom a government point of view, that we truly believe that our costs for this are going to far 'outceed' the revenues for a number of years. Mr. Wiebe: Okay, and–I mean, is that the minister's estimation or is that based on the documents that have been pr epared from his department?

Has he gotten, you know, an estimate of expenditures and revenues from his department that he's basing that on? And, again, can we just shed some light on to the, you know, where we're getting those numbers from for the expected revenues that are coming in? Mr. Fielding : Well, as mentioned, we didn't book any revenues associated with it into the budget, so I can't tell you about 2018. What I can tell you and, I think, would be appropriate, in 2019, as we go through the budget pr ocess–we generally introduce the budgets in March, you know, April, February, March or April, one of those types of months.

We've asked departments to track and monitor, specifically some of the costs that are associated. But, quite frankly, you know, agai n, we don't know how many people are going to, you know, whether be going to emergency rooms, how much policing costs there is, how much bylaw enforcement costs there is. So, to be fair, we were–that is a part of our Budget 2019 Estimates process, and we anticipate, you know, getting a number, but I think with these things, you want to be somewhat conservative because if the costs are a lot higher than we anticipate, then, you know, clearly we'd be short for the budget.

So we want to make sure it's an appropriate number but, again, there's so many variables. I think what we'd like to do is have kind of six or eight months of actual sales and we'd have a better indication of what the costs will be. Mr.

Wiebe: Okay, so in my understanding that the – when the mi nister's working through this process of budget '19 and what's –what you're telling me in –I guess maybe this goes back to my question before about exactly how the taxation works, if we're talking about a social responsibility fee, the –it's kind of a money-in, money-out kind of proposition, so the minister's saying that, in fact, until we know what those revenues will be, we won't know what the expenditures will be? Mr. Fielding : I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? Mr. Wiebe: Yes, sorry.

Just to repeat the question: Is the minister waiting to see what the revenue will be before determining what some of the expenditures in terms of costs of legalization would be? Mr. Fielding : Well, we're working, again, through the department s or our budget process to find out what the actual costs will be. I mean, do we exactly know how many people would be going through emergency rooms or, you know, having to deal with the bylaw that the cities may face or municipalities may face or addictio n treatments? These are items that we don't know, but we've asked them to give an estimate of costs.

Again, from a budgeter –budgeting point of view, you want to make sure you're 'consertive' with your revenue projections and/or your costs because then it l eads to problems later on down the line. But one thing I would re-emphasize is

3642 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 22, 2018 the fact that we don't see this as a huge money-maker for the Province, at least for the first two or three years. In fact, we think that our costs will be higher than our revenues that are associated with it. Mr. Wiebe: Okay, well, so it sounds like the minister have a –has a pretty good sense of what those revenues might be, and I'm just trying to get at exactly how he gets a sense of that.

Obviously, there would be some kind of study, some kind of documentation that's been prepared for him, because, obviously, he wouldn't come into the House and just start saying that, well, of course, it's going to be more expensive than the revenue that we're bringing in. So I'm just trying to get at why, exactly, is the minister saying that. What is the documentation that he's working with to give that kind of assertion? Mr. Fielding: Well, I think, publicly, the only thing I've said is I've talked about the costs associated with cannabis. To be fair, we don't know the revenues.

There's a whole bunch of variables that go into the amount of cannabis that will be sold. It will really depend on societal costs, you know, whether people accept this into their households. There' s probably a whole generation of people that may not necessarily see it as a social –something they won't accept right off the bat, so we don't quite know what the revenues are. We've asked the departments and also municipalities to track both their costs, which we think is important, and the revenues. Mr.

Wiebe: Right, but the minister said that the revenue, whatever–and I can understand the minister can't, you know, possibly know by himself that, you know, what the revenue's going to be. You know, as a minister, you don't necessarily know that, but I'm sure your department has done that work. Maybe Liquor & Lotteries has done that work. Where are you basing this–the fact?

And so let's start with $100 million, because, despite what the minister is saying, and I did spend countless hours in Estimates with the minister of–the previous Minister of Finance, and, you know, I don't know what –what Hansard –the minister –the current minister was reading, but the minister was very clear that there was a $100 million –now, he said we don't know if it's all going to be spent; we don't know what the costs are going to be. There could, as the minister now is saying, could be more, you know, more costs in policing or could be more costs in health care.

But the minister wa s pretty clear that $100 million was set aside for the costs for implementing legalized cannabis in Manitoba, and now the minister is saying, well, we don't think we're going to make any money from the sale of cannabis in Manitoba. So that means that e ither the minister is saying there's going to be $100 million of revenue and $100 million of costs and that's it, or the minister has some information that he's not sharing with us about what those revenues would be. So I'm just trying to understand: Who is giving the minister the information on the revenues?

The costs have already –and don’t –so don't –I'd prefer if the minister didn't talk about the cost, because I've already gotten that from the previous minister – [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Order. Mr. Wiebe: What I'd like to get from this minister is where is he getting the info

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-3-77
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 3rd hansardpdf 77.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	feef1e5a04b686b859b771ce4b7d0c4716b0dbef

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