LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
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.
Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): [interjection] That's me, yes. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, this morning we'd like to call Bill 218. Is there leave? I'd like to ask for leave to proceed with Bill 218 this morning.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to consider Bill 218 this morning? [Agreed]
Mr. Jeff Wharton (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member from Interlake, that Bill 218, The Red Tape Reduction Day Act, be read for–now be read for a second time.
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Gimli, seconded by the honourable member for the Interlake, that Bill 218, The Red Tape Reduction Day Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Mr. Wharton: Our PC team is committed to reducing unnecessary barriers. [interjection] Hey, thank you. Thank you. That's the warmest, Madam Speaker, I've felt on this side for a long time.
Madam Speaker, our PC team is committed to reducing unnecessary barriers for business, local governments, non-profit organizations and all Manitobans. This will help ensure Manitoba is the most improved province for regulatory requirements and accountability by 2020. Red tape reduction will be an important tool to highlight the annual progress made in our efforts to reduce red tape in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, BC has already proclaimed the first Wednesday in March as their red tape day, and as members of this House will know, it's working very well.
The NDP's excessive regulation and unnecessary red tape created significant drag on our province's economic growth and was a burden for business, non-profits and governments alike. They also made accessing community services more challenging and inefficient.
Do you remember Aunt Sally, Madam Speaker? Aunt Sally used to go to the hall for fall suppers and take her jelly salad. Well, we can thank the NDP now. After 40 years of Aunt Sally taking her jelly salad to the fall supper, she's no longer allowed to under the red tape that this government–former government put in place.
We know the inefficiencies due to outdated and unnecessary red tape are causing everyday hardships and cost Manitobans at least $360 million per year. Eliminating these unnecessary barriers and burdens will establish transparent, effective and efficient regulatory environment, will support the sustainability and growth of Manitoba economy.
Madam Speaker, today we debate second reading of Bill 218, The Red Tape Reduction Day Act. Should it pass, in little less than six months we will mark Manitoba's first‑ever red tape day. Every adult in Manitoba has encountered problems with red tape at one point or another. Initial investigations have shown that there are over 88,000 pages of government documents that organizations and everyday Manitobans must comply with. Thankfully, Manitobans elected a government committed to reversing the trend, a government that will maintain important environmental and workers' protections while lessening the immense administrative burden that is placed on people and businesses in this province.
In order to do so, we are pleased to have created the red tape reduction task force, which is examining different sectors of the economy for redundant, ineffective regulations that can be eliminated. I am pleased to co‑chair the subcommittee dealing with land development and, along with a number of fine people from the industry, and I am there–will be a–there are a number of positive changes–pardon me–made as a result of their hard work. Subcommittees have also been struck to deal with agriculture, transportation and not‑for‑profits.
We have launched an online consultation asking Manitobans to share their ideas to reduce red tape and unnecessary regulatory requirements. Recommendations from the online consultation will be a valuable part of the red tape reduction task force work to remove red tape that restricts economic growth and limits the quality of services available to Manitobans. The task force report is due out very soon; however, even now we are taking action, Madam Speaker.
Members of this House are very aware that the PC government has implemented a stricter two‑for‑one rule which will be enforced until 2021 to ensure we get Manitoba back on track. Following that, we will switch to a one‑for-one regulation rule to ensure the number of regulatory requirements does not begin to creep back.
We define regulatory requirements as actions that must be taken to comply with provincial government legislation, regulation, policy or forms. Under our new legislation, time one is introduced, one must be eliminated somewhere else. April 1st, 2016, will be used as a baseline with a list of current requirements and will be used to measure progress. Bill 218 will help ensure governments implement rules that make common sense.
Madam Speaker, let's take a look at some of those actions that we've already undertaken to reduce the red tape burden in this province. In a groundbreaking project, the Standards Council of Canada analyzed Manitoba's regulations and found 291 references to standards. Of these, 177, 61 per cent, are outdated and 53 are inaccurately cited. Examples of outdated standards referenced in Manitoba's regulations include Manitoba's hearing aid regulation–cites standards set in 1971 rather than the current industry standards. That's a 45‑year‑old standard. Manitoba hasn't updated the reference to standards and regulations for factory‑built homes, mobile homes and RVs since the 1970s, again, approximately 45 years old.
Standards also provide efficient options to protect health, safety and security of the public and environment by ensuring regulations reflect the latest scientific advancements and standards as updated regularly.
Madam Speaker, our government is also changing–that will also invent implementing changes that will benefit the trucking and transportation industry. Stakeholders expressed interest in an increase in allowable weight for some semi‑trailers, and a review concluded that this change would, No. 1, create economic efficiencies, would not compromise safety and would have minimal effect on specific Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, RTAC-rated routes in the province.
* (10:10)
So, Madam Speaker, we acted. All other Canadian provinces allowed 24,000 kgs maximum on highways deemed capable of accommodating the higher weight, and we took action to align our regulations with all other jurisdictions across Canada. Allowing carriers to haul larger, heavier loads increases payload and helps the industry to operate more efficiently and effectively. This helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions and grow our economy.
We are also moving forward with implementing the New West Partnership Agreement, Madam Speaker. This agreement will reduce trade barriers, harmonize regulations and diversify markets while supporting job creation and economic growth.
So, Madam Speaker, No. 1, outdated technical standards fixed; trucking regulations harmonized with the rest of our country; building codes for barns simplified; a free-trade agreement signed; and this government is just getting started. We're very pleased the way these actions have been received by stakeholders across the province.
A quote, Madam Speaker: We're delighted to see Manitoba government make a landmark announcement and become the first province to commit to legislate a one-for-one law. There's nothing better than seeing a province go from a laggard to a leader on reducing red tape.
Madam Speaker, who said that? CFIB Executive Vice-President and Chief Strategic Officer Laura Jones.
The NDP were simply adding paperwork and bureaucracy in a system that's already overloaded with paperwork and bureaucracy.
Madam Speaker, who said that? Well, for the members on the opposite side of the House I'll share that with you: Manitoba pork producers' Mark Tellier [phonetic], sustainable development manager.
And, Madam Speaker, I'm very proud to be wearing my pork tie today.
This change will improve the competitiveness of Manitoba's trucking industry. As it relates to interprovincial travel, it's vitally important to our members to bring regulations like these in line with our jurisdictions.
Madam Speaker, who said that? The Manitoba Trucking Association, Terry Shaw, executive director.
The Standards Council of Canada supports the government of Manitoba's efforts to identify and update standards referenced in its regulations. Referencing up-to-date standards in regulations fosters innovation and increases competitiveness of industry while strengthening consumer products after an environmental protection.
Madam Speaker, John Walter, CEO of the Standards Council of Canada.
Clearly, businesses, not-for profits and Manitobans are excited about the changes we have made: changes which will allow them to compete more effectively–efficiency–and with companies in other jurisdictions.
Enacting red tape reduction day will assist our efforts to ease financial burden on businesses, non-profits and governments, foster job creation, energize our economy and finally, Manitoba–unleash Manitoba's true economic potential.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: For clarity for Hansard, I would like to ask the honourable member for Gimli if he could please repeat the motion that he just put forward.
Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Moved by myself, the member from Gimli–
I move, seconded by the member from the Interlake, that Bill 218, The Red Tape Reduction Day Act, now be read for a second time and referred to the committee of this House.
Madam Speaker: Thank you.
Madam Speaker: A question period of up to 10 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the sponsoring member by any member in the following sequence: the first question to be asked by a member from another party; this is to be followed by a rotation between the parties; each independent member may ask one question; and no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): Madam Speaker, I was worried you were going to ask the member to repeat his speech, so I'm very happy that it was only that.
Can the member tell the House, does he really believe that Manitoba families care more about red tape reduction than cuts to QuickCare clinics or CancerCare?
Mr. Jeff Wharton (Gimli): I'd like to thank the member for the question.
Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, we know that red tape has piled up over the last 17 years by the former government in this province, and our goal is to work with Manitobans to ensure that we can–Manitoba families and businesses can move forward, not-for-profits can move forward in a sustainable manner and also continue to grow our economy, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Derek Johnson (Interlake): We know that under the NDP there's been year after year–well, after 17 years of red tape increase, can the member from Gimli inform–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Johnson: Can the member from Gimli inform this Chamber why addressing the issues of red tape is so important for Manitobans and who it affects?
Mr. Wharton: I'd like to thank the member from Interlake for that question.
Madam Speaker, every Manitoba is affected by the needs of red tape, and it affects their lives every day. The NDP's excessive regulations and unnecessary red tape have created a massive drag in our province on economic growth and put a significant burden on finances and businesses, not‑for-profits, governments alike. They also made accessing communities–accessing community services more challenging and efficient.
Madam Speaker, I see that day after day, especially in rural Manitoba where RMs and communities across Manitoba have been struggling to get communication and get through the red tape every day.
Thank you.
Mr. Allum: Can the member tell us what safety regulations does he believe red tape?
Mr. Wharton: Well if I understood the member's question, I think he said what safety regulations red tape. If that's the question that was asked, then I think the answer is quite simple, Madam Speaker. Bottom line is that safety is 'paramont' not only in business but in day-to-day lives of Manitobans. And eliminating duplication in measures, whether it be in safety or whether it be in industry or business, is the idea of reducing Red Tape Reduction Day Act, Bill 218, in order to ensure that we have our eyes on the fact that red tape, if it continues to grow, it'll definitely put a damper on our economy.
Mr. James Teitsma (Radisson): I want to thank the member for Gimli for bringing forward this bill this morning. It's an important bill and one that I think deserves our attention.
Certainly, I know that I have personally experienced, and I believe other members of this House and, in fact, all Manitobans at some point during their lives, will experience red tape, that they are going to feel its effects, they're going to have to do–fill out forms that aren't particularly necessary or wait for a result that doesn't–that shouldn't take as long as it does.
I was wondering, you know, all these costs add up across all Manitoba. So I would like the member for Gimli to perhaps inform the House: Is there any estimate of the cost of excessive red tape and the effect that it has on our Manitoba economy?
Mr. Wharton: I'd like to thank the member for the question as well.
As mentioned in my preamble, red tape, of course, is causing serious issues throughout Manitoba. Actually, in the terms of costs, the estimates are, for costing Manitoba, is approximately $360 million annually in red tape. And, quite frankly, a transparent, effective and efficient regulatory environment will, of course, Madam Speaker, support the sustainable growth of Manitoba's economy.
It just does not make sense to drive a permit from Arborg to Brandon for a signature, Madam Speaker. That's an example of red tape. Thank you.
Mr. Allum: I didn't–in my last question I didn't quite understand the member's answer. So could he please itemize for the House the health or safety regulations he considers to be red tape? It's that simple.
Mr. Wharton: Again, I'd like to thank the member for the question.
You know, bottom line is that, you know, our PC team recognizes the fact that regulations and red tape have been overburdened in this–in Manitoba for many years.
* (10:20)
I know from my industry–in the trucking industry where safety is paramount, Madam Speaker, when you're involved in not only a physical, a heavy lifting activity and also driving some very serious equipment and you're putting lives at risk on the highway every single day, so we take that very seriously.
We're ensuring that any regulations and red tape that reflected on safety will definitely not move off that system, Madam Speaker. We will definitely eliminate duplication of those laws.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Johnson: Can the member from Gimli share with us what various stakeholders have been publicly saying about our red tape reduction efforts such as being the first in Canada to legislate the one-for-one rule?
Mr. Wharton: I'd like to thank the member from Interlake for that question.
Quite frankly, I've heard some heckling on this side about the CFIB and I don't know what the members opposite have issues with CFIB. It's a well‑renowned group of folks and we certainly should respect their opinion.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Wharton: Madam Speaker, this change will improve the competitive of Manitoba's trucking industry. I can relate to the trucking industry quite well. I spent 33 years in it. As it relates to interprovincial travel, it's vitally important to our members to bring regulations like these in line with other jurisdictions. We applaud Manitoba's government for this announcement and look forward to continuing to work them, strengthening our role in the provincial economy.
Thank you, Mr. Terry Shaw, the executive director of the MTA.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, my question for the MLA from Gimli is twofold. One is why the choice of the third Tuesday in September? Is this because it's just a few weeks before an election date and the government wants to highlight it? And, second, will there be a report on–released on this date and will that report include the adverse affects of reducing regulations like increasing pollution or causing Walkerton events and things like that? Will that be included in any report?
Mr. Wharton: I'd like to thank the member for the question–two questions, actually.
Red Tape Reduction Day Act, third Tuesday in September, basically that coincides with–it gives us two measurables: one with–again, members opposite don't agree with the CFIB's report in the spring–and, of course, one in September which would be the third Tuesday in September being recognized to ensure that governments and, Madam Speaker, future governments, are able to track red tape to ensure that we're not continuing to put a burden on Manitobans.
And the answer to question No. 2 was based on–[interjection]–thank you–getting–yes, yes, yes.
The member had an issue with water quality. Certainly, Madam Speaker, water quality will not be affected by red tape reduction. It'll be eliminating those needs.
Mr. Allum: Does the member believe that winter spreading of hog manure could seep into our waterways and contaminate our lakes and streams?
Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank the member for the question as well.
I think the member is referring to the spreading of manure in the–on the farmer's field and, quite frankly, Madam Speaker, all we're simply doing is, again, eliminating duplication and ensuring that our producers, our farmers, our–and agriculture industry have the same playing–level playing field as other members throughout this great country of ours.
We will ensure that Lake Winnipeg–I live on the shores of Lake Winnipeg, Madam Speaker. I also live on many waterways leading into Lake Winnipeg, and I can tell you we will not be taking any–any–actions to continue to pollute Lake Winnipeg. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: The time for questions has expired.
Madam Speaker: Debate is open.
Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): I, of course, want to thank the member for Gimli (Mr. Wharton) for bringing this private member's resolution to the House today. I know it would be a very proud moment for him as he goes knocking on the doors of Gimli and say, well, what did you accomplish at work today, and he'd say, well, I named a day in second Tuesday of September as red tape reduction day–[interjection]–third day of–Tuesday in September. I'm corrected by the member for Gimli, who's spot on, dead on, when it comes to these kinds of issues.
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
And I, you know, I can hardly understand–Mr. Deputy Speaker, welcome to the Chair–can hardly understand, with all the pressing need in our communities, with all of the hardship that people face every single day, of the great challenges that are faced by Manitobans, I can hardly understand how a member would bring this kind of resolution to the House except to say that it's hard to understand how it's possible that, with all of the things that we need to be talking about in this House, all of the things that need to be addressed, that a member brings this kind of pancake day 'resolation' to the House.
I really–I can't express the combination of disappointment and, frankly, a little bit of depression, that comes with this kind of material being placed in front of the people of Manitoba and expect anyone–anyone–to take it seriously, except to say this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this would be laughable, it would be laughable, if it wasn't so dangerous. And this is the thing that we on this side of the House are very concerned about. It would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous. To bring a red tape reduction act resolution before this House–[interjection]–day, month, year, it doesn't matter; it's the same degree of ideology mixed with simplicity that represents a very dangerous formula for Manitobans.
I have some experience in this regard, I think you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I probably talked about it in the past that I was a proud public servant for the City of Winnipeg for many, many years. I worked in the CAO's office for about a decade or so, and after that paragon of virtue, Mayor–former Mayor Katz, was elected to be the mayor of Winnipeg, he–first thing he did was to establish, just like the Conservative government here, a red tape reduction task force.
Some Honourable Members: Good for him.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Allum: Well, and so we've seen–I want to, for the record, indicate that members opposite applauded that, in a chapter in our history as a city, that is not one we are entirely proud of.
The degree to which the deregulation that the member talked about promotes activities that are not in the public interest is eminently transparent. In almost every single event where members talk ideologically–ideologically–about red tape and regulation and yet fail to understand that those regulations have been the very thing that protect the health and safety of our families, of our neighbourhoods, of our communities, and so we fail to understand why the member from Gimli, a new member at that, would be willing to parade himself in risking the health and safety of Manitobans for ideological reasons only. He talks about this ridiculous one-to-one regulation thing they have going, only bested by the new President of the United States. He's doing a two for one and I'm sure the more right wing you get you'll get three for one and four for one until the point in which there are no regulations to protect the health and safety of Manitobans.
* (10:30)
And, now, we've already seen what they have in mind–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Allum: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We already seen what they have in mind. When it comes to these–this kind of deregulated environment that can only–only–continue to put Manitoba families, Manitoba neighbourhoods and Manitoba communities at risk.
Pallister government has an obligation, in our view, that they need to invest in public quality health care, and yet what we seen already is the movement toward a privatized, deregulated environment where only those who can afford to pay, those with the size of their wallet will get the kind of care that they want and others will suffer as well.
It's a government that's cutting front‑line services they promised to maintain, a direct contradiction to what they campaigned on. They've frozen wages for front‑line workers that they promised to protect, and worse–worst of all, maybe–although that would be a balance, a scale that would take some time to figure out–cutting corners from environmental protection and things as basic to the human condition as safe drinking water. I mean, what kind of craziness, what kind of insanity brings those kinds of deregulations to the table and act like you're doing it in the public interest?
So I was telling you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in my time with the city and we did this red tape reduction task force, 32 recommendations were made. Fourteen, 10, 12 years later, nobody can remember what that accomplished. Nobody can remember if it improved or otherwise undermined the well-being of the city of Winnipeg, and that's because these kind of ideological undertakings actually result in either apathy or they result in the very things, as I said earlier, that put our communities and our families–more importantly, perhaps–at risk.
The list of cuts that have come already from this government in less than a year is awe inspiring if it wasn't so shocking and concerning. We have–and I'm sure my friends on my side of the House will want to enumerate these cuts in more detail than I am doing here–but it's actually a legal‑size full page already and we haven't even got their first real budget, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
So, on this side of the House, we want to get on talking about the ways in which we can enhance the public interest in Manitoba, we can provide security for Manitoba families and ensure that every citizen in our province is able to live happy and productive lives because we're, if nothing else, motivated by our interest in being an inclusive and equitable and fair society in which everyone has a place and everyone belongs. And when you come across this kind of resolution put forward by the member for Gimli (Mr. Wharton), who, I'm sure, stood on for election in the–for the very best interest and then gets put up by the political folks in the Premier's (Mr. Pallister) office to do their kind of bidding is remarkably disappointing. I'm hopeful for him as he joins us, gets ever closer to our side of the House and–because he can't get any further away from the Premier, and I don't blame him for that. I'm hopeful that he's able to actually bring something tangible, something meaningful, something important to the people of Manitoba and to this legislation.
Mr. James Teitsma (Radisson): You know, I might have had some words prepared to say, but after that diatribe by the member for Fort Garry-Riverview (Mr. Allum), I think I need to change my tack. I need to change my tack.
Well, at the beginning, I don't know if anybody else could hear the heckling, but certainly they claimed that they weren't opposed to business, but every single thing that they said, every single act that they took, the way that they approach even the members of, you know, the member Jonathan Alward from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It was disrespectful, disrespect given by the member for Fort Garry-Riverview to businesses. And that's what is typical of the NDP, unfortunately.
Now, the member for Fort Garry-Riverview talked about what's important to Manitobans, security and a fair and equitable society, and I can agree with those things. I want Manitobans to feel secure. I want Manitobans to be treated fairly and equitably.
So is it fair, is it fair, I would ask, to have a government that continues to bloat and add regulation upon regulation? Is that fair to Manitobans? Is that fair to Manitoba businesses? Is that fair to Manitoba non-profits? Is that fair to Manitoba charities? No, it is not. And everybody knows it.
An Honourable Member: Manitobans knew it on the 19th.
Mr. Teitsma: Well, Manitobans–exactly–they showed what they thought about the approach of the previous government, and that's why we've–that's why we're here a year later discussing reductions to red tape.
Now, the member for Fort Garry-Riverview also said that he might be suffering a little bit of depression, I think was the words that he used, and then he said–
An Honourable Member: He knew you were going to be speaking next.
Mr. Teitsma: –that the bill was laughable, was laughable–and I don't think he knew I was going to be speaking, but in any case, certainly, I can understand why he's in that state of affairs. Being a member opposite in that party over there does tend to create some tensions, certainly, and some division.
Now, I just want to reflect for a minute about what the member brought forward in terms of experience. And that's, I think, where, in fact, it's really, really important to understand that the majority of Manitobans don't work in government the way that he has, you know, working in City Hall or as an MLA. He's only seen the issue from one side. It's people who have experienced this–the red tape, who have had to endure going through, step after step, and delay after delay, and wait after wait, and pointless form after pointless form, for, you know, what, to cross some–cross off some x's and dot–cross some t's and dot some i's, to please a bureaucrat? No, regulations must have a purpose. And there's good regulations, absolutely. There's necessary regulations. The member talked about safety–absolutely, safety is a key way in which government can be involved in the lives of Manitobans in a positive way.
But, if the members who are making the rules haven't experienced what that is like or, at the very least, aren't listening–aren't listening to the people who are in business, the people who are running non-profits, the people who are running charities–I've talked to these people. I've been these people. I've run a charity. I've been involved with non-profits. I've been a business–in business. And now I'm in government. And I can tell you that when you experience it from that side, it's a real cost.
You know, one of the members opposite were–was heckling about an increase in GDP–absolutely, there's an increase in GDP to be had by freeing up the time that our small businesses, our non-profits and our charities are spending filling out paperwork that maybe didn't need quite to be filled out, or, you know, doing something 12 times a year, when once a year would be enough, and all these other kinds of things that apparently the members opposite don't seem to care about. They don't seem to care about the experiences of Manitobans. They don't seem to care about ordinary, everyday Manitobans, business people, people who are involved in charities, people who are involved in non-profits.
I even think of daycares–I mean, I was speaking with one of the members from my own side about the amount of regulation associated with daycare. It is unfathomable that this would pile up in this way. And to expect people to be able to operate successfully a private daycare in this environment–unheard of.
In any case, I do want to give other members an opportunity to speak. And I just want to voice, once again, my support for our government's efforts to reduce red tape, for the member from Gimli's efforts to bring attention and to recognize that it's government's duty–it is government's duty–to serve the best interests of the citizens of their province, and to do so with the attitude that the members opposite have is unhelpful.
Thank you.
* (10:40)
Mr. Wab Kinew (Fort Rouge): Well, I appreciate that rousing ovation from my colleagues as I stand up to speak and put a few words on the record here.
I wanted to begin by pointing out something for my colleague from Gimli, which is the irony in creating a piece of legislation to celebrate the act of reducing the legislative and regulatory burden in our province. So, again, they are trumpeting the ideological objective of trying to reduce the amount of legislation and regulation in our province by bringing forward a piece of legislation in our province.
So who knows what sort of amazing bills we may be treated? Perhaps it will be the member from Radisson, or maybe the member from Interlake who will bring forward in short order the day to recognize the importance of not recognizing days in the form of an act–act–or some other piece of recognition of, you know, the ironic legislative agenda being pursued by our colleagues on the government side here.
I would just like to define the term irony for my colleague from Gimli. It is–irony is the state of affairs that seems deliberately contrary to what one would expect, and is therefore amusing as a result. Again, it's a state of affairs that seems to be deliberately contrary to what one would expect.
So, again, if a party was ideologically committed to reducing the regulatory and legislative burden, you would expect that they would not want to add legislation, not want to add regulation, and yet we've seen just the opposite and, as a result, some may be amused by that. I, myself, I'm not really amused because I know the real-world consequences that the deregulation being pursued by the government here will have on the lives of Manitobans.
Now, I did want to just correct the record on some of the comments made previously by one of my colleagues here, and just state that, you know, the NDP is, you know, a friend of business; is in favour of creating a good environment for business.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.
Mr. Kinew: As proof, I would like to draw the members of the Legislative Assembly's–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Kinew: Thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker.
This–as proof, I would like to, you know, share a few words going back to 2010 when the small-business tax rate in Manitoba was reduced to zero. It was the first province in Manitoba to reduce the small business tax rate to zero, and who was it who did that? It was an NDP government who reduced the small business tax rate to zero.
Now, imagine what the response would be from some people when the small business tax rate was reduced to zero. Let me read a few quotes into the record: quote, this is terrific news, end quote; quote, we commend the Manitoba government–meaning an NDP government–on this move, end quote; quote, this is certainly something to celebrate, unquote.
An Honourable Member: An NDP member said that.
Mr. Kinew: Who said that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Kinew: The Manitoba director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Amazing–amazing.
So I just would like to show that it's not just a statement of belief that we are friends of business, especially small business which creates jobs for hard-working Manitobans, but policies enacted by the NDP have been celebrated by the CFIB, among others, as it literally said in the press release that they are celebrating the reduction of the small-business tax rate to zero.
So, returning to the question at hand about deregulation, I would point out to the members on the government side that deregulation pursued as an ideological objective in and of itself is not necessarily a worthwhile goal.
The folks who advocated for deregulation of the American financial system through the 1990s and early 2000s are the root causes of the 2008 global financial crisis. It was a deregulatory ideological agenda pursued in the United States of America which caused the collapse–nearly total collapse of the commercial paper market, of the sub-prime mortgage industry, of some of the large insurance agencies in the states which had a cascading ripple effect across the global economy, and which caused real pain for Manitobans and Manitoba families.
And so we can't just merely accept that deregulation is a laudable goal in and of itself when we have seen the very real impacts that deregulation can have–negative impacts that that can have on people in our province. And that's why it's especially concerning when you see this government setting out an arbitrary one-for-one target in reducing regulations in our province because there is no strategy. There is no vision behind that. There is no reason to set a one-for-one goal and it arbitrarily limits the ability of government to govern.
We live in an era in which there are numerous technological advances on the way. There is increasing artificial intelligence. You have autonomous self-driving vehicles both in the–you know, passenger industry but also in the transportation industry. You have gene-editing technology like CRISPR nine being able to be commercialized in short order, and yet this government believes that they should tie their hands and not be able to weigh in with any sort of regulation as new technologies develop.
That's not a vision. That's not a plan. That's arbitrary. It's the same sort of thing that we see when the Premier (Mr. Pallister) sets out arbitrary cuts of 15 per cent across every department regardless of what sort of services those departments are providing to Manitobans. Again, no vision, no plan, it's purely arbitrary ideology.
Now, again, when we talk about irony it's not just the bill being brought forward to, you know, for debate here today. We've also seen that, though they espouse an agenda of deregulation, that this government is actually in favour of increasing regulation. It just seems to, you know, depend which way the wind is blowing that day.
And, you know, typically–when we were talking about early childhood education, you know, I remember the Minister of Education, you know, talking on and on about the red tape and slashing through the red tape, and, you know, I asked if I could defend that. And I said, you know, I was proud to defend regulations which will keep children safe. And I remember the look of shock on his face as though it doesn't even occur to members on the government side that regulations can serve positive societal goals like keeping people safe, like keeping people alive, like keeping people working, right? So there was an example where we saw, you know, members on the government side, you know, denouncing regulation.
Then we brought forward a bill that would help kids in care stay in the schools in which they are currently studying to improve their educational outcomes, and the minister got all his colleagues to vote it down. Why? Because they could handle it in regulation they said.
So, again, the wind had shifted from the west to the east, and then on that day regulation was the friend of this government. And so, again, it just reinforces the arbitrary nature of this agenda that is being pursued.
Now, when we look ahead to what is likely to come with this agenda of deregulation, it does cause a lot of concern, because we're already seeing that there, potentially, could be an impact drinking water with the changes being made here. Potentially, there could be changes with respect to safety, safety for kids, and these are things that we know are important to Manitobans, and that's why we will as, you know, the opposition, be fighting for jobs. We will be fighting for safety and we will be standing up for the best interests of Manitobans.
* (10:50)
But, with those words on the record, I would again just like to say that it certainly does seem a deep irony that we're debating a piece of legislation celebrating less–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): First of all, I want to say to the member for Gimli (Mr. Wharton) that the objective of reducing red tape and making sure that government regulations are put in clear language that is readable and understandable is a good objective and one that we support.
I think the–I have some concerns about the process under one of the bills later on which we're likely to be talking about this afternoon, and I'll talk about that then.
I think we need to make sure we balance our attention to making our regulations as, you know, as easy but as clear as they possibly can be for, whether it's ordinary citizens, or whether it is business, you know, whether we're dealing with immigrants coming from outside of Canada who come into Manitoba who have to go through a lot of paperwork, there is the opportunity to make sure that this paperwork is done well and efficiently rather than being overly cumbersome, but the same is true when we're dealing with business operations that we want to make sure we get the essential information, but we don't need to make sure that we're regulating to define.
There, I give you an example for the MLA for Fort Rouge, and there used to be the approach to regulating the standards for life preservers, that they had incredible amount of detail about the exact material you had to use, exactly how they were put together, and a whole list of details. And then it was realized that people were using a variety of materials and that the essential thing was that the life preserver was going to keep you afloat, it was going to keep your head up, and was going to last, you know, for the time it might be in fresh or salt water depending on the conditions, and that it was possible to simplify the approach to doing the regulation.
And that's the sort of change that we can benefit from because it gives producers of life preservers a more flexible approach to making effective life preservers but allows us to test for the functionality which is really critical for the safety mechanisms which are involved. It was under regulation as part of standards, okay, but that has changed the way we do that currently.
There are certain things that we have to be very careful of–
Point of Order
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader.
Hon. Andrew Micklefield (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just seeking some clarity, we just witnessed this morning the crossing of the floor for the member from Fort Rouge, I believe. You know, it is commonly understood that when a member crosses the floor that is an indication of their leaving their current party to join the party opposite. And we would draw no other conclusion but that this member is respecting the rules of the House, long-standing rules, and showing his disgust for the party he has been affiliated with until this day.
But we wouldn't want to jump to conclusions. We would just seek clarity on what seems like an obvious statement from that member, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Garry-Riverview (Mr. Allum), on the same point of order.
Mr. Allum: Of course, that was the mistake that I made. I should know the rules better. I apologize to the House for breaking such an important regulation and tradition and, of course, would want–if I could take those steps back and walk them back I would. But, of course, you have my most sincerest apology for doing that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I just want to acknowledge the apology for the member from Fort Garry-Riverview for going across the tradition not to go in between the Speaker and the mace, and so we accept the apology and will continue with the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard).
The honourable Government House Leader, on the point of order.
Mr. Micklefield: Yes, we certainly accept the apology as well. It would just be the most natural thing in our minds for that member to do such a thing. But the apology is accepted. Thank you for the clarity.
* * *
Mr. Gerrard: As we look at changes to regulations there are certain things that we have to be very, very careful of, and one is that we don't want to have adverse effects of eliminating regulations, adverse effects like pollution of the waterways, adverse effects like concerns over drinking water and making sure that the drinking water is in good condition.
I think, as I will talk later on, that there is a better way to go about reducing red tape than this government is going about it. But I would make one point, and that is that under the bill which we will be debating probably later today, Bill 22, the–it will be required for the next little while that for every regulation or bill that comes forward there would be two bills taken away. So I am waiting–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. Gerrard: –to see which two bills the member from Gimli will want to eliminate in order to have his bill here. So I look forward to that and hope that we will hear that in due course, so thank you.
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): With the, what is it, two-plus minutes that I have to pontificate on this deep thought of an idea that's been brought forward this morning, let me just begin by saying this is one of the stupidest ideas that I've seen in my political career brought forward: a legislative requirement to celebrate red tape elimination day. I don't know who it was in the Tory brain trust who dropped the one brain cell they have left on the floor–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
I just want to remind the member from Wolseley that that's unparliamentary language that he's giving and there should be better respect for the fellow members in this House.
Mr. Altemeyer: Two brain cells?
Of all of the issues that our province is facing, that the planet is facing, that the world is facing, the priority for this government is to name the poor third Tuesday in September each year as red tape reduction day. What, the sixth Tuesday in September was already taken in their calendar? It's just ridiculous.
If you want to make sure, as a government member, that the water that all of you are drinking right now is safe, guess what? That requires a regulation. You want to make sure the coffee that you're drinking is safe for you to drink? Well, that requires a regulation. You want to make sure that the drapes in the room which just got replaced are actually going to resist fire should a fire ever break out–well, guess what, that's a regulation.
The idea that all regulations are bad, that we need a red‑tape agenda, that we need a red tape reduction day–absolutely incredible. And when you look at what this government is actually doing under the guise of a red tape reduction act, they're weakening water regulation. They're weakening safety–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Wolseley has a remaining of eight minutes.
* (11:00)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hour being 11 a.m., the private member's resolution. The resolution before us this morning is the resolution on Recognizing the Historic Investment in Manitoba's Agricultural Processing Capabilities brought forward by the honourable member from Emerson.
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Michaleski),
WHEREAS the Provincial Government has promised to rebuild Manitoba's economy after a decade of economic decay and decline; and
WHEREAS the new pea processing plant planned for Portage la Prairie is an historic investment for Manitoba's food-processing sector; and
WHEREAS Canada is the largest producer of peas in the world and demand for the sustainable, high in protein crop is growing; and
WHEREAS this facility is expected to create around 150 new jobs for Manitobans, with a payroll of approximately $9 million; and
WHEREAS this unprecedented investment will work towards establishing stronger markets for farmers and will benefit Manitoba's diverse economy; and
WHEREAS this facility represents an opportunity for Manitoba to continue to be a leader in the food-processing and agricultural sectors.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba acknowledges incredible investment and urge the provincial government to continue to seek opportunities to strengthen, grow, and diversify Manitoba's economy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Emerson, seconded by the honourable member for Dauphin, Recognizing the Historic Investment in Manitoba's Agricultural Processing Capabilities.
Mr. Graydon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's a great pleasure to stand up–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just one second. For clarification, I just want to repeat this, that moved by the member from Emerson and seconded by the member of Dauphin,
THEREFORE TO BE RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba acknowledges the incredible investment and urge the provincial government to continue to seek opportunities to strengthen, grow, and diversify Manitoba's economy.
Mr. Graydon: Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to stand up today and recognize this great announcement in the province of Manitoba and the great work–the great work that the Minister of Growth, Enterprise and Trade (Mr. Cullen) has done in attracting this type of a business, and also the people on our side of the House that have created the atmosphere for industry to develop here, something that did not happen in 17 years of rhetoric that we heard today.
The Portage pea processing plant represents an unparalleled investment in Manitoba's food processing and agricultural industry, one of the largest private sector investments in the history of Manitoba. The new facility will create jobs and establish stronger markets for Canadian farmers while benefiting our provincial economy for decades to come.
Our PC government is working diligently to rebuild our economy and, by doing so, demonstrates to Canada and to the world that Manitoba is open for business, and we're ready to compete for investments in agricultural production and innovation.
Unlike the former Selinger government that put so much red tape in the way that companies refused to come to this province, they refused to invest here. In fact, they picked up their headquarters and left this province because of an undue pressure that was put on them through taxation and red tape. It's a shame that they didn't support the bill that was just on the floor.
Company officials have said much of what we already know about Manitoba–an exceptional agricultural industry, a plentiful supply of electricity, a highly skilled and hard-working labour force, and a great business environment, something that was never said under the NDP. And there was a good reason why it wasn't said.
After the NDP's decades of decay, decline, this marks a major accomplishment and represents a historic investment in our province's food processing industry, and it deserves to be celebrated and it's of true importance, for Manitoba deserves to be recognized as well.
The background: In 1933 the Roquette Frères is a family-owned company which operates on three continents in a hundred countries and employs approximately 8,000 people worldwide. The company produces ingredients for both food and pharmaceutical industries and processes peas, corn, wheat and potatoes, and major products include starch and plant proteins.
It's unfortunate that the members opposite don't listen to what's happening in the province outside of the cement circle that they live in. They should understand that outside of that cement circle, it's where the money is generated to help operate this province and the budget.
This new facility will create 150 permanent jobs in Manitoba with an annual payroll of $9 million. That's huge, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That's something that this province hasn't seen happening in 17 years, this type of development.
The two-year design and construction phase will employ 300 people, to which this company has committed efforts to hiring locally to work, unlike what the NDP did. When they were in power for 17 years what did they do? They spent public money creating things that weren't necessary, public money to raise the taxes. This here is private enterprise at work.
Other examples of pea protein use was to make high energy and snack bars and high‑protein pancake mixes–and that would be good for the member from Wolseley, because he's a pancake fan–protein shakes, gluten-free food and soup sauces.
Canada is the largest producer of peas in the world, producing 30 per cent of–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Graydon: –the global pea supply. In 2016, 4.2 million acres of peas were harvested throughout Canada. In Manitoba, 50,000 to 165,000 acres of peas were harvested over the last decade. That's huge, and what we're looking at is processing in Manitoba of the North American market, something that would never have happened under the 17 years of decay and decline.
So, when we take a look at some of the stakeholders' quotes, the Manitoba pulse and soybean growers association: It's great news for growers across the province. Jason Voth, chairman of Manitoba Pulse & Soybean Growers, Winnipeg Free Press, January 18, 2017.
I expect that there will be more pea acres in the province as a result of this because guys can sell them locally. Again, Jason Voth, the chairman of Manitoba Pulse & Soybean Growers.
These people are looking at producing in Manitoba but also processing in Manitoba. All Manitobans want to process what they grow here so that they can generate more money for the economy of Manitoba, more employment and move forward to pay off the incredible debt that the NDP left the province. They left it in such terrible shape they were happy to jump ship. In fact, people in their own party said, we don't agree with them now, we're going to start our own party.
This is huge for the value-added–for food processing industry. It will change the industry, says Francois Labelle, executive director of the Manitoba pulse–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Graydon: – and soybean growers association–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Graydon: –and that was in The Western Producer–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Graydon: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it's unfortunate that they've turned their hearing aids off.
The Western Producer, on January 26, 2017.
The Saskatchewan pulse growers association: Expanding processing capacity for western Canada industry is good for everybody, is our view–Corey Loessin, chair of Saskatchewan Pulse Growers. Again, we have support from our neighbouring province.
And, to another point, Mr. Chair–or Mr. Deputy Chair, is the New West Partnership. This facilitates a lot of the interprovincial trade that the Selinger government refused to sign that partnership. They were afraid of what the growth would be in Manitoba, I suppose. What else would they–why would they not sign it, then?
So, Mr. Deputy Chair, we evaluated about–this is the quote from Roquette–we evaluated about 40 different sites across Canada and the US also, and at the end of the day we decided that Manitoba was the right place for us to be. After the election, the political waves changed and it's a new administration. We found ourselves in front of a progressive new administration which did everything to accompany us in an extraordinary way to locate in Manitoba. And that, with the access of primary materials, a logistical hub with relatively easy access to all of North America, that made the decision, said Jean-Marc Gilson, CEO of Roquette, January 18, 2017.
* (11:10)
But, Mr. Deputy Chair, in conversations with stakeholders, we know the inefficiencies due to outdated, unnecessary red tape have caused–cause every day hardships and cost Manitobans at least $360 million a year, that's huge. Can you imagine 17 times 360; yes, it gets close to what our deficit is right now.
In fact the–we're supporting the long-term sustainability growth of agriculture sector by removing unnecessary regulatory requirements. And yet we saw the opposition today making fun of making business grow in Manitoba. Why would they be afraid of business growing here? Why would they be afraid of employing Manitobans in Manitoba? They would love to come home from Alberta, they would love to come home from Saskatchewan, Ontario, and wherever else they had to go to find jobs. They would love to come back here as entrepreneurs where there is an environment for them to grow, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The standards that help Manitoba businesses compete across Canada and around the world by reducing red tape and speeding up time to the market, which boosts opportunities for growth and innovation, that's what the bill earlier was for. That's what would have happened had it been supported by the individuals opposite that are opposed to anything progressive.
It's unfortunate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they think that way, but let them do that. We will grow Manitoba and make it proud again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 10 minutes will be held. The questions may be addressed in the following sequence, the first question may be asked by members of another party, any subsequent questions must be fall under rotation between parties, each independent may ask one question, and no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): What commitments is this government making to ensure that agricultural companies uphold environmental standards?
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's a good question. We will protect the environment but we will not do it in a partisan way as the NDP did for the last number of years when they threw 70 or 80 families under the bus. They threw–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Graydon: They threw them under the bus with some redundant legislation in the hog industry. But not only did they throw them families under the bus, they lost many, many union jobs in Brandon and in Neepawa.
Mr. Brad Michaleski (Dauphin): Thank the member from Emerson for that really positive resolution he's bringing forward, the value adding in Manitoba agriculture across the province is really, really important.
So can the member please explain to the Chamber why an investment such as the one proposed for the new pea processing plant in Portage la Prairie is such an important moment for our province?
Mr. Graydon: Well, I'd like to thank the member for Dauphin for the question, a very, very good question. And the Portage pea processing plant represents an unparallel investment in Manitoba's food processing and agricultural industry, one of the largest private sector investments in the history of Manitoba. At the same time, they are leading–they are leading–there will be more people come. This new facility will create jobs and establish stronger markets for Canadian farmers while benefiting our provincial economy for decades.
Mr. Lindsey: Does this government recognize the importance of agricultural regulatory measures such as water testing, to make sure that all Manitobans are kept safe?
Mr. Graydon: The quality of water that goes into any processing is tested. It is for all Manitobans. And it's unfortunate that the member opposite isn't aware of that. It's difficult sometimes to try and explain something to somebody that doesn't want to listen.
Thank you very much.
Hon. Eileen Clarke (Minister of Indigenous and Municipal Relations): I also want to commend the member from Emerson for bringing this forward.
Having a background in rural Manitoba all my life, even though I also know and understand life in a larger urban setting very well and in the business world, I understand what the value of bringing jobs into an area, whether it's rural Manitoba or large centres, it's critical to the growth of a province.
And would the member be able to repeat how many jobs are expected due to the new facility and what this means to Manitoba–how it's going to benefit us?
Mr. Graydon: Well, again, thanks very much for the question, for the member from Agassiz. And it's–it is a good question, because there's 150 permanent jobs with the annual payroll of $9 million. The company has also committed, as I've said earlier, to hiring locally during the design and construction phases, which is expected to require more than 300 employees over a two‑year period. That has such a spin off in the community that the development is taking place. In a community such as Portage la Prairie who has suffered some losses in the past by different large companies that moved on because of the high taxation, the red tape regulations–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Mr. Lindsey: My previous question about water testing–apparently, the member from Emerson was somewhat confused. He talked about testing the water going in to the plant; I want to know about testing water coming out of the plant.
Mr. Graydon: Again, it is a good question. It is a very good question from a member that doesn't have a lot of experience in the House and–or in southern Manitoba, where there has been a lot of development. And we'll use Maple Leaf plant that employs many, many union people, and, yes, the water is tested going out as well. And I would suggest also that, in his riding, that the water that's tested after the mining that takes place up there, that's also tested. He should know that. But, if he doesn't, I'll help fill him in.
Mr. Michaleski: I was reading a quote by Kam Blight, the reeve for the R.M. of Portage la Prairie, and I think he says it all. And I think he understands just how important this investment is to the community and southern Manitoba and the rest of the province. His–he says the investment is an incredible opportunity for the community and the surrounding area. So, with words like that, can the member–why would he–why would an investment of this magnitude only now be taking place but would never have happened during the Selinger government over the last 17 years of NDP?
Mr. Graydon: I've only got 45 seconds to answer that question, and there are so many reasons why it would not happen under the NDP and under the former Selinger government. Unlike the NDP, who work to overburden individuals and businesses with red tape and taxes, company officials highlighted the fact that our PC government is fostering a great business environment in Manitoba. The political waves have changed in the new administration, and we found ourselves in front of a progressive administration; that's a quote from the CEO of Roquette.
Mr. Lindsey: The member from Emerson talked about 150 permanent jobs. Could he tell the House how many of those jobs will be full‑time jobs?
Mr. Graydon: Yes, Deputy Speaker–or, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would suggest that they would be full‑time jobs if we're looking at a payroll of $9 million a year. They would be permanent jobs, and there will still be other jobs as well.
* (11:20)
Whenever there is a plant of that magnitude that's operating within the province, you will have all types of jobs whether they are IT jobs, whether they're office jobs, whether they're processing jobs, but also the maintenance requirements of a plant like that, and also the testing going in, the testing going out, the marketing as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): I'm not familiar with this European company Roquette.
Can the member assure that they will be an equal opportunity employer in Portage la Prairie?
Mr. Graydon: Well, quite frankly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm not totally familiar with the company either, but I would see no reason, no reason at all, why they would not be equal opportunity employers. There's no real reason why they wouldn't be, and so I would suggest that if you're qualified, you will be hired.
Ms. Clarke: I'd like to ask the member from Emerson what the economic spinoff is from this type of an industry in an area such as Portage la Prairie in regards to housing and for the other businesses that are actually already located in that area.
Mr. Graydon: And again the spinoffs are very, very important. The permanent jobs, of course, are the No. 1, but the spinoff jobs are very, very important as businesses, entrepreneurs that start businesses. Keeps the Tim Hortons going there too as a matter of fact, both of them. But there are other jobs supplying equipment and material to this, and this would create lot of other spinoff jobs. So, yes, it's very, very important to the economy in Portage la Prairie as well as a tax base for Portage la Prairie.
So, in those three words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are no downsides to this type of investment–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Mr. Lindsey: Could the member explain why he believes it's important for strategic government investment into private enterprise?
Mr. Graydon: I would ask the member that's asking that question to be more specific. I know of no investment of the Manitoba government. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The time for question period has expired.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is open, any speakers? Any speakers?
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): It's a pleasure to talk about this resolution this morning. Of course, we celebrate the announcement by Roquette, the French company, for pea processing plant near Portage la Prairie. It joins other successful businesses in that area, and we certainly look forward to it.
I was surprised by the tone of the member for Emerson who actually should've been thanking the previous government for its role in setting the stage for this announcement to come. And I've had a good look–I want to know what the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Ewasko), who, of course, has some big troubles in his own area should look–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: –should look–well, I know the member for Lac du Bonnet is really upset by the fact–there's going to be to put some facts on the record, but maybe if he has the chance to speak later on in the hour, we'll hear what he has to say, and we'll hear what he has to say about a bunch of other problems he's got in his own community.
Now Roquette said–and I'm reading from this CBC article–Roquette said it chose to build this plant in Manitoba because of the availability of skilled labour in the province and its low energy costs. And that's fascinating because every time the NDP government would invest in Manitoba's workforce, as sure as we could count on the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, we could count on Progressive Conservative members standing in this House and voting against every single one of those investments.
And, yes, indeed, this is a process that takes a lot of hydro power, and I'm very pleased that Roquette has recognized, of all the places they could go in the world, this is the place with among the lowest hydro power cost in the entire province. And now the member for Radisson (Mr. Teitsma) I believe wants to tell us that we don't have the lowest hydro cost, which would mean he's calling the people from Roquette liars, and I don't believe that he meant to do that.
Now they've talked, of course, about this, and, again, we are happy to see this come here and join the river of positive investments that took place under our government over the past 17 years. And, of course, this new government has a–they're developing a routine of overselling things and over describing things, because here is the member saying: Well, this is historic; there has never been anything as big as this in Manitoba. Well, not only is this not the biggest agricultural processing facility in the province of Manitoba, this actually isn't even the biggest food processing facility in the rural municipality of Portage la Prairie.
And, if the member is familiar with a paper called the Portage Daily Graphic–I know the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Wishart) is very familiar with it; I'm guessing the Premier (Mr. Pallister) is probably familiar, too–they had a very happy article from 2013 talking about Simplot celebrating 10 years, very near the–very near Portage la Prairie. And the story, of course, told us how the American-based food company built its Canadian headquarters in Portage la Prairie, in 2003, due to the city's unique location. And, actually, I believe–I believe–the member for Portage la Prairie was very supportive of that, in his previous role, and, I think, we all agree this was a great thing to have coming to the province of Manitoba. And, certainly, there are a number of reasons that the company chose, of all the places in Canada, to put this facility.
I know we had a great debate just–it seems like not that long ago when the member for Riding Mountain (Mr. Nesbitt) brought forward a great resolution about the–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.
I just want to remind the member that if you can speak through the Chair and not with other members in the House.
The honourable member for Minto (Mr. Swan).
Mr. Swan: Thank you for the reminder, but I was so impressed by the member for Riding Mountain's resolution. I wanted to give him a little love in this House. So I'll try and manage myself more appropriately.
Of course, what happened with Simplot and their amazing processing plant, which, of course, results in Manitoba potatoes going to McCain's, going to McDonald's, not just in Canada but also in the United States. They came back in 2008 and they expanded their facility, because they knew how good business was in Manitoba and how this was a great place to do business. And how many people did Simplot employ, as of 2013, when they celebrated their 10th anniversary? Well, they celebrated 290 people–or they employed 290 people. I don't know if that's the exact number now, but I'm presuming it's very close to that.
So I don't disagree with everything that the member for Emerson (Mr. Graydon) has said about the importance of jobs: 150 jobs is very important for Portage la Prairie–290 jobs was almost twice as important for Portage la Prairie.
And, rather than take an angry partisan approach that it appears the member for Emerson is taking, I think we can rise above that. It's been a rough morning in here and, I think, we can actually stand together and say that, over time, successive governments have built an economic climate that allows Manitoba producers to know that their agricultural products are being processed, that value is being added right here in the province of Manitoba.
But, you know, unfortunately–[interjection]–well, unfortunately, as the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Ewasko) continues to grumble from his seat, and I know every time he goes home and has another stack of emails and phone messages from people wondering why their personal care home has been cancelled by his Premier (Mr. Pallister), I hope he comes here and is prepared to learn and to listen–
Some Honourable Members: Oh. Oh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Swan: –because he could learn–he could learn–from some of the facts surrounding this resolution. And I know it's very difficult, and it's very 'throeing' for members opposite to stand up in what they believe is the best thing that's ever happened to Manitoba to find out something twice as good happened under the previous government.
And, rather than try to be angry and hostile and yell at the previous government, maybe they could show some grace and say, well, that's great, there were a lot of processing facilities that were built, a lot of processing facilities that were expanded, and here we are continuing the tradition that's been going on. And I think that's a resolution, much like the potato resolution, we'd be quite prepared to accept.
And, if I remember, personally attending the opening of the big canola crushing plant in Ste. Agathe, and Viterra, which, of couse, took over the formerly widely held Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, in came their CEO, and I want down to Ste. Agathe to support the opening of that facility. And, actually, I had a fascinating conversation with their CEO, who is a former professional football player, played with the Miami Dolphins, was very involved–we had a great talk about running–and out we came to make the announcement.
* (11:30)
And there were all the members from southern Manitoba, including–I'm quite certain–the member for Emerson (Mr. Graydon), because I'm sure he was there, because he was celebrating jobs coming to his community. I'm sure he was celebrating another market for producers in his community, but, like many members of the Progressive Conservative Party, he was also there for the free food. But there he was, and I remember looking at the faces of the member for Emerson, the member for Midland (Mr. Pedersen) and the others as the CEO of Viterra talked about what a great conversation we'd had, that we both like running, and what a great place Manitoba was to come and do business.
And, of course, we know that facility in Ste. Agathe is very important for canola producers in the province of Manitoba and, strangely enough, that happened during the exact time period that the gloomy member for Emerson wants to deny–he wants to rewrite the history books; he wants to ignore the successes that producers in Manitoba have had, not just in the past year but over the past decades as various governments have invested in processing. And what's fascinating, of course, there was a very good question asked by my friend, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Lindsey), about public investment in this project and, of course, the member for Emerson said, well, there was no government involvement and the member for Emerson was wrong. He wasn't just wrong; he was wrong by $6.82 million because we know the Province–according to the media report, which I presume is accurate–the Province is providing tax income and financing, or TIF, of up to $6.82 million to assist with developing this site. So, of course, with the tax income and financing, I presume members opposite are aware, with the tax income and financing, when the plant opens for a number of years there won't be any additional benefits going to the local school board. There may not be benefits going to the rural municipality. I presume the rural municipality is okay.
An Honourable Member: Somebody cut the school board recently.
Mr. Swan: Well, and that is the concern, that I know that school boards like the ones in and around Portage la Prairie are having a very, very tough time managing things, but we are hopeful–we are hopeful–because we are optimists on this side of the House that there will be increased investment, and the spinoffs that the member for Emerson ignored when there was 290 jobs brought to Portage la Prairie will still be there when there's 150 jobs brought to Portage la Prairie.
But it is, unfortunately, the way that this government is now running its communications. They are taking the lead. It's not just trickle-down economics; it's trickle-down messaging from their Premier who is very proud to stand up in this House and talk about how he supports the exact opposite of what it is that he's doing. And, you know, for a while, maybe people will believe it–maybe people will believe it–but Manitobans will not be fooled for much longer, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Brad Michaleski (Dauphin): It does give me a lot of pleasure to speak to this positive resolution brought forth by the member of Emerson, and it's great to see during this debate that this positive resolution that he's leading and setting a very fine example in this House this morning by bringing this very positive resolution. This resolution, again, recognizes the historic investment in Manitoba's agricultural processing capabilities, and it also urges the government to continue seeking opportunities to strengthen, grow and diversify Manitoba's economy.
The 'prea' processing plant is an unparalleled investment into pea protein market and the global protein market and the industry–and our protein industry is very important to all Manitoba, and the processing industry is vital to a lot of communities across our province. Roquette is a family-owned company that does a very good job in value-adding and with this $400-million pea processing plant, it does represent one of the largest private-sector investments in the history of Manitoba, and that is a significant signal to the rest of the world when a private company comes into this province and invests heavily. That is just good news and a good signal for all Manitobans.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
The plant will create up to 150 jobs and be a significant contributor to Manitoba's overall economy. It'll process field peas which are grown throughout western Canada and here in Manitoba. Manitoba is very, very familiar with growing field peas. I know, myself, we grew them over 35 years ago so we're very used to growing them. And I hope–likely, acreage will go up, because with the processing plant located here in Manitoba, I know as a producer it's much better to have a local market for these Manitoba products, and I'd rather value add them or get them value added in this province rather than throwing them on a truck or throwing them on a rail line and getting them out of the province to be value added somewhere else.
And that's really what, you know, the members opposite, when they argue about the value of the Canadian Wheat Board, really, that was an issue that exported a lot of Manitoba wealth, and this is something that the members opposite can't seem to understand: that if you can retain that wealth and develop it in your own province, that is good for Manitoba communities, that's good for the Manitoba economy.
So Manitoba farmers and the PC government know the value of processing in capturing value here in Manitoba. And I know the NDP caused a lot of harm, they caused a lot of harm to rural Manitoba in a lot of ways, and really discouraged investment and growth throughout rural Manitoba. And the most recent example is this discussion we had on the manure management. And the member from Wolseley knows that a lot of information was withheld, and really, Manitoba pork producers were ended up thrown under the bus; they really were, just for political partisan reasons. And that is really a very, very shameful act by the members opposite, to attack agriculture and attack the producers that are so valuable to our province.
Madam Speaker, our PC government is working very diligent to fix up the mess created by the previous government. We're focused on making responsible decisions and to fix our finances of the province and to repair and improve the services. After a decade of debt and 'declay' and decline, our PC government is working hard to rebuild our economy in a responsible way. And when we do this, it does get noticed by the investment world. By being responsible, our PC government is demonstrating to Canada and the world that we are open for business and we are ready to compete in ag production and innovation.
So, having said that, Madam Speaker, it was really great to hear the CEO from Roquette, Marc Gilson, quoted as saying, on January 18th, 2017: We found ourselves in front of a new administration that did everything to accompany us in an extraordinary way.
Madam Speaker, those kind of words are what Manitobans need to hear.
The Roquette family is a global leader in food processing, operating in over 100 countries and employing over 8,000 people worldwide. The plant is an investment in Manitoba but it is also an investment in the growing global demand for proteins. And this is really solid news for the future of protein in agriculture in our province.
While this incredible investment is great news, Manitoba should also seek opportunities to strengthen, grow and diversify our other parts of Manitoba economy and our other resources. And there's lots that we can be developing more–our hog industry. We have slaughter facilities that are looking for hogs. And we need to, and we should be, supplying those things with Manitoba pork, fed by Manitoba grains, and the jobs being created and throughout the province of Manitoba, to support those value-added industries in Brandon and Neepawa.
We have poultry processing, potato processing. We have industrial hemp processing that's getting up and running in Gilbert Plains. All these processes help throughout our entire Manitoba economy, and we should be doing everything we can to urge more and more development of the resources in this province.
So, Madam Speaker, it's pretty clear that Manitoba agriculture production and Manitoba's agricultural processing capabilities are important to all Manitoba communities. Both generate new wealth for our communities in the province, and our government understands this, and I support this resolution that recognizes the historic investment made by Roquette and urges the government to continue to seek opportunity to strengthen, grow and diversify Manitoba's economy. Thank you.
* (11:40)
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): It gives me great pleasure to stand up and talk about this investment in a pea processing plant in Manitoba.
And, you know, it's funny; when I asked the member from Emerson during the question-and‑answer part if there had been any government money involved, any investment, he didn't seem to think there was, and yet quite clearly there was six point–excuse me–$6.82 million, not of direct cash investment, but taxes in lieu of what–so whether you take it out of your left pocket or your right pocket, it's still government money being invested, which, Madam Speaker, I've never been opposed to. In fact, when we were talking about the Port of Churchill some time ago, somebody asked me, well, do you think the government of Manitoba should invest in it. And I most assuredly do believe that. However, the Premier (Mr. Pallister) said he didn't believe in investing in private enterprise, and yet he does.
But, you know, when they made the announcement–I was in the Rotunda the day they made the big announcement where the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Eichler) was also confused and didn't seem to think there had been any government money involved in attracting this plant to Manitoba when, in fact, there was. So they had to kind of walk back from that, but, clearly, the member from Emerson wasn't paying attention and didn't realize that what he'd been told wasn't quite accurate.
And, again, I'd just like to emphasize–
An Honourable Member: He's giving you the cold shoulder, Tom.
Mr. Lindsey: I'm fine with that.
Just to like to emphasize that we on this side have not been opposed to government investment in attracting good-paying jobs. In fact, this company wouldn't have been here investing in Manitoba without the work that the previous NDP government did in laying the groundwork to attract them. It's nice that the present government gets to stand up and claim credit for something that had been in the works for quite a while beforehand. And it's, you know, a credit to my colleagues that were in the NDP government, that they made sure the province was an attractive place to do business. They made sure that there was cheap hydro, that it was available, that that's one of the things that attracted this company was the fact that there was cheap hydro, that Manitoba Hydro was one of the leaders when it came to ensuring that hydro rights were affordable and also ensuring that hydro was available. Now, this government and their self-appointed board at Manitoba Hydro is in the process of destroying that advantage that was here to protect and create and build a better Manitoba, which, clearly, this government is not really interested in doing.
The other thing that attracted this company was the fact that we have well-trained workers in this province. We have well-trained workers in the building trades that can build anything that they're asked to build. As we look at different agreements that we see forthcoming and different things that this government is trying to do, that will weaken that. That will weaken that advantage as well because those well-trained workers won't always be readily available because they will have to leave this province because they won't be able to afford to live here as this government continues to hack and slash at workers' abilities. I mean, they've passed legislation already that limits their ability to join unions, which helps make working in this province one of the affordable advantages. I mean, it's kind of too bad.
There's other things in this province that we've talked about that perhaps maybe there should be some form of government investment in. And, Madam Speaker, some of the things are, well, seems that we don't–this government doesn't believe in investing in things in the North. Tolko was in trouble of shutting down. This government sat on its hands, did nothing, said they didn't believe in investing in private enterprise. The workers believed in it. The town of The Pas believed in it. They made sacrifices while this government did nothing.
The Port of Churchill shut down its grain handling facility. This government again said, well, they don't believe in investing in private enterprise. Well, apparently it's just that they don't believe in investing in private enterprise in the North because, clearly, they invested in Maple Leaf Foods. They've invested in this pea processing plant. And those aren't bad things, Madam Speaker, but investing in other businesses that will help people in the North are also not a bad investment, not a bad use of taxpayers' dollars. And yet they've offered nothing. I've seen some notes from one of their Look North summits that they're holding and notes were pretty skimpy. It was post-it notes on a flip chart, and not once did the government jump up and say that they believed in investing. They're looking for everybody else to invest in the North while they're willing to invest in the south. So, you know, that's kind of a shame.
One of the other things that–of course, any time you're building a big industrial plant, whether it's an agricultural-based industrial plant, or a mining-based industrial plant, there's a need for things like safety regulations. Having had some experience in the safety field in the 20 years that I worked as a worker safety rep, I also had a very big hand in making sure that safety regulations were updated and were there to protect working people, and it concerns me greatly that while we're in favour of building new industrial plants, this government is looking at cutting the very regulations that may protect those workers.
Some of the things we've seen already from the government is–well, they're going to change the building code for agricultural buildings. Now, I'm not sure how that will necessarily pertain to this industrial plant. Will they allow this plant to be built to lower standards than other plants? We don't know the answer to that because is it classed as an agricultural building or is it classed as a processing industrial building, and will those regulations apply or, at some point in time, is this government going to cut those regulations as well?
You know, this government talks a lot about, well, the NDP wasn't in favour of business, and yet what year was it–let me see here–2003. Which party was in power at that time? Oh, wait; it was the NDP that made sure that the American-based food company built its Canadian headquarters in Portage.
You know what? That was this government making sure that there was long-term employment, making sure that there was investment in this province that actually helped workers get ahead, actually helped communities get ahead. So, you know, this government starts from a false pretense and tries to build a narrative around that false pretense, which is really too bad because, on this side, we firmly believe in investing in Manitoba's future, but not just–not just, Madam Speaker, in a few–the few at the top. We believe investing so that all Manitobans can get ahead, so that these jobs that would come into being at this plant will be good paying jobs, will be full-time jobs. We believe that investing in Manitobans is the right answer. While this government continues to refuse to raise the minimum wage, it's all well and good to say we're building a new plant that's going to employ 150 workers, how many of those workers are going to be stuck in minimum wage jobs that they can't afford to live? We don't know the answer to that; all we know is that this government refuses to support working Manitobans, Madam Speaker.
* (11:50)
While we encourage them to bring investment in and we look forward to more investment and we look forward to the government investing more, not just in business–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Is–are you rising on House business?
An Honourable Member: On the bill.
Madam Speaker: I would indicate that, according to the rotation that has been established, it is the Liberals' time for debate.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): Agriculture is the lifeblood of this province. From our farmers to the grocery store, agriculture supports the lives of many within our wonderful province. Investments in this important sector of our economy is imperative to the future success of Manitoba and all those who rely on the agriculture sector.
Manitoba and Canada produce much of the world's food supply, from potatoes to cattle, high‑quality and nutritious Manitoba-grown foods feed many in Canada and the wider world. Without the support of other industries, such as the food processing sector, much of our success would not be possible. Much of the food grown and raised in this province are sent out to be processed.
Peas are one of many crops grown by our hard‑working and dedicated farmers. In fact, Canada is one of the world's largest producers of peas. Roughly, one third of the world's peas come from Canada, and Manitoba alone has over 200 farms that grow them. In addition to contributing to the title of the world's largest producer of peas, Manitoba will now be home to the world's largest pea processing plant.
The over $400-million investment from the European company Roquette will create 150 new jobs for Portage la Prairie and the surrounding region. This creation of new jobs will not only support the workers and their families, but will also serve to grow our local economy and aid the province and the country.
It is always a thrill to see companies realize the potential that we have here as a province and those that invest their time and money into our people and our economy. Our amazing farmers, along with Manitoba's highly skilled labour force, play a provincial role–a principal role in attracting such a historic investment to our province. Portage la Prairie was chosen as the best location out of 40 other potential locations in both Canada and the US. The town of Portage la Prairie is already home to other food processing plants, and I am certain that this new pea processing plant will thrive in Manitoba and continue to grow Manitoba's agriculture and food processing economy. Investments such as the ones made by Roquette will no doubt leave Manitoba to become a leader in the food processing industry.
I hope that more companies look to Manitoba as a viable choice to invest in. So I'm hoping that should another company be interested in operating, especially in the North, that this current government meet or exceed the financial support it is offering to that foreign company.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to Roquette for choosing our beautiful province.
Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): It's a pleasure to get a chance to put a few words on the record in support of the member for Emerson's (Mr. Graydon) resolution, and, in particular, I'd like to recognize this, or take this opportunity to recognize the value of having a company like Roquette come to Manitoba, and the many reasons that they have chosen Portage la Prairie to locate, including the quality of the individuals available, the quality of the technicians available in the area.
We already have quite a sizable food processing industry in the Portage la Prairie area, which includes Simplot and McCain, and Viterra, an oat processor that is located there because of the work that Charlie Mayer did when he was minister of the Wheat Board to remove the Wheat Board coverage of oats so that they could begin value-added processing at that time. That's the reason that Can-Oat actually originally located in Canada and stopped the long-standing practice of exporting raw oats as the Wheat Board had done for many years and began to do the value‑added processing. And we're seeing other examples like Roquette coming, and it's been a great opportunity to meet with them a couple of times to talk about some of their training needs, and certainly these are good jobs that are available in the community. They're technician positions or better. They're very high calibre positions, and we look forward to the opportunity–in fact, now that–with Roquette adding 150 jobs we're now over the 1,000‑job mark in the city of Portage la Prairie in terms of value-added food processing.
So we're very pleased to continue to build on that industry and to work with the city and the RM in terms of doing waste water and water treatment, working together to make sure that we can service these industries because they are wet industries and do have some additional requirements because of that.
But I did want to take a few minutes to–and I know time is limited–a few minutes to explain one of the other reasons why Roquette chose Manitoba and Portage la Prairie in particular. One of the things that they use almost all of the pea but they do have a little bit of a food grade by-product that they make from–that comes out of the peas. And one of the reasons that they chose the location was because of our very strong hog industry and feeding industry because they actually sell that product directly into that industry. And, in fact, they're going to sell it as a wet product, which normally would mean that it does not get transported very far, so you have to have a hog industry within reasonable distance, and some–that is certainly something that the previous government did nothing to encourage.
In fact, they did their level best to discourage the hog industry here in Manitoba. And I think one of the reasons that we have Roquette is because they realized with the change in government that there would be a much better attitude about the hog industry and the realistic viability. The previous government had an unrealistic view of the hog industry and showed their bias repeatedly with making their life difficult in terms of nutrient management, putting regulations in place that, according to many researchers at the University of Manitoba, showed absolutely zero benefit in terms of nutrient management.
I, frankly, don't think that many of the members across actually understand nutrient management on the farm and are really not very well qualified in terms of putting forward any particular arguments in regards to how best to manage nutrients on the farm. In fact, I think that the best qualified people are actually the farmers who have learned how to manage nutrients which they have to pay for themselves.
So I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I'm thrilled to speak to this private member's resolution put forward by the member for Emerson (Mr. Graydon). I'm always pleased to speak to any resolution put forward by this particular member. He has certain views and ideas about the–his view of the world is one that I don't always agree with, but he certainly has a way of getting his point across and does make some very good points.
Now, this particular resolution, you know, deals with the new jobs that are going to be added to the Portage la Prairie economy. And we are talking here about 150 new jobs and the payroll of approximately $9 million, and other members have addressed the issue of the quality of these jobs. This is a–Canada is the largest producer of peas in the world and this is a plant that deals with that.
And I did, you know, want to request for a moment on comments made by my colleague the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Lindsey) because he was pointing out that this plant has a certain contribution from the provincial government, and, you know, people refer to this as corporate wealth. I remember–
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Elmwood will have eight minutes remaining.
The hour being 12 p.m., the House is recessed and stands recessed until 1:30 p.m.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
CONTENTS