LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, October 5, 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.
Please be seated.
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (Official Opposition House Leader): Miigwech, Madam Speaker. Pursuant to rule 33(8), I am announcing that the private member's resolution to be considered next Thursday of private members' business will be one put forward by the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mrs. Smith), the title of the resolution Protecting Low-Income Manitobans.
Madam Speaker: It has been announced that the private member's resolution to be considered on the next Thursday of private members' business will be one put forward by the honourable member for Point Douglas. The title of the resolution is Protecting Low-Income Manitobans.
Ms. Fontaine: Sorry. Madam Speaker, could you please canvass the House to see if there is leave to proceed directly to second reading of Bill 231, The Education Administration Amendment Act (First Nations, Metis and Inuit Education Policy Framework)?
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to proceed directly to second reading of Bill 231, The Education Administration Amendment Act (First Nations, Metis and Inuit Education Policy Framework)? [Agreed]
Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Wiebe), that Bill 231, The Education Administration Amendment Act (First Nations, Metis and Inuit Education Policy Framework); Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Kinew: It is a pleasure to rise in my new role and to speak to a bill at second reading for the first time in this role.
So the bill that is being proposed here today is one which would take an important step towards following up on the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Now, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was born out of the experience of residential school survivors, but resulted in a remarkable document which gave us 94 calls to action and, essentially, a road map for how we might chart a new direction in our country going forward.
Importantly, many of the calls to action–particularly 62, 63, 64, 65–have to do with recommendations–or, calls to action, rather–having to do with education. Now, we know that for reconciliation to be successful–reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the rest of Canada–that there certainly needs to be a lot of investment and support and capacity building to improve educational opportunities for indigenous people in Canada. And we have been, you know, pushing for that in some areas. We know that the government has moved in the same way, particularly when we unanimously agreed to call on the federal government to end inequities in funding for people on reserve last session. That was an important role. However, there is also an important part of education having to do with reconciliation that is not geared specifically towards the indigenous community, but towards Canada as a whole. And how I think about this is: we live in a city called Winnipeg, which is a Cree name. We live in a province called Manitoba, which is an Ojibwe name. We live in a country called Canada, which is a Mohawk name. Yet how many of our Winnipeggers, Manitobans, Canadians can explain what those terms mean? Can talk eloquently or substantively about who those nations are, or about the languages that lent these terms and more to our collective heritage?
And so, sadly, one of the things that we've come to learn as a result of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's work in Canada is that, definitely, indigenous people have been negatively impacted by the experience of, you know, things like residential schools and the Indian Act. But we ought also understand that everyone in our country is worse off because of the impact of things like residential schools. And the simple reason is because, for 150 years, we've lived in a country where we haven't always had the opportunity to see indigenous peoples contribute to their full potential, nor have we had the opportunity to learn about the indigenous dimensions to our collective Canadian heritage.
Now, we are in an era where that is starting to happen more and more. Orange Shirt Day last week was an important testament, I think, to the work that a lot of educators in our province are doing towards educating our children in a way that is more inclusive and actually reflects a simple truth, which is that whether or not you have indigenous blood, by virtue of you being here in this part of the world right now, some part of your identity does have an indigenous character.
And so it's important for us–if we want to understand what it means to be a Winnipegger, a Manitoban, a Canadian–to have an education that is inclusive of, you know, the indigenous contributions to history that understands and examines some of the darker periods in the past like residential schools but also that takes a strength-based approach and looks at what contributions indigenous peoples have made to our society.
* (10:10)
And so the bill that's being brought forward here today asks that the government create a framework so that such an education policy can be pursued in this province. A lot of this work is being undertaken already. You know, I took a look at the KPMG report and, you know, I shook my head like my colleague from Concordia had a lot of the recommendations in the report. However, I did notice that one important piece of business that was contemplated there was to have the indigenous education, the secretariat in the Department of Education to co-ordinate with consultations in the indigenous community that are carried out under the Indigenous Relations portfolio, which is important. That is an important step, Madam Speaker. However, that would fall into the original category, which is around capacity building in the indigenous side of the equation. But it still leaves open the question of what sort of steps are being taken to ensure that every child in Manitoba has the opportunity to learn as much as they can about our shared heritage, and so this bill would take an important step towards that.
Essentially, it would say that the department would develop a FNMI policy framework, which is what the–these sorts of policy frameworks are called in, you know, other provinces like Ontario and British Columbia, FNMI being the shorthand amongst educators for First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples, and that specifically the content would include learning about reconciliation, treaties. We know that we are in Treaty 1 territory here, but what does that mean? And when we travel to Treaty 2 territory in western Manitoba, who are the First Nations that are signatories to that agreement? And when we go to Treaty 5 in the North, you know, who signed that agreement and at what time period?
So these are important parts of our history, and there is, of course, the interesting question of we always say, you know, that we are all treaty people, but what about the Metis, right? So there's an interesting field of study related to that as well, and Dr. Adam Gaudry at the University of Saskatchewan actually argues that the Manitoba Act itself can be thought of as a treaty with the Métis Nation because it represented the conclusion of negotiations between the Canadian government and a Metis government, the provisional government struck by Louis Riel.
And so there's all sorts of interesting topics and, you know, contributions that we can learn about in our shared collective heritage and that some of the other aspects that would be contemplated would include the historic and contemporary contributions. Some of these things, you know, we already do a somewhat of a decent job of, like celebrating heroes like Tommy Prince, but, you know, maybe more recent heroes like Reggie Leach don't always get their due because we know that Reggie Leach isn't yet in the Hockey Hall of Fame, and so we'd like to see that happen and maybe, when we're doing our phys. ed class, we could learn a little bit about the Riverton Rifle, as well.
Anyways, the rest of the bill essentially just specifies that the policy framework be kept up to date, that it be kept relevant and that there be measures towards professional development.
Now, prior to entering politics, I had the pleasure of working with some school districts in other jurisdictions around implementing plans like this, and I can tell you that, you know, Alberta, British Columbia and some other provinces have done a lot of work to this effect.
And one of the most common questions that comes up amongst educators, predominantly non-indigenous educators, is how can I teach this content without being guilty of cultural appropriation. There's a certain insecurity among some teachers who may be non-indigenous wondering can they authentically or meaningfully teach indigenous content, and I think that speaks to the importance of providing the resources and the professional development opportunities for teachers to be able to feel enough ownership over this content or at least licence over this content to be able to communicate it effectively to their classrooms.
And the advice that, you know, I typically share with educators is that as long as you are motivated from a place of goodwill and you have the necessary humility to change your teaching practice based on, you know, the evolution of standards, the sort of evolution contemplated in this bill, then, you know, things are going to work out well. Of course, no one's immune to criticism but, you know, you have to have some adaptability in your teaching practice.
So, again, this is an important step. It is one that is geared specifically towards First Nations and Metis and Inuit content; however, it is outward facing in that it would use this content to improve the educational opportunities of every child in this province. And being as we are in an era of reconciliation in our country and that this does follow up on some of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I would encourage all members to give it due consideration and ask for their support.
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: 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.
Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for his introduction of this bill. I think we're going to have a very interesting discussion about not only the need, but the content of the bill.
So the question I have for him; I know that this bill is very, very similar to one that was introduced by the previous government in their last session of government that never seemed to move forward. I wonder if the member could explain to me why it was now–it is now the No. 1 priority for this government, and why the party that he represents didn't find it a priority in the previous session.
Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Well, I'll just have to correct the minister: we're not the government yet, but we are working towards that each and every day.
I–you know, I think it's important for Manitoba families who are very concerned about the quality of education that their kids get in public schools that we have debates like this one. I think, you know, every parent wants their child to have more one-on-one time with the teacher. They also want their child's education to be of high quality and they want it to remain relevant to the society in which we all live. I think that this policy would be an important step towards that goal.
With respect to decisions, you know, that were made in the past, I can't share any insight, but I can say that I am a new leader and this direction is one that's important to me going forward.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): The–we have, of course, many First Nations schools and many First Nation and Metis communities, and Inuit predominantly community in Churchill.
Will–I wonder if you would share with us your thoughts on how we make sure that the communication across the whole province is similar so that it builds up and empowers people who are in the First Nation, Metis and Inuit community, but at the same time makes people in other communities around the province aware of our history and where we are now and what we need to do moving forward.
Mr. Kinew: I think that, you know, families living across the province–whether it's in suburban Winnipeg, whether it's in a First Nations community or whether it's in a rural community, they want a high-quality education for their kids and they want their kids to be able to learn about the things that are important to them.
I think that an important part of making this content relevant and also of, you know, fostering the sort of bridge-building that my colleague from River Heights raises is to ensure that there is the opportunity to localize content. And that's why the bill is not overly prescriptive and, rather, calls for a framework so that there is the room for an individual community–whether that's, say, in the Mystery Lakes–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mrs. Colleen Mayer (St. Vital): Can the member please inform the House: if this was so critical to the values of NDP, why hasn't the Leader of the Opposition come up with a newer, more robust bill that can come forward to help Manitobans?
Mr. Kinew: Well, one of the limitations on our ability to move bills in opposition is that we can't specify bills–or, rather, we can't draft bills which call on the government to spend money.
If we were in a position to devote resources towards improving the quality of education in Manitoba, we would definitely be making much bigger investments in education across the board than the current government is making. We know that freezing funding to post-secondaries is not enough and that issuing a de facto cut to the K-to-12 sector is not enough. So, if we had the ability, definitely we would be investing more. But, for now, we'll be working in the areas that we can to improve the quality of education for every child in Manitoba.
* (10:20)
Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): I just want to first of all say how important this bill is, a First Nation woman who went through school in Manitoba here.
Madam Speaker, will the official Leader of the Opposition tell us how the legacy of residential school, the '60s scoop, missing and murdered indigenous women and girls will help inform a framework for indigenous First Nation, Metis and Inuit education in our province?
Mr. Kinew: First off, I want to acknowledge the new member who has had a chance to ask a question. We had planned to have her up asking a question yesterday; however, other events intervened, so now we're very pleased to have her ask that question.
In short, the mistakes that have been made in our society, in the past, ought to be an opportunity for us to learn how to make things better for young people in our province going forward. So whether these are more historic events like residential schools or more contemporary events like the epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women in our society, first we ought to act to ensure that these things don't continue, but then we might ask, how can we help–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Scott Johnston (St. James): Under the previous government, Manitoba ranked last in education in the country of Canada. How will this bill accomplish a results-oriented success for our students?
Mr. Kinew: I think that parents across the province want a high-quality education, both in terms of ensuring that their children are learning the math skills that they need and the tech skills that they need and the ability to read and write that are the foundations of success, but they also know that their children are going to have to compete in a global, pluralistic, multicultural society and that having an opportunity to learn about other world views, other paradigms, such as those contained within indigenous cultures, provides an amazing opportunity for their children to cast open their minds towards different ways of thinking. And one of those other ways of thinking is that while standardized testing is important–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mrs. Mayer: Can the member explain why the opposition did not follow through with this legislation when they were in government?
Mr. Kinew: Well, I think that, you know, families in Manitoba grow weary when politicians politic. What they want us to do is to work towards creating a better quality school system for everyone in this province. So, again, I've answered, you know, a very similar sort of question, so I'll focus on what matters, which is that, you know, parents want us to come up with an education system which is going to prepare their children for the future. Now, again, part of that does mean that we need to take a look at what sort of skills are being taught, the hard skills, if you will. But we also need to take a look at the soft skills, which can include things like behaviour, which can include things like introducing different–
Madam Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mrs. Smith: As a former youth in care, can the official Leader of the Opposition tell me how this would improve for kids in care?
Mr. Kinew: Speaking from my own life experience and, you know, somebody who lived a negative lifestyle when they were younger and then turned it to positive, one of the most empowering moments I had in my life was when I had the ability to see the historic legacy that I was a part of, beginning with The Indian Act, continuing through residential schools and on through the '60s scoop and other failed government policies of the past. It was as though I were standing in a river, looking at my feet, watching the water rush by and suddenly I was allowed the opportunity to see that the shore was to my left and the shore was to my right and that I could plan to get out of those things.
So for young children in care, though they are the most impacted by colonization, they are often the least likely to learn about it. Having this framework in place will help empower them to change their lives for the better.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): Has the member met with the treaty commission of Manitoba to see what they would like to see in a Manitoba curriculum going forward?
Mr. Kinew: Yes. Actually, the previous treaty commissioner and I shared extensive, you know, conversations about the way forward. I know that he is actually now the deputy minister for Education, and I believe that we share a continued interest in working on these sorts of areas. So I know that the minister's probably getting a lot of good advice.
And, typically I don't like to talk about staff or civil servants, but I think this case is a little bit of an exception, given this individual's exemplary career before joining government and some of the interests there.
Madam Speaker: The time for questions has expired.
Madam Speaker: Debate is open.
Hon. Ian Wishart (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for introducing this bill, the one that had been introduced before and never found the time to be a priority with the previous government. But he has certainly done some justice in terms of recognizing some of the issues that need to be addressed to make sure that there is proper accounting of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations.
He's absolutely right in that many of the recommendations from the TRC certainly touch on education, and we are–been very actively pursuing ways to encompass the recommendations in what we do every day in Manitoba schools, and we've moved a significant distance on a number of those recommendations, and continue to push forward. And I will certainly–and now we have additional expertise within our department, and I will certainly pass along his comments to our deputy, Jamie Wilson, who comes very well recommended in this area with his experience as a treaty commissioner, something that I think we can all draw on.
But he did touch on some of the issues that we need to do proper due diligence on. There's a number of areas, and we're actually finding now that there's a bit of a differentiation between the fifth–First Nations as to what they expect to see in the course content. And I think that's very appropriate. I think it's an evolution of the process in terms of every First Nation now being able to express their true heritage, not just an indigenous combination but each one individually. And I think that we may well end up with certainly highly differentiated points that are brought forward.
We've been able to accommodate a number of the TRC recommendations, particularly in the early years and then on into the high school years, with a number of points where the history of First Nations in Canada have been brought forward and previous information that has been–that was in error have been corrected. And it is certainly a very significant learning process for the teachers because, though some of them come with personal experience that they can apply in the situation, there are many that do not. And so it has become a very important issue at personal development days for teachers across the province in the many school divisions, and probably key in areas where there are significant numbers of First Nations students.
Now, also very, very important that we include the Metis as part of this process. As has been pointed out, Manitoba Act of 1870 has significant reference to the Metis of the time and their involvement and their importance in the process of developing Manitoba's history and their contribution to Manitoba's history. And I think we absolutely must make sure that we account for that, and I know that we are having some discussions with the Metis minister of education upcoming, actually, again to make sure that the process that we're in is very respectful.
* (10:30)
I think it's very important that we get this right, and we're certainly working very constructively to do that. And as the member made reference to, now the federal government has finally shown an inclination to step up and honour their obligations to First Nations across the province, and we have seen the Manitoba indigenous education council over the last year evolve dramatically towards becoming a–probably the first school division for First Nations students anywhere in Canada, and we're certainly working very constructively with that.
In fact, we have offered the resources of our department in terms of curriculum developments, in terms of respect in schools and a number of other programs to them, and we continue to work with them on a virtually daily basis. And I know that there's an announcement coming up later in October around their official status, and I certainly look forward to that because we see them as very significant players in this whole process and one that we absolutely need to work and develop a long-term relationship with and certainly have a formal way of working with and that has yet to be completely hammered out, though we're certainly having very positive discussions with them, which I'm, you know, I'm pleased to–I'll report to our–that our staff has been working very constructively, and I’m very pleased with them and their ability to move this forward.
We do need to recognize that we have significant gaps when it comes to the quality of education that has been offered in many places in the province for First Nations, and that our high school graduation rate, which is probably the fairest measure to use, on First Nations certainly drags well behind the graduation rate for the average Manitoba student across Canada. And, in fact, the–if you look at the results over the last few years, there has been no significant improvement in that graduation rate for a number of years, and that is a great deal of cause for concern, here and now and into the future, that we need to focus on making sure that we make improvements in that area.
Graduation from high school is an absolute necessity in terms of moving into most of post-secondary opportunities, and that, too, is something that we need to make sure is available to First Nations children across the province, First Nations and Metis across the province.
There's a significant difference already between First Nations and Metis in terms of the–their enrolment in post-secondaries, with the success of many Metis students in the current education system is much, much better than it is for First Nations. And that alone is a cause for concern in terms of we need more results from the First Nations students, but it does show that things can be improved and that there's possibilities to improve in the future.
And, in fact, post-secondary education by itself is a good measure for any province to use because a well-educated workforce is something that is valuable in many ways, not only to industry but in terms of social structure to the province. And one of the things that has come to light during our gathering of information for the colleges review, which is still ongoing, but it's a number that I would share with the House in terms of progress. Back in 1999, we, as a province, were either second or third, very close, in terms of having percentage of our population that had a post-secondary education. We were second or third in Canada, which was a very good position to be in and we, I’m sure, would love to be–continue at growth at that rate. However, in the last 17 years, we have gone from second and third in Canada to dead last in Canada yet again.
And I am very concerned by that because it means that we have an awful lot of extra work to do in terms of building our post-secondary capacity and making those connections and making accessibility to post-secondary education for our Manitoba students important. And now, not only are we dead last, we're 10 points out of the average, 10 points below average.
So certainly those kind of numbers suggest that we have our serious problem in the linkages between the K-to-12 system and the post-secondary system and that we need to focus on that and that we need to build capacity in our post-secondary system, far more than I think many people realize. Our numbers, actually, when you do the analysis on them, are very static, and we have not been making significant progress.
So we'll continue to work in this area and I'm very pleased with the work that we've been able to accomplish as a government so far. In some ways it's really just brought home the points that we have a lot more to do, but we are working constructively, positively–not only with the First Nations school division and First Nations themselves, but also with the Metis federation here in Manitoba, because I think it's important that we get it right this time and that we develop a really good ongoing relationship that can be valued and lead to a positive future.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): I'm pleased to put a couple of words on the record in respect of our new leader's private member bill, Bill 231.
But first I just want to acknowledge all the students in the House that just walked in. And we are so grateful that you're here. And actually we're debating a bill about education, so it's the perfect time for you all to be in. So we're really pleased that you're all here.
I also just wanted to–since this is my first opportunity–to say–to just say a couple of words of congratulations and acknowledgement to our new leader, the member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Kinew), who–you know, I think it's fitting that has brought forward this private member's bill in respect of education for First Nations, Metis and Inuit, in creating a framework for the government to move forward so that, you know, all of our children and children still to come have a better sense and understanding of, you know, the colonial context here in Canada and its legacy. And that being, obviously, residential schools, the '60s scoop, missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and how those are all interconnected. And so I do want to just say congratulations to our new leader and just to lift up this bill and the work and the dedication that he has put in First Nation, Inuit and Metis education on behalf of all of our children.
And I think that it is probably significant to note that, you know, the member for Fort Rouge comes at this bill from a good place and actually a very intimate knowledge in respect of what those consequences are. I think it's also fitting to note that the member was an honorary witness at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and, you know, is blessed to have had that experience, to sit in circle, to sit in ceremony, to sit in respect with the–our survivors of residential school system. Not everybody's afforded that responsibility or that privilege, and so I would suggest to folks that that also, you know, forms the foundation in which that he pursues these–in particular, this bill.
I also, Madam Speaker–if I could–I just want to–and I guess it is fitting that we're talking about education. I just want to say a couple of words and put a couple of words in recognition for the member of Point Douglas, who–it is her first day in the House. And, obviously, folks in the House know that the member for Point Douglas (Mrs. Smith) is a family member, a missing and murdered indigenous women and girls family member. And, as I stated in our ministerial response yesterday, kind of–pretty sure that she's the first MMIWG family member ever elected to political office across the country. So I want to acknowledge that, and I think that that's very important. It also reflects what the member for Fort Rouge spoke about when he talked about that we're in this era of reconciliation, and so the member's election is a reflection of this, you know, reconciliation path that we're all in.
* (10:40)
What I'll also say is that, for those folks that don't know, is that the member for Point Douglas was an educator. She was a teacher and when she left, she was an administrator and she was an administrator at Wayfinders. And Wayfinders does some pretty extraordinary work, and I won't speak a lot to it because I'm sure that the member would like to have some time on there, but I think the core piece or the fundamental piece in respect of Wayfinders and the spirit of Wayfinders is lifting up students within their cultural heritage and within their cultural history to understand themselves better and to see themselves reflected and to give safety and security so that they can learn. And so I just want to honour the member for that really important work that she did and actually still continues to do because she's still active in supporting Wayfinders and all of our children.
So, with that said, you know, certainly, you know, I am very proud to be able to stand up for this bill to create a framework for all of our children. I think that it is really important to understand that we are in this era of reconciliation, and so what does that mean? Does that mean that we just spout out the words that we're in this era of reconciliation, or does it mean that we actually put practice and that we live reconciliation? And it's not enough to just put words on the record or to expel breath and say, well, I believe in reconciliation, but then not actually put anything to it. And it actually takes a lot of courage and determination and commitment to live reconciliation. It requires that all of us, on very intimate personal levels, deconstruct our own beliefs, our own biases, but it also necessarily involves courage to be able to do the good work that needs to be done. And here is an opportunity for everyone in this House to have courage and to practise and live reconciliation and vote in favour unanimously on Bill 231.
I will share with the minister because the minister had shared about, you know, what have we done when we were in government and 'dadada,' which seems to be the line of the day. But I do also want to just share with the minister that, in fact, his own department did extensive, extensive consultations on the previous bill that was tabled back in 2015 and, actually, by an extraordinary government employee who poured her heart and soul into these consultations, which took her everywhere across Manitoba and meeting with a variety of different stakeholders.
And what's interesting about this particular member, the minister's own staff, his own government staff who did these consultations that I was just talking about, about the previous bill, what I'll share with the minister, which fits in respect of this bill, is that that government staff is the mother of two extraordinary young men. They are just phenomenal human beings, and they are this new generation of indigenous youth that when you're raised and you understand your history and where you come from and your language, you grow up in that pride.
And I can tell you that her sons, the very staff that did this consultation, your staff, are extraordinary and they have created this space in Winnipeg and in Manitoba. And, in fact, one of her sons now, all across Canada, travels teaching the culture, reclaiming that culture, deconstructing colonialism, really living reconciliation. And they do it because they were raised in that, right, so they're a really good example of the power of giving our children the tools to know themselves and to know their history, not only indigenous students but all students.
So I would encourage the minister to reach out to her, because she has a phenomenal amount of information on this. But also, her sons are honestly some of the most extraordinary youth that we have in Manitoba.
I will just finally share, as well, that–you know–one of the things that I've had the pleasure of doing for years–and, certainly, in this role as an indigenous MLA–is going to speak to different schools. And I know a lot of members in the House get those opportunities to go speak to schools, but we're often asked to come and talk about, you know, our own kind of history and all of this. And what I'm so blessed to see first-hand is actually this generation. Like, the children that are–that were in the House and come to visit us. They're learning things that we never got to learn. Like, any of us here. I didn't get to learn my history when I was going to school. In fact, I remember that we were, like, savages and, you know, we–you know, scalped everybody. Like, just ridiculous kind of constructions and narratives. In fact, I remember a school book that described indigenous women as squaws–one of the worst words you can ever call indigenous women.
So it's amazing to see this new generation coming away with a little bit more information, which then changes the way that they interact with indigenous students and other students from other cultures. So I know that this framework can build on that for generations to come, so that we really create a space in which there is equity among our students and our province.
Miigwech.
Hon. Eileen Clarke (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Relations): As Minister of Indigenous and Northern Relations, I'd like to welcome our new member from Point Douglas that's here with us now.
And it is my pleasure to rise this morning and speak about a very important issue: ensuring that our education system is teaching our students about the unique and diverse histories and the cultures of our First Nations, Metis and Inuit people. This is an issue that our government takes very seriously, and I have to commend our Minister of Education for his hard work on these matters to date, and as apparently an issue that we take more seriously than the former NDP government did, which has a track record of doing a lot of talking on indigenous issues but delivering very little in a way of concrete, meaningful action.
Bill 231 is a case in point. It was tabled by the member of Fort Garry-Riverview when he was Education minister, but it went nowhere and was allowed to die on the Order Paper. This is the second reintroduction of a previously written bill by the member of Fort Rouge. In short, Madam Speaker, the NDP has neglected this for 17 years.
Our government, on the other hand, knows that talk about reconciliation has to be backed up by real, meaningful action. And that's exactly what we are delivering. As we move forward as a government on a path to reconciliation, my department is preparing for the launch of a major outreach strategy that will engage not only the indigenous people but Manitobans from all walks of life to help frame a renewed, comprehensive, made-in-Manitoba vision for reconciliation. We've already reached out to indigenous leaders and asked that they be engaged in all stages of this process so that we are building Manitoba's reconciliation strategy in the true spirit of collaboration and partnership.
We also know that real reconciliation means listening to our indigenous peoples, taking action to address historic wrongdoings and delivering on their priorities. Here, again, our government is leading.
We've been in office for just over a year, but in that time I'm proud that the meaningful action we have taken in these areas that the former NDP government simply failed to get the job done.
Our government secured a pivotal funding agreement on Shoal Lake road. Shovels are in the ground, construction is under way, and the community will benefit from short-term jobs and opportunities with lasting economic benefits. We are engaging with indigenous communities on the development of a renewed, strengthened duty to consult framework to ensure that Aboriginal and treaty rights are protected, accommodated when necessary and to ensure greater inclusion of indigenous communities in development projects.
* (10:50)
We launched a task force co-chaired by Chief Ron Evans to develop a mineral development consultation protocol to ensure that indigenous communities are involved in all aspects of mineral development and share in the benefits resulting from these projects.
Madam Speaker, in just one year, we have passed an order‑in‑council that transfers provincial interests in nearly 70,000 acres of land for the creation of new reserve land under the TLE and other land transfers processes, compared to a total of zero acres under the TLE process by the former government during their last three years in office.
Another positive example was announced earlier this month when I signed a historic land agreement for the forced location of the Sayisi Dene and transferred 13,000 acres for the creation of new reserve land.
And at the same time we're doing a lot of internal work within our government, and in consultation with our federal counterparts to improve and 'expediate' the process for transferring land. And we're finishing a job that took far too long under the former government, working together with our federal and First Nation partners to return 2011 First Nation flood-affected evacuees home. Simply put, the undue hardships that were faced by evacuees under the former NDP government were completely unacceptable. We've invested millions in housing, roads, schools and other critical infrastructure to rebuild safer and more sustainable communities, transferred new reserve land, and tabled offers for individual and community settlements. Thanks to a lot of hard work and collaboration over the past year, evacuees began receiving notices that they can now begin returning home this summer.
Madam Speaker, we know that many political and opposition voices focus on symbolism when it comes to reconciliation, but symbolism without matching action is at best meaningless, and at worst a form of disrespect. Our indigenous people deserve better than that.
I'm proud to be part of a government committed to working in true partnership and collaboration with our indigenous people as we engage on this journey of reconciliation and making real, tangible progress on the issues that matter the most to them.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Judy Klassen (Kewatinook): I would like to thank the member for bringing this bill forward. I would like to amend the bill; the non-status and the non-recognized Metis would also greatly appreciate to be included.
Many indigenous peoples have issues in succeeding in the education system of today. It is another imposed system created without indigenous input. Everyone wonders why it fails; that's the reason why. Powers that be did not listen to us back then, a sign of great disrespect.
I grew up knowing and feeling within my bones that there are six seasons; then I went to school and everyone, including the Canadian textbooks, say there is only four. So how do I reconcile with that? I consider the fact that I can fillet a fish in less than a minute far more valuable than the fact that I can write this speech.
The number of indigenous people that succeed are few and far between. We need to reverse that; I've said the solution. As indigenous people have never really been at the table, the origins of indigenous education and issues are complex and deeply rooted in current sociological and economic issues. This affects us all.
Efforts to improve the status and success of indigenous students in our province should never be missed. The advice of the TRC and work of the commission has been tremendous, although we have yet to see their recommendations fully implemented by government yet. By utilizing the recommendations to educate Canadians and youth on our history, we will finally be able to see more students succeeding. Our students need to feel the pride in learning about their history and seeing their history as an essential part of the educational system.
The PCs say it was tabled by the–previously by the NDP. I would have liked to hear that the–while they were in opposition that they supported. That's the 'revelant' fact for today. And going forward that's what we need to focus on: fixing the system so that we can all succeed. Thank you.
Mrs. Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): I, first of all, just want to, you know, say thank you to the honourable leader of our party–of our opposition party for bringing this bill forward.
As a former educator, I can tell you how important this is especially for our kids coming from the North often not knowing their own history. Kids are coming not knowing that their parents and grandparents were in residential school; not knowing about the dangers of, you know, missing and murdered and what that means for them in the construct of being in the city.
I think we need to do better in terms of helping our kids understand the '60s scoop and how the generation has grown up without knowing about this. I, myself, am a second generation of residential school. I did not know my mother went to residential school until I was in university. So I think we're doing a disservice to our children by not educating them about their own history within the K-to-12 curriculum, so that when they are going on to graduate, hopefully–and we know those numbers are very low for indigenous kids. In fact, when we look at the graduation rates of newcomers coming to Canada, those rates are a lot higher than they are for indigenous people.
So we need to help not only Manitobans, but we need to help our indigenous people know their own history as well as our newcomers. And we need to create that space to celebrate the contributions that the indigenous people have brought to Canada. Thank you.
Mr. Scott Johnston (St. James): As this is my first opportunity to rise in the House since coming back, may I compliment you, Madam Speaker, for your guidance in overseeing the transition in this beautiful Chamber. This is certainly a special place that all Manitobans can be proud of.
May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the honourable member from Fort Rouge. I watched with great interest on his quest to become leader of the New Democratic Party and, ultimately, becoming leader of the opposition.
Madam Speaker, I always look forward to speaking on educational bills. Having been involved in education as a former school trustee, I'm always interested to speak on education.
Madam Speaker, may I first indicate my appreciation for the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Wishart). The minister is committed and dedicated to the educational success of the students in Manitoba. He understands Manitoba's diverse population. He is always prepared to face the challenges presented.
Madam Speaker, over and above his role as the Minister of Education and Training, he co-chairs the ALL Aboard Committee with the–with Minister Fielding, the honourable Minister of Families. Minister Clarke, the honourable Minister of Indigenous Affairs is also–[interjection]
Madam Speaker: I would just remind the member that when referring to members in the House that the names of the constituencies and not the individuals be used.
Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Certainly. My mistake.
The honourable Minister of Indigenous Affairs is also a member of that committee. The committee examines strategies to address social inclusion indicators and propose programs, policies and initiatives to address poverties.
Education is certainly the best strategy to lift people out of poverty. Madam Speaker, our government is committed to contribute to finding solutions for Manitoba in poverty. The government is working with the Winnipeg Poverty Reduction Council, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce under–
* (11:00)
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have eight minutes remaining
Madam Speaker: The hour is now 11 a.m., and time for private members' resolution.
The resolution before us this morning is on Protecting Manitoba Lakes and Rivers brought forward by the honourable member for Wolseley.
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mrs. Smith), that
WHEREAS Manitoba's lakes and rivers are special places which deserve government protection and investments so that future generations can continue to enjoy them; and
WHEREAS the Provincial Government should be taking steps to increase protections for Manitoba's natural wonders, like Lake Winnipeg, but instead is loosening standards and weakening protections; and
WHEREAS the Provincial Government brought in regressive legislation which weakened regulations on Manitoba's hog production and processing, increasing the risk of nutrients drainage into the Lake Winnipeg and other watersheds; and
WHEREAS the Provincial Government considered removing a ban on harmful cosmetic pesticides, some of which are possibly carcinogenic, that seep into the groundwater; and
WHEREAS the Provincial Government dismantled a provincial agency that was responsible for delivering environmental protection programs; and
WHEREAS the Provincial Government is standing idly by while the North Dakota Government is preparing plans to build major infrastructure projects which could potentially damage provincial waterways through the introduction of foreign species and additional nutrients; and
WHEREAS the Provincial Government has made zero commitments to assist the City of Winnipeg to properly upgrade its North End water treatment plant or address the massive sewage overflows that result each year from the combined sewer system; and
WHEREAS the Provincial Government refused to pass a bill introduced by the Official Opposition to protect the province's lakes and wetlands as well as help mitigate the effects of flooding, and which was supported by producers, environmentalists and all sides of the political spectrum.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to immediately reverse its environmental deregulation, stop its cuts to environmental programs and services, and instead support laws and initiatives that will protect provincial lakes and rivers for future generations.
Motion presented.
Mr. Altemeyer: I'm pleased to bring this private member's resolution to the House for debate today, not just on behalf of my own constituents in Wolseley but indeed on behalf of all Manitobans and everyone who will live here in the years ahead. We are not going to have a very fun time of it here in Manitoba if this government continues in its privatization and deregulation path. The environment is sending us no small number of signals that the exact opposite is required. And, sadly, this government's track record is to be completely out of touch when it comes to environmental issues.
Mr. Doyle Piwniuk, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
A colleague, a friend of mine from the environmental circles where I've been proud to travel for almost 30 years now working on different environmental issues, actually compared the Pallister government to the Harper government when it comes to environmental destruction. They called them Harper 2.0. And really, it's kind of hard to disagree with that when you look at their complete lack of action on many fronts.
But it's not just inaction that's the problem, Mr. Speaker. They are making deliberate choices to weaken important environmental protections, and these are protections that exist not just for the sake of the environment, which, of course, would have an indirect impact on people; they are making choices that are going to directly have negative impacts on Manitobans, whether it's our drinking water in particular, our ability to enjoy the lakes and the outdoors.
So I think the resolution speaks for itself. I think this government's track record speaks for itself. I hope they change course. I'm under no illusions. This resolution is not going to be passed by a government that does not care about the environment, does not make it a priority and, in fact, views it as obstacles that get in the way of their pro-corporate, polluting, heavy interests.
So I will conclude my remarks here and we'll see how this morning turns out, but, hopefully, this government at some point in time will see the light of day and start actually defending the health of the planet that we all call home, rather than destroying it.
Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 10 minutes will be held, and any questions may be addressed in the following sequence. First question may be asked by a member from another party; any subsequent questions must follow a rotation between parties. Each independent member may ask one question, and no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Sustainable Development): Can the member for Wolseley please explain why the NDP government allowed Lake Winnipeg to become the most threatened lake in the world according to the Global Nature Fund?
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not surprised that's the minister's approach. It's disappointing, but, really, she should be asking herself that same question.
She ran for office. She wanted to make a difference. She's now been put in a role. I think it's incumbent upon her to inform Manitobans what she is going to do to improve the health of Lake Winnipeg, which did have some of the worst algae blooms in recent years just this past summer. And she should ask herself that question and tell us all what her answer is.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Could the member explain to us how he envisions the minister being able to ensure the safety of our water will not be jeopardized?
Mr. Altemeyer: I thank the member for that very good question. Short answer is: start doing the opposite of what they've been doing.
Mr. Rick Wowchuk (Swan River): You know, the member from Wolseley really appears to be an advocate of protecting our lakes and streams, and I'd like to pose a question to him: Why did the NDP do so little to protect Manitoba's lakes and streams for 17 years while they were in government?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.
The honourable member for Wolseley.
Mr. Altemeyer: Well, he clearly wasn't listening to the answer that I gave to his minister, so I'll just advise this backbencher in the government: if he's serious about making a difference, he should go talk to the Minister of Sustainable Development (Ms. Squires) and tell her what he thinks she should do to be improving Manitoba's waterways.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lindsey: We've heard a lot about protecting water. Have we seen anything that would guarantee that the government would–I can't read with those on–offer that excess nutrients from hog barns will not end up in our waterways?
Is there anything at all that you've seen from this government that would indicate that they're prepared to protect the waterway from those excess nutrients?
Mr. Altemeyer: That's a very good question, and I'm–and, sadly, it's been quite the opposite.
We should acknowledge that the nutrient loading that is happening in Lake Winnipeg, and in other lakes in Manitoba, is coming from a diverse number of sources. It's not all one sector. That means everyone's part of the problem, and that means everyone needs to be part of the solution.
This government, unfortunately, is taking us in the exact opposite direction. And Manitobans have every reason to be very anxious about the costs that will be involved in having to spend more money and more effort in cleaning up polluted water in this province, never mind their ability to enjoy the great outdoors.
Mr. Derek Johnson (Interlake): Could the member of Wolseley please explain what he understands as standing by idly in regards to the Northwest Area Water Supply project, when our government is preparing to file an appeal against?
Mr. Altemeyer: This is actually a breakthrough. I'll take a small little bow, and I'll also thank the citizen activists who informed me of North Dakota's activities.
We were actually the ones who first broke the story in the media. The government said absolutely nothing–has said absolutely nothing until this particular moment. I don't know if this is the new version for news releases and public announcements. It would fit with this government's communication problem that now would be the time that they would choose to make this news known. But, if they are filing an appeal on that court decision, this is one tiny, good step, which I would 'supportingly' support them and do it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Ms. Squires: Can members opposite tell us what he did about the 5.2 billion litres of raw sewage that flowed into the Red River under his watch?
Mr. Altemeyer: Well, that's a–it's another good file that I hope the minister will get up some day and announce that she's going to do something useful about.
Our government had a quarter of a billion dollars on the table–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Altemeyer: –to help the City of Winnipeg, for instance, upgrade its North End treatment pollution program. To my knowledge, this government has not made any announcement as to what, if any, type of support or priority they are giving to that project. Kind of difficult for us in our capital city to ask anyone else to change their behaviour when we are the single largest point source of excess nutrients heading into Lake Winnipeg.
* (11:10)
We had money on the table, we were ready to work with the City of Winnipeg and the feds. I hope this government does the logical thing–does the right thing and lives up to the initiative that we had under way.
Mr. Lindsey: Well, it's kind of nice to hear that this government has a plan about something. Can't wait to see it. Hope it's better than some of the other plans we haven't seen.
So, could you tell us, the member from Wolseley, do you believe the government has consulted with experts on what constitutes a serious and immediate health risk that would require immediate reporting versus those that would not?
Mr. Altemeyer: Yes. The honourable member's making reference to one of many very concerning sections in Bill 24. It's the government's own legislation where they freely acknowledge that they are weakening water protections for drinking water in Manitoba, contrary to all the evidence that, I think, any expert familiar with the Walkerton tragedy would be informing them. I would have to conclude it does not, unfortunately, look like this government has listened to some wise voices, and they could be putting the safety and well-being of Manitoba and Manitoba's businesses very much at risk as a result of this foolish action.
Mr. Alan Lagimodiere (Selkirk): Can the member opposite explain to the House why his party, when they were in power, decided to hide and bury a report that confirmed that's–its restrictions on hog barns were ineffective, inexpensive and not based on science?
Mr. Altemeyer: Well, as the MLA for Selkirk would know, what happens upstream can have an awful lot of negative impacts on communities downstream, such as Selkirk. I would expect him to be an advocate for defending water, not voting for legislation which is going to pollute more water, and I leave it to him and his conscience to decide what he will do as a government member to make the world a better place and not a worse one.
Mr. Lindsey: Could the member from Wolseley explain to us how he believes this government plans to protect water while reducing the number of testings that are required?
Mr. Altemeyer: A very good question, and quite clearly, those two things don't make any sense. We'll add it to the list.
Mr. Wowchuk: Member of Wolseley, you attended the 2015 United Nations climate change summit in Paris as a reward for supporting the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger) in the leadership bid before 2016. You must know about the amount of CO2 emissions you contributed as a result of that trip, and can you tell what the world's CO2 emissions are and what Manitoba's CO2 emissions are?
Mr. Altemeyer: Well, it's interesting the member from somewhere has detailed–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Altemeyer: Where are you from?
An Honourable Member: Swan River.
Mr. Altemeyer: Swan River. Thank you. All the questions sound the same; it's difficult to tell them apart.
He seems to have intimate knowledge of conversations that I was never a part of. I would have thought that the opportunity, the honour to go and meet with other international activists on global warming would be very important. And I don't know if his Premier pays for carbon credits when he travels to Costa Rica or anyone else. If I'm not mistaken, I believe our entire flights, we did buy carbon credits to offset the impact of attending those very important international discussions. Perhaps–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up. The honourable member's time is up. Order.
Mr. Lindsey: How do you think your private member's resolution will make any kind of regulation that is absent from this government's agenda more effective?
Mr. Altemeyer: It would be wonderful if this government actually had the ability to listen, to set aside their intense Harper, partisan lenses. As we have seen from the questions here today, they are focused very much on their own rather bizarre version of the past. We can see what their spin is going to be, and they seem determined not to learn anything–not from scientists, not from Manitobans, not from experts, certainly not from me.
That's not my fault, Mr. Speaker. That's not the fault of our caucus. We are bringing forward a very sensible resolution in defence of water and waterways in Manitobans. All Manitobans would be in favour of this, except for this government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time for question period has expired. The debate is open to any speakers.
Hon. Rochelle Squires (Minister of Sustainable Development): I'm pleased to rise in the House today as the new minister responsible for Sustainable Development. And I would also like to congratulate my critic on his re-appointment–[interjection]
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I'm very pleased to rise in the House today as the new Minister of Sustainable Development. And I would also like to thank my critic on his re-appointment as critic for Sustainable Development and I hope–I wish him a very long and prosperous career as critic.
So I'm pleased today to put some facts on the record regarding our most precious resource in Manitoba, which is our rivers and lakes, and to refute some of the erroneous information being raised by members opposite.
It is very clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from his poorly written resolution, that members opposite either did not read our legislation or he was unable to comprehend it. Now, we do understand that members opposite does have a challenge in reading small fine print, such as the fine print on a cell phone contract–so let me help him out with some facts regarding our legislation.
First of all, in regards to drinking water in Manitoba, we have some of the most stringent protections in the country. We're moving forward to ensure that our regulations are effective, necessary and not placing unnecessary burdens that redirect resources away from measures that actually enhance water quality.
Our legislation will allow small water systems to use their scarce resources to be directed at upgrades rather than reports. We are also providing our small water structure owners with greater opportunities to develop and improve their water systems. These changes are actually bringing provincial water quality standards up to date with health-based national drinking water guidelines.
The members opposite like to talk about Walkerton but it is important to point out that the steps that we're taking in our legislation actually put us in line with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, which–of course–is where Walkerton is. So we are learning from the best practices from all other jurisdictions.
In regards to the NDP's unscientific, costly and ineffective regulation to require anaerobic digesters in hog barns, it simply does not work in our climate. We know that, Manitobans know that, scientists know that and even members opposite know that. In fact, the NDP had commissioned a report that proved that their disrespectful, unscientific approach to hog barns was wrong. And what did they do? They swept it under the carpet when they didn't like what it said.
We, on this side of the House, rely on sound science to protect our environment and are levelling the playing field with all other livestock producers with Bill 24. That piece of legislation–it is clear that members opposite did not read it or did not comprehend it, so let me put some further facts on the record.
Bill 24 will follow the advice of University of Manitoba experts and remove the costly and ineffective requirement for anaerobic digesters. We will continue to require manure management plans, stringent soil testing measures and, in fact, our government has some of the most stringent soil testing measures in the world. And, simply put, if a soil cannot endure additional nutrients, the soil will not receive the additional nutrients.
Our legislation also maintains the requirement for construction permits and a ban on winter spreading of manure.
One final note about Lake Winnipeg–sadly, it became the most threatened lake in the world under the NDP, according to the Global Nature Fund. And the zebra mussel infestation went–according to Dr. Eva Pip, which I know the members opposite like to quote–the zebra mussel infestation went beyond salvageable. In fact, by the–she had said by the time the NDP caught on to the zebra mussel infestation, it was beyond repair.
So–further, the NDP were unable to reduce phosphorus loading by even 1 per cent in their 17 years in office. It is very clear that members opposite has absolutely no credibility to stand in this House today and talk about the health of Lake Winnipeg.
* (11:20)
Now I'd like to segue over to my department's efforts on recycling and how we're co-ordinating our recycling efforts to–and programs to divert more recyclables from the landfill. As a sidebar, here's another fact that members opposite don't like to talk about: under their watch, absolutely nothing was done to divert 30 per cent of the recyclables from Brady landfill's 350,000 tons of annual waste disposal. On the other hand, our plan will make recycling framework better and more effective as Manitoba becomes a Canadian and North American leader in recycling.
In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, here's what a few of the main stakeholders said about our plan. Recycle Everywhere said: We support the move to eliminate Green Manitoba, as it makes it simpler and more streamlined for stewardship organizations like the CBCRA, Recycle Everywhere to deal with one entity eliminating any confusion of role.
Here's what Call2Recycle said about our plan: This leads to a more efficient process, provides faster clarity on issues and, ultimately, allows us to focus on what matters most: diverting batteries from landfills in Manitoba.
Now let's talk about the massive sewage overflows that occurred under the NDP's watch. The NDP let waste water flow into our waters without treatment for 17 years. In fact, 5.6 billion litres a year flowed under the NDP, and the CEC had urged them to take action when they never did anything. In fact, it was in 2003 that the CEC had urged them to reduce the overflows. And the very day that they left office they had still accomplished nothing.
We will take steps required to reduce overflows and improve the health of Lake Winnipeg. We are working to address our province's waste-water issues and are spending millions of dollars to make much needed upgrades. We have made tremendous progress towards a solution to reduce sewage overflows and will continue working with the City on sewage treatment plants.
Further, we are developing a state-of-the-art watershed management plan that will encourage landowners to keep water on their lands to reduce nutrient loading and make water and drainage management across Manitoba even more environmentally friendly and effective. Our GROW program will help reduce nutrient loads on lake–in Lake Winnipeg and make holistic changes in contrast to the NDP's ideologically driven policies.
In conclusion, I'd like to segue over to the northwest area supply project. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we know that this issue has been ongoing for decades since the project has been in planning for this amount of time. When members opposite were in government, they did not stop this project from proceeding. Manitoba and Canada continue to oppose inter-basin water transfers from the Missouri River basin to the Hudson Bay basin.
Members opposite have their facts wrong. They say that we are sitting by idly when we are, in fact, getting ready to appeal the US court's decision to allow the project to proceed. Members opposite are also wrong about its effects. Additional nutrients are not as much of a concern as aquatic invasive species, and we know their dismal record on fighting aquatic invasive species such as zebra mussels, for example. And we will look for further measures to enhance and protect Lake Winnipeg as opposed to dumping $500,000 worth of potash in the lake to no effect.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to stand today as the Minister of Sustainable Development and put some facts on the record in the face of this very poorly worded private members' resolution.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): First off, let me congratulate the new minister on her role as Sustainable Development Minister, and I hope that we can really look forward to seeing some substantive changes in the entire outlook of the members opposite to make sure that regulations are being put in place that will actually protect our waterways.
Manitoba is the land of–what?–10,000 lakes?
Some Honourable Members: A hundred thousand.
Mr. Lindsey: A hundred thousand lakes. Sorry. [interjection] I guess I was talking about the ones I can see from my back door in Flin Flon–and we need to protect each and every one of those lakes and waterways. Reducing regulations in the name of simply reducing regulations without actually making sure that regulations are in place that will protect our waterways is the wrong approach.
The whole concept of, well, if we introduce a regulation, we'll have to cut two of them without a great deal of thought into what those two will be are quite scary, particularly when it comes to things like the safety of our drinking water, the future of our lakes.
This government talks a lot about tourism. That's the only thing we've heard so far about a plan for the North is tourism.
What are we going to do to protect those valuable fish stocks that are good for our commercial fishers and for tourism? We haven't really heard much of a plan there. We look at Lake Winnipeg, which, quite rightly, everybody said is very heavily polluted. I don't claim to be an environmental scientist, and I certainly don't claim to have all the answers. But what I do know from a layman's knowledge is that if you continue to pump the nutrients into the lake, algae blooms will increase. It's pretty simple in my mind, then, that we need to look at how to reduce the amount of nutrients that are allowed to flow through our waterways into our lakes, particularly Lake Winnipeg, but not just Lake Winnipeg; it's imperative that we look after all those valuable resources.
We look at the government's record on infrastructure spending, which will impact small communities' abilities to build proper safe drinking water and waste-water facilities. And then we look at their ability to fund from a municipal level the ongoing operation of those facilities when the government is talking about limiting to last year's level how much funding is available. And then, from what I read in the newspaper at least, putting strings on what that funding then gets used for, which is very unfortunate from the municipal people's point of view at least–and, myself, I think the government ran on a promise to just give them a single-basket funding and let them decide. I don't know that I'm in favour of that particular approach, but that's what this government said they were going to do.
But to get back to this particular resolution. It's about protecting our water, our lakes. It's also about protecting drinking water sources. Certainly, when we look at the history from Walkerton, we look at what the outcomes of inquiries were. Reducing the requirements for inspections of those water systems is the wrong approach. I come out of industry where, really, the mindset is if somebody doesn't tell us to do it, chances are we're not going to do it unless it really generates cash, money, revenue. This government's whole concept is everything has to be about generating revenue. There is the concept that the government is responsible also about protecting things like water for future generations.
Without water there's no life. So this government really needs to relook at some of its focus on merely appeasing their corporate masters, that reducing regulations, cutting inspections, allowing more pollution to flow into the lakes might be good for business in the short term; it will not be good for Manitobans in the long term. So we really need to focus on long-term, sustainable, not short-term, for‑profit only.
We need to make sure that wetlands are protected. As we look at things in the recent history of this year, across Canada, not just Manitoba, that the environmental changes that we're seeing, the preponderance of evidence points towards global warming, we need to ensure that things like wetlands that help mitigate some of the effects of flooding are protected so that as we see more catastrophic weather events, that some of that protection is still available for the province of Manitoba.
* (11:30)
So with those very few remarks I'll conclude and relinquish the floor to somebody else.
Mr. Rick Wowchuk (Swan River): It's a pleasure to rise and put a few words on the record on the member of Wolseley's Resolution 20, Protecting Manitoba Lakes and Rivers. I realize it's very painful for the member from Wolseley to listen to the facts that our government is putting forth.
But first, I'd like to welcome everyone back after a very busy summer in their constituencies. Hopefully everyone got some relaxation between their workdays.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to welcome you back and it's great to be in the newly renovated Chamber, and I congratulate all the workers on a job well done and on time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a time of year when we have a chance to appreciate our beautiful province and all the spectacular wonders of nature. The mosaic of colors in our forest and those pristine lakes and rivers is something to behold. Our government works with the people of Manitoba to ensure these treasured moments are preserved for future generations so they'll be able to enjoy these spectacular moments.
Trout are moving into their reds in the lakes, and finding those spring-fed pools in the creeks and rivers. I can recall back in the '70s where we used to walk the creek on the North Duck River and there'd be 20 brook trout in the one spring-fed pool. Very soon we'll be giving fishers the opportunity to market one of the best products worldwide. The world loves the clarity and the purity of our lakes and streams and the Manitoba fish. This will also be welcoming to the economy of Manitoba and the many fishers and their families. Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have a precious resource, and Manitoba lakes and rivers are special places which deserve government protection.
During the decade of debt, decay and decline, the NDP never made a difficult decision in 17 years. They failed to meet a single target of their own. They failed to meet emission targets, didn't have a plan in climate change, and cut millions from conservation. They cut areas that would impact those very wonders we treasure.
But wait, they did meet one target and that was turning Lake Winnipeg into the most endangered fresh water lake in the world in 2013. A lake where many make their livelihood, a lake that provides bountiful recreational opportunities.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, our government is up for the task. We're committed to alternate land use services, to help reduce flooding and to improve water quality and nutrient management. The NDP have shifted the blame on the state of the Lake Winnipeg to the agriculture industry, and despite scientific facts, a hog ban would not improve phosphorus reduction. So typical of the NDP when you mismanage, find someone else to blame. They didn't protect the environment, but they hurt Manitoba farmers. In fact, hogs contribute less than 1.5 per cent phosphorus.
They say they bought anaerobic–they brought in anaerobic digesters for the health of the environment, but they found out in a report they received and refused to publish, these digesters did nothing. Mr. Deputy Speaker, our government won't place blame, our government will make decisions based on science rather than politics by removing anaerobic digesters that have proven not to be the solution.
The NDP have been unable to properly manage our waterways and lakes, all while failing to meet promises to implement the necessary changes added in the 2011 flood report. Mr. Deputy Speaker, our government is working to restore the confidence of Manitobans after this decade of debt, decay and decline by producing results. We'll develop a made‑in-Manitoba climate plan, implement the ALUS model, expand recycling, step up the fight against invasive species.
The NDP missed a window of opportunity to be protective against zebra mussels in 2013 they found in harbours in Lake Winnipeg. It took the government a full year until 2014 to enact legislation to combat this and other highly invasive species.
Conclusive action should have taken–or, should have been taken five years ago when zebra mussels were first found in the watershed. The result: this threatening, invasive species in the three waterways. The species has potential to cripple much of our tourism.
Through education and awareness, we'll slow the spread.
Their 2014 plan with the use of potash also failed. In spring 2013, the NDP promised permanent additional outlet channels to drain excess water from both Lake Winnipeg and Lake St. Martin into Lake Winnipeg–or, Lake Manitoba, rather. Beyond a PowerPoint presentation used to explain and discuss issues publicly, nothing of substance was completed or implemented.
Our government is holding consultations and is willing to get the job done. We will reduce overflows and improve the health of Lake Winnipeg.
The previous government failed to productively lobby the federal government to work with personal‑hygiene industry and ban microbeads in Canadian personal‑care products. The NDP implemented a cosmetic pesticide ban, despite that only 4 per cent of cosmetic pesticides are used in urban settings, and with the negative consequences this ban would have on agricultural operations. The NDP required the City of Winnipeg to remove nitrogen from the waste water at an additional cost of $350 million, thereby going against the opinion of respected scientists.
Our government will ensure that all decisions are based on what's right for Manitobans and what science says is best. We have made progress towards a solution to reduce overflows. We will continue to work with the city's sewage treatment plants. We are examining upgrades in north‑end sewage plants to improve water quality, relying on solid, scientific facts to inform our progress. We'll continue working with the City of Winnipeg on treatment plans. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we're working on a plan for long‑term water management in the province. We will protect water quality. We're committed to further reducing carbon emissions while putting Manitoba first, with a made‑in‑Manitoba plan that works for Manitobans.
The federal government needs to recognize our significant investment, and hydroelectricity is part of Manitoba's efforts to address the impact of climate change. We're already leading the way with 98 per cent renewable energy. Our amendments to The Environment Act will ensure all livestock sectors in Manitoba are targeted equally by applying regulations that are science based and effectively safeguard environmental impacts. We, Manitoba, had some of the most stringent livestock‑management requirements to protect environmental quality.
These include manure‑management plans, manure application, setbacks from waterways and bans on winter application of manure. These protections are upheld to improve the quality of Manitoba waters. That's why our government launched consultations this summer to create the most comprehensive plan to manage water resources in Manitoba history.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the members opposite had 17 years and failed to meet a single target. They failed the target emissions; they didn't have a proper plan to address climate change. Under the NDP, Manitoba promised new emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions, 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The obligations were not fulfilled and Manitoba emissions in 2012 were more than 20 per cent higher than in 1990.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Manitoba does not have the most–Manitoba does have the most robust environmental‑protection laws that are among the strongest in Canada. Our government will work to ensure these laws remain the strongest. Our government supports efforts to improve the quality of Lake Winnipeg; our government is working to restore the confidence of Manitobans in our environmental‑stewardship legislation and programs.
* (11:40)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, our government is going to work with the people of our beautiful province. We're going to consult and make decisions based on scientific facts. We're going to ensure that those fall scenes that I painted at the beginning are going to be there for generations to follow. We'll not rob the future from the experiences that we have had, or our grandparents have had. We will succeed because we care.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I want to start by commenting on the words from the member for Swan River (Mr. Wowchuk) and to say to him that he talks about grand plans for 'crimate' change, for water management, and perhaps in other areas, but we are already at a year and a half into the government's mandate and we haven't had the grand plan for climate change presented. We haven't had the plan for water management presented.
The government had 17 years in opposition to get these plans ready and to be all set to go. Many a government in the past has failed to get moving quick enough, and you find that the time passes pretty quickly, so you need to get going and not just talk about oh, we're making plans, we're making plans, we're making plans. That's what the NDP did for a lot of years. We're making plans, we're making plans, we're making plans.
So, if you want to follow in their footsteps, you've got a good example. But if you want to actually get something done, you'd better start working.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about pollution and Lake Winnipeg. I want to talk a little bit about the fisheries. And I want to talk a little bit about floods.
Let me start with Lake Winnipeg. Clearly, from the recent report, we have had only a very small reduction in the phosphorus in Lake Winnipeg. It's come down about 1 per cent. There's still a long, long way to go. And from a recent analysis and a paper published by Diane Orihel, it would appear that we have to worry not just about the phosphorus coming into the lake, but we have to worry about the internal load of phosphorus that is already there, because that internal load in Lake Winnipeg, as in a number of other lakes, is contributing significantly to the level of phosphorus in the lake in the summer, which then contributes to the growth of algae.
We had a year this year in which there were some pretty severe algal problems. I was at the area around and just south of Victoria Beach, and quite clearly there was severe problems in the middle of the summer in Lake Winnipeg in that particular area. We need to be constantly vigilant, we need to be moving more quickly than has happened in the past in terms of making sure that the phosphorus is removed from the city of Winnipeg. We need to be investing not only in that area of waste-water treatment, but in other municipalities.
I met this morning–our caucus met this morning with members of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, and there is a waste-water treatment project in the Winkler-Morden area. And it will need support in order to proceed. And so it's very important that the province is ready to make the critical investments that are needed if, in fact, we're going to do the job we need to do to improve Lake Winnipeg.
And, indeed, it's been noted that getting that water treatment rolling is important in terms of helping not just Lake Winnipeg, but the Red River, because there is a dead zone which has developed in part of the lake–of the Red River. And if we're going to address that, we need to be looking at how we do it and we need to act, not just have plans.
So the problem is making sure we have good regulations, but the problem is also actually making the substantive investments that are needed to make sure that we are treating water and that we're retaining water on the land so we have less problems with flooding.
Let me talk for a few minutes about the fisheries because fish are an important component of our lakes and rivers. In response to my raising issues earlier this year, the government has moved to put a maximum mesh size on the–in Lake Winnipeg and has moved to decrease some of the angling take of very large walleye. So I say to the government that those are positive steps and appreciate them.
We need to be continually vigilant and make sure that the spawning walleyes are protected. We need to be looking not just at Lake Winnipeg, but we need to be looking at Lake Winnipegosis. Lake Winnipegosis has had its pickerel fishery severely impacted going back to 1960, and it's never properly recovered. And so it needs some attention. The government is committed to eco-certification. The government has said it's going to have a plan to do that, but we haven't seen that plan yet. We're still waiting. How long are we going to have to wait? And will it be there for Lake Winnipegosis, which is the most severely affected of all the large lakes and the most in need of a good plan to make sure that it can return to health?
Lake Manitoba's also very important, and, as the reports have shown over the years, Lake Manitoba needs some help; it's not as severely impacted; it's doing better than Lake Winnipegosis, but we need to be constantly vigilant, and we need to have those plans to make sure that Lake Manitoba will be healthy as well as Lake Winnipegosis and Lake Winnipeg.
I want to talk for a few minutes about floods. Floods are extraordinarily costly in Manitoba, as we have found out. And so it is vital that we are being proactive, that we are doing much better at retaining water and holding water on the land so that we have less water coming very quickly downstream. There are good examples of how this has been done in the past, but to a very limited extent in terms of geographic area, areas like South Tobacco Creek where there's 27 small dams and they have held back and decreased the peak flow by about 25 per cent, as I understand. When you're talking about flooding, it's that top end of the peak which really is the effective cause of your flooding.
So, if you can actually decrease your peak flow by 25 per cent, not just there but in other parts of the province, then we could have a huge impact.
There is also a need in some areas of the province to hold back water not just to prevent floods but to hold back water so that we will be ready if there are dry years. When I met with the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, the mayor of Winkler was talking about exactly this, that his concern that if we're not holding back water so that it's going to be there for municipalities when they need it, it will stifle growth, it will limit the potential, it will cause significant problems.
And this can be said for other areas. We know historically that southwestern Manitoba has been very susceptible to droughts at times as well as to floods and that–so we need to be prepared and preparing and we need to be able to work with Saskatchewan to do this well. Their government has talked about plans. I am keen to see the plans actually surface and not just be hidden plans.
Whether it's fisheries, whether it is water management, whether it's other areas, I'm keen to see not just what the shape of the plans are going to be, but what the actual investment is going to be in terms of dollars budgeted for making sure that the plans can actually be carried out because that, again, is pretty critical if we're going to move forward in a positive direction in terms of addressing the health of our lakes and our rivers.
* (11:50)
And, of course, there are issues in northern Manitoba, issues for communities like Cross Lake, which have often not been attended to a past–in the past; flooding in areas like Lake St. Martin, which need to be addressed. As well as having the outlet for Lake Manitoba, we need to make sure that Lake St. Martin doesn't, as a result, rise to levels which cause flooding for communities around Lake St. Martin.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.
Mr. Derek Johnson (Interlake): First off, I'd like to take a second to congratulate our new Minister of Sustainable Development (Ms. Squires), and I want to assure all Manitobans that our natural resources are in very good hands.
I'd like to congratulate the member from Fort Rouge as the new official Leader of the Opposition–I'm sure he's listening–and also the new member of Point Douglas.
So, I guess, first off, I want to emphasize that I live on the shores of Lake Manitoba, so I hold the cleanliness of the water near and dear to my heart. My kids, they swim in the lake, I eat fish out of the lake and my area uses the lake to sustain itself. So, we have an abundance of commercial fishers that earn their living off of Lake Manitoba, as their fathers and fathers before them, and mothers too, of course, as I've stated before.
My area where I live is in the RM of St. Laurent, and it's–it kind of depends on cottage country that has grown up over the last seven decades that has become what it is today. Our communities around the lake depend on the lake for its sustenance, our municipalities dependent on it for tax base. And I guess there's a lot fewer municipalities than there were before the forced amalgamation from the NDP but, nonetheless, they still need the tax base.
But equally as important to the health of our lake is also the health of our drinking water. So, the majority of the water we drink in my area is via wells and they're from subterranean aquifers, very important to make our area inhabitable.
So, I'm not certain if the member opposite that's brought this forward is familiar, but there aren't any water treatment plants in the majority of the drinking water for the Interlake area.
But, firstly, I want to talk about our lakes, so let's start about the flood of 2011. Lake Manitoba, the lake that I live on, had water taken from a different watershed and dumped into it–this dump of polluted water under the NDP's watch, I might add. My lake–not that I own it but the majority of it resides in my riding, so I'll refer to it as my lake and, as I mentioned, I live on it as well–it had more pollution dumped into it in this one short summer than in recorded history, all under members opposite's watch.
Prior to 2011–so, prior to 2011, 94 or so per cent of the pollution in Lake Manitoba still comes through the Portage Diversion. So, this 2011 redirection makes that seem like a drop in the proverbial bucket, so to speak.
We have a series of flood infrastructures around our province, and some are operated out of our jurisdictions; they're in other provinces and some are actually in the–in a different country south of us. So, these are all operated independently from Manitoba, so we can't rely on them. But as the member is aware, the NDP government has mismanaged numerous flood infrastructures prior to the years and following the 2011 water event.
So the NDP have been unable to properly manage our waterways and lakes, over and above all of this, failing to meet their promise to implement the necessary changes cited in the 2011 flood report. That's very important.
So let's take the Shellmouth Reservoir, for example, also known as Lake of the Prairies to the people that have cottages around it. There is a dam that holds water to fill the 'resermore'–reservoir. The Shellmouth Dam is what it's called. So this piece of infrastructure is designed to hold water back during high water events. This structure is designed to let go during low water in preparation for spring. So it's supposed to be lower and be at low levels accepting water and shaving the peak off of spring flows or any major rain events.
So it takes the peak off and releases it when it's safe to do so. So during the summer and fall of 2010 when they had opportunity to release some of the water, they chose not to. Why? Well, some speculate that they kept it high for their rich pals so they can enjoy fishing at their cottages on a lake where there was never supposed to be a lake. Members opposite used a multi-million-dollar piece of flood infrastructure to benefit their pals to utilize it for fishing and boating.
Fast forward to the spring of 2011, this provincial infrastructure that was being used for their pals' recreation is now too full to operate efficiently. So what happens? Well, the reservoir takes what it can and it's near its upper levels so it can't be utilized as it's designed.
Gravity takes over and then water is on its path nearly taking out Brandon on its way, a wave of water pulled downstream by gravity, because the Shellmouth Dam was operated to the benefit of some recreational buddies, there is now a wall of running–water running down the Assiniboine River.
So the Portage Diversion is the only line of defence for Winnipeg after it reaches that point. So where does the Portage Diversion take the water? Yes, you guessed it, Lake Manitoba, right where I live. Everything is perfect now, right? Well, Winnipeg survived.
So let's talk about another piece of water–flood infrastructure as well. The Fairford water control structure is a very important piece of infrastructure and was designed to control the level of Lake Manitoba. So remember myself and tens of thousands of other properties are around this lake, Fairford water control structure, similar to the Shellmouth Dam, is operated to help control levels of Lake Manitoba.
Over the years prior to 2011, Lake Manitoba was kept well above its normal operating range. As a matter of fact, in the fall of 2010, the normal operating range was exceeded and the lake was at 812.8 above sea level mismanaged by the NDP.
So back to the spring of 2011 now, because their mismanagement on the Shellmouth Dam, the two main operations for the wall of water coming, the Portage Diversion or the Assiniboine River, neither of these are able to handle what they mismanaged.
So they increase on the size of the Portage Diversion, just dug it out, increased it to dump extra water into a complete different watershed. Dumped over 35,000 cubic feet per second into Lake Manitoba, a lake that is not naturally destined for this water. So what happens to this is an unimaginable amount of pollutant–polluted flooded water is dumped into Lake Manitoba.
So it raises the lake nearly five feet. Well, what happens next? Let's look at the trickle effects, although they aren't much of a trickle of the mismanaged infrastructure. It now engulfs homes, cottages, farms, septic tanks, overtops water wells, vehicles, tractors, overtaking feeding pens, all to be drained into the lake or down a well.
Commercial fishers lose their catch for multiple years, nets are damaged, snagged on flood debris such as old refrigerators is one example. Farmers are forced to evacuate their livestock, manure piles are washed away, cottages and homes are sucked into the lake, fridges, stoves, all sorts of appliances, gas cans, oil jugs, along with entire garages and their contents. Flood waters come and go on a river, but lake floods, they can last for years as it did in this case.
So simple science: phosphorus is absorbed into the water from vegetation as it rots from being submerged. Where does that phosphorus go? Where did the manure piles go with the water sitting around it?
Well, as Manitoba subsides, the leeched phosphorus goes back into the boundaries of Lake Manitoba.
So, as you call, Fairford water control structure regulates the level of Lake Manitoba. As the water drained from the lake, pulling the phosphorus into it and slowly makes it downstream. What is this downstream of Fairford water control structure? Well, you guessed it–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Johnson) will have one minute remaining.
The hour being 12 p.m., the House is now recessed, and stands recessed until 1:30 p.m.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, October 5, 2017
CONTENTS