LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, October 4, 2022
Clerk (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): It is my duty to inform the House that the Speaker is unavoidably absent. Therefore, in accordance with the statutes, I would ask the Deputy Speaker to please take the chair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Andrew Micklefield): O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.
We acknowledge we are gathered on Treaty 1 territory and that Manitoba is located on the treaty territories and ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg, Anishininewuk, Dakota Oyate, Denesuline and Nehethowuk nations. We acknowledge Manitoba is located on the Homeland of the Red River Métis. We acknowledge northern Manitoba includes lands that were and are the ancestral lands of the Inuit. We respect the treaty and intent of the treaty–sorry, we respect the spirit and intent of the treaties and treaty making and remain committed to working in partnership with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people in the spirit of truth, reconciliation and collaboration.
Please be seated.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Good morning, everybody. I'm advising the House that the Speaker received a letter from the Government House Leader (Mr. Goertzen) indicating that the government caucus has identified Bill 237, The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act; and Bill 233, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act, as two of their selected bills from the government caucus for this session.
As a reminder to the House, rule 24 permits each recognized party to select up to three private members' bills per session to proceed to a second reading vote. In accordance with the Government House Leader's letter, the process for these bills this morning will proceed as follows: for Bill 237, The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act, second reading and debate will begin at 10 a.m.; the question will be put on the second reading motion at 10:45 a.m. For Bill 233, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act, debate at second reading will resume at 10:45 a.m., or as soon as the question has been resolved for Bill 237; the question will be put on the second reading motion at 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: So, we will now proceed with Bill 237, The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act, at second reading.
Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East): I move, seconded by the member from Fort Whyte, that Bill 237, The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act (Poppy Number Plates), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Isleifson: I take great pride in rising in the House today for second reading of Bill 237.
I want to go back in history a little bit to March 1st, 2005; the government of Manitoba introduced bill 211, which was The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Veterans' Licence Plates). Provisions of this new act provided direction to the registrar that they must make available a numbered plate that bears a veterans' graphic. The veteran graphic must include the word veteran and the description of a poppy. Additionally, restrictions were enforced to ensure that only a person who was a soldier, as defined in the soldier's taxation 'reliesf' act, would be eligible to be issued a numbered plate that varied the veteran graphic.
The following requirements for eligibility are also contained in the original bill from 2005, which is in effect today, currently reads: you qualify if you've served honourably in the Canadian Forces or an Allied force or in the merchant navy or ferry command during the Second World War or the Korean War; the Canadian Forces for at least three years and/or NATO operations or united peace–nations peacekeeping force as a member of the Canadian Forces, the RCMP, another Caladian [phonetic] police force or an Allied force.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, parts of this criteria are obsolete and simply do not reflect the definition of a veteran as outlined by the Veterans Affairs, which is, and I quote: any former member of the Canadian Forces who successfully underwent basic training and is honourably released.
So, in discussions with the Royal Canadian Legion, this new bill that I am proposing today streamlines the Legion's purpose of the poppy plate and it increases the eligibility for Canadian Forces members to promote veterans by displaying poppy plates on their vehicles.
This bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, amends The Drivers and Vehicles Act by permitting any active military member who has honourably served for at least one year, a former member of the Canadian Forces who has honourably been released, or a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force who voluntarily resigns in good standing from the force.
While a number of licences have been issued in the province now bear this plate, a new opportunity has arisen and this would allow additional individuals to be afforded the opportunity to show their respect in carrying one of these plates. The honour of displaying an individual's dedication to our country by issuing a veterans' licence plate in the province of Manitoba would speak volumes.
I speak in support of retired RCMP members who have dedicated their lives in serving all Canadians from coast to coast and even at times overseas. Having the ability to honour their service and for them to publicly show their pride would be an honour to the invaluable services provided by these members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the addition of both active military members and retired RCMP members to this act is not something that I designed but is rather coming at the request of both the retired members of the RCMP and the Royal Canadian Legion. Once this bill passes and receives royal assent, this bill would allow retired RCMP members the ability to obtain a veterans' plate here in Manitoba, thereby providing the opportunity for them to display their own dedication to our amazing country.
Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion has registered the trademark of the poppy image to safeguard the poppy insignia as a symbol of remembrance. The people of Canada also provided enhanced protection to the poppy insignia as a protected mark through the act of Parliament in 1948.
* (10:10)
In order to ensure that the poppy continues to be safeguarded, numerous consultations were held across Manitoba and outside our provincial borders, even in Ottawa, where I met with the deputy director of the Dominion Command, Mr. Danny Martin.
I've had many discussions with retired military personnel, executive personnel at all of our bases in CFB Shilo and in Winnipeg, both active and retired RCMP members, along with Mr. Ralph Mahar who was the president of the royal Canadian mounted veterans–police veterans association.
While the poppy is registered with the Canadian Legion–pardon me–while the poppy is registered with the Royal Canadian Legion, it also reached out to our military organizations like ANAVETS to ensure that I had their feedback, their viewpoints and their thoughts on our discussions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have had the opportunity to visit many branches of the Royal Canadian Legion and some of them display a large, giant mural of both military and RCMP members on their walls. Every Legion member that I have spoken to was supportive of this initiative, and I ask all of my colleagues from all sides of this House to join me in supporting the Royal Canadian Legion and the work of our retired RCMP members by passing this legislation today.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you can imagine RCMP members working their entire lives within Canada's borders to provide and safeguard for all of us. The sacrifices made by members of the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces should not only be recognized, but it should be appreciated.
Expanding the definition of a veteran would help Manitobans recognize the sacrifices that those who have put their lives on the line to serve for us here in Canada. The current eligibility of a veterans' plate, as I mentioned, says three years of service for those that served.
In the military, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not all deployments or even not all people working in the military do three years. Some are put through basic training because they have a certain skill set and that skill set will be used on a particular project, and the project may only be a year long and then they are released under good standing from the military. Following the old criteria of having three years, they would not be considered a veteran, even though Veterans Affairs considers them a veteran because they have served one year and have been honourly released.
So this change would allow those folks who are temporarily employed in a role within the military–provides them with the opportunity to show their pride, as well, by demonstrating a veterans' plate on their vehicle.
As for retired RCMP officers, the current definition allows RCMP officers, who are–have served in World War II or the Korean War, or in any war in a peacekeeping mission. And in the words of the Legion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you can look at that criteria, the number of eligible persons in Manitoba, let alone all of Canada, who would be eligible to carry the licence plate are, over time, diminishing.
This provides an opportunity for the Legion to work with folks to ensure the memories and the sacrifices of those who did sacrifice for our country are recognized. And once again, speaking to retired RCMP members, they would be honoured to be able to display the veterans' plates on their vehicles.
As anybody knows, if you know anybody in law enforcement, the last thing a law enforcement officer would want to do is put a licence plate on their vehicle that identifies them as a police officer. It's not safe for them, it's not safe for their families, it's not safe for their friends and their–in their neighbourhood. But carrying a veterans' plate would definitely have some significance on, again, on the sacrifices that they have made.
So again, with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do want to give others an opportunity–again, we're not the only province to do this. There are a number of provinces that recognize retired RCMP members and even active RCMP members and military members, and this brings us in line. And again, it comes at the request of the retired RCMP officers and the Legion who own the rights to the poppy.
So, I thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Deputy 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.
The floor is open for questions.
The honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Brar). [interjection] My apologies, I was wrong. I'm sorry. The honourable member for Maples.
Mr. Mintu Sandhu (The Maples): Thank you to member from Brandon East for bringing forward this very important bill.
I would like to ask, as is probably–is the usual. Who did he consult on the bill?
Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East): Thank you very much, and I thank the member from The Maples for that great question.
As I mentioned in my preamble, I mean, consultation is very important. And I did start off with a constituent who is a retired RCMP officer that came to me with the idea. So I chatted with himself, I've chatted with his organization, which is the retired RCMP officers association of Manitoba, a number of Legions throughout Manitoba, ANAVETS and, of course, I also went to Ottawa and met with the executive director, I guess the deputy director, of the Dominion Command, which is part of the Legions.
And again, all the air force bases, the navy, I didn't really get an opportunity, but definitely CFB Shilo as well, and spoke to the commanders out there.
Mr. Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): I'm wondering if the member can elaborate a little bit more on why this is personally important to him to see this bill pass today.
Mr. Isleifson: Very good question, thank you very much for that question.
When we have the ability to stand back and look at who serves and allows us to live the life that we live and the sacrifices that they make; when I look at RCMP officers, you know, the sacrifices that make with–and sure, they get recognition in different areas–but for them to be able to stand up and honour themselves by having this plate on their vehicle, it means a world of difference to them And to be able to stand in this House and to bring that forward and work on behalf of not just my constituents, but all of Manitobans who would like this opportunity, makes it very well worth it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Official opposition have the next question.
Mr. Sandhu: How did you come up with the specific eligibility requirement for these licence plates?
Mr. Isleifson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had a trouble grabbing my earpiece here and I didn't really hear the question, so I'm wondering if we could just have the member repeat the question.
Mr. Sandhu: How did you come up with the specific eligibility requirement for these licence plates?
Mr. Isleifson: And thank you for the question, again. And again, the actual process that came up was through consultation. We wanted to make sure that the definition that we're using in Manitoba is the same definition that Veterans Affairs is using in Ottawa. So we wanted to come along and make that right.
But again, it's as I mentioned, the poppy itself is registered and protected through the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion, so in Ottawa meeting with them we went over the criteria, and it's their recommendation to put this criteria in place to allow others.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): In the bill, you include former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force who voluntarily have resigned. And my question is this: occasionally, people are falsely accused and are forced to resign–don't resign voluntarily–but then later on, the facts come out, and it's very clear that the person has been falsely accused.
Is it your intent that that individual who has been cleared would be able to have a poppy licence plate?
Mr. Isleifson: Thank you for the question. The purpose of the bill is to allow those who gave a good career in the RCMP the honour to be able to have the licence plate.
* (10:20)
The criteria, or the registrar, it's all gets approved through the Royal Canadian Legion. So, I mean, I can't speak for the Royal Canadian Legion, but the wording we used is honourably released, honourably discharged, or on their own, which means that they would still be honoured.
If there is something in there that, in the case that the member is speaking of, I would assume that the Legion itself, because they're the ones who will accept or deny the application, they would reach out to that member for more particulars.
Mr. Sandhu: What else can the PC government do to support our veterans and for soldiers?
Mr. Isleifson: So, when we look at the sacrifices and the commitment that our military personnel play in Manitoba, I'm very fortunate and–in my role right now, outside of this bill, as the special envoy for military affairs. And almost on a daily basis, definitely on a weekly basis, I have the opportunity to have discussions with not just military major generals and brigadier generals, but also soldiers, cadets and so on. And they provide such a great opportunity. They're struggling right now, as well, with recruitment in the military, and opening this up will definitely provide–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Sandhu: Maybe I can ask the member, had he thought about Winnipeg police or Brandon police, somehow recognizing them too?
Mr. Isleifson: Absolutely, one hundred per cent. I have spoken with the chief in–at Brandon, as well, and I know we've have put some feelers out to the Winnipeg police.
The idea of the bill, though, is it's not necessarily a bill for police officers, where it is for military personnel because that is their role. We wanted to start–and I say we, as working with the Legion–we wanted to start with retired RCMP officers. They have–they would welcome any police officer, but they felt it was easier to–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. James Teitsma (Radisson): A pleasure to get up and ask a question, and I was particularly struck as this bill was introduced that it was being introduced by the special envoy for military affairs. I think that's entirely appropriate and I was wondering if the member could spend a moment telling us about that role and what it all involves, and how that role also, you know, played a part in bringing this legislation forward to this Chamber today.
Mr. Isleifson: I thank my seat colleague here for that great question.
As the special envoy for military affairs, it's a great honour and privilege to work with our military personnel throughout the province. When I look, again, at the sacrifices that they make, anything that we can do to make life easier for those that are transitioning into our province, for which may be a two‑year stay, maybe a three‑year stay, some may stay longer, but in general it's two to three years.
When they travel across country and move all the time, it makes life a little bit more challenging and difficult for them. I actually met a couple on Saturday evening–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Sandhu: Can the member properly highlight how the Armed Forces has helped Manitoba in the past such as in the flood in 1997 and 1950s?
Mr. Isleifson: Again, we–that's a great question.
When you look at the input that members of our military have provided to us in Manitoba, whether it's fires, whether it's floods, even the distribution through–and I hate the say the word COVID, but through that, the co‑operation we've received from military personnel here in Manitoba to help with distribution of the vaccines up north.
And again, as the member mentioned, through floods, going up there and helping residents. Those are tough times for people and it's nice to have that ability to know that there is somebody that has your back. And having the military come out, moving away from their families for days–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Lagassé: I'm wondering if the member–well, I'd like to give the member a little bit of an opportunity to explain more as to why this bill is important to him, and what he feels are the most important aspects of this bill.
Mr. Isleifson: And again, I got to go back and say: Is it important to me? Absolutely. In my role as a special envoy, we need to do as much as possible.
But the reason it's so important to me is because it's important to my constituents; it's important to all of our constituents who are retired members of the RCMP, who are military members who take the opportunity to put their lives on the line, to sacrifice their time from–with–away from their families, to sacrifice so much.
It's a little bit that we can do to help the Legions so that we never, ever forget what our veterans have afforded us, here in Manitoba.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The time for questions has ended. The time for questions is over.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It's–the floor is open for debate.
Mr. Mintu Sandhu (The Maples): It is my honour to rise in the House today to put a few words on the record regarding Bill 237, The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act (Poppy Number Plates).
I'd like to thank the member from Brandon East for bringing this bill forward, and we in the NDP caucus in–fully support of this bill, so we will be in support of this bill and will be passing this bill today.
This bill amends The Drivers and Vehicles Act. Licence plates depicting a red poppy and the Canadian flag are to be made available to honourable serving or discharged members of the Canadian Forces and to former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police forces. The veterans' licence plates currently provided for in the regular sense are unaffected.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, even though I don't have any family members in the military, but I do have a family member in the RCMP and my cousin is serving in RCMP in Surrey, BC, and a few of my friends and my family members here in Manitoba also are serving in the RCMP.
So, our team–our NDP team believes that we have the responsibility to continue and fully remind ourselves and all Manitobans of important sacrifice that servicemen and women have made for our country. The NDP team–N‑D team has a strong history of supporting veterans. I like to highlight a few of those, Mr. Deputy Speaker, starting with first we passed a bill in 2005 that required the MPI to make a licence plate bearing a veterans' graphic available to the soldiers.
Military has played a important role past and present in Manitoba, and we continuously support and honour our veterans and current members of the Armed Forces. As I said, in 1950, they have helped in the flood and also in nineteen fifty–1997, 8,500 members also served in the flood.
The Province offers a specialty designed motor licence plate–passenger vehicles plate to honour Manitoba veterans. The veterans specialty licence plate pays homage to our veterans and peacekeepers for their dedication, bravery and sacrifice they have made. The veterans' motorcycle licence plate–vehicle plate displays a symbolic red poppy which becomes lasting memorial symbol to fallen soldiers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we owe a tremendous debt to our–of gratitude to our veterans for the sacrifice they have made defending Canada around the world in wars and peacekeeping missions. Our veterans have fought for our rights and freedoms, sometimes at the cost of their own lives.
* (10:30)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I like to highlight a few of the things that Manitoba NDP, in the past, have passed bills or have supported the veterans. In 2012, our government passed a bill that proclaimed November 5th to 11th as a Remembrance Day Awareness Week and require schools to hold Remembrance Day events on the last school day before Remembrance Day.
In 2012, we also signed a memorandum of understanding to strengthen economic, cultural and historic ties with the Lower Normandy, the region where so many of our veterans fought during D-Day in 1944. We also designated the Trans-Canada Highway west of Winnipeg as, I quote, heroes–highway of heroes, unquote, in remembrance of those who bravely served.
In 2011, our government announced $200,000 in new funding for the military families or centre–child-care centre located in St. James. In 2011, we also introduced legislation that allows military personnel to end their rental agreement before they expired, if they are deployed in the military service, without penalty or needing to find a new tenant to take over the remainder of their lease.
So, with this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I said before, we are in fully support of this bill, and as I said, my cousin is in RCMP and he is serving in Surrey, BC. He served in various capacities, starting way back, long time ago as a–just serving in the RCMP. And now he is–maybe I can say it–he's an undercover officer. And I do have a friend here in Winnipeg, just outside of Winnipeg in Selkirk detachment, who is working in West St. Paul, and there's a other City of Winnipeg police officer, as I asked earlier if we can recognize them, too, and friends who are serving in there too.
So, as I said, we are fully of supporting of this bill.
And thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I will talk briefly on this bill. I think it is really important and significant that we are recognizing members of the Canadian Forces, those who serve actively now, those who have been honourably discharged and, as well, are recognizing former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force who have voluntarily resigned in good standing from the force.
The Canadian Forces have done a remarkable job over many, many years in world wars, in the Korean War, in Afghanistan and in a variety of other places as peacekeepers. It is right that we recognize these, and have them have a licence plate which shows that they indeed have contributed in a major way to Canada. Similarly, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force have served nobly and have made a incredible contribution over many years.
We are, of course, sad that there are occasional instances of problems, but that's perhaps not to be entirely unexpected, given the critical nature of many of the circumstances that the RCMP are dealing with. Certainly, we acknowledge the contribution of the Canadian Forces in the recent addressing of the issues related to Hurricane Fiona in the Maritimes. It's an incredible contribution that the Armed Forces have made, and are making at home, with disasters, with COVID pandemic, and it's truly a remarkable service that the Canadian Armed Forces make for all of us.
So with those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will finish up. Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
Merci. Miigwech.
Hon. Jon Reyes (Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Immigration): I rise today to put a few words on the record in support of Bill 237, The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act.
First of all, I want to thank all of the MLAs, past and present, who have served in the role of special envoy for military affairs. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Brandon East (Mr. Isleifson), for putting this bill forward. I know he's done a lot of work with meeting with many stakeholders.
I just want to share why–to my colleagues–why this bill is very important to me. Many know that I spent 10 years of military experience, mainly in the Royal Canadian Navy during the 1990s. I wore that Queen's insignia, the flag with pride, with tremendous honour.
I know many of my colleagues–former colleagues, past and present, those who have passed away, would have really liked to have a licence plate because it gives them a lot of pride.
I remember when I got that veteran's licence plate because I have it on my personal vehicle, that I remember when I put it on and I was driving around with my vehicle, I remember some people were going, who's the vet? Because, I guess, people classify vet as someone from the World War I, two, Korean vets, Hong Kong vets, but there are many veterans now who have served in other areas of conflict.
Afghanistan, you know, and Ukraine, but I just want to let people know that when I did serve in the military, I served with great pride, so to have a plate to remember the service I–you did for your country, and for the Queen, with your colleagues across this great country, is a tremendous honour.
I know that as recently as when I served as the military envoy myself, I know meeting with members of Manitoba's military community, those who have served and those who are still serving, would have tremendous pride in obtaining this licence plate. So I commend the member for Brandon East (Mr. Isleifson) for engaging with the retired member from the RCMP and going a step further.
Many of us attend citizenship ceremonies, and we see retired RCMP members and current ones who serve in those ceremonies, so I'm sure they'll be very, very happy to realize that they'll be able to apply for the veteran's licence plate.
Having a Manitoba licence plate will give them that honour, those who have served, and I know that whether it's been an NDP government or a PC government, both governments have truly support the military and veterans throughout the years.
I want to thank the member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler). I know that he initiated the support our troops plates back when he was in opposition, so I thank the member for Lakeside for doing that. With regards to our government's contributes for veterans–because I know the member from The Maples did ask that question–what our government has done for veterans.
In 2019 our government has directed Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries to adjust the video lottery terminal revenue sharing agreements with veterans organizations. Veterans organizations are receiving additional five per cent of the VLT revenues from machines operating in their facilities.
Our government established the military Manitoba conservation grant with a $2-million investment from the government providing grants for conservation work on existing military memorials with a goal of extending their physical life and commemorative function, while raising their profile as sites of reflection and remembrance, and I thank the leadership, the MLA from Kildonan‑River East for that.
Our government has made easier for Manitobans to show their support for veterans this year through a digital project, Manitoba Remembers, to honour veterans, remember their sacrifices and bring the community together.
I know that many of us have attended, when we were kids, assemblies at schools on Remembrance Day, and you–you know, if you're fortunate, you would hear a veteran speak about, you know, their experience back when they did serve.
* (10:40)
So it would bring tremendous pride–it has already–for military members who have been–who've honourably served and been discharged, and as well to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have honourably served and are discharged.
There are many worthy–other worthy organizations and teams that have specialty plates in recent years, so it makes logical sense to know that the military and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be recognized because of the hard work of the special envoy for military affairs, the member from Brandon East has put into this bill.
So I just want to say to all veterans, military, law enforcement, I want to thank you for the service. We can't thank them enough, and thank you for always being there when you're called upon duty.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other speakers?
The question before the House is second reading of Bill 237, The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
All those in favour? It was agreed. Okay, great. It might–I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Johnson).
Okay. Continuing as previously announced, debate at second reading will now resume on Bill 233, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act.
The honourable member for Transcona has the floor.
Mr. Nello Altomare (Transcona): As usual, it's always an honour to get up in this House and put a few words on the record, especially when it comes to this bill, Bill 233, where the Province can support engineering and geoscience professionals as they continue to tackle the really large challenges that this province faces.
There is the Lake St. Martin channel, there is the North End Sewage Treatment Plant, all rapid transit question here in the city that also needs to be tackled, and this is done by professional engineers. They play an integral role in ensuring that this goes on.
The other piece that's important, really important to my constituency, of course, is the work that occurs, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at New Flyer Industries, where engineers play an integral role in new zero-emission transportation options for cities.
NFI is well known for its electric buses, its hydrogen fuel cell buses as well. I have a neighbour who actually works at New Flyer and is an engineer and works in that area. And it's an important piece that certainly doesn't go unnoticed in Transcona.
The interesting conundrum, of course, is why we don't see any of these zero-emission buses in the city of Winnipeg. That would be the next step to show that we really not only value the work that happens at NFI, but also value the work that engineers provide here in this province.
But it's a challenge. There used to be, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Manitoba advantage, but as this government delays its investments in some of these infrastructure projects like Lake St. Martin, like the North End Sewage Treatment Plant, like rapid transit, these things have an impact.
But you know what? Engineers will work through that because they're used to facing challenges. And they will certainly rise to the occasion when it comes to that.
The other piece that remains important, of course, is professional development. We know that professional development is something that keeps professionals not only engaged but also current with the very latest of what's occurring in their profession, and it's one thing that is also included in this bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the organization itself, the Engineers Geoscientists of Manitoba, have put forth a number of really good professional development opportunities that also included how to counter gender bias in STEAM education, something that's really important, something that's happening right now in public schools. And I know that there's a partnership between this organization and public schools, especially ensuring that we have gender diversity in this profession. We have many young women and gender‑diverse folks that really want to be part of this, and the geoscientists and engineers of Manitoba have taken a leadership role in making sure that this happens.
And where's the best place to start? In our public schools. These all–they have also provided co-working sessions for interns who are women and also gender diverse. They've also done the practical writing course skills, which is really important in this particular profession.
But, as we see right now with the challenges of the pandemic, we have to ensure that newcomers also have the opportunity–newcomer engineers, newcomer teachers, newcomer nurses, newcomers in all of these particular professions have opportunities to become registered and licensed in this particular profession. I know that this is something that's important not only to the geoscientists but also to the people of Manitoba.
So, in closing, Deputy Speaker, while bills like this are important, there are still many roadblocks that are put in place by this government: a lack of planning, a lack of foresight when it comes to the challenges faced coming out of a pandemic. We see it in health care, with nurses not being able to get trained quickly enough to be part of the front line, and we also now are going to start seeing that with geoscientists and engineers ready to work, ready to be part of this economy.
And so, while this bill is a good bill to bring forward for the geoscientists and engineers, we also need a government that is in partnership–real partnership, puts their money where their mouth is and actually gets some of these things done. Because we've got all the people ready to work; now let's put Manitobans to work.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Adrien Sala (St. James): It's an honour to have a chance to speak to this bill, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act, Bill 233.
And it's an honour to speak in support of engineers and geoscientists of this province. We know that they play such an important role, or they have played an incredibly important role in the development and the history of this province, and they'll continue to do so. And when I think about the importance of engineers to our province, I think about the incredible work that engineers did in support of developing our hydroelectric system here in Manitoba and just how absolutely integral they were to that province-building, to that future-building endeavour that we undertook as a province.
You know, I also want to mention just briefly that it also gives me great pleasure to speak about, you know, this bill and ultimately in supporting this–in support of this profession because my oldest daughter is–since she's been five years old has spoken about wanting to become an engineer. So she dreams of that career profession, and I'm very proud of her as a young girl of wanting to be someone who contributes to the development–her development to focus on becoming a builder, and it's a proud thing for me as a father.
So, I'm just briefly going to talk a bit about what this bill seeks to do. The bill would expand, first of all, the duties of the registrar for engineers and geoscientists of Manitoba, would give the registrar the power to register engineers and geoscientists from other jurisdictions as members of the association and it would authorize engineers and geoscientists to practise their profession through a partnership corporation or legal entity. Would also establish the specified scope of practice licensees, clarifying that individuals who do not meet the requirements for membership in the association but are qualified to practice within a limited scope of engineering or geoscience may conduct their practice in a manner more similar to a member, including their partner–through a partnership, corporation or other legal entity. And then it would also provide an incentive to engineers and geoscientists to complete their professional development obligations by empowering the association to release the names of members who failed to do so. And finally, it would make changes to the appeals process for issues concerning membership and misconduct.
So, some important proposals being brought forward here with this bill and some important changes and amendments to the legislation that I think will serve engineers and geoscientists and will help them to continue to grow.
But there's a–there's some commitment here that's missing from this government. So, we're bringing forward a bill that ostensibly serves to support engineers and geoscientists in this province, but at the same time, this government is failing to make investments in infrastructure in this province and to make the kinds of investments that would allow engineers and that career–people who've followed that career path to have the opportunities that they deserve in this province, that would give them reason to want to build a life here, to stay here, to build careers here.
* (10:50)
So we know that, you know, this government has continued to underspend in infrastructure by significant amounts. They cut its levels of infrastructure spending by hundreds of millions per year and underspent what the government did commit, meaning less investments in roads, hospitals and schools.
In the first term in office, this PC government cut infrastructure spending by $1.853 billion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That's from the Winnipeg Free Press. The PC government has repeatedly underspent hundreds of millions of dollars from annual budgeted infrastructure spending. Must be fake news, according to our friends across the aisle here. In 2017-18–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sala: –they budgeted $1.677 billion for infrastructure projects, including $510 million for highways and airport runways, and $143 million for maintenance and preservation of highways. But Public Accounts show that only $1.19 billion was spent on infrastructure, with spending on highways falling $60 million short of what was budgeted. Again, that's not our opinion, that's what was written about in the Winnipeg Free Press in May of 2020. [interjection]
I'm kind of confused by the laughter across the way at references to the Winnipeg Free Press, which is obviously an important newspaper here in this province. I don't know if they're mistrusting of what's been written, but very clearly they do not like to be reminded of their record. [interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sala: That's right, that's right. They may be looking to other, less trustworthy sources of information.
That trend continued, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Again, 2018 and 2019, $1.634 billion was budgeted for strategic infrastructure, but only 1.068 was spent. That's also from the Winnipeg Free Press. Again, we can see over and over again–over and over again–this record of making these huge commitments and underspending.
And that's having a significant impact on their number of opportunities that are available to engineers and geoscientists in this province. And that's a big concern. So we can bring forward a bill like this that will make some improvements, and help to, you know, make some amendments with regard to the profession of engineering, which are positive, but at the same time, this government is taking action that continues to remove opportunities, to shrink the number of opportunities that engineers have in this province, and frankly threatens many of those jobs and threatens to send those folks to other places.
And you know, I think that that brings me to another important point. We were talking about the reduction of opportunities for engineers in this province. We know that this government made really concerning cuts and they privatized Teshmont in Manitoba Hydro and they wound down Manitoba Hydro International, which was a really important subsidiary of Hydro that earned millions and millions of dollars for Manitoba Hydro and ultimately for rate payers, and that created a huge number of great jobs for engineers in this province.
We know that since this PC government wound down Manitoba Hydro International, the majority of those jobs are now gone and have left the province to other jurisdictions; they've gone off to Toronto, they've gone off to Vancouver. This government has a tendency to cut, to shrink, and in the case of their work at Hydro, they've created a significant amount of damage that has, again, lessened the number of opportunities for engineers in this province to do the important work that they do. And that's a big concern and should be a big concern and this government should, frankly, be ashamed of what they've done at Hydro and their continued cuts that they've made there.
I'm going to speak briefly just about the, again, the one provision with the bill which includes a reference to specified scope of practice licensees. This appears to be, you know, a provision to ensure that individuals with engineering accreditations from other jurisdictions can work in Manitoba, can have the ability to work here in Manitoba, to make it easier for those to work in a variety of capacities within the profession here in Manitoba. That's generally positive. But we know that in other areas of government, the PCs have failed to make it easier in areas that are really critical to this province, especially in health care.
And we look at what–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In accordance with rule 25 and as previously announced, you know–yes, okay. In accordance with rule 25, and as previously announced, I'm interrupting this debate to put the question on second reading of Bill 233, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will now move to private members–I'm advising the House that the Speaker has received a letter from the Government House Leader (Mr. Goertzen) and the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Lamont) indicating that the member for St. Boniface has identified Bill 225, The Non-Disclosure Agreements Act, as his selected bill for this session.
As a reminder to the House, rule 25 permits each independent member to select one private member's bill per session to proceed to a second-reading vote and requires the Government House Leader and the member to provide written notice as to the date and time of the debate and the vote.
In accordance with this rule and the letter, Bill 225 will be called for debate on Tuesday, October 11th, 2022 as follows: debate at second reading will begin at 10 a.m., question put on the second reading motion at 10:55 a.m.
* * *
Hon. Derek Johnson (Acting Government House Leader): Is there will of the House to see it as 11 o'clock?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 11 o'clock [Agreed]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hour being 11 o'clock, it is time for private members' resolutions.
We will proceed to resolution No. 21, Federal Fertilizer Reduction, put forward by the honourable member for Portage la Prairie.
Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): Moved by myself and seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Michaleski),
WHEREAS the agribusiness sector's contribution to the Manitoba GDP is the third highest in Canada as a percentage of total provincial GDP; and
WHEREAS this summer the head of the United Nations, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, warned that the world is facing a catastrophe due to growing food shortages as a result of the impact of the War in Ukraine; and
WHEREAS Canadian families are feeling the pressures of inflation when they try to feed their families, the Agri-Foods Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University predicts food related inflation will be between five and seven percent; and
WHEREAS one in four Canadian families are going into debt to keep food on the table while prices are rising due to the money printing fiscal policy of the Federal Liberal-NDP coalition; and
WHEREAS at the same time the Federal Liberal-NDP coalition in Ottawa is pushing forward with a fertilizer policy that will force Manitoba farmers to produce less food and raise prices of what they do grow; and
WHEREAS the Federal Liberal-NDP coalition has failed to engage Manitoba's farmers, failed to consult with Indigenous farmers and has failed to consider the impacts this will have on farmers and producers and has failed to consider how this will impact families in the province; and
WHEREAS with these limitations on Manitoban and Canadian farmers it would hinder their ability to do business in a global market; and
WHEREAS the Federal Liberal-NDP coalition's plan fails to consider the ability to reduce emissions on an intensity basis which would allow producers to take scientific approaches to reductions while being able to increase their production; and
WHEREAS this bad public policy will impact anyone who purchases or consumes food in this country, and like most federal policies, those struggling the most will be the ones who are disproportionately impacted.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba call on the federal government to abandon their fertilizer reduction strategy that will hurt Manitoba farmers, producers and families, and additionally ensure that there are no penalties or exclusions from federal programs for farmers who do not meet these arbitrary targets.
Motion presented.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for St. Boniface, on a point of–
Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): Contempt of Parliament.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: –on a matter of contempt.
Mr. Lamont: I rise on a point of contempt. The issue of contempt of Parliament or contempt of the Legislature is not to be raised lightly. I am raising this point of contempt at the earliest possible opportunity given that it relates to the resolution being presented this morning by the member for Portage la Prairie, which contains numerous statements that are misleading and, worse, consist of introducing as facts in this Chamber elements of a conspiracy theory.
Today's resolution accuses members of Parliament–and falsely suggests that there is a coalition that–in the–in Ottawa–of deliberately engineering inflation and global famine, statements of which are not only blatantly false but dangerously slow–so.
There have been articles in The Narwhal and the National Observer pointing out that there is no basis in fact to many of these statements. In fact, it is linked to a conspiracy theory that suggests that there is a globalist plot, and I quote, is there a–from The Narwhal: Is there a globalist plot to starve us into submission through emissions reductions? In short, no.
That is the core accusation that we're going to be dating–debating this morning and it's not acceptable. Let's be clear on the facts: this is an entirely voluntary plan designed to reduce waste and pollution that costs producers money, and not only is no one being forced to participate in an entirely voluntary fertilizer program that the member is talking about, the government of Manitoba and keystone agriculture producers are both participating in it.
* (11:00)
Today's resolution goes beyond the bounds of reasonable debate–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Okay, order please. [interjection] Order, please. I've listened to the member's introductory remarks and I believe the motion is out of order because it is a dispute over the facts, which does not serve as a basis for a matter of contempt.
So does the member have the support of three other members?
The member does not have the support of three other members. The ruling is sustained.
Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): That's–much of my commentary actually will deal with the concerns that the member has–for St. Boniface has brought forward.
He's certainly accurate in his statement that it isn't just a reduction in fertilizer use, it is a reduction in emissions that the federal government has designated as their target. What I'm going to attempt to lay out in my comments is the impossibility of achieving a reduction of emissions of the scale that the federal government is proposing without having a corresponding reduction in fertilizer usage.
And that is the real impact of this particular motion–or this particular effort on their part, and we'll have the real impact on the landscape here in Manitoba and all across Canada.
So, we all know there's much misinformation out there on this particular issue and that currently it is a voluntary reduction. But if the member was following and all members were following some of the early discussion, they introduced this along with the caveat that there may be cross-compliance with other agricultural programs.
Things like our safety net programs, which are absolutely essential, or even access to cash advance or farm credit might also be tied into this, and that certainly would be a major blow to the industry that has become very dependent on all these sources to help make the very successful type of agriculture that we see in this country.
Member also would–members also may remember that there was very little consultation on this. Basically they rolled it out and then said to the industry players, how do you like this? And the answer has been a resounding, well, it's pretty much impossible to achieve. And I think that's really the point.
Why is it not possible to achieve? Well, some of it comes down to a misunderstanding. Canada's a big country. Eastern Canada soils have–do have a loss problem, an emissions problem, because they're acid soils and are prone to very heavy rainfall, and that's an ideal environment to lose some of the fertilizer that you have applied.
Here in western Canada we are a much different situation with high PH soils, which, frankly, don't let go of their nutrients very easily. In fact, that's one of the biggest problems in the fertilizer industry, dealing with field efficiencies, is getting it released from the soils. So that–the reality is that probably they're all there is to get, and especially in western Canada in terms of emissions reduction, is in the range of three to five per cent. And there's lots of research to back that up, both here and in Alberta, but there is eastern Canada numbers that are a little higher, would indicate they may have more ability to do something in that area.
But all of this is based around–the 30 per cent reduction is based around information that is pretty out of date when it comes to the reality. And I know that that's often a problem in agriculture because there's a view that agriculture's still using very old techniques, and the reality is quite dramatically different.
So, moving along, rather than just saying, well, we can't do this, there are ways we can, in fact, improve–reduce the losses of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere. And the industry's been working for many years with the fertilizer institute of Canada with a number of different provinces and there, in fact, are agreements with most of the major agricultural provinces, in terms of trying to train agriculture producers, in terms of better uses.
And it's based around what they call the 4R approach. A 4R approach is right source, right place, right time and right rate. And it has been a very good approach in terms of efficiencies that have been gained. In fact, we'll touch later on some of the increase of productivities that we've seen from the application of some of these methodologies.
So the right product or the right source comes down to delayed emissions or delayed availability type of fertilizers, which are currently on the market and are widely used–the ability to get custom blends, which is widespread in the industry right now, so that you apply just what is needed in the right place. Placement sort of comes into this, things like being–equipment now that allows you to either under-apply the fertilizer right under the seed so that there is very little chance of loss or to put it beside the seed, because fertilizer is somewhat acid, so you don't want to put it too close to the seed: it'll root-prune the plants and cause reductions. And so you need to be paying attention to that.
Right time, timed release, late-season release for some types of fertilizer for those crops that need it late in the season, but there is only one time to apply it, which is earlier in the year, and also the right amount. And that's where the biggest gains have frankly been made. Soil testing is now a widespread practice across the whole industry. Not only very detailed soil testing, which–I guess I might as well touch on that now–there is actually technology being developed that is allowing the chemistry to be done right in the field, so that when the soil tester pulls out of the field, he's going to be able to generate a map of the needs of that field for you right there in the field.
So that's probably going to be widespread in the industry in the next two to three years; it's being tested now, and it is very accurate, I'm told, and will certainly improve the application so that people will be able to do variable-rate application and reduce the usage of fertilizer, which is the real goal, but also reduce emissions or losses at that particular time.
Currently, many combines actually track the–with the computer–track the crop removal with the amount of crop coming off each particular area, as you go across the field, so what you're able to do after harvest is generate a map showing complete crop removal of the nutrients from that field. And you can use that to actually design your next year application of fertilizer, depending on the crops, of course, that you're going to put in that field next year.
So this type of technology is actually already out there and being used. And this is a better way to move towards the 30 per cent goal, but it is a very arbitrary target. Chances of actually achieving as much as 30 per cent is actually very limited.
One of the other problems in this is right now, whenever a program like this comes out, they don't pay attention to those that are already using this technology. The best way to do extension education in agriculture is you get early adopters, you get middle adopters, and then of course you have late adopters. And right now programs like the voluntary program the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Lamont) actually referenced ignores early adopters, basically penalizes them. If you penalize them, then of course they don't want to invest themselves when others that follow along are going to be helped along in the program.
So it is important to pay attention to the early adopters and to work co-operatively with them; that's how you get change in this industry. And it's a time-honoured approach.
I'll just move on and touch on a few things. Our government has a history of listening to farmers very carefully and working with them constructively, and we want to continue to do that. Agriculture is one of the cornerstones, as we know, for Canada's food industry. Our value-added industry in Manitoba has made leaps and bounds, whether it's in the oil seed industry, most recently in the french fry and the Roquette and the pea industry, producing new products and using new technology and new techniques that have made value-added agriculture an important player in Manitoba.
And, of course, then we do also have the long-standing oat-processing industry of which Manitoba is the major player in North America when you look in terms of production and also in terms of processing.
* (11:10)
So, given all of these things that I've outlined, reduction of emissions of 30 per cent cannot be achieved, currently, without a change in the amount of fertilizer being used, and that will, of course, reduce the amount of production and will have an impact on all these industries.
I just, in the few moments I have left, I wanted to touch on a couple of things. Agriculture productivity of major fuel crops in Canada has increased by a staggering 34 per cent since 2005, through agriculture intensification and the adoption of these types of new techniques. Now, I can go on for quite a while about how we can do better, but just mandating it from the top down is not the way to achieve that particular goal.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 10 minutes will be held and questions may be addressed in the following sequence: the first question may be asked by a member from another party; any subsequent questions must follow a rotation between the parties; each independent member may ask one question. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.
The floor is open for questions.
Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): I thank the member for this opportunity to ask questions on this resolution.
My first question is, what is the source of the targets the member references and can the member confirm that they are voluntary, I mean, non-binding?
Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): The source of the target is internal to government. There was no prior consultation with all of the crop groups across Canada as to the specific nature of the target.
Can it be achieved? As I have outlined in some of comments, it's very questionable whether or not it can be achieved.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Can the member explain what it will do to farmers and all Manitobans if fertilizer reduction policy is mandated on producers?
Mr. Wishart: If we reduce the amount of fertilizer available for farmer's use, we are going to get a corresponding reduction in crop production. There's a sustainability issue in terms of crop removal. You have to apply the nutrients to deal with crop removal. This is not the way to achieve that.
The UNESCO has said that sustainable production is the way to go, and using–reapplying the nutrients is part of the sustainable production methodology.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): You know, the comments from the MLA for Portage comes straight from the social media of Pierre Poilievre. I wonder, does the MLA for Portage la Prairie believe everything that Pierre Poilievre says and everything that he writes on social media?
Mr. Wishart: I'm not aware of the fact that another individual is making these similar-type comments, but the reality is, achieving a 30 per cent target given the technology we have now, is unachievable.
So if we're going to see a reduction in emissions, it will be less than the 30 per cent target, and as I said, there was no consultation on the 30 per cent target. You can set a number you want–any number you want, the realities of science say different.
Mr. Brad Michaleski (Dauphin): I want to thank the member for Portage la Prairie for bringing a lot of useful experience to this matter.
We know the federal Liberal-NDP coalition at Ottawa is completely out of step pushing their arbitrary fertilizer reduction strategy and their absolute emission reduction strategy as well.
What does the member mean by asking the federal government to ensure that farmers who do not opt into this program are not excluded from federal programs?
Mr. Wishart: Thank you very much for the question and I know the member has been following this issue, as have many members from rural Manitoba.
Initially when the 30 per cent concept was floated by the government, they talked about things like cross‑compliance with other agriculture programs, and I made reference to that, which included the agricultural safety nets, access to loans, cash advances, all of which are essential programs that are joint agreements between the provinces and the federal government to encourage agriculture in this country.
Mr. Brar: My second part of my first question was, can the member confirm that these targets are voluntary?
Mr. Wishart: Currently, the federal government is saying that they are voluntary. As I said, when they initially floated this before they had taken it to the ministers, they talked about cross compliance.
So that does, of course, leave everyone a little bit worried because those other–as the member I'm sure appreciates–those other programs are an essential part of our industry.
Mr. Rick Wowchuk (Swan River): It's sure sad to see our provincial Liberals and their coalition with the NDP, what they're doing to our farmers and to the food source for people of this province.
But with that said, what have stakeholders said about this plan?
Mr. Wishart: I thank the member very much for the question.
Stakeholders like Grain Growers of Canada, Canola Growers, even our provincial organization, Keystone Agricultural Producers, though they are working with the federal government, have all said the 30 per cent target is unrealistic and unachievable.
Mr. Dougald Lamont (St. Boniface): There are a number of–I mean, one of the obvious things is that–to go to the comment of the member for Swan River (Mr. Wowchuk), there is no NDP‑Manitoba Liberal coalition here. There is no NDP‑Liberal coalition in Ottawa either. It's not a coalition government.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lamont: Perfectly happy to put it on the record–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lamont: –actual fact. [interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lamont: But, no–but this goes to the–but this goes to my–this goes–actually goes directly to my point, that this–is that this statement is filled with falsehoods, deliberate falsehoods that, quite frankly, if the–and if the member is unaware of that–if he's unaware–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [interjection] Order. [interjection] Order, please. I'm standing, the member is obliged to sit down.
I do want to give the member time to ask a question, but it is against the rules of this House to–you have to sit down. Members need to sit down when I'm standing. It is against the rules of this House to say that somebody is deliberately misleading. We can disagree, we can certainly take issue with things that are being said, but to accuse a member of deliberately misleading is not allowed and I believe that is firmly established.
I will give the member a few seconds to finish his question.
Mr. Lamont: Is–was the member aware of the fact that there is a conspiracy theory around this suggesting that there is a globalist plot to cause starvation? That's it's a deliberate attempt–this is the deliberate attempt on the part of the–
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Wishart: I'm not quite sure how to answer a question like that.
Certainly, I'm aware that on the Internet there are all kinds of theories, and many people saying that there is, in fact, a plot. I'm trying to deal with the science of the issue here.
The reality is, a 30 per cent target, given the parameters of our soils and our climate, is not an achievable target, and the only–if they're going to hold to that, the only alternative is to actually reduce fertilizer.
Mr. Brar: I would like to ask, the PC government had an early opportunity to get an exemption from the carbon tax from grain drying.
Why didn't PC government take immediate action so that action could have been taken earlier?
Mr. Wishart: Well, the member is probably referring to the fact that we had an alternative program put together in terms of a carbon tax for Manitoba, which has been rejected by the federal government and, of course, correspondingly withdrawn.
* (11:20)
Whether or not carbon tax should be applied to grain drying is certainly an issue that's being debated across the country. I personally think it's absolute nonsense. But we're now looking at the situation where some provinces are paying significantly less in carbon tax and wondering why we are being targeted.
Mr. Eichler: I thank the member from Portage la Prairie for trying to educate some of the things that's been going on with the federal government. With our colleagues to the west, Saskatchewan, Alberta, they've been very clear.
But I ask the member, are Manitoba farmers not wanting to reduce their fertilizer use, and why?
Mr. Wishart: And, of course, Manitoba farmers want to maintain their level of productivity. If they can do that with a reduction in fertilizer using–by using the 4Rs that I referred to, that will work to their advantage and also to society's advantage, and perhaps the world's advantage in terms of reduced emissions.
People don't really have this in perspective. The soil base in western Canada, and Canada as a whole, if we had a 1 per cent increase in organic matter level, would meet the commitments for this country in terms of carbon removal.
So you need to work with agriculture. They have the solution. They are not the problem.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time for questions has expired.
And I just would remind the House that, given that we began this hour at 10:57, we will be recessing for lunch at 11:57. I just say that by way of reminder about how the rules work around the time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The floor is open for debate.
And the honourable member for Burrows has the floor.
Mr. Diljeet Brar (Burrows): I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this important issue that impacts our farmers, all Manitobans, all of us, because, you know, food is something that is important to every living being. That's why they say, if you ate today, thank a farmer.
So, farmers in Manitoba and all over the world, they are feeding us. They are the ones who put food on our table. And I can't thank them enough for what they are doing for us, and they have done for us for so long, especially during the COVID times. They made sure that we eat every single day, multiple times a day.
So, I start from that appreciation to our farming community. I have been working with Manitoba Agriculture for so many years. I have been working with the farmers, I have been working with the youth, I have been working with the specialists sitting around me, and they used to talk about the issues that we're discussing here in this Chamber today.
Although we are not experts, but we understand a little bit of what the experts say, what the experts around me use to educate all of us and educate the farmers who are stewards of land and who know how to care for the environment and how to put food on our table.
So, the strategy that was our extension strategy in Department of Manitoba Agriculture was 4R strategy. That means that when we use fertilizer, it should be used at the right rate, and the source should be right, and it should be placed right, and on the right time. So that would mean that we avoid wastage of resources, we avoid wastage of fertilizer while getting maximum benefit out of our investments on the inputs in agriculture.
So whenever we develop a strategy, it should be based upon science. I don't know how the Liberals came with this strategy, but what I know is that the people around me, they used to refer to the research on this topic and they used the technology, and they used the extension strategies to educate the people so that we can get maximum out of what's available, maximum out of our resources and maximum out of the knowledge we had on the table.
But, you know, how this agriculture technology adoption works is not like a switch of a button. It takes years sometimes to get a technology adopted a hundred per cent. Sometimes there would be some innovative producers, that's the term we use for the producers who would be the first to adopt a technology, and there would be the laggards, who are the last ones to adopt a technology, due to lack of knowledge, of lack of awareness, or lack of the resources that make them adopt that technology.
So that's the ground reality, basically. But, coming to this resolution today, I am trying to understand if this member from Portage la Prairie is really, really serious about benefiting the farmers, or he's confused whether he's talking about defending fertilizer or defending the farmers.
I'm still confused, trying to understand what their intention behind this resolution is. Why? This is because I have experienced working with three Ag ministers in this Chamber–and all from this party, and I have not seen them standing with the farmers.
That's why I–it's hard for me to trust their intentions. Manitoba PCs, they closed Ag offices in rural Manitoba, and those are the offices where these experts are sitting. Those are disseminating, or educating the farmers, or disseminating the information, and they're working in an unbiased manner to transfer that technology from lab to land.
But they chose to save a few dollars and close these offices. Electronically transferring the technology that one of the members is saying, does not replace the one-to-one meetings with the farmers. It does not replace the field days, it does not replace the demonstrations, it does not replace the seminars that require the farmers to come to the expert and know what they needed to know.
If this government is really, really serious in helping the farmers on the ground, why did they change these Crown land lease regulations? The farmers are raising their voice every single day to listen to them. No one is listening.
And I don't know if they think that it's a granted support from the rural Manitoba farming community to the PC government, they're mistaken, because the things are changing on the ground right now. And if I–if somebody asks me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what's the solution, what's the solution to this issue that we are discussing right now, or what's the solution to the farmer's problem?
The first solution I would propose is to kick the PCs out in 2023. This is the first solution I would propose, and other solutions I can share with you that I feel are the solutions to this problem is invest more in public ag extension services and technology transfer programs.
We need to fill the vacancies so that Manitoban farmers could be served in a better way. And there are some scientific evidences that the use of slow-release fertilizers or the use of alternative fertilizer application methods could help us save the environment and save resources at the farm.
Also, some of the members might not know this, because I can certainly say that I have worked more fields in Manitoba than many of these PC members, there are some crops called legume crops and they're called nitrogen-fixing crops. They are actually nitrogen factories.
* (11:30)
So we can promote the use of legume crops in our crop rotations so that these plants, due to their natural capability, they can get nitrogen from the air and fix in the ground. That would be free nitrogen that those plants work for us. So, we don't need to spend.
And that nitrogen that those crops get from the air and inject in the soil–[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Brar: –that could be utilized by the succeeding crop, the next crop. So I really, really doubt their intention, because, you know, all of a sudden today they thought, oh, well, we should help the farmers–or we should sound like helping the farmers. I don't know if the election is coming near, what the reason is, but they're trying to sound like that, hey, this is the PC group that is standing with the farmers.
But I can say, I can certainly say that when these guys needed to stand with the farmers during the drought, in Lakeside I attended a farmers gathering discussing about the drought and the problems they were facing. Member from Lakeside was missing.
There was no regrets sent; there were no messages sent. The member from Interlake, which is current Ag Minister, was missing. And when I was working with farmers in Interlake, residents in Gimli, knocking at the doors, and there were two people talking to each other and talking to me. I said, do you know who your MLA is? And they were looking at each other: oh, they don't know who their MLA is.
So this is the level of commitment they have on this job. So I certainly doubt their intention behind this resolution, but I certainly agree that our farmers need more support and we should stand with the farmers. I stand with the farmers along with my colleagues.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): The initial conversations with Agriculture Canada, Agri-Food Canada, the government has stated their intention to 'pursure' absolute emissions reduction of 30 per cent, rather than the emissions intensity reduction of 30 per cent.
And that's really what we're talking about here today, and how do we achieve that? And what is it going to do to agricultural farmers and those businesses associated with those reductions, and what can we expect, and how can we assist our farmers and governments–including ours–on what those steps might want to look like? Let me give you a few examples. The member from Burrows did make one point that I want to highlight on.
I've grown up on a farm. I'm not sure how many steps he's taken on a farm, but I can tell you one thing for sure: on my farm we had a lot of walking. And we had a lot of horseback riding. We did get a tractor or two later on, but certainly I did my share of footsteps. And I remember very clearly about rotating crops. There's ways we can reduce and help nitrogen and capture those nitrogens, but legumes are certainly one of those.
We used alfalfa back in the day, when I was a child, as a crop rotation, but things have changed. And farming has changed drastically. We have monitoring systems.
The member from Portage la Prairie is very well educated in farming, being the leader of the keystone agro producers before he became a politician and a member of this Assembly. So I want to thank him for bringing the resolution here forward today.
The member from Portage la Prairie talked about modern technology, and I think that's the basis of what we need to be talking about here: how do we do a better job? The member from Portage talked about the monitors in combines.
Mr. Brad Michaleski, Acting Speaker, in the Chair
And taking out the rate of yield on a particular area, and then using that mapping into our new modern system tractors that we have–now, I know not every farmer's going to have that–but the technology is there. If the federal government really wanted to help, that would be a start.
How do we build incentives around what tomorrow of agriculture looks like? What does the future of agriculture look like? How do we sustain our businesses? How do we sustain our rural communities?
That is the conversation that we should be having with our farmers and with our government, or any government, for that matter. But federally, I know I've had these conversations with Minister Bibeau. I continue to have a dialogue with her and I'm proud of that relationship and I know that they have the best interests our farmers at heart, as well.
But remember, this ripple effect that we're going to be talking about and we're talking about now with reductions in fertilizer reductions and what impact that will have. Right now, we have, because of the war in Ukraine and a lot of things have happened, the drought last year–the member from Burrows talked about who said I wasn't there.
Who is the one that got the federal minister there? It was me. So, I take exception to the member from Burrows and I know well that–I know he can stand up and talk about this and about that but let's just talk about the facts.
The other thing I think we need to be thinking about, and that's also when we install tile drainage. There's lots of science being done on tile drainage. We've had droughts, we've had years like this year where we had abundance of water. How do we do that?
So we installed tile drainage and where's the science on that? They actually have a new system now, and the member from Portage la Prairie talked a bit about it, but it's called reversal. So they store the water and then they push that water back into that tile drainage and refertilize the plant utilizing the nutrients that we just captured.
So, how do we have programs for these farmers–because it's not–it runs about $500 internally more per acre to do that, but the sustainability, the long-term goal–how do we achieve those goals? That's what we be–should be talking about. And that, then, reduces our fertilizer use.
So, yes, there is ways we can do that. We have an operation in Manitoba that is called Manitoba Pork business. It's a natural renewable fertilizer.
I know the NDP brought in a resolution on the hog moratorium trying to shut the hog barns down. That's what they're good at, shutting stuff down, with just one stroke of a pen.
And we revitalized that. The largest expenditures and revenue to feed farm families and create jobs in Manitoba and they want to just shut it down? It doesn't make a lot of sense.
Now, I know the members opposite are confused about really how they want to help a farmer, but the technology is there. We have the plans, we have the ability and we have the technology. But how do we get to that? And it has to–by listening.
And I know when I was the minister I did a great job. I had lots of opportunities to get good advice and I shared that advice with my colleagues and that's one of the things we need to do more of.
And organizations like the 'keyscone' ag producers, pork producers, beef producers, dairy producers, chicken producers–how do we get our best value for our money?
And it's–and I know the member from Burrows talked about the grain-drying credits. We–in our plan that we developed for our Climate and Green Plan did exactly that.
The member from Portage la Prairie was bang on when he said this is our plan. This is what's going to work and we took that to federal government and they shut us down. They shut us down. They imposed a tax our farm families, who now have–they cannot pass that cost on.
They're price takers. They're price takers and when we–in–when we bring this stuff in on our farmers without that consultation process, it's just unfair.
Mr. Andrew Micklefield, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
It's unfair. And you wonder why farmers want this style of life. It's because it's in their blood. There's nothing more valuable than growing a crop to be able to feed other families and help others around the world.
And with the conflict in Ukraine, they're known as the breadbasket of the world, and we need to pick up some of that. And we can't be thinking about producing less food when food is so expensive now and the families can barely afford it.
In fact, I want to say, too, and put on the record that our cost of living allowances that our government brought forward to keep families fed, to help them in a time of need, and we always do the same when we're talking about agriculture sector.
I want to do one more thing because I think education's so important. I want to just say–thank Sue Clayton because this issue–and she was with the ag program in schools and she's since moved on. Now she's working for the University of Manitoba teaching young farmers in the two-year ag diploma program about what they can do and what they can do together.
So, I want to say congratulations, Sue. We wish you well in our ag diploma program. I know they're going to do a great job.
* (11:40)
Also, just before I do sit down, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do want to put on the record for the House today that I will not be seeking re-election in the 2023 election.
Thank you.
Mr. Jamie Moses (St. Vital): I'm pleased to rise and have an opportunity to speak on this resolution.
I want to begin my remarks, during the time that I have, by saying an unequivocal thank you to all the farmers in our province, who are doing the work, day in and day out, to keep not just Manitoba or not just Canada, but, frankly, the world fed.
With all the conflict going on around the world, with all of the crop, the land being lost due to conflict, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the western provinces and Canada as a whole plays a massive role in feeding a large percentage of the world.
And so I want to thank farmers right here in Manitoba for the work they do every day to create and grow crops, produce crops that will go to help feed so many people across the globe.
Canada is, in fact, one of the top five wheat exporters in the world. Russia, Canada, United States of America, France and Ukraine are the top five wheat exporters in the world. And it's notable that I list the top five, because in that top five are Russia and Ukraine, along with, of course, Canada.
And we all know about the conflict going on between Putin's Russian regime and the Ukrainians. And the conflict–the problems that that conflict has caused when it comes to the ability to export grain products. And when it comes to looking at wheat, for example, and other products like that, and having that reduction there from a breadbasket like Ukraine and Russia, is undoubtedly going to put a pressure on the rest of the world.
And not only for wheat production and global supply, but also for input prices. Inputs that farmers require that come from that same–very same part of the world.
And that, undoubtedly, has played a huge role in why we see, here in Canada, for Manitoban farmers, such a high increase in input costs–namely, fertilizer. And those input costs that have risen some 200 per cent for fertilizer prices over the last little bit, is in–such a burden for the farmers that we have in our province.
They have very little ability to increase the 'prite' of–price of their sales. They can't just say, I want to sell my wheat or my barley or my canola for a little bit more. Those prices are often determined at the elevator. But they are also succumb–have to succumb to the rising costs of fertilizer and other input costs.
You know, StatsCan says that–StatsCan figures here–says that, you know, farmer inputs–I personally think some of these figures are–might be a little bit low from the anecdotal, you know, words I hear from Manitoba farmers–but it says nationwide farm inputs over the last two years, from quarter 1 of 2020 to quarter 1 of 2022, have increased 20 per cent overall.
And that's, you know, about 12 per cent for buildings, about 15 per cent for machinery, about 60 per cent for some mechanical machinery work, you know, 32 per cent for crop inputs, well over 100 per cent–nearing 200 per cent–for nitrogen and fertilizers like that.
Those increases in prices are a huge factor, and we're seeing that as being a critical aspect of why there is such large food inflation for many of us in Manitoba.
Farmers are bearing the brunt of it through their work, and we're seeing it play out through the grocery store bills rise and rise and rise. And that's a huge concern for all of us, those pressures of inflation.
We know that, you know, it's said that food-related inflation will be, you know, as the member says in the resolution, between 5 and 7 per cent, and I think that that's a very direct result of the rise in agricultural costs, namely input prices.
And so, with that problem in hand, what do we see from this PC government to actually address and solve that problem?
Well, we have this resolution brought forward today, a resolution that doesn't address any of the failures of the provincial government, doesn't directly go to address the concerns of farmers, but rather goes to complain against a federal government–goes to complain against the federal government when this provincial government had the opportunity to actually make a difference. This provincial government actually had an opportunity to help farmers. They've chosen not to do that.
You know, a very good question was asked during the debate part that I wanted to follow-up on in terms of, you know, the member from Portage mentioning some of the new technologies that farmers do in their farms.
And I give credit–the member from Lakeside–for mentioning all of the new technologies that farmers do, and I credit farmers for adapting and evolving their operation. And I know that farmers have that innovative spirit, and are always willing to find a more efficient, effective way to run their farmer operation.
But instead of this resolution, where it complains to–about the federal government, where did the provincial government step in to work to actually invest in more of these technologies, helping farmers adapt into some of these technologies that would help to reduce fertilizer and help to reduce nitrogen emissions?
Where was the provincial government to actually make investments in these new technologies, help farmers bring that on to their field, make those products either more accessible or more available to Manitoba farmers? Where were they?
Well, they haven't been there, and instead of doing their work, of actually making a concrete contribution to improve the lives of Manitoba farmers, they instead bring forward this resolution today and complain about a federal government.
So this resolution, I think, is a prime example of how much this provincial government cares about farmers. They care enough to complain, but not do the work to solve the problems.
You know, the member mentioned a program like tile drainage, for example. A tile drainage system would help many farmers reduce emissions.
It's a tangible step that can be taken to reduce emissions, help farmers out. And where is the tile drainage program from this provincial government? Doesn't exist. Where are programs like that, that would significantly improve farmers' operations, reduce emissions in our province?
They have failed again to deliver on any of these fronts and bring forward a bill today like this to make themselves look good, but not help Manitoba farmers.
I also want to ask the member, in the resolution, he mentions here in the clause that he wants to ensure that there are no penalties or exclusions. Well, I'd like to know if the member has any additional insights as to what these penalties are, who these penalties would apply to.
Does he have further insights as to what these penalties might look like, or is this simply just added fear mongering in terms of getting people riled up about a program or a plan that hasn't been fully fleshed out?
And so I'm very curious about the language used in this, as to whether it's actually going to help farmers, whether it's actually going to bring truth into the lives of farmers, or whether this is something that they want to just get riled up about when these things have not been actually determined yet by the federal government.
I think that's a very important aspect to be clear about when we're talking about the important industry of farming. And we know that producers play a massive role in our province, you know, being, you know, by comparison around the country, the third highest per cent of GDP is farming in Manitoba.
And so we're very proud of that and we need to find ways and real steps to improve the lives of farmers. It doesn't happen when we close down rural offices.
It doesn't happen when we divest from health-care resources in our rural communities. It doesn't help when we don't fund education properly throughout our province. It doesn't help when we make decisions like in Crown land that make it difficult–more difficult for new farmers to get in.
* (11:50)
None of these things help farmers and they're all on the record of this PC government. And so we need to make a new direction for farmers, a new step forward, and that means looking at a new government in 2023.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a sad day when the MLA for Portage la Prairie parrots Pierre Poilievre and his discredited and misinformed statements about the federal government's greenhouse gas reduction strategy.
The discussion document put out by the Government of Canada makes it clear the objective is to find ways to increase yields and to reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 30 per cent, goals which are reasonable. They are not mandated goals. They are goals which are to be achieved working together.
As scientific research has shown, there are many ways to reduce nitrous oxide emissions and many of these are associated with increased yields. A simple one is to improve drainage because wet soils result in more nitrous oxide production.
I table a copy of a blog post I wrote five years ago outlining 18 different ways to reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 30 per cent or more.
As a knowledgeable farmer, I would have expected that the MLA for Portage la Prairie would understand that every molecule of nitrogen which is converted to nitrous oxide, which then gets into the atmosphere, not only increases the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, it is also a molecule of nitrogen which is lost to the plants which farmers are trying to grow.
So, stopping that conversion of nitrogen to nitrous oxide is a win‑win for farmers and for the environment because it increases yields and it provides improved environment. There are many approaches which have been shown to reduce the conversion of nitrogen to nitrous oxide.
I table a copy of the key findings of the Canadian 4R Research Network. The–a 4R approach is an admirable one and I will quote their results.
One, nitrogen-specific best-management practices under 4R Nutrient Stewardship have already been proven to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 per cent and increase a grower's profits by as much as $87 an acre.
Now, that's across Canada. But what about Manitoba? This is what the document says. Applying the 4Rs in wheat production in Manitoba can reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by as much as 55 per cent. The MLA for Portage la Prairie is just wrong when he says that you can only reduce it minimally.
Let us look at the potential and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture. They are significant in Manitoba because nitrous oxide produced in agriculture makes up about 15 per cent of the total of Manitoba's greenhouse gasses.
The failure of the NDP and the PCs to reduce greenhouse gasses in Manitoba is largely due to they didn't pay much attention to agriculture.
The fact that the PCs are parroting the words of Pierre Poilievre indicate that they're not serious in helping farmers to improve their yields and their profits through 4R Nutrient Stewardship.
I ask the MLA for Portage la Prairie to withdraw his resolution and instead work with others in this Chamber to increase farm yields, to reduce the conversion of nitrogen to nitrous oxide and to create a win-win for farmers and for the environment and to help others around the world save the planet and decrease the severity of climate catastrophes.
The world needs food from Manitoba. We are an important producer. We also need to work with farmers to create the win-win situation which I've been talking about.
That is what is important–reducing nitrous oxide, using more of the nitrogen actually going into the crops to produce higher yields.
This is what we need to be doing and talking about in Manitoba and working with both federal and provincial governments together with farmers to make this difference.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any further speakers?
Question before the House is–is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Question before the House is resolution 21, Federal Fertilizer Reduction.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Do I hear a no? Okay.
Voice Vote
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe the Yeas have it. The motion is accordingly carried.
* * *
Hon. Ian Wishart (Deputy Government House Leader): Is it the will of the House to call it 12 o'clock?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 12 noon? [Agreed]
The hour being 12 noon, this House is recessed and stands recessed until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, October 4, 2022
CONTENTS