LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, April 22, 2024


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

The Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom, and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.

      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, 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 spirit and intent of treaties and treaty making and remain committed to working in partnership with First Nations, Inuit, Métis people in the spirit of truth, reconciliation and collaboration.

      I'd ask that you please remain standing.

Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): Could you please canvass the House for leave: (1) for the Speaker to dispense with calling intro­duction of bills, com­mit­tee reports, tabling of reports and min­is­terial statements today; (2) to have only one member's statement today, with the under­standing that the official op­posi­tion will use their two statements from today sometime later this session; (3) to waive the two‑minute time limit on a member's statement delivered today by the hon­our­able member for Waverley; (4) for the House to observe a moment of silence after the statement; (5) for the House to recess up to 30 minutes, followed by the statement by the hon­our­able member for Waverley, with a two‑minute bell to summon members at the end of the recess. As part of this agree­ment, the House must resume by 2:30 at the latest.

The Speaker: Leave has been requested for the Speaker to dispense with calling intro­duction of bills, com­mit­tee reports, tabling of reports and min­is­terial state­ments today; (2) to have only one member's statement today, with the under­standing that the official opposition will use their two statements from today some­time later this session; (3) to waive the two‑minute time limit on a member's statement delivered today by the hon­our­able member for Waverley; (4) for the House to observe a moment of silence after the statement; (5) for the House to recess for up to 30 minutes following the statement by the hon­our­able member for Waverley, with a two‑minute bell to summon members at the end of the recess. As part of this agree­ment, the House must resume by 2:30 at the latest.

      Is there leave? [Agreed]

Introduction of Guests

The Speaker: At this time I'd like to draw the atten­tion of all hon­our­able members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today the family of fallen fire­fighter Preston Heinbigner. We have with us Shayda Tashakor, Elaine Heinbigner, Robert Heinbigner, Mona Taskador [phonetic], Farshid Taskador [phonetic], Dalain Gagne, Roxanne Tessier, Stephane Mitton, Lindsay Hebert, Gary [phonetic] Geron, Asha Geron, Chantal Pachal, Bill Pachal, Andrea Mucska, Steve Obelnicki, Jenna Loder and Cherie-Ann Sheppard.

      Please be seated.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Members' Statements

Preston Heinbigner

MLA David Pankratz (Waverley): Today, I pay tribute to Preston Heinbigner, a devoted fire­fighter, cherished husband, father, son and dear friend.

      Recently, at just 40 years old, we lost Preston. He dedi­cated his life to serving our com­mu­nity and safeguarding Manitobans. Preston embodied selflessness, humility, service to others and left an indelible mark on all who knew him.

      His family has bravely asked that we recog­nize the immense challenges first respon­ders face. Their roles demand intense emotional resiliency as they bear witness to life's fragility and offer comfort during our darkest times.

      Preston balanced these heroic acts with personal struggle; the impacts of his duty. I've been reflecting on the phrase, it's okay to not be okay, and as a fellow fire­fighter, I affirm the importance of embracing this mindset fully.

      We need a commit­ment across our ranks to be open and honest about needing help. The work we do exposes us to relentless stress and trauma, and ac­knowl­edging when we're not okay is the first step towards healing.

      True resiliency is found when we break the silence and make space to share the quiet battles within us.

      These words are not just reassurance. They're a call to action for the well‑being of every first responder.

      To Shayda, Oslo and Preston's family, we support and stand with you. Your courage in the face of such profound loss and your advocacy for better support for the mental and emotional well‑being of our first respon­ders remind us that the challenges Preston faced are too common among all who serve on the front lines.

* (13:40)

      I would ask that we reflect on Preston's life and his commit­ment to others, and let this strengthen our resolve to support the well‑being of those who protect us.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I ask for leave from the House to observe a moment of silence in honour of Preston Heinbigner.

The Speaker: All members 'prease' rise for a moment of silence.

A moment of silence was observed.

The Speaker: I'd ask that all members remain stand­ing while the piper pipes the family.

      Please be seated.

      As previously agreed, there will now be a 30‑minute recess, followed by a two-minute bell to call the House back to order. In all cases, we will be resuming by 2:30.

      The House is now in recess.

The House recessed at 1:42 p.m.

____________

The House resumed at 2:13 p.m.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able–[interjection] Order, please.

      We are resuming session.

Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): As per our previous leave, is it leave of–is it the will of the House to continue our recess until 2:30 p.m. with a–two‑minute bells beforehand?

The Speaker: Is there leave for the House to continue the recess until 2:30 with a two‑minute bell? [Agreed]

      The bell will be two minutes before 2:30.

The House recessed at 2:14 p.m.

____________

The House resumed at 2:30 p.m.

The Speaker: Order, please. We will now resume session.

      Routine proceedings.

Oral Questions

Prov­incial Nominee Program Draws


Premier's Knowledge of Labour Minister's Conduct

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): Hon­our­able Speaker, on behalf of PC caucus, con­dol­ences definitely go out to the Heinbigner family and, of course, Shayda and their son Oslo, and their new addition that they're expecting in the upcoming fall.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, members on this side of the House have raised some sig­ni­fi­cant concerns about the Minister of Labour and Immigration (MLA Marcelino) threatening to inter­fere with Manitoba Prov­incial Nominee Program draws.

      Since we shed light on the issue, more individuals have come forward to corroborate the story, making the NDP's denial confusing.

      I've got some im­por­tant questions. The question to the Premier (Mr. Kinew) is simple: When did he know about the minister's threats? Was he aware of the threats the minister made before they were brought up in the House?

Hon. Uzoma Asagwara (Deputy Premier): You know, we had a pretty sombre start to sitting in the House this week, and, you know, on this side of the House we certainly send our con­dol­ences and strength and prayers and support to the family and to front‑line workers, you know, first respon­ders, fire­fighters, EMS, police, all those working on the front lines who show up for Manitobans in some of their worst moments, quite frankly, and provide the care that Manitobans depend on.

      Our Minister for Immigration is doing an excel­lent job addressing the issues that were unaddressed by the previous gov­ern­ment cuts made to the de­part­ment incapacity–or on immigration in our province, and she's going to continue to do a great job, and we support her fully.

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion, on a sup­ple­mentary question.

Mr. Ewasko: Hon­our­able Speaker, once again, no answers from this Premier (Mr. Kinew). Members on this side of the House do not doubt the veracity of the complaints we have received about the minister's threats. The fact that hopeful new­comers who are in immigration limbo would risk their immigration status to raise these issues is heroic and deserves more respect from this Premier.

      I understand the Premier himself met with a group of hopeful new­comers who had protested here at the Manitoba Legislature. It's so far unclear at which meeting the minister decided to make her threats.

      So, for clarity, I have to ask this Premier: Was he, in fact, in the room when the minister threatened the hopeful new­comers?

MLA Asagwara: Hon­our­able Speaker, our Premier and minister have done a lot of outreach–a lot of outreach–in the months that we've been in gov­ern­ment. The Premier and the minister have met with pro­testers; they've met with families; they've met with advocates. And on this side of the House, we're going to continue to meet with folks who express their concerns in terms of the decisions made, handed down by the federal gov­ern­ment.

      We're going to continue to work with those on the front lines of immigration in our province and work with all levels of gov­ern­ment to make sure that, here in Manitoba, the pathways to becoming a Manitoban, being a part of our Manitoba family, contributing to our economy, working in health care, are supported by this gov­ern­ment, while also cleaning up the mess the previous gov­ern­ment made on this file.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion, on a final sup­ple­mentary question.

Mr. Ewasko: The words of this Deputy Premier are ringing hollow through­out this great province of ours. It's the actions that are deplorable, Hon­our­able Speaker–in–the inaction.

      When the Premier became aware that the minister threatened hopeful new­comers with a cancelled draw is an im­por­tant detail. Whether or not the Premier was present for that threat is also im­por­tant. If he knew about the minister making such threats before they were raised in the Legislature, why did he fail to act?

      And if he was present for the threat, why didn't he interject to restore the faith in the impartiality of the Prov­incial Nominee Program?

MLA Asagwara: Hon­our­able Speaker, some would argue it's deplorable that the previous PC gov­ern­ment cut resources in the de­part­ment so badly that we couldn't process over 2,000 folks who wanted to be here in Manitoba due to their cuts.

      Some might say it's deplorable that the previous PC gov­ern­ment created a head tax for those in the nominee program.

      Some may say it's deplorable that instead of bring­ing people together in our province, members opposite continue on their train of division–their rhetoric of division–that hurts people across this province.

      On this side of the House, we're focused on bring­ing people together, on making sure no matter who you are, you get to build a life here in Manitoba, and our Minister of Immigration is doing an outstanding job.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion, on a new question.

Prov­incial Nominee Program Protest
Labour Minister–Inter­ference Concerns

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): Hon­our­able Speaker, the only droop that is dividing Manitobans right now is that NDP gov­ern­ment.

      As long as the MLA for Notre Dame is the Minister of Immigration, the immigration process in Manitoba is com­pro­mised. Manitoba's immigration process needs to be impartial and free of inter­ference. Unfor­tunately, those who are awaiting the next steps in becoming Manitobans do not have con­fi­dence in this minister. In fact, Hon­our­able Speaker, they're afraid.

      I'll table a transcript from a meeting between workers and students hopeful to remain in Manitoba. In this meeting, it's made clear that these individuals were informed by the minister there would be con­se­quences of protesting.

      If it's not a cancelled draw, as many people believe was implied, then the Premier (Mr. Kinew) needs to be clear: What are those con­se­quences?

Hon. Uzoma Asagwara (Deputy Premier): Hon­our­able Speaker, Manitobans made a decision when it came to trust on October 3. Manitobans made very clear that trust was im­por­tant to them, which is why they voted out members opposite and why they voted in a gov­ern­ment that puts people first on this side the House.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, we know that during their time in gov­ern­ment they cut capacity from the de­part­ment. We know that the previous PC gov­ern­ment led the highest out‑migration this province has seen in over two decades. We know that immigration was being attacked and cut and undermined by the previous govern­ment.

      On this side of the House, we're focused on people. We're focused on bringing people together. We're focused on immigration–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion, on a sup­ple­mentary question.

Prov­incial Nominee Program
Request for Labour Minister to Resign

Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Leader of the Official Opposition): Hon­our­able Speaker, another great display of distracting, dodging and deflecting by this Deputy Premier. And again, no answers from the Premier.

      We are bringing these concerns forward on behalf of hopeful Manitobans who want to remain in the province, who this minister threatened with con­se­quences. They shared their story with us, and we brought that story here to the Assembly because it involves wrongdoings of this NDP gov­ern­ment.

      More and more individuals continue to come for­ward to share their stories with us, and more still are too afraid to come forward. The reputational harm to Manitoba on the inter­national stage is already done, unfor­tunately.

      So I have to ask the Premier: Will he remove the Minister of Labour and Immigration (MLA Marcelino) from her role today?

Hon. Uzoma Asagwara (Deputy Premier): Hon­our­able Speaker, I think we're all glad that Manitobans removed them from their role of gov­ern­ment on October 3 in the election. And it's this kind of behaviour that's–that behaviour is the reason why Manitobans made that decision.

      On this side of the House, we're focused on bringing people together. We're focused on working with all levels of gov­ern­ment to make sure Manitoba has pathways in place to improve immigration in our province. We're focused on moving things in a better direction. The highest out-migration in two decades under the previous gov­ern­ment–we're improving that on this side of the House.

      Our gov­ern­ment is focused on making sure we have more capacity, not less. Our gov­ern­ment is making sure that immigration in Manitoba is strong for gen­era­tions to come.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able Leader of the Official Op­posi­tion, on a final sup­ple­mentary question.

Mr. Ewasko: Hon­our­able Speaker, our job on this side of the House is to advocate and support new and hopeful Manitobans. Not like that side of the House, which seems to be dodging and deflecting and pro­tecting their ministers, who on a day-to-day basis continue to threaten Manitobans.

      The immigration process shouldn't depend on who you know or whether or not you're able to gain an audience with the minister and the Premier.

      Making promises contingent on protests ending is the same as making threats to end protests.

      Will the Premier do the right thing to restore con­fi­dence in Manitoba's immigration system by asking this failing minister to resign or removing the NDP MLA for Notre Dame from her duties as Minister of Labour and Immigration today, Hon­our­able Speaker?

* (14:40)

MLA Asagwara: Hon­our­able Speaker, Manitobans have the strongest Immigration Minister they've had in almost eight years in this province, on this side of the House. A minister with expertise that predates her term being an elected official in Manitoba; expertise that Manitobans can count on to put people first.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, on this side of the House, we're focused on making sure that every single day, our gov­ern­ment is working to improve immigration for Manitobans, challenging in–the federal gov­ern­ment to improve on some of the decisions they've handed down to our province that don't put us in the position to best support folks who want a pathway to our province.

      The minister's working each and every day on that. They've met with protesters. They've met with com­mu­nity members. They've engaged com­mu­nities more than the previous gov­ern­ment ever did.

      We'll take no–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Prov­incial Nominee Program Draw
Labour Minister–Inter­ference Concerns

Ms. Jodie Byram (Agassiz): Hon­our­able Speaker, last week this NDP gov­ern­ment denied the scandal of the Minister of Labour and Immigration threatening to inter­fere MPNP draws. They denied that she told poten­tial applicants that draws would be cancelled if they continued to protest.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, more individuals have come forward with the truth. I table ad­di­tional cor­res­pon­dence from a graduate inter­national student.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, this minister needs to make it abundantly clear: Will she commit today that there will be no further inter­ference in MPNP draws or scheduling?

Hon. Malaya Marcelino (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Hon­our­able Speaker, the accusation that I have suspended or threatened to suspend draws is categorically false. No suspensions have ever occurred, and all that the members opposite needed to do was to check a website, and they would've seen that there have never been a suspension of draws.

      So let me put the website on the record, Hon­our­able Speaker. It's W‑W‑W-dot-immigrate-Manitoba-dot-C‑A.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I am tabling a docu­ment that shows we have not suspended any MPNP draws, and in fact, we have done con­sistent draws since I took on this role. The most recent one was two weeks ago–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      The honourable member for Agassiz, on a supple­mentary question.

Ms. Byram: Hon­our­able Speaker, I quote: I have con­firmed that I, as well as another inter­national student, have received threats from that minister, threatening to stop the drawing of MPNP if we protest again before May. End quote. These are the words of an inter­national student that is standing up to this NDP gov­ern­ment and this minister.

      So I ask the minister a simple question: Who is being honest with Manitobans, the students with every­­thing to lose or this minister?

MLA Marcelino: Hon­our­able Speaker, since March, when all these protests began, in every single inter­action that I've had in public or in private with folks who have raised this matter with me, whether it was through email, social media, by phone, in‑person meet­­ings, in question period, at Tim Hortons or in gurdwara, my message has been the same.

      I understand and empathize the difficult situation that folks are in. These dif­fi­cul­ties were brought on by previous Tory cuts and mismanagement and by the fact that the federal government chose to cut out these temporary foreign workers.

      My message has been the same: Manitoba needs your labour, and I am working with the federal gov­ern­ment to allow these people to stay in the country. Immigration is a priority for our gov­ern­ment, and our gov­ern­ment is investing these resources into the MPNP.

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

      The honourable member for Agassiz, on a final sup­ple­­mentary question.

Request for Labour Minister to Resign

Ms. Byram: Hon­our­able Speaker, and I quote: According to them, during their talks, that minister shouted at them and even slapped the table and said, how dare they challenge her like that? End quote.

      This is behaviour that is unacceptable in any facet of society and even more so for a minister of the Crown. To quote again: This is totally a sign of having power and using it to dictate. End quote.

      This minister must resign. Will she today?

MLA Marcelino: My message has never wavered. I am doing all I can to keep these folks in the country, and to improve our MPNP system. It is members oppo­site that are making slanderous accusations with no hard evidence.

      My messages in public and private have all been the same. Members opposite are being careless about their privileges of freedom of speech in the Chamber. Those privileges need to be balanced with care for others' reputations. They are bringing forth damaging accusations with no evidence, no corroboration and no infor­ma­tion for me to even be able to begin defending myself.

      It is members opposite's bullying, baseless actions that are the threat to demo­cracy–

The Speaker: Member's time is expired.

Minister of Labour and PNP Program
New­comers Right to Protest

Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Well, that was an interesting statement by the minister; not to suspend any draws–yet. Hon­our­able Speaker, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not the charter of wrongs and freedoms. And many wrongs do not make a right.

      The Premier (Mr. Kinew) has re­peat­edly said that this is the people's building. They have invited anyone to exercise their demo­cratic right here to protest, with the exception of those that give their gov­ern­ment bad press. They're more worried about their gov­ern­ment's reputation than Manitobans' reputation on the inter­national front.

      As the saying goes, when the cat's away, the mouse will play.

      Was this a caucus decision made in the absence of the Premier, or was he informed?

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): You know, I was quite surprised when the member stood up and he started to talk about the people's building, about one Manitoba and I thought maybe, just maybe, Hon­our­able Speaker, he'd finally gotten the message that Manitobans are sick of the division, they're sick of the mis­repre­sen­ta­tion of the facts and they want a new approach.

      That's why I'm proud to be on a team–I'm proud to be with a Minister of Immigration that cares; that cares to meet with people, that cares to reach out to the public and cares to respond to their needs. And what is this minister doing but trying to repair the damage that was done by seven and a half years by the pre­vious gov­ern­ment.

      So I stand with this minister, and we will stand each and every day–

The Speaker: Member's time is expired.

      The honourable member for Brandon West, on a supplementary question.

Mr. Balcaen: I'll agree with the Justice Minister: Manitobans are sick of the division, and these letters proved that. Hon­our­able Speaker, it's a character right–it's a Charter right to association, assembly and expres­sion. There's no Charter section that gives rights to threats, inti­mida­tion or coercion.

      Federal law also speaks to abuse of power by a public official. And for this minister to threaten in­dividuals by prohibiting protests right here is a blatant violation of such rights and freedoms.

      Why is this NDP gov­ern­ment ignoring the rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for new­comers for Manitoba?

Mr. Wiebe: Well, the truth is, Hon­our­able Speaker, that members opposite have no proof that their accusa­tions are spurious, and that they have no real connection with what's really happening on the ground.

      This Minister of Immigration has met with folks–[interjection]

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wiebe: –who are concerned about immigration. This Premier has met with folks who are concerned about their futures here in Manitoba. And every single time that they have met, they have heard the same message: that we welcome you, that we want to ensure that this issue that's been caused by the federal gov­ern­ment, that we resolve it on our end and that we prioritize immigration.

      That's been the message of one Manitoba and one future–

The Speaker: Member's time is expired.

      The honourable member for Brandon West, on a final sup­ple­mentary question.

Mr. Balcaen: Perhaps this minister should look at the evidence of co‑operation, thus these letters.

* (14:50)

      Hon­our­able Speaker, we have individuals from the inter­national com­mu­nity scared to come forward out of fear of retribution and con­se­quence. They have shared with us that this NDP gov­ern­ment has blatantly threatened their dreams of becoming Manitobans as they exercise their demo­cratic rights and protest against this gov­ern­ment's poor manage­ment of the MPNP pro­gram. This is fun­da­mentally wrong and a miscarriage of justice.

      Why is this NDP adopting failed policies from dictatorships that these folks are so des­per­ately seek­ing freedom from?

Mr. Wiebe: You know, Hon­our­able Speaker, the words that are put on the record here in this place matter.

      I know the member opposite had some notes prepared for him, I suppose by somebody in the back rooms there that thought they were being clever or that they would be able to make these accusations. There's no repercussions for them sitting in the back room. But these words matter to Manitobans, and these words are being heard by Manitobans.

      And what they're hearing from this side of the House is a message of unity, a message of working together with people who want to build a future here in Manitoba. We're going to do absolutely every­thing we can to make that a reality.

      While the opposition will continue to divide Manitobans, we won't take that dark path. We'll continue to fight for Manitobans and fight–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Minister of Labour and PNP Program
New­comers Right to Protest

Mr. Grant Jackson (Spruce Woods): The con­sti­tu­tional rights and civil liberties of Manitobans are non‑negotiable. They have protected rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

      But the NDP Immigration Minister seems to treat those freedoms like a bit of a nuisance. Everyone has the right to peacefully protest and oppose NDP policies whether this minister or her gov­ern­ment likes it or not.

      So I need to ask, will the minister admit that she was wrong and stop infringing on the Charter rights of hopeful Manitobans?

Hon. Nello Altomare (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): It's a very interesting question.

      I'll just say this: We on this side of the House are working every day to repair the damage that was made by that former gov­ern­ment. We have, Hon­our­able Speaker, a minister in place that knows its portfolio inside out, makes the connections necessary and ensures that people are treated with dignity and respect–some­thing they never got from members opposite.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Spruce Woods, on a supplementary question.

Mr. Jackson: It's very interesting that the Minister for Edu­ca­tion is answering these questions about immi­gra­tion policy, but I guess a Cabinet shuffle is on the horizon.

      The Charter guarantees Manitobans freedom of expression, 'feedom'–freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Protests are one way Manitobans can speak truth to power and set a loud message to this NDP gov­ern­ment about their reckless policies and manipulative behaviour. But this Immigration Minister wants to silence these Manitobans. That's dangerous.

      So, again, I will ask: Will she stop infringing on the Charter rights of Manitobans and allow them to peacefully protest in front of this building?

MLA Altomare: Again, it's a privilege to be in this House.

      That member, the member–the Minister of Immigration and Labour knows that this is a privilege and treats it like a privilege. Arrives to work every day with integrity and with purpose to make this place, Manitoba, a place that's attractive for immigrants, attractive for everybody in the world to bring their talents and op­por­tun­ities here to this province. I can't think of a better person, either can anyone on this side of the House.

      It's time for them to get on board and agree with us.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Spruce Woods, on a final sup­ple­mentary question.

Mr. Jackson: Hon­our­able Speaker, threatening immi­grants to stop them from exercising their freedoms is unethical and wrong. It's also not treating this place like a 'priverige.' The Immigration Minister needs to stop this and apologize. She also needs to come clean on the infringement on these immigrants, as well as an infringement on all Manitobans.

      Will she stop threatening these immigrants, apolo­gize and retract her statements that infringe on their rights and the rights of all Manitobans?

MLA Altomare: I will continue supporting this Minister of Immigration and Labour every day as she arrives in this House to do the im­por­tant work for Manitobans.

      Right now we're a–busy repairing a damage left by the previous gov­ern­ment. We're fully instituting a functioning health-care system. We're ensuring our public schools are fully funded with the supports they need to support new Manitobans coming into this province, and ask–after six months, not only have we got to work, we got lots more to do. Pay attention and we'll get it done.

Minister of Labour and PNP Program
Call for In­de­pen­dent In­vesti­gation

Mr. Obby Khan (Fort Whyte): We have tabled docu­­ments, letters and emails, and the members opposite will not deny what we are saying.

      If the minister is not denying this happened, then it must be true. Manitobans deserve answers and they deserve more from this Minister of Labour and Immigration (MLA Marcelino). The inter­national com­­mu­nity has come forward with their credible fears, having heard directly from the minister herself. The PNP program was the gold standard and is now destroyed under this NDP. It was a tool to bring people to Manitoba to make it a better province for everyone.

      Will this Premier (Mr. Kinew) stand in his place, turn to the camera as he loves to do with that smirky smile on his face, and tell Manitobans–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order, please.

      I would caution the member for Fort Whyte about the language that he used there, and perhaps maybe he should apologize for it.

Mr. Khan: I wasn't aware smirky smile was a negative comment, but I will apologize. I will apologize and say will the Premier turn to the camera and smile like he does and tell Manitobans that he will launch a full in­vesti­gation into the scandal, or is the Premier afraid of the truth?

Hon. Jamie Moses (Minister of Economic Development, Investment, Trade and Natural Resources): Hon­our­able Speaker, I just want to begin my response by noting that we began with today with a tribute to a fire­fighter, and as a minister respon­si­ble for wildfire service and other front‑line workers in Manitoba, spe­cific­ally con­ser­va­tion officers.

      I want to just add our thoughts and prayers with the family who gone through this tragic time, and say that we are all sup­port­ive as this province, as front‑line workers and as folks who care deeply about sup­porting com­mu­nity and supporting people in this province, we want to offer our thoughts and prayers.

      I'll get to the member opposite's question in my next op­por­tun­ity to speak.

The Speaker: Before the member for Fort Whyte resumes his question, I would point out that he actually asked two questions, which is some­what of a reflection on the Chair. I asked him to apologize; I didn't ask him to repeat and ask a question again.

      So I'd caution the member to pay attention to rulings from the Chair and not question them in the future.

Mr. Khan: Well, I guess the Premier and the Minister of Immigration are afraid of the truth and they don't want to stand up and answer the simple question of if they will launch a full in­vesti­gation into these letters and tabled docu­ments.

      Regardless of whatever story this gov­ern­ment tries to spin, or now the Minister of Economic Dev­elop­ment stands up and tries to pull the wool over Manitobans' eyes, there is no denying the truth.

      Why will this Premier not stand up and call a full in­vesti­gation into the scandal by this Minister of Immigration, and if he won't, will the minister resign today?

Mr. Moses: Hon­our­able Speaker, it's quite clear that members opposite are trying to drive a very divisive debate based on a false narrative. We won't play into that.

      What we will do is work every day for the benefit of Manitobans, of new­comers here, to support them with greater supports through edu­ca­tion, greater sup­ports through settlement services, greater supports through health care. These are the initiatives that we're leading as an entire team and vocalized through the in­cred­ible advocacy of our Immigration Minister, and we'll do that work on behalf of Manitobans every day.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Fort Whyte, on a final sup­ple­mentary question.

* (15:00)

Mr. Khan: This Premier and the Minister of Immigration refuse to stand up and simply answer the question. If they are denying these allegations, why are they afraid of the truth? Why would they not call an in­vesti­gation into these accusations by people who want to come to Manitoba?

      The only division occurring in this building is on that side of the House: the NDP dividing immigrants and new­comers to Canada versus Manitobans.

      So I'll be very clear again: Why will this Premier not call an in­vesti­gation, and if he won't call an in­vesti­gation, will the Minister of Immigration and Labour resign today?

Mr. Moses: Honourable Speaker, I think the member for Fort Whyte knows quite a bit about division from the campaign that went on the last fall.

      On this side of the House, we learned the lesson of that campaign: that it pays off when you bring Manitobans together; when you bring Manitobans on to one side and on one team. And not only did we learn that lesson, but we're living that out in this group–this today.

      This NDP team is united, united around our Minister of Immigration, united around the idea that Manitobans–that new­comers can come to this province and they can have a better and brighter future led by the most popular Premier (Mr. Kinew) in the country, some­­thing we're very proud about, something that we want Manitobans to know and we'll continue to work on their behalf every day.

Plastic Waste Recycling
Request for Local Processing

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Happy Earth Day.

      Let me begin by commending all the fantastic Manitoba organi­zations who continue to strive for a more sus­tain­able future. This year's Earth Day theme is focussed on the epidemic of plastic waste.

      The recovery rate of plastic packaging is 45 per cent in Manitoba. There are no local busi­nesses that pro­cesses recycled plastic materials in our province. Instead, they are shipped to end markets in Ontario, the US and even overseas.

      Can the Premier explain why we choose to increase our carbon footprint by not repurposing recycled plastic locally, right here in Manitoba?

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Immigration–sorry.

      The hon­our­able Minister of Environ­ment and Climate Change.

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Environment and Climate Change): Thank you to the member opposite for that question.

      I also want to wish Manitobans a happy Earth Day. We had a wonderful celebration of Earth Day in the Rotunda earlier today. And on Earth Day, we really commit ourselves not only to celebrating our Mother Earth, but really to committing to protecting our Earth and conserving our Earth.

      I'm very proud of the work of our De­part­ment of Environ­mental Stewardship. I know that they are working hard on modernizing our material steward­ship pro­gram and our recycling programs and I look forward to sharing more.

      Thank you to the member again for the question.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Tyndall Park, on a supplementary question.

Low Aluminum Can Return Rate
Request for Plan to Address

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Here in Manitoba, our recovery rates for aluminum beverage cans are 48 per cent. Compare this to Alberta where their overall return rates are 85 per cent. There's no excuse as to why Manitoba is only recovering half of what Alberta is able to do.

      Does the minister believe Manitoba's return rates are sufficient and, if not, what is she doing to boost this number?

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Environment and Climate Change): Again, I thank the member opposite for the question. I thank the member opposite for a question that's im­por­tant to Manitobans.

      You know, I know that Manitobans care about many issues and I would urge the members of this House to ask more pertinent questions that Manitobans are concerned about.

      I have met many times already with the Canadian beverage recyclers. I do question the member's facts and statistics there; I do not believe that they're accurate. I'd be happy to meet with her later to talk about it, but I know that Manitoba is doing a great job in our recovery program. I know that there is room to do better. We are doing that work and we are committed to doing better for Manitobans for the environ­ment.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Tyndall Park, on a final sup­ple­mentary question.

Refundable Beverage Containers
Request to Expand Program

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): The same amount of energy used to produce one aluminum can is equal to 20 recycled cans. Part of the reason why Alberta's recycling system is so effective is because beverage containers for both soft drinks and beer, which include aluminum, plastics and glass bottles, are all eligible for refunds.

      Can the minister explain why Manitoba does not have a refundable container program outside of beer products?

Hon. Tracy Schmidt (Minister of Environment and Climate Change): Again, thank the member for Tyndall Park for the question.

      As I said, you know, I am very proud of the work that our department is doing. I know that we are work­ing hard on modernizing our recovery and recycling programs. We know that we can do better. We know that Manituba [phonetic]–Manitoba is already doing great things. We're very proud of our budget that we've just put forward and the budget measures that were put forward for our department, and I look forward to working with the member opposite and learning more about what they're doing in Alberta.

      Thank you very much.

Support Services for First Responders
Gov­ern­ment Announcement

Mr. Logan Oxenham (Kirkfield Park): Honourable Speaker, I rise today with an important question on an issue that affects every community in the province.

      When Manitobans call, first responders are there. As a government, we have a sacred duty to support first responders and their selfless work in keeping Manitobans safe.

      Can the Minister of Families (MLA Fontaine) tell us about our announcement earlier today that will further support our first responders?

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I want to thank my colleague for the question.

      This is, indeed, a sombre week and a sombre day for first responders in this province. I want to thank you, Honourable Speaker, our clerks, our Premier and our House leaders, who facilitated the family and allowed us, as a Legislature, to offer our condolences.

      Today, our government announced funding for three mental health workers, to ensure firefighters, paramedics and law enforcement across the province have access to mental health support. First responders are always there for Manitobans during an emergency, and over time it takes a toll on their mental health.

      These three mental health workers are a step in our government's continued effort to reduce the stigma around post-traumatic stress and to remove barriers for people to get mental health support.

The Speaker: Member's time is expired.

Prov­incial Nominee Program Draws
Labour Minister–Inter­ference Concerns

Mrs. Kathleen Cook (Roblin): For the historical record, members of the NDP Cabinet and backbench are today calling MPNP applicants liars for speaking out about the treatment they've received at the hands of this Immigration and Labour Minister. They have closed ranks around their minister, leaving MPNP applicants out in the cold. If that's not divisive, I don't know what is.

      Will the minister stop threatening MPNP appli­cants today?

Hon. Uzoma Asagwara (Minister of Health, Seniors and Long-Term Care): Honourable Speaker, since coming into this role as the Minister for Health, it has been an absolute honour and privilege to invest in increasing capacity for folks to work in our health-care system.

      Internationally educated health‑care workers have been living in Manitoba for many years. They've never had a government the past seven and a half years who had any interest in addressing the barriers that kept them out of joining our health-care system.

      Our government is doing that work. We're doing that work in Department of Health, the Department of Immigration, EDIT and our–and others as well. We're going to make sure that if you are an internationally educated health‑care worker, you have a home in health care here in Manitoba.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Roblin, on a supplementary question.

Mrs. Cook: I'd like to quote again from the same document that my colleague tabled earlier: I have confirmed that I, as well as other international stu­dents, have received threats from the Minister of Labour and Immigration (MLA Marcelino), threatening to stop the drawing of MPNP if we protest again before May.

      The minister says that these folks are liars.

      Will the minister stand up today and acknowledge their role in this mess?

Hon. Wab Kinew (Premier): I understand the angst that many folks who hold postgraduate work permits are feeling in Manitoba these days because of the actions announced by the federal government.

      I want to assure folks, though, that our steadfast commitment to keeping you here in Manitoba remains. When we talk about the PCs, there were any number of protests outside. One thing I never saw the mem­bers opposite ever do during their time in govern­ment was take the time to meet with people holding rallies or protests and bring them into the building.

      On the other hand, our Minister of Immigration and Labour, at each event that has been held on the steps of the Leg., invited people into the building to listen to their concerns and to work together to chart a path forward.

* (15:10)

      We held a draw two weeks ago. We're holding another draw this week, and we are about to announce a major breakthrough with the federal gov­ern­ment.

      While they want to play games, we're delivering results for Manitobans and those who hope to join this province in the future.

The Speaker: The hon­our­able member for Roblin, on a final sup­ple­mentary question.

Mrs. Cook: Hon­our­able Speaker, there are no games here, and contrary to comments made by the Minister of Environ­ment earlier today, these are in­cred­ibly pertinent questions to a huge number of Manitobans.

      I'll quote again from the same docu­ment tabled earlier: During their talks, the minister shouted at them and even slapped the table and said, how dare they challenge her like that? In public she says, welcome to friendly Manitoba–as long as you keep your mouth shut regarding their mis­manage­ment of the program.

      Will the NDP stop politically interfering in the Prov­incial Nominee Program today, yes or no?

Mr. Kinew: I want to say some­thing clearly and unequivocally for the House and for everybody on the opposite side: this Minister of Labour and Immigration (MLA Marcelino) has my complete con­fi­dence.

      She's doing im­por­tant work. She's doing draws to ensure that the Prov­incial Nominee Program can move forward. She's doing the work of staffing up the de­part­ment. She's engaged with the federal gov­ern­ment so that we're going to be able to deliver results for postgraduate work permits.

      And I'd like to assure everyone on the opposite side that not only will she be in Cabinet longer than the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Khan), she'll be there longer than the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Ewasko), longer than the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen).

      Longer than any of them were ever in gov­ern­ment, she will still be there in Cabinet.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

      Petitions? Grievances?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Hon. Nahanni Fontaine (Government House Leader): Can you please call the continuation of second reading deadline debate on the following bills: Bill 13, The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Trans­por­tation Amend­ment Act; Bill 17, The Work­place Safety and Health Amend­ment Act; Bill 18, The Com­mu­nity Child Care Standards Amend­ment Act; Bill 19, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment Act; Bill 20, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act; Bill 24, The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Amend­ment Act (Dis­tri­bu­tion of Fake Intimate Images); and Bill 11, The Statutes and Regulations Amend­ment and Inter­pre­ta­tion Amend­ment Act.

The Speaker: As per subrule 2(11), today is the second deadline day for the second reading of specified bills and, as such, at the begin­ning of orders of the day the following provisions shall apply: for each such bill, the minister can speak for a maximum of 10 minutes, followed by up to 15‑minute question period–question and answer period. Critics of recog­nized parties and the in­de­pen­dent member may then speak for a maximum of 10 minutes per bill, following which I will put the question on second reading of the bill. If such a bill had been previously called for debate, all remaining actions just identified will be dealt with before the question is put.

      The list of bills that will follow this process is as follows: Bill 13, The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Trans­por­tation Amend­ment Act; Bill 17, The Work­place Safety and Health Amend­ment Act–advisory council; Bill 18, The Com­mu­nity Child Care Standards Amend­ment Act; Bill 19, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment Act; Bill 20, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act; Bill 24, The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Amend­ment Act (dis­tri­bu­tion of fake images–fake intimate images); Bill 11, The Statutes and Regulations Amend­ment Act and Inter­pre­ta­tion Amend­ment Act.

Second Readings

Bill 13–The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Transportation Amendment Act

The Speaker: Accordingly, I will now call second reading of Bill 13, The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Trans­por­tation Act.

Hon. Uzoma Asagwara (Minister of Health, Seniors and Long-Term Care): Hon­our­able Speaker–[interjection] You don't really have to–I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Wiebe), that Bill 13, The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Trans­por­tation Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been advised of the bill, and I table the message.

The Speaker: It has been moved by the hon­our­able Minister of Health and Long-Term Care–sorry. It's been moved by the hon­our­able Minister of Health, Seniors and Long-Term Care, seconded by the hon­our­able Minister of Justice, that Bill 13, The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Trans­por­tation Act, be now read a second time and referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been advised of the bill, and I table the message–the message has been tabled.

MLA Asagwara: Hon­our­able Speaker–[interjection] And again.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, currently The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Trans­por­tation Act does not contemplate the issuance of separate licences for the operation at different parts of one air emergency medical response system. However, a new service model has been adopted for one air emergency medical response system, based on a 10‑year agree­ment signed in 2023 in which the air plat­form and the medical care on transports will be operated by two different entities.

      In parti­cular, the air plat­form is provided by Keewatin Air LP, a certified and licensed Transport Canada air carrier, and medical care in transports is provided by Shared Health. This bill will enable the de­part­ment to issue separate air emergency medical response system licences to both Keewatin Air LP and Shared Health to operate the parts of this system that they are each respon­si­ble for.

      This bill will also provide flexibility if the model is changed in the future to allow more than two dif­ferent entities to be licensed to operate different parts of an air emergency medical response system. The licence holders will be required to enter into an agree­ment to define their respon­si­bilities in respect of the air–rather, the operation of the air emergency medical response system, to ensure that it will function as one cohesive system.

      To enable new emergency medical response system–rather, to enable the new emergency medical response system, in which two different entities are respon­si­ble to provide the air plat­form and the medical care, it was necessary for a min­is­terial order to be issued under the act to exempt Keewatin and Shared Health from cer­tain require­ments in the legis­lation. This bill will revoke these exemptions when new licensing regime is imple­mented.

      Currently, min­is­terial orders issued under The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Trans­por­tation Act to exempt the licence holder from require­­ments in the legis­lation are not made public. This bill will require that the min­is­terial exemption orders issued under the act must be published on a gov­ern­ment website to provide for greater trans­par­ency in relation to these exemptions.

      Thank you.

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be answered–addressed to the minister by any op­posi­tion, in­de­pen­dent member in the following sequence: first question by the offi­cial opposition critic or designate; subsequent ques­tions asked by critics or designates from another recognized party; subsequent questions asked by each independent member; remaining questions asked by any opposition member. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is open for questions.

Mrs. Kathleen Cook (Roblin): I have a couple of questions, and they're a little bit detailed, so bear with me.

      Can the minister–these questions are around section 5.5(2). Does this section imply that the minis­ter could cancel an emergency medical response con­tract at will? And, depending on your answer, I might have some follow-ups.

Hon. Uzoma Asagwara (Minister of Health, Seniors and Long-Term Care): I think I'm following the mem­ber's question–I'm not, to be honest, entirely sure–asking about the min­is­terial capacity to cancel the contract. I believe–I mean, under, more broadly, the min­is­terial powers that is some­thing that I believe would be under the capacity of the minister.

* (15:20)

      However, given the way this legis­lation is being brought forward, really at the heart of the amend­ments being brought forward is to allow for flexibility for increased capacity.

      So it's really around–this is a 10-year agree­ment. So this is really about in future, if there are other agree­ments, having the flexibility to have more than, you know, one and two separate licences issued if you've got multiple folks who are respon­si­ble for each component of the agree­ment.

Mrs. Cook: Okay, I thank the minister for that answer.

      Under section 12(2), does this provide that no ad­di­tional licences could be issued to any other provider besides Keewatin Air LP and the relevant prov­incial health author­ity?

MLA Asagwara: I ap­pre­ciate the member's question's getting in the weeds. I think that's a good thing. We did have a briefing with the critic on this parti­cular legis­lation, but I do think it's a good thing if questions are coming up after that are looking at the details.

      So, you know, this parti­cular agree­ment is a 10-year agree­ment and, as it stands in the agree­ment, the responsibility of staffing the aircraft is by Shared Health. The respon­si­bility to maintain and maintain standards for the aircraft is under Keewatin Air LP. That is the agree­ment in place. It's a 10-year agree­ment.

      I personally don't foresee any changes there, but certainly, you know, I think the im­por­tant is having the flexibility for future agree­ments, should this be an issue.

Mrs. Cook: So, if I'm under­standing the minister cor­rectly, so the licence that'll be issued under this bill to the–to Shared Health is a licence only to operate the services within Keewatin Air's aircraft as described in the legis­lation? This isn't issuing a licence for Shared Health to operate their own separate air ambulance vehicles?

MLA Asagwara: Yes, that's an im­por­tant point of clari­fi­ca­tion.

      So even the language of the question, I think I want to be mindful of how I respond because the licence for Shared Health is for the staff, right, it's for the human resource component to provide care within the aircraft. And the maintenance of the aircraft operations, et cetera, are specific to Keewatin.

      And so there's a clear distinction of respon­si­bilities there. Shared Health is respon­si­ble for the health-care staffing expertise that will deliver care in those ambulances.

      If there is a bit more nuance here the member needs, happy to provide a follow-up briefing on that note.

Mrs. Cook: I thank the minister for indulging me in my weedy questions. I have a few more basic ques­tions they're probably prepared for.

      What kind of personnel will Shared Health be provi­ding to these aircraft?

MLA Asagwara: Yes, that's a great question.

      I believe, and I can get clarity on that, but I want to say that the complement is going to be a physician, nurse–there may be a paramedicine component to that as well, but I can get the full complement for that member on the details of that. I don't have it right in front of me.

      But it's im­por­tant to know that the human resource component of this agree­ment will have standards and have consistency. Shared Health is going to be respon­si­ble for maintaining the standards and the quality around what that staffing complement looks like and, as well, making sure that if there are adjustments, training, et cetera, that need to be made that they're respon­si­ble and on top of that.

Mrs. Cook: Has the minister consulted with Keewatin Air spe­cific­ally on this bill?

MLA Asagwara: Yes. So both proponents, Shared Health and Keewatin Air, are aware of this legis­lation and have been consulted.

      This is a piece of legis­lation that, quite frankly, just sort of cleans up and streamlines the process moving forward. It also allows for greater trans­par­ency. Previously, there was no require­ment to post if any exemptions were being signed off on a min­is­terial order, to place those online or on a website and make them public.

      So this is an op­por­tun­ity to not only, you know, make sure we're mitigating the use of exemptions and just having a clear delineation of duties but also enhancing public trust and trans­par­ency.

Mrs. Cook: Has the minister consulted with any other stake­holders on this legis­lation?

MLA Asagwara: Yes, that's a really good question.

      We have had really good meetings and con­ver­sa­tions with other emergency air service providers. Maybe not necessarily the same type of aircraft, but folks who provide these emergency response services in dif­ferent capacities.

      And there's a good under­standing, I would say, across the board from folks that it's im­por­tant that we have legis­lation that supports people being able to practise to their full scope and recog­nize the 'delienation' of duties is very, very clear.

      And so this legis­lation, obviously, is specific to, you know, what's come of this agree­ment and the difference in respon­si­bilities. But certainly, we com­muni­cate with partners across the province in regards to the best approach on these types of provision of health services.

Mrs. Cook: It's not a secret that, while in op­posi­tion, the minister was critical of Keewatin Air. And I'm just wondering if they could articulate why they've chosen to continue working with Keewatin Air now that they're in gov­ern­ment.

MLA Asagwara: Sure. This agree­ment was signed by the previous gov­ern­ment. It was a 10-year agree­ment that was entered into by the previous gov­ern­ment. That agree­ment is in place, and in my capacity as a minister, ensuring that we're doing our due diligence to make sure that Manitobans having the best chance at good health-care out­comes is prioritized, which is why this legis­lation is being brought forward.

      It's to make sure that we've got clear legis­lation that supports the respon­si­bilities of either Keewatin and Shared Health and has a clear distinction there. We're going to continue to work with all of our partners and service providers, no matter who they are, to make sure that Manitobans' out­comes are prioritized and that we're making sure we're strengthening the health-care system for no matter where you live in our province.

Mrs. Cook: What com­mu­nities in Manitoba would be served by this contract?

MLA Asagwara: Sure. We certainly know that rural Manitobans, northern Manitobans are served by this aircraft.

      We also know that, you know, ideally, we're also invest­ing in–which we are, as a gov­ern­ment, and our Budget 2024 does that–investing in strengthening services on the ground in rural and northern com­mu­nities.

      And so air ambulance services are one really im­por­tant component of how folks are able to access health care, especially in emergency services where, you know, there are heightened health-care needs.

      But definitely, you know, it's im­por­tant to ensure that we're always investing in strengthening care in com­mu­nity, so that no matter where you live, you can get the care that you need. And also, you know, this legis­lation is doing what's necessary to make sure that the respon­si­bilities are clearly defined and supported by law.

MLA Jeff Bereza (Portage la Prairie): Excuse me. Has the minister consulted with any other stake­holders regarding this?

MLA Asagwara: Yes, we talk to our stake­holders on a regular basis, rural and northern com­mu­nities, you know, in constant con­sul­ta­tion, quite frankly, in terms of what the best approaches are to better serve their com­mu­nities.

      Our Budget 2024 makes sig­ni­fi­cant invest­ments in strengthening care in com­mu­nities, whether that's training health-care expertise, whether that's working with rural and northern com­mu­nities to make sure that their ERS services have the flexibility that meets the needs of rural com­mu­nities.

      That's been a really, really big point, something that I've heard really clearly from folks needs to be prioritized; and thrilled, you know, that recently, we were able to put forward for com­mu­nity con­sul­ta­tions the ERS services approach that they were hoping to see by our gov­ern­ment.

      So there's a lot of work to be done. Lots of con­ver­sa­tions we need to continue to have. But we're always talking with our stake­holders to make sure we're making the best decisions, taking the right approach.

The Speaker: Time has expired.

      No further questions?

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

Mrs. Kathleen Cook (Roblin): Hon­our­able Speaker, I did have one ad­di­tional question, I just didn't stand up quickly enough. Could we revert back to the question period for one ad­di­tional question?

The Speaker: You'd need to ask for leave to do that.

      Does the member have leave to revert for one more question?

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Some Honourable Members: No.

The Speaker: Leave has been denied.

Mrs. Cook: I'm pleased to rise to put a few words on the record about Bill 13. We did have a briefing. I had ad­di­tional questions coming out of that briefing that I may have to follow up with in writing.

      I was going to ask the ad­di­tional question about whether this legis­lation applies to the transport of deceased persons as well, if that's some­thing that Keewatin Air is doing under their contract. But I will refer that question to the minister for another time.

* (15:30)

      So in reading this legis­lation, I'll admit that it was a little bit confusing to understand exactly what the intent of it was. So my under­standing of this legis­lation is that there is currently no legis­lation explicitly allowing Shared Health employees to be on subcon­tracted air ambulances, and it is my under­standing that that's what this legis­lation seeks to correct, that Bill 13 would formally allow Shared Health employees to be on Keewatin aircraft. And in speaking to stake­holders on this bill, that is also their under­standing.

      But it–where I have some concern as the critic for Health is that, you know, previously as op­posi­tion critic for Health, the now-minister was very critical of the previous gov­ern­ment's decision to work with Keewatin Air. They alleged that patients were being put at risk and that the quality of care had been diminished. They labeled it priva­tiza­tion.

      And, obviously, I disagree with that character­ization of Keewatin Air's work. I am glad that the minister has changed their tune some­what since becoming Minister of Health; and, indeed, the Minister of Infrastructure said in the fall that this was a way to save money.

      So, I guess, kudos to the previous Progressive Conservative gov­ern­ment for signing this contract. It's kind of like how the Premier (Mr. Kinew), shortly after becoming the Premier, told media that it's much harder to be in gov­ern­ment than it is to be in opposition.

      So I just felt that it was im­por­tant to get those comments on the record, because where it causes con­cern is knowing that that's how the minister pre­viously felt about Keewatin Air. I had been combing through this bill, trying to find what was hidden, if there was anything hidden that the minister might be trying to pass in legis­lation in order to get out of the contract.

      So I'm glad they've seen the light, that there's nothing wrong with partnering with service providers under the publicly funded health-care system. That's good news for Manitobans.

      I would note that the provision of air ambulance services is a critical part of our health-care system, that just like any other part of our health-care system requires staff. And I am hopeful, although I'm not holding my breath, that we will soon see some kind of tangible staffing plan from the NDP in order to properly staff our health-care system.

Mr. Tyler Blashko, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

      The targets that we've heard spoken of in the budget and through news releases are–they're just numbers without a real plan to train and to recruit and to retain those staff. New beds, new ERs; air am­bulances don't staff them­selves, either.

      And I do have some concern that some of the measures the gov­ern­ment is taking are going to drive health-care workers out of Manitoba, or at bare minimum make it a least–a less attractive province for health-care workers to come and work here.

      And so with those comments I will cede the floor to others who may wish to make comments on Bill 13.

      Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 13, The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Trans­por­tation Amend­ment Act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 17–The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act

The Deputy Speaker: We will now move on to second reading of Bill 17, The Work­place Safety and Health Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Malaya Marcelino (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I move, seconded by the Minister of Economic Dev­elop­ment, industry, Trade and national–Natural Resources, that Bill 17, The Work­place Safety and Health Amend­ment Act; Loi modifiant la loi sur la sécurité et l'hygiène du travail, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been advised of the bill, and I table the message.

The Deputy Speaker: Moved by the hon­our­able Minister of Labour and Immigration, seconded by the Minister of Economic Dev­elop­ment, Invest­ment, Trade and Natural Resources (Mr. Moses), that Bill 17, The Work­place Safety and Health Amend­ment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been advised of the bill and I–and the message has been tabled.

MLA Marcelino: It is my pleasure to rise and speak about Bill 17, an amend­ment to The Work­place Safety and Health Act, to re-establish the Advisory Council on Work­place Safety and Health.

      Restoring the Advisory Council on Work­place Safety and Health is an imme­diate priority of our–for our gov­ern­ment. In 2018, the previous gov­ern­ment, against the advice of the busi­ness and labour com­mu­nities, repealed the advisory council as part of a gov­ern­ment-wide reduction of standing com­mit­tees. Its repeal ended a long-standing practice of engaging with Manitobans and receiving input on protecting the health of workers.

      Our gov­ern­ment made a commit­ment to Manitobans to grow the economy with good jobs. All workers deserve a fair wage and to be treated with dignity and respect. Good jobs mean safe jobs and an ex­pect­a­tion that employers provide safe work environments so that workers come home to their families after a hard day's work.

      This bill re-establishes and restores the 13-member advisory council. Members of the council will repre­sent workers, employers and technical and pro­fes­sional bodies. Like before, the advisory council will advise the minister on occupational health and safety issues, legis­lative and regula­tory changes and the ap­point­ment of consultants and advisors.

      The council will also under­take a review of The Work­place Safety and Health Act every five years. The call for restoring the advisory council came from the health and safety com­mu­nity, employer and labour repre­sen­tatives and Manitobans through an Engage Manitoba con­sul­ta­tion in 2022.

      Our gov­ern­ment is a listening gov­ern­ment, com­mitted to meaningfully engaging employers and workers. Restoring the council is one example of this commit­ment.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker, for the op­por­tun­ity to speak to this im­por­tant bill.

Questions

The Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any op­posi­tion or in­de­pen­dent mem­ber in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties; subsequent questions asked by each independent member; remaining ques­tions asked by any opposition members. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Ms. Jodie Byram (Agassiz): We all know the importance of safety and health on the job here in our province of Manitoba, and I welcome the op­por­tun­ity to ask the minister a couple questions here and get some things on the record.

      Can the minister share specific examples of what type of advice the council will provide to them?

The Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able member–Minister of Labour and Immigration.

Hon. Malaya Marcelino (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Thank you to the member opposite for that question.

      Examples of advice could be legis­lative or regula­tory changes on emerging safety and health matters; recom­men­dations on the ap­point­ments of consultants and advisors; again, the completion of a five-year review of The Work­place Safety and Health Act, which is a pretty large under­taking; and other, you know, recom­men­dations relating to occupational health and safety.

      Other recom­men­dations could be about the pro­tec­tion of workers in specific workplaces and situa­tions. A concrete example would be pro­tec­tions and–on PPE for women. Women currently–and other types of–

The Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able minister's time has expired.

MLA Jeff Bereza (Portage la Prairie): What measures will be in place to prevent conflicts of interest among members of the advisory council?

MLA Marcelino: Just like–thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker, and thank you to member opposite for their question.

* (15:40)

      I'd just like to remind the member that this was a unanimous recom­men­dation by many different types of folks that have been on this council for many years before the 2018 time that it was repealed.

      This is not a partisan type of decision. There are technical advisors on here, there are members from labour and there are members from the employer com­mu­nity. And those types of people also give their own names for future recom­men­dations, for people that would represent them as well; that would be for our con­sid­era­tion.

      Thank you.

Mr. Jeff Wharton (Red River North): Of course I'm–this is not a partisan issue when it comes to safe way–safety, pardon me, and we are all are concerned, of course, for our workers' safety.

      Can the minister tell us again–and I know you touched on it earlier–who you consulted in labour and busi­ness com­mu­nity? And I'm talking spe­cific­ally busi­ness com­mu­nity in the private sector.

MLA Marcelino: Thank you to member opposite for their question.

      We did take on the public and stake­holders through the Engage Manitoba website–this was from October 30 to November 30 of 2022: the Manitoba Federation of Labour, the Manitoba Employers Council, American Industrial Hygiene Association, the Mining Association of Manitoba Inc. and the Occupational Health Centre.

      As part of the Manitoba Employers Council members, we've got the Canadian Federation of In­de­pen­dent Busi­ness, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, the City of Winnipeg, Credit Union Central of Manitoba, Keystone Agri­cul­tural Producers, Made Safe, Manitoba Association for Safety in Healthcare, Manitoba Chambers of Commerce, Manitoba–

The Deputy Speaker: And the hon­our­able minister's time has expired.

Ms. Byram: Thank you to the minister for sharing that infor­ma­tion.

      Can you share with us, will the council have repre­sen­tation from rural and northern areas of the province?

MLA Marcelino: In general, we strive to ensure that all regions of the–our province are covered and with– especially to rural areas, because a lot of the mining and other types of potentially dangerous work comes from there. So we will ensure that those kinds of con­sid­era­tions are put forward to the council.

      Thank you.

MLA Bereza: Thank you to the minister for the answers.

      Is there a risk that the advisory council could become dominated by certain interest groups, poten­tially marginalizing other groups?

MLA Marcelino: Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker, and to member opposite for their question.

      This is a non-partisan issue. There are very im­por­tant issues that need to be tackled as it relates to safety and health that this council has done remark­ably well over the many, many years of its existence. This is some­thing that other juris­dic­tions have across Canada. There is nothing, you know, remark­able about it in terms of it being able to be susceptible to this type of thing. This is a non-partisan issue. It's about work­place safety and health, and this is a unanimous recom­men­dation made by both busi­ness, labour and technical experts in this field.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Mr. Wharton: I thank the minister for answering the question I posed earlier. I will build on that, though.

      The Canadian Federation of In­de­pen­dent Busi­ness–the minister had mentioned that there were some con­sul­ta­tions done with CFIB. Was that in person or was it done through Engage Manitoba?

MLA Marcelino: These con­sul­ta­tions with the Manitoba Employer Council happened with the de­part­ment from January 21 to August 8, 2023. So that was not through Engage Manitoba.

      Other folks that are part of Manitoba Employers Council include the Canadian Federation of In­de­pen­dent Busi­ness, but there are so many others that I wasn't even able to name in the time that I had. And perhaps the other–members opposite would like to hear about the rest of those: Manitoba Home Builders' Association, Manitoba Hotel Association, Manitoba Motor Dealers Association, Manitoba Pork Council, Manitoba Restaurant & Foodservices Association, Manitoba School Boards Association, Manitoba Trucking Association, Maple Leaf Foods, Merit Contractors Association of Manitoba, Restaurants Canada–

The Deputy Speaker: And the hon­our­able minister's time has expired.

Ms. Byram: Can the minister tell us how much mem­bers will be renumerated for their partici­pation on this advisory council board?

MLA Marcelino: Thank you to member opposite for that question.

      Actually, I've asked the de­part­ment for that same piece of infor­ma­tion and it hasn't been–gotten back to me yet, and I will take that on notice and let the mem­ber know once I have that infor­ma­tion.

      I was just briefly told that the issue of renumera­tion is just some­thing done as part of–par for the course. It's nothing going to–it's not going to be like a really high number or anything like that. And one of the reasons why the previous review com­mit­tee that was esta­blished by the previous minister in this role where it failed to actually accom­plish their review in a timely matter, was because of the lack of renumera­tion of those folks there.

      So this is some­thing that is going to be–

The Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able minister's time has expired.

MLA Bereza: Thank you to the minister for the previous answers to my questions.

      How will the advisory council enhance public trust and con­fi­dence in the gov­ern­ment's actions?

MLA Marcelino: Thank you to members opposite for that question.

      This is like a new–a very, very im­por­tant topic, work­place safety and health. There are so many facets to this that even folks like us that, you know, head the de­part­ment, there is so much infor­ma­tion and it's such a growing field that we really, really need this proper advice from folks on–especially from the technical aspect of it.

      One of the im­por­tant incoming questions that we're going to be asking has to do with PPE and the applicability of PPE for people with diverse needs and for women in general.

      Another kind of question would be some­thing about asbestos or silica and how to best protect work­ers in these types of–

The Deputy Speaker: The hon­our­able minister's time has expired.

Mr. Wharton: The minister had mentioned in an answer earlier to my–one of my colleagues about not knowing what the 'mumuneration' will be for this new com­mit­tee, yet she mentions that she has infor­ma­tion on what the com­mit­tee was remunerated under the former gov­ern­ment.

      Could she table that report today?

MLA Marcelino: Thank you to the member for that question.

      What I did say was that the previous group was not renumerated. The previous review com­mit­tee group was not renumerated, and that was one of the reasons that was cited by the de­part­ment as to the reason why these folks had a difficult time maybe meeting on a regular basis in order to come up with the different recom­men­dations that the de­part­ment needed to move forward on the review of The Workplace Safety and Health Act.

Ms. Byram: Can the minister share how frequently this new advisory council will meet?

MLA Marcelino: Thank you to member for that question.

      This council can–could possibly meet whenever a question or an im­por­tant matter arises at the minister's discretion. It also has to meet a minimum of four times per year, so it can go from those two facets of time.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

MLA Bereza: How will the advisory council ensure that the needs and concerns of various stake­holders are adequately represented?

MLA Marcelino: Thank you to the member opposite for that question.

      Again, the makeup of the council, it has, in the past, been a 13-body–a 13-member body divided into three, with experts from the technical side, folks with the labour leader ex­per­ience and also folks from the employer com­mu­nity.

* (15:50)

      And each set of groups, they bring forward names, experts in their own field, and then those names are brought for the con­sid­era­tion of the minister, and that's how we get to choose who gets to go on this. It's basically pretty much a self-nominating group–

The Deputy Speaker: The minister's time has expired.

Mr. Wharton: Can the minister tell us, during the Engage Manitoba, did they also engage other juris­dic­tions across Canada?

MLA Marcelino: Thank you to member for that question.

      As far as I know, there wasn't that physical or virtual en­gage­ment across Canada. However, there was a juris­dic­tional scan that was made by the de­part­ment, taking a look at what other juris­dic­tions have that are similar to a work­place safety and health advisory council.

      And sure enough, pretty much all the juris­dic­tions across Canada have this. They might be named other things. They could be called advisory council on occupational health and safety that has an 11-member advisory group in Newfoundland-Labrador. In Ontario they have a 14-member group; it's called occupation health and safety pre­ven­tion council. Saskatchewan has a nine-member group–

The Deputy Speaker: Hon­our­able minister's time has expired.

Ms. Byram: Can the minister explain why this legis­lation has changed from its previous iteration and no longer has the LGIC making ap­point­ments, but rather the minister them­selves?

MLA Marcelino: Thank you to member opposite for that question.

      This was a recom­men­dation that was made by the de­part­ment to just help stream­line this process so that there wouldn't be, like, the necessary step of having to put many names through the order-in-council, because there are a lot of them. Again, this was another recom­men­dation that was made by the de­part­ment in con­junction with con­sul­ta­tion with all the folks that have been part of this Engage Manitoba.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

MLA Bereza: The concern that I see here is with 13 people is–a number of people here. Will the advisory council add un­neces­sary bureaucracy and delay the legis­lative process?

MLA Marcelino: Thank you to member opposite for that question.

      Again, I can't stress enough the unanimous nature of this recom­men­dation to bring forth, again, this council. It was a mistake on the previous gov­ern­ment's part to ever do away with it. We were outliers, once again, across Canada. This was a weird decision that the previous gov­ern­ment made not to have a work­place safety and health council that had technical expertise and buy-in from both employers and labour groups across Canada.

      Our message is the same. Our–the reason why we do this is all the same. Whether they were technical experts, employers or labour leaders, the message was to keep Manitobans safe while they were at work. This was the primary point why this was necessary and–

The Deputy Speaker: Hon­our­able minister's time has expired.

      And with that, the question period has come to an end.

Debate

The Deputy Speaker: I open the floor to debate.

Ms. Jodie Byram (Agassiz): I'm pleased to stand in the House today and speak to Bill 17, The Work­place Safety and Health Amend­ment Act.

      I would like to address the crucial topic of work­place safety and health and–excuse me–spe­cific­ally focusing on the importance of that in every work­place here across our province.

      We all know and recog­nize that work­place safety and health are paramount concerns for both em­ployees and employers, and it is incumbent upon us all to foster a work environ­ment that prioritizes the physical and mental well-being of all individuals involved.

      The Province of Manitoba has always recog­nized the fun­da­mental principles and has always worked towards enhancing the existing framework, em­pha­sizing the importance of pre­ven­tion and safety, as well, in the work­place.

      Manitoba has legis­lation and safety standards that aim to strengthen, and proactive measures taken by employers, to identify and address potential hazards before they happen and cause harm. By fostering a culture of pre­ven­tion, we can significantly reduce the number of accidents and injuries in workplaces.

      We all understand and realize the nature of today's workforce is evolving with tech­no­lo­gical advance­ments and a changing workforce and practices. And it is crucial to adapt to the challenges and the changes related to the work­place while ensuring that our workforce remains safe and healthy.

      In Manitoba, there are health officers that conduct thousands of inspections per year. Some of those inspections result in orders being issued to an em­ployer. Many of these im­prove­ment orders are issued with required measures to be put in place by a specified time frame to ensure compliance and that safety and health of workers is improved and not com­pro­mised. Thousands of those orders are issued every year.

      I do have to raise some concerns related to the amend­ment, is the burden that could come from changes and the potential increased compliance and the associated costs for which small–excuse me–and medium-sized busi­nesses could potentially face. Increased require­ment includes, you know, stricter penal­ties that could impose sig­ni­fi­cant financial burden on some of these Manitoba busi­nesses, and this, in turn, could impact their ability to grow, create jobs and contribute to the economy.

      There needs to be balance between safety, health, all while supporting the growth and sus­tain­ability of our working force and our busi­nesses.

      It's con­cern­ing what the impact could be with an advisory council and the potential for excessive regula­tions and/or unwarranted inter­ference that this could have on our local busi­nesses. And this council adds an ad­di­tional layer to bureaucratic hurdles that stifle innovation and could impede busi­ness productivity.

      Concerns related to the safety and health of Manitobans on the job is priority for all of us here in the Legislature, and I believe and trust that we all recog­nize that. But the question still remains: Why does there need to be an appointed min­is­terial advisory com­mit­tee to replicate the work of other com­mit­tees? That is, you know, this is only adding, like I said, that ad­di­tional layer to a system of red tape and bureau­cracy. Employers and employees want invest­ment and action, not another min­is­terial-appointed council.

      It's im­por­tant to know and learn what is coming from the legis­lative five‑year review that was initiated. Hopefully we'll see that.

      Concerns lie that there's potential for intro­duction for stricter penalties and potential overreach. There needs to be col­lab­o­ration between workers and em­ployers and members making a safe and trans­par­ent environ­ment for all.

      Work­place safety and health is sig­ni­fi­cant in our ongoing commit­ment to protect the well‑being of workers. It provides a foundation for a safer and healthier future. We all need to work towards creating workplaces where every individual employee can thrive without compromising their safety and health and where employers feel confident in their abilities to provide that safe work environ­ment without the threat of inti­mida­tion and interference.

      Again, thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker, for the op­por­tun­ity to put a few records–or a few words on record regarding bill 7.

      And thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 17, The Work­place Safety and Health Amend­ment Act.

* (16:00)

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

      I declare the motion carried.

      We will now move on to second reading of–oh.

      One point of infor­ma­tion. For the infor­ma­tion of all members, under the provisions of subrule 2(11), the House will not rise tonight until the second reading question has been put on all remaining specified bills. If the House is still sitting at 12 midnight, the debate will be interrupted to put any remaining second reading questions without further debates or amend­ment, and the division bells shall ring for no more than one minute on each question.

Bill 18–The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act

The Deputy Speaker: And with that, we'll move on to second reading of Bill 18, The Com­mu­nity Child Care Standards Amendment Act.

Hon. Nello Altomare (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Manitoba (Mr. Wiebe), that Bill 18, The Com­mu­nity Child Care Standards Amend­ment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la garde d'enfants, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      The Lieutenant Governor has been advised of the bill, and I table the message. There you go.

The Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the hon­our­able Minister of Edu­ca­tion and Early Child­hood Learning, and seconded by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 18, the com­mu­nity care stand­ards amend­ment act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor shall–has been advised of the bill, and I table the message–and the message has been tabled.

MLA Altomare: I'm pleased to stand before the House today to speak to Bill 18, The Com­mu­nity Child Care Standards Amend­ment Act.

      Manitoba Gov­ern­ment is committed to support­ing our youngest learners and children here in our province. In our November 2023 Throne Speech, we pledged to create a com­pre­hen­sive strategy for recruit­ing and retaining early child­hood educators. This bill supports our commitment under the Canada-Manitoba Canada‑Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agree­ment to esta­blish 23,000 new child-care spaces by March 31 of 2026.

      Increasing child-care spaces requires a propor­tionate increase in the early learning and child-care workforce. One parti­cular key initiative that we're ex­cited about to address this workforce demand is the expansion of early child­hood edu­ca­tion and child-care assist­ant training programs at Manitoba's post-secondary in­sti­tutions. These training expansions include the creation of innovative new learning labs that will sup­port  practical hands‑on learning experiences for post‑secondary students in the field.

      These amend­ments will enable the De­part­ment of Edu­ca­tion and Early Child­hood Learning to directly fund the construction of these learning labs at our public uni­ver­sities, colleges and the Manitoba In­sti­tute of Trades and Tech­no­lo­gy.

      The proposed amend­ments align with commit­ments announced in a 2023 Speech from the Throne, and our de­part­ment's mandate letter commit­ments to develop a com­pre­hen­sive strategy for recruiting and retaining early child­hood educators.

      Once the necessary legal author­ity is in place, the de­part­ment will flow the funding for the construction of learning labs directly to the post-secondary in­sti­tutions. These new innovative learning labs will provide practical hands-on learning experiences for post-secondary students in the field of early child­hood edu­ca­tion.

      Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, investing in a com­pre­hen­sive strategy for recruiting and retaining early child­hood educators supports the families who require child care and strengthens and expands the child-care sector in the province. This legis­lation will allow us to fulfill these respon­si­bilities efficiently and effectively.

      With that, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, I com­plete my remarks on this bill and recom­mend its passage through the House.

      Miigwech, merci and thank you.

Questions

The Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any op­posi­tion or in­de­pen­dent member in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties; subsequent questions asked by each independent member; remaining questions asked by any opposition members. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Grant Jackson (Spruce Woods): I would like to thank the minister for bringing forward this legis­lation. As he mentioned, this was under dev­elop­ment by the previous gov­ern­ment, as part of their commit­ment in signing on to the national child‑care plan in 2021.

      I'd just like to ask the minister–he's talking here about funding for post‑secondary in­sti­tutions and my own con­stit­uency, Assiniboine Com­mu­nity College was committed to having a 216‑seat child‑care facility built there as part of this agree­ment.

      Will this bill enable that child‑care facility to come to fruition?

Hon. Nello Altomare (Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning): I want to thank the member for that im­por­tant question.

      Not only is Assiniboine Com­mu­nity College at the North Hill campus approved for this learning lab, the Manitoba In­sti­tute of Trades and Tech­no­lo­gy at the Pembina campus; Manitoba In­sti­tute of Trades and Tech­no­lo­gy at the Henlow campus; Red River College Polytechnic at the Notre Dame campus; the Uni­ver­sity College of the North located in The Pas; Université de Saint-Boniface at their main campus; and also approved is the Uni­ver­sity of Winnipeg at their main campus.

      And again, I want to thank the member for that im­por­tant question.

Mr. Konrad Narth (La Vérendrye): As a member that represents a con­stit­uency in the southeast corner of our province and repre­sen­ting a rapidly growing region, my question is, are there plans to consult with stake­holders to create pro­gram­ming in northern regions but also provi­ding training outside of Brandon, Winnipeg and The Pas?

MLA Altomare: I do want to thank that member for that im­por­tant question.

      While we're working with these parti­cularly identified post-secondary in­sti­tutions, we're always open to see if we can expand this further into other areas of the province. The reason these parti­cular in­sti­tutions were chosen is that they were ready to go.

      We're always hoping to hear of new plans from other centres and look forward to partnering with possibly places from that member's 'constit' and so we can get this going. We need child-care workers des­per­ately in the province. We also need to ensure that they get the training they need to provide the support for our earliest learners.

      Thank you for that.

Mr. Trevor King (Lakeside): Thank you to the member opposite for bringing the course forward with this legis­lation. Very much needed, the child‑care workers in our province.

      Can the minister provide an update on project details and some timelines for when these learning lab classrooms will be in operation?

MLA Altomare: Again, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, I want to thank the member for that question.

      I expect these learning labs to be created as soon as this fall, starting with the one, I do believe, at Assiniboine Com­mu­nity College. I can check to en­sure accuracy and veracity of that, but I expect them to be opening and being constructed very shortly.

Mr. Jackson: Again, thank the minister for his answer to my initial question.

      He confirmed the seven learning labs will be going ahead, and that is the reason for this legis­lation.

* (16:10)

      My question now is, will the child‑care centres that were also supposed to be built at these post-secondary in­sti­tutions also be proceeding?

      Assiniboine Com­mu­nity College was supposed to get a 216‑seat day care, in addition to the learning lab. MITT was supposed to get a 104-seat day care in addition to the learning lab, et cetera, et cetera.

      Will those child‑care centres also be proceeding as part of this legis­lation?

MLA Altomare: Again, I want to thank the member for that question, and what I can do is I can provide an accurate answer on–once I have the stuff in front of me that will identify exactly if that will proceed.

      I want to ensure that we put accurate infor­ma­tion on the record, and I can get to that as early as today after this question and answer session.

Mr. Narth: We look and–or, we see that ACC is a beneficiary of this legis­lation. ACC has campuses in Dauphin and Red River in Winkler. Will those benefit also from future expansion?

MLA Altomare: I want to thank the member for that question. I believe with the North Hill campus, what that'll do is that will spur even more expansion into these learning labs. I would expect that campuses located in places like Dauphin will also be included in this project once it's under way at North Hill; see how it goes, get some of the learning done, and then they can become more efficient at provi­ding this service and training.

Mr. King: I'd just like to ask the minister if there will be some mechanisms in place to evaluate the effec­tive­ness of this amend­ment in achieving its intended goals.

MLA Altomare: Again, I want to thank the member for that question. Part of the Canada-Manitoba agree­ment has in it–has, as part of the agree­ment, mechan­isms in place to ensure that the funds flow properly, and that they follow regular, standard public account­ing practices so that we can be accountable for the money as it's flowed to in­sti­tutions that are identified here.

      Thank you for that.

Mr. Jackson: I ap­pre­ciate the minister taking it upon himself to get back to us with some of those details as early as later today.

      With respect to the learning labs, can he share with the House and with all Manitobans how many further early child­hood educators will have the op­por­tun­ity to take part in these learning labs? What size of classes of early child­hood educators will they be receiving?

MLA Altomare: Again I want to thank the member for that question. The only limitation on the number will be identified by the parti­cular in­sti­tution as to how many people they can take in at a time.

      It'll all depend on the number of instructors that are available. It would also depend on the square footage and if–how many people can be in that parti­cular place. There are a lot more require­ments when it comes to early learning and child care as opposed to the actual public school environ­ment. They're much more stringent on the square footage and the number of people that can be in that piece, and it will depend on the square footage of the–these new learning labs and how many people can be trained at a parti­cular time.

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): Just a quick question for the minister: I was wondering if he could provide an example, just in reference to the pur­poses of grants, of when the minister may requisition a grant to be made to support. Just an example of what this might look like.

MLA Altomare: I just want to clarify the question. Are you talking about, like, how a person, or how a parti­cular in­sti­tution would apply for the grant? Is that what you're talking–no? Or an example of an in­sti­tution that has already applied for a grantno? Can I get some clarity on that?

      Thanks.

MLA Lamoureux: Just to provide a little bit of clarity, in the legis­lation itself it references how the minister may requisition a grant to be made to support, and I interpret this as the minister has the author­ity to provide a grant or to send or share a grant with a child‑care facility.

      I'm wondering what an example of a case where he might do this would be.

MLA Altomare: Again, I want to thank the member for clarity on that question.

      We're willing to work with anybody that is willing to provide the training for new child‑care workers. It's some­thing that we need to really expedite in this province in order to provide the space necessary for new child‑care centres to be built.

      Child care can only work if we have enough people trained in the system to get them out there working in these centres. I do know that there are a number that are really chomping at the bit to get people into these seven areas that were identified and to get them trained and out into the com­mu­nity as soon as possible.

Mr. Jackson: Just to build on my colleague from Tyndall Park's question, the premise, as I understand it, of this legis­lation is with regard to being able–for  the de­part­ment of Edu­ca­tion to flow funds to post‑secondary in­sti­tutions to operate these facilities.

      Can the minister outline: Were there any other reasons for these proposed amend­ments, or is that the only focus of this bill?

MLA Altomare: Again, I'd like to thank the member for that question.

      Before, under the agree­ment, what would happen is that if you were an existing child‑care centre, you  were the only facility able to access funds from the Manitoba-Canada-wide agree­ment for child‑care spaces.

      So what this does is, in the creation of these learn­ing labs, it allows these learning labs, even though they're not licensed child‑care centres per se, to pro­ceed with the training and to provide space for kids as they need the child care in that parti­cular in­sti­tution.

The Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further questions, the question before the House–oh, sorry; it's open for debate. Right. We have to do debate.

Debate

The Deputy Speaker: The floor is open to debate.

Mr. Grant Jackson (Spruce Woods): That's okay, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, I'll be brief. [interjection] Yes, yes. I know.

      I–no, I sincerely ap­pre­ciate the minister bringing forward this bill. As he and I have discussed pre­viously and as he mentioned in his comments on this bill, as well, this is a continuation of what was hap­pening under the previous Progressive Conservative gov­ern­ment. And we take lots of shots across the floor, but can't be all bad.

      And so I ap­pre­ciate the minister recog­nizing it and proceeding with this bill, because this is a non‑partisan issue. We know that we need more child care in this province, we need–we know we need more early child­hood educators in this province.

      And that's part of the reason why–most of the reason why, in fact–the previous gov­ern­ment signed on to the national child-care plan proposed by the federal gov­ern­ment in 2021. At the time, I was privileged to be working for the minister of Families. At that time, the early child­hood edu­ca­tion portfolio fell under the De­part­ment of Families, and so Minister Squires, at the time, was respon­si­ble for that portfolio.

      And it was my first look at negotiating bilateral agree­ments with the federal gov­ern­ment. Quite a process that is, I will tell you, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, when you ever find yourself in a situation negotiating agree­ments with the–our federal cousins, it's quite a process and an ex­per­ience.

      But, nonetheless, we got to the point where we agreed on 23,000 new child-care spaces in this province within a five‑year time frame; that is historic. That level of child-care spaces have never been created that fast in the public sector in this province before, and we were very, very pleased to be getting that work done. And I would like to high­light, cer­tainly very pleased to be halfway there at the time of the change of gov­ern­ment in October.

      And so we look forward to this new gov­ern­ment continuing to make progress on creating those afford­able child-care spaces across the province.

      And this agree­ment didn't just do that. It lowered child‑care fees in the public sector to an average of $10 a day. That is badly needed financial assist­ance for young families in this province at a time when their cost of living has never been higher.

* (16:20)

      And so I want to recog­nize the work of previous ministers from this side on that agree­ment, in parti­cular, that milestone achieve­ment. We were the first gov­ern­ment–prov­incial gov­ern­ment in the country out of any that signed on to this deal to reach that average of $10 a day across the province, the first one recog­nized by the federal gov­ern­ment to reach that target. That is a sig­ni­fi­cant achieve­ment and provided sig­ni­fi­cant relief to Manitoba families who had their kids in our affordable public child‑care system.

      And further to that, we intro­duced a wage grid. We're talking about the challenges of retaining staff, about attracting people into the profession, even folks who start on their early child­hood edu­ca­tor diploma program and then don't follow through, don't complete the program. These learning labs that the minister is proceeding with will be a way to get some hands‑on training while they're going to school, which, you know, student teachers get when they're going through their edu­ca­tion program, so why would we not have that for early educators–early child­hood educators as well.

      It's a good idea. I thank the minister for following through with it. We were very proud to intro­duce it, and we are very glad to see this minister proceeding with it.

      And we know that these types of programs cost money. And so, as the minister confirmed for us in the question and answer period, that's the premise of this bill, is to ensure that these high-quality public sector in­sti­tutions can get the financial support from the prov­incial gov­ern­ment that they need to be able to offer these post-secondary ad­di­tional programs and these learning labs.

      And so we're very glad to see that come forward from an official op­posi­tion perspective, very glad that  the minister is continuing to follow through with those commit­ments that were made by the previous Progressive Conservative gov­ern­ment.

      And I look forward to his responding to my earlier question about whether these post‑secondary in­sti­tutions, all of which are receiving learning labs, will also be receiving their child‑care centres as well.

      And just to put it on the record, Assiniboine Com­mu­nity College North Hill campus in the beautiful con­­stit­uency of Spruce Woods is supposed to be receiving a 216‑seat daycare. That's the largest daycare in prov­incial history under one roof, just for the record. The–MITT is supposed to be receiving a 104‑seat facility at their Pembina campus and a 74‑seat facility at their Henlow campus; Red River College Polytechnique, a 20‑seat facility at their Notre Dame campus; UCN, a 74-seat at their The Pas cam­pus; U of M, a 90-seat at the Bannatyne campus and a 76-seat at the Fort Garry campus; a 60-seat for Univer­sité de Saint-Boniface and a 32‑seat for the Uni­ver­sity of Winnipeg.

      I look forward to the minister confirming that all of those childcare seats should be going ahead and will be going ahead as well.

      We, this side of the aisle, when we were in gov­ern­ment, did the front‑end work. We got the deal signed with the federal gov­ern­ment–$1.9 billion deal over five years to create 23,000 spaces. We were well on our way to achieving that target.

      We hope that the minister will be proceeding with these projects, as well as the RTM model and many, many other avenues to ensure that these child‑care facilities get built, not just here in Winnipeg, but across southern Manitoba, in the Parkland and up north, to make sure that Manitoba families can access the $10‑a‑day child care that they need and deserve so that these kids can get the high-quality early child­hood edu­ca­tion that they deserve.

      That's what this bill takes steps towards by allow­ing the financials to flow to these post-secondary in­sti­tutions. Now the minister needs to do the work and get these facilities built. As an official op­posi­tion caucus, we will be making sure that that work gets done and reminding this minister until those doors are open and those seats are filled with the next gen­era­tion of Manitobans.

      Thank you very much, Hon­our­able 'decubity' Speaker.

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I'm happy to rise and just put a few words on record here this afternoon for Bill 18, The Com­mu­nity Child Care Standards Amend­ment Act.

      I think that it is unanimous within this House that we all know the importance of child care and having enough facilities, having enough spots, having staff and ECE and retention and recruitment. And these are all issues that are very real and prominent right now here in Manitoba. We know that we need more child‑care spots.

      As an example, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, we know that every single facility here in Manitoba has wait-lists for children within the province, and we just can't keep up with the amount of children who are currently waiting. And so it is encouraging to see that, whether it be the former gov­ern­ment or this new gov­ern­ment, they want to invest and create more child‑care spots. I think that we are all in favour of that, but there is still a lot of action that needs to be taken on this.

      You know, earlier this morning, I was at Stanley Knowles child‑care centre, and this is right in the heart of Tyndall Park, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, and it was a very neat ex­per­ience because we had Minister Hussan, the federal minister, come out and join us as well as my father, the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North. And this child‑care centre, I actually used to be a child in it. So it's very neat for me to be able to go back into the com­mu­nity and see what's going on.

      And it was very precious, some of the experiences and encounters I had this morning. From one little child explaining to me how octopuses have five tentacles instead of eight and how because of this, it could hold up its head better–these little toys and figurines that they make, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker. And I had another child show me this obstacle course that they had created where you had to stand up on, like, a little curb and walk in circles all around but only if you were holding the teacher's hand because it can be very dangerous as well.

      But to me, this was a testament of how excited children get when they actually get to partici­pate in these child-care centres. But in order for this to hap­pen and for their minds to be able to grow and for socializing to occur, we need to have the spots avail­able, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker.

      So I think that it's a good piece of legis­lation as far as creating more spots. We want to see that happen. We want to see hard numbers and have them tangibly be rolled out. The $10 a day, it's very exciting. It's very encouraging. It's long past due. And we need to make it more affordable for Manitobans and their children to be able to access child‑care centres. Again, we need the spots for that, though, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker.

      But during the question portion of this bill here in second reading, I did ask a little bit about, like, what would an example be if a minister could requisition a grant to be made to support. Now, I didn't hear a tangible example. And so, hopefully, I'll hear more about this at the com­mit­tee stage.

      But my only concern is I believe that this should be done in a non-partisan fashion. It's im­por­tant that decisions are being made by non‑partisan civil ser­vants, not necessarily the minister at hand, but again, I'm hoping I'll learn more about this at the com­mit­tee stage, and we're happy to see this legis­lation pass through second reading.

      Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 18, the community child‑care standards act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

      I declare the motion carried.

Bill 19–The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act

The Deputy Speaker: We will now move on to second reading of Bill 19, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment Act.

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister for Sport, Culture, Heritage and sport, that Bill 19, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been advised of this bill, and I table her message.

The Deputy Speaker: It's been moved by the hon­our­able Minister of Justice and Attorney General and minister in charge of MPI, and seconded by the Minister of Sport, Culture, Heritage and sport, that Bill 19, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

      Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been advised of the bill, and the message has been tabled.

Mr. Wiebe: I'm pleased to rise in the House today for second reading of Bill 19, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment Act.

      The Drivers and Vehicles Act currently does not allow Manitoba Public Insurance, or MPI, to designate a  trailer as either, quote, salvageable or, quote, irreparable, or it does not allow for it to be classified as, quote, rebuilt.

* (16:30)

      With these proposed amend­ments to The Drivers and Vehicles Act, the provision dealing with written‑off, salvageable and irreparable motor vehicles would now also apply to heavy trailers, those with a gross vehicle weight rating of over 4,500 kilograms.

      Based on the definitions used in The Highway Traffic Act, The Drivers and Vehicles Act and their regula­tions, anything that references motor vehicles does not include trailers because they are not self‑propelled. Currently, trailers automatically receive the same normal-status designation after they are repaired and reregistered.

      This means that trailers that have been written off can be purchased at a salvage auction and reregistered without being subject to any kind of inspection to verify that they are in fact roadworthy. It also means consumers who subsequently purchase these trailers have no record of their claim history or an accurate esti­mate of their true value. This situation can also happen to trailers purchased from other juris­dic­tions and then brought into Manitoba, where they receive normal status upon registration.

      With these proposed amend­ments, MPI will be authorized to designate trailers with a status that ac­curately reflects their roadworthy con­di­tion and claims history upon registration. This bill will therefore improve road safety and strengthen consumer pro­tec­tion, as it will prevent unsafe trailers from being registered and operated on Manitoba roads and will inform con­sumers of the true con­di­tion of the claims history of the trailer.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I urge all members of this House to show support for Bill 19 today and pass second reading.

      Thank you.

Questions

The Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any op­posi­tion or in­de­pen­dent member in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties; subsequent questions asked by each independent member; remaining ques­tions asked by any opposition members. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Turtle Mountain): I was wanting to know if the minister actually had consulted with any groups to–about this legis­lation that he put forward here, such as the Manitoba Trucking Association?

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, that's right, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker. The Manitoba Trucking Association is an im­por­tant partner of the gov­ern­ment as a whole, an im­por­tant stake­holder, but spe­cific­ally within Manitoba Public Insurance, which the member opposite would know very well.

      They are an im­por­tant partner. They were con­sulted. We also consulted with the Keystone agri­cul­ture producers and other users of heavy equip­ment and heavy trailers. They understand the need for this, and they support our efforts in promoting road safety for all.

Mrs. Carrie Hiebert (Morden-Winkler): It's im­por­tant for us to continue to invest and enhance in all aspects of road safety and infra­structure.

      Was there con­sid­era­tion adding light trailers to this category for the policy?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, it is an interesting question, Honourable Deputy Speaker. I welcome it from the member opposite. I think there's always room to im­prove the work that's being done at MPI to ensure that we're promoting road safety.

      My under­standing is, is that, you know, the nature of the trailers that we're contemplating here today are so sig­ni­fi­cant in terms of their size and their weight that they do pose a specific kind of danger if they are not properly repaired and that infor­ma­tion is not communicated.

      But I think there's always room for im­prove­ments to ensure that we enhance safety across the board.

Mr. Richard Perchotte (Selkirk): The minister just alluded to the fact there was no safeties required after a vehicle has been damaged, but any trailer over 4,500 kilograms requires a safety and, actually, an annual safety. Are you aware of that?

Mr. Wiebe: Right. Again, for–so what we're talking about here is these heavy trailers, and that's the classification that we're talking about.

      What this is spe­cific­ally referring to in this bill is with regard to those that have been written off and then are deemed at that point by MPI to either be salvageable or irreparable.

      And so these are for trailers that are then repaired. Again, you know, done in a way that is checked by MPI and–to ensure that the safety is there and then those would then be allowed to be back on the road.

      It's just another check and balance for those trailers which, up until this point, would have had no record about their–when they were written off, what the repair was done on them.

The Deputy Speaker: I'll remind all members that the questions should be put through the Chair and not directed directly to the minister.

Mr. Derek Johnson (Interlake-Gimli): Yes, the an­swer should be as well then.

      So the question is, anything that's 4,500 GVW or higher has to have a safety–like that little green sticker–on the side of the trailer and/or vehicle prior to it being able to be registered. So it goes through a safety process.

      Is the minister suggesting it goes through multiple safety processes?

Mr. Wiebe: So again, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, the issue at hand here that's contemplated in the bill is simply those trailers that have been damaged to the point where they have been deemed as being written off. And I'm not sure I'm using the exact, proper language here in terms of how MPI classifies them, but I think the member knows what I'm referring to and that is, is that the damage was so severe, MPI has written this off.

      Now, if it's salvageable, they will still sell that trailer back to the public through auction and at that point, it is possible–or in fact, I think the person who owned the trailer gets first dibs–they would have the op­por­tun­ity to then fix that trailer. We want to make sure that when it's fixed, the record of that is clear and that the work is done to a standard that we all expect for safety on the road.

Mr. Piwniuk: I just want to know if the minister can answer this question that, what impact will it have on individuals insuring trailers, especially the rates that they will have to pay and the delay if there's also–if a trailer has to be fixed and put out of sequence or out of circulation, and how much time would it delay and especially the–when it comes to the supply chain issues going out there right now?

Mr. Wiebe: No impacts on rates, certainly. And certainly in working with the Manitoba Trucking Association, with others–again, Keystone Agri­cul­tural Producers and others–what we understand is, is they believe that the safety of these vehicles is paramount.

The Speaker in the Chair

      And that's why, you know, for their members and for producers across the province, I know that they do a lot of work to ensure that their members are follow­ing the rules, that they're doing every­thing to a high standard.

      We're not concerned about those folks; we're just giving them ad­di­tional tools to ensure that the work that they are getting done on these trailers is ap­pro­priate and has been checked.

Mr. Johnson: Yes, absolutely, safety is paramount. I think on both sides of the House, that's not a question at all.

      But the question is, I believe every–well, I know, every vehicle over 4,500 GVW has to go through a safety annually and prior to any registration, and if there's a change of owner­ship it has to be gone through the safety again.

      So is this requiring multiple safeties on a vehicle that has been written off, repaired, then it'll be safetied and then safetied again to get the green sticker on the side of it?

      I just want to be clear what the minister is suggesting.

Mr. Wiebe: No. No duplication, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      In fact, what this is doing is giving ad­di­tional tools for, you know, those vehicles that have been in a serious accident and, you know, either the owner or, in this case, MPI wants to–you know, believes that it's repairable to get this vehicle back on the road. That's the idea.

* (16:40)

      Unfor­tunately, again under the current definition in The Highway Traffic Act, the–we just–because these trailers are–they're not self-propelled, we needed to make this change. It's supported by industry and it's supported by MPI.

Mr. Johnson: Yes, Hon­our­able Speaker, will that trailer then have a salvaged title, like if you have a vehicle that's written off and repaired, it has a salvage title? Will this trailer now, as well, have a salvaged title just so the buyer is aware of a–potential issues and that it was in a major accident, enough to write it off?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, that's correct, Hon­our­able Speaker. The member opposite has it exactly right.

      The idea is, is that, you know, the work that's going to be done on these vehicles will be to a high standard, again, as the member opposite mentioned, will be safetied and ap­pro­priate to be on the road. But for the consumer, they also have the infor­ma­tion about the history of that vehicle so that they know what they're getting into. They know exactly what kind of vehicle, in this case trailer, that they're buying.

Mr. Perchotte: Hon­our­able Speaker, currently, right now, through MPI, if you have a vehicle that is–has a salvaged title, it has to go in for an integrity test before getting insurance in part of that safety program.

      What in­sti­tutions are out there currently that can provide this integrity test, because I'm not aware of any, Mr. Speaker–Hon­our­able Speaker.

Mr. Wiebe: Got too excited there, Hon­our­able Speaker, to answer the question. I stood up a bit early.

      But just because it was a question that I asked as well to ensure that the facilities were in place to be able to implement this and to be able to, as the member opposite mentioned earlier about, you know, pressures in the trucking industry.

      There are–I can get him a list or I can get him infor­ma­tion that will give some more detail on that, but certainly we do have the ability to do these safeties and to make sure that they're properly checked before they get back out on the road.

Mr. Konrad Narth (La Vérendrye): My question for the minister, as someone who owns a safety inspection shop for trailers and also an integrity inspection facility endorsed by Manitoba Public Insurance, and being unaware of the process for an integrity inspec­tion for trailers, at what time will those integrity inspection facilities be certified to provide the inspection?

      And I would assume, although the minister had said that it's not a duplicated inspection process, that it would be similar to motor vehicle integrity inspec­tions, which are a multi-layer inspection process that all–that has the integrity inspection layer as well as followed up by a safety inspection layer, which is mandatory for any trailer over–

The Speaker: Member's time has expired.

Mr. Wiebe: Hon­our­able Speaker, it's–it sounds like the member opposite wears a lot of hats, because it seems like every time he gets up in this Chamber, he's talking about another job that he has outside of the Chamber. So good on him; and has some knowledge about this that I would be happy to get MPI to follow up on to make sure his shop has all the details to do this work properly.

      He knows how im­por­tant it is to have safe vehicles on the road, and so we're going to ensure that we work with shops like his to make sure that we get that work done properly.

Mrs. Hiebert: Will there be any added admin­is­tra­tive burden for MPI to administer on this?

Mr. Wiebe: No, MPI has been calling for this and, again, working with partners in the industry and has asked for this bill to be brought here before the Legislature.

      They see the value in this. Of course MPI has dual roles: keep the roadways safe and to ensure all Manitobans are safe, but also keep rates affordable and low. And so that has been a mandate that we've been given. We've communicated that clearly to MPI. This fits with that mandate and we'll continue to implement this.

Mr. Piwniuk: I just, I–question for the minister is, once this bill gets imple­mented, like royal assent and it actually goes to, you know, being imple­mented, how long–is it going to happen imme­diately, the im­ple­men­ta­tion, or is there going to be some–when–especially when it comes to safeties, when it comes to shops that have to get ready for this.

      Is there going to be a time frame, transition period until the actual process gets developed?

Mr. Wiebe: It's a good point, Hon­our­able Speaker, and we do want to move as quickly as possible on this. And that's why we're bringing it here for second reading imme­diately. We do hope that this will come to com­mit­tee, that we'll have an op­por­tun­ity to hear from the public.

      I imagine we'll hear from members opposite and from the public about ways to implement this more quickly, and we're happy to work with them. And, you know, the in­ten­tion is to get moving as quickly as we can.

Mr. Perchotte: Currently, Hon­our­able Speaker, with MPI there–you're permitted to have home‑built trailers. And I've built several trailers myself over the years, 4,500 kilograms and above.

      What's going to stop somebody from buying a irreparable trailer or a repaired trailer and simply just bringing it forward as a home‑built?

Mr. Wiebe: Well, I've got to admit, that's a great question, Hon­our­able Speaker. I mean, I'm impressed–I know the member opposite does a lot of work on, I think, classic cars and other stuff like that. So I know he has some knowledge in this area as well.

      By the number of questions I'm getting here, opposite, the bill briefing should've been a packed house, a jammed house, but in fact we only had one member there. I mean, I don't now if I can offer a second bill briefing, but we can get right into all the details and make sure that members opposite know all the details.

      What I will say is, is that I ap­pre­ciate his per­spective; I'd be happy to follow up and maybe get him a more detailed answer about homemade trailers that are over 4,500 kilograms. That's a big trailer, and I ap­pre­ciate the member sharing that info.

Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): As a member that attended the bill briefing, it's no wonder there's so many questions coming up, because they weren't provided–these answers weren't provided at the time.

      So my question that I have for the minister is: Will this come under the auspices of–sorry–for Carfax, and will Carfax be notified of any of the damage that is done to this? Because they are a reputable in­sti­tution that helps buyers and protects buyers from buying damaged vehicles.

Mr. Wiebe: Well, it is a good question, and I'm sur­prised that the member opposite didn't think that the officials at the bill briefing gave him the proper infor­ma­tion. We spent–good amount of time, and good folks. Again, I'm happy to give specific infor­ma­tion–in fact, I think he asked this question. He asked this question at the bill briefing.

      And so I'm kind of surprised that he would bring it forward here again. Happy to follow up, make sure the member opposite has all the infor­ma­tion. This is an im­por­tant bill for road safety, and I think every member opposite understands the importance of road safety.

      So you know, open book here; we're happy to work with you to make sure–even former ministers who are–

The Speaker: Member's time is expired.

Debate

Mr. Doyle Piwniuk (Turtle Mountain): I just want to put a few words on the record here when it comes to this bill, Bill 19, the drivers' licence vehicle amend­ment act. And you know, I–it's dear to my heart, by the–I was actually an insurance broker for over 20 years, when it came to owning an insurance agency in Virden, Manitoba, and a few other locations: Reston, Oak Lake.

      And I know we used to deal with a lot of truckers and truckers that insured their vehicles. And I think this bill sort of indicates that, now, that when it comes to buying–especially nowadays, when there's so much–such a big trucking industry going through our country, our trade corridors, lot of times there's a lot more semis on the road right now. And I'm thinking, probably in the last 10 years, it's probably more than doubled the amount of volume of traffic that's coming out.

      And so it's–I–as I see on the Trans-Canada Highway, every day there's more and more traffic that are semi trucks on the highway. So it's very im­por­tant that, you know, lot of times you see accidents on the highway, and lot of times trucks have ran into the ditch. I'm not quite sure if they were sleeping or distracted, but they were straight in, not looking at the curve that was going through.

* (16:50)

      But here's an example of if these semis weren't 'dably' that damaged, but could cause a lot of problems when it comes to the trailers, especially when they were in an accident like that. And so it is im­por­tant that identification, when it comes to classifications of these trailers, if it's–if there are damaged of any point for a minor accident to a major accident, making sure that the public is aware or the industry is aware.

      And I believe that, you know, being that I was also the minister of Trans­por­tation and Infra­structure, I had lots of con­ver­sa­tion with the Manitoba Trucking Association, and I know they would be looking at this situation, too, to really protect and the safety and the op­por­tun­ity when it comes to trucks on highways. They want to make sure that their industry is safe–that not a semi-trailer that's on–behind a truck almost goes out of control because of the situation, the con­di­tion of that trailer because it was in an accident.

      So it's so im­por­tant that safety is No. 1 when it comes to–on both sides of the aisle here. We all agree that safety for the Manitoba public is so im­por­tant, especially with the amount of traffic, you know, truck traffic that's on the highway right now–that these trailers are actually inspected, they're actually safe to drive. And then identification when it comes to the status of the con­di­tion, if they were rebuilt, had to be repaired, that status is going to be known to the next buyer. And making sure that the buyer–when it comes to the buyer beware, this gives–for consumer pro­tec­tion too–this is very im­por­tant.

      So I want to give a few–that's probably all the words I want to give on this parti­cular bill and the oppor­tun­ity to pass on to other members in the Chamber that want to speak on this bill.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

The Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 11–no, 19–Bill 19, The Drivers and Vehicles Amend­ment Act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

The Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 20–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act

The Speaker: The hon­our­able–we now move on to Bill 20, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act, for second reading.

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister for Educa­tion and Early Child­hood Learning, that Bill 20, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act, be now read a second time and referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Wiebe: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to intro­duce for second reading Bill 20, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act.

      This bill amends The Highway Traffic Act to support the imple­men­ta­tion of The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act (Alternatives Measures for Driving Offences), which came into force on May 1, 2023, and imposed the require­ments for individuals dealt with through the alter­na­tive measures to having an interlock–ignition-interlocking device in addition to completing an out-of-court impaired driving edu­ca­tion and aware­ness program.

      The Highway Traffic Act already prevents people from appealing against the interlock–ignition-interlock require­ment itself. However, it does not prevent people from appealing the suspension of their licence if they refuse to comply with the ignition-interlock require­ment. Allowing these appeals could enable these individuals to delay the installation of the ignition-interlock device with potential public safety implications.

      The amend­ment will address the appeal loophole in the alter­na­tive measures by allowing Manitoba Public Insurance to imme­diately implement the ignition-interlock require­ment for individuals under­going the alter­na­tive measures program without the possi­bility of reneging on their obligations for full compliance.

      In this way, the amend­ments will also keep the Licence Suspension Appeal Board from hearing frivolous appeals filed by individuals who have agreed to partici­pate in alter­na­tive measures to avoid criminal prosecution but then who do not comply with that agree­ment and have their licences suspended as a result.

      Hon­our­able Speaker, I urge all members of this House to show support for Bill 20 today. While it's a small step and a small measure with regards to closing a loophole, it's an im­por­tant message to send of unity around the issue around impaired driving that this House takes it seriously, that this gov­ern­ment will continue to push and to make changes to keep our roads safe and to address impaired driving in all its forms.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Bill 19–The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act

(Continued)

The Speaker: Before we move on I do need to declare that second reading of Bill 19 was carried.

Bill 20–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act

(Continued)

Questions

The Speaker: We'll now have a question period of up to 15 minutes. Questions may be addressed to the minis­ter by any op­posi­tion or in­de­pen­dent member in the following sequence: first question by the official op­posi­tion critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recog­nized op­posi­tion parties; subsequent questions asked by each in­de­pen­dent member; remaining questions asked by any op­posi­tion member. And no question or answer may exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is open for questions.

Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): Hon­our­able Speaker, my question for the minister is simple: Have there been any individuals who have appealed the suspension and not had to partici­pate in the ignition lock program due to this loophole to date?

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

      No. My under­standing is is that there has not been anyone that has found and exploited this loophole. So, you know, we're ap­pre­cia­tive of the work that's been done behind the scenes to ensure that we close this loophole quickly to ensure that nobody tries to exploit it in a way that avoids account­ability.

Mr. Derek Johnson (Interlake-Gimli): If someone who doesn't own a vehicle and therefore can't install an ignition interlock, obviously because they don't own the vehicle, how does this legis­lation affect those individuals that don't have a vehicle but still need their licence to work or–like, where would they install it? Like, where would they install one? Like, they can't install it in a work vehicle or some­thing like that, for example.

Mr. Wiebe: Well, it would be my under­standing that that parti­cular alter­na­tive program wouldn't be applicable in that case. In other words, the ignition interlock wouldn't be a–be able to be used in that situation.

      As the member knows, this was a bill that was brought forward by the previous gov­ern­ment and supported by all sides in the House. And so I could take the op­por­tun­ity to dig into that legis­lation. If they'd contemplated that specific–a work vehicle–I'm not sure if it contemplates that.

      But, certainly this is a loophole. This came into effect on–into force on May 1, 2023. So we are closing this loophole as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr. Johnson: So if–I mean, all loopholes, if they choose they can find another loophole, and I guess that's why we keep adding on regula­tion. And I do like the member stating, you know, that he's riding on our coattails and our legis­lation.

      But if a person that was supposed to put in an ignition interlock got rid of all his–all the vehicles in their name, sold all their vehicles, gave them to their kids, transferred them to their spouse, how would this legis­lation 'benefect' that member? That–sorry, that resident?

Mr. Wiebe: No, not riding on coattails, but simply building on the work that was done previously. And, absolutely, this gov­ern­ment stands, you know, against impaired driving in all its forms, and we will be taking action. I hope that the member opposite continues to support us in that good work as we did in the work that they did and, I believe, even going back, some im­por­tant work that was done under the Doer gov­ern­ment that still leads the country. We really took the lead.

      With regards to the specific bill, it–that does not apply. This is simply closing the loophole. It is actually an im­por­tant loophole to close, so it wouldn't apply to those folks who don't qualify for the alter­na­tives mea­sures program.

* (17:00)

Mr. Johnson: Okay, yes. All seriousness here, we all hope all the loopholes are closed. But if somebody disposes of all their vehicles, will that, then, be closed for them? Like, just what will happen to those people? Do you take a snapshot of the day they had their infraction, and then, you know, then they–if they get rid of their vehicles, they aren't allowed to appeal at all?

      Or–and if the minister doesn't have the answer, like, it's fine. He can get the answer to me another day. But I think it's just serious–that if we're serious about closing the loopholes, that we look at all the loopholes that can potentially be there and close them.

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, I think I understand where the mem­ber opposite is going here. And, you know, I–a good point. We want to ensure that if somebody does en­gage in this alter­na­tive measures program that they are sincere in what they're doing. In other words, that they're following all the steps and rules when it comes to the impaired driving edu­ca­tion, but then also that they're not somehow sidestepping their require­ments when it comes to transporting them­selves.

      My under­standing is they would not be eligible, that they wouldn't be–this–they wouldn't be entered into an alter­na­tive measures program if they were try­ing to, you know, get rid of vehicles. And there's an oversight element that I think would apply there.

      This is a very serious–

The Speaker: Member's time is expired.

Mr. Rick Wowchuk (Swan River): Was there any stake­holder groups consulted in the dev­elop­ment of the amend­ment? If so, can the minister list who was all involved?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, we–you know, one of the first steps that I took as Minister respon­si­ble for MPI was to be in touch directly with MADD Canada and to start to work with them. I–you know, MPI already has a really good working relationship with MADD; they're im­por­tant partners. But we did consult with MADD, and, of course, with law en­force­ment, to ensure that they understood what we were doing and we were taking this step.

      You know, again, the under­standing is, is we want to continue to partner with them. And we reached out right away to say, you know, we want to close this loop­hole, but we're looking for new ideas and ways that we can strengthen our impaired driving legis­lation.

Mr. Balcaen: I'm–from my under­standing, from the discussion from the minister, this has to do with criminal offences that have been diverted out of the court system. So does this have the same impact for the IRP program, which is the imme­diate roadside prohibition program?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes. And what, again, what this loophole closes spe­cific­ally when it comes to those diverted cases is that we–it sort–well, and again, the member opposite was at the bill briefing, so I think he knows very well that this is between the interplay between MPI and the ability to appeal, whereas you wouldn't be able to appeal in the court system for, you know, agreeing to partici­pate in these alter­na­tive measures.

      So it really is about that interplay between MPI and their appeal process, and the appeal process avail­able to everybody who goes through the court system.

Mr. Balcaen: I do understand the interplay based on criminal code and alter­na­tive measures, and looking at this. But the IRP program is not a criminal program; it is a MPI‑sponsored bill that allows for imme­diate roadside prohibition. So I'm wondering, again, if this comes into play, or if the minister thought about this side of the imme­diate roadside prohibition.

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, again, Hon­our­able Speaker, I'm not sure that the IRP would be applicable in this case in terms of the ability to appeal and the loophole that we're trying to close here. You know–and maybe the member opposite can clarify exactly how he's asking this question.

      My under­standing is, is that–you know, and actually now that–now I'm saying it out loud, maybe I'm under­­standing a little bit better what the member is asking, is that if somebody was charged–well, maybe I'll just ask the member, obviously, to restate his question. Maybe I can answer it a little bit better.

Mr. Balcaen: So through the imme­diate roadside pro­hibition, it is not a criminal charge.

      It's a diversion that's already taken place at the road­side by the member that's respon­si­ble for the in­vesti­gation. Many of the same out­comes are admin­istered through MPI.

      So I'm wondering if this was considered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Wiebe).

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, okay, so–but I'm not sure–again, I–and we can take this con­ver­sa­tion offline if it's more helpful, to get more infor­ma­tion, but my under­standing is the IRP, again, wouldn't have–the alter­na­tive mea­sures that were contemplated in this specific bill would not be applicable for somebody who fell into the IRP through that process.

      So, you know, again, I could be wrong. I'm happy to talk to the member opposite more thoroughly about this. Happy to contemplate that if it's applicable, but my under­standing is that's not what this bill spe­cific­ally is about.

Mr. Balcaen: I'm just wondering if the Minister for Justice could inform the House and the Manitobans that are watching today, what specific offences can be deferred to an alter­na­tive measures program when it comes to impaired driving?

      It's a very serious offence and, you know, we have some of the highest standards within our province, so I'm just wondering which offences can be designated to alter­na­tive measures?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, and I've got a ton of respect for the work that's done in our criminal justice system and with our law en­force­ment folks to ensure, as I said earlier, that the–that those folks who are charged with impaired driving, that there is a standard which they need to meet in order to be eligible for the alter­na­tive measures program.

      You know, it's all about keeping our streets safe, and it's all about making sure that those folks who have offended, have, you know, an impaired driving charge, that we're giving the tools to those who want to make good decisions, the kind of tools that they can now succeed with.

The Speaker: The question before the–no? A little early yet.

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): I'd like to thank the minister for answering many of the questions that were put forth today and for the bill briefing. Still a few questions here, but I absolutely support strength­ening our laws on impaired driving.

      Impaired driving is obviously one of the leading causes of death for Manitobans, young Manitobans and older Manitobans alike. It puts all motorists on the road at danger and at risk when somebody chooses to drink and drive, and having loopholes where people can negate processes is something that we should work on, both sides of the House, to make sure that these are closed.

      I know that police services spend ample amount of time working with stakeholders such as MADD Canada and then local MADD chapters as well as the TADD, the teens against drunk driving, the school resource officers that go into the schools and speak with them there as well as the groups of Mothers Against Drunk Driving to ensure the safety of motorists on the road.

      And, as the minister is aware, a lot of the educa­tion happens at the school level when people are taking their driver education and learning the foundations of driving and the importance of ensuring that they are not driving while impaired.

      Impaired has really extended over the years, Honourable Speaker, from impaired by alcohol to im­paired by drugs, and with the legalization of cannabis products, there is an increase of impaired driving by drugs, specifically cannabis. And what people in the law enforcement area were seeing was more impairment by other drugs such as metham­pheta­mines and by morphine and by other prescription drugs that people are abusing.

* (17:10)

      So when somebody is diverted from the court system, the Crown prosecutor makes a very serious case review and decides which case should be put forward for alter­na­tive measures or for a diversion from the court system. Not only does this save us time and money in the court system, it also strikes a balance between the offender's respon­si­bility and the citizens that the courts are served to protect.

      So I do thank the great work of MPI and many of the other organi­zations, such as MADD, TADD and the school resource officers edu­ca­tion programs that put their time and effort forward. Unfortunately, sometimes this message is not getting through. And so closing the loopholes, making sure that people cannot appeal this legis­lation, is a great thing for all Manitobans.

      And so with those words on the record, Hon­our­able Speaker, I'll leave the floor open for anybody else who may wish to add some words.

The Speaker: Question before the House is the second reading of Bill 20, The Highway Traffic Amend­ment Act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

      We'll now move–the motion is accordingly carried.

Bill 24–The Intimate Image Protection Amendment Act
(Distribution of Fake Intimate Images)

The Speaker: We will now move on to second reading of Bill 24, The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Amend­ment Act (Dis­tri­bu­tion of Fake Intimate Images).

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Environ­ment and Climate Change (MLA Schmidt), that Bill 24, The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Amendment Act (Dis­tri­bu­tion of Fake Intimate Images), be now read a second time and referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Wiebe: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to intro­duce for second reading Bill 24, The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Amend­ment Act. This bill will ex­pand the definition of intimate image to capture images created or altered by electronic means and update the title of the act.

      The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Act came into force on January 15, 2016. The act requires the gov­ern­ment to make supports available to assist people who have had or have–who are believed to–that they are about to have an intimate image distributed without their consent.

      In addition to esta­blish­ing a new require­ment for gov­ern­ment to assist people who have had an intimate image distributed without their consent, this statute created the tort of non-consensual dis­tri­bu­tion of inti­mate images. This provision allows a person whose intimate image is distributed without consent to sue the person who distributed the image.

      Currently, the definition of intimate image is limited to actual photographs, film or video record­ings. This bill will expand that definition to include visual recordings that were created or altered using electronic means, including software, machine learn­ing and other types of artificial intelligence.

      This amend­ment to the legis­lation will increase access to civil remedies for plaintiffs whose intimate images, including those electronically created or altered, have been shared without their consent. It will also bring The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Act into alignment with similar laws in other juris­dic­tions such as New Brunswick, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island.

      The addition of altered or computer generated images into the definition of intimate image was recom­mended by both the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and the Canadian Centre for Child Pro­tec­tion.

      In addition to supporting priorities identified by the missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and Gender-Based Violence Com­mit­tee of Cabinet, the amend­ment would support access to justice and provide victims and survivors of these incidents with another venue of recourse. The amend­ments may also deter would-be distributors of electronically altered or created intimate images.

      I would submit, Hon­our­able Speaker, that recent events in Manitoba have made it clear for the need for this bill. Our laws must account for the impacts of AI in our com­mu­nities, and it is unfor­tunate and deeply regrettable reality that these tools can be used to alter images of people and try to shame them, embar­rassment–embarrass them or demean them.

      We cannot and should not stand by and allow this to happen. That is why we have brought forward this legis­lation, and I look for the support of all in this House in passing the bill.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

Questions

The Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any op­posi­tion or in­de­pen­dent member in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate; subsequent questions asked by critics or designates from other recognized opposition parties; subsequent questions asked by each independent member; remaining questions asked by any opposition members. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

      The floor is open for questions.

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): I thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. I also had a similar bill on the Order Paper, and I know, after our bill briefing, we both have the same end goal in mind, and that's to protect vul­ner­able children and youth.

      We've definitely seen, over the past few months, deepfakes and altered AI images being distributed through­out classrooms and at schools.

      So I'm wondering if the minister can explain what action's being taken to enhance edu­ca­tion en­force­ment in the school system around the dis­tri­bu­tion of fake intimate images.

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, thank you very much for the question, and I look forward to the support of all members. I do think this is a bill that is im­por­tant to many members in the House.

      We do work with school divisions to ensure that the policies that they have in place are strong and strengthened. This bill will lead the way in provi­ding that guidance and that support in the work that they do.

      The bottom line, though, is that the Canadian Centre for Child Pro­tec­tion, C3P, is an in­cred­ibly im­por­tant partner in this. They do amazing work in reach­ing out and giving support to youth. We fund them, and we want to continue the–supporting them to do this work.

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I'd like to thank the minister for bringing forward this piece of legis­lation.

      And I was hoping that he could just speak a little bit more to how this legis­lation would spe­cific­ally help and protect minors.

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, again, Hon­our­able Speaker, we lean heavily on the expertise of the Canadian Centre for Child Pro­tec­tion. They do in­cred­ible work in reaching out and provi­ding resources.

      Obviously, the most extreme cases, we partner with law en­force­ment, and we had a chance to meet some of the amazing law en­force­ment that do that work here in the province, I guess a couple months back. In­cred­ibly difficult work, but in­cred­ibly im­por­tant work.

      But in terms of supporting youth and giving them the resources, C3P is a great partner.

Mrs. Stone: Can the minister please explain, further to my first question, what specific resources will be provided to schools around en­force­ment as well as edu­ca­tion for dis­tri­bu­tion of intimate images?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, again, Hon­our­able Speaker, the work that's being done in school divisions is im­por­tant, and we continue to partner with them to do the work.

      What we're realizing or the infor­ma­tion that we're getting back–obviously, there's been some high-profile cases, but the infor­ma­tion that we're getting back is the ease of not only creating these images now, with the tech­no­lo­gy that's available, but also the ability to rapidly distribute it. That's why we're supporting our school divisions to ensure that they have the right policies in place.

      And again, this legis­lation will just help strength­en that on the altered images and on the fake image side.

Mrs. Stone: So, further to that, are there supports in place for youth and children to help navigate the process when they're victims of such crimes?

* (17:20)

Mr. Wiebe: Within the schools of course, they have their own support networks and we have a lot of respect and faith in the work that's being done at the school level.

      More broadly, though, the resources that are available through the C3P–through the Canadian Centre for Child Pro­tec­tion–they are the experts in this. They not only do work in terms of connecting directly with victims, but they do work in schools as well. So they'll connect with the school, with the guidance counsellors, with the admin­is­tra­tion and they'll make sure that those resources are rolled out.

      We fund them; they do the work. That's how this was set up originally and supported, you know, through multiple changes in gov­ern­ment.

Mrs. Stone: Individuals within the legal com­mu­nity has done quite a bit of work on analyzing what dif­ferent organi­zations and juris­dic­tions are doing across the country.

      So can the minister list who he has consulted with from the legal com­mu­nity and if he has consulted anyone within the legal com­mu­nity?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada did in­cred­ible work. This is legis­lation that's now slowly starting to be created and rolled out across the country.

      When Manitoba brought in this legis­lation under an NDP gov­ern­ment, it was groundbreaking. It was totally unique in the country and we were a leader and others followed us. We want to get back to that posi­tion and this bill will help us once again be leaders, some­thing I think all members can support.

Mrs. Carrie Hiebert (Morden-Winkler): Does this  legis­lation include images that are not of an intimate nature, but are equally embar­rass­ing, 'humanitmitilizing' and 'dehumanilizing'–sorry, I can't speak today.

      Thank you.

Mr. Wiebe: This bill is specific to intimate images, but I take the member's point that, again, the ease of which these images can now be created really makes it a very difficult tool–or, a very powerful tool and a difficult one for us to sort of mitigate some of the damage that can be done.

      This is specific to intimate images, although the definition of that may include some of the images that the member opposite is referring to.

Mrs. Hiebert: Does this bill include any provisions to protect the identity of individuals or youth that are victims of such crimes?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, this builds on The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Act that was law here in Manitoba, puts the victims first, put the victims front and centre in terms of pro­tec­tion and ensuring that their identity is protected.

      Again, the experts in the field right now, we have so much respect and faith in the work that they're doing. We want to continue to give them the tools to be able to protect people.

MLA Bob Lagassé (Dawson Trail): Can the member elaborate a little bit more on the great work that the child pro­tec­tion–centre of child pro­tec­tion does here in the province?

      And also, I want to at least state that it's absolutely unfor­tunate that we need this kind of legis­lation in this  day and age. I–my heart goes out to these victims and I would definitely say that this is a good piece of legislation.

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, on that point, I couldn't be in more agree­ment with the member opposite. And, you know, maybe–you know, and not to continue on too much on this, but the fact that it's so easy to do now and that it's so damaging to somebody is really nefarious and difficult to deal with.

      What I will say is, is that you folks may have seen–members opposite may have seen the billboards that are out there and the infor­ma­tion that's circulated online and ad campaigns that are run by C3P, they do such amazing work of ensuring that victims know what their rights are and know what tools are available to them.

      They're an amazing partner.

Mrs. Stone: Yes, we've certainly seen a few other juris­dic­tions across Canada intro­duce similar pieces of legis­lation to deal with deepfakes.

      What would this legis­lation closely mirror? Is it modelled after a specific jurisdiction's legis­lation?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes. Several–as the member opposite mentioned–several, now, juris­dic­tions have this legis­lation to address non-consensual disclosure–or, dis­tri­bu­tion, sorry, of intimate images. Currently, Alberta and Nova Scotia have statutes similar to Manitobans, where the burden is on the plaintiff to provide that they did not consent. Similar legis­lation has been acted in New Brunswick, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island.

MLA Lagassé: As someone who works with a lot of vul­ner­able children, I would like to ask the member the question: How will this legis­lation effectively protect the vul­ner­able individuals from the creation of these images?

Mr. Wiebe: You know, it's, you know, again, ground­breaking legis­lation when it was brought forward, and we were able to lead the country in terms of its impact, but because that was done here in Manitoba a number of years ago, we've now been able to see the impact that it's actually had. And, of course, this is just one piece of the–or one part of the solution to protecting victims. It's not the only solution, but it has proven over time now, in Manitoba, to be effective.

      And, so, you know, we need to stay current with the tech­no­lo­gy and to make sure that we're protecting victims in this with the new tech­no­lo­gy that's avail­able, but it has proven effective and we want to keep building on it.

Mrs. Stone: The Centre for Child Pro­tec­tion uses Project Arachnid. With this great program that had identified millions of child pornographic images, will it pick up AI imagery, and has the minister considered this through the use–the imple­men­ta­tion of this legis­lation?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, I'm not sure, and, you know, I'm happy to talk further with the member opposite, but I'm not sure in that case.

      Child pornography is illegal and is pursued by law en­force­ment. And so that is–would be a separate issue aside from this bill in terms of–but, you know, but law en­force­ment is well aware of the changing nature of tech­no­lo­gy, and I know that they're current with doing the work that they can do to protect victims.

Mrs. Hiebert: How will this deter individuals from creating altered intimate images, and what would be the proposed penal­ties for that?

Mr. Wiebe: Again, the proposed amend­ments that we're contemplating here today are with regards to a civil mechanism for plaintiffs, who have had fake images created, to pursue remedies. So, again, it's on the civil side, so the penal­ties are with the courts. It's not some­thing that's prescribed in the bill. It's–it would be a civil tort.

      That being said, it, again, strengthens the work that's already being done by C3P and other amazing organi­zations.

MLA Lagassé: I'd like to ask the member opposite what kind of supports are in place for individuals who have been victimized by this kind of crime, and what is the process for bringing this forward to a lawsuit?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, again, what I–you know–and when we were bringing this bill forward and having, you know, the bill briefing and other briefings with regards to this infor­ma­tion, one of the items that we brought forward right away is how do we get this infor­ma­tion out there. How do we let the public know their rights and let the public know that, you know, this bill will help deal with some of the tech­no­lo­gical changes that, quite frankly, there's been some high profile cases, but I think it's more a day-to-day where we're hearing about victims that we want to be able to support.

      So I think it's a good point. I think we need to get this infor­ma­tion out there, and we need to make sure that people know what their resources are and how we can support them.

Mrs. Stone: Yes, so just further to that last answer, is the gov­ern­ment planning to take on an edu­ca­tion awareness campaign of its own, as it relates to crea­tion and dis­tri­bu­tion of deepfakes and the con­se­quences that result thereof?

Mr. Wiebe: You know, I think it's some­thing that we can continue to talk about. What I vision this, though, is again working with the experts at C3P who already have, you know, the ability and the knowledge of how to get this infor­ma­tion out there.

* (17:30)

      As I said, you know, billboards and kind of like that, you know, media that gets the infor­ma­tion to the people who need to hear it, they're the experts in terms of where those resources can go to. So, you know, not saying no, but I think that they are a good resource to lean into to get that infor­ma­tion out.

Mrs. Stone: So, just further to that, on com­muni­cations and back to schools, because we are seeing really terrible circum­stances of AI-generated images and deepfakes being passed around within school settings and during school hours.

      So can the minister spe­cific­ally mention and discuss what resources and supports he is planning to provide educators and our school systems to help educate and enforce when this is happening during school hours?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, again, as I said, Hon­our­able Speaker, I think the member opposite has it exactly right. We need to get this infor­ma­tion and these resources to the people who need it and to meet them where they are; in this case, in schools and working with educators.

      So there is some really important work already being done by C3P. I know our Minister of Edu­ca­tion has done a lot of work to ensure that school boards are being, you know, properly briefed.

      This bill, though, will help give them some of those tools and will support the work that they are doing. So I've got a ton of faith in our schools and in our educators, but we want to give them as many tools as we can to do their im­por­tant work.

The Speaker: The time for questions has expired.

Debate

The Speaker: The floor is open for debate.

Mrs. Lauren Stone (Midland): Thank you for the op­por­tun­ity today to rise to put a few words on the record as relates to Bill 24.

      As I mentioned during question period, this is an im­por­tant topic and one that our side of the House is taking very seriously. We also had a bill on the Order Paper earlier in March, very similar in nature, to deal spe­cific­ally with this issue and what we have been seeing in schools and globally with individuals who have been targeted and become victims of AI-generated images, sexually explicit and deepfakes.

      So, you know, it is the outmost priority for our side of the House to ensure that we do strengthen our existing laws to protect individuals from sexual ex­ploit­ation. And, you know, Hon­our­able Speaker, I do want to mention that I do believe that this is a non-partisan issue, one that all sides of the House have the same end goal in mind, and that is to protect vul­ner­able children and youth and young people and to ensure that young people are kept safe online.

      You know, AI-generated images are often referred to as deepfakes, are in­cred­ibly realistic depictions of individuals. The use of video deepfakes further adds realistic repre­sen­tations of an individual's voices. The concerned in parti­cular for young people are sexual deepfakes that include intimate images and/or videos, can be used for revenge porn.

      These deepfakes can be in­ten­tionally used to exploit, harass, embarrass and harm another indi­vidual. And in Manitoba, although we do have legis­lation that bans the sharing of images–intimate images, this does not include altered images.

      And, you know, as we've seen, AI is emerging tech­no­lo­gical advancement and one that is developing much faster than gov­ern­ments are able to safely regulate in order to prevent criminal activity. AI apps and sites such as faceswapper.ai are designed to almost instantaneously alter an image, and their website itself says, your go-to plat­form for seamless face swapping using cutting-edge AI tech­no­lo­gy.

      You know, there are also other AI websites that spe­cific­ally target undressing women in a matter of minutes. A Victoria-based Internet safety company actually did conduct an experiment on this and found that it only took minutes, using free websites, to virtually undress an image of a fully clothed women. This experiment easily found, just by going on Google for a search, seven easily ac­ces­si­ble and user-friendly websites and applications that are capable of creating deepnudes.

      And, you know, as we've seen, with the ac­ces­si­bility of cellphones, iPads, social media, Internet every­where we go at our fingertips and the ability to rapidly share on social media in the middle–in a matter of seconds. This is absolutely terrifying for individuals, and especially for vul­ner­able children and young people.

      AI is developing at a significantly rapid pace, and if unmonitored and unregulated, it can leave the door open for AI to be used to commit sig­ni­fi­cant harm to another person.

      So, Hon­our­able Speaker, it's im­por­tant that we do strengthen our existing laws and safety systems to pre­vent the dis­tri­bu­tion of images that are being misused for sexual ex­ploit­ation and revenge porn purposes.

      You know, I do want to call out a good friend of mine, a Member of Parliament, Michelle Rempel Garner. She has been a strong advocate and the leading voice on this issue for a number of months, and I have the utmost respect for her and the work that she is doing on–in Parliament on this.

      And she's actually created a bipartisan com­mit­tee to spe­cific­ally discuss the challenges and issues that we're currently seeing, but can see in the future, on AI and AI-generated images and the con­se­quences and concerns that that could pose for individuals within Canada.

      And, you know, some of the other things that she has certainly drawn attention to in Parliament and through this bipartisan com­mit­tee are things like the effect of unchecked AI on children, sharing intimate images and altering of faces and voices and the ease of users to create fake content of others, needing only three seconds of someone's voice to be able to create a deepfake.

      You know, she's also drawn the attention of elec­tions and ensuring citizens know what politicians are saying or aren't saying.

      So, in addition to speaking to the dangers, both cur­rent and future, that Michelle Rempel Garner has brought to the attention of Parliament and of AI, and how it will affect individuals, parti­cularly not women–or, parti­cularly women–we certainly see that chal­lenges that–and con­se­quences that could occur if E-I is not properly regulated.

      So, you know, as part of this non-partisan caucus, they're reviewing emergent tech­no­lo­gy and also utilizing this as an op­por­tun­ity to educate members of Parliament from all parties about the dangers, as well as op­por­tun­ities, of AI but spe­cific­ally the dangers and the con­se­quences that can come from it.

      You know, so when I refer back to my earlier comment in my opening statement, Hon­our­able Speaker, you know, I mentioned that this should be a non-partisan issue as our end goal should be about pro­tecting all young people and vul­ner­able individuals from this type of harm, and how we as legislatures can do every­thing in our power and every­thing possible to protect people online.

      You know, so I just wanted–I was reading through some of Michelle Rempel's comments in Parliament and there is one that really struck me. And so I just want to quote: The member will not have any recourse because we have a legis­lative gap and we do not have the incentive to put someone on the national offender registry afterwards. Someone could have cost that member their career because of this infor­ma­tion, and there is no repercussion for them afterwards.

      So we often hear the saying, what goes on social media stays on social media forever; that pictures and videos that are shared online do have a permanent place in cyberspace. And the downside of AI is that intimate deepfakes can and are being shared online with little con­se­quence to the creator and the distributor.

      You know, and we certainly did witness this past January when inter­national news erupted after explicit fake images of Taylor Swift rapidly spread across social media. The deepfakes depicted Taylor Swift in sexually sug­ges­tive positions and were viewed tens and tens of millions of times on social media before they were finally removed.

      So, certainly, this case, very high profile, very global in nature, drew the attention of the White House, social media companies and lawmakers around the world, and the US has already developed a method in place for dealing with AI deepfakes.

      You know, 'howasever,' Hon­our­able Speaker, as we've seen, it's not just, you know, the most popular person in the world that has ex­per­ienced this harm. We've also seen this happen in schools. We saw this happen here in Winnipeg back in the fall where AI‑generated fake nude photos were posted online and shared through­out the school, including during school hours.

      We also saw this within the past month: a school in California dealt with a similar situation. These are terrible situations that are occurring in schools and with our young people, and it's a very scary reality of the dark side of AI.

* (17:40)

      You know, and Winnipeg police, at the time when this did happen within our Winnipeg school, indicated that A-R–AI is uncharted territory. It's complicated and it's controversial, and we as legislatures now have a duty to keep up.

      And, you know, as a mom myself–and I've men­tioned this numerous times in the House as well–you know, social media is a very scary thought when I think of my daughter going to school, and what laws are available to protect her from situations like this occurring.

      So it's certainly my priority and our priority on this side of the–our House to ensure that our young people are safe within schools, and that the edu­ca­tion and resources and supports are being provided to individuals within a school setting and to classmates so we can ensure that we are protecting them to the best of our ability.

      You know, so across Canada, eight provinces have legis­lation on intimate images; however, only BC, PEI, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick actually have amend­ments to the legis­lation to refer to altered images. So, you know, Manitoba is behind the eight ball. This is one of the reasons why I put a similar piece of legis­lation–or bill–on the Order Paper earlier in March.

      And, you know, to be honest, I was surprised that I didn't see the NDP's bill until a couple weeks after mine was on the Order Paper, but, you know, as I mentioned, the end goal is the same and ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity to sit with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Wiebe) in a bill briefing to discuss how we can commonly ensure that we have as much pro­tec­tions for young people as possible, especially as it relates to AI deepfakes.

      So, Hon­our­able Speaker, thank you for the op­por­tun­ity for putting a few words on the record, and thank you very much.

MLA Cindy Lamoureux (Tyndall Park): I'm happy to rise and just put a few words on record here this afternoon for Bill 24, The Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Amend­ment Act.

Mr. Tyler Blashko, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

      I'd like to thank the minister for bringing forward this really im­por­tant piece of legis­lation, as well as for the bill briefing that he offered. I know I learned a lot through the bill briefing and the question and answer portion here this afternoon, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      It is very sad that we're living in a day and age where tech­no­lo­gy is being utilized in very negative and harmful and dangerous ways. We know that tech­no­lo­gy can be very helpful and quite proactive in many senses, but, with relation to this bill, it is harming people–many people of all ages, of all demo­gra­phics across the entire world, Hon­our­able Speaker.

      It was back in 2011 I actually worked for the Senate of Canada and I–this is where I was first exposed to first-hand testimony of youth who had ex­per­ienced cyberbullying, Hon­our­able Speaker, and some of the stories that they shared–and these were often as young people–as young as 12 years old through I believe it was 17 or 18, and they were in tears. They were devastated of sharing their own personal experiences, sharing stories of loved ones that they had lost to suicide because of the harmful acts that tech­no­lo­gy can have.

      And this is getting worse, and we're seeing this whether it be through AI, through deepfakes–and I'm learning more about this too, Hon­our­able Speaker; I know I asked lots of questions about it during the bill briefing–where deepfakes are an accumulation of video and audio where you can take a picture of someone and then put them basically on a video of some­thing else and make it look so realistic that it's actually hard to challenge.

      But I'm happy to see that this–that legis­lation has been brought forward. I think it brings more con­sequences for those who are misusing images and things such as deepfakes, and I suspect we will be revisiting this legis­lation. I think it is good and it is strong, but it will need constant revisiting as a–society continues to progress, Hon­our­able Speaker. But I'm happy to see the bill move through this House to commit­tee.

      Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 24, the intimate images partner–Intimate Image Pro­tec­tion Amend­ment Act (Dis­tri­bu­tion of Fake Intimate Images).

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

      We will now move on–the motion is accordingly carried.

Bill 11–The Statutes and Regulations Amendment and Interpretation Amendment Act

The Deputy Speaker: We will now move on to Bill 11, The Statutes and Regula­tions Amend­ment and Inter­pre­ta­tion Amend­ment Act–second reading of that one.

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour and Immigration (MLA Marcelino), that Bill 11, The Statutes and Regula­tions Amend­ment and Inter­pre­ta­tion Amend­ment Act, be now read a second time and referred to a com­mit­tee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Wiebe: I'm pleased to speak about Bill 11, The Statutes and Regula­tions Amend­ment and Inter­pre­ta­tion Amend­ment Act. This bill brings forward amend­ments that are related to keeping the statute book of Manitoba in good order.

      The bill deals with three matters: gender neutrality, minor amend­ments in corrections and regula­tions, and proclamation com­mence­ment dates.

      Firstly–and I would argue, most im­por­tantly–The Statutes and Regula­tions Act is being amended to provide two legis­lative tools for updating the language of acts and regula­tions to achieve gender neutrality. The Lieutenant Governor-in-Council is given a regula­tion-making power to make amend­ments to achieve a gender-neutral style in Manitoba's regula­tions.

      The power can be exercised for this restricted, limited purpose in respect of any regula­tion on the books. The Chief Legis­lative Counsel is given revi­sion power to replace the exclusive use of masculine or feminine nouns and pronouns, or binary pronouns, with equivalent gender-neutral nouns and pronouns.

      For example, he or she can now be replaced with they. There are dozens of acts and regula­tions that still only refer to he or his, and hundreds that refer to he or she. This will be a major under­taking for Legis­lative Counsel, but they will now have the tools to tackle these changes in a more efficient manner.

      You may recall the Chief Legis­lative Counsel was given a similar power to change the references from queen to king on the demise of the Crown. Changes to achieve gender neutrality in statutes that cannot be made by the exercise of the revision power will continue to be made by bill amend­ments.

      A con­se­quen­tial amend­ment is made to The Inter­pre­ta­tion Act to reflect gender diversity. This bill is in keeping with our gov­ern­ment's commit­ment to up­hold­ing diversity and inclusion. Language matters, and it matters that all Manitobans can see them­selves reflected in the laws and regula­tions of this province. By replacing outdated terms with modern language, we are demon­strating our commit­ment to the principle that we are one Manitoba.

      That means ensuring that every Manitoban, no matter their gender identity, is afforded the respect and recog­nition that they deserve. We in the Chamber are familiar with the minor amend­ments and cor­rections act, the annual omnibus corrections bill put forward in this House. There are–is no equivalent pro­cess for regula­tions.

      This bill gives the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council a restricted, limited, regula­tion-making power to make those minor or admin­is­tra­tive changes to regula­tions. This will allow for efficient updating and corrections to Manitoba's regula­tions, and fulfills a request from gov­ern­ment de­part­ments and gov­ern­ment agencies for an expedited process or a MACA for regs.

      Finally, The Inter­pre­ta­tion Act is amended to allow proclamations that bring an act into a–force, be amended or revoked before the coming-into-force date set out in the original proclamation. This clarifies the legal ability to make a change for–to a proclamation that has already been made. It is similar to a provision in the Ontario legislature.

      This concludes my remarks on Bill 11. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to bringing this legis­­lation forward to com­mit­tee.

      Thank you, Hon­our­able Speaker.

* (17:50)

Questions

The Deputy Speaker: A question period of up to 15 minutes will be held. Questions may be addressed to the minister by any op­posi­tion or in­de­pen­dent member in the following sequence: first question by the official opposition critic or designate; subsequent question asked by critics or designate from other recognized opposition parties; subsequent questions asked by each independent member; remaining ques­tions asked by any opposition member. And no question or answer shall exceed 45 seconds.

Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): The question for the minister is: The Manitoba Human Rights Commis­sion has made several rulings related to gender neutrality and language.

      Was there expertise consulted prior to bringing this bill to the Legislature?

Hon. Matt Wiebe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, Honourable Deputy Speaker, this legis­lation was done in con­sul­ta­tion to make sure that we get it right, but more spe­cific­ally, that when we're making these changes, that we give the ability to our Legis­lative Counsel to continue to make the kind of changes that reflect modern language and how we use gendered language.

      Not only is–this gives them the power now but going forward, will continue as language evolves for them to be able to include all Manitobans as they up­date our statute book.

Mr. Obby Khan (Fort Whyte): I want to thank the Minister of Justice for bringing this forward. And as the Minister of Justice clearly stated, language does matter.

      So I'll ask the minister if he could please clarify, as I'm–not all of us are fully bilingual in here, subclause 8(1)(a)(ii), the French version amend­ments, and if you can clarify what those amend­ments are in French.

Mr. Wiebe: Ap­pre­ciate the op­por­tun­ity. I want to make sure that the member is looking at Bill 11. Yes. Okay. Maybe I'll give the member an op­por­tun­ity to read the amend­ment so that I can get that here in my bill.

Mr. Khan: You know, as I said in my previous question, not all of us are fully bilingual. I'm not bilingual. I do speak and understand a little bit, but it's clearly here on page–Bill 11, subclause 8(1)(a)(ii) of French version is amend­ed by striking out "toute personne ou 'enté', le compris le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil, un ministre, un groupe de ministres" and substituting–and it goes on and on.

      So, if the minister could please clarify that, since it is his bill, Bill 11.

Mr. Wiebe: Well, I ap­pre­ciate the question from the member opposite and I'm–hope to be able to answer his question more fully. Maybe he can just maybe get to the heart of the question that he's trying to ask.

      Is it a problem with the translation that he's iden­tified and that he maybe wants to share with the House? We'd be happy to, yes, to dig into that a little bit more closely.

Mr. Khan: Sure, thank you, Hon­our­able Deputy Speaker, and I guess I'll ask for the third time because as I stated, not all of us are fully bilingual in here. It's just mainly clari­fi­ca­tion around the wording that the minister has put in this bill in regards to the French language.

      If he can please clarify what changes he's pro­posing in French?

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, I'll apologize to all members of the House because I have the bill in front of me and I'm not seeing section 8 in this bill. And so I may be missing some­thing here. Be happy to work through any con­cerns that the member has, spe­cific­ally about that translation if he's got infor­ma­tion about how the translation is incorrect.

      This is a bill that has come forward at the request of our Leg. Counsel, folks that are non-partisan, work on behalf of all members of the House. Many members opposite know them well, and they are just trying to get some more tools to be able to do their jobs more effectively.

Mr. Balcaen: Wondering if the minister could speak about the fact that language is in a continual state of evolution and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that gender-neutral style used in legis­lation will re­main up to date?

      For example, there's over 80 different recog­nized gender identities used, so just wondering how this will follow through with this legis­lation.

Mr. Wiebe: And I think the member opposite has really cut to the heart of the matter here, and what this does, similar to a bill that was brought forward under the previous gov­ern­ment called the Demise of the Crown Act, which sounds quite ominous, but gave the tools not only to change, make the simple change, I would suggest, of, like, you know, he/him to they, or she/her to they, but also allows our Leg. Counsel to continue to do this work, not just on the new legis­lation that's brought forward, which is already hap­pening, but now going back and using what the current gendered language is to ensure that it's as inclusive as possible.

Mr. Khan: So I guess we'll try this in here now for the fourth time here as I pulled it up for clari­fi­ca­tion. So, the Statutes and Regula­tions Act is amended by this section, 1(2), subclause 8(1)(a)(2) of the French version is amended by striking out, and it goes on.

      So again, just looking for clari­fi­ca­tion as I'm not fully bilingual, maybe 65 per cent bilingual, that he can just further clarify what changes this is making in the French language, since language does matter.

The Deputy Speaker: I will let the minister answer, but I'll just let the whole, all members know that clause-by-clause questions are traditionally left for the com­mit­tee period, so, but we'll let the minister answer.

Mr. Wiebe: And thanks for making the correction there so we can all find it. Clause 1, not clause 8. We are back on track; I ap­pre­ciate that.

      No, that's an im­por­tant question, and as the Speaker has given us guidance here, I think that's a great question to bring up at com­mit­tee. Be happy to go through that.

      And again, what the benefit of having that com­mit­tee stage in our process is, is that we will have, of course, the drafters of the bill there who will, I'm sure, be happy to be more specific about that French translation.

Mr. Khan: And I want to thank the Minister of Justice for that clari­fi­ca­tion. I–well, I didn't see the 1(2) off to the side, but yes, I look forward to com­mit­tee where we can get further clari­fi­ca­tion on that, as language does matter. We've said this numer­ous times in this House.

      When it comes to language in this bill coming forward, curious if this bill applies exclusively to bills going forward, or is this going to be a retroactive bill to change all the language to make it more inclusive that happened in this province. Thank you.

Mr. Wiebe: Great question from the member oppo­site, who was a former minister in gov­ern­ment, and so he would know very–[interjection]–yes, he'll know very well. He brought forward legis­lation in this House, and so he would know this is the standard and has been for a number of years already on the legis­lation that he himself brought forward. I'm sure he's well aware of that. I think he was just asking this in a hypothetical way, and for others to understand.

      This is to go back on legis­lation that has already been passed that didn't meet the standard. Of course, the legis­lation that's been brought forward in this House for a number of years has already met these standards.

Mr. Balcaen: And that's a great segue into my question for the minister.

      I'm wondering if the minister has looked at a sequence of bills that will be brought forward in order of importance; how you see these bills outlined–of importance, whether it's going to be Health, whether it's going to be Justice, whether it's going to be Edu­ca­tion, and where this process will begin.

Mr. Wiebe: It's actually a very good question. I ap­pre­ciate the member opposite for asking that.

      Again, this gives the tools to our Legislative Counsel to do this work. You know, I guess there may be a role for the minister to direct or to suggest bills that would be a higher priority or not.

      To be honest with you, the way that we've ap­proached this as a non-partisan, sort of hands-off process, but if there are specific bills–because, again, we want to include all Manitobans–so if there's specific bills from members opposite that they feel should be changed and updated with this gender-neutral lan­guage, we'd be happy to work with Leg. Counsel to make that happen.

* (18:00)

Mr. Khan: I thank the minister for his answers, and he's right, inclusive language is very im­por­tant so that we repre­sen­t all of Manitobans. What we are dealing with today isn't what we were maybe dealing with five, 10, 20, 50 years ago.

      So, with the minister claiming that this is retro­actively going back, does the minister have an idea of how many pieces of legis­lation are now going to be required to be reviewed and possibly amended to com­­ply with Bill 11?

Mr. Wiebe: Well, I mentioned it briefly in my opening statement where we identified there are literally hundreds that need to be gone through; hundreds of instances where they refer to he or she.

      What I think is more interesting, maybe, to members or, you know, anyone who is interested in the history of this place, is there are still statutes on the books that only refer to he or his, right?

      That's how far back some of this goes, and there's no ability to change it right now. So, obviously, we wouldn't ever think of only referring to the male gender in legis­lation nowadays. But in the same way, as–going forward, being inclusive of all Manitobans, we want to use true gender-neutral language.

Mr. Khan: I could not agree with the minister any more. I think everyone on this side agrees that lan­guage is im­por­tant and inclusivity is im­por­tant with our language.

      The minister says hundreds of pieces of legis­lation; maybe the minister can actually give us a solid answer we can bank on: how many pieces of legis­lation are going to be required?

      And also, is there a cost associated with now going back and changing these previous bills–previous pieces of legis­lation to comply with Bill 11?

      So how many pieces and how much it's going to cost, and I'll save the third question for after that.

Mr. Wiebe: Well, again, hundreds of pieces of legis­lation that need to be updated.

      And, you know, the amazing work of our Leg. Counsel and all the civil servants and public servants through­out Manitoba is so much ap­pre­ciated by this gov­ern­ment. That's why one of the first things we did was to say we were giving them a hug just to recog­nize the work that they do, and I want to extend that to our folks over at the Leg. Counsel.

      I also want to point out that by bringing forward bills where we're amending the red-tape regula­tion bureaucracy bill that this op­posi­tion blocked would truly free up resources with these specific folks who are doing this kind of im­por­tant work. If the members opposite think that's im­por­tant, they should not have blocked that other piece of legis­lation.

Mr. Khan: I mean, it really shows to the class of this Minister of Justice. Simple questions like how many pieces of legis­lation and what's the cost going to be, and he turns it into a partisan issue.

      Members on this side of the House could not say any–clearly that we are in support of inclusive lan­guage; I'm just looking for a simple answer.

      How many bills is he looking at, what's the cost going to be associated with it, and since he won't answer those two questions, Hon­our­able Speaker, what is the time frame on when this will be completed?

Mr. Wiebe: Again, all the legis­lation in Manitoba needs to be put through this gender-inclusive lens. We do it now going forward. Members opposite, in fact, did it while they were in gov­ern­ment.

      But we need to go back and we need to be inclusive in all of the statutes that exist, the regula­tions that exist, and to make sure that we're being inclusive.

      It's an important part of how we were elected to bring people together, to see that one future. By showing all Manitobans that they have a place here in the Manitoba Legislature with our laws and regula­tions, we believe we're doing–taking a step in that direction.

Mr. Khan: I want to thank the Minister of Environ­ment for applauding for me as I stood up to ask the question now for the fourth time. You know, minister won't comment, just hundreds, all legis­lation.

      How many, the minister won't give us an answer. We agree language is im­por­tant. We want to make it an inclusive language. We need to go back. Minister will not give us a number on the cost of it.

      And I'm simply asking is there a rough timeline?

       Let's try to end this discussion off nicely–is there a rough timeline, maybe, on when the minister has a rough ballpark on when he thinks they will be able to go back and look at the legis­lation here and make it more inclusive for all Manitobans?

      A very simple question. Hopefully, we can get a non-partisan issue–answer on this.

Mr. Wiebe: Yes, we're looking to pass this bill here today, bring it to com­mit­tee as quickly as possible, get it past third reading and get to work. The members at Leg. Counsel do in­cred­ible work, again, in a non-partisan way; they do amazing work.

      We want to give them the tools to do that work. They're, you know, dare I say, excited to do this work.

      You know, I think they have a unique set of skills and abilities that–and interests–that, you know, really for–bring them to prioritize these kind of things, support us as legis­lators. And as a gov­ern­ment, this has been a priority, where we want to show Manitobans that they belong here in the Legislature, in our province, that we are one Manitoba.

      So we hope that all members will join us in that endeavour.

The Deputy Speaker: And with that, our question period has concluded.

Debate

The Deputy Speaker: But the floor is open for debate.

Mr. Wayne Balcaen (Brandon West): And again, it gives me great pride to rise in the House and speak about any of the bills and anything that this PC gov­ern­ment has brought forward through­out the years.

      If we look back historically, the former PC gov­ern­ment imple­mented policy changes allowing indi­viduals to select a non-binary option in addition to male or female under The Vital Statistics Act, in­cluding on birth and death certificates.

      So we are a very inclusive gov­ern­ment–sorry–when we were in power, and we'll continue to do that when we look at these bills moving forward.

      It's im­por­tant to recog­nize, as the minister said many times today, that words on the record are im­por­tant, and words mean a lot to individuals. And sometimes words in these–House–spe­cific­ally based on gender neutrality, are attacking of individuals across the aisle.

      And I've heard many times that this gov­ern­ment has accused this side of being transphobic or being homophobic without actually knowing any of our in­dividual circum­stances and what each of us represent within our ridings and within our personal lives. So to have those sort of innuendos pass forward is shameful.

      But on the same token, I'm happy to work with this gov­ern­ment and bring gender neutrality into reality on a number of these bills, and as the minister has stated, there is probably hundreds of bills that have to be looked at.

The Speaker in the Chair

      And so from our side of the aisle, I would like to make a shout-out to Legis­lative Counsel, who is going to tediously go through each and every one of these bills and look at them for gender neutrality. There is literally hundreds of bills and regula­tions, as the minister has stated, and this is going to be a very long time.

      And a matter of fact, Deputy–or, sorry, Hon­our­able Speaker, I'm sure we will be back into gov­ern­ment in three years when this finishes off this quest.

      So with those words on the record, Hon­our­able Speaker, I will leave the floor to anybody else that may want to put words on the record.

      Thank you.

The Speaker: Question before the House is second reading of Bill 11, The Statutes and Regula­tions Amend­ment and Inter­pre­ta­tion Amend­ment Act.

      Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]

      I declare the motion carried.

      So that concludes the busi­ness before the House this evening. Accordingly, this House is now adjourned, and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.


 

 


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, April 22, 2024

CONTENTS


Vol. 47

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Members' Statements

Preston Heinbigner

Pankratz  1439

Oral Questions

Provincial Nominee Program Draws

Ewasko  1440

Asagwara  1440

Provincial Nominee Program Protest

Ewasko  1441

Asagwara  1441

Provincial Nominee Program

Ewasko  1442

Asagwara  1442

Provincial Nominee Program Draw

Byram   1443

Marcelino  1443

Minister of Labour and PNP Program

Balcaen  1443

Wiebe  1444

Minister of Labour and PNP Program

Jackson  1445

Altomare  1445

Minister of Labour and PNP Program

Khan  1445

Moses 1446

Plastic Waste Recycling

Lamoureux  1447

Schmidt 1447

Low Aluminum Can Return Rate

Lamoureux  1447

Schmidt 1447

Refundable Beverage Containers

Lamoureux  1447

Schmidt 1447

Support Services for First Responders

Oxenham   1448

Wiebe  1448

Provincial Nominee Program Draws

Cook  1448

Asagwara  1448

Kinew   1448

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Second Readings

Bill 13–The Emergency Medical Response and Stretcher Transportation Amendment Act

Asagwara  1449

Questions

Cook  1450

Asagwara  1450

Bereza  1452

Debate

Cook  1452

Bill 17–The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act

Marcelino  1453

Questions

Byram   1454

Marcelino  1454

Bereza  1454

Wharton  1454

Debate

Byram   1457

Bill 18–The Community Child Care Standards Amendment Act

Altomare  1458

Questions

Jackson  1459

Altomare  1459

Narth  1459

King  1459

Lamoureux  1460

Debate

Jackson  1461

Lamoureux  1462

Bill 19–The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act

Wiebe  1463

Questions

Piwniuk  1464

Wiebe  1464

Hiebert 1464

Perchotte  1464

Johnson  1464

Narth  1466

Balcaen  1467

Debate

Piwniuk  1467

Bill 20–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act

Wiebe  1468

Bill 19–The Drivers and Vehicles Amendment Act 1468

(Continued)

Bill 20–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act

(Continued)

Questions

Balcaen  1468

Wiebe  1468

Johnson  1468

Wowchuk  1469

Debate

Balcaen  1470

Bill 24–The Intimate Image Protection Amendment Act (Distribution of Fake Intimate Images)

Wiebe  1471

Questions

Stone  1472

Wiebe  1472

Lamoureux  1472

Hiebert 1473

Lagassé  1473

Debate

Stone  1475

Lamoureux  1477

Bill 11–The Statutes and Regulations Amendment and Interpretation Amendment Act

Wiebe  1477

Questions

Balcaen  1478

Wiebe  1478

Khan  1478

Debate

Balcaen  1481